16 October 1555 A.D. Mr. (Bp.) Nicholas Ridley dies in the flames at the stake with Mr. (Bp.) “Old Hugh” Latimer.
16
October 1555 A.D. Mr.
(Bp.) Nicholas Ridley dies in the flames at the stake with Mr. (Bp.) “Old Hugh”
Latimer.
Contents
Vestments controversy
(1550–3)
Hooper–Ridley debate
Outcome of the controversy
Downfall (1553–5)
Death and legacy
· List of bishops of Rochester
Notes
References
External links
A few movie clips: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Ridley_(martyr) and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIUzHUOdLhM
Wiki tells the story.
|
The
Right Reverend
Nicholas Ridley |
|
|
Bishop of London
|
|
|
Installed
|
1550
|
|
Term ended
|
1553
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
Successor
|
Edmund Bonner
|
|
Other posts
|
Bishop of Rochester (1547–1550)
|
|
Personal details
|
|
|
Born
|
c. 1500
South Tynedale, Northumberland |
|
Died
|
16 October 1555
Oxford, Oxfordshire |
|
Sainthood
|
|
|
Feast day
|
October 16
|
Nicholas Ridley (c. 1500–16 October
1555) was an English Bishop of London.
Ridley was burned at the stake, as one of the Oxford Martyrs,
during the Marian Persecutions, for his teachings and his support of Lady Jane Grey. Ridley is
remembered with a commemoration in the calendar
of saints in some parts of the Anglican Communion on 16 October.
Contents
·
6 Notes
Early years and advancement (c.1500–50)
Ridley came from a prominent family in Tynedale, Northumberland, and was born
c.1500. He was the second son of Christopher Ridley, first cousin to Lancelot Ridley and grew up in Unthank Hall from the old House
of Unthank located on the site of an ancient watch tower or pele tower. The boy was educated at
the Royal
Grammar School, Newcastle, and Pembroke
College, Cambridge,[1] where he proceeded
to Master
of Arts in 1525.[2][3] Soon afterward he
was ordained as a priest and
went to the Sorbonne, in Paris, for further education.
After returning to England around 1529, he became the senior proctor of
Cambridge University in 1534. Around that time there was significant debate
about the Pope's supremacy. Ridley was
well versed on Biblical hermeneutics, and through his arguments the university came up with the following
resolution: "That the Bishop of Rome had no more authority and
jurisdiction derived to him from God, in this kingdom of England, than any
other foreign bishop." He graduated B.D. in 1537 and was then appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, to serve as one of his
chaplains. In April 1538, Cranmer made him vicar of Herne in Kent.
In 1540-1, he was made one of the King's
Chaplains, and was also presented with a prebendal stall in Canterbury Cathedral. He was also made Master of Pembroke
College. In 1543 he was accused of heresy, but he was able to beat
the charge. Cranmer had resolved to support the English Reformation by gradually replacing the old guard in his ecclesiastical
province with men who followed the new thinking.[4] Ridley was made the Bishop of Rochester in 1547, and shortly after coming to office, directed that the altars in
the churches of his diocese should be removed, and tables put in their place to
celebrate the Lord's Supper. In
1548 he helped Cranmer compile the Book of Common Prayer and in 1549 he was one of the commissioners who investigated Bishops Stephen Gardiner and
Edmund Bonner. He
concurred that they should be removed. John Ponet took Ridley’s former
position. Incumbent conservatives were uprooted and replaced with reformers.[5]
Vestments controversy
(1550–3)
Ridley played a major part in the vestments controversy. John Hooper,
having been exiled during King Henry's reign, returned to England in 1548 from
the churches in Zürich
that had been reformed by Zwingli and
Heinrich Bullinger in a highly iconoclastic
fashion. When Hooper was invited to give a series of Lenten sermons before the king in February
1550, he spoke against Cranmer's 1549 ordinal whose oath mentioned "all
saints" and required newly elected bishops and those attending the
ordination ceremony to wear a cope and
surplice. In Hooper's view, these
requirements were vestiges of Judaism and Roman Catholicism, which had no
biblical warrant for Christians since they were not used in the early Christian
church.[6]
Summoned to answer to the Privy Council and archbishop—who were primarily
concerned with Hooper's willingness to accept the royal supremacy, which was
also part of the oath for newly ordained clergy—Hooper evidently made
sufficient reassurances, as he was soon appointed to the bishopric of Gloucester. Hooper declined the
office, however, because of the required vestments and oath by the saints. The
king accepted Hooper's position, but the Privy Council did not. Called before
them on 15 May 1550, a compromise was reached. Vestments were to be considered
a matter of adiaphora, or Res Indifferentes ("things
indifferent", as opposed to an article of faith), and Hooper could be
ordained without them at his discretion, but he must allow that others could
wear them. Hooper passed confirmation of the new office again before the king
and council on 20 July 1550 when the issue was raised again, and Cranmer was
instructed that Hooper was not to be charged "with an oath burdensome to
his conscience".[6]
Cranmer assigned Ridley to perform the consecration, and Ridley refused
to do anything but follow the form of the ordinal as it had been prescribed by Parliament. Ridley, it seems likely, had some particular objection to Hooper. It has
been suggested that Henrician exiles like Hooper, who had experienced some of
the more radically reformed churches on the continent, were at odds with
English clergy who had accepted and never left the established church. John
Henry Primus also notes that on 24 July 1550, the day after receiving
instructions for Hooper's unique consecration, the church of the Augustinian friars in
London had been granted to Jan Laski for use as a Stranger church. This was to be a
designated place of worship for Continental Protestant refugees, a church with
forms and practices that had taken reforms much further than Ridley would have
liked. This development—the use of a London church virtually outside Ridley's
jurisdiction—was one that Hooper had had a hand in.[7]
The Privy Council reiterated its position, and Ridley
responded in person, agreeing that vestments are indifferent but making a
compelling argument that the monarch may require indifferent things without
exception. The council became divided in opinion, and the issue dragged on for
months without resolution. Hooper now insisted that vestments were not
indifferent, since they obscured the priesthood of Christ by encouraging
hypocrisy and superstition. Warwick disagreed, emphasising that the king must
be obeyed in things indifferent, and he pointed to St Paul's concessions to
Jewish traditions in the early church. Finally, an acrimonious debate with
Ridley went against Hooper. Ridley's position centred on maintaining order and
authority; not the vestments themselves, Hooper's primary concern.[6]
Hooper–Ridley debate
In a Latin
letter dated 3 October 1550, Hooper laid out his argument contra usum
vestium.[8] With Ridley's reply
(in English), it marks the first written representation of a split in the English Reformation. Hooper's argument is that vestments should not be used as they are not
indifferent, nor is their use supported by scripture, a point he takes as
self-evident. He contends that church practices must either have express
biblical support or be things indifferent, approval for which is implied by
scripture. Furthermore, an indifferent thing, if used, causes no profit or
loss. Ridley objected in his response, saying that indifferent things do have
profitable effects, which is the only reason they are used. Failing to
distinguish between conditions for indifferent things in general and the
church's use of indifferent things, Hooper then all but excludes the
possibility of anything being indifferent in the four conditions he sets:
1) An indifferent thing has
either an express justification in scripture or is implied by it, finding its
origin and foundation in scripture.
Hooper cites Romans 14:23 (whatever is not faith is sin), Romans 10:17 (faith comes from
hearing the word of God), and Matthew 15:13 (everything not
"planted" by God will be "rooted up") to argue that
indifferent things must be done in faith, and since what cannot be proved from
scripture is not of faith, indifferent things must be proved from scripture,
which is both necessary and sufficient authority, as opposed to tradition.
Hooper maintains that priestly garb distinguishing clergy from laity is not
indicated by scripture; there is no mention of it in the New Testament as being in use in
the early church, and the use of priestly clothing in the Old Testament is a Hebrew
practice, a type or
foreshadowing that finds its antitype in Christ, who abolishes the old order
and recognises the spiritual equality, or priesthood, of all Christians. The
historicity of these claims is further supported by Hooper with a reference to Polydore Vergil's De Inventoribus
Rerum.
In response, Ridley rejected Hooper's insistence on
biblical origins and countered Hooper's interpretations of his chosen biblical
texts. He points out that many non-controversial practices are not mentioned or
implied in scripture. Ridley denies that early church practices are normative
for the present situation, and he links such primitivist arguments with the Anabaptists. Joking that
Hooper's reference to Christ's nakedness on the cross is as insignificant as
the clothing King Herod put Christ in and "a jolly argument" for the Adamites, Ridley does not dispute
Hooper's main typological argument, but neither does he accept that vestments
are necessarily or exclusively identified with Israel and the Roman church. On
Hooper's point about the priesthood of all believers, Ridley says it does not
follow from this doctrine that all Christians must wear the same clothes.
2) An indifferent thing must
be left to individual discretion; if required, it is no longer indifferent.
For Ridley, on matters of indifference, one must defer
conscience to the authorities of the church, or else "thou showest thyself
a disordered person, disobedient, as [a] contemner of lawful authority, and a
wounder of thy weak brother his conscience." For him, the debate was
finally about legitimate authority, not the merits and demerits of vestments
themselves. He contended that it is only accidental that the compulsory ceases
to be indifferent; the degeneration of a practice into non-indifference can be
corrected without throwing out the practice. Things are not, "because they
have been abused, to be taken away, but to be reformed and amended, and so kept
still."
3) An indifferent thing's
usefulness must be demonstrated and not introduced arbitrarily.
For this point, Hooper cites 1 Corinthians 14 and 2 Corinthians
13. As it contradicts the first point above, Primus contends that Hooper must
now refer to indifferent things in the church and earlier meant indifferent
things in general, in the abstract. Regardless, the apparent contradiction was
seized by Ridley and undoubtedly hurt Hooper's case with the council.
4) Indifferent things must
be introduced into the church with apostolic and evangelical lenity, not
violent tyranny.
In making such an inflammatory, risky statement (he later
may have called his opponents "papists" in a part of his argument
that is lost), Hooper may not have been suggesting England was tyrannical but
that Rome was—and that England could become like Rome. Ridley warned Hooper of
the implications of an attack on English ecclesiastical and civil authority and
of the consequences of radical individual liberties, while also reminding him
that it was Parliament that established the "Book of Common Prayer in the church of England".
In closing, Hooper asks that the dispute be resolved by
church authorities without looking to civil authorities for support—although
the monarch was the head of both the church and the state. This hint of a plea
for a separation of church and state would later be elaborated by Thomas
Cartwright, but for Hooper, although the word of God was the
highest authority, the state could still impose upon men's consciences (such as
requiring them not to be Roman Catholic) when it had a biblical warrant.
Moreover, Hooper himself addressed the civil magistrates, suggesting that the
clergy supporting vestments were a threat to the state, and he declared his
willingness to be martyred for his cause. Ridley, by contrast, responds with
humour, calling this "a magnifical promise set forth with a stout
style". He invites Hooper to agree that vestments are indifferent, not to
condemn them as sinful, and then he will ordain him even if he wears street
clothes to the ceremony.[6]
Outcome of the controversy
The weaknesses in Hooper's argument, Ridley's laconic and
temperate rejoinder, and Ridley's offer of a compromise no doubt turned the
council against Hooper's inflexible convictions when he did not accept it.
Heinrich Bullinger, Pietro
Martire Vermigli, and Martin Bucer, while agreeing with
Hooper's views, ceased to support him for the pragmatic sake of unity and
slower reform. Only Jan Laski remained a constant ally. Some time in
mid-December 1550, Hooper was put under house arrest, during which time he
wrote and published A godly Confession and protestacion of the Christian
faith. Because of this publication, his persistent nonconformism, and violations of
the terms of his house arrest, Hooper was placed in Thomas Cranmer's custody at
Lambeth Palace for
two weeks by the Privy Council on 13 January 1551. Hooper was then sent to Fleet Prison by the council, who
made that decision on 27 January. On 15 February, Hooper submitted to
consecration in vestments in a letter to Cranmer. He was consecrated Bishop of
Gloucester on 8 March 1551, and shortly thereafter, preached before the king in
vestments.[6]
Downfall (1553–5)
On 2 February 1553 Cranmer was ordered to appoint John Knox as vicar of Allhallows
Church in London placing him under the authority of Ridley. Knox returned to
London in order to deliver a sermon before the king and the court during Lent
after which he refused to take his assigned post.[9] That same year,
Ridley pleaded with Edward VI to give some of his empty palaces over to the city to house homeless women
and children. One such foundation was Bridewell Royal Hospital, which is today
known as King
Edward's School, Witley.[10] Edward VI became
seriously ill from tuberculosis and
in mid-June the councillors were told that he did not have long to live. They
set to work to convince several judges to put on the throne Lady Jane Grey, Edward's cousin,
instead of Mary, daughter of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon and a Roman Catholic. On 17 June 1553 the king made his will noting Jane would succeed him,
contravening the Third Succession Act.[11] Ridley signed the
letters patent giving the English throne to Lady Jane Grey. On 9 July 1553 he
preached a sermon at St Paul's cross in which he affirmed that the princesses
Mary and Elizabeth
were bastards. By mid-July, there were serious provincial revolts in Mary’s
favour and support for Jane in the council fell. As Mary was proclaimed queen,
Ridley, Jane’s father, the Duke
of Suffolk, and others were imprisoned. Ridley was sent to the Tower of London.[12] Throughout February
1554 the political leaders of the supporters of Jane were executed, including
Jane herself. After that, there was time to deal with the religious leaders of the
English Reformation and so on 8 March 1554 the Privy Council ordered Cranmer,
Ridley, and Hugh Latimer to
be transferred to Bocardo prison in
Oxford to await trial for heresy. The trial of Latimer and Ridley started
shortly after Cranmer's with John Jewel acting as notary to Ridley.
Their verdicts came almost immediately and they were to be burned at the stake.[13]
Death and legacy
The sentence was carried out on 16 October 1555 in Oxford. Cranmer was taken to a
tower to watch the proceedings. Ridley burned extremely slowly and suffered a
great deal, through no fault of the executioner: Ridley's brother-in-law
foolishly put more faggots on the pyre, in order to speed Ridley's death, while
in fact they caused only Ridley's lower parts to burn. Latimer is supposed to
have said to Ridley, "Be of good comfort, and play the man, Master Ridley;
we shall this day light such a candle, by God's grace, in England, as I trust
shall never be put out." This is quoted in Acts and
Monuments by John Foxe, who put the story of
their deaths to effective use.[14] It is not, however,
in the first edition of the book: there Foxe says that he can "learn from
no man" what Ridley and Latimer said to each other.[15]
A metal cross in a cobbled patch of road in Broad Street, Oxford, marks the site. Eventually Ridley and Latimer were seen as martyrs for their support of a Church of England
independent from the Roman Catholic Church. Along with Thomas Cranmer,
they are known as the Oxford Martyrs.
In the Victorian era, his death was
commemorated by the Martyrs' Memorial, located near the site of his execution. As well as being a monument to
the English Reformation, the memorial is even more so an interesting landmark of the 19th century Oxford Movement, propagated by John Keble, John Henry Newman and
others. Profoundly alarmed at the Catholic realignment the movement
was bringing into to the Church of England, low church Anglican clergy raised the
funds for erecting the monument, with its highly anti-Roman Catholic
inscription, as a public propaganda move. As a result the monument was built
300 years after the events it commemorates.[16]
Stained glass window
depicting Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, the Oxford Martyrs
· List of bishops of Rochester
Notes
2.
Jump up ^ "National Gazetteer (1868) - Newcastle upon
Tyne". Newcastle Gazzette.
GENUKI Charitable trust. 1868. Retrieved 2007-04-29.
15.
Jump up ^ Tom
Freeman posits that someone reported these words to Foxe, who seized upon them
with alacrity. "Text, Lies and Microfilm," Sixteenth Century
Journal XXX [1999], 44.
16.
Jump up ^ "The Martyrs' Memorial at Oxford". The Journal of Ecclesiastical History. Retrieved 2008-08-21.
17.
Jump up ^ "Holy Days". Common Worship. Church House Publishing. 2000-6. Retrieved 10 March 2009.
References
·
Bernard,
G. W. (2005), The King's Reformation: Henry VIII and the Remaking of the
English Church, London: Yale University Press, ISBN 0-300-12271-3.
·
Heinze,
Rudolph W. (1993), "'I pray God to grant that I may endure to the end': A
New Look at the Martyrdom of Thomas Cranmer", in Ayris, Paul; Selwyn,
David, Thomas Cranmer: Churchman and Scholar, Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK: The Boydell Press, ISBN 0-85115-549-9
·
MacCulloch, Diarmaid (1996), Thomas Cranmer: A Life, London: Yale University Press, ISBN 0-300-06688-0.
·
Matthew,
H. C. G.; Harrison, Brian Howard, eds. (2004), Oxford Dictionary of National
Biography, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, OCLC 56568095
·
Reid,
W. Stanford (1974), Trumpeter of God, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons,
ISBN 0-684-13782-8.
·
Primus,
John Henry (1960), The Vestments Controversy, J. H. Kok.
External links
·
Keeping the Faith (BBC Radio 4), documentary on his
story by the historian Jane Ridley, a
descendent.
Comments
Post a Comment