Archbishop Matthew Parker (Part One)

Archbishop Parker by William Paul McClure Kennedy (London: Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons, Ltd., 1908).

The story about Archbishop Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, Queen Elizabeth I’s first archbishop, and the author of the Thirty-nine Articles.

Kennedy’s preface notes that the 17th century historian, John Strype, remains the chief reference and document for a study on Archbishop Matthew Parker’s diocesan and arch-episcopal primacy in the English Church. The author indicates that Parker steered between the old Marian and the new Genevan factions, designated as the “old” and “new” religions respectively.

The general titles from this book about an Archbishop of Canterbury covers: the Reformation generally, his boyhood days (1504-1521), his days Cambridge (1521-1535), Stoke-by-Clare and Corpus Christi, Cambridge (1535-1447), the Reformed ascendancy (1547-1553), Marian reaction, opening days and months of Elizabeth’s supremacy and uniformity, the early days of Parker’s work, the old and new religions, Parliament and Convocation (1563), Parker’s diocese, the Puritans, the 1566 Crisis, Failure of the Recusants, The New Puritans, Parliament and Convocation of 1571, and his closing years.

The Reformation introduced major and minor discussions and sometimes it is difficult to distinguish them, according to Kenney. Much debate was extended about the cassock and surplice, as well as kneeling at the communion which are deemed minor matters.
Some have viewed the English Reformation as a child of the German and Swiss Reformed communities, which Kennedy diminishes. Others, proud Englishmen, see the English Reformation as the means whereby the Gospel could be extended to the world. Mr. Kennedy notes that the Reformation was a “question of degree” rather than of “kind,” akin to the reforms of the devotion of Francis or Dominic. Kennedy’s agenda is suggested at the outset.

Rome must own a major role for the Reformation. “The whole system of Church Law had become a mere farce “with indulgences and dispensations” reducing redemption and ecclesiology to economics. Many monastic houses had degenerated. The See of Rom “produced such a religious system of Church government that the individual tended more and more to degenerate into an insignificant part of a vast and ruthless machine.” Kennedy also deals with the hypocrisy and politics involved in Henry VIII’s divorce, noting that Rome had created loopholes in other cases; his argument was that the Pope was more concerned about other things than Henry’s marriage, such as the maintenance of the balance of power in Europe between contending forces as well as currying the favour of the Spaniard, Charles V.

The Renaissance played role as well, setting the individual towards independence. This touched all nations, but had different geographical emphases, e.g. Italy versus England. The tension—individualism versus corporate life—was evident in the “via media,” according to Kennedy, although his comments read as “too modern” rather than “in depth” from the primary sources.

Kennedy suggests that the “transitional period” should not be viewed as normative, ssuming he is referring to the Elizabethan period. Kennedy never refers to Scripture, theology or the history of doctrines here. The way to assess this period is with the benefits of later historical periods we are told; this is helpful, but it also betrays Kennedy’s orientation, to wit, a lack of understanding the dynamic and governing role of Scripture during the Reformation.
Abuses were on offer during the Henrician period; scholars at both Cambridge and Oxford had called attention to them, as had Wycliffe of old; these scholars began to study theology and moral questions prior to the rupture with Rome.

The Tudors regrettably claimed “Headship” in the Church of Christ. This would prove to have historical consequences for England. Yet, as Kennedy notes, this held the Church together also. Kennedy claims that the Edwardian and Marian factions and reactions to them were “as much as any theological reasons to build up the Anglican position.” Royal supremacy under Elizabeth helped to reign in the individualism, we are told. We are told that the Reformation would hardly have advanced without the support of varied civil sovereigns, the Tudors included.

Parker, we are told, understood the dangers of “over definitions” respecting the Eucharist, not just in the Reformation, but from the Lateran and medieval councils. We will need to review the primary evidence prior to accepting this assertion by Kennedy. It has the whiff of revisionistic history. Parker understood the early church, understanding that the Reformers attempting definitions where the early fathers were silent or left things to mystery.

The boyhood of Matthew Parker is largely unknown (1504-1521). No records remain of his early years at Norwich. He was born on 6 August, 1504, affiliated with the parish of St. Saviour, Norwich. It would appear that the family had no connections to the Reformation until Matthew attended Cambridge.

Parker’s day coincides with the age of Cardinal Wolsey. English religion “shared in the common decline” along with the “growing decay of the chantry priest and the monastery.” Lack of energy was betrayed by an “elaborate outward appearance.” Yet, the vast majority of the nation held to medieval Romanism; Parker may have known of Wolsey since he visited Norwich several times.

Parker was sent to Cambridge in September 1521, being educated at St. Mary’s Hostel and partly at Corpus Christi, Cambridge. He took tutelage under a Robert Cowper, who favoured reforms. This may account for a large number of Reformers at Corpus Christi. He may have encountered Sir William Cecil who was a year or two his senior. Parker earned his B.A. in 1524 and, by 1527, was ordained a deacon and priest with an election to a fellowship. About this time, Wolsey invited Parker to join the new Cardinal College, Oxford. Parker refused this and “devoted himself to Scriptural and Patristic study, going through all the orthodox fathers and decrees of all the councils.” As such, Parker was able to weigh the views of the returning Marian exiles.

Erasmus had brought new thoughts and debates to Cambridge as the Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity (1511-1514). This was another force in the orbit of the English Reformation.
Peter de Valance at Cambridge and Luther at Wittenburg had openly defied the papal system of indulgences by which the Roman coffers were enlarged at the expense of the poor. Cambridge “became identified with the ultra-reformers of the Continent.”

Thomas Bilney, a scholar at Trinity Hall, was one of the foremost reformers. Robert Barnes, Prior of the Augustinian friars at Cambridge, and George Stafford, fellow of Peterhouse, broke the medieval model by “publicly lecturing on the Scriptures to large and enthusiastic audiences.”

Due to the commercial connection between East Anglia and Germany, the works of Luther entered the country and Cambridge. In 1521, Luther’s works were ordered to be burned in London. This only strengthened the Reformed elements.

The White Horse Inn at Cambridge “became the central meeting place of the reformers, and before long it was an open secret in the University that the object of their meetings was to study Luther’s writings.” Hence, the sobriquets “Little Germany” and the “Germans” were applied to the White Horse Inn and its scholars. Barnes was the president, but Bilney “formed the central attraction.” Some of the most learned men in England gathered for these discussions. One such scholar was Matthew Parker, “who came to the debates better equipped than many of his fellows.”

Converts to Lutheranism were in the making. Kennedy appears to distance Parker and the Cambridge reformers from Wittenburg without much evidence as than his say-so. This much: medieval schoolmanship had changed. Kennedy tells us that these Reformers left “behind them pickaxes and spades and all the appendages of assault, which in their turn proved no small objects to surmount. But they were pioneers, and, generally speaking, their mistakes were those of enthusiasts who wished to press home the attack on the most vulnerable points of popular religious teaching.”

Wolsey took action against the Reformers, especially after Barnes’ heated Christmas Day sermon, 1525. A commission was set up to examine Cambridge, collect Lutheran materials and bring Barnes to London for imprisonment.

Latimer replaced Barnes at Cambridge. Bilney, Latimer and Parker were close friends throughout this period.

Parker had small use for any Continental or English hothead that ran roughshod over Scripture or Church history—or so we are told by Kennedy. Then, we get a mini-brief on the exaggerations of enthusiast reformers. PV—has he read Calvin? What antecedents are under review? We are not told. Mr. Kennedy says, “Few of the reformers brought to their task minds trained in accurate study, and sufficiently disciplined to enable them without bias to manipulate what was often a considerable weight of learning.” Page 55 is Mr. Kennedy’s sheer revisionism and, on the merits of this section, deserves dismissal.

Parker is painted a man who avoided the extremes of Reformation. He was known popularly for his preaching, in and around Cambridge. In 1533, Cranmer licensed Parker to preach in the southern province. Parker must have acquiesced and preached--as a licensed preacher and as required—the Royal Injunctions of 1536.

The Ten Articles were passed and enforced. The grounds of the faith were the Bible, Creeds, four Councils, and patristic tradition not contrary to Scripture. Baptism, Eucharist and Presence were laid down as necessary to salvation. Though not necessary, many things were approved: invocation, purgatory and correct use of images, rites and ceremonies. This combined the old and the new.

Parker was also appointed as a chaplain to Queen Anne Boleyn. He rather preferred the life of the student rather than a position such as this, with its attendant responsibilities.
Stoke-by-Clare and Corpus Christi, Cambridge, 1535-1547

In 1535, Queen Anne presented the deanery of St. John the Baptist, Stoke-by-Clare, Suffolk, some twenty miles from Cambridge. There was a Dean, six secular canons, eight vicars, five choristers, four clerks, a music master and a porter. Later, when Mary becomes Queen and Cardinal Reginold Pole becomes the Archbishop of Canterbury, all of Parker’s preferments and positions would be removed. However, during his time, all assets were managed well.
Daily services were held—Matins, Mass, the Lesser hours, Vespers and Compline, sung in plain-song according to the Sarum use. Aside from numerous duties, Parker enjoined “the leisure and quietness it afforded for study.”

He founded a grammar school for numerous neighbouring children, regular sermons by the canons and a weekly lecture in Scripture—the latter at which all residents were required to attend.

In 1544, Parker was chosen and approved by the King for the Mastership of Corpus Christi. Only months later he was elected Vice-chancellor of the University. The records department and fiscal controls did not exist; Parker organized and implemented reforms. He took numerous steps to endow fellowships and scholarships.

Part One is finished. Part Two to be continued.