'It kept down the turbulence of those spirits who would have run into every extreme of doctrine': Le Mesurier's Bampton Lectures and the distinctives of the Reformation in England
Both the mode and progress of the Reformation, it may first be observed, were very different in this country from what happened with other nations. In the first place, with us it began at the head. It was not a comparatively obscure and unauthorised individual who first questioned, and put down the usurped dominion of the pope; but it was the actually existing government, the king himself, who, with the concurrence of the legislature, and of his subjects at large, resumed those rights of which his predecessors had been stripped, and which had from himself been withheld.
Secondly, the work begun did not go on without interruption. On the contrary, it received very material checks, as well from the capricious humour of Henry, as from that dispensation of Providence which suffered the kingdom, after being once emancipated, to fall again under the bondage of superstition, which tried the faith of our first reformers by all the severity of persecution.
I mention these facts, not as authorising any particular claim of merit for our church or our sovereigns on that score. I enter not into the question of the motives by which Henry was actuated in his quarrel, with the pope, but I point them out as accounting for the circumstances which are at this day peculiar to the Church of England. To these it was owing that the changes which took place were not made without much deliberation, that every measure was fully considered before it was finally adopted; that, under the blessing of God, advantage was taken of the experience of other nations, as well as of the wisdom and judgment which might be found at home.
Hence it was that less of violence was used in the correction of abuses, less of spoliation took place in respect of the possessions of the church; and more of the ancient form of discipline, as well as of the accustomed rites and ceremonies, was retained with us, than with any other people. It may lastly be remarked, that the very establishment of the supremacy in the crown, while it kept down the turbulence of those spirits who would have run into every extreme of doctrine, did also, by the very stability which it gave to the system, enable the government with safety to allow a freer course to the discussion of religious questions; in other words, to be more tolerant than the fashion of the times in other countries endured.
Le Mesurier would, of course, be laughed out of court by contemporary historians of the Reformation in England. Against any view of distinctives of the English Reformation, a wealth of studies can now be invoked to demonstrate the solid influence of the continental Reformers, their theologies and writings. We might particularly think of Diarmaid MacCulloch's biting dismissal of any suggestion that the English Reformation stood apart from Continental Reformed movements.
And yet, Le Mesurier's words clearly indicate that it was no Tractarian-influenced 19th century invention to emphasise the distinctively English character of the Reformation in England. Here, after all, is an Old High account of the English Reformation, nearly three decades before Tractarianism, stressing order and authority initiating and overseeing decent and wise reform, not disorderly mobs, urged on by inflammatory preachers, wrecking and tearing down.
Significantly, Le Mesurier's account has deep roots within Conformist thought. It clearly echoes the views of the Laudian Peter Heylyn and Jeremy Taylor. What is more, however, there are also parallels with Stephen Hampton's account of how Jacobean and Caroline Reformed Conformists regarded the Church of England as superior to Continental Reformed churches. Also important are very clear similarities between this strain of thought and David Hume's presentation of the Elizabethan Settlement:
Of all the European churches, which shook off the yoke of the papal authority, no one proceeded with so much reason and moderation as the church of England.
In other words, an emphasis on distinctives of the Reformation in England has much deeper and broader roots than fans of MacCulloch recognise.
Note, too, Le Mesurier's final point in this extract (also with echoes of Hume). The Crown's authority, together with the representative nature of parliaments and convocations, provided a stability which allowed for a greater breadth of theological opinion than was the case in Continental Reformed (and Lutheran) churches. The late Elizabethan avant-garde, exemplified by Lancelot Andrewes and termed by MacCulloch the 'Westminster Movement' (because of the influence of Westminster Abbey), could flourish in the Elizabethan and Jacobean church precisely because of the Crown's authority. Similarly, the action of successive Supreme Governors in the 1622 Directions Concerning Preachers and the 1628 Declaration Prefixed to the Articles of Religion demonstrate Le Mesurier's point: the authority of the Crown secured a doctrinal latitude on "curious points" of theological debate.
In conclusion, mindful that the MacCulloch school has established itself as the reigning orthodoxy in the history of the Reformation in England, perhaps it is time for some revisionism, for a recovery of Le Mesurier's Old High view of the distinctives of the English Reformation and its expression in the life of the ecclesia Anglicana.
Comments
Post a Comment