The Causes of the Reformation

In this chapter we propose to trace out further stages by which the English Church became more completely subject to the bishop of Rome; and to tell of the various abuses which crept in, and which led in the end to the Reformation in the sixteenth century.[1]

i

From the days of Theodore to the Conquest, there elapsed a period of four hundred years. During this time the power of the Roman see gradually increased, and its influence in the affairs of the English Church grew more and more. But it acquired yet greater strength through the Norman Conquest. William the Conqueror, to establish his position according to the belief of that time, besought the Pope to sanction his expedition, and he entered England with this supposed authority. The Norman

kings followed the same course. The climax to this unhappy idea of subjection to Rome was reached in the great conflict about investitures; i.e., as to whether the pope or the king should appoint to bishoprics. In the weak reign of King John, Pope Innocent III. deposed the King, and bestowed the kingdom upon Philip of France, urging him to take possession of England, on the ground that it was part of the pope’s empire. The quarrel had been as to the see of Canterbury. John, to save himself, knelt before the pope’s legate, and owned that he held his crown from the pope, and that England, both in civil and ecclesiastical matters, was subject to the Roman see.

The struggle between the popes and the sovereigns of England continued till a strong king arose, Edward III. (1327-1377) who, backed by bishops and nobles, decreed that “neither John nor any other person could subject the nation to another power without the consent of the nation.” An annual payment of one thousand marks known as the ‘CENSUS,’ established by King John as an acknowledgment of the dependence of the kingdom on the pope, ceased in consequence of this decree.

It is needless to speak further of the struggle between the popes and the English Government. We will only add that the results varied according to opportunities offered to either side, the popes striving to gain their own objects, the English Government struggling for its liberties, - the strife turning in favour of one side or the other as the power alternated.

ii

Deep grievances were felt at the heavy exactions pressing on both clergy and laity alike. Of these exactions we will now speak. The popes claimed ‘PETER’S PENCE.’ This was originally a voluntary offering made as far back as the year 787, partly as an alms, and partly for the sustenance of a house for English pilgrims in Rome. With the exception of the reign of Edward III this tax was paid regularly for a period of 700 years. In addition to this the popes claimed a further tax, named ‘ANNATES.’ Annates were the first fruits of vacant bishoprics and other benefices. Before a bishop could be consecrated, it was needful to possess a document called a ‘bull.’ The name was given from the Latin ‘ bulla,’ which signified the leaden seal attached to such documents. These ‘bulls’ were only issued by the pope, and had to be paid for. Besides this, the newly made bishop had to pay in advance the whole of the first year’s income to the Roman court. Amongst the lower clergy every promotion involved the payment of annates.

But more serious than all this, was the pope’s interference with the liberties of the English Church by means of what was named ‘PROVISIONS.’ By this is meant that the pope provided beforehand a person to fill the next vacancy in any benefice he named. Sometimes this claim was exercised with good effect, but frequently the reverse was the case. By means of ‘provisions’ the most prominent positions and the best livings in the Church were filled by foreigners, many of whom resided abroad, and never even visited their parishes, etc., knowing neither the speech nor the face of their flocks, all the time drawing the revenues of such benefices. Of these persons so provided for by the popes, Archbishop Trench says, - “ Perhaps, taking all things into account, and above all that many thus appointed were ‘persons detestable in life and morals’ (so one writing in 1311 assures us), this was in most instances the least harmful course they could pursue, and their absence the greatest favour which they could confer… These ‘provisions’ were resented everywhere, … and no wonder. The scale on which foreign ecclesiastics were quartered on the land, the extent to which the patience of Englishmen was tried, may be estimated by the fact that in the year 1240 Pope Gregory IX. sent to the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishops of Lincoln and Salisbury, requiring them to provide for three hundred Romans in the earliest vacant benefices which they had at their disposal, and restraining them from presenting any others until these his nominees had first been provided for.” [2]

The spiritual care of the people had fallen into a state of decline which is now scarcely conceivable. The condition of things may be understood from the fact, that Cardinal Wolsey, living always at court as Chancellor and Prime Minister, held at the same time the archbishopric of York, and the three bishoprics of Tournai in Belgium, Lincoln, and Winchester. The state of ignorance among the people became such, that, as Mr. Simmons shews in his notes on The Lay Folks’ Mass Book, as times went on, their part in the services of the Church became less and less, until the Mass became an exclusively clerical service.

iii

In all ecclesiastical suits, the Roman see came to be regarded as the final ‘COURT OF APPEAL’. These ecclesiastical suits included all questions or disputes concerning the actions, injury, or property of ecclesiastical persons or corporations; and beyond this, cases touching wills and inheritance. It was no doubt an advantage to be able to carry causes to an independent and disinterested authority in a distant land. By means of such appeals it is easy to see what an enormous power was given to the popes. In the hands of some popes this power was used wisely, and with undoubted impartiality. In other hands, alas! the greed of gold entered in, and a grievous system of bribery prevailed,-bribery so shameless that it is a pain even to refer to it at all.

The late Archbishop Trench speaks very strongly as to the abuses which eventually prevailed in the Roman court. He says,-“the whole organization (of the curia) seemed little better than a vast and elaborate machinery for the wringing, under every conceivable pretext, of the greatest possible amount of money from the faithful, and hardly’ seeming to exist for any other end… Time would fail me were I to enumerate all, or nearly all, the devices by which it was sought to fill full the papal exchequer. Marvellous indeed was the ingenuity which some of these displayed. For example, it was claimed,-Clement IV. being the first who advanced this claim,-that all dignities, benefices and the like, which became vacant through the death of the beneficiary while at Rome, should for the next turn be in the pope’s gift. But the matter did not rest here. Again and again the net was stretched wider, and at the same time its meshes woven closer, that it might embrace more and more within its folds. Thus Boniface VIII. extended the claim, so as to include every ecclesiastical office held by persons dying within two days’ journey of the spot where at the time of death the Curia might be. It was a fruitful source of revenue. In the necessity of things there was a constant influx of the higher ecclesiastics to Rome; and these, detained there by interminable suits or by other causes, were exposed, not to speak of the ordinary chances of mortality, to the deadly Roman fevers, which then as now were ever watching for their prey.”[3]

What the effect of this traffic in holy things . had upon the souls of the people, it is not difficult to conceive. How could the people respect the clergy who had obtained their right to minister the things of God by such utterly unworthy methods?

iv

But there were behind these glaring scandals, to which we have referred, other more serious abuses affecting the spiritual life of the people; of these it is our duty to speak honestly yet sorrowfully.

First, as to what were known as ‘INDULGENCES.’ About the year 1510, Pope Leo X. was raising money to build the great church of St. Peter at Rome. To further this object, the sale of indulgences was suggested by some of his advisers, and permitted by the pope himself. At the first, these indulgences related only to Church censures; and it was taught that they could only avail for those who had the proper But these limitations were soon overpassed. A corrupt teaching prevailed that in the intermediate state, or place of waiting between death and judgment, souls were in material flames and undergoing pains which differed little, save in their temporary character, from the sufferings of the lost in eternity. These pains were regarded not only as a means of purification, but also of punishThis place of suffering was named purgatory. In 1477, Pope Sixtus IV. declared that indulgences might be obtained which would save such souls from the pain with which they were visited in purgatory.

It was urged that our Saviour’s merits saved from everlasting death, but that the temporal punishment due to sin had to be borne by sinners, and that this was worked out in purgatory. It was taught moreover that our aviour’s sufferings and death were more than sufficient to pardon sin, and to redeem the world. To the merits of Christ were added those of the saints, of whom it was profanely taught that they had done more good than their own salvation demanded. These merits of Christ and of the saints were regarded as housed in a bank, upon which the pope could draw for the benefit of the living and departed.

Thus the remission of sins in this life, and relief from the punishment of sins in purgatory, came to be regarded as a gift of God which could be purchased with money. It is easy to see how all this made light of the need of repentance for sin, and “it is not wonderful that earnest preachers of repentance long before Luther should have been filled with the deepest indignation at this murder of souls,-for so they were wont to call it,-should have declared, as one did in memorable words, that Christ is the only Indulgence, and in plainest words have warned the poor deceived people that trusting in those bought with money they were trusting in a lie.”[4] Dr. Pusey considered that the sale of these indulgences very chiefly caused the Reformation.

Again and again loud voices were raised calling for reform of these terrible evils, and demanding a reformation of the Church in its head and members. But in vain. All desires for reform by means of Councils were alike of no avail. The dread of loss of power, and other motives were too strong, and the papal court turned a deaf ear to all these demands. Instead of setting itself in the front, and taking the lead in a great reform, with a truthful acknowledgment of sins and imperfections, the Roman court made it a chief concern, at the time, to foil the attempts then very earnestly made to effect a wholesome reformation.

v

Beyond all these abuses to which we have referred, there was another nearer home; and of that we must briefly speak.

In treating of the conversion of England we referred to the part taken in that work by certain monks, as Augustine and Aidan. The word monk signifies ‘one who dwells alone,’ but the term also applies to both priests and laymen who made a home together in religious houses, or monasteries as they were called. The monks bound themselves not to marry, to possess no personal property, and to live a life of obedience to rule. In the middle ages the monks played a most important and valuable part in the affairs of church and nation. The monasteries were the training schools of the clergy, the homes of art and learning, the refuge of the sick and aged. It was the monks who kept the lamp of knowledge bright in dark and dismal times, and to them England owes a large debt. But they had their day, and their glory was destined to pass away.

By degrees a great proportion of the land came into their hands, and also great wealth; the monks fell into idle and luxurious ways, and lost their fame for zeal and holiness.

Of the friars, or ‘brothers’ as the word means, we must also speak. These were men who left the world, and devoted themselves to the service of the Church; they “embodied the ideal of the evangelical life, as in those ages conceived, more completely than any of the preceding orders had done. Living upon alms, and thus finding a table everywhere spread for them, they did not require, as the others did, permanent landed endowments before they could found their houses. They basked moreover in the peculiar favour not of the people only but of the popes, who soon recognized in them their most faithful and their most efficient militia.”[5]

The friars, as also with some exceptions the monks, placed themselves under the patronage and protection of the popes, who freed them from all control of the bishops. This exemption from episcopal control led to laxity of discipline and morals. Moreover the monks and friars made themselves offensive to the parish priests, drawing away people from their lawful shepherds, and creating a kind of schism. This was specially the case with the friars. Of them Archbishop Trench says, - “The monks had not been permitted to celebrate, except within their own walls, the divine offices; and for a long while there had not been more of them ordained than were actually necessary for this. But these, with other privileges, as to baptize, to hear confessions, to administer extreme unction, to bury in their own churches, - this last permission a very mine of wealth, - were all accorded to these favoured friars, who exercised their intrusive ministrations where hey would, with no license obtained from the bishop, no leave granted by the parish priest. They are accused of everywhere seeking to under- mine the respect of the people for their appointed guides; bidding all come to them, who knew the secrets of spiritual direction, who could discern between leprosy and leprosy; who were not dumb dogs, blind guides, as were others. And multitudes came; being only too glad to confess their sins to the wandering friar whom they never had seen before, whom perhaps they never should see again; so sparing themselves the shame of a confession to their own clergy; not to say that as a rule, if we may believe Chaucer’s word concerning the mendicant ab- solver, ‘He was an easy man to give penance.’ The mischief reached such a height that Pope Innocent IV. in 1254, made some feeble efforts to revoke or limit these special privileges which his predecessors had lavished on their new favourites with so prodigal a hand. The orders, however, had grown too strong, and succeeded in retaining all or nearly all which had been once conceded to them.”[6] The parish clergy were powerless to cope with the monks and friars, who were backed up by the popes. Here again was a state of things which cried aloud for remedy.[7]

By degrees, and for various reasons of which we have not space to speak here, the religious orders came to be objects of dislike to the people of England. To all these preparations for a religious revolution, must be added the spread of learning so greatly aided by the invention of printing in the year 1440. Of the latter, it has been said that it was a “new gift of tongues, which lent wings to knowledge, and put within the reach of hundreds and presently of thousands, precious lore which had hitherto been within the reach of but two or three.”

The first translation of the New Testament from the original language appeared in 1525, but a few years preceding the Reformation. Men’s eyes were opening to the errors and superstitions of the time, and they began to question the truth of much that they had been taught.

vi

England was fully ripe for a great religious revolution. Popular preachers, Wycliffe being the chief, had been stirring the people against the many abuses of the times. The air was full of inflammable materials, which only awaited some cause sufficiently exciting to set them alight. At last came the spark that set fire to the train so long prepared for the explosion: —in Germany, the sale of Indulgences to which we have referred, by the Dominican friar, Tetzel, —in England, the unrighteous resolve of Henry VIII. to divorce his queen.[8]

It was a time when the Roman see, if it were to preserve the unity of the Church, should have put itself at the head of the reforming movement. It did nothing of the kind, but resisted all pressure for the assembling of a Council, until it was too late. The Council of Trent summoned at length by the pope, did not meet, or put forth any decision, until the Reformation in its earliest and strongest movement was over. The decrees of this Council were not published until 1564, in Queen Elizabeth’s reign.

There were no doubt very grievous circumstances connected with the English Reformation, chiefly the arbitrary, cruel, and licentious dealings of Henry VIII., and the greed of Henry and his nobles in despoiling the religious houses for the sake of their lands and abounding wealth, on which they laid their hands. It has been well said that ‘the prize they fought for was the goods, and not the good of the Church.’ But no unprejudiced mind can doubt that there were grievous superstitions that needed removal, doctrines which had to be reconciled with the word of God, and Church order which had to be restored both in the episcopal and parochial systems, and freedom to be asserted both in civil and ecclesiastical matters. The authority of the bishops had been lowered by the extravagant claims of the Roman see, the bishops being regarded as so many curates of the pope. The great part of our contention is the truth that the authority of our bishops is derived directly from Christ himself, and is independent of the papacy.

The appeal made by our divines during the Reformation period, was to a General Council of the universal Church freely assembled, as against a Council meeting in Italy under the immediate influence of the Roman see.

This same appeal we have inherited; but alas! the response to the appeal seems to be more and more distant, since the doctrine of the infallibility of the pope, and the refusal of the Roman Church to admit the validity of our ordinations,[9] have extinguished for the present the prospect of the calling together of a General Council, or the establishment of such intercourse between the English and Roman Churches as might conduce to mutual understanding.

---

[1]

In speaking of the Reformation, we should remember that though this great movement began in the 16th century, it was not confined to that period. The Reformation was continued and brought more fully into shape by the Caroline divines in the 17th century, whose spirit the leaders of the Catholic Revival in the 19th century so largely inherited.

[2]

Medieval Church History, Second Edition, pp. 342, 343. Mr. Aubrey Moore in his Lectures and Papers on the History of the Reformation, speaking of the amount of money drained from the country into the papal coffers, tells us that in the reign of Henry III. the foreign clergy drew 60,000 marks in one year, a sum larger than the revenues of the Crown.

[3]

Medieval Church History, pp. 339, 344, 345.

[4]

Medieval Church History, P. 347.

[5]

Medieval Church History, p. 237.

[6]

Medieval Church History, pp. 239, 240.

[7]

To show the extent to which the religious orders prevailed, Mr. Aubrey Moore estimates that 1200 to 1300 monasteries and friaries had been established in England. For in the State returns of ecclesiastical and monastic property, which was made in 1535, the revenue of the monasteries is stated to be about £160,000 per annum.— History of the Reformation, pp. 128, 130.

[8]

Whilst the sale of indulgences was mainly the cause of the Reformation on the Continent, the same cannot be said of the King’s divorce; it was rather the occasion than the cause of the Reformation in England. Roman Catholic controversialists strive to shew that the English Reformation stands or falls with the character of Henry viii. and his advisers; but there can be no doubt that a crisis would have been reached in some other way, even if Henry viii. had never existed. The Reformation, when it came, was only the final act of a long struggle.

[9]

Upon this point see later, pp. 103 ff.