The Church of England, Its Catholicity and Continuity/Lecture 2
LECTURE II
The Papal Usurpation.
Last week I traced the history of the first seven centuries of Christianity in our land. We saw how the Church was planted in England, and we watched it grow to what it was through many struggles and disappointments.
It is impossible in a few short lectures even to touch upon the chief outlines of all the events which have agitated the Church of England. To-night I shall have to pass over a good many years following the events related in the last Lecture. I will dwell more especially upon our struggles to resist the autocratic and domineering conduct of the Popes from the time of William the Conqueror's rule in England, about the year 1068, to the death of John Wyclife, 1384, who so persistently denounced and opposed the Roman Catholic claims and doctrines.
However, before I begin the special subject of this Lecture, it may be well to say a few words about the events which happened between the death of Archbishop Theodore and the accession of William to the throne.
After the administration of Theodore, the Church of England gained power and influence in the country. It bred and nurtured many men of world-wide fame. Two of them bare names which are household words. Caedmon, the monk of Whitby, is one. He it was who thought that he could not sing the praises of God in verse, but who, when he tried, found that his fellow men were entranced with his metrical writings of Scripture history. Bede, the scholar, priest, and abbot, is another faithful son of the Church. You have heard how we are indebted to him for his histories. You have heard the story of his persistent work even to the hour of his death.
There have been scores of such men as these since the days of Theodore, who worked hard for the Church before the time of the Norman Conquest.
As the Church grew in influence, it was recognized by the princes and kings of the land in their laws. Up to the time of Theodore the Church was allowed to work and live more as private societies than as a great national institution. But as the Church gained in influence, the desire grew to recognize it by the law of the land. We see it first noticed in this way as far back as 605, in the dooms of Ethelbert. But its position and power were much more distinctly recognized in the laws of Ina, king of Wessex, about 690 A.D., and of Wehtraed, king of Kent, in 696. The Church in time was freed from many civil burdens. Bishops were given a social position next to the kings and nobility. The people were the means of building many new Churches in the land. Kings gave money for this purpose from their private purses. So did many Bishops and nobles. At the time of the Norman Conquest there were probably more than two thousand Parishes in England. The clergy were provided for by the free-will offerings of the people, and by tithes given by rich landowners who left their property to their successors subject to the condition that they continued to pay the same tithes.
The general duty of the clergy in those days was much the same as it is at present. They had to provide for the Church services, and administer the Sacraments of the Eucharist and Holy Baptism. They heard the confessions of the people and visited the sick and needy, and performed the offices of marriage and burial. They were to see that the Church fabric, the books and vestments and ecclesiastical vessels were kept in good repair. The state of their parishes had to be reported by the clergy to the Synod held every year. They instructed the youths in the Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, and the Apostles' Creed.
As we draw nearer to the time of the middle ages, the Church of England began to decline in power and purity. The Monasteries, of which there were many in England, gradually became defiled, and the clergy were given over to licentious living. The monastic clergy, who were called the regular clergy, and the parish priests, who were called the secular clergy—because they often were married men, and sometimes followed a secular craft to gain a livelihood—were very frequently engaged in disgraceful feuds. The secular and the regular clergy of Canterbury were notorious for their disagreements especially when the subject of dispute was the election of an Archbishop to their See. All this, of course, helped to weaken the Church.
But another catastrophe awaited it. That was the incursion of the Danes. They began to come in the year 787. A section of them settled in East Anglia in 866, another section at York in 868. They followed the customs of the Saxons in their treatment of the Church. Scores of Churches were destroyed, and many of the clergy were butchered. The monks of Lindisfarne, which was one of the Bishoprics of the North, had to fly to save their lives, carrying with them the bones of S. Cuthbert, a former Bishop. The famous Monasteries of Wearmouth and Jarrow were destroyed. But I cannot stay to dwell upon these ravages. I will only mention further that a noble champion arose against them, the famous Alfred. He became a king in the year 871. One of his first acts was to defeat the Danes in a great battle. He could not succeed in driving them out of England. He therefore did what he could to make them his friends. By his means many of them were converted to the Faith and became members of the Church of England. Alfred's chief work of life was to elevate the Church of England to what it was in years gone by. He became a Christian legislator. In disposing of his money, only one-third of it did he keep for his private needs, another third he gave to the Church, and one-third he devoted to the wants of the poor. He purified the morals of his time. He gave to the Church the privileges that it had enjoyed from many of his predecessors. His work was very difficult, but it was a holy work.
I must now come to the chief subject of this evening's Lecture, and that is to show that the Church of England as a Church never, during the time now under review, and certainly never since, save at the time of the reign of Queen Mary, recognized that the Pope had the primacy over us. It never recognized, as a Church, I say, that the Pope was its head, and that, as a Church, we should obey or even follow him in his doctrinal innovations. Some men there were no doubt, members of the Church of England, who acknowledged Rome's demands. Some certainly did acknowledge the Pope's authority. But they were generally those men who had been educated and brought up under Rome and thrust into English Sees and livings through the diplomacy of the Popes. Many Englishmen had special regard for Rome, because it was the home of most of the culture and knowledge of those days, and they looked upon the Bishop of Rome as having more authority than Bishops of less important Sees, because his Church covered the bodies of S. Peter and S. Paul. But this is quite a different matter from thinking that our people considered that the Pope had a right to govern the Church in our land, or even had the right to demand our obedience.
We have to call to mind that, at the time of which we are now speaking, the papal pretentions were more fully developed than at the time when Gregory sent his missionaries to England. Several of the objectionable doctrines of Roman Catholicism were now coming into prominence. Such as the doctrine of the celibacy of the clergy, and transubstantiation. The Pope of Rome then, unlike the Bishops of our days or even Bishops of England at that time, maintained a Court not equalled in splendour and magnificence by any other Court of Europe. The Pope was a king. Yea, more powerful than a king. For the Pope made kings tremble before him, and humble themselves for his alliance and friendship. The papal power was also an aggressive power. It was as much its object to conquer countries as the object of any regal Court who made no pretentions to religion. That power tried to conquer England. It forced upon us its paid servants, and most unscrupulously did its utmost to carry the revenue of our richest Sees into its own coffers. It demanded money of us; and what was England to do? We were often terrified into payment, or else expect the Pope to send across a conquering army.
As Englishmen of note went to Rome, it was the object of the Pope to gain their favours by representing to them that it would be to their interest to serve his Church.
It was probably in the year 1027 that Canute went on a pilgrimage to Rome. His object in going there, he said, was [1]"to pray for the forgiveness of his sins and for the welfare of his people." He wrote a letter home, saying to the Bishops of England, as Mr. Hore expresses it, [2]"That he had obtained from the Pope an abatement of the expenses incurred by the Archbishop in obtaining the pall. He adjured the Bishops and Government of England to take care that all dues belonging to God, according to the old laws, be paid"; amongst which he mentioned Peter's pence. If they were not paid, he said, "defaulters would be fined according to the law."
We are now to pass on to see how the English nation and Church would tolerate this unwarrantable interference. We shall notice that even those whose sympathies were with the doctrines of Rome very often opposed the Pope's demands.
Dunstan is a signal instance of this. He was born in the year 924, and was closely connected with the history of the Abbey of Glastonbury, and ultimately he became the Primate of all England. In heart he was a Romanist. He urged on his clergy the doctrine of celibacy. He was a thorough-going monk, and he did not scruple to pretend that he had wrought many miracles. But when the Pope wished to interfere with the internal arrangements of our Church government Dunstan boldly defied his right. A certain earl had married someone outside the lawful degrees. In the year 970 Dunstan excommunicated him - that is to say, he deprived him of the privileges and the blessings of the Church. The Pope heard of this and sent back an order that Dunstan should remove the curse which he had pronounced. Dunstan said in reply: [3]"When I see the excommunicated person penitent for his faults I shall willingly obey his Holiness' commands, but till that happens God forbid that I should do anything to cause the nobleman to continue in his sin and insult the discipline of the priesthood." The nobleman ultimately repented, and Dunstan gave him absolution. Up to the time of William, [4]"England had always observed an independence of Rome," says Mr. Hore, "for which the Pope owed it no love or or gratitude."
It was about the time of William the Conqueror that the Popes tried very hard to gain a footing here. Let us now follow the history of this attempt.
The Popes watched the history of the world with eager eyes. As a matter of course, then, the Pope interested himself in the attempt of William to conquer England. Normandy, you must remember, whence William came, was at that time one of the strongholds of Roman Catholicism, and the Pope perhaps thought for this reason that he had a right to interest himself in this expedition, and even to give it his protection. But William knew quite well how to get along without his help. It is not my business to trace the conquests of the Conqueror, or to speak of the good which came to England from his labours. But I want to show how he defied the Pope, when that personage demanded William's obedience, as though it had been the custom of former kings to give this, and there had been no dispute concerning it.
William was firm in having his own supremacy respected, and once he asked the Pope to aid him in demanding this. He desired, on coming to England, to get rid of many of the worthless clergy, who had no virtue in them to recommend them to their office. He was certainly a religious-minded man. The Archbishop of Canterbury was one of these men, and it was to depose him that William appealed for the help of the Pope. In reply to this supplication, a papal legate was sent to England, with the commission to hold a Council to consider the subject. A papal legate had not been seen in England since the time of Ofa, king of Mercia, three hundred years before. The Council was held at Winchester, in the year 1070, and William was successful in his wish. This fact, of course, encouraged the Pope to impose himself on England. But at that time, remember, William was in a difficulty, and he only appealed to the Pope to help him to accomplish his own purposes. William's real mind respecting the Pope's authority is seen through other incidents. Green, the historian, says that with [5]"strictness William enforced his supremacy over the Church. Homage was exacted from Bishop as from baron. No royal vassal could be excommunicated without the king's license. No Synod could legislate without his previous assent, and subsequent confirmation of its decrees. No papal letters could be received within the realm, save by his permission. William was, indeed, the one ruler of his time who dared firmly to repudiate the claims which were now beginning to be put forward by the Court of Rome." These decisions, you notice, show that William took a strong stand against the Pope, and by this means the Pope's intentions towards England could not be realized before they would be stopped by William's absolute control. If William fought for anything, it was the insular independence of the Church of England.
When the famous Hildebrand was raised to the papal throne he renewed his Church's claim over our country. No doubt he was under the impression that England was under his control. He wrote to William demanding that his people should pay him Peter's pence, and, what was more audacious still, that William should do homage to him for his crown. This was the way the Popes had. If only they could succeed in making kings believe that the Popes were the lawful possessors of all kingdoms, and that kings had their right of rule as a gift from them, the whole world might then be made subservient to the Church of Rome, and the Popes might then claim absolute obedience and command enormous wealth. But William was not to be frightened by even an iron-willed Hildebrand. He replied to those demands, that he would not hinder his subjects, if they wished it, from giving the Pope his pence; but it was to be understood to be a freewill offering, and not as a due. But on the matter of his submission for his crown, he boldly replied: [6]"Fealty I have never willed to do, nor do I will to do it now. I have never promised it." And he added significantly, "Nor do I find that my predecessors promised it to yours."
Mr. Hore, in his history of the Church of England, bears out this same testimony. [7]"Papal letters might not be received into the kingdom," he says, unless William "had himself first seen them. No suit might be carried to Rome without his sanction, nor were papal legates allowed to land in England without the royal license. At the same time, he did not overlook his own supremacy over the Church of England; the Church might pass no new canons unless they had been first approved by him, nor inflict ecclesiastical penalties on any of the king's vassals without his leave, nor might any clergyman leave the kingdom at his own will."
The independence of the Church from Rome, which William so strenuously maintained, was also upheld by the Primate Lanfranc whom William had brought over to fill the See from the Continent. The Pope ordered Lanfranc to go to Rome to receive the pall from his hands, but we do not read that he ever went. And yet he was in heart a Roman Catholic. He was probably the first prelate in England to teach the doctrine of transubstantiation. He also favoured the celibacy of the clergy. Still the Pope's strong threat did not render him obedient. [8]"Hitherto," said Pope Hildebrand, "you have out of pride or negligence abused our patience. … By virtue of our Apostolic authority we enjoin you, that setting aside all pretences and insignificant apprehensions of danger, you make your appearance at Rome within four months." In case of disobedience he was threatened to be thrown outside S. Peter's protection, and would be deprived of the power of exercising his ecclesiastical functions.
Although these facts are true about the resistance of the king to the Pope's growing claims, we must accuse the Conqueror of bringing England nearer Rome and giving the Pope some show of authority here. The fact that he appointed such men as Lanfranc, who was a foreigner and brought up under the influence of Rome, to our English Sees and livings, must have increased the Pope's authority.
The successors to the throne of the Conqueror were by no means model kings. As far as their relation to the Church went, in theory, they believed in their own royal supremacy, over both things temporal and things spiritual. They used their supremacy so badly, that many of the clergy, in the choice of two evils, chose the lesser, and preferred to look for help to the Pope of Rome. Anselm is an instance of this, who succeeded Lanfranc at Canterbury. He was born in the very heart of Romanism, and was brought up, a great part of his life, in its Monasteries. It was with reluctance that he accepted the office of Archbishop of Canterbury. But as soon as he came into power there was a series of disputes and quarrels between him and William Rufus, the king. This king had greatly sinned against the Church, by using its money for his own private purposes. He kept the See of Canterbury vacant for several years, in order to appropriate its funds to his use. It is no wonder then that when Anselm came he appealed to the powerful Pope to restore the rights of the Church. Rufus tried his utmost to hinder this, as well as to prevent Anselm from going to Rome to receive the pall. Their differences were intensified by the fact that there were two Popes now claiming the supreme control. The one whom Rufus recognized was not the man whom Anselm favoured. Rufus desired that Anselm should receive the pall from him. Anselm replied that this was never done before. He fled from home, and the king would not reinstate him in his See. The Pope sent to say that if Rufus refused to reinstate the Archbishop he should be excommunicated. The only notice Rufus took of this threat was to reply that he would tear out the Pope's messengers' eyes if they should come to England. So they did not come. These events show you how Rome continued to desire a hold over the English Church. It was because such strife existed at home, and men were put into our Sees who had sympathies with, and sometimes a belief in the superiority of Rome, that in their difficulties men sought the Romanists' aid.
We now pass on to another reign. When Henry I. came to the throne he declared that he would preserve "God's Holy Church free"; and some time after this he opposed the introduction of a papal legate into England. This king, however, was compelled to recall Anselm to his old post. Then began another series of troubles, in which the Pope was an interested party. The subject of dispute now was over the right of investiture. This was a ceremony which put the Archbishop in the possession of the goods and chattels, and of the spiritual jurisdiction of the See. The king considered it was his right to give Anselm the archiepiscopal ring, and that Anselm should receive both his spiritual and temporal authority from him. In this matter he was upholding the law of his realm. He further said that it was his right to demand the Archbishop's homage for these benefits. The Archbishop considered the matter in another way. He objected to receiving his spiritual authority from the king. He, in fact, denied the king's supremacy over the Church, and preferred the authority of Rome. The other Bishops of England were astounded at him for thus opposing the law of the land, although it was known, of course, that he was a foreigner. This difficulty was settled agreeably; that Anselm should do homage to the king for his temporal power connected with the See, but that he should receive his spiritual authority from the Pope. Rome took advantage of this decision, and turned it to good account in years to come.
It was such discords as those to which we have now alluded which sowed the seeds of spiritual disease throughout the Church in Stephen's time. The Church of England was brought to a very low ebb indeed. It became a common saying "that Christ and His saints slept."
Now I must refer to another trouble which rent the Church, and led the nation to assert its abhorrence of the claims of Rome. This is concerned with Henry II. and Thomas à Becket. It may be well to give a few facts about Becket's life. He was born in London in the year 1118, and was the son of a merchant. He was educated by the Augustinian Friars at Merton, in Surrey, and afterwards in London. A portion of his life was spent in Paris, whence he returned to business in London. After this he took deacon's orders, and went to Bologna, Auxerre, and Rome to study law. He became a rector in London, and also in Kent. He was a prebend of S. Paul's and Lincoln, and Archdeacon of Canterbury. He was a great friend of the king, and became his chancellor. In his early days he upheld the king's judgment, and was sent by him in 1157 to Paris to negotiate a marriage for Prince Henry, of whom he was the tutor. In the year 1161 the Archbishop of Canterbury died, and Henry then wished Becket to fill his post; but Becket was not willing to undertake the responsibility. He said that his past secular life made him worthy of such a position. He further objected, because, as he said, he knew [9]"the very heart of the king; that he would desire authority in Church affairs to which, as Archbishop," he said, "I should not consent. I should either have to lose the king's favour or that of God." Apart from this, Becket was only in deacon's orders. All objections, however, were over-ruled. He was one day ordained as priest, and on the next day consecrated for the primacy. From that moment a complete change took place in his character. All at once he threw up his chancellorship; and Henry, to his surprise, saw in him quite a different man. He became most vigilant in all religious duties. He really threw off all his past worldly habits, and devoted himself to the matters of religion with vigour. Beneath his gorgeous episcopal robes he wore a shirt of hair, and on being prepared for his burial it was discovered that insects nestled snugly beneath it, and that they had eaten their way through his very skin and flesh. The king did not bargain for such a man. You have all heard Becket's subsequent history. The king and he were in continual feuds. Becket had to fly frequently from the land, and to stay away from his See for years together; and at last, when a reconciliation was effected, some other cause arose that led Henry to utter some hasty words about him in the presence of his retainers. They, unknown to him, escaped to England, made their way to Canterbury, and in the coldest blood slew the Archbishop at the Altar. One of the barbarous wretches, after Becket lay dead at his feet, clave the skull in two, and with the point of his sword scattered the primate's brains upon the pavement. The king did penance for this murder in the following months; and Becket was held in such estimation through this tragic end that, even up to the Reformation, pilgrimages of thousands went to his tomb for religious purposes. I cannot stay to consider Becket's Character further, or to estimate its value—a most interesting and profitable study—for it would take me too far from my purpose. Let us see what his struggles were with the king in order to illustrate how the papal powers influenced England.
Becket's quarrels with the king arose over the question—who had the right to punish offending clergy? The king said that the clergy who were guilty of crimes should be tried in the Royal Courts, but Becket held that they came under the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts. The King's ruling was against the law, as put in force by the Conqueror. From a moral point of view, however, he was in the right, for priests tried in the Ecclesiastical Courts did not always receive the punishment commensurate with their crimes. A great Council was held at Westminster, in the year 1163, to consider the burning question. No satisfactory conclusion was arrived at. This led both parties to appeal to the Pope and, as had often happened before, the Pope decided in the Archbishop's favour. This fact, you see, led to another forfeiture of our Church's liberty.
Such troubles as I have now related, in the year 1164 led to another important Council, held at Clarendon, where sixteen constitutions were drawn up, relative to matters affecting the Church of England. The general tenor of the articles was to restrain the authority of the Church, and to make the clergy punishable by the Civil Courts. But they also resisted and restrained the influence of the Pope of Rome in England. They reasserted the old principle that the papal interference should be opposed. Prelates were not allowed to quit England without the permission of the king. Becket seemed to play a double part in his opinion of these constitutions. He swears his consent to them, but refused to give his signature, and then he sought absolution from his oath from the Pope of Rome. As he heard the constitutions read, he declared that now [10]"Christ was to be judged anew before Pilate." Here I must leave this remarkable man.
It is now my duty to relate a very dark story in the history of the Church of England. I must relate events which roused strong men to attempt to cut short the evils which attended them. I am sorry to have to tell you how at last the Pope, for a short while, became the master of England. You perhaps know that we are speaking of the time of the weak and vacillating John. The reigning Pope at the time of King John was Innocent III., and no man before his reign had carried the papal pretentions so high as he carried them. [11]Innocent considered himself to be "The Vicegerent of God, that he stood between God and man, less than God, more than man." This Pope, we must remember, was quite as strong in character as John was weak.
Troubles now arose over the election of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The monks of Canterbury and the Church did not agree in their election of a man, and each party considered it had equal right to deeide the question. As usual the Pope was requested to tender his help. Through him, ultimately, Stephen Langton, a Yorkshireman, was nominated. John protested against the Pope's choice, and he vowed that Langton should not be elected. The Pope made reply that if the king were faithful to his word his kingdom should be put under an interdict. [12]"If anyone dared to put his kingdom under an interdict," burst forth John, "he would send them packing to Rome and confiscate their goods. If they were the subjects of the Pope he would pluck out their eyes, slit their noses, and so return them to the Pope." But in the face of this brave reply, in the year 1208, the interdict came, and it stayed in England for five years. The Pope had so many men in England obedient to his will that it was very fully observed, except in the dioceses of Winchester, Durham, and Norwich. What harm could this interdict do to England? It is best to relate the consequence of it in Mr. Southey's words. During the whole of the time just mentioned, [13]"No bell was heard, no taper lighted, no service performed, no Church open; only baptism was permitted, and confession and the sacrament for the dying; the dead were either interred in unhallowed ground, without the presence of a priest or any religious ceremony, … or they were kept unburied till the infliction, which affected every family in its tenderest and holiest feelings, should be removed. Some little mitigation was allowed, lest human nature should have rebelled against so intolerable a tyranny. The people, therefore, were called to prayers and sermon on the Sunday, in the churchyards, and marriages were performed at the Church doors."
In addition to sending the interdict, the Pope also excommunicated John, and threatened him with deposition from his throne. And he was strong enough to do this too, which John knew, and this increased John's fear. When John saw that the legate Pandulf had set foot in England to carry out the Popes threat, he was forced to submit to his will. It was simply a matter of the superior will of the strong Pope conquering the feeble will of the feeble John. The king was urged to resign his crown by placing it at the legate's feet. Then it was given back to him from the hands of Rome as a present; this act signifying that John held his kingdom as a gift from Rome; and that, therefore, all his subjects were also vassals of the Pope.
The worst part of this story has now been related. The manly sequel awaits our close attention.
The people, the barons, and the clergy, in fact the whole nation, were roused to the greatest indignation at this unwarrantable insolence of Innocent, and at the cowardice of John. They hated John for his obedience, Stephen Langton, the Pope's chosen Archbishop, played a splendid part. He headed the barons, clergy, and people; the nation joined him, almost to a man, and several Councils were called to consider England's doleful state. Meetings were held at S. Alban's as well as at S. Paul's. The king tried to dally with this movement, but he had no strength behind him. Only seven of his knights remained faithful to him. The result of this movement was the great English Charter, which was a monument of English freedom. It laid it down that the Anglican Church is free—the words are Anglicana Ecclesia—and it has its own laws and liberties, and we wish them to be observed. The decisions laid down in this document were confirmed several times in subsequent struggles in England. John was compelled to sign this at Runnymede, on June 15th, 1215, but his anger was so great that he actually threw himself on the ground and gnawed bits of sticks and straw in his rage. After he gave his signature, he immediately sent a letter to the Pope to say that he was still his vassal; and the Pope, in reply, pronounced the Magna Charta to be null and void, and he sent a bull to England denouncing it. He also ordered Stephen Langton to see that his demands be carried out, which, of course, Langton refused to do. Untold joy went throughout England when it was known that Pope Innocent was dead. He had done more than anyone else to bring England under the authority of his mother Church, and England could not speedily recover from the harm which the Roman See had now done to it.
I must continue to relate other troubles to show how the English people continually and persistently resisted the claims of Rome.
Henry III. came to the throne of England, and he was a Romanist. During his reign the papal imposition in England took a different and a more decided turn. Rome was now embroiled in expensive wars, and it was thought that part of the money to carry them on should come from our country. There were two ways of procuring it—by imposing taxes on us and demanding Peter's pence, and by filling up our rich Sees and benefices with foreigners, through whom much wealth might be taken to Rome. We cannot fully understand the misery caused to our country by these measures. The Pope had many men in England to help him in his plans. The Dominican and Franciscan Friars were active in working according to his will.
The nation ultimately raised a great outcry against these impositions. In the year 1231 a secret society was founded in England to oppose these evils. Letters were freely circulated which emphasized the evils, and this led to a widespread insurrection. The people [14]"Seized the tithes collected for the Pope," says Mr. Hore; "They trampled his bulls under foot. The barns of the foreigners were destroyed and the corn distributed amongst the poor, and the foreigners were in danger of their lives." The Pope denounced the secret society, and accused the Bishops of being members of it. The Archbishop of that time, Edmond Rich, was so disgusted at the king for allowing Rome to rob our Churches, that he at last resigned his See and spent the rest of his days in exile. What urged him especially to take this course was the order issued to the King by the legate of the Pope, that no Englishmen should be given any preferment before the king found three hundred benefices for the Romanists.
The spirit of opposition grew, and in the year 1245, a deputation, headed by Earl Bigod and several other barons, was sent to the Pope, to give him a description of their grievances, and to protest against his pretentions over England. These men complained, says Mr. Hore, [15]"That the English benefices were held by foreigners, men who could not speak English, and were otherwise incapacitated: that Italians drew above 60,000 marks annually from the Church, a sum larger than the revenues of the crown; and that this, coupled with the non obstante clause in the bulls, was an intolerable imposition. What galled them most was the annual payment of the 1,000 marks covenanted by John. They said that it had been protested against from the first, and that neither their ancestors nor themselves would endure such a badge of slavery."
The deputation returned from Rome without receiving any redress. The national cry of woe increased. Even the king was compelled to join in it. He wrote to the Pope, saying that if he did not listen to his people's entreaties it would be unfortunate for himself as well as for his Court. Part of the king's letter ran, [16]"Indeed, the English Churches are burdened with so many heavy provisions of this kind, that not only are the patrons of Churches, and those whose duty it is to confer ecclesiastical benefices, defrauded of their rights, but besides this many works of charity are given up. For these benefactions, which are usually charitably bestowed on religious houses for their sustentation, and almost all others, are exhausted by your provisions."
The Pope, however, seeing that he had so much strength behind him, could afford to laugh at Henry. No change was made. A proclamation was then issued, saying that not a penny should be given to Rome; but at the last moment the king's courage failed to carry this out, and England was burdened heavier than before.
Listen for a moment to the account of England's wretchedness from these extortions, as given by a writer of the time. [17]"Every day," said Matthew Paris, "illiterate persons of the lowest class, armed with bulls from Rome, burst forth into threats, and despite the privileges enjoyed by our holy predecessors, feared not to plunder the revenues which our pious forefathers had assigned for the maintenance of the religious, the support of the poor, and the sustaining of strangers; for thundering out their decrees of excommunication they made no delay in taking what they demanded by force. And if those who suffered wrong, or were plundered, took refuge in an appeal, or in their privileges, they at once suspended and excommunicated them through some other prelate, under power of a writ from the Pope."
The spirit of the nation, then, continued to be roused. Some men were bold enough to defy the Pope. The Bishops of London and Worcester refused to pay him his demands. A consultation was held by the prelates in London on the matter of giving the first-fruits of their Sees to Rome, and after they had carefully deliberated upon the matter, says a contemporary writer, [18]"Bishop Fulk, of London, said, with a long drawn sigh, 'Rather than willingly subject our great Church to slavery, wrong, and intolerable oppression, I will lose my head.' On seeing his determination, Bishop Walter, of Worcester, loudly exclaimed, 'And I will be hung, rather than see Holy Church so ruined.'"
In considering the national movement against the imposition of the Pope, we must mention another champion of the people's cause—Robert Grosseteste, the Bishop of Lincoln. He had occasion to go to Rome to consult the Pope on some difficulties at home. While there his eyes were opened to the grave harm Rome was doing to the Church of England. When he found that money was needed before he could receive advice, he called out in the presence of the Pope, [19]"O money, money, what power thou hast, especially in the Court of Rome." This led him to resist with all his will the Roman claims on England when he returned home. [20]"From 1247 he waged a ceaseless war against the attempts of the Pope to tax the English clergy on behalf of the private needs of the Roman See, and to provide for foreign ecclesiastics by conferring on them English offices and benefices, of which, in many cases, the duties were beyond their powers or outside their intentions. … He traced all the evils of the Church to the corruption of the Curia and the greed and avarice of the Romans."
In the year 1253, Grosseteste most boldly and righteously opposed the Pope in another matter. The Pope ordered him to install his nephew, a mere boy who was not even in Holy Orders, into a canonry. He absolutely refused to do so, or as he himself expressed it, he "filially and obediently refused to obey."[21] The letter in which the refusal was conveyed spoke out strongly against the Pope's wickedness.
[22]"Those are guilty," he said, "who receive the profits without performing the sacerdotal office. Those who appoint such unqualified persons are most to blame, especially in proportion to their high station. The Holy Apostolic See, which has received its authority for edification and not for destruction, can never countenance such a horrible prevarication which would amount to a forfeiture of its authority; indeed, such persons might be said to sit in the chair of pestilence with the devil and antichrist."
I think you will now acknowledge that I have said quite enough to show you how the English people opposed the claim of Rome over them, enough to show that Englishmen did not recognize that the Pope of Rome had legal authority in our land.
I could give you many other instances to bear out this testimony.
I must beg to crave your attention a little longer in order to refer to a couple more attempts on the part of Englishmen, before the Reformation, to cast off the power of the Popes of Rome.
The first of these attempts was headed by Simon de Montfort, and the other by the great John Wycliffe.
The country was so roused up by the papal impositions, that in the year 1258 the barons again determined to make a stand for liberty. There was a civil war. At the head on the one side was De Montfort, and the king on the other side to light the cause of the Pope. Simon de Montfort called a Parliament together at Westminster, and he was well supported by the clergy, and this shows whether the Church was papal then. Thirteen Bishops, four deans, sixty-five abbots, and thirty-five priors, all attended this Parliament. In 1264 De Montfort, having gathered a great army around him, met the king's forces at Lewes. He defeated them, and took the king and his son prisoners. He now, in everything except the name, was king of England. But the other party had a turn in their affairs. On August 24th, 1165, De Montfort was met in battle by the young Prince Edward, and both he and his son were slain. Thus the national cause for a while was lost again. The Pope became more triumphant than ever.
Edward I., however, on coming to the throne continued Simon de Montfort's work. Following his example, he called together a Parliament, 1295, where the clergy were represented, and in which the nation could air their grievances and legislate accordingly. It was at first called to raise money for the king's wars, but it also led to a series of oppositions to the Pope's power. Petitions were presented to Parliament complaining of Rome's impositions. The complaint was made again that the Sees and livings in England were conferred upon Italians, who never resided in the country. Complaints were made of the payment of first-fruits of vacant benefices to Rome; "A thing never heard of before," they said. Objection was raised to the payment of Peter's pence, which now was treble the original amount. A declaration was drawn up in the House, saying that these [23]"grievances, oppressions, and extortions should no longer be permitted in the king's domains." The clergy, however, were afraid of a repetition of such experience as John had brought upon them through the interdict.
The Papal Power at this time was at its height, and internal divisions were bringing about its fall.
From the years 1309-1377 there were rival Popes, one of them holding his Court at Avignon. But the papists did not, in their troubles, lose sight of England. John XXII. sent further demands for money. Parliament said, in reply, "They neither could nor would tolerate such a state of things any longer." What was the state of things which they would not tolerate? You may gather it from the following facts: Between the years 1317-34 [24]Pope John, more than once, appointed men on his own authority to the English Sees of Worcester, Lichfield, Hereford, and Durham; to Rochester, Lincoln, Winchester, Carlisle, Norwich, Exeter, and Bath and Wells. Besides this he often appointed men to vicarages and rectories.
Such facts helped to lead, in the year 1351, to another great English Act—The Statute of Provisors. This declared [25]"That if the Pope collated to any ecclesiastical benefice, or dignity in England, the collation was to escheat to the crown for that term." Anyone who procured "reservations or provisions from the Pope should, on conviction, be fined and imprisoned!" What answer did the Pope give to this? His demands were only increased.
In 1365 a further command was given for the payment of 1,000 marks which had been promised by King John, and thirty-three years' arrears were ordered to be paid as well. The English people decided that neither John nor any other of their kings could bring the English under such servitude and subjection without the consent of Parliament. And this consent, they said, had never been given. That money should be paid to Rome, they added, was contrary to John's coronation oath. In consequence of the demand the king was strong enough to stop the payment of Peter's pence to Rome, and after this, says Professor Green, [26]"The claim of papal lordship over England was never heard of again." This statement, however, is rather premature.
And now, in the last place, I must make only a short reference to the work of John Wycliffe, the "Morning Star of the Reformation," as he has been called. His date extends from 1324-1384. His early days are wrapped in much obscurity. We know most about his life at Oxford as student, graduate, fellow, and professor. He received Holy Orders, and became rector of Fellingham, in Lincolnshire; of Ludgershall, in Bucks; and Lutterworth, where he ended his days. Wycliffe's work, of course, was to oppose the principle of the Romanists that the Pope had supreme spiritual authority in England. But it is nor this that he is chiefly famed, but for an entirely new line of attack upon the papacy. He condemned the morals and the doctrines of the upholders of the See of Rome. He inquired into the evil lives of the friars, of whom there were many in England in his days. It was when Wycliffe was a leader in Oxford that he discussed the doctrine of transubstantiation, and preached against the celibacy of the clergy, and showed the evils attendant upon the papal practices. He appealed for his authority in his teaching to the Holy Scriptures, and he defied anyone to show him that the peculiar papal principles could be proved from their pages. Wycliffe, then, please observe, preceded Luther in his chief contention that the Bible should be the final Court of Appeal in matters referring to the religious life. He thought that no better course could be followed; no better work would be done than that of placing in the people's hands the Holy Scriptures. With this object he produced several translated versions of the Bible, and he appointed his poor friars to go through the country to make it known to even the boy who drove the plough. I expect you know something about the troubles through which they passed. You have heard of Wycliffe's persecutors. But this man had a work to do, and he did it manfully in spite of anathemas from Rome, and in spite of discouragement and opposition from home.
Now to-night I have had to pass through a long range of subjects, and I fear that it may have wearied some of you. But it was most important that an overwhelming mass of facts should have been placed before your attention, in order to convince you that the Church of England before the Reformation was not really the Church of Rome. What have you learnt to-night? Certainly that England did not recognize that the Pope was their lord and master, their Spiritual Father before the Reformation.
The Church of England, as a Church, was not a papal Church in the years we have had under our review. Had it been a papal Church you would not have seen so many national movements to curb the Pope's authority. Had it been a papal Church no doubt would have been raised respecting the Pope's right of spiritual lordship. What you have learned to-night is that the Popes of Rome tried their utmost to subjugate England to their will, and to make our Church subservient to their aims. You have learnt also that Rome sowed the seeds of strife, which were not destroyed till after the age of the Reformation. England before the Reformation was not strong enough to deal effectually with the Popes and their cautious emissaries. It had to tolerate the aggressions of a despotic master, and to be content merely with feebly objecting to his conduct, and with expressions of disapproval and contempt.
Next week I hope to speak on that movement known as the Reformation.
- ↑ Hore, p.91. Ibid.
- ↑ Hore, p.92. Ibid.
- ↑ Quoted by Hore, p.87. Ibid.
- ↑ Hore, p.95.
- ↑ Short History (Edition 1882), p.82.
- ↑ Green, p.83.
- ↑ p.104. Ibid.
- ↑ Quoted by Hore, p.105.
- ↑ Lane, Church History Notes, p.191. Early Period (S.P.C.K.)
- ↑ Hore, p.133. Ibid.
- ↑ See Hore, p.143. Ibid.
- ↑ Hore, p.145. Ibid.
- ↑ Book of the Church, p.157. (Fifth edition).
- ↑ p.160. Ibid.
- ↑ p.162-3.
- ↑ The Misrule of Henry III., p.80. English History from Contemporary Writers.
- ↑ p.25. Ibid.
- ↑ Simon de Montfort and his Cause. p.59-60.
- ↑ Misrule of Henry III., p.132.
- ↑ Ibid. p. 153
- ↑ Hore. p.167.
- ↑ Ibid, p.166. See p.30-31, Simon de Montfort and his Cause. English History from Contemporary Writers.
- ↑ Hore, p.179.
- ↑ See Hore, p.181.
- ↑ Hore, p.184.
- ↑ See Hore, p.185.