20 March 1563 A.D. Anglicanism’s adiaphora = “You’ll wear those ecclesiastical uniforms, costumeries and outfits that we tell ya,’ by God you will.” Adiaphora = divine law = non-adiaphora
20 March
1563 A.D. Anglicanism’s adiaphora = “You’ll wear those ecclesiastical uniforms,
costumeries and outfits that we tell ya,’ by God you will.” Adiaphora
= divine law = non-adiaphora. How dare ya' insult Good Queen Bess?
“On March 20, 1563, an appeal was made to the ecclesiastical commissioners by twenty petitioners to exempt them from the use of vestments. These included a number of prominent clergy, mainly in the diocese of London, whose bishop, Grindal, had packed his see with former exiles and activists for reform. The petition was approved by all the commissioners except Parker and Guest, who rejected it.
“Sampson and Humphrey were the first nonconformist leaders to be targeted by Parker and whose steadfast refusal to conform led to Sampson's quick deprivation in 1565, as he was directly under the queen's authority. Humphrey, under the jurisdiction of Robert Horne, the bishop of Winchester, was able to return to his position as president of Magdalen College, Oxford, and was later offered by Horne a benefice in Sarum, though with Sarum's bishop, Jewel, opposing this. At this time, Bullinger was counselling Horne with a position more tolerant of vestments, while nonconformist agitation was taking place among students at St John's College, Cambridge.
“Tuesday, March 26, 1566, brought the peak of enforcement against nonconformity, with the diocese of London targeted as an example, despite Parker's expectation that it would leave many churches "destitute for service this Easter, and that many [clergy] will forsake their livings, and live at printing, teaching their children, or otherwise as they can." The London clergy were assembled at Lambeth Palace. Parker had requested but failed to gain the attendance of William Cecil, Lord Keeper Nicholas Bacon, and the Lord Marquess of Northampton, so it was left to Parker himself, bishop Grindal, the dean of Westminster, and some canonists. One former nonconformist, Robert Cole, was stood before the assembly in full canonical habit. There was no discussion. The ultimatum was issued that the clergy would appear as Cole—in a square cap, gown, tippet, and surplice. They would "inviolably observe the rubric of the Book of Common Prayer, and the Queen majesty's injunctions: and the Book of Convocation." The clergy were ordered to commit themselves on the spot, in writing, with only the words volo or nolo. Sixty-one subscribed; thirty-seven did not and were immediately suspended with their livings sequestered. A three-month grace period was given for these clergy to change their minds before they would be fully deprived.
“The deprivations were to be carried out under the authority of Parker's Advertisements, which he had just published as a revised form of the original articles defining ecclesiastical conformity. (The full title is Advertisements partly for due order in the publique
administration of common prayers and usinge the holy sacramentes, and
partly for the apparrell of all persons ecclesiasticall, by vertue of the
Queenes maiesties letters commaunding the same.)
Parker had not obtained the crown's authorisation for this mandate, however,
though he increasingly positioned himself toward the nonconformist clergy as
acting on and under the authority of the state. Royal authority stood to
simplify the problem for him, because disobedience of the monarch was
disobedience of God. However, without explicit backing from the queen and
council, this assertion lacked force. Thus, the nonconformist reaction to
Parker's crackdown was, as he expected, a vociferous assertion of their persecuted
status with some serious displays of disobedience. John Stow records in his Memoranda
that in most parishes, the sextons did not change the service if they had conducted it
without vestments previously: "in some places the ministers themselves did
service in their gowns or cloaks with turning collars and hats as they were
wont to do, and preached stoutly and against the order taken by the queen and
council and the bishops for consenting there unto." By some lights, these
clergy constituted an emerging Puritan faction, and that word was indeed first recorded as being in use at this
time as term of abuse for nonconformists.”
Miles Coverdale, as well as old John Foxe, weren’t up for the “abusive,” “elbows-to-the-head,” “boots-to-the-neck,” hubristic and unnecessary authoritarianism of Elizabeth and Parker.
Bottomline: Adiaphora = Elizabeth’s and Parker’s non-adiaphora.
Old Miles Coverdale, a sensible scholar, Reformed Churchman,
Bible translator, comrade of other Marian exiles, who suffered for the faith,
never bought into medievalist fashion demands of Lambeth and the Royal
palace.
By summer of 1566,
Coverdale left St. Magnus Martyr by the London Bridge. He was near 80.
Mr. Matthew Parker (Canterbury), generally a pliable tool of the nobility and
Elizabeth, had summoned the London clergy to Lambeth for the enforcement of
Elizabeth’s vestarian-laws—which Parker did not care about, as a few letters
show, but which he supported since Elizabeth had ruled; she was the “Supreme
Governor” of the Church of England, after all.
Rather than do a “buy-in” for a position, the old scholar, Coverdale, resigned his
living at St. Magnus. Several letters from London clerics were sent to Zurich
and Geneva about the fashions demands.
Coverdale discreetly—but visibly—absented himself
from Parker’s summons.
Ya’ don’t bulldoze an old, experienced, informed,
Biblically-driven, theologically trained and Reformed Churchman long acquainted
with suffering, poverty, tyrannies, and exile.
Coverdale didn’t yield. But, he wasn’t a rash reactionary either. He
simply retired from service despite years of long service and suffering.
As might be expected, he had a “keen following in
Puritan circles”—those wicked and tragic non-conformists of the lower sort.
But, Coverdale accepted poverty over preferment, consistency before compromise,
the Scriptures above tradition, and principles above pandering to a Queen.
He genuinely believed in Scriptures, the “supreme”
[and final] Judge in all things, matters, opinions, councils and independent
thoughts. Scriptures didn’t addess fashion requirements: ergo, the church could
neither command nor forbid in that area. The Church of England thought they
could command in that area. Coverdale thought otherwise. There was no freedom
on the issue. That’s Reformed theology.
In JAN 1569, Coverdale preached his last sermon. He
was about 83 years old. He was attending at his former parish, St. Magnus. In other words, he was the former minister in
attendance but without the post—having resigned over principle.
However, for whatever reason, the presiding minister
was not present or available. But Coverdale was in attendance, but not
presiding, an indication of his acceptance of the-then-used 1559 Book of Common Prayer (or, at least, in
the main, as was the case for Anglo-Puritans). John Hooker (supra) described it:
“…certain men of the parish came
unto him, and earnestly entreated that considering the multitude was great, and
that it was pity they should be disappointed of their expectation, that it
would please him to take the place for that time. But he excused his age and
infirmities thereof, and that his memory failed him, his voice scarce could be
heard, and he not able to do it, that they would hold him excused. Nevertheless such were their importunate
requests that, would he nould [sic] he, he must and did yield unto their
requests: and between two men he was carried up into the pulpit, where God did
with his spirit so strengthen him, that he made his last and the best and the
most godly sermon that ever he did in all his life. And very shortly after he died, being very
honourably buried with the presence of the duchess of Suffolk, the earl of
Bedford, and many others, honourable and worshipful personages.
Clearly, the old Reformed scholar commanded the
affections of the people.
Coverdale died on 20 JAN 1569. He was buried in the
chancel of St. Bartholomew by the Exchange under the “communion table” [hint,
TFO-reactionaries, the “table” not the Laudian altar…gotta a problem
there? Cranmer, Ridley and Coverdale
didn’t.]
The backstory to the childish-fashions debate in
Anglican adiaphoristic non-adiaphorisms.
Wikipedia gives some background.
“On March 20, 1563, an appeal was made to the ecclesiastical commissioners by twenty petitioners to exempt them from the use of vestments. These included a number of prominent clergy, mainly in the diocese of London, whose bishop, Grindal, had packed his see with former exiles and activists for reform. The petition was approved by all the commissioners except Parker and Guest, who rejected it.
“Sampson and Humphrey were the first nonconformist leaders to be targeted by Parker and whose steadfast refusal to conform led to Sampson's quick deprivation in 1565, as he was directly under the queen's authority. Humphrey, under the jurisdiction of Robert Horne, the bishop of Winchester, was able to return to his position as president of Magdalen College, Oxford, and was later offered by Horne a benefice in Sarum, though with Sarum's bishop, Jewel, opposing this. At this time, Bullinger was counselling Horne with a position more tolerant of vestments, while nonconformist agitation was taking place among students at St John's College, Cambridge.
“Tuesday, March 26, 1566, brought the peak of enforcement against nonconformity, with the diocese of London targeted as an example, despite Parker's expectation that it would leave many churches "destitute for service this Easter, and that many [clergy] will forsake their livings, and live at printing, teaching their children, or otherwise as they can." The London clergy were assembled at Lambeth Palace. Parker had requested but failed to gain the attendance of William Cecil, Lord Keeper Nicholas Bacon, and the Lord Marquess of Northampton, so it was left to Parker himself, bishop Grindal, the dean of Westminster, and some canonists. One former nonconformist, Robert Cole, was stood before the assembly in full canonical habit. There was no discussion. The ultimatum was issued that the clergy would appear as Cole—in a square cap, gown, tippet, and surplice. They would "inviolably observe the rubric of the Book of Common Prayer, and the Queen majesty's injunctions: and the Book of Convocation." The clergy were ordered to commit themselves on the spot, in writing, with only the words volo or nolo. Sixty-one subscribed; thirty-seven did not and were immediately suspended with their livings sequestered. A three-month grace period was given for these clergy to change their minds before they would be fully deprived.
“The deprivations were to be carried out under the authority of Parker's Advertisements, which he had just published as a revised form of the original articles defining ecclesiastical conformity. (The full title is Advertisements partly for due order in the publique
administration of common prayers and usinge the holy sacramentes, and
partly for the apparrell of all persons ecclesiasticall, by vertue of the
Queenes maiesties letters commaunding the same.)
Parker had not obtained the crown's authorisation for this mandate, however,
though he increasingly positioned himself toward the nonconformist clergy as
acting on and under the authority of the state. Royal authority stood to
simplify the problem for him, because disobedience of the monarch was
disobedience of God. However, without explicit backing from the queen and
council, this assertion lacked force. Thus, the nonconformist reaction to
Parker's crackdown was, as he expected, a vociferous assertion of their persecuted
status with some serious displays of disobedience. John Stow records in his Memoranda
that in most parishes, the sextons did not change the service if they had conducted it
without vestments previously: "in some places the ministers themselves did
service in their gowns or cloaks with turning collars and hats as they were
wont to do, and preached stoutly and against the order taken by the queen and
council and the bishops for consenting there unto." By some lights, these
clergy constituted an emerging Puritan faction, and that word was indeed first recorded as being in use at this
time as term of abuse for nonconformists.”Miles Coverdale, as well as old John Foxe, weren’t up for the “abusive,” “elbows-to-the-head,” “boots-to-the-neck,” hubristic and unnecessary authoritarianism of Elizabeth and Parker.
Bottomline: Adiaphora = Elizabeth’s and Parker’s non-adiaphora.
Comments
Post a Comment