The Church of England before the Reformation;

Iprcscnte5 to
of tbc

iinnivcri:iit\> of Toronto

Digitized by tine Internet Arcinive

in 2007 witii funding from

IVIicrosoft Corporation

littp://www.arcliive.org/details/cliurcliofenglandbOOIiaguuoft

THE

CHURCH OF ENGLAND

BEFORE THE REFORMATION.

" There is nothing so feeble and weake, so that it be true, but it shall find
place and be able to stand against all falshode. Truth is the daughter of tyme,
and tyme is the mother of truth. And whatsoever is beseged of truth cannot
long continue, and upon whose syde truth doth stand, that ought not to be
thought transitory, or that it will ever fall." — BiSHOr Fox, 1537.

HEcc\E
H

THE

Church of EnglaxND

BEFORE THE REFORMATION

BY THE REV.

DYSON HAGUE, M.A.

RECTOR OF ST. PAUL'S CHURCH, HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA; FORMERLY DEAN OF
WyCLIFFE COLLEGE, TORONTO; AND EXAMINER IN ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORV

WITH AN INTRODUCTORY NOTE BY THE RIGHT KEV.

H. C. G. MOULE, D.D.

i-OKD BISHOP OF DURHAM

XcnDon

-/

/•?

CH.AS. J. THYNNE

.<•■

Wyci.iiFi-: House, 6, Great QueexN

Street

Lincoln's Inn, W.C.

INTRODUCTORY NOTE.

IT is with pleasure that, in response to a kind wish
of the Author's, I commend the present work
to the careful and candid attention of my brother
Churchmen.

A pressure of duties exceptionally heavy has made
it impossible for me to go through the volume with
the detailed care which I could wish to bring to it.
But I know enough already of Mr. Hague's literary
work to be assured of his scrupulous desire to be
accurate in matters of fact, and just in matters of
inference. And I have made proof enough of this
book to feel confident that he has done his utmost
to carry out that desire in its pages, and with very
valuable results.

As regards the main position of the book, its
thesis so to speak, my own convictions have long
taken the general line which it lays down. It is
both right and delightful to trace, in the pre-
Reformation periods of our Church, the preservation
of the central and fundamental deposits of revealed
truth, and the often recurring examples of the

VI INTRODUCTORY NOTE

powerful working of Divine grace in individual saints
and servants of God,

In respect of our Prayer-Book, it is a study as
welcome as it is important and informing, to identify
all through the services the large mass of materials
and the great features of the structure itself, which
make our continuity with the past so impressive.
But there is another side. We need often to be even
urgently reminded that, speak with what euphem-
isms we will, the medieval type of worship, and the
prevalent medieval view of religion, were in many
grave respects corrupted exceedingly, if Holy Scrip-
ture is the standard. We need to have it said
emphatically, and without reserve, so that it is always
said " with charity," that our Reformation was not
merely a repudiation of Papal claims ; it was a
courageous while reverent expurgation of medieval
doctrine.

Our Prayer-Book in 1549, not to speak of 1552,
was not only an immense contrast to the past (as it
was) by the mere fact that it was in English from
end to end. It was a contrast in points of vital
importance in respect of the doctrine, particularly
the eucharistic doctrine, which it enjoined upon
English worshippers.

At the present time we hear on many sides in our
Anglican world assertions, strong and earnest, of the
very medievalism which was thus "expurgated."
Who has not heard (to take one example) the
affirmation that, though our Articles very vigorously

INTRODUCTORY NOTE Vll

repudiate " the sacrifices of masses," they mean no
protest against the sacrifice of the mass ? Let those
who want a complete disproof of that surprising
position, read Mr. Dimock's learned, temperate, irre-
fragable statements and reasonings in his Sacrificia
Missaruvi and Dangerous Deceits. But I fear the
assertions have a vastly larger audience than these
patient, thorough, scientific disproofs. So there is
need to call public attention to the real state of the
case, in a form at once accurate and popular.

For myself, I am grateful to Mr. Dyson Hague for
his important contribution in this urgently necessary
direction. Believing, with a conviction only strength-
ening as time goes, that our Church is as definitely
Protestant (in the historical sense of that word) as
she is Catholic (in the primeval sense of that word),
I welcome cordially this able effort towards placing
the facts of the case before as large a public as

possible.

H. C. G. MOULE, D.D.

Ridley Hall,

Cambridge, 1897.

PREFACE.

THIS volume has been written for two reasons.
First, Because one of the great needs of the
present day is a more intelligent interest on the
part of Churchmen in the past history and pre-
sent position of the Church of England. It can be
safely asserted that a large number of educated
people are very ignorant with regard to the past
history of the English Church, and are unable,
therefore, to appreciate the extraordinary change
that was effected in its practices and doctrine at the
Reformation period. The object of this work is to
show in as clear a manner as possible what the
Church actually was, and how complete is the
contrast between its position then and now.

This is not a history. It is a historical study. It
is intended to be suggestive ; a help to the under-
standing of the truth of English Church history.
The occasional repetition, the employment of em-
phatic expressions, and the adoption at times of
an almost controversial tone are to be explained by
the fact that the book is intended for general reading,

X PREFACE

and that the subject is treated in a colloquial
manner.

Second, Because of the treatment of English Church
history which has obtained currency during the past
twenty or thirty years.

It can also be safely asserted that a very large
number of educated Churchmen have been led to
accept the fallacy that the Church of England before
the Reformation was quite distinct from Rome in
doctrine and practice, and that we were practically
in the same position before the Reformation as we
are now. It is, of course, a difficult matter to over-
throw a popular idol ; but I have no hesitation in
saying that a closer investigation of the subject
compels one to conclude that much of the current
interpretation of Church history before the Reforma-
tion is " a fond thing vainly invented."

The continuity theory is a figment. It can only
be maintained by an ignoring of the facts of history,
and by the special pleading of an advocate who is
determined to carry out his theory. Mr. Tomlinson,
in his " Legal History of Canon Stubbs," shows to
what lengths a passion for " historical continuity "
may carry even such an able historian as the present
Bishop of Oxford.

If Hallam, in his " Constitutional History " (note,
p. 51, chap, ii.), warned us to be on our guard against
" the Romanising high churchmen, such as Collier
and others, who sometimes scarce keep on the mask
of Protestantism," what would he have said if he had

PREFACE XI

lived to a day when such Church histories as those of
Jennings, and Hore, and Cutts, and Wakeman, are
publicly recommended to candidates for ordination
by Bishops of the Church of England ? Their treat-
ment of English Church history recalls what Bishop
Burnet said in his Preface about Heylin. " Dr. Heylin
wrote smoothly and handsomely ; his method and
style are good, and his work was generally more
read than anything that had appeared before him ;
but either he was very ill informed, or very much led
by his passions ; and he, being wrought on by most
violent prejudices against some that were concerned
in that time (I presume he refers to the Reformers),
delivers many things in such a manner, and so
strangely, that 07ie would think he had been secretly
set on to it by those of the Church of Rome, though
I doubt not he was a sincere Protestant, but violently
carried away by some particular conceits. In one
thing he is not to be excused ; that he never vouched
any authority for what he writ." Even Canon Perry,
the ablest and fairest of the modern Church historians,
allows himself to be carried away by his historical
continuity theory.

But the facts of Church history are more to
English Churchmen than the theories of Church
historians, and I earnestly trust that this volume
will give the reader a clearer grasp of the profound
difference between the Romanised National Church
of the pre-Reformation age, and the National Church
of England since, and of the marvellous change that

xii PREFACE

was effected in the doctrine and ritual of the Church
without alteration of its episcopal order on the one
hand, or of its organic identity on the other.

With regard to the books of reference one
must not, of course, regard them all as of equal
authority.

But however Burnet and Collier, Froude and
Freeman, Fox and Perry, Stubbs and Milner, may
have differed in their views, I have only referred to
them in matters of fact.

I desire to acknowledge with gratitude the very
valuable suggestions that I have received in the
preparation of this work —

From the Rev. H. J. Cody, M.A., Professor of
Ecclesiastical Flistory in Wycliffe College, Toronto,
to whom I am indebted for many of the valuable
references in Chapters ix. and x.

From the Rev. Principal Moule, D.D., of Ridley
Hall, Cambridge.

From the Rev. John de Soyres, M.A. (Cantab.),
Rector of St. John's Church, St. John, New Bruns-
wick, and Hulsean Lecturer.

From my father, Mr. George Hague, of Montreal,
without whose kind counsels, sound judgment, and
sympathetic interest, this work would never have
reached its present form.

I desire especially to acknowledge the very valuable
help that I have received from the Rev. W. I. Moran,
late scholar of Merton College, Oxford, and Vice-
Principal of the P^lland Training School for Clergy,

PREFACE Xlll

Hull, to whom I am indebted for a most careful
revision, and the general verification of references.

It is my earnest hope that this work which has
been prepared amidst the incessant pressure of my
duties as the Rector of a large and important city
parish, and the limitations imposed by the fact of my
being a Canadian, and, therefore, deprived of immedi-
ate access to the great English libraries, will never-
theless be found helpful to that large and growing
body who recognise the Reformation of the Church
of England as the work of the mighty hand of God.
Although I am a Canadian Churchman, I have as
a Canadian, the pride of a citizen of the Empire,
and as a Churchman the loyalty of a member of the
Church of England ; and my heart's desire and
prayer to God is, that the great work which was
accomplished through God's goodness at that mo-
mentous epoch will ever be the glory and the
power of the Church and of the Nation of England,
and that the auspicious reign of our beloved Queen
may be signalised by a determination on the part of
the Churchmen of the Empire to maintain inviolate
the Protestant Reformed Religion of which she is by
Royal right and solemn vow the constitutional

defender.

D. H.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.

PAGE

INTRODUCTORY I

The Three great Phases of English Church History.

CHAPTER H.
THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN ITS EARLIEST STAGES
Origin, Independence, and Doctrinal Position.

CHAPTER HI.

THE ENGLISH CHURCH FROM THE TIME OF AUGUSTINE

TO THEODORE 3I

The Roman Mission — The Re-Evangelisation of
England by Aidan of Lindisfarne — The Unification
by Theodore.

xvi CONTENTS

CHAPTER IV.

PAGE

THE EARLY AND MEDIEVAL ENGLISH CHURCH IN ITS

RELATION TO THE CHURCH OF ROME ... 49

The term Protestant defined — The English Church
independent mainly in the Ecclesiastico-National
Sense.

CHAPTER V.

THE ENGLISH CHURCH A ROMANIZED NATIONAL
CHURCH

The growing Power of Rome in England — The
Pallium, Peter's Pence, and the Monastic System
—The Romish Religion the Religion of England.

CHAPTER VI.

THE ENGLISH CHURCH AFTER THE NORMAN CON-
QUEST

National Protestantism and Doctrinal Romanism— The
Church increasingly Roman.

62

76

CHAPTER VII.

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 95

The growing Exactions of the Papacy— The Politico-
Ecclesiastical Reaction against Rome.

CONTENTS XVll

CHAPTER VIII.

PAGE

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY ;

THE GROWTH OF NATIONAL PROTESTANTISM . . II9

The Church Romish, the State Anti-Papal.
CHAPTER IX.

THE FIRST GREAT REFORMER IN THE ENGLISH

CHURCH 132

The Work of John Wycliffe.

CHAPTER X.

THE DOCTRINAL POSITION OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH

IN THE AGE OF WYCLIFFE 165

The English Church identified with the Holy Catholic
Church of Rome.

CHAPTER XL

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY

ROMAN IN SPITE OF ITS ALLEGED NATIONALITY . 181

The English Church a portion of the Church of Rome.

CHAPTER XII.

THE ENGLISH CHURCH AND THE LOLLARDS . . .197

The Doctrinal Position of the Pre-Reformation Church.

b

XVlll CONTENTS

CHAPTER XIII.

PAGE

PREPARATION OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH FOR THE

REFORMATION 2l8

The Proto- Reformation Movement — Erasmus, Colet,
Warham, More.

CHAPTER XIV.

THE SEPARATION OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH FROM

ROME 236

First Stage towards the Reformation of the Church
of England.

CHAPTER XV.

THE BEGINNERS OF THE SPIRITUAL REFORMATION OF

THE ENGLISH CHURCH 259

The Work of Bilney and Tyndale.

CHAPTER XVI.

THE INCIPIENT PROTESTANTIZING OF THE CHURCH OF

ENGLAND 282

Initial Steps of Church Reform in the Reign of
Henry VIII.

CONTENTS XIX

CHAPTER XVII.

PAGE

THE PROGRESSIVE PROTESTANTIZING OF THE CHURCH

OF ENGLAND 302

The Advance towards Reform.

CHAPTER XVIII.

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE VIA MEDIA . . . 336

Half Romish and half Protestant.

CHAPTER XIX.
CONCLUSION 381

APPENDIX 391

INDEX 395

CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTORY — THE THREE GREAT PHASES OF
ENGLISH CHURCH HISTORY.

The history of the Church of England particularly fascinating— The reasons of this —
Knowledge of its epochs necessary — The three great phases of Church of England
history -Object of this work to emphasise the contrasts offered by the various
stages — The Church of England now fundamentally different from what it once
was — It teaches now as faith what it once destroyed as heresy — The change not
a formal one, but real.

THE History of the Church of England is a
fascinating study.

No other Church we know of has preserved,
throughout a long and chequered career, an existence
so distinctly national. No other Church can claim,
for so long a space of time, the right to be considered
an independent Church. No other Church in Christ-
endom has passed through such crises, or maintained
in such happy combination the order of antiquity and
the truth of the Reformation.

The history of the other ancient Churches is quite
different. With some, it is that of a candlestick
removed out of its place, like the Church or Churches
of Africa. Or it is that of a quasi-national Church
with a finally submerged identity, the case of the
Galilean Church. Or it is that of an apostolic and
catholic communion becoming more and more cor-

B

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

rupt in doctrine and ritual, teaching blasphemous
fables as truths, and deceitful superstitions as Divine
ordinances, which is the history of the Roman and
Eastern Churches (Articles xxii., xxxi.).

The Church of England stands alone. It is a
Church that is at once ancient and modern, national
and independent, Protestant and Catholic. Its anti-
quity is as indisputable as that of Rome, and yet no
Church is more in touch with present-day life. It
was Protestant before the word Protestant was heard
of ; it is now, in the true sense, more Catholic than
Rome. It is a national Church, like that of Russia ;
and though, like the Russian Church, it is inde-
pendent of Rome, it is not, like the Russian Church,
corrupt and unreformed.

It stands to reason, therefore, that the study of the
development and vicissitude of so unique a Church
must be possessed of peculiar interest ; for a Church
like the Church of England did not attain its age in
a century. Its growth is like the growth of a mighty
nation, with its artless infancy and wilful childhood,
its erring youth and amended age. Its history is the
story of faults and struggles ; of errors and aspirations;
of decline and falls ; of despair and victory. It is
like the history of the man who has worked out
through the shocks of battle and the mistakes of the
past the character he has finally attained. It is the
old, old story of the prodigal son, who sank and
sinned, but afterwards arose and came to his father
a reformed and ennobled man.

To know and understand, therefore, the present
position of the Church of England it is necessary for
us to know its past. We must see what it was and
has been, before we can grasp what it has become and

THREE GREAT PHASES OF ITS HISTORY 3

now is. A converted man is the same man as he was
before his conversion ; but his views are changed, his
character is altered. " A garden, before it is weeded
and after it is weeded, is the same garden. A vine,
before it is pruned and after it is pruned, is the same
vine." The Church of England is the same Church
as it was before the Reformation ; but its teaching, its
doctrine, its method of worship, have undergone a
marvellous alteration. How much it has been altered,
and why it has been altered, we can only know by
understanding thoroughly what the Church of our
forefathers was in its early, and medieval, and pre-
Reformation days. We must trace the destinies of
the Church through the long course of fifteen or
sixteen hundred years. We must carefully distinguish
between things that differ, even though in name and
form they are the same. We must learn to identify
things that are similar though locally, nominally, and
in form, they differ. We must review the various
phases assumed by the Church, and study the signi-
ficance of the stages reviewed.

Broadly speaking, the Church in England has
passed in the course of its evolution through three
great phases.

The first was the period of formation.

The second was the period of deformation.

The third was the period of reformation.

The first, though interesting, is naturally the period
about which least is known, and least is accurately
recorded. It was the time of infancy, the time of the
early British or Celtic Church.

The next is the long and dreary period of medieval-
ism, in its earlier, and later, and latest stages of
development, during which the Church of England

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

became Romish, Romanised, and Roman. It is a
period that requires most careful attention on the part
of the Church student, as the lines of ecclesiastical
and doctrinal demarcation between the Church of
England and the Church of Rome become fainter and
fainter, and then gradually disappear.

The third was the period of restoration and reforma-
tion, when the Romanised Church of England not
only completely cast off the bondage of the Papacy,
but reasserted and re-established as the doctrine and
worship of the national Church, the Scriptural and
truly Catholic doctrines of apostolic Christianity and
the simple and uncorrupted worship of the apostolic
age.

Each of these periods must be reviewed with
impartiality and care, and the various stages of their
development, and the striking differences between
them, observed and understood. For the object of
this work is, not to write a history of the Church of
England, a work that has been done again and again
by writers of great name and fame, or even to outline
the story of the period of the Reformation, but rather
to bring out simply and clearly the doctrinal and
liturgical changes through which the Church in
England has passed, and to emphasise the remarkable
contrasts that the study of these changes suggests.
It is to bring out the salient features of each provi-
dential epoch in the critical eras of its history, and
to show from the unforeseen revolutions that have
been accomplished, the work of the mighty hand of
God. It is, above all, to give an accurate and careful
statement of the exact position of the Church of
England, doctrinal, liturgical, and political, in each
of these three great stages, in order that the signifi-

THREE GREAT PHASES OF ITS HISTORY 5

cance of both liturgical uses and doctrinal phrases
may be thoroughly understood by the inheritors of
the invaluable privileges of the English Church.

It is natural that the periods most dwelt upon will
be the period of the Reformation, and the age that
preceded and prepared for it. It was then that the
Church, by a double reformation, the one negative
and separative, its emancipation from the Papacy, the
other, positive and restorative, the re-establishment of
primitive doctrine and order, emerged into its present
position of freedom and truth. In the providence of
God it then became and has since remained, in the
fullest and truest sense of the words, an independent,
as opposed to a Roman, a Protestant, as opposed to a
Papist, an evangelical, as opposed to a Romish Church.
The change was not made in a day. It was not made
altogether by men who desired it. It was not made
in the way that many of its promoters wished it. It
was not perfect. It was not accomplished without
errors and mistakes. It was almost wholly unantici-
pated. It was strangely beyond the intention of its
original promoters. But as a change it was thorough.
It was radical. It was fundamental. It was a change,
not of practices merely, but of principles. It was a
change of character, not of name. And it was a
change which manifested at every step the overruling
providence of God.

The contrast between the Church of England in
the last year of the reign of Edward VI. and the
last year of the reign of his grandfather, Henry VII.,
was as great as that between the Church of Rome in
the days of Eleutherus and the Church of Rome in
the days of Pope Julius II.

In spite of all attempts on the part of certain

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

modern Church writers to minimise the significance
of this contrast by emphasising the continuity of the
Church and the antiquity of the National Establish-
ment, the fact remains that the Church of England
in doctrine and ritual stands forth to-day in a totally
different position, and as the representative of a totally
different system of doctrine, from that in which it
stood in the medieval age. That the Church of
England is one, and ancient. That the Church of
England of to-day is the same body corporate as the
Church in England, if not the Church of England,
many centuries ago. That the vicissitudes of several
stormy centuries have not altered in any great degree
her constitution, or changed her ancient name. That
the Church of England was in a real sense an
independent Church centuries before Rome's figment
of universal bishopship was heard of. All this must
be heartily admitted. These are facts ; and facts
cannot be withstood.

But that the Church of England now occupies a
different position, doctrinally and liturgically, from
what it did medievally ; that it teaches now as truth
what it once branded as heresy, and brands as error
what it once taught as truth ; must also be plain to
every one who has impartially investigated its develop-
ment during the first, and its deterioration during the
last of the centuries before the Reformation, and has
grasped the real significance of the practices it then
practised, and the doctrines it then taught.

Of the Church of England it can be asserted as
truly as it was asserted of the great apostle : " he
which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the
faith which once he destroyed." The Church which
once burned a man at the stake for teaching that

THREE GREAT PHASES OF ITS HISTORY 7

Christ's natural body cannot be in two places or more
at once, now teaches in the very words of the man
that it once destroyed as a heretic, that the natural
blood and body of Christ are in heaven, and not here,
it being against the truth of Christ's natural body to
be at one time in more places than one (Fox's
" Examination of John Frith," Book viii. ; Froude's
" History," i. 489).

The Church which once persecuted and imprisoned
men for refusing the Romish doctrine of purgatory,
and pardons, and the adoration of images, and the
worship of saints, now sets forth as its doctrine, that
these very doctrines are foolish superstitions, grounded
upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant
to the Word of God. The Church which burned one
of its clergy for not believing in transubstantiation,
now teaches as its faith that transubstantiation is
repugnant to the plain w^ords of Scripture, over-
throweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given
occasion to many superstitions. In one word, the
Church which once preached the mass, transubstantia-
tion, purgatory, image worship, saint worship, com-
munion in one kind, and clerical celibacy, has now
destroyed them ; and the Church which once destroyed
the doctrine of the sufficiency and supremacy of the
Scriptures, justification by faith, the two sacraments,
the reception of the body of Christ in the Lord's
Supper only after a heavenly and spiritual manner by
means of faith only (Articles xxviii., xxix.), the one
oblation of Christ once offered on the Cross, and the
worship of the people in their own tongue, now
preaches them as the teaching of the Church (Gal.
i. 23). The change that has been accomplished in the
Church of Encfland is thus no mere nominal or

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

accidental one ; nor does the great Reformation era,
as some modern Church writers would fain make us
believe, mark a mere formal and non-essential transi-
tion in the history of its evolution. The change was
not nominal ; it was real. Nominally the Church of
England was not changed at all. It was the Church
of England before the Reformation, and it was the
Church of England after the Reformation. Yet really
it was changed. It was the same, and yet it was not
the same. It was a change, not of accidents but of
essentials ; not of form but of condition. It was a
change, not of the form or of that which pertains to
the well-being of the Church, but of the doctrine and
of that which pertains to the very being of the Church.
The accidental, the formal, the corporal, and the
external, remain largely unchanged ; the essential, the
internal, and the doctrinal, the very principles and the
character of the Church, these were absolutely changed.
In one word, the Church was reformed.

To trace the various phases of the progress of error
and corruption, and to understand the strange medley
of events by which truth was retrieved and Christ's
faith re-established, is the purpose of this work.

CHAPTER II.

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN ITS EARLIEST STAGES.

The English Church in its earliest stages — The probable founders of the Church in
England — Three things certain about the early British Church— A Church, an
independent Church, an organised Church — The Roman tradition about Eleu-
therius valueless — The early British Church not Roman in origin, submission,
or doctrine — The Councils of Sardica gave no authority to the Roman Bishops
— The former position of the Bishop of Rome— The doctrinal position of the
early British Church — Not heretical — Held all the verities of the Christian
faith — Ignorant of superstitions, practices, and corruptions introduced later —
And also of many dangerous doctrines — But even before fifth century there were
evidences of departure from the simplicity of the primitive faith — Practices then
in Church use now disallowed by the Church of England — How is this con-
sistent with Christ's promise of the Spirit to guide His Church to the end — The
promise of the Spirit did not hinder error in Galatia and Laodicea even in the
apostolic age — The meaning of reverting to primitive Church teaching — Popery
in the true sense was in the early Church — The significance of the term Popery
according to Bishop Ridley.

FOLLOWING the example of the sacred evan-
gelist we will, first of all, go back to the very
fountain head of the subject, in order that we gain
an understanding of some of the more important
matters pertaining to the history of the Church from
the very first. As the method of question and answer
has often been found helpful to the student, we pro-
pose to simplify the subject propounded by setting it
forth in this form. The question in each case will
open up the subject of inquiry, and the response as
fully as possible explain it.

I. When, and by whom, ivas the Church in England
founded ?

9

lO THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

When, where, and by whom the Church in England
was founded will never probably be certainly known.
Perhaps it was by some soldier or merchant converts
of St. Paul ; perhaps by some apostolic men ; perhaps
even by St. Paul himself It is possible that some of
the Syrian Christians, who were scattered abroad on
the death of Stephen, penetrated even to Britain
preaching the Word. Or more likely that Bran, the
father of Caractacus or Caradoc the British king, first
brought to his native land the glad news of Christ.

Many and curious are the traditions of old, one
thing only being certain that the British Church
never claimed or seemed anxious to claim St. Peter
as its founder. After all it matters little. The great
thing is : Christ's Gospel came to Britain and the
Church was founded. A branch of the Church of
Christ, with regular Christian order, existed in Britain
centuries before Augustine arrived as the apostle of
Rome.

\\. If there is no certainty then about the origin of
the CJmrdi in England, are there any matters abojit its
early history that are certainly know7i ?

There are. It can be safely said that these points
are historically certain.

1. There was in Great Britain a Christian organis-
ation or Church at least three centuries before the
advent of Augustine, the missionary delegate of the
Church of Rome.

2, The ancient British Church, or Celtic Church,
had a formal organisation ; bishops, liturgy, and
clergy. When we speak of organised Christianity,
we mean Church Christianity. That is, the Christians
of the land were incorporated in a regular society,
with officers, rules, forms of worship, and articles of

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN ITS EARLIEST STAGES II

faith. The proof of this is that in A.D. 314, a church
Synod was convened at Aries in Gaul, by the Em-
peror Constantine, at which were present three metro-
politan Bishops of the British Church : " Eborius of
York, Restitutus of London, and Adelphius of Caer-
leon on Usk ; Eborius Episcopus de Civitate Ebora
cenci provincia Britannia ; Restitutus Episcopus de
Civitate Londinensi provincia suprascripta ; Adelfius
Episcopus de Civitate Colonia Londinensium ; ex-
inde sacerdos presbyter, Arminius diaconus " (Mansi,
Concilia. Quoted by Haddan in Smith's " Diet.
Antiq.," i. 142. See also Bright's " Early English
Church History," page 9 ; Stokes' " Ireland and
the Celtic Church," page 11).

It is also probable, though not demonstrable, that
British Bishops were present at the Council of Nice
in 325. It is almost certain that a deputation of
British Bishops were at the Council of Sardica in A.D.
343. They were certainly present, says Professor
Stokes, at the Council of Ariminum in 359 (Stokes,
ibid., page 11). All of which things prove, not only
that the Church in Britain was an organised corpor-
ation, but that its organisation was episcopal.

3. This Church was in a very real sense an inde-
pendent Church. Though it could not strictly be
called, in those days, a national Church, it was
certainly independent of Roman jurisdiction. It was
not identical with Rome. It was not subject to Rome.
There is no evidence of any value that either British
Christianity, or the order and liturgy of the British
Church were from Roman sources. (Maskell, "The An-
cient Liturgy of the Church of England," Preface Hi.)

It is probable that the organisation of the
British Church is to be traced to the Church

12 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

at Lyons, a Church of Eastern origin, and that her
ritual and liturgy were similar to that of the ancient
Gallican Church. This Gallican Liturgy, by the way,
was probably employed in the apostolic Church of
Ephesus, and was brought by Irenaeus to Lyons in
Gaul. This seems to bear out the fact that in its for-
mation the British Church was " oriento-apostolical,"
rather than Roman. The ancient British Church by
whomsoever founded was a stranger to the Bishop of
Rome and all his pretended authority.

III. But is it not claimed by historians of the Clmrch
of Rome that the Bishop of Rome sent missio7iaries to
England before the third century, thus establis?iing a
claim for the Church of Rome ?

It is. But the old tradition about the British King
Lucius sending to Eleutherius (or Eleutherus) the
Bishop of Rome, and the success of the two mission-
aries, Fagan and Damian, that were despatched by him
to England can hardly be taken as a proof that the
British Church was in any way subject to Rome, or
indebted to its agents for its organisation.

If there is anything in the tradition it rather tells
the other way. For the Roman Bishop in sending a
message to Lucius is reported to have said : " You
have the Holy Scriptures ; out of them by God's
grace take a law ; and by that law rule your kingdom.
For you are God's vicar in your kingdom " (Fox,
Book ii. 275). This certainly seems to show that
the Bishop of Rome at that time considered the
British Church as an independent Church, and spoke
in a very different tone from a medieval or modern
Roman Pope.

There is not a trace throughout the letter of their
submission to him as the supreme head of the Church

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN ITS EARLIEST STAGES 1 3

on earth, or his assumption of any such title as
Universal Bishop. Nor is the appeal to the infalli-
bility i\v catJiedra of Christ's Vicars, but to the Word
of God as the law of Christ. The judgment of
Mosheim with regard to the story of Lucius is
as follows : " As to Lucius, I agree with the best
British writers in supposing him to be the restorer
and second father of the English Churches, and not
their original founder. That he was a king is not
probable ; because Britain was then a Roman pro-
vince. He might be a nobleman, and governor of
a district. His name is Roman. His application, I
can never believe, was made to the Bishop of Rome.
It is much more probable that he sent to Gaul for
Christian teachers. The independence of the ancient
British Churches of the See of Rome, and their
observing the same rites as the Gallic Churches, which
were planted by Asiatics, and particularly in regard
to the time of Easter ; show that they received the
Gospel from Gaul and not from Rome. (" Ecc. His-
tory," vol. i. pages 99, 100, Carter's Edition.)

IV. Then the early British Church cannot in any
true sense be said to be Roman either as to its origin, its
submission, or its doctrine ?

No. It certainly cannot.

As to its Roman origin we have seen that with one
trivial, and unreliable exception, the traditions of the
early British Church agree that whoever founded the
faith there, it was not the Church of Rome.

As to Roman submission, the very idea of the
universal supremacy of the Roman episcopate so dear
to modern Romanists, was unknown in the early
centuries.

The unwarrantable claim that no decree of the

14 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

early Councils would be considered as valid without
the sanction of the Bishop of Rome arose from the
fact that as a rule the Bishops of Rome were not
personally present at the General Councils, being
represented by their legates.

The third, fourth, and fifth Canons of the Council
of Sardica, made so much of by Roman authorities
(see Capel's " Catholic," page 52) because they give the
Bishop of Rome the right to receive appeals, must be
a terrible disappointment to any Romanist who is
a sincere searcher for truth. For the authority was
simply given to the Bishop of Rome as an individual
(" Ad Julium, non ad papam Romanum," Theophilus
Anglicanus, page 144) ; the authority was, moreover,
given by a mere Synod, and that not a General
Synod ; and even that very local and temporary
authority was of a very limited and natural kind. It
simply appointed the Bishop of Rome as a kind of
arbiter or referee for ecclesiastical disputes that might
arise in the West ; and to crown it all, this decree was
afterwards reversed by a General Council.

The Council of Constantinople, which dealt very
clearly with the subject of appeals, not only makes no
mention whatever of the final authority of the Bishop
of Rome, but declares that appeals from provincial
Bishops are to be carried to the great Synod of the
patriarchate.

The Council of Chalcedon destroyed completely
the pretended headship of the Pope, and the figment
of papal claims, by asserting that the Roman Bishop's
eminence was not jure divino, but simply because of
the political and geographical importance of the city
of Rome, and that any eminence he enjoyed was
equally enjoyed by the Patriarch of the East. It

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN ITS EARLIEST STAGES 1 5

may be added that not one of the four General
Councils was presided over by a Bishop of Rome,
and the fifth and sixth each excommunicated a
Bishop of Rome as a heretic. (Barrow, 325-430.)
In short, there is nothing in history to show that the
Church in Britain was subject to the authority and
jurisdiction of the Pope, just as there is nothing in
history to show that the Bishop of Rome before the
seventh century claimed official supremacy over all
the Christian Churches, or had any right to the title
of Universal Bishop. Nay, more; it was Gregory, a
Bishop of Rome, who actually declared that any
Bishop assuming the title of Universal Bishop was in
danger of being Antichrist ! As to the early British
Church being Roman in doctrine, it can only be
asserted by those who adhere to the delusion that in
those days all Catholic doctrine was Roman doctrine.
It did, indeed, hold and teach very much the same
doctrine as the Church of Rome in that day taught ;
but it did not on that account either receive its
doctrine from the Holy See, or hold what the Church
of Rome teaches to-day.

In short, of the early British Church it can be said
it was Catholic, not Roman. It was independent,
not papal.

V. But if it was not Roman, what was tJie exact
doctrinal position of the early British Church ?

The question of the doctrinal position of the early
British Church is a most difficult one. It must be
remembered, for one thing, that the Church was in a
comparatively infant state. Intellectually, it had few
strong representatives. Theologically, it had little
need for the statement of explicit teaching on various
points of doctrine.

l6 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

It is controversy that elicits definition, and heresy
is the forerunner of orthodoxy.

The progress of error in the early Church, though
steady, was not as rapid as in later eras, and the
differences between the churches of Catholic Christen-
dom, both as regards ritual and doctrine, were for
centuries not very marked. The British Churches,
the Galilean Churches, and the Churches of Con-
stantinople and Rome held alike the great verities of
the Christian faith, affirmed in the so-called Creed of
the Apostles, and the General Councils of Nice and
Constantinople. They accepted the Holy Scriptures
as the final authority of all doctrine, and taught as the
foundation of all religion the great facts of the Incar-
nation, the Resurrection, and the Ascension, the
power and presence of the Holy Ghost, and the truth
of the Holy Trinity. Of any formulated scheme of
doctrine such as the Thirty-nine Articles, or the
Tridentine decrees, there is not a trace. This
Catholic faith was the faith of the primitive Church in
Britain, and there was little need for the British
Church to assert its position as to Catholic orthodoxy.
With the exception of a temporary spread of the
Pelagian fever which was soon allayed by the Galilean
(some say Roman) envoys, Bishop Germanus and
Bishop Lupus, the faith of the Church in Britain
seems to have been untroubled by heresy. Bede says
(quoted by D'Aubigne, " Hist. Reform.," v. 24) the
British Churches refused to receive this perverse
doctrine and to blaspheme the grace of Jesus Christ.
In fine, the faith of the Catholic Church as to the
great verities of Christianity was the faith of the
New Testament as promulgated by the apostles,
reasscitcd by their successors, summed up in

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN ITS EARLIEST STAGES IJ

the creeds, and affirmed by the undisputed coun-
cils.

VI. Are ivc then to understand that the faith and
worship of the early British CJmrcJi zvas in all respects a
true and pure transcript of the si^nple faith of the New
Testament, and that the errors which crept into the
CatJiolic Church in later centuries tvere then tmknoivn ?

This, again, is a hard question to answer, for it is
difficult to gauge ancient things by modern standards.

On the one hand, it may be certainly asserted that
the early British Church knew nothing of those
corrupt and dangerous doctrines which defiled both
the Church of Rome and the Church of England in
later centuries. There was no such thing as Divine
worship in an unknown tongue. There was no
compulsory celibacy of the clergy. There was no
withholding of the cup from the laity. There was no
such thing as a confessional box. There was no such
doctrine as transubstantiation. The ideas of pilgrim-
ages, and Mariolatry, and papal supremacy, and
invocation of saints, and pilgrimages, and shrines, and
indulgences, were at the first unknown. In one word,
it can be asserted that the great body of Roman
doctrine, and the great system of Romish sacerdotal
religion, with its abuses of vanity and superstition,
were not to be found in the primitive faith of the
British Church.

We search in vain in the lives of Patrick or
Columba for any sanction of these superstitious and
blasphemous and dangerous doctrines which after-
wards were received in the Catholic Churches, and
are now plainly denounced by the Church of England.
To them the Holy Scriptures were the only rule of
faith. The grace of Christ rather than the merit of

C

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

works was the means of salvation. Outward obser-
vances and forms were not the bulk of religion or
even the chief channels of grace. It is certain that
they were ignorant of such a system of worship as
became common in Europe from the tenth or twelfth
century. The complex ceremonialism of medieval
Christianity was utterly unheard of The modern
Romish doctrine of apostolical succession, with its
accompanying tenets of sacramental justification and
exclusive sacerdotal absolution, was unknown. The
early British Church was episcopal, but there seems
to be ground for supposing that it gave administra-
tive episcopal powers to presbyters, as in the case
of the presbyter-abbots of lona, the bishops being
reduced to the position of the chorepiscopi or country
bishops of the primitive Church. The Celtic ordina-
tions and consecrations were not objected to by Bede,
or Lanfranc, or Anselm.*

But it is certain that Bishop Wilfrid and Archbishop
Theodore resolutely refused to recognise the validity of
Celtic orders (" Ecc. Ang.," page 35 ; Perry, " Eng. Ch,
Hist," pp. 58-60) ; and the English Church of 816, then
strongly Romanized, declared that Scotch and Irish
orders were uncertain. (Perry, page 92.) A careful
study of Bishop Lightfoot's outline of the develop-
ment of the episcopate in his dissertation on the
Christian ministry will confirm this historically.
(" Epis. Phil," pp. 227-244.)

It was liturgical, but its prayers were simple and
" understanded of the people." It had ceremonies and

* Kurtz, i. 299, and D'Aubigne, v. 28, both assert that these presbyter-
bishops ordained and consecrated other bishops. The Latin quotation
from Bede in D'Aubigne, which I have verified in the original, is hardly
clear enough, however, to justify that interpretation.

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN ITS EARLIEST STAGES I9

forms, but they were of "godly intent and purpose
devised, and had not yet turned to vanity and
unprofitableness, or become abused through super-
stitious blindness," as was afterwards the case in the
Church of England.

But, on the other hand, it may be asserted with
equal certainty that there appeared in the primitive
British Church, even in the fourth and fifth centuries,
many signs of a departure from the simplicity of the
faith and worship of the primitive apostolic Church.
The primitive faith and worship of the Church of
Jesus Christ can only be that which finds sanction in,
or authorisation from, the sacred Scriptures of the
New Testament. The Apostolic Church can only
signify in the final meaning the Church in the time of
the apostles and during the apostolic age. (See the
teaching of the Church of England in Articles vi.,
xix., XX., xxi.) It is certain that the last of the
apostles had scarcely departed this life, before corrup-
tions of human device began to degrade the primitive
religion of the Church of Christ. The forms and
ceremonies of religion multiplied to the exclusion of
the inward realities of religion. Things indifferent
gradually assumed the value of things essential, and
men, and things, and places overshadowed the Word
and Spirit and life Divine.

The germs and faint beginnings of formal religion
which were plainly discernible even in the apostolic
age, as the Epistles to the Galatians and Colossians
and Timothy show, grew apace in the second and
third centuries, and before two hundred years had
passed, the rudimentary developments of sacerdotalism
and what we would call Romish religion, were grow-
ing with a rapid growth.

20 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

Long before the Roman Augustine arrived in
England (597), ceremonies and practices which are
now disallowed in the Church of England, were in
universal use in the then Catholic Church ; and the
memorials of those days furnish abundant proof that
the system of religion countenanced doctrines and
observances now entirely unauthorised, and directly
contrary to the teaching of the doctrinal standard of
the Church of England as it is now established.

There is no regulation in the Church of England
ordering the clergy to be shaven or practise the
tonsure, permitting the use of holy water, or enjoining
veils for nuns.

There is no authorisation in the Church of England
for the use of the word host, or any injunction that
it should be made of unleavened bread. There is no
sanction in the Church of England for the use of the
word altar, or any shadow of authority for the words
mass and masses.

Yet all these things were known and practised in
the early Christian Church before the end of the third
century of the Christian era. It is true that some
writers think that the holy water was not used in
Britain till a later age, and the ancient British clergy,
who were called Culdees, rejected the tonsiira Petri,
that is, the Roman tonsure ; but then they had a form
of shaving the head peculiar to themselves.

There is no authority in the English Church to-day
for the use of lights in the churches in daylight, or for
the employment of incense. Stone altars are dis-
tinctly illegal. Auricular confession is vigorously
denounced in the second part of the Homily on
Repentance as a device of the adversaries of the
Church of England. And the worshipping and

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN ITS EARLIEST STAGES 21

adoration of images and relics, and the invocation of
saints are regarded as fond things vainly invented, and
grounded upon no warranty of Scripture (Art. xxii,).
Yet all these things were in use in the primitive
Church before the conclusion of the fifth century.
(Kurtz, "Church History," pp. 222, 223, 225, 229.)

How far the British Church remained undefiled by
the increasing ecclesiastical corruptions, it is hard to
say. Their remoteness from the city of Rome, the
centre of worldly pomp and fashion, may have pre-
served them to a certain extent in a simple style of
worship. They appear to have resisted for some time
the practice of clerical celibacy, auricular confession,
and the doctrine of purgatory, and more than two
sacraments. We know also that on certain points
the British Church differed from the Roman custom,
and adhered with great sturdiness to their own usages ;
but the points of difference can hardly be taken to
indicate a freedom on the part of the British Church
from ceremonial or sacerdotal religion, and retention
of the primitive simplicity of Scriptural and spiritual
Christianity, as the points for which the British
Churchmen contended indicate the presence rather
than the absence of the elements of a formal and
deteriorated religion.

The fact is clear to any one who recognises the
gradual deterioration of Christianity during the first
five centuries of its history, that even the remote and
independent British Church had fallen before the end
of that time from the glory and brightness of its
apostolic estate. The essentials of Catholic truth it still
retained. The creeds it preserved inviolate. The uni-
versal episcopal order was its order, though the bishop
and the presbyter, as in lona, are said to have been

22 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

largely identical. It still had the two sacraments.
The Canon of Holy Scripture was its rule of faith.

And yet in spite of all this an eclipse had passed
over its religion.

The forms of religion, the rules and ceremonies of
the Church, the power of the priest, the mystic value
of the sacraments, were gradually superseding the
essential matters of the inward and spiritual religion
of the New Testament, and the simple way of salva-
tion by grace through faith. The holy table was
called the altar. The Holy Communion was termed
the sacrifice of the altar. As the ages passed on the
Eucharist was celebrated with greater pomp, and
ceremony, and superstition. Tradition was gradually
taking the place of the Holy Scripture, and the
sacrificing priest that of the minister of Christ. Trifles
were being more and more magnified ; fundamentals
more and more ignored. Trivial points of ritual, and
matters of church form usurped little by little the
place of the great spiritual essentials. Ecclesiastics
came to strive for points of ritual as if they were the
fundamentals of the faith ; and contended earnestly,
not so much for the faith once delivered to the saints
as for the order and discipline determined by the
Church. The secondaries were made of first import-
ance ; the primaries became secondary.

And so it came to pass that the Church of Christ
in Britain while strenuously rejecting the claims of
the Bishop of Rome, and differing in certain points of
ritual, was nevertheless in doctrine and teaching
substantially the same as the Church of Rome. In
point of fact, as one historian puts it, the religion of
Britain and of Rome was essentially the same; in
both the same tendency to superstition appears ; in

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN ITS EARLIEST STAGES 23

both Churches we have the worship of saints and
relics, the sacrifice of the mass, asceticism, and work-
righteousness. (Kurtz, "Ch. History," page 297.) The
blasphemous and deceptive doctrine of the mass,
with all its ensnaring falsities, was not yet fully
developed, and many superstitious practices were still
unheard of But there were on every side evidences
of the rudimentary growth of those sacerdotal doctrines
and ritualistic practices which gradually obscured the
truth of the Gospel of grace, and the reality of the
Christian worship, and were destined in God's pro-
vidence in a later age to be cast out of the Church of
England.

VII. An objection may be interposed here. It will be
said: If this, then, is the case, what has become of the
promise of Christ that His Holy Spirit should guide
His followers into all truth, and that He tvould be with
His disciples to the end of the age ?

The promise of the Spirit was most surely given
and as certainly received. He came on the Day of
Pentecost and filled the Christ-founded Church. He
led the apostles into all truth. He guided them in
their deliberative assemblies, and in their constitution
of the primitive Church. He taught them the
doctrines of grace, of justification, and sanctification,
and the spiritual life. He fitted them by His super-
natural power for the authorship of the inspired
Scriptures. He directed them in their missionary
labours.

It can be truly said of all the apostles' authoritative
work, and all their written words, it was the work and
the word of God the Holy Spirit.

But it was also as surely declared by the same
most Holy Spirit, that after the departure of these

24 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

apostolic teachers a change would come over the
Church. False doctrine would be taught in the very
fold of the Church. False teaching would be pro-
mulgated, not by heretics without, but by heretics
within the Catholic Church. " After my departing
shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing
the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise,
speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after
them " (Acts xx. 29, 30). Even before the end of the
first century it was said of all them in Asia that they
were turned away from the Apostle (2 Tim. i. 15);
and the Revelation of St. John tells the same story of
error within the Churches of his locality.

The promise of Christ has been surely fulfilled.
He has been with His Church, and its life to-day is
proof that Satan, with all the powers of hell, has not
prevailed against it. But His presence in the Church
was not destructive of the freedom of man. The
mystery of the apostasy of popes and synods of the
Catholic Church is no greater than the mystery of
apostasy in the Churches of Galatia, and of error in
the primate apostle. (Gal. ii. 11-14.) If, while the
apostle lived, a Demas could be seduced by the love of
the world, and a whole Church corrupted by its glory
(2 Tim. iv. 10; Rev. iii. 14-17), it is not to be
wondered at that, with worldly power and earthly
pomp there should be a sad decline in doctrine and
worship, and the disciples of Christ in the fifth and
sixth centuries should adopt those beggarly elements
of the pagan religion which were so fascinating in the
first (Gal. iv. 9, 10).

And this is what came to pass.

The love of the world, and the desire of the eyes,
and the pomp of life, seduced the Church from the

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN ITS EARLIEST STAGES 2$

simplicity of its first love in doctrine and worship,
Little by little the tide of seduction flowed in. Pagan
rites were adopted. Heathen superstitions were bor-
rowed. Bewitching ceremonies were practised. The
splendour of the empire was emulated. Titles and
ranks were assumed. Until at last the brotherhood
became an oligarchy; the ministry an autocracy; the
episcopate a despotism; the ministering presbyter the
sacrificing priest ; the holy table the altar ; the com-
munion the sacrifice ; the bishop a dictator; the Pope
of Rome a universal despot.

And yet it must be remembered that, in spite of all
this, the Church was the body of Christ on earth. It
was Christ's representative. The Church of Christ was
a power for good. It restricted slavery. It abolished
gladiatorship. It restrained polygamy. It elevated
humanity. Even in its decline and decay the corrup-
tions of the Church could not hinder the conquests of
the Church.

VIII. IV/ien it is said then that the Church of
England at the Reforviation restored the faith and
religion of the primitive Church, are we to understand
that it reverted to the doctrines and usages of the
primitive British Church ?

When we speak of the primitive Church we are
liable to confusion of thought.

If by the primitive Church we mean the Catholic
Church of the third to the sixth century, it is certain
that the Church of England looked further back than
that. For the Church of England teaches very
plainly in the twenty-first article, that even the
authoritative utterances of the General Councils have
contained error. There is a superstitious veneration
on the part of some Anglican churchmen for these

26 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

centuries that amounts almost to idolatry. They
forget that while these centuries were strong to resist
heresy, they were weak to resist corruption ; and that
the very rubrics and Articles of the Church show that
the Church of England was reformed by a purer
standard than that of the post-Nicene and Nicene
period.

But if by the primitive Church we mean the Church
not of the post-Nicene, not of the post-apostolic, but
of the apostolic age, the Church of the New Testa-
ment, the faith of which was the Word of God alone,
it may be truly affirmed this is that primitive and
apostolic Church which the Church of England, when
it departed, as the great Bishop Jewel says, trom the
Church of Rome, selected as its standard. We have
sought, says he in the conclusion of his famous
Apology, the certain ways of religion out of the sacred
Scriptures, which we know cannot deceive us, and
have returned to the primitive Church of the ancient
fathers and apostles, that is, to the first beginning and
first rise, even to the very fountain head (Jewel's
Works, Park. Soc, iii. 46).*

The practices and usages of none of the particular
Churches of the primitive era can be adopted as the
standard of apostolic faith in doctrine and worship.
Though in different degrees they all admitted corrup-
tions, and though all retained the creeds and
acknowledged the general councils of the undivided
Church, they were all tainted with the growing

* It may be said for the information of the Church student that the
Apology of Bishop Jewel by the Queen's authority and the concurrence
of the Bishops was recommended and considered as a true standard of
the Church of England, and a copy of it was ordered to be placed in
every parish Church in England and Wales.

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN ITS EARLIEST STAGES 27

tendency to hierarchism, and a semi-heathen ritual-
ism.

When we say then that the Church of England at
the Reformation reaffirmed the faith of the primitive
Church, and reverted to the standard of the apostolic
Church, it does not mean that the Church of England
considered the ancient Church of Britain as its model
and adopted and authorised all its usages. On the
contrary, it distinctly asserted in the Nineteenth
Article that the various portions of the primitive
Catholic Church erred in doctrine, and that that only
could be accepted as authoritative which is found in
Holy Scripture. Scripture, therefore, and not the
usages or traditions of the later Catholic Church, is
the doctrinal standard of the Church of England
(Arts, vi., viii., xxi.). And in so far as the early British
Church adhered to the truth of the New Testament
and the constitution of the apostolic Church, the
Church of England reverted to that model. In its
episcopal organisation and liturgical worship, and sole
Scriptural authority and adhesion to the creeds, it was
the ancestral model of the reformed English Church —
but in no more.

IX. Biit is not a common opinion zuitJi certain
churchmen that the system which is called by the name
of Popery is of comparatively modern introduction, and
that with the exception of a few comparatively unimport-
ant errors, the faith and discipline of the early Church
was preserved for a thousand years ?

It is.

The opinion is a commonly received one, and has
the authorization of many churchmen.* It is based

* See " Turning Points of English Church History," by E. L. Cutts,
S.P.C.K., page 27.

28 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

apparently upon the theory that Popery is not a
system of false doctrine, but merely the extremities
of a system of so-called Catholic doctrine, and that
there was no Popery in the Church until the accept-
ance of the dogma of transubstantiation and the
declaration of the papal supremacy. But the theory
is fallacious. Popery does not mean the mere
extremities of Roman doctrine, for there can be
Popery without the doctrine of transubstantiation,
as there was Popery centuries before the Immaculate
Conception and the Papal Infallibility were heard of.
Nor does Popery involve the Papal supremacy, for in
its true doctrinal acceptation there could be Popery
in the independent Anglican Church, and there is
Popery in the Oriental Church, and there has been
for centuries.

According to its accurate historical meaning from
the Anglican standpoint, Popery means that system
of doctrine which began with the substitution of
merit for faith, and ceremonial rites for spiritual
worship ; and found its culmination in apostate Latin
Christianity, and apostate Greek Christianity, in the
mass and the mass-priest, many centuries before the
Reformation. Bishop Ridley ought to be considered
a good authority by Anglican churchmen. According
to Bishop Ridley, Popery is only another name for
the whole trade of the Romish religion ; the substance
of the Romish religion, the common order, and the
Romish laws and customs, which have been used in
England, in the times past of Popery (Ridley's
Works, Park. Soc, 57-66). And among the elements
of " their Popery," he includes " the Popish sacrificing
priest;" the mass books, and the holy loaves, "a very
mockery of the Lord's Holy Table," lights, and

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN ITS EARLIEST STAGES 29

images, and idols, requiem masses, dirges and
commendations, and such like trumpery of the anti-
Christian religion {ibid., 6y). These, and a hundred
things more of more weight, and of more evident
superstition and idolatry, constitute in the mind of
the great and scholarly Bishop Ridley, the substance
of Popery. It is evident then that in the historical
sense of the term Popery is no modern thing. It
means a false system of Christianity. It began in
the earliest ages with a departure from the simplicity
of the apostolic faith and worship in the direction of
sacerdotalism, priestcraft, and ceremonialism ; was
well developed in the seventh century, more strongly
developed in the eleventh century, and from the
twelfth century onwards was full blown and mature.
Popery is no modern word. And what it meant to
Ridley and Latimer — viz., the Romish system of
religion, it means to-day, only that now the system
has added one or two additional errors, the Papal
Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception.

In fine, the position of the early English Church
was one of commingled good and evil. Sound in the
creeds, and, in the theoretical exaltation of Scripture
as its standard, it had not yet permitted in their
fulness a multitude of those debasing superstitions
that afterwards defiled the Church's faith and worship.
But on the other hand, there were only too manifestly
present the germs and first beginnings of most
dangerous errors. Practices without warrant of
Scripture were being gradually introduced. The
holy table was universally called the altar. The holy
communion was commonly termed the offering of the
sacrifice, in the sense of its being an unbloody
repetition of the Sacrifice of Christ, and the idea of

30 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

the mass and masses was already in view (Kurtz,
i. 229). And in fact, the fundamental principle of
Popery, the parent of all the corruptions of medieval-
ism, the root and source of all its errors, the substitu-
tion of tradition, and human authority for the Divine
Word was everywhere accepted, and was already
working as a leaven in the body of the Catholic
Church.

CHAPTER III.

THE ENGLISH CHURCH FROM THE AGE OF
AUGUSTINE TO THAT OF THEODORE.

The English Church from the time of Augustine to Theodore— The Augustine
founded Church identical with the Church of Rome — The destruction of the
British Church by the Angles and Saxons — England a heathen country when
Augustine landed — Augustine sent by the Bishop of Rome — Roman Christianity
established in England — The brief duration of Augustine's work — England
evangelised from Lindisfarne — The character of Aidan's Christianity — Celtic
churchmanship submerged in Roman at the Whitby Confersnce — Deusdedit
Wighard, and Theodore — The Church of England unified by Theodore — The
Parochial System — The loss of English Church Independence — Theodore
refuses the validity of British orders — All with British orders to be reconse-
crated, and reordained — Latin Language, and auricular confession introduced —
The sacrifice of the mass.

WE are now come to a memorable era in the
history of the English Church, the period of
the mission of Augustine.

For the historical details the reader is referred to
one or more of the standard writers on the history of
the Church of England in the list at the end of this
work {see Appendix).

We will resume our argument by an important
question.

X. If the early British Church on account of its
isolation viay be said to have been independent iii a
measure of Rome, was not the religion of the Chiirch in
England from the ejidofthe sixth century onward practi-
cally idejttical with the religion of the Church of Rome ?

31

32 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

There can be but one answer to this question.

So far as doctrine, discipline, and worship arc con-
cerned it is indisputable that the Church of England
at that time, and for centuries afterwards was, to all
intents and purposes, substantially identical with the
Church of Rome.

Of course, in speaking of this period, the term,
Church of England, is used merely for convenience.
Strictly speaking there was no England, and no
Church of England till some time later.

We have stated above, that there was little or no
difference in doctrine in any of the Churches in the
fifth or sixth centuries of the Christian era. There
were small divergences in the non-essential points of
their ecclesiastical systems, such as the date of Easter,
and the methods of tonsure and baptismal immer-
sion, but these were of minor consideration. They
were matters of mere detail.

The historical records of that era furnish us with
nothing to show that there was any serious difference
in doctrine or worship amongst the orthodox branches
of the Catholic Church.

After the mission of the Roman Augustine, A.D.
597, this was still more evident.

For it must be remembered that from the middle
of the fifth to the end of the sixth centuries, in round
numbers from A.D. 450 to 600, a great change was
witnessed in England. The Church of Christ had
practically perished from the land. The religion of
Christ was gone. There was no Church. There
were no churches. There were no Christians.

The Jutes, and the Angles, and the Saxons, heathen
all, had taken possession of England, and as the
Israelites of old they had either exterminated the

FROM THE TIME OF AUGUSTINE TO THEODORE 33

inhabitants, or driven them utterly from the country.
The only Christians in the kingdom were pushed into
the corners of Cornwall and Wales where the strug-
gling Christianity of early Britain remained as in a
fastness.

In the year 597, with the exception of a small strip
in the north and south of the western border, England
was as truly a heathen land as the centre of China is
to-day. It had no church, no creed, no Christians,
and the Christianity of even the remnant was, ac-
cording to Geldas, of a very degraded type (Bright,
pp. 28, 29). It was to this reheathenized kingdom
that the then Bishop of Rome dispatched his mis-
sionaries, and if we are to speak of a Church being
planted there, the Church that was then planted in
England by the Roman monk Augustine was beyond
all question a branch of the Church of Rome.

It is true that the faith of Christ is a greater
matter than the name of any Church, and these
first Kentish converts were not baptized in the
name of Augustine, or Gregory, or of the Pope of
Rome. They were not even baptized into the Church
of Rome. They were baptized in the Triune name
into the Church of Christ. It was Christ to whom
they gave their allegiance, not to any man ; and it
was into Christ they were baptized, and His name
they bore.

But if we speak of the organized and corporate
religion introduced into England at this time by
the Italian mission, we can only term it rightly the
religion of Rome.

Augustine was sent by the Bishop or Pope of
Rome. He was ordained Bishop some time after
by the Archbishop of Aries, at the instance of the

D

34 THE CHURCH of England

Bishop or Pope of Rome (Perry, " Eng. Ch. Hist." i. 24),
and as Gregory himself stated, by his authorization
{ibid., page 26). It was by the Bishop or the Pope of
Rome that he was appointed the first Archbishop of
Canterbury, and he received the pallium from the
Pope in token of his metropolitan dignity. This
pallium, moreover, was to be regarded not only as
the seal of this newly conferred primacy, but as the
sign also of the establishment of that hierarchical
system of Christianity which Rome was then de-
lighting to establish.

All the baptized Christians of England, the result
of this mission, were under the jurisdiction of
Rome, and the members of the Church of which
Augustine was the founder were committed to his
care by the authority of the Pope of Rome. And
it goes without saying, the doctrine and worship they
introduced, was, of course, the doctrine and worship
of the Church of Rome. The missionaries despatched
from Gregory to Augustine, 601, brought with them
the articles that were considered of necessity in the
worship and service of the Church, and a very fair
idea of what kind of a service and what kind of a
worship that was, may be gathered from the list of
these articles. There were sacred vessels for the altar,
and altar vestments ; ornaments for the churches, and
vestments for the priests and clerks ; and relics of the
apostles and martyrs. Holy water, too, was in use,
for Gregory advised Augustine not to destroy the
heathen temples but to utilize them as Christian
Churches after sprinkling them with holy water
(Perry, i. 27). It was, in one word, the Romish
religion in its early development.

XI. But was not the Christianity introduced by

FROM THE TIME OF AUGUSTINE TO THEODORE 35

Augustine of tnere temporary existence, and did not the
Churc/i he established almost disappear within a few
years ?

True.

The success of the Italian mission was for a while
phenomenal. It spread with great rapidity, and in
little more than a quarter of a century the Christian
Church had been established in four of the seven
Saxon kingdoms.

But it was only a mushroom growth at best. It
vanished almost as quickly as it came. In some cases
when the king died by whose influence the faith was
brought in, the whole nation reverted to paganism.
It is not an uncommon thing for Romish converts to
return to the worship of their idols, as the history of
Roman missions in Africa and China, and Japan, has
proved again and again. And this was the case in
England.

Though the Pope appointed Laurentius as the
successor of Augustine, and afterwards sent the pal-
lium to PauHnus the first Archbishop of York, the
south and the north in turn restored the gods of
heathenism, and the Church of Christ was well-nigh
annihilated. In Kent alone, and there with difficulty,
the faith of Christ was preserved in the Church.

To our Anglo-Saxon ancestors, in the beginning of
the seventh century, the apostolic remonstrance might
truly be applied : " Now that ye have come to know
God, or rather to be known of God, how turn ye back
again to the weak and beggarly rudiments whereunto
ye desire to be in bondage over again. Ye observe
days, and months, and seasons, and years."

XII. Was England tJien left long wit Jiout a Clnirch,
a ini)i,istry, and a sign of the Christian faith ?

36 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

No.

The faith of Christ that failed from the south now
gained a foothold from the north, and from Lindis-
farne England was evangelised once more. Lindis-
farne, a small island on the coast of Northumberland,
became the home of a Christian communion that had
come from lona, and it is an apostolical ancestry of
which any Church may be proud.

For the faith that was brought by Aidan from the
English Holy Isle had been handed down from the
missionary monk Columba of Scottish lona, who, in
his time, had been trained by the Welsh Churchman
Finian and had brought the Christian faith from Ire-
land, where it had been spread through the zeal of
St. Patrick. The type of Christianity that was now
introduced into England, and for the latter part of the
first half of the seventh century obtained in the
greater part of the north and middle of England, was
of British not of Romish origin. It represented the
ecclesiastical system of the Celtic Church.

As we have seen above, it does not follow from this
that England, at this time, came into possession of a
pure and perfect form of apostolical Christianity,
for in all things save a few minor details, the Celtic
and the Romish religions were then practically the
same.

But then there was a difference, and it is important
that we should note it.

Broadly speaking, the Christianity of Aidan was of
a simpler and more primitive type.

It seems to have been animated by a more
spiritual and evangelical fervour. Aidan's object
was not so much the extension of an ecclesiastical
system as the preaching of the Word of God ("Con-

FROM THE TIME OF AUGUSTINE TO THEODORE 37

fluebant ad audiendum verbum Dei populi gaudentes "
Bcde, " Ecc. Hist," lib. iii. cap, iii.).

The longing desire of Aidan was breathed in his
ejaculation : — " If Thy love, O my Saviour, is offered
to this people, many hearts will be touched. I will go
and make Thee known."

Its worship and ritual were modelled, not on the
Roman, but on the Celtic system, which was of
Gallican and of Oriental origin ; and the differences,
though trivial, were very stubbornly maintained by
the British Churchmen. It was, in fact, of a very
independent character.

Its individualism is quite pronounced. Its differ-
ence from the Roman hierarchical system was a clear
proof of its independent origin ; and its resistance
of the Roman claims a clear evidence of its primitive
liberty, and an early expression of the anti-Papal
spirit that was afterwards one of the conspiring causes
of the reformation of the Church of England.

XIII. Did this Celtic or British type of Christianity,
introduced by Aidan, become tJie Christianity of Eng-
land, and is it historically accurate to assert that the
Church of England represented, on accojint of the
Lifidisfarne Mission, a somewhat independe^it system
of ritual and of doctrine ?

Though it is frequently assumed by English writers
that this is the case, a careful inquiry will show that
this question must be answered in the negative.

For this reason.

The Celtic or British type of churchmanship was
not of long duration.

Running side by side, teaching the same Church
truth, and differing only on points of insignificant
detail, the Celtic and Roman clergy were continually

38 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

coming into conflict concerning trifling points of
ritual and order. The differences, though trivial, were
annoying. No little ill-feeling was engendered, and
though the matter was of such inferior interest as the
date of Easter, it was quite strong enough to create
a serious faction. Nothing, after all, has so divided
the Church of Christ as ritual and interpretation. It
is generally in matters of ceremony and the meaning
of terms that Churches differ. Men fight far more
seriously for the symbols and shadows of religion
than they do for the essence and substance of
religion.

And so it came to pass that a conference was held
in 664, at Whitby, to hear the claims of the rival
systems. Colman of Lindisfarne, represented the old
British Church custom. Wilfred, a tutor of King
Oswy's son, was spokesman for the party of the
Church of Rome. Both parties urged their argu-
ments with vehemence and skill. But the rough-
and-ready eloquence of Wilfred prevailed. "Columba
may have been a good man, but he was not to be
compared to St. Peter. St. Peter kept the keys." The
argument sufficed the illiterate king. He at once
admitted the claims of Peter. The British custom
was disallowed, and gradually fell into disuse. The
Roman use was authorised, and became the custom
of the realm.

Thus, through a question of paltry ritual, and by an
argument at once sophistical and trivial, the peculiarity
of surviving British churchmanship was abandoned,
and the rule of the ancient Church relinquished.

The Church of Rome conquered.

In ritual, as in doctrine, the churchmanship of
Aidan and Colman was submerged in that of Rome.

FROM THE TIME OF AUGUSTINE TO THEODORE 39

In less than ten years the Roman use was adopted
throughout the realm, and though scattered adherents
of the ancient British Church order lingered, with stub-
born conservatism, in parts of Wales, and Scotland,
and Ireland, within a century and a-half the ritual of
the Church of Rome was observed throughout the
whole of the land.

It must be remembered, moreover — we have
pointed this out before, but it is of importance — that
the differences between the Church of Lindisfarne, if
we may so describe the representative Celtic or British
Church in the seventh century, and the Church of
Rome were questions of ecclesiastical detail, such as
the tonsure and the date of Easter. There were then
no serious differences of doctrine. There were no
serious differences in ritual. Both maintained the
Romish system of religion. Both held the same
theory of the priestly office. In both the priest
celebrated the sacrifice of the mass upon the altar.
In both were found orders of monks and nuns. In
both lights were used, images worshipped, saints
invoked, relics sold, the eastward position adopted.
The only difference of any significance, was the
question of episcopal authority referred to before,
and the real issue of the Whitby Conferences was
this :—

The small and unimportant differences that dis-
tinguished those churchmen in England who con-
servatively adhered to the customs of the primitive
Celtic Church completely disappear. The Church
in England became practically the same as the
Church of Rome.

The dangers that resulted from ecclesiastical
division were at an end. Ecclesiastical union and

40 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

ecclesiastical uniformity were gained. But the peace
was purchased at the price of Roman victory. The
union then gained was union with Rome. The
uniformity then secured was the uniformity of Rome.
As more than one Church historian has pointed out,
the result of that conference was the subjection of
the Church in England to the Roman confession
(Perry, i. 54 ; Kurtz, 302).

XIV. After tJie Conference of Whitby ivJiat hap-
pened ?

After the Conference at Whitby the tide of Roman
pre-eminence seems to have slowly, but surely, set in
over the land. The prestige of the most famous See
in Western Christendom was daily increasing, and the
eyes of all England were turning to the Pope. The
Anglo-Saxon party, which was the Roman party
(Kurtz, " Ch. Hist," p. 303), like the house of David
of old, waxed stronger and stronger; while the British
party, like Saul's house of old, waxed weaker and
weaker, even in Scotland, and Ireland, and lona.

Deusdedit, the sixth Archbishop of Canterbury,
having died in 664, King Oswy of Northumbria
joined with the King of Kent in submitting to the
Pope of Rome the question of another Archbishop of
Canterbury. It must be remembered that Augustine,
the iirst Archbishop of Canterbury, was not only sent
from Rome, but received the pallium or pall which
invested him with the title of Archbishop, or Metro-
politan of the Angles, from the Bishop or Pope of
Rome. It was natural, then, that they should have
sent the man who was selected to be his successor in
664, to the Pope of Rome to be consecrated. This
man — Wighard by name — died, however, before
the Pope could consecrate him.

P^ROM THE TIME OF AUGUSTINE TO THEODORE 4I

It was also very natural, then, that Oswy, not caring
to take the risk or trouble of sending another
Englishman, should have asked the Pope to select a
man himself, and consecrate him in Rome as Arch-
bishop of Canterbury.

The Pope did so.

The man chosen was Theodore, of Tarsus in
Cilicia, a citizen, like St. Paul himself, of no mean
city. He was a learned and vigorous man, of strong
convictions and great personal force. And, selected
by the Pope of Rome, and consecrated by the Pope
of Rome, he was sent by the Pope of Rome to be
Archbishop of Canterbury, the Metropolitan See of
Southern England, with instructions not to introduce
anything contrary to the true faith in the Church, as
the manner of the Greek is. That is, he was to be
sure and give them Roman ritual and doctrine.

XV. It ivas during the time of Theodore, ivas it not,
that the Church in England is said to have become one
yiational ChurcJi, or what we now call the CliurcJi of
England ?

Yes.

It was to Theodore that the unification of the various
Churches is owing, and the adoption of uniformity in
ecclesiastical custom (Stubbs, i. 218-225).

After his arrival in England in 669 he visited
every part of the country ; and, four years after,
gathered the bishops and clergy in council together
at Hertford. A book of ten canons was produced,
and accepted by those present. It is generally agreed
by Church historians that this organised action of
English bishops and clergy marks the foundation
movement of the Church in England as the Church
of England.

42 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

Theodore then began his scheme of organization in
earnest. He enlarged the episcopate. He marked
off new dioceses. He infused new life into the
Church. Churches were everywhere built. Clergy
were provided for the newly built churches. New
districts for parochial services were defined, and new
parishes marked out.

Up to this time our modern parochial system was
unknown. Here and there throughout England, at
scattered intervals, there were oratories, or rude build-
ings, built for prayer, and services were held in them
by the monks and travelling missionary clergy. There
were monasteries too throughout the land, and the
monks celebrated services which the people could
attend. But, in our modern sense of the word there
were no parish churches, and no parish clergy ; and
without a settled, regular pastorate, the great work of
the Christian Church was impossible.

Theodore inaugurated a different system.

He taught the people to build churches. He
marked out parochial districts in each episcopate.
He conceived the idea of having a church in each
parish, and a pastor in each church {ibid., i. 224-227),
It was perhaps only an ideal. For some years after-
wards the parish clergy were little more than the
private chaplains of some great man, and their
congregations his retainers. But still a different plan
was inaugurated. The observance of Sunday was
commenced, and that system of regular parochial
provision was instituted which we now call the
parochial system of the Church of England. It was
still, however, in a rudimentary state of development,
the system not being perfected till some time after
(Green, i. 59).

FROM THE TIME OF AUGUSTINE TO THEODORE 43

XVI. When we say that under TJieodore the Church
became tJie organized ChurcJi of the land, are we to
understand by this that the religious system of the
Church of England in those days was different from
that of the Church of Rome ?

By no means.

During Theodore's primacy the scattered members
of the Christian Church in the various principalities
of the land became welded together. A principle of
unity was infused. United action began. A period
of independence and separationism passed away. A
national Church in a very real sense had arisen. A
leader by instinct, and an organiser by training.
Archbishop Theodore performed a work of lasting
power, and gave to the English Church that pro-
verbial strength that comes from unity.

But the unity, again, was not the unity of inde-
pendence. The union that Theodore secured was
Roman union.

There was now, indeed, a united Church in the land
that afterwards will be known as England. It was the
organized and united Church of the land. There was
no other Church. There was no other order. Its ritual,
its order, its forms, its worship, its rule, its doctrine,
were the only rule and ritual known. And yet that
Church had become one only by the forfeiture of
British Church independence. Its unity had been
secured only by the relinquishment of all that was
distinctive of the once independent British Church.

It is right for English churchmen to boast of the
independence of the Church of England before the
Reformation, for its independence during centuries
was an historical fact. But at the same time another
important fact must not be overlooked. That the

44 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

independence and primitive liberty which the Church
in England did enjoy prior to Augustine's advent,
and in a limited measure during the time of Aidan
and his work, was completely and hopelessly sur-
rendered first at the Council of Whitby in 664, and
afterwards during the archiepiscopate of Theodore
from 669 to 687. (Bright, 232-272.)

The very first canon of the Council at Hertford,
that council that marks the first united action of the
English Church, was the formal establishment of a
rule that was notoriously the symbol of Roman
triumph, the acceptance of the Roman method of
keeping Easter. A trifle in itself, it was a straw on
the stream that showed the abdication of the ancient
rule of the British Church.

But the things that followed were not so trifling.

We are amazed to think that at so remote a date
even Rome's haughty spirit would dare so much.

Theodore, with the characteristic effrontery of a
Roman hierarch, began with questioning the validity
of British orders.

There was to be no evasion ; no exception. Every-
one everywhere, must yield. Even the bishops who
had been consecrated by the Scots of Britons were
not to be admitted to the functions of their office
without the imposition of the hands of a Catholic
bishop (Perry, " Eng. Ch. Hist," i. 60). That is, of
course — Rome's effrontery again — a Roman Catholic
bishop.

And Rome carried the day.

Theodore insisted on the necessity of ordination by
bishops who in an unbroken chain could trace back
their authority to the apostles themselves. The
British still maintained the validity of their consccra-

FROM THE TIME OF AUGUSTINE TO THEODORE 45

tion ; but the best men were sometimes the first to
yield. Cedda, or Chad, who had been consecrated by
a bishop who had received his orders from the elders
of lona, was met with the words : " You have not
been regularly ordained." On Chad's meekly offering
to resign, Theodore replied : " No, you shall remain a
bishop, but I will consecrate you anew, according to
the Catholic ritual " (D'Aubigne, " Hist. Reform," v.
52 ; Bright, 236-238).

It is of importance to note that Theodore's action
was afterwards upheld by a council of the English
Church.

The fifth canon of the Council of Chelsea, held in
A.D. 816, ordains that the Scoti (Scotch or Irish
priests) should not be allowed to minister, as their
orders were uncertain (Perry, " Eng. Ch. Hist," i. 92).

Another of Rome's favourite practices was now
enforced, the rebaptizing of these whose baptism was
doubtful ; a thing that was doubtless made much of
to disparage the virtue of the ancient sacramental acts
of the British clergy {ibid?).

Another of the distinctive marks of the ancient
independent Church of England was the worship of
God in the language of the people, as the Church
now teaches in Art. xxiv.

" It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of
God, and the custom of the primitive Church to have
public prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacra-
ments in a tongue not understanded of the people."
This too must be abandoned. The Latin tongue
was enjoined as the language of public worship
(" Ecc. Ang.," p. 46). Rome's use became the rule of
the Church in England.

Another thing, too, that distinguished the early

46 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

British Church from the Church of Rome, was its
ignorance of the recently developed and the danger-
ous practice of auricular confession (Kurtz, page 298),
the stronghold of the hierarchal system, and the
central citadel of sacerdotal Christianity, or Popery.

In this particular the distinctiveness of England's
ancient faith disappeared, and the English Church was
swept into the current of Roman innovation.

" Theodore introduced that potent instrument of
clerical power — the practice of auricular confession —
which was unknown in England before his time."
(Perry, i, 60.)

And last, and most ominous of all, the Holy Com-
munion,or the Lord's Supper, was no moreadministered
according to the simple order of the primitive Church
but throughout all the Church of England the sacrifice
of the mass was offered by the priest, after the Roman
fashion of the day. The simple presbyter of the
ancient British Church became the sacrificing priest of
the Church of Rome (D'Aubigne, v. 29, cf. " Ecclesia
Anglicana," p. 46). The priest of the Church of
England was not ordained, as in the Church of England
now, with authority to preach the Word of God, and
to minister the holy sacraments ; he was ordained to
offer sacrifice and to celebrate mass, as well for the
living as the dead (" Ecc. Ang.," p. 46). It is sad to
think of these things. It is humiliating to think of
the defection of the successors of Aidan, and Colman,
and Columba, and Patrick, but we repeat that it is
impossible for any one who candidly admits the con-
sequences of the conference of Whitby, and the
Council of Hertford and the primacy of Theodore, to
deny that Roman ritual, Roman customs, Roman
orders, as well as Roman doctrine, became at that

FROM THE TIME OF AUGUSTINE TO THEODORE 47

time the order of the English Church. The kingdom
had become ecclesiastically one, but the bond where-
with it is bound was the uniformity of Rome.

XVII. But did the English CJiurcJi teach transub-
stantiation, and other distinctly Ro7nan doctri)ies ?

No. That is, not in the modern sense.

Nor did the Church of Rome at that time. The
Church of Rome at that time held what would now be
termed very advanced doctrine with regard to the
presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the theory of
transubstantiation was not only received as a scholastic
dogma, but really understood so by the people.
Under Caesarius of Aries, and Gregory the Great the
doctrine of the sacrifices of masses, so vigorously
denounced by the Church of England now (Art. xxxi.),
was clearly set forth, and the Lord's Supper, and the
Holy Communion of the apostles' time became an
atoning sacrifice, often partaken of by the priest
alone, and of sacrificial efficacy for the living, and the
dead (Kurtz, i. 229). But the dogma of transub-
stantiation was not defined canonically until the year
1215.

At the same time, the thing, the reality, the essence
of the mass sacrifice was there, and was as different
from the present teaching and practice of the Church
of England as possible. The administration of the
Lord's Supper in the Church of England now is a
communion, not a sacrifice.* It is illegal to have a
celebration of the Lord's Supper without a certain
number of communicants.

* Of course there is no reference here to the obvious fact that in the
communion service of the Church of England there is the sacrifice of
our gifts to the poor, "our alms and oblations," of our "praise and
thanksgiving,"" and of ourselves, our souls and bodies, but simply to the

48 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

But the central idea of the Romish system, the
offering of Christ by the priest, was rapidly gaining
ground, and the communion was being transformed
into a ritualistic ceremony of efficacious merit for the
living and dead, to be performed by " the sacrificing
priest," and to be witnessed by the people.

fact that the Church of England now clearly rejects the Romish idea of
a propitiatory oblation in the Eucharist, according to the teaching of
Art. xxxi. , and the first part of the Homily concerning the Sacrament.
" We must then take heed, lest, of the memory, it be made a sacrifice."

CHAPTER IV.

THE RELATION OF THE EARLY ENGLISH CHURCH
TO THE CHURCH OF ROME.

The term Protestant — Two senses in which it is employed — The spirit of Protestant
independence in the British Church — The protests of Dionoth and Wigornia —
The protest of Theodore against Wilfrid — Various views of this matter — It
cannot be considered as a protest of the English Church against Rome — The
position of the Church of England towards Rome from the eighth to the six-
teenth century.

WE now pass to the discussion of a point that is
opened up by the previous paragraph. It is
one of great importance, and the reader is requested
to carefully consider the statements that are made,
and the positions advanced, as a correct under-
standing of the history of the Church of England in
its entirety depends upon their intelligent compre-
hension.

XVIII. In what se?ise, then, are we to understand the
assertions of various Church writers that the CJiurch
of England at this time, and for centuries afterzvards,
was practically speaking a Protestant Church, and
independent of the Church of Rome ?

To answer this question it will be necessary to
make a brief inquiry into the meaning of that much
misunderstood term Protestant, and clearly under-
stand the sense in which it should be used in the
Church of England.

49 E

50 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

What is a Protestant ?

Etymologically, a Protestant is simply one who
protests ; that is one who makes a formal declaration
in opposition to some person or something. The act
of protest is in the first place the declaration of formal
dissent or difference, and in the next place a remon-
strance or protest against the doctrine or person
differed from. Ecclesiastical protest, of course, is the
protest of a Church. It is the protest of an ecclesi-
astical organization against some person or some
other organization, and it involves two things.

Fh'st, A differing from a doctrine, person, or
organization, in which and with which the protesting
Church has a serious and immediate interest. Second,
And on account of that interest and relation, a
distinct and formal remonstrance against some
doctrine that is held or some claim that is made, and
the person or system that makes it or holds it.

Broadly speaking, every Church is more or less a
Protestant Church, the Roman Church not being
excluded. Strictly speaking, the Catholic Church of
Christ has from the first been truly Protestant, the
history of its Councils being the history of its
Protestantism.

But as we shall presently see, the word Protestant
has acquired a peculiarity of meaning which is quite
different from these broad uses of the term, and in
this unique and distinctly modern meaning of the
word neither the primitive Church nor the Church of
Rome could be called by the name.

The peculiar meaning which is now correctly
attached to the word Protestant has much, if not
altogether, to do with doctrines and claims of the
Church of Rome.

EARLY ENGLISH CHURCH AND CHURCH OF ROME 5 I

In the modern sense of the word — for it is really a
modern term — a Protestant Church is one that
protests against the claims of the Church of Rome ;
the claim of the Church of Rome to be Mother and
Mistress of all the Churches, and the truly Catholic
Church of Christ ; and the claim of the Pope of Rome
to dominate kingdoms and thrones. But even more
than that. A Protestant Church is one that protests
against the distinctive doctrinal system of the Church
of Rome ; and protests not so much against one or
two of its extreme doctrines, as against the whole
body of sacerdotal, and ceremonial, and traditional
religion as opposed to the Scriptural, reformed, or
evangelical system (Ridley, Works, Parker Soc, p. 57).

In its strict ecclesiastical usage, therefore, the word
has come to acquire two different meanings, the
failure to distinguish which has caused no little
confusion.

It may be used, in the one sense, to designate a
mere ecclesiastical or political protest against the
pretensions and claims of the Church or of the Pope
of Rome, a protest that necessarily has nothing to
do with any doctrines or customs of the Church
protesting.

It may be used in the other to designate an entire
dissent from Rome's system of religion, and the
affirmation of a completely opposite body of doctrine.
For Protestantism in its true meaning is not merely a
negative protest against Rome's errors ; it is the
solemn affirmation and establishment of Scriptural
truth, that is, the teaching of Christ and His apostles.
When we say, then, that a Church is or was a
Protestant Church, we must in all fairness state
exactly what we mean by Protestantism. Is it to be

52 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

taken as meaning this political or ecclesiastical and
non-doctrinal protest against the Pope's claim to
supremacy ; or is it to be taken in the sense of the
affirmation of the reformed or evangelical system of
doctrine as opposed to that complex sacerdotal cere-
monial system of doctrine which is properly designated
Popery. Or is it to be used as implying both ?

Unless we fully grasp these distinctive meanings of
the word, and see how at one time the Church in
England was merely Protestant in the first sense, and
at a later time Protestant in the second sense also,
we shall certainly fail to understand the history of
the Church of England.

To resume our question.

If it be asked if the Church in England during the
fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries in the doctrinal
sense of the word was a Protestant Church, the
answer must be given in the negative.

Not only was the word in its present sense un-
known, that is, in the evangelical and Reformation
sense — but the very idea was unconceived so far as
the difference between sacerdotalism and evangelical
Christianity is concerned. Neither in any formal
document, nor in her liturgy, had the English Church
one declaration of opposition to the Church of
Western Christendom of which she was an integral
part.

But though the Church in England in the modern
Reformation sense was not a Protestant Church, it is
not to be assumed, therefore, that there was nothing
to protest against. Every addition to the teaching of
Christ and His apostles, and every contradiction to
the simple and spiritual worship of the primitive
Church, constituted a proper ground for protest.

EARLY ENGLISH CHURCH AND CHURCH OF ROME S3

But the Church was unawake, and unawakened to
the necessity of remonstrance because ignorant of the
truth, and unconscious of difference.

Not for some centuries will the Church of England
be awakened by the Spirit of God to the perception
of the pure doctrine of Christ and His apostles, and
put forth as its teaching that great body of evangel-
ical doctrine which is fundamentally opposed to
Rome's system of religion. In the doctrinal sense
the Church of England will not be Protestant till the
sixteenth century.

If, on the other hand, it be asked if the Church in
England during these centuries offered any resistance
to the claims and pretensions of popes and papal
legates, the answer is different. Of this kind of
Protestantism there are many traces. There are, as
we shall presently show, a number of instances of
brave opposition to the Pope and his novel demands.

Strictly speaking, though, it can hardly be said
that the Church, as a whole, even in these early
centuries, was independent in this sense of Rome.
As we have said before, there was no organised or
national Church in England prior to the days of
Theodore, so that it is impossible that any such
character or designation as Protestant would be given
to the Church as a whole. It is questionable whether
the word could even partly be applied to any of the
primitive sections of the Church in the modern sense.
Many of these protests were individual, not formally
ecclesiastical, or synodal. But there was in the Church
the spirit of Protestantism and of British independ-
ence ; and from the earliest days there are instances
of resistance on the part of English Churchmen to
the arrogance of Rome.

54 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

The struggles of Augustine's ecclesiastical pre-
decessors are the first proofs of this sort of Protestant-
ism in the British Church.

These simple Churchmen of Bangor knew nothing
of the papal supremacy ; and the answer of Dionoth
to the first claim of the papacy ever heard in England
was the first instance of that intolerance of Rome
which long afterwards culminated in the Reforma-
tion. When the Roman churchman said curtly to
them : " Acknowledge the authority of the Bishop of
Rome," he received, instead of a pliant submission,
the memorable answer : " The Pope has no right to
call himself the father of fathers, and we are only
prepared to give him that obedience to which every
Christian is entitled."

The British Church trumpet gave no uncertain
sound.

The protest of Wigornia in 60 1, when the ancient
British Church resisted through its leaders the next
piece of Roman extravagance, was just as firm. With
the courage of conviction, they denied the right of
Rome to ask their allegiance. They denied that the
Church of Rome had any right to question their
orders. They refused to submit alike to the arro-
gance of the Romans, or the tyranny of the Saxons.
According to Bede's story, they resisted a third time,
when the Roman legate sat proudly in his seat as the
British Bishops advanced into the Council hall. An
old hermit had told them that if Augustine comported
himself with humility they were to submit to him, but
if he did not rise to receive them they ought to
beware. Augustine did not rise, but remained sitting.
This piece of pride was enough. They knew that
it was not the sign of the Meek and Lowly One,

EARLY ENGLISH CHURCH AND CHURCH OF ROME 55

nor was the yoke that this new-comer sought to
impose the yoke of Christ. Firmly and iinally, they
refused to yield, in spite of the threats of the haughty
Roman. (The story is told in Bede's " Ecc. Hist.,"
lib. ii. cap. ii.).

But these acts of protest had little or nothing to
do with doctrine. Nor can they in any sense be
brought forward as proofs of the early doctrinal
purity of the British branch of the Catholic Church,
and of its freedom from Romish superstitions, for, as
we have seen, the trivial points of difference prove
their practical identity in the great body of Church
teaching and practice. They are simply proofs of the
primitive liberty of the British Church in its inde-
pendence of Roman jurisdiction, and also of the sturdy
spirit of national Protestantism that, even at that
early date, was to be found in the Churchmen of the
British Isles. But that is all.

XIX. But is there not an mstance of resistance to
Rome on the part of the ChurcJi of England during
TJieodores days, and is it not a proof tJiat the Chtcrch
of England as a whole was in a certain sense a Pro-
testant Church at that time ?

The affair of Wilfrid is commonly noted as a proof
of the independence of the Church in England during
Theodore's days. Wilfrid, as Bishop of York, was
brought into conflict with Theodore on the questions
of the autocratic division of his diocese and the king's
new wife, and the archbishop and the king united
to depose and banish him. Wilfrid carried his
appeal to the Pope, and arrived in Rome in 679.
Pope Agatho and his council decided, it appears, in
his favour. " But Theodore and Egfrith disregarded
the anathema against all, whoever they might be, who

56 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

should attempt to infringe the decree ; and the Pope
made no attempt to enforce it. Here is the first open
resistance of the English Church to the authority of
Rome."

It is hardly safe, however, to assert that Theodore's
treatment of Wilfrid and the decree of the Pope in his
behalf in 680, can be taken as a proof of the position
of the English Church at the time.

There can be no doubt that Wilfrid of York was
a very troublesome sort of a man ; an ecclesiastic
always in hot water. He was certainly a proud and
haughty prelate, a typical Roman autocrat, the last
man in the world to brook dictation. There can be
no doubt also that Theodore was jealous of him, and
was not a little afraid of the growing power of the
Northern See. So when, as was natural on being
deprived of his See, Wilfrid carried his grievance to
Rome, and came back in proud possession of the
Pope's decree, it was only natural that Theodore, on
his part, should ignore it. Rome-appointed though
he was, he desired to be Caesar in his own dominion ;
so he summoned his council, and condemned Wilfrid
to imprisonment in spite of Pope Agatho and his
rule.

The reader will thus perceive that it is scarcely
exact to call this an open resistance on the part of
the English Church to the authority of Rome, as
Smith does in his account of the matter (" Students'
Ecc. Hist," p. 514).

It was a resistance of Rome ; a very strong and
out-spoken resistance. It indicated a decided spirit
of independence of the Italian. And yet when we
speak of the open resistance of the English Church to
the authority of Rome, we are in danger of asserting

EARLY ENGLISH CHURCH AND CHURCH OF ROME 57

something much more momentous than this action
really indicated.

Again this matter of Wilfrid was largely a personal
matter. It was mixed up, too, with political matters,
and Egfrith the king, who had a quarrel on hand
with Wilfrid too, was involved in it. It was the
policy of the English kings, at that time, to fight with
all their might against Rome's policy of creating
another Metropolitan See in the North, as a kind of
offset against the primacy of Canterbury in the South.
The pontiff dreaded the concentration of ecclesi-
astical power in one primate. But the creation of
another arch-episcopate would counterbalance his
power, and keep them both in proper submission.
It was Rome's old policy, divide and conquer.

On the other hand, from the king's standpoint, it
was of the utmost importance that nothing should be
allowed to endanger the political unity of the hep-
tarchy. And this the growing power of the See of
York seemed to do (Kurtz, i. 328). When we read,
therefore, between the lines, and see how much Egfrith
the king had to do with this resistance to Wilfrid, we
must regard the matter in a personal, rather than in
a national-ecclesiastical light.

Canon Perry takes a different view of the matter
altogether. So far from describing the Wilfrid affair
as a grand demonstration of the Protestantism of the
English Church, he points out that it was a mere
question of Episcopal jurisdiction, and the principles
that were to govern the divisions of dioceses, and
quotes a note to the effect that one Church authority
holds that the papal decree, so far from being in
favour of Wilfrid, was actually in favour of Theodore
("Students' Eng. Ch. Hist," i. 64).

58 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

Taking, then, the whole matter into consideration,
we can only come to the conclusion that while the
action of Theodore and Egfrith indicated, in all pro-
bability, a strong national sentiment, it can hardly be
accepted as a proof of the fact that, in the latter part
of the seventh century, the Church in England, as a
Church, was in a state of healthy ecclesiastical inde-
pendence, and conscientiously defiant of the authority
of the Pope of Rome.

XX, How then are ive to describe tJie position of the
CJiurcJi of Efigland as regards the CJiurch of Rome
from this time, or from the beginning of the eighth
century onwards to the sixteenth ?

The answers to this question in the minds of many
English Churchmen have been various.

In the opinion of many the Church of England
during this time was absolutely and slavishly Roman.
In the opinion of others the Church was thoroughly
independent, a national Church whose uses and
teaching and ecclesiastical life were essentially dis-
tinguishable from those of Rome. The first opinion
gives no room for the idea of any independence on
the part of England's Church. The second none for
any identity with the Church of Rome.

Now the truth lies between these two opinions ; or
rather in a combination of them. Each of them has
a part of the truth, but, in each of them, the suppres-
sion of the other part of the truth has been the
creation of that which is false. The whole truth
consists in a reasonable union of both.

The Church of England was, during these cen-
turies, essentially and at times slavishly Roman.

But it was mainly so, and for centuries only so, in
the doctrinal sense. And it was only so in the doc-

EARLY ENGLISH CHURCH AND CHURCH OF ROME 59

trinal sense, practically and substantially. In the
great body of sacerdotal or Romish doctrine, in the
great system of sacerdotal or Romish worship, the
Church of England was one throughout this period
with the Church of Rome. Rome's priests were her
priests ; Rome's altars her altars ; Rome's teaching
her teaching ; and its bishops and archbishops were
largely appointees of Rome. In trivial details, such
as the colour of a stole, the shape of a cross, or petty
items of the ritual of the mass, there were doubtless
divergencies. But what we now call the Romish
religion, or popery, or the religion of Rome, was
throughout this period the religion of England's
Church, and as we show later on, towards the latter
part of this era, many who tried to teach then what is
now the doctrine of the Church of England were
burnt by the Church as heretics.

The Church of England was, during a part at
least of these centuries, an independent and national
Church. But it was only so in the political or
national ecclesiastical sense ; it was never really so
in the spiritual or in the doctrinal. Whatever inde-
pendence and nationality there was always a matter
of rule and governance, of appeals and appointments,
of statutes and ordinances. There were times, indeed,
as we shall see, when it became a mere appendage of
Rome. At certain periods the domination of Rome
was slavishly acknowledged. Yet for all that there
was throughout these centuries a strong sense of
independence in the English Church, and ever and
anon, a healthy show of defiance.

But there is no trace of any difference from Romish
doctrine on the part of the Church of England. The
men who dared to be independent in this respect

6o THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

were promptly burnt, or sternly condemned as
heretics. The propagation of such Church teaching
as that contained in Articles vi., xxii., xxviii., and
xxxi., would have been considered during some of
the pre-Reformation centuries false doctrine, heresy,
and schism.

The independence was merely ecclesiastico-national.

The history of the Church of England, during these
eight centuries, is the history of a Romanized national
Church, out of which from time to time came protests
against the encroachments of Rome and the imposi-
tion of the papal supremacy, and in which were uttered
and promulgated the germs and beginning of those
Scriptural and spiritual and evangelical doctrines which
were, at the time of the Reformation, so signally to
distinguish her from the Church of Rome. But these
protests were either individual, and therefore unrepre-
sentative of the Church ; or they were politico-
ecclesiastical, and had consequently nothing to do
with doctrine.

On the other hand these spiritual and evangelical
doctrines were the opinions of isolated individuals,
who in no wise represented the sentiment of the
Church people of the realm, or they were the views
of individual ecclesiastics, such as Grosseteste or
Wycliffe, that could by no means be taken as the
teaching of the Church.

It is this intensely interesting period which is now
to be reviewed, and we propose to show how little by
little that sturdy spirit of insular patriotism which,
from the earliest era animated the minds of English
churchmen, asserted itself with growing force, until
the protests of individuals and councils and Parlia-
ments and kinsfs became at last the deliberate and

EARLY ENGLISH CHURCH AND CHURCH OF ROME 6 1

final protests of the Church of the nation, and the
still Romanized Church of England in doctrine
rejected the incubus of the papal supremacy and
became ecclesiastically free ; and also how, in the
wonderful providence of God the leaven was set to
work and the forces were put in operation, by which
those simple and Scriptural and apostolic truths,
which at first were promulgated by Wyclifife and
afterwards by Ridley and Latimer and Cranmer, were
to become the authorised and formulated teaching of
the emancipated national Church.

CHAPTER V.

THE ENGLISH CHURCH A ROMANIZED
NATIONAL CHURCH.

Reasons why Rome's influence was so strong in the English Church — The Papal
policy with regard to Christian countries — The Roman pallium conferred on
English Church archbishops — The pallium was a sign of Roman allegiance —
Peter's pence also — The Church of England doctrinally Romanized before the
eleventh century — The Councils of Clovesho and Chelsea show this — The
English Church monastic system as a Romanizing force — Odo and Dunstan—
The Canons of Aelfric — The Romanizing influence of Edward the Confessor.

FROM the eighth century onwards the influence
of Rome over the Church in England continued
to be great.

XXI. What reasons can be assigned for the singular
growth of Rome s influence in England from this period ?

The causes are not far to seek.

The first and most natural was, as we have seen,
the strong ultramontanism of Augustine, Wilfrid, and
Theodore. Another was the conferring of the Roman
pallium upon the Anglican primate, of which we shall
have more to say presently. Although Augustine's
mission had been a comparative failure, it had estab-
lished a precedent which Rome was the last in the
world to lose sight of Not only was the appointment
of Wilfrid and Theodore by the Pope of Rome
another link in a chain already strong, but their
episcopate from first to last was a steady establish-
ment of Roman pre-eminence. The adoption of
62

A ROMANIZED NATIONAL CHURCH 63

Roman customs, the continual intercourse with Rome
by pilgrimages (Green's " Conquest of England," page
17), the incessant arrivals of Rome-trained ecclesi-
astics, and Roman legates (Green's " Making of
England," page 422), all combined to raise the
prestige of the great centre of Western Christendom,
and simplify the way for the assertion of her growing
claims. In fact it may be asserted that few of the
independent or national Churches of that age offered
such submissive homage to the papacy as the Church
of England. Nor was this inconsistent with her
independence. For at that time the monstrous claim
of Rome to a pseudo-divine pre-eminence over crowns,
and thrones, and subjects, and souls, was as yet little
more than a dream. Hildebrand was not for two
centuries yet. The forged decretals not till about
845. Inflated as the pomp of Roman popes was —
and it swelled terribly after the discovery of the so-
called Donation of Constantine in Tj6 — it had not
yet reached the length of universal dictation. In
fact it was the policy of the Roman popes to foster
the idea of independence and nationality on the part
of the countries in which Christianity was established.
But it was to be national rather than ecclesiastical
independence (Kurtz, p. 327). Spiritually, they were
to be subject to the centre of Catholic unity, the
spiritual head of Christendom, the Pope. Doctrinally,
they were, of course, to be identical with Rome, diverg-
ence on this point as a matter of fact being considered
heresy by the Church of England till almost the
middle of the sixteenth century. But so far as
national rights were concerned, the See of St. Peter
desired every Christian country, like England, to
preserve its political independence.

64 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

When we say then that the Church of England at
this time was submissive to Rome, we speak only of
that submission which a comparatively inferior body
gives to a superior body with which it is spiritually in
union. The Church of England was not abjectly
subject in the Hildebrandine sense, nor was it
guilty of the vassalage of the days of Henry III.
Such subjection as that was impossible. That time
had not yet come.

But it was in union with Rome spiritually. It was
identical with Rome doctrinally. And it was beyond
controversy in a way subject to Rome ecclesiastically.

XXII. Is there anythmg that can be adduced as a
really conclusive proof of this ?

There is. The conferring of the Roman pallium is
a very strong evidence in point. It shows that the
head of the Church of Rome was in such a manner
related to the Church of England that his authoriza-
tion was obtained for the appointment and institution
of its archbishops, the Metropolitan heads of the
Church of the realm.

When Egbert became Archbishop of York, in the
year 734-735, he received the pallium, or embroidered
white woollen collar which was the symbol of the
Pope's authority, from Pope Gregory of Rome. When
in the following year, Nothelm was consecrated Arch-
bishop of Canterbury he received the pallium also, as
an acknowledgment of the supremacy of the Roman
See.

When Pope Adrian despatched legates to England
in the year 787 to set up a new archiepiscopate to
please Offa, King of Mercia, Higbert, the new Metro-
politan Archbishop of Lichfield, accepted the pall
from the Pope of Rome, professing thereby his

A ROMANIZED NATIONAL CHURCH 65

allegiance. When Kenulf, the new King of Mercia,
saw that the new archbishopric of Lichfield was over-
shadowing that of Canterbury, and desired to restore
things to their former state, it is the most natural thing
in the world for him to write to the Pope on the
matter. To whom shall he go if not to the Bishop of
Rome? And it is the most natural thing in the
world for the Pope to reply with regard to the matter,
as the spiritual head of the Church whose authority
and jurisdiction were never for a moment in question.

When not long after, Ethelheard, the Archbishop
of Canterbury, went to Rome to confer with the Pope,
the letter that followed from Rome was just as
significant. The Pope, in virtue of his spiritual claim,
not only gave him, but gave all his successors, author-
ity over all the Churches of the English, and writes
to King Kenulf to that effect. And the English
Council of Clovesho solemnly ratified, and carried out
his determination.

When in the year 805 Archbishop Ethelheard died,
the clergy in Synod addressed a letter of remon-
strance to Pope Leo on the custom of English
Metropolitans being obliged to go to Rome in person
to get their palls from the Pope (Perry, i. 90). They
urged the precedents of Paulinus and others to whom
the palls had been sent. But there is not a word
about rejecting the pall. The idea of repudiating the
notion of subjection to Rome (for that is what the
pall implied), never seems to have occurred to them.
Nor did it to the Pope. Their request seemed a
reasonable one, so instead of the new Archbishop of
Canterbury coming to Rome for his pall, the Pope
sent it on to him.

But even after this the custom of going to Rome

F

66 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

was not unknown. The successor of Archbishop Odo,
Elfsy of Winchester, who had been appointed Arch-
bishop of Canterbury was on his way to obtain the
pall from the Pope, when he died. When Siric,
Archbishop of Canterbury, died in the year 995 and
Aelfric was chosen his successor, and Aelfric desired
to make some innovations in his See, the king, though
he approved of the proposed alterations, thought that
the Pope's sanction should be obtained before any
changes were made, and the clerks who were going
to suffer by the change sent two of their number to
bribe the Pope into giving them the pall to bring to
the English Archbishop. And then when the Arch-
bishop elect came himself to Rome, the Pope invited
him to celebrate mass at St. Peter's Altar, and the
Pope himself put on him the pall {ibid., 129, 130).
His successor, Elphege, took the journey to Rome
also for the pall in 1006.

And so on, and so on. Instance after instance
could be quoted showing this acceptance of the
pallium on the part of Archbishops of the Church of
England from the Pope of the Church of Rome
(Stubbs, iii. 297).

XXIII. But did this conferring of the palliiun by
the Pope really mean the recognition of the Papal
supremacy ?

Certainly it did.

How much submission it involved depends in great
measure upon what is meant by the papal supremacy.
The papal supremacy in the eighth century was one
thing ; in the eleventh century, another. The accept-
ance of the pallium at one time may simply have
meant the recognition of the Pope as the honorary
primate of the Churches of Western Christendom.

A ROMANIZED NATIONAL CHURCH 6^

As early as the fifth century the Bishop of Rome
claimed a kind of conventional authority over all
the Metropolitans ; a claim that advanced during the
pontificate of Gregory the Great, during whose time
the bestowal of the pallium became very common.
But in Gregory's day it was in many cases a merely
voluntary recognition of the Pope's supremacy, though
the Pope in conferring it may have had higher ideas.

After the seventh century, however, the acceptance
of the pallium involved a profession of allegiance to
the Pope of Rome (Smith's "Diet. Antiq.," ii. 1674).
The claims and pretensions of the Papacy advanced
about this time, and for some time afterwards with
fatal rapidity, and as a standard authority on the
subject says : " The pallium is now no longer an
exceptional honour granted to this or that archbishop,
but a badge, the acceptance of which implied the
acknowledgment by the wearer of the supremacy of
the Apostolic See" {ibid., 1548). And in the year
866 Pope Nicholas I. ordered that no archbishop
could be enthroned, or even consecrate the eucharist,
till he had received the pallium from the Roman See.

Taking the two facts into conjunction ; the Pope's
claims on the one hand that the pallium represented
his spiritual supremacy, and the regular acceptance
of the pallium on the part of the heads of the English
from the Roman Pope ; there can be no doubt that
from the eighth century onward the Church of Eng-
land was in this respect, at least, submissive to the
Papacy, and as far as the pallium represented the
supremacy of the Pope, the Church of England
recognised it.

The election of archbishops by the kings and the
witan in no way militates against this argument.

68 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

The Church of England was a national Church. As
a national Church it was politically independent.
And as wc have said before it was the policy of the
Popes of Rome at this time to foster this national
idea, as it was in perfect keeping with the recognition
of their universal spiritual supremacy. The arch-
bishops were selected by the king ; that was a
national matter. But they were instituted, so to
speak, by the Pope ; that was a spiritual matter.
It was the recognition of the supremacy of the head
of the Catholic Church, and the acknowledgment on
their part as the representatives of the national Church
of allegiance. It was to Rome that the missionaries
of England looked, as the religious centre of Christen-
dom. If they drew their temporal power from the
Frankish sword, they sought spiritual authority from
the hands of the Roman bishop (Green, " The Making
of England," p. 416). Of course, as the centuries
passed on, and the Papal supremacy involved more
and more subjection on the part of the Churches
that admitted it, the Church of England becomes
more identified with the Papacy, and more absolutely
subject to it.

The payment of Peter's Pence might also be men-
tioned here. This was at first a kind of national
contribution for the support of the inn for English
pilgrims at Rome, called the Schola Saxonica. After-
wards, it became a regular tribute paid by the English
nation to the Papal See, and dates from the time of
Offa, King of Mercia {ibid., 423).

During the troublous days of the Danish incursions
it naturally fell off, but King Cnut or Canute, restored
it again. The council of Eynsham too, in 1007, had
enacted its payment (Perry, i. 131), The compara-

A ROMANIZED NATIONAL CHURCH 69

lively rare instances of any opposition to this prin-
ciple, are the strongest proofs of its universal admission.
And the opposition really came only after the yoke of
the Pope became so heavy ; a yoke that even the long-
suffering Catholic churchmen of England were unable
to bear. Of which we shall hear presently.

XXIV. But this refers only to the ecclesiastical
position of the Church of England. What grounds
are tJiere for asserting that she was identified with
the Church of Rojne in doctrine^ or to speak of her
as a Romanized national Church ?

There are many things.

It is the custom of some Church writers to speak of
the Church of England being Romanized only after
the eleventh century, say after the time of Edward
the Confessor. Professor Freeman may be taken
as an instance, who speaks of the Romanizing influ-
ence of Herman, a German of Lotharingia, and
others ("The Norman Conquest," vol. ii. p. 81).
But what they mean is that at about that time the
influence of Rome became so great, and intercourse
with the Papal See so frequent {ibid., 6y), and the
appointment of German and French and Italian
ecclesiastics so common, that the English Church
became accustomed to points of Roman ritual, and
matters of Roman usage and canonical observance
hitherto unintroduced into England. It merely re-
ferred to the trivial matter of ritual, of form, of
canonical regulations.

When we say that the Church of England during
these centuries was a Romanized Church, we mean
that it was Romish in its teaching, holding in its
entirety the body of Romish sacerdotal Christianity
or Popery, as far as it was then developed. What

70 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

this was may be gathered from the fact that at the
Council of Clovesho in the year 747, it was ordered
among other matters : —

That the great festivals and holidays should be
always celebrated on the same days on which the
Roman Church celebrates them, and with the same
hymns and psalms that the Roman Church uses in
the office of baptism, and the celebration of the Mass.

That the seven canonical hours should be observed
with such psalms and prayers as the Roman Church
uses.

That the solemn litanies should be said by clergy
and people at certain times, with fasting and the
celebration of the Mass at the ninth hour, to implore
pardon for the sins of the people.

That the natal day of Gregory, and the day of
burial of St. Augustine, should be observed as holy
days (Perry, i. 78 ; Martineau, pp. 218, 219).

Or the Council of Chelsea may be quoted.

This council was held in the year 787, and the
canons or constitutions which were there adopted as
the rules and views of the English Church were
brought from Rome by the legates of the Pope of
Rome, Pope Adrian, who were present in this council.
At the dictation of the Pope of Rome, the Church of
England, through its kings and bishops, and abbots
and nobles, accepted as its own the canonical regu-
lations of these Roman legates, in which it was ordered
among other matters : —

That bishops, canons, and monks, use proper
apparel as those of Rome and Italy. That is, the
Roman garments and vestments.

That the privileges conferred by the Roman See
in certain churches were to be observed.

A ROMANIZED NATIONAL CHURCH J I

That fasts were to be properly observed.

That proper bread was to be offered at the
Eucharist.

Or the Council of Chelsea in 8i6 may be quoted,
where among other things it was ordered: —

That the churches, when built, should be consecrated
by the bishop with the sprinkling of holy water, and
all ceremonies prescribed in the Book of Ministrations.
(The Book of Ministrations, by the way, was Arch-
bishop Egbert's pontifical, the Roman name for the
book containing the offices of the Church, &c., and
its contents show clearly the position of the Church
in England then. The order of the Mass is found in
it ; the form of ordaining priests, deacons, and sub-
deacons, according to the manner of the Church of
Rome : forms of masses at the dedication of fonts,
churches, cemeteries, &c. ; the Roman rites for Maundy
Thursday ; the blessing of the Paschal lamb, and of
incense, and various other forms of blessing, and
consecration of arms, and bread, and books, and
wine ; forms of prayer to be recited when the Holy
Cross is adored, and palms are to be blessed, &c.,
&c.) (Smith's "Diet. Christ. Antiq.," ii. 1649).

That the Eucharist, with the relics, should be
enclosed in a case, and preserved in the church.

That Scotch or Irish priests should not be allowed
to minister, as their orders were uncertain.

That on the death of a bishop, thirty psalms should
be sung for the soul of deceased, and that each abbot
should cause 600 psalters and 120 masses to be said
for his soul (Perry, p. 92),

Surely nothing could more convincingly illustrate
the Romanization of the English Church than these
things. The mass, the mass priest, prayers for the

72 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

dead, holy water and incense, Roman ritual (Martin-
eau, p. 244), Roman orders, Roman ceremonials, what
are all these things but the signs and symbols of the
thing which we speak of, the Romish religion.

The monasticism of the English Church only in-
tensified its Romishness. Under Archbishops Odo
and Dunstan the monastic system gained vastly, and
the monks were notoriously Romish. Some of the
canons adopted in Dunstan's day may be quoted in
proof : —

That mass is only to be celebrated in a church,
except in cases of extreme sickness.

That there must always be a hallowed altar for
mass, that the priest must always have a corporas
or napkin, and wear all the fitting mass vestments.

That the Eucharist must be taken fasting.

That there must be holy water, salt, frankincense,
and bread.

That oil is to be had in readiness for baptism, and
anointing (Perry, p. 118).

Or the canons, or charge, of Aelfric (A.D. 994, or as
some think, A.D. 957), which Canon Perry describes
as the most distinctive and striking teaching that had
appeared in the English Church since the days of
Bede and Alcuin, may be referred to. According to
it, it appears : —

That there were seven orders in the English Church
as in the Church of Rome — viz., ostiary, lector, exor-
cist, acolyte, sub-deacon, deacon, priest, or presbyter.

That the seven canonical hours, with tide songs,
were to be observed — viz., the uht song (matins), the
prime-song, the undern song (tierce), the mid-day
song, the noon-song (none), the even song, and the
night-song, compline.

A ROMANIZED NATIONAL CHURCH 73

That the mass priest shall have his holy books.

That the mass priest shall have his mass vest-
ment.

That the priests were to procure oil for baptism
and for extreme unction.

That the holy cross, or crucifix (the rood), was to be
adored and kissed on Good Friday.

That the holy sacrament is to be reserved for the
sick.

That the mass contra paganos is to be sung every
Wednesday {ibid., 125-129).

The great Church Council at Eynsham, in 1007,
shows a similar state of things ; and the Council at
Habam, in 1014, which ordered a daily mass to be
sung for the king, and convents to celebrate thirty
masses for the king and people on account of the
Danish troubles.

In short, he who runs may read. The religion of
the Church of England was the Romish religion.

True. The doctrine of transubstantiation was as
yet unformulated. The selling of indulgences only
began at the end of the eleventh century. The worship
of the Virgin Mary in the modern Roman way was
scarcely known before the thirteenth. The dogmas of
Papal Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception
are not to be adopted for centuries. But as far as the
substance and body of the Roman system of doctrine
and worship was concerned, these facts undeniably
prove that the Church of England professed it.

In some things the Church of England was
unquestionably superior. It encouraged the use of
the vernacular, and under certain of its primates and
kings adopted a simple and Scriptural way. This
was notably the case in the reign of King Alfred,

74 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

whose zeal for religion and education and the spread
of God's Word was so great (Martineau, " Church
Hist, of Eng.," pp. 211, 212). It was perhaps less
formal in its ceremonial, and less pretentious in its
pomp, poorer in its relics, and less idolatrous in
devotion. But these were matters of detail ; they
concern the accidents, not the principles and the
essentials of religion.

So far as principles were concerned, there was but
one religion in the West, in England, Germany, and
Rome, and that was the religion of the Roman See.

During the reign of Edward the Confessor, 1042-
1066, the ascendency of the Roman See became more
marked. Foreign prelates swarmed in, and intercourse
with Rome was constant. Not only archbishops, but
bishops also adopted the practice of going to Rome
either for actual consecration or for confirmation of
their consecration at the hands of the Pope. The
Pope's interfering power, too, is exercised in a way
never attempted before. He not only bestows the
pall on the English archbishops, but exercises so
powerful an influence as to deny the consecration of
an English bishop, Spearhafoc, the Bishop Designate
of London. The fact is the papal supremacy is
growing (Green, " The Conquest of England," 507),
and England is to know its development by sad
experience.

Appeals to Rome become more common. Papal
legates appear more frequently. Peter's pence, the
Rome fee, is to be paid regularly. Ecclesiastics are
to have certain immunities ; ecclesiastical affairs a
certain precedence. The cultus of St. Peter is to be
more worthily observed. " The special object of
Edward's reverence was the Apostle Peter, and his

A ROMANIZED NATIONAL CHURCH 75

reverence for that saint did no good to the kingdom
of England. His devotion to the apostle led to a
devotion to his supposed successor, and to that fre-
quency of intercourse with the Roman See " (Free-
man, " The Norman Conquest," ii. 498).

The Church is becoming more and more involved
in complete subjection to the Church of Rome
(Perry, 154).

In fact, the history of the next two centuries is a
history of the increasing vassalage of the English
Church to the Roman See.

CHAPTER VI.

THE ENGLISH CHURCH AFTER THE NORMAN
CONQUEST.

The Norman Conquest an important epoch in English Church history — William the
Norman a masterf;il man — The effect of his conquest two-fold— Political inde-
pendence of Rome, doctrinal identification with Rome— William's policy of intro-
ducing foreign prelates — The Roman influence of Lanfranc — The enforcement
of clerical celibacy — The dogma of transubstantiation — The pontificate of
Hildebrand — Its effects upon the Conqueror and England — Archbishop Anselm,
a noble man, but strongly Papal — The system of appeals to Rome — Introduction
of practice of sending a Papal legate to England — The Pope's control of the
English Church.

THE year 1066, the year of the Norman Conquest,
marks an era of no small importance in the
history of the English Church.

With the historical features of the Conquest itself
we are not here concerned. It was the daring act of
a bold, strong man, and as Freeman terms it, the
turning point of all English history. Displaying as
ardent a desire to identify himself with England as
Canute himself, the Conqueror accepted as the offer
of the people the crown which he had won by the
sword ; and as if the very touch of British soil had
awakened in him the genius of liberty, he not only
ruled the land with a kind of rude justice, but in the
spirit of true English independence defied even the
Pope, to whose support in great measure he owed the
conquest.
1(>

AFTER THE NORMAN CONQUEST "JJ

William was nothing if not masterful. He was
Cresar in his own kingdom, and the people soon found
he would yield to neither Saxon, nor Dane, nor Scot,
nor Italian.

XXV. WJiat then was the effect of William the
Noruiati's reign iipoji the CJuirch of England? Was it
to render it more subject to the Papacy, or the reverse ?
Did it impair its essentially national character, or did
it emphasise its autonomy and distinctiveness ?

It may seem almost paradoxical to say it, but the
truth is, the effect of the Norman's sway over Eng-
land was two-fold. In one way it more completely
Romanized the Church of England, and brought it
under the yoke of the Pope of Rome. In another
way it operated in the very opposite direction. It
awakened the spirit of opposition to the Papal claims,
and gave to England the spirit of national Protestant-
ism. The explanation of this apparent paradox is
simple.

The identification of the English Church with
Rome was a doctrinal, ecclesiastical, ceremonial
m.atter; the Protestantism of William was political,
personal.

The Protestantism had nothing to do with doctrine.
The Romanization was not inconsistent with national
ecclesiastical independence. There is, in fact, a strong
likeness in many ways between William the Norman
and Henry VIII. Both were strong-willed, and
defiantly English. Both were intolerant of Papal
impertinence, and firm in their assertion of national
rights. And yet in matters doctrinal and spiritual
both were vigorous Romanists, and firm advocates of
the Romish system of worship. Of both it may be
said, in matters religious they were Romanists ; in

78 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

matters political, that is ecclesiastico-national, they
were Protestants.

XXVI. We have said that one of the first effects of
the Conquest was the more complete Romanization of
the Church. In zuhat ivay and by zvhat means tvas this
brought about ?

In this way.

Before he attempted the conquest of England,
William assumed the role of an obedient son of the
Church, and appealed to the Pope for his aid in the
matter of the vacant crown of England.

Thus far he acknowledged the jurisdiction of the
Roman See, and in return the Pope authorised
William to take possession of the realm of England,
and blessed for him a cross-embroidered banner. It
was as a Pope's man, and with the Pope's benediction,
that he gained the English crown. Indeed, one Papal
writer (Bernold, quoted by Freeman, ii. i66) describes
William as the king who brought the whole of the
realm of England into subjection to the Roman
pontiff. " Qui totam Anglorum terram Romano
pontifici tributariam fecit."

Installed in the kingdom, the Conqueror proceeded
to throw the Church of England more directly into
the arms of the Pope (Perry, i. 157), almost com-
pletely effacing any English distinctiveness, and sweep-
ing it into the great submerging tide of Roman
Christianity. Its national features were gradually
obliterated. Doctrinal distinction there was none to
speak of, even before. But, barring the reception of
the pall and the payment of Peter's pence, there was
a tolerably strong sentiment of Anglican independence.
Now this disappears in great measure through the
subtle policy of the Conqueror. His idea was a sub-

AFTER THE NORMAN CONQUEST 79

missive episcopate, as well as a submissive nobility.
He speedily determined to send all the native
bishops about their business. A tentative measure
was adopted first, to soften the heavier blow to follow.
All English abbots and bishops were excluded
from preferment, and for some time " the appointment
of an Englishman to a bishopric is unknown."

In 1070 the real work began.

After being crowned by two legates, sent from
Rome for the purpose of securing England for the
Papacy, William proceeded to humiliate the Church
by deposing the national bishops, and substituting
foreigners, Normans and Italians.

Stigand, the primate, was the first to be removed, and
Lanfranc, of Pavia and Bee, was put in his place, and
in due time went to the Pope to receive the pallium.
Others soon had to follow. In the year 1070, the
Pope's legate, with characteristic effrontery, undertook
the business himself in a synod of his own, at which
he deposed and appointed in the most despotic style.
As the legate of the Pope, he also consecrated one of
his newly appointed bishops, Walkelin, bishop of
Winchester, a former chaplain of the king (Freeman,
iv. 344). In short, William's motto seems to have
been : No Englishman need apply. What with
depositions, and deprivations, and retirements, in
less than five years from the Conquest, only
one Anglo-Saxon bishop was to be found in
England.

One result only could follow from this.

The Church of England became one with the
Church of the Continent. And the Church of the
Continent was, of course, one with the Church of
Rome. The most recent developments of Roman

80 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

usages, Roman ritual, Roman orders, prevail through-
out the Church of England.

It will be necessary here to specify more particu-
larly the way in which this happened.

It was during this era, and directly owing to this
policy of William, that the Church of England was
brought within the range of two of the most deadly
features of Romish Christianity, the doctrine of
transubstantiation in the mass, and the doctrine of
celibacy in the priesthood. Both of these are signs
of the advancing corruption of the faith, and are of
the essence of Romish sacerdotalism. It was chiefly
owing to Lanfranc, the Romish Archbishop of
Canterbury, that they were introduced into England.
We say the Romish archbishop, because Lanfranc
was by every instinct a Papist, and in every doctrinal
conviction a Roman.

Lanfranc was one of the ablest men of his day.
The equal, if not the superior, of Pope Gregory
himself, he grasped the sceptre of ecclesiastical power
with a hand as strong as that of the Conqueror. He
was a scholar of continental reputation. As an
abbot he had learned to rule. As a theologian he
was skilled in the controversies of the day. Resolute,
vigorous, imperious, the impress of his administration
in matters doctrinal and ecclesiastical in England,
was profound. He was called the Pope of England.
And it was well said ; for so he was (Freeman's
" Norman Conquest," iv. 347-349).

When, therefore, the Papacy was reaching its
climax in the claims of the Roman Pontiff to universal
supremacy, and the doctrine of Rome was gradually
being stereotyped in that corrupt and unscriptural
form towards which it had been progressing for cen-

AFTER THE NORMAN CONQUEST 8 1

turies, Lanfranc, the Hildebrand of the British Isles,
and the champion of Popery, was the arbiter of the
destinies of the Church in England.

The first serious element of Papal ecclesiasticism
that tended to bind the Church of England in the
unity of Rome was the matter of the celibacy of the
priesthood. Hildebrand enforced this in 1074 in
Rome. It was simply a necessity of the Papal
system. It enormously augmented the power of
the priest. It enormously augmented the power of
the Pope. It had to be done, and it was done.
From the Papal standpoint, it was the strongest move
ever made by a Pope.

But to enforce it in England was no easy matter.

The clergy for centuries had been permitted to
marry, though the practice of celibacy had been on
the increase since the days of Odo and Dunstan, and
great resistance might be expected. Already there
had been resistance in Germany and France {see
Robertson, " Hist. Christ. Ch.," iv. 302).

Lanfranc, however, was equal to the occasion. If
Rome had spoken, England must obey ; and if he could
not get all that he wanted, he would get what he could.

At the Council of Winchester, in 1076, he took
the first steps in the matter. He was shrewd enough
to see that the summary prohibition of the clergy
to marry, would simply mean contempt of the law,
and defeat the very object he had in view. So he
adopted a compromise that would bring in the
principle, and yet not defeat its operation.

A canon was introduced, which drew a distinction
between the ordinary clergy and such Church digni-
taries as canons and others. It absolutely and uncon-
ditionally forbade the latter to marry.

G

82 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

This was the first stern decree : Let no canon
have a wife (Freeman, " The Norman Conquest," iv.
424). And it peremptorily compelled those who had
them to leave them, and live henceforth as single
men. With regard to the ordinary married priests,
policy induced for the moment a milder decree. They
were to be allowed to retain their wives. " Sacerdotes
habentes uxores non cogantur ut dimittant."

But this was a mere bagatelle. It really amounted
to nothing, as far as the principle was concerned, for
in the future the clergy themselves were not to marry,
and bishops were to take care not to ordain any
unless they first solemnly promised to abstain from
matrimony.

The passing of this decree was one thing ; the
enforcement of it another. For a long time the
clergy kicked against it, and for a while successfully.
Even under Anselm, who was perhaps even stronger
in the matter than Lanfranc, there was a good deal
of evasion, and even for generations afterwards, but
finally all resistance died away, and the victory of
Hildebrand was complete.

Again the triumph of Rome has involved the for-
feiture of English independence. The doctrine of a
celibate priesthood is of the very essence of Roman-
ism. Its only object is the consolidation of the
clergy in devotion to the Pope. It detaches them
from every earthly allegiance ; it binds them abso-
lutely to a master whose laws are above all laws.

In accepting this doctrine, therefore, the Church of
England not only proclaimed its further departure
from the faith of Christ and His apostles (i Tim,
iv. 1-3), but yielded itself with easy submissivcness
into complete allegiance to the Papacy.

AFTER THE NORMAN CONQUEST 83

The other element of Romanism which was im-
perilling the doctrinal soundness of the Church
at that time was the dogma of transubstantia-
tion.

This idolatrous and anti-Christian doctrine, as
some great Church writers call it, was unknown
in the primitive era of the faith, and canonically
unformulated as a dogma till the Lateran Council
in 12 1 5, From the middle of the ninth century
the opinions of Paschasius Radbert, who is generally
known as the first advocate of the doctrine, gradually
gained ground ; and, after the end of the tenth
century, the trend of Church thought and teaching
was strongly in the direction of the extreme view
of the sacrament. The growth and spread of scholas-
ticism helped also.

About the year 1050, a French churchman, called
Berengarius, brought matters to a head by boldly
teaching that the change in the elements of the
sacrament at consecration was not one of substance ;
and that the presence of Christ was not one of essence,
but of power, and needed faith in the partaker. The
state of Church teaching at the time is shown by the
way these views were received. They created a
perfect storm. A synod was held in Rome, in 1050,
and Berengar was condemned without even a hearing.
At another synod, in 1059, he was compelled to
burn his own treatise, and subscribe with his own
hand the grossest statement of the dogma of tran-
substantiation. And when he seemed to weaken
a little on the matter, and in rather ambiguous
formula to assert the real presence, he was once
more compelled to state clearly and unequivocally
his belief that at the time of consecration the

84 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

substance of the elements was really transformed
(Kurtz, 429).

Now the chief opponent of Berengarius was our
English archbishop, Lanfranc ; and there seems to
be a general agreement that Lanfranc was the
man who first brought this Popish dogma into the
Church of England. He laid the foundation, and
built the building too. And from this time on
until the middle of the sixteenth century, the dogma
of the Church of Rome, that the bread and wine
upon the altar, after consecration, are really tran-
substantiated into the body and blood of our Lord
Jesus Christ, was held in the Church in England,
and taught as fervently by English as by Italian
churchmen.

When it is stated then that the immediate effect
of the Norman Conquest upon the Church of Eng-
land was its almost complete identification with
the great tide of the Romish ecclesiastical system,
the meaning of course is, that William brought over
to England a great body of Continental ecclesiastics,
and that these men in turn brought into England the
great body of Continental ecclesiastical dogmas, and
permeated the Church of England with the Romish
system. The whole primacy of Lanfranc, as Freeman
says, tended to bring the English Church into closer
dependence on the See of Rome.

XXVIL But it was stated above, that the effect of
William's reign was at the same time to awake in
Englajid the spirit of Protestant independence, and to
revive in no small degree that a?iti-Papal defiance which
so distinguished the primitive British ChiircJi. How
was this ?

The answer is very simple.

AFTER THE NORMAN CONQUEST 85

The Opposition of William and Lanfranc was not to
Romanism, but to Rome ; and any independence and
resistance to the Pope on the part of either Lanfranc
or William was touching the authority, not the
doctrine, of the Papacy. For it must be clearly
understood that at this time two great currents from
Rome were running in side by side. The one was
the great current of Roman sacerdotalism. The other
was the great current of Papal dictatorship. The one
concerned matters of faith, and doctrine, and worship.
The other matters of secular rule, and human author-
ity, and national rights.

The first current ran in unwithstood. Not only
so, but with every aid of conviction and influence
Lanfranc and William facilitated its influx. Never
had it risen so high before. And never before had
it such free course in England. The British Channel
no longer served as a middle wall of partition, nor the
prelates of England as the champions of a primitive
Christianity.

Lanfranc and Anselm changed all that.

But with the second current it was different. It,
too, was beginning to run to a higher height, and
with more overwhelming force than ever was known
before.

For a long time the spiritual supremacy of the
occupant of the Roman See had been universally
acknowledged in Western Christendom ; but it was
reserved to a Gregory the VIL, or Hildebrand, to
unfold in its naked fulness the unprecedented doctrine
of the supremacy of the Pope, and the universal
theocracy of the Papal See ; its immunity from all
interference on the part of civil powers ; its Divine
authority over kings and kingdoms ; its power to

86 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

depose emperors from their thrones, and absolve sub-
jects from their allegiance ; and the Divine right of
the Roman Pontiff to judge all men, while he himself
is to be judged of none (Robertson's " Hist. Christ.
Ch.," iv. 293 ; Butler's " Eccles. Hist.," ii. 26 ; Mosheim's
" Eccles. Hist.," ii. 161). It can certainly not be said
that there was anything indefinite about the views of
Hildebrand. He knew what he wanted, and he stated
what he meant.

The theory of the Pope's headship to him was not a
mere sentiment. It was a fact. And a fact he deter-
mined to make it. Bishops and princes, priests and
kings, alike must bow the knee. From no vulgar love
of power, or base craving for despotic force, but from
a profound conviction of the great place of the Church,
and the Divinely intended authority of the vicar of
Christ on earth, did Gregory strive and scheme with
all his might for the universal recognition of the Pope
as the supreme arbiter and disposer of all kings and
kingdoms, princes and peoples.

It was a grand idea. And if it had been inaugurated
in the spirit of Christ, and exercised by Christlike
men in a spiritual manner, it would not only have
mellowed the despotisms of the age, and rescued the
masses from the arbitrary exactions of their rulers, but
would have accomplished to all human appearance,
by spiritual unity, the salvation of the world. Unfor-
tunately, however, this magnificent ideal was debased
by many earthly admixtures, and the doctrine of
Hildebrand was speedily found to mean the practical
enslavement of every king in Western Europe.

But when Gregory tried to put this doctrine into
practice in England he found he could not do it. The
imperious spirit of the Norman rose in defiance, and

AFTER THE NORMAN CONQUEST 87

in the struggle William once more was conqueror.
No more obedient and faithful son of the Church was
found in his age than William the Conqueror ; but
when it came to interference with his rights and
liberties, as the sovereign of the English realm, he
took his stand. Servant he was, but slave he would
not be.

It came about in this way.

A legate came from Gregory with a double demand
on William. First he was to send in the arrears of
the Peter's Pence which, for some reason or other, had
not been paid for some years. Second, he was to
profess submission to the Pope of Rome.

The Conqueror's reply was short, but clear.

He allowed the one claim ; the other he did not.
He would pay up the arrears of money, and see to
its more regular payment in the future. But the
claim of fealty was another thing altogether. He had
not done it before, and he was not prepared to do it
now. He had not promised it himself, and as far as
he could ascertain neither had his predecessors to any
former Popes.

Freeman strikes the right note when he says, in his
comment on this matter, that the calm daring with
which he braved the imperious Hildebrand proved
that with the crown of the Island Empire William
had, in the face of foreign powers, assumed the spirit
which became one who wore it (Freeman, " The
Norman Conquest," iv. 433).

Another thing. William was determined to be the
supreme ruler in his own kingdom. The Papal
supremacy was all very well for Italy, and, if the
Emperor was complacent enough, for Germany ; but
in England there could be one head, and one head

88 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

only. Nay, more. He actually carried the doctrine
of the royal supremacy to such a length that he made
it known that it was his will that no Pope should be
acknowledged as Pope throughout his dominions
except by his order, and that no letters (or bulls) from
Rome were to be received in England until they had
first been shown to him (Freeman, iv. 438). William,
like Henry VHI., loved power intensely. He loved it
so much that the love of it in others awakened his
despotic temper to the utmost, and exasperated him ;
for, as a rule, our besetting sin is the one we feel most
indignant about in other people. However that may
be, the kingly supremacy established by William
became, in the good providence of God, one of the
means in after years of emancipating our Church from
the thraldom of the Pope. There was nothing evan-
gelical, or even spiritual, in William's Protestantism.
It had nothing whatever to do with Popery, or with
the religion of Rome. It was altogether a national
ecclesiastical matter. Or rather, like the Protestantism
of that devoted Romanist Henry VIII., it was a
personal matter. He opposed the Pope, not because
he did not believe in the doctrine of Peter's chair, but
because in his own kingdom he preferred to be Pope
himself. That was all.

XXVIII. After the death of William the Conqueror
what progress did the Papacy make ifi England ?

Much.

We are now entering upon the period of the com-
plete and acknowledged triumph, not only of Popery,
but of the Papacy in the Church and realm of Eng-
land. It is a period that is to witness the release of
the Church from the imperious dictatorship of the
king ; but also to witness its transfer to the still more

AFTER THE NORMAN CONQUEST 89

imperious dictatorship of the Pope. It is to witness
a reaction from that tyranny of unscrupulous kings
which was the cause of its submission to another master,
whose yoke was, if possible, still harder to bear. It is
to witness the once independent Church of England
bowing under the name of freedom in absolute vassal-
age to the Church of Rome.

William the Conqueror is succeeded by William
Rufus, and Lanfranc is succeeded by Anselm ; a
conscientious ecclesiastic, and an unprincipled king.
The mantle of the Conqueror had fallen on Rufus,
and the mantle of Lanfranc had fallen on Anselm.
Before long the inevitable struggle began. It was
the old question which was to be master, the king or
the Pope. And the struggle was a great one.

As far as the merits of the men went, there was
only one choice. Rufus was an utterly bad man,
irreligious, lawless. Anselm, on the other hand, was
pious, conscientious, earnest, and firm as a rock in his
convictions.

A skilled dialectician, and a very master of
scholastic lore, he never seems for a moment to
have wavered in his devotion to what he conceived
to be the right. A Roman of Romans, he endeav-
oured through the whole of his Anglican primacy to
have acted for what he considered the highest spiritual
interests of the English Church. But the merits of a
question must never be decided merely by the
character of the men who uphold either the one
side or the other, and we must not allow our
admiration for either the piety or consistency of
Archbishop Anselm to blind our minds to the fact
that what this truly excellent man was working
for throughout the whole of his illustrious career

90 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

was the establishment of the Papal supremacy in
England.

From the very start Anselm was on the Pope's side.
His noble and exalted character only intensified his
convictions, and made the attainment of his dazzling
object more feasible ; the right of the Pope to control
the appointment of bishops and archbishops, and to
rule from Rome the universal Church. The abuse of
kingly power on the part of the Conqueror's successor
greatly forwarded this end. It fact it was the excess
of the Royal Supremacy in the person of William
Rufus that enabled Anselm in a reactionary period to
introduce the Papal Supremacy. The story is too
long to tell here. Suffice it to say that after a long
struggle between Anselm the Archbishop, and
William the King, the monarch on his part, like his
father before him, claiming the right to the homage
of his own appointed archbishop, and to refuse any
English ecclesiastic acknowledging a Pope whom the
king did not recognise, the primate on his part
holding that his fealty to the Pope was before all
things, and that his authority, as symbolised by the
pall, came from the Pope, the vicar of St. Peter, a
compromise was effected, in which, as was natural,
the papal party had the best of it. The king gave
way when he found that the Pope's legate would
not sanction his proposal to depose Anselm, and
failing to expel him, he was reconciled to him without
even conditions.

It was but a patched up peace at best, however,
and within a year Anselm resolved to take himself to
Rome, thus helping forward that fatal principle of
appeals to Rome which worked in after days so
disastrously to the Church.

AFTER THE NORMAN CONQUEST 9 1

When William died in 1 100, and his brother Henry I,
came to the throne, the same old fight was fought
again. Was the king or the Pope to give the ring
and the crozier to the bishop ? Was the king or the
Pope to rule in the Church ? Anselm was firm, and
so was the king. A long and dreary interval elapsed,
and at last the crown once more gave way. The
right of lay investiture was denied to the king, and
the Church was freed henceforth from the tyranny of
a Rufus or a Henry I. But the victory of the Church
meant another victory of the Pope. The Church in
England was snatched from the clutch of the king
only to be clutched more firmly by the Pope. It was
the old fable of the camel once more, and the camel
had got his body pretty fairly in by this time.

Noble and spiritually minded as Anselm was — and
what English Churchman can fail to feel proud of the
author of" Cur Deus Homo" — there can be only one
opinion with regard to the effect of his primacy on the
Church of England. From first to last it was one
steady process, not of Romanizing the Church, for
in doctrine it was thoroughly Romanized already,
but of binding the Church faster in the fetters of the
papacy. Anselm was the second English Hildebrand,
and the sweetness of his character and the devotion of
his noble soul only gave him the greater power in the
accomplishment of his great ecclesiastical policy, the
subjection of the Church of England to Rome. (A
very fine sketch of Anselm will be found in Milner's
" Church History," pp. 489-496.)

It was during Henry the First's reign, and a few
years after the death of Anselm, that a practice was
reintroduced which pretty fairly shows to thinking
minds that the English Church was even at this

92 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

period in integral union with the Church of Rome.
This was the dispatching of a legate from Rome to
represent in person the authority of the Papal See.
The thing was not altogether new, for over 300 years
before Pope's men had tried to lord it over the
Council of Chelsea ; but a papal legate in the year
1 125 meant a good deal more than it did in the year
787. In 787 it meant little more than an overture of
peace on the part of the Pope, and a respectful recog-
nition of the spiritual supremacy of the Roman See orj
thepartof England's King. But in 1 125 it was different.

It meant the acceptance of the Hildebrandine con-
ception of the papal supremacy on the part of the
Church of England. It meant that the Church of
England was to be henceforth governed from Rome.
This is really what it meant. It meant that the
boasted independence of the English Church was
gone like a dream ; that the Archbishop of Canter-
bury, the primate of the national Church, was now to
be but a creature of the Italian usurper ; that the
Church was to be ruled by a nod of the Pope ; or,
what was even worse, by the nod of a man who was
to rule simply because he was a creature of the Pope;
that the Church of England, in one word, was to be
part and parcel of that vast ecclesiastical system in
vassalage to the chair of Peter the papacy.

The first legate was a Roman cardinal, John of
Crema, who presided as the Pope's representative in a
Council of the Church of England held at West-
minster in 1 125. He was succeeded in this position by
William of Corboyle or Corbeil, the Archbishop of Can-
terbury, who was appointed by the Pope Honorius II.
as his legatiis natus, it being natural and fitting
that the primate should occupy the position as his

AFTER THE NORMAN CONQUEST 93

regular or ordinary representative. This Archbishop
of Canterbury summoned his next council at West-
minster in 1 127, by virtue of the power of Peter,
Prince of the Apostles, and his own, but the papal
name came first ; and the primate presided, not in his
capacity as Archbishop of Canterbury, but as Legate
of the Apostolic See (Perry, i. 209-213).

The papal legate, sometimes the primate, some-
times another English bishop, sometimes a foreigner,
but always the visible symbol of the Roman
supremacy, presided in the English Councils. When
there was a dispute about an episcopal election,
the Pope summoned all the parties to Rome, and of
course they were bound to come. When he is
pleased to do so, he orders all the English bishops to
come to one of his councils, though the English
bishops did not always obey his orders {ibid., i. 273).
When things displease him from the Royal quarter,
nothing is easier than to pronounce an interdict, and
deprive the nation of Church services and sacraments.

When an English monastery thinks fit to kick
against the bishop, the Pope is only too pleased to
grant exemption from episcopal control. When an
English abbot becomes too proud to be considered
the inferior of a diocesan bishop, the Pope despatches
a bull to the effect that the whole establishment shall
be altogether free from the subjection to bishops, and
only be subject to the Roman Yor\\X^ {ibid., i. 259).

The Pope appoints fast days for the English
Church as if he were a local bishop ; dictates what
vestments are to be worn by a Church of England
ecclesiastic ; multiplies and encourages appeals of all
sorts to Rome ; confirms the election of archbishops
and bishops, and consecrates, as the primate of

94 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

primates, the Archbishop of Canterbury ; orders a
half-erected church at Lambeth to be demolished,
and the order to be carried out in spite of the opposi-
tion of the great King Richard himself; declares that
if obedience is not given the suffragan bishops are
to withdraw their allegiance from the Archbishop of
Canterbury ; takes upon himself the right to appoint
a dean to the cathedral of York by his own plenary
authority ; suspends one Archbishop of Canterbury,
and appoints a man to superintend the diocese
during his suspension ; and, to crown all, decrees
through his legate ecclesiastical regulations of the
Church of the land concerning the celebration of the
mass, the duties of deacons, the method of tonsure,
the proceedings of monks and nuns, the marriage of
priests, and the morals of the clergy !

And yet some churchmen have an idea that the
Church of England during this period was an
independent Church !

The fact is, as Canon Perry states in his description
of the growth of the papacy during the twelfth
century, that the Church of England had been
brought into a position relative to the Pope, altogether
different from that which it occupied under the
Conqueror. Then papal decrees and papal inter-
ference could only come through the chief of the
State, and with his permission. Now, though the State
struggled against it, the Pope governed the Church
of England immediately, and almost irrespective of the
State power. It only needed a Pope of commanding
power and high character to perfect the work, and to
make the national Church of England, which in old
times had been independent of rule, a simple tributary
dependency of the foreign Church of Rome {ibid.^ 2S7).

CHAPTER VII.

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE THIRTEENTH
CENTURY.

Was the English Church then the Church of Rome in England ? — The parallel of
the Canadian Church and the Church of England to-day — King John and the
reaction against Rome — Magna Charta was not aimed at the Papacy — It was
to secure the Church not from the Pope but from the King — The outrageous
exactions of the Papacy — The legate and the friar, the twin pests of England's
Church — The career of Robert Grosseteste the anti-papal champion— Grosseteste,
a precursor of the Reformation, and an embryo evangelical reformer — The
age after Grosseteste — Simon de Montfort — The opposition of the English clergy
to the Pope's bulls — There is hardly a proof of their being nationalists.

AS we are now approaching the period when the
first beginnings of the spirit of reform are
traceable in England, it is necessary for us to examine
more closely the relation of the English Church to the
papacy. We propose in this chapter to open out this
question, and to show how the early movings of the
Reformation lay deep in the principles of national
independence and English ecclesiastical patriotism.
At the same time, we will show that many of the
early resistances of papal encroachments on the part
of the clergy can scarcely be regarded as proof of
either the nationalistic spirit of the clergy, or the
Protestantism of the English Church as a Church.

XXIX. What was then the exact position of the
Church of England at the beginning of the thirteenth
century ? If the Pope tractically governed the Church,

95

96 THE CHURCH of England

and the Church of England tvas a simple depende7icy of
the Church of Rome, zvas it not simply the Church of
Rome in England?

Nominally the English Church was the Church of
England, but practically, to all intents and purposes,
in ritual, doctrine, and ecclesiastical unity, the Church
of England was nothing more or less than the Church
of Rome in England,

It occupied doctrinally and ecclesiastically a posi-
tion similar, in most respects, to that which the
Church of England now occupies in the Dominion of
Canada.

The Church of England in Canada is an independ-
ent Church ; that is, it is not under the jurisdiction of
the leading Primate of the Church of England, the
Archbishop of Canterbury. It has its own archbishops,
bishops, synods, and diocesan regulations. It has
distinct and special canons. It has its own peculiar
methods of Church administration and government,
nor is it in any way in connection with the State.
But with these exceptions, it is really one with the
mother Church. It has the same service, the same
prayers, the same articles ; the same doctrine, the
same order, the same truth ; in short, with a few
trifling differences, it is the same ecclesiastical body.
English clergy are constantly appointed to its
churches, and it frequently happens that bishops are
sent over by the mother Church to preside over its
dioceses. In one word it is the Church of England in
Canada.

Now, it was exactly this way with the Church of
England at the period we are speaking of, and, in
fact, up to the time of the Reformation, It was a
national Church. It was the Church of England,

IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 97

just as the Canadian Church to-day is, territorially
and technically speaking, distinct from the mother
Church, and is by many churchmen called the Church
of Canada. But it was in service, ritual, doctrine,
orders, to all intents and purposes, a mere section of
that ecclesiastical body known as the Church of
Rome. In name, it was not the Church of Rome. It
was the Church of England. But in deed, and in
truth, in fact, if not in name, it was, to use Canon
Perry's phrase, "a portion of the Church of Rome
located in England." The English clergy, in 1246,
in their message to the Pope stated it most clearly :
" The English Church has ever been remarkable for
its glories, and has always been a special member
(membrum speciale) of the Holy Clmrch of Rome'"
(Perry, i. 340).

But then the simile we have employed fails in one
very important point, for there is no political con-
nection between the various branches of the Church
of England, nor does the Primate of the English
Church assume, in the remotest degree, the position
of a Gregory the Eleventh, or an Innocent the Third.
Now the Church of Rome, besides claiming to be the
only Church of that age, the undivided Holy Catholic
Church, with the Pope, the tenant of the chair of
Peter, as the visible head of the Church of God on
earth, the centre of Catholic unity, was also something
else than a mere Church, or spiritual ecclesiastical
body. It was a political power, and its head was the
greatest potentate in Europe. He was, in no mere
rhetorical sense, a very king of kings and lord of
lords by claim and conquest.

" He did bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus."

H

98 THE CHURCH of England

He was a rich and tyrannous monarch. He was
c^reedy of gold, and lustful of power. And the very
Church with which as a spiritual body the English
Church was in integral unity, with the Pope as the
visible head of Catholicity, was the Church which in
its political capacity, with the Pope as an imperial
usurper, the English Church from time to time, with
more or less success, most earnestly resisted. Not
because the Church of England was not Roman ; but
because the Church of England was a national or
State Church, and the protests were politico-ecclesi-
astical, not spiritual or doctrinal.

XXX. Then the spirit of resistance to the papal in-
trusions, that begaft in real earnest in the ttvelftJi
centnry, can Jiardly be called Protestant, or taken as
evidences of the Protestant independence of t lie ChnrcJi?

Certainly not.

In the accurate sense of the word it was not
Protestant at all.

The foul death of Thomas Becket in 1170 had
greatly enhanced the supremacy of the papacy in
England, and the reign of John witnessed the
crowning act of its imperial rule. The Kingdom of
England by an order of the Pope having been laid
under an interdict, and John excommunicated, the
humbled king with due solemnity formally sur-
rendered his crown and kingdom to the Roman
See. Not only did he promise the payment of an
annual tribute in addition to Peter's Pence, but also
all due fidelity to " St. Peter, the Church of Rome,
and to my lord the Pope" (" Vestrae jurisdictionis est
regnum Anglian," Stubbs, iii. 292).

The indignation and the excitement aroused in
England was extraordinary. Even the ultramon-

IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 99

tanists, the clergy, began to show a spirit of resist-
ance, and the barons were furious.

It is from this deep degradation of the humiHated
Church and nation that we may date the rise of that
spirit of national and ecclesiastical freedom which
was destined in after days so radically to affect the
character and position of the Church of England.

The reaction against Rome had begun.

But the resistance, let it not be forgotten, was
altogether politico-ecclesiastical. At bottom it was
probably personal detestation of one of the vilest
of kings ; and throughout it was national and con-
stitutional, a question of appointments and inves-
titure, and ecclesiastical prerogatives. If the clergy
as well as the barons, and even the Roman Cardinal
Archbishop Langton himself was against the king,
and for the time being in a way against even the
Pope, it must not be imagined for a moment there
was any Protestant significance in it, or that Cardinal
Langton was the forerunner of a Grosseteste to
say nothing of a Wycliffe. The question was this.
Shall a man devoid of every instinct of honour have
the right to expel his clergy from the kingdom, per-
secute ecclesiastics, seize bishoprics and canonries,
defy the courts of justice, murder his subjects, and
treat the Church and the nation generally as a royal
Bluebeard, even though it may please the Pope to
favour his cause ? And shall a creature of the Pope
called a legate, ride rough shod over the Churches,
and appoint in them whomsoever he will, in spite of
the rights of bishops and patrons, and encourage a
lawless monarch to seize their goods and pillage
their property ? The people to a man answered :
No ! And the action of Langton and the barons

100 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

must be interpreted in its true light, merely as an act
of constitutional resistance to monarchical tyranny as
regards the king ; and, in so far as the Pope was con-
cerned, only as an act of resistance to a piece of
Roman interference that touched very seriously their
property, and preferments, and privileges.

XXXI. But did 7iot Magna Charta assert the liberty
of the Ckureh, afid were not some of its clauses espe-
cially inserted as a protest agaijist the growing power
of the Papacy ?

Magna Charta has been rightly considered as the
foundation and basis of English liberties.

It is one of the corner stones of the British polity,
and the mainstay of our national constitution. At
Runnymede was blown the first blast from the trumpet
of British liberty, which has since sounded with no
uncertain sound.

But it is a great mistake to suppose that Magna
Charta was primarily aimed at the Papacy, or that
Cardinal Langton was posing as a Protestant cham-
pion against the rapacities of the Pope.

It is true that its first clause ran thus : That the
English Church shall be free, and have her rights
inviolate and her liberties unimpaired.* But the

* The first clause of John's charter in the original Latin is as fol-
lows : — " In primis concessisse Deo et hac praesenti carta nostra con-
firmasse, pro nobis et haeredibus nostris in perpetuum, quod Anglicana
ecclesia libera sit, et habeat jura sua Integra, et libertates suas illaesas;
(et ita volumus observari ; quod apparet ex eo quod libertatem elec-
tionum, quae maxima et magis necessaria reputatur ecclesiae Anglicanae,
mera et spontanea voluntate, ante discordiam inter nos et barones
nostros motam concessimus et carta nostra confirmavimus, et earn
optinuimus a domino papa Innocentio tertio confirmari ; quam et nos
observabimus et ab haeredibus nostris in perpetuum bona fide volumus
observari). — Taswell-Langmead, " Eng. Con. Hist.," p. no.

IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY lOI

question is after all the meaning of the words " the
English Church shall be free," and that can only be
solved by finding out from whom, and from what,
the Church was to be free.

Did it mean that the Church of England was to be
free from the Pope ? Did it imply that the Church
was to be free from the Papacy, or free from the
grasp of a usurping Italian ? No. That is not the
meaning of the words at all.

It meant a very different thing. It meant that the
Church was to be free from the king ! It was to be
free from the royal grasp ! The Church of England
was to be free, not from the interference of tlic Pope,
but from the rapacity and greed of the king I

At first this may seem a little startling, as it is so
contrary to the generally received opinion upon the
subject. But that it is the real meaning is clear from
the fact that Magna Charta in certain of its clauses
and specifications was merely a repetition in substance
of the charter of Henry I., the first clause of whose
charter of liberties given over a hundred years before
was : " I will make the holy Church of God free "
(Green's " History of English People," i. 244 ; Stubbs'
"Constitutional History," i. 532). The point then is.
What did Henry I. mean?

Now what Henry I. meant was this : that hence-
forth the Church was to be freed from royal tyranny.
There was to be no repetition of the disgraceful
plundering of bishoprics and abbeys and ecclesias-
tical livings after the manner of William Rufus
and Ralph Plambard. It did not mean that it was
to be free from the Papacy, much less from Popery.
There can be no mistake about this, for he clearly
states it in his own explanatory words : " I will make

102 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

the holy Church of God free. I will neither sell, nor
put to farm (its property). I will not take anything
from the domain of the Church."

Thirty-six years or so after Henry L, his successor,
Stephen, issued a charter, and exactly the same
language occurs again : " I agree that holy Church
shall be free, and I steadfastly promise it due
respect." That is, he would not plunder abbeys of
their treasures, and give their rich estates to the
hangers-on of the court. He would not capture
bishoprics to swell his own fortunes, or grant Church
lands to his impecunious friends. It was the common-
est thing for kings to do, and on the whole they found
it rather an easy way of raising money. But this
Stephen declares he will not do. There can be no
doubt that this was what he meant by making the
Church free, for he goes on to explain as follows : —

" I undertake to do nothing, or permit nothing to
be done, in the Church, or in Church matters, simonia-
cally. I declare and confirm justice and power over
ecclesiastical persons and their goods to belong to the
bishops. I decree and allow that the dignities of
churches, confirmed by their privileges, and their
customs held according to ancient tenure, shall remain
inviolate. I confirm whatever grants have been made,
cither by the liberality of kings, or the gifts of chief men.
I promise that I will act according to peace and
justice in all things, and to my power to preserve them "
(Perry, i. 187-219).

Eighty odd years pass and once more a rapacious
king, King John, outrages in the most flagrant manner
the liberty of the Church. He buys bishoprics, and
sells benefices, and seizes abbeys, and snatches
churches, and farms the revenues of vacant sees,

IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY IO3

with as rapacious a hand as William Rufus or the
recreant Stephen. And then, through basest fear, he
too promises (though his promise was as hollow as
Stephen's) the provisions of the charter of Henry I., par-
ticularly that the Church of God should be free. And
it was this provision that became the famous provision
of Magna Charta. Therefore we repeat :

The phrase " that the English Church shall be free "
meant that it was to be free from the clutch of an
avaricious king ; free from interference in the matter
of properties, privileges, and dignities ; free from
interference as regards lay investiture ; free, in one
word, from the royal tyranny.

It did Jiot mean, all subsequent history proves that
it coicld not mean, that the Church of England was
to be free from the Church of Rome. On the con-
trary, it really meant that the Church of England
was free from the King of England to be free for the
Pope of Rome.

From the papal standpoint, it meant anything
but freedom. It meant that it was to be the slave
of the Papacy, and the events of the next few years
showed this, for it is a significant fact that one of the
most ultramontane of the archbishops of Canterbury,
Boniface, pronounced a fearful malediction on all who
should violate the provisions of Magna Charta (Perry,

i. 355)-

XXXII. But surely the spirit whicJi animated Lang-
ton and the barojis in their resistance of the tyrannising
king was akin to that which afterivards aroiised the
strenuous resistance of English Churchmen to the in-
solent claims of the Papacy ?

True.

It was the spirit of British liberty and national

I04 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

independence. But the Pope's hold on England is as
yet too strong for any national, or even ecclesiastical,
protest to be severely entertained. Already, as we have
seen, the feeling of resistance has been experienced {see
Green's "Hist. Eng. People," i. 249). The action of the
Pope in John's reign may have opened the people's eyes
a little to the meaning of the Papacy, even though it
did not to the meaning of Popery. But it is not till a
later reign that the first beginnings of a really healthy
spirit of Protestantism are manifested in England, and
English churchmen come out clearly and boldly in
defiance of the growing claims of the Roman See.

It was in the reign of Henry HI. (1216-1272) that
the Papacy began to make altogether unprecedented
exactions. The expenses of the Roman Court grew
heavier, or as the Pope put it, the Church grew poorer,
and demands for money were made in the most un-
blushing way in the various kingdoms. It was only
what was to be expected if their theory was true. As
far as England was concerned, the Papal demands
were outrageous, in fact, little else than robbery ; and
if it had not been for the fact that Henry IH.
was a poor tool of Rome they would never have been
made. The Pope asked a certain definite revenue to
be paid in from the kingdom of England, and as a
bribe for confirming a certain nominee of the king
for primate, actually demanded one-tenth of all the
revenues of the land to be sent to Rome. Papal
legates, Italian agents, and harpies of various degrees
of impertinence, preyed upon the Church in the name
of the Holy Father, until the very name of Pope
began to stink in the nostrils of Englishmen.

The revolt soon began in earnest. Murmurs were
followed by curses, and curses by resistance. English-

IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY I05

men openly used threats of vengeance, and in some
cases armed themselves in revolt. If Innocent III.
did lade the English realm with a heavy yoke,
Gregory IX. added to his yoke ; Innocent chastised
it with whips, but Gregory chastised it with scorpions.
The Church of Rome, the mother and mistress of the
Churches, is fast becoming a huge horse-leech with
two daughters crying. Give, give ; the legate and the
friar (Milner's " Ch. Hist.," 576). The Pope, though
called the holy father, and the shepherd of the sheep,
was in reality a hireling, a thief, and a robber. He
cared not for the sheep. He carried the bag as a
thief, and as a thief " he came for to steal, and to kill,
and to destroy." If a prophetical interpretation can
be given to our Saviour's words, the first and eleventh
and twelfth verses of the tenth chapter of the Gospel
of St. John can truly be applied to Pope Gregory VIII.
and his successor, Pope Innocent IV.

Englishmen would not have been flesh and blood
if they had endured it. By the middle of the thirteenth
century the Papal exactions became so outrageous
that some of the most devoted allies of Rome were
disgusted ; and when the Pope's assessments mounted
up to pretty nearly a-half of the clerical revenues, the
very clergy protested against the thing as unheard of
and utterly disgraceful. Mathew Paris (quoted by
Perry, i. 345) says that the revenue of the Roman
ecclesiastics in England was three times as great as
that of the king himself.

XXXIII. // zuas the outrageous injustice then, the
manifest wickedness of the Papal system of taxation
and intrusion, which gave the ifiitial impetus to the
spirit of Protestantism in England?

Yes.

ro6 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

A state of affairs had come which could not in the
nature of things continue long. Tyrants and tyrannies
have their bounds. When they rise highest and swell
most ambitiously, they are nearest falling. The in-
solence of their demands drives even slaves to rebel-
lion. In like manner the proud spiritual pretensions
of the successor of Peter, the multiplication of super-
stitions and vain ceremonial, the excess of ritual, and
the paucity of piety, insured an inevitable reaction. A
double revolt against Rome is about to follow ; against
the tyranny first, against her errors afterwards.

It was at this juncture of the Church that the first
real Protestant of the Church of England before the
Reformation appeared.

Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln, was a man
whom all English Churchmen should delight to honour.
He was the first of that hero band of spiritually en-
lightened men in the medieval age of the Church who
perceived the real significance of the Papacy, and the
unscripturalness of the position of the Pope of Rome.
Though somewhat of a radical, and in the main a
political or ecclesiastical remonstrant rather than an
evangelical reformer, he arrests our attention as well
by the valour of his utterances, as by his loyalty to
conscience and to Scripture.

His opposition at the first (he became Bishop of
Lincoln, A.D. 1235), was simply against the Papal
intrusion of foreign ecclesiastics, and the scandalous
exorbitance of the Papal taxes. The mischief and
the ruin brought by the Romish religion was unper-
ccived ; it was the mischief and the ruin wrought by
Roman tax-gatherers that troubled him. He does not
seem to have thought of the inconsistency either of
Popery or the Pope. It was Rome's tyranny that

IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY lO/

arrested his mind. Not till years afterwards did he
seem to realise the abyss of Rome's idolatry. The idea
of the clergy generally was that all the Churches in
Christendom, as regards care and supervision, belonged
to the Lord Pope by the right of Peter's Christ-given
commission, but not as if all their property belonged
to him to dispose of as he pleased. And this was
probably Grosseteste's idea. For even in 1245, when
taxed by the king for being on the Pope's side, and
collecting some of his unwarranted levies, he defended
himself by saying : " I am impelled to do this by the
command of our Lord the Pope, wJiom not to obey is as
the sin of witchcraft and idolatry."

The first thing that seems to have awakened the
latent spirit of reform in Grosseteste was his natural
common sense and his instinct of English justice. It
happened not long after this that the Pope laid the last
straw on the camel's back, and made a heavier exac-
tion than ever. The result was that the man who in
1245 had posed as Pope's tax-collector, in 1247 firmly
and not over-respectfully resisted the demand of two
friars who demanded in the name of the Pope six
thousand marks. *' Friars," he said, " with all rever-
ence to his holiness, this demand is as dishonourable
as it is unpracticable. It touches the whole body of
the clergy and the people. It would be absurd for
us to comply with it before the sense of the whole
kingdom is taken."

His eyes were being opened. The next year in
virtue of letters obtained at no little expense from
Rome, he began the work of reforming abuses in
religious orders, and his eyes were opened a little
more. Their iniquities and hypocrisies were simply
revolting to an honest soul. The shepherds were not

I08 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

only friends of the wolves, they were wolves them-
selves. Their abominations and corruptions were open
to the eyes of heaven. The monasteries were whited
sepulchres, full of dead men's bones and all unclean-
ness ; the clerics were outwardly pious, but inwardly
full of hypocrisy and iniquity. And the worst feature
was that they knew it perfectly well themselves, and
were not one whit abashed. Nay, they did all these
things with authority. They were supported by
the head of the Church himself. Disgusted but
resolved, this Elijah of England's Church proceeds
to the court of Rome, which had its seat then at
Lyons.

The sermon or discourse which Grosseteste there
delivered to the Pope is one of the most remarkable
deliverances in the history of the Church. It was
one of the noblest utterances ever delivered by man.
The hour has not yet come for the re-establishment
of the Church of God upon the evangelical basis, but
the action and words of the English bishop show that
there is in England, at least, one man who is not
afraid to beard the very lion of Rome in his den, and
reprove the wild boar for his ravaging of Christ's
vineyard. " The cause," said he, " of the flagitious
practices of the clergy, and the corruptions of the
Church, is this court of Rome, which not only does not
try to stop these abominations, but perpetuates them
by the appointment not of shepherds but of destroyers
of men, and by delivering those souls for which the
Son of God was willing to die to the mercy of raven-
ing wolves and bears." And he concludes by a pre-
diction, incredible almost for the times, that if any of
the occupants of the Roman See were so far to put
on the garment of the world as to command anything

IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY IO9

Opposed to the precepts of Christ, that any who should
obey him zvoidd separate themselves from Christ and
the Church and the Pope as Christ's true representa-
tive, and that in case there would be a general obedi-
ence given to such a departure from the path, there
would be a true and complete apostasy (Milner, "Church
History," 575 ; Perry, i. 343).

Grosseteste returned to his diocese and pursued
unweariedly his labours, a terror to evil-doers and the
praise of them that did well. It is said that for a time
he was suspended by the Pope. If he was, he did not
mind it much, for he went on exercising his episcopal
functions in the same quiet but efficient manner. In
1253 the Pope attempted his last piece of violence
with the noble bishop, imperiously ordering him to
induct as one of the Lincoln canons a young Italian
nephew of his. The Pope evidently wanted to test
Grosseteste. It was a gross piece of injustice, and
the answer he got is a fine example of the stalwart
English defiance of a foreigner's impertinence. The
epistle, though probably not addressed to the Pope
personally, was a trenchant impeachment of the
Papal system. In fact, at times an awful doubt
seems to be wrestling in Grosseteste's mind, and his
words appear to show that he hardly knows whom he
is addressing — the head of the Church of Christ, the
centre of Catholic unity, and Christ's visible repre-
sentative in His holy Apostolic See ; or Antichrist
himself, the murderer and destroyer of souls, the
medieval embodiment of apostasy and departure
from the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ.

In the main it is couched in respectful language
and expresses strong protestations of the absolute
authority of the Roman See, but it contains also Ian-

no THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

guage that involves the very essence of the principles
of the Reformation, and the genius of Protestantism.
His very obedience to the Holy See, as the representa-
tive of the religion of Jesus Christ and His Apostles,
compels him to protest against the abuse of that
religion. " No one," he asserted, " who is truly loyal
to the Apostolic See " (he appears to mean to the Holy
See as the ideal or representative body of Christ,
as it should be), " could obey commands of such a
character as the Pope now imposes, from whatever
quarter they come, even if seconded by the highest
order of angels ; on the contrary, he ought with his
whole might to oppose them. By reason, therefore,
of the very obedience which I owe to the Apostolic
See, from my love of union with it, I refuse to obey
the things contained in the said letter, because they
tend most evidently to the sin which I have men-
tioned, abominable to the Lord Jesus Christ, and
most pernicious to the human race, and are altogether
opposed to the holiness of the Apostolic See, and are
contrary to Catholic unity " (Perry, i. 347, 348). " I
oppose these things and rebel against them."

This language is significant. It marks a new epoch
in the Church. It is the first definite adoption by an
individual of what we now call a Protestant position.
It cannot be called a protest of tJie CJmrcJi, for the
Church of England, as a Church, is held fast in the
bondage of Romish ignorance. But it shows that a
brighter day is coming. It is the small cloud as big
as a man's hand that is the herald of a great change.
The excommunicated body of Grosseteste will soon
moulder in the grave, and many will rejoice that the
voice of the troublcr of Israel is silenced. But the
spirit of Grosseteste will not die. A prophet has

IN TflE THIRTEENTH CENTURY I I I

arisen ; yea, more than a prophet ; the forerunner of
a noble line of reformers and martyrs.

XXXIV. It has been asserted, hozvever, that it is
a mistake to suppose that Grosseteste %vas one of the
precursors of the Reformation, and that he can hardly
be reckoned a Protestant or evangelical reformer. What
is the reason of this ?

It is true that Robert Grosseteste was not in the
reformed sense an evangcHcal Protestant. In his
Church views he was little distinguished from the
mass of Romanists (Milner, 573, 577).

His mind does not seem to have grasped the falsity
of the Romish system. The Papal exactions were
his chief objects of denunciation. As to the Romish
religion, it was held by him with conviction, and
though he attacked certain Romish abuses, he docs
not appear to have even discerned the unscriptural-
ness of the system as a whole. But, though this
was the case, it is equally certain that one can discern
in this remarkable man some of the fundamental
principles of the Reformation. They were in germ,
perhaps, and most imperfectly developed. Yet they
were there.

There was, first and most important of all, the
recognition of the supremacy of Scripture. His
denunciation of the sin of popes and the wickedness
of prelates and priests, is based on the fact that all
these things are contrary to the teaching of the Holy
Word of God, and that all the apostolical letters and
papal bulls and non-obstante clauses and Roman
decrees in the world, are nothing against the plain
words of God's truth, the Bible. Grosseteste may not
have said this in so many words.

But when in that famous letter to the Pope, through

112 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

his emissaries, he quoted Holy Scripture as his
authority for the impeachment of even the representa-
tives of Christ Himself, he was putting into operation
a principle that afterwards through Wycliffe, and later
on through the noble army of the Reformers, was
not only to free the Church from the Papacy but
to restore it to the primitive foundation of the Apos-
tolical Church. The first of the principles of the
Reformation is : The Word of God is superior to
popes, traditions, councils (Art. vi., xx., xxi.). We
must obey Christ and His word rather than man. It
was this principle of the superiority of the authority
of Scripture to that of the Church which Grosseteste,
however imperfectly, championed.

In his assuming the right of remonstrance and even
defiance against the Pope, Grosseteste indicated
another great principle of the Reformation — the duty
of a man to obey his conscience, and the right of a
Christian to what is generally known as private
judgment. That Grosseteste did not perceive the
greatness of the principle of which, perhaps, he
was unconsciously the advocate, may be freely con-
ceded. But in his clear and outspoken testimony
against the dictator of Christendom, and especially in
his idea that obedience to an erring Church and an
apostate Pope would be separation from Christ, and
that separation from a false Church would not only
not be schism, but would be a means of bringing out
the true Church (Perry, i. 343 ; cf. Jackson, " On the
Church," pp. 120 et sqq.), and above all in his famous
argument that unity with an apostate Pope involves
disunion or separation from the Holy Catholic Church,
and that separation from such an apostate represent-
ative of Christ would be the means of preserving true

IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY II 3

union with the Catholic Faith and Church, Grosseteste
was prophetically formulating the position which
three centuries afterwards was assumed by the Church
of England as its reason for separation from the
Roman, and so-called Catholic, unity.

Grosseteste, beyond question, was the advocate also
of personal, as opposed to mere ecclesiastical or formal,
religion. Here again is an evidence of the genius
of the principles of the Reformation. His teachings
on the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart (Art. xiii.),
the need of personal faith in Christ (Art. xi.), the
practical life of godliness (Art. xii.), the impotence of
the human will, and the gift of willingness from God
(Art. X.), prove that Grosseteste had anticipated
through his devotion to Christ and the indrinking of
His spirit, the fundamental evangelical principles of
the Reformed Church of England. He imperfectly
grasped them, and they lay buried beneath a mass
of Romish superstitions. But still they were there
(Milner's " Church History," pp. 578, 579). They were
the germ, the seed. In Bradwardine they will become
the blade ; in Wycliffe the ear ; and through Cranmer,
Ridley, and Latimer, the full corn in the ear.

Many years must pass before the work will be
accomplished. Kings will reign and die. Reformers
will grasp the truth, and Romish English Churchmen
oppose its spread. The tide will ebb and flow in
progress and reaction. But surely and steadily
throughout three centuries, the principles will work,
until England's Church becomes free in deed and in
truth. Edward HI. and Henry VIII., as the succes-^
sors of the Conqueror and Langton, will champion
the cause of national liberty and ecclesiastical inde-
pendence. Bradwardine, and Wycliffe, and Cranmer,

I

114 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

will carry on the nobler work of evangelical instruc-
tion, and the day will come when those Scriptural
principles which Grosseteste so dimly and partially
apprehended, shall be established as the formal teach-
ing of the Church of England.

XXXV. Did the principles of Protestantism gain
much ground in the Church immediately after tJie death
of Grosseteste ?

No. They did not.

Grosseteste died in 1253. And for almost a
century afterwards the history of the English Church
is unmarked by any peculiarly striking features. The
great epochs of the world generally spring from
individuals. The pivotal movements of history turn
on the personality of some great strong man. Until
the rise of Wyclifife and Edward the Third, no one of
any particular power arose as a history maker in the
Church. Amongst the bishops there were here and
there men of piety and patriotism, but they were few
and far between, and there were none of extraordinary
force. Simon de Montfort was a vigorous nationalist,
and a strong opponent of papal exactions (Green,
" Hist. Eng. People," 276-278) ; but the times were not
yet ripe for the assertion of the great principles for
which he so valiantly contended.

It was from the ecclesiastical standpoint a some-
what low-ebb age. The Church was thoroughly
Romanised, and the clergy thoroughly Romish.
Henry HI. (1216-1272) was a poor creature, a second
John; and Edward H. (1307-1327) little better.
Until the time of Edward III. very little occurred
that is worthy of record.

Two things, however, may be referred to : the
resistance of the Church clergy to Papal demands

IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY II5

for their money, and their strenuous attempts to
secure exemption from taxation. The clergy of the
Church of England at this time were simply a body
of Romish priests ; and they were worldly, covetous,
and greedy of gain. Peccham, an Archbishop of
Canterbury of that day, testifies that they just lived
for worldly gain and money, heaping benefice upon
benefice (Perry, i. 380). It is notorious that none are
so keen about holding their possessions, and so
quick to resent interference with their property as
those who are unscrupulous in acquiring it. So
when the Pope under the pretence of a holy crusade
despatched an envoy to England in 1253 to raise
money from the clergy of the English Church, there
was a bitter revolt. The clergy objected to being
robbed in that way, and made a formal protest in
Parliament. In 1256 the demand was repeated, and
they paid, under protest, an immense sum, on con-
dition that no more claims were made by the Pope, a
condition which His Holiness answered by sending
an envoy with the powers of excommunication and
interdict. He found that the best plan was to get
the money first and to take the interdict off after-
wards ; and though the clergy drew up grievances,
and formulated privileges, they had to yield. The
death of Simon de Montfort at the battle of Evesham,
1265, left the clergy to the mercy of the King and the
Pope, of whom it would be hard to tell which was
the greater thief and robber. They were summoned
before the Pope by the Legate, and made to pay
large sums of money ; and then the King came in,
and took his share. Between them both the poor
churchmen were well-nigh reduced to beggary.

XXXVI. Then this action of the English clergy

Il6 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

at tliis period in resisting the Pope is not to be taken
as an evidence of their nationality and independence ?

Hardly.

In one sense, of course, it is. It shows that they
had some spirit left, and were not merely a poor herd
of driven cattle, without mind, or will, or action. It
is an evidence of some small degree of independence
at any rate.

But beyond that the action of the clergy is not
very significant. I must say I cannot attach to it
the importance that Canon Perry does in his " Church
History " when he refers to it as an evidence that the
clergy were on the national side as against the King
and Pope, and makes that the title of the eighteenth
chapter of that work. To my mind their action
simply shows that they were on tJieir own side. They
were as a body strongly ultramontane. They were at
once Popish and Papal. But they were as a body
also rapacious, and worldly, and as thieves and
robbers, they strongly objected to being robbed in
their turn by a bigger robber. That is all. There was
no particular nationalism about their objecting to
being fleeced by Italian agents. It was simply objec-
tion to robbery. Nor does their action throughout
appear to have been inspired by any deep principle.
There certainly is no indication of a profound convic-
tion of great issues at stake as was the case in the
protests of Grosseteste. While, therefore, it was an
evidence of a certain vigour of character, and in-
dependence of spirit on the part of the clergy, and
was also in the Providence of God an indirect
preparation for the great national result that was to
culminate later, their action can hardly be taken
as a proof of an assertion of that great principle

IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY II7

of ecclesiastical independence which was afterwards
vindicated by the Church of England.

The same characteristic explains also the strenuous
attempts of the clergy to secure all exemption from tax-
ation. During the reigns of Edward I. and Edward II.,
a battle royal on this subject was carried on be-
tween the clergy and the crown (Short's " History of
the Ch. of Eng.," cap. ii. 66-70). It was a serious
question. If all Church property was to be unre-
munerative, and bear no part of the burdens of the
country, it would hinder national progress. The vast
estates of the clergy, and their increasing wealth,
would absorb the greater part of the land of the
realm. The State insisted that Church property
should not be so much dead matter, unproductive,
and unprofitable, but that the State should have a
voice both in its acquisition and its disposal. The
statute of Mortmain (1279) is generally regarded as
the victory of the King, or of the State, over the
growing power of the clergy.

This was met not long after by a counter enact-
ment from their lord the Pope, in his infamous bull,
" Clericis Laicos," which set forth the principle that
all the Church property in the world belonged to the
Church,* and prohibited the clergy from paying any
taxes, or the secular powers from exacting any
revenue from either Churches or clergy on pain of
excommunication.

Imperious as this enactment seemed, it was of little
use in England. King Edward simply told them

* Robert de ICilwardby in 1274 is recorded to have openly told the
Pope, " My Church, i.e. the Church of England, is your Church, and
my possessions are your possessions ; dispose, therefore, of my Church
and of my properties as if they were yours." (Quoted Perry, i. 374.)'

Il8 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

that bull or no bull they would have to pay. If they
did not pay, he would take what he wanted without
asking leave (Perry, 386, 387). He accordingly out-
lawed the clergy of Canterbury, and seized their
available property, and though they kept up the
fight for a while, they eventually found they had to
submit.

But the action of the clergy throughout this strug-
gle is the clearest possible demonstration of what even
Canon Perry himself admits on a later page (p. 391),
that they were as a body both " disloyal and nn-
national.^'

CHAPTER VIII.

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE FOURTEENTH
CENTURY; THE GROWTH OF NATIONAL PRO-
TESTANTISM.

The fourteenth century the golden era of the Church before the Reformation —
Providential preparations of England for that event — The growing exactions of
the Papacy — The growing power of England as a nation — The decline of the
Papal prestige towards the end of this century — National feeling in the reign of
Edward III. — The case of Anthony Beck, Bishop of Norwich — The first statute
of Provisors — The Crown versns the Pope — Provisors a sign of the incipient
Protestantism of the English Parliament, rather than of the English Church —
The statute of Praemunire, 1353 — Provisors and Praemunire not to be taken as
signs of national Church, independence.

WE now approach one of the most important
eras of Church history, the fourteenth century.

The fourteenth century is the golden age of reform
before the Reformation.

It is the age of Edward III., the upholder of_
England's national rights against the Pope ;_ and of
John Wycliffe, the defender of evangelical truth
against Popery. It did not witness the Reformation
of the Church ; the time was not yet come for that.
But it witnessed the rise of two strong representatives
of the two great branches of Church reform which
were necessary in England before the Church of
England could be reformed ; a king, or one
moving in the politico-ecclesiastical sphere, who
should attack the Papacy with fearlessness, and a

119

I20 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

priest, or one moving in the spiritual sphere, who
should be taught by the Spirit to expose the doc-
trinal errors of Popery and unfold the elements of
Scriptural truth.

One cannot fail to recognise in the events of the
latter part of the thirteenth and the earlier part of the
fourteenth centuries, the hand of Providence prepar-
ing the State and the Church for this great epoch of
initial reform. On the one hand, the excesses of the
Papal exactions fanned to a greater height the flame
of national resistance. On the other, the growing
prestige of the nation enabled it to successfuf^revolt.
During the latter part of the thirteenth century the
Papacy waxed prouder, and became more tyrannical
than ever. Always oblivious of the people's welfare,
the Popes never forgot their covetous claims. They
claimed annates, and Peter's pence, and reservations,
and expectantiae, and commendce, and jus spoliorum
(the plunderer's claim to booty), and tithes, and indul-
gences, and many things besides; and if they did not
get it, they threatened bulls, and excommunications,
and all sorts of fearsome things. Boniface VIII.
out-Hildebranded Hildebrand. He put upon the
Papal tiara a second crown in token of spiritual
arid secular rule, adopted the emblem of the two
swords, and issued in 1296 that infamous bull
already referred to, known as the " Clericis Laicos," by
which all laymen who exacted contributions from the
clergy were excommunicated, and the Pope practically
claimed all the Church property in the world. After
all it was only the formulation in so many words of a
theory which they had been practising for generations
(Kurtz, 464). Of course, all this would have but one
result. The heart of England was being prepared for

I^u^rf

FOURTEENTH CENTURY PROTESTANTISM 121

a tremendous revolt, and when the man should arise
to captain it, the hour would come.

Meanwhile another thing was taking place which
in the providence of God would effect great things in
conjunction with this rising temper, and that was the
growing greatness of the English nation. The tiny
island kingdom of the northern seas is no longer the
home of despised and barbarian tribes. It is the
realm of a strong and liberty-loving people. England
has become _a nation^_ Its name is being identified
with the ideas of aggressiveness, valour, independence, ,..^^ ^^-'^
and law. The masterful blood of the Norman has
mingled with that of the stalwart and patriotic Saxon,
and the blend has produced the Englishman, the
English language, the English constitution, and the
English nation. Slowly but surely the germs of
national greatness have begun to sprout. The sense
of English liberty evolves the British constitution.
The love of freedom builds up the great securities of
national law, the right of the individual to freedom
from arbitrary taxation on the part of the king, and
of the nation on the part of any foreign power. The
masterful sense of power provides a bulwark for
defence, and animates to victory in aggressive war.
The name of England becomes feared at home and
abroad, by sea and land. The great kingdom of France
is humbled. Italy and Spain become aware that a
nation of no insignificant power is rising beyond the
dividing sea, and even the Mohammedan powers have
felt the prestige of the British foe. Many and great
are the battles that will yet be fought at home and ^ ^
abroad for_constitutional liberty_and national suprem- • '
acy. Yet it may safely be said, that in the fourteenth
century all the elements of national greatness which

122 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

have since lifted England to the highest rank were
not only in existence but in operation. The ideas of
the rights of the people, and the liberty of the subject,
of the limitation of the monarchy, and the responsi-
bility of Parliament and the servants of the Crown,
were clearly understood by the nation at large, though
centuries may elapse before they are fully possessed ;
and the instincts of stalwart defiance and stubborn
valour are as characteristic of Crecy as of Waterloo
(Green's " Hist, of England," i. 394; ii. 6).

These two things then synchronised in England,
the growing greatness of the Papal pride, and the
growing greatness of England's power. There could
be but one result. A collision would come, and there
would be war to the death.

What made this more inevitable in the providence
of God was the marked decline of the Papal prestige
during the removal of the Papal chair from Rome to
Avignon (i 309-1 377). Through this period, which
the Romans call the Babylonish exile, the Papacy
was slavishly under the power of France, while its
tone was proportionally arrogant to England. Its
living was loose. Its tone was earthly. Its character
was sensual. So dissolute was its living, so luxurious
its pomp, that the property of every Catholic nation
was looked upon as its lawful spoil. Wars were
incessantly carried on, for which Rome was ever
demanding money. Its greed was outrageous. And
what touched England to the quick was the exasper-
ating fact that the money demanded by the Pope,
was handed over to the French to help them to fight
against England. The sting was really intolerable.
The nation had no alternative but protest.

Nothing, however, was done. The predecessor of

FOURTEENTH CENTURY PROTESTANTISM 1 23

Edward III. was but a poor creature at best. With
little spirit and no power, Edward II. let Popes and
primates do almost what they wished. The Church
of England and the State of England together were
entirely Rome-ruled. If it was not the Pope fleecing
the people in association with the king, it was the
Pope fleecing the people with the indifference of the
king.

" Thus, in the great providence of the King of kings,
events were preparing, gradually but surely, for the
crisis of the reign of Edward III. The nation was
being prepared for the declaration of liberty ; the
Church was being prepared for the exposition of error.

XXXVII. IV/ial was tJic chief effect of the reign of
Edward III. as regards the relation of the English
Qmrch to the Papacy ?

The chief effect of Edward's reign in this respect
was the reanimation of a strong spirit of patriotic or
national defiance to Rome's encroachments.

In the year 1327 Edward the III. ascended the
throne of England. Of indifferent personal character,
he was in one way, nevertheless, a typical English-
man, He looked down upon foreigners. He was
impatient of interference. He believed in English
supremacy. It was this contempt of foreigners and
resentment of foreign influence, not any recognition
of the evil of Popery, or the spiritual inconsistency
of the Papal system, that led him and his people to
adopt those great legal enactments which inaugurated
what may be called the politico-national Protest-
antism of the Church of England.

The reader is once more requested at this point
to carefully observe the double use of the word
Protestant; the Protestantism which indicates the

124 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

resistance of a Church or a nation, or both, to a
tyrannical ruler on political or ecclesiastical grounds,
and the Protestantism which indicates the resistance
of churchmen or a church to the doctrinal system
known as Popery. Though the indications of the
latter have as yet been few and far between in the
now Romanised Church of England, there have been
numerous instances of the former ; but in the reign
of Edward III., the protests assume such a direct and
national-ecclesiastical character as to mark a real
epoch in the history of the Church.

Edward had not been long on the throne before he
found that things were in such a state that either he or
the Pope would have to give way. The Church was
completely Romanized. That troubled no one particu-
larly, for English churchmen were still unenlightened.
What did trouble them was that the Church was almost
completely in the hands of the Pope. He not only
reserved to himself the right of appointing whom he
pleased to English bishoprics ; he claimed the right
also to appoint to abbacies, deaneries, canonries, and
every other ecclesiastical office. All sorts of Italians
and Frenchmen were presented to English livings, and
coolly informed the English patrons that they had the
authority of the Pope, and that objectors would have
to answer for their temerity at the Court of Rome.
English benefices were bought and sold at Rome.
The most trifling ecclesiastical matters were ordered
to Rome for settlement, without regard to time or
cost.

The state of things was simply intolerable. First
of all, the noblemen began to chafe. Then the
people became more and more alienated from the
Church. They cared little for these foreign intruders;

FOURTEENTH CENTURY PROTESTANTISM 125

and the foreigners cared less for them. And at last
the king himself was aroused.

XXXVIII. What zvas the occasion of the protest, and
what form did it take ?

The action of a would-be Bishop of Norwich, one
Anthony Beck, who proceeded to Rome for the
Pope's confirmation to the bishopric, was the immedi-
ate occasion of the protest. Edward III. at once
wrote a right strong Protestant letter to the Pope, in
which he said that the King of England, not the Pope
of Rome, was the man to confirm the election and
present the bishop-elect, and that Englishmen, not
foreigners, were the proper persons to be bishops and
pastors.

There was, as might have been expected, no
answer to this letter.

Shortly after. Parliament takes up the matter, and
a second remonstrance, respectful, but very firm, is
addressed to the Pope. King Edward then takes
the bull by the horns, and by a royal mandate forbids
the authorities at Rome to present any foreigner to
these English benefices, or the men presented to
accept them, or the English people to receive them.
The sheriffs were empowered to imprison all French-
men and Italians and other foreign ecclesiastics
who should come into the realm of England with
their bulls and processes and other instruments what-
soever. The agents of a couple of cardinals having
been ignominiously treated in virtue of this, the Pope
got very angry, but without effect. The king still stood
to his rights, and retorted with another right Protestant
letter (Perry, i. 406), a very Magna Charta of English
Church liberties.

Thus it came to pass in the strange working of the

126 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

Providence of God, that a matter that was mainly a
personal struggle between royal and Papal ambition,
and was largely based on the hatred of Englishmen
to Italians and Frenchmen (Green's " Hist. English
People," i. 407-409 ; Kurtz, " Church Hist.," i. 466),
grew in such national interest that it was made the
subject of parliamentary action, and the mandates of
the king became the statutory provision of the nation.

In the Parliament of 135 1 the matter was taken up
by Parliament, and the law was passed which has
since been known as the first Statute of Provisors.
It provided that all elections to elective benefices
should be free ; that is that they should not be in the
hands of the Pope, but in the hands of the patrons to
whom they appertained ; that if the Pope were to
violate this principle, and insist upon presenting
one of his creatures to any bishopric or benefice, that
the benefice was to go to the crown ; and that if any
persons in any way should attempt to procure
reservations or provisions by bringing these pro-
visional letters from Rome, they were to be fined or
imprisoned.

Of course this statute was in many respects a dead
letter. The Pope paid no attention to it. The
bishops and abbots systematically evaded it (Stubbs,
iii. 329), regarding it as rather a clever device
whereby their lord the King out-generalled their lord
the Pope, for_the^lergy as a body were of course on.
^he Pope's side. Therefore, ~it cannot be reckoned,
as we shall presently show, as a sign of the Protestant-
ism of the Church. If tJic CJiurcJi were represented by
her spiritual rulers and clergy it was rather a sign of
the opposite, for the spiritual lords refused to ratify it.
But it was a sign and a very remarkable sign of the

FOURTEENTH CENTURY PROTESTANTISM 1 27

Protestantism of the nation. It was an index of the
remarkable growth of the spirit of national religious
liberty. It was the first great national attempt to
limit the temporal power of the Pope. If it was not a
protest of the Church of England as a Church against
the Church of Rome, it was the first parliamentary
protest of the realm of England against the encroach-
ments of Rome and the pretensions of the Pope. As
an expression of the national sentiment on the subject
of the Papal supremacy in the fourteenth century,
it is difficult to over-estimate its importance.

XXXIX. Was the Statute of Provisors the only
Protestafit enactment of the reign of Edward III. ?

No.

Two years after, in 1353, it was followed by another
anti-Papal measure, the Act of Praemunire, an equally
remarkable enactment.

The Statute of Provisors was bold in language; but
unfortunately it was weak in operation. The barons
and gentry were not slow to avail themselves once
more of their rights to control the benefices in their
gift, and to hurl the statute at all bearers of pro-
visional letters from Rome. But they found to their
chagrin that their resistance to Rome only involved
them in further complications. So far from the
Provisors Statute securing them, it brought them
within the power of the Pope. For, according to time-
honoured usage, it was the custom of Rome to
summon whom she pleased to the Papal court, the
judgments of which over-rode the sentences of all
national courts. And the Pope, who cared less for
the enactments of an upstart English tribunal called
a parliament, than a Gallio for the questions of a
Jewish synagogue, proceeded to summon the English

128 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

patrons who dared to refuse the Papal nominees to
answer for their temerity in Rome itself (Green's
" Hist. Eng. People," i. 444).

Of course such a state of things could not last. The
confusion was intolerable. It was evident that the
work done by the Provisors Statute was only half
done, and that further legislation was necessary if
Englishmen were to be secure from the Papal
encroachments. The question had to be settled thor-
oughly. The question was whether the king's court
was to be the final court of appeal for Englishmen, or
whether there was to be an appellate jurisdiction at
Rome. If, after having cases settled in England, men
were to have the appeal to Caesar, then Englishmen
must cease to call themselves free. The Pope, not
the king, was the head of the realm.

The Statute of Praemunire was England's settle-
ment of that question.

It was in effect the extinction of the system of Papal
appeals. It simply but plainly stated that English
affairs were to be tried in English courts, and it
declared that the judgment of English courts were to
be considered final. When a man was judged or
acquitted in the king's court, that was an end of the
matter. It was a penal offence for any one to
attempt to try him in any foreign court, or for the
Pope to condemn one whom the king had acquitted,
or to acquit one whom the king had condemned.

Considering the date it was a remarkable enact-
ment, and it shows how in the great providence of
God the spirit of English liberty was employed as one
of the main instruments for the emancipation of the
nation from the fetters of Papacy. No wonder that it
excited horror at Avignon, and that the Roman

FOURTEENTH CENTURY PROTESTANTISM. 1 29

pontiff anathematised it as a base and iniquitous
enactment. The Statutes of Provisors and Praemunire
are as red-letter days in the Protestantism of England
before the Reformation. Though two centuries are
to pass before the emancipation is complete, the
foundation stones of liberty are now being well and
truly laid.

XL. But did these statutes, valuable as they were,
merely indicate a political or national Protestantism ?
Had they notJiing to do with the Protestantism of the
Church ?

In the doctrinal sense, No.

We repeat. Neither of these statutes had anything
whatever to do with doctrine, or literally with the
Protestantism of the English Church. In the strict
sense of the word they were not Church enact-
ments at all. They were simply the. State's defence
of the Church'7~~tKe' people's defence of their ruler ;
the king's defence of his rights. They were popular
defences of English privileges. They were the
efforts of the Parliament to protect the Church from
foreigners. In one word, they were declarations of
English independence.

As far as the Church was concerned it is certain
that the Church regarded them wi^ aversion. j
Though purely political measures, they had in them
a savour of independence so detestable to Rome,
that on a later occasion the representative heads of
the English Church, the Archbishop of York and the
Archbishop of Canterbury, protested against the Act
of Provisors, as subverting the liberties of Holy
Church (the Holy Church of Rome, that is), and t/^
their duty to the Pope. So real was the Pope's <^-^
headship of the Church in England, that for a

K

I30 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

century or more after the passing of these Acts, he
continued to fill the bishoprics and benefices as he
pleased, and to promulgate his bulls and ordinances
throughout the land. And all through this period, as
was said before, the clergy as a body were on the side
of the Pope (Milner, p. 605).

From the doctrinal standpoint these laws are
nothing ; and, as a proof of the rising Protest-
antism of the Church, they are valueless. They
simply stand as evidences to the great spirit of
English independence, and show that the nation, as
a whole, is beginning to grasp the falsity of the posi-
tion of the pretended vicar of Christ.

XLI. Biit do they not prove the independence of the
English Chtirch ? Do they not show that the Church
of England was independe^it of the Church of Rome ?
Not at all.

The Church of England was at that time doctrin-

ally and corporally ONE with the holy Church of

Rome. In doctrine and discipline they were in all

things identical. The archbishops and bishops of

England were bishops of the holy Roman Church.

VThe cardinals in England, as we shall afterwards

\f show by proofs, were cardinals of the Church of

, Rome. The Pope was the head of the Church.

Y^ Holy Church determined ordinances, and doctrines

J , and pilgrimages, and — gainsay it who will — holy

f ^ Church simply meant the holy Church of Rome,

\y ' which then, as now, claimed to be the holy Catholic

J o^ Church, of which the English Church was an

y ■ / integral part.

{J The idea of the Statutes of Provisors and Praemu-

nire making the Church of England an independent
Church in the sense in which the Church of England

FOURTEENTH CENTURY PROTESTANTISM. I31

is now an independent Church, never entered any-
body's head. The laity as well as the clergy
regarded the Pope as the head of the Church
(Perry, i. 513).

These laws only concerned questions of liberties
and rights, the technicalities of instituting ecclesi-
astics, and the details of courts of appeal. In fact, it
is a question whether many of the Lords or the Com-
mons thought of the Praemunire as anything else than
a vote for their king rather than for a French Pope,
and of the Provisors as anything beyond a transfer of
Church patronage from pontiff to king.

The day is coming when the Church of England,
as a Church, will declare her independence of Rome,
and not only defy her by articles, but separate bodily
from her as a national Church. But that day is a
long way off yet. Before that day can come the
minds of Englishmen will have to be opened to the
discernment of falsehood and truth, and an education
in apostolic principles achieved which will take two
centuries of time. For it is certain that the promulga-
tion of even such Protestant enactments as the
Praemunire and Provisors would have done little
towards the dislodgment of the power of Popery in
England if it had not been for another very import-
ant factor in the preparation of the nation for the
Reformation, the work of spiritually minded and
enlightened men, who should expose error and set
forth truth, and especially the labours of the greatest
of the pre-Reformation reformers, John Wycliffe.

CHAPTER IX.

TITE ENGLISH CHURCH AND JOHN WVCLTFFE.

The distinct peculiarity of WyclifTe's work — The two principles of Wycliffe's
reforming zeal — Personal conversion, Scriptural enlightenment — The three
phases of his work : political, moral, doctrinal— Wycliffe's first publicity in i^66
— The claim of Urban V. — His treatise " De Dominio Divino" — Wycliffe unjustly
censured for the political phase of his career — The state of morals in the English
Church — The accusation that WyclifTe was a Socialist — Wycliffe enters dis-
tinctly upon his career as a doctrinal reformer — He is summoned for heresy —
The trial comes to nothing— The Papal schism fortifies Wycliffe in his antipapal
position — He attacks transubstantiation on two grounds — Wycliffe did not
retract, though some of his expressions scholastic and obscure — Wycliffe's tracts
and Bible — He denounces Roman practices and doctrines — Wycliffe the greatest
of reformers.

JOHN WYCLIFFE was, beyond doubt, one of the
greatest men of his age. Its foremost scholar,
he became its most influential teacher ; in insight
vivid, in living holy, in preaching fervent, in organisa-
tion active, in labours unwearying.

He was a man sent from God ; the man for the
times. His life and work must truly be regarded as
a direct proof of the providential disposals of the
great Head of the Church. He seems to have been
purposely raised up to do a work that only could
have been performed in the age in which he lived
by a man of his varied attainments and official
character. The great need of the day was evangeli-
cal enlightenment. The spirit of political independ-
ence of Rome was already strongly developed. The

FIRST GREAT REFORMER IN ENGLISH CHURCH I 33

measures of William the Norman, and Langton, and
Grosseteste, to say nothing of the national character,
would insure its further growth. But of evangelical
knowledge there was little or none. Yet the age was
ripe for it. The people who had so long groped in
the darkness were beginning to feel that it was dark-
ness. The nobles were weary of clerical misrule.
The rulers and lawgivers were awakening to the
inconsistency of Rome's position. The feeling of
disgust at religious abuses was gradually awakening.
The only thing that was needed was a man whose
unquestioned intellectual supremacy would attract to
his theories, whose recognised ecclesiastical standing
would add weight to his doctrinal teaching. It was
at this time that God raised up John Wycliffe, and
brought into the political and ecclesiastical arena of
the great thirteenth century, an English Churchman
who was destined to be not merely the first of the
reformers, but one who, for his influence both on
English and Continental theology, was the greatest
of them all.

XLII. What 7vas the distinctive peculiarity of
Wycliffe" s zvork ?

The distinctive peculiarity of the work of Wycliffe
was neither its national devotedness nor its anti-
papal zeal. It was neither the vigour of his exposure
of abuses, nor the amazing valour of his defiance
of the popes. It was something altogether different
from this ; something deeper and more real. It was
rather the fact that he was the first of all Catholic
Churchmen to discern the falsity of Rome's doctrinal
position, and to boldly proclaim the truth as it is in
Jesus.

Others, doubtless, had seen and known these things.

134 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

To the Cathari and the Waldenscs, to Claude of
Turin and Peter Waldo, it was given to understand
through the Scriptures, not only the glory of the
Gospel, but the corruptions and apostasy of the
Church of Rome. But of Wycliffe it may be dis-
tinguishingly asserted, that he was the first really
great and enlightened advocate of the supremacy of
the Scriptures, and the first great practical exposer
of the falsity of the key-stone doctrines of the Roman
Church. Others had done, and were doing, the
political part of Protestant reform. Grosseteste had
done it. Edward III. had done it. Parliament had
done it, and would do it again. But the work of
John Wyclifife was higher and deeper. Wycliffe's
work was the complement of this. It was the indis-
pensable other half, without which all the mere anti-
papal legislation and anti-vice preaching in the world
would never have freed the Church from Popery. It
was the shaking, not merely of Papal pretensions,
but of Papal falsities. It was the impeachment, not
merely of vices, but of errors. It was the propaga-
tion, not merely of negative protests, but of evangeli-
cal principles.

XLIII. Then it is not correct to speak of Wycliffe s
reformatory ivork as if it were merely a reform of
morals in the Church, or a mere correction of abuses?

No.

This is a great mistake. It is the mistake that
makes many modern Churchmen completely mis-
understand the whole Reformation in England. They
appear to think that it was a reform in the Church.
Instead of that it was a doctrinal reform of the
Church. Wycliffe's work, while largely dealing with
existing abuses and the exposure of Papal and

FIRST GREAT REFORMER IN ENGLISH CHURCH 1 35

clerical vices, derived its chief strength from its
positive features. It was the exposure of doctrinal
errors widely received as Gospel truths, of Papal
falsities long believed as Catholic verities, and the
dauntless declaration of the primitive teaching of the
apostles of Christ. Other men had whispered ; he
cried aloud. Others had spoken in the secrecy of
closets ; he proclaimed it on the housetops. Others
had denounced the vices of popes, he denounced the
very foundation-principles of the Papal Church sys-
tem. It is this that constituted Wycliffe not merely
the morning star but the rising sun of the Reforma-
tion (Martineau, " Ch. Hist," p. 442 ; Green's " Hist.
Eng. People," i. 446).

It is noteworthy, also, that the reforming zeal of
this great man may be traced to the two great foun-
tain heads from which later sprang the final move-
ment of the reformation of the Church of England ;
personal conversion and Scriptural enlightenment. It
was his knowledge of a personal Saviour in the
newness of life that was the secret of Wycliffe's
greatness. He loved Christ. He knew Whom he
had believed. He spake that which he knew. He
loved the Word of God ; and that path of life which
he had found therein he determined all his life long
to make known to others.

Thus the reformation of the Church sprang from
the Scriptural illumination of a man taught by the
Spirit. Outwardly and politically the nation was weary
of the yoke of Rome. Internally and reasonably the
people were disgusted with the lives of the clerics,
and the degradation of religion. It was a great
matter to rid the Church of the Papal exactor. It
was an equally great matter to rid the Church of

136 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

immoralities and crying abuses. A man of the world
could move anti-Papal measures. And any man of
earnest life could declaim against the vices of the day
in convent, court, and cloister. But the yoke of
Romish bondage, the bondage of unscriptural ecclesias-
ticism, of idolatrous superstition, this was the greatest
evil of them all. And he alone could see this, and
remove this, whom the truth had made free, and the
Holy Spirit through the understanding of the Holy
Scriptures had enlightened. It is here that the great
hand of God is made so wonderfully visible ; not
merely in the raising up of a man of such splendid
patriotism, and colossal mental power, but, also, in
the selection of a man who, by the devoutness of
his Christian life, and strength of his will, and the
depth of his convictions, would stand forth before
the world as the apostle of truth, and the Apollyon of
falsehood. » Faithful found,

Among the faithless, faithful only he ;

Among innumerable false, unmoved.

Unshaken, unseduced, unterrified,

His loyalty he kept, his love, his zeal ;

Nor numbers, nor example, with him wrought,

To swerve from truth, or change his constant mind.

Though single."

XLIV. Was Wycliffes work from the comtnencement
a work of spiritual and doctrinal reform ?

No.

The reforming work of Wycliffe in the fourteenth
century was characterised very largely by the same
features as the reformation of the Church of England
in the sixteenth century. It not only sprang as that
did from the personal enlightenment of the leader, or
leaders ; it had three distinct parts or movements.

FIRST GREAT REFORMER IN ENGLISH CHURCH 1 37

The first was political ; the second moral ; the third
doctrinal. Not only so, but the work of Wycliffe was
an anticipation of the progress of the Reformation two
centuries later in that these parts or movements
followed very nearly in the same order.

First of all there came the political, or anti-papal
stage, when the national Church spirit aroused itself
in defiance of the pretensions and claims of the Pope.
Then there followed the moral or anti-vice stage,
when the infamous lives of monks and friars and
ecclesiastics generally were arraigned for popular
indignation. And last of all came the doctrinal or
anti-error stage, when the cardinal doctrines of
Popery, or the Roman system, were attacked, and
the true doctrines of the Apostles of Christ were
expounded. First the blade, then the car, then the
full corn in the ear. First the removal of external
obstructions ; then the rectification of internal con-
ditions ; and then the reconstruction of foundation
principles.

It was in the character of a national champion of
the rights of the Sovereign and people of England
that Wycliffe began his public career, treading in
the steps of Langton, Grosseteste, and Fitzralph of
Armagh.*

Born in Yorkshire in 1324, educated at Oxford, a
doctor of divinity, a master of logic and philosophy,
Wycliffe was about forty when he stepped into the
arena as a Protestant Churchman. The air was full
of the strife of tongues, and all England was aflame

* For an account of this remarkable man, sometimes called Richard
Radulphus, see Mosheim, " Ecc. Hist.," ii. 378; Morley's "English
Writers," v, 34.

138 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

at the time on account of the insolence of Pope
Urban V. It was a bad time for a Pope to make
demands on England for tribute money to Rome.
Provisors and Praemunire had just been passed.
Thirty-three years had gone by without a mention of
it, and England was in a very different state from
what it was in 121 3, and Edward III. was a very
different man from King John. But in 1366 Pope
Urban V. made it, and summoning Edward III. to
recognise him as legitimate sovereign of England,
demanded the payment of the annual sum of a
thousand marks as England's grateful tribute for the
privilege of having such a spiritual blessing as the
lordship of the Pope.

The answer of the Parliament was short enough.
Neither King John nor any king could subject him-
self, his kingdom, or his people without their consent.
They would not pay it.

But the episode was remarkable to us for the fact
that it brought before England the man who was
destined to become her great defender against Rome.
The ablest man of his day intellectually, Wycliffe
exposed the Roman pretensions with masterly force.
He took the claims of Rome, and with relentless
logic, tore them in pieces one by one. He showed
that the exaction of a tribute by an alien was
subversive of the primary principles of constitutional
government. A tribute is, constitutionally speaking, a
quid pro quo. It is given rightly only to him who can
guarantee protection in return. This the Pope cannot
grant. Therefore the State need not pay a subsidy.
Going deeper he showed that the supreme and final
lordship of the realm is neither in the King nor in the
Pope, but in Christ, and Christ alone. That the Pope as

FIRST GREAT REFORMER IN ENGLISH CHURCH 1 39

a man, subject to sin, has no control over that which
is held for Christ. That the claim of a Pope to hold
and control a kingdom is a clear violation of the
spiritual principles of the kingdom of Christ (Green's
" Hist. Eng. People," i. 445 ; D'Aubigne's " Reforma-
tion," V. 86).

These were daring words for 1366. And they were
startling theorems. England was delighted. The
whole kingdom rang with his propositions, and the
name of Wycliffe was in every mouth. Preachers in
the pulpit and politicians in Parliament alike were
eager to employ his arguments. He found himself
famous as it were in a day.

A year or two after this he brought out his famous
treatise, " De Dominio Divino," in which he formu-
lated the sublime propositions that all dominion is
founded in God ; that that power is granted by God
not to one person, as the Papacy alleged, who is His
alone vice-gerent, but to all ; that the king is as much
God's vicar as the Pope, the royal power as sacred as
the ecclesiastical ; that each individual Christian is
himself a possessor of dominion held directly from
God ; that God Himself is the tribunal of personal
appeal.

It is doubtful whether even Wycliffe himself per-
ceived at that period the results of his reasoning,
and the consequences of such tremendous principles.
But whether he knew it or not, there seems to be
truth in Green's statement (" Hist, of the English
People," i. 447), that by this theory, which established
a direct relation between man and God, he swept
away the whole basis of a mediating priesthood, the
very foundation on which the medieval Church was
built.

I40 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

At that time Wycliffe was thinking more of the
Pope as a pretentious tribute-exactor, than of the
Papacy as an apostate Christian system, and it was
as a civil and national champion, perhaps, as much as
a reUgious that he waged this warfare against Papal
claims. Not that his religious convictions had
nothing to do with his position, as one would infer
almost from the way some have written about him.
They had much to do with it. He was in no sense a
mere politician. But the tone of his campaign at that
time was political, rather than spiritual. And though
it was as a member of the Church of England that he
wrote and spoke, it was the independence of the
crown, and the liberty of the people, rather than the
independence of the clergy, and the nationality of
the Church for which he was fighting.

From this time the Court, the Commons, and the
country, as a whole, are on the side of Wycliffe. The
friars and priests, the prelates and the Pope are, to a
man, against him. Not long after (1374), he is sent
as one of an ecclesiastical commission to Bruges to
negotiate with the Pope's representatives. The results
of the conference, on the whole, were not satisfactory
to the people, for they were a compromise to the
Pope's advantage. But one result must have been
satisfactory to them, and that was that Wycliffe was
from this time onwards a more determined opponent
of the Pope than ever.

XLV. Did Wycliffe continue long in this role of a
national or political champion ?

No.

Little by little he seems to have abandoned the
more political side of his work, becoming more and
more absorbed in the spiritual or religious. As

FIRST GREAT REFORMER IN ENGLISH CHURCH I41

D'Aubigne tersely puts it, he busied himself less and
less about the kingdom of England and occupied
himself more and more with the kingdom of Christ.
And yet, it does seem a little hard, and a little narrow
to censure Wycliffe, as some have done, for this
politico-national phase of his career. Milner, for
instance, in his chapter on John Wycliffe depreciates
his character as a reformer on account of the political
spirit which deeply infected his conduct, and hints
that these worldly alliances and occupations seriously
impugned the success of his labours. " Politics was
the rock on which this great man split."

It is true Wycliffe did enter the political sphere and
write as a citizen as well as an ecclesiastic. But we
must remember the times. And we must remember
the Divine law of development. The growth of the
spiritual man, like the growth of the natural man, is a
matter of time. Wycliffe did not spring in an instant
to the full perfection of spiritual knowledge. He
grew steadily, it is true. But the tree planted by
the rivers of waters grows slowly, even as it grows
surely. His knowledge at first was small, his percep-
tions dull. But what he knew he spake, and what he
saw he declared. And it seems to have been the will
of God that he was to be led in the first instance along
the path of what might be called a mere political
Protestantism. It was not the highest stage of
religious or spiritual development. It was, it will
doubtless be admitted by all, a lower path. It led
him into questionable alliances and doubtful partner-
ships, just as many a godly evangelical of the Irish
Church is identified in his anti-papal zeal with men
who, for all their Protestantism, are utterly devoid of
the Spirit of Christ. It yoked him with John of

142 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

Gaunt and Lord Percy, and that class of men. It
threw him in with the great herd of the anti-clerical
rabble, good, bad, and indifferent, some with base
aims, some with high aims, but all glad to have in
their fight against an alien Pope, and a purse-proud
priesthood, the alliance of so illustrious a man as
Wycliffe, the pride of Oxford, and the friend of the
king.

But Wycliffe did not stay all his life in that path.
Gradually the eyes of his mind being illumined, he
turned to a truer work, not the examination of Papal
claims and parliamentary rights, but the state of the
Church of Christ, and the needs of the day. Without
ceasing to be a patriot or a Protestant, he was led to
a distinctly higher work. And that was the work of
exposing the abuses and views which were rampant
in the Church in that day.

It seems almost impossible for us to believe the
stories which are told of the state of things in the
Church of England in the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries. If they were told of ignorant Italians, or
the degraded peasantry of France or Italy, it would
be credible enough. But to be told that the lives,
not merely of the English people, but of the bishops
and clergy of the Church of England, were immoral
and low, and wicked in the majority of instances, is
hard to understand.

Yet the statements are established b}' multiplied
and unimpeachable authorities. Churches abounded,
religious houses were everywhere. Ecclesiastics of all
sorts swarmed in city, town, and country. Crosses
dotted every highway. Shrines attracted innumerable
devotees. The worship of the Virgin, the worshipping
and adoration of the saints, and of wayside images,

FIRST GREAT REFORMER IN ENGLISH CHURCH I43

and relics, and the bones and clothing of departed
saints, was everywhere indulged in. There was plenty
of religion, that is, the Romish religion. But the lives,
the lives of the clergy as a whole, were scandalous to
a degree.

They were immersed in the most absolute worldli-
ness. If there is any truth in contemporary evidence,
and the witness of men of the day, it is certain that
thousands of the priests of Holy Church, that is the
Holy Roman Church, of which the Church of
England was then a part, the professing successors of
the apostles and teachers of the Christian religion
were walking as enemies of the Cross of Christ.
Their God was their belly. Their glory was in their
shame. They lived wholly for the world. The
dignitaries of the Church from the Pope downwards,
were as pompous as Lucifer, and as world-loving as
Demas. They were men of corrupted minds, bereft
of the truth, looking upon religion as a way of gain.
Religion was indeed a way of gain. It was the most
paying thing of the age. They had the monopoly of
merits, which had a splendid sale and commanded
great prices until Luther broke up the demand. They
fattened on the wealth of the land and waxed
wanton. They were literally clothed in fine linen,
and purple and scarlet, and were decked with
gold and precious stones and pearls. Their luxury
exceeded description. They lived deliciously, and
their merchandise was gold and silver, and marble,
and incense, and ointment, and horses, and char-
iots, and the bodies and souls of men (Rev. xviii.
7-16).

As to the mass of the clergy, secular and regular
alike, parish priests, and monks and friars, their con-

144 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

dition was shameless.* One of themselves, a prophet
of their own, said in a later day, " They pretend to
resemble the apostles, and they are filthy, ignorant,
impudent vagabonds. They arc sots, wasps, whore-
masters, vultures, born fools. Instead of going about
doing good, and winning men for God, they haunted
taverns, asked men to drink, led disgraceful brawls,
and were notorious for their profanity." " They
wasted their time and wealth in gambling and revelry;
went about the streets roaring and outrageous, and
sometimes had neither tongue, nor eye, not hand, nor
foot, to help themselves for drunkenness " (Froude's
"Erasmus," 12-15; 59-68; Le Bas, p. 162, quoted
by Butler).

Were they ashamed when they had committed
abomination ? Nay ; they were not at all ashamed,
neither could they blush. So far from blushing at
their conduct, they gloried in it, and lorded it over
the people by their power of the keys, and the terror

* The reader is, however, reminded that in spite of this there were no
doubt scattered here and there throughout the Church men of simple
and beautiful piety. Chaucer's charming picture of a poor town parson
of that age is unsurpassed almost in English literature : —
"A good man was ther of religioun
And was a poore persoun of a town ;
But riche he was of holy thoght and werk.
He was also a lerned man, a clerk,
That Christes gospel trewcly wolde preche ;
His parisshens devoutly wolde he teche.
This noble ensample to his sheep he gaf,
That first he wroghte, and afterward he taughte,
Christes lore, and His apostles twelve.
He taughte, and first he folwed it himselve."

(Skcat's " Chaucer," iv. 15.) It is possible, however, that this character
was suggested to Chaucer by one of Wycliffe's simple priests rather than
by one of the ordinary clergy.

FIRST GREAT REP^ORMER IN ENGLISH CHURCH 1 45

of their censures and excommunications. " The clergy-
seemed to exult in showing contempt of God and
man by the licentiousness of their lives and the
insolence of their dominion. They ruled with self-
made laws over soul and body. As successors of the
apostles they held the keys of hell and heaven ;
their excommunications were registered by the
Almighty ; their absolutions could open the gates of
Paradise."

No wonder then that a man like Wycliffe, whose
canon was God's Word, turned with his might against
such men, and against such ways. He was not the
first, by any means, nor the only one to turn the
search-light on their lives. Fitzralph, the Chancellor
of Oxford, had done similar work some years before,
and John de Polliac also. But what Fitzralph, the
Irishman, began, the Englishman carried on to per-
fection. His increasing study of God's Word opened
more and more the eyes of his understanding. Con-
troversy sharpened his weapons, and multiplied his
arguments. His visit to Bruges brought out in more
lurid light the corruptions of the whole Romish
system. And Wycliffe, like John Knox, was one
who never feared the face of man.

With a splendid audacity, he turned on the friars,
those sanctimonious rascals of the four orders, and
exposed their corruptions with unsparing thrusts.
His indictment was as scathing as that of Erasmus,
some generations later, and to the end he waged
this warfare, undaunted by sickness, bulls, or insults.
" I shall not die but live, and declare again the evil ^
deeds of the friars," is one of his sayings which has
passed into fame (1379).

But the friars were not the only ones, or even

L

146 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

the first, that he attacked. The lives of prelates
and priests were as bad, if not worse, and clerical
worldliness, and pomp and pride aroused his indig-
nation to the extreme. The more he searched the
Word of God, the more he saw their inconsistency
with the teaching of Christ and His apostles. Christ
and His apostles were poor men. These were great
and rich. They were unworldly and heavenly-minded.
These were earthly and worldly-minded. They
cared nothing for worldly things. These cared for
nothing else. He and they worked ; these lived at
ease. They sought peace and quietness. These
fought and stirred up strife. They lived among the
people and sought their good. These left the people
and sought their goods. Christ and His apostles
owned no property, and desired none. These added
lands to lands, and house to house, lived in wealth and
grandeur, drawing all they could from the living of
the people.

Is it then a strange matter that in such an age
and with such men, Wycliffe should not only have
denounced such things with all his might, but should
have uttered sayings which give colour to the charge
of his detractors that he was a communist, a socialist,
and a promoter of anarchy.

The scorn of Wycliffe knew no bounds. His in-
dignation was unmeasured. He denounced their
wealth. He laughed to scorn their pomp and show.
He questioned their right to riches and estates.
He held that it became no minister of Jesus Christ
to live in possession of such property, and most
strenuously denounced their vast endowments and
princely wealth.

Of course, he was misunderstood then. Of course,

FIRST GREAT REFORMER IN ENGLISH CHURCH 147

he is misunderstood now. His enemies calumniated
him then. Their descendants calumniate him to-day.
To be great, says Emerson, is to be misunderstood.
They called him a communist. They called him
the friend of anarchists and spoilers. They called
him the father of insurrection and disorder. They
blamed him for all the riots and revolts of the
times. And to-day even there are Church writers
who seek to belittle his greatness as a reformer by
depicting him as a revolutionist {see " Hist. Ch. of
Eng.," Hore, pp. 192-195). But there can be no doubt
that many of the views fathered upon him, and the
theories with which he was charged, are the outcome
of the hatred and misrepresentation of his Romish
opponents, and of those who dislike his evangelical
doctrine. For, after all, there is no clear evidence
that Wycliffe ever patronised socialists, or advocated
socialism. He may have held, and probably did
hold, a pretty strong theory of Church disendowment.
Thousands of clergy have done the same who could
in no wise be called socialists. But that he even
advocated or patronised the wild communism of a
John Bull, or a Wat Tyler, is an assertion that
proceeds only from ignorance (Green's " Hist. English
People," i. 488). To denounce the greed and pomp
of ecclesiastics was one thing ; to advocate the spolia-
tion of property, another thing altogether. Nor is
there any clear evidence that the views of Wycliffe
with regard to Church property and clerical posses-
sions were at variance with the plain teaching of
Scripture and the words of Christ. There is really
nothing, after all, in Wycliffe's ideas about money,
and the right of the clergy to wealth and property,
that is beyond a fair and honest interpretation of the

148 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

teaching of the New Testament on the subject. He
seems only to have taught what Christ Jesus taught,
Matt. vi. 19, 20 ; x. 9 ; Luke xii. 33, 34, and to have
advocated what His apostles advocated, Acts xx.
33 ; 2 Cor. xii. 14 ; i Peter v. 2. When we consider
these passages, and remember in addition the startling
wickedness of the clergy and the corruptions of the
age, we need not be surprised to find that a man like
Wycliffe should have taken the stand he did, or have
spoken the strong words he is said to have spoken.
He was not immaculate. He had John the Baptist
work to do, and he did it. It was no time for rose-
water and soft platitudes. He had to speak sternly
and strongly, and as he was human, he may even at
times have spoken violently. Flagrant diseases
require flagrant treatment. But that he never acted
the part of a communistic incendiary, or advocated
the spoliation of ecclesiastical possessions, is the testi-
mony of nearly every reliable English historian.

XLVI. At ivhat date may Wycliffe be said to have
come forth in his last and greatest character as a
reformer, not merely of abuses, but of the cardinal
beliefs of the Catholic C/mrch ?

It is not easy to fix the exact date. For a long
time he had been steadily growing in the clearness of
his spiritual insight, and in the fervour of his anti-
Romish zeal. Roughly speaking, however, the years
1377 or 1378, may be taken as important epochs in
Wycliffe's reforming career. In the former year he
was charged with heresy, and formally summoned
by the Archbishop of Canterbury as the representa-
tive of the Roman See to answer to the charges laid
against him. The year before, his enemies had sent
nineteen articles and extracts from his writings to the

FIRST GREAT REFORMER IN ENGLISH CHURCH I49

Pope. The Pope replied with five bulls, in which he
declared that Wycliffe was a pestilential heretic, whose
damnable doctrines were to be plucked up by the
roots, lest they should defile the faith and bring into
contempt the Church of Rome ; and called upon the
archbishop, the king, and the university, to deal
summarily with the heretic (Fox, v. 227). All of
which things prove in a very practical manner the
position then occupied by the English Church, as an
integral part of the Church of Rome.

The damnable doctrines complained of were only
questions, however, that touched the wealth and
power of the Church, the binding and loosing power
of the Pope, the right of the temporal lords to deprive
wicked clerics of their temporalities, and other mat-
ters. The trial, as every one knows, came to nothing.
Popular opinion was on Wycliffe's side, and the
proceedings were stopped by a representative of the
Regent.

The effect of this action upon Wycliffe was import-
ant. It strengthened his courage. It deepened his
conviction. It fortified him in his defence of what
he was seeing more and more clearly to be true. It
emboldened him in defiance of what he saw more
clearly to be false. In the following year (1378),
another event happened. That was the Papal schism,
the crowning scandal of Papal Christianity. There
they were, the two infallible heads of the Catholic
Church, fighting each other like wolves ; one at Rome,
in Italy, the other at Avignon, in France. Each
claimed to be infallible, each right, each the vicegerent
of Christ, and each the representative of the unity of
the Godhead in heaven, and the Church on earth.
Urban VI., the Pope of Rome, excommunicated

I50 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

his rival, the impostor at Avignon. Clement VII.,
the Pope at Avignon, excommunicated his rival,
the impostor at Rome. Each promulgated decrees,
scattered bulls, issued anathemas, and played the role
of the visible head of Christ's Church.

The effect of this upon Wycliffe was material. For
a long time, doubtless, the seeds of suspicion with
regard to the whole Romish system had been ripen-
ing within his mind. The Christianity of Christ was
so utterly irreconcilable with the Christianity of the
Pope. The teachings of the apostles were so abso-
lutely contrary to those of the Papists. His work as
a patriot and constitutional reformer had opened his
eyes to the falsity of the Papal claims. His impeach-
ment of the morals of the clergy had convinced him
of the corruption of the Papal communion. But
now he seems to have reached a final conclusion.
The whole fabric of the Papal system is anti-Christian.
The Pope is Antichrist. The Popish system a mass
of error. The Papal decrees, the laws and judgments
of the enemy of Christ.

He writes a tract entitled " Schisma Papas," the
schism of the Pope, in which he not only describes
the Papal system as Antichrist, but actually urges
the sovereigns of Europe to seize this opportunity for
destroying a structure already shaken to its founda-
tions. It is absurd to speak of infallibility in connec-
tion with such a system. " God hath cloven the heart
of Antichrist, and made the two parts fight against
each other." The position he had before asserted,
that the Church of Rome is not the head of the
Churches, and the Pope of Rome invested with no
greater jurisdiction, is now established by the facts.
The whole system of Rome is contrary to the Gospel

FIRST GREAT REFORMER IN ENGLISH CHURCH 151

of Christ. Its authority and rule were not the canons
of Scripture. Its doctrines were not the doctrines of the
New Testament. Its practices were not the practices of
the apostles. And, chief of all its errors, the fountain
and heart of all, was the Roman doctrine of the
eucharist. This, as Archbishop Cranmer wrote
nearly two centuries after, is the chief root of all
Roman error. The rest is but branches and leaves.
The very body of the tree is the Popish doctrine of
transubstantiation.

Turning, then, from his pursuit of friars and monks,
and his sarcastic impeachment of the follies of the
day, Wycliffe addresses himself to the more serious
task of destroying the doctrinal corruptions of the
Church, and restoring the foundations of primitive
truth ; not of denouncing and destroying error
merely, but of setting forth in its simplicity the
doctrine of Christ and His apostles.

In this course his greatest task was unquestionably
the exposure of transubstantiation. This dogma was
the key of Rome's position, and around it gathered,
as towers around a citadel, the various dogmas of
Popery.

XLVII. On what grounds did Wycliffe attack the
Romish doctrine of Transiibstantiatioti ?

On two grounds.

First, on the ground of Scriptural inconsistency ;
next, on the ground of philosophical impossibility.

A man who studied the Gospels and read the
Epistles of the New Testament, especially the Epistle
to the Hebrews, could not long hold the Roman
teaching with regard to the eucharist. The two were
irreconcilable. The monstrous position that the
priest renews at each sacrament the propitiatory

152 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

sacrifice of Calvary, and stands daily offering that
offering- which the Scripture expressly asserts was
once for all offered, " one sacrifice for ever," was as
repugnant to his enlightened spirit as the equally
monstrous position, that at the word of a simple and
ignorant man, the Lord of Heaven descends from
His throne and suffers Himself to be immolated upon
the altar, expelling the substance of the bread and
wine, incorporating in place thereof His glorious
body.* Christ ascended into heaven. There He sits
at the right hand of God. The whole tenor of the
New Testament is opposed to the figment of His
corporal presence on the altar. The natural body
and blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven. He
is not here. He is risen. " The natural body and
blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven, and not
here," as our Prayer- Book teaches now.

But Wycliffe's objection to the doctrine of tran-
substantiation was also philosophical. It was based
on reason. Remember that Wycliffe was one of the
profoundest thinkers of the day. He was a logician
of no mean order. His life as a schoolman had been
passed in discussing theological questions in an
argumentative manner. And reason, as well as
Scripture, became his strength.

Wycliffe's position was this.

It is contrary to reason to assert that the accidents
of the bread can remain in the eucharist after consecra-
tion, and yet the substance of the bread not be there.

* " And thou then that art an earthly man by what reason mayest
thou saye that thou makest thy Maker ? " (" Wycket," vi.).

" For nothing is more repulsive than that any priest in celebrating
daily makes or consecrates the body of Christ. For our God is not a
recent God " (" De Eucharistia," c. i. p. i6).

FIRST GREAT REFORMER IN ENGLISH CHURCH 1 53

That is, it is utterly unphilosophical and unreason-
able to say that the piece of bread can look the same,
and feel the same, and weigh the same, and taste the
same, and smell the same, and yet not be bread at
all, but something else than bread.* The thing is
impossible. If the accidents of a thing are there, then
the substance of the thing is there also. If they
seem to be bread and wine, they are bread and wine.
Now it is undeniable, that after consecration the
consecrated bread is to all appearance bread, just
the same as before. The accidents of material bread
remain. This is fact. But it is equally true that
the accidents of a thing cannot remain without its
substance. That is philosophy. The corporal presence
of Christ, or transubstantiation, is, therefore, impossible.
God requires us to believe many things which are above
reason. To believe a mystery is one thing, to accept
a thing that contradicts common sense is another.

But then came at once the objection. What in
that case of the words of Christ, " This is My body " ?
Did He mean this is My body, or did He mean
something else? If He meant this is My body, then
the subject after consecration must be, not bread,
but Christ's body.

Wycliffe's argument in answer to this was simple.

The words, " This is My Body," were intended by
Christ in a formal, figurative, and sacramental sense.
The bread after consecration is still bread. Sub-
stantially or really as regards its subject, it is what its

* " Ideo vel oportet veritatem Scripturae suspendere, vel cum sensu
ac judicio humano concedere quod est panis" (Trialogus," iv. 4, 257).

" Inter omnes sensus extrinsecos, quos Deus dat homini, tactus ct
gustus sunt in suis judiciis magis certi ; sed illos sensus haeresis ista
confunderet sine causa " {ibid., p. 259).

154 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

accidents declare it to be, bread, real bread. But
sacramentally it is the Body of Christ. "The bread
by the words of consecration is not made the Lord's
glorified body, or His spiritual body, which is risen
from the dead, or His fleshly body as it w^as before
He suffered death ; but that the bread still continues
bread." This Wycliffe contended, in the teeth of an
angry Church, was not only the true doctrine of
Scripture, but the ancient doctrine of the Catholic
Church.* It was the doctrine of the primitive Church,
St. Augustine, and the great Fathers of the faith.
" The consecrated host we see upon the altar is neither
Christ nor any part of Him, but an effectual sign of
Him." " It is not to be understood that the body of
•Christ comes down from heaven to the host con-
secrated in every church. No. It remains ever fast
and sure in heaven." -|-

XLVIII. It is believed by some tJiat Wycliffe retracted
these views, and reverted to tlie doctrine of transub-
statitiation. Is there any grou7id for this statement ?

No.

On the contrary, when the University of Oxford
proceeded to condemn him and his opinions,
Wycliffe stood firm.

* " In all holy Scripture, from the beginning of Genesis to the end
of the Apocalypse there be no wordes written of the makyng of Christe's
body " ("Wycket," p. ii).

" Olim fuit fides ecclesiae Romanae in professione Berengarii quod
panis el vinum quae remanent post benedictionem sunt hostia consec-
rata " ("Sacrament of Altar," 1381).

t " Hostia consecrata quern videmus in altari nee est Christus nee
alic|ua sui pars, sed efEcax ejus signum " ("Thesis in Sacrament of
Altar ").

" Non est intelligendum corpus Christi descendere ad hostiam in
quacunque ecclesia consecratum sed manct sursum in coelis stabile et
immolum " (" Trialogus," iv. c. 8, p. 272).

FIRST GREAT REFORMER IN ENGLISH CHURCH 1 55

His friends were timid. John of Gaunt, his former
patron, refused any longer to champion him. It
mattered not. The courage of WycHffe was invin-
cible. He had ceased to put his trust in princes.
His help was in the Lord. In the latter part of the
year 1382 he stood before the convocation of Oxford,
before Archbishop Courtney, bishops, and the doctors,
and his answer to their excommunications and sus-
pensions was his bold confession in which he de-
clared that there is a real presence in the sacrament,
but )iot a corporal presence. That is, that the body
of Christ is present, but not substantially or corpo-
really. Substantially the bread is bread ; sacrament-
ally it is the body of Christ. It is true that in some
of his arguments he employed subtle phrases and
certain obscure and equivocal expressions. But this
was to be expected. Wycliffe was a schoolman, and
delighted in the subtleties of the schools. The main
thing is, that he still stood to his point, that the bread
is still bread and the wine still wine after consecration.
And the best proof of his not having recanted is the
fact of the unrelenting persecution of his enemies.*

For Wycliffe never flinched. He had put his hand
to the plough, and he did not turn back. " Finaliter
Veritas vincit " was his proud avowal. I believe that
in the end the truth will conquer. Nor did he lack
adherents and supporters. When the whole current
of Church thought swept fiercely against him, and
prelates and doctors denounced him as an apostate,

* It has been questioned whether Wycliffe ever made this recantation
before the clergy at Oxford. What was purported to be such is said to
be a statement of Wycliffe's put forth afterwards. It matters little.
The point is that he did not recant, but on the contrary defended his
opinions.

156 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

a growing band of faithful ones clung closely to
him. They believed his teachings. They became
apostles of his doctrines. They went from parish to
parish, and town to town ; and soon in every hamlet,
village, town, and castle, the Wycliffites abounded.
They grew in spite of hatred, and death, and recanta-
tions, and persecutions. They were found in the
schools. They waxed bold in the University. They
appeared amongst even the nobles. Wycliffc main-
tained to the end his vigorous denunciations of the
errors of Rome. In the wonderful providence of
God he was unmolested by persecution and devoted
his few remaining years with tireless assiduity to the
great cause of truth.

He did not confine himself to the doctrine of
transubstantiation by any means. He assailed every
superstitious practice and doctrine of the Church.
And while with relentless logic he shook to the base
the fabric of error, he set forth also the great positive
principles of evangelical truth.

XLIX. Whatwere the twog)-eat znstrmnents employed
by Wy cliff e during his latter years for tJiis purpose ?

The two great instruments of Wycliffe in the work
of reform were his tracts and his Bible. The influ-
ence of the first was very great. They were simply
appeals to the people, and were not addressed to the
learned and logical, the scholars and schoolmen of
the day, but to all classes of churchmen. He had
addressed the University, and the University at the
dictate of a Roman legate had hardened its heart.
The doctors had ears to hear, but they would not
hear. As the Apostles of old said to the envious Jews,
" It was necessary that the Word of God should
first have been spoken to you, but seeing you put it

FIRST GREAT REFORMER IN ENGLISH CHURCH I 57

from you, lo we turn to the peoples," so Wycliffe
turned to the people of the land. He addressed them
in their own mother tongue.

With an amazing industry, Green tells us, he issued
tract after tract in the tongue of the people. " The
dry, syllogistic Latin is suddenly ilung aside, and in
rough, clear, homely English, he woos the hearts of
the masses." And with wonderful effect. The influ-
ence of the tracts was extraordinary. They were
circulated widely. They were read voraciously.
They were earnestly believed. They created thinkers.
They enlisted the devotion of awakened lives.

It was the first Tractarian movement in the English
Church. The tracts were partially negative, partially
positive. They exposed and destroyed the erroneous ;
they explained and restored the true. Nearly every
distinctive tenet and dogma of Romanism, or as it
was then, and is now so falsely called the " Catholic "
faith, was denounced and proved false. The great
canon of the true religion of Christ, the Word of
God and the teaching of the Apostles was unflinch-
ingly upheld. What saith the Scripture ? What did
Christ and His apostles teach ? These seem to have
been the only authority and rule of Wycliffe's posi-
tions. He had arrived at the conclusion which was the
reason of the Reformation. The conclusion that all
Christian doctrine is to be tested by God's Holy Word.

The result was a revelation. The things that
were most widely and firmly believed by English
Churchmen were without a shadow of foundation in
Scripture. The great and massive structures of the
Roman temple were built on quagmires of supersti-
tion and fable. Pardons, indulgences, pilgrimages,
auricular confession, image worship, saint worship,

158 THE CHURCH of England

the adoration of the host, the absolution of the priest,
the infallibility of the Pope ; these things were the
very substance of Church religion.

And they were all wrong ; they were false.

This was a tremendous conclusion for a man in that
age to arrive at. But God was his judge, and the
Word of God his authority.

They were not in the Scriptures. They were
without authority there. Therefore they could not
be true. About the host he says in one of the tracts:
" They have made us believe a false law ; the falsest
belief is taught in it. For where do you find that
ever Christ, or any one of His disciples or apostles,
taught any man to ivorsJiip it ? " (" Wycket," p. vi.).
He found no adoration of the host in the Word of
God. It had no right, therefore, to be practised in
the Church. Or, as the Church of England teaches
to-day, " no adoration is intended, or ought to be
done, for that were idolatry, to be abhorred of all
faithful Christians."

About the asserted power of the priest to transform
the piece of bread by the words of consecration into
the Saviour's real body, he says again : " You cannot
create the world by using the words of creation. How
shall you make the Creator of the world by using the
words by which ye say He made the bread His body?"
{Ibid.). With regard to the doctrine of pardons and
indulgences, and the supererogatory merits of the
saints. There is no warrant for these things in the
Word. They are false, and should not be taught in
the Church. "Do they imagine," says he, "that God's
grace may be bought and sold like an ox or an ass.
The merit of Christ is of itself sufficient to redeem
every man from hell." He reprobates the idea of

FIRST GREAT REFORMER IN ENGLISH CHURCH 159

worshipping of images, and cuts in twain the casu-
istry of the Romish defence. " We worship not the
image but the being represented by the image, say
the patrons of idolatry in our times. It is sufficient
to say the idolatrous heathen did the same." He
opposes the celibacy of the clergy. He denies the
necessity of prayer to the saints, or saint worship.
He rejects the doctrine of purgatory (though some
have questioned this), and the value of the Latin
tongue in the services of the Church. He impugns
the practice of private masses, and of extreme
unction. He denounces the artificiality of the chant-
ing of the priests, and the use of oil and salt in the
consecration. In short, in his tracts and treatises,
Wycliffe either denied or questioned every prominent
feature of the Romish system of religion (Kurtz, p.
501 ; Milner, 598-605 ; Short, 115-119; Green, i. 490;
Martineau, 452-463 ; Massingbred, pp. 1 38-141).

In fact, he went almost beyond this.

He took the position, as Fisher says in his history of
the Reformation, not only of a Protestant, but, in many
important particulars, of a Puritan. He certainly did
make statements that were capable of misconstruc-
tion, and in rejecting totally ecclesiastical tradition
as a guide, assumed positions that laid him open to
the charge of iconoclasm. If the statements with
which he is credited are true, he would not only have
abolished Popery, but episcopacy ; and destroyed,
not merely the doctrine of transubstantiation, but all
ceremonial worship.

If the statements are true !

That is just the point. For we must remember,
in the first place, that the accounts we have of
Wyclifife's teaching are largely gathered from Romish

l6o THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

sources ; in the second place, that his protests were
largely against the abuses and misuses of things, and
are not to be considered as denials of their use, as
his ideas, for instance, with regard to the rite of
confirmation ; and, in the third place, as Fuller
so wisely said, many of his phrases, which
are heretical in sound, would appear orthodox in
sense.

However, the influence of the tracts, as we said,
was enormous. They found their way into many
hearts, and wherever they went they arrested and
awakened. If the evidence of contemporary his-
torians is to be relied on, every second man on the
highway was a Wycliffite, that is, a man who, by the
teachings and writings of Wycliffe, had come to
doubt and deny the Romish system, and to think for
himself on religious subjects.

Of the second great instrument in Wycliffe's reform-
ing career, a few words only need be said.

The Bible of John Wycliffe was his greatest
achievement. The work of translating the Bible
into English had, doubtless, been attempted before
Wycliffe's day, and two English versions of the
Psalms were made in the reign of Edward the Third.
But Wycliffe's honour was not merely his assertion
of the theoretical right of Christians to read the
Word of God for themselves, but his giving the Bible
to the people in their own tongue. The version
of St. John's gospel by Bede was in Saxon. The
scholastic version of the Bible was in Latin. The
portions of Elfric, and Rolle, and William of Shore-
ham were, to all practical purposes, theological
curiosities. Nobody knew anything about them.
The Church, so far from encouraging the reading

FIRST GREAT REFORMER IN ENGLISH CHURCH l6l

of the Bible, encouraged its obscurity. The Church
of England, or rather, the Church of Rome in
England, for that is what it practically was, so far
from ordering it to be read in the churches, was
soon about to order to prison everybody who
read it at all. No jailor ever kept a prisoner more
secure in an inner prison than the Church of Rome
kept the Word of God. A few persons here and
there could read it in Latin ; but the majority cared
nothing about it. The most learned and intelligent
of the clerks, on their own confession, knew less of
the Bible than many of the Wycliffites. The Bible
was a sealed book.

Wycliffe, as the first and greatest reformer, boldly
claimed the Bible for the people. The Bible, he
said in effect, is the faith of the Church. If it is
heresy to read the Bible, then the Holy Ghost Him-
self is condemned, who gave it in tongues to the
apostles of Christ to speak the Word of God in all
languages under heaven. If the faith of the Church
is in the Bible, then the Bible should be in the hands
of the people. If God's Word is the life of the world,
and every Word of God is the life of the human soul, no
Antichrist can take it away from those that are Christ-
ian men, and thus suffer the people to die for hunger.

It was, doubtless, such views as those which
spurred Wycliffe on in his great work. Not only
that they might for themselves test his doctrines by
the Word of God, but that they might test all
doctrines by it. In spite of opposition, hindrance,
and incredible difficulties, he persevered in the work,
and, before his death, by the assistance of divers
helpers, he had the satisfaction of translating the
Bible as a whole.

M

l62 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

It was first published in 1382, and though printing
was, of course, uninvented, the devotedness of his
transcribers produced copies in abundance. This
year 1382 is a great date in English history.* It is a
year to be had greatly in honour of Englishmen.
The Bible is now in the hands of the people, and
the truth is abroad. The foundation stone of the
Reformation in England is laid. The Reformation
has begun.

Wycliffe lived but a short time after this. He did not
again appear before the public eye. But, though he lived
in retirement, he accomplished a vast amount of work.
He laboured with untiring enthusiasm, as far as his
failing health permitted, in his parish at Lutterworth,
preaching sermons, writing tracts, and scattering his
writings abroad over the land.-f- Little is known of
his life during these latter days ; the only incident of
importance that is generally related being the Brief
of Pope Urban in demanding his appearance at
Rome, and Wycliffe's alleged reply, so full of gentle
sarcasm and innocent instruction. | He told the Pope
he would be delighted to explain his teachings to
any one, but especially to him, because as the first
follower of Christ in Christendom, he would, of
course, be the humblest, and exempt from worldly

* There is still a degree of uncertainty amongst scholars with regard
to the exact date of Wyclifte's Bible. But 1382 is the most probable.

t An idea of Wycliffe's enormous working power may be gathered
from the fact that his published works in Latin and English are esti-
mated at about 161.

+ Lechler regards this question of the citation to Rome as mere tradi-
tion. But there seems to be evidence for it in Wycliffe's treatise " De
Citationibus," though the evidence for the letter to the Pope is very
uncertain. The letter does not seem to have been personally addressed,
or delivered.

FIRST GREAT REFORMER IN ENGLISH CHURCH 1 63

honours ; and as he of all men was most bound by the
law of Christ, he would naturally leave all temporal
dominion and rule to the secular power. He regretted
that he was unable to appear before the Pope in
person, but would, both by himself and with others,
remember him in his prayers. The letter is given in
full by Fox (" Book of Martyrs," v.). It is really a
delicious bit of reading.

WycHfife died on the last day of 1384, leaving
behind him a noble heritage of truth, and a record
of untarnished devotion to the cause of Christ.

Wycliffe was beyond controversy the first and
greatest of reformers. We do not say that he was
the clearest or the soundest. In some respects
his knowledge was defective, and his teaching
obscure. He was a man ; it would have been con-
trary to the laws of human development if he had
been as enlightened as an angel. He lived in the
darkest of the Dark Ages. Protestantism as a
doctrinal system was unknown. The doctrines of
the simple Gospel unheard of. Popery was not only
believed, it was exclusively believed. There was
nothing else to believe. It was a long time too
before even Wycliffe's eyes were opened to the real
meaning of Romanism, and the true character of
Popery as a doctrinal system. It is not to be
expected, therefore, as Milner seems to expect, that
Wycliffe's writings should be characterised by the
clearness and soundness of such men as Ridley and
Melancthon and Luther. The marvel is that he was
as sound as he was, and as clear as he was. For in
some of his views he seems to have been even more

164 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

enlightened than the German reformers. No, he was
neither the clearest nor the soundest of the reformers,
but he was the first and greatest.

He was not only the greatest reformer of the
Church of England, he was the first reformer of
Europe. His reputation was continental. He antici-
pated the Reformation of the sixteenth century in
England and abroad. If Luther was the Joshua of
the Reformation movement, Wycliffe was its Moses.
Here again was that saying verified, " one soweth and
another reapeth." Wycliffe sowed, Luther reaped.
Wycliffe spake, Cranmer and Ridley re-echoed the
words. As far as his influence in England is con-
cerned, a modern Oxford professor describes it as
wholly unapproached in the entire history of the
nation for its effect on English theology and English
religious life. But his influence was not confined to
England. The works of Wycliffe scattered through-
out the Continent became the seeds of reformations.
They influenced the universities. They gave birth to
reformers. He, being dead, yet spake. In vain did
Romish bishops burn his books. In vain did a great
council of Rome condemn his doctrines. In vain did
an Anglican bishop exhume his bones, and cast his
ashes on the flowing stream. " The brook conveyed
his ashes into Avon, Avon into Severn, Severn into
the narrow seas, they into the main ocean." The very
ashes of Wycliffe became an emblem of his doctrine,
dispersed over the world.

CHAPTER X.

THE DOCTRINAL POSITION OF THE ENGLISH
CHURCH IN THE AGE OF WYCLIFFE.

Wycliffe's teaching largely identical with the present doctrine of the Church of
England — On the supremacj' of the Holy Scriptures — On the Apocrj'pha — On
justification by faith and grace — On the Church — On pardons, image worship,
saint worship — On the Lord's Supper — Wycliffe did not teach consubstantiation —
On Sacramental adoration — Wycliffe's teaching private opinion only — What was
then condemned by the Church as heresy now the teaching of the Church of
England as a Church — The Church that condemned Wycliffe, the Church of
Rome.

WE purpose in this chapter to open up a question
or two that will materially aid the reader in
his endeavour to understand the exact doctrinal
position of the Church of England in Wycliffe's age
as contrasted with the Church of England since the
Reformation, and will also throw light upon the diffi-
cult subject of the relationship between the Church of
England and the Church of Rome. With this end in
view we will first of all compare the teachings of
Wycliffe with those Reformation principles so dis-
tinctly set forth in the present formularies of the
Church of England, and then go on to show that the
treatment of Wycliffe by the English Church is one
of the strongest possible demonstrations of its
Romanised and Roman character. He was a
Protestant. The Church to which he belonged was
not. We will then proceed to take up the very

165

l66 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

involved question of the identity of the EngHsh
Church as a persecutor of Wycliffe with the Church
of Rome, a subject that is of the very first import-
ance, and requires the closest possible attention on
the part of the student of English Church history,
reserving the question of the nationality of the
English Church for the following chapter.

At a surface glance the first question we are about
to discuss seems almost superfluous. Fifty years ago,
indeed, it would have been. The question would
have been unhesitatingly answered in the affirmative,
and few, if any, would have dreamed of disputing it.
But in these days when even leaders of Church
thought endeavour to explain away history, and
unheard of interpretations are given to century old
facts, when falsehood is varnished and truth disguised,
and Wycliffe's foes are those of his own household,
the case is different. And as the question is of the
greatest interest, and the understanding of it indis-
pensable to our understanding of the reformation of
the Church of England, we will enter into it some-
what particularly and discuss it at length. The
question is this : —

L. Did Wycliffe anticipate the Reformatio7i move-
ment in the ChiwcJi of England ; and were the principles
and doctrines for zvJiicJi he contended the principles
and doctrines of the Chnrch of Engla7id of to-day ?

It is, of course, a very large question.

As far as some of the details of Wycliffe's teach-
ings are concerned, especially with regard to his
sociological and sacramental views, it is certain that
the question must be answered in the negative.
But with regard to the main principles assumed by
Wycliffe in his doctrines and teaching, it is certain

DOCTRINAL POSITION IN AGE OF WYCLIFFE 1 67

that they were substantially in agreement with those
Reformation principles which are now the distinctive
feature of the Church of England. The Prayer-Book
says that the true doctrine of the Church of England
is contained in the Articles; "That the Thirty-nine
Articles of the Church of England," authorised,
allowed and generally subscribed to, " do contain the
true doctrine of the Church of England agreeable to
God's Word." If this is the case, it is certain
that the cardinal doctrinal positions established by
Wycliffe, are the cardinal and distinctive principles of
the Church of England.

First, and foremost of all, Wycliffe maintained as
the very corner-stone of his doctrinal system the
supremacy of the authority of the Holy Scriptures.*
With him the ever infallible test of all doctrines was
the Word of God. He reasserted the great canon of
Athanasius and Theodoret, the holy and divinely
inspired Scriptures are themselves sufficient for the
enunciation of the truth. To this touch-stone all
human writings, human opinions, and human tradi-
tions, were to be unhesitatingly brought. The
authority of Scripture infinitely surpasses the authority
of any writings whatsoever. To hold the contrary is
the most dangerous of heresies. Not only so. He
took what was then the audacious and extraordinary
position that tJie teacJiings of popes and prelates
were not to be accepted as ex cathedra stateinejits of

* "Sola Scriptura sacra est illius auctoritatis et reverentiae, quod
si quidquam asserit debet credi " (" De Civili Dominio").

" Omnis lex utilis sanctae matri ecclesiae docetur explicite vel
impjicite in Scriptura" (" De Ecclesia," c. 8).

" Impossibile est, ut dictum Christiani vel factum aliquod sit paris
auctoritatis cum Scriptura sacra" (" De Veritate Scripturaesacrae,"c. 15).

l68 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

CJmrcJi belief, simply because they were the statements
of popes ami prelates to which, because of their
authority, all men should stand. Men, that is
Christian men, Churchmen, the lay people, were
to be established in God's law. They were to
examine for themselves the faith, and to know the
subject of belief (Massingbred," English Reformation,"
p. 127).

In other words, he promulgated as his private
opinion what is now the authorised faith of the
Church of England in the first of its distinctive
Articles. The sixth Article of the Church of England
is in brief a succinct summation of Wycliffe's
teaching on the subject of the sufficiency of the holy
Scriptures.

" Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to
salvation ; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor
may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man,
that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or
be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." This is
exactly what Wycliffe contended for. The doctrinal
supremacy of the Scriptures, and the reasonable right
of private judgment. The Bible, and the Bible alone,
was to be the standard of doctrine. The revelation
which God gave in His Word was for all men, and it
was the privilege of every man by means of the
Spirit's illumination to understand its contents. The
Scripture alone was sufficient for saving instruction
{sec Martineau, " Church Hist, in England," pp. 456,

457).

Wycliffe's teaching, too, with regard to the Apocry-
pha was similar to that of the Church of England
to-day.

"It is absurd," he said, "to be warm in defence

DOCTRINAL POSITION IN AGE OF WYCLIFFE 169

of the apocryphal books, when we have so many
which are undeniably authentic. Use the following
rules for distinguishing the canonical books from such
as are apocryphal. Find out, in the first place, what
books of the Old Testament are cited in the New
Testament, and authenticated by the Holy Ghost.
And in the next place, consider whether the like
doctrine is delivered by the Holy Ghost elsewhere in
the Scriptures" (Milner, p. 600). In the sixth Article,
the Church of England also puts the Apocrypha
on a distinctly different footing from the canonical
Scriptures, and refuses them as the basis of any doctrine.

In the next place, Wycliffe taught men " to trust
wJiolly in Christ ; to rely altogether on His sufferings ;
to beware of seeking to be justified in any other
way than by His righteousness." "The performance
of good works without Divine grace is worthless.
Those who follow Christ become righteous through
the participation of His righteousness and would be
saved." " Human nature is wholly at enmity with
God ; we cannot perform a good work unless it be
properly His good work!' 'We have no merit. His
mercy prevents us so that we receive grace ; and it
folloivs us so as to help us and keep us in grace."

" The merit of Christ is of itself sufficient to redeem
every man from hell. Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ
is sufficient for salvation." " If men believe in Christ,
then the promise of life that God hath made shall be
given by virtue of Christ to all men that make this
the chief matter." (These quotations are chiefly from
selections from Wycliffe's own manuscripts made by
Dr. James, keeper of the public library at Oxford, and
quoted by Milner, pp. 601, 602.)

This is surely very clear. There is no encour-

I70 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

agement here to put trust in saints and Church
services and sacramental offices for salvation. There
is no hint of that quasi-Pelagianism, which ascribes
salvation partly to man, and partly to God. The
grace of God is pre-eminent. Christ is all ; the all-
sufficient and inclusive Saviour. Even if Wyclifife did
not hold with Luther's clearness, as some besides
Melancthon have hinted, the doctrine of justification
by faith, it cannot be doubted that he grasped the
reality of salvation by the merit of Christ alone. He
got hold of the fact rather than the dogma of justi-
fication by faith.

And how similar his teaching was to what is now
the distinctive teaching of the Anglican Church.
As we read the tenth and eleventh and thirteenth
articles, we seem to be reading quotations from
Wycliffe's writings. Wycliffe might have written
them himself.

" Men become righteous through the participation
of Christ's righteousness," said Wycliffe.

" We are accounted righteous before God only for
the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ," is
the distinctive teaching of the Church of England
(Article xi.).

" Seek not to be justified in any other way than by
His righteousness," said Wycliffe. " It is altogether a
vain imagination that man can of his moral behaviour
induce God to give him the grace of the Holy Spirit
needful for conversion."

" We are accounted righteous before God, only for
the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by
faith, and not for our works or deservings," is the
teaching of the Church (Article xi. of the Justification
of Man).

DOCTRINAL POSITION IN AGE OF WYCLIFFE 171

"We cannot perform a good work unless His mercy
prevents us and follows us," said Wycliffe.

" We have no power to do good works pleasant and
acceptable to God without the grace of God by Christ
preventing us, that we may have a good will, and
working with us, when we have that good will," is the
teaching of the Church (Article x.).

" Unbelievers, though they might perform works
apparently good in their matter, still were not to be
accounted righteous men," said Wycliffe.

" Works done before the grace of Christ, and the
inspiration of His Spirit, are not pleasant to God
. . . neither do they make men meet to receive
grace," is the teaching of the Church of England
(Article xiii.).

The five Articles, from Article x. to Article xiv., are
almost ipsissiina verba of Wycliffe's writings ; a brief
summary of the teachings of Wycliffe on the way of
salvation.

Then, as to his teaching on the Church and the
sacraments, there is scarcely an Article, from the
nineteenth to the thirty-second of the Articles of
the Church of England, which was not found sub-
stantially in the teaching of W}cliffe. His teaching,
with regard to the nature of the Church, was directly
opposed to the so-called Catholic Church teaching on
the subject, and similar to the distinctive (that is,
distinctive from the so-called Roman Catholic
teaching) Church teaching of the Church of England
in Article xix.*

There was to Wycliffe, although he may not have

* See the first six chapters of his " De Ecclesia." E.g., " Ecclesia
dicitur dupliciter, scilicet vere et pretense " (vera et pretensa in marg.),
(Cap. iv. p. 71).

172 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

used the precise language of the Church to-day,
a Church visible and a Church invisible, member-
ship in the former by no means implying (as in the
Roman system) membership in the latter. Even
Bishops, if " of the world," were no members of the
holy Church, The authority of the Word was superior
to that of the Church and councils, as the Church of
England distinctly (namely, in opposition to the
position of the Church of Rome) teaches in Articles
XX. and xxi. " The Church has fallen, because she
has abandoned the gospels and preferred the laws of
the Pope. Although there should be a hundred
popes, we should refuse to accept their deliverances
in things pertaining to the faith, unless they were
founded in Holy Scripture." It is almost the very
language of Article xxi.

He taught that the doctrine of the Church (the so-
called Roman Catholic Church), as to pardons, and
saint worship, and image worship, and relic worship,
was superstitious, and unwarranted by Scripture. The
Church of England teaches the same (Article xxii.).

He taught that the Latin should not be invariably
used in the public worship of the Church. The people
did not understand it, and it was contrary to the
Word of God. The Church of England teaches the
same (Article xxiv.).

With regard to the sacraments, especially the
Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, while the teaching
of Wycliffe was defective in some particulars, it is
remarkable how similar it is in the main to
the distinctive teaching of the Church of England.
He held most clearly that the Roman doctrine
of transubstantiation was a figment. " The con-
secrated bread was not Christ ; it was a sign, an

DOCTRINAL POSITION IN AGE OF WYCLIFFE 1 73

effectual sign of Christ." " Transubstantiation rests
on no Scriptural grounds." " The bread still continues
bread." " Substantially it is bread ; sacramentally it
is the body of Christ." "The body and blood of
Christ are in the sacrament figuratively and spiritu-
ally." This was Wycliffe's language.*

The language of the Articles is almost verbally
the same. " The sacraments are effectual signs of
grace " (Article xxv.).

" Transubstantiation (or the change of the sub-
stance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord,
cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but it is repugnant to
the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature
of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many
superstitions " (Article xxviii.). " The body of Christ
is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper only after an
heavenly and spiritual manner" (Article xxviii.).

Nor is it exactly accurate to say, as a Nonconformist
writer, Mr. Beckett, does in his work on the English
Reformation, that the doctrine Wycliffe taught was
the doctrine of consubstantiation. He may have
given colour to this in some of his assertions and
paradoxes, but, on the other hand, it is certain that in
the Trialogus, which may be regarded as a final

* Sacramentum eucharistiae est in figura corpus Christi et sanguis "
("Thesis, Sacrament of Altar," 1381).

"Idem est dicere : Hoc est corpus meum, et Hoc efficaciter et
sacramentaliter figuret corpus meum " ("De Eucharistia," c. v. p. 116).

" Ponimus venerabile sacramentum altaris esse naturaliter panem et
vinum, sed sacramentaliter corpus Christi et sanguinem" ("Confessio,"
quoted Lewis).

" When Christ says ' I am the true vine,' Christ is neither become a
material vnne, nor has a material vine been changed into the body of
Christ ; and even so also is the material bread not changed from its own
substance into the flesh and blood of Christ " (" Wycket," p. 18).

174 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

digest of his theological system, and in the sermon
called the Wicket he sets forth views that are more
in accordance with the Reformed than with the
Lutheran doctrine, and practically teaches that identi-
fication and impanation, as well as transubstantiation,
are not to be established from Scripture. Impanation
is simply consubstantiation, and in the opinion of so
strong an authority as Dr. Lechler, Wycliffe's doctrine
was that of an invisible and sacramental presence,
that is, a spiritual presence.

Wycliffe condemned the system of sacramental
adoration. " For where fynde ye that ever Christ, or
any of His disciples or apostles taught any man to
worshipe it ? " (" Wycket," p. 6). So Article xxviii.,
" The sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by
Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up,
or worshipped." And Article xxv., " The sacraments
were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to
be carried about."

He taught that the thing needful in the recep-
tion of the Lord's Supper is not merely a vain
formalism and a superstitious rite, but a communion
with Christ according to the spiritual life.* The very
teaching of Article xxviii. and Article xxix. " The

"Nee manducatio corporalis . . . quicquam prodcst " (" P'asc.
Zizan," Ed. Shirley, 124).

" Nota ulterius ad acceptationem corporis Christi quod non consistit
in corporali acceptione, vel tactione hostiae consecratae, sed in pastione
aniinae ex fructuosa fide" (" De Eucharistia," c. i).

" Et concedimus quod non videmus in Sacramento illo corpus Christi
oculo corporali, sed oculo mentali, scilicet fide " (" De Eucharistia," c. i).

"The non-elect do not partake of Christ's body and blood. The
unbelieving receive only the visible signs" ("Misc. Serm.," i).

"Only to worthy communicants is the Sacrament a blessing" (" De
Veritate Sacrae Scripturae," c. 12)

DOCTRINAL POSITION IN AGE OF WYCLIFFE 1 75

mean whereby the body of Christ is received and
eaten in the Supper is Faith."

" The wicked, and such as be void of a Hvely faith,"
" eat not the body of Christ."

In short, if WycHffe did not teach in extenso, he
taught in germ nearly every distinctive doctrine
now authoritatively set forth as the formulated teach-
ing of the Church of England. In those great
fundamental matters of faith, the Holy Trinity, the
Incarnation, and the Resurrection, he held with the
creeds of the Catholic Church. So, in like manner,
does the Church of England in the first five Articles ;
and the first five Articles do not therefore contain
anything peculiarly distinctive of the teaching of the
Church of England.

But when he exalted Holy Scripture as the sole rule
of faith, maintained exclusively its sufficiency, and
struck out from that on the path of protest against
the superstitious practices and unscriptural doctrines
of the Catholic Church of the day, he embodied a
system of teaching that was, as far as the Catholic
teaching of the age was concerned, novel and
distinctive. In like manner, the distinctive teach-
ing of the Church of England, or what is com-
monly called distinctive Church teaching, properly
speaking begins with the sixth Article. Here the
Church of England parts company with the Roman
(Catholic) Church, and from this to the end, with very
{q\w exceptions, the teaching of the Church of England
is clear and well defined in its contrast to the teaching
of the Church of Rome, and the teaching of the Russo-
Greek or Oriental Church. On the one hand, the
errors of the Church of Rome and of others are faith-
fully pointed out. On the other hand, Scriptural

176 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

truth and the teaching of Christ and His apostles are
faithfully inculcated.

But the reader must bear in mind this fact : —

The teachings of Wyclifife were, after all, mere
private opinions. They were the unauthorised views
of an individual. Not only so. They were heretical,
and declared to be " false and erroneous conclusions,
and most wicked and damnable heresies." They were
distinctly and flatly opposed to the teaching of the
Church. They were abhorred by the Church. They
were condemned by the Church. Wycliffe was a
Protestant. The Church to which he belonged was
not Protestant but Roman.

Now those same views, those same teachings, are
the doctrine and the teadiing of the CJmrch of England,
as a Chiirch.

What the Church in England then called heresy,
and burned men for believing, is now the authorised
and distinctive teaching of the Church of England.
The private opinions of a man have now become the
teaching of the Church.*

* It is significant that writers of the so-called Catholic school try to
undervalue and misrepresent the work and influence of Wycliffe.
Jennings' representation especially, in his " Ecclesia Anglicana," is
hardly becoming to a clergyman of the English Church. If he were a
priest of the Church of Rome, he could not more subtly asperse
Wycliffe's character and doctrinal position. Hore's treatment is little
better. It only proves how Romish the Tractarian movement is, and
how far removed from the old High Church position.

In strong contrast is the treatment of Southey in his Book of the
Church, in which the author, a decided High Churchman of the old
school, gives all honour to Wycliffe and his labours, and says of him :
" A man whom the Roman Church has stigmatised as a heretic of the
first class, but whom England and the Protestant world, while there is
any virtue, and while there is any praise, will regard with veneration
and gratitude."

DOCTRINAL POSITION IN AGE OF WYCLIFFE 1 7/

LI. Does not this throtu light upon the identity of the
Church of England in those days zvith the Church of
Rome, and prove that the contention of some modem
writers, tJiat the pre-reformation Church of England is
to be taken as a doctrinal and liturgical guide, is a
fallacious one ?

Certainly it docs, and it is a point that cannot be
put aside.

The whole question of the exact doctrinal position
of the Church in England, in the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries, is determined very clearly by
the attitude of the Church towards Wycliffe and
his followers. John Wycliffe was, in the true sense
of the word, a Protestant. He was not a Pro-
testant in the political sense only ; he was a
Protestant in the reformed or evangelical sense.
He protested against the Pope, and he also protested
against Popery. But the Church of which he was a
member was not Protestant. The Church upheld
everything against which he uttered his protest.
The Church taught as de fide everything which he
impugned.

The idea of a Church being Protestant was unheard
of in those days. As far as Western Christendom
was concerned, there was only one Church, the holy
universal Church. That Church was then, as now,
known as the holy Catholic Church of Rome, and
the essence of Protestantism in those days was differ-
ing from its doctrines, and refusing to acknowledge
the supremacy of its earthly head. From the way in
which some Churchmen speak, one would imagine
that there were a number of independent Churches,
and that the Church of England, as one of these in-
dependent Churches, took up the question ofW}xliffe's

N

178 THE CHURCH OP^ ENGLAND

teaching. Nothing of the kind. The Church that
condemned Wycliffe, and from which Wycliffe differed,
was Holy Mother Church — that is, the holy Church
of Rome, which was then in England as the Church
of Christ. There was no doctrine of the Church of
England as distinct from the doctrine of the Church
of Rome. As will be shown in a subsequent chapter,
it was never asserted of any of the Lollards that
they differed from the teachings of the Church of
E^igland^ or taught contrary to the faith of the holy
Church of England. Nor was it said in any of their
recantations that they acknowledged their heretical
opposition to the holy faith of the Church of England.

The accusation against the Lollards was that they
" rose against the sound faith, and holy universal
Church of Rome" (Bull, Boniface IX. against the
Lollards, quoted "Fox," Book v. p. 252). Or, that
they held " the opinion of the sacrament of the altar,
of auricular confession contrary to that which the
Church of Rome preaches and observes, and held
heresies and errors which are of the Church of Rome
condemned " (" Register of Archbishop Courtney,"
Fox, V. 254).

The revocation of William Swinderby, a Lincoln
priest accused of Lollardry, began with this form :
" I, William Swinderby, priest, although unworthy, of
the Diocese of Lincoln, acknowledging one true and
apostolic faith of the holy Church of Rome, do abjure
all heresy and error opposed to the determination of
the holy mother Church." And the sentence of con-
demnation against Oldcastle declared, " We took
upon us to correct him, and sought all other ways
possible to bring him again to the Church's unity,
declaring unto him what the holy and universal

DOCTRINAL POSITION IN AGE OF WYCLIFFE 1 79

Church of Rome hath said and holden. And though
we found him in the Catholic faith stiff-necked, &c."
(Fox, V. 23s).

These quotations are sufficient to show that the
cause of the Church of England was the cause of the
Church of Rome. That which was against the
Church of England was against the Church of Rome.
Wycliffe and his followers were Protestants against
the teachings and practices of the C/mrch, which
was then almost invariably known as Holy Mother
CJmrch, the holy Catholic Church of Rome. They
were Protestants against the Church, not the CJmrcJies ;
not against the Church of England as distinguished
from the Church of Rome, or the Church of Rome
as distinguished from the Church of England, but
against the one holy Roman Catholic Church, of which
all the bishops and priests in England were members, of
which the holder of Peter's seat was head, whose laws
and decretals and constitutions incorporated as the
provincial statutes of archbishops in their provinces,
the synodal acts of bishops in their dioceses, the regu-
lations of masters in their colleges, and priests in their
parishes, all Catholic Christians were bound to obey
(Fox, V. 288).

Whatever views one may hold about the nation-
ality of the Church of England during this period, no
one can deny that all English Churchmen, both
priests and laity alike, with the exception of the
Wycliffites or Lollards, believed and maintained, with
regard to transubstantiation, the seven sacraments,
the manners, rites, ceremonies, and customs of the
Church, concerning the worship of relics and indulg-
ences, as did the CJmrch of Rome, and no otherwise.

There is only one conclusion.

l80 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

The teaching of WycHffe, the treatment of Wycliffc,
the teaching of the Lollards and the treatment of the
Lollards, bring out in the clearest possible light, the
doctrinal position of the Church in England two
centuries, and a century and a half before the
Reformation. They prove, in the distinctest manner
possible, on the one hand, that there were in the
Church in England in that day a body of men who
held substantially the principles of the Reformation,
and on the other, that the Church to which they
belonged, statutorily termed the Church of England,
not only did not hold these principles, but on the con-
trary, condemned them as false and dangerous, and
proceeded against those who taught them as heretics
against the Church.

CHAPTER XL

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY
ROMAN IN SPITE OF ITS ALLEGED NATIONALITY.

The Statutes of Praemunire do not prove the nationality of the Church of England —
They prove the nationality of the Crown — The Church protested against the
Statute of Provisors — No such thing as the Church of England against the
Church of Rome— Meaning of phrase nationality of the Church — The national
Church not to be identified with the Estates of Parliament — Acts oi Parliament
against Rome cannot be taken as proofs of the nationality of the Church — Arch-
bishops of Church of England were cardinals of Church of Rome — Argument of
Bryce's Holy Roman Empire — The Church of England Roman as well as
Romanised — The Church as Roman under Edward III. asunder Richard III.
— Ultramontane, Roman, Roman Catholic.

BEFORE we proceed to demonstrate the position
of the Church in England by her treatment
of the Lollards, we must turn aside in this chapter to
take up a question that is inevitably suggested at
this juncture, as it is one of no little moment. That
is, the discussion of that seductive expression, the
nationality of the English Church.

It is hardly possible for any one who has even a
rudimentary acquaintance with the history of the pre-
Reformation Church to ignore the emphasis that has
been given to this aspect of the Church's position,
especially by those writers who would identify as
far as possible the pre-Reformation and post-Refor-
mation aspects of the Church, and magnify its
continuity at the expense of its reformation. But
even from the standpoint of these writers the subject

i8i

l82 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

is confessedly a difficult one, the line of demarcation
between the Church of England and the Church of
Rome being so faint at certain periods as to be
imperceptible, even to the eyes of the most ardent
Anglican Catholic. We will show, first of all, that the
nationality of the Church of England in the fifteenth
century, at any rate in the latter part of it, is a mere
figment of Church theorisers. After that we shall
prove, from the very statements of writers of the so-
called Catholic party, that the body once known as
the Church of England practically disappeared, being
absorbed by the great body of the Church of Rome.

The conclusion of our last chapter was that the
Church which condemned the English Wycliffe was
the holy Church of Rome ; and that the bishops and
priests in England were stated to be members of the
holy Roman Catholic Church, and bound in their
laws, and decretals, and constitutions to the holder of
Peter's seat. If this was the case, the reader may
naturally inquire how this can be reconciled with
assertions of English independence.

LI I. But what the7t of the Statute of Pra;tnunire of
I393> io ^^y nothing of the Statute of Provisors of
1390?

Does not Canon Perry state, with regard to the
former, that nothing done during all the history of the
Middle Ages more distinctly proclaims aiid emphasises
the nationality of the English Church ?

He does.

And it might be inferred from his statements, and
from the language of other writers, that the Church
of England at this time was distinctly and Protest-
antly independent, and had come boldly out and
assumed in its ecclesiastico-national character a strone

IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 1 83

stand against the Church of Rome, or, at any rate,
against Rome as the Papal system. But this is a
great mistake.

The Statute of Prsmunire had to do with the
independence of the Crown, not with the independence
of the Church. As we have remarked before, the
essence of this Act was the stopping of the system
of appeals to Rome. It prohibited all causes which
touched the king and his kingdom, temporal as well
as spiritual, from being carried out of the kingdom, or
elsewhere. Of course it was aimed wholly at Rome,
and mainly at the eagerness of the ecclesiastics to
transfer law cases to their own courts. But it is a
great mistake to think it was an uprising of the
Church of the land in protest against the Pope and
his evil ways, or a grand declaration that the Church
of England was determined to take its stand against
the encroachments of the Church of Rome.

Not at all. It was a Parliamentary statute alto-
gether. It was the State protesting against the
encroachments of the Court of Rome, not the Church
upholding its national rights. It was the protection
of the Anglican Courts, not the Anglican Church. It
was a strong defensive measure, one of the strongest,
Bishop Stubbs says, against Rome ; but it was the
defence of the Crown of England against Rome, not
of the Church of England against the Papacy. The
Pope had endangered the freedom of the British
Crown, " which hath been so free at all times that
it hath been in subjection to no earthly sovereign, but
immediately subject to God, and no other, in all
things touching the regalie of the said Crown."
There is nothing said here about the rights of the
Church, much less of the CJmrch enacting the statute

1 84 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

as a self-defensive measure. The Church, as a
C/mrch, had nothing to do with it. It was not the
Act of the Church at all. It was the Act of the
State. So far from being the Act of the Church,
the Church, in the person of its archbishops and
bishops, protested against both this statute and its
anti-Papal twin, the Provisors.

When the Statute of Provisors was passed in 1 390,
the CJiurcJi, in the person of its representatives, the
Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of
York, protested against it as an infringement of the
rights of the Church, and an invasion of their duty
to the Pope (Perry, i. 453). "The two archbishops
entered a formal protest against it, as tending to the
restriction of apostolic power and the subversion of
ecclesiastical liberty."

The bishops of the Church also, as obedient sons
of the Holy See, protested against the infringements
of the Papal rights by this statute (Stubbs, ii. 506),
And the Church, that is, as far as the Church had
anything to do with it, did the same with the
Praemunire. Twice it was passed ; once in 1353, and
again in 1393 ; and twice did the prelates protest.
Nay more. The very protest of tJie Church, the
words of the protest of Archbishop Courtenay against
limiting the canonical authority of the Pope, are
incorporated in the statute itself And, up to the
very age of the Reformation, the Church, in the
person of the bishops and clergy, petitioned inces-
santly for its repeal (Stubbs, iii. 331), regarding it,
to use the language of Pope Martin V., as that
execrable statute put forth against the liberty of
the Church in the kingdom of England. It is an
utterly mistaken notion, therefore, that the Church in

IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 185

England in the latter part of the fourteenth century,
was instinct with the spirit of nationality, or Protest-
antism. The Pope had grievously interfered with
the rights and privileges of the Crown and Courts.
And the Crown knew this, and resented it. But to
say, in connection with the Statute of Praemunire,
that the Pope had grievously interfered with the
rights and privileges of the English Church, is really
to misstate the subject.

For the English Church at that time had no
thought of any rights or privileges as an independent
ecclesiastical corporation, nor is there any trace in the
history of this period of such a thing as the Church of
England, as the Church of England, asserting its
rights and privileges against the Church of Rome.

The reader of such a work as Stubbs' " Constitu-
tional History," for instance, will note that any
protests against the encroachments and interferences
of Rome were not made by the Church, but by the
king, or the Parliament, or the nation. Nor were
these ever regarded by the king, or the Parliament, or
the nation, as encroachments against or interferences
with the English Church as nationally distinct from
the Church of Rome, much less as a body that was
independent of the Papacy.

It is true that these writers make frequent references
to the national Church and the nationality of the
Church of England, at this period. (Stubbs' " Con-
stitutional History," iii. 332 ; Perry, i. 454-483.)

But their meaning seems to be, that inasmuch as the
temporalities of the Church, the lands and buildings
and Church properties in general, pertained to the
national establishment, known of old as the Church
of England, and termed Ecclesia Anglicana in the

l86 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

Great Charter and other statutes ; and, as the bishops,
and clergy, and lay people of the land belonged to
this ecclesiastical body, and while belonging to that
ecclesiastical body, passed various statutes curtailing
Papal encroachments, and defining the rights of the
Crown and the State ; that, therefore, these national
enactments against Rome proclaimed the distinctness
of the national Church, as distinct from Rome. All
of which would be accurate if the national Church
were identified with the Parliament, and the Acts of
the Crown were the Acts of the Church. But this was
not the case. It is impossible to tell the exact date
when the Church of England became submerged in
the Church of Rome, and the national Church of
England became, to use Canon Perry s own language,
a portion of the Church of Rome located in England.
It is impossible, because the transition was gradual,
and so unperceived.

But to say that the Acts of Provisors and Prsmu-
nire were actuated by the desire of the Barons and
Commons of England to defend their national Church,
or assert the nationality of their Church as distinct
from the Church of Rome (Perry, i. 483), or that the
various legislative Acts regarding the tenure and tax-
ation of ecclesiastical property, and the relative
jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical Courts (Stubbs, iii.
332-341), proclaimed and emphasised the fact of the
national Church, especially from the middle of the
fourteenth to the end of the fifteenth century, is
to proceed upon assumptions that are incapable of
historical vindication. The assumption, in the first
place, that all the statutes that Englishmen passed in
defiance of Rome, to uphold the Crotvji of England,
are to be taken as a proof that the Parliament intended

IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 1 87

thereby to assert " the principle of the true national-
ity of the Church of England " ; and, in the second
place, that all the legislative enactments of this period
that hinted at the existence of churches, bishops,
ecclesiastics, and clerical ordinances, and canons, and
laws, are to be taken as proof that the Church of
England must, therefore, have been a distinct national
Church. Both of these positions are historically
undemonstrable.

The assumption that the Crown and the Church
were thus closely identified is certainly untenable. If
there was any identity in the matter, it was not identity
between the Crown and the Church, but identity
between the Church of England and the Church of
Rome. There was but one Church, Holy Mother
Church, and those statutes of Provisors and Praemunire
were both of them regarded by the Church as put
forth expressly against the liberty of the Church.

A statute, which " enunciated and kept alive the
principle of the true nationality of the Church of
England," could not be denounced by the heads of
the Church of England as against the liberty of the
Church, nor was it possible that a statute, which
" emphasised the nationality of the Church of Eng-
land," could be made the subject of a solemn protest
to the Commons in Parliament by the archbishops
and bishops of the Church.

The assumption that the Acts of Parliament, which
related to ecclesiastical matters, indicated that the
Church in England of the fifteenth century was
nationally distinct from the Church of Rome is
equally untenable.*

* This position is taken apparently in Stubbs' "Constitutional History."

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

Of course, as far as all property was concerned, as
far as the constitutional tenure of revenues and
endowments and the temporalities of the Church was
concerned, the Church was by statutory appellation
the Church of England. But really, as far as the
very essence of its being was concerned, its doctrines,
its unity, its life, its rulers, its clergy, and its head, the
Church of England was really the Church of Rome,
its members from the archbishops, and the bishops
downwards through every ecclesiastical order, " hold-
ing the faith and communion of the Holy Church of
Rome" (Fox, v. 329). In all the bulls and citations
and letters patents of English bishops and arch-
bishops and kings which are cited at such length in
the fifth book of Fox's " Book of Martyrs " * there
is found no reference or sentence with regard to the
Church of England. The only Church mentioned
in these documents, so accurately and faithfully
transcribed by Fox, is the holy Church of Rome.f

And there is apparently no attempt to prove
their identity. In some cases it is taken for granted,
in other cases it seems to be unthought of Our

* The only exceptions are in the article of the opinions of one Jolm
Badby, a Lollard, " of the year of our Lord, 1409, according to the com-
putation of the Church of England," and the mention of the Church of
Rome and England, generally together, in the articles set upon the
Church doors against Henry the Fourth (Book, v. 264-266).

+ The accuracy of Fox is attested by many Church writers. Bishop
Stubbs, for instance, quotes him in his " Constitutional History " as an
authority. Bishop Burnet said (Preface, i.-x.), " I must add, that
having compared his acts and monuments with the records, I have never
been able to discover any errors or prevarications in them, but the
utmost fidelity and exactness." Even a secular historian like Froude
says, " I trust Fox when he produces documentary evidence, because
I have invariably found his documents accurate."

TN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 189

holy mother the Church, the holy universal Church of
Rome, was the only Church in the mind of the English
bishops and clergy. Whatever vague and subtle line
of demarcation might exist nominally and theoreti-
cally between the Church of England and the Church
of Rome as touching property and locality, there was
certainly none with regard to doctrine and com-
munion, and corporate life.

That many of the archbishops of the Church in
England were cardinals of the Church of Rome ; that
most of the bishops were appointed to their benefices
by the Pope himself; that even as far back as 1125-
II 26 the primate of England was a legate of the
Pope, and governed the Church of England in the
name and by the authority of the Pope, and that
from the time of Archbishop Theobald (1151) the
Archbishop of Canterbury was a Roman legate, are
facts well known to even the superficial reader of
English ecclesiastical history.

The visitor to the English minsters and cathedrals
has only to read the inscriptions upon the monu-
mental stones of some of the pre-Reformation bishops
and archbishops to find striking confirmation of this.

Take, for instance, the monument in Canterbury
Cathedral of Archbishop Chichely, who succeeded
Archbishop Arundel in the year A.D. 141 3.

" Here lies Henry Chichely, Doctor of Laws,
formerly Chancellor of Salisbury, who, in the seventh
year of King Henry IV. being sent on an embassy
to Pope Gregory XH., was consecrated Bishop of
St. David's by the hands of that Pope in the city of
Sienna. The same Henry, also in the second year
of King Henry V., was in this Holy Church elected
archbishop and translated to it by Pope John XIII.

190 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

He died in the year of our Lord 1443, on the 12th
day of April.

" That for his sins your merits may atone,
Oh ! supplicate, ye saints, th' Almighty's throne."

Or read that of Archbishop Bourchier in the same
choir aisle.

" Here lies the most reverend father in Christ and
Lord, Thomas Bourchier, sometime Cardinal of St.
Cyna in Thernius in the Holy Church of Rome, who
died on the 30th day of March, in the year of our
Lord, i486. On whose soul the most High have
mercy. Amen."

Or that of Archbishop Kemp.

" Here lies the most reverend father in Christ our
Lord, John Kemp, Cardinal Bishop of the Holy Roman
Church by the title of St. Rufina, Archbishop of
Canterbury, who died on the 22nd day of May, A.D.
1453. On whose soul God have mercy. Amen."

They are only tombstone records to be sure. Yet
they are significant, very significant to the reader of
English Church history. They certainly show that
the Church in England in these days was an integral
part of the Church of Rome, that it had the same
corporate life, and was a member of that great and
undivided ecclesiastical organisation. As to inde-
pendence in the modern sense, it was unthought of

In the Middle Ages the only idea of the Church
of Christ was its oneness as well as its visibility.*
The theory of an independent national Church, owing

* The reader is referred to the historical argument of Professor Bryce
in his able work upon the Holy Roman Empire, especially the eighteenth
chapter.

IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY I9I

no allegiance to the earthly head of the Church,
the occupant of Peter's See ; a position, in fact, such
as that now occupied by the Church of England,
was not only unheard of, it was inconceivable. The
Church was one, visibly one, nor is there any trace of
such an idea as a CJiurcJi outside of and independent of
this oneness and visibility, and yet belonging in some
mysterious unity to the body of the Catholic Church.
The Holy Catholic Church (of Western Christendom
of course) was the Holy Roman Catholic Church, and
the position of the Pope as the rightful spiritual head
of the visible Church was unquestioned.

Even Canon Perry, one of the ardent upholders of
the nationality theory,admitted that towards the end of
the fifteenth century the national Church of England
might almost be said to cease to exist, and to become
a portion of the Church of Rome located in England.
That is, during the latter half of the fifteenth century
the domination of the Roman Church was so absolute
that there was no such thing in the ecclesiastical-
spiritual sense as the Church of England. The only
Church in the land was the Church of Rome (Perry,
" Eng. Ch. Hist," 1-495).*

LHI. But when this luriter said that under Cardinal
Morton ''the national Church of England might almost
be said to cease to exist, and to become instead a portion
of the Church of Rome located in England^' did he mean
that the Church at this time became more doctrinally
Romanized than it was half a century, o? a century
before ?

* A careful reading of the latter part of Chapter xxiii. in Perry's

Student's "English Church History" is necessary to an exact understand-
ing of the argument that follows. From the historian's own standpoint
it is a remarkable concession, as il cuts in two the continuity theory.

192 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

Not at all. It is hardly possible that he can mean this.
For the Church under Cardinal Morton in 1490 was
exactly the same as under Archbishop Courtney in
1390. In doctrine and discipline, and its attitude to
Rome, there was no difference at all. Nor was Morton
in any way different from his predecessors for the past
one hundred years. He, as they, was a Roman. He,
as they, cared nothing for the statute of Praemunire
and the statute of Provisors. He, as they, knew
nothing about, and cared nothing about, the nation-
ality of the Church of England. And as to Protest-
antism, in the modern Church of England sense, it
would have been utterly abominable, if it had even
been thought of in connection with the Church. But
it was never thought of.

LIV. W/uit tiien is the vieaning of the expression
that at that time, and at that time for the first time, the
Chtcrch of England ceased to exist, and became instead
a portion of the Church of Rome ? In what sense did
it become 'ynore Roman ?

The only meaning seems to be that at this time the
Crown was weak and less vigorous in its anti-Papal
stand. Instead of there being a William the
Conqueror or an Edward the Third upon the throne,
there was a Henry the Sixth, a Richard the Third,
and a Henry the Seventh ; kings either too selfish
or too busy to pass statutes like Praemunire, or to
trouble about their enforcement.

The Church was the same. It was the Crown that
was different.

The Church was as Romish and Papal as ever.
England was as Roman Catholic as before. But the
king, though Roman Catholic, was less anti-Papal,
England's king had something else to do than fulmi-

IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY I93

nate against Rome, and threaten the bearers of Papal
bulls, while the rival factions of the Roses were dis-
tracting the land with wars or rumours of wars.

That was the only difference.

But why the Church in England should be said to
have only become a portion of the Church of Rovie
located in England, because the Crown of England
waxed a little weaker in the Papal quarter, and
admitted the sellers of indulgences and bulls from
Rome, is difficult to understand (Perry, i. 495). If the
national Church of England was a portion of the
Church of Rome under Morton in i486, then it was a
portion of the Church of Rome under Bourchier in
1454 ; and if it was a portion of the Church of Rome
under Bourchier, then it was the same under Chichely
in 1414. The temporary weakness of the Crown made
no difference whatever in the constitution, and
doctrines, and unity of the Church. It was exactly
what it had been for a century and a-half, if not more.

And it is equally difficult to understand what
this historian means by the statement : " There could
scarcely be a more complete contrast betv/een the
state of the Church of E?igland under Henry VII., and
its condition under Edward I. or Edward III. Its
spirit, its power of resistance, its national character,
were broken down ; and together with the weakness of
internal demoralisation, . . . the weakness of external
incapacity pressed heavily upon it. It became the
mere creature of the State, because the State could
wield at will the power of the Pope. Its energy, its
self-assertion, its self-respect were gone" {Ibid. 495).

To read this statement one would imagine that in
the reign of Edward I., the Church in England was a
vigorously independent national Church, protesting

O

194 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

against Rome with all its might, passing anti-Roman
canons, and framing anti-Roman articles.

As a matter of fact, the Church was just as Ultra-
montane in the reign of Edward I., as it was in the
reign of Henry VII. The Primate of the Church, the
Archbishop of Canterbury, was surely competent to
state tJie position of the Church at that time, and he
said of his Church, the Church of England, to the
Pope : " My Church is your Church, and my posses-
sions jj/^^z/r possessions," declaring thereby the English
Church to be a portion of the Church of Rome located
in England (^Ibid. i. 374). The Church was Papal. But
the State and the /^z«^ were anti-Papal. Edward I.
was every inch a king. He was in the truest sense, as
Green says (i. 313), a nationai king. And he tried to
make the Church a national Church, but was unable.
The Church was against him. The Church threatened
with excommunication those who favoured the
Crown, and the anti-Papal statutes of the day, such
as Mortmain or De religiosis were not the anti-Papal
enactments of the national Church against Rome, but
rather of the national parliament against the Church
(Green, i. 332 ; Perry, i. 378).

The Church's hand was against Edward, and
Edward's hand was against the Church. In fact, in
1297 he outlawed the clergy from the Archbishop
downwards.

There was no difference in the state of the Church,
either in doctrines, or clergy, or in its relations to
Rome. The difference was in the state of the Crown.
The king in the one place was more complacent to
the Papacy. That is all.

And in the case of Edward III. it was the same.
The Church was just as Papal in his day, as it was in

IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY I95

the reign of Henry VII. Italian cardinals were pre-
lates of England. If there was any energy, or self-
assertion, or self-respect in the realm, any spirit, or
power of resistance, or national character, it was
certainly not in the Church. The Church was Ultra-
montane in allegiance, Roman in doctrine, and Roman
Catholic in communion.

The king had national spirit. The people had
national self-respect. The parliament had national
character. But the Church had none of these things.
The king defied the Pope, but it was not from any
hatred of Popery. The Parliament passed anti-Papal
statutes, asserting the rights of the English courts,
but it was from no pride in the Church of
England. The Church was spiritless, weak, and
incapable. Dependent upon Rome it was harried by
the king. Undefended by the king it was harried by
the Pope (Green, i. 459). The Crown had spirit, the
Church had none.

No. To be true to English Church history we
must alter Canon Perry's lines, and rather say : There
could scarcely be a more complete uniformity than
between the state of the Church of England under
Henry VII., and its condition under Edward I. or
Edward III. In both cases its spirit, its power of
resistance, its national character, were broken down ;
and together with the weakness of internal demoral-
isation, of which some details have been given, the
weakness of internal capacity pressed heavily upon it.
It became the mere creature of the Pope, because the
Pope could wield at will the power of the clergy. Its
energy, its self-assertion, its self-respect were gone.
Not only might the national Church of England •
almost be said to cease to exist, and to become instead.

196 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

a portion of the Church of Rome located in England.
It Jiad ceased to exist. It luid become instead a por-
tion of the Church of Rome located in England.
Even if the nationality of the Church were an un-
challengeable fact, and the Church of England were
distinctly shown to be an independent national Church
in the age immediately before the Reformation, it
would have little to do with the main point before us,
or prove that the Church of England in those days
was identical with the Church of England as it now
is. For the nationality of a Church concerns merely
its name and form. Its doctrine and ritual are its
essential character.

But both as regards its national position and its
doctrinal position, the English Church at this period
was identified with Rome.

Note. — Collier in his " Ecclesiastical History," i. 647, refers to a con-
cordat which was entered into after the breaking up of the Council of
Constance (1414) between Pope Martin V. and the Church of England,
which seems to point to the formal use of the title Ecclesia Anglicana.
The name certainly was then in use, and the document in question,
which a well-known Cambridge scholar. Principal Moule, of Ridley
Hall, kindly verified for me in the Cambridge University Library,
throws curious light upon the question.

"The Concordat of 141S (or more exactly 1419) is given in Wilkins'
' Concilia,' vol. iii., being extracted by him ex registro Chicheley, ii. fol.
332 et 333, and is entitled Concordata et concessa per sanctissimum
Dominum nostrum Martinum, papam quintum pro reformatione ecclesise
AnglicanjE, &c." "/« the title" Principal Moule continues, " Ecclesia
Anglicana occurs. But in the document itself \ find no case of it, only
natio Anglicana."'

The point is worth noticing. As a matter of fact, while the name,
Ecclesia Anglicana, identified as it was with the older historical life of
the nation, remained in ecclesiastical use, the thing itself, the reality of
an independent Church, was gone.

CHAPTER XII.

THE ENGLISH CHURCH AND THE LOLLARDS.

The Lollards much misunderstood and misrepresented by party Church writers —
Their leading principles those of the Church of England to-day — Three facts of
history — No doctrine of Church of England then as distinct from Church of
Rome — The main doctrinal position of the Lollards — Their denial of the Roman
ordinal, and various Roman practices now abjured and denounced by the Church
of England — The Lollards prosecuted not for socialistic views but for their anti-
Roman doctrine — S.^wtry, Badby, and Oldcastle — They were sacrificed as
burnt-offerings to the mass — The meaning of the phrase heresy — The light
thrown thereby upon the position of the English Church — The state of religion
in the medieval Church — Two things necessary before the Church of England
could be truly reformed.

WE revert now to the question that was being
discussed in the last chapter but one. It
was stated there that the doctrinal position of the
English Church in the latter part of the fourteenth
and throughout the fifteenth century was brought out
in particular by the Church's treatment of the Lollards,
as the disciples of John Wycliffe were popularly
called, and in general by its attitude to all move-
ments of reform.

LV. Are, then, the teachings and opinions of the
Lollards to be taken as representative of the principles
of the Reforniatioji ?

Certainly they are.

That is in the main, and as touching their sub-
stance and essence. Not by any means, of course, as
regards their vagaries and excrescences. We do not

197

198 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

desire to champion the Lollards in any unwise or
unmeasured way. They were often very mistaken,
and in some things they were curiously erratic. But
we do unhesitatingly assert that they deserve a fairer
treatment than they have received at the hands of
some English Church historians.

The Lollards were the precursors of the Reforma-
tion. They were the bridge from Wycliffe to Cranmer.
It was their teaching and preaching that prepared
England for the Reformation.* The truths for which
they lived and died were the truths that now form
some of the distinctive principles of the Church of
England.

In spite of all the vagaries and abnormal develop-
ments that may have characterised the later phases of
the movement and the more lawless of their name, it
is clear that their central principle and cardinal doc-
trine is now the cardinal doctrine of the Church of
England, and the central principle of the Reforma-
tion ; the Bible the supreme rule of faith and practice.
Their vital principle was the sixth Article of the
Church of England.

"Out of the floating mass of opinion which bore
the name of Lollardry one faith gradually evolved
itself, faith in the sole authority of the Bible as a
source of religious truth" (Green, i. 495). All their
actions and doctrines sprang from this ; their protests
against the adoration of saints and images (Art. xxii.) ;
against pilgrimages and pardons (Art. xxii.) ; against
the adoration of the Sacrament (Art. xxviii.) ; against
transubstantiation (Art. xxviii.); against celibacy

* It is not a little remarkable that the Reformation movement spread
most rapidly in the counties where Lollardry had been strongest.

THE ENGLISH CHURCH AND THE LOLLARDS I99

(Art. xxxii.) ; and against those now discarded
practices of the Church of England, auricular con-
fession, and prayers for the dead.

Turbulent and licentious men may have been found
in their ranks, as a Judas or a Simon Magus or a
Demas in the Christian Church, but to deliberately
represent them as turbulent and licentious sectaries
(Jennings' " Ecclesia Anglicana," p. 128), or dangerous
members of the community who had lost all rever-
ence for the Church's teaching (Hore, " History of
Church of England," p. 198), is hardly a fair presenta-
tion of their historical position. For the facts of
history are these : —

1. There was in those days no known doctrine of
the Church of England as distinct from the doctrine
of the Church of Rome.

2. The doctrinal principles of the Lollards were in
many important respects identical with the distinctive
doctrinal principles now to be found in the Church of
England. Observe that we say doctrinal principles.

3. The views for which the Lollards were persecuted
were not their views on property or politics, but their
views on matters of doctrine, especially the Romish
doctrine of transubstantiation. They were burned by
the Church in England then for teaching what is the
doctrine of the Church of England now.

The first point will be established as we proceed.
It will be seen that the informations and accusations
brought against the followers of Wycliffe were always
for heresy and error as opposed to that Holy Mother
Church, which is beyond all controversy, the Roman
(Catholic) Church. Those who tried them, were those
who held the faith and communion of the holy Church
of Rome. Those who were tried, were those who taught

2CO THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

with regard to the sacraments and the articles of the
faith otherwise than the right holy and universal
Church of Rome did hold and teach (Fox, 328).

As to the second point. The main doctrinal posi-
tions of the Lollards as taken from their articles set
upon the door of St. Paul's Church and exhibited to
the Parliament in 1395, and their various statements
and confessions in their examinations and writings,
were as follows : —

I. Protest against the Romish priesthood, the rites
and ceremonies of the Roman Pontifical, and the
whole Roman theory of the sacrificial system.

The theory of the priest daily offering the sacrifice
of Christ for the sins of the people was held to be con-
trary to the teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
If Christ evermore sitteth at the right hand of God
to make intercession for us, there is no need for a
daily sacrifice to be offered by the priest. // is not
taiighi in the Scripture that the body of Christ ought
to be made a sacrifice for sin, but only as a sacrament
and commemoration of the sacrifice passed (Fox,
248-256). In like manner the Church of England of
to-day has discarded the Roman ordinal, and rejected
the Roman ceremonial. The ordination service of
the Church of England is totally subversive of the
Roman doctrine, both as to the sigmtm sacrauienti
and the res sacramenti, so that now the clergy of the
Church of England are not priests in the Roman
sense of the word.* The Church of Rome by specific
intention, proper ceremony, and express language
makes her ministers sacrificial priests. The Church
of England makes her priests preachers of the Word

* This was written before the Papal Bull of 1896, declaring the orders
of the English Church to be invalid from the Roman standpoint.

THE ENGLISH CHURCH AND THE LOLLARDS 20I

of God, and ministers of the holy Sacraments ; denies
the Romish doctrine of sacrifice (Art. xxxi.), and re-
pudiates orders as a Sacrament ; thus overturning
from the foundation the whole Roman theory of the
priesthood and of orders.*

2. Protest against the superstitious and erroneous
practices and teachings of the Church of Rome with
regard to worship and ceremonial.

They specially denounced the worship of the Cross,
and the celibacy of the clergy ; the use of holy water,
holy oil, holy salt, and incense ; the exorcisms and
hallowings in baptism and the eucharist ; prayers to
images, pilgrimages, and the worshipping of bones
and of saints ; prayers for the dead, and the value of
purchased intercession for the souls of godless men.

With regard to the exorcisms and conjurations
which were practised and called benedictions or
hallowings, they asked whether they really believed
them to have the efficacy they pretended, and what
difference there was between the hallowing of fire,
water, incense, wax, bread, ashes, oil, salt, and other
things, and the errors of the heathen magicians,
soothsayers, and charmers. And as to delivering a
soul from purgatory by means of prayers, they asked,
how shall a simple priest deliver another man from
sin by his prayers, or from the punishment of sin,
when he is not able to deliver himself by his prayer
from sin ; or what does God so much accept in the
mass of a vicious priest that for his mass, or prayer,
or oblation, he will deliver any man either from sin
or from the pain due for sin. This buying and
selling of prayers and pardons is all deception. No

* See my work on the " Protestantism of the Prayer-Book," chapter
ix. London, Shaw & Co. Third edition.

202 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

man should dare to demand or receive anything from
another man for his prayers. But after all the priest
only learns his lesson from the Pope, who sells bulls
and pardons as openly as the begging friars or the
greedy abbots (Fox, 250, 257).

It is unnecessary to remind the reader that these
practices have each and all been discarded by the
Church of England since the Reformation. There is
no provision for any of them in the Prayer- Book,
while some of them are expressly denounced in the
Articles (Articles xxii., xxxii.), proving in a very
clear manner the main argument of this chapter.

3. Protest against the Romish doctrine of auricular
confession. Popish absolution, and that error of errors,
transubstantiation. They denounced the confessional
as the citadel of priestcraft and the curse of the
Romish system, impeaching it as the fountain of
unmentionable iniquities, and the foe of family and
civil life.

They alleged that it was impossible to find any
place in the gospel where Christ commanded this
kind of confession should be made to the priests, or
that Christ ever assigned any penance to sinners for
their sins. If a sinner is truly repentant and con-
verted to God, God will absolve him from his sin ;
and as God absolves him from his sins, so has Christ
absolved many although they confessed not their sins
to the priests, and received due penance. If Christ
absolved them without priest and penance, He can do
so now. They admitted that the confession of sins
to good priests and other faithful Christians was good,
as St. James said ; but to confess sins to the priest as
to a judge, and to receive of him corporal penance for
a satisfaction to God, was a thing without Scriptural

THE ENGLISH CHURCH AND THE LOLLARDS 2O3

warrant. With regard to the command of Christ to
the leper to go show himself unto the priest, they
argued that the leper was cleansed by Christ not by
the priest, thus teaching in almost the express lan-
guage of the Homily of Repentance the doctrine of
the Church of England upon this subject. (Compare
Fox, 244, and Homilies, S.P.C.K. Edition, p. 575.)

As to absolution of the Pope and the priest,
with their pretended power to absolve a "'poena et
culpa]' they held that it was founded upon no warrant
of Scripture, and anticipating the famous argument
of Luther the German reformer, they contended that
if the Pope had the power to deliver souls from the
pains of purgatory, and was a really kind man, he
would deliver them for charity, not for money.

As to the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation,
they protested against it as idolatry. They declared
that the body which is in heaven could not by virtue of
the priest's word be included in the little bread which
they show to the people ; that after consecration the
material bread remains and is only His body sacra-
mentally or memorially, Christ Himself being fed
on spiritually, and by faith ; and that the idea of a
material change being worked by a miracle is false
and superstitious (Fox, 257, 258).

This is substantially the teaching of the Church
of England to-day. The Church of England has
discarded the confessional box. It has abolished
the practice by leaving out of the communion
office all reference to auricular confession, and by
removing from the rubric of the visitation of
the sick any means of performing it* The

* In the Prayer- Book of 1549 the Priest was to exhort those who
were not satisfied with a general Confession to use " the auricular and

204 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

exceptional and trebly guarded provision for the
confession of a sick man, a very sick man, and of the
very sick man only when he desires it, is a very
different thing from the compulsory and universal
practice of the Church of Rome. The Church of
England also denies in the Articles (Article xxv.) that
penance is a sacrament ordained of Christ our Lord in
the Gospel, and penance includes auricular confession.

As to transubstantiation, the very language almost
of the Lollard teaching is embodied now in the rubric
at the end of the communion office, and Articles
xxviii., xxix., xxx., and xxxi. substantially represent
their opinions and views as expressed in their declara-
tions, conclusions, and confessions.

These were in the main then, directly and sub-
stantially, the doctrinal position of the Wycliffites or
Lollards, and they involved not merely the negative
denunciation of what was false, but the positive
enunciation of that which was Scriptural, apostolic,
and true. Their views on the subject of war, pro-
perty, and the taking of oaths can hardly be cited as
doctrinal principles or as illustrating their doctrinal
position ; nor should they be allowed to divert our
minds from their real Church views. Protestants as
well as Romanists may have their private opinions
upon these subjects without in the least altering their
main doctrinal position. Nor should the whims and
Quakerisms of the extremcr Lollards, or the political
discontent of the later Lollards, blind us to the
essential features of the theological tenets of the
immediate successors ofWycliffe. The views of these

secret Confession to the Priest ; " and in the Visitation of the Sick there
was a rubric directing the Priest to use the form of absolution in that
Office ' ' in all private Confessions. "

THE ENGLISH CHURCH AND THE LOLLARDS 205

despised and persecuted religious teachers were in
the main those views wliich peculiarly distinguish the
Church of England to-day as a Protestant Church.

The third point deserves careful attention.

It is this. That throughout all the trials of the
Lollards, and the persecutions to which they were
subjected, the head and front of their offending
was their Protestantism. It was not for their Quaker-
ism, or their socialism, that they were tried and
burned, or for their views respecting property and
simplicity in ritual. It was for their doctrine. And
especially was it for their doctrine on the Supper of
the Lord. Above all things it was for their opinion
on the sacrament of the altar contrary to the received
opinions of holy mother Church.

The persecutions of the Lollards began to assume
serious proportions about 1394, after the death of
Queen Ann, the Bohemian consort of Richard the
Second, their unwavering friend. But it was not
until the year 1401 that the infamous Statute of
Heresy was passed, through the energy of the relent-
less Archbishop Arundel, and the co-operation of a
slavish king (Stubbs' " Constitutional History," iii. 31).
In origin and completion it was entirely a Romish
measure. It was born in convocation and fathered
by the bishops. The clergy in convocation assembled
embodied a petition against divers wicked and per-
verse men teaching a new, wicked, and heretical
doctrine, contrary to the Catholic faith and the
determination of the holy Church ; and at the begin-
ning of the second year of the reign of Henry IV.,
England disgraced itself by passing what Green has
aptly called the first legal enactment of religious
bloodshed which defiled our Statute Book.

206 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

The law was infamous in every way. It was
infamous from the legal standpoint, from the moral
standpoint, and from the religious standpoint. It
destroyed the foundation principle of English law ;
the right of a man to trial by a judge of the land,
or a jury of his peers. Any ignorant or vicious
prelate or his commissaries could procure the arrest
and condemnation of a suspected man (Fox, 268).
It committed virtuous and law-abiding churchmen to
prison for the atrocious crime of reading a writing of
Wycliffe, or an apostolic epistle. It brought men to
the stake for daring to disbelieve a doctrine that con-
tradicted the Bible, common sense, and the Church's
teaching for centuries.*

The first man burned in England was William
Sawtre or Sawtry, the parish priest of St. Osith in
London. He was condemned by convocation, as a
heretic to be punished for the crime of heresy ; was
solemnly degraded from the priesthood in St. Paul's
Cathedral on the 26th of February, 1401, by Arundel
" by the authority of Omnipotent God the Father, the
Son, and Holy Ghost ; " and was committed with
most undignified haste (Stubbs, iii. 358) by "our holy
mother the Church " to the secular power to be burned
with fire. Yet, as Southey points out in his Book
of the Church (p. 191), the single question with
which he was pressed, and the one thing for which he
was condemned, was whether the sacrament of the
altar, after the sacramental words were spoken,
remained bread or not. The bulk of the questioning
of Arundel in his examination was with regard to
his belief in transubstantiation.

* For a fuller account of the legislation against heresy Jif^^Stubbs'
"Constitutional History," iii. 357-362.

THE ENGLISH CHURCH AND THE LOLLARDS 207

It was the same with John Badby, the second
martyr for the principles of the Reformation. He
was accused of the crime of heresy. His heresy was
maintaining that after consecration " the material
bread remains upon the altar;" or that transubstantia-
tion is not only repugnant to the plain teaching of
Scripture, but overthrows the nature of a sacra-
ment. He, too, was burned with fire, in spite of
the efforts of Prince Henry to save his life, for
believing a doctrine that was declared to be contrary
to the " Catholic " faith, and the decrees of holy
Church.

It was the same with Lord Cobham, the greatest
Protestant of them all. Cobham suffered as a heretic
not as a traitor, says Southey ; his indictment for
high treason is a forgery. Many who read the
account of his trials will be inclined to the same
conclusion. His life turned not on his political views,
but on his views concerning the faith of holy
Church ; if he had not been a Lollard he would never
have been troubled. The assertion of the author of
" Ecclesia Anglicana," that it is really unknown
whether Oldcastle was in any true sense a religious
man, is surely to be accepted with caution. Religious
in the Roman sense he perhaps was not ; but that
he was a good man is the testimony of many im-
partial writers, the common people of England, and
our greatest poet. In this trial before Arundel and
the bishops Lord Cobham confessed that in his
former days he was a vicious man, but that he was
brought to lead a new life by the despised doctrine
of Wycliffe. He had become a converted man.
As a man who had been transformed by the power
of the Gospel, he did all in his power to spread

208 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

the doctrines of grace, and it was for this he was
arrested and tried.

The wording of the writing sent to him by
Arundel and the clergy, is worth reading : " The
faith and determination of the holy Church touching
the blissful sacrament of the altar is this ; that the
material bread, after the sacramental words are
once spoken by a priest in his mass, is turned
into Christ's very body, and so there remains in
the sacrament of the altar, no material bread,
nor material wine, which were there before the
sacramental words were spoken. Holy Church hath
determined that every Christian man ought to confess
to a priest, ordained by the Church, if he may come
to him."

"Christ ordained St. Peter, the Apostle, to be
His vicar here on earth, whose see is the holy Church
of Rome, and He granted that the same power which
He gave St. Peter should succeed to all Peter's
successors, whom we now call Popes of Rome ; by
whose power in particular churches, are ordained
prelates, as archbishops, bishops, parsons, curates,
and other degrees, whom Christian men ought to
obey after the laws of the Church of Rome.

" Holy Church has determined that it is meritori-
ous to a Christian man to go on pilgrimages to holy
places ; and there especially to worship holy relics
and images of saints, apostles, and martyrs, con-
fessors and all other saints beside, approved by the
Church of Rome." And with regard to each question
Cobham was asked : how believe ye, how feel ye
this article.

The answer he gave to these questions afterwards
was clear and bold, but the point of interest is,

THE ENGLISH CHURCH AND THE LOLLARDS 209

that throughout these sentences the holy Church
of Rome and holy Church are identified, and that
in the third article the unity of the Roman
" Catholic " Church is plainly declared.

The examination of Cobham was prolonged and
involved, and while there is not a little mystery and
contradiction with regard to his latter days, one
thing stands out prominently in all his career, the
relentless hatred of the clergy to all that savoured of
what they call heresy. " Oldcastle died a martyr,"
is the testimony of our Shakespeare. And his testi-
mony is true. For Oldcastle held views far wide
from the then " Catholic Church," that is from what
'• the holy and universal Church of Rome hath said "
as the sentence of his condemnation put it (Fox,
pp. 286, 287), and was condemned as a heretic,
especially as regarded the blessed sacrament of the
altar. It may be open to question whether his being
hanged in chains denoted his guilt as a traitor, but
no one can doubt that his chief crime was his Pro-
testantism. In the parliamentary record of the time
he is mentioned as " Sir John Oldcastle, knight,
heretic," and Fox remarks that Sir John in the record
here is called not traitor, but heretic only. It was
the same with all the sufferers. They were con-
demned and burned as heretics, not as revolutionists.
They were burned, not for teaching socialism, but
because they believed what is now the teaching of
the Church of England in the 22nd, 32nd, and 28th
Articles.

"That there were among the Lollards," says
Southey, "some fanatics who held levelling opinions
in their utmost extent, may be well believed. But it
is worthy of notice that in all the records which remain

P

2IO THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

of this persecution, in no one instance has the victim
been charged with such pri^iciples. In every case they
were qtcestions upon those points which make the
difference between the reformed and the RomisJi relig-
ion ; in every case they were sacrificed as burnt
offerings to the Mass " (Book of the Church, p. 207).

As these victims of Rome were sacrificed as
heretics, and all through the fifteenth to the earlier
part of the sixteenth century the word heresy very
frequently occurs, it will be worth while to discuss
at this point the precise meaning of this term.

LVI. What then is mea?it by heresy, and ivhat light
does it throw upon the position of the Church in that
age ?

It is an interesting question.

Etymologically, heresy implies the taking of a
position contrary to that which is generally received.
Hence, it implies the adoption of principles which
are at variance with the principles universally held.
Ecclesiastically, it means the acceptance of opinions
contrary to the established religious faith.

All through this period heresy had but one meaning.
It meant the holding of anything and everything
" contrary to the Catholic faith, and determination of
the holy Church."

In the bull of Pope Gregory about WycHfife
(1378), his teachings are declared to be "false and
erroneous conclusions, and most wicked and damti-
able heresies, mischievous heresies, pestilent heresies."
The Archbishop of Canterbury termed them " here-
tical and erroneous conclusions, contrary to the deter-
mination of holy Church ; " and described Wycliffe
and his associates who were suspected of heresy, as
dangerous persons, " to be shunned as a serpent

THE ENGLISH CHURCH AND THE LOLLARDS 211

which puts forth most pestiferous poison," and their
followers as those who "have strayed from the
Catholic faith."

The decree of the Council of Constance (1414),
condemning Wycliffe as a heretic against the Christ-
ian religion and the Catholic faith was in part as
follows : This most holy synod hath caused the said
articles (of Wycliffe), to be examined by many most
reverend fathers of the Church of Rome, cardinals,
bishops, abbots et al., which articles being so exam-
ined, it was found that many of them were to be
notoriously reproved and condemned as heretical,
and that they do induce and bring into the Church
unsound and unwholesome doctrine, contrary to the
faith and ordinance of the Church. It formally
condemned him also as a notorious obstinate heretic ;
declared that he died in his heresy ; and cursed and
condemned both him and his memory.

And to quote one more instance. Pope Boniface IX.
in his bull against the Lollards (1392}, describes the
Lollards as " the damnable shadows or ghosts of men
who rose up against the sound faith and Holy Uni-
versal (Catholic) Church of Rome, and preached
erroneous, detestable, and heretical articles " (Fox).

Heresy, then, had simply to do with holy mother
Church, and the so-called Catholic faith. It was
contrariety to the Church. The simplest thing in the
world was heresy, if it was contrary to the Church.
To have an opinion was heresy. To read a tract was
heresy. To exercise the slightest act of private
judgment was heresy. To have a Bible was heresy.
To believe what the Bible said about certain things
was heresy. To dispute the value of relic-worship
was heresy. To question the usefulness of pilgrim-

212 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

ages was heresy. To refuse to adore the Cross was
heresy. To doubt transubstantiation was heresy. In
one word, to hold, preach, or teach anything, anj-
tJmig contrary to the CathoHc faith, or the holy
Church of Rome, was heresy.

But the strangest thing about the matter was
that no statutory or authoritative definition of heresy
ever seems to have been made. A man might be a
perjurer, a drunkard, an adulterer, or an incestuous
person, and yet be uncondemned by the Church.
One Pope had sixteen children. A number of
bishops kept mistresses. It was quite common for
priests and nuns to live in open immorality (Froude's
"Erasmus," xi. 68-121; 126-147). Yet if one
swallowed without wavering all the blasphemous
fables and dangerous deceits, which were then put
to the front in the teaching of holy mother Church,
he was accounted a good churchman, and to be a good
churchman covered a multitude of sins. But if he
taught his child to say the Lord's Prayer in his native
tongue, or to repeat the ten commandments, he was a
heretic. To believe anything that the Pope, or the
cardinal, or the priest did not believe, or to do anything
that holy Church did not authorise, however good
and holy, was quite enough to get a man burned for
heresy. As Erasmus sarcastically remarked, homicide,
parricide, incest and sodomy, these could be got over ;
but marriage was fatal.

Yet the reader must not fail to observe here that
heresy had nothing whatever to do with believing
what was contrary to truth, or contrary to the
Scripture, or even contrary to antiquity. It might be
supposed that heresy implied the holding of principles
at variance with the teaching of Christ and the holy

THE ENGLISH CHURCH AND THE LOLLARDS 213

apostles. By no means. Heresy had nothing to do
with the doctrine of the primitive Church, and of the
apostolic fathers, or even of the undisputed councils.
It has been the glory of the Church of England since
the Reformation that her teaching is the restoration
in its primitive purity of the doctrine of Christ and
His apostles. But there was no thought of any such
thing in the mind of Churchmen in the fifteenth
century. No heretic was ever impeached upon the
ground that his teaching was at variance with the
teaching of the Scripture and the primitive Church,
and, therefore, with the teaching of the Church of
England. Nor was the argument ever employed that,
inasmuch as the Church of England represented
antiquity and apostolic doctrine, he who taught
what was contrary to apostolic doctrine was to be
condemned as a heretic against the English Church.

No.

Heresy against the Church of England was never
mentioned. It was never thought of. The heretic
was a person who was at variance, not with the
English Church, but with the Roman Church. His
crime was not that as an Englishman, he had set
forth something that contradicted the national Church,
but that as a Churchman he taught things contrary to
the holy universal Church of Rome.

In all the bulls and citations and processes against
Wycliffe and the Lollards, the faith that is endangered
by their heresies is the " Catholic " faith, and the Church
that is defamed is the holy Church of Rome. (The
reader is again referred to Fox, Book v. passim.)
There is no mention of the faith of the English Church.

LVII. Heresy, then, simply meant the declaration of
any opinion or doctrine that was judged by any bishop

214 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

or his commissaries to be contrary to the determination
of holy mother Church ?

That was all. And for as much as the only faith
known was the Catholic faith of the Roman Church,
there being no nationality of Church creed or
doctrine, this heresy was simply against the apostate
faith of the erring Church of Rome.

LVIII. In that case, the7i, in the triie and Scriptural
sense it was an honotir to be considered heretical ?

It certainly was.

If Scripture and Church teaching are to be taken as
standards, the persecuted were the truly orthodox, and
their persecutors the true heretics. Wycliffe could
have proudly said with St. Paul, " But this I confess
that after the way which they call heresy, so worship
I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are
written in the law and in the prophets." The pre-
valent Church teaching of the age was pernicious.
" Reverence in things Divine," says the Roman Car-
dinal Bellarmine, " was almost gone, religion was
almost extinct." Church religion in England simply
meant Popery, and Popery simply meant idolatry.
" The Catholic religion of the fifteenth century differed
only in name from the paganism of the old world.
The saints had taken the place of the gods. Their
biographies were as full of lies and as childish and
absurd as the old theogonies. Instead of praying to
Christ, the faithful were taught to pray to miracle-
working images and relics. The Virgin, multiplied
into a thousand personalities, . . . was at once queen
of heaven and a local goddess. Pious pilgrimages
and indulgences had taken the place of moral duty.
The service of God was the repeating masses by
priests, who sold them for so much a dozen. In the

THE ENGLISH CHURCH AND THE LOLLARDS 21$

exuberance of their power, the clergy seemed to
exult in showing contempt of God and man by the
licentiousness of their lives and the insolence of their
dominion. This extraordinary system rested on the
belief that they had supernatural powers as successors
of the apostles" (Froude's " Erasmus," pp. 66, 1 19, 122).
The grossest ignorance, the most debasing supersti-
tion, the most open idolatry, had everywhere taken
the place of faith. The foremost doctrines of the
Church were absolutely false. Transubstantiation
was a falsehood. Purgatory was a falsehood. The
so-called miracles were " lying wonders." The Papal
pretension was a figment. The saint system of inter-
cession was a delusion. The mediation of the Virgin
was a dangerous deceit. The religion of England
was a fabric of superstition, maintained by priest-
craft, on a foundation of fiction (Art. xxii.). And
yet these things, false in origin, false in essence, and
false in operation, the miracle of the mass, the miracle
of relics, the legendary impostures, and the mediation
system of saints and angels, were the apparent sum and
substance of the Romish religion (Mosheim, " Ecclesi-
astical History," Book iv. chap. i). And to protest
against any of them, or even to hint that they were
what they were, or to say that they were blasphemous
fables and dangerous deceits, was false doctrine, heresy
and schism.

In view of all this, it must be admitted from the
present standpoint of the Church of England, that to
be accounted a heretic in England during the fifteenth
century was indeed an honour. There were many
who attained this honour, and would not bow the
knee to the Roman Baal. Some were blasphemed
and slandered by so-called Catholic Churchmen, and

2l6 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

Others had trial of cruel mocking and scourgings,
of bonds and imprisonment ; they were destitute,
afflicted and tormented. A number were tortured
and burned in the fire. But as the Scripture is true,
and the present teaching of the Church of England
is true, though condemned by Rome, they were not
guilty of heresy (Fox, p. 233). And the blood of
these men was the seed of the Reformation.

LIX. If this, then, was the state of the Church in
England, the Protestantism of the Church of Eiigland
coidd not really be said to have begun ?

No.

For any doctrinal Protestantism was confined to
individuals, and so far from being asserted by the
Church, was condemned by it as heresy ; and any
political Protestantism was legal and parliamentary
and only emphasised the rights of the Crown, not the
anti-Romanism of the Church. The Church had never
by statute, article, or canon, ever declared its independ-
ence of the temporal or spiritual headship of the
Pope, or even dreamed of such a thing. The idea of
the Pope's having no jurisdiction whatsoever in the
Church of England was not entertained in the real
sense until the sixteenth century.

LX. In order, then, for the Church of Englatid to
become in the true sense a Refortned and Protestant
Chtirch, what would be necessary ?

Two things would be necessary.

It would be necessary, in the first place, to be
emancipated from the Pope; and in the next place, to be
emancipated from Popery. Or it might be put thus :
It would be necessary for the Church of England to
be nationally and ecclesiastically free, that is, to be
separated from Rome and the Papal supremacy ;

THE ENGLISH CHURCH AND THE LOLLARDS 217

and also to be doctrinally and spiritually free, that is,
to be separated from Popery and the corruptions of the
Romish religion. England's Church must be separ-
ated from the unity of Rome, and renounce the
headship of the Pope as a spiritual and temporal
ruler. And the doctrine of the Church of England
must be freed from the corruption which had cumbered
and adulterated the apostolic faith. The Church
which was ^t-formed must be rg'formed ; and a Reformed
Church is synonymous with a Protestant Church.

In other words.

The national and individual Protestantism of
William the Conqueror, Edward III., Langton, and
Grosseteste, must become the accepted ecclesiasti-
cal Protestantism of the Church of England as a
7iational Church, repudiating as a Church the right
as well as the fact of the Papal supremacy ; and the
private, personal, doctrinal Protestantism of a Brad-
wardine, a Wycliffe, a Sawtre, and others, must
become not merely the doctrine and teaching of a
few individual reformers or bishops in the Church, but
the bona fide and accepted doctrine of the Church
as a Church, formally and clearly expressed as the
true teaching of the Church in her standards, and
formularies, and rubrics, and canons, and liturgy.

The steps by which both these things were accom-
plished mark a series of events in English ecclesias-
tical history, so remarkable that nothing but the
manifest over-ruling of God's providential hand in
every step can satisfactorily explain them. But,
before we refer to these more particularly, it will be
helpful to glance for a moment at the general pre-
paratory movements of the age for this great epoch
in our history.

CHAPTER XIII.

THE PREPARATION OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH
FOR THE REFORMATION.

The Reformation not the work of a day — The preparation of events, and the pre-
paration of men— Discovery, art, science, and the printing press — The New
Testament in Greek — The character and work of Erasmus — His sarcasms and
exposures of Romish falsities — Erasmus not a Protestant — He desired reform,
but only of a limited kind — The proto-Reformation movement in England, and
its advocates — The advocates of reform in morals : Wolsey, Warham — The
educational reformers — John Colet, Dean of St. Paul's — Sir Thomas More — The
precise position of Erasmus on the subject of Church Reform — A reform of the
Church by the Pope and princes — It was a purely Roman idea of reform.

THE Reformation was not the work of a day.
Its foundations were laid deep in the nature of
things. Its roots lay in the ages. Its causes were the
co-operation of the thoughts of many thinkers and the
events of many years. It was the result of a deeply-
laid train of coincidences. The great things that
mark an age, and the great men that make history,
converged as if by arrangement. It was not acci-
dental ; it was providential.

The Reformation was of God.

The Divine preparation for this great continental
and national movement may be briefly described as
a preparation of events, and a preparation of men.
In the first place, there was a general preparation of
the world for a new religious movement. As a giant
out of slumber, the world was awakening out of the
218

PREPARATION FOR THE REFORMATION 219

deep sleep of the Middle Ages. Science was beginning
to tell the secrets of Nature, and to startle the world
with its wonders. Art, with its pleasing touch,
was refining the mind. The great masters, Michael
Angelo and Raphael, elevated painting and sculpture
to heights since unattained. Discovery was enlarging
the bounds of the world, and navigators were conquer-
ing continents. Merchants were blending races once
remote, and carrying to many lands not only mer-
chandise but ideas. The thoughts of men were
widening. The world was waking.

And then, strangely and providentially, there had
arisen that miracle of the period, the printing press.
What steam and electricity were to the nineteenth cen-
tury, the art of printing was to the sixteenth century
and the latter half of the fifteenth. The demand was
created by the supply. The supply augmented the
demand. The age became hungry. At the time of
the Reformation it was like the horse-leech that hath
two daughters crying Give, give ! The more it
received, the more it desired. It had been starved
with the famine of ignorance so long, that, when it
began to taste knowledge, it craved for more and
more. And the book it most needed was God's.

And then strangely and providentially a new lan-
guage was introduced ; and in that new language
a new book was printed ; and with that new book
appeared new teachers.

For centuries the ecclesiastics had never dreamed of
learning Greek. A large number of them scarcely
knew Latin. But a change was coming. The magnum
opus of the clever Dutchman Erasmus (1467- 1536),
the New Testament in Greek, may be taken as the
mark of a new era. Educationally and spiritually, it

220 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

was the first stage in the greatest revolutionary
movement in the history of Christendom. The educa-
tionalists of the day saw that the days of Latin were
numbered. It had reigned in splendid isolation long
enough. The language of Aristotle, Plato, and Paul,
must be given a place. Oxford introduced its study,
and later, Cambridge. Archbishop Warham patron-
ised its teachers. William Grocyn, Thomas Linacre,
and above all Dean Colet, its friends and advocates,
became the precursors of the principles of reform.
Bishop Fox founded Corpus Christi College at
Oxford, for the special purpose of furthering the
study of the three great learned languages, Hebrew,
Greek, and Latin.

In spite of scholastic conservatism Greek became
the rage. The foremost men of England began it.
The young men of the day, the prophets and promise
of an epoch, were in the van. " The number of young
men who are studying ancient literature in England
is astonishing." This is what Erasmus wrote to a
friend as early as 1498. And the chief subject of
study was the New Testament. The preparatory
work done for the Reformation, therefore, by the
introduction of Greek, and especially by Erasmus'
Greek Testament (1516) can scarcely be over- rated.

Froude tells us, in his Erasmus, what the appear-
ance of that book meant. " The Christian religion, as
taught and practised in Western Europe and the
British Isles, consisted of the mass and the confes-
sional, of elaborate ceremonials, rituals, processions,
pilgrimages, prayers to the Virgin and the saints, with
dispensations and indulgences for laws broken or
duties left undone. Of the Gospels and Epistles so
much only was known to the laity as was read in the

PREPARATION FOR THE REFORMATION 221

Church services, and that was intoned as if to be pur-
posely unintelHgible to the understanding. Of the
rest of the Bible nothing was known at all. The
New Testament, to the mass of Christians, was an
unknown book. Erasmus undertook to give the
book to the whole world to read for itself, the original
Greek of the Epistles and Gospels, with a new Latin
translation, and a few remarks and commentaries
of his own."

" It was finished at last, text and translation printed,
and the living facts of Christianity, the persons of
Christ and the apostles, their history, their lives, their
teaching, were revealed to an astonished world. For
the first time the laity were able to see, side by side,
the Christianity which converted the world, and the
Christianity of the Church with a Borgia Pope,
cardinal princes, ecclesiastical courts, and a mythology
of lies. The effect was to be a spiritual earthquake "
(Froude's " Erasmus," 6^, 1 19, 120). What it did was
to shake the Romish system to the centre, and awaken
the religious world from the lethargy of centuries.

Considering the age Erasmus' Greek Testament was
a marvel of critical accuracy and daring independence.
By the original text, he overthrew the long undis-
puted supremacy of the Vulgate, and by his expository
and explanatory notes he became a pioneer of sound
and Scriptural Bible exposition.*

And yet it is a question whether the positive work
of Erasmus was as great as the negative. The para-
phrases seemed to effect what even the text could not

* The popularity of the New Testament by Erasmus was extraordin-
ary. Edition after edition was pulilished in the endeavour to supply the
demand. According to Froude a hundred thousand copies were sold in
France alone.

222 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

as yet, and his satires and exposures were more popular
than his translations. The age that was unprepared for
a Luther and a Cranmer and a Ridley, was ready for
an Erasmus. Much preparatory work had to be
done beforehand. Strongholds of superstition had to
be demolished, and fabrics of ignorance to be blown up.
A man was needed to clear the way for the founda-
tions ; one who was able " to root out, and to pull
down, and to destroy, and to throw down."

The man for the hour was Erasmus.

With the dynamite of ridicule he blew up the
stronghold of superstition. He hated medievalism
with a deadly hatred. He despised superstition.
Monks and friars, he loathed as pests and vermin.
Vile rascals, he generally called them. Ecclesiastics,
in general, were bats and owls who hated light. The
theologians of the day were " men whose brains were
the rottenest, intellects the dullest, doctrines the
thorniest, manners the brutalest, lives the foulest,
speech the spitefullest, hearts the blackest, that he
could conceive of." By far the cleverest man
of the day, he saw at a glance the falsity of the
whole religion of the age. It called itself Christian ;
Erasmus saw that it was a sham. It was a perfect
travesty of Christianity. " There is no religion in it
save forms. Religion is nothing but ritual."

Obedience, he said in one of his letters, is the great
thing with priests and monks, not to God, but to
bishops and abbots. Here is a case : " An abbot is a
fool or a drunkard. He issues an order to the brother-
hood in the name of holy obedience. And what will
such an order be ? An order to observe chastity ? An
order to be sober ? An order to tell no lies ? Not one
of these thines. It will be that a brother is not to learn

PREPARATION FOR THE REFORMATION 223

Greek. He may be a sot. He may go with prosti-
tutes. He may be full of hatred and malice. He
may never look inside the Scriptures. No matter.
He has not broken any oath. He is an excellent
viejuber of the community. But if he disobeys a com-
mand from an insolent superior, there is a stake or a
dungeon for him instantly " {Ibid., p. 68).

The more Erasmus read the New Testament, the
more he hated the monstrosity that had taken the
place of Christ's religion. To expose and correct
abuses, to turn in the light on the dark places, became
the very passion of his life ; and in his letters, his
Encomium Moriae, and the Dialogue of Julius, which
has every appearance of being his work, he out-
Lucianed Lucian, Here, for example, are some of
his paraphrases : —

" Men are threatened or tempted into vows of
celibacy. They can have licence to go with harlots,
but they must not marry wives. They may keep
concubines and remain priests. If they take wives
they are thrown to the flames."

" The Virgin's milk is exhibited for money, with as
much honour paid to it as to the consecrated body of
Christ, and the miraculous oil, and portions of the
true Cross, enough, if collected, to freight a large ship.
Here we have the hood of St. Francis, Our Lady's
petticoat, St. Anne's comb, St. Thomas' shoes ; not
presented as i7inocent aids to religion, but as the sub-
stance of religion itself!'

" They chant nowadays in our churches in what is
an unknown tongue, and nothing else, while you will
not hear a sermon once in six months telling people
to amend their lives. Church music is so constructed
that the congregation cannot hear one distinct word.

224 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

The choristers themselves do not understand what
they are singing, yet, according to priests and monks,
it constitutes the whole of religion."

" Our theologians call it a sign of holiness to be
unable to read. They bray out the Psalms in the
churches like so many jackasses. They do not
understand a word of them. The friars pretend to
resemble the apostles, and they are filthy, ignorant,
impudent vagabonds" {Ibid., pp. 121, 122, 132).

And so on, and so on. His sarcasms were simply
merciless. They fell on the great army of priests and
monks, as Dante's shower of fire upon the agonising
souls. He spared no one. Cardinals and Popes,
bishops and abbots, alike were lashed with his scourge
of scorn. The world was amazed. The Church was
speechless with rage. The printing press, like a
thousand couriers, carried his works over Europe ; and
the axe which was to bring down the vast Upas
growth of superstition was laid to the root of the
tree. Twenty-seven editions of the Praise of Folly
are said to have been published in his lifetime, and
one printer is reported to have struck off 20,000 copies
of the Colloquies in one edition.

In fact, one can hardly think of the extraordinary
work of this extraordinary man, without coming to
the conclusion that in the strange providence of God
he was raised up to do a pre-Reformation work that
had to be done, and that no other character could
have done so well. A Protestant could not have
done it. The Church would have taken no notice of
him. A Lollard could not have done it. Nor could
even a narrow provincialist, however able, have done
it. It needed a clever man of cosmopolitan culture,
and, above all, a Romanist.

PREPARATION FOR THE REFORMATION 225

Erasmus was all these things. He was clever to a
degree. He was the most brilliant litterateur of the
day. He was, for his age, remarkably broad-minded ;
a wide thinker, a man of the world, the friend and
co-worker of the author of the " Utopia," And, above
all, he was a Romanist. Again and again, and to the
last, he reiterates his loyalty to the Pope. " Erasmus
will always be found on the side of the Roman See."
" Christ I know ; Luther I know not. The Roman
Church I know, and death will not part me from it
till the Church departs from Christ," " I have not
deviated in what I have written one hair's breadth
from the Church's teaching," " I advise every one
who consults me to submit to the Pope." " The
Holy See needs no support from such a worm as
I am, but I shall declare that I mean to stand by it,"
" I am not so mad as to fly in the face of the Vicar of
Christ." " Erasmus will always be a faithful subject
of the Roman See." " Who am I that I should con-
tradict the Catholic Church ? " "I shall stand on the
rock of Peter " {Ibid., pp. 210, 216, 253, 254, 261, 262,
264, 272, 279, 280).

Thus, in the wisdom of Him whose ways are in-
explorable, the most effectual pioneer in the necessary
work of uprooting the errors of the Romish system,
was a man whose life attitude towards the Church of
Rome may be summed up in his memorable assertion :
" It is not for me to sentence Luther ; but if the worst
comes to the worst, and the Church is divided, I shall
stand on the rock of Peter."

LXL Then Erasmus zuas in no true sejtse of the
word a Protestant ?

A Protestant ? No.

He was not a Protestant ; he was a satirist. In

Q

226 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

the modern Church sense there was not a vestige of
Protestantism in his writings. He was a caricaturist.
He was a critic. He looked at things in a totally
different way from Luther, or Ridley, or Cranmer.
He hated shams, and lies, and tyranny ; and nothing
pleased him more than to ridicule the absurdities and
mummery of the Popish system. But his satire never
seems to have been inspired by any profound convic-
tion of New Testament truth, or the reality of
spiritual religion. He saw the folly of superstition,
but not the beauty of apostolic doctrine. He abom-
inated imposture ; but, as Froude says, he had none of
the passionate horror of falsehood in sacred things
which inspired the new movement.

It seems to me that this sentence of Frqude puts
Erasmus' whole position in a nutshell. tThere was
no trace in Erasmus of that which was the essence of
the evangelical Protestantism of the English Church
Reformers ; the passionate horror of falsehood in
sacred things, of the falsity of transubstantiation and
of the mass, of purgatory, and image worship, and of
the Romish ceremonial, j As to his being a martyr, it
is amusing to see how he laughed at the idea. " Others
may be martyrs if they like. I aspire to no such
honour " {Ibid., p. 272). Erasmus had not the stuff of
which Reformers are made. He would have made
what the world calls a good politician, but he never
would have made a Reformer. " Men will never
follow Laodiceans like Erasmus."

LXH. But was not Erasmus a Reformer? Did
he not earnestly long for and aspire for Church
reform ?

Yes.

In a sense he did. The whole career of Erasmus

PREPARATION FOR THE REFORMATION 22/

was actuated by this desire. As far as he was
capable of earnestness, he earnestly longed for it.
But it was reform of a very moderate and a very
well-defined kind.

It was simply a reform -of morals 4n the Church,
to be carried out by the Pope, and the princes of the
realm. It was not reform of the Church. It was
utterly different from the reform that was accom-
plished in the Reformation of the Church of England ;
absolute separation from the Roman supremacy, and
an entire reconstruction of the Church's doctrinal and
liturgical system. \ It never contemplated such a
thing as the abolition of the authority of the Pope of
Rome, or the denunciation of its cardinal doctrines
and usages. / Such Church teaching as the twenty-
second, twefity-eighth, or thirty-first Articles of the
Church of England, would have been heresy to
Erasmus, His only idea was a reform in the
Church by the Church. According to his theory,
Rome was to cast out Rome.

And though it seems strange to us in these days,
who know the men and their views, and knowing
them, understand how impossible it was that a
Church diseased with so many and great cankers
could be healed by the sprinkling of a little Roman
rose water, there were at the beginning of the
sixteenth century not a few earnest and serious
churchmen who fondly dreamed this dream. The
awakening of new desires, the growing intelligence
of the middle classes, the spread of education, the
decay of credulity, the demand for truth, coinciding
as they did with a king of such a stamp as
Henry VIII., and a Pope of such a stamp as Leo X.,
seemed proof to many minds that the hour had come.

228 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

In the Church of England this proto-Reforma-
tion movement found many advocates. There
were those on the one hand Hke Morton and
Warham, and Wolsey and Fisher, svljose sole idea of
Reformation was lopping off a few of the extremities
and excrescences of moral abuse's? These men were
ecclesiastics ; they were Romish and Ultramontane.
They had scarcely an idea of evangelical Protestant-
ism. But they were keen enough to perceive the evils
that were rampant in the Church, and were sufficiently
in earnest to desire some kind of reform.

It was by Warham's commission that Colet set
before the Convocation in 15 12 his daring ideal:
" Remember your name and profession, and take
thought for the reformation of the Church. Never
was it more necessary " (Green, ii. 88). The religious
houses, like the Pharisees of old, so beautiful outward,
were full within of dead men's bones, and of all
uncleanness. Something must be done. Cardinal
Morton obtained a commission from the Pope to
reform their corruptions. A few years later Cardinal
Wolsey followed his example, and assumed the role
of a reformer of clerical morals. fWolsey could not
blind himself to the true condition of the Church.
He knew well that there lay before it the alternative
of ruin or amendment, and that reformation was
inevitable ; and he thought that it could be effected
by the Church itself from within/ (Froude's " History
of England," i. 100, 130, 133). -"

But their reform was only a name. It did not
pretend to be church reformation in the modern
sense of the word. As to any moral reform by a
character like Wolsey who was a man notorious for
his vicious life ; it was like Satan casting out Satan.

PREPARATION FOR THE REFORMATION 229

Then there was another and a higher class, the
literary or educational reformers, represented in
England by Dean Colet and Sir Thomas More, and
on the Continent by Erasmus. These were men of
higher ideals, and deeper plans.

The first of these was John Colet, Dean of
St. Paul's, and an Oxford scholar. Colet was a man
whom English churchmen should delight to honour.
A learned man, sweet -dispositioned, earnest and
pure, he played no small part as a preparer of the
way. Erasmus gives us a beautiful glimpse of him
in one of his charming letters, and describes him
as tall and good-looking, earnest and genuine.

" He talks all the time of Christ. He hates coarse
language. He is a man of genuine piety. He liked
good wine, but abstained on principle. I never knew
a man of sunnier nature. No one ever enjoyed
cultivated society more, but here too he denied
himself, and was always thinking of the life to come.
He was reserved in his opinions for fear of giving
wrong impressions, but to his friends he spoke freely.
He thought the Scotists were stupid blockheads.
He had a bad opinion of monasteries. He had a
particular dislike of bishops. He said they were
more like wolves than shepherds. They sold the
sacraments, sold their ceremonies and absolutions.
They were slaves of vanity and avarice. He approved
of a fine ritual at church, but saw no reason why
priests should always be muttering prayers at home,
or on their walks. He admitted promptly that many
things were generally taught that he did not believe,
but he would not create scandal by blurting out
objections."

Colet's specialty was education. Though a famous

230 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

preacher, his life passion was his great school at
St. Paul's, which he founded and endowed entirely
at his own cost — masters, houses, salaries, every-
thing. There were four classes (with one hundred
and fifty-three scholars in all), and only boys who
could read and write were admitted. Above the
head-master's chair was a picture of the child
Christ, in the act of teaching ; the Father in the air
above with a scroll, saying, " Hear ye Him "
(Froude's "Erasmus," pp. 98-100).

A fine man he must have been, of noblest mould.
Though he was a strong Bible student, his views on
doctrinal subjects were somewhat negatively Pro-
testant. He did not believe in image-worship for
instance, and he hated the corruptions of the age, but
there is no indication that he grasped the great truths
of the eleventh, nineteenth, or twenty-fifth Articles,
or was inspired by any passionate horror of the
falsity of ceremonial corruptions. His part in the
Reformation was mainly educational. He was
greatest as an influence.

Sir Thomas More was another man of this school.
An ardent Romanist, with a love of freedom, and
a keen sense of humour, he was a man of many
parts ; a judge, a law-lecturer, a teacher in theology,
an ambassador, a poet, a philosopher, an author, an
advocate, a privy counsellor, and Lord High Chan-
cellor of England. In a word, he was the cleverest
all-round man in England. He employed his
versatile talents to expose the ignorance of the
schoolmen and the vices of the priests. He was
a religious sort of man too, and sharp as a needle.
His " Utopia " was an extraordinary production.
He hated shams and humbug, and was an advocate

PREPARATION FOR THE REFORMATION 23 1

of the moderate sort of reform that was the day-
dream of his age. But he had no idea of radical
doctrinal reform, and when the new opinions as they
were called (though they were in reality the opinions
of Hus, and Sawtre, and Wycliffe, and Augustine, and
Paul), began to be advocated too seriously in England,
he disgraced his Chancellorship by the severity of
his persecutions. In fact, none of these men, not
even Colet, rose to the conception of such a thing
as true Church Reformation. Their ideas on the ques-
tion were practically the same as those of Erasmus.

LXIII. What, then, was the positioji of Erasmus and
these men with regard to the subject of Church reform ?
The position of Erasmus and the educational
reformers seems, in a nutshell, to have been this : —

The Church was all wrong. The morals of the
clergy were degraded. The leading Church doc-
trines were debased. The whole Church system
needed renovation, educationally and morally.

But the proper parties to carry out this reform
were the heads of the Church and the heads of the
nation. It was not the work for a few irresponsible
upstarts like Luther. It was not a work to be done
by fanatical appeals to popular passion.

It was a solemn duty, to be undertaken by the
Church, in the Church, and for the Church. It was
not to be an interference with the doctrine, the sacra-
ments, the ritual, and the orders, of holy mother Church.
The sacred ark should not be cleansed by unconse-
crated hands. Religion should be purified, but
authority upheld. There was Herculean work to be
done. The removal of the excrescences was, indeed,
a cleansing of Augean stables. But the proper
person to do this work was the Pope. The successor

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

of Peter should be Christ's Hercules, "Augeae
stabulum repurgare." The princes of the empire
and the various kings would, ex-officio and natur-
ally, be his chief assistants, and by their united
efforts the work would be peacefully accomplished.
Yet it was to be done in a seemly manner ; there was
to be no violence, no noise, no revolutionary icono-
clasm or quack catholicons. It was to be done by the
authorised physician, and by the cautious administra-
tion of regularly prescribed medicines.

This seems to have been their idea of the
Reformation. And there was no doubt that at one
time Erasmus really believed that it was going to be
brought about. With a Henry VHL on the throne
of England and a Leo X. on the throne of Peter
and head of the holy Roman empire ; his New Testa-
ment and his Jerome sanctioned by the Pope, and
himself commended for an English bishopric ; it is
not strange that Erasmus thought that the golden
age had already come, and that the longed-for
Reformation had well begun.

Erasmus, encouraged by the Pope's encourage-
ment of art and learning, and especially by Leo's
encouragement of himself, believed that they were
on the eve of a general reformation, undertaken by
the Church itself {Ibid., 289). When Leo X. died, and
Hadrian VI. succeeded him, Erasmus still had hopes.
" With Charles V. and Hadrian working together at
Roman reform, all might yet go well " (p. 303).

It was a vain dream. If a luxurious, Gallio-like
Leo X., a man utterly destitute of religious earnest-
ness, was incapable of reforming the Church, equally
so was a Demas-like Hadrian, who found that the
abolition of indulgences and simony would mean

PREPARATION FOR THE REFORMATION 233

the sacrifice of two-thirds of his princely income, and
whose main objects in life were the reformation of
the Church of Rome and the suppression of the
Lutheran heresy (Kurtz, ii. 49). Erasmus' panacea
of Papal reform was a castle in the air. God had
other plans than that.

It would have been a profitless task to have merely
lopped off a few branches or leaves of superstitious
usage while the root of the tree remained untouched.
And what hope of reform could there possibly
have been from a prelate who accepted unhesitatingly
every article of the apostate system of medievalism ;
or from a body of teachers to whom the denial of
transubstantiation was heresy, and the repudiation
of the mass the sin of schism. From such men
reformation in the Church of England sense was
utterly impossible. They might have amended, they
could not have reformed.

The student of English Church history can gain
a clear idea of the meaning of the great Reformation
of the sixteenth century by ^tttrasting what was
actually accomplished in the reformation of the
Church of England with the Erasmus con^ceptio^ of
Church reform.

It is historically certain that if Erasmus' conception
of Church reformation had been brought about, there
would have been no such reformation of the Church
as was in the providence of God accomplished in
England. There would have been no separation from
the unity of Rome, or abolition of the Papal supremacy.
There would have been no Book of Common Prayer,
and no Lord's Supper or Communion Office in English.
The missals of Sarum, and York, and Hereford, or what
was practically the same thing, the missal of Rome,

234 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

for the Sarum mass was the Roman mass pure and
simple,* would doubtless still have obtained in the
Church of England. There would have been no
change in the ordinal, no Church teaching like that
from the nineteenth to the thirty-first Articles, to say-
nothing of the sixth and the eleventh. Neither the
Pope nor Popery would have been cast out. A
change would have been effected, but it would have
been a change of the most moderate and trivial
character.

This is a thought of cardinal importance.

If it is clearly understood and firmly grasped, the
student will never be confounded in his reading of
English Church history. He will be in a position to
rightly distinguish things that differ. He will under-
stand how men can be Romanists, and yet zealots
for reform ; and be eager for reform, without being
evangelical Protestants. He will also clearly see how,
in the working of the events of those formative years,
the work of Colet, and Grocyn, and Linacre, and
Lily, and More, wide reaching and earnest though it
was, was, after all, only the work of the men who
plough the field in preparation for the harvest ; and
how the labours of Warham, and Wolsey, and Eras-
mus were the labours of men who pull down and root
up, but know not how to build.

Much more was needed than that.

Truth in doctrine was needed. The revival and
restoration of the doctrine of Christ and His apostles.

Truth in worship was needed. The abolition of the
ceremonial of superstition, and the introduction of a

* The identity of the Sarum Mass with the Roman in every essential
feature will be evident to any one who compares the two services.
See the " Sarum Missal " by the Church Press Company.

PREPARATION FOR THE REFORMATION 235

pure and spiritual service. And only men who knew
the truth and understood it could bring this aboui.
The reformation of the Church must be antedated by
the reformation of individuals.

In one word, reformation in the complete sense
could only be effected by the agency of men who
were themselves personally enlightened by God's
Spirit, and taught of God in the truth as it is in Christ
Jesus. Educationalists like Colet and Erasmus could
prepare the way. Politicians like Henry VIII. and
Cromwell could precipitate national crises. But only
men like Tyndale, and Bilney, and Latimer, and
Ridley, and Cranmer, the last to be enlightened but
not the least in work, could bring about doctrinal
restoration, and hand on to succeeding ages a Church
that was indeed, and in the true sense, reformed.

As the spiritual side of the preparation of England,
though of great importance, is seldom accorded the
prominence that should be given it by English Church
writers, one of the subsequent chapters (xv.) will be
devoted specially to this part of the subject.

CHAPTER XIV.

THE SEPARATION OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH
FROM ROME.

The sine qua non of reformation restated — The absolute improbability of any refor-
mation of the Church at the opening of the sixteenth century — The beginning of
the reign of Henry VIII. — The splendid advantages of the young king — Two
strong characteristics — His theological bent, and his imperious will — Henry VIII.
to the end a bigoted Romanist — The affair of the divorce — Its beginnings
obscure — Wheels within wheels, subterfuges and compromises — Cardinal
Campeggio despatched to England — The matter brought to a head — England's
temper rising — Henry's visitation and outbreak^The king summoned to Rome
— The downfall of Wolsey— The downfall of the clergy — The downfall of the
Pope — The renunciation of the Pope's supremacy by convocation— Act for
abolition of Annates — The first distinctly anti-Papal statute of the reign of
Henry VIII. — The statute for the restraint of appeals — The Church and nation
of England separated from Rome by mutual renunciation.

WE will now proceed to the providential series of
events which concurred to inaugurate the^pst —
stage in theJReformation of the Church of England.

It was stated previously that for the Church of
England to be completely reformed, two things
would be necessary ; the separation of the Church
from Roman unity, and the re-assertion by the
Church of apostolic doctrine. The first would in-
volve the rejection of the Papal supremacy by the
Church of England. The second, the rejection of
the distinctive doctrines of the Roman Church.
Both of these things, unlikely as they appeared to
human eyes, were actually accomplished, though half
a century elapsed before the Reformation was complete.
236

THE SEPARATION FROM ROME 237

When the sixteenth century opened, nothing seemed
more improbable than the separation of the Church
of England from Rome, and its reconstruction on
primitive and Scriptural lines. It was Roman to the
core. Its rulers were mostly cardinals of Rome.
Its clergy were priests of Rome. Its offices were the
offices of Rome. Its head was the Pope of Rome.
The Church of England was as absolutely identified
with the corporate life of the Church of Rome, as the
heart is with the life of the body. The possibility of
separation from Roman Catholic unity would have
seemed as remote as its probability. No part of the
Roman Catholic Church at this period was more
thoroughly ultramontane in its corporate life than
the Anglican section. The English Church was
comparatively as Roman Catholic then as the
Canadian Roman Catholic Church in the Province
of Quebec is to-day. And it was the same when
Henry VIII. ascended the throne.

The year 1509 may be reckoned as an epoch in the
history of the Church of England, for it marks the
initial year of the reign in which the great transfor-
mation of the Church was begun. In 1 509 Henry VII.
died, and his son Henry VIII. began his memor-
able reign amidst the rejoicings of the people. He
was still a very young man, only eighteen years of
age ; and according to the universal verdict of history
the youthful king was possessed of qualities that gave
promise of a brilliant future. Strong in body, pleasing
in manners, vigorous in mental power, high-minded and
religious, he seems to have been a kind of royal paragon.

One of the writers of the day describes him as noble
in his bearing, wise in counsel and a lover of all that is
good and right. " This king of ours is no seeker after

238 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

gold, or gems, or mines of silver. He desires only the
fame of virtue and eternal life." Another recites his
gifts and accomplishments. " He is so gifted and
adorned with mental accomplishments of every sort,
that we believe him to have few equals in the world.
He speaks English, French, Latin ; understands
Italian well ; plays on almost every instrument ; sings
and composes fairly ; is prudent and sage, and free
from every vice." A third describes him as prudent,
and liberal, and courteous, learned in all sciences, a
perfect theologian, a good philosopher, and a strong
man-at-arms. While a fourth declares that in addi-
tion to this, he was amongst the best physicians of the
age, an engineer, an inventor, and a practical ship-
builder. Solomon himself had scarcely a better
start on the royal road.

But there were two things about Henry VHI. that
must be particularly referred to, as giving in a
measure an explanation of some of the events of his
reign with which this work is more particularly con-
cerned ; the theological bent of his mind and his
imperious will. From his earliest years Henry VHI.
had a strong predilection for religious subjects; and
when he became a man he applied himself to the
study of theology with the ardour of an ecclesiastic.
" Trained from his childhood by theologians, he
entered upon his reign saturated with theological
prepossessions. His reading was vast, especially in
theology. He had a fixed and perhaps unfortunate
interest in the subject itself" (Froude's "History of
England," i. 99-177)- In fact, he was a better theo-
logian than the average ecclesiastic of his day, and
took the deepest interest in the stirring ecclesiastical
events of the age.

THE SEPARATION FROM ROME 239

Henry VIII. was, of course, from the first and
throughout, a devoted Romanist. His birth, educa-
tion, incHnation, and conviction, all conspired to make
him a thorough Papist ; and in spite of all his subse-
quent differences with the Court of Rome on the
subject of the supremacy he remained to the last an
earnest Roman Catholic. In spite, also, of his early
leanings to the new learning, he continued to the end
the determined foe of the seditious novelties of the
reformed opinions. " It has been and is my earnest
wish," he wrote to Erasmus at the beginning of his
reign, " to restore Christ's religion to its primitive
purity, and to employ whatever talents and means
I have in extinguishing heresy and giving free course
to the Word of God. If you are taken away, nothing
can stop the spread of heresy and impiety."

We gather from this that he was willing to acquiesce
in such mild reforms within the Church as were
suggested by men of the Warham stamp, but we
know also only too well with what unrelenting severity
he permitted the persecution of the Protestants during
parts of his reign.

He was one of the first Englishmen to come forward
against Luther as a public champion of Romanism,
and his compilation on the seven sacraments of Rome
(" Assertio septem sacramentorum adversus Martin
Lutherum, &c.") was no less vigorous than his asser-
tion of the supremacy of the Pope as a temporal
sovereign. It was as a reward for Henry's anti-
Protestant zeal on this occasion (1521) that the Pope be-
stowed upon him the title " Defensor Fidei," Defender
of the Faith, a title held before by some English
kings, and held ever since by English sovereigns.
Nor is there any evidence that Henry VIII. was

240 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

anything else than a Romanist to his dying day.
As will be subsequently shown, the affair of the Papal
supremacy had nothing whatever to do with his belief
in the essential features of the Romish doctrinal
system, the mass priest, the mass sacrifice, and the
mass service ; nor is there any indication of his
having grasped even in embryo the distinctive doc-
trinal principles of the Reformation. The part that
he played in the reformation of the Church of
England was a remarkable one ; but it was mainly
in the politico-ecclesiastical sphere.

The other thing about Henry VIII. that requires a
reference, was his imperious will.

He had naturally a despotic temperament and a
masterful mind. It came to him with his royal
blood. If he had been an ordinary person, it would
have been in all probability well curbed and held in
check. But being a prince, it was seldom restrained.
From the very beginning things seemed to favour
its growth. The idol of the people from the day he
was crowned, his wish became law. He became the
spoilt child of the kingdom ; pampered, wilful, way-
ward. As he grew in years, his will grew haughtier
and more impetuous. It brooked no opposition,
tolerated no resistance. It mattered little who
opposed ; wife, chancellor, parliament, or Pope.
His forceful will defied all contradiction, until the
habit of tyranny became second nature and he ruled
with the sic volo sic jubeo spirit of a despot. He
was, as Bishop Burnet quaintly puts it, one of the
most uncounsellable persons in the world.

These personal characteristics of Henry were
destined to play a great part in the preliminary
stage of the Reformation in England. In fact,

THE SEPARATION FROM ROME 24 1

without an understanding of them it would be diffi-
cult to intelligently follow the first stage of that great
revolution, and the accomplishment of that first
necessity of the English Reformation, the separation
from Roman unity. To resume again our questions.

LXIV. How was this first stage in the Reforniatioji
of the English Church broiight about?

It is a strange and complex story.

The main instrument by which it was accomplished
was King Henry VIII. ; the main reason of its
accomplishment was the curious combination in his
character of casuistry and wilfulness ; and the main
question at issue was the divorce from Queen
Catherine of Arragon. It seems scarcely possible
that the question of the validity of a marriage should
have been the occasion of a great ecclesiastical revolu-
tion. But it certainly was in the English Reformation.

How the matter began will probably never be
accurately determined. Some attribute it to Cardinal
Wolsey, and his dream of the tiara. Others to the
wiles of Anne Boleyn. But his weariness of Catherine,
and his desire for a new wife and male issue had
probably been working in the king's mind some time
before he knew Queen Catherine's maid of honour. It
seems more likely, as Southey has suggested, that in
Henry's case the wish was father to the thought ; and
that the same theological turn of mind, which led him
to come forward as the champion of the Church,
became the cause of his defections from it, when
he applied his casuistry to the purpose for which
theological training was chiefly employed in the
Middle Ages, that of making his conscience conform
to his inclinations ("Book of the Church," p. 216).

There is abundant proof that at the time of the

R

242 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

marriage Henry had doubts of its validity, and that
the protesting prelates, Warham and Fox, only echoed
his own recorded protests. Still if everything had
gone as Henry wished, and the male children his
wife bore him had lived, the scruples about which he
became suddenly so concerned would probably never
have troubled him.

But his male issue did not live ; the future of the
kingdom seemed serious ; and he was getting tired of
his rapidly aging wife. So the scruples grew, and the
scruples deepened, and the question began to assume
quite serious proportions. His ecclesiastical investi-
gations upon the subject, of course, confirmed him in
his uneasiness, and the thing was determined.

There must be a divorce.
Vfo us in these days the whole history of this per-
plexing affair with its intrigues, and collusions, and
Machiavelian stratagems, seems almost incredible.

But one must remember that \in tlipse days_ihe

Roman system of casuistry had played so fast and
loose with the marriage bond that it was a matter of
almost every day occurrence for the Pope to upset the
validity of a marriage contract, and that the closeness
of the.p€>liti€ai-retuLiuiis"-of England and the courts of
Rome, and France, and Germany, created wheels
within wheels of diplomatic perplexitiekj The Pope
claimed practically the power to legitimate or invali-
date any marriage (Froude, i. 137). He could over-
ride with a dash of his pen the most natural of the
prohibited degrees. He could divorce on the flimsiest
grounds a legally married couple. " Saepenumero
antehac fecerat." He had done so again and again.
And there was no reason that he should not do so in
the case of Henry VHI.

THE SEPARATION FROM ROME 243

It happened, however, that in the king's matter he
was placed in a desperate dilerrinia, for if he granted
it, Charles V. would cast him out of Rome ; if he
did not grant it Henry VIII. would cast him out of
England. The result was a series of subterfuges and
compromises, and delays that pleased nobody, over-
turned Wolsey, stirred Henry to fury, and precipitated
the downfall of the Pope in England.

LXV. What was the course of events in connection
with the divorce in England?

Briefly stated it was as follows : —

The matter really began in England with a shajjx^
triaLof Henry in 1527 for having married his brother's
wife unlawfully. The Pope with the aid of Wolsey,
had trumped up this scheme for disposing of the
whole matter in the Legatine Court in England
without Catherine knowing anything about it. This
scheme having fallen through, the king and Wolsey
ventured other plans, Henry sending a mission to the
Pope, and Wolsey plying the archbishop and the
Queen's confessor.

The Pope was artful. He did not exactly care to
authorise a second marriage, for that would place him
in the. awkward predicament of invalidating a previous.
P^pa.1. dispensation ; nor did he exactly care to refuse
intervention, for that would incur Henry's ire. So he
granted a dispensation commission, but drew it up in
such terms that it was practically worthless. A
second commission was promised by the Pope not
long after (Froude, i. 144-146), and in 1528 came the
event that was eventually to bring the matter to a
head, the despatching of Cardinal Campeggio to
England to hear the case in conjunction with Wolsey.
Campeggio was an astute Italian, specially selected

244 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

for the purpose, with secret instructions to delay
matters as much as possible ; to hedge and fence and
trim with all ingenuity ; but above all, to be sure and
decide nothing definite. He played his part well.
Arriving in England after multiplied delays, he plied
his artifices with the skill of a juggler. But the king
was not in the mood for shuffling, and the master
strokes of Italian finesse were wasted on the air.
As a matter of fact, Henry's temper was rising fast,
and the long delays and evident temporising of the
Papal legate were disgusting, alike to the monarch
and the nation.

After a long while, that is, in May, 1 529, Campeggio's
court was really opened, and after a few illusory
proceedings, was adjourned. A fortnight or so after,
it was opened again, and once more adjourned. The
farce was getting serious. The eyes, both of the king
and the people, were being opened to the hollow un-
reality of the whole business. Nay, more. They
were being opened to the indignity and dishonour
that was being done to their ruler and realm. They
were beginning to see the inconsistency of a foreign
court being opened on English soil, and an English
king and queen being compelled to appear thereat.
" So long as a legate's court sat in London, men were
able to conceal from themselves the fact of a foreign
jurisdiction, and to feel that, substantially, their
national independence was respected ; when the
fiction aspired to become a reality, but one conse-
quence was possible" (Froude, i. 163).

And so in the strange providence of God, it came
to pass, that the craft and subtilty of a scheming
diplomatist became the means of precipitating the
emancipation of the Church. For the end of the

THE SEPARATION FROM ROME 245

Campeggio farce was the dissolution of his court,
and the transfer by the Pope's order of the case to
Rome, and a summons requiring Henry VIII., the
invincible king of England, France, and Ireland, to
appear in Rome before a Roman court.

This proceeding caused no little excitement in the
nation, and became the turning point of the overthrow
of Rome. The spirit of the nation was aroused
thoroughly. The summoning of an English king to
appear before an Italian bishop, " To bow and sue for
grace with suppliant knee," was an unheard of thing.
It was intolerable. Wolsey had very plainly said that
the English people would die rather than submit to
such an indignity. " If the advocation be passed," he
wrote to his agent in Rome, Sir Gregory Cassalis,
" with citation of the king in person, or by proctor to
the court of Rome, the dignity and prerogative royal
of the king's crown, whereunto all the nobles and
subjects of this realm will adhere and stick unto the
death, may not tolerate nor suffer that the same be
obeyed. Nor shall it ever be seen that the king's
cause shall be ventilated or decided in any place out
of his own realm ; but that if his grace should come at
any time to the court of Rome, he would do the same
with such a main and army royal, as should be formid-
able to the Pope and all Italy " {Ibid., i. 164). And now
it was verified. On every side the duplicity of the
Pope had awakened disgust, and ,Jii^__effrQater-y-in
sumraoniag the -king- to. JS-ome was regarded as a
national insult. The crisis at last had come. England,
as far as the Pope was concerned, was in a state of
mutiny.

LXVI. What was the itnmediate result of the
dissolution of Campeggio' s court ?

246 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

The first result was the downfall of Wolsey.

Perhaps Anne Boleyn had something to do with
this. It is not unlikely. But, after all, Wolsey had
himself chiefly to blame. He travailed with mischief,
and his travail came upon his own head. His record
was very blemished, a mixture of pomp, and pride,
and priestcraft ; and it is little wonder that the king
himself, disgusted with Rome's delays, had turned at
last upon him, even though he had been so long his
valuable tool, and had of late done all he possibly
could to forward the great matter of the divorce.
Rarely did man drop more suddenly or irretrievably.
His great seal as Lord Chancellor was taken from him.
A layman supplanted him in the Lord Chancellorship.
His riches were snatched from him as if he were a
felon. He was charged with high treason. He was
threatened with the Tower. And to cap the climax
of his ignominy he was actually charged as a Roman
ecclesiastic with having broken the law of England in
exercising the authority of Papal legate within the
English realm. The last charge, unreasonable as it
was from the standpoint of equity however justified
by the technicalities of the letter of the law, only
showed the changed temper of the king and the nation.

The downfall of Wolsey was followed by the down-
fall of the clergy.

{.As the representatives, not only of the Pope, but of
God, the clergy had for ages wantoned in the
inqnlfnce pf their arrogated prerogaiiA;:es.: They held
the keys of heaven and hell. Their chief was the
greatest earthly sovereign ; his territory, the greatest
earthly empire. Their cardinals were like princes of
the royal blood ; their bishops, the greatest nobles
in the land. They were the first estate in the

THE SEPARATION FROM ROME 247

representative system of the nation (Stubbs' " Consti-
tutional History," ii. 176). They were to all intents
and purposes the supreme power in the realm.

But at last their long day was coming to an end.
The shepherds, who so long had fed themselves, but
not the flocks ; who neglected the sheep, and with
force and with cruelty ruled them ; were now them-
selves to be fed with judgment.

The first blow came in the great Parliament of
1529, known as the reformed or J4efor«mtion^ Parlia-
ment. After a speech by the new Chancellor, Sir
Thomas More, the proceedings began with a formal
act of accusation against the clergy, in which the
enactments of the clergy in convocation, and the
methods of their enforcement were unsparingly
ixapeached ; the abuses of their courts and powers
den.ounced ; and their unjust methods of accusing and
trying heretics exposed in most scathing terms.
Xbte@--^i«-were then passed, all of them humiliating
to the clerical order, the last of which, whilst aimed
primarily at the English clergy, was really a cut at
Rome's power in England. It appears to have been
quite a common thing for a priest, instead of attend-
ing to his clerical duties, to buy and sell merchandise,
to keep a tannery or a brewery, and in virtue of a
X license from Rome, to hold as many as eight or nine
^ benefices. The statute against\,piuraiities'*stppped all
this ; regulated the holding of Uenefices,-. forbade
^eculai^eiiLploymeftts, and declared idispensation^ from
the court of Rome to be penal.

In many respects this Act was one of the most
remarkable ever passed in England. Its passage fifty
years before would have been incredible. It showed
that a remarkable change was coming over the lay

248 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

mind of England, and that the people had at last, to
the horror of a moribund caste, put their hand to the
plough of ecclesiastical reform. Before this time, for
a body of laymen to dictate their duties to a body of
clergymen was a thing almost unheard of It is
a question whether those historians have caught
the true interpretation of the motives of the reform
Parliament of 1529, who ascribe its zeal to love
of office and complete subserviency to the will of
the king. The truth seems rather to lie in the
fact that,'foi;-tiie first time in the histpjy^QflJEjigland,
the spirit of the people has foand an. expression in
^e representatives-of the people, and that the laity of
England, with a sternness of temper that revealed the
intensity of their convictions, had awakened to the
peril of ecclesiastical abuses. After no little opposi-
tion from the bishops the bill became law.

A bitterer blow was to follow.

The Parliament had taught the clergy a lesson on
the frailty of human greatness. The king now taught
them another.

As was said before, the technical charge by which
Wolsey was mainly impeached was his breaking the
/^S jStatut€-o£-iin£m.unir€y-'^ charge that was palpably
unjust, as the statute was practically a dead letter,
and the king himself had winked at its contravention.
But now, with an unparalleled audacity, the king
determined to bring down the whole body of the
clergy by declaring them also guilty of breaking the
Praemunire Statute, inasmuch as all the clergy had
recognised Wolsey in his capacity as Papal Legate,
and therefore had indirectly contravened the law. In
December, 1530, an official notice was sent to the
clergy that they were one and all to be prosecuted,

THE SEPARATION FROM ROME 249

and that their only escape lay in the payment of an

enormous ^e."
/ z) The third and greatest result of the divorce question
was the downfall of the Eope.

The downfall of the clergy was followed by the
downfall of the Pope. If there was any doubt before
as to the tendency of the drift of events, there could
be none now. For these acts of the king and his
Parliament were only secondarily insulting to the
clergy of England. Primarily and supremely they
were insulting to Rome. Apparently they were
struck at a body of Englishmen. Really they fell
on the Italian Pope. Every device of the Parliament
and the king for lowering the prestige of the clergy
was a death blow to the Papal supremacy.

The condemnation of a Cardinal of Rome by the
secular court of an insular kingdom was the assertion
of the revolutionising proposition that the State was
supfdbn. ta.±he- Churdi^-aiid-that-the-Popfi. of Rome
was _no_ more in England than any other outside
prince or Jaishop. The subjection of the clergy to
the Praemunire Statute was the re-assertion of the
long-fought-for principle of the English constitution,
that the clergy, though Roman clergy, were to recog-
nise the regal power of the Crown, and were to be
amenable to the jurisdiction of the State. The
proclamation forbidding the introduction of Papal
bulls into England, and the prohibition of dealings
with the court of Rome on the part of Englishmen
was practically a declaration of independence of
Rome. And the determination of the king to act
upon Cranmer's advice, and not only hold a court in
England to settle the matter of the divorce, but
actually to gather the opinion of representative uni-

250 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

versity men and to deprive the Pope thereby of his
monopoly of final appeal and supreme decision in
a matter of such serious import to the welfare of
Christendom, marked one of the most revolutionary
proceedings from the Roman standpoint that had
ever been attempted by a devoted Romanist. It was,
in fact, a displacement of the Pope from the throne of
ecclesiastical dictatorship.

Thus, step by step and stage by stage, the uncon-
scious emancipator of the English Church was slowly
moving forward, led as a blind man by a way that he
knew not, to the forwarding of events that he could
not have known.

Yet a caution must needs be inserted at this point.

We must not mistake Henry's position. Henry VIII.
was no anti-Roman zealot, actuated by the spirit
of a fervent Protestantism for the demolition of
the Roman fabric. At this time his ov-eirinastering
desire was-the. accomplishment of his divorce. The
humiliation of Rome was a mere accident in its
accomplishment. He was no anti-Papal champion,
inspired with a determination to bring down to the
ground the Roman Edom. Nothing of the sort. He
was only an Englishman, and he was a king. But he
was a king of violent caprice and imperious impulse.
And he was determined, with the masterful instinct
of his race, to be no inferior of the time-serving Italian
called a Pope, who was but a puppet in the hands of
the foes of England, moved now by Germany and
now by France. To the clergy, as a spiritual body,
Henry VIII. had no repugnance, nor did he con-
template such a thing as indignity to their ecclesias-
tical office. But he must be aut CcBsar aiit nulhis
in his own dominions, and he.would not tolerate ultra-

THE SEPARATION FROM ROME 2$ I

montanism. . No man can serve two masters. They
must either obey the king or the Pope. He would
have no conspirators in his realm, and a body of
men who were bound body and soul to an Italian
allegiance must be coerced into submission, though
the act of compulsion involved the demolition of
the Papal supremacy.

LXVII. What were the various steps by which the
separation of England from Rome was formally brought
about ?

The story is a long one, and in every step the
over-ruling providence of God is clearly shown. As
briefly as possible, however, the various stages in
their order will be unfolded. The first thing was the
^ ,d£cia*atixin of the king's supremacy over the Church,
which was in effect the renunciation of the supremacy
of the Pope, on the part of the Convocations of York
and Canterbury, in February and May, 1531. After
much discussion and great resistance, both houses of
Convocation, with undisguised reluctance, acknow-
ledged that the king was rightfully, as head of the
realm, the supreme head of the Church a§_ikci_as_is
permitted_by-th#4aw^f..Chri-st.

This was really a momentous national revolution,
and the most daring thing yet attempted in England.

For it must be remembered that all the clergy at
this time, in heart and soul, were Roman Catholics.
They had been trained from childhood to believe in
the Pope as the successor of Peter, and the vice-
gerent of God in earth. Yet in the strange providence
of God, in spite of, if not against, this instinct and
conviction, they were led by what was largely the fear

oX_a_inail,. Rnd-1+'-'°-4'''^f^d of jr^gipg \\\f-\r prr Ift&iacfi^R]

status and worldly goods, to sullenly yet formally

252 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

repudiate the headship of the long recognised head of
Christendom, and acknowledge the headship of such
a tyrant as King Henry the Eighth. An idea of
the tremendous change this must have been is
gained from a comparison of the oath that they had
formally to make to the Pope, and the oath which
they were hereafter to take to the king. The oath of
the English clergy to the Pope was as follows : —

" I, John, bishop or abbot of A., from this hour for-
ward, shall be faithful and obedient to St. Peter, and
to the holy ChiircJi of Rome, and to my lord the Pope,
and his successors canonically elected. I shall not
be of counsel or consent that they shall lose either
life or member, or shall be taken or suffer any
violence, or any wrong by any means. Their counsel
confided to me by them, their messages or letters,
I shall not willingly discover to any person. TJie
Popedom of Rome, the rules of the holy fathers, and
regalities of St. Peter, I sJiall help and maintain and
defend against all men. The legate of the See
apostolic, going ^nd coming, I shall honourably treat.
The rights, honours, privileges, authorities of the
Church of Rome, and of the Pope and his successors,
I shall cause to be conserved, defended, augmented,
and promoted. I shall not be in counsel, treaty, or
any act, in which anything shall be imagined against
him or the Church of Rome, their rights, seats, hon-
ours, or powers ; and if I know any such to be moved
or compassed, I shall resist it to my power, and as
soon as I can, I shall advertise him, or such as may
give him knowledge. The rules of the holy fathers,
the decrees, ordinances, sentences, dispositions, reser-
vations, provisions, and commandments apostolic, to
my power I shall keep, and cause to be kept by others.

THE SEPARATION FROM ROME 253

'''Heretics^ schisjnatics, and rebels to our holy
father and his successors, I shall resist and persecute
to my power. I shall come to the synod when I am
called, except I be letted by a canonical impediment.
The thresholds of the apostles I shall visit yearly,
personally, or by my deputy. I shall not alienate or
sell my possessions without the Pope's council. So
God me help, and the holy evangelists."

This oath of the clergymen, which they were wont
to make to the Bishop of Rome, was abolished by
statute, and a new oath ministered, wherein they
acknowledged the king to be the supreme head
under Christ in the Church of England, in these
words : —

" I, John, B. of A., utterly renounce and clearly
forsake, all such clauses, words, sentences, and
grants which I have, or shall have hereafter, of
the Pope's holiness, of and for the bishopric of A.,
that in any wise hath been, is, or hereafter may be,
hurtful or prejudicial to your highness, your heirs,
successors, dignity, privilege, or estate royal ; and also
I do swear that I shall be faithful and true, and faith
and truth I shall bear to you, my sovereign lord, and
to your heirs, kings of the same, of life and limb, and
earthly worship above all creatures, to live and die
with you and yours, against all people ; and diligently
I shall be attendant to all your needs and business,
after my wit and power ; and your counsel I shall
keep and hold, acknowledging myself to hold my
bishopric of you only ; beseeching you for restitution
of the temporalities of the same : promising (as
before) that I shall be a faithful, true, and obedient
subject unto your said highness, heirs, and successor
during my life ; and the services and other things due

254 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

to your highness, for the restitution of the temporali-
ties of the same bishopric, I shall truly do, and
obediently perform. So God help me and all saints "
(Fox, viii.).

Thus was the usurped headship of the Pope re-
nounced, and the king reputed the only supreme head
on earth — that is, next under Christ who is in heaven
— of the Church that once more now in a true sense
is entitled to be called^_Anglicana Eccleai^ the Church
of England. The clergy even seem at this time to
have caught the rising spirit of Protestantism.
Whether it was a mere swimming with the tide of
royal favour, or a selfish desire to profit by the times,
or a real growth of a patriotic and enlightened con-
viction that was the cause of their action it would be
hard to tell. But at any rate their action was remark-
ably Protestant when we consider their previous
record. They presented a significant address to the
Crown. They asked the king to abolish annates, or
payments made by bishops to the Pope for the privi-
lege of being consecrated as bishops of the Church of
England, and added, in case the Pope objected, this
remarkable petition : —

" Forasmuch as St. Paul willeth us to withdraw
ourselves from all such as walk disorderly, it may
please the king's most noble majesty to ordain
that the obedience of him and his people be with-
drawn from the See of Rome " ( Perry, ii. 79).
It was, when we consider the time, a most extra-
ordinary appeal. ^

The consequence was that an \^x±Jto this effect was
soon brought into the House of Lords, providing for
the cessation of the payments of annates to the Pope,
and the lawfulness of the consecration of the bishops

THE SEPARATION FROM ROME 255

without the Pope's bulls, and the ministry of the
clergy of the Church, notwithstanding Papal ex-
communication or interdiction. This statute must be
regarded as an epoch in the Protestantism of England.
It may rightly be described as the first Act of
Parliament of King Henry VIII.'s reign which was
distinctly anti-papal.

The next step was the very remarkable Act known
as the^'^t^iute — ^for the restraint of appeals. It
peremptorily prohibited all kinds of appeals to Rome.
The language of the Act seems almost incredible
when it is remembered that it was passed in the year
1533. It declared : —

" That the Crown of England was imperial, and the
realm a compact body politic, with plenary power,
prerogative, and jurisdiction, to render justice in all
causes, spiritual and temporal, to all subjects within
the kingdom, TJoithnut—^strain^-Jiy an appeal to- any
foziign—pmiicr ; the body spiritual thereof having
power, when any cause of the law divine or of
spiritual learning happened to come in question, to
declare and interpret by that part of the body politic
called the spirituality, 7iow being usually called the
English Church, and that there had always been in the
spirituality men of sufficiency and integrity to declare
and determine all doubts within the kingdom, without
the intermeddling of any external power, and that
several kings, as Edward I., Edward III., Richard II.,
Henry IV., had by several laws preserved the liberties
of the realm, both spiritual and temporal, from the
interference of Rome ; yet, that many inconveniences
had arisen by appeals to the See of Rome in causes
of matrimony and others, which delayed and deputed
justice. Wherefore, it was enacted that all such

256 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

causes, whether relative to the king or any of his sub-
jects, were to be determined within the kingdom in
the several Courts to which they belonged, notwith-
standing any appeals to Rome, or inhibitions or bulls
from Rome " {Ibid., 80).*

This act for the restraint of appeals was the climax.
By it the English Church and nation passed the
Rubicon, and the break with the Pope was finally and
formally completed.

About the same time the Convocation decided by
it.s_vote the Iggalityi-i:^- the "<iivor€€. and Cranmer as
Archbishop declared the marriage with Catherine to
be unlawful and void. The words of the sentence of
his interesting decree are given at length by Froude
(" Hist.," i. 456, 457). From the Papal standpoint it
was also most audacious, and was received not only
by the nation, but even by the king, with uneasiness
and misgivings.

The king had already been married for some time
to Anne Boleyn. Thus by coinciding circumstances
the rupture with Rome was consummated beyond
remedy, and the nation of England and the Church
of England together were finally and irrevocably
separated from Roman jurisdiction. Bishops were
ordered to preach that the Pope was not to be
accounted head of the Church. The University of
Cambridge declared against the usurped headship of
the Pope. Even Bishop Gardiner published a book
confuting the Papal authority.

True, the final act of rupture was almost stayed.
For at the very last moment the King of France

* The reader's attention is called to the words that I have italicized.
They seem to bear out the argument of Chapter XI.

THE SEPARATION FROM ROME 257

appeared as mediator, and induced Henry to agree to
the compromise that if the Pope would permit a re-
hearing of the divorce case, he would postpone if not
abandon his measures for separation from Rome.
The Pope on his part agreed to this, and promised
that if a courier arrived before the 23rd March, 1534,
the sentence of excommunication would not be pro-
nounced.

The fate of England and the cause of Protestantism
in the Church and nation hung suspended upon such
a trivial event as the journey of a courier.

Again the working of the mysterious hand of God
in Providence became manifest. The courier. was-dis-
patchedJrom£iigland,_buL7i^//£;i£^ toJie.jida^^
twg_days_JtQQ-iate. The Bull of Excommunication
was promulgated by the exasperated Pope, and
England and— Ronie were sundered by^mutual renun-
ciation-- The Pope has cast, off England. England
has cast off the Pope. England and the Church of
England are henceforth independent-of Rome.

The Church was far from being reformed. The
reformation was not by any means accomplished.
By far the greatest and mightiest work remained yet
to be performed. But as when the dead man Lazarus
lay in his grave, the stone had to be rolled away
before the revived man could come forth, so before
the Church of England could come forth into newness
of life as a revived and reformed body, the incubus of
the Papal usurpation had to be removed. " Take
ye away the stone," was the Master's first command ;
and after that He said, " loose him and let him go."
Henry VHI, was only an instrument in the hand of
God to take away the stone of the Papal supremacy.
The real reformation was the reviving and loosing and

S

258 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

letting go the Church by the adoption of the truth ;
the work of the Word of God and the Spirit of God
through the great reformers. In the following
chapter, therefore, we shall turn aside from the
course of political and international events to dwell
upon the persons and incidents that figure most
prominently in the initial stages of this greater
movement.

CHAPTER XV.

THE BEGINNERS OF THE SPIRITUAL REFORMATION
OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

Quiet work going on behind the scenes — The real forces of the Reformation not
political — The Reformation due to the spiritual enlightenment of individual
churchmen — The Reformation movement in England not foreign — The doctrine
of the Reformers taught by God's Word and Spirit — The work of Thomas Bilney —
His conversion typical of the conversion of the Church — Its far-reaching effects
upon the Church — Was the means of the conversion of Latimer — The conversion
of Latimer another epoch in the Reformation — Further fruits of Bilney's work
— 'l"he work of William Tyndale — He perceives reformation impossible without
Bible translation — His great resolution — The difficulties he had to encounter —
The Bible in the vernacular the foe of the Church — Great demands for Tyndale's
Testaments — His imprisonment and death — The greatness of his work and
influence.

WHILE these great international events were
occupying the minds of the leaders and the
masses of the English people, and kings, and Popes,
and legates, and Cardinals, seemed the only actors
upon the Church-world theatre, a quiet but important
movement was going on behind the scenes, and the
men and things which were to be more signally used
by God in the work of reforming the Church of
England than the great and the mighty ones of the
world, were quietly doing their appointed work.

Thereal forces of the Reformation were not political
or ecclesiastical. They were spiritual. The most
important of the anticipatory movements of Anglican
reform was neither regal nor convocational. It was
private and personal. The Reformation of the Church

259

260 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

of England in its true and essential character was due
neither to Henry VIII. nor Convocation ; it was due
to the spiritual enlightenment of individual churchmen.
Outward and political movements in State and Church
were talked of by all, and seemed to be everything ;
but they were only the minor part. The real reforma-
tion was the conversion of the Church. The conversion
of the Church was due to the conversion of her re-
formers. The conversion of the reformers was effected
by the Spirit of God through the Holy Scripture.
And the conversion of one of the most influential of the
reforming agents was largely due to the conversion
of one English Churchman who was martyred as a
heretic.

The same forces which inaugurated the primitive
Church, the Holy Spirit and the Holy Scriptures,
inaugurated the movement in England, which was
essentially a revival of primitive Christianity. The
Holy Spirit gave the Word, The entrance of the
Word gave light to men. Enlightened men spread
the Word to others. The Spirit through these men
revived the Church. Thus the greatest reforming
force in the Reformation of the Anglican Church was
the Holy Bible, illuminating through the Holy Spirit
the lives of influential churchmen, who in due course
so spread the truth, that in time the whole Church was
leavened, and the views which they taught became
the Church's formulated teaching.

It is of the first importance, also, for the student of
English Church history to understand that the origin
of this movement was native, not foreign. It sprang
from within, not from without. It was not German,
it was not Bohemian, it was not Swiss ; it was
English. It was begun by Englishmen, and arose

BEGINNERS OF THE SPIRITUAL REFORMATION 261

not so much from contact with foreign reformers as
from contact with the Word of God. WycHffe was
an Englishman, and the Scriptural and spiritual views
that he held, he held as an Englishman, and an
English Churchman, The early followers of Wycliffe
were Englishmen, and though their teaching for a
time lost influence, yet, as a stream that for a time
goes underground and appears again, their work was
fruitful after many days. Tyndale was an English-
man. Bilney was an Englishman. Frith was an
Englishman. The views that they held and taught
were native and unimported. They were neither
caught from Luther nor Zwinglius ; they were taken
direct by the teaching of the Holy Spirit from the Word
of God. Christ was their Master ; not a German or
a Swiss divine. And the influence and teaching of
these men, these Englishmen, was the most potent
force in the careers and characters of the great
Anglican reformers, who in their turn came to hold
their views with the conviction and clearness that
springs from direct contact with the Word of God,
and the personal illumination of the Spirit. All of
the men whom we are about to refer to, as well as
Ridley, Latimer, and Cranmer, confessed that their
doctrine and teachings were the result of the light of
the Holy Word and the illuminating of the Holy
Spirit. It may safely be said that Cranmer, and
Ridley, and Latimer were more influenced by the
New Testament than by all the teachings of all the
continental divines. Nay more, it can be even
asserted that they received more light from a com-
paratively unknown English Church reformer, than
from even the illustrious Luther or the famous Zwin-
glius and Calvin. English Churchmen must beware

262 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

of giving honour to those to whom it is not due. The
honour on the spiritual side of the Anglican Refor-
mation is due under God to Englishmen, not to
foreigners.*

The man in England who was destined to play a
very great part in this preparatory reformation move-
ment was Thomas Bilney. A brief account of this
comparatively obscure apostle of the principles of
the Reformation will do more to explain the reason
and meaning of the present position of the Church
than a volume upon the divorce case and Henry VI 1 1.
Bilney was not only a very strong factor in the ultimate
reformation of the English Church ; he exemplified
in his personal career the forces that accomplished it.
His story was a parable of the transformation of the
Church.

Thomas Bilney was a student at the University of
Cambridge at the time when Erasmus' New Testa-
ment was first published. This was in the year
1 516. Fox says that he was a man of ability and
wide reading. For some time he appears to have
been anxious about his soul, seeking peace and find-
ing none. The account of his finding light and peace
in Christ is so remarkable that it will be worth while
to tell it in his own language. He begins by telling
how he spent all that he had, like the woman in the
gospel, on ignorant physicians, who appointed him to
perform watchings and fastings, and directed him
to purchase pardons and masses.

" But at last I heard speak of Jesus, even then when

* Of course the reader is reminded that there is no desire here to
disparage the obvious historical fact of the mutual action and reaction
of religious opinions in this uniquely transitorial age. The point is
that there was a distinctly Anglican movement of reform.

BEGINNERS OF THE SPIRITUAL REFORMATION 263

the New Testament was first set forth by Erasmus ;
which when I understood to be eloquently done by him,
being allured rather by the Latin than by the Word
of God (for at that time I knew not what it meant),
I bought it even by the Providence of God, as I do
now well understand and perceive ; and, at the first
reading (as I well remember), I chanced upon this
sentence of St. Paul (O most sweet and comfortable
sentence to my soul!) in i Tim. i. 15 : ' It is a true
saying, and worthy of all men to be embraced, that
Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of
whom I am the chief and principal.' This one
sentence, through God's instruction and inward work-
ing, which I did not then perceive, did so exhilarate
my heart, being before wounded with the guilt of my
sins, and being almost in despair, that even immedi-
ately I seemed unto myself inwardly to feel a
marvellous comfort and quietness, insomuch that ' my
bruised bones leaped for joy.' "

After that the Scriptures became sweeter to Bilney
than honey and the honeycomb. He learned that
all his endeavours, fastings, watchings, and all the
pardons and masses he had bought, were of no avail.
As St. Augustine says, they were but a hasty running
out of the right way. Having begun to taste the
sweetness of this instruction, which no one can
discern unless taught of God, who revealed it to the
Apostle Peter, he entreated the Lord that he would
increase his faith, that with the power of the Holy
Spirit, given from above, he might teach others the
ways of God. In one word, Thomas Bilney was
born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorrupt-
ible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth.
The Father, of His own will, begat him with the

264 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

word of truth through the power of the Holy
Ghost.

The conversion of Thomas Bilney was remarkable
for two reasons.

In the first place, it was an evidence of the
transforming power of the Word of God, and an
illustration of the part played by the Bible in the
regeneration of the Church of England. The Word
of God, pure and simple, was used by the Holy
Spirit to awaken him to newness of life. The Romish
system was powerless to effect what was wrought by
a simple text of God's book. The reformation of
England's Church was likewise an awakening of a
great ecclesiastical body to newness of life through
the immediate influence of God's Word, printed,
published, preached, and -read. The sixth article of
the Church is the Church's tribute to the power by
which, under God, it was reformed. Trace to their
fountain-head the various streams of light and life
that ran through English history in the reigns of
Henry the Eighth and Edward VI., and they will
be found to converge in the Book which that little
band of scholars in Oxford and Cambridge were
beginning at this time reverently to study, and an
English scholar was preparing presently to publish.
The work of Tyndale had its foundation in the read-
ing of the New Testament. So had the work of
Frith. So had the work of Stafford. So had the
work of Barnes, So had the work of Latimer, and
Ridley, and Cranmer, and Hooper. So had the
reformation of the English Church. God's Word
was the true cause of the English Reformation.
It was the understanding of Scripture, the dis-
covery of the teaching and meaning of Scripture,

BEGINNERS OF THE SPIRITUAL REFORMATION 265

that explains the change that came over the Church
of England.

The Church of England, for two or three centuries
before the sixteenth century, knew little of, and cared
less for, the Holy Scriptures. It dishonoured them.
It despised them. It persecuted the readers of them.
But when the Word was read and understood, a great
light arose. Error was seen as error, and truth as
truth. The way of salvation was perceived, and its
simple beauty received as a revelation. At first
this was confined to individuals, who rejoiced in the
light, and spread it ; the Church to which they
belonged, the Church of England, repressing and
restricting the Word in every possible way. But
by-and-by the Church itself was awakened. The
Bible became its chiefest treasure. All that it taught
was truth, however opposed to tradition and author-
ity. All that it taught not was error, however sup-
ported by the leaders of Catholic Christendom. The
saying of the Saviour's became true of the Church
of England : " Ye shall know the truth, and the truth
shall make you free."

In other words, the apprehension of the Word of
God was followed by the same effect in the case of
the Church as it was in the case of Bilney, and
Tyndale, and Latimer. The Church was awakened,
emancipated, transformed, acknowledging as its
supreme and exclusive authority the Holy Scriptures.

In the second place, the conversion of Bilney was
remarkable for the fact that it became, by reason of
its far-reaching influence, one of the important events
in the history of the Church of England in the
sixteenth century. For, from the conversion of this
man sprang, directly and indirectly, the conversion of

266 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

the men who were to mould the age ; those prominent
reformers to whom the reconstruction of the Church
of England was chiefly due, and whose work was
mainly what it was, because of their spiritual enlight-
enment. Who could possibly have foreseen on the
day when the curious Cambridge scholar took up
with careless hands the New Testament of Erasmus,
that that perusal was to result in a series of con-
versions without parallel, perhaps, in the history of
any age ; and that that simple reading was to give a
new current to a life that in its turn should revolu-
tionize characters whose formative influence on the
Church and the nation should endure from generation
to generation.

We will explain what we mean.

One of the first fruits of Bilney's conversion was
the conversion of Latimer, afterwards Court preacher
and Bishop of Worcester, Latimer was at this time
a bigoted Papist, violently opposed to the reforming
opinions, and one of the champions of Rome. " I was
as obstinate a Papist as any was in England," he
said, afterwards, in one of his sermons.

The story of his conversion, though often told, is
worth repeating. It was about the time that he
was taking his degree of Bachelor of Divinity, and
he had just delivered a violent philippic against
Melancthon. It was rather a playing to the gallery
of the Catholic party, who were naturally elated, and
the preacher was regarded on all sides as a champion
of the Church against the seditious novelties of the
new opinions. Amongst his hearers that day was
Bilney, and a great longing arose in his heart to win
that enthusiastic soul for Christ and the Gospel.

He thought that the best way would be simply to

BEGINNERS OF THE SPIRITUAL REFORMATION 267

tell him the story of his own conversion, and just
explain to him how he found Christ himself. So he
went into Latimer's study, and in a simple, earnest
manner asked Latimer to hear his confession.
Latimer did so. And then, with touching simplicity
and pathos, Bilney told him how once he was restless
and dissatisfied, seeking peace for his soul ; how he
tried in vain the many and better ways suggested to
him of vigil, fast, and pilgrimage ; how his anguish
deepened as peace seemed further and further, and
how at last he found joy and peace in believing the
simple Word of God. As the strange confession
went on, the soul of Latimer was swept with conflict-
ing emotions, and instead of his visitor's his own soul
was laid bare. The tears of the confessor began to
flow, and his heart melted. He too had long been
seeking, though perhaps in ignorance, the thing that
he now heard so touchingly described. The Holy
Spirit was working, and when Bilney as a discreet and
learned minister of God's Word brought him the
benefit of absolution by the ministry of God's Holy
Word through the text, " Though your sins be as
scarlet they shall be white as snow," Latimer passed
from death unto life. He was converted. He was
born again, not of corruptible but of incorruptible
seed, by the ministry of that earnest soul-winner.

The change in Latimer's case was momentous.

Like Saul of Tarsus he boldly came out on the
truth's side. He at once confessed Christ in the
University, and became an avowed companion of
Bilney, and Stafford, and the little band of Cambridge
reformers. " He forsook the schoolmasters and such
fooleries, and became a true scholar in the true
divinity, so that, whereas he was before an enemy

268 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

and a persecutor of Christ, he was now an earnest
seeker after Him." Latimer, moreover, as a man
of force, and influence, and zeal, became a valuable
ally of the cause of reform. It was impossible for him
to pass through such an experience as his conversion
without determining to make known to others the
secret of life. Necessity was laid upon him. " After
this his winning to Christ, he was not satisfied with
his own conversion only, but, like a true disciple of
the blessed Samaritan, pitied the misery of others ;
and, therefore, he became a public preacher, and also
a private instructor to the rest of his brethren within
the university by the space of two years ; spending
his time partly in the Latin tongue amongst the
learned, and partly amongst the simple people in his
natural and vulgar tongue." In other words, from
the time that Latimer was brought to the personal
knowledge of the truth by means of Bilney, the
whole of his influential life was thrown in upon the
side of the principles of the Reformation. Latimer,
as Strype said, was one of the first in the days of
Henry VIII. to preach the Gospel in the truth and
simplicity of it.

We lay stress upon this. We think it is worthy of
emphasis as an event of no mean importance in English
Church history. For that conversion of Latimer, aris-
ing as it did from the conversion of Bilney, became
one of the great determining factors in the shaping of
the Church in its reformation. It gave a new charac-
ter to one of the men who were to give a new character
to the Church. If that man had not been converted he
would never have had the views he had ; nor would he
have been used of God as he was ; nor would the
form that he and his fellow-reformers impressed upon

BEGINNERS OF THE SPIRITUAL REFORMATION 269

the Church have been assumed. But by the grace of
God he was brought to a personal knowledge of the
power of God's Holy Word, the way of salvation, and
justification by faith, and the other great doctrines of
the Gospel. By the grace of God also he was the
means of bringing others to the same convictions, and
they in their turn by reason of their influence, were
enabled to hand these great truths on to the future
ages as the accepted and authoritative teaching of the
Church of England.

But Latimer was not the only one that was brought
to the knowledge of the truth by Bilney. He was
the means also of bringing Barnes, prior and master
of the house of the Augustines, a learned man, and
like Apollos mighty in the Scriptures. " Yet did he
not see his inward and outward idolatry, till that good
master Bilney converted him wholly to Christ," after
which he laboured with great earnestness for the
Gospel, and in spite of his famous recantations and
indiscretions, waxed faithful at the last. Barnes was
the means of awakening Coverdale, one of the great
translators of the Bible, and a foremost bishop of the
Church in the reigns of Edward and Elizabeth.
Another fruit of Bilney's earnestness was Thomas
Arthur, a scholar of St. John's College. Indirectly too
he influenced John Frith, whose views on the Holy
Communion were those which are now taught by
the Church of England, a man who is said also by
Froude to have been one of the means of influencing
Cranmer.

But this was not all.

The seed that grows into an oak, produces in turn
the seeds of other oaks, each tree containing a
thousand seeds, each seed the germ of a thousand

270 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

trees. John the Baptist brought Andrew to Christ
Andrew found his brother and brought him to Christ.
And Peter in turn became the winner of thousands,
and a founder of the Church. So Bilney brought
Latimer to Christ ; and Latimer in turn influenced
Ridley, who was greatly impressed by his preaching,
and acknowledged his obligations to him ; and Ridley
was the foremost means of opening the eyes of Cranmer
(Cranmer, L xix,, Park. Soc.) ; and Latimer, and Ridley,
and Cranmer were God's appointed instruments for
the reconstruction of the Church in its doctrinal
system. Bilney, Latimer, Ridley, Cranmer ; it is the
pedigree of the Reformation. How many more were
led to the truth by the faithful preaching of Latimer
will never be known on earth. But the number was
great. Among others Latimer led Becon to Christ,
one of the foremost doctors of the age, and Bradford
also, one of the noblest of the martyrs ; men who
being dead even yet speak, and turn men heaven-
wards both by their example and writings.

Such was the work of that earnest and loving soul,
"whose name," as an old High Church writer says,
"will ever be held in deserved reverence by English
Churchmen," and the monument of whose conversion
is the transformed national Church. Though, like
brave Latimer, Bilney recanted, not once but twice, he
played the man at the last and was burnt as a martyr,
suffering like his Master without the gate.*

* It is difficult sometimes to acquit certain party church writers of
unfairness in their treatment of men like Bilney. The author of the
" Ecclesia Anglicana," for instance, curtly dismisses Bilney's life and
work with the words : " Bilney, a gloomy and half-crazed Puritan
whom Wolsey had persuaded to recant, disowned his recantation and
began preaching against the Church system (sic) in Norfolk. He was
burnt in the market-place of Norwich in 1531 " ! !

BEGINNERS OF THE SPIRITUAL REFORMATION 2/1

Another man whose work was one of the formative
forces quietly but potently operative in the prelimin-
ary stages of the reformation of the Church of
England was William Tyndale.

He was truly, as one of his biographers says, one
of the chief instruments in the blessed work of restor-
ing the knowledge of the way of salvation to England.
In fact, it is almost impossible for the student to
understand the revolutionary change that came over
the Church of England in the sixteenth century,
without some knowledge of the influence of his
labours on the minds of a great multitude of the laity
of England, and many of the clergy. The personal
work of Bilney ; the public work of Latimer ; the
publishing work of Tyndale, were three great spiritual
forces preparing the body corporate of the Church of
England for its greatest epoch. But the greatest of
these was the work of Tyndale.

To William Tyndale the English Church owes
mainly the English Bible. Born of a good English
family about 1484, Tyndale began at an early age
his studies at Oxford, in which University he con-
tinued for some time. He was particularly proficient
in languages, and was known in Magdalen College as
a diligent student of Scripture. His devotion to
Scripture was the keynote of his life. He loved
the Word of God with a singular affection. He was
saturated with the spirit of the one hundred and
nineteenth Psalm. The entrance of God's Word
gave him light, and the study of God's Word was
his life.

He afterwards left Oxford and went to Cambridge,
attracted there probably by Erasmus' Lectures, and
then stopped for a while in the country house of

272 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

Sir John Walsh, a Gloucestershire squire. While a
guest in this house he came into contact with many
of the local churchmen of prominence, abbots, deans,
archdeacons, and doctors, to whom he clearly set
forth that cardinal principle of the English Church
since the Reformation, that whatever is not in the
Holy Scripture, nor may be proved thereby, is not to
be required of any man that it should be believed as
an article of the faith. The result was that he had to
appear before Dr. Parker, the Chancellor of the
Diocese of Worcester. Not long after this he uttered
in the presence of a Roman Catholic divine who had
said that England would be better without God's laws
than the Pope's, his famous sentence : " If God spare
my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth
the plough to know more of the Scriptures than thou
dost."

Thus slowly but firmly the great revolution of his
life became definitely framed in his mind, the resolve
to give the people of England the Word of God in
their own tongue. He saw clearly that this was the
only hope of England, and that without it, any real
reformation was impossible. Wycliffe had, indeed,
translated the Bible ; but it had never reached the
people. In the first place it was not printed, and
therefore was obtainable only by a few ; in the
second place it was in very early English, and many
of its phrases were already obsolete, and unintellig-
ible to the masses. Tyndale determined that every-
body in England should be brought at once to the
fountain of truth by a translation of the Bible that
would be correct, intelligible, and printed for the
masses of the people.

" I perceived, he said in his preface to the Penta-

BEGINNERS OF THE SPIRITUAL REFORMATION 273

teuch, how that it was impossible to establish the
lay people in any truth, except the Scripture, was
plainly laid before their eyes in their mother tongue,
that they might see the process, order, and meaning
of the text ; for else whatsoever truth is taught them,
these enemies of all truth quench it again. As long
as they keep that down they will so darken the right
way with the mist of their sophistry" (Tyndale's
Works, i. 393, 394 ; Park. Soc).

The difficulties he had to encounter were enormous.

First of all, he was driven sadly but surely to the
conclusion that the work could not be done in Eng-
land. " I understood at the last, not only that there
was no room in my Lord of London's palace to
translate the New Testament, but also that there
was no place to do it in all England." The enmity
of Holy Church to the Word of God was incredible.
In 1524 Tyndale left England, and never saw her
shores again. He went to Hamburg, and there, in
that German town in the midst of foreigners, was
printed the first portion of God's Holy Word that
was ever printed in the English language. That
portion was the Gospel according to St. Matthew,
and not long after, the whole Testament was trans-
lated, and printed in English.

This New Testament was substantially the one
now familiar to English people, and in spite of the
misrepresentations of Romanists in that day and
this, was the most accurate and satisfactory trans-
lation of the Word of God that had been yet
completed. It was not a mere second-hand trans-
lation of Luther's Testament as the Roman Catholic
Cochlaeus persuaded Henry VIII. and More and
Fisher, and half England to believe {Ibid., xxviii-

T

274 "mE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

xxxi.) ; nor was it, as certain modern Church writers
have carelessly asserted, a mere translation to suit his
own particular views (Hore, p. 252). "I call God to
record," he said in that noble letter of his to Frith,
which Fox gives in full ; " I call God to record against
the day we shall appear before our Lord Jesus to give
a reckoning of our doings, that I Jiever altered one
syllable of God's Word against my conscience, nor
would this day, if all that is in the earth, whether
it be pleasure, honour, or riches might be given me."

The next difficulty was to get it into England.
He had got it into print ; he had now to get it into
the reader's hand. This difficulty was overcome by
the enterprise and zeal of certain English merchants
and friends of Tyndale, who brought the precious
volumes over in bales of merchandise, Tyndale
having prepared at Worms a new version whtch
contained nothing but the inspired text, and a brief
address in the appendix to the reader. It was
imported in great numbers, and eagerly bought by
the people.

Another difficulty had now to be faced.

Under a mistaken notion that the New Testament
which was now being so industriously circulated
amongst his subjects was a kind of Lutheran produc-
tion for the advancement of heresy, the king came
out with a very strong manifesto against it, ordering
all copies to be burned, and all holders and readers
thereof to be punished.

The Church authorities were equally inimical.
On the nth of February, 1526, Cardinal Wolsey
and thirty-six bishops with great display burnt
baskets full of the Testaments and other books at
St. Paul's. Bishop Tonstal, in a charge to his

BEGINNERS OF THE SPIRITUAL REFORMATION 275

archdeacons, most violently denounced Tyndale's
translation, and enjoined the people to deliver up
all English translations of the New Testament under
pain of excommunication, and suspicion of heresy.
Warham did the same. In fact to the churchmen
of that day the man who gave the lay people the
Word of God in their own tongue was a supplanter
of the Church, and the New Testament in the
vernacular was the foe of the Catholic faith. To
translate and print and circulate an English New
Testament was even to such an intelligent churchman
as the author of the " Utopia " the devil's work, and
the training of simple souls for hell. It only shows
how Roman the Church was. It shows also what the
so-called Catholic faith was when the New Testa-
ment was so absolutely opposed to it.

Nor must the reader be misled by the notion that the
Roman party was opposed merely to the inaccuracies
and corruptions of the text, and that their opposition
was dictated by a high-principled anxiety for a pure
and perfect version. Nothing of the sort. Out of the
large body of the bishops and prelates and dignitaries
of the Church, it is questionable whether one could
be compared with Tyndale in critical capacity, nor
was there the slightest evidence of anything like a
scholarly anxiety for a high standard of vernacular
translation. It was sheer antagonism to the Word
of God from fear and ignorance. The Romish
outcry about mutilations and corruptions, as Fulke
shows in his masterly defence of the translations
of the Bible, was " a wilful and impudent slander."*

* Fulke's " Defence of Translations of the Bible." The Cambridge
University Press, for the Parker Society.

2/6 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

The idea of a body of men who had swallowed
the Vulgate with its eight thousand errors, to say-
nothing of the missals and legends, becoming all
at once so scrupulous about textual exactitude,
was humorous to a degree. They knew little and
cared less about matters that required a degree of
accurate scholarship far beyond that possessed by
the average bishop ; but they hated the Bible, and
determined to keep it out of the people's hands.

As Tyndale said ; if they had only taken as
much trouble in translating the Scriptures as they
had to tear in pieces his version, they would have
completed the greater part of the Bible. The very
men who in times past knew no more about the
Scriptures than the sentences of it which they found
in the works of Duns Scotus, looked so narrowly on
his translation, and scrutinised it so closely that
if there was one i which had not the dot over it,
they noted it and numbered it to the ignorant
people for a heresy. Or as Latimer, with his shrewd
common sense, put it in his letter to Hubbardine :
" You say that you condemn not the Scripture, but
Tyndale's translation. Therein ye show yourself
contrary to your words ; for ye have condemned
it in all other common tongues, wherein they be
approved in other countries. So that it is plain
that it is the Scripture, and not the translation that
ye bark against, calling it new learning. And this
much for the first lie " (Latimer's " Remains," p. 320).

Tyndale not only had to face the vigilant opposi-
tion of king and cardinal at home ; it pursued him
even to the Continent. The king had his agents in
the Netherlands and Germany, who were commis-
sioned to take measures to destroy all the English

BEGINNERS OF THE SPIRITUAL REFORMATION 2/7

Testaments they could discover, and do all in their
power to prevent their exportation. In 1529 a treaty
was signed between Henry VIII. and the Princess
Regent of the Netherlands, by which the contracting
parties bound themselves, among other things, to
prohibit i\\Q printing or selling of any Lutheran books,
under which head, as an anti-Romanist production,
the New Testament of Tyndale would be classed.

In spite of all this, the Testaments flowed in con-
tinually, and in 1534 the demand for them in England
was so great that the Antwerp printers undertook
themselves to print four editions of them, A cir-
cumstance occurred in connection with this enterprise
that caused Tyndale no little annoyance. One of
these printers employed one George Toye, who
surreptitiously brought out an edition that was very
inaccurate indeed, and calculated to do Tyndale much
harm. Fortunately Tyndale discovered the transac-
tion, and exposed Toye openly. But it only shows
what vexatious hindrances beset him, and what
obstacles he had to overcome.

The end of Tyndale's noble career was tragic in
the extreme. For some time unavailing efforts had
been made to induce Tyndale to return to England.
He felt very keenly his exile from his native country,
and the bitter absence from his friends. But he knew
perfectly well that his life would not be safe there,
and his work would be impossible. So he kept on
working with unwearying diligence at his translation
of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew,
moving, in the meanwhile, from place to place to
elude the agents of the king, who were bent upon
his arrest. In 1535 he found his way to Antwerp,
and there it was, while being hospitably entertained

278 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

in the house of an English merchant, that he was
basely betrayed by one of the king's agents, named
Philips, and carried to the Castle of Vilford, eighteen
miles from Antwerp, where he was imprisoned,
Bishop Gardiner seemingly having a hand in the
matter. For over twelve months he was immured in
Vilvorden Castle, where he pursued, with zeal, his Old
Testament translation, and carried on a stout con-
troversy with the Romanist doctors of Louvaine.
Tyndale was then condemned as a heretic, and
sentenced to death. " He was tied to the stake ;
and then strangled first by the hangman, and after-
wards with fire consumed, on the 6th of October,
1536; crying thus at the stake, with a fervent zeal,
and a loud voice, ' Lord, open the King of England's
eyes ! ' "

It was a glorious ending to a glorious life, and
speedy and marvellous was the answer to the dying
martyr's prayer. Before that very year had closed, in
which a body of foreign Romanists, at the instigation
of an English Romanist, had burned an Englishman
for translating into English the Holy Scripture, " the
first volume of Holy Scripture ever printed on English
ground came forth from the press of the king's owii
printer." And more marvellous to say, that transla-
tion of the New Testament was not only authorised
by the king, the foremost and most powerful of the
opponents of Tyndale's New Testaments ; it was
Tyndale's own version of the Testament^ with his
prologues also, which were a beautiful introduction to
the reading of the Scriptures of a most decidedly
Protestant and evangelical character. And most
marvellous of all, the long proscribed name of William
Tyndale, the man who was burned by the Church at

BEGINNERS OF THE SPIRITUAL REFORMATION 279

Vilvorden, was openly set forth on its title-page
(Tyndale's Works, Park. Soc, i. Ixxv.). It was the
Divine saying repeated, " The stone which the builders
refused is become the head-stone of the corner. This
is the Lord's doing ; it is marvellous in our eyes."

Of the subsequent publications of the Holy Scrip-
ture, and the position given to Tyndale's translations
in our English Bible, we shall speak hereafter. Our
object for the present is to draw attention to the
silent but widespread effect of his life work, and the
greatness of his influence on the hearts and thoughts
of the English people. Fox says Tyndale may worthily
be called an Apostle of England. In that Fox spake
truly. William Tyndale did more to hasten the
principles of the Reformation, and to make the Church
of England what it is to-day than many churchmen
are wont to imagine.

It was not merely that he recognised the right of
the lay people to have the Scripture in ^eir mother
tongue, but that he was the first of Englishmen to
make this privilege an accomplished fact. At the time
when the craving for knowledge was growing daily,
he stepped forward and gave to the laity of England
the New Testament in English. He became one of
the most effectual pioneers of the right of private
judgment. When the minds of English churchmen
were wearying of Rome, he led them to God's Word,
and gave to the nation an authority more surely
infallible than that of the apostate successors of Peter.
By his advocacy of Scripture-reading, he struck
Wycliffe's key-note of Church reform. By his most
practical enunciation of the principle of the sixth
Article, he prepared the subsoil of England for the
changes inaugurated by Henry and Cromwell, and

280 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

consummated by Cranmer and Ridley. In his
pathway into the Holy Scripture, and his prologue, he
familiarized the lay mind of England with that great
foundation principle of the Reformation in England,
which was afterwards formulated as the teaching of
the Church in the eleventh Article.

While then the name of William Tyndale, like that
of Thomas Bilney, may not have been mentioned
by many authors as one of the great and prominent
agents in the reformation of the Church of England,
his work is not on that account to be considered the
less important. God often chooses instruments that
are undervalued by man, and works great works by
men who do not figure largely on the theatre of fame.
The names of the great, and noble, and mighty ones,
the kings, and cardinals, and bishops, and archbishops
of England, who played so famous a part in the
Reformation, are rightly given prominence in its
narration. But he will fail to grasp the true secret of
this cardinal epoch in our Church history who fails to
perceive the remarkable preparation of the personal
agents, through the work of Bilney and Latimer,
and the unmistakable evidence of God's providen-
tial hand in the raising up and sending forth at
the very time his work was needed, such a
modern Apollos as William Tyndale. It was his
great theorem, the " laity cannot be established in the
truth unless the Bible be translated for the laity,"
that explains the preparedness of the Church for
the reform of Edward's reign ; and it was this that
was the cause of the spread, and the play, and the
growth of the fountains and the rivers of the water of
life, which he sent flowing through so many channels
in England. To this also may be ascribed the great-

BEGINNERS OF THE SPIRITUAL REFORMATION 28 1

ness of the change that came over its doctrine. The
Bible and the Bible only may be said to have been the
religion of Tyndale ; and it was in no small measure
owing to him that the Bible and the Bible only, as
the supreme and final authority, became the doctrine
of the Church of England (Art. vi.).

CHAPTER XVI.

THE INCIPIENT PROTESTANTIZING OF THE
CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

The separation from Rome the act of the Church and the realm of England — The
name Protestant secondary — The thing is of primary importance — The Church
of England still Roman in doctrine — No thought of separation from Roman
Catholic unity— Yet it was separated ; in Roman Catholic view, schism — The
case of John Frith — English Church now holds as truth what it formerly con-
demned as heresy — Yet the Church the same Church — The Church was reformed
then, not instituted — Romanists have no claim to Church temporalities — Initial
steps of Church reform by Henry — Anti-papal movements — Injunctions to
preachers — The Primer — The whole Bible in English published by authority —
The remarkable events accounting for this.

WE now resume the thread of historical events
connected with the rejection of the Papacy.
By a series of revolutionary events, which followed
one another with startling suddenness, the most
Ultramontane of all the national sections of the
Roman communion has rejected the claims of the
Pope, and pronounced his authority a usurpation.

The stone of the Roman supremacy has been rolled
away. The first part of the work of Protestantizing the
Church is accomplished. Both the realm of England
and the Church of England are separated from Rome.
The ^temporal headship of the Pope of Rome is
repudiated, and his spiritual supremacy renounced.
The Church of England has taken a stand as a
Protestant Church that a decade before would have
been considered impossible. And this suggests a
282

INCIPIENT PROTESTANTIZING OF THE CHURCH 283

question that it will be necessary to answer before we
go further. The question is this : —

LXVIII. Could this separation of England from
the Pope in t/te year 1534 be taken in any sense as an
indication of the Protestatitism of the Church ?

If we rise above mere verbal sophisms, and con-
sider the subject without prejudice or perversion, the
answer to this question must be given in the affirma-
tive. In a really true sense, it certainly could. For
the first time in the history of England, the Church
of England, as a Church, may now be said to have
become Protestant ; for, as Canon Perry says, at
the close of 1534, the Papal power, so long intrusively
dominant in England, had been legally repudiated
by the constitutional acts of both clergy and laity
(" Eng. Ch. Hist," ii. p. Z6). True, it was an incipi-
ent and partial Protestantism, of a very rudimentary
and imperfect type ; it was as different from the Pro-
testantism of Ridley and Latimer as the doctrine of the
Thirty-nine Articles from the teaching of the Articles
of 1536. But the protest against the jurisdiction of
the Pope and the renunciation of his authority was an
act of Convocation, which represented the Church, as
well as of the king and the Parliament, which repre-
sented the natio7i ; and this revolt from Rome's long-
suffered domination of the Church, was unquestionably
the proclamation of the Church's Protestantism. It
is true that the word Protestant, as far as England
was concerned, was then an almost unknown word.
It is true that as far as the expression was concerned
the term Protestant applied in those days to certain
German dissentients from a brief of Charles V. The
name is secondary ; the thing is of primary importance.
Too much weight must not be siven to terms. If the

284 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

thing is there it is sufficient. And in this act of the
united realm of England, king, Church, and people,
revolting from and renouncing the long-asserted
authority of the Pope, we have the first step in the
great work of God in transforming the Church of
England. In other words : the partial, and individual
Protestantism of Edward III., Langton, and Grosse-
teste against Papal rule, has become the Protestant-
ism, not only of the realm, but of the Church of
England. The Church of England, as the Church of
England, puts itself on record as protesting against,
or as being a Protestant against, the Pope of Rome.

LXIX. But had this rejection of the Papal
supremacy on the part of the Church of England
anything to do with Popery or the doctrine of the
Church? After this, zvas the pure Word of God
preached, the Holy Communion substituted for the
Mass, the Bible for tradition, and the minister of the
Gospel for the Mass-priest? Did the Church become
Protestant in doctrine ?

No, not in the slightest degree. There was no
renunciation of Popery. The entire doctrinal system
of the Church, which was in effect Popery, remained for
the time in statu gtio. It is of the highest importance
to remember that notwithstanding this voluntary sep-
aration of the Church of England from Rome, and the
extraordinary repudiation of the headship of the tenant
of Peter's chair, there was not the slightest intention
or idea on the part of King Henry or the clergy of
altering in any essential degree the Catholic religion
as held by Rome, or even of severing themselves
from the unity of the Catholic Church. This may seem
anomalous to the modern reader, but it is a fact. The
Commons themselves took care to put on record

INCIPIENT PROTESTANTIZING OF THE CHURCH 285

in the very Act of protestation against the Pope
their determination not to alter any doctrine of
the faith ; and, as we have shown in the previous
chapters, that meant of course the faith of the Church
of Rome. The Roman doctrine was cherished by
all save the scattered and persecuted adherents of
what we would now call the principles of the
Reformation. Bilney, and Tyndale, and Latimer,
and the Scripturists were really the only ones in the
Church who held the reformed doctrines which were
soon to be incorporated as the teaching of the Church
of the nation. The Churchmen of England, both lay
and clerical, seemed to have imagined that they
could occupy the strangely inconsistent and illogical
position of remaining in spiritual union with the
Pope as the centre of Catholic unity, while at the
same time renouncing and repudiating him as head of
the English Church, as a foreign bishop and prince.
At least, this seems to have been their position.
But at the same time, many of the bishops and clergy
saw the impracticability of this. As a matter of fact,
they were not at all satisfied with the state of
things ; their vote was evidently the result of com-
pulsion, and given with sullen acquiescence. They
saw with undisguised dismay the inevitable results ;
and neither sophistry nor misrepresentation could
blind them to the fact that the Church and
nation were rushing swiftly into schism. A num-
ber of the bishops resigned, in order that they
might not sanction the revolt from the Pope ; and
the great mass of the clergy, in their heart of hearts,
remained true to the Papal See.

The resignation of these bishops is significant. And
the revolt of the clergy is significant also. It shows

286 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

US in a very striking way the real state of the Church.
These bishops resigned, and these clergy revolted
in heart, because the authority of the Pope in the
Church of England, usurped though it was, had been
long acknowledged ; and the Church of England was
not only in doctrine, but in ecclesiastical unity, part
of the great Catholic Church of the West, of which the
Pope of Rome was unquestionable head. At his
word before, the Church and the kingdom had been
excommunicated ; and, according to the theological
premises then held by all churchmen, such national
and ecclesiastical separation could only be schism.
The position taken by Pole in his treatise on the de-
fence of ecclesiastical unity, was the only logical one
to any one holding Romanist views. Froude gives a
full account of the matter in his history (iii. 29-54).

But on the Scriptural and Reformation principles of
the Church, that act of the Church of England in
separating from Rome was not separation from the
body of Christ and therefore not schism. That this
is the position of the Church of England is clearly
shown by Bishop Jewel in his great and authoritative
work, "The Apology." In this he puts the whole
question in a nutshell.

" We have departed from that Church which they have
made a den of thieves, in which they left nothing sound
or like a Church, and which they themselves confessed
to have erred in many things, as Lot left Sodom or
Abraham Chaldea, not out of contention but out of
obedience to God, and we have sought the certain
way of religion out of the sacred Scriptures, which we
know cannot deceive us, and have returned to the
primitive Church of the ancient fathers and Apostles,
that is to the origin and first rise of the Church, as it

INCIPIENT PROTESTANTIZING OF THE CHURCH 287

were to the very beginnings " (Jewel's Works, Park.
Soc, i. 46). That is the Church of England separated
from the Church of Rome, both ecclesiastically and
doctrinally, at the Reformation, but did not separate
from the Church of Christ* But according to the
sacerdotal and traditional principles of Rome, with its
doctrine of the visible Church and the Pope as centre
of the Catholic unity, that act of Henry and the
Church was unquestionably an act of schism, the
beginning of the rending of the seamless robe of
Christ, and was not to be borne. A very large
number of the clergy revolted, therefore, with heart
and voice.

But, as we have said, when the separation took place
there was not the slightest thought of such a thing
as the renunciation of Romanism, that is, of Romish
doctrine. The entire system of doctrinal Romanism,
or Popery, remained intact, and numbers of English
churchmen were burned to death for not accepting it.

In other words, while the Church of England was
declaring its political Protestantism by repudiating
the Pope, it was declaring its doctrinal Romanism by
burning Protestants.

In proof of this only one case need be referred to.
John Frith, a learned and excellent young church-

* Compare Dean Jackson's masterly argument in his work on the
Church. The modern idea that the Church of England never separated
from the Church of Rome is not historical. It is a mere figment of
Church theorizers.

The Act of Supremacy (26 Hen. VIII. c. l), and the decree of Pope
Paul III., excommunicating Henry VIII. (and the nation), began the
separation which the subsequent events of the Reformation consummated.
If the doctrines of the Church of Rome are not profoundly and essentially
erroneous, then that separation was schism, and the Anglican Church
is now schismatical.

288 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

man and scholar of Cambridge, had received, through
William Tyndale, according to Fox, the seed of the
Gospel and the knowledge of the truth. With his in-
creased spiritual enlightenment, Frith wrote a treatise
on the Romish doctrine of the Mass, which contained
in substance the present teaching of the Church of
England on the subject. He showed that the body of
Christ in the Lord's Supper is not eaten corporally, but
mystically and spiritually, or as the Church teaches
now, " only after an heavenly and spiritual manner ; "
that the feeding is in the heart of the believer by
faith ; and that the efficacious thing in the reception
of the sacrament is faith ; all of which is now good
Church teaching. " The mean whereby the body of
Christ is received and eaten in the supper is faith"
(Art. xxviii.).

As the Roman doctrine of the sacrament was
then the very life of Popery, the very body of the
tree, or rather root of the weeds, as Cranmer said
later, Frith was arrested and thrown into the Tower on
the charge of heresy. Sir Thomas More promptly
came forth as the champion of the Roman Church
doctrine, and sharpened his pen to make answer.
He declared that Frith's treatise contained " all the
poison that Wycliffe, Tyndale, and Zwinglius had
taught concerning the blessed sacrament of the altar ;
not only affirming it to be bread still, as Luther does,
but also, as these other beasts do, that it is nothing
else." He was brought before the bishops of London,
Winchester, and Lincoln, for trial, and sentenced to
be burned alive as a heretic. And on the 4th of July,
1533, this saintly young churchman was burned at
Smithfield as a martyr in the cause of the truth of
Christ. That is, in the very year when the Church of

INCIPIENT PROTESTANTIZING OF THE CHURCH 289

England repudiated the Pope, John Frith was burned
by the Church of England for repudiating Popery.
A whole year after the revolt of Convocation from the
usurped power of Rome, a young churchman was
martyred for setting forth the truth that afterwards
became the doctrine of the Church of England ; that
there is no change in the substance of the bread and
wine, or any real presence in the elements because of
transubstantiation ; that the body of Christ is received
by faith only, and eaten mystically and spiritually ;
and that the natural body and blood of our Saviour
Christ are in heaven and not here, since it is not
agreeable to reason that He should be in two places
or more at once, contrary to the nature of our body
(Fox, Book viii.).

A significant thing in connection with Frith's
martyrdom was the fact that Cranmer was one of the
men before whom he appeared. Cranmer was then
Archbishop of Canterbury, and after unavailing
attempts to make Frith change his views left him to
his fate. Nor need we wonder at this. The primate of
the Church of England knew nothing tlien of what the
Church of England, mainly through his labours, teaches
now. He was still in the spiritual darkness that after-
wards he so grievously and pathetically lamented.

" I was in that error of the real presence, as I was
many years past in divers other errors ; of transub-
stantiation, and of the sacrifice propitiatory of the
priests in the Mass, of pilgrimages, purgatory, par-
dons, and many other superstitions and errors that
came from Rome, being brought up from my youth
in them, . . . the floods of papistical errors at that
time overflowing the world. For the which, and
other offences in my youth, I do daily pray unto

U

290 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

God for mercy and pardon. . . . But after it had
pleased God to show unto me, by His Holy Word,
a more perfect knowledge of His Son Jesus Christ,
from time to time, as I grew in knowledge of Him,
by little and little I put away my former ignorance "
(Works, Park. Soc, i. 374).

And Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury,
and Primate of the Church, was burned to death in
the year 1556, for holding the doctrine that he con-
demned Frith for holding in 1533 (Gal. i. 23).

It was the same with the other martyrs of the
reign of Henry VHI. They were burned for believ-
ing the Protestant and evangelical doctrine of the
Holy Communion, and for upholding the principles of
the Reformation ; in other words, for believing then
what is now the teaching of the Church of England.

To deny this, or to say that it is a fallacy that
the Church of England was ever Roman, seems
almost to indicate a determination to ignore the facts
of history in order to maintain an ecclesiastical
theory.

LXX. But it may be asked here if the Church of
Englaiid held after the Reformation doctrines which it
repudiated as heresies before the Reformation, how, in
that case, can the Church of Englafid be said to be the
same Church after the Reforjuation that it tvas before ?

This is a very grave difficulty with students of
English Church history, but it is only a surface
difficulty after all. A little reflection will show that
a satisfactory answer can be given.

As a body corporate it was the same. It had the
same name, and it was in the same place. The
churches were the churches of the Church of
England, and the convocations and synods were

INCIPIENT PROTESTANTIZING OF THE CHURCH 29I

its synods and convocations. The Church after the
Reformation retained the same name, the same
churches, and in the main the same constitution.
It was not its constitution or name, but its doctrine
that was changed. The Church in England after the
Reformation was the same institution as the Church
in England before the Reformation. As Mr. Free-
man puts it ; the Church was not established then,
it was reformed. Nor must any credit be given to
the assertion of certain modern Roman Catholics that
the revenues of the Church of England belonged by
right to the Roman Catholic Church, and were unlaw-
fully wrested from it. The Church of England while
Roman Catholic in doctrinal union was the legal pro-
prietor of all the temporalities. Roman Catholics have
no claim whatsoever to the temporalities and revenues
of the Church of England. Whatever claims they may
have once made were usurped, and by the legislative
enactments of Henry VIII. completely illegalized.*

LXXI. Did Henry VIII., then, after the separation
fro7n the Pope, do anythiyig towards reforming the
doctrine of the Church ?

* The statement made by certain Roman controversialists in England
that the revenues of the Church were transferred by the statutes i Eliz.
cap. i., and i Eliz. cap. ii. of 1559, from the Roman Catholic Church to
the Protestant Church is unfounded. The statutes are the Acts of
Supremacy and Uniformity, and neither of them refers to Church
revenues, and consequently says nothing of any transfer of revenues
from one Church to another.

In the year 1826 the Roman Catholic bishops in Great Britain issued
a declaration in section ix. of which they declared : "We regard all
the revenues and temporalities of the Church establishment as the
property of those on whom they are settled by the laws of the land.
We disclaim any right, title, or pretension, with regard to the same."
Quoted from a letter by G. H. F. Nye in the Catholic Champion,
March, 1895.

292 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

No. That is directly, and purposely ; for he was
violently opposed to the reforming opinions. But in
another sense he did, the overruling hand of God
being very clearly seen through it all. He was now
committed to the cause of Protestantism in the politi-
cal or national sense. The spirit of national pride and
English independence was burning within him, and he
longed to show his disdain of the Italian interloper and
his defiance of the long-borne impertinence of Rome.

" The Pope,
Tell him this tale ; and from the mouth of England
Add thus much more, that no Italian priest
Shall tithe or toll in our dominions ;
But as we, under heaven, are supreme head,
So under God that great supremacy
Where we do reign, we will alone uphold
Without the assistance of a mortal hand :
So tell the Pope, all reverence set apart
To him and his usurped authority." — King John, act iii. sc. i.

He had thrown off a political and ecclesiastical
incubus, and had shown the world the meaning of
British freedom. It is true that he only thought of
freedom from the temporal power of Rome, and
protest against the Pope's temporal authority; he
never dreamed that he was but an instrument in the
mighty hand of God to liberate the Church of England
from the deadlier bondage of Popery. He hated the
Pope, and determined with his imperial power to de-
stroy his supremacy as the only supreme head on earth
of the Church of England. Yet while he certainly had
no intention of aiding in the work of the Reformation,
and probably hated the Reformers as heartily as he
hated the Pope, he was nevertheless led to aid the
cause of reforming the religion and the Church of
England in a way that was far beyond his original

INCIPIENT PROTESTANTIZING OF THE CHURCH 293

purpose. It was inevitable that defiance of tiie Pope
in matters secular should be followed by other and
more weighty reforms. Accordingly we find this
Papist-king in the mysterious providence of God
unconsciously forwarding the Protestantism of the
Church.

From the human standpoint the explanation was
simple. The die was cast. The Rubicon was passed.
He simply had to move onward. He was committed
by his position to the Protestant side. But the real
explanation was higher than that. " The heart of the
king was in the hands of the Lord ; as the rivers of
water, He turned it whithersoever He would." A
Divinity was shaping his ends.

LXXH. W/iai, then, were these actions of the king
that paved the way for the progress of the reforming
opinions in the Cliurch ?

In the first place, a national anti-Papal crusade of a
most practical kind was set on foot by the king him-
self. A royal letter was addressed to the justices of
the peace throughout the land, and the bishops of
every diocese, enjoining " that every prayer-book or
mass-book in which the Pope of Rome was named,
and his presumptuous pomp preferred, was utterly to
be abolished, eradicated, and rased out, and that his
name and memory were to be never more (except to
his contumely and reproach) remembered."

In addition to this, sermons were to be preached to
the people of the land every Sunday and high feast
day against the usurped jurisdiction of the Pope, and
preaching friars, civic officials of every town, and all
the nobility were ordered to join right heartily in the
good Protestant work. We may rightly regard this
as an evidence of God's wonderful ways. Certainly

294 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

without this destructive work of hewing down and
casting out of the false, the constructive work of
bringing in and building up of the truth would
never have been accomplished.

In the next place a set of royal injunctions were
set forth to the effect that preachers were henceforth
to preach the Scriptures and the word of Christ, and
that for the space of a whole year the clergy were
to be silent on the subjects of purgatory, the worship
of saints and relics, the marriage of the clergy,
pilgrimages, and miracles.

The spirit of Protestantism was growing apace. If
the ultimate spirit of evangelical and spiritual Pro-
testantism is the determination of truth in the light
of reason and the Word of God by a particular
Church or individual Christian without reference to
the presumptuous infallibility of an Italian, the action
of the king in imposing silence with regard to such
necessary articles of the Roman faith as purgatory
and saint worship, was a defiance of the Pope, as yet
without precedent in the history of the Catholic
Church. The cases of Grosseteste, and Wycliffe, and
others, are hardly parallel. Their action was personal,
irresponsible, private. This was a public, official,
authorised act, affecting the body corporate of tlie
Church.

In the next place, and it is a wonderful thing when
we think of it, a book was published by authority in
English, which in that day was to all intents and
purposes a prayer-book of the people of the Church
of England. It was not exactly a Church prayer-
book, for the Romish worship, in Latin of course, was
observed in the churches. It was rather a kind of
private book of devotions, of which not a few had been

INCIPIENT PROTESTANTIZING OF THE CHURCH 295

in England for years. They were not, however, in
common use, as the cost of printed books was great,
and the number of people who could read, small ; and
they contained, moreover, many superstitions and false
doctrines. " They abounded with infinite errors and
perilous prayers." But this primer or prayer-book of
Henry VIII. was intended to be for the people, and
though attempts were made to suppress it, it ran
through more than one edition, and was widely circu-
lated.* Many things, doubtless, contributed to make
it popular with the people. It was in English, a grand
thing to begin with, for in those days all religious
works were supposed to be in Latin. It was expressly
for the people to buy and sell, and not confined to
clerics. It was practical and helpful to the spiritual
cravings of the religiously inclined, containing prayers,
and psalms, and instructions. But above all, there
was a ring of anti-Roman boldness in it that struck an
answering chord in all true English hearts ; a Pro-
testantism that was almost prematurely audacious.
It denounced as blasphemous, the practice of invoking
God by the merits of the saints ; warned men against
saint worship and prayer to the Virgin ; and declared
the practice of carrying about images, painted papers,
and crosses, to be superstitious. Considering the date
of its publication, 15 34-1 5 3 5, it was a most material
aid to the cause of reform, and indicated a very
forward movement. The revolt from Romanism was
becoming almost as pronounced as the revolt from
the Pope.

* For an account of this Primer, commonly known as Marshall's
Primer, see Stephens' " Book of Common Prayer," i.-vi. ; and also
Collier's " Ecc. Hist.," ii. 110-I12, where an extended account of it is
given.

296 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

But the action of the king that gave the greatest
impetus to the reforming movement was that step to
which we have already referred, the publication of the
Bible in English. It was, as an English historian
terms it, the greatest because the purest victory so far
gained by the Reformers.

The series of events by which it was brought
about were remarkable even in that remarkable time.
It was like a miracle.

For up to this time it was a penal offence to have
a Testament in English, nor was there a sign of
a change of mind on the part of the mass of the
bishops and clergy. They hated the Bible as much
as ever, and were extremely opposed to the reading
of the Scriptures. The vernacular Bible was to most
of them the parent of all damnable heresies. As to
the king he had no particular love for the Bible.
There is not to be found in his whole career a trace
of the spirit of that profound reverence for the Book
that animated Tyndale and Latimer. How then
did it ever come to pass that within a few months
after Tyndale was put to death for translating the
Scriptures, the whole Bible was put forth by the king's
authority.

It may be, who can tell, that there still rang through
the corridors of the royal memory the refrain of
that grand appeal addressed to him by brave
Hugh Latimer six years before. It was a noble
letter, a very bearding of the lion in his den, pleading
with the king who had just permitted a deadly
proclamation against them, to have the Scriptures
in English ; and was inspired throughout with that
sublime conscientiousness and fearlessness of man,
that the fear of God alone can o^ive. He told the

INCIPIENT PROTESTANTIZING OF THE CHURCH 297

king that he would rather be a traitor to him,
mighty and redoubted as he was, than be a traitor
to His God ; and would rather lose honour, promotion,
fame, yea life itself, than deny Christ and His truth ;
that the Church authorities of the realm, like the
Pharisees of old, were shutting up the kingdom
of heaven to the people, making it treason to have
the Bible in English ; that the lives of the Master
and His apostles were in vivid contrast, an argument
against the pomp and riches and ambitions of the
ecclesiastics, and the reason why they hindered the
Holy Scripture in the mother tongue was a fear of the
light being let in on their darkness ; " wherefore, good
king," he went on to plead, "let not these worldly men
make your grace believe that the Scriptures will
cause insurrections and heresies and such mischiefs
as they imagine of their own mad brains, or think
that the New Testament translations were the cause
of the breaking of your grace's laws, for these books
be not the cause thereof no more than was the bodily
presence of Christ and His Words, the cause that
Judas fell; remember yourself, gracious king, have
pity upon your soul, and think that the day is even at
hand when you shall give account of your office,
and of the blood that hath been shed with your
sword." *

Surely such a letter as that, with an audacity and
plainness almost superhuman, must have touched
even such a heart as that of Henry ; and one loves to
think that, like the seed cast upon the waters, its fruit

* The letter is given in full in the "Remains of Latimer" (Parker
Society, pp. 297-309). Froude rightly describes it as "an address of
almost unexampled grandeur."

298 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

was found after many days in the remarkable change
of the royal mind. But though this in the providence
of God was very probable, there are other causes that
are less conjectural.

For one thing the king could not help clearly
recognising the possible harm to the Catholic
faith by the circulation of unauthorised versions
by Lutheran or Zwinglian translators. It was a
fact that was patent to a less shrewd observer of
the times than he, and he was not long in coming
to the conclusion, that it would be a very good
thing for the kingdom to have an authorised
version of the whole Bible. Another thing was that
the Pope was very much opposed to the Scriptures.
As Henry at that time was very much opposed to the
Pope, it was a logical inference that he should side
with the Bible. Another thing was that in spite of
all prohibition and prosecution the Scriptures were
having a very large circulation. And then in
addition to all this Cromwell and Cranmer were
uniting their influence with the king on behalf of
the Bible.

Thus in the providence of God it came to pass
that the king was led to take up the matter in
earnest. The bishops some time before had pro-
mised to produce an orthodox translation, but the
convenient season had been delayed and delayed
until even Cranmer lost patience, and declared
that if it was left to the bishops it would not be
finished till after doomsday. It was clear enough
to Henry and Cromwell that the bishops were play-
ing the same game with regard to the Bible, that
Campeggio played with regard to the divorce. There
was no hope from that quarter, even though a reluctant

INCIPIENT PROTESTANTIZING OF THE CHURCH 299

Convocation through the fear of man had passed a
resolution to the effect that the translation should be
performed. In the meantime, Miles Coverdale,
afterwards Bishop of Exeter, an advocate of the
reformed opinions, was labouring at Bible translation,
and on the 4th of October, 1536, a red-letter day in
English Church history, published the whole Bible
in English, and presented it to the king. The king
committed it to divers bishops to ascertain if there
were any heresies maintained by it, and when they
reported that there were none, he said, " If there be no
heresies, then, in God's name, let it go abroad among
our people." Thus, under the patronage of the
king himself, the Word of God in the language of the
people was at last brought out, and soon widely
spread abroad. It was the greatest aid to the
principles of the Reformation that could have been
possibly devised, for without the Bible there could
have been no Reformation. It was more. For as
Froude happily expresses it, in this act was laid
the foundation stone on which the whole later
history of England, civil and ecclesiastical, has been
reared.

In the year 1537 another English translation of the
Bible was published, known as the Matthews' Bible —
Thomas Matthews being in reality a pseudonym for
William Tyndale, the main translator — which was
presented by Cromwell to the king, and afterwards
printed with the words : " Set forth with the king's
most gracious license " (Coverdale's Works, Park. Soc,

i. X.).

Very shortly after a new edition was begun, and in
the year 1539 the Bible, known as the Great Bible,
was brought forth ; in the production of which, as Fox

300 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

tells us, Bishop Bonner, at that time in Paris, had no
small hand.

It is a marvellous instance of the ways of God,
that the very man who ordered the New Testament
of Tyndale to be burned, should be the instrument
for the introduction of the whole Bible in the trans-
lation of which Tyndale was the chief performer ;
and that the very bishop who promised by the grace
of God to do all that he could to further the spread
of the Scriptures in English, and to set up the Bible
in the Church, should have been Edmund Bonner,
Bishop of Hereford, and afterwards of London, a
most bitter and bloody opponent of the Reformed
religion. Not only was the Bible thus printed and
circulated, but by Royal command a copy was set
up in every church, " to the confusion of the Roman-
ists, the exultation of the Reformers, and the rejoic-
ing of Archbishop Cranmer."

As we remarked in the last chapter, the publication
of the Bible must be regarded by the student of
English Church history as one of the cardinal epochs
of the Reformation period. But there is this differ-
ence between the publication now being spoken of,
and that referred to in the last chapter. Before, it
was the secret, unauthorised, and individual work of
a partial and proscribed copy of the Scriptures ; now
the whole Bible is given to the people of the Church
of England, and by the authority of the earthly
head of the Church, as we shall presently see, is set
up for the public reading of every congregation.
The very books of the Bible translated by William
Tyndale, which were separately condemned and
prohibited, are now collectively sanctioned and
propagated by the same authority. We say again;

INCIPIENT PROTESTANTIZING OF THE CHURCH 301

it was the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our
eyes.

In the following chapter we shall follow with a
little more minuteness the cause of Church reform
during the reign of Henry VIII, We consider
the study of this reign to be of great significance, as it
is only by an understanding of the various steps by
which the Church of England was gradually led out
of Romanism, that its present doctrinal position can
accurately be determined.

CHAPTER XVII.

THE PROGRESSIVE PROTESTANTIZING OF THE
CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

Further ways in which Henry VIII. helped the reform cause — The dissolution of
the monasteries^ — Stained by many scandals, yet inevitable — The monastic
establishments a cancer in the body politic — Their identity with the national
life — Four facts concerning their suppression worth noting — Not the first sup-
pression— Romanists were the chief actors — Not essentially illegal or unjust —
The reformation of the Church impossible without their removal — The Ten
Articles of religion, 1536 — Marks an important epoch in the Church — The revolu-
tionary principle that a national Church can formulate doctrine apart from
Rome — Brought about curiously by an effort to destroy the Reformation
principles — Archdeacon Gwent's protest in Convocation — Was cause of publica-
tion of the Ten Articles^These Articles the declaration of doctrinal independence
of the English Church — Difference between their teaching and the present
teaching of the Church — Not Protestant, but in the Protestant direction — Not
that the King or the Council thought of such a thing — Two further proofs —
Certain Roman Saints' days abolished — A General Council protested against —
Effects of the Ten Articles — The King's Book, and the Injunctions of 153S — The
institution of a Christian man — Semi-Romish and semi-Protestant — Its teaching
on the Catholic Church remarkably evangelical — The King's Injunctions of 1538
— Their attempted evasion — Summary of the Church's progress.

THE progress so far made in the reformed
direction by the Church of England has been
decided and hopeful. The Church is still a long way
from the goal of reform ; yet, as we have seen, the
wayward monarch has been used as an instrument in
the hand of the King of kings for the accomplishment
of the most important of the preliminary steps to that
great achievement. The imperialism of Rome has
been crushed. The Church of England has been
liberated from the Pope. The elements of anti-
302

PROGRESSIVE PROTESTANTIZING 303

Roman independence are at work. Some of the
most vital articles of Romanism are being under-
mined. A pioneer of liturgical worship has appeared.
And by royal authority the Book of books is given to
the people.

LXXIII. Were there any other ways in which the
actions of Henry VIII. co7itributed to the cause of
reform ?

There were. Two things especially may be specially
mentioned as material aids to the Reformation of the
Church ; the suppression of the monasteries, and the
publication of the Ten Articles in 1536.

The suppression of the monasteries might be
referred to first. It was a violent movement, and,
like all revolutionary transactions, stained by many
scandals. The motives that prompted it were mixed
enough, and the ways in which it was carried out
were disgraceful often beyond apology. And yet it
was a movement that was not only politically but
religiously inevitable.

From the standpoint of Henry VIII. it was simply
a necessity. In the terse language of Blunt, if the
king had not put down the monks, the monks would
soon have put down the king. They were everywhere
the most bitter, stubborn defenders of the Pope,
and used all their vigilance and power against the
king. Not only were they in large measure idle,
greedy, immoral, and covetous ; they were a pesti-
ferous cancer in the body politic. They were a
set of interlopers. Their interests were Papal, not
English. They were Papists first. Englishmen after-
wards. " The monks," it was said, " were the Pope's
garrison in England." Not only were they ultra-
montanes, and therefore worthy of all suppression

304 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

for the very sake of the royal supremacy ; they
were rich, and to the royal mind their wealth might
be poured into more advantageous and necessary
channels.

It was in the year 1535 that a committee of inquiry
into the condition of the religious houses was formed,
and in the beginning of the following year they
made their report to Parliament, revealing a state of
licentiousness and corruption that excited even the
indignation of the Romanists. An act was at once
passed suppressing all monasteries whose income was
not over ;£"200 a-year, about ;^200O a-year of our
money, by which act 376 were swept away. Accord-
ing to Hallam, there were between 400 and 500
monasteries at the time in England, so that about
three-fourths or four-fifths of the whole fell at one
blow. Afterwards, quite a number voluntarily sur-
rendered their estates to the king, while others
resigned under promise of provision or pension, or
from fear of exposure.

Rarely, if ever, was axe laid so swiftly to the root
of such a tree.

In a thousand and one ways the whole monastic
system was identified with the life of the nation.
Their establishments dotted the land ; richer in many
cases than noblemen's halls, grander than palaces,
stronger than castles. Their gifts and alms were the
life of the poor ; their medicines and physic were the
health of the sick. They were the hospitals, the
almshouses, the dispensaries, the laboratories, the
poorhouses, the refuges, and the infirmaries of the
nation. There was scarcely a rich man in the land who
was not in some way interested in them ; there was
scarcely a poor man who was not dependent on them.

PROGRESSIVE PROTESTANTIZING 305

They constituted more than a third of the House of
Lords. Their influence was enormous ; their wealth
prodigious ; the number of their inmates and depend-
ents beyond calculation. And yet in the strange
providence of God this gigantic national system so
long engrained in the people's life, and the strongest
bulwark of Romanism in the land, was brought down
almost at one blow, and utterly demolished by Henry
and Cromwell.

" How suddenly, did they consume, perish, and
come to a fearful end ! "

It is well, however, for churchmen to remember in
connection with this much discussed question the
following facts : —

First, This was by no means the first suppression
of the monasteries ; nor was it the inauguration of a
terrible legal precedent for the forfeiture and transfer
of freehold properties. As far back as the reign of
Edward the Third the revenues of priories had been
forfeited and transferred to other purposes by the
State. In the year 1414 over a hundred priories
were thus suppressed, and their escheated estates
passed over to the Crown. As late as 1525, the
greatest Roman of them all, Cardinal Wolsey, by
authority of Papal bulls, and ostensibly for their
worthlessness and sin, suppressed a large number
of monasteries and convents, and transferred their
revenues to the State for educational uses. The
number suppressed is uncertain, ranging, according
to Hallam, from twenty (Strype) to forty (Collier).

Second, That in this suppression or spoliation of
the monastic establishments, Romanists, not Protest-
ants, were the chief ones to blame. One of the most
violent inquisitors of the monasteries was Dr. London,

306 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

a bigoted Papist. Pope Innocent VIII. issued a bull
for their reform, and it was by the bulls of the Pope
that Wolsey did his work. The mightiest destroyer of
them all, the very head and hand of the movement, was
the strong and uncompromising Papist, Henry VIII.,
who, if he was in any sense a reformer, was so not
because of, but in spite of his principles. On the
other hand, the men who pleaded hardest for the
retention of various monasteries as centres of
Christian beneficence, and advocated the use of
their revenues for the establishment of colleges and
theological halls, and for the extension of the
episcopate by the founding of new bishoprics,
were the reformers Latimer and Cranmer. While
Parliament slavishly acquiesced in their whole-
sale transfer to the irresponsible king, and even
Cromwell seems to have been culpable, the Protestant
reformers of the day were not slow to express their
indignation.

Third, This act of suppressing the monasteries,
however gigantic in its extent and reprehensible in
the details of its execution, was not essentially illegal
or unjust. There is a real distinction, as Hallam
points out, between private property possessed by an
individual and corporate property belonging to an
institution.* In the case of private property there is
rightful and natural expectancy on the part of
successors and heirs, which amounts to an hereditary
claim of the strongest possible kind ; yet even this
has been legally set aside by the law of forfeiture.
In the case of corporate property there is no such

* The case is stated with masterly conciseness in Hallam's " Consti-
tutional History," chapter ii.

PROGRESSIVE PROTESTANTIZING 307

intercommunity of interest, and it is quite justiiiable
for the legislature to forfeit them if the interests of
the State demand it.

Fo7irth, and most important. That in the wonder-
ful providence of God this most unexpected move-
ment was the removal of one of the greatest, if
not the greatest, barrier that stood in the way
of the advancing tide of reformation. Nowhere was
Popery so strongly intrenched as in the monastic
system ! The transformation of the Church of Eng-
land into a Protestant and evangelical Church
would, humanly speaking, have been impossible
without its previous destruction. The extirpation
of the monasteries removed the strongholds of ultra-
montanism and Popery throughout the land by
displacing the popular exponents of Romanism, and
ejecting the Pope's party from the House of Lords
(Perry, ii. 136; Hallam, " Constit. Hist.," chap, ii.) ;
and the diffusion of their estates amongst the people
of the land, and the distribution of their revenues
amongst the nobles and gentry either by gift or easy
sale, contributed in no small measure to the stability
of the anti-Papal reaction in the nation, and to the
strengthening of "that territorial aristocracy which
was to withstand the enormous prerogatives of the
crown." Thus, while deploring the violence and
unrighteousness of man we can only admire the
depths of the riches, both of the wisdom and know-
ledge of Him who of old said of a pagan potentate,
" He is my shepherd and shall perform all my plea-
sure," and Who thus employed a Romanist king to
open wide a great and effectual door for the promo-
tion of the reformation of the Church. For as Fox
well said, the fall of the monasteries could not have

308 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

followed unless the suppression of the Pope's supre-
macy had gone before ; neither could any true
reformation of the Church have been attempted
unless the subversion of those superstitious houses
had taken place. The bill for the suppression of the
smaller monasteries passed in February, 1536. In
1537 the larger monasteries were visited, and before
the end of 1538 nearly all were dissolved.

The publication of the Ten Articles of Religion
marks another important step in the direction of the
reform principles. In fact it marks a step more
important and more revolutionary than even the
abolition of the Pope's supremacy itself As we
have seen, the renunciation of the Pope's supremacy
had nothing whatever to do with the renunciation of
the Pope's doctrine. It was an act of national, not of
religious, Protestantism. Now, however, for the first
time in the history of the Church of England, the Church
of England as a Church and a national religious estab-
lishment adopts one of the primary and fundamental
articles of evangelical and Protestant religion ; the posi-
tion that it is not only possible for a Church to differ
from Rome, but that it is right and lawful and neces-
sary for a Church to formulate its ow?i articles of
doctrine.

It was a position, indeed, in one way that was not
novel. For since the days of Wycliffe there had not
been wanting individual churchmen, who in greater
or smaller numbers had dissented from the doctrines
of the Holy Roman Church, which were the universal
and undisputed doctrines of the Western Church.
They acted upon the principle that the Word of God
is the final standard of doctrine, and the Holy Spirit
the only infallible director of faith, and for that reason

PROGRESSIVE PROTESTANTIZING 3O9

dissented from the prevailing doctrines of the Catholic
Church.

But then their protest and dissent was merely the
dissent and private judgment of unrepresentative
individuals.

It was not the opinion or action of the Church.
Now on the contrary, at the instance of the learned
king himself, the Church as a whole, in its arch-
bishops and bishops, and houses of convocation,
accepted the Protestant position that it had the right
and the authority, not only to regulate its ceremonies
and rites, but also to formulate its own articles of
doctrine. And it put it into practice. In the year
1536 it set forth a series of articles of religion which
presented a revolt from the Roman doctrinal system
that is wonderful to think of.

Scarcely two years have elapsed since the repre-
sentatives of the nation solemnly recorded that in
rejecting the domination of the Pope they were
determined not to alter any article of the faith of
the Pope. It may be safely asserted that not only
Bishop Gardiner and the king, but a vast number of
the churchmen of the day, believed that the only
reformation required was moral reformation. It was
their belief that the cause of reform had gone quite far
enough when the encroachments of the Roman pontiff
were successfully repelled (Hardwicke, " Articles,"
p. 32). The mass of them never thought of such a
thing as revolt from Popery, that is, from the doctrinal
and liturgical system of the Holy Roman Church.
The creed of Rome was quite good enough for them.
The ritual of the Roman Church was quite agreeable.
To question the number of the sacraments, the
worship of images and saints, the absolving power of

310 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

the priest, and the ceremonies of holy mother Church
was detestable to a true " Catholic,"

How was it then that in so brief a period so
reactionary or rather so progressive a procedure as
the declaration of English Church independence
in matters of doctrine could be brought about?
Strangely enough this most important movement of
the Church in the direction of the principles of the
Reformation owed its origin apparently to an effort
to stem and stay those principles.

It happened in this way.

In the fourth session of the Southern Convocation
of 1536, the Prolocutor of the Lower House, Arch-
deacon Gwent, presented in the name of the clergy
a very plain-spoken protest against certain errors
which were then publicly preached, printed, and
professed. As a matter of fact it was simply a
declaration of war on the part of the clergy, the
majority of whom were Romish, against the spread of
the principles of the Reformation.

The things which they complained of, as erroneous
and blasphemous opinions requiring special reforma-
tion, were largely in reality those principles and
practices which afterwards became the principles and
practices of the reformed Church of England ; such as
protests against the mass as blasphemous and foolish,
and revolts against unscriptural and superstitious cere-
monies. There were intermingled indeed with these
a few extravagant and irreverent articles, the natural
excrescences of fanaticism, which the reforming party
would be last to champion ; but in the main, Gwent's
impeachment was the impeachment of evangelical
Christianity and the present principles of the Church
of England. (Read Hardwick's " History of the

PROGRESSIVE PROTESTANTIZING 3 II

Articles," pp. 34, 35; Perry's "Church History,"
ii. 144, and compare Articles xxii., xxv., xxviii., xxxi.)
As a great Church author said, the principles
opposed were the Protestant religion in ore. They
were to the present doctrinal principles of the Church,
what the Prayer-Book of 1549 was to our present
Prayer-Book, a pioneer and preparer of the way.

Little did Gwent and his party dream that in
presenting this address for the purpose of effecting
the reformation of a few individual Protestants in the
direction of Rome, he was about to forward the great
purpose of God in effecting a reformation of the whole
Church of England in the direction of Protestantism,
Yet it was even so.

The results of this address to the Upper House
were by no means trivial. In the first place, it was the
means of bringing into clear distinction the parties
representing the two great movements in the Church.
The Romish party, the party of Lee and Gardiner
and Tonstal, stationary, if not retrogressive, on the
one side ; the reform party, the party of Cranmer and
Latimer and Goodrich, progressive, if not revolu-
tionary, on the other.

In the next place, it was the means of clearly and
strongly defining the chasm that divided them in
doctrinal opinions. Those things which the Reformers
held to be the truth of God and Christ and the
Apostles and the Scriptures, and are now called the
principles of the Reformation and the teaching of the
Church of England, the Romish party held to be
erroneous and blasphemous opinions, obnoxious and
heretical. The new doctrines were seditious novelties ;
the breeders of false doctrine, heresy, and schism.

Those things which the Roman party held to be

312 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

essential principles of the Church and the Gospel, their
views on the priesthood, the altar, and the mass, the
reforming party were already beginning to doubt, and
afterwards declared to be blasphemous fables and
dangerous deceits.

In the third place, it was the means of the publica-
tion of the Ten Articles of the Church of England.

Soon after this affair, Cromwell, who sat as president
of Convocation, representing the king, delivered a very
striking address to the effect that the king earnestly
desired that they should proceed to the work of
framing the doctrine of the Church by the Word of
God, without wrasting or defacing the Scripture " by
any gloses, any papisticall lawes, or by any authority of
doctours or counselles."

A remarkable speech it was, with a strong Protest-
ant ring in it, and great was the debate it occasioned.
The minority party was represented by Cranmer, who
outlined in his speech the very kernel and essence of
evangelical religion, the necessity of inward religion
and justification by faith ; and the Romish or
medieval party by Stokesley, Bishop of London, who
contended with great earnestness for the seven sacra-
ments and the pre-Reformation system of doctrine.
After a prolonged and vigorous discussion, a set of
Ten Articles emanating, it is generally supposed,
from the hand of Henry VIII. himself (Hardwick,
" Hist. Articles," pp. 39, 41), and revised by a repre-
sentative committee, were adopted by Convocation,
and signed by Cromwell and the Archbishop and the
representatives of both Houses.

The Articles were, on the very face of them a
compromise, and with the avowed object of including
all parties they satisfied none.

PROGRESSIVE PROTESTANTIZING 313

They were not Popish enough to please the Roman-
ists ; they were too Popish to please the Reformers.
Yet they marked a step that may well be a cause of
satisfaction to all true English Churchmen, and that
was the declaration of the doctrinal independence of the
Church of England as a particular or national Church
with regard to the CJmrch of Rome,

It was the issue of a body of formulated Articles
representing the doctrine and teaching of the Church
of England.* In one word, the issue of these Articles
by the king and the clergy, was the establishment in
principle of the great fundamental position of Protest-
ant and evangelical Christianity, the right and the
duty of a Church to act independently altogether of
the claims of an infallible director of the faith of the
Church. And in drawing up her own doctrines, the
Church of England asserted in principle the position
of her doctrinal Protestantism, as strongly as she
asserted her political Protestantism in rejecting the
Papal supremacy.-f-

In matters of doctrine, the Church of England had
now become an independent and non-Roman ecclesias-
tical body. The time had not yet come for her to be
a7iti-Ronian and evangelically Protestant ; but in the

* " It is needless to observe that these formularies of the faith put forth
in the reign of Henry VIII., cannot pretend to any authority in the
Church of England at the present day.

" Nothing antecedent to the reign of Edward VI. has any title to that
character.

" It was only in the reign of Edward VI. that the errors of Romanism
were formally renounced, and the pure doctrines of Scripture authorita-
tively established in this kingdom " (Bishop Lloyd, Preface " Formularies
of Faith," Henry VIII.).

f It was a distinct disclaimer of what had practically become a canon
of the Roman faith ; that the doctrines of the Catholic Church ought
not to be examined by any particular Church.

314 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

wonderful providence of God she had estabHshed
one of the initial principles of the Reformation, the
right of ecclesiastical private judgment. In other
words, her right of private judgment as a particular
or national or independent Church.

LXXIV. hi their teaching then these Ten Articles
^1536 were not what we would now call Protestant
and evangelical ?

No. They were not.

In many respects they differed but slightly from
the Romish doctrine, and countenanced most of the
prevailing superstitions. The second Article on
baptism taught the Romish doctrine, ex opere operator
The third Article taught that penance was a sacra-
ment, and necessary to salvation, that confession must
be made to the priest, whose absolution was to be
received by authority given to him by Christ in the
Gospel.

The fourth Article, entitled the Sacrament of the
Altar, declared that " under the form and figure of the
bread and wine is substantially and really compre-
hended the very self-same body and blood of our
Saviour, which was born of the Virgin Mary, and
suffered on the cross ; that the very self-same body
and blood of Christ, under the form and figure of bread

* In a book published by the Religious Tract Society, " The English
Reformation," by W. H. Beckett, this statement occurs with regard to
the Ten Articles of 1536 : "The Article on baptism is in accord with
that now held by the Church of England.^'' I am informed that the
author is not a Churchman, and, therefore, not presumed to be familiar
with the teaching of the Church of England ; but it does seem strange
that an intelligent English Nonconformist should be guilty of such
ignorance of the teaching of the Church of England as set forth in the
Thirty-nine Articles. See my work on the "Protestantism of the Prayer-
Book," Third Edition, p. 82. London : Shaw & Co. ; also, Goode on
Baptism.

PROGRESSIVE PROTESTANTIZING 315

and wine, is corporally, really, and in the very substance
exhibited, distributed, and received unto, and of all
them which receive the said sacrament ; " a doctrine
since repudiated entirely by the Church of England and
distinctly denied in Articles xxv., xxviii., xxix., and in
the post-communion rubric. The sixth, seventh, and
eighth Articles permitted images in churches, honour
to saints, and prayers to the saints, with safe-guards in
each case against abuses. The ninth Article enjoined
the retention of vestments, holy water, holy bread,
candle, ashes, and other ceremonies, adding a caution
with a strong evangelical flavour, to the effect that
none of these ceremonies have power to remit sin.

The tenth Article was a strong plea for prayers for
the departed, insisting upon the duty of committing
them to God's mercy in our prayers, and of causing
others to pray for them in masses and obsequies in
order to rescue them the sooner from purgatory ; but
a caution was put against presumptuous assertions of
familiarity with the place and state of the departed,
and a remonstrance was made against the scandalous
abuses of the Papal pardons and indulgences.

No. They could hardly in the reformed sense be
called evangelical or Protestant. But they were most
decidedly in that direction.

Though tinctured with Popery, the effect of the
Articles on the whole was clearly to the advantage of
the principles of the Reformation. The first Article,
though not attaining the evangelical maturity of the
sixth, and twentieth, and twenty-first Articles of
the Church of England to-day, was yet a striking
declaration when we consider the age, and the opposi-
tion of the medievalists.

It affirmed that the fundamentals of our faith

3l6 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

are comprehended in the whole body and canon of
the Bible, and also in the three creeds, and recog-
nises the authority of the four holy councils.

The fifth Article on justification defines it to be
the remission of sins, and our acceptance with God,
that is to say, our perfect renovation in Christ ; that
it is attained by contrition, faith, and love, not as the
meritorious causes thereof, but as the accompanying
conditions; and that good works must follow as
evidential of our charity and obedience towards God.

The strong and unmistakable cautions against
abuses in the sixth, seventh, and eighth Articles, and
the outspoken protests against the corruptions
of the Papal system of indulgences, proved most
clearly the growth of the reactionary feeling against
Rome, and the influence of the reforming party.
And last, but not least, the absolute silence main-
tained about orders, confirmation, matrimony, and
extreme unction, has been considered by most
historians as a constructive denial of their sacra-
mental character.

As a whole, the Ten Articles of Henry VIII. may
be taken as an index of the rising of the tide of Re-
formation opinions in the Church of England; and,
though the progress is not very great, or the advance
very rapid, the progress and advance towards evan-
gelical doctrine is clear and certain. They and the
injunctions of 1538, which will be referred to pre-
sently, are the high-water-mark of the principles of
the Reformation before the days of Edward VI.

LXXV. But did the Kmg and Convocation con-
sider their importance from the Protestant staiidpoint,
or promulgate the^n with the idea of establishing such
a positioti ?

PROGRESSIVE PROTESTANTIZING 317

Possibly not.

It is more than probable that very complex motives
had to do with making the Articles what they were.
The motives of the step were partly political, partly
anti-Papal. One motive probably, was Henry's desire
to show his indifference to, if not to irritate, the Pope.
The other was to avoid making common cause with
the Lutherans in their doctrinal confessions. The
motives of the step were not lofty ; nor the importance
of it comprehended. So far from their setting forth
these Articles as a declaration of Reformation
principles, they believed, or thought that they
believed, that this involved no departure from the
old religion.

And this is really the marvellous thing about it,
and the visible proof of God's hand.

Unconsciously they were doing the very opposite
of what they thought they were doing. They
thought that by setting forth a set of Articles com-
prising the definite teaching of the Church of Eng-
land, they would check the spread of the new
opinions without departing in any essential degree
from the universally received doctrine of Western
Christendom. Instead of which they did depart from
the teaching of the Roman (Catholic) Church in
several very important particulars, by adopting
almost Lutheran opinions on the subjects of the
sacraments and the mass ; and by taking the bold
and revolutionary position that the Church had a
right to formulate its teaching, apart from the uni-
versally received doctrines of what was to them the
then Catholic Church, that is, the Roman com-
munion, they established a precedent for the pro-
mulgation of those articles of doctrine which in a

3l8 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

few years were to embody as the teaching of the
Church of England the very heresies which the old
school were doing all in their power to withstand.
Though they knew it not, they had, as Green puts it,
broken the spell of tradition. And more. By this
petty leaven they had leavened the whole lump, and set
men's minds drifting and questioning (Blunt, " Refor-
mation," p. i86 ; Southey, " Book of the Church," 246;
Perry's " Reformation," pp. 47, 48 ; Green, " History
Eng. People," ii. 203).

This is shown, if further proof is needed, by two
facts, that need only be briefly alluded to. The
first, the question of the Saints' days and holy days,
which were then, as now, a prominent and integral
part of the Romish Church system. The holy
Roman Church had very strict ideas on the observa-
tion of these festivals of the saints, and insisted then,
as now, on their invocation, and, in a special or
inferior degree, upon their worship. Her calendar
was copious, and the doctrine of saint invocation
rigidly enforced.

It was an act of most Protestant significance then
for them formally to vote, and for Henry to enjoin
(Fox, p. 550), that nearly all the Saints' days which fell
in harvest-time should be abolished, that the holy
days on the other parts of the year should be
diminished, and that a new feast day, to be known
as the Feast of Dedication for all Churches, should
be appointed. A Church that in the year 1536 could
deliberately cut off a large number of the recognised
feasts of the then Catholic Church, and appoint a new
one in the very teeth of the Roman calendar, was
developing the spirit of Protestantism in no small
desfree.

PROGRESSIVE PROTESTANTIZING 319

The second fact was, that at this Convocation a
very strong protest was put on record against the
General Council which the new Pope, Paul the
Third, proposed holding shortly at Mantua. In
most vigorous language, they plainly stated that
the said Council, ostensibly summoned for the pur-
pose of being a Catholic Council, was really pro-
moted for the purposes of private malice and worldly
ambition ; and declared that neither the Bishop of
Rome nor any other prince had any right, upon his
own individual authority, to summon a General
Council.*

Then the King himself sent a formal protest against
the Pope's proposed action, and in still stronger
language.

" We have been so long acquainted with Romish
subtleties and Popish deceits," he said in effect, " that
we readily understood that the Bishop of Rome
intended an assembly of his own adherents, both
the time and the place appointed by him showing
that he knew full well few or none of the Christian
princes could attend.

" These Popish bulls, indeed ! What king is there
who is not cited and summoned by a proud minister
and servant of kings, to come and bolster up errors,
frauds, deceits, and untruths, and to set forth this
feigned general council.

" But, after all, what do we care either for what they
have done, or intend to do. England has taken leave
of Popish crafts for ever, never to be deluded with
them hereafter. Roman bishops have nothing to do

* A copy of this and a part of another paper on the same subject
may be found in Collier's "Collection of Records," Num. xxxvii.,
p. 28.

320 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

with English people. We will have none of their
merchandise, none of their stuff. We will receive
them into our Council no more.

"We do not object to a general council, we heartily
desire it, and indeed pray often to God that we may
have one. But we want it to be a holy council, and a
general council ; not one where every man that differs
from the Bishop of Rome is silenced, and the Pope's
own cause is handled by the Pope's own cardinals and
the Pope's own bishops, with the Pope himself as
judge and president of the council. Such a proceed-
ing as this would not be for the deciding of contro-
versies, but for the establishment of errors. No. We
will have the Pope and his adherents to understand
what we have often said, and now say, and ever will
say ; he nor his hath neither authority nor jurisdic-
tion in England. We solemnly protest against their
Papistical kingdom and tyranny."*

But let us revert to the Ten Articles once more.

LXXVI. W/iat was the effect of these Articles iipon
the Church generally ? Did they advance the cause
championed by Cromzvell and Cranmer, and strengthen
the interests of reform ?

It is not an easy question to answer. Probably
they did. For one thing they caused no little stir,
and evoked great opposition from the Romish party.
The clergy of the north and east sprang up like one
man in defiance. In fact they went so far as to
assemble in a kind of convocation at York, and
declare that all preaching against purgatory and

* The original in Latin is given by Collier. Records xxxviii.
The Protestants of Germany answered the bull also, and Fox terms the
protest of the king, "a protestation in the name of the king, and the
whole Council and Clergy of England."

PROGRESSIVE PROTESTANTIZING 32 1

saint worship should be punished ; that neither the
king nor any other " temporal man " can be supreme
head of the Church or should exercise any spiritual
power or jurisdiction ; and that dispensations and
indulgences of the Popes are good and valid. The
people of the north also rose in a rebellion, which at
one time looked very serious, and though it was
quieted somewhat quickly the rising was ominous.
It was clear that if left to the clergy and people the
principles of reform would make little headway, and
that the vast body of the clergy and people of the
Church of England were thoroughly Romish. They
evidently saw with a clear eye the way things were
going, and though the king and the bishop might
assure them that there was no departure in the
Ten Articles from the " Catholic " religion, the very
attempt to set forth doctrine without the authority of
the Pope, and to tamper with the long-taught Articles
of " Catholic " teaching was to their mind sacrilege.
If they had no other effect, the Ten Articles served
to show men at this early stage of the Church
Reformation in England what the teaching and
doctrine of the Church of England was in the year
1536, and how thoroughly averse even to small and
comparatively trivial doctrinal changes the mass of
English Churchmen were.

In another way, however, they helped unquestion-
ably to further the reformers' cause. They were the
direct cause of two other works of importance ; the
publication of a doctrinal thesis called the Insti-
tution of a Christian man, or the Bishops' Book, and
the Injunctions of 1538.

The Bishops' Book, or the Institution, was the first
attempt to put into set official form the distinct

V

322 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

teaching of the Church of England. In this way it
was a kind of precursor of our Thirty-nine Articles.

In 1537 Cromwell organised a gathering of the
bishops, with the object of supplementing in a formal
and authoritative manner the doctrine of the Ten
Articles, and with an eye to reform, managed to get
a hearing for a Scotch Protestant named Aless or
Allen, who advocated the principles of the Reforma-
tion with considerable force (Fox, p. 580). Cranmer,
too, came out clearly, and in almost the language of
the teaching of the Church of England now in Art.
XXV. declared that confirmation and orders and other
commonly called sacraments ought not to be called
sacraments, or compared with Baptism and the Supper
of the Lord. The Romish party violently objected
to this, whereon Bishop Fox of Hereford spoke out
and said that it was vain to resist the advance of the
light of the Gospel ; that the Scriptures were now
abroad and in the hands of the people ; that men and
women were beginning to wonder at the blunders
and falsehood of the past ; concluding with the noble
and memorable words : " Truth is the daughter of
" time, and time is the mother of truth, and whatsoever
" is besieged of truth cannot long continue, and upon
" whose side truth doth stand, that ought not to be
" thought transitory, or that it will ever fall."

The result of this meeting was a committee to com-
pile a manual of faith, and in a short time the manual
itself, known as the " Institution of a Christian man,"
came forth.* It was a fairly large book and contained

* It was called generally the Bishops' Book, because beyond the
fact of its issuing from the press of the king's printer it had no claim to
royal authority. It differed, too, from the Ten Articles and the
"Necessary Doctrine" in not having the approval of Convocation.

PROGRESSIVE PROTESTANTIZING 323

an exposition of the Creed, the Sacraments, the Ten
Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, the Ave Maria,
and Justification and Purgatory. As to its teaching
it was very complex ; definite chiefly in its indefinite-
ness. It was neither purely " Catholic " nor wholly
Romish ; being partly evangelical and partly Popish.
From the Romish standpoint some of it was very good,
and some of it was very bad ; and from the Reformation
standpoint some of it was very good and some of it was
very bad. There were seven sacraments according to
the Romish teaching, though four of them were said
to be of inferior necessity. Saint worship was left
out, but the merit of saints was brought in. The
teaching with regard to the episcopate would have
shocked a modern "Catholic," for the episcopal office
is regarded as a mere grade of the priestly or pres-
byterial, there being but two orders of ministers in
Scripture, priests (presbyters) or bishops, and deacons ;
a very strong blow, whether they knew it or not, at
the Romish doctrine of apostolical succession. With
the teaching on justification and purgatory on the other
hand, the modern " Catholic " would be fairly well
pleased. And so all through. Here there was a bit
of pure Romanism, there another part with a strong
Protestant ring. It was simply an echo of the divided
theological sentiment in the Church of the day.

But there was one Article that was so directly
opposed to the Church teaching of the medieval
epoch, and so distinctly an anticipation of the for-
mulated teaching of the Church of England in the
seventeenth and nineteenth Articles, that it deserves
the closest attention. It was the part about the
Catholic Church, and was evidently Cranmer's work.
The king and the Romanists either did not notice it or

324 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

did not take in its real meaning. (Cranmer, Park. Soc,
"• 337-) ^ quotation will be of interest to the reader.
It is taken from the first part, which contains
the interpretation of the creed, giving in the first person
a Churchman's views on the very vital question of the
scope and essence of Christ's Catholic Church. " I
believe," he is represented as saying, " I believe that
these particular Churches, in what place of the
world soever they be congregated, be the very parts,
portions or members of the Catholic and Universal
Church. And that between them there is indeed no
difference in superiority, pre-eminence, or authority,
neitherthatany oneof them is head or sovereign over the
other; but that they be all equal in power and dignity,
and be all grounded and builded upon one foundation.
. . . And therefore / do believe that the Church of
Rome is not, nor cannot worthily be called the Catholic
Church, but only a particular member thereof, and
cannot challenge or vindicate of right, and by the
Word of God to be head of this Universal Church, or
to have any superiority over the other Churches of
Christ which be in England, France, Spain, or in any
other realm, but that they be all free from any sub-
jection unto the said Church of Rome, or unto the
minister or bishop of the same. . . . And that the
unity of this one Catholic Church is a mere spiritual
unity. . . . And therefore, although the said /(xr/zb^/^^r
Churches do much differ, and be discrepa?it the one from
the other . . . in the divers rising and observation of
such outward rites^ ceremonies, traditions, and ordin-
ances as be instituted hy their governors, and received
a?id approved among them ; yet I believe assuredly,
that the 2inity ^this Catholic Church cannot therefore,
or for that cause, be anything hurted, impeached, or

PROGRESSIVE PROTESTANTIZING 325

infringed in any poi?it, but that all the said Churches
do and shall continue still in the unity of this Catholic
Church, notwithstanding any such diversity." (Insti-
tution, quoted pp. 79-81, The Doctrine of the Church
of England, Rivingtons.)

From what we would call now the evangelical
standpoint nothing could be clearer than the state-
ment, " I do believe that the Church of Rome is not
nor cannot worthily be called the Catholic Church."
And the declaration that the varieties of differences
of the various Churches do not break the Catholic
unity of Christ's Church must be regarded as a
defiance not only of the Papacy, but of the Roman
doctrine of the Church.

There were other words that even more strongly
demonstrated the Scriptural and evangelical character
of the work.

These were the definition of the word Catholic, the
Church's answer to the important question of the
essential nature of the Catholic Church. If it is not
the Roman communion, what is it then ?

The paraphrase of the ninth Article of the Creed on
the Church gave the answer.

" I believe assuredly in my heart, therefore, and
with my mouth I do profess, and acknowledge, that
there is and hath been ever . . . one certain number,
society, communion, or company of the elect and faith-
ful people of God . . . and the members of the same
be all those holy saints which be now in heaven, and
also all the faithful people of God which be now on
life, or . . . have lived, or shall live here in this world
. . . and be ordained for their true faith, and obedience
unto the will of God, to be saved. . . . And I believe
assuredly that this congregation {i.e., the great com-

326 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

pany of the trtie believers, the really faithful) is the
Holy Catholic Church . . . the very mystical body of
Christ."

"Yet I believe assuredly, that God will never
utterly abject this holy Church, nor any of the
members thereof."

" And I believe assuredly, that in this holy Church,
and with the members of the same (so long as they be
militant and living here in earth), there hath bee?i ever,
and yet be, . . . mingled together a7i iyifinite number of
the evil and wicked people, which, although they be i^ideed
the very members of the congregation of -the wicked, and,
as the Gospel calleth them, very weeds and chaff, evil
fish and goats . . . ; yet forasmuch as they do live in the
common society or company of those which be the
very quick and livijig members of Christ's mystical
body, and outwardly do profess, receive, and consent
with them for a season in the doctrine of the Gospel,
and in the right using of the Sacraments, yea and
ofttimes be endued with right excellent gifts of the
Holy Ghost, they are to be accounted and reputed here
in this world to be in the number of the said very
members of Christ's mystical body, so long as they
be not by open sentence of excommunication pre-
cided and excluded from the same. Not because
they be such members in very deed, but because the
certain judgment and knowledge of that their state
is by God's ordinance hidden." . , .

" And I believe that this Holy Church is Catholic,
that is to say, it cannot be coarcted or restrained
within the limits or bonds of any one town, city,
province, region or country ; but that it is dispersed
and spread universally throughout all the whole world.
Insomuch, that in what part soever of the world, . . .

PROGRESSIVE PROTESTANTIZING 327

be it in Africa, Asia, or Europe, there may be found
any number of people . . . which do believe in one
God the Father, Creator of all things, and in one
Lord Jesu Christ His Son, and in one Holy Ghost,
and do also profess and have all one faith, one
hope, one charity, . . . and do all consent in the
true interpretation of the same Scripture, and in
the right use of the Sacraments of Christ ; we may
boldly pronounce and say, that there is this Holy
Church." . . .

" And I believe also that . . . like as our Saviour
Christ is one Person, and the only head of His mystical
body, so this whole Catholic Church, Christ's mystical
body, is but one body under this one head Christ.
And that the unity of this one CatJiolic Church is a mere
spiritual ufiity " {Ibid., pp. 75-80).

A clearer expression of the present teaching of the
Church of England could hardly be given.

The distinction between the Catholic Church visible,
that is, all the baptized and professing members of
the body of Christ's Church, and the Catholic Church
mystical or invisible, that is, all the very living and
real members of Christ, is as clear almost as in
Hooker's incomparable exposition of the distinction
between the visible and the invisible Church in the
beginning of the third book of the Ecclesiastical Polity.
In fact the whole question is admirably compressed in
the opening words of the interpretation of the ninth
Article of the creed :

" That this word Church, in Scripture, is taken some-
times generally for the whole congregation of them
that be christened, and profess Christ's Gospel : and
sometimes it is taken for the catholic congregation,
or number of them only which be chosen, called.

328 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

and ordained to reign with Christ in everlasting life "
(/did, p. 6s).

Now, remember this was in 1537.

The present teaching of the Church of England on
the subject of the CathoHc Church, is of course iden-
tical with this. The prayer for all sorts and con-
ditions of men, the preface to the prayer for the
Church militant, and the second post-communion
prayer, combined with the nineteenth Article, show
that the doctrine of the Church of England now is, that
the term Catholic Church is to be used in two senses,
expressing in one sense the visible Church, the whole
congregation of the baptized, that is, of all who profess
and call themselves Christians, Christ's Church mili-
tant here on earth ; and in the other sense, the mystical
Church (or invisible), the blessed company of them
only w^hich be the very living members of His Body,
those that are inwardly and spiritually renewed.

But here we have this Scriptural and simple
evangelical teaching in the midst of a lump of half-
Popish and wholly Popish, semi-Catholic and half-
Protestant opinions in the year 1537, at a time when
Cranmer himself was still holding the Roman doctrine
of transubstantiation.

On the one hand, it only shows how complex the
views of the Reformers themselves were, and how in
some matters they were being enlightened with far
greater clearness than in others ; and on the other
hand, that the Romish party were either blind to the
trend of the reforming opinions, or else that they were
incapable of stemming the advancing tide. The haste
with which the book was completed, and the absorp-
tion of the king in affairs of state, may perhaps explain
this anomaly.

PROGRESSIVE PROTESTANTIZING 329

In spite of its complexity however, the book was
a real contribution to the cause of Reform, and many
of the bishops directed their clergy to read part of it
every Sunday to the people. This in itself was a great
thing, and the fact that it was licensed by the king,
gave it additional authority.

In the following year, the year 1538-, another
publication appeared which materially advanced the
cause of reform ; a series of orders from the king to
the clergy, telling them what they were to do with
the minuteness and authority of a Papal decree.

These were known as the king's Injunctions.

They were very peremptory, and there could be
no mistake as to their meaning, and theological drift.
They were Protestant to a degree. Canon Perry
describes them as representing the extreme point
reached by the Reformation throughout the reign of
Henry VIII. Certainly they were anti-Roman in
tone, and contributed in no small measure to develop
the elements of Protestant independence of Papal
uses, if not of decidedly evangelical doctrine. It was
not that they taught any doctrine exactly. They
were not articles of doctrine. But they set free
ideas and principles which were bound sooner or later
to undermine the influence of Rome, and the
popular veneration of Romanism. Their effect
was inevitable. They tended to loosen the fetters
of traditionalism, and dissolve the glamour of Papal
deliverances.

Churchmen now learned with amazement that
the rule of Rome, so long the rule of the Church
of England, was to be taken as the rule of the
English Church no longer ; that things prohibited
by ban and burning, were now permitted and

330 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

encouraged ; that time-honoured Church practices
were superstitions, and that practices popularly
supposed to be fit only for Gospellers and Lollardites,
were to be observed and honoured by all good Church
people. It seemed but a few days since the king
and the bishops and the clergy were denouncing the
Bible, and burning its readers. Now they use all
their powers to induce the people to read it. Only the
other day, as it were, the men who objected to images
and relics were persecuted as the enemies of Holy
Mother Church. But now all good Churchmen are
bade to beware of images and relics, and to regard
their veneration as idolatry. Truly, the times must
have seemed out of joint, and the opposers of the new
movement like unto them that dream.

A reference to two or three of the Injunctions will
give the reader an idea of their character. In one
of these Injunctions of 1538, the great Magna Charta
of the Church of the Reformation as set forth in the
sixth Article was for the first time set forth in the
Church of England ; that is, the Bible in English, and
every Churchman's right to read it.

" Ye shall provide . . . one book of the whole Bible
of the largest volume in English, and set up the same
in some convenient place within the church . . . v/here
your parishioners may most conveniently resort to the
same and read it."

" Ye shall also discourage no man privily, nor openly
from the reading or hearing of the said Bible, but shall
expressly provoke, stir and exhort every person to read
the same, as that which is the very lively Word of
God, that every Christian person is bound to embrace,
believe and follow, if he look to be saved " (Fox,
p. 552).

PROGRESSIVE PROTESTANTIZING 33 1

The efforts of the Church of Rome to keep the
Bible away from the people, and prevent their reading
it, are too notorious to require insertion here. Rome
feared and hated the popularizing of the Bible. It
was only twelve years before this, in 1526, that the
New Testament in English was prohibited in every
diocese of the Church of England, and little more than
two years before that Stokesley, the Bishop of London,
had stated that to give the people liberty to read the
Scriptures simply meant to infect them with heresy.

Now, by the authority of the supreme earthly head
of the Church himself, the clergy are ordered not only
to provide a Bible, and discourage no one from read-
ing it, but expressly to stir up and advise every person
to read it.

It was certainly a sign of the decided, even if prema-
ture, emancipation of the Church from the principles
of Popery, for such a thing could never have proceeded
from an agent of Rome. When Gardiner got the
upper hand in 1543, all was changed.

Another great Church of England principle was
stimulated in these Injunctions ; the repetition of parts
of the Church service in English. The clergy were
ordered to repeat to their parishioners several times
over, some portion of the Paternoster, Creed, or Ten
Commandments, in English and explain them.

"You shall every Sunday and holy day through
the year openly and plainly recite to your parish-
ioners . . . one article or sentence of the Lord's
prayer or creed in English, to the intent that they
may learn the same by heart . . . till they have
learned the whole Lord's prayer and creed in
English by rote ; and . . . you shall expound and
declare the understanding of the same unto them."

332 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

"You shall declare to them that every Christian
person ought to know the same before they should
receive the Blessed Sacrament of the altar, and
admonish them to learn the same more perfectly . . .
or else that they ought not to presume to come to
God's board."

In after years, this great principle of the Reformation
became in the Church of England a great instrument
for the destruction of Romanism. It destroyed in the
popular idea the ecclesiastical use of Latin as the
means of worship, and in destroying this displaced
much of the superstition that was associated with it.

Another important fact was that a less Romish
view of worship generally was set forth in them. All
images that had been abused by pilgrimages and
offerings, or by having any candles set before them,
were to be taken down.

Images and relics were not to be kissed or licked.
The formal saying of beads was to be discouraged.

" You shall exhort your hearers not to repose their
trust or affiance in other works devised by men's
fancies besides the Scriptures ; as in wandering to
pilgrimages, offering of money, candles, or tapers to
feigned relics, or images, or kissing, or licking the
same, saying over a number of beads, or such like
superstition." " You shall suffer from henceforth no
candles, tapers, or images of wax, to be set before any
image or picture." . . . "If you have heretofore
declared to your parishioners anything to the extol-
ling or setting forth of pilgrimages to feigned relics
or images, or any such superstition, you shall now
openly before the same recant and reprove the same,
showing them, as the truth is, that you did the same
upon no ground of Scripture."

PROGRESSIVE PROTESTANTIZING 333

And in addition to all this, the preaching of a
Gospel sermon at least once a-quarter, was enjoined
upon all the clergy.

" You shall make . . . one sermon every quarter of
a year at the least, wherein you shall purely and
sincerely declare the very Gospel of Christ, and in
the same exhort your hearers to the works of
charity, mercy, and faith, . , . and not to repose their
trust or affiance in other works devised by men's
fancies."

One can thus see at a glance that the Injunctions
were of a decidedly Protestant character, and indi-
cated a very strong advance on the part of the Church
in the direction of the Reformation.

No better proof of this could be given than the way
in which they were received by the Romish party.
The clergy as a whole simply hated them. If they had
dared, they would not have read them at all. But they
feared the king with a great and terrible dread,and com-
plied. Their independence had been ground out of
them. As Green says, they were to learn to regard
themselves as mere mouthpieces of the royal will.

They did their best, however, to prevent the people
either hearing or understanding, " hemming and
hacking the Word of God, and such our injunctions,"
and read them so quickly, or mumbled their w^ords so,
that no one could catch what they said. It was an
old trick this of monks and priests,* and is not

* "And that popery may not be lost, the mass-priests, although
they are compelled to discontinue the use of the Latin language,
yet most carefully observe the same tone and manner of chanting
to which they were heretofore accustomed in the papacy." — Hooper to
Bullinger (Orig. Lett., Park. See, p. 72).

334 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

unknown to-day. But the king and Cromwell were
not easily befooled.

A sharp letter was sent, in the king's name, to the
Justices of the Peace throughout the land telling them
in language at once quaint and forcible to have an
eye to the clergy.

" Wherefore we desire and pray you, and neverthe-
less straitly charge and command you ... to inquire
and fynde out such canker'd parsons, vicars and
curats, which do not truely and substantially declare
our said injunctions, and the very word of God, but
momble confusely, saying that they be compelled
to rede them, and byd their parishioners neverthe-
less to do as they did in time past, to live as their
fathers, and that the old fashion is the best, and other
craftie, sediciouse parables''

No one could mistake the meaning of a letter like
that. It simply meant that the reforms which had
been begun were to be carried out, and that there was
to be no evasion. Though the letter was in the name
of the king, there seems to be little doubt that it came
from the man who at that time was the ecclesiastical
dictator of England. The voice was Henry's voice,
but the hand was the hand of Cromwell.*

And so, little by little, or rather with leaps and
bounds, the Church is moving in the reformed direc-
tion. The monasteries have fallen. The popular
supremacy of a great ultramontane body has been
destroyed. The idea of the Papal infallibility has
been exploded. The dictatorship of the Pope in
matters of doctrine has been broken. The initial

* The letter is given at length in Burnet's " Records," Part 3, Book
iii., Number 63.

PROGRESSIVE PROTESTANTIZING 335

principle of the reformed doctrine has been accepted.
Independent articles of faith have been promulgated.
Roman practices have been abolished. Evangelical
theories have been set forth by authority as the teach-
ing of the Church. The Bible has been opened to
the people, and its reading insisted on. Error has
been exposed ; ignorance corrected ; Popish customs
rejected ; a simpler worship attained.

As one ardent Church writer expressed it : " The king
did more good for the advancing of Christ's Kingdom
and religion in England in three years, than the Pope
had done in the previous three hundred." Whether
all will agree with that statement or not, it is certain
that King Henry VIII. drew the Church of England
away from Rome to a degree that no one would have
dreamed of ten years before. The abolition of the
supremacy made a wide breach. But, by these sub-
sequent movements, a great gulf was fixed that could
not be passed over.

CHAPTER XVIII.

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE VIA MEDIA.

The Church yet far from being reformed — The Church during this reign, largely
what the king was — The influence of Cromwell and Cranmer upon Henry — The
character of Cromwell — Cranmer's patience and purpose — The Conference with
the Lutheran divines — The vexation of the king — The ascendency of Gardiner
and the six Articles — Their teaching the formal teaching of the Church of
England then — Their effect, healthy though painful — The " Necessary Erudition"
— The fall of Cromwell — Its cause and effects — The course of Church events, from
1540 to the end of Henry's reign — The character and conduct of Cranmer — The
difficulties he had to encounter — Three important ways in which he helped
forward the Reformation during Henry's last years — The Bible kept for the
people — The practice of preaching in the church authorized — Prayers in English
— The king's esteem for Cranmer — Henry's death, 1547 — A reign of contradictions
— The precise position of the Church of England at the end of Henry's reign —
The Church half-Roman, and half- Protestant, and in the Via Media Afiglicana
— The conclusion of the whole matter— The principles that afterwards became
the principles of the Church of England asserted in embryo.

AS we saw in the last chapter the movement of the
Church from 1535 to 1538 was very marked.
It was one of steady advance towards Protestantism,
and of steady retrogression from Rome. And here a
question arises, the answer to which will determine
more clearly the precise situation at this very critical
epoch.

LXX VI I. Was the Church of England now committed
to the principles of the Refonnation ? and did all these
various steps hi the way of reform prove her to have
become what migJit be termed a Protestant and an
Evangelical Church ?
No.

336

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE VIA MEDIA 337

The Church was by no means yet reformed. The
leaven was at work. The leaders of the cause were
growing in light and conviction. The people were
beginning to wake up. The schoolmaster was abroad.
" The battle between ignorance and intelligence had
begun." The night of medievalism was ending. The
dawn of new ideas, larger views, truer thoughts, was
breaking. The young men of the age were stirring.
The work of Erasmus and Colet and Warham was
bearing fruit, though perhaps not the fruit they
expected. Theories and principles had been accepted
by the Church, which a few years before were called
heresy, and brought men to the stake. The advance
was great. It was the Lord's doing, and is marvellous
in our eyes.

Yet for all this, the Church of England in the year
of grace, 1538, was far from being reformed. Much
remained to conquer still.

In fact, the Church history of this period may be
fairly epitomized in the statement that all through
the reign of Henry VIII. the Church of England was
largely what the king was. Its doctrine was his
doctrine. Its position was his position.

It was Protestant, mainly because he defied the
Pope, and like all Englishmen, hated foreign interfer-
ence. And as far as it was Protestant in doctrine, it
was mainly so because he chose to cull out the weeds
in his own Church garden through hatred of the Pope,
and promote reforms after his own caprice in his
own ecclesiastical household.

At the same time, however, another very important
matter must be taken into consideration, and that is,
the political and ecclesiastical influence of his chief
advisers. Nearly all of the king's work in the way of

Z

338 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

real Church reform, is to be explained by the power-
ful personal influence of Cromwell and Cranmer.
Thomas Cromwell, the king's Vice-gerent, Vicar-
general, and chief adviser, and Thomas Cranmer,
Archbishop of Canterbury (1532-1556), the one a
layman, the other a clergyman, were throughout the
unwearied friends of the principles of the Reformation ;
and nearly all the important spiritual elements of
the Reformation in Henry's reign, are directly attri-
butable to one or other of these two men. Cranmer
and Cromwell were not always spotless. They were
not always infallible. They were men, "and had
mixtures of fear and human infirmities." But
they were both inspired by a hatred of Romish
falsities ; Cranmer deeply, and if Fox is to be
trusted, Cromwell sincerely ; and both employed
their powers with persistent energy, to advance
the principles of reform. Where they could, they
gained a point. Where they were baffled, they
waited on time.

It was the influence of Cromwell that first awakened
in King Henry the idea, that a Pope-ruled people
and a Rome-ruled clergy were but half-ruled people
and half-hearted clergy. It was Cromwell's antipathy
as a layman to the irregularities of the clergy, and
the hollowness of the Romish rites, that was the
means of so strongly arousing the opposition of the
king to these things. It is true that Cromwell loved
power. It is probable that he derived personal
advantage from the downfall of the monks. Certainly,
like his great namesake in after years, he was a stren-
uous man, and of imperious will. But in spite of all
the aspersions of his foes, he was throughout a
strong and earnest foe of Pope and Popery, and, in

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE VIA MEDIA 339

accordance with his light, a stern and loyal English
Churchman. (A fair estimate of Cromwell will be
found in Burnet's " Reformation," i. 440.*)

The influence of Archbishop Cranmer, on the other
hand, was that of a scholar and a divine. Gradually,
even timidly, he was grasping the salient elements of
the reformed theology, and with the dogged resolve of
an Englishman, was furthering their spread. It was
to him chiefly that we owe, as English Churchmen,
our English Bible. It was his influence mainly, that
caused the king's interest in the Continental Reformers.
It is Cranmer mainly, if not chiefly, we have to thank
as English Churchmen for the liturgical reform which
culminated in our incomparable liturgy. In season
and out of season, " unresting yet unhasting," these
two men with all the force of influence at their
command, in face of a tremendous and resolved
majority, were advancing in every way the cause of
reform.

And yet after all, they advanced it only as far as
the king let them. If Henry VIII. had thought to
say it, he might have said of the religious reforms of
his reign with not a little truth, " La Reformation,
c'est moi ! "

Prelates, clergy, convocations, parliaments, all did
what he wanted. If he desired a certain doctrine
to be declared the doctrine of the English Church,
they declared it. If he wanted a protest against the
Pope, they made it. If he wished a clause, they

* It is notorious that Romanists have defamed Cromwell's character
in every possible way, and it is not a little significant that some Church
of England writers have taken their side. Hore describes Cromwell
as "a bitter foe to the Church" He was indeed; to the Chtirch of
Rotne !

340 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

inserted it. If he willed the succession to be altered,
they altered it. When in effect, King Henry said,
" Thy wills and actions are mine, thy canons also
and thy laws, all their provisions are mine ; " the
commons and the clergy answered to a man as servile
Ahab of old, " My lord, O king, according to thy
saying, I am thine, and all that I have." It is
this fact that explains so much of what has been
done, and of what is to follow in the history of
the Church of England, during the reign of King
Henry VIII.

Now, up to the year 1538, the king was practically
in accord with Cromwell and Cranmer ; and it was
owing to this in the providence of God that the Church
of England assumed as a CJiurcJi such a Protestant
position.

For the influence of these advocates of reform
accorded well with the two main traits in Henry's
character. He was a manly, independent English-
man. The forceful blood of the free Saxon mingled
in his veins with that of the imperious Norman. He
was a bold, bluff, free-spoken man. And he was a
king. This was the natural force which was used in
the providence of God to bring about the anti-Papal
standing of England's Apostolic Church.

Then, too, he was a layman. And like most laymen
he disliked ecclesiasticism. Priestcraft disgusted him.
He detested clerical pretensions, just as heartily as he
detested Papal claims. The confessional system, with
its abuses and interferences, had somewhat the same
effect upon Henry that monkish profligacy had upon
Erasmus.

And so it came to pass in the strange ways of God
that the complex and even inconsistent characteristics

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE VIA MEDIA 34I

of one strong man shaped the fortune and history of a
great national Church, and made the Church of Eng-
land what it was in Henry's reign ; Protestant yet
not Evangelical, anti-Papal yet not reformed. In
the modern sense, Henry the Eighth was never an
evangelical Protestant. Even at the time of the Ten
Articles and the last Injunctions, he was doctrinally a
Papist. As a man with strong personality he had
simply struck out on the path of ecclesiastical reform,
in the firm conviction that what he had already done
and was doing, had neither committed himself nor the
Church of England to a departure in any essential
degree from the Catholic religion.

Verily we ought, as Bishop Burnet said, to " adore
and admire the paths of the Divine wisdom, that
brought about such a change in a church, which, being
subjected to the see of Rome, had been more than any
otJier part of Europe most tame under its oppressions,
and was most deeply drenched in superstition : and
this by the means of a Prince, who was the most
devoted to the interest of Rome of any in Christendom,
. . . and continued to the last mnch leavened with
superstition " (Burnet, Preface, " History of the
Reformation," xxii. The italics are mine.).

LXXVIII. When we say then that the Church of
England as a Chnrch assumed a Protestant position, we
simply meaji that it went as far and Jio further than
the will of the ki7tg ?

Yes.

History is the story of the operation of influence.
All great movements as a rule are simply the story of
the influence of one or two strong men. The names of
Hildebrand, Luther, Calvin, and Wesley, are sufficient
in proof With regard to the Church of England, it

342 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

was especially the case on account of Henry's official
position as supreme head of the Church on earth.
Without a clear grasp of this fact it will be impossible
for the student of English ecclesiastical history to
understand the events of Henry's reign, especially
those of the latter part.

For from the year 1538 to the death of the king
in 1547, the cause of reform had a checkered career.
In some ways it went backwards. At one time,
indeed, it went back so far that it seemed as if the
Church of England was about to revert to its
Popish position in the medieval days. There were
one or two forward movements toward the end, and
throughout the reign there was a gradual instilment of
reformation ideas into the minds of the people at large.
The fire that was kindled was not put out. It smoul-
dered and spread. But outwardly at least, and to
human appearance, after 15 38, the reforming cause was
at a disadvantage, and the old or Popish party got the
upper hand. They could not bring the Church back
again to Rome. Things had gone too far for
that. To re-Romanize the Church of England was
out of the question. The days of profligate friars,
and shameless monks, and winking images, and terror-
izing edicts were over. But from this time on there
was no little reaction in the Roman direction, and
the explanation is simple.

The reason was the will of the king.

Always capricious, and fitful as a spoiled child, it
was difficult to predict at any time the view he would
take of any important question, or what person or
party he would favour, and it happened that about
this time a change came over the temper of the king.

For some time past the minds of reforming Church-

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE VIA MEDIA 343

men, and even of Henry himself, had been turned
sympathetically in the direction of the German
reformers. They felt that they were engaged in the
same great work, notwithstanding differences of
detail, and overtures were made for closer union and
co-operation. (A full account of these negotiations
is given in Hardwick's "History of the Articles,"
pp. 52-57.) It was felt that a friendly conference
with regard to the points of doctrine on which they
were agreed as Protestants, would tend to unite them
" in one common expression and harmony of faith
and doctrine drawn up out of the pure Word of God."
Accordingly in the summer of 1538 the matter was
consummated, and Cranmer and Cromwell arranged
that a deputation of Lutheran divines should come over
to England (Cranmer, " Letters," Park. Soc, p. 377).

It certainly was thought that the time was ripe for
this, and the effort was carefully planned. At any
rate, partly owing to the influence of Archbishop
Cranmer, and partly as a matter of State policy,
they came over at the king's invitation, and in the
preliminary conferences all went happily, and a good
broad platform of sound doctrine was mutually agreed
to and adopted. They came to an agreement in the
fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, and put their
Articles in writing.*

* These Articles are given in full in Cranmer's "Letters," Park. Soc,
pp. 472-480. They are of very great importance to the student of
English Church History, as they furnish a very important clue to the
meaning of some of the thirty-nine Articles. Article 5, De Ecclesia,
throws not a little light upon the present teaching of the Church of
England in the 19th Article (in spite of the strange assertion of Hard-
wick that no trace of it exists in it), and clearly explains the meaning
of the expression, the visible Church.

344 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

Then unfortunately there came a break.

As long as the conference stuck to plain matters of
doctrine all went smoothly enough. But the German
section was not content with this. They were longing
to discuss the Popish abuses. In his message to
them, the king had spoken of " his propension of mind
towards the Word of God, and of his desire to
wholly take away and abolish the impious cerevionics
of the Bishop of Rome." It is hardly to be wondered
at, therefore, that they were urgent to get from Henry
a declaration against such Romish abuses as the
communion in one kind, private masses, and the
celibacy of the clergy. In a long Latin letter they
earnestly besought the king to consider and to abolish
in the realm of England these three most serious
obstacles to the abolition of pontifical idolatry and
the completeness of pure religion, namely, the pro-
hibition of the reception of both the species of bread
and wine in the Lord's Supper, the celebration of
private masses, and the prevention of the marrying of
priests. They showed both from reason and from the
Word of God that these doctrines were untenable.
They pointed out that Christ expressly commanded
all to drink of the cup, and that He never ordered the
laity only to eat the body, and the clergy to receive
the other species ; that the arguments commonly
employed by Romanists with regard to the danger of
spilling the cup and so on were utterly worthless ;
and that both in the early Church, as Jerome and
Gelasius showed, and in the Greek Church at the
present time, the withholding of the cup from the laity
was unknown. They then showed that the doctrine
of private masses not only did away with the pro-
pitiatory work of Christ, but introduced idolatry. It

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE VIA MEDIA 345

was a doctrine that destroyed justification by faith,
contradicted Scripture, and was unknown in the
Christian Church before the days of Gregory. At
great length, with masterly logic and copious learning,
they exposed the novelty and unscripturalness of the
teaching of the Roman Church on the subject. They
then took up the subject of the marriage of priests,
asserting that the Bishop of Rome had prohibited it,
contrary to the Scripture, contrary to the laws of
nature, and contrary to all honesty, as it had been the
occasion of much crime and wickedness. Scripture
and ancient custom and reason were again referred to.
The letter concluded with an earnest hope that the
cause of the Gospel would spread more and more, and
a fervent prayer for the king, and was signed by the
three German delegates, under date of the 5th of
August, 1538, Francis Burgart, George a Boyneburgh,
and Frederic Myconius.*

The language of the letter was so respectful, the
arguments it contained so cogent, and the object
of it so thoroughly in accord with the purpose of
their visit, that it was most natural to expect that the
king would cordially acquiesce in their proposals.

But contrary to expectation this was not the case.

Whether it was that the action of the German
envoys was somewhat premature, and its method
perhaps ill-advised, or that the Romish party discerned
in it a vantage point of opportunity, it is certain that
the overture produced the very opposite effect from
what was intended. The king assumed a most
stubborn attitude. He refused to bend in the slight-

* The letter is given in full (in Latin) by Burnet in the Addenda,
together with the king's answer (vol, i., part ii., pp. 493-538).

346 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

est particular, and the conference ended with Httle
being gained for the Reform side, and much being
gained by the Romanists.

It is possible that the action of the Lutherans
tended only to arouse Henry's opposition, for though
he was a man readily open to influence, he was the
last man in the world to be driven. It is more than
probable that the whispers of the Romish bishops had
led him to regard their interference in ceremonial
matters in the light of impertinent meddling, and had
suggested the advantage of his disavowing any con-
nection with the more Protestant views of the Sacra-
mentarians. It is certain that the Romanists had
much to do with the reply, for the king's answer was
drawn up by the king in co-operation with one of the
prelates of the Romish party. Bishop Tonstal, and
contains the skilfully contrived reasonings of a trained
Romanist. It opened with a succession of honeyed
blandishments, and lauded them for their excellent
intentions and religious zeal ; but when it came to the
abuses they had complained of, it defended them with
the trite arguments of the Romish Church, and main-
tained them with the most stubborn earnestness.

In one word, the concord was broken. The king
assumed an attitude of antagonism. The bishops
declined any further meddling with the abuses on
account of " the book that had been devised by the
king's majesty," and Cranmer expressed his dis-
appointment in a letter to Cromwell. " I perceive
that the bishops seek only an occasion to break the
concord " (Cranmer, " Letters," Park. Soc, 379).

The changed temper of the king speedily showed
itself in the very serious changes that came over the
Church. The celibacy of the clergy was again enforced.

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE VIA MEDIA 347

A clergyman of the name of Lambert (or
Nicholson), a Cambridge man, who had been brought
to the knowledge of the truth by Bilney, was burned
as a heretic at Smithfield. The main charge against
Lambert was his denial of the corporal presence in the
sacrament, and of the Roman doctrine of transubstan-
tiation. He was tried in person by the king, under
circumstances that marvellously remind one of the
historic appearance of Luther at the Diet of Worms,
and after maintaining his cause with remarkable
vigour against Cranmer, Tonstal, and a number of
the bishops, he was condemned to die by the king,
and his sentence was read by Cromwell. As we
stated before in the case of Sawtre and Frith, the
views for which Lambert was burned by the Church
of England in 1538 are now the teaching of the
Church of England in the post-communion rubric,
and the twenty-eighth Article.* Cranmer's part

* The language of Lambert, as quoted by Fox, was as follows : —
"It is not agreeable to a natural body to be in two places or more
at one time ; wherefore it must follow of necessity, that either Christ
had not a natural body ; or else truly according to the common nature
of a body, it cannot be present in two places at once ; and much less in
many, that is to say in heaven, and in earth, on the right hand of the
Father, and in the Sacrament."

The teaching of the Church of England in the Prayer-Book is : —
"The natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven,
and not here ; it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be
at one time in more places than one." Nor was Canon Perry exactly fair
in his representation of the Zwinglianism of Lambert's teaching (ii.
156, 157). Lambert's doctrine was the denial of a corporal presence.
But he added : " I acknowledge and confess that the holy Sacrament
of Christ's body and blood is the very body and blood, in a certain
manner." The Church of England doctrine is precisely the same. It
teaches that this certain manner is heavenly and spiritual, that is not
carnal and corporal 5 "only after an heavenly and spiritual manner"
(Article xxviii.).

348 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

in this sad transaction brings to our mind Acts
xxvi. 10.

Many Romish ceremonies were brought in again to
the great satisfaction of the anti-Reform party ; and
by a royal proclamation, candles, and crosses, and
processions, and holy bread and holy water, and a
number of Romish ceremonies were to be observed
once more. And then followed the passing of the
Six Articles, the high-water mark of the anti-Protes-
tant reaction of the reign of Henry VIII.

The explanation of this strange reaction is to be
found in the growing influence of the ablest man in
the Romish party over the king, and to the fact that
at about this time the capricious king seems to have
cooled towards Cromwell, and to have warmed
towards Bishop Gardiner.

Gardiner was a very clever man. Wily, insinuating,
a trained diplomatist, a master of finesse, skilled in the
art of intrigue, he knew how to awaken a prejudice by a
whisper, and stiffen an antipathy by an insinuation.
His three years' residence in France had perfected his
craft without decreasing his zeal. And from the time of
his return, the main object of his life seems to have been
to get influence over the king, and through the king to
bring back the Church of England to the old Romish
position. He was a thorough Romanist and an un-
wearying foe of the principles of the Reformation.

No man saw more clearly than Stephen Gardiner,
Bishop of Winchester, the drift and issue of the
movements of the time. The sweeping out of the
Pope and the monks was only the outward and
visible sign of the sweeping away of the " Catholic "
religion ; that is, the religion of Rome. If he was by
training a man of the time, he was by conviction a

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE VIA MEDIA 349

medievalist. To him the only religion was the old
religion. The Church was in danger ; that is, the
Church of Rome, and the Romish religion ; and the
inevitable result to his mind of the adoption of the
principles of reform was not only the casting out
of the Pope from England, but the rejection
of the Roman religion by the Church of England.

Gardiner did his work well.

Improving every opportunity, and making capital
out of each most trivial advantage, he gained the
interest of the king. Suspicion is the shadow of
slander. And (as Fox shows so clearly), the whole
bearing of the king towards the Reformers and their
cause began to show signs of change. We have seen
how that change manifested itself in the case of the
Lutherans. We shall presently see how it showed
itself in his attitude to Cromwell. All Church his-
torians seem to agree that in some way Gardiner
had to do with the attainder and beheading of
Cromwell, a man who, for all his faults, was the most
powerful friend of the reforming movement in the
Church of England in Henry's reign.*

It showed itself most plainly of all in his securing
the adoption of the Romish Six Articles in 1539.

It has been suggested by Canon Perry (ii. 164) that
there is a connection between the visit of the
Lutheran divines and the passage of the Six Articles.
It is not improbable. It is more than likely that
there might be rankling in the mind of a man like
Henry no little resentment against both them and
their friends. The monarch who had sent the Pope

* The chief and principal enemy against him was Stephen Gardiner,
Bishop of Winchester (Fox, viii. 582).

350 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

about his business would hardly be dictated to by
three German Sacramentarians. And Gardiner, too,
was very likely to foment and encourage such feelings
by insinuations and suggestions that the king should
show men that he was not going to be instructed in
the principles of the Catholic religion by sectaries,
and that he should let the world know that the
Defensor Fidei was still a foe to all heresies.

At this time, moreover, the political affairs of the
nation were peculiarly calculated to favour the bias of
prejudice in the royal mind. Matters were becom-
ing very stormy in England. The innovations in
religion had caused a stir like that in Ephesus when
the Word of God so mightily prevailed. There were
whispers of revolt. There were wars religious, and
rumours of war civil. There were fanatical excesses
that no true Churchman would palliate. There were
outbursts of Catholic zeal that foreboded ill for the
Protestants. The Sacrament of the Mass was in-
sulted with scurrilous indecency. Ecclesiastical
tribunals were overawed by Protestant mobs (Froude,
iii- 375-377 ; Green, ii. 186). And through it all, and
taking advantage of all, Gardiner kept on working.

It was Gardiner who suggested the idea of the
Articles as a remedy for the religious upheavings. It
was Gardiner who hinted that the best policy for the
hour was a sharp and short dealing with the innova-
tors. It was Gardiner who advised that the king
should plainly declare himself as opposed to all
excesses in religion, and it was through Gardiner's
crafty wit, as Fox says, that Lambert was condemned,
and the king declared, " I will not be a patron to
heretics."

" This wily Winchester, with his crafty assistants.

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE VIA MEDIA 35 1

and also by other pestilent persuasions, ceased not to
seek all means to overthrow religion. First, bringing
the king, in hatred with the German princes, then
putting him in fear of the emperor . . . and other
foreign powers ; but especially of civil tumults and
commotions within his own kingdom ; which above all
things he most dreaded, by reason of these innova-
tions of religion. . . . The bishop exhorted the king
for his own safeguard, and tranquillity of his realm,
to see how and by what policy so manifold mischiefs
might be prevented. He suggested that no other
way or shift could be better devised, than to shew
himself sharp and severe against the new sectaries,
the anabaptists, and sacramentarians (as they called
them) ; and that he should set forth such articles,
confirming the ancient catholic faith, as might
recover his credit with christian princes, and that
all the world might see and judge him to be a right
and perfect catholic. By these and such suggestions
the king was too much led away " (Fox, p. 568).

And so it came to pass that through the influence
of this untiring man, and the strong personality of the
dictatorial king, the Church of England once again
accepted the substance of the Romish religion, and
decreed as her distinct and definite and formulated
teaching the body of doctrine incorporated in the Six
Articles of 1539.

LXXIX. Were the Six Articles then the formu-
lated doctrine of the English Church ?

Yes.

It is most important to remember with regard to
the Six Articles, tJiat they were the teaching of the
Church of England.

Each of their six points was affirmed in Convoca-

352 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

tion. They were passed by the Parliament of the
realm. They were approved by the king. Thus they
represented the united sentiment of the clergy and
laity, and were tJie formulated doctrine of the Church
of Enghxnd.

It is important also to remember another point.
These Articles were not the doctrine of the Church
of England as part of the Church of Rome. They
would have been this ten years before. They were
now the doctrine of the Church of England as a
particular or national Church (" Institution of a
Christian Man," 1537; cf Art. xxxiv.). The occasion
was a great one. Froude mentions as an evidence of
its greatness that the two provinces were united into
one ; the Convocation of York held its session with
the Convocation of Canterbury. A Synod of the
whole English Church, thus solemnly convened,
deliberately set forth as its distinctive teaching these
Six Articles of faith for the unity and concord of all
the king's subjects as members of the national Church.
With this in mind let the reader carefully consider
the definite doctrine of the Church of England in the
year 1539, as adopted in the month of June, 1539,
by the king, the clergy, and the two Houses of
Parliament.

The first Article declares : —

" That in the most blessed sacrament of the altar
by the strength and efficacy of Christ's
mighty word (it being spoken by the priest)
is present really, under the form of bread and
wine, the natural body and blood of our
Saviour Jesus Christ, as conceived of the
Virgin Mary ; and after the consecration there
remaws no substance of bread or wine, or any

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE VIA MEDIA 353

other substa?icc, but the substance of Christ,
God and man!'

The second declares : —

" That the communion in both kinds is not
necessary for salvation to all persons by the
law of God ; and that it is to be believed, and
not doubted of, but that in the flesh, under
form of bread, is the very blood, and with the
blood, under form of wine, is the very flesh as
well separate as they were both together."

The third declares : —

" That priests, after the order of priesthood, may
not marry by the law of God."

The fourth declares : —

" That the vows of chastity or widowhood, by
man or woman made to God advisedly,
ought to be observed by the law of God ; and
that it exempteth them from other liberties
of Christian people, which otherwise they
might enjoy."

The fifth declares : —

"That it is meet and necessary that private
masses be continued and admitted in this
English church and congregation ; and in
them good Christian people, ordering them-
selves accordingly, do receive both godly and
goodly consolations and benefits ; and it is
agreeable also to God's law."

The sixth declares : —

"That auricular confession was expedient and
necessary, and ought to be retained and
continued in the church of God" (Fox, p.
569). _

This in plain simple language was the distinctive

2 A

354 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

Church teaching of the Church of England on some
of the points that were then, and are now, of cardinal
innportance in determining the real position and
standing of any particular branch of the Catholic
Church of Christ.

The Six Articles were not indeed the whole teach-
ing of the Church. But they were the teaching of the
Church, as a Church, on at least two subjects that
are the key-stones and corner-stones of the Romish
religion — the doctrine of transubstantiation, and the
efficacy of the priest-offered sacrifice. Archbishop
Cranmer, in his latter days, when speaking of the
Romish religion, said tersely, "What availeth it to
take away beads, pardons, pilgrimages, and such
other like Popery, so long as two chief roots remain
unpulled up. . . . The rest is but leaves and branches.
. . . The very body of the tree, or rather the roots of the
weeds, is the Popish doctrine of transubstantiation,
of the real presence of Christ's flesh and blood in
the sacrament of the altar (as they call it), and of the
sacrifice and oblation of Christ made by the priest "
(Cranmer, Works, Park. Soc, p. 6).

The Six Articles were not only set forth in a
formulated manner as the distinctive Church teach-
ing of the national Church ; they were a formal
declaration against the crime of heresy. And the
declaration was worded in such a manner as to
show beyond doubt that the chief feature of heresy
still in the view of the pre-reformation Church of
England was the denial of the Romish doctrine of
transubstantiation. Cranmer did all in his power
to prevent the adoption of the penal clauses, but in
vain. The influence of Gardiner prevailed even over
the king. A set of uncompromising and blood-

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE VIA MEDIA 355

thirsty penalties were passed, and it was enacted that
all refusal to receive these doctrines was an offence
against the law of the land. It was felony for an
Englishman to refuse to go to confession, or receive
the sacrament ; it was felony to speak against the
five last Articles, and death to deny the first. Truly,
it was a most un-English and horrible proceeding. It
is hard to believe that a body of Englishmen, in the
year 1539, could ever have allowed it to pass.

But the point of importance to be noted here is
this : that by this statute the Church of England put
itself on record against heresy as a particular or
national Church, and practically declared that the
belief of a certain teaching on the subject of the
sacrament was contrary to the doctrine, not of the
Church of Rome, but of the Church of Englmid, and
worthy of death.

As the words of the Act throw a great light on the
contrast between the teaching of the Church of
England then and at present, it will be worth while
to quote them from Fox's records : —

" If any person or persons within this realm of
England, . . . should publish, preach, teach, say,
affirm, declare, dispute, argue or hold, that in the
blessed sacrament of the altar, under form of bread
and wine (after the consecration thereof), there
is not present really the natural body and blood of
our Saviour, Jesus Christ, as conceived of the Virgin
Mary ; or that after the said consecration there remain-
eth any substance of the bread or wine, ... or that
in the flesh, under the form of bread is not the very
blood of Christ, or that with the blood of Christ, under
the form of wine, is not the very flesh of Christ . . .
then every such person so offending, and their

356 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

abettors should be deemed and adjudged heretics,
and every such offence should be adjudged as
manifest heresy."

Nothing could be clearer than the meaning of this.

According to the Church of England, in the year
1539, the person who did not believe in transubstanti-
ation, was a heretic.

And, according to the law of the realm of England,
every person who did not accept what Cranmer after-
wards called the very body of the tree of Popery, the
Popish doctrine of transubstantiation, was as a heretic
to be burned.

" And every such offender and offenders should
therefore have and suffer judgment, execution, pain
and pains of death by way of burning."

It seems to be convenient in these days, for certain
churchmen to quickly pass by these obnoxious
Articles, if not to apologize for them. The author of
"The Doctrine of the Church of England" (Rivingtons),
for instance, attempts with great ingenuity in the
introduction of that work to show that the doctrine
of the Church of England has been of continuous
identity since the year 1536. It is evident that
the writer's intention is to support the fallacious
reasoning of a school which, under the specious plea
of the continuity of the Church, would fain claim
authority in these days for certain semi-Popish
doctrines, which the Church of England has author-
itatively renounced.

But the attempt is a futile one. The omission of
all mention of the Six Articles by this writer seems
to indicate the consciousness of a fatal gap in that
theory.

In the light of ecclesiastical history the Six Articles

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE VIA MEDIA 357

Bill is to be regarded as a touchstone of no mean
value. It brings out into clear relief the difference
between the past and present doctrine of the Church
of England, and illustrates the fact that English
Churchmen can best understand the doctrine of the
Church of England at the present time, by under-
standing clearly the Church of England teaching in
days when the errors of Popery were formally
accepted as the authoritative doctrines of the Church
of the realm.*

It is further to be remembered that the teaching
of the Church of England on the subject of transub-
stantiation, or the sacrament of the altar, in the first of
the Six Articles of 1539, had been the teaching of the
Church of England for at least three hundred and
twenty-one years before the adoption of the Ten
Articles, that is, since the year 121 5, when the
Lateran Council, under Pope Innocent III., first
promulgated the dogma of transubstantiation.

The statement of the learned Bishop Lloyd in his
preface to his work, " The Formularies of Faith put
forth by authority during the reign of Henry VIII."
(Oxford, Clarendon Press, p. 5), is worthy of a careful
consideration. Bishop Lloyd deliberately states with
regard to the Ten Articles of 1536, the Institution
and the Erudition, that while "these documents are of
great importance to all students who are anxious to
study the rise and progress of the Protestant doctrines

* It is true that the Church of England may not have been specifi-
cally mentioned in the Six Articles Statute, or the independence or
nationality of the English Church emphasized. But things and facts
are greater than names. The facts are that the English Church was at
this time severed from Roman jurisdiction, and though the Articles
affirmed were the Church of Rome's teaching, they were affirmed by a
body independent of Rome.

358 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

of the Church, they carry no authority along with them.
Nothing," he says, "antecedent to the reign of
Edward VI. has any title to that character." But
they show how many of the tenets of Romanism
once accepted by the Church, and commanded to be
taught by her clergy, are now discarded as erroneous,
and formally renounced as errors of Popery.

Rut to pass on. The influence of Gardiner and
the Romish party reached its climax here. It could
hardly be called a short-lived triumph, for the Articles
remained as the standard of the teaching of the Church
of England for some years after, though some of the
severer penal clauses of the Act were modified in the
following year, and also in 1543 and 1544. But the
effect of that baneful influence, though painful, was
healthy. It undoubtedly did much to open England's
eyes. The mass of the people were still on the side of
the old religion, for the conservative spirit of English-
men was opposed to change in matters of religion ;
but when they saw some of the most spiritually-
minded Churchmen of the day harried to prison, and
others burned at the stake, and some of the best
friends of the Church driven out of the country, their
faith in such proceedings was shaken.

For the state of religion was complex beyond belief.
Like two great surging tides of battle, the old and the
new opinions were contending for victory. The
forces of Rome headed by Gardiner, and the forces
of Reform headed by Cromwell and Cranmer,
were now divided in irreconcilable opposition. One
party or the other must have the supremacy. Com-
promise was impossible. One day Gardiner preaches
a sermon that is Popish to the core. The next day
Barnes preaches a sermon that delights the Protestants.

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE VIA MEDIA 359

"The bishops are divided and hate one another. The
people know not what to beHeve, for those who are
incHned to the reformed view are called heretics ;
those who adhere to the old faith are charged with
Papistry and treason."

At one time it seemed as if the power of Cromwell
would override all, and that Gardiner himself would
be brought to the ground. In the first week of June,
in the year 1540, the world might well have believed
that Gardiner's end was near. The political proba-
bilities all pointed to the triumph of his great
antagonist. Instead of that, however, with a sudden-
ness as startling as it was unexpected, Cromwell
himself fell down. " No cloud," says Froude, " was
visible in the clear sky of his prosperity ; when the
moment came, he fell suddenly as if struck by light-
ning on the very height and pinnacle of his power."
The fall of Cromwell, while it was as abrupt and
startling as that of Wolsey, was as irretrievable.
Like his old master he fell, and like him he fell
never to hope again.

At three o'clock on the afternoon of the loth of
June, he was arrested by the Duke of Norfolk as he
sat at the table of the Privy Council, was conducted
to the Tower, was attainted by Parliament for inter-
fering with the king's authority and abetting heresy,
and on the 28th of July was beheaded on the scaffold.
Ostensibly the cause of Cromwell's fall was treason,
and its occasion the blunder of suggesting the name of
Anne of Cleves ; really and truly it was his anti-
Romanism. The very letters to the ambassadors at
foreign courts, which were written off at once by the
king's request, declared that the head and front of
Cromwell's offending were his indefatigable efforts on

360 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

behalf of the Protestant opinions; and four out of the
eight articles of his attainder were complaints of his
endeavours to establish the principles of reform.* That
his fall was deemed a triumph for the Roman parties,
and that he was regarded as the strongest prop of the
Protestant party, cannot be seriously disputed. But
that his death was a gain to the interests of the Church,
as Canon Perry states, and that he would, had his power
continued, " have linked the reforming movement to
t/ie erratic proceedings of the foreign reformers," can
hardly be considered as a just and fair statement
from the present Church of England standpoint. For
however we may deprecate the imperiousness of
Cromwell's methods, we must not allow ourselves
to forget that the Church of England now teaches
as its formulated and authoritative Church teaching a
body of doctrines well in advance, so far as Protestant
evangelicalism is concerned, of anything Cromwell
looked to. The Book of Common Prayer and the
Thirty-nine Articles are proofs of this.

LXXX. Was the downfall of Cromwell then a
destructive blow to the party of reform ? Did it retard
in any serious measure the information of the Church ?

The fall of Cromwell affected the reformed cause
less than might have been supposed.

* The third article alleged that, being a detestable heretic and
disposed to set and sow common sedition and variance among the
people, he had dispersed into all parts of the realm a great number of
false and erroneous books, disturbing the faith of the king's subjects on
the nature of the Eucharist. In other words, he had made eflbrts to
oppose the teaching of transubstantiation, the denial of which was then
the head and front of all heresy. The fourth article charged him with
releasing heretics from prison. That is of releasing Protestants. The
fifth article alleged that he had protected heretics, and " terribly
rebuked their accusers," and the sixth that he had made a confederation
of heretics to maintain and defend his treasons and heresies.

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE VIA MEDIA 36 1

That Gardiner and his party were elated at the
crushing of their most formidable opponent, and
expected wonderful things to come to pass, was
natural. They had compassed his death, and at once
endeavoured to reap the fruits. They secured a bill
for the better enforcement of the provisions of the
Six Articles, but the penalties, though as ruthless as
formerly for all manner of heresies touching the most
holy and blessed Sacrament of the altar, were
considerably relaxed in the matter of clerical matri-
mony. They brought three Protestant teachers, named
Barnes, Gerard (or Garret), and Jerome, to the stake
and burnt them as detestable and abominable heretics,
three other poor fellows as a foil being hanged the
same day as traitors. And they secured the publica-
tion of another manual of doctrine.

The history of this new book of doctrine was rather
curious. In 1540 a committee of divines had been
appointed for the purpose of drawing up a new
expression of Church teaching, and with a cleverness
that was characteristic of the man, Gardiner secured
an Act of Parliament to the effect that whatever they
drew up was to be believed and accepted by all
churchmen. The idea was to steal a march upon
Cranmer, and get him to approve of what had been
drawn up by the old party without his knowledge.
The articles were drawn up, but Cranmer acted with
remarkable courage and consistency, and refused to
sanction them. Still the new work when it came
forth bore traces of Gardiner's handiwork. It was
known as The Necessary Erudition of any Christian
Man, or the King's Book, and, though on much the
same lines as the Institution, was decidedly more
Romish in tone.

362 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

Collier in comparing it with the Institution, or
the Bishops' Book, declares that " the Erudition
bends to the Six Articles, and in some points of
controversy drives further into the doctrines of
the Roman Communion. ... In a word, where the
Erudition differs from the Institution it seems mostly
to lose ground, to go off from the primitive plan,
and to reform backwards" (Collier, vol. ii., book iii.,
p. 191).

It contained doctrinal expositions upon the nature
of faith ; the articles of the creed ; the seven sacra-
ments ; the Ten Commandments ; the Lord's Prayer
and Ave Maria ; and also upon the subjects of
Freewill, Justification, Good Works, and prayers for
souls departed (" Formularies of Faith," Oxford, pp.
213-377; Burnet, i. 442-452).

(It seems almost unnecessary to again remind the
reader that this formulary has not the slightest
value as a standard of doctrine in the Church of
England now. That it was approved by convocation
then gives it no authority now.* Nor does the fact of
its declaring this or that with regard to any point
make the doctrine in question a valid Anglican doc-
trine. The very fact that it formally taught that
there were seven sacraments — the Romish doctrine —
and that the Church of England now formally denies
this and says in the twenty-fifth Article that there are
but two, shows sufficiently the difference in the teach-

* Perry, following Wilkins, says the Erudition was submitted to
convocation for its approval. Collier seems to hint that it was not,
though his authority is uncertain, and his language vague.

Collier also follows Burnet in assuming that Fuller must have mis-
taken when he gave the date of the Erudition as 1540. The probable
date was 1542.

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE V/A MEDIA 363

ing of the Church of England in those days and
now.)

In many ways the King's Book was valuable. It
contained not a little that was excellent practically,
morally, and in some things doctrinally. In the
Article on the sacrament of orders it pricked the
bubble of the pretended primacy of the Pope in a
series of arguments worthy of Barrow himself. In
the ninth Article of the creed it took a truly Catholic
view of that much travestied subject, the Catholic
Church, and in the articles on prayers for the dead
made a strong protest against the fond and great
abuses of the Papal system of pardons. But for all
that it was an exposition of doctrine that was in
keeping with the Six Articles, and might be defined
by the oft-employed expression, " Popery without
the Pope."

And yet, in spite of these temporary successes of
Gardiner and the old party, the fall of Cromwell did
not bring the ruin that both friends and foes
expected. After the first reactionary effects, the tide
of reformation flowed about where it was before.
The Bible was allowed to be circulated, and though
its private reading was discouraged in the case of all
beneath the degree of gentlemen, it still lay open for
the people, and was read in the churches.* Injunctions
were sent to the clergy ordering them to read the
Bible, live good lives, and teach the people simply
and plainly.

Then, too, Cranmer was still left.

* A copy of the proclamation, ordering a copy of the Bible of the
largest and greatest volume to be set up openly in every church in the
realm of England, will be found in Burnet's " Records," i, iii. 63. It is
interesting reading.

364 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

And in spite of the malignity of the past, and the
prejudice of the present, Thomas Cranmer was
unquestionably the master spirit of the Reformation
of the Church of England. He was not as strong a
man as Cromwell, as clever a man as Erasmus, as
eloquent a man as Latimer, or as bold a man as
Luther. But he was a great man in many ways, and
he was the man of the hour. He had the Divine gift
of common-sense, and the Divine grace of patience.
He knew when to be silent, and he knew when to
speak. Men have called him a coward. They have
accused him of absence of principle. They assert
that his character was abject and yielding. They
taunt him with his silence when as a brave man he
should have spoken, and with submission when as a
true man he should have opposed. There may be
another explanation. There were times when bold-
ness would have been madness, and opposition folly.
A general may retreat, and still be brave. And no
man seems to have mastered better than Cranmer
the great secret of statesmanship, the power to wait
patiently on time; to be quiet when it would be
madness to speak ; to wait when it would be folly to
press. He has been unfairly accused of not opposing
the Six Articles Bill because he was an inconsistent
coward. But he was no coward then, if Burnet can
be trusted.* And afterwards he was no coward, for
when all brave men in England were afraid to open

* " Cranmer was both a good subject and a modest and discreet
man, and so would obey and submit as far as he might without sin ;
yet when his conscience charged him to appear against anything that
the king pressed him to, as in the matter of the Six Articles, he did it
with much resolution and boldness" (Burnet, Appendix, " Hist. Refor.,"
ii. 413).

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE F/A MEDIA 365

their lips, he alone dared to plead for Anne. Nor was
he a coward when, not long after, he stood up, almost
alone, against the angry lords and pleaded like a man
for Cromwell; nor when, a few years later, he stood an
AtJianasius contra mundiun in the Legislature against
the Bloody Statute.*

It has been thought that he was a time-serving
knave because he did not stand by Lambert, or because
he more than once gave way to the king. But at the
time of Lambert's death he was at least a consubstantia-
tionist, and as to giving in to the king, there were
times, as we all know, when it would have been infatu-
ation not to have done so. The times were hard ; as
Bishop Burnet said, very ticklish. The king was hard.
The questions of action were almost maddening at
times. It is easy for men in these days to criticize,
but a poor and shallow thing it is to condemn a man
in a situation like his. For long weeks and months
together, he could simply do nothing. And like a
wise man he did not try. He saw that it would be of
no use. And then at other times he saw an opening.
At once he seized it, worked like a man, and made
the most of it.

" To grasp the skirts of happy chance,
And breast the blows of circumstance."

And so through all the dreary years till Edward's
day, Cranmer fought and wrought almost alone. He
could not do much. But he did what he could.

He saw throughout the Church of England those
Romish practices observed which, within a generation,
were to be repudiated by the Church as superstitious

* Read the touching letter to the king given in Froude, iii. 503 ;
and see Burnet, i. 497.

366 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

follies. He heard those Romish doctrines preached,
which were blasphemous and false in the light of
Scripture and reason. He saw Church people urged
by the bishops and clergy to carry candles, and
pray to saints, and creep to the cross, and venerate
the transubstantiated Christ, and deck the images of
the saints, and cherish the thousand and one supersti-
tions of Rome. He saw the confessional box in full
operation, and the saying of masses everywhere
enforced. An ecclesiastic could lead about with him
two women, though the one was not his sister, nor the
other his wife, and get absolution ; but there was no
pardon for a layman who refused to gaze upon the
Sacrament when it was carried about (Art. xxv.), or
worship in the mass. A priest could commit the
vilest sins, even monstrous crimes, and be still a good
churchman, but if a layman dared to believe what
is now Church teaching on the subject of the Sacra-
ment he would be burned to death by the Church of
England as a heretic (Perry, ii. 167 ; Froude, ii. 446 ;
iii. 407).

He saw all these things, and what could he do ? As
we said before he could only wait and do what he could.

LXXXI. Was Cranmer able then to advance in
atiy material way the cause of the Reformation from
the time of the downfall of Cromwell ?

He was.

Though he could not do much, what Archbishop
Cranmer effected during those last few years of the reign
of Henry VHI. was neither transitory nor insignificant.
The king was as Romish as ever ; Gardiner's star was
still in the ascendant. Bonner was busy, and the
priesthood were almost to a man for Popery. The
outlook for a Reformer in the Protestant direction

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE VIA MEDIA 367

was certainly not very bright. But in three very
important matters he advanced the principles of the
Reformation.

In the first place, he was the means of keeping the
Bible for the people (Burnet, i. 417-468).

Why the king should have so befriended the cir-
culation of the Bible, it is hard to say. But he did.
And in spite of the old Romish cant about the
reading of the Scriptures being the mother of all
heresy and the father of all schism, he ordered its
reading in the church, and its study by the people.
The Romanists in 1543 and 1546 got influence
enough to curtail its reading, but the influence of
Cranmer was stronger than all, and they could not
destroy it. In spite of the wily endeavours of Bonner
and Gardiner, the great Bible, or as it was aptly
called, Cranmer's Bible, was maintained in the Church
till the end of the reign untouched by any dishonour-
ing hand, and open for all the people, and permission
was also obtained for the people to buy Bibles and
have them at home. Who can ever estimate the
effect upon the nation of that silent but potent force,
the seed of the Word, that was thus scattered in the
hearts of the Church people of England, or tell how
many by searching the Scriptures were brought to the
knowledge of the truth ?

The Church of England has Cranmer to thank for
this.*

* " One thing was very remarkable, which was this year granted at
Cranmer's intercession. There was nothing could so much recover
reformation, that was declining so fast, as the free use of the Scrip-
tures ; and though these had been set up in the churches a year ago,
yet he pressed, and now procured leave, for private persons to buy
Bibles, and keep them in their houses. So this was granted by letters
patents ... the substance of which was, ' That the King was desirous

368 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

In the second place, he was the means of reviving
the practice of preaching in the Church.

During the Romish days the Church of England
had little preaching. The priests confined themselves
to ceremonies, and rarely, if ever, preached except in
Lent. The ideas of i Cor. ix. i6, and 2 Tim. iv. 2,
were unknown. Years after, Martin Bucer said you
could find parishes in the Church of England where
there had not been a sermon for some years. "In
this country the pastors of the Churches have hither-
to chiefly confined their duties to ceremonies, and
have very rarely preached." "Very few parishes
have pastors, ... in many there are substitutes who,
for the most part, cannot even read English, and who
are in heart mere papists." " And you are well
aware how little can be effected for the restoration of
the kingdom of Christ by mere ordinances, and the
removal of instruments of superstition " (Orig.
Lett, Park. Soc, pp. 535, 543). In many places
the friars preached sensational sermons. But they
were mere ranters, and knew little or nothing of the
Gospel (Burnet, i. 489, 490).

It was owing to Cranmer, in a great measure, that
this great lever of apostolic power was once more

to have his subjects attain the knowledge of God's Word.' . . .
But Gardiner opposed this all he could : and one day, in a conference
before the King, he provoked Cranmer to shew any difference between
the authority of the Scriptures, and of the apostolical canons, which he
pretended were equal to the other writings of the apostles. Upon
which they disputed for some time ; but the King perceived solid learn-
ing tempered with great modesty in what Cranmer said ; and nothing
but vanity and affectation in Gardiner's reasonings. So he took him
up sharply, and told him, that Cranmer was an old and experienced
captain, and was not to be troubled by fresh men and novices."
(Burnet, iii. 417.)

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE VIA MEDIA 369

given to the Church. Licences were given to certain
gifted men to freely preach the Gospel, and the
preaching of such sermons as was common in the
Popish days was discouraged. And to help the clergy
in this novel work, a book of Homilies was drawn up by
Cranmer in obedience to a resolution of Convocation.

In the third place, he was the means of securing
for English churchmen that distinctive glory of the
Church of England, the prayers of the people in their
native English tongue.

Ten years had slipped by since Henry's Primer
had given to English Church people the idea of
English prayers. It was the inauguration of a great
principle, but it was not as remarkable a step as this.
For the distinctive feature of this was Church prayer ;
that is, public prayer m the Church.

The Primer had only to do with private prayers.
It was, indeed, a novelty ; yet, even from the Roman
stand-point, it was hardly to be accounted revolution-
ary. But Cranmer's procedure was distinctly non-
Roman, if not anti-Roman.

The language of the Roman Catholic Church was
Latin. It was the authorized language ; the only
language authorized by the Roman Catholic Church
for public worship. To use any other was rebellion
from the Roman view-point. The mandate issued in
1544, to use certain English prayers in all the Churches
of all the dioceses of the realm, was thus a step of
great significance.

It may be safely asserted that, next to the pro-
mulgation of the Holy Scriptures, the authorization of
the use of prayers in their own tongue by the Church
people of England was the most important step in
forwarding the Reformation of the Church during the

2 B

370 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

sixteenth century. It did not supersede the ecclesias-
tical use of Latin, and supplant it with the vulgar
tongue. The time was not ripe for that. But it
tampered with one of the first ecclesiastical principles
of Rome. It effectually undermined a Roman strong-
hold. It broke the spell of an enslaving medium.
And thus it prepared the way for the extinction of
the ecclesiastical use of Latin, and the complete
establishment of that distinctive glory of the worship
of England's reformed and apostolic Church —
common prayer in the people's tongue.

For this great work, the reform of the Church
system of worship, the thanks of English churchmen
are chiefly due to the sanctified sagacity and enlight-
ened scholarship of Thomas Cranmer.

It was in a session of Convocation in the year I543
that he began the work in earnest. Up to this time
the worship of the Church of England was the slightly
Anglicanized form of the ritual of the Church of
Rome. It was simply a local adaptation of the
universal worship of the Latin Church, the differences
between it and the Roman mass being minor, acci-
dental, and trifling. That is, it was the Romish
ritual of the Roman mass issued with local peculiar-
ities in the dioceses of Salisbury (Sarum), Hereford,
Bangor, York, and Lincoln. The Sarum use at this
time was generally used. It was as different in
essence from our Church of England service to-day,
as the Roman Pontifical is from the Epistle to Titus.
It was all in Latin. It was full of the dark and
dumb ceremonies of the mass with its sacrificial vest-
ments and crossings, its prostrations and prayers
through the saints, and prayer for the dead, its
kissings of pax, and paten, and corporals, and adora-

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE VIA MEDIA 37 1

tions of the host {sec Maskell's " Ancient Liturgy of
the Church of England," Oxford. The Clarendon
Press. Dodd's " Translation of the Sarum Mass "). It
was all sung. The very reading of the Scriptures
was in Latin, what little there was of it, for what was
read in church was mostly a pack of legendary
nonsense, a confusion of uncertain stories and legends,
as our Prayer-Book tersely declares, "some untrue,
some vain, some superstitious."

The church service, or church worship of the
pre-Reformation Church of England in one word, was
a ceremonial worship full of vanity, superstition,
abuses, and unprofitableness. Its excess of dark and
dumb ceremonies at once blinded the people and
obscured the glory of God (Preface : " Book of
Common Prayer:" Of Ceremonies*).

The first step in the great work of the liturgical
reformation of the Church of England, was the work
of correcting and amending the old forms of worship.
For this purpose, a committee was appointed early in
1543. Their line of work was described very clearly
and succinctly. In the first place, they were to care-
fully expunge from every service-book in the Church
of England the name of the Bishop of Rome. Then
they were to abolish from all the service-books and
calendars the names of any saints not mentioned in
the Scriptures or in authentic writers. And in the

* "AH ceremonies are but beggarly things, dumb and dead, if the
meaning of them be not known. . . . But his Grace seeth priests much
readier to deal holy bread, to sprinkle holy water, than to teach the
people what dealing or sprinkling sheweth. If the priests would exhort
their parishioners, and put them in remembrance of the things that
indeed work all our salvation, neither the ceremonies would be dumb.
. . ." — King's Proclamation, 1539.

372 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

third place, they were to see tliat the sei-vices were
made out of Scripture and other autJiejitic doctors. The
Church was not yet ready for the perfect carrying out
of the last provision, but the idea was a grand one.
It was the practical inauguration of what may distinc-
tively be called a great principle of the Reformation ;
a principle, which, in God's providence, far outgrew
the limited intentions of those who proposed it.

The chief result of this was an English translation
of the Litany made by Cranmer, the forerunner of
our Book of Common Prayer. And in the month of
June, 1544, the king's mandate was sent to Archbishop
Cranmer, directing him to order all the bishops of his
province to bring into use in all the churches these
godly prayers, in our native English tongue (Burnet,
Records, " History of the Reformation," ii. 385).
It was a captivating innovation.
It struck at once a sympathetic chord in the
hearts of English Churchmen. It endeared religion
to the people. It made the laity feel that Church
worship was no longer the monopoly of the clergy
and the choir. The common people began to realize
that they were to be no more mere spectators of a
religious performance, but intelligent participants in
the common worship of God. They were unitedly to
co-operate in the public service of the Church, and as
the king's proclamation put it, " pray like reasonable
beings in their own language." In the words of a
prominent Church layman of the day, it was "the
goodliest hearing that ever was in this realm."

Compared, of course, with what we have now, it
was a mere nothing. The whole worship of the
realm save this was still in Latin, and the main
service of the Church was the mass, which as yet was

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE VIA MEDIA 373

not even in one remote degree "turned into a com-
munion." Even the English Litany and the English
Lord's Prayer were generally sung, a thing that
always cuts off a proportion of the worshippers from
participating in the service. But the fact remains,
that prayers were now in the tongue of the people.
The great Protestant Church principle of Art. xxiv.
had been secured.

Thus, with varying success to the very end of the
reign of Henry VIII., Cranmer strove for the prin-
ciples of the Reformation.

It was a sore struggle. For a long period he stood
almost alone, with the whole Popish party against
him. " Now Cranmer was left alone, without friend
or support," says Bishop Burnet, in narrating the death
of the Duke of Suffolk {Ibid., i. 514). The malice of
the Romanists was untiring. " Potently, indeed, was
he opposed, and with a malice of great size."

"He's a rank weed.
And we must root him out." — Henry VIII., Act v. So. i.

They did all they could to ruin Cranmer, and would
surely have done so if it had not been for the friend-
ship of the king. Why Henry should have befriended
Cranmer as he did, especially towards the end of his
reign, is one of the enigmas of this most puzzling era.
Some writers think it was due to feelings of personal
affection. This certainly was the case. The Arch-
bishop, as Shakespeare put it, was the king's hand and
tongue, and who dare speak one syllable against him ?
In the opinion of Bishop Burnet, the esteem of the
king was based upon his profound respect for a man
whose character was not only highly superior to his
own, but shone in brightest contrast to that of his foes ;

374 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

and Shakespeare, who was generally a shrewd judge
of actions, and managed to catch the truth of history,
took the same view.

King Henry. ..." Look, the good man weeps !
He 's honest, on mine honour. God's blest Mother !
I swear he is true-hearted ; and a soul
None better in my kingdom."

Henry, with all his infamy, was still an English-
man, and the sturdy bluffness that would make
him disgusted with the duplicity of an intriguer like
Gardiner (Perry, ii. 180-185 ; Burnet, i. 539-547)> was
the very characteristic to awaken admiration for the
candour and integrity of a man like Cranmer. To find
a man with the courage of his convictions, and so
superior to the Machiavelism of the Popish party,
that he dared to oppose even his king for the sake
of what he believed to be God's truth, and whose
Christian character was so thoroughly consistent and
in accord with the religion he professed (Burnet,
i. 508, 509, 538), was quite sufficient to win his respect.

" Take him and use him well ; he 's worthy of it.
I will say this much for him, if a prince
May be beholding to a subject, I
Am for his love and service so to him."

So Cranmer held fast to his convictions, and the
king held fast to Cranmer. At his intercession he
ordered the disuse of certain Popish observances, and
even seems to have contemplated the abolition of the
mass and the revival of the apostolic order of the Holy
Communion. It was for Cranmer he sent in his dying
hour ;* it was Cranmer who whispered in his dying
moments the comfortable promises of the Gospel,

* " He said, if any Churchman should be sent for, it should be
Archbishop Cranmer" (Burnet, i. 541).

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE VIA MEDIA 375

and asked him to give a token that he put his trust
in God through Jesus Christ ; and holding Cranmer's
hand, he died.*

King Henry VIII. died in the end of January, 1547.
He was, with two brief exceptions, the last representa-
tive of medievalism on the throne of England.

His reign is as difficult to understand as his
character.

It was a reign of ebb and flow, of action and
re-action. It was a reign of inconsistency and am-
biguity ; 'of hesitation and contradiction. In this
reign was witnessed the assertion of the right of
national ecclesiastical independence by a king, who,
not many years before, had stood forth as the
champion of " Catholic " unity against the French
monarch who maintained this national right of ecclesi-
astical independence. In this reign men saw the
Popish Bishop Tonstal giving his sanction to the very
Bible which he had once furiously committed to the
flames ; and Bishop Gardiner writing as a Papist a
vindication of the king's conduct in the matter of
Fisher and More. In this reign men beheld with
wonder a man like Bonner sending forth injunctions
enjoining the reading of the Bible, and the preaching
of the simple Gospel ; and a man like Bilney denying,
like Peter, the faith of the Master he so dearly loved.
And strangest of all, it was a reign in which the

* It is not too much to say that the treatment Cranmer has received
from certain Church historians is unjust to a degree. His alleged
pusillanimity and inconsistency have been unduly magnified ; his efforts
to promote the principles of the Reformation misrepresented and under-
valued. In fact, one is led almost to the conclusion that, with historians
of the Tractarian school, the slanderous representation of Roman
Catholic authors is accepted in preference to that of Fox or Burnet.

376 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

keystone of Popery was demolished by one of the
most ardent of Papists.

And yet, throughout all the ebb and flow, action
and re-action, consistency and contradiction, one
cannot fail to see the working of the hand of God. In
all these things, and through all these men, He was
slowly working out His great purpose of the restora-
tion to England in England's Church of that primitive
and Scriptural order of Christianity, which He com-
mitted through His Apostles to the ages. These
things were but the preparatory stages to a great
movement. The instruments were fallible and
passionate men ; but the Worker of all was God.

LXXXII. What then, let us ask as we leave this
momentous epoch, was the precise positioji of the Church
of England at the end of the reign of Henry VIII. ?
Was it Rojnanist or Protestant? Was it Papist or
Reformed ?

It was neither. It was both.

This in truth is the only answer. It was not
Romanist, for it had been severed from the Pope,
the centre of " Catholic " unity. It was Romanist,
for it held as de fide the body of Roman Catholic
doctrine. It was not Protestant, for its standard was
the Six Articles, and the Erudition was an official
interpretation of its teaching. It was Protestant, for
it protested not only against the Pope's supremacy,
but against many Popish superstitions.

The Church of England was at that time in the via
media Anglicana.

It had come out of the Roman camp, and yet
it had not come over to the Protestant party. It
had identified itself with the attitude of the conti-
nental reformers in its declarations of independence,

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE VIA MEDIA 377

and yet it asserted it had not departed from the
Roman Catholic faith. It was in the position of
inconsistency and contradiction. It was neither
one thing nor the other. It was neither sound
Protestant nor real Papist. By the grace of God
it was soon to abandon this unsatisfactory attitude,
and to clearly assume the Protestant position in the
reigns of Edward VI. and Elizabeth. But up to this
time, though much had been cast down, little, very
little, had been built up, and the destructive had pre-
ponderated vastly over the constructive phase of the
reformation movement.

The Church, like Ephraim, was a cake not turned.

And yet as we calmly look over this momentous
epoch, we cannot help being struck with the advance
that had been made. Protestant in the modern
evangelical sense the Church was not ; but how great
had been the progress in that direction.

Let the reader carefully consider these facts.

Twenty years before, the Church of England was
Popish to the core. The king was a Papist, the
clergy were Papists, the ritual and doctrine were
Papist. To human eyes there was not a principle of
reform that had a chance of foothold.

Twenty years of crisis and action elapse, and what
came to pass ?

The Church of England, as a Church, has thrown to
the ground one of the mightiest and most deeply
entrenched of the Roman strongholds, the supre-
macy of the Pope. It has snapped asunder the
chain of Papal bondage. It has crushed like a shell
the figment of Papal infallibility and appellate
authority. It has come forth into the liberty where-
with Christ set it free.

378 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

The Church of England, as a Church, has asserted
distinctly and finally the right of a particular or
national Church, not only to act for itself in matters
ecclesiastical, but even to formulate its own articles
of doctrine.

The Church of England, as a Church, in spite of
centuries of " Catholic " doctrine and practice, has
asserted the great Protestant principle of the right of
the laity to an open Bible, and the people's right to
read it for themselves.

The Church of England, as a Church, in spite of
centuries of " Catholic " teaching and practice, has
flung the gauntlet of defiance at Roman custom, and
proclaimed for itself the great Protestant principle of
the right of the people to worship in their own native
tongue.

The Church of England, as a Church, has not only
identified itself with the limited intention of those
Romanist Reformers who contemplated mere moral
reforms in the Church, but has passed radically
beyond them by adopting a series of reforms in
the things to be believed, apart from, and in opposition
to, the Roman communion.

The Church of England, as a Church, has declared
its dissatisfaction with the prevailing system of
" Catholic " worship ; it has pronounced time-
honoured religious customs to be superstitions, and
universally practised rites to be deceptive and
vain ; it has prohibited the observance of ceremonies
for centuries associated with " Catholic " ritual,
and ordered the celebration of certain services of
the Church in a manner altogether unknown at
Rome,

The Church of England, as a Church, is not yet

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE VIA MEDIA 379

reformed. It is not yet prepared to abandon the
so-called " Catholic " position in the great and essen-
tial matters of Roman doctrine. It is still halting
between two opinions. It is still in the via media
of Popery without the Pope.

Yet he will miss the most important point of the
Church history of this period, who fails to grasp
this great fact, which may be regarded as the
conclusion and epitome of the ecclesiastical events
of that transitional reign : That in the reign of
Henry VIII. little by little, here a little and there a
little as yet indeed, in germ, and iti limited degree, but
still certainly and clearly, with claim of right arid
authoritative sanctiotz, a number of those fundamental
principles of the Reformatioji have been asserted in
the Church, and for the Church, and by the Church,
which afterwards were to beco77ie in their full and
perfect development the distinctive Protestant and
eva?igelical principles of the Church of England ;
the supremacy and infallibility of the Holy Scripttires,
the necessity of common prayer, the danger of super-
stitio7is, the spiritual aspect of the Catholic Church,
and the right of every particular or Jiational Church,
not only to ordai?i, or change, or abolish rites and
ceremonies of the Church, but even to fornmlate its
doctrine according to God's Word.

The Church of England at the end of the reign
of Henry VI I L, to use Strype's great simile, was
in the twilight of the early dawn.

" The sun of truth was now but rising, and breaking
through the mists of that idolatry, superstition, and
ignorance that had so long prevailed in this nation
and the rest of the world, and was not yet advanced
to its meridian brisrhtness."

380 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

Or, to use the simile of One greater than Strype,
the progress of the Church before, and during, and
after the Reformation, was like the growth of corn,
first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in
the ear.

CHAPTER XIX.

CONCLUSION.

IT remains for us to summarize in this chapter
the results of our investigation of each of the
successive phases of the Church of England in the
pre-Reformation period.

In the first place, there can be no reasonable
doubt that during the first phase of its development
the English Church was a really independent
branch of the Catholic Church.* The early British
Church held the Catholic faith, observed Catholic
worship, and, though it was gradually tainted by the
general doctrinal corruptions of the post-Apostolic
Church, it was neither identical with Rome nor
subject to Rome.

After the mission of Augustine and the archi-
episcopate of Theodore, the English Church became
more and more identified with Rome in matters of
doctrine and ritual, an identification that was undis-
turbed by the political Protestantism of William and
Lanfranc, and the Parliamentary Protestantism of the
reign of Edward III. Up to the time of Henry VIII.
there was no demonstrable difference in polity or

* The word Catholic is here employed in the proper historical accept-
ation of the term, as it is used, for instance, in the Athanasian creed.

381

382 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

doctrine between the pre-Reformation Church in
England and the rest of Western Christendom.

In the theory and practice of the English Church
for some centuries before the Reformation, the Pope
was the acknowledged head of the Church on earth,
and the centre of Catholic unity ; and the ritual of
Church worship and the principles of Church teaching,
were the ritual and teaching of the Church of Rome.
Trivial and non-essential differences of detail and
ritual existed, but it is impossible to point to any
definite teaching of the Church of England as dis-
tinct from the teaching of the Church of Rome.

The incipient protests of Grosseteste, the more
enlightened protests of Wycliffe, and the treatment of
heretics by the English Church, are additional proof
of the ultramontanism of England's Church in its
constitution and principles.

In the earlier phases of the Reformation era this
identity remained unbroken.

The efforts of the educational reformers of the
Church of England were in no wise inconsistent
with the maintenance of Anglican identity with
Roman Catholicism. The Reformation polity of
Erasmus, and Wolsey, and Warham, and More, con-
tained no scheme of separation.

In the rejection of the Papal supremacy by
Henry VIII., the Church of England once more
assumed its long abandoned position as an inde-
pendent Church, and by the promulgation of inde-
pendent ecclesiastical enactments, and the publication
of independent doctrinal formularies differing from
and in protest against the erring Roman Church,
proclaimed at once its right to separate from the
apostate Latin communion, and to reassert for itself

CONCLUSION 383

the doctrinal position of the primitive Catholic
Church.

Yet in spite of the incipient reformation of the
reign of Henry VIII., in spite of the achievement
of AngHcan autonomy, the assertion of AngHcan
doctrine, and the adoption of AngHcan forms, the
difference between the Church of England at the end
of that reign and the Church of England now, was
fundamental and profound.

If we place the Church of England that now is,
side by side with the Church of England that then
was, the contrast cannot fail to awaken an impres-
sion of the essential difference in position, character,
and principles.

In the semi-reformed Church of England at the
end of the reign of Henry VIII. , the clergy were
ordained according to the matter, and form, and
intention of the Roman ordinal. They received by
the sacrament of orders the presumed grace of a
sacrificial character, and were made sacrificing
priests by the investiture of the sacerdotal vestment,
the tradition of the instruments, and the pronuncia-
tion of the ordaining formula : " Receive power to
offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate mass both for
the living and the dead."

In the Church of England now, the clergy are
ordained as priests in the Church of God to be
preachers of the Word of God and ministers of the
sacraments ; holy orders is expressly denied to be a
sacrament ; the symbolical accessories, the instituting
words, and the formal intention of constituting a
sacrificing priest are absent ; and the purpose, object,
and form of the ordination of the Anglican ordinal is
radically different from that of the Roman Pontifical,

384 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

being framed by men whose views with regard to the
nature and purpose of the ministry were totally
different from those of the Church of Rome.

In the semi-reformed Church of England in 1540,
the chief object of Church service was the sacrifice of
the mass. The sum of Church worship was the
visible offering of the sacrifice of Christ's body upon
the altar by the priest. The worshippers gathered to
adore a priest-made deity as a sacrifice for the living
and the dead ; and the witnessing of that ceremonial
as an efficacious offering for sin was counted the
chief part of God's service.

In the Church of England now, so different is the
doctrine and intention of the Church, there is an
intentional omission of the term altar; the sacrifice of
masses and the offering of Christ by the priest for the
living and the dead to have remission of pain and
guilt, are stigmatized as blasphemous fables and
dangerous deceits ; and two rubrics are inserted at the
end of the order of the administration of the Lord's
Supper or Holy Communion, one of which shows
that the administration of the Holy Communion is
not a necessary or indispensable part of the morning
service of the Church, and another which actually
forbids the celebration of the Holy Communion
unless there be a certain number of communicants.
The central object of the Roman service is the
offering and adoration of the mass sacrifice. The
central object of the Anglican is spiritual communion
with Christ at His table in the consecrated but
unchanged elements of bread and wine ; sacramental
adoration is declared to be idolatry to be abhorred of
all faithful Christians ; and any lifting up or worship-
ping of the sacrament is expressly forbidden.

CONCLUSION 385

In the semi-reformed Church of England the
doctrine of transubstantiation, or the change of the
substance of the bread and wine, was held de fide as
the teaching of the Church, and the denial of this
doctrine by a Churchman meant the penalty of death.
In the Church of England now, that doctrine is
expressly denied. It is declared to be repugnant to
the plain words of Scripture, to overthrow the nature
of the sacrament, and to have given occasion to many
superstitions. And, on the other hand, it is taught
that the body of Christ is given, and taken, and eaten,
only after an heavenly or spiritual manner ; that the
means whereby the body of Christ is received and
taken and eaten in the Supper is (not the hand or the
mouth, but) faith ; that men may take and eat the
sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, that is
the elements of bread and wine, and yet not eat the
body of Christ ; and that we may not receive the
sacrament in the mouth, and yet by true repentance
and steadfast faith eat and drink the body and blood
of our Saviour Christ (Art. xxviii., xxix., and Rubric
of Communion of the Sick).

In the semi-reformed Church of England, an
elaborate system of saint invocation was practised,
and the complicated doctrine of their adoration was
taught. The worship of the Virgin Mary, the inter-
cession of angels and archangels, and patriarchs and
apostles, prayers to the dead and prayers for the dead,
were inculcated as part of the Church's faith, and
believed and practised by the faithful. The Litany
alone contained no less than sixty-two petitions to
angels and archangels and departed saints.

The Church of England now has removed from the
Book of Common Prayer every trace of saint invoca-

2 c

386 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

tion and saint intercession, of adoration and worship
of the Virgin Mary, of prayers to the dead and
prayers for the dead, and teaches that the Romish
doctrine concerning the invocation of saints is a
fond thing vainly invented, and repugnant to the
Word of God.

The semi-reformed Church of England taught and
practised the deadly doctrine of necessary secret and
entire confession to the priest as a necessary part of
salvation, and indispensable to the reception of the
Eucharist ; excommunicated those who persisted in
its neglect ; and imposed therein works of penance
as a satisfaction to God.

The Church of England now repudiates this
doctrine ; it denies that penance (which includes
auricular confession) is a sacrament, and that works
of penance can give satisfaction to God ; it has
removed the mention of auricular confession from
the Prayer - Book, and taken from the rubric any
means of performing it.

In the semi-reformed Church of England the clergy
were compelled to be single, the celibacy of the
clergy being enforced.

The Church of England now teaches that "Bishops,
priests, and deacons, are not commanded by God's
law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to
abstain from marriage ; and that it is, therefore,
lawful for them to marry, as for all other Christian
men."

In the semi-reformed Church of England the
services of the Church were nearly all in Latin, the
mass service especially being always performed in
that language.

The Church of England now teaches that " it is a

CONCLUSION 387

thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the
custom of the primitive Church, to have public prayer
in the Church, or to minister the sacraments in a
tongue not understanded of the people."

The semi-reformed Church of England authorized
and performed an excessive multitude of dumb and
dark ceremonies in the conduct of public worship
and the celebration of the sacraments ; the use of
incense and holy water, the practice of extreme
unction and commemoration of the dead, kissing
the crucifix and chanting requiems ; and those cere-
monies which were performed at the ministration of
baptism — such as salt, oil, cream, spittle, candle,
chrism, and conjuring the devil.

In the Church of England now those dumb and
dark ceremonies are no longer countenanced ; and,
owing to the strenuous efforts of the reformers, all
that was pure, and Scriptural, and edifying in ancient
worship has been retained, while all that was false
or dangerous, as tending to superstition and error,
has been removed.*

The change that was effected in the reformation of
the Church of England is thus perceived to have been
no accidental or non-essential modification of the
Church's constitution ; it was a real and essential
change of the Church's form. The Church was
reformed. A distinct and positive Church position
was assumed. The via media was abandoned. And
the Anglican Church stepped clearly forth on a

* F"or a more detailed statement of these contrasts, the reader is
referred to my work, the "Protestantism of the Prayer-Book" (Shaw
& Co., London), especially to chapters iv., v., vi., and ix., where all
authorities are carefully cited.

388 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

decided ground, and took its stand as a reformed
and national Church upon the principles of the
Reformation.

There was scarcely a distinctive article of the
Church of Rome that was not distinctly denied by
the Church of England. There was scarcely a dis-
tinctive article of the reformed faith that was not
distinctly formulated as the doctrine and teaching of
the Church of England.*

The formulated teaching of the Church of England
with regard to the rule of faith, justification by faith,
the Catholic Church, the two sacraments, holy orders,
and Divine worship, was at once a reassertion and
reconstruction of the teaching of Christ and His
apostles according to the Holy Scriptures, in sub-
stantial agreement with the ancient doctrine of the
primitive Catholic Church, and the revised doctrine
of the reformed Churches ; and a dissent from and a
protest against the erroneous doctrine of the Church
of Rome.

As a movement, the Anglican reformation was a
revolt and a reversion. It was a revolt against
ritualism in worship, as embodied and practised in a
complex system of symbolic ceremonial ; and a rever-
sion to the simple, congregational, and edifying
worship of the early Church. It abolished the cere-
monial of the mass, worship in an unknown tongue,
and unmeaning ceremonies ; and established on Scrip-

* The contrast between the Tridentine decrees of the Church of
Rome and the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England is so pro-
found, that the impartial student will readily perceive that these authori-
tative teachings of the Church of England were not directed against
mere popular Roman abuses, but against fundamental and authoritative
Roman doctrines.

CONCLUSION 389

tural lines a form of worship that was intended to be
intelligible, spiritual, popular.

It was a revolt against Romanism in doctrine, and
" the whole trade of the Romish religion " as a system
of false doctrine and heresy ; and a reversion to
the pure foundation of God's Word, the teaching
of the Bible, and the Catholic doctrine that Holy
Scripture has been since the time of the apostles the
sole Divine rule of faith and practice to the Church of
Christ.

In this position the Church of England stands
to-day.

By a strange and wonderful series of providential
events in the reigns of Edward VI. and Elizabeth,
the Church's reformation was completed, and, by
the overruling hand of God, the principles then
secured, and the advantages achieved, have since been
maintained in the Church. When we consider there-
fore its degeneracy in the past, and review the weary
ages of its decline and fall, we must acknowledge that
the emancipation of our once Romanized Church was
the wonderful work of God, and declare with adoring
gratitude the goodness of the great Head of the Church

in effecting that transformation.

APPENDIX.

The following is the list of Works consulted in the
preparation of this volume : —

Collier — Ecclesiastical History. Edition MDCCXiv,

2 vols. London.
Burnet — History of the Reformation. 6 vols. Priestly.

London. 1820.
Fox — Book of Martyrs. Carters' Edition.
Milner — Church History. Nelsons, London.

MDCCCLIII.
Bright — Early English Church History. Second

Edition. The Clarendon Press.
Merle D'Aubigne — History of the Reformation. 5

vols. Carters' Edition.
Mosheim — Institutes of Ecclesiastical History. 3

vols. Murdock's Edition. Carters.
Bishop Short — History of the Church of England.

Third American Edition.
Perry — History of the English Church. Vols. L and

n. Murray, London.
Smith — History of the Christian Church. (Student's

Ecclesiastical History.) Murray, London.
Stubbs — Constitutional History of England. 3 vols.

The Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Green — History of the English People. Macmillan,

London.

391

392 APPENDIX

Green — Conquest of England. Harpers, New York.
Green — Making of England. Macmillan, London.
Freeman — History of the Norman Conquest. 5 vols.

The Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Froude — History of England. 12 vols. Third Edi-
tion. Parker, Son, & Brown, London.
Froude — Life and Letters of Erasmus, Scribners.
Bryce — The Holy Roman Empire. Lovell, Coryell,

& Co., New York.
Fisher — The Reformation. Scribners, New York.
Butler — Ecclesiastical History. 2 vols, Claxtons,

Philadelphia.
Southey — The Book of the Church. Warne & Co.,

London.
Massingberd — The English Reformation. Longmans,

London.
Martineau — Church History in England, S.P.C.K,,

London.
Wordsworth — Theophilus Anglicanus. Longmans,

London,
Cutts — Turning Points of English Church History,

S.P.C.K.
Jennings — Ecclesia Anglicana. Rivingtons, London,
Hore — History of the Church of England. Parker,

London,
Pennington — Preludes to the Reformation. Religious

Tract Society, London.
Beckett — The English Reformation. Religious Tract

Society, London.
Geikie — The English Reformation. Cassell & Co.,

London,
Blunt — The Reformation in England. Tegg & Co.,

London.
Hardwick — History of the Articles. Bell, London.

APPENDIX 393

Perry — The Reformation in England. Randolph &

Co., New York.
Hallam — Constitutional History of England.

Harpers, New York.
Kurtz — Church History.
Butler — Life of Erasmus. Murray, London.
Maskell— The Ancient Liturgy of the Church of

England. The Clarendon Press, Oxford.
The Sarum Missal. The Church Press Company,

London.
Lloyd — Formularies of Faith in Reign of Henry VIIL

The Clarendon Press, Oxford.
The Doctrine of the Church of England. Rivingtons,

London.
Stephens — Book of Common Prayer. Ecclesiastical

History Society, London.
Jewel— Works of Bishop Jewel. The Parker Society,

Cambridge University Press.
Coverdale — Works of Bishop Coverdale. The Parker

Society, Cambridge University Press.
Cranmer — Works of Archbishop Cranmer. The

Parker Society, Cambridge University Press.
Latimer — Remains of Bishop Latimer. The Parker

Society, Cambridge University Press.
Fulke — Defence of Translations of the Bible, The

Parker Society, Cambridge University Press.
Fulke — Answers. The Parker Society, Cambridge

University Press.
Tyndale — Doctrinal Treatises. The Parker Society,

Cambridge University Press.
Tyndale — Expositions. The Parker Society.
Tyndale — Answer to More. The Parker Society,
Stokes — Ireland and the Celtic Church. Second

Edition. Hodder & Stoughton, London.

394 APPENDIX

Barrow — The Pope's Supremacy. S.P.C.K.

Smith & Cheetham — Dictionary of Christian Antiq-
uities. Hartford.

Lightfoot — Historical Essays. Macmillan & Co.,
London.

The Lollards — Religious Tract Society, London.

Taswell-Langmead — English Constitutional History.
2nd Edition. Stevens & Haynes, London.

Wakeman — Introduction to the History of the Church
of England. 3rd Edition. Rivington, Percival &
Co., London.

Hooker — Works. 2 vols. The Clarendon Press,
Oxford.

Milman — History of Christianity. Harpers, New
York.

Heylin — Ecclesia Restaurata, History of the Refor-
mation. 2 vols. 1849. Cambridge University
Press.

Morley — English Writers. V. Cassell & Co., London.

Wyclif— Wyclif's Latin Works. Published for the
Wyclif Society by Triibner & Co., London.

INDEX.

A'Beckett, Thomas, death of
(1 170), 98.

Aelfric, successor of Siric, Arch-
bishop of Canterbury, 66 ; canons
or charge of, 72.

African Church, i.

Agatho, Pope, decides in favour of
Wilfred, 55.

Aidan, 36, 37, 38, 44.

Alfred, King, reign of, 73.

Anselm, 18; succeeds Lanfranc, 89.

Apocrypha, Wycliffe's teaching re-
garding, 168.

Archbishop of Canterbury, a Roman
legate from 1151, 1S9.

Archbishop Arundel and Statute of
heresy, 205.

Ariminum, Council of, il.

Aries, Synod of, 11 ; Archbishop

of, 33-
Arthur, Thomas, convert of Bilney,

269.
Asian Church, 24.
Augustine, advent of, 10; before

time of, 19 ; the time of, 33, 34.
Avignon, removal of Papal Chair

from Rome to (1309-1377), 122.

Badby, John, second martyr for
principles of Reformation, 207.

Bangor, churchmen of, knew noth-
ing of Papal supremacy, 54.

Barnes, burnt as heretic, 361.

Beck, Anthony, 125.

Becon and Bradford led to Christ by
Latimer, 270.

Bede, 16, 18.

Berengarius, French churchman,
opposes transubstantiation, 83.

Bible of Wycliffe, 160.

Bible of Tyndale, 271-281.

Bible in English and right to be
read. King's Injunctions, 329.

Bilney, Thomas, 262.

"Bishop of Rome" be expunged
from Prayer-Book, 293.

Bonner, Bishop, and Great Bible, 299.

Bran, supposed first herald of Gos-
pel in Britain, 10.

Ci^SARius of Aries, 47.
Campeggio, an Italian sent to Eng-
land by Pope, re Henry's divorce,

243-
Canute, King, restored Peter's

Pence, 68.
Cardinal Morton, Church under,

same as under Archbp. Courtney,

192.
Cedda or Chad, 45.
Celibacy brought into Church by

Lanfranc, Si.
Celtic Church in its infancy, 3 ;

formal organisation of, 10, 18.

395

396

INDEX

Chalcedon, Council of, 14.

Chelsea, Council of, 45 ; some mat-
ters at, 70, 71.

Church visible and invisible (Wy-
cliffe), 172.

Church and Sacraments (Wyclifte),
172.

Church of England and Church of
Rome, 15th century, as nation-
ally distinct untenable, 187/]

Church service, parts in English,
King's Injunctions, 329.

Church ultramontane, 1947^

Clovesho, Council of, 65 ; important
matters at, 70.

Cobham, Lord, a martyr, 207/.

Colet, literary reformer, 228.

Colman, 38, 46.

Columba, 17, 36.

Constantine, Emperor, 11.

Constantinople, Council of, 14, 16.

Council of Constance, decrees of,
211.

Coverdale, Miles, and Bible trans-
lation, 299.

Cramner, 343.

Cromwell's fall, 359.

Culdees, or ancient British Clergy,
20.

Damian, missionary to England,
12.

Downfall of Wolsey and of Clergy
during Henry VIII. 's reign, 246,
248 ; downfall of Pope in Eng-
land, 249.

Dunstan, growth of monasticism
under, 72.

Egbert, Archbishop of York,

received Pallium, 64.
Eleutherus, Church of Rome in

days of, 5 ; Bishop of Rome, 12.

Elfsy of Winchester, successor of

Archbishop Odo, 66.
Elphege, Archbishop, goes to Rome

for pallium (1006), 66.
Ephesus, Church of, 12.
Erasmus, New Testament in Greek,

219/; not a Protestant, 225 ;

was a reformer of morals, 227 ;

position of, re Church reform,

231/

Ethelheard, Archbishop of Canter-
bury, goes to Rome, 65.

Eynsham, Council of (1007), 73.

Excommunication, bill of, by Pope,
255-

Fagan, missionary to England, 12.
Faith in Christ alone (Wycliffe),

169.
Finian, Welsh churchman, 36.
Frith, John, of Cambridge, 2877^

Gallican Church, i, 16.

Galilean liturgy, 12.

Gardiner, Bishop, thorough Roman-
ist, 348.

Gardiner, Bishop, confutes papal
authority, 256.

Garret burnt as heretic, 361.

Geldas, 33.

Germanus, Bishop, 16.

Great Bible, 299.

Gregory, Bishop of Rome, 15, 33, 34.

Grosseteste, views of, 60 ; to be
honoured opposing the Pope,
106 ; addresses the Pope, 109 ;
died (1253), 114.

Habam, Council at (1014), 73.

Henry VIIL, a devoted Romanist,
against Luther, 239 ; of a despotic
temperament, 240 ; divorce of,
241 ; befriends the circulation of
Bible, 352 ; death of, 375.

INDEX

397

Heresy explained, i\of.
Hertford, Council at, 41, 46.
Higbert, Archbishop of Lichfield,
received pallium, 64.

Identity of Crown and Church

untenable, 187.
Injunctions, King's, 329.
lona. Abbots of, 18.

Jerome burned as heretic, 361.

Jewel, Bishop, 26; "Apology"
quoted, 2S6.

John of Crema, first legate to Eng-
lish Council (1125), 92.

Jutes, Angles, and Saxons, inroad of,
32.

Lambert burned as heretic, 347,

365.
Lanfranc, 18 ; in place of Stigand

as primate, 79 ; brings in tran-

substantiation and celibacy, 81 ;

opposes Berengarius, 84.
Lateran Council (1215), formulates

dogma of transubstantiation, 83.
Latimer, 29 ; conversion of, 266 ;

letter to King Henry VIII., 296,

297.
Latin not to be invariably used in

public worship of Church (Wy-

cliffe), 172.
Laurentius, successor of Augustine,

35-

Lindisfarne, island of, 36.

Lollards, accusation against, 178 ;
precursors of Reformation, 198 ;
facts of history re Lollards, 199 ;
protests of Lollards against Rom-
ish priesthood, 200 ; against
superstitions and erroneous prac-
tices and teaching of Church of

Rome in regard to worship and
ceremonial, 201 ; against Romish
doctrineof auricular confession and
Popish absolution, 202 ; against
transubstantiation as idolatry, 203.

London, Dr., a Papist suppressor of
monasteries, 305.

Lucius, British King, 12.

Lupus, Bishop, 16.

Lutheran conference, 343.

Lyons, Church at, 11 ; Bishop of,
12.

Magna Charta, foundation of
English liberties, 100.

Mathews, Thomas, " Mathews'
Bible," 299.

Metropolitan Bishops at Aries, 11.

Monasteries suppressed, 303.

Monasticism in English Church, 72.

Monument of Archbishop Chichely,
189 ; Bourchier, 190; Kemp, 190.

More, Sir Thomas, a literary re-
former, 229 ; refutes John Frith,
288.

Mortmain, Statute of (1279), 117.

National Church, and Nationality
of the Church of England, 185.

New Testament in Greek, Erasmus',
219/

Nice, Council of, 11, 16.

Nicholas!., Pope (866), 67.

Nothelm, Archbishop of Canterbury,
receives pallium, 64.

Oath, New, to Bp. of Rome, 253.
Oath of English Clergy to Pope, 242.
Oriental Church, 28.
Oswy, King of Northumbria, 40, 41.

Pardons, saint worship, and image
worship, and relic worship, super-

398

INDEX

stitions and unwarranted by Scrip-
ture (Wycliffe), 172.

Patrick, 17, 36.

Paulinius, first Archbishop of York,

35-
Peter's Pence, 6S.
Pope Boniface IX., and his bull

against the Lollards (1392), 21 1.
Pope Innocent VIII. issues a bull for

reforming Monasteries, 306.
Pope Julius II., in the days of, 5.
Pope Martin V., re Provisors, 184.
Prayers in Church of England in

English by mandate, 353-355-
Preaching revived, 326, 382.
Premunire, Act of {1353), 126, 127.
Primitive Church, 25.
Protestant, meaning of word, 50, 51.
Protests of Lollards, 169/;
Provisors, Statute of, 127.

Quakerism, or Socialism of Lol-
lards, 204.

Resistance of the Church Clergy

to papal demands, 114.
Ridley, Bishop, 28.
Rufus, William, succeeds William

the Conqueror, 89.
Russian Church, 2.

Sacrament of Lord's Supper
(Wycliffe), 173.

Sacramental adoration condemned
by Wycliffe, 174.

Sardica, Council of, il, 14.

Sawtre, William, priest of St. Osith,
in London, burned, 206 ; first
martyr for principles of Refor-
mation, 206.

" Schisma Papa:," tract by John
Wycliffe, 150.

Schola Saxonica, or Peter's Pence,

Scripture, Sole Rule of Faith (Wy-
cliffe), 175.

Siric, 66.

Six Articles, 351 ; the teaching of
the Church of England, 351 ;
declarations of, 352.

Spearhafoc, Pope refuses consecra-
tion of, 74.

Statute of Heresy, 205.

Statute of Praemunire, 182^

Statute of Provisors, 182-184.

Stigand, primate, removed, 79.

Supremacy of the Authority of the
Holy Scriptures (Wychffe), 167.

Swinderby, William, priest accused
of Lollardry, 178.

Ten Articles published, 303.

Ten Commandments to be repeated
to parishioners. King's Injunc-
tions, 331.

Theodore, Archbishop, 18 ; of
Tarsus, 41, 43, 44.

Tonstal, Bishop, denounced Tyn-
dale's translation, 275.

Toye's hindrance to Tyndale, 277.

Transubstantiation dogma not de-
fined canonically before thirteenth
century, 47 ; brought into Church
by Lanfranc, 80 ; formulated
{121 5), 83 ; doctrine attacked by
Wycliffe, 152, 153 ; Repugnant to
Holy Scripture (Wycliffe), 173.

Tyndale's English Bible, 271.

Tyndale, William, 271-279.

Ultramontanism of Augustine,
Wilfred, and Theodore, 62.

Westminster, Council at (1125),

92 ; (ii27),93.
Whitby, Conference at, 38 ; issue of,

39. 44-
Wighard, 40.

INDEX

399

Wigornia, protest of (6oi), 54.
Wilfrid, Archbishop, 18, 38 ; in

conflict with Theodore, 55.
William of Corbyle succeeds John of

Crema as Archbishop, 92.
Winchester, Council of (1076), 81.

Wolsey, downfall of, 246.

Wycliffe protests against Pope and

Popery, and the Church protests

against Wyclifte, 177.
Wycliffe, views of, 60 ; English

Church and, 132/.

LORIMEK AND GILLIES, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH.

Acme Library Card Pocket

Lnuer Pat. "Ref. Index FUe"

Made by LIBRARY BUREAU