Guido de Bres' Martyrdom: 31 May 1567, Another Reformer

We are thankful for this post on Guido de Bres. It raises questions for us vis a vis Edmund Grindal's endorsement, 1566, of the Helvetic Confession.

http://yinkahdinay.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/a-reformation-conversation/

« Children of God
A Reformation Conversation

Today is the day when Protestants all over the world commemorate the Reformation. For my contribution, I’d like to share a brief part of a conversation between Guido (Guy) de Bres and Richardot, bishop of Arras. The dispute was held on May 22, 1567 at the prison in Valenciennes where de Bres was being held prior to his martyrdom on May 31. De Bres tells us what happened:

*****************
About eight o’clock in the morning of May 22, the bishop of Arras came to me for the second time, accompanied by a great number of priests, churchmen, and others. After every one greeted one another, the Bishop approached me at the table and I was seated face to face with him and all the others were seated around the room. They had much to say on the topic of the Mass and the Supper. Their strategy was to put all this before my eyes so that I would approve their doctrine and then after their triumph they would use that to destabilize the weak in the faith, to have them abandon the true and ancient doctrine which I preached to them. At least that’s what they hoped to do.

The Bishop: Well, Guy, since we last talked together, how have you been? Are you in the same situation and holding the same opinion? Have you thought about our last talk together?

Guy: Sir, I praise my God and Father that it pleases him to bestow his fatherly mercy on me, consoling me and fortifying me in a marvelous way in my bonds and afflictions. I see and feel the strength and faithfulness of his promises for which I thank him with all my heart, praying to him to continue until the end of my life. As for the rest, I still feel the same and my situation is the same.

The Bishop: What? I hoped to find you completely changed, according to the hope which I expressed last time. Don’t you want to draw near and embrace an encounter with the truth? O Guy, my brother and friend, I beg you not to be stubborn in your sentiments and not to prefer your judgment to the judgment of the whole church and of many learned persons who were before us.

Last time we dealt with the sacrifice of the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Mass, which the fathers have said was in use in the time of the Apostles, saying often, “We offer,” speaking of the Eucharist. It is a wonder how you like better to believe a doctrine which began about forty years ago, produced and set forth by Oecolampadius and Karlstadt, who were its first authors. It seems better to me to believe the fathers who say the Eucharist is a sacrifice, than these others who say something to the contrary. I know well how you will respond to me. You’ll say that St. Paul said to the Hebrews that Christ offered himself only once. But my response is that in the Mass we do not make another sacrifice than the one he has already made. We do not make one today and tomorrow another. It is always the same one which we offer, not as he offered himself on the cross, for there he offered himself by presentation of merit, but we offer as ministers and executors of his Will by application of that merit. I am surprised how you find that so strange. We say that we offer Jesus Christ to God the Father for our sins. In your Supper, do you not present Jesus Christ to God for your sins? Do you pray that he will apply to you the merits of the death and suffering of his Son? Guy, my brother and friend, I beg you not to embrace your opinion. I am looking out for your salvation and your well-being. I desire everything good for you. I’m certainly not blood-thirsty, but one who wants to deal with you in all gentleness and moderation.

Guy: Sir, I do not know what hope you conceived for me last time. If you have hoped to win me over to your religion, I cannot help that. At any rate, I do not think that you have been given occasion for that hope. It’s not like you think. As I’ve said before and say it again, I have never been stubborn and close-minded against clear thinking and reason. But if anyone can show me from the Word of God that I have been in error, I am completely ready to give up. Up to the present there has been nothing of all that I have heard that would make me leave the certain for the uncertain. I still hold the same position that I did at the time when by quick testimony from the Word of God, you made me appear to be contrary. As I have said, I am not stubborn, and do not prefer my judgment to the judgment of the Church. But I do certainly prefer with clear thinking and just cause the ancient and early Church in which the Apostles set up all things according to the ordinance of Christ. I prefer that to the church of our time which is loaded with a vast number of human traditions, and which has degenerated itself in a remarkable way from the early Church. With good reason, I say, I hold to that which the Apostles first received. For Jesus Christ, in Revelation 2, says to those in Thyatira that they should beware of the profound trickeries of Satan, to beware of false doctrine. He says, “I will put on you no other burden, only that which you have already, hold fast to this until I come.” He would not have spoken thus if it would have been necessary to receive all the novelties which the Roman church has fabricated and daily put forth as a divine commission. Indeed, I honor greatly the learned and holy persons who have preceded us, but especially the Apostles and Prophets, and their testimony is certain and indubitable.

*****************
The conversation goes on for many more pages, mostly dealing with the mass. But here in this excerpt you can see de Bres taking his own stand on the Word of God, just as Martin Luther did many years earlier. Also noteworthy is de Bres’ appeal to the early church — it was always his contention that the Reformed were the ones who were truly in the line of the early church. He makes this case more fully in his book dealing with Romanism, Le baston de la foy Chrestienne. Today we may give thanks for what God did through de Bres and the other Reformers.

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

English Reformed: Archbishop Edmund Grindal (1519-1583). Pt. 1

The Remains of Edmund Grindal: Successively Bishop of London and Archbishop of Canterbury, Parker Society Series (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1843)

A word at the outset. Paragraphs throughout will not form well in this venue. Repeated efforts to correct them below do not take here.

This is a major primary work. This should be required reading at Anglican colleges and seminaries. It's not. You're on your own in the Anglican free-fall. But it is available. Free and downloadable at:

http://books.google.com/books?id=5xOYAWCNqSkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=edmund+grindal&as_brr=1&ei=LofrSqnjGoOwywSWvdCaDw#v=onepage&q=&f=false
The defining and most important secondary work on Edmund Grindal continues to be John Strype’s The History and Acts of the Most Reverend Father in God, Edmund Grindal. Everything Strype has written should be required reading for Anglican and Reformed Churchmen. Forget the seminaries, professors and bishops. They're clueless and yet, being clueless, choose to lead. Some or few of us are too mature to follow the recent clerks in the United States of America, in terms of the ACNA.

We have a saying, "Lead, follow or get out of the way." Since the ACNA leaders can't lead in terms of the Reformational faith, we can't follow. Ergo, even if there are but a few of us, they can follow. If there are obstructionists, like the Windbag and other fawners of compromise, they can get out of the way. Unfortunately, for Reformed Anglicans, we are on our own.

For a free, downloadable version of Strype:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Mp965368HU0C&pg=PA5&dq=edmund+grindal&as_brr=1&ei=LofrSqnjGoOwywSWvdCaDw#v=onepage&q=&f=false
There is an handy brief offered by our beloved Church Society, about the last quarter in England where the Reformed faith and old Prayer Book is still defended. We continue to praise His Majesty for the faithful witness of these Churchmen from England, through the decades. For a 2-page brief on Grindal, see:

http://www.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_019_Dethridge-EdmundGrindal.pdf

We’ll make general observations on his life prior to reading his work.

1. c. 1519 - 6 July 1583. Age of death, approximately 64. He is buried in Croydon, a suburb in what would be metropolitan London today.

2. An English Reformer. In sequence, a Bishop of London, Archbishop of York and then Cantaur, or Archbishop of Canterbury.

3. His predecessor is Archbishop Matthew Parker, whom we are reviewing separately.

4. His successor was Archbishop John Whitgift, author of the Lambeth Articles, 1595, that we believe should have been adopted, had it not been for Queen Exegete the First and Sovereign Theologian of a national church. This unreformed and uncorrected Erastian would be a ballgame with extra innings in church history.

5. Grindal’s early education began at St. Bees Priory under monks. Nothing like a good education with discipline. He took that discipline with him as he advanced through life. Get it when your young and not like old and ignorant; best to cure it when young (Eccl.11.9-12.1).

6. He was educated at Magdalen and Christ’s Colleges, Cambridge University.

7. He graduated from Pembroke College, Cambridge University with a BA and was elected a fellow in 1538.

8. He obtained his MA from Pembroke in 1541.

9. He was ordained a deacon in the national Church of England in 1544.

10. He was allegedly a Proctor and Lady Margaret preacher, 1549.

11. Nicholas Ridley, Master of Pembroke, elected Grindal to be the Protestant disputant during a visitation in 1549.

12. At the said disputation, Grindal showed signs of success. Word circled back to Nicholas Ridley, another hero of the English Reformation, so little studied in his primary writings. Again, Strype is an excellent and necessary secondary source.

13. Our Church Society article notes from Strype; “Before he came to be taken notice of in the Church, he made a figure in the University, as one of the ripest wits and learnedst men in Cambridge.”

14. When Ridley became the Bishop of London, he became one of Ridley’s Chaplains and gave him the precentorship of St. Paul’s Cathedral.

15. He was soon promoted to be one of King Edward VI’s chaplains and was given a prebendary at Westminster.

16. The Forty-two Articles were submitted to him and six other Churchman in October 1552 for examination prior to submission to the Privy Council. Anabaptists and chiliasts, e.g. Munsterites, are condemned.

17. Upon Queen Mary’s enthronement, Grindal made haste to Strasbourg. He then proceeded to Frankfurt, home to contentions between the “Knoxians” and “Coxians.”

18. Of note, at this time, Grindal was a “Reformed Churchman.” To wit, a Calvinist and Cranmerian on the Table. England was no place for a Reformed man during Mary’s wicked rule.

19. Knox wanted further simplifications of the 1552 Book of Common Prayer while Cox thought it adequate. Of note, Knox was not anti-liturgical.

20. Upon Elizabeth’s enthronement in January 1559, Grindal served on a committee to revise the liturgy.
21. He was elected also to the Mastership of Pembroke Hall.

22. He also succeeded the Papist Bishop Edmund Bonner in London, the famed inquisitor of numerous Reformers under Mary. We've recently been reviewing the trial examinations of (Archdeacon) John Philpott before London, Winchester and others.

23. Grindal, like other English Churchmen, had qualms about vestments and Erastianism.

24. In 1562, Grindal was a prominent churchman in the revision of the Articles of Religion.

25. As the Bishop of London, when the Helvetic Confession was embraced on the Continent in 1566, he wrote to Bullinger saying: “…down to this very day, we do perfectly agree with your churches, and with your confession of faith lately set forth.” He was a Reformed man, no question about it.

26. Grindal was not quick to help Archbishop Matthew Parker in persecuting or executing judgments against English “Puritans.”

27. Grindal’s successor, John Whitgift, however, was willing to go after nonconformists.

28. Bishop Sandys, in London, would face similar difficulties with obstreperousness and recalcitrance, “divisive men.” London was always the hotspot. Grindal went to York as the Archbishop.

29. Grindal attempted to enforce the “surplice,” but met with protest during his tenure in London.

30. Refusal to wear the “surplice” resulted in clerical suspensions. In 1570, Grindal denounced Thomas Cartwright to the Council.

31. In 1570, upon accession to the diocese of York, he did not have to deal with Puritanical puerilities about “surplices,” a childish point, but with Recusancy.

32. In York, however, he had to deal with widespread Romanism, still infecting the nobility and the rank-and-file Churchman. He enforced uniformity--Articles, Prayer Book, Ordinal, and Homilies--on the Papists with care and skill. He has been called the “gentle shepherd.”

33. In York, he gave instruction (called “advertisements”) to ensure that the Churches were decent and in good repair, for worship befitting the faith to be proclaimed in them. High marks were signalled from several sources, including his opposition.

34. Further, in those advertisements, crosses, candle sticks and altar stones were to be removed and destroyed, the latter being replaced by a “decent table standing on a frame for the Communion Table.” This was Bishop Ridley redux. All appearances or suggestions of the Romish Mass, so engrained in the nation’s conscience, were to be removed. (The Exegete herself did not follow these Reformed advertisements or rules, but had her "own" for her "own" private chapel.)

35. He was nominated to Canterbury in July, 1575, by Burghley, a gesture to conciliate the “moderate Puritans.” Burghley, Elizabeth’s chief advisor, advised Grindal to mitigate the severity that Parker had exercised against the nonconformists. It is to be noted that Burghley and Sir Walsingham, Elizabeth's spymaster, were Calvinists' Calvinists, notwithstanding Elizabeth's immoderate moderation.

36. Grindal ran afoul of Elizabeth the Theologian. She wanted “prophesyings” to stop. This was the equivalent of theological conferences or presbyteries of sorts sponsoring preaching. These were often held weekly. Ordained clergymen were the preachers and laymen were invited to attend. Grindal refused to suppress these events, thinking that they were healthy and that Elizabeth had overstepped her boundaries in church affairs. Grindal, as a good Calvinist, believed in the sufficiency, supremacy and necessity of God's Word as the food of he sheep. For that, he suffered.

37. In June 1577, Elizabeth the Exegete suspended him from jurisdictional duties for "disobedience." It was called "non-conformity." This was not about "surplices" but on the necessity of the preached Word. He held his ground; Scriptures were sovereign above the nation’s queen. Grindal thought these gatherings for biblical exposition were healthy and necessary. After all, he was Reformed and held to the Helvetic Confession although the nation never adopted it—to the Exegete’s discredit.

38. In January 1578, Burghley was informed that the Exegete and Theologian of England wanted him deprived. Grindal held fast for the sovereignty of the church sphere, something that redevelop in subsequent English history and the quest for religious freedom. She sowed the seeds of a Civil War, aiding and abetted by that hapless fool, William Laud.

39. Elizabeth was dissuaded from this course, but remained “iron-willed” about her own Majesty and quite errantly. We think her a solid queen, but she made some mistakes too. This much, she kept the Papists out of England and defeated the Papist Spaniards...otherwise, Reformed and Protestant English Churchmen might have been tour-masters on the rosary beads instead of students of Scriptures.

40. In 1581, four years after his suspension, the Convocation (like a national presbytery or General Assembly) petitioned for Grindal's reinstatement. They sympathized with his stand and position on Scriptures. There was a stalemate. Bess suggested he resign, but Grindal would not.

41. At the end of 1582, he was reinstated. Aged for those days and while preparing for the assumption of duties, he died and was buried at Croydon Parish Church. (Croydon, as a locale, would be in the suburbs of metropolitan London.)

Observations on the observations:

1. Archbishop Grindal was a Calvinist’s Calvinist, endorsing the Helvetic Confession of 1566. Contemporary Anglicans would do well to learn the Scriptures like the English Reformed and "upgrade" their essentially reductionist, accomodationistic, and inadequate Articles of Religion.

2. Grindal believed the Scriptures were above the Queen and necessary for the edification of God’s flock. End of the discussion. But he lacked the political power and suffered for it, setting a benchmark for the future.

3. The entire clerical-system in England was not Reformed and Erastianism still errantly prevailed, then as now in England. Switzerland appears to have had a freer hand in the Reformation than than taut and tight Elizabeth.

4. Grindal was a man of principled conviction re: the above. He held out to the last, although sequestered from service for years.

Correlations:

1. The Helvetic Confession of 1566.

2. The Scots Confession of 1560.

Applications:

1. Time for Reformational Anglicans to recover their Reformed roots.

2. Do not trust the ACNA leaders; they’re loaded with Tractarians who’d sneeze, guffaw, object, pout, and whine if the ACNA became “Reformed.”

3. Expect nothing like this from the ACNA.Hold fast to the truth on the Philpott-principle. When Bonner examined him, “But Master Philpott, all of us here, all these Bishops and nobility, yeah, all of England, are arrayed against you.” Philpott resorted to sufficient and perspicuous Scriptures. A Reformed and Anglican Churchman can answer with nothing else but this. Back to the Helvetic Confession, which Grindal affirmed was held widely in the Church of England (minus Exegete the First).

4. Steer young Churchmen away from the ACNA, lest they get a 1979 BCP and no Reformed theology. Better to have the latter, although we would lament the loss of a good liturgical program for prayer and worship. The Civil War ignorantly tossed the entire Book of Common Prayer.

5. Continue to speak about the Anglican follies and incompetencies. They'll never learn in the West.