9-English Reformer. ABC Matthew Parker (1504-1575): A Thankless and Troubled Start

Part nine herein begins. "Results of the Royal Visitation"

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

Observations:

1. The last time we spoke of the passage and Act of Uniformity, its varied regulations and the impending results of that “visitation” through the dioceses of England.

2. A “considerable number” of clergy did not submit and were deprived. McClure is uncertain about the numbers. (128)

3. McClure notes that “sometimes a whole or parts of a cathedral body remained true to the `old religion.’” No details at all. Not good.

4. McClure does note that Rome failed in its charges that “the changes were not agreeable to the vast majority of clergy and laity.” (128) But again, no details. If McClure argues 2 and 3 above, his point in 4 is weakened.

5. Other discoveries: the vast majority of parishes destroyed vestments and ornaments contrary to the BCP and the Act of Uniformity. London parishes had the “old spirit of wanton vandalism” and “unrestrained license.” McClure is too murky or unclear on the extent of recusancy or radical puritans.

6. During all this, Parker was involved “regulating religious affairs at Cambridge.”

7. Things got sticky when Parker returned to London to serve on the “Ecclesiastical Commission.” The Royal Visitors gave him a “considerable number of papal recusants.” Parker advised “persuasions” to conformity. Elizabeth elevated the “Ecclesiastical Commission” to a permanent footing with the “Court of High Commission.” This enabled the court to conduct surveys, enforce uniformity, deal with ecclesiastical suits, administer the supremacy oaths, and to dispatch without appeal of difficult cases. Regular meetings began in Lambeth, the London residence for the Archbishop of Canterbury. McClure notes that this court continued its business in this fashion for a "full century" following Elizabeth and that “no court has a more invidious name in English Church history.” (129) That appears to be code for Anglican theocracy or conformity unto it.

8. This court would be known to have no appellate process and would be known for “high-handedness.” No exhibits offered by McClure. Parker’s chaplain (unnamed by McClure) had the “arduous duty” imposed on him of executing the plan of uniformity according "to the exigencies of the time."

9. Allegedly, several new nominations to Episcopal sees were not confirmed. Meanwhile, according to McClure, Elizabeth was using her court to “survey bishoprics and to arrange what lands she should seize, and what return should be given.” (130)

10. Parker and the bishops elect drew up and submitted a protest. They wanted repairs for the churches, “just livings for the incumbents” and monies for schools and charitable works. There are numerous details argued in behalf of church rights and properties.

11. Bishop Cox, defender of the 1552 BCP from Knox’s attacks while both were expats to Frankfurt, was a notable defender of Parker and the other bishops. This is same Cox who said the 1552 BCP was the “most perfect BCP.”

12. A resolution was reached, a compromise measure worked out by Cecil who feared that “evil reports will circulate abroad and bring the course of the Reformation in England into ill-repute.” No doubt there was a theological component to this.

Correlations:

1. Episcopal “reappropriations” under Henry VIII (Dissolution of Monasteries, 1536) and Mary’s reign.

2. The history of the permanent “Ecclesiastical Commission.” Relationship to the Star Council and our good friend, William Laud.

3. Educational backgrounds and resumes on Cecil and Cox.

Interpretation:

The entire beginnings of Archbishop Parker is fraught with confusions, conflicts, and an uncertain beginning, on McClure’s account.

Part nine ends. To be continued.