Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

There was

ruler pursued his individual interests. steadily going on a process by which people who lived together and passed through common experiences, were combined by a consciousness of common interests. This was the process by which nations were formed; and England from its insular position was the first to reach this national consciousness. The Church, so far as it was the organ of the nation, passed through the same process. It was part of Western Christendom, just as England was part of Europe. So far as its institutions were part of a universal order, they were unalterable; so far as they concerned the relations of England to foreign countries, they were determined by national needs. About these matters Churchmen were not allowed to have their own way. The strongest instance of this is given by the events of the year 1428, when Archbishop Chichele was so pestered by Pope Martin V. to abolish the statutes which prevented the Pope from disposing of benefices in England, that he and the Archbishop of York pleaded the Pope's cause before the Commons. With tears in his eyes, the Archbishop urged the danger of withstanding the Pope. The Commons were not moved by his pathetic eloquence. only sent a petition to the Council representing, that the Pope had acted to the prejudice of the Archbishop, and of "our aller mother, the Church of Canterbury". They had their mother Church at home, and not even its Archbishop should induce them to diminish its independence, which was likewise their own.

They

I have tried to show you that the Church in England had its own history, and passed through its own

process of development. Some people talk sometimes as if it came into being as a branch of the Roman Church; or as if at some period of its history it was merged in the Roman Church. It had varying relations with the Roman Church, which were regulated, not by the claims of Rome, but by the advantage to be gained by England. I cannot put what seems to me to be the historical truth more clearly than in this form; the Church in England, while retaining its own continuity in all essentials, admitted the papal jurisdiction on grounds of utility, and then passed through a long period in which it discovered that that jurisdiction was dangerous to Church and nation alike.

187

THE ABOLITION OF THE ROMAN JURISDICTION.1

THE question of the causes which led to the abolition of the Roman Jurisdiction in England, is a subject which deserves careful attention on its own ground. It is generally regarded as an incident in a great movement which is called the Reformation, and is accounted for by reference to general tendencies. It is, however, well to deal with the facts round which those tendencies gathered. It is well to investigate what actually happened, before venturing on large explanations of great movements. Yet, as regards that movement which is of chief importance to us, the breach in the unity of the Church which took place in the sixteenth century, three large explanations almost universally prevail, and are freely used to interpret what actually took place. To its foes it was merely an outburst of lawlessness; to some of its friends, it was an assertion of free-thought; to others, it was a revival of a theology which had been long suppressed. All these may be true in their degree; I am not concerned to discuss them. But the question still remains, What actually took place? What were the immediate causes which led to revolt or secession? After all, there was as much lawlessness

1A paper read at Sion College to the Church Historical Society, 1895.

in the fifteenth century as in the sixteenth; there was as much freedom of thought actually practised; there was as much room for theological divergence. What were the points on which the existing system was challenged, and on which it refused to give way? A system which claims to be universal must be flexible, and must have a power of adaptation. It must be judged at a crisis by its refusal to explain, or to change. We are content to judge Charles I., not by reference to the beneficent or maleficent action of royalty generally, or in England in particular; or by tall talk about the advantages of liberty; or by the mistakes and misdoings of his opponents when they were in power; but by considering his own conception of the royal power, and the means and objects for which he exercised it. We pass our judgment by reference to our answer to the question, If this had gone on, unchecked, where should we have been now?

I should like to see the same sort of consideration applied to the events of the sixteenth century. Charles failed, and his opponents failed; and out of their combined failure, after a time of deadness, something more tolerable emerged. And so we can criticise, with reasonable equanimity, what was good, and what was bad, in all concerned. But in the larger sphere of ecclesiastical history, neither the Papacy, nor its opponents, entirely succeeded, or entirely failed. We still live in the same atmosphere of conflict, and are still beset by the same prejudices. We still discuss trifles as though they were of the utmost importance. Proof or disproof seems almost impossible. Con

troversy goes the same weary round; and no falsehoods ever seem to be exploded. The only way of escape is to put technical questions in their true relation to events. As legal points they may be argued interminably by skilful pleaders; but they were not raised as abstract points, and the verdict at the time was given on the merits of the case as a whole.

As a matter of fact, the movement of Luther in Germany took its rise in the question of Indulgences. The penitential system of the Church had become so complicated that no one understood it: its actual operation was by many thought to be both unspiritual and immoral. Luther asked that it should be discussed. He was told that this was impossible. When he persisted, he was threatened with imprisonment, or worse. Germany resented this treatment, and we know what followed.

case.

In England events followed a similar course, except that the question was raised by the King on personal, and in some degree on national, grounds. The question raised was that of Papal Dispensations. I think we have allowed this fact to be forgotten. Our moral sense is outraged by many of the details of the actual We judge them from our own point of view of to-day. On the mere facts, taken by themselves, we see in Henry VIII.'s action the wilfulness of a man determined to have his own way, where his passions were concerned. We feel sympathy for a Pope who was endeavouring to uphold the moral law. But these sentiments do not really touch the point. How came it that Henry VIII. should ever have enter

« ZurückWeiter »