H/T to Rev. Peter Ratcliff who posted the lengthy document below. As an intro on FB, Rev. Ratcliff noted:
"13TH CENTURY ENGLISH CHURCH HISTORY - A church and nation suffers terribly under Papal authority without the clear light of the Biblical Gospel to liberate her. Regrettably 21st Century Britain has forgotten our history and is repeating it in a New Dark Ages to the injury of millions of souls. An article based on a paper given on February 1st 2012 to Church of England (Continuing) ministers."
We would add that in Lent 2012 the hope and light of the Gospel of our Sovereign Redeemer remains everlasting and it is our Triune God who sustains us in our present difficulties and darknesses.
---------------------------------------https://www.docs.google.com/document/d/1apuOWplEUpzZYVwE0jJvlFtOMuxaWZSWwwItH3nK6bg/edit?pli=1#
13th Century English Church History
This paper considers something of the 13th Century English Church and is part of a series of papers given by ministers of the Church of England (Continuing) at our clergy chapter meetings tracing the history of the English Church.
For the sake of a natural starting point we consider the 13th Century from the date 1216 which is the beginning of the reign of Henry III. The 13th Century is then divided between the reign of Henry III up until his death in 1272 and the following reign, that of Hernry’s son Edward I. This paper deals mainly with the reign of Henry and is complemented largely by a paper by Rt Rev Edward Malcolm.
The Reign of Henry III - 1216 to 1272
Covering the history of this long 56 year reign in one paper reminds me of my first sermon to the students at theological college when I attempted to preach on the whole of the Prophecy of Jeremiah in one go, and with only 20 minutes at that! I should either not have done it or, like now, having more liberty, should have been more selective in my number of points. Thankfully we have a little more time this morning! Having read Powicke’s “Thirteenth Century” in the Oxford History of England series, I was optimistic of producing a concise paper. However my plans were totally scuppered when I discovered that my eight volume set of John Foxe’s ‘Acts and Monuments’,commonly know as “Foxe’s Book of Martyrs” devotes nearly 250 pages to the reign of Henry III, full of fascinating accounts.
Our starting Point - 1216 AD
DARK AGES
The first thing of which we need to remind ourselves is that the 13th Century was toward the end of the Dark Ages or the Middle Ages, the Medieval period. The days were not as dark as some might have thought but they were certainly dark compared to both the days of the early church in the first few centuries AD and also compared to the days we have enjoyed as a result of the 16th Century Protestant Reformation. Only now in the 21st Century is there a suggestion that we may be returning to a darker age of anti-Christianity and all that such implies.
These were dark days. John Wycliffe, later known as the morning star of the Reformation, was still a century away; Luther and the Protestant Reformation some 300 years hence. Such distances of time for us are hard to grasp but in God’s plans these are very small, though perhaps a thousand years being like a day says more about God’s power than His use of time.
While Christians today often complain of the days in which we live as being dark and wicked, it will do us well to remember that the times are in the Lord’s hands and that he is well able to deliver his people as he always has because, “his hand is not shortened that it cannot save”. (Isaiah 59:1).
It is also important to remember that dark days are still to be learning days. There is much we can learn from the dark days of the 13th Century that we can apply to our own dark 21st Century. While the Gospel has gone far and wide around the world, in many ways England is in a second dark Ages with most people in the darkness of false religion and paganism.
Nevertheless there are always things happening that have an effect upon the church, and we are to take heed to both blessings and curses.
MAGNA CARTA
Let us begin by noticing that this period starts just after the year 1215AD, which was, on the one hand, the year of Magna Carta or great charter which was designed to establish certain freedoms for the people by way of limitations upon the powers of King John. It was in some ways a forerunner of human rights legislation but far better because in those days everyone acknowledged that all authority and power came from the all wise God to whom both the king and his subjects must give an account.
FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL
However, 1215 was also the year in which the Fourth Lateran Council (of the Roman Church) established the doctrine of transubstantiation. This turning of bread into flesh and of wine into blood turned the Lord’s Supper from a blessed gracious memorial into a superstitious and blasphemous symbol of priestly power, a power greater than that of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Yet it was a fraud and blasphemy!
THE WICKED LEGACY OF POPE INNOCENT III
The Pope at this time was Innocent III who died the following year. Pope Innocent III was a wicked man, pushing Stephen Langton in as Archbishop of Canterbury against the king’s will and then stirring up 64 monks of Canterbury to work against the king. (Foxe p349.) Innocent excommunicated the king for refusing his tyranny then absolved the people of obedience to the king even giving away England’s kingdoms and possessions to Louis the French king’s son. The king then had to pay the pope a thousand marks each year to have his kingdom back.
Abroad Innocent III had ordered the slaughter of perhaps a million Albigenses and Cathars as well as those of Toulouse. Foxe says that for 200 years prior to The Pope sending Simon de Montfort to extinguish the Albigenses, and the setting up of the Dominican friars, the people of the south of France, Toulouse, Languedoc, and Provence were already very opposed to the corruptions of the Roman Church.
Furthermore, Pope Innocent III sent mere children as soldiers to crusade against the Mohammedans, known as Turks and Saracens, what we today call Muslims or Islamists. The Roman Catholic Church claims that it was Simon de Montfort who was cruel toward the Albigenses despite Innocent’s appeal for gentleness.
At the Fourth Lateran Council in April 1215, Innocent III condemned the Magna Carta and demanded that the Jews wear distinctive dress. He also declared that anybody caught reading the Bible would be stoned to death by "soldiers of the Church militia".
Innocent III is regarded very highly by the RC Church, being made a saint. However others hold him to be one of the 20 most evil men of all time, even putting him above Hitler for wickedness.
Foxe says that the papal legate Gualo had been called back to Rome on the grounds that Pope Innocent III was sick and thought that, having spent so long in England, Gualo would be able to cure him. However in June 1216 Innocent died. Pope Innocent was succeeded by around 25 other Popes in the 13th Century and we suspect that each was as bad as the other.#
THE BEGINNING OF HENRY’S REIGN
The Bible is Quoted as the King is Chosen
Upon the death of his father, King John, on 19th October 1216, Henry did not simply become King as a matter of course.
King John had neither been trusted nor popular and it might have been thought that the boy king should not be trusted to rule. Indeed the nobles who managed the country while the boy was in his minority nearly chose the French Louis to be King in stead of Henry. Louis had previously been called to England to help the nobles against John and had acquired much power. Indeed the English and French were very closely connected with the King of England retaining the title Duke of Normandy, much to the annoyance of the Normans from whom William the Conqueror had come.
In reaching an agreement on the succession, it is noteworthy that the Bible was quoted in a helpful manner. This might come as a surprise to those of us who think of the Dark Ages as being completely pitch black with darkness! However John Foxe tells us what happened when the nobles said they could not trust Henry because of his father John’s behaviour, and would rather have Louis as king. William earl Marshall, a nobleman of great authority, quoted the Bible saying, “the child shall not bear the iniquity of his father”. Exekiel 18:20. Thus the nobles were persuaded by the Word of God to support Henry rather than Louis the French king’s son, whom they had preferred over King John.
Henry was crowned by the pope’s legate Gualo at Worcester because the French Louis still held Westminster. No doubt the Pope proudly assumed to himself the text “by me kings reign” (Proverbs 8:15) in place of God. Poor old England was in a terribly weak state. In the 21st Century also we should understand our present vulnerability and so rely on Almighty God to deliver us.
We can be thankful today that the Pope is not involved in the succession to the British throne. Nevertheless, when the Government is set on changing our Protestant Constitution to allow greater toleration of Roman Catholics and women in the succession to the throne, one might look back with even a degree of envy to the 13th Century when the Bible was actually taken as authoritative, even if it was not fully understood by many in regard to its teaching of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
Louis did not want to give up his claim to England so easily and sent for soldiers from France but Richard, King John’s bastard son fought them off by God’s grace with just a few ships, eighteen against a hundred, and Louis left the country with a thousand marks given him by the nobles as compensation for their troubling him to come to be their saviour from King John in the first instance.#
Foxe emphasises that it was God’s merciful hand that saved the English from French rule and that this should be a lesson to Englishmen not to place foreign rulers in the realm lest they consequently displace us. Today one shudders at the fact that the Chairman of the Conservative Party, our Government, is a Muslim woman!
The Boy King
Henry was a child of only nine when his father King John died so he did not assume power properly for some years. One is tempted to compare Henry with King Edward VI of the Sixteenth Century who also became king as a boy. Edward had a Protestant education and was converted at an early age and able to lead a reformation, indeed The Reformation, based on a right understanding of the Gospel, even when he was very young, like Judah’s Josiah. Sadly Henry did not have this advantage and, unless something wonderful happens by way of a clear conversion, neither will our next King.
Magna Carta on Trial
One of the first questions on the mind of the nation under Henry was, will Magna Carta be honoured by the new king? Having been signed under duress by King John who, the following year, was killed by eating poisoned apricots, how will Magna Carta work in practice? Will the boy king Henry III hold to an agreement made by his untrusted father? How will he be treated by the nation? How also will the King and Charter fare against superstition and blasphemy and the wicked and torturous Inquisition that depicted the Roman Church power that was a strong rival for ultimate authority?
A parallel may be as obvious to yourselves as it is to us. Today we struggle between the rights of the people, the church and the authorities of human government under the Queen. Now, nearly nine hundred years after Magna Carta was signed, we also live in days when much that is called human rights legislation is mingled with idolatry such as libertarianism, sodomy and false religions. Along with this, the Roman Church is as great a scandal as it ever was.
We now come to consider:
The Scandalous Interference of Rome
The middle ages are known as the Dark Ages because not much is known about them but also because there was so little Gospel light. When the Church of Jesus Christ is the source of light and life and all that is good, it is hard to imagine a society dominated by a mock Church that is utterly wicked. Yet that is the Roman church that afflicted the 13th Century and still brings about the ruin of nearly a billion people today.
However, while we tend to think, in our reformed circles, that the Bible was unknown in the Middle ages and the Bible was jumbled up with legends of King Arthur and fairy tales, there are signs that it was not all so bad. We have already given the example of Ezekiel being quoted when Henry was chosen as king. There were also people who knew something of right and wrong and especially they knew that there must be a better way. They just did not know how to break the link with the Roman Church through believing the gospel of the salvation of Jesus Christ by grace through faith alone.
The early years of Henry’s reign were not without interest. The Popes tried to put on a smiling face toward Henry, showing themselves to be better friends than the French. Of course with the Roman church holding the people under such threats as excommunication and the consequent fear of everlasting damnation, the papacy, if handled circumspectly, could serve as a good ally to a king.
Or so one might have thought! But the Papacy has proven time and time again that it cannot be trusted one iota. For example, the year 1218 marked 50 years since the death of Thomas Becket and the following year he was enshrined as a new saint so huge crowds of pilgrims came to England for the occasion. Foxe says that a historian by the name of D. Scales accounts that Kent was not sufficient to sustain all who came thither. Yet the “event” was used by the Papacy to satisfy her greed and so the papal legate in 1218 made a “general inquisition” and deprived many monks and priests of their livings, even extorting penalties from those who rebelled against the interdict of Wales, ie those who faithfully feared God and carried on worship despite the ban by the Pope due to his malice.
Perhaps it is the stories of the papal exactions of money that amaze us the most, demonstrating the true heart of the Roman Church. “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” Matthew 6:21. The following stories show that Popes who, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, change not, clearly serve Mammon. “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” Matthew 6:24.
Complaint against the Intolerable Covetousness of the Pope
Sadly under King John, England had been made tributary to the Pope and brought to poverty. In 1220 Simon de Montfort, the earl of Leicester, wrote commanding the religious men not to give any more money or rent to the Romans. The title of the letter gives the sentiment, “A complaint of the Nobles of England against the intolerable Covetousness of the Pope and Prelates of Rome.” This covetousness had operated both by the ordering of bishops to give benefices to Romans and also by taking away benefices from English priests and giving them to Romans. Besides this the alms intended for the poor were taken by the Romanists. De Montfort wrote to say that any bishops involved in exacting such rents for the Romans shall be in danger of burning! O that our leaders today, burning aside, might be as bold to uphold righteousness!
In 1220 Henry received letters from the papal legate Cardinal Otho, but perceiving the contents, Henry said he could do nothing without calling a council, which he did. The letter demanded two prebendships in each cathedral and much else including privileges in monasteries and proportions of goods. Interestingly the letter from Otho answered the charge of covetousness that had been made against the Romans but did so in a typically popish manner saying, “that the poverty of the church is the cause, and the only reason why it is so slandered and evil spoken of, it is therefore convenient that you, as natural children, should succour your mother. For unless we should receive of you and of other good men as you are, we should then lack necessaries for our life, which were a great dishonour to our dignity”. (p365 Foxe)
To this plainly proud and pretentious letter a reply was sent saying that the king was absent due to sickness and the Archbishop of Canterbury was also absent, so the assembly could not do anything! Is that a typically English reply or is it “answering a fool according to his folly” as Proverbs 6:5 wisely instructs?
Money Hunting
Presumably much annoyed at this response, Cardinal Otho came to London from Rome with full authority and power, calling a council at St Paul’s London under the pretence of redressing matters concerning benefices and religion but, notes Foxe, the chief intent was to hunt for money. Typically, to keep hold of their high positions, bishops and others gave vast gifts to Otho.
Otho sat on a specially erected scaffold high above all. Bizarrely, before his sermon, Otho had to settle an argument between the archbishops of York and Canterbury over who would sit on his left and who on his right. To settle the strife the cardinal brought forth a bull from the pope with a picture of St Paul on the right of the cross and St Peter on the left for, explained Otto, although Peter had the keys, St Paul had believed without seeing for, Jesus said, “blessed be they who believe and see not”.
From that time the Archbishop of Canterbury enjoyed the right hand and York the left. The matter settled, Otho preached from Revelation 4:6, “in the midst of the throne were four beasts full of eyes before and behind.” Otho said that the four beasts were those present who should be provident in dealing with both secular and spiritual matters. He spoke about them organising the Church but the big thing was their financing of the Papacy!”
Foxe also relates Otho’s abysmal behaviour on one occasion when visiting Oxford when he humiliated the scholars who had earlier entertained him. (p370).
Money To Nullify Crusading Oaths
Foxe notes the devious behaviour of these Roman pick pockets who first send out friars and preachers to stir up men to fight the Turks in crusades bound with a vow and signed with the cross, then send out bulls to release them from the vows and labours upon the payment of large sums of money!
Money for Papal Armies
The reason the pope needed so much money was to fight against the good emperor, Frederic II who was married to King Henry’s sister Isabella. So the Pope taxed the English clergy at 20% and promised the benefices (church appointments to which large incomes from property such as rents or tithes are attached) to Roman citizens who would vanquish emperor Frederick. Meanwhile he ordered that 300 English benefices be reserved for Romans, and until these were filled the Archbishop must not appoint any more English clergy to benefices. With this news the Archbishop of Canterbury, seeing the unreasonable oppression of the church of England, fled to France.
Telling Lies For Money
Another mark of the sleight of the Pope was that he sent one Petrus Rubeus who went from bishop to bishop and abbot to abbot pretending that other bishops had already given him huge sums “to the pope’s holiness”, saying “trusting that you also will not be behind on your part”. Rubeus was so dastardly that it caused the bishops and abbots to complain to the King. (Foxe, p368). This had some effect and the legate was then less opportune.
Council of Lyons
Later Pope Innocent IV called a council of Lyons and the following matters were exhibited:
1. The Pope not satisfied with his Peter’s pence, doth exact great exactions without the consent of the King.
2. Patrons of parish churches were unable to present clergy for livings but churches are given to Romans who cannot speak English, robbing the money of the realm. The Pope has increased benefices reserved for Romans from 12 to very many more. In these benefices the Italians do not preach or help the poor or maintain the churches. Many clergy are totally absent, ie live abroad in Italy.
3. Bishops were commanded to provide soldiers to be ready to follow the Pope’s commands!
The Pope’s purse hath no ears
All this was presented to the pope in letters from the abbots and priors, then from the bishops, the nobles and barons, and last of all from the King, but as the proverb goes, “The Pope’s purse hath no ears”. Not long after, the pope was at it again, sending for tallages and exactions to be collected. Henry was very annoyed and wrote to the Bishops: forbidding them to pay the pope. The battle of words ensued and yet eventually the Pope threatened to suspend or interdict the prelates. Sadly the threat of the pope and persuasions of the Bishop of Winchester were too much for the king who gave over to the threats. The pope responded by demanding even more money - a third part of all church goods and the yearly benefit of all vacant benefices!
Pope Abuses Other Nations Too
Germany was treated even worse than England by the Pope who did not only abuse the emperor Frederick but went to war against him, and that with Englishmen’s money. (p. 372 Foxe)
As the Albigenses had began to realise that the popes were wicked, the pope called them heretical and set about warring against them. The leader he set up against them was Louis, the young French king but, by the hand of God his siege of Toulouse was a disaster for the attackers. Furthermore Simon de Montfort and his brother, who were both fighting for the pope, also died in these battles. This de Montfort is not to be confused with De Montfort’s son of the same name who died fighting the King’s men at Evesham in 1271.
Money to Popes for Breaking Oaths
In 1224, under the advice of his council and clergy, King Henry did grant and confirm the Magna Carta as well as the “Charta de Foresta”. These liberties were later broken but then reconfirmed in 1236. Such oath-breaking was a simple matter the Pope had power to nullify oaths, for which of course, you’ve guessed it, he took a handsome fee. This served to undermine confidence in everybody and everything except the pope’s wickedness.
In 1226 Louis VIII died at the siege of Avignon fighting against the good earl of Toulouse and the Albigenses.
Henry Takes Power
In 1227, King Henry, then coming up to 20 years old, declared himself ready to be king without tutors and governors over him. He goes from Reading to London to complain about the mistake those years earlier of giving or lending 1000 marks to disperse Louis from the kingdom. Henry then proceeded to Oxford to remove those who were in his way and to revoke his keeping of Magna Carta, offering, in return for a tax, to renew the seals of any other agreements.
Pope Thrown Out of Rome by People
In 1228 Pope Gregory IX was thrown out of Rome by the people of that city who chased him as far as Perugia. In return he excommunicated them. Foxe notes the almost universal brawls and schisms in popish monasteries, churches and colleges that have characterised popery ever since the pope's usurped power.
Pope’s Power to Trump Appointments
Another way in which the Pope’s power disturbed and controlled the English was by his power in the process of church appointments.
Foxe (p384-5) notes the disagreement between King Henry and the monks at Durham concerning who should be appointed as bishop of Durham. Both appealed to the Pope but later agreed between themselves to a third candidate. However, when there was disagreement between the monks of Coventry and the canons of Lichfield aboout choosing the next bishop of Lichfield, they appealed to the pope. He decreed that they should in future take it in turns to make the appointment.
In 1228 Stephen Langton, archbishop of Canterbury died. In his day Langton did us a good service as he divided the Bible into chapters as we now have them. He also made marginal notes upon the whole Bible.
After the death of Langton, the King licensed the monks of Canterbury to choose another Archbishop, but he rejected their choice of Master Walter Hemesham because the man was first, not a supporter of the king, second, was the son of a thief who was hanged, and third, had opposed King John. The bishops added that Hemesham fathered children by a certain nun. Hemesham appealed to the Pope, who rejected him for not answering theological and biblical questions soundly. The King and bishops then presented one Richard chancellor of Lincoln, and the Pope heartily agreed.
It is hard to believe the power and malice and greed of the pope. Having agreed the appointment, he wrote immediately to the Canterbury church beginning with a lie, "forasmuch as, by the fulness of ecclesiastical power, the charge of pastoral office is committed to him in general upon all churches, he, therefore, for the solicitde he beareth, as well to all other ... etc". Such deceptive boasting was a prelude to more money grabbing. As soon as this was written the Pope sent his own chaplain and trusty legate, Master Stephen, to England to exact vast sums to fund his war against Frederick the emperor!
With hindsight the English should have realised that as soon as they contacted the pope for leadership they would be subject to enormous charges. The problem was that the Church of England did not see any authority except the Pope so, as much as it hated him, it had no where else to appeal when the King and the church disagreed. This kept the covetous Romans in power. The solution of replacing the wicked popes with the Holy Bible may to us be obvious but it was still unthinkable and unimaginable and therefore a full 300 years in the future!
Pope Lends Money For Pre-Harvest Tithes!
The taxing by the Pope of the tithe was so severe that prelates had to sell their church silver and some to lay mortgage on their belongings or to borrow on usury to make the money that was required. The Pope had even sent his bankers with Master Stephen to lend for the same purpose with great usury. Tithes were demanded even for crops which were not yet harvested! Only Ranulph the earl of Chester stoutly refused to allow either his laymen or clergy to give anything to the Pope.
In AD 1229 the Pope’s men continued to attack the good men of Toulouse, but by God's providence were beaten several times.
Some Noble Men
In 1231AD Archbishop Richard complained that the justicular, nowadays called the lord chief justice, a man named Hubert de Burgh, would not give him the castle and town of Tunbridge as they belonged to the crown. The justicular was second only to the king. So the archbishop went to Rome and won favour with the Pope for his cause. However, on his return to England Richard died.
Godly Radulph
Now the monks chose a successor for Archbishop, Radulph Nevil bishop of Chichester who was upright and sincere in both word and deed and a choice thoroughly agreeable to the King. (Foxe, p393.) However it was necessary to go to get the Pope's approval. The monks therefore asked the archbishop elect for financial assistance. The good man utterly refused to pay a halfpenny lest it was thought to be simony or ambition, rather trusting the election to God. The monks nevertheless went to Rome but there Simon Langton, (brother of Stephen Langton, a previous archbishop of Canterbury already mentioned) wickedly defamed the name of Radulph, and the pope accepted his word without further investigation.
Fruitless Journey to Rome
After the repulse of Radulph the monks proposed their own prior John to be archbishop. John went to Rome, but having been found acceptable by the Cardinals’ three day investigation, he was then declared by the Pope to be too old, although he was younger than the pope himself, and had obviously been quite strong enough to make the long hard journey to Rome! This fruitless journey well illustrates a spiritual point: the folly of supposed evangelicals today who turn to Rome. All they will find there is that there is no Gospel, so despite God’s grace which they supposedly once knew, they now turn to a religion that claims to be their mother, yet unlike their mother, finds them to be totally unacceptable.
King Chases Relics
In 1232 (Oxford English History, by Powicke, p49) King Henry III was on pilgrimage to see relics, as was his custom, especially in times of political crisis. Compare this to the days of prayer called by others such as King George IV at key points during World War II.
Henry swore an oath on the gospels, binding himself to keep the charters he made to the high officers of the realm, even submitting himself to the compulsion of the pope on pain of excommunication. The justicular also swore to keep the king to his word. Yet with the Pope able to nullify oaths for cash, nobody could be trusted. This demonstrates how Popery undermines society as a whole.
Unlawful Rebellions Against Popish Extortions
Foxe records that in 1231, such was the grievance caused to the realm of England by the extortions of the popes, that not even the king could help the matter. Interestingly the nobles took it upon themselves, probably led by Hubert the lord chief justice, to write letters under the pretence of the King's authority. At this point we do not condone forgery to defeat the wicked but we report what happened. The letters threatened to burn any who would refuse to pay their tithes and rents to the procurators of the king rather than to the Romanists.
Initial Raids
Early in 1232 Cincius, a Roman clerk in St Albans, a canon of Paul's in London, was taken and had his bags emptied. At the same time a Roman parson of Wingham, a village near Canterbury, had his barns broken up by armed soldiers and the corn sold and given away to the poor. The roman complained to the sheriff about the breaking of the king's peace but soldiers showing the letters to the sheriff were able to leave quietly. However finally Roger the bishop of London proceeded to excommunicate those who had robbed Cincius and the parson of Wingham, as well as those who forged the letters and seal of the king.
The Rebellion led by Twing
Then around Easter 1232 all the barns of the Romans were raided and the corn either sold or given to the poor. The Romans feared for their lives and hid in monasteries not daring to complain. The workers of this feat were 80 armed soldiers led by one William Withers surnamed Twing. The pope wrote to the king ordering him, under pain of excommunication, to punish the culprits. He also wrote to various bishops to get them to find the men and send them to Rome to appear before the pope!
If only the English had learnt in those days not to fear the popes and their excommunication. Such boldness would only come with the Gospel itself in the time of Wycliffe. The rogues were arrested but theft is theft, even when of the Robin Hood variety. They were imprisoned and law is law even under bad rule. Interestingly the ringleader Robert Twing told the king what he had done and why he did it, being bereaved of the patronage of his benefice by the fraudulent circumvention of the Italians. Twing was sent to pope Gregory and marvellously the pope restored him to his benefice. The popes are nothing if not pragmatists!
The Fall of Hubert de Burgh
Probably more than Twing, Hubert de Burgh was the main man behind this activity. The Romish bishops therefore one by one sought to shake him out of the king’s favour by saying to the king that de Burgh had not been loyal to him. Sadly the king, presumably still fearing the wrath of the Pope, did not defend de Burgh but called for an investigation.
The fall of Hubert de Burgh, (Powicke, P.50) the justiciar, was dramatic yet he was allowed to retire to Merton Priory to prepare his defence. Interestingly the remains of this priory were rediscovered a few years ago and have been preserved with an urban part of the A24 rebuilt as a flyover just a few feet above the ruins, and only a hundred yards from he writer’s home. A South West London borough is even named after the now virtually non-existent Merton rather than Wimbledon which is world famous due to the tennis championship held here each June.
Foxe records that while Hubert was here at Merton, Peter the Bishop of Winchester who was at Southwark, was consulted and encouraged the mob to go after Hubert. Thankfully when a crowd of 20,000 were on their way from London to get Hubert, Radulph, bishop of Chichester, the one who refused to give so much as a halfpenny to get himself approved by the pope to be archbishop, advised the king to stop this attack lest he be mocked for unkindness. Foxe notes that two messengers were sent to stop the rabble army but that one of them was against Hubert and so dawdled. That man fell off his horse and died. Foxe is not slow to ascribe such events to the finger of God.
Fleeing for fear, de Burgh came to Brentwood, Essex, then to the Tower (of London), only to be deposed without defending himself. Interestingly, certainly to us who have fled for refuge from the old church to the Church of England (Continuing), de Burgh came for safe keeping to the castle at ... Devizes, the home of the founding bishop of the Continuing Church.!
De Burgh was essentially succeeded by a man more pliable to Henry, a certain Peter des Rivaux, the new treasurer of the exchequer in place of the bishop of Carlisle. However this 'foreign rule' led to virtual war as other leading men joined together in opposition (Powicke, p53,54).
Amazing as it might sound to us in the 21st Century, the Bishop of Winchester was behind all the mischief. (Powicke, p55-56)
Foxe accounts for this trouble by the fact that Romish darkness pervaded the land. He says this is plain by the fact that the king who built monasteries that year, 1233, in London did express in plain words that he built them, "for the redemption of his soul, of the soul of king John his father, and for the souls of all his ancestors".
Edmund of Abingdon
After much difficulty in finding a suitable man to follow Stephen Langton, Edmund of Abingdon became the new Archbishop of Canterbury. The choice was not of the typical monkish man because Edmund was a secular priest monk, far more in touch with the world at large. His time as Archbishop was only seven years but in just six more he was fully canonised with a catalogue of miracles longer than your arm to his credit. He was second only to St Thomas of Canterbury. Despite the heroic superstition, Edmund was characteristic of the inspiring role models who were a blessing to the middle ages and are conspicuously absent from the 21st Century. Breakfast News recently claimed that a Coronation Street actress was a good role model but we can hardly believe it.
Henry Intervenes
In 1234, after complaints from nobles and bishops regarding the foreign interference of Henry’s new men, Henry gave way and expelled the Pictavians and sent the Bishop of Winchester home and took back possessions from Peter Rivaux, receiving back into service men of his own country. (Foxe p409).
Disaster followed in Ireland with the setting upon and consequent death of the marshal, Earl Richard. (Powicke p58). Richard had gone to Ireland because, says Foxe, the bishop of Winchester and Peter Rivaux had forged letters.
Hubert Restored
Also in 1234 the archbishop Edmund went to Wales to make friendly terms with Llewellyn, King of Wales. While there he was able to bring back Hubert whom the king restored to favour, for which Hubert gave hearty thanks to Almighty God.
Edmund informed the King of the forged letters that led to the death of Richard earl marshal. The Bishop of Winchester hid in his church and others were reproved and sent away like villains.
Wretched Pope Flees
In AD1234 in Rome the citizens were very unhappy that the Pope was not looking after them and it got so bad that the pope had to leave the city and war broke out. (Foxe p412) The Pope’s army was led by the Earl of Toulouse (to win his favour) and yes, the Bishop of Winchester, Peter, partly called for his money, but also for his skill in war! Tens of thousands were killed.
Foxe’s Astute Assessment of Popery
Foxe writes movingly (P412) of this terrible state into which the Roman church had come under Gregory IX, a state of pride that would lead to the rupture of the western church from the four patriarchs of the east:
“By these and such other stories, who seeth not, how far the church of Rome hath degenerated from the true Image of the right Church of Christ, which by the rule & example of the Gospel ought to be a daughter of peace, not a mother of debate, not a revenger of herself, nor a seeker of wars, but a forgiver of injuries, humbly and patiently referring all revenge to the Lord, not a raker for riches, but a winner of souls, not contending for worldly mastership, but humbling themselves as servants, and not Vicars of the Lord, but jointly like brethren serving together, Bishops with Bishops, Ministers with Ministers, Deacons with Deacons, and not as Masters separating themselves by superiority one from another . . .”
Pope’s Wickedness Toward the Greeks
Rather Gregory IX believed in Roman supremacy and tried to persuade all other sees to submit to himself and demanded money for a Greek archbishop to be consecrated at Rome. The Greeks were not able to agree to this presumption of Rome so Rome warred against the Greeks in the same manner as she did against the Turks and Saracens in so much as in Cyprus many good men and martrys were slain.
Germanus, the Patriarch of Constantinople wrote to Pope Gregory, referring the Pope to the first Epistle of Peter, chapter 5, verses 1 to 4 :
“The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.”
These verses show how the Pope should have behaved kindly and lovingly toward Christians if he really was following Peter. Germanus was wise to apply such texts in this manner.
Germanus also quotes 1 Peter 1:7 to describe the Greek response sufficient for this cruel treatment. “That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ.”
Surely the pope must have felt guilty that he was being exposed by Germanus as not being a follower of Peter but as a wicked one persecuting the church!
In a letter to the Cardinals of Rome written just afterwards, Germanus says that the only cause of the split between the Latin and Greek church is nothing to do with doctrine but rather, “the tyranny, oppressions and exactions of the church of rome”. How aptly does Germanus quote Galatians 2:11 at this point: “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.”
Henry’s Religion
Interestingly it has been observed by Powicke (p59) that the worse Henry did, the more he displayed humility before God, hearing masses three times a day. One is reminded of the title of the writing by reformation martyr bishop John Bradford, 'the Hurt of hearing mass' to think of the sad state of Henry. On the one hand he could sware on the gospels but on the other he sank to the veneration of relics and the idolatry of the Mass. One is reminded of present day false teachers, with their seductive mixture of Gospel and false claims, but no doubt Henry did it in ignorance.
Kindness not altogether absent
We should remember that kindness was not absent from these pre-reformation days. Human nature, though fallen and sinful, still bears the image of God. Judge Martin of Pattishall (a village near Northampton) suspended his work during harvest so that the villagers could gather their crops. (Powicke, p68) Archbishop Edmund had reminded King Henry of his royal duty to the freemen and the poor.Powicke, p70).
Robert Grosseteste
At Merton where the great council met, the problem was discussed of the divergence between church canon or common law and the common law of England. This brought to the fore a very great man, Oxford scholar Robert Grosseteste who had been made bishop of Lincoln the previous year. The issue arose because the church welcomed children born out of wedlock when the parents married. The law of the land however still counted them as bastards and ineligible as heirs to estates. Grosseteste argued for the high church view that the teaching of the church is superior to the state but it was not until the 20th century that the law was changed. Others argued that the country was generally in line and that the church should submit.
Henry was known to have got papal absolution from the oaths taken in 1232, contrary to his coronation oath. (Powicke, p75)
Pope’s Taking Money To Nullify Marriage Law Destroys Trust
In 1238, (Powicke p76), the king allowed his sister Eleanor to marry Simon de Montfort. The problem was that since Eleanor's husband died when she was only 16, she took a vow of chastity. Now people were so furious, that the King took refuge in the Tower. Dominican friars equated the marriage to adultery by one who was married to Christ. Foxe notes that the marriage went ahead because sufficient money was sent to the pope! However the people felt they could not trust the king. History records Henry III not as the most evil king but neither the most intelligent (Powicke, p8). Like the money accepted for breaking vows, this is another example of how the pope’s willingness to accept money to allow almost anything undermined civil society. It destroyed the relationships that depended upon trust such as between kings, the church and the people and between nations. The king promised the people to keep Magna Carta but then paid the pope to be free from this oath, He promised parliament he’d go on crusade but but then paid the pope to be discharged of this promise too. Yet the Pope had no humility to ever join St Paul and say, “O wretched pope (man) that I am”.
Crusade Glamour
The nation was religious, not least in the crusades. The recovery of the so-called Holy Land pervaded the minds of 13th centurymen much as it does many 21st centurymen. The city Jerusalem was inseparable from the heavenly Sion. Going to Jerusalem on crusade might be undertaken as a penance imposed to atone for some sin, taken up as a fulfilment of an oath to show honour, or tragically for any guilt-ridden sinner, as away to receive a plenary indulgence from purgatory. To carry the cross or to preach the glory of crusading were admirable things as was the donation of gifts and legacies to fund the projects.
However, (Powicke, p83) it was apparent that previous crusades had failed. Now the Papacy was crusading against the softer target of other Christians. We use the term loosely and include the Greek Church to which we referred above in Foxe. We would not call the Greek Church “Christian” today any more than we might call Rome Christian rather than anti-Christian.
Generally there was peace between England and France during this period. A sophisticated concept of morals generally held sway although it would involve great casuistry to avoid the inconvenience of keeping oaths when no longer profitable. (Powickep445ff) As we have noted above Foxe blames this on the ease with which the pope would nullify oaths for cash.
The Clergy Under Two Rules of Law
At the end of the 13th century England was divided into 17 dioceses and about forty archdeaneries consisting of some 9,500 parishes. In London were 100 parishes, York 40, Stamford and Bristol had 20 each while other parishes covered huge rural areas. One scholar estimated there were 40,000 ordained men in England and Wales in the later 13th century, others estimate fewer or complain that there are too few. If there were 30,000 that was one percent of the 13th Century population. There may have been about 15,000 to 25,000 in religious orders too.
A parson in the 13th Century was a member of a vast organisation under the authority of pope, archbishops, bishops and archdeacons. (Powicke, p447) The tendency to see him as a paid chaplain of his local patron lord had been checked. They were examined by the bishop and inducted under episcopal authority. His right to his tithe was carefully defined. He was required to attend episcopal synods and archdiaconal chapter meetings. He was expected to have a copy of the episcopal constitutions to know his role and duties. While his benefice was a kind of freehold he was not free to take advantage of his security. O that church discipline of clergy might be reformed today! In the first half of the century some rectors were inclined to assert that they had no superiors so they were reminded that they must also make confessions to appointed priests!
(Powicke p448)
Only one document, preserved by Matthew Paris, speaks of clergy having a political voice. It was in 1240 that the rectors of Berkshire refused to contribute to the papacy, saying they were responsible to their patrons with obligations to the poor, not as soldiers of a militia of Christ.
Powicke says that the ideal of Pope Innocent III of the 4th Lateran Council of 1215 was not all bad. It said that the government of souls is the art of arts and not for those who spend the night in riotous companionship so were barely able to perform their morning office. Neither was it for those who barely attended mass four times a year and then only to avoid the silence of the choir and merely chat with laymen outside. The intention was to provide a body of disciplined educated clergy to instruct the parishioners and hear their confessions at least once a year. Their superiors, the archbishops were to hold provincial councils each year and inspectors were to be appointed to each diocese. A teacher in each cathedral, a theologian in each metropolitan church and several canons against unholy or worldly clergy behaviour should have done the trick. Clergy were to refuse both secular office and secular amusements yet rendering unto Caesar the things which were Caesars, and were to respect the jurisdiction proper to the lay power.
However Powicke (p450) says that the Lateran decrees did not impact heavily on England as, while Archbishop of Canterbury Stephen Langton had a renewed sense of authority under papal leadership, the English prelates did not have the ardour of missionaries prepared for any sacrifices in an alien land, but while decent, had their own lives to lead. Even Grosseteste, the greatest reformer of them all, was a genial many sided man, advising country folk on everyday affairs, hardly a Wyclif, Tyndale, Luther or Calvin.
An indication of how little effect the Lateran Council had was that provincial councils were extremely rarely held. (Powicke, p451) Langton held one at Osney abbey just outside Oxford in 1222, then Archbishop Pecham held them 57 years later in 1279 & '81 at Reading then Lambeth. We don't know of others but the bishops did get the clergy together in synods each year. Manuscript records are chaotic (p452) but things come out such as the conflict between church and secular authority as when Grosseteste complains that the pastoral office is subverted to the damnation of souls because bishops were forbidden from exacting any sworn testimony from their lay-folk (p454-5). Grosseteste was so thorough in his investigations (he would no doubt have made a good enforcer of the Spanish Inquisition, but we think he was more gentle!). Yet according to Matthew Paris, Grosseteste's investigations were so thorough from 1246 as to cause much scandal and complaint. So much so that he was called before the King in in 1249. By 1252 the Bishop of Coventry carried out similar visitation and in 1253 all bishops used long and detailed lists of questions into the life and behaviour of clerks and laymen. One of the questions in the latter inquisition was 'whether any layman is notoriously proud or envious or avaricious or liable to the sin of slothful depression or rancorous or gluttonous or lecherous'. Imagine such today! Yet even then in the 13th Century bishops protested against royal interference with the practice, required as it was, in the due exercise of their office, for inquiry into the sins and errors of their subjects. The King replied that while he recognised the bishops' right to investigate any one well-attested case, he objected to assemblies of people summoned for a general inquiry on oath, for such gatherings interrupted the lawful activities and duties of his subjects. O for bishops so thorough and a King so sensible in our day!
In 1261 a papal legate came to England in search of support against the Mongol menace in Syria and Palestine. Archbishop Boniface took the opportunity to call a provincial council at Lambeth to try to settle the matters that had oppressed the church. The king got wind of it and sent a proctor to protest and declare that an appeal would be made to the Holy See against them as subversions of royal rights. (p457)
Despite what has just been said, the king did not live at constant variance with his bishops and the lay majority lived in close contact with the clerical minority. (Powicke, p458) Half the clergy were paid vicars but there were also absentee pluralists who on account of their qualifications enjoyed the revenues of several benefices while doing other work. There were also floating clerks in casual employment as well as 'vagabond' clergy who kept company with disorderly lay-folk like themselves. Other clergy were found in cathedrals, conventual and collegiate establishments, a mix of religious, intellectual, secular and artistic. An apparently excellent man, Walter de Cantilupe, bishop of Worcester, defended pluralism as a way of providing for ecclesiastics of noble birth or who felt that an office at court, as a minister of state, a judge, king's clerk, or royal physician was legitimate. Such men could work without the interference of a bishop.
The 'high church' doctrine was expounded with force and clarity by Grossette as early as 1236 in a long letter to Archbishop Edmund. (Powicke, p460). Here 'high church' means ‘’above the king’. Henry on the other hand thought, like all other kings should, that he was king by the grace of God with an annointed sacramental character. The king at the very least regarded himself as the patron of the church.
Grosseteste wished to withdraw all clergy from secular office. For him a judge sinned when he brought clergy before him in a personal action (Powicke, p.461) While other clergy agreed, the protest could only go so far because the clergy and secular interests were inextricably linked eg in the trial of criminous clergy, disputes about advowsons and tithes, and excommunications.
Church Courts for Clergy
Invariably criminal clergy were tried by church rather than secular courts. Presumably they were less severe as others pretended to be clergy to get such a trial. A reading test was used, if the man could not read he was presumably not clergy. The test was not infallible, and not always used. A convicted clergyman was henceforth regarded as a layman. Powicke gives the example of a certain man Hugh accused of rape and the complication of whether he married a virgin or widow. (Powickep462,3) If she were a widow then under canon law the clergyman was deemed a bigamist and defrocked and tried as a layman. Etc etc.In the case of advowsons the church was responsible for appointing a suitable incumbent while the crown had a duty to determine that lawful ownership was protected. (Powicke, p474). Archbishop Pecham in 1274 comes down hard on pluralism with excommunication, absolvable only by the archbishop or the apostolic see. He then called for a list of rectors to be compiled. This was about as effective as the 2011 'high pay inquiry' of the Cameron Clegg coalition government. Pluralism was so widespread and useful that everybody laughed. In any case papal dispensations were so easy to obtain.
Before we conclude we turn briefly to some of the further incidents given by Foxe:
More Cases of Harmful Papal Interference
in 1244 the Pope Innocent IV sent Master Martin to suspend prelates in England from giving benefices to Englishmen until the Pope’s kinsmen had been provided for. Those who did not cooperate he suspended such as the Abbot of Malmesbury and the Prior of Merton. (Foxe p 429). King Henry wrote gently to the Pope for mercy but the Pope only got more severe. The nobles took action and stopped the Pope’s letters at Dover but the legate forced the king to stop this. The sum gong to the pope exceeded that which went to the crown. INn1245 the King expelled Master Martin from the realm. In 1246 the Pope tried to set the French against England. Foxe says that the Pope’s wrecking of Christendom furthered the spread of the Turks. This has a parallel today with the ecumenical movement wrecking the church while Islam advances “without let or hindrance” ... as it says inside the proudly held British passport!
Others Who Objected to Papal Abuse
Foxe writes warmly of Emperor Frederick II and notes that Frederick wrote to the king of England declaring the wretched behaviour of the Pope.
Frederick was not alone in condemning the Popes. The world did not have to wait until Martin Luther to hear how wicked the Popes were. It was just that the power of the Popes was not broken until then. So in 1250, (Foxe page 510 to 520) a certain Gulielmus (full name Gulielmus de Sancto Amore), a master of Paris and then chief ruler of the university of Paris, wrote “39 signs to distinguish false preachers from true preachers. It extends to a superb excellent 10 pages of small print in Foxe that perhaps we can reprint in English Churchman one day.
About AD1260 a certain Englishman called Lawrence also withstood the antichristian errors of the Pope and wrote in defence of Gulielmus. Another Robertus Gallus later (AD1290) wrote of visions describing antichrist but also of his fall, as if predicting the Protestant Reformation.
Alledged Misbehaviour of Jews
Some of Foxe’s notes on the Jews at the time are quite harrowing and one wonders if they are based on prejudice even then:
In 1255 some Jews at Lincoln crucified whipped and tormented a nine year old child called Hugo. He was found by his mother having been cast into a pit. Thirty two Jews were blamed and executed. Twenty years earlier something similar happened in Norwich. Jews were expelled from France only to have the Turks complain that that the French king was warring against them who had not crucified their saviour. Foxe says that in some accounts, in 1262 some 500 Jews were put to death in London for charging usury above the permitted level. (Foxe p545). In the year 1264, the Jews of London sought to conspire against the whole city of London, and they were consequently almost all killed.
The Last King of Wales
In 1257 the Welsh King Llewellyn rose up against the English and the result of this was that from that date the Welsh no longer had no king but only princes.
Famine
In 1257 or 1262 the famine was so severe in the land that (Foxe p537) that corn was sold for 26 shillings for a quantity carried by a beast, presumably an ox or mule. It was so severe that the poorer people resorted to eating nettle roots and thistle roots.
Claim on Normandy Ends
In 1259 the king tried to reclaim Normandy but dropped the claim, in theory for money but though this was not paid and the King never dropped the title Duke of Normandy.
Border Controls and Austerity Measures
The problem of foreign power was recognised. In 1260 laws were introduced to prohibit cloth not made in England. Cloth was not to be too sumptuous. Excess, prodigal expenses wasted on pleasure were to be eschewed by all persons.
A Useless Archbishop
In 1264 the King wrote to Boniface, Archbishop of Canterbury who had longtime been living in Provence. (Foxe p554). The King gave permission for the disgraced Archbishop to return to England under certain conditions. Upon Boniface not returning, Henry wrote again saying what a disgrace it was that the Archbishop was absent while profiting from his position. On returning the Archbishop himself was concerned that so much was neglected in the church that he complained to the king. Henry rebuked the archbishop saying that he had been wrong to give the archbishopric to Boniface his relative who was of no use to the people, being both a foreign stranger and unlearned. and that Boniface should set an example for others by leaving so that his place could be filled b someone more worthy. Boniface did not leave until he had filled his pockets in true popish style with all the usual money making tricks including felling and selling the woods, letting out the archbishopric, fining tenants and charging clergy! He returned with the curse of allmen to Savoy from whence he had come to misgovern the church those 29 years from his first election. Nevertheless no new Archbishop was appolnted until Boniface had died in 1271 when there was, as seemed usual, much disagreement over who shoudl be appointed (Foxe, p556)
A Married Pope?
Foxe also notes the unusual appointment of Clement IV to succeed Pope Urban in 1264. It was unusual as Clement was first a married man with children and only entered the church after his wife died. (Foxe, p556)
King’s Son Preserved
Meanwhile Henry’s son Edward, who was to be the next king, had been on some wonderful crusades. Foxe notes how providentially Edward escaped the ruin of other leaders who had not been honest. Edward also made a wonderful recovery from sickness that Foxe notes.
In 1264 the scholars of Oxford and noblemen such as Simon Montfort the younger earl of Leicester, fight and are nearly put to death by the king. Peace was made but soon the nobles attacked. Henry’s son Edward fought off the attack and won the day at Lewes. Foxe p548
CONCLUSIONS
The 13th Century had the potential for the English Church to make progress. The Bible was not as absent as we might have previously thought and there were people some great people around who were genuinely trying to do what was right.
However the problem was that the highest authority belonged to the Popes who were lovers of money rather than lovers of God. While there were protests and rebellions against Papal power, God had not yet brought about the time in which both the political and religious claims of the Papacy would be exposed for the anti-Christ wickedness that they were and still continue to be. For that to happen the Holy Spirit was going to have to open up the Word of God, the Bible in a way that had been long forgotten. That great event started to happen in the 14th Century but most fully in the 16th.
When we look back at all this from the 21st Century it is tragic to see that we have fallen once more into times when there is so much wickedness as the truth of the Gospel is hidden from so many. One feels as if in the 13th Century this was in part excusable, but not today when we have Bibles and Gospel preaching churches in our land.
ENDS
"13TH CENTURY ENGLISH CHURCH HISTORY - A church and nation suffers terribly under Papal authority without the clear light of the Biblical Gospel to liberate her. Regrettably 21st Century Britain has forgotten our history and is repeating it in a New Dark Ages to the injury of millions of souls. An article based on a paper given on February 1st 2012 to Church of England (Continuing) ministers."
We would add that in Lent 2012 the hope and light of the Gospel of our Sovereign Redeemer remains everlasting and it is our Triune God who sustains us in our present difficulties and darknesses.
---------------------------------------https://www.docs.google.com/document/d/1apuOWplEUpzZYVwE0jJvlFtOMuxaWZSWwwItH3nK6bg/edit?pli=1#
13th Century English Church History
This paper considers something of the 13th Century English Church and is part of a series of papers given by ministers of the Church of England (Continuing) at our clergy chapter meetings tracing the history of the English Church.
For the sake of a natural starting point we consider the 13th Century from the date 1216 which is the beginning of the reign of Henry III. The 13th Century is then divided between the reign of Henry III up until his death in 1272 and the following reign, that of Hernry’s son Edward I. This paper deals mainly with the reign of Henry and is complemented largely by a paper by Rt Rev Edward Malcolm.
The Reign of Henry III - 1216 to 1272
Covering the history of this long 56 year reign in one paper reminds me of my first sermon to the students at theological college when I attempted to preach on the whole of the Prophecy of Jeremiah in one go, and with only 20 minutes at that! I should either not have done it or, like now, having more liberty, should have been more selective in my number of points. Thankfully we have a little more time this morning! Having read Powicke’s “Thirteenth Century” in the Oxford History of England series, I was optimistic of producing a concise paper. However my plans were totally scuppered when I discovered that my eight volume set of John Foxe’s ‘Acts and Monuments’,commonly know as “Foxe’s Book of Martyrs” devotes nearly 250 pages to the reign of Henry III, full of fascinating accounts.
Our starting Point - 1216 AD
DARK AGES
The first thing of which we need to remind ourselves is that the 13th Century was toward the end of the Dark Ages or the Middle Ages, the Medieval period. The days were not as dark as some might have thought but they were certainly dark compared to both the days of the early church in the first few centuries AD and also compared to the days we have enjoyed as a result of the 16th Century Protestant Reformation. Only now in the 21st Century is there a suggestion that we may be returning to a darker age of anti-Christianity and all that such implies.
These were dark days. John Wycliffe, later known as the morning star of the Reformation, was still a century away; Luther and the Protestant Reformation some 300 years hence. Such distances of time for us are hard to grasp but in God’s plans these are very small, though perhaps a thousand years being like a day says more about God’s power than His use of time.
While Christians today often complain of the days in which we live as being dark and wicked, it will do us well to remember that the times are in the Lord’s hands and that he is well able to deliver his people as he always has because, “his hand is not shortened that it cannot save”. (Isaiah 59:1).
It is also important to remember that dark days are still to be learning days. There is much we can learn from the dark days of the 13th Century that we can apply to our own dark 21st Century. While the Gospel has gone far and wide around the world, in many ways England is in a second dark Ages with most people in the darkness of false religion and paganism.
Nevertheless there are always things happening that have an effect upon the church, and we are to take heed to both blessings and curses.
MAGNA CARTA
Let us begin by noticing that this period starts just after the year 1215AD, which was, on the one hand, the year of Magna Carta or great charter which was designed to establish certain freedoms for the people by way of limitations upon the powers of King John. It was in some ways a forerunner of human rights legislation but far better because in those days everyone acknowledged that all authority and power came from the all wise God to whom both the king and his subjects must give an account.
FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL
However, 1215 was also the year in which the Fourth Lateran Council (of the Roman Church) established the doctrine of transubstantiation. This turning of bread into flesh and of wine into blood turned the Lord’s Supper from a blessed gracious memorial into a superstitious and blasphemous symbol of priestly power, a power greater than that of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Yet it was a fraud and blasphemy!
THE WICKED LEGACY OF POPE INNOCENT III
The Pope at this time was Innocent III who died the following year. Pope Innocent III was a wicked man, pushing Stephen Langton in as Archbishop of Canterbury against the king’s will and then stirring up 64 monks of Canterbury to work against the king. (Foxe p349.) Innocent excommunicated the king for refusing his tyranny then absolved the people of obedience to the king even giving away England’s kingdoms and possessions to Louis the French king’s son. The king then had to pay the pope a thousand marks each year to have his kingdom back.
Abroad Innocent III had ordered the slaughter of perhaps a million Albigenses and Cathars as well as those of Toulouse. Foxe says that for 200 years prior to The Pope sending Simon de Montfort to extinguish the Albigenses, and the setting up of the Dominican friars, the people of the south of France, Toulouse, Languedoc, and Provence were already very opposed to the corruptions of the Roman Church.
Furthermore, Pope Innocent III sent mere children as soldiers to crusade against the Mohammedans, known as Turks and Saracens, what we today call Muslims or Islamists. The Roman Catholic Church claims that it was Simon de Montfort who was cruel toward the Albigenses despite Innocent’s appeal for gentleness.
At the Fourth Lateran Council in April 1215, Innocent III condemned the Magna Carta and demanded that the Jews wear distinctive dress. He also declared that anybody caught reading the Bible would be stoned to death by "soldiers of the Church militia".
Innocent III is regarded very highly by the RC Church, being made a saint. However others hold him to be one of the 20 most evil men of all time, even putting him above Hitler for wickedness.
Foxe says that the papal legate Gualo had been called back to Rome on the grounds that Pope Innocent III was sick and thought that, having spent so long in England, Gualo would be able to cure him. However in June 1216 Innocent died. Pope Innocent was succeeded by around 25 other Popes in the 13th Century and we suspect that each was as bad as the other.#
THE BEGINNING OF HENRY’S REIGN
The Bible is Quoted as the King is Chosen
Upon the death of his father, King John, on 19th October 1216, Henry did not simply become King as a matter of course.
King John had neither been trusted nor popular and it might have been thought that the boy king should not be trusted to rule. Indeed the nobles who managed the country while the boy was in his minority nearly chose the French Louis to be King in stead of Henry. Louis had previously been called to England to help the nobles against John and had acquired much power. Indeed the English and French were very closely connected with the King of England retaining the title Duke of Normandy, much to the annoyance of the Normans from whom William the Conqueror had come.
In reaching an agreement on the succession, it is noteworthy that the Bible was quoted in a helpful manner. This might come as a surprise to those of us who think of the Dark Ages as being completely pitch black with darkness! However John Foxe tells us what happened when the nobles said they could not trust Henry because of his father John’s behaviour, and would rather have Louis as king. William earl Marshall, a nobleman of great authority, quoted the Bible saying, “the child shall not bear the iniquity of his father”. Exekiel 18:20. Thus the nobles were persuaded by the Word of God to support Henry rather than Louis the French king’s son, whom they had preferred over King John.
Henry was crowned by the pope’s legate Gualo at Worcester because the French Louis still held Westminster. No doubt the Pope proudly assumed to himself the text “by me kings reign” (Proverbs 8:15) in place of God. Poor old England was in a terribly weak state. In the 21st Century also we should understand our present vulnerability and so rely on Almighty God to deliver us.
We can be thankful today that the Pope is not involved in the succession to the British throne. Nevertheless, when the Government is set on changing our Protestant Constitution to allow greater toleration of Roman Catholics and women in the succession to the throne, one might look back with even a degree of envy to the 13th Century when the Bible was actually taken as authoritative, even if it was not fully understood by many in regard to its teaching of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
Louis did not want to give up his claim to England so easily and sent for soldiers from France but Richard, King John’s bastard son fought them off by God’s grace with just a few ships, eighteen against a hundred, and Louis left the country with a thousand marks given him by the nobles as compensation for their troubling him to come to be their saviour from King John in the first instance.#
Foxe emphasises that it was God’s merciful hand that saved the English from French rule and that this should be a lesson to Englishmen not to place foreign rulers in the realm lest they consequently displace us. Today one shudders at the fact that the Chairman of the Conservative Party, our Government, is a Muslim woman!
The Boy King
Henry was a child of only nine when his father King John died so he did not assume power properly for some years. One is tempted to compare Henry with King Edward VI of the Sixteenth Century who also became king as a boy. Edward had a Protestant education and was converted at an early age and able to lead a reformation, indeed The Reformation, based on a right understanding of the Gospel, even when he was very young, like Judah’s Josiah. Sadly Henry did not have this advantage and, unless something wonderful happens by way of a clear conversion, neither will our next King.
Magna Carta on Trial
One of the first questions on the mind of the nation under Henry was, will Magna Carta be honoured by the new king? Having been signed under duress by King John who, the following year, was killed by eating poisoned apricots, how will Magna Carta work in practice? Will the boy king Henry III hold to an agreement made by his untrusted father? How will he be treated by the nation? How also will the King and Charter fare against superstition and blasphemy and the wicked and torturous Inquisition that depicted the Roman Church power that was a strong rival for ultimate authority?
A parallel may be as obvious to yourselves as it is to us. Today we struggle between the rights of the people, the church and the authorities of human government under the Queen. Now, nearly nine hundred years after Magna Carta was signed, we also live in days when much that is called human rights legislation is mingled with idolatry such as libertarianism, sodomy and false religions. Along with this, the Roman Church is as great a scandal as it ever was.
We now come to consider:
The Scandalous Interference of Rome
The middle ages are known as the Dark Ages because not much is known about them but also because there was so little Gospel light. When the Church of Jesus Christ is the source of light and life and all that is good, it is hard to imagine a society dominated by a mock Church that is utterly wicked. Yet that is the Roman church that afflicted the 13th Century and still brings about the ruin of nearly a billion people today.
However, while we tend to think, in our reformed circles, that the Bible was unknown in the Middle ages and the Bible was jumbled up with legends of King Arthur and fairy tales, there are signs that it was not all so bad. We have already given the example of Ezekiel being quoted when Henry was chosen as king. There were also people who knew something of right and wrong and especially they knew that there must be a better way. They just did not know how to break the link with the Roman Church through believing the gospel of the salvation of Jesus Christ by grace through faith alone.
The early years of Henry’s reign were not without interest. The Popes tried to put on a smiling face toward Henry, showing themselves to be better friends than the French. Of course with the Roman church holding the people under such threats as excommunication and the consequent fear of everlasting damnation, the papacy, if handled circumspectly, could serve as a good ally to a king.
Or so one might have thought! But the Papacy has proven time and time again that it cannot be trusted one iota. For example, the year 1218 marked 50 years since the death of Thomas Becket and the following year he was enshrined as a new saint so huge crowds of pilgrims came to England for the occasion. Foxe says that a historian by the name of D. Scales accounts that Kent was not sufficient to sustain all who came thither. Yet the “event” was used by the Papacy to satisfy her greed and so the papal legate in 1218 made a “general inquisition” and deprived many monks and priests of their livings, even extorting penalties from those who rebelled against the interdict of Wales, ie those who faithfully feared God and carried on worship despite the ban by the Pope due to his malice.
Perhaps it is the stories of the papal exactions of money that amaze us the most, demonstrating the true heart of the Roman Church. “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” Matthew 6:21. The following stories show that Popes who, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, change not, clearly serve Mammon. “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” Matthew 6:24.
Complaint against the Intolerable Covetousness of the Pope
Sadly under King John, England had been made tributary to the Pope and brought to poverty. In 1220 Simon de Montfort, the earl of Leicester, wrote commanding the religious men not to give any more money or rent to the Romans. The title of the letter gives the sentiment, “A complaint of the Nobles of England against the intolerable Covetousness of the Pope and Prelates of Rome.” This covetousness had operated both by the ordering of bishops to give benefices to Romans and also by taking away benefices from English priests and giving them to Romans. Besides this the alms intended for the poor were taken by the Romanists. De Montfort wrote to say that any bishops involved in exacting such rents for the Romans shall be in danger of burning! O that our leaders today, burning aside, might be as bold to uphold righteousness!
In 1220 Henry received letters from the papal legate Cardinal Otho, but perceiving the contents, Henry said he could do nothing without calling a council, which he did. The letter demanded two prebendships in each cathedral and much else including privileges in monasteries and proportions of goods. Interestingly the letter from Otho answered the charge of covetousness that had been made against the Romans but did so in a typically popish manner saying, “that the poverty of the church is the cause, and the only reason why it is so slandered and evil spoken of, it is therefore convenient that you, as natural children, should succour your mother. For unless we should receive of you and of other good men as you are, we should then lack necessaries for our life, which were a great dishonour to our dignity”. (p365 Foxe)
To this plainly proud and pretentious letter a reply was sent saying that the king was absent due to sickness and the Archbishop of Canterbury was also absent, so the assembly could not do anything! Is that a typically English reply or is it “answering a fool according to his folly” as Proverbs 6:5 wisely instructs?
Money Hunting
Presumably much annoyed at this response, Cardinal Otho came to London from Rome with full authority and power, calling a council at St Paul’s London under the pretence of redressing matters concerning benefices and religion but, notes Foxe, the chief intent was to hunt for money. Typically, to keep hold of their high positions, bishops and others gave vast gifts to Otho.
Otho sat on a specially erected scaffold high above all. Bizarrely, before his sermon, Otho had to settle an argument between the archbishops of York and Canterbury over who would sit on his left and who on his right. To settle the strife the cardinal brought forth a bull from the pope with a picture of St Paul on the right of the cross and St Peter on the left for, explained Otto, although Peter had the keys, St Paul had believed without seeing for, Jesus said, “blessed be they who believe and see not”.
From that time the Archbishop of Canterbury enjoyed the right hand and York the left. The matter settled, Otho preached from Revelation 4:6, “in the midst of the throne were four beasts full of eyes before and behind.” Otho said that the four beasts were those present who should be provident in dealing with both secular and spiritual matters. He spoke about them organising the Church but the big thing was their financing of the Papacy!”
Foxe also relates Otho’s abysmal behaviour on one occasion when visiting Oxford when he humiliated the scholars who had earlier entertained him. (p370).
Money To Nullify Crusading Oaths
Foxe notes the devious behaviour of these Roman pick pockets who first send out friars and preachers to stir up men to fight the Turks in crusades bound with a vow and signed with the cross, then send out bulls to release them from the vows and labours upon the payment of large sums of money!
Money for Papal Armies
The reason the pope needed so much money was to fight against the good emperor, Frederic II who was married to King Henry’s sister Isabella. So the Pope taxed the English clergy at 20% and promised the benefices (church appointments to which large incomes from property such as rents or tithes are attached) to Roman citizens who would vanquish emperor Frederick. Meanwhile he ordered that 300 English benefices be reserved for Romans, and until these were filled the Archbishop must not appoint any more English clergy to benefices. With this news the Archbishop of Canterbury, seeing the unreasonable oppression of the church of England, fled to France.
Telling Lies For Money
Another mark of the sleight of the Pope was that he sent one Petrus Rubeus who went from bishop to bishop and abbot to abbot pretending that other bishops had already given him huge sums “to the pope’s holiness”, saying “trusting that you also will not be behind on your part”. Rubeus was so dastardly that it caused the bishops and abbots to complain to the King. (Foxe, p368). This had some effect and the legate was then less opportune.
Council of Lyons
Later Pope Innocent IV called a council of Lyons and the following matters were exhibited:
1. The Pope not satisfied with his Peter’s pence, doth exact great exactions without the consent of the King.
2. Patrons of parish churches were unable to present clergy for livings but churches are given to Romans who cannot speak English, robbing the money of the realm. The Pope has increased benefices reserved for Romans from 12 to very many more. In these benefices the Italians do not preach or help the poor or maintain the churches. Many clergy are totally absent, ie live abroad in Italy.
3. Bishops were commanded to provide soldiers to be ready to follow the Pope’s commands!
The Pope’s purse hath no ears
All this was presented to the pope in letters from the abbots and priors, then from the bishops, the nobles and barons, and last of all from the King, but as the proverb goes, “The Pope’s purse hath no ears”. Not long after, the pope was at it again, sending for tallages and exactions to be collected. Henry was very annoyed and wrote to the Bishops: forbidding them to pay the pope. The battle of words ensued and yet eventually the Pope threatened to suspend or interdict the prelates. Sadly the threat of the pope and persuasions of the Bishop of Winchester were too much for the king who gave over to the threats. The pope responded by demanding even more money - a third part of all church goods and the yearly benefit of all vacant benefices!
Pope Abuses Other Nations Too
Germany was treated even worse than England by the Pope who did not only abuse the emperor Frederick but went to war against him, and that with Englishmen’s money. (p. 372 Foxe)
As the Albigenses had began to realise that the popes were wicked, the pope called them heretical and set about warring against them. The leader he set up against them was Louis, the young French king but, by the hand of God his siege of Toulouse was a disaster for the attackers. Furthermore Simon de Montfort and his brother, who were both fighting for the pope, also died in these battles. This de Montfort is not to be confused with De Montfort’s son of the same name who died fighting the King’s men at Evesham in 1271.
Money to Popes for Breaking Oaths
In 1224, under the advice of his council and clergy, King Henry did grant and confirm the Magna Carta as well as the “Charta de Foresta”. These liberties were later broken but then reconfirmed in 1236. Such oath-breaking was a simple matter the Pope had power to nullify oaths, for which of course, you’ve guessed it, he took a handsome fee. This served to undermine confidence in everybody and everything except the pope’s wickedness.
In 1226 Louis VIII died at the siege of Avignon fighting against the good earl of Toulouse and the Albigenses.
Henry Takes Power
In 1227, King Henry, then coming up to 20 years old, declared himself ready to be king without tutors and governors over him. He goes from Reading to London to complain about the mistake those years earlier of giving or lending 1000 marks to disperse Louis from the kingdom. Henry then proceeded to Oxford to remove those who were in his way and to revoke his keeping of Magna Carta, offering, in return for a tax, to renew the seals of any other agreements.
Pope Thrown Out of Rome by People
In 1228 Pope Gregory IX was thrown out of Rome by the people of that city who chased him as far as Perugia. In return he excommunicated them. Foxe notes the almost universal brawls and schisms in popish monasteries, churches and colleges that have characterised popery ever since the pope's usurped power.
Pope’s Power to Trump Appointments
Another way in which the Pope’s power disturbed and controlled the English was by his power in the process of church appointments.
Foxe (p384-5) notes the disagreement between King Henry and the monks at Durham concerning who should be appointed as bishop of Durham. Both appealed to the Pope but later agreed between themselves to a third candidate. However, when there was disagreement between the monks of Coventry and the canons of Lichfield aboout choosing the next bishop of Lichfield, they appealed to the pope. He decreed that they should in future take it in turns to make the appointment.
In 1228 Stephen Langton, archbishop of Canterbury died. In his day Langton did us a good service as he divided the Bible into chapters as we now have them. He also made marginal notes upon the whole Bible.
After the death of Langton, the King licensed the monks of Canterbury to choose another Archbishop, but he rejected their choice of Master Walter Hemesham because the man was first, not a supporter of the king, second, was the son of a thief who was hanged, and third, had opposed King John. The bishops added that Hemesham fathered children by a certain nun. Hemesham appealed to the Pope, who rejected him for not answering theological and biblical questions soundly. The King and bishops then presented one Richard chancellor of Lincoln, and the Pope heartily agreed.
It is hard to believe the power and malice and greed of the pope. Having agreed the appointment, he wrote immediately to the Canterbury church beginning with a lie, "forasmuch as, by the fulness of ecclesiastical power, the charge of pastoral office is committed to him in general upon all churches, he, therefore, for the solicitde he beareth, as well to all other ... etc". Such deceptive boasting was a prelude to more money grabbing. As soon as this was written the Pope sent his own chaplain and trusty legate, Master Stephen, to England to exact vast sums to fund his war against Frederick the emperor!
With hindsight the English should have realised that as soon as they contacted the pope for leadership they would be subject to enormous charges. The problem was that the Church of England did not see any authority except the Pope so, as much as it hated him, it had no where else to appeal when the King and the church disagreed. This kept the covetous Romans in power. The solution of replacing the wicked popes with the Holy Bible may to us be obvious but it was still unthinkable and unimaginable and therefore a full 300 years in the future!
Pope Lends Money For Pre-Harvest Tithes!
The taxing by the Pope of the tithe was so severe that prelates had to sell their church silver and some to lay mortgage on their belongings or to borrow on usury to make the money that was required. The Pope had even sent his bankers with Master Stephen to lend for the same purpose with great usury. Tithes were demanded even for crops which were not yet harvested! Only Ranulph the earl of Chester stoutly refused to allow either his laymen or clergy to give anything to the Pope.
In AD 1229 the Pope’s men continued to attack the good men of Toulouse, but by God's providence were beaten several times.
Some Noble Men
In 1231AD Archbishop Richard complained that the justicular, nowadays called the lord chief justice, a man named Hubert de Burgh, would not give him the castle and town of Tunbridge as they belonged to the crown. The justicular was second only to the king. So the archbishop went to Rome and won favour with the Pope for his cause. However, on his return to England Richard died.
Godly Radulph
Now the monks chose a successor for Archbishop, Radulph Nevil bishop of Chichester who was upright and sincere in both word and deed and a choice thoroughly agreeable to the King. (Foxe, p393.) However it was necessary to go to get the Pope's approval. The monks therefore asked the archbishop elect for financial assistance. The good man utterly refused to pay a halfpenny lest it was thought to be simony or ambition, rather trusting the election to God. The monks nevertheless went to Rome but there Simon Langton, (brother of Stephen Langton, a previous archbishop of Canterbury already mentioned) wickedly defamed the name of Radulph, and the pope accepted his word without further investigation.
Fruitless Journey to Rome
After the repulse of Radulph the monks proposed their own prior John to be archbishop. John went to Rome, but having been found acceptable by the Cardinals’ three day investigation, he was then declared by the Pope to be too old, although he was younger than the pope himself, and had obviously been quite strong enough to make the long hard journey to Rome! This fruitless journey well illustrates a spiritual point: the folly of supposed evangelicals today who turn to Rome. All they will find there is that there is no Gospel, so despite God’s grace which they supposedly once knew, they now turn to a religion that claims to be their mother, yet unlike their mother, finds them to be totally unacceptable.
King Chases Relics
In 1232 (Oxford English History, by Powicke, p49) King Henry III was on pilgrimage to see relics, as was his custom, especially in times of political crisis. Compare this to the days of prayer called by others such as King George IV at key points during World War II.
Henry swore an oath on the gospels, binding himself to keep the charters he made to the high officers of the realm, even submitting himself to the compulsion of the pope on pain of excommunication. The justicular also swore to keep the king to his word. Yet with the Pope able to nullify oaths for cash, nobody could be trusted. This demonstrates how Popery undermines society as a whole.
Unlawful Rebellions Against Popish Extortions
Foxe records that in 1231, such was the grievance caused to the realm of England by the extortions of the popes, that not even the king could help the matter. Interestingly the nobles took it upon themselves, probably led by Hubert the lord chief justice, to write letters under the pretence of the King's authority. At this point we do not condone forgery to defeat the wicked but we report what happened. The letters threatened to burn any who would refuse to pay their tithes and rents to the procurators of the king rather than to the Romanists.
Initial Raids
Early in 1232 Cincius, a Roman clerk in St Albans, a canon of Paul's in London, was taken and had his bags emptied. At the same time a Roman parson of Wingham, a village near Canterbury, had his barns broken up by armed soldiers and the corn sold and given away to the poor. The roman complained to the sheriff about the breaking of the king's peace but soldiers showing the letters to the sheriff were able to leave quietly. However finally Roger the bishop of London proceeded to excommunicate those who had robbed Cincius and the parson of Wingham, as well as those who forged the letters and seal of the king.
The Rebellion led by Twing
Then around Easter 1232 all the barns of the Romans were raided and the corn either sold or given to the poor. The Romans feared for their lives and hid in monasteries not daring to complain. The workers of this feat were 80 armed soldiers led by one William Withers surnamed Twing. The pope wrote to the king ordering him, under pain of excommunication, to punish the culprits. He also wrote to various bishops to get them to find the men and send them to Rome to appear before the pope!
If only the English had learnt in those days not to fear the popes and their excommunication. Such boldness would only come with the Gospel itself in the time of Wycliffe. The rogues were arrested but theft is theft, even when of the Robin Hood variety. They were imprisoned and law is law even under bad rule. Interestingly the ringleader Robert Twing told the king what he had done and why he did it, being bereaved of the patronage of his benefice by the fraudulent circumvention of the Italians. Twing was sent to pope Gregory and marvellously the pope restored him to his benefice. The popes are nothing if not pragmatists!
The Fall of Hubert de Burgh
Probably more than Twing, Hubert de Burgh was the main man behind this activity. The Romish bishops therefore one by one sought to shake him out of the king’s favour by saying to the king that de Burgh had not been loyal to him. Sadly the king, presumably still fearing the wrath of the Pope, did not defend de Burgh but called for an investigation.
The fall of Hubert de Burgh, (Powicke, P.50) the justiciar, was dramatic yet he was allowed to retire to Merton Priory to prepare his defence. Interestingly the remains of this priory were rediscovered a few years ago and have been preserved with an urban part of the A24 rebuilt as a flyover just a few feet above the ruins, and only a hundred yards from he writer’s home. A South West London borough is even named after the now virtually non-existent Merton rather than Wimbledon which is world famous due to the tennis championship held here each June.
Foxe records that while Hubert was here at Merton, Peter the Bishop of Winchester who was at Southwark, was consulted and encouraged the mob to go after Hubert. Thankfully when a crowd of 20,000 were on their way from London to get Hubert, Radulph, bishop of Chichester, the one who refused to give so much as a halfpenny to get himself approved by the pope to be archbishop, advised the king to stop this attack lest he be mocked for unkindness. Foxe notes that two messengers were sent to stop the rabble army but that one of them was against Hubert and so dawdled. That man fell off his horse and died. Foxe is not slow to ascribe such events to the finger of God.
Fleeing for fear, de Burgh came to Brentwood, Essex, then to the Tower (of London), only to be deposed without defending himself. Interestingly, certainly to us who have fled for refuge from the old church to the Church of England (Continuing), de Burgh came for safe keeping to the castle at ... Devizes, the home of the founding bishop of the Continuing Church.!
De Burgh was essentially succeeded by a man more pliable to Henry, a certain Peter des Rivaux, the new treasurer of the exchequer in place of the bishop of Carlisle. However this 'foreign rule' led to virtual war as other leading men joined together in opposition (Powicke, p53,54).
Amazing as it might sound to us in the 21st Century, the Bishop of Winchester was behind all the mischief. (Powicke, p55-56)
Foxe accounts for this trouble by the fact that Romish darkness pervaded the land. He says this is plain by the fact that the king who built monasteries that year, 1233, in London did express in plain words that he built them, "for the redemption of his soul, of the soul of king John his father, and for the souls of all his ancestors".
Edmund of Abingdon
After much difficulty in finding a suitable man to follow Stephen Langton, Edmund of Abingdon became the new Archbishop of Canterbury. The choice was not of the typical monkish man because Edmund was a secular priest monk, far more in touch with the world at large. His time as Archbishop was only seven years but in just six more he was fully canonised with a catalogue of miracles longer than your arm to his credit. He was second only to St Thomas of Canterbury. Despite the heroic superstition, Edmund was characteristic of the inspiring role models who were a blessing to the middle ages and are conspicuously absent from the 21st Century. Breakfast News recently claimed that a Coronation Street actress was a good role model but we can hardly believe it.
Henry Intervenes
In 1234, after complaints from nobles and bishops regarding the foreign interference of Henry’s new men, Henry gave way and expelled the Pictavians and sent the Bishop of Winchester home and took back possessions from Peter Rivaux, receiving back into service men of his own country. (Foxe p409).
Disaster followed in Ireland with the setting upon and consequent death of the marshal, Earl Richard. (Powicke p58). Richard had gone to Ireland because, says Foxe, the bishop of Winchester and Peter Rivaux had forged letters.
Hubert Restored
Also in 1234 the archbishop Edmund went to Wales to make friendly terms with Llewellyn, King of Wales. While there he was able to bring back Hubert whom the king restored to favour, for which Hubert gave hearty thanks to Almighty God.
Edmund informed the King of the forged letters that led to the death of Richard earl marshal. The Bishop of Winchester hid in his church and others were reproved and sent away like villains.
Wretched Pope Flees
In AD1234 in Rome the citizens were very unhappy that the Pope was not looking after them and it got so bad that the pope had to leave the city and war broke out. (Foxe p412) The Pope’s army was led by the Earl of Toulouse (to win his favour) and yes, the Bishop of Winchester, Peter, partly called for his money, but also for his skill in war! Tens of thousands were killed.
Foxe’s Astute Assessment of Popery
Foxe writes movingly (P412) of this terrible state into which the Roman church had come under Gregory IX, a state of pride that would lead to the rupture of the western church from the four patriarchs of the east:
“By these and such other stories, who seeth not, how far the church of Rome hath degenerated from the true Image of the right Church of Christ, which by the rule & example of the Gospel ought to be a daughter of peace, not a mother of debate, not a revenger of herself, nor a seeker of wars, but a forgiver of injuries, humbly and patiently referring all revenge to the Lord, not a raker for riches, but a winner of souls, not contending for worldly mastership, but humbling themselves as servants, and not Vicars of the Lord, but jointly like brethren serving together, Bishops with Bishops, Ministers with Ministers, Deacons with Deacons, and not as Masters separating themselves by superiority one from another . . .”
Pope’s Wickedness Toward the Greeks
Rather Gregory IX believed in Roman supremacy and tried to persuade all other sees to submit to himself and demanded money for a Greek archbishop to be consecrated at Rome. The Greeks were not able to agree to this presumption of Rome so Rome warred against the Greeks in the same manner as she did against the Turks and Saracens in so much as in Cyprus many good men and martrys were slain.
Germanus, the Patriarch of Constantinople wrote to Pope Gregory, referring the Pope to the first Epistle of Peter, chapter 5, verses 1 to 4 :
“The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.”
These verses show how the Pope should have behaved kindly and lovingly toward Christians if he really was following Peter. Germanus was wise to apply such texts in this manner.
Germanus also quotes 1 Peter 1:7 to describe the Greek response sufficient for this cruel treatment. “That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ.”
Surely the pope must have felt guilty that he was being exposed by Germanus as not being a follower of Peter but as a wicked one persecuting the church!
In a letter to the Cardinals of Rome written just afterwards, Germanus says that the only cause of the split between the Latin and Greek church is nothing to do with doctrine but rather, “the tyranny, oppressions and exactions of the church of rome”. How aptly does Germanus quote Galatians 2:11 at this point: “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.”
Henry’s Religion
Interestingly it has been observed by Powicke (p59) that the worse Henry did, the more he displayed humility before God, hearing masses three times a day. One is reminded of the title of the writing by reformation martyr bishop John Bradford, 'the Hurt of hearing mass' to think of the sad state of Henry. On the one hand he could sware on the gospels but on the other he sank to the veneration of relics and the idolatry of the Mass. One is reminded of present day false teachers, with their seductive mixture of Gospel and false claims, but no doubt Henry did it in ignorance.
Kindness not altogether absent
We should remember that kindness was not absent from these pre-reformation days. Human nature, though fallen and sinful, still bears the image of God. Judge Martin of Pattishall (a village near Northampton) suspended his work during harvest so that the villagers could gather their crops. (Powicke, p68) Archbishop Edmund had reminded King Henry of his royal duty to the freemen and the poor.Powicke, p70).
Robert Grosseteste
At Merton where the great council met, the problem was discussed of the divergence between church canon or common law and the common law of England. This brought to the fore a very great man, Oxford scholar Robert Grosseteste who had been made bishop of Lincoln the previous year. The issue arose because the church welcomed children born out of wedlock when the parents married. The law of the land however still counted them as bastards and ineligible as heirs to estates. Grosseteste argued for the high church view that the teaching of the church is superior to the state but it was not until the 20th century that the law was changed. Others argued that the country was generally in line and that the church should submit.
Henry was known to have got papal absolution from the oaths taken in 1232, contrary to his coronation oath. (Powicke, p75)
Pope’s Taking Money To Nullify Marriage Law Destroys Trust
In 1238, (Powicke p76), the king allowed his sister Eleanor to marry Simon de Montfort. The problem was that since Eleanor's husband died when she was only 16, she took a vow of chastity. Now people were so furious, that the King took refuge in the Tower. Dominican friars equated the marriage to adultery by one who was married to Christ. Foxe notes that the marriage went ahead because sufficient money was sent to the pope! However the people felt they could not trust the king. History records Henry III not as the most evil king but neither the most intelligent (Powicke, p8). Like the money accepted for breaking vows, this is another example of how the pope’s willingness to accept money to allow almost anything undermined civil society. It destroyed the relationships that depended upon trust such as between kings, the church and the people and between nations. The king promised the people to keep Magna Carta but then paid the pope to be free from this oath, He promised parliament he’d go on crusade but but then paid the pope to be discharged of this promise too. Yet the Pope had no humility to ever join St Paul and say, “O wretched pope (man) that I am”.
Crusade Glamour
The nation was religious, not least in the crusades. The recovery of the so-called Holy Land pervaded the minds of 13th centurymen much as it does many 21st centurymen. The city Jerusalem was inseparable from the heavenly Sion. Going to Jerusalem on crusade might be undertaken as a penance imposed to atone for some sin, taken up as a fulfilment of an oath to show honour, or tragically for any guilt-ridden sinner, as away to receive a plenary indulgence from purgatory. To carry the cross or to preach the glory of crusading were admirable things as was the donation of gifts and legacies to fund the projects.
However, (Powicke, p83) it was apparent that previous crusades had failed. Now the Papacy was crusading against the softer target of other Christians. We use the term loosely and include the Greek Church to which we referred above in Foxe. We would not call the Greek Church “Christian” today any more than we might call Rome Christian rather than anti-Christian.
Generally there was peace between England and France during this period. A sophisticated concept of morals generally held sway although it would involve great casuistry to avoid the inconvenience of keeping oaths when no longer profitable. (Powickep445ff) As we have noted above Foxe blames this on the ease with which the pope would nullify oaths for cash.
The Clergy Under Two Rules of Law
At the end of the 13th century England was divided into 17 dioceses and about forty archdeaneries consisting of some 9,500 parishes. In London were 100 parishes, York 40, Stamford and Bristol had 20 each while other parishes covered huge rural areas. One scholar estimated there were 40,000 ordained men in England and Wales in the later 13th century, others estimate fewer or complain that there are too few. If there were 30,000 that was one percent of the 13th Century population. There may have been about 15,000 to 25,000 in religious orders too.
A parson in the 13th Century was a member of a vast organisation under the authority of pope, archbishops, bishops and archdeacons. (Powicke, p447) The tendency to see him as a paid chaplain of his local patron lord had been checked. They were examined by the bishop and inducted under episcopal authority. His right to his tithe was carefully defined. He was required to attend episcopal synods and archdiaconal chapter meetings. He was expected to have a copy of the episcopal constitutions to know his role and duties. While his benefice was a kind of freehold he was not free to take advantage of his security. O that church discipline of clergy might be reformed today! In the first half of the century some rectors were inclined to assert that they had no superiors so they were reminded that they must also make confessions to appointed priests!
(Powicke p448)
Only one document, preserved by Matthew Paris, speaks of clergy having a political voice. It was in 1240 that the rectors of Berkshire refused to contribute to the papacy, saying they were responsible to their patrons with obligations to the poor, not as soldiers of a militia of Christ.
Powicke says that the ideal of Pope Innocent III of the 4th Lateran Council of 1215 was not all bad. It said that the government of souls is the art of arts and not for those who spend the night in riotous companionship so were barely able to perform their morning office. Neither was it for those who barely attended mass four times a year and then only to avoid the silence of the choir and merely chat with laymen outside. The intention was to provide a body of disciplined educated clergy to instruct the parishioners and hear their confessions at least once a year. Their superiors, the archbishops were to hold provincial councils each year and inspectors were to be appointed to each diocese. A teacher in each cathedral, a theologian in each metropolitan church and several canons against unholy or worldly clergy behaviour should have done the trick. Clergy were to refuse both secular office and secular amusements yet rendering unto Caesar the things which were Caesars, and were to respect the jurisdiction proper to the lay power.
However Powicke (p450) says that the Lateran decrees did not impact heavily on England as, while Archbishop of Canterbury Stephen Langton had a renewed sense of authority under papal leadership, the English prelates did not have the ardour of missionaries prepared for any sacrifices in an alien land, but while decent, had their own lives to lead. Even Grosseteste, the greatest reformer of them all, was a genial many sided man, advising country folk on everyday affairs, hardly a Wyclif, Tyndale, Luther or Calvin.
An indication of how little effect the Lateran Council had was that provincial councils were extremely rarely held. (Powicke, p451) Langton held one at Osney abbey just outside Oxford in 1222, then Archbishop Pecham held them 57 years later in 1279 & '81 at Reading then Lambeth. We don't know of others but the bishops did get the clergy together in synods each year. Manuscript records are chaotic (p452) but things come out such as the conflict between church and secular authority as when Grosseteste complains that the pastoral office is subverted to the damnation of souls because bishops were forbidden from exacting any sworn testimony from their lay-folk (p454-5). Grosseteste was so thorough in his investigations (he would no doubt have made a good enforcer of the Spanish Inquisition, but we think he was more gentle!). Yet according to Matthew Paris, Grosseteste's investigations were so thorough from 1246 as to cause much scandal and complaint. So much so that he was called before the King in in 1249. By 1252 the Bishop of Coventry carried out similar visitation and in 1253 all bishops used long and detailed lists of questions into the life and behaviour of clerks and laymen. One of the questions in the latter inquisition was 'whether any layman is notoriously proud or envious or avaricious or liable to the sin of slothful depression or rancorous or gluttonous or lecherous'. Imagine such today! Yet even then in the 13th Century bishops protested against royal interference with the practice, required as it was, in the due exercise of their office, for inquiry into the sins and errors of their subjects. The King replied that while he recognised the bishops' right to investigate any one well-attested case, he objected to assemblies of people summoned for a general inquiry on oath, for such gatherings interrupted the lawful activities and duties of his subjects. O for bishops so thorough and a King so sensible in our day!
In 1261 a papal legate came to England in search of support against the Mongol menace in Syria and Palestine. Archbishop Boniface took the opportunity to call a provincial council at Lambeth to try to settle the matters that had oppressed the church. The king got wind of it and sent a proctor to protest and declare that an appeal would be made to the Holy See against them as subversions of royal rights. (p457)
Despite what has just been said, the king did not live at constant variance with his bishops and the lay majority lived in close contact with the clerical minority. (Powicke, p458) Half the clergy were paid vicars but there were also absentee pluralists who on account of their qualifications enjoyed the revenues of several benefices while doing other work. There were also floating clerks in casual employment as well as 'vagabond' clergy who kept company with disorderly lay-folk like themselves. Other clergy were found in cathedrals, conventual and collegiate establishments, a mix of religious, intellectual, secular and artistic. An apparently excellent man, Walter de Cantilupe, bishop of Worcester, defended pluralism as a way of providing for ecclesiastics of noble birth or who felt that an office at court, as a minister of state, a judge, king's clerk, or royal physician was legitimate. Such men could work without the interference of a bishop.
The 'high church' doctrine was expounded with force and clarity by Grossette as early as 1236 in a long letter to Archbishop Edmund. (Powicke, p460). Here 'high church' means ‘’above the king’. Henry on the other hand thought, like all other kings should, that he was king by the grace of God with an annointed sacramental character. The king at the very least regarded himself as the patron of the church.
Grosseteste wished to withdraw all clergy from secular office. For him a judge sinned when he brought clergy before him in a personal action (Powicke, p.461) While other clergy agreed, the protest could only go so far because the clergy and secular interests were inextricably linked eg in the trial of criminous clergy, disputes about advowsons and tithes, and excommunications.
Church Courts for Clergy
Invariably criminal clergy were tried by church rather than secular courts. Presumably they were less severe as others pretended to be clergy to get such a trial. A reading test was used, if the man could not read he was presumably not clergy. The test was not infallible, and not always used. A convicted clergyman was henceforth regarded as a layman. Powicke gives the example of a certain man Hugh accused of rape and the complication of whether he married a virgin or widow. (Powickep462,3) If she were a widow then under canon law the clergyman was deemed a bigamist and defrocked and tried as a layman. Etc etc.In the case of advowsons the church was responsible for appointing a suitable incumbent while the crown had a duty to determine that lawful ownership was protected. (Powicke, p474). Archbishop Pecham in 1274 comes down hard on pluralism with excommunication, absolvable only by the archbishop or the apostolic see. He then called for a list of rectors to be compiled. This was about as effective as the 2011 'high pay inquiry' of the Cameron Clegg coalition government. Pluralism was so widespread and useful that everybody laughed. In any case papal dispensations were so easy to obtain.
Before we conclude we turn briefly to some of the further incidents given by Foxe:
More Cases of Harmful Papal Interference
in 1244 the Pope Innocent IV sent Master Martin to suspend prelates in England from giving benefices to Englishmen until the Pope’s kinsmen had been provided for. Those who did not cooperate he suspended such as the Abbot of Malmesbury and the Prior of Merton. (Foxe p 429). King Henry wrote gently to the Pope for mercy but the Pope only got more severe. The nobles took action and stopped the Pope’s letters at Dover but the legate forced the king to stop this. The sum gong to the pope exceeded that which went to the crown. INn1245 the King expelled Master Martin from the realm. In 1246 the Pope tried to set the French against England. Foxe says that the Pope’s wrecking of Christendom furthered the spread of the Turks. This has a parallel today with the ecumenical movement wrecking the church while Islam advances “without let or hindrance” ... as it says inside the proudly held British passport!
Others Who Objected to Papal Abuse
Foxe writes warmly of Emperor Frederick II and notes that Frederick wrote to the king of England declaring the wretched behaviour of the Pope.
Frederick was not alone in condemning the Popes. The world did not have to wait until Martin Luther to hear how wicked the Popes were. It was just that the power of the Popes was not broken until then. So in 1250, (Foxe page 510 to 520) a certain Gulielmus (full name Gulielmus de Sancto Amore), a master of Paris and then chief ruler of the university of Paris, wrote “39 signs to distinguish false preachers from true preachers. It extends to a superb excellent 10 pages of small print in Foxe that perhaps we can reprint in English Churchman one day.
About AD1260 a certain Englishman called Lawrence also withstood the antichristian errors of the Pope and wrote in defence of Gulielmus. Another Robertus Gallus later (AD1290) wrote of visions describing antichrist but also of his fall, as if predicting the Protestant Reformation.
Alledged Misbehaviour of Jews
Some of Foxe’s notes on the Jews at the time are quite harrowing and one wonders if they are based on prejudice even then:
In 1255 some Jews at Lincoln crucified whipped and tormented a nine year old child called Hugo. He was found by his mother having been cast into a pit. Thirty two Jews were blamed and executed. Twenty years earlier something similar happened in Norwich. Jews were expelled from France only to have the Turks complain that that the French king was warring against them who had not crucified their saviour. Foxe says that in some accounts, in 1262 some 500 Jews were put to death in London for charging usury above the permitted level. (Foxe p545). In the year 1264, the Jews of London sought to conspire against the whole city of London, and they were consequently almost all killed.
The Last King of Wales
In 1257 the Welsh King Llewellyn rose up against the English and the result of this was that from that date the Welsh no longer had no king but only princes.
Famine
In 1257 or 1262 the famine was so severe in the land that (Foxe p537) that corn was sold for 26 shillings for a quantity carried by a beast, presumably an ox or mule. It was so severe that the poorer people resorted to eating nettle roots and thistle roots.
Claim on Normandy Ends
In 1259 the king tried to reclaim Normandy but dropped the claim, in theory for money but though this was not paid and the King never dropped the title Duke of Normandy.
Border Controls and Austerity Measures
The problem of foreign power was recognised. In 1260 laws were introduced to prohibit cloth not made in England. Cloth was not to be too sumptuous. Excess, prodigal expenses wasted on pleasure were to be eschewed by all persons.
A Useless Archbishop
In 1264 the King wrote to Boniface, Archbishop of Canterbury who had longtime been living in Provence. (Foxe p554). The King gave permission for the disgraced Archbishop to return to England under certain conditions. Upon Boniface not returning, Henry wrote again saying what a disgrace it was that the Archbishop was absent while profiting from his position. On returning the Archbishop himself was concerned that so much was neglected in the church that he complained to the king. Henry rebuked the archbishop saying that he had been wrong to give the archbishopric to Boniface his relative who was of no use to the people, being both a foreign stranger and unlearned. and that Boniface should set an example for others by leaving so that his place could be filled b someone more worthy. Boniface did not leave until he had filled his pockets in true popish style with all the usual money making tricks including felling and selling the woods, letting out the archbishopric, fining tenants and charging clergy! He returned with the curse of allmen to Savoy from whence he had come to misgovern the church those 29 years from his first election. Nevertheless no new Archbishop was appolnted until Boniface had died in 1271 when there was, as seemed usual, much disagreement over who shoudl be appointed (Foxe, p556)
A Married Pope?
Foxe also notes the unusual appointment of Clement IV to succeed Pope Urban in 1264. It was unusual as Clement was first a married man with children and only entered the church after his wife died. (Foxe, p556)
King’s Son Preserved
Meanwhile Henry’s son Edward, who was to be the next king, had been on some wonderful crusades. Foxe notes how providentially Edward escaped the ruin of other leaders who had not been honest. Edward also made a wonderful recovery from sickness that Foxe notes.
In 1264 the scholars of Oxford and noblemen such as Simon Montfort the younger earl of Leicester, fight and are nearly put to death by the king. Peace was made but soon the nobles attacked. Henry’s son Edward fought off the attack and won the day at Lewes. Foxe p548
CONCLUSIONS
The 13th Century had the potential for the English Church to make progress. The Bible was not as absent as we might have previously thought and there were people some great people around who were genuinely trying to do what was right.
However the problem was that the highest authority belonged to the Popes who were lovers of money rather than lovers of God. While there were protests and rebellions against Papal power, God had not yet brought about the time in which both the political and religious claims of the Papacy would be exposed for the anti-Christ wickedness that they were and still continue to be. For that to happen the Holy Spirit was going to have to open up the Word of God, the Bible in a way that had been long forgotten. That great event started to happen in the 14th Century but most fully in the 16th.
When we look back at all this from the 21st Century it is tragic to see that we have fallen once more into times when there is so much wickedness as the truth of the Gospel is hidden from so many. One feels as if in the 13th Century this was in part excusable, but not today when we have Bibles and Gospel preaching churches in our land.
ENDS
No comments:
Post a Comment