21 January 1549 A.D. Rome’s Take on Church of England, Edward VI, & First Acts of Uniformity

21 January 1549 A.D.  Rome’s Take on Church of England, Edward VI, & First Acts of Uniformity

Figure 1--But I want the Council of Trent!

Burton, Edwin. "Uniformity Acts." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 15. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15127b.htm.  Accessed 21 Jan 2015.

Uniformity Acts

These statutes, passed at different times, were vain efforts to secure uniformity in public worship throughout England. But as the principle of unity had been lost when communion with the See of Peter was broken off, all such attempts were foredoomed to failure. They were resisted by Catholics on the one hand and the Nonconformists on the other. The first of these Acts (2 and 3 Edward VI, c. 1) was called "An Act for Uniformity of Service and Administration of the Sacraments throughout the Realm". After a long preamble setting forth the reasons which had led to the drawing up of "The Book of the Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies of the Church after the use of the Church of England", and the desirability of having one uniform rite and order in use in all churches through England and Wales, the statute enacts that after Pentecost, 1549, all ministers shall be bound to follow the same in all public services. Then follow penalties against such of the clergy as shall substitute any other form of service, or shall not use the "Book of Common Prayer", or who shall preach or speak against it. Further penalties are decreed against all who in plays or songs shall mock said book. Private persons were allowed to use the forms for Matins and Evensong in Latin, Greek, or Hebrew in their own private devotions, and liberty was reserved to the universities to have the service in their college chapels conducted in any of these tongues. There is nothing in this Act to enforce attendance at public worship, but the provisions of the Act apply to every kind of public worship or "open prayer", as it was called, which might take place. The Act itself defines "open prayer" as "that prayer which is for others to come unto or near, either in common churches or private chapels or oratories, commonly called the service of the Church". This Act was confirmed by 5 and 6 Edw. VI, c. 1, repealed by I Mary, sess. 2, c. 2, revived by 1 Eliz., c. 2, and 1 James I, c. 25, and made perpetual so far as it relates to the Established Church of England by 5 Anne, c. 5 (c. 8 according to some computations).

The next of these Acts (3 and 4 Edward VI, c. 10) was passed in 1549 under the title "An Act for the abolishing and putting away of diverse books and images". The preamble of the Act recites that the king had of late set forth and established by authority of Parliament an order for common prayer in a book entitled, "The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies of the Church, after the Church of England". The first section then suppresses and forbids all books or writings in Latin or English used for church services other than such as are appointed by the king's majesty. And all such books are to be collected by the mayor and other civil authorities and delivered to the bishop to be destroyed.

But as the "First Prayer-book" of Edward VI did not satisfy the reformers, it was soon supplanted by the "Second Prayer-book", issued in 1552 and also sanctioned by Act of Parliament. This Act of Uniformity is the first to be expressly called by that name, being entitled "An Act for the Uniformity of Service and Administration of Sacraments throughout the realm" (5 and 6 Edw. VI, c. 1). It goes much further than the previous Act, for it enforces church attendance on Sundays and holy days. After the preamble declaring the desirability of uniformity, the second section enacts that after 1 November, 1552, all persons shall attend their parish church on Sundays and holy days and shall be present at the common prayer, preaching, or other service, under pain of punishment by the censures of the Church. The archbishops and bishops are charged with the task of enforcing the Act (sect. 3); and they are to inflict the censures of the Church on offenders (sect. 4). The fifth section refers to the new "Book of Common Prayer", to which had been added a "Form and Manner of making and consecrating archbishops, bishops, priests, and deacons", and declares that all the provisions of the previous Act shall apply to it. By the sixth and last section any person convicted of being present at any other form of common prayer or administration of the sacraments shall be imprisoned for six months for the first offence, one year for the second, and shall suffer imprisonment for life for the third. The Act was to be read in church four times during the following year and once a year afterwards. It was repealed by I Mary, sess. 2, c. 2, but revived with certain alterations by 1 Eliz., c. 2, and confirmed by 1 James I, c. 25. It was made perpetual so far as it relates to the Established Church of England by 5 Anne, c. 5 (or c. 8 according to the chronological table of statutes).

Queen Mary contented herself with repealing these statutes of Edward and thus restoring the ancient liberty. No fresh Uniformity Act appeared on the statute book till Protestantism returned under Elizabeth. Then the well known "Act for the Uniformity of Common Prayer and Service in the Church and Administration of the Sacraments" (1 Eliz., c. 2) was passed. The first effect of this statute was to repeal the Act of Mary as and from 24 June, 1559, and to restore the "Book of Common Prayer" from that date. The "Second Prayer-book" of Edward VI with certain additions and alterations was thenceforth to be used, and any clergyman neglecting to use it or substituting any other form of open prayer or preaching against it, was on conviction to suffer penalties which increased with offence till on the third conviction they mounted to deprivation from all spiritual preferment and imprisonment for life. Similarly severe penalties culminating in the forfeiture of all goods and chattels and imprisonment for life were decreed against all persons who spoke in derision of the "Book of Common Prayer". Attendance at church service on Sunday at the parish church was rendered compulsory, and any person absent without reasonable cause was to pay a fine of twelve pence, which would be equivalent to ten shillings in modern English money, or two dollars and a half. Long and extensive provisions for enforcing the Act are included, and one section provides for uniformity in the ornaments of the Church and ministers. This enacts that the same ornaments shall be retained "as was in this Church of England, by authority of Parliament, in the second year of King Edward VI".

This Act proved a powerful weapon against the Catholics, who could not conscientiously obey it, and it was used consistently as a means to harass and impoverish them. So effective was it that it needed no amending, and a century elapsed before the next Uniformity Act was passed. This was the celebrated Act of Charles II (13 and 14 Chas. II, c. 4: according to some computations it is quoted as 15 Chas. II, c. 4). It was followed by a short Act of Relief (15 Chas. II, c. 6). This Act is of little or no special interest to Catholics, for it was primarily designed to regulate the worship of the Church of England, and so far as Catholics were concerned it added nothing to the provisions of the Edwardine and Elizabethan Acts.

Relief from the Acts of Uniformity was granted to Catholics by the Second Catholic Relief Act (31 Geo. III, c. 32), though the benefits of the Act were limited to those who made the declaration and took the oath under the Act. So much of this statute as related to the declaration and oath was repealed in 1871 by the Promissory Oaths Act (34 and 35 Vict., c. 48). There were certain restrictions and conditions as to Catholic places of worship, but these were changed in 1832 by the Act 2 and 3 Wm. IV, c. 115, by which Catholics were placed on the same footing as Protestant dissenters in this and some other respects. Incidentally this statute made it compulsory to certify Catholic chapels to the Anglican bishop and archdeacon and the quarter sessions. But this restriction was abolished in 1855 by 18 and 19 Vict., c. 81, which provided that such buildings could be notified to the registrar-general instead. Even this provision has long fallen into disuse and it is not customary to register Catholic churches except for the solemnization of marriage. Thus for Catholics, as for Nonconformists, the provisions of the Uniformity Acts have been gradually repealed and now they apply only to the Established Church of England; but to that extent they are still on the statute-books and as late as 1872 a statute entitled "An Act for the Amendment of the Act of Uniformity" was passed (35 and 36 Vic., c. 35). As long as the Church of England is the established religion its worship will be regulated by statute, so that Acts of Uniformity in one shape or another will remain part of the English code of law unless, and until, disestablishment takes place.

21 January 1549 A.D. Church of England, Edward VI, & First Acts of Uniformity

21 January 1549 A.D. Church of England, Edward VI, & First Acts of Uniformity

http://www.beautifulbritain.co.uk/htm/onthisday/onthisday.htm

1549Parliament passed the first of four Acts of Uniformity, the first requiring the exclusive use of the Book of Common Prayer in all public services of the Anglican Church.

Editors. “First Act of Uniformity, 1549: 2 & 3 Edward VI, c.1).”  Tudorplace.com.  http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/Documents/first_act_of_uniformity_1549.htm.  Accessed 21 Jan 2014.

First Act of Uniformity

1549

(2 & 3 Edward VI, c. 1)

---

Where of long time there has been had in this realm of England and in Wales divers forms of common prayer, commonly called the service of the Church; that is to say the Use of Sarum, of York, of Bangor, and of Lincoln; and besides the same now of late much more divers and sundry forms and fashions have been used in the cathedral and parish churches of England and Wales, as well concerning the Matins or Morning Prayer and the Evensong, as also concerning the Holy Communion, commonly called the Mass, with divers and sundry rites and ceremonies concerning the same, and in the administration of other sacraments of the Church: and as the doers and executors of the said rites and ceremonies, in other form than of late years they have been used, were pleased therewith, so others, not using the same rites and ceremonies, were thereby greatly offended; And albeit the king's majesty, with the advice of his most entirely beloved uncle, the lord protector, and other of his highness's council, has heretofore divers times essayed to stay innovations or new rites concerning the premises; yet the same has not had such good success as his highness required in that behalf: Whereupon his highness by the most prudent advice- aforesaid, being pleased to bear with the frailty and weakness of his subjects in that behalf, of his great clemency has not been only content to abstain from punishment of those that have offended in that behalf, for that his highness taketh that they did it of a good zeal; but also to the intent a uniform quiet and godly order should be had concerning the premises, has appointed the Archbishop of Canterbury, and certain of the most learned and discreet bishops, and other learned men of this realm, to consider and ponder the premises; and thereupon having as well eye and respect to the most sincere and pure Christian religion taught by the Scripture, as to the usages in the primitive Church, should draw and make one convenient and meet order, rite, and fashion of common and open prayer and administration of the sacraments, to be had and used in his majesty's realm of England and in Wales; the which at this time, by the aid of the Holy Ghost, with one uniform agreement is of them concluded, set forth, and delivered to his highness, to his great comfort and quietness of mind, in a book entitled, 'The Book of the Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, after the Use of the Church of England':  

Wherefore the lords spiritual and commons, in this present parliament assembled, considering as well the most godly travail of the king's highness, of the lord protector, and of other his highness's council, in gathering and collecting the said Archbishop, bishops, and learned men together, as the godly prayers, orders, rites, and ceremonies in the said book mentioned, and the considerations of altering those things which be altered and retaining those things which be retained in the said book, but also the honour of God and great quietness, which by the grace of God shall ensue upon the one and uniform rite and order in such common prayer and rites and external ceremonies to be used throughout England and in Wales, at Calais and the marches of the same, do give to his highness most hearty and lowly thanks for the same; and humbly pray, that it may be ordained and enacted by his majesty, with the assent of the lords and commons in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that all and singular person and persons that have offended concerning the premises, other than such person and persons as now be and remain in ward in the Tower of London, or in the Fleet, may be pardoned thereof; and that all and singular ministers in any cathedral or parish church or other place within this realm of England, Wales, Calais, and the marches of the same, or other the king's dominions, shall, from and after the feast of Pentecost next coming, be bound to say and use the Matins, Evensong, celebration of the Lord's Supper, commonly called the Mass, and administration of each of the sacraments, and all their common and open prayer, in such order and form as is mentioned in the same book, and none other or otherwise. And albeit that the same be so godly and good, that they give occasion to every honest and conformable man most willingly to embrace them, yet lest any obstinate person who willingly would disturb so godly order and quiet in this realm should not go unpunished, that it may also be ordained and enacted by the authority aforesaid that if any manner of parson, vicar, or other whatsoever minister, that ought or should sing or say common prayer mentioned in the said book, or minister the sacraments, shall after the said feast of Pentecost next coming refuse to use the said common prayers, or to minister the sacraments in such cathedral or parish church or other places as he should use or minister the same, in: such order and form as they be mentioned and set forth in the said book; or shall use, wilfully and obstinately standing in the same, any other rite, ceremony, order, form, or manner of Mass openly or privily, or Matins, Evensong, administration of the sacraments, or other open prayer than is mentioned and set forth in the said book (open prayer in and throughout this Act, is meant that prayer which is for other to come unto or hear either in common churches or private chapels or oratories, commonly called the service of the Church); or shall preach, declare, or speak anything in the derogation or depraving of the said book, or anything therein contained, or of any part thereof; and shall be thereof lawfully convicted according to the laws of this realm, by verdict of twelve men, or by his own confession, or by the notorious evidence of the fact: shall lose and forfeit to the king's highness, his heirs and successors, for his first offence, the profit of such one of his spiritual benefices or promotions as it shall please the king's highness to assign or appoint, coming and arising in one whole year next after his conviction: and also that the same person so convicted shall for the same offence suffer imprisonment by the space of six months, without bail or mainprize: and if any such person once convicted of any offence concerning the premises, shall after his first conviction again offend and be thereof in form aforesaid lawfully convicted, that then the same person shall for his second offence suffer imprisonment by the space of one whole year, and also shall therefore be deprived ipso facto of all his spiritual promotions; and that it shall be lawful to all patrons, donors, and grantees of all and singular the same spiritual promotions, to present to the same any other able clerk, in like manner and form as though the party so offending were dead: and that if any such person or persons, after he shall be twice convicted in form aforesaid, shall offend against any of the premises the third time, and shall be thereof in form aforesaid lawfully convicted, that then the person so offending and convicted the third time shall suffer imprisonment during his life. And if the person that shall offend and be convicted in form aforesaid concerning any of the premises, shall not be beneficed nor have any spiritual promotion, that then the same person so offending and convicted shall for the first offence suffer imprisonment during six months, without bail or mainprize: and if any such person not having any spiritual promotion, after his first conviction shall again offend in anything concerning the premises, and shall in form aforesaid be thereof lawfully convicted, that then the same person shall for his second offence suffer imprisonment during his life.

II. And it is ordained and enacted by the authority abovesaid, that if any person or persons whatsoever, after the said feast of Pentecost next coming, shall in any interludes, plays, songs, rhymes, or by other open words declare or speak anything in the derogation, depraving, or despising of the same book or of anything therein contained, or any part thereof; or shall by open fact, deed, or by open threatenings, compel or cause, or otherwise procure or maintain any parson, vicar, or other minister in any cathedral or parish church, or in any chapel or other place, to sing or say any common and open prayer, or to minister any sacrament otherwise or in any other manner or form than is mentioned in the said book; or that by any of the said means shall unlawfully interrupt or let any parson, vicar, or other ministers in any cathedral or parish church, chapel, or any other place, to sing or say common and open prayer, or to minister the sacraments, or any of them, in any such manner and form as is mentioned in the said book; that then every person being thereof lawfully convicted in form abovesaid, shall forfeit to the King our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, for the first offence ten pounds. And if any person or persons, being once convicted of any such offence, again offend against any of the premises, and shall in form aforesaid be thereof lawfully convicted, that then the same persons so offending and convicted shall for the second offence forfeit to the King our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, twenty pounds; and if any person after he, in form aforesaid, shall have been twice convicted of any offence concerning any of the premises, shall offend the third time, and be thereof in form abovesaid lawfully convicted, that then every person so offending and convicted shall for his third offence forfeit to our sovereign lord the King all his goods and chattels, and shall suffer imprisonment during his life: and if any person or persons, that for his first offence concerning the premises shall be-convicted in form aforesaid, do not pay the sum to be paid by virtue of his conviction, in such manner and form as the same ought to be paid, within six weeks next after his conviction, that then every person so convicted, and so not paying the same, shall for the same first offence, instead of the said tell pounds, suffer imprisonment by the space of three months without bail or mainprize. And if any person or persons, that for his second offence concerning the premises shall be convicted in form aforesaid, do not pay the sum to be paid by virtue of his conviction, in such manner and form as the same ought to be paid, within six weeks next after his said second conviction, that then every person so convicted, and not so paying the same, shall for the same second offence, instead of the said twenty pounds, suffer imprisonment during six months without bail or mainprize.

III. And it is ordained and enacted by the authority aforesaid, that all and every justices of oyer and terminer, or justices of assize, shall have full power and authority in every of their open and general sessions to inquire, hear, and determine all and all manner of offences that shall be committed or done contrary to any article contained in this present Act, within the limits of the commission to them directed, and to make process for the execution of the same, as they may do against any person being indicted before them of trespass, or lawfully convicted thereof.

IV. Provided always, and be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, that all and every Archbishop and Bishop shall or may at all time and times at his liberty and pleasure join and associate himself, by virtue of this Act, to the said justices of oyer and terminer, or to the said justices of assize, at every of the said open and general sessions to be holden in any place within his diocese, for and to the inquiry, hearing, and determining of the offences aforesaid.

V. Provided always, that it shall be lawful to any man that understands the Greek, Latin, and Hebrew tongue, or other strange tongue, to say and have the said prayers, heretofore specified, of Matins and Evensong in Latin, or any such other tongue, saying the same privately, as they do understand;

VI. And for the further encouraging of learning in the tongues in the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford, to use and exercise in their common and open prayer in their chapels (being no parish churches) or other places of prayer, the Matins, Evensong, Litany, and all other prayers (the Holy Communion, commonly called the Mass, excepted) prescribed in the said book, in Greek, Latin, or Hebrew; anything in this present Act to the contrary notwithstanding.

VII. Provided also, that it shall be lawful for all men, as well in churches, chapels, oratories, or other places, to use openly any psalm or prayer taken out of the Bible, at any due time, not letting or omitting thereby the service or any part thereof mentioned in the said book.

VIII. Provided also, and be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, that the books concerning the said services shall at the costs and charges of the parishioners of every parish and cathedral church be attained and gotten before the feast of Pentecost next following, or before; and that all such parish and cathedral churches, or other places where the said books shall be attained and gotten before the said feast of Pentecost, shall within three weeks next after the said books so attained and gotten use the said service, and put the same in use according to this Act.

IX. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that no person or persons shall be at any time hereafter impeached or otherwise molested of or for any of the offences above mentioned, hereafter to be committed or done contrary to this Act, unless he or they so offending be thereof indicted at the next general sessions to be holden before any such of the justices of oyer and terminer or justices of assize, next after any offence committed or done contrary to the tenor of this Act.

X. Provided always, and be it ordained and enacted by the authority aforesaid, that all and singular lords in the Parliament, for the third offence above mentioned, shall be tried by their peers.

XI. Provided also, and be it ordained and enacted by the authority aforesaid, that the Mayor of London, and all other Mayors, bailiffs, and other head officers of all and singular cities, boroughs, and towns corporate within this realm, Wales, Calais, and the marches of the same, to the which justices of assize do not commonly repair, shall have full power and authority by virtue of this Act to inquire, hear, and determine the offences abovesaid, and every of them yearly, within fifteen days after the feasts of Easter and St. Michael the Archangel, in like manner and form as justices of assize and oyer and terminer may do.

XII. Provided always, and be it ordained and enacted by the authority aforesaid, that all and singular archbishops and bishops, and every of their chancellors, commissaries, archdeacons, and other ordinaries, having any peculiar ecclesiastical jurisdiction, shall have full power and authority by virtue of this Act, as well to inquire in their visitations, synods, and elsewhere within their jurisdiction, [or] at any other time or place, to take accusations and informations of all and every the things above mentioned, done, committed, or perpetrated, within the limits of their jurisdiction and authority, and to punish the same by admonition, excommunication, sequestration, or deprivation, and other censures and process, in like form as heretofore has been used in like cases by the king's ecclesiastical laws.

XIII. Provided always, and be it enacted, that whatsoever person offending in the premises shall for the first offence receive punishment of the ordinary, having a testimonial thereof under the said ordinary's seal, shall not for the same offence again be summoned before the justices; and likewise receiving for the said first offence punishment by the justices, he shall not for the same offence again receive punishment of the ordinary; anything contained in this Act to the contrary notwithstanding.

Dr. Daniell's "Bible in English:" (Ch 14) Edward VI (1547-1553)

Daniell, David. The Bible in English: Its History and Influence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-English-History-Influence/dp/0300099304/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1385668294&sr=8-1&keywords=david+daniell+english+bible

 
Chapter 14—Toward the Reign of Edward VI, 1547-1553, pages 221-247

Prof. Daniell’s discussion entails the following elements: (1) directions for a reformation brewing since 1528, (2) Anglo-Roman-Italian reversals of reforms, (3) Edward VI, (4) Old Testament kings, (5) Monarchs and the “Two Regiments” (spirituals and temporals), (6) Edward VI as Josiah, (7) the enriching effects of Josiah, (8) those English Bibles again, and (9) contrary to Romanist and Tractarian historians (airbrush artists), the English Reformation was not a failure.

As the discussion develops towards Edward VI, 1547-1553, it should not be forgotten that Tyndale’s NTs, notwithstanding repressive English efforts, were still rolling off Continental presses. Furthermore, there were no further significant translation-tweaks to the Great Bible of 1540 until the efforts on the Geneva Bible, beginning in 1557 and going to the press in 1560, a reproduction with slight annotations. The Geneva Bible (1560, 1576, 1599), notwithstanding historical revisionists (airbrush artists), was an influential Bible in England for 100 years and, then, it reached the “creeks and coastal plains of America” (221); the Geneva Bible was a rich source book for personal and private lives. As said before, the toothpaste was not going back into the tube.

DIRECTIONS THAT THE REFORMATION SHOULD TAKE, c. 1528, pages 221-226

Tyndale was forward-looking. One strong clue comes from Tyndale’s printer, at one moment under the influence of alcohol. Tyndale had Miles Coverdale and the Observant friar William Roy as assistants in translation work. Peter Quesnell, an eminent publisher who would print any respectable volume of any persuasion, including Tyndale, took to too much wine. He had been drinking too much. “Under the influence” Quesnell told Cochlaeus (John Dobneck), a vitriolic and virulent anti-Lutheran in search of heretics...Quesnell revealed “the secret by which England was to be brought over to the side of Luther” (143). That was red-meat; it still is red-meat to Tractarians and even liberals. The Bible and Bible doctrines were vital and Tyndale knew it, like Luther. While Anglo-Italian leaders were fighting brushfires in the 1520s in England (e.g. Bp. John Fisher and Henry VIII), notably in London, Cambridge and Oxford, Tyndale was hovering over, digging in, thinking about, and being controlled by the constant inrush, overflow and immersion in the Biblical text. That begins to shape doctrine, worship and piety. Tyndale was miles beyond the imaginative powers of the majorities of Anglo-Italian leaders. An English Bible in the nation would force far too many--again, far too many--unappreciated, probing, penetrating—and even mocking—questions of the corrupted Anglo-Italian leaders literally “hell-bent” on control and darkness.

Many examples could be cited. A discussion of good and bad kings with applications to Popes, Bishops and Kings could invite unpleasant conflicts. Or, more simply, a little matter: WHAT? Married clergymen like the apostles? 1 Cor. 9.5? As one sheriff in one shire said upon reading that, “What? The Bible is heresy.” These are two, but there are far, far more. The power of the whole Bible, God’s Word, was feared; it still is; that’s why we get “driplet-droplet” theologies of Marcionism, continuing Romanism (masters of the selective quotation system with centuries of practice), liberalism, and modern day evangelicalism (think shallow music, liturgy and more).

Tyndale (like Cranmer later) saw the “power of the Scripture” (122). Few understand Cranmer's childlike and implicit power in the unvarnished reading of the Scriptures. This point about Cranmer rarely gets mentioned. Luther had the same conviction.

This applied to Kings (and Pope’s) as well, still a revolutionary message...the relationship to the rank-and-file governed by Scripture. One doesn't get the right to abuse Christ's sheep. Here’s Tyndale:

“…the people are God’s, and not theirs: yeah, are Christ’s inheritance and possession, bought with His blood. The most despised person in the realm is the king’s brother and fellow-member with him in the kingdom of God and of Christ” (222).

Hiding, stealing and obfuscating “the Word of God” was a constant theme of all Reformers. Notwithstanding all Thomas More's intemperate chest-pounding in strenuous opposition to English Bibles (and John Fishers and other Anglo-Roman-
Italians), again, from Tyndale:

“Judge whether it be possible that any good come out of their dumb ceremonies and sacraments unto thy soul. Judge their penance, pilgrimages, pardons, purgatory, praying to posts, dumb blessings, dumb absolutions, their dumb pattering, and howling, their dumb strange holy gestures, with all their dumb disguisings, their satisfactions and justifyings” (223).

“Dumb” means Latin throughout.

It’s worth re-reading the quote slowly. Tyndale has the indubitably clear sense that Latin-illiterate throngs faced “dumbness” from the Anglo-Italian imperialists.

“Dumbness” was sought, advocated and defended.

What good comes of that "dumbness" asked Tyndale? Ignorance was the name of the game. It kept the "swine" from "trodding the Gospel underfoot" to quote one Anglo-Roman-Italian.

Forcing such ignorance, dumbness and theft of God’s Word was, to Tyndale, the act of antichrists. His marginal note at 1 John 2.1 indicates such—antichrists. “…even now there are many antichrists come already” as Tyndale translates it. He lays into the money-schemes of Rome including the enormously wealthy English monasteries. Modern ecumenists cannot handle such an idea of an antichrist in religious leadership, or the Devil, or demons or humans in enslaved bondage to them (airbrush Eph. 2.1, John 8.44, Mt. 13 out of the text for example); that is beyond their ken, too rude...too un-Western and too un-advanced. It's not fit for country-club Republicans or modern professors of literature, history and theology. Not so for Tyndale.

The “dumbness” would be cured by English Bibles. Again, Tyndale was immersed in the text.

On the simplest and even more complex levels of Bible reading...rude, probing and awakening questions would indicate greed, pomp, avarice, power-grabbing, arrogance, wealth, theft, anger and more—even architecturally with penance-indulgence funds—dem' big bucks—underwriting construction-artistic developments at (Anti-) St. Peter’s in Rome. The Bible would expose such things (a Wycliffite theme). Rome was running a Ponzi-scheme, Peter's pence and all, like TBN.  Those rude observations by St. Paul about leaders not being covetous for wealth were unwelcomed notes. Calvin would call it "fleecing the sheep." Luther saw it with the indulgence trafficking.

On the simple or more complex reading of the Bible, Tyndale is also scathing about Anglo-Italian liturgical superstitions and power-abuses (still a feature with Tractoes, liturgical martinets and fundamentalists, "righta' lefta' right").

Again, from Tyndale:

“If any of them happen to swallow his spittle, or any of the water wherewith he washeth his mouth, ere he go to mass: or touch the sacrament with his nose: or if the ass [ = Tyndale’s word for priest, emphasis added] forget to breathe on him [Tyndale’s meaning the bread or the chalice], or happen to handle it with any of his fingers which are not anointed, or say Alleluia instead of Laus tibi Domine or Ite missa est instead of Benedictamus Domino or pour too much wine in the chalice, or read the gospel without light, or make not his crosses aright, how trembleth he! How feareth he! What an horrible sin is committed! I cry God mercy, saith he, and you my ghostly father. But to hold an whore, or another man’s wife, to buy a benefice, to set one realm at variance with another, and to cause twenty thousand men to die on one day, is but a trifle and a pastime with them” (224).

Or, on Anglo-Italian arrogance...the desires to inflict ignorance on the people (Latin services on the Latin illiterate throngs), and anti-Pauline theology, again from Tyndale:

“What then saith the pope? What care I for Paul? I command by virtue of obedience to read the gospel in Latin. Let them no pray but in Latin, no, not their Pater noster. If any be sick, go also and say them a gospel, and all in Latin…It is verily as good to preach it to swine as to men if thou preach it in a tongue they understand not. How shall I believe the truth and promises which God hath sworn, while thou tellest them unto me in a tongue which I understand not” (225)?

Or, again, on a simple or complex reading of the entire Bible, a simple person could easily discern world-consuming preoccupations and the unwarranted wealth relative to ministerial duties, again from Tyndale:

“To preach God’s word is too much for half a man: and to minister a temporal kingdom is too much for half a man also. Either other requireth an whole man. One therefore cannot well do both. He that avengeth himself on every trifle is not meet to preach the patience of Christ...He that is overwhelmed with all manner riches and doth but seek more daily not meet to preach poverty…” (226).

There are many themes—including theological ones, like Romans—that Bible reading would confront. Where's purgatory or indulgences?  Tyndale frequently noted: "...the pope sells what Christ gives freely."

Upon a simple or complex reading of Scriptures, one very simple theme was married clerks in collision with the authority of the Anglo-Italians and Continental Papists legislating mandatory celibacy; the Papists still require it. A simple reading must deal with such. It illustrates the continued arrogance of the senior clerk in Rome. Again, from Tyndale on marriage:

“He must have a wife for two causes. One, that it may thereby be known who is meet for the room. He is apt for so chargeable an office, which had never household to rule. Another cause is that chastity is an exceeding seldom gift, and unchastity exceeding perilous for that degree [position], inasmuch as the people look as well unto living as unto the preaching, and are hurt at once if the living disagree, and fall from the faith, and believe not the word” (226).

Married clergy were shockers to (some) Elizabethans. Even Elizabeth, rather un-Reformed on this point, was still in the Romanist grip of her past; she acquiesced for peace, but still did not like married clerks including Mrs. Grindal, the wife of the second Canterbury working for her.

UNDOING REFORMS, 226-229

As the monasteries were being dissolved, Bibles were going into the parishes of England. A “Bishops’ Book” in 1537 was published in great numbers. There were also Anglo-Italian works from the press, e.g. The Institution of Christian Men, expounding the 7 sacraments, Lord’s Prayer, Ave Maria, purgatory, papal authority and Rome’s definition of justification. It was a counter-reformation move. But, these volumes were in English...itself a shift, itself an indication of the need to counter growing sympathies for reform.

The Parliamentary Act, 1539, of "Six Articles" was a “weighty counter-move back to Rome” (227). The Jesuits had formed-up to support the senior clerk in Rome “against heresy.” The Articles were to be enforced “upon pain of death.” 

We ask, quite vigorously, where was Canterbury Cranmer? Was this one of those points where he capitulated? Cranmer hid his wife and kept his position, Latimer resigned his see, and Coverdale fled. 

Robert Barnes burned at Smithfield on 30 JUL 1540.

"The Six Articles" asserted: transubstantiation, communion in one kind, mandatory celibacy, necessity of monastic vows (unbreakable including vows of chastity and allegiance to the senior clerk in Rome), private and propitiatory masses for the departed, and mandatory auricular confession. The Anglo-Italians were on the move and the “power was shifting” (227).

Other Anglo-Italian moves:

1. Publication of the King’s Book

2. Publication of The Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian Man, both of these volumes supported in 1543 by the Parliament. This volume was for the “advancement of true religion and for the abolishment of the contrary,” making it a crime for any “unlicensed person” to “read the Bible to himself or others” (227). 

It proscribed “the crafty, false and untrue translation of Tyndale” although it was embedded in the Great Bible--a laughable fact. A monumental absurdity.

By 1540, the 1526 NT by Tyndale, the 1534 NT by Tyndale, ½ of the OT by Tyndale, Coverdale’s 1535 of the entire Bible, Coverdale’s minor tweaks of the 1537 Thomas Matthew’s Bible (Coverdale but renamed as a screen) and the Great Bible (again, by incorporation, containing the previous works) was going to 9000 parishes. Henry and the Parliament were acting with monumental absurdity and incoherence.

3. But, these moves were blows to the German Lutherans who had, increasingly, looked to Henry VIII to lead a “united Protestant front” against Anglo-Romanism and Romanism. Cranmer and even Tunstall had entertained 3 German reformer-delegates at Lambeth for 1 year. "The Six Articles" and government's counter-reformation moves ended the effort.

4. Yet, Henry VIII issued his Proclamation to “set up the largest and greatest Bible in every church” with the admonition to “avoid contention and altercation” (228).

5. An effort in 1542 to revise the Great Bible in the direction of greater Latinity came to nothing. For example, the great opponent of the English translations was Stephen Gardiner of Winchester (remember his running interference for the Pope in Paris while Coverdale was working on print-runs); if you couldn’t win on English Bibles, you could blow smoke and obfuscate; old Steve imported 132 odd-ballish words at key points: commilitio, lites, panis propositiones, digragma, ejicere, increpari, zizania, and a 100 more. Or, in the baptism of Christ, this gem for the lay-swine: “…this is my dilect son in whom complacui…” That'll teach em!'

6. Henry VIII issued a Proclamation in 1546 that “no man or woman of what estate, condition, or degree was…to receive, have, take or keep, Tyndale’s or Coverdale’s New Testaments…” Large numbers were collected and burned at St. Paul’s by the Anglo-Italian senior clerk of London, old Bonner. All of this ran against the explicit sense of poor Cranmer’s Preface to the Great Bible.

7. But, as we’ve noted, this was all quite a howler! F.F. Bruce called Henry VIII’s Proclamation a “monumental piece of absurdity” (229). Tyndale and Coverdale were already in the Great Bible now in many parishes. But, we can imagine the “chilling effect” upon the people—the fears. "Pay and obey, but don't read or think."

8. The real issue for the Anglo-Italians: control of the Bible and shielding parishioners from pervasive involvement with the Bible. They were “driplet-droplet theologians,” then like now. Like Jesus' Parable of the Sower, the Devil "stealing" the sown seed.

KING EDWARD VI, 229-230

Henry VIII mercifully and blessedly died--like all mortals--on time in JAN 1547. "The Six Articles" were repealed. Edward VI would accede to the throne on JAN 1547. The availability of Bibles—oh oh--an upswing without Royal opposition. Soon, the 1549 Book of Common Prayer would be put forward, an advance in one sense—English services nationwide and the reversal of the Anglo-Italian policies legislating darkness and ignorance. Martin Bucer would help Cranmer towards the 1552 Book of Common Prayer. The Anglo-Italians did not disappear; they would resurface with a furious and fire-like vengeance and a definite agenda in 1553-1558.

Roman and Tractarian analyses dub the English Reformation a failure. More largely, denial also accrues by means of neglect—a strong force to this day. Academic analyses often engage: politics, selective theological themes, selective focus on some recusant parishes and church wardens’ records, selective figures—and often on the “destructive forces” or the English Reformation as a “destroyer of religion.” It is near-wise always denied that English Bibles was a major factor in the English Reformation.

THIS PROBABLY ACCOUNTS FOR THE TEC, COE, and the ACNA-Tracto efforts at obfuscation, revision and denial. Prof. Daniell’s said new and scholarly efforts are needed in modern times to answer the rages of neglect and denial

Laying blame at the feet of Romanist and Anglo-Italian (Tractarian) historians, Diarmaid MacCulloch wrote in 1999:

“A negative image of Edwardean religion has prevailed since the early nineteenth century, the result of disapproval from both Romans Catholics and (within the Church of English itself) Anglo-Catholics. The distinguished Anglo-Catholic church historian Bishop Walter Frere would speak for many when in 1910 he contemplated the six years after 1547 and dismissed them as the `lowest depths to which the English church has ever sunk’…[recent historians] have echoed that dismissal…as an unmitigated disaster imposed by alien forces, wrecking not just the beauty of the parish church but also the intricate and orderly structure of village life and the financial system which sustained it…In 1957, another prominent Anglo-Catholic, Fr Humphrey Whistler (like Frere, a member of the Community of the Resurrection) produced an engaging little pamphlet on the Reformation which was intended as an exercise in ecumenism between Roman Catholics and Anglicans, picking up the pieces of misunderstanding from the sixteen century…In this we hear one solution to the problem of the Edwardian Reformation, simply to deny it any part in the Church of England story…Fr Whistler was completely silent on the first half-century of the English Reformation” (230).

It’s just bad history-writing, agenda-driven history-writing, replete with hate, denial and hostilities, the Tractarians contribution to the late 19th and 20th centuries that still live.

Again, more from Prof. MacCulloch and the power of the Old Testament fueling Edwardean reforms:

“The rebuilt Church [under Edward] was evangelical in essence. The assignment for evangelicals was a treasure hunt for the evangelion, the good news to be found in the New Testament…Yet spokesmen for the Edwardean revolution were also drawn to the Old Testament, where they could view other kingdoms, battling against great odds to hear the message of God. Henry VIII had already enjoyed posing as one or other of the two great success stories in Israelite politics, David and Solomon. However, in the turbulence of his son’s revolution, other kings of Israel and Judah entered the stage, because they were more urgently scripted to act as a warning or encouragement” (230).

We would add that these images would be taken up by Elizabeth, James, Charles and Royal supremacists including our good friend, Billy-goat Laud of Canterbury—who never saw a sermon he couldn’t shape like a wax nose against anything Reformed.

Englishmen were reading history scripted to the OT. It was the stuff of reform.

Calvin and Luther relied on the magistrates for reforms. So did the divines of the Westminster Assembly. Elijah was a favored story of Ahab and Jezebel and their Baalite priests. Elijah put forth the mocking question, “Why halt ye between two opinions?” (an apposite question for ACNA-Bob). Now, history could read like a “tick-tock” of good and bad rulers—raising uncomfortable questions for kings. Holinshed’s Chronicles and Foxe's Acts and Monuments would be found in many Elizabethan homes—Shakespeare would draw on the former. Oh no! Could there be "bad popes," "bad kings," "bad bishops" or "bad clerks?" Who needs those questions thought the power-brokers, then, like now.

MONARCHS AND “THE TWO REGIMENTS,” 235-238

The “power of the monarch under God” played a large role with the Reformers.

Tyndale’s Obedience (1528), Practice of Prelates (1530), and his Exposition on V, VI, VII Matthew (1533) dealt with the role of the monarch as did Simon Fish’s exhilarating Supplication of Beggars (1529), a volume that charmed Henry VIII.

John Frith, Robert Barnes, John Bale and later Cranmer himself were all loyal Henricians.

There were “two regiments,” the temporals and spirituals. A new force is what we would call the "insofar clause." That is, we obey the temporals "insofar" as they do not require unlawful compliance to unbiblical issues.

Tyndale had given thought to these things.

1. On the one hand, some have seen his Obedience as a profound argument for the control of a nation’s religion by the King, or Caesaro-papism, or Erastianism. Cuius region, cuius religio. That was the order of the day for all nations, not just England.

2. On the other hand, Tyndale in his Exposition on V, VI, VII Matthew (1533) said: “…The clergy have so ruffled the temporal to the spiritual together” and have “made such confusion that no man can know the one from the other…” This had been long in the making, going backwards to Rome’s Unam Sanctum...or to Thomas a Becket's engagements with the English king...or to Charlemagne bowing his head to receive the crown...or to Constantine convoking the Nicene Council.

3. Tyndale did not know how to see them easily distinguished: “…we cannot separate them into two watertight compartments” (237).

4. Yet, for Tyndale and reformers, the King must obey the Scriptures.

5. Even early American legal textbooks abounded with Biblical references; the early New England Puritans did not easily distinguish the lines either; theonomists like the 2-stepping-REC Ray, before his more recent iteration in favor of Tractos, called for the total subjection of the temporals to the OT spirituals including Mosaic Law. Or, even the Presbyterians and the Reformed had to amend their Erastian elements in their confessions. The Covenanter Presbyterians around Pittsburg still assert Christ over crown and the Solemn League and Covenant, but we digress.

EDWARD VI AS JOSIAH AND ENRICHING EFFECTS, 238-243

Edward VI was viewed as:

1. Josiah, 2 Kings 22-23 and 2 Chron. 34-35, a young king with a “burning and growing zeal for the LORD” (239)

2. Josiah, commendably “gathering officials” for reform

3. Josiah, who “swept away corruptions” and “sacrifices to the Canaanite gods” (239).

Prof. Daniell returns and rewarms his constant theme.
 
But, the standard histories on Edward never mention the growing role and force of the English Bible. The historians “slight,” stand “aloof,” or treat the “Bible like an unwelcome relative glimpsed at the far end of a room” (240). Prof. Daniell’s has already identified the Romanists and Anglo-Romanists as culprits; one might wish to see an analysis of the impact of the 19th-20th century liberalism as a co-enabler in the addiction to historical revisionism; mix in some secularism and other modern forces and one gets amnesia in some sectors and denial in others.

The question still survives. The Enlightenment appealed to natural law (whatever that means as identified by fallen sinners).

Yet, having said all that, for years, decades and centuries, in England and worldwide Anglicanism, an infant grew up heard the Book of Common Prayer and the English Bible. He or she heard that throughout their years, even if the cleric was boring holes in the theology of the Bible, Prayer Book or Articles. It still goes on, for example, at King's College, Cambridge.

The question arises: how can the role of the Bible be neglected in standard and modern histories? That’s Prof. Daniell’s probing question. He continues to repeat this point.

Prof. Daniell points to two telling volumes that speak to the issue: Margaret Ashton's England’s Iconclasts, 1: Laws against Images (1988) and The King’s Bedpost (1993). In these two books, she offers historical portraits of the figures around Edward and their “use of the Old Testament kings in European Reformation documents.” She points to Elizabeth’s Book of Homilies which commended the good kings of Judah. She notes that Edward as Josiah was reading the law, restoring the nation, destroying false religion and doing the will of God by rebuilding the nation (241).

Prof. Daniell raises the Roman and Anglo-Roman (within the Church of England) complaints against those who “mourn the destruction of the great monasteries under Henry VIII” and the “cultural disaster” (242). This is the theme of the Johnny-one-notes. They sing this in varied keys. If we've heard it once, we've heard it a few dozen times. The iconclasts painted over wall paintings and put up Bible verses instead.  We get it. Prof. Daniell rightly laments the scattering of Latin manuscripts to the wind; hah, they learned it, however, from the Romanists themselves, skilled in the very invective and animosities of many burnings of Bibles, books...and burnings of people too. Thomas More believed the "burnings" would purge the land. Little mention is made of the “grip of wealth,” the transfer of wealth from England to Rome, or the varied frauds perpetrated on the simple, naïve and gullible, e.g. the “blood of Christ at Hailes Abbey” to mention one. Or, the manipulation of the people through fear of purgatory or the control of the nation from Rome. Or, conversely, the flowering of a Reformation flood of culture, music, art, language, literature and high scholarship—Shakespeare, Spenser, Milton and others.

ENGLISH MONARCHS AS OLD TESTAMENT KINGS, 243-244

Up to the 1660s, the Royals of the time were frequently seen as a David, most notably with Henry VIII, but also James 1 through Charles II. “David, Solomon, and Josiah were united in Edward: but so were Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Jehu and Antiochus” (244). One scholar, commenting on the 16th century Reformer John Bale, and the view of 2 Sam. 16 and the cursing of David, said:

“…did not think kings should be seen as immune to the criticism of their subject, at least not the godly ones…allusions are made to Henry VIII’s ideological heritage with a whole series of bad kings from the Old Testament…part of the false church of Antichrist: `with such holy counsellors [sic]…nowadays Ioram, Achab, Ochosias, Ioachim, Zekeikiah and other kings more of Israel and Juda deceived and brought into the great indignation of God’s Writers [sic]l and preachers expected the king and their other readers to back to the Bible and read about the exemplars they mentioned” (244).

The issue is not so easily dismissed. One thinks of the Christian right, middle and left still bringing their moral perspectives to the political arena; the Pope still weighs in on geo-political issues.

ENGLISH BIBLES, 245-246

In an impressive section, Prof. Daniell retells a favorite point: print-runs and the ubiquity of the English Bible. 21 years between Tyndale’s 1526 NT and King Edward VI’s accession in JAN 1547, there were 64 editions (different editions, not fresh printings) of the “whole Bible in English” (245). Yet, in this same period there were no Latin Bibles printed on English presses, although there were 22 across Europe.

This fact is “impressive” given the opposition from Henry VIII and Anglo-Italian clerks (245). The printers had confidence in the “buying public” (245).

A math check. Each print-run = 2000 volumes. That means 120, 000 Bibles printed. One may subtract the 9000 parishes getting an English Bible. That leaves 111, 000 English Bibles for the people.

The nation in this period, on Prof. Daniell’s claim, was about 2.5 million people.

If we assume each family had five people—husband, wife and 3 children—we divide 2.5 million by 5 and get 500, 000 homes. If correct, that’s 1 Bible—roughly—for every 5 familes in the land.

As noted before, ENGLAND WAS AWASH WITH THE ENGLISH BIBLE. That cannot be airbrushed or diminished by historians.

Nailing his point further, Prof. Daniell claims that during Edward VI’s reign, 1547-1553, the whole Bible had 40 print runs at 2,000 per run producing 80, 000 more Bibles. Further, during these 6 years, there were no Latin Bibles produced either.

Or, adding 80,000 and 111, 000, we get 190, 000 English Bibles for 500, 000 homes, about 40% of English homes.

Roman and Anglo-Italian (Tractarian) revisers do not address these issues, given their “driplet-droplet” theologies and earnest wishes to airbrush history. Do Tractarians do exegetical homilies on Romans? Or Pauline theology?

Also, atop all the Bibles, don’t forget the masses singing the metrical Psalters or praying in English Collects and more. Prof. Daniell makes his points.

THE ENGLISH REFORMATION WAS NOT A FAILURE, 246-247

Prof. Daniell draws attention to a quote from the "Calendar of State Papers." The Imperial Ambassador, Van de Delft, during Edward VI’s reign, wrote that he was repeatedly—even unwillingly—impressed by the strong impact of the English Reformation “on the common people” who “turned against tradition religion” because of the “preaching” based on the text and the direct style (247).

An interesting side-note, is undeveloped but is noted by the Professor. Englishmen took Bibles to church to follow the reading and check the sermon references. These days, one never sees an English Bible in the hands of an American Episcopalian although many have a leather-bound 1979 Book of Common Prayer. The RSV is read in driplet-droplet-or-chunkette fashion, but not whole chapters.

In the days of Edward VI, the sermons weren’t 20-minute homilies either.

The massiveness of the revolution of English Bibles and English Books of Common Prayer cannot be missed by neglect, denial or revisionism.