Mr. (Bp.) J.C. Ryle: "Why Were Our Reformers Burned?"

“Why Were Our Reformers Burned?” — J.C. Ryle

Truth is truth, however long it may be neglected. Facts are facts, however long they may lie buried. I only want to dig up some old facts which the sands of time have covered over, to bring to the light of day some old English monuments which have been long neglected, to unstop some old wells which the prince of this world has been diligently filling with earth. I ask my readers to give me their attention for a few minutes, and I trust to be able to show them that it is good to examine the question, “Why were our Reformers burned?”. . . .

Great indeed would be our mistake if we supposed that they suffered for the vague charge of refusing submission to the Pope, or desiring to maintain the independence of the Church of England. Nothing of the kind! The principal reason why they were burned was because they refused one of the peculiar doctrines of the Romish Church. On that doctrine, in almost every case, hinged their life or death. If they admitted it, they might live; if they refused it, they must die.

The doctrine in question was the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the consecrated elements of bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper. Did they, or did they not believe that the body and blood of Christ were really, that is, corporally, literally, locally, and materially, present under the forms of bread and wine after the words of consecration were pronounced? Did they or did they not believe that the real body of Christ, which was born of the Virgin Mary, was present on the so-called altar so soon as the mystical words had passed the lips of the priest? Did they or did they not? That was the simple question. If they did not believe and admit it, they were burned.

There is a wonderful and striking unity in the stories of our martyrs on this subject. Some of them, no doubt, were attacked about the marriage of priests. Some of them were assaulted about the nature of the Catholic Church. Some of them were assailed on other points. But all, without an exception, were called to special account about the real presence, and in every case their refusal to admit the doctrine formed one principal cause of their condemnation. . . .

Whatever men please to think or say, the Romish doctrine of the real presence, if pursued to its legitimate consequences, obscures every leading doctrine of the Gospel, and damages and interferes with the whole system of Christ’s truth. Grant for a moment that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice, and not a sacrament —grant that every time the words of consecration are used the natural body and blood of Christ are present on the Communion Table under the forms of bread and wine—grant that every one who eats that consecrated bread and drinks that consecrated wine does really eat and drink the natural body and blood of Christ—grant for a moment these things, and then see what momentous consequences result from these premises.

You spoil the blessed doctrine of Christ’s finished work when He died on the cross. A sacrifice that needs to be repeated is not a perfect and complete thing.—You spoil the priestly office of Christ. If there are priests that can offer an acceptable sacrifice of God besides Him, the great High Priest is robbed of His glory.—You spoil the Scriptural doctrine of the Christian ministry. You exalt sinful men into the position of mediators between God and man.—You give to the sacramental elements of bread and wine an honour and veneration they were never meant to receive, and produce an idolatry to be abhorred of faithful Christians.—Last, but not least, you overthrow the true doctrine of Christ’s human nature. If the body born of the Virgin Mary can be in more places than one at the same time, it is not a body like our own, and Jesus was not “the second Adam” in the truth of our nature.

I cannot doubt for a moment that our martyred Reformers saw and felt these things even more clearly than we do, and, seeing and feeling them, chose to (die rather than admit the doctrine of the real presence. Feeling them, they would not give way by subjection for a moment, and cheerfully laid down their lives. Let this fact be deeply graven in our minds. Wherever the English language is spoken on the face of the globe this fact ought to be clearly understood by every Englishman who reads history. Rather than admit the doctrine of the real presence of Christ’s natural body and blood under the forum of bread and wine, the Reformers of the Church of England were content to be burned.

 

taken from Light From Old Times, J.C. Ryle

August 31, 1555: Burn That Damned, Protestant, Evangelical, Anglican Heretic!

 

August 31, 1555 A.D.

Mr. Rusten reminds us of the story. Rusten, E. Michael and Rusten, Sharon. The One Year Christian History. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2003.

Robert Samuel loved God, his congregation and his wife. He was burned at the stake for his faith at August 31, 1555.

 We know the back-story here in this forum. Edward VI had died after the tumultuous 6-year reign. Old Harry had made testamentary provisions for the regal sequence. Edward, Mary, Elizabeth and if no issue [royal children] from them, then the issue of his sister, Margaret. Interestingly, that exact dynastic sequence played out historically.

Queen Mary 1 ascended to the English throne. She was married to the Spanish Prince-now-turned-King of England. Spain was the most powerful and wealthy country in Europe (including cash-back for overseas ventures and revenues). Queen Mary was all about “restoring Catholicism [=Papal Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism 1.0] as the state religion” and was giving “the courts of the Roman Catholic Church the power to burn heretics” (488).

Things would go south fast. We know that story too. This was 4.0 Anglicanism, that is, a return to 1.0 Anglicanism. In other words, it was Papal and Roman Anglicanism, an un-doing of what her half-brother Edward had invoked in his 3.0 Anglican version. This was a major set-back.

There had been 35 years of Protestant principles and forces that had been reshaping the English contours of faith in high places, notably, with Mr. (Canterbury) Cranmer and many others. Even if Mr. Canterbury had been waffling around here and there, these forces had been developing at the plebiscite, pedestrian, proletarian, collegiate, academic and royal levels since 1520.  Mary's animosities and hostilities, however, would be her undoing...and the undoing of Anglicanism 1.0, 2.0 and 4.0.

Mr. (Rev.) Robert Samuel was, however, a Protestant Anglican minister in the 3.0 stream, the Edwardian version. The English Reformation had increasingly seen Reformed men not just in garden-variety pulpits with rank-and-file believers, but also in high places at Cambridge and Oxford and in high places of government.

However, the Papal Roman bishops were unleashed under the new Queen. They resisted the Protestant and Evangelical Churchmen strenuously--with Royal support and by Royal order.

Under Queen Mary, they “removed them [Protestant Anglicans] from their parishes” and they “were forbidden to preach.”

100s left England for the Continent. Misters Canterbury, Ridley, and Latimer should have fled but they didn't. Others went underground, like Mr. (Rev. Dr.) Matthew Parker (later Mr. Canterbury under Ms. Elizabeth Tudor). Other poor chaps were arrested, tried and burned at the sake (about 288 of them, including women).

Mr. (Rev.) Robert Samuel was one such minister destined for the stake. For one thing, in time, he was ordered to leave his wife. The Protestants had allowed marriages amongst them, amongst other things. Even Mr. (Canterbury) Cranmer had a wife from Germany for crying out loud; ever-the-pliable one, he conveniently tucked her away in Germany, but he too was married. But, in "Great Apostasy" (1 Tim. 4. 3), apostates like Queen Mary would teach the "doctrine of demons," forbidding "to marry." Few ever talk about the demonic in reference to the Reformation; it's impolitic; it's impolite; it's not ecumenical; it's not Western; however, the Reformers--to a man--surely did.  So does the Bible. We're not amnesiacs.

As for Mr. (Rev.) Samuel, he did not leave his wife and he did not stash her away. He believed that violated God’s law. He continued his Biblical ministry to his parishioners in secret.

The ante-was-upped when Mary ordered “all married clergymen to leave their wives and return” to celibacy. It was a pro-active, nationwide order in conformity with “strict canon law.” And Mary had that proverbial Tudor-tenacity, self-will, and certitude. “By God, the Holy Mass, and the Holy Mother Mary, these Protestant, Evangelical, Anglican heretics will conform” was the idea.

The bishops were directed to enforce this edict in 10,000 churches throughout England. If anything, Queen Mary was consistent with the canon law.  De heretico comburendo, as a state policy, was back in effect.

But never mind the irregularities of Pope Clement VII’s “two wives” or Cardinal Wolsey’s “non-canonical” relationship-slash-marriage with two children, but we digress. Never mind the Papal pornocrats or pornocracy either, another dubious and little known chapter in Papal history.

Mr. (Rev.) Robert Samuel was arrested and imprisoned. He never to saw his wife again.

The love-filled, grace-filled, charitable, God-filled, Bible-filled, justified and sanctified bishop ordered that “he [Mr. Samuel] be tortured with the cruelest techniques of the times” (489).

Although it sounds like something perfected by the Spaniards in the Spanish inquisition, the English had mastered the principles too. Islamo-fascists may have taken their cues from the Spanish play book. Think Jan Huss and Jerome of Prague, for example.

Mr. (Rev.) Robert Samuel was imprisoned and tied to a post. He was forced to support his bodily weight on his toes. He was deprived of food and drink. He was insulted, of course.

But, things would get worse.

On August 31, 1555, he was put to the stake of fire and burned to death. Anathema to the damned bastard! That damned Protestant! That damned Evanglical! Away with him! Burn, baby, burn!

(Yes, “Protestant” and “Evangelical” were the terms of art, terms of derision and the assigned identities used in the popular, proletarian, ecclesiastical and royal parlance.)

Lest we forget! 

(Below is a picture followed by our you-tube tribute to Mr. Osteen and Pentecostals. 

 

English Martyr Julian Palmer (16 JUL 1556)

Julian Palmer, Marian martyr.

Thanks to Foxe, we learn of the martyr, but little appears elsewhere.

At Magdalen College, Oxford, he received his B.A. in 1550. He was fluent and facile in Greek and Latin. He taught logic at Magdalen. But, he was a committed Recusant or English Roman Catholic (to be distinguished from True Catholics). He was not popular. He spoke aggressively against the leaders at the school. Before the death of Edward VI, anti-Protestant, anti-Reformed and anti-Reformational signs were posted on doors and walls of the school. Palmer was the "suspect" or “person of interest.” He was removed from the faculty. He became a tutor to a wealthy family. Meanwhile, our favourite Queen and the nation’s supreme agent of Christ’s love, mercy and truth (tongue in cheek), Mrs. (Mary) Tudor, ordered Protestant Professors removed at the two Universities (OXBRIDGE). Palmer was re-instated to his previous position. He never thought that Protestant and Reformed Churchmen would brave the flames for their faith. He went and witnessed the burning stakes of Ridley and Latimer. As a result of their courage, commitment and resistance unto death, Palmer returned to his study and began to study the Scriptures and review his previous positions. He changed.   God changed him;  the Scriptures changed him.  As a result, he could no longer teach at Oxford. He left and became a schoolmaster of a grammar school at Reading, but he soon was suspected of heresy. Recusant authorities searched his quarters and found writings against the Rome. He was quietly allowed to depart Reading. He returned home, asking his mother to give him his share in the paternal estate. Reportedly, his mother told him, “Thy father bequeathed nought for heretics.” He was arrested and condemned on 15 JUL 1556, some 457 years ago. On 16 JUL 1556, the following day at 5:00 PM, he and 2 other martyrs were burned at the Sand-pits in Newbury, Berkshire. As they died, they exclaimed together from Psalm 31: “Be strong and take courage, all you who put your hope in the LORD.”

Tertullian: “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.”

Lest we forget. 

Perhaps Mr. (bp.) Sutton raised the issue with Mr. (pope) Ratzinger last Nov 2012? We still await any official acknowledgment from Rome. 

Indeed, the "blood of the martyrs is the seed of the true Church where the Word is rightly preached, the sacraments rightly administered, and the place where doctrinal discipline, confessions and cross-generational catechesis rightly exists." 

As Robert Frost said, "Fences make for good neighbours."

Lest we forget.