We are at liberty in the Church of England to establish our own courts for ecclesiastical offences, but the punishment for heresy is neither the rack, nor the faggot, nor the block, but only deprivation from office after judgment has been pronounced to the effect that the conditions in which it is held have been infringed. It is open to us not to tolerate men who have made shipwreck concerning the faith, or who have fallen into some form of evil living entirely at variance with their Christian profession. The Church is justified in preserving its purity of faith by excluding offenders, but it is not authorised by the New Testament to compel by punishment the acceptance of its formularies. Its weapons against errors in doctrine or conduct which arise from pride, vanity, frailty, intellectual narrowness, or even self-willed prejudice, are in the first instance rebuke, exhortation and persuasion. The ultimate resort to excommunication and expulsion, whilst justified by the analogy of every well-regulated human society, are weapons to be resorted to with care, caution and reserve. Heresy-hunting has long proved an unprofitable game, because the heretic has so often carried with him the illuminating torch of new and wider knowledge. There is one short and unworthy method of dealing with opponents which I strongly deprecate. I mean that far too common habit of calling every man who differs from us, whether within our Church or without it, a sectarian bigot, and begging the whole question at issue by assuming that truth is wholly the possession of one side, and bigotry and intolerance the weapons of the other. APPENDIX F THE ENGLISH ORDINAL THE English Ordinal was not printed as part of the first Prayer Book (1549) because it was not put forth until 1550. In November, 1549 (3 & 4 Edw. VI, cap. 12), a commission consisting of Cranmer and eleven other divines was appointed to prepare one uniform fashion and manner for making and consecrating of bishops, priests, deacons and other ministers of the Church. Cranmer took the chief part, and the Ordinal made no provision for men in minor orders, such as sub-deacons, readers, etc. In the second Prayer Book the Ordinal was incorporated as part of the book (5 & 6 Edw. VI, cap. 1). The description of this book is "The Boke of Common Prayer and administracion of the sacramentes and other rites and ceremonies in the Church of England. London, 1552." In the list of contents we have "XXI. The fourme and maner of makyng and consecrating of Bishoppes, Priestes and Deacons. Ordination then is here regarded as one of the rites and ceremonies. This book was rejected in 1553 and re-enacted in 1559 (1 Eliz. cap. 2). The act describes the book thus: "The Book of Common Prayer and administration of Sacraments and other rites and ceremonies of the Church of England." Some months later, when arrangements were being made for Parker's consecration, the question arose whether the above phrase included the Ordinal. In a memorandum used at the time, various questions are raised about the whole position, and No. 5 is "The Order of King Edward's Book is to be observed, for that there is none other special made in this last session of Parliament." To this Cecil appended a note: "This book is not established by Parliament Querendum," i. e. the matter is one to be inquired into. As a result of this inquiry the commission for the confirmation and consecration of Parker contained a clause dispensing with any disabilities in the acts done by them under it.1 Parker was consecrated under the English Ordinal, which in the Canterbury Register is referred to as "published by authority of Parliament." The question was finally settled in 1566 by a declaratory act confirming all the Queen had done, and declaring consecration by the English Ordinal to have been and to be in future good and valid. Objection to these proceedings is taken by Roman Catholic writers on the ground that Elizabeth acted under authority vested in her by a recent act of Parliament. Remembering that Queen Elizabeth refused the title of Supreme Head and declared that the Church of England was to be ruled by the Archbishops, bishops and Convocations, let us see how Queen Mary acted under similar conditions. She inherited the title of Supreme Head and would fain have repudiated it, but dared not. Writing to Cardinal Pole in October, 1553, she says, "so strangely are the minds of the people prepossessed against the Roman Pontiff that they find less difficulty in admitting all the other tenets of the Catholic religion than the single article which regards the Subordination due to him. . . My fears are that they will obstinately insist on my continuing to assume the headship of the Church, but I am not at a loss in what manner to reply. . . . The title in debate does not agree with kings as the Royal State in spiritual concerns is subordinate to the sacerdotal and the jurisdiction of the body politic being of a different order from that of the priesthood their power dignity and functions are 1 "We nevertheless supply by our supreme royal authority acting upon our own mere notion and certain knowledge if anything in these matters according to our aforesaid mandate should be done by you or there should be wanting or shall be wanting either in you or any of you as to your condition state or faculties of those things which are required by the Statutes of this our realm or by the ecclesiastic laws made on their behalf." distinct; then there is a peculiar difficulty arising from my very sex to which nothing could be less suited than such a title and the extent of power annexed to it" (Poli. Epp., IV, 119). Much, however, as Mary disliked the power, she proceeded at once to exercise it, and the early ecclesiastical acts of administration done by her had authority in virtue of this power. She used the title of Supreme Head in official documents. A royal proclamation in August, 1553, silenced all preaching. She issued in March, 1554, her Articles as Queen of England to the bishops accompanied by a peremptory letter sent "by the Queen's Majesty's commandment." In December, 1553, a proclamation was made that no married priest should minister or say Mass. The legislation of Edward allowing the marriage of the clergy was at once repealed, but nothing was done to repeal the motion in favour of clerical marriage passed by the Lower House of Convocation in 1547. The Queen also issued a commission in March, 1554, to deprive three Bishops (Lincoln, Gloucester and Worcester, Hereford) on the ground that "both by preaching, teaching and setting forth of erroneous doctrine and also by inordinate life and conversation contrary both to the laws of Almighty God and use of the universal Christian Church (they had) declared themselves very unworthy of that vocation and dignity in the Church." There is nothing to choose between the two Queens, and whatever rights of the Church may have been invaded about this time, the Crown was equally responsible for the two sets of changes. On the question of the methods and causes for deprivation of the bishops of Edward VI's reign, I set down some acts. There were seven such bishops. (1) Ferrar of S. David's. This bishop was_consecrated by the pre-Reformation Pontifical of the English Church on September 9, 1548. He was deprived because he would not abandon the oath he had taken. His case is different from those of the other six who were consecrated under the English Ordinal. Six Bishops of Edward VI's reign1 Consecrated With regard to the above reasons "the defect of title" has reference to their appointment by Letters Patent only, under Edward VI. Three were judged to have displaced the rightful bishops. Queen Mary's commission to deprive the other three says nothing of invalid orders, but speaks only of doctrine and inordinate life, which, of course, means marriage. It is curious to notice that the Canterbury Register speaking of Hooper and Harley says nothing of nullity of consecration, but does mention this in the case of Taylor, whilst it does not speak of him as being a married man. What is the explanation? I can only suggest one. Hooper and Harley being married, this was one reason used. Taylor being unmarried must be deprived for other reasons. Three are given, nullity of consecration, appointment by Letters Patent and heresy upon the Holy Eucharist. The commission for depriving, we have seen, says nothing of invalid orders, and the entry in the Canterbury Register, though official, shows us the opinion of the person who wrote it but nothing more. With regard to what was done in the case of the English clergy, "many Edwardian priests are found to have been deprived for various reasons and particularly 1 See The Marian Reaction, by W. H. Frere, for the extracts from the Sede Vacante (1553-5) of the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury. |