The 16th century in the history of England is the century of the reign of the Tudor dynasty. They were on the English throne from 1485 to 1603. The most important historical processes that took place in England during the Tudor era included the Reformation, the strengthening of royal power and the conquest of maritime supremacy by England. Despite the strengthening of the power of the English king in the 16th century, his regime of rule can hardly be classified as an absolute monarchy. The power of the king during this period was always limited to a greater or lesser extent by parliament. The Reformation also contributed to the strengthening of royal power. It is associated with the name of Henry VIII. The Pope's refusal to grant a divorce to the English king Henry VIII and the Spanish princess Catherine of Aragon became the formal reason for the start of the Reformation. In 1534, the English Parliament passed the Act of Supremacy, according to which the English king and his successors were proclaimed head of the church. One of the prerequisites for the emergence of England as a leading maritime power was the defeat of the Spanish Invincible Armada in 1588.
Reformation and royal power in England in the 16th century.
The era of Tudor rule (1485-1603) is characterized by three important processes: the Reformation, the strengthening of royal power and the conquest of maritime dominance.
Background
After the end of the Hundred Years' War in 1453, England was engulfed in internal strife - the so-called War of the Scarlet and White Roses. The York family and the Lancaster family fought for royal power with the support of aristocratic clans loyal to them. The war ended in 1485, when Henry Tudor became king, uniting the Yorks and Lancasters in marriage. Henry pursued a consistent course towards strengthening royal power ().
Events
The Reformation in England began at the will of the king (and not at the initiative from below), which is why it is called royal. The Reformation of the Church contributed to the strengthening of royal power. It took place simultaneously with the formation of absolutism.
The external reason for the start of the Reformation and the break with the Pope was divorce Henry VIII Tudor with Catherine of Aragon and marriage to Anne Boleyn, which the pope did not want to recognize.
1534- Parliament passed a law according to which the king and his successors become the head of the church in England. Three thousand monasteries were closed in the country. Church lands were secularized (declared to belong to the king). The service has been translated into English. The king received the right to appoint bishops and the highest church official - the Bishop of Canterbury. The reformed church was called Anglican.
1553-1558- Bloody Mary, daughter of a Spanish princess (Spain is a stronghold of Catholicism in Europe) pursues a policy of Counter-Reformation. Catholicism was restored. In 1554, a commission was created to combat heresy. Opponents of Catholicism were burned at the stake.
When the ideas of the Reformation began to penetrate into the country, the king at first rejected them, but later his position changed, and the Reformation in England began according to his will; that's why they call her royal. The reason for the start of reforms was the circumstances of the monarch’s family life. The king was married to the Spaniard Catherine of Aragon, but did not have a son from this marriage - the heir to the throne. He decided to divorce and enter into a new marriage with the Englishwoman Anne Boleyn. The divorce required the consent of the Pope, but he refused, fearing the wrath of Catherine's powerful nephew, Emperor Charles V. Enraged, Henry VIII began to take action against the Pope, deciding to use Luther's ideas. True, of them he accepted only what could strengthen his power. The king decided to subjugate the English church and confiscate its vast possessions. Under his pressure, Parliament in 1534 adopted the “Act of Supremacy” (that is, of supremacy), proclaiming the monarch the supreme head of the English Church. The monasteries were closed, and their lands passed into the hands of the king and his entourage. Anyone who did not approve of the king's divorce and the new church policy was persecuted. The despot king spared no one. Even Thomas More, the famous humanist and Lord Chancellor of England, laid his head on the chopping block.
Rice. 2. Anne Boleyn ()
The Reformed Church accepted Luther's idea of "justification by faith" and rejected some of the Catholic sacraments, but otherwise remained close to the Catholic Church. The new faith, called Anglican, quickly took root in England, although many secretly remained Catholics; There were also supporters of deeper church reform.
The choice of a new faith brought important political benefits to the country : England led European Protestants. But this inevitably made her an enemy of Catholic Spain.
The new faith was subjected to severe tests during the reign of the daughter of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon - Mary Tudor (Bloody). She restored Catholicism in the country and brutally dealt with Protestants. But after her death, the daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, Elizabeth I Tudor (1558-1603), ascended the throne, finally establishing the new faith. A supporter of the moderate Reformation, Elizabeth rejected the extremes of Catholicism and Calvinism and restored Anglicanism, seeking to avoid bloody religious strife.
Rice. 3. Elizabeth I ()
The long reign of Elizabeth I was marked by important successes in the development of the economy, the strengthening of the state, and the brilliant flourishing of culture. Elizabeth was smart and well-educated, had acting skills, and had no equal in the diplomatic game. And if in other countries, under absolutism, representative bodies lost their importance, then the English parliament, consisting of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, retained its influence. The leading role in it was played by the House of Commons, in which representatives of the bourgeoisie and the new nobility predominated. They needed the support of royal power and themselves supported it until a certain time. In her actions, Elizabeth relied on the nobility, but at the same time pursued a far-sighted policy of protectionism - patronage of the development of national production and trade. The production of goods, especially cloth, has increased noticeably in the country. In order to profitably sell them and cheaply purchase raw materials and necessary goods, the British sailed to all corners of the world. In order to reduce the risk of long-distance travel, they united into trading companies. Thus, the Moscow Company traded with Russia, the East India Company traded with South and Southeast Asia.
In the field of foreign policy, Elizabeth tried to maneuver between the strongest powers of Europe at that time - Spain and France. However, relations with Spain were quite tense, since the queen secretly supported the smuggling trade of English merchants with the Spanish colonies and the actions of pirates who attacked Spanish ships. The Spaniards, in turn, organized rebellions and conspiracies of Catholics in England, the most notorious of which was a conspiracy involving the Scottish Queen Mary Stuart, who fled to England from the Reformation that began in Scotland. Since Mary was a relative and heir of Elizabeth, her Catholic faith made her a dangerous tool in the hands of Spain. Mary was involved in a Catholic conspiracy, it was discovered, and the Scottish queen was executed by court order.
The Spanish king Philip II was indignant and in 1588 struck back. The Spaniards assembled a huge fleet - an armada - consisting of 134 ships. The Spanish fleet was supposed to land an 18,000-strong army in England. When the armada approached the shores of England, the Spanish admiral showed indecision and lost his chances of success, while the British acted successfully. And then the Spanish fleet was destroyed by fierce storms. Spain's enemies rejoiced, mockingly dubbing the defeated armada "invincible." England celebrated their victory. She defended her independence and was preparing to become a great maritime power.
Rice. 4. Defeat of the “Invincible Armada” ()
Bibliography
1. Bulychev K. Secrets of the New Time. - M., 2005
2. Vedyushkin V. A., Burin S. N. General History. History of modern times. 7th grade. - M., 2010
3. Koenigsberger G. Early Modern Europe. 1500-1789 - M., 2006
4. Soloviev S. Course of New History. - M., 2003
Homework
1. What successes did the English economy achieve in the 16th century?
2. What are the reasons for the beginning of the Reformation in England?
3. What were the main directions of Elizabeth I’s domestic and foreign policy?
History test Royalty and the Reformation in England. The struggle for dominance of the seas, grade 7 with answers. The test is presented in two versions, each with 5 tasks.
Option 1
1.
The Reformation in England was carried out “from above” - at the will of the king.
1) true
2) incorrect
2. The head of the Church of England is
1) Archbishop of Canterbury
2) king of England
3) Pope
3. Match the names of rulers with events related to their reign.
Rulers
A) Henry VIII
B) Elizabeth I
B) Mary Tudor
Events
1) the death of the “Invincible Armada”
2) attempt at counter-reformation
3) closing of monasteries
4.
Puritans, Calvinists
1) the Puritans denied the teachings of J. Calvin
2) the Puritans were followers of Calvinism
3) Calvinists were hostile to the Puritans
5.
At the end of the 16th century. England became a strong naval power. The Reformation contributed to the strengthening of royal power. Elizabeth I felt so powerful that she never convened parliament.
1) in fact, Elizabeth repeatedly convened parliament
2) in fact, the Reformation weakened royal power
3) in fact, England was unable to achieve dominance on the seas
Option 2
1. Is the following statement true?
There were many remnants of Catholicism in the Church of England.
1) true
2) incorrect
2. In 1588, the “Invincible Armada” sailed to the shores of England. She
1) defeated the English fleet under the command of F. Drake
2) got caught in a storm and was broken on the rocks
3) was defeated by an English squadron commanded by Queen Elizabeth I herself
3. Establish a correspondence between the names of the rulers and events and phenomena related to their reign.
Rulers
A) Elizabeth I
B) Mary Tudor
B) Henry VIII
Events, phenomena
1) execution of English Protestants
2) the beginning of the English Reformation
3) the rise of English absolutism
Write down the selected numbers under the corresponding letters.
4. Make connections between concepts.
Puritans, Church of England
1) the Puritans were faithful to the teachings of the Church of England
2) the Puritans rejected many of the principles of the Church of England
3) the Anglican Church saw its allies in the Puritans
5. Read the text and find the error in the description.
By the end of the 16th century. England never became a powerful sea power. But she managed to achieve significant success in the household. The Reformation strengthened royal power, and absolutism established itself in the country.
1) in fact, England became a strong naval power
2) in fact, absolutism did not develop in England
3) in fact, successes in foreign policy were combined with an economic crisis
Answers to the history test Royalty and the Reformation in England. The struggle for supremacy of the seas, grade 7
Option 1
1-1
2-2
3-312
4-2
5-1
Option 2
1-1
2-2
3-312
4-2
5-1
Introduction
Beginning of the Reformation
1 Reasons for the Reformation in England
2 Reformation under Henry VIII
Reformation under the last Tudors
1 Protestant Reformation under Edward VI
2 Catholic reaction under Mary Tudor
3 Elizabeth I's Compromise
Conclusion
Bibliography
1. Introduction
Relevance. The history of early modern Western Europe cannot be understood without reference to the vast complex of problems associated with the Reformation, a religious movement that swept almost all of Europe in the 16th century. In the understanding of the reformers, the reconstruction of the Catholic Church included a significant set of measures aimed at changing doctrine and worship, church practice and the life of parishioners, relations between church and state, and the system of canon law.
In the late Middle Ages and early modern times, the church continued to maintain an important role in society. Church institutions functioned on the basis of canon law, church courts regulated important aspects of people’s daily lives (marriage and family law, approval of wills, etc.), therefore, the study of the specific sphere of church law allows us to understand the process of church reform in more depth and detail.
In each country, the Reformation had local conditions and characteristics determined by the course of previous historical development. In England, such a feature was the dominance of government initiative during the reforms, which significantly influenced their progress and the formation of the canon law system.
The relevance of the topic is also due to the fact that despite many works in foreign historiography, not all aspects of the English Reformation have been studied in Russian historical science.
In addition, the Reformation led to the creation of many movements in Christianity, united under the common name “Protestantism”.
The scientific relevance of the topic is due to its close connection with the problems of humanistic ideology and the worldview of late medieval society. The historical traditions of Protestantism to this day have a great influence on the political and cultural life of modern states where Christianity is professed, which gives the work even greater significance.
One of the most moderate movements of Protestantism is Anglicanism, which represents a kind of compromise between Catholic and Protestant teachings. In this regard, the English Reformation has never been devoid of attention from researchers.
The object of this study is the English Reformation. Events in England were one of the most original moments of the pan-European Reformation. Their originality was determined by the previous course of historical development of the country and was associated with the dominant role of royal power. The change in the relationship between church and state inevitably led to the restructuring of the old Catholic system of canon law and changed the impact of the reformed church on the life of society.
The chronological scope of my research covers the early royal reformation - the second half of the reign of Henry VIII and ends with the reign of Elizabeth I.
The territorial scope of the study is England.
Research methods:
.A systematic method that allows us to consider the reformation as a complex, evolutionary phenomenon. .The comparative historical method makes it possible to identify general and particular processes in the development of English church law and trends in its development. .The biographical method is the study of personality in the context of history. Study of the topic: The topic of the Reformation in England has received wide coverage in various fields of humanitarian and social knowledge. The first works covering the events of the English Reformation were the works of various church historians who belonged to the Catholic or Protestant camps: J. Barnett, J. Collier, L. Dodd, J. Stripe14. For these works of the 17th-19th centuries. characterized by a confessional approach, often a biased attitude towards Catholicism. To the works of the 17th-19th centuries. goes back to the origins of the liberal (Whig) concept of the Reformation, very popular in the 19th century. It was characterized by an overestimation of the Tudor period in English history: it was considered the most important milestone on the path of the country's transformation into a world power, a turning point in the transition from the Middle Ages to the Modern Age. The success of Protestantism was seen as a victory for progress. On the one hand, this aroused great interest in the problems of the Reformation, on the other, it led to an overemphasis on the Protestant nature of church reforms, an exaggeration of the “uniqueness and exclusivity” of the historical development of the English nation, and the transformation of the history of the Reformation into the history of Anglicanism. The thesis about the national exclusivity of the British, about the desire for freedom as a feature of the national character, which determined the break with the papacy, was especially emphasized. A positive feature of the works of Whig historians (J. Russell, G. Gallam, T. B. Macaulay) is the development of the problem of establishing royal supremacy over the church. Tory and conservative historians (D. Hume, Mitford) viewed the Reformation in the context of strengthening the absolute monarchy. The radical direction is represented by W. Cobbett, who focused on secularization and the abolition of the poor laws and emphasized that the reasons for the Reformation were the economic interests of the king and the nobility. Positivist historians (G.T. Buckle, D.R. Green) sought to show the Reformation as part of an integral historical process, to create a unified picture of the history of England. At the beginning of the 20th century. A sociological school took shape, focusing on the connection between the Reformation and the economic component of society. Its most important figure is M. Weber, author of the work “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.” The purpose of this work is to study the Reformation in England as a historical process. This leads to the following tasks: .Identifying the reasons for the emergence of the Reformation in England .Study of the stages of the reformation: under Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary Tudor, Elizabeth I. .Identification of the influence of the reformation movement on the future fate of the church. .Analysis of the results of the Reformation. reformation england church 2. Beginning of the reformation 1 Reasons for the Reformation in England The reasons that gave rise to the reformation in England developed over a long period of time, as in all European states that experienced church reformation. But in some respects they were typical only of England itself. Please refer to the list of immediate causes: .Firstly, the Lollards, whose task was to spread the teachings of John Wycliffe (he openly came up with ideas to reform Western Christianity, boldly opposed paying taxes to the papal treasury. Wycliffe argued that, if necessary, the state has the right to deprive the Church of its possessions, and the encroachment of the pope on secular power contradicts the foundations of Christianity), could not be completely exterminated. On the contrary, their teachings were passed from house to house among the lower classes of England and became a religious underground movement of the 15th century. The Lollards' emphasis on the authority of Scripture and the need for personal communion with Christ was reinforced by political changes in England in the first quarter of the 16th century. .Thirdly, the intellectual factor should not be ignored. Biblical humanists or Oxford reformers, such as John Colet (c. 1466-1519), deacon of St. Paul's Church, began studying the Bible in Erasmus of Rotterdam's translation in the early 16th century and explaining the meaning of the Bible to their people. These humanists were extremely critical of the shortcomings they saw in the Roman Church and tried to initiate reforms. William Tyndale (c. 1494-1536) and Max Coverdale, who later made the Scriptures available to the English people in their own language, were also reformers. Tyndale published two editions (each containing three thousand copies) of his English translation of the New Testament at Worms in 1525. This translation from the Greek New Testament of Erasmus of Rotterdam was the first printed New Testament and was distributed in England by merchants. Although Tyndale was martyred near Brussels in 1536, his work lived on and helped bring about religious reform in England. Miles Cavserdale published the first complete printed translation of the Bible into English in 1535. A student of the Reformation is always amazed that the successes of the Reformation in a state are closely connected with the translation of the Bible into the language of the people living there. .Fourthly, Luther's writings and ideas were also circulated in England, which also spoke about the abuses of the Roman Church. The main provisions were written by him in the work “Babylonian Captivity”. Henry VIII responded very negatively to this work and in response to it he wrote his work “In Defense of the Seven Sacraments.” For her, the Pope rewards him with the title “Defender of the Faith.” Luther's books were publicly burned, although this act did not stop the spread of his ideas, which were no less studied, and through these ideas people came to Protestant views. .Also, the immediate, direct reason that led to the reformation was the desire of Henry VIII to have a legitimate male heir. Henry VIII was married to Catherine of Aragon, daughter of the founders of the Spanish state, Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile. Henry VIII was married to her for 24 years, leaving behind a daughter, Mary. Henry VIII was never distinguished by marital fidelity; he only had 6 official marriages. Henry VIII wished to marry his new “passion” Anne Boleyn. But first he needed to divorce Catherine of Aragon and in order to marry, he needed to bring the Roman Church in England under his control. Henry's actions were the direct and personal cause of the beginning of the Reformation. 2 Reformation under Henry VIII Henry VIII was King of England from 1509 to 1547. By 16th century standards, King Henry VIII was a very tall man. He was distinguished not only by his height, but also by his very strong build - broad-shouldered, with muscular arms and legs. “He was very handsome - tall and slender,” a contemporary wrote about the twenty-two-year-old king, “and when he moved, the earth shook under him.” His actions combined political and personal motives in a very bizarre and, at first glance, contradictory manner. Henry VIII was portrayed either as a king-juir, who was little involved in state affairs and was constantly in a whirlwind of court entertainment (particular attention is usually paid to his scandalous personal life), then as a cruel and treacherous tyrant, then as an extremely calculating and sober politician, indifferent to women who arranged marriages only for political reasons and maintained a lush courtyard solely out of necessity, for reasons of prestige. In fact, he surprisingly combined the features of a noble knight and a tyrant, but a sober calculation aimed at strengthening his own power prevailed. His father was Henry VII, who dedicated himself to uniting the major royal families of Europe into one family through strategic marriages. His daughter Margaret married James of Scotland. His son Arthur married the Spanish princess Catarina of Aragon. When Arthur died, the impoverished king, not wanting to lose Catherine's dowry, persuaded Pope Julius II to grant a dispensation, and Catherine was able to marry Henry, Arthur's younger brother, in 1503. Henry and Katharina had one child. This child later became Queen Mary Tudor. When it turned out that Henry could not have a son from this marriage, he became concerned because he believed that England would need a male ruler after his death to look after the domains during the colonization period. He also believed that perhaps God was punishing him for marrying his brother's widow. Having entered into a relationship with the pretty Anne Boleyn (Catherine's maid of honor), Henry ordered his adviser Cardinal Wolsey to begin negotiations with Pope Clement VII so that he would allow him to free himself from Catherine. Clement VII was unable to comply with this request because in 1527 he was under the influence of Catharina's nephew, the powerful Charles V, King of Spain and Emperor of Germany. Henry accused Wolsey of conspiracy when he failed to obtain a divorce, but Wolsey died before Henry could execute him. Since it was clear that the Pope would not grant a divorce, Henry decided to obtain it from the English clergy, who could relent under pressure from Parliament. The Tudor Parliament was made up of representatives of the people, but it was answerable to the king, not the people. Thus, the Reformation in England was initiated by the secular power of the king and parliament. The reform parliament ended papal control and monasticism. At the insistence of the king, Parliament adopted a number of statutes, the general purpose of which was the creation in the country of a national church independent of Rome. In 1529, Parliament “prohibited members of the clergy from holding several benefices at the same time or from living in a place other than the place of their ministry.” The Statute of 1532 stated: “if the pope imposes an interdict or excommunication on the country, king, subjects, it should not be taken into account.” Thomas Cromwell became Henry's chief advisor. In 1532, the Protestant Thomas Cranmer was made Archbishop of Canterbury. He immediately dissolved the king's marriage to Catherine of Aragon and legitimized his marriage to Anne Boleyn. In the fall of 1533, Anna had a daughter, Elizabeth Tudor. The Statute of Parliament of 1533 stated: “There are many inconveniences arising from appeals to the Roman See in cases of wills, marriages and divorces, which cause the king and his subjects much anxiety, difficulty and expense. Moreover, Rome is located at such a considerable distance that the investigation is delayed and justice suffers.” Therefore, it was decided that “all such matters should be finally decided within the kingdom.” The Parliament of 1534 made an important addition on the subject of appeals to Rome. If, according to the statute of 1533, appeals to the pope on certain issues were prohibited, now “any appeals and appeals ... to Rome are prohibited. In the event of an unfair decision in the archbishop's court, the dissatisfied may appeal to the Royal Majesty." Developing opposition to Rome, the parliament of 1534 destroyed all papal influence over the appointment of archbishops and bishops in England. He decreed that “candidates for the sees of archbishops and bishops should not present themselves to the pope and should not expect bulls from the pope; all such bulls and similar ideas must be stopped forever.” All these pieces of legislation dealt a mortal blow to papal authority in England. The Pope was no longer the highest judge in the land. He ceased to be a feudal master of the English Church, as he was throughout the Catholic world, since English prelates - the former vassals of the pope - were appointed without his consent. The Pope could not hit England with his curses, because it was ordered not to pay any attention to interdicts and excommunications. Papal jurisdiction in the country was eliminated. Along with measures aimed at destroying the legal privileges of the papacy, parliament adopted statutes to free England from financial dependence on Rome: “An Act for the Restriction of the Payment of Annates” (1532), “An Act for the Abolition of Papal Dispensations and the Payment of St. Peter’s Pennies” ( 1534). The apogee of the activity of the “Parliament of the Reformation” was the publication in 1534 of the “Act of Supremacy” (supremacy), which declared the king the supreme head of the Anglican Church. The “Act of Supremacy” was approved by Parliament in November 1534. The Act, in particular, stated: “the king (his heirs and successors) must be accepted, recognized, revered as the only supreme head of England in the world... and must possess all the titles, honors, dignities, privileges, jurisdiction and revenues inherent in and belonging to the dignity of the Supreme Head of the Church." The power of the English king was declared imperial - excluding subordination to anyone, including the head of the Catholic Church. The break with Rome was to determine the attitude towards monasticism and monasteries. Moreover, of all the land wealth in Catholic Europe, 1/3 belonged to the church, and of all the land owned by the clergy, 2/3 were the property of monasteries. From the end of 1535 to 1540. In England there was a process of secularization of monasteries. It included the so-called visitation (visiting all church institutions and drawing up reports on their condition), consideration of the visitors’ report at parliamentary sessions, and the adoption of a law on the liquidation of monasteries. The dissolution of monasteries occurred sequentially, starting with small ones. At the same time, resistance to the procedure was interpreted as political unreliability, which could result in prosecution for high treason. The monasteries came into the possession of the king. In 1540, Parliament adopted a statute that assigned all church estates to the king and his heirs. As a result of secularization, 645 monasteries were confiscated. Since as a result of secularization, a huge amount of real and movable property ended up in the hands of the king. The secularization of monasteries enriched the treasury. The king transferred part of the lands as a reward to his associates, the court aristocracy, and part was leased. Secularization caused a new wave of “enclosures” that took place in the country from the end of the 15th century. Monastic peasants joined the army of the landless, the paupers. Monasteries were the stronghold of the papacy, so their secularization contributed to the destruction of papal influence. The liquidation of monasteries destroyed the material, legal, and moral influence of the clergy on the masses. Finally, secularization cleared the way for the further progress of the reformation. Having created a national church headed by himself, taking away property from the church, thus turning the church into part of the state apparatus, Henry VIII could stop. He did not need the reform of dogma and was even harmful. But no matter how much the king wanted to break with Catholicism, he had to look for differences to justify the ongoing separation from the papacy. In May 1536, by order of the king, the “Reformation Committee” was established, headed by T. Cranmer, which formulated the first Anglican creed - the “Ten Articles”. Then three more versions of the confession appeared: “Admonition to a Good Christian”, or “Bishop's Book”, “Six-Article Statute “Bishop's Book”, “Six-Article Statute “Royal Book”. By the end of the reign of Henry VIII, the Anglican Church occupied an intermediate position between the Catholic and Lutheran. It rejected extremes in the veneration of saints and icons, banned indulgences, reduced the number of holidays, made minor changes in worship and rituals, and called the Holy Scriptures as the source of faith. Hence, one of the first tasks of the Reformation was the translation of the Bible into English. From this time on, the Bible became available to the British. In general, at the first stage of the reformation the religious issue was not resolved. Only political and economic transformations were carried out. 1 Protestant Reformation under Edward VI After the death of Henry VIII, the future of England was in the weak hands of a nine-year-old boy, small for his age. King Edward VI grew up as a smart and lively child. White skin, reddish hair and a graceful physique. Prince Edward was a very beautiful child. In early childhood, Edward was sometimes sick, but other than that, he did not cause any trouble to his father. He mastered Latin and the basics of Greek, and when the time came to take the reins of government, he knew French well, fencing with his peers in the castle courtyard and riding on horseback to hunt. From the point of view of religious education, it was a real child of the Reformation. The prince knew no other religion than that which was accepted at Henry's court, where services were conducted in English. So he grew up unburdened by the nostalgia for the old church and Latin masses, a nostalgia that haunted his parents' generation. Of course, Edward was supposed to become a nominal ruler. In his will, Henry specified a regency council of sixteen “dear confidants to my heart,” which included all the main ministers of his government. This council was to guide the young king until he came of age. Two of the sixteen named immediately took the regency into their own hands - Edward Seymour, who shortly after Henry's death became Duke of Somerset, and William Paget. Edward Seymour was Edward's closest female relative, and it was natural that he should become his guardian. Moreover, Edward himself approved that he would be his regent. It was Edward who would carry out the religious reform, as a result of which a new religion and worship would be established. From 1548 to 1551, a number of documents were published (statutes of parliament, orders of the king, messages of the Archbishop of Canterbury) and the Book of Common Prayer, which completed the liturgical reform. These events brought the Anglican Church closer to Lutheranism. When the reform of worship and rituals was completed, the question arose of a systematic presentation of the dogmas of the English reformed church. In 1551, Archbishop Cranmer received an order from the king to draw up a creed that would spread throughout the country. A new creed of the English faith was written, considered by the Privy Council (the closest royal government structure), a meeting of the highest ranks of the church, and in 1553, under the name “42 articles”, was sent to the dioceses “for strict adherence to it in preaching and teaching.” The main provisions of the “42 Articles” were Protestant: the Catholic teaching on purgatory, indulgences, veneration of icons, relics, and appeal to saints was rejected; only 2 sacraments were left instead of 7 in Catholicism - baptism and communion; communion was to be administered under both types and for the laity; clergy marriages were allowed; worship had to be conducted in a language understandable to the people. But still, all the measures and transformations taken were carried out on very fragile, shaky ground. When Edward VI reached the age of 15, it became clear that his reign would not be long. After his death, in the absence of direct heirs, the throne was supposed to pass into the hands of Mary (daughter of Catherine of Aragon), passionately devoted to Catholicism, who spent her entire bitter life in prayer. At this time, the Duke of Northumberland decided to launch a political intrigue that was supposed to both strengthen the reformation in England and transfer royal power to his house. The Duke of Northumberland, even before the announcement of changes in the order of succession to the throne, announced the marriage of his son Guildford<#"justify">After Mary's death, Elizabeth, daughter of Henry and Anne Boleyn, ascended to the English throne. When she ascended the throne she was twenty-six years old. As for her appearance, her hair was very red. Many at court called her an incomparable beauty, which was not true, but she was quite attractive and certainly outperformed Maria. She received an excellent education, but did not skimp on abuse and was sometimes very rude when speaking. In many ways, she inherited her father's frantic character. Some praised her to the skies, while others uncontrollably disparaged her. After the accession of the new queen to the throne, some courtiers were directly tempted to continue the same system of government that had existed until then. The saddened widower Philip II, King of Spain, hastened to offer her his hand as soon as the well-known, decorum-established period for such a search had passed. He was no longer embarrassed by Elizabeth's origins - he was guided only by political motives. But he did not meet with sympathy from Elizabeth, who, although she was very unique in her religious views, could not in any way bow to the side of Catholicism. At the same time, she was not reconciled with all manifestations of Protestantism. So, for example, the married clergy was disgusting to her, and she felt much more inclination towards ritualism, towards the appearance of worship in general, than all the reformers of the time of Edward VI. When, upon her entry into London, she was informed about the prisoners who were languishing in captivity and awaiting her release, and among the prisoners they allegorically mentioned “the four evangelists,” Elizabeth very subtly and cautiously noted that she must first investigate “whether these four prisoners themselves want to get freedom"? But she also could not remain a Catholic, because even by the fact of her birth she was, as it were, a living contradiction to papism. Her father married her mother against the will of the pope, and even if she had forgotten about this circumstance, she should have been reminded of it by the impudent message with which Pope Paul IV responded to her notification of his accession to power. However, she did not allow herself to be confused, did not suffer any restraint in her actions, did not succumb to the temptation of revenge and did not return directly (as one of the parties advised her) to the religious orders of Edward VI, but managed to correctly guess the mood of the people, choosing in this in relation to some middle way. She saw that in England there was a very zealous Catholic and a very zealous Protestant party. Both are relatively small. The overwhelming majority of people (at least in influential circles) stood mainly for the independence of the country from the pope, but otherwise, as far as rituals were concerned on the dogmatic side, they were ready to make concessions, almost not wanting to demonstrate the opposite in relation to the old one, so called the Catholic based religion. Elizabeth and her government once again changed the entire English church structure. The English Church was restored, that is, independent of the Pope, having the English King (Queen) as its supreme head. This church, however, retained bishops who were now subordinate to the king. In its dogmas, the Anglican Church was not much different from the Catholic Church. The extreme uncertainty of the new catechism made it possible to interpret it in different ways. Having rejected the humiliating dogmas of the old Church, cruel laws against heretics and abolished spiritual courts, it almost did not move away from the structure of the Church that existed under Henry VIII, and gradually began to bring it closer to the general provisions of Protestantism in the form in which it had already established itself in mainland. By agreement with her first and closest adviser and with the consent of parliament, although she abolished the high-profile title of “Supreme Head of the Church,” she nevertheless reserved the most significant rights of leadership, in the sense of control and leadership of changes in the church environment. Both the higher and lower clergy had to recognize these rights and secure them with an oath. Then, 42 paragraphs of Cranmer's "confession of faith" were revised, but moderately and in the form of "39 paragraphs" approved by a meeting of the clergy in London in 1562, and in 1571 adopted by Parliament as a law binding on all. At the same time, the splendor and solemnity of the divine service, the vestments of the priests, and the most significant positions of the hierarchical system were preserved. The Thirty-Nine Articles emphasize the supreme authority of Scripture, as does the entire Protestant movement. However, Anglicans maintained close ties to their Catholic heritage, affirming the importance of tradition. They did not claim equal authority between Scripture and tradition, as the Catholics did, but they still followed tradition as closely as possible. Moreover, they argued that when Scripture is silent on a matter, the church has the authority to affirm a binding tradition on that matter. Once the church has exercised its authority and established a tradition, each believer and each local congregation must follow it. Change can only come from the church as a whole. That is, more emphasis was placed on the general tradition than on human conscience and freedom. The Church of England remained predominantly liturgical. Those who focused on traditional rituals came to be called the "high church," and those whose services began to be held in an evangelical manner came to be called the "low church." Thus, Elizabeth founded the Anglican Church - akin to Protestantism in its teaching and independence from the pope and, at the same time, akin to Catholicism in its rituals and internal structure. In England, of course, even then there were a sufficient number of people who did not agree with this system (non-conformists), there were even more ardent supporters of Calvinism and Presbyterianism, Independents - in a word, all those elements that later were designated by one common name - the Puritans. But they did not dare to raise their heads during the reign of Elizabeth and had to wait for the onset of other times, more favorable for their propaganda. 4. Conclusion When studying the history of modern times, it is impossible not to turn to a complex of problems associated with the Reformation. The Reformation, as a religious movement, swept through many countries of the world, and in each country there were only slight differences, which cannot be said about England. The English Reformation differed from all others in that it was dictated from above, since English absolutism could afford such a phenomenon. Naturally, the reformation took place not only at the behest of the king, but there were enough problems associated with the church: the spread of the ideas of Wycliffe, Luther, and the intellectual factor, indignation at the behavior of Rome. We see how the reorganization of the church changed under different kings (queens). The Reformation was started by Henry VIII, who in many ways did not decide the future fate of the church after the break with Rome, but only limited himself to calling himself the head of the church and began the secularization of monastic lands. Protestantism took shape already under his son Edward VI, he also completed secularization. As for Mary Tudor’s policy towards the church, we see that she returned everything to the old order, persecution of Protestants began, and the role of Catholics increased. Namely, the Anglican Church was formed by Elizabeth I, the church became Protestant, although its dogmas were not much different from Catholicism. The Church created in England by the Reformation began to be called Anglican. It was a national church and occupied a middle position between the Catholic and Protestant churches. The “39 Articles” recognized both the Protestant dogma about justification by faith, about Scripture as the only source of faith, and the Catholic dogma about the saving power of the church (with some reservations). The king became the head of the Anglican Church, and the church itself became part of the state apparatus of the feudal-absolutist monarchy. “The king has supreme power in the church over all classes and persons; but he does not have the right to preach the word of God and perform the sacraments,” says the “39 Articles.” The service was performed in English. The teaching of the Catholic Church on indulgences, on the veneration of icons and relics was rejected, and the number of holidays in honor of saints was reduced. However, the sacraments of baptism and communion were recognized, the episcopate was preserved, as well as the liturgy and a number of other rites characteristic of the Catholic Church. Tithes were still collected, which began to go to the king and became an important means of consolidating the king and the new owners of the monastic lands. The crown, transferring monastic lands to secular owners, simultaneously transferred to them the right to tithes previously collected by the monasteries. This is how a layer of secular people who received tithes appeared in England. 5. References: .Act of Supremacy 1534: [electronic resource]. - URL: #"justify">2. Gribanov B. Elizabeth I, Queen of England. M.: Terra, 2003. - 192 p. .Gurevich A.Ya. The medieval world: the culture of the silent majority. - M.: Art, 1990. - 395 p. .Eger O. World History. - St. Petersburg: Publication of A.F. Marx, 1997. - 690 p. .Ivonin Yu.E. Comparative analysis of the early Reformation in England and France // Questions of History, 1973. No. 11. - 118 p. .Ivonin Yu.E., Ivonina L.I. Rulers of the destinies of Europe: emperors, kings, ministers of the 16th - 18th centuries. - Smolensk: Rusich, 2004. - 464 p. .Kamenetsky B.A. The formation of absolutist ideology in England in the 16th century and its features // Questions of history, 1969. No. 8. - 118 p. .Kearns E. Earl. The roads of Christianity. - M.: Protestant, 1992. - 279 p. .Kerolli E. Bloody Mary. - M.: AST, 2001. - 351 p. .Lindsay K. Divorced, Beheaded, Surviving: The Wives of King Henry VIII. - M.: Kron - Press, 1996. - 336 p. .Omelchenko O. General history of state and law: [electronic resource]. - M.: Ton - Ostrozhye, 2000. - URL: #"justify">. Sokolov V. Reformation in England. - M.: Printing house of L.O. Snigerev, 1881. - 546 p. .Spokes W. Lewis. History of the Reformation. Revival and Reformation movement: [electronic resource]. - M.: Lutheran Heritage Foundation, 2003. - URL: http://krotov.info/lib_sec/18_s/piz/0.htm (05/30/2013).
The revolt against the authority established in the Catholic Church, that is, against the papacy and hierarchy, which constitutes one of the essential aspects of the Reformation, has long been no longer news in England. It began four centuries before the Reformation and was revealed, as we have seen, in complaints, and in requests, and in legislative definitions, and in denunciations of literature, and even in unauthorized manifestations of popular reprisals. But, judging by these phenomena, the uprising so far had an exclusively secular, political and economic character. England is rebelling here against the Pope; but during her uprising she looks at him only as a foreign sovereign, not at all thinking of rejecting his spiritual authority as the head of the Catholic Church, the successor of St. Peter and the vicar of Christ on earth. She rebels against the clergy; but sees in him only one of the classes, subjects of the state, without at all intending to deny his sacred character, as a servant of the church and performer of the sacraments. What makes her unhappy? Why is she rebelling? Is it because the abuses that have accumulated in the Catholic Church tempt it? Was it because her religious feelings were dissatisfied? Not at all. The phenomena we have considered do not give the researcher any right to assume anything like that. There is almost no mention of them. England is only indignant at the fact that a foreign pope is assuming a more royal power in this country; that he sucks the juice out of the state and exhausts it through his enormous exactions, that he gives foreigners a clear advantage over natural Englishmen when assigning lucrative positions, etc. England is not happy with its clergy because it oppresses it with its judgment, its privileges, their wealth, etc. What is the ultimate goal of this uprising? Is it religious reform? Is the church cleansed from the abuses that distort it? Not at all. The goal is to weaken the oppression of the church, which seems heavy, and, if possible, to completely crush its political and economic dominance, to take away its estates and subordinate its servants to secular state power. The highest justification for the uprising is constantly presented as concern for public welfare and national interests. It was, so to speak, political-economic Protestantism. But even with such a character, the uprising against the papacy and hierarchy could not, of course, remain without consequences in the religious sphere. Whatever the motives and goals that guided it, in any case it was directed against the church and its ministers; it gradually taught the people, who had previously been accustomed to unconditionally bow to the commands of church authority, to now treat these commands critically, sometimes refuse to obey them, rebel and fight against them. True, this struggle had in mind issues that did not concern religion and were primarily of political importance; but it was still carried out against the pope and the clergy. Is it possible to cut a person’s nature into two so that at the same time he harbors two completely opposite feelings towards the same person or institution? It is impossible that the people of England can at the same time treat the pope and the clergy with unconditional trust and reverent respect, as their spiritual leaders, and with contempt and hatred, as the enemies of their political and economic well-being. Such feelings are poorly reconciled with each other, and if one of them increases, the other inevitably decreases. This is exactly how it should have been in this case. The stronger the political struggle against the pope and the clergy, the more determined the popular discontent against them, the more, of course, the authority of the church in general suffered. No one cared about supporting and preserving this authority; no one thought of separating politics from religion, but on the contrary, the clergy themselves tried to give the struggle a religious character, to cover up their worldly rights and benefits with the sacred name of religion and the church. After this, it was all the more difficult to expect that the political and economic hostility of England against the pope and the clergy would not cause more or less significant damage in the religious sphere. We do not yet see the beginnings of religious-ecclesiastical Protestantism here, but if they appeared, then, of course, they would find considerable support in political-economic Protestantism. They didn’t hesitate to show up.
The secular direction of the pope and clergy; their constant pursuit of material gains; their pride and lust for power, their moral laxity - all this, we have seen, has long been noticed and assessed by the classes of England, although this assessment was made only from the point of view of public welfare. It was, of course, impossible to expect that these egregious phenomena would not finally receive attention from a religious point of view. Regardless of any politics, a religious person, delving, according to the inner desire of his heart, into the study of the teachings of the Catholic Church, and comparing the results of his research with the existing practice of the church, was inevitably bound to sooner or later, to a greater or lesser extent, come across questions and bewilderment. And it was all the more difficult to avoid these questions because some of them, thanks to the political and economic opposition against the church, were persistently put on the agenda by life itself. And one had only to dwell on these questions for what we call the beginnings of religious-church Protestantism to appear, that is, for complaints and objections to the existing order in the church to begin, not from the point of view of social welfare, but in the name of the interests of religion.
In October 1231, the Canon of Lincoln, Robert Grosstat, lay ill in bed and reflected on the current state of the Catholic Church. He could not resolve the deep contradiction between the Christian concept of the high ministry of the shepherd of the church and the sad reality of Catholicism, where plurality and non-residence reigned. He himself owned several benefices and now his conscience tormented him for it. Upon recovery, he turns to the pope with his bewilderment and, not receiving reassurance from him, ends up renouncing all his benefices, reserving only one for himself, in order to be a true shepherd in it. This little detail from the biography of the English prelate seems to us sufficiently characteristic to show that some educated people of England, as early as the 13th century, sometimes came into discord with the existing orders of the Catholic Church, in addition to any political considerations, solely due to their personal reflections on the subjects of religion. A few years later, Grosstat became Bishop of Lincoln and devoted all his subsequent activities to the fight against church abuses, boldly coming into conflict even with the Apostolic See itself. In 1250, he went to Lyon and presented his note to Pope Innocent IV, in which he expressed his views on the current state of the Catholic Church with complete frankness. For our salvation, Grosstat said here, the son of God descended to earth. Through the labors of His apostles and the shepherds they appointed, the kingdom of God was established and spread in the world; but now this kingdom, the Church of Christ, is becoming more and more diminished and limited. In most of the universe, unbelief reigns, and as for Christianity, a significant part of it has fallen into schism. In the small remnant heresy and mortal sins nest, so that almost no fruit is found in the vineyard of the Lord. Where is the reason for such a bleak situation, such a decline in the church? The reason is that the church is filled with bad shepherds who scatter the flock of Christ, devastate His vineyard and defile the earth. And this is not at all surprising, for it is not the preaching of the life-giving word that comes from them, but only arrogance, greed and debauchery. With their godless way of acting, they spread deadening darkness in the world rather than being lamps for it. and where do such shepherds come from? Their source is the Roman Curia, which not only does not care about the destruction of evil, but itself strengthens it with its provisions, dispensations, etc. e. She only thinks about giving people profitable security, thereby leaving thousands of souls to eternal destruction, for the shepherds she has appointed turn out to be only mercenaries. Grosstat turns to the papal throne with a prayer that he take care first of all of his own cleansing and correction and mainly of the destruction of the corruption that, in view of everyone, prevails under the papal curia. It was not insolence or any pretensions that were the reason for such a bold appeal, the bishop concludes his note, but only the fear of God and a sincere desire for improvement, guided by which, with a feeling of deep devotion, with humility and tears, he addresses his prayer to the Holy Father. But the holy father did not heed the bishop’s pleas; three years later, he appointed a benefice to his nepot in England and on this occasion sent a special bull filled with all kinds of exemptions and removal of all obstacles. Grosstat's fiery jealousy prompted him to protest against the papal act. In this protest, the bishop first of all testifies to his respectful obedience to the papal orders and his deep respect for the mother Church of Rome. But it is precisely this respect that forces him in the present case to oppose the papal appointment, for the measure taken by the pope is immoral and contrary to the apostolic spirit. It is harmful to the church and is inspired by the voice of flesh and blood, and not by the Heavenly Father, and therefore anyone sincerely devoted to the interests of the church and the apostolic throne must not obey it, but oppose it with all their might. The complaints of the Bishop of Lincoln obviously do not add anything new to what we already know on the question of England's relations with the Roman throne. Here we are talking about the same simony, about the same provisions that England has complained about many times before and after that. But what is important for us in Grosstat’s complaints is not the facts that served as the reason for them, but the motives that caused them. Grosstat is not outraged by the fact that thanks to papal abuses, England’s finances are being depleted and national interests are being damaged. No, he is bitter that the Church of God is suffering, that the kingdom of Christ on earth is diminishing. The papal measures provoke his protest not because they are harmful to the well-being of the public, but because they are inspired by the voice of flesh and blood, because they are immoral and contrary to the apostolic spirit. It is not patriotism that prompts him to complain and protest, but the fear of God, zeal for the good of the church and for the salvation of souls entrusted to its leadership. The bishop, therefore, in this case looks at the matter not from a political point of view, but from a religious one.
At the beginning of the 14th century, another English theologian, a graduate of Oxford, the Franciscan William of Ockham, entered into a fierce literary struggle against the papacy and hierarchy. He rebels against the secular claims of the pope, calling them usurpation, and it is not concern for the interests of the state that guides him in this case, but zeal for the interests of the church itself. The area of religion and church, in his opinion, should be completely aloof from worldly and temporary interests, and therefore it is illegal and harmful to combine secular and ecclesiastical power in one person. The infallibility of the pope is a harmful and dangerous invention that has no justification, for facts show that popes can also make mistakes and even fall into heresy, like all other people. Ockham confirms his thought with the bulls of the popes themselves, where they often contradict one another. With particular force he rebels against the material wealth of the Catholic clergy. For what purpose, he says, did sovereigns and princes give their estates to the church? So that the clergy prays for the souls of donors, and so that they do good to the poor. Now it does neither one nor the other, it uses the property for itself and for its children and nepots, deceiving both the living and the dead. If the clergy does not fulfill the conditions under which their estates were given to them, then these estates should be taken away from them by the sovereigns. And Ockham rebels not against the wealth of the clergy because their accumulation in his hands is harmful to the country, but because such a state of the clergy does not correspond to his purpose, that he should not own riches, but imitate the apostles in poverty. Correcting the abuses that have crept into the church is the goal that Ockham strives for in his polemics, advocating in this case for the good of the church itself.
The activities of Richard Fitz-Ralph, Archbishop of Armahan, date back to the half of the 14th century. According to contemporaries, he was a very learned man and worked a lot for the theological literature of his time, but we know only one episode from his activities, namely his polemic against the mendicant monastic orders. In the era of Richard, mendicant monks received various kinds of privileges in England, due to which they enjoyed predominant influence in the church. It was the predominance of mendicant monks and the various abuses that arose from it that caused Richard's controversy. In a whole series of sermons delivered in London, and in a speech that Richard gave before Pope Innocent VI and his cardinals in Avignon, he denounced the mendicant monks for having accumulated enormous wealth for their monasteries; that they have acquired a kind of monopoly on the performance of the sacrament of repentance, that they indulge in vices and lead an immoral lifestyle. It was not any political considerations or envy of the monastic wealth that prompted Richard to argue with the mendicants, but only concern for the interests of the church, for the salvation of the souls of believers. He is outraged by the fact that mendicant monks attract the majority of the population to confession, because this undermines the importance of parish pastors, who are thus deprived of one of the best means of exerting a moral influence on their flock. He is outraged by the fact that with this order the moral significance of repentance is also degraded, because a monk who is a mendicant as a confessor cannot in any way have the same fruitful effect on the conscience of the penitent as a parish priest. The penitent sees him for the first, and often the last time, and therefore the monk, of course, does not have greater moral influence over him due to his personal authority; he cannot lead his correction, because he does not live near him and does not know his life at all. He cannot follow his spiritual life afterwards, for he wanders from place to place and, having accepted confession, leaves and forgets about his spiritual son. Finally, Richard is indignant for the monks themselves, for the moral destruction that they are preparing for themselves. Wealth and honor have a demoralizing effect on them; They forgot the rules of their charter, built themselves princely palaces, lived in luxury and indulged in vices. For the sake of saving the monks themselves, reform is necessary in their way of life. Richard does not recognize the very principle on which the institutions of the mendicant orders are based. These institutions seem to him inconsistent with the spirit of the Gospel. , he says, during his earthly life he was poor, never voluntarily begged, and never taught anyone such begging. Richard's polemic thus has a purely religious character.
It was not only questions of church structure and practice that attracted the attention of English theologians. Not infrequently, religious and philosophical thought delved into the study of the basic tenets of Catholic belief, and sometimes it happened that the personal opinion of the researcher came into conflict with established dogma. This happened, for example. with the confessor and preacher of Edward III, and then the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Bradwardin. This “doctor profundus,” as his contemporaries called him, devoted his professorial, preaching and literary activities to the study of high theological questions about grace, predestination, free will, etc., presenting the results of his research mainly in the treatise “De causa Dei” . He resolves these questions through his own philosophical research, and through the explanation of the Holy Scriptures and numerous evidence from the works of the fathers and teachers of the church, scholastic theologians and philosophers of ancient and recent times. In Catholicism, Pelagius’ idea has long been established that a person is saved by his own exploits and that justification in this way is a reward to a person for his personal merits. The dominance of such a Pelagian view prompted Bradwardina to undertake research in order to refute it. It seemed to him that the Pelagian errors, which infected almost the entire Catholic world, were offensive to God, because they demeaned the meaning of Divine grace and belittled the dignity of the redemptive merits of the Son of God. But in his own study, Bradwardina goes to the opposite extreme and approaches the views of later reformers. He proves that a person’s justification is a free gift of Divine grace and is accomplished regardless of his merits. It would be an insult to God, he thinks, to consider Him some kind of merchant who seems to be selling, exchanging the gifts of His grace for human merit. Man's prayers, the intercession of saints, good or evil deeds - nothing can change the definition of the eternal Divine will, for God does not depend on anything, but on the contrary, everyone depends on God. Developing these and similar thoughts, Bradwardina himself realizes that in this case he is going against the prevailing views.
The above examples show that among the learned theologians of England as early as the 13th and 14th centuries, there were already cases of deviation from established views not only on issues of church structure and practice, but sometimes also in the sphere of dogma. But these deviations did not entail any serious or dangerous consequences for the church. In the minds of the theologians themselves, their deviating views were not so dominant as to disrupt their unity with the church. Condemning the existing order in the church, undermining its very foundations and even falling into heresy, these theologians still continue to consider themselves true Catholics and clearly testify to their deep devotion to the Catholic Church. Grosstat, in his very protest, declares his devotion and obedience to the Roman Church. That his statement was not just a reservation can be seen from the fact that the same Grosstat develops and proves in detail the famous theory of two swords. Ockham, with unparalleled humility, accepts and develops the Roman theological system, placing it as an undoubted truth as the basis of his research. Richard of Armahan does the same in his book “On Armenian Errors,” and polemicizing against the mendicant orders, he considers it his sacred duty to declare that he does not at all think of insisting on their destruction, for they were established and approved by the church; he wants only their reform. Bradwardina declares that he does not intend to go against the church, that he bows to its authority, and leaves it to her to judge his opinions and decide whether he is right or wrong in them. Without being a reason for separation from the church, these opinions are not promoted as any special teaching. They remain the personal property of thinkers and are only sometimes assimilated by their students and admirers. The Church itself does not look at them as heresy or as anything dangerous; she leaves them alone, leaving their authors to continue to occupy high church positions and generally live and act as before. Their opinions remain their personal opinions. But whatever the fate of these opinions, the only thing that is important for us is that they exist, and therefore show that some learned people in England in the 13th and 14th centuries had already raised their voices against certain points of the Catholic system, thus laying the foundation religious-ecclesiastical Protestantism.
There were no heresies in the real sense of the word, sectarian divisions in England throughout the Middle Ages and until the second half of the 14th century. England’s own soil did not give rise to or develop a single heresy during all this time, and the attempts of continental propagandists to transplant their teachings here were always unsuccessful. English chronicles, however, tell us very little about these attempts. The first time propagandists of heresy came to England was in 1159. They were Germans, thirty men and women. They preached a heretical view of marriage, rejected baptism and the Eucharist; but they managed to convert only one woman to their teaching. Very soon they were brought, together with their leader Gerhard, to trial, at the Council of Oxfraud they were accused of heresy and handed over to the secular authorities for punishment. They were branded, flogged in the streets and driven out of the city half-naked. The harsh winter season and the prohibition of anyone providing them with shelter and help resulted in the fact that they all died without a trace. At the beginning of the 13th century, several Albigensians arrived in England, but they were all burned alive. Thus, the few attempts of continental heretics to instill their teachings in England had no consequences, and therefore the polemical poem of the end of the 14th century, condemning the Lollards - followers of Wyclef, could rightfully say that England, now infected with heresy, had always been clean from such a stain. But from the end of the 14th century, that is, from the time of the birth of the Lollards, generated by the teachings of Wyclef, the heresy acquired such strength in England that, despite all the persecution, it did not die out until the Reformation.
Viklef begins his business in the same way as his predecessors began before him: Grosstat, Occam and others. Engaging in research in the field of religious and church issues, he comes into conflict with the established views of the church, first on some only specific points, but then, like later reformers, prompted partly by external circumstances, he develops his protest further and finally reaches that extreme, which is noted and condemned by the church as heresy. Even during Viklef’s lifetime, his teachings were already condemned as heretical, although this condemnation did not extend to his personality. The church curse broke out over him when he was already in the grave. The followers of Wyclef, who adopted and developed his teachings, and are known as Lollards, are considered by all of England to be heretics. In Wyclef, we thus see that moment in the development of the religious consciousness of England when personal views, deviating from church ones, go to extremes and become heresy. Of course, we do not have the opportunity or need to dwell in particular detail on the consideration of Viklef’s views; we will only indicate here what is essential for our purpose.
Viklef's social activity in opposition to the church falls into two periods, significantly different from each other in the essence of those views, the dissemination of which constituted their content. In the first period, which spans a decade, Viklef’s opposition has a church-political character, and in the second it is purely religious. At first, Viklef teaches and acts as a patriot, and then becomes exclusively a theologian. As a patriot, he could not raise any new questions, because the political-economic opposition to the Catholic Church, as we know, had long existed in England; she has already said or was saying at this time everything that could be said against the Catholic Church from the point of view of national interests. But the same phenomena could be looked at from a different point of view. Viklef’s patriotism was not only political, but church-political in nature. In opposition to the church, in this case he was the successor not so much of royal power or the estates of parliament, but of Robert Grosstat, Richard of Armahan, etc. Going with the flow, adjoining the national anti-Roman and anti-church movement that was dominant at that time, he brought into it a little of his own, giving it a religious connotation.
The main point against which the national opposition was directed was, as we know, the power of the pope, and therefore Wyclef, as a patriot, dwells quite a bit on the question of the papacy and its relationship to England. He rebels against the secular claims of the pope and does not recognize for him any right to supreme feudal rule over secular sovereigns and over the king of England. The Pope, he says, must above all others be an imitator of Christ, because he is His successor and vicar. During His earthly life, Christ not only did not arrogate to Himself any power, but did not even have “where to bow his head.” If the pope himself calls himself a servant of the servants of God, then he must justify this in practice. He must be the successor of Christ in his moral qualities, in his humility, love for others and patience. Wyclef calls the financial oppression of the papacy on England and the papal tax system a robbery of the church. He demands that the secular authorities put an end to the extortion of papal agents of collectors, because their course of action is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and the commandment of fraternal reproof must be applied to them. He proves to the estates that they have every right, in the interests of the state, to prohibit the export abroad of all kinds of treasures and thus stop all payments to Rome, because these payments are voluntary giving and alms, which, according to Christian law, ceases to be obligatory in in cases where the giver himself begins to suffer need. Wyclef's argumentation clearly shows that it is not patriotism that only prompts him to rebel against the secular and financial claims of the papacy, but at the same time the consciousness that this institution has deviated from its ideal and in its actions contradicts the spirit of Christianity. But Viklef doesn’t stop there. Gradually developing his protest, he reaches the point of denying the papacy in general, even as a church power. At first, the speaker denies his holiness, expressing the idea that the pope, as a person, is subject to mistakes, can even fall into mortal sins, and that one cannot give full scope to the theory that proclaims that everything prescribed by the pope is fair in itself and should be valid law. Then he says that the papacy is not a Divine institution and its recognition is not at all a dogma necessary for salvation. The Roman Church is not at all the head of all other churches, and the Apostle Peter did not have any advantage over the other apostles. Then, under the influence of the schism of 1378, Viklef declares that for the good and peace of the church it would be better to overthrow both popes who were at odds at that time, to destroy this institution altogether and to live completely without a pope, as the Greeks do. But Viklef doesn’t stop here yet. The systematic oppression of national churches, arrogant pride, the worldly nature of papal government, claims to world domination - all these features of a degenerate papacy, covered up by personal Divinity, finally seem to Wyclef to be the work of the Antichrist. He now brands the pope with the name of Antichrist, calls him a man of sin, who does not correspond to his original pastoral purpose, but has become proud even to the point of striving to become higher than Christ Himself. Papacy, he says, is from the evil one, and its worship is vile idolatry, for Divine honors are given to the member of Lucifer. There was obviously nowhere to go further in this direction. So, Viklef, starting with political opposition, reached the complete denial of the papacy in general, and politics was already completely on the sidelines.
After the papacy, the subject of popular discontent was, as we have seen, the Catholic hierarchy. As a patriot, Viklef is a supporter of the people in this regard as well. He takes up arms against the monks, cruelly denounces the immorality and vices of the entire Catholic clergy, and rebels against church estates. But it is not concern for the interests of public welfare that mainly guides him in this case, but religious jealousy. He arms himself against monks because he does not recognize monasticism as legitimate in principle. This institution seems to him offensive to the dignity of Christianity. As if Christian teaching and rules of life were insufficient and imperfect, if it was necessary to invent some new rules that would promote even higher perfection. Looking at monastic orders from this point of view, Wyclef calls them “religiones privatae, sectae novellae.” He attributes the establishment of these orders to their founders not as a merit, but as a crime. He rebels against the monks also because he sees in them the most zealous adherents and servants of the Antichrist, that is, the pope, and therefore considers them the main culprits for the spread among the people of various superstitions and false teachings, the source of which is the pope. The bad lifestyle of the clergy especially outrages Viklef because thanks to it, the clergy neglects their duties and is the most vile thief, for they steal the Divine word from their flock, depriving them of instruction, and such theft is more criminal than any sacrilege. Viklef rebels against church estates and strongly insists on their secularization because the existence of these estates seems to him illegal and harmful, both in principle and in practice. According to the instructions of the Holy Scripture, he says, ministers of the church should not own any estates, apostolic poverty should be obligatory for them. If estates are donated to the church, then not for the personal use of its ministers, but for the purposes of charity, and therefore, if these goals are perverted, the secular authorities and the donors themselves must take the estates back. Viklef is indignant against church estates also because they serve as the main reason for the extreme moral corruption to which the rich clergy has now reached and which has a disastrous effect on the religious state of the people. Thus, at this point too, Viklef takes a religious point of view. Contemplation of various shortcomings in the church structure or abuses in practice and their exposure naturally and inevitably leads a person to the idea of the need for reform. As we know, the kings of England, the classes of parliament, and theologian thinkers have already come to this idea more than once, although they often touched only on some aspects of church life and looked at them from different points of view. But no one has ever come so close to this idea, put it forward and discussed it so decisively, and understood it as broadly as Viklef does. Catholic, he says, as it is now, is not what it should be; she gradually deviated from the model that was outlined for her in the Word of God and according to which she was created and existed in the age of the apostles. To be convinced of this, one has only to compare the modern state of the church, the laws, the life and preaching of modern pastors, with the life and institution of the Savior and with those instructions that are given to us from Him. This comparison convinces us of the urgent need for church reform. What should this reform consist of? It is to cleanse the church from the errors and abuses that have invaded it and restore the original in its purity and perfection. Since Viklef sees the root of all evil in the worldly direction that has gained dominance in the church, the very first and best means of reform should, in his opinion, be the confiscation of the church’s possessions and its liberation from all possessions, which liberation should be accomplished either through voluntary renunciation bishops, abbots, etc., or through violence on the part of secular authorities. To carry out the necessary reform, Viklef calls on all people imbued with the spirit of the Gospel. People with knowledge should help this matter by explaining the principles borrowed from the Word of God: secular rulers - by their power given to them by God; people - by good behavior and prayer to God; popes, bishops, monks, etc. - by their own purification. Viklef does not hide that the attempt at reform will meet strong resistance and will have to endure a struggle, during which martyrdom will fall to its defenders, because not only the Antichrist Pope and his disciples, but also the devil himself and all his evil forces will rise with rage against the restoration of the cause of Christ on earth. But, with Divine assistance, the holy cause of reform will surely triumph. No one has ever imagined reform in such a broad sense as Viklef does now. If the idea was expressed before, it usually had a very narrow and private meaning. One rebelled against provisions and demanded reform in the procedure for appointment to ecclesiastical offices, another complained of financial oppression and demanded reform in the papal tax system: a third campaigned against the monks and insisted on reform of the mendicant orders, etc. d. But no one rose to the idea of the need to reform the church in all respects. Viklef clearly expresses and develops this idea. The Catholic Church, in his opinion, has not only deviated from its ideal in its structure and practice, it has made many errors in its teaching, and therefore the reform must also affect the dogmatic area. In the second period of his activity, Viklef was primarily a theologian; he revised almost the entire system of Catholic doctrine and pointed out many points in which, in his opinion, the Roman Church deviated from original Christianity and distorted the true meaning of its dogmas. It will be enough for us to have only a short list of the dogmatic teachings of Viklef to understand how far he diverged from the teachings established by the Catholic Church and how broad the reform he required therefore had to be.
On the question of the sources of Christian doctrine, Viklef is the herald of the so-called formal principle of Protestantism. Although at first he was not completely free from the scholastic habit of exalting the significance of tradition; but then the further he went, the more decisively he approached the Protestant view. He draws a sharp line between Holy Scripture and any human authority, recognizing Holy Scripture as the only sufficient source of Christian knowledge, having infinite, guiding authority. To confirm and defend this position, Viklef wrote one of his most significant works: “De veritate Scripturae sacrae.” In St. Scripture, he teaches, contains everything that is necessary for salvation; it is infallible, morally pure and completely sufficient, it is the magna charta of the Christian church. Whether explicitly or indirectly, Scripture contains every commandment necessary for the church, and it alone has unconditional authority for the church. In the explanation of Holy Scripture, no one has any special exclusive right; but in this case the Holy Spirit Himself guides everyone. The material principle of Protestantism was not available to Viklef. When determining the meaning of faith in the matter of justification, he stands on the point of view of the medieval scholastics, not reaching the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone, but even through a person’s own merits, according to his teaching, he is not able to give satisfaction to God for his sins; he can achieve justification, although not without his own moral labor, only with the assistance of Divine grace.
In his teaching about the church, Viklef goes completely against the prevailing Catholic view. In his view, the church is a society of the elect. Belonging to the church is determined not by external entry into its membership, but by gracious election from God by virtue of His predestination. It is impossible to determine the size of the church, because no one can distinguish with certainty who has been worthy of God's grace-filled election and who has not. One can only guess about this with greater or lesser probability, judging by the moral image of this or that person. It goes without saying that, with such a composition of the church, the external difference between the shepherds and the flock has no meaning. The outcast does not belong to the church, even if he held a church position and was a bishop and even the pope himself. There is no need for any mediation between God and man, and every righteous person is a priest called by God. Of course, the claim of the Catholic Church authorities to pronounce sentences of excommunication or canonization of someone does not make any sense. No one can be excommunicated from the church by anyone unless he is excommunicated by God, and vice versa, no one can be called a saint unless he has been worthy of Divine election, which none of the people can know, for in the militant church the chosen and the rejected are mixed together.
In the doctrine of the Eucharist, Viklef recognizes that in this sacrament both true bread and wine and the true body and blood of Christ are simultaneously present. He argues that bread and wine are not only signs of the body and blood of Christ; but that the body and blood are really present in the sacrament, although this presence is not physical and spatial, but mysterious, for in a spatial way the body of Christ is present only in heaven. Viklef refuses to explain the method of this presence, for this is a miracle inaccessible to our understanding. Viklef rebels with particular force against the doctrine of transubstantiation. He proves that this doctrine has no basis in the Holy Scriptures. Scripture and even contradicting it; that it goes against the evidence of ancient tradition and does not agree with the requirements of common human sense. This teaching, says Viklef, is especially harmful due to the consequences that it inevitably entails. He points out that the Divine veneration shown to the substance of the sacrament of the Eucharist is idolatry, which is all the less excusable for Christians because they know the spiritual being of their God. He directly calls the servants of transubstantiation priests of Baal. This teaching, he says, is an excessive exaltation of man and an extreme humiliation of Divine dignity, for the man-creature is here the worker of his Creator, creating His body every day. It is also harmful because it serves as the best means for priests to extort money from the people. From the view established by Viklef on man’s relationship to God and on the significance of man’s merits in the matter of justification, it clearly followed his denial of the need for oral confession before the priest and his review of the so-called beyond due merits as a dangerous and false invention. Modern Catholic worship, according to Viklef, has deviated too much from the spiritual to the sensual, so that external signs are now valued more than the objects they designate. On the issue of icons, he says that they are not prohibited by Christian teaching and can be used, although in the primary church they were not in such abundance as they are now. But, on the other hand, icons very easily lead to confusion, forcing one to imagine God in bodily form and leading to the false idea that icons are something animate, that they lavish miracles on people, etc.
It is necessary to instill in the people that the veneration of icons is a very dangerous thing, in which the poison of idolatry is hidden under the honey, and that the true meaning of icons is only to excite, through an external image, the spirit of man and elevate it to the heavenly. The veneration of the relics of saints and the rich decoration of their tombs, according to Viklef, do not deserve approval. , he says, this is why he hid the bodies of Moses, the Mother of God, and others, so as not to make them an object of worship and not to mislead people. It would be better for the honor of the saints and for the benefit of the church if the jewelry were taken from the relics and distributed among the poor. The abundance of holidays only burdens the church. The shepherd will not sin, but rather will do what is pleasing to Christ if he allows his flock to work on the feast days of the saints. As for pilgrimage, Viklef thinks that the pilgrims would do more good for themselves if they abandoned their travels, as having no basis in the New Testament, and sat at home and paid attention to what they are obliged to do, i.e. would care about fulfilling the commandments of the Lord.
Despite all the incompleteness and imperfection of the outline of Viklef’s teachings presented here, it still seems to be sufficient to give Viklef its due place in the religious history of England. Viklef's teaching is obviously not some kind of private opinion, relating only to a few religious issues; but a whole system of belief, which is something integral, as harmoniously connected as possible in its parts. As a special system, this teaching was not only a deviation from the Catholic Church, but competed with it, undermined its very foundations, expressed a claim to recreate this church in its own image, that is, in other words, to destroy it as it is, and take her place yourself. This teaching did not want to remain only the personal property of Viklef, which could go to the grave with him; it set itself the task of moving into life and activity, becoming the property of the entire people. Proclaiming his teachings, Viklef called on everyone who was zealous for the glory of God and their salvation to unite in a close union, the task of which was the reform of the church, that is, the practical application and approval of his teachings. As a special system of belief, the cause of Viklef tried to acquire proselytes for itself and recognized propaganda as necessary.
To spread his views, Viklef used two most powerful means, which were fully consistent with the spirit of his teaching and flowed from his very essence, this was the establishment of traveling preachers and the translation of the Holy Scriptures into the popular language. Wyclef's teaching on the Holy Scriptures was, one might say, the foundation on which his entire system was based. He recognized the Bible, as we know, as the only undoubtedly true and completely sufficient source of Christian knowledge. While developing his system, he constantly turned to Scripture. If he proved the truth of any teaching, he was firmly convinced that this teaching had undoubted foundations in Holy Scripture. If he rejected something as an error and distortion of Christianity, then again because it seemed to him contrary to Scripture, or at least not having any basis in it. Scripture contains everything that is necessary for salvation, and therefore, first of all, a person, of course, needs to know Scripture in order to conform to its instructions. Hence, the task of Christian preaching is to communicate the Word of God to people, that is, to reveal to them the content of Holy Scripture, which is inaccessible to the direct use of the majority, because it is presented in a language incomprehensible to the people. But the modern state of Catholic church preaching did not meet the requirements of Wyclef. The Holy Scripture did not at all constitute the exclusive content of this sermon; on the contrary, it was relegated to the background and was often completely eliminated, thanks to the intrusion into the sermon of other elements that were not at all characteristic of it. Catholic preachers of that time borrowed content for their sermons from various legends about the lives and exploits of saints, from current folk stories, and even from works of ancient pagan poetry, such as Ovid's Metamorphoses or Homer's Iliad. If the preachers did turn to Scripture, then thanks to the extreme predilection for allegorical interpretation that prevailed at that time, they tried to extract special edifications from almost every word of the taken text, to discover in it numerous and most hidden meanings, and, of course, they allowed wide arbitrariness and all kinds of tensions. With this method of interpretation, the listeners obviously became acquainted not with the actual meaning of Scripture, but with the fertility and ingenuity of the preachers. The clear meaning of Scripture has often only been obscured by scholastic methods of preaching, by various definitions, subtle divisions and subdivisions, pompous rhetorical embellishments, etc. etc., which did not at all correspond to the level of understanding of the listeners. Revolting against all these prevailing shortcomings of modern preaching, Viklef demanded that the pure Word of God be preached, and that it be offered to the people in the simplest and most understandable form for them. Delivered on such principles, the sermon would be, Viklef thought, the best means for disseminating his teachings, because he was convinced of the full correspondence of his teachings with the Holy Scriptures. In his sermons, he really tried, as much as he could, to apply his theory to the case; but this was, of course, not enough. Preaching for Viklef was not an end in itself, but only a means for disseminating his teachings, and therefore he needed to take care of the widest possible use of this means. To re-educate existing preachers was a task too difficult, almost completely impossible for the efforts of one person and within the time limits of his life. To remove these preachers and replace them, at least in the positions of parish priests, with new ones, brought up in different concepts, was not in the power of Viclef, who himself was only a simple priest. There was only one thing left: to create a class of new preachers, without eliminating the old ones, that is, to educate people who would devote themselves exclusively to the work of preaching, without connecting with it the duties of a parish priest. These are the kind of people that Viklef raises. While still at Oxford, he gathers around him a circle of young people from university students, instills in them his religious views and instills in them a selfless desire to serve the cause of reform. Over time, these young people, properly prepared, set out for the work of preaching. The testimonies of contemporary chroniclers, complaints and orders of archbishops and bishops provide us with enough material to characterize the activities of these apostles of Lollardism. These people, of course, did not have any official authority for their business. Neither the pope, nor the bishops, nor any other ecclesiastical authority gave them permission to preach; they went and preached, obeying only the voice of their own religious zeal, guided only by the desire to communicate to others the truth, which they themselves, according to their conviction, already possessed. Often these were people who, in the opinion of the church, did not have the right to teach others, because only at first the Lollard preachers were mostly priests, but later they were in most cases simple laymen who did not have any church rank. There was no little apostolic in the selfless activity of these people. They devoted themselves entirely to their work. They did not have any permanent residence, but moved from one place to another, from village to village, from city to city, from one county to another. In coarse woolen clothes, with bare feet and with a staff in his hand, such a preacher would come to some village and, despite his fatigue, would hurry to the church or chapel to begin his work there. If the church was locked, he raised his voice in the church yard, or he would gather listeners simply in the square or street. The unusual setting of the sermon, the impressive appearance of the preacher and his passionate, convinced word naturally attracted whole crowds of listeners to him, and, taking advantage of this, he hastened to plant the seeds of his anti-church views in their hearts. The content of his sermon is not difficult to predict. He came from the school of Viklef, and therefore he now went to spread among the people the views that his mentor had instilled in him. He preached against the corruption of the Catholic clergy, denounced various abuses and errors that prevailed in the church, preached the need for reform, and argued that Divine grace is the only source of justification for man, and Holy Scripture is the only source of Christian doctrine. In a word, in his sermons he was a direct follower and successor of Viklef, and served the cause of spreading his teachings. Viklef himself, who organized the itinerant preaching, saw in it his own work; he defended preachers in his writings from various accusations and partly supervised their activities, compiling brochures that were supposed to serve as a guide for them. Encouraged by its founder, sympathetically greeted by the people and even patronized by the nobility with arms in hand, itinerant preaching was not slow to develop very widely. In a few years it intensified to such an extent that it attracted the attention of the bishops and provoked a number of measures against itself, as something that threatened the church. At the end of May 1382, Vil. Courtney, Archbishop of Canterbury, issued an order addressed to the Bishop of London, where he speaks of uncalled itinerant preachers who, without any authority from the ecclesiastical authority, speak in churches and other public places and spread heretical teachings. Following the example of Courtnay, other bishops also take up arms against itinerant preachers, such as. Wakefield, ep. of Worcester, in 1387, and Spencer, bishop. Norsichsky, in 1389. It is clear that the institution of itinerant preachers achieved its goal if the church authorities considered it necessary to lay their hands on it.
No matter how fruitful the itinerant preaching was, Viklef still did not consider this means of teaching to be the most important. According to the meaning of his views, a person’s relationship to God is higher and more perfect the more direct it is, and therefore, when studying the Word of God, it would be much better if a person could do without intermediaries, if he himself read and understood the Divine Scriptures, with the assistance of and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to whom alone, as we know, Viklef gave the exclusive right to explain Scripture. But such direct use of the Word of God was impossible for the people as long as the Bible remained in use only in Latin, a language incomprehensible to the people. A direct natural consequence of Wyclef's views was a strong desire on his part to make the Holy Scriptures accessible to everyone by translating them into the living vernacular. With the assistance of Hereford, he sets to work and soon brings it to the desired end; in 1382 the complete Bible in English was published.
It cannot be said that the translation of the Holy Scriptures into English was unheard of before Wyclef. Even during the Anglo-Saxon period, some books of the Bible had already been translated, as we know from modern evidence or even from the copies themselves, which have survived to this day. It is enough to mention the translation of the Psalter by Bishop Oldhelm, dating back to the last years of the 7th century or the beginning of the 8th century; about the translation of the Gospel of John the Venerable Bede, dating back to the thirties of the 8th century; about the Gospels with interpretations from the time of Alfred, i.e., the end of the 9th century, about the translation of the books of Moses, Judges, Kings, etc. by the monk Elfric, the end of the 10th century. The little that survived until later times does not, of course, still represent everything that England really owned in that period, because quite a few had to perish, especially during the disasters of the Danish and Norman invasions. After the Norman conquest, the defeated and enslaved Anglo-Saxon tribe, of course, could not expect the dominant class of Normans to bother translating the Scriptures into their language. The books of the Bible were translated at this time, but not into the Anglo-Saxon language, but into French, the native language of the ruling classes. The defeated tribe had to be content with what it had from the previous time, and it kept these remnants and did not lose them, continuing to use them for its edification. This is confirmed, by the way, by the fact that many lists of translations occurred precisely in the 12th century. From the combination of two previously hostile elements, i.e. Norman and Anglo-Saxon, one whole is formed over time and the history of the English people with the English language and literature begins. The thirteenth century was an era in this regard, and therefore at the end of the XIII century we already see the appearance of a poetic translation of the Psalter into English. In the first half of the 14th century, the same book was translated several more times, for example. Scorgham and Rolle. Thus, Viklef’s enterprise was not one that England had never heard of before; but for all that, his Bible, not without reason, can be called the first English Bible. The translations that existed before Viklef never included the entire Bible or even at least one Old and New Testament. They were limited to only a few individual books and mainly the Psalter, while most of the sacred books remained untranslated. These translations could not always be called translations, because they often deviated quite far from their original, constrained by their poetic form, or were periphrases. But what especially deserves attention is the very purpose of translations. It was intended exclusively for the use of the clergy and a few scientists and educated persons. It never occurred to any of the translators to think about the people. None of them, in their work, were guided by the thought of making the Word of God understandable and accessible to everyone, giving everyone the opportunity to learn the truths of faith for themselves. That is why Viklef’s case was the first of its kind and was not like everything that had been done before him. He created an accurate translation of the entire Bible and gave it to the people.
A kind of preparatory step towards the publication of the complete English Bible was Wyclef's translation of the concordance of the Gospels (series collecta) by the Augustinian Prior Clemens, late 12th century. In the preface to this work, Viklef expresses and develops his views on the need to translate St. Scriptures in the living vernacular. Based on the words of the Savior: “Blessed are those who hear the Word of God, and keep it” (), Viklef says that Christians should work day and night to study the text of the Holy Scriptures, and especially the Gospel in their native language, and meanwhile the Catholic Church does not allow the laity rights to this. Voluptuary scientists say that the laity can easily fall into error, and therefore they should not talk about objects of faith. But what cruelty, to destroy all food in the kingdom on the grounds that a few fools can overeat and by excessive consumption harm themselves and others. Proud and devoted to the world, a priest can just as easily err and act against the Gospel written in Latin as a layman can sin against the Gospel written in English. Is it reasonable not to teach children to read at all because they will make mistakes in their first lessons? Every person is obliged to study the Holy Scriptures if he wants to be blessed. The clergy say that the translation of Scripture into English will cause discord among Christians and incite the subjects to revolt against the authorities, and therefore it should not be tolerated. But is it possible to so clearly insult God, the source of peace, and His holy Law, which teaches humility, patience and love for one’s neighbors?! etc. The dissemination of these thoughts among the people prepared the ground and paved the way for the first English Bible.
The work of a complete translation of the entire Bible was completed by Viklef and his colleague Hereford. Viklef translated the entire book, and Hereford intended to translate the entire Old Book, but was interrupted by unfavorable circumstances for him at the nineteenth verse of the 3rd chapter of the book of the prophet. Baruch, so the end of the Old Testament was translated by Viklef. The translation was made from the Latin text of the Vulgate, because the Greek language was not at all familiar to Wyclef. At the end of the enterprise in 1382, Viklef soon noticed some shortcomings in it, and therefore immediately decided to revise and correct his translation, but death prevented his plan. The revision was carried out by Purvey and completed four years after the death of Viklef. With the completion of the translation, Viklef's goal, of course, was not yet achieved. Translation was only a means that now had to be used to achieve another higher goal. It was caused by the desire to give the people the opportunity to read the Word of God and learn from it the truths of the faith, and therefore now care had to be taken to ensure that the Bible translated into the popular language would receive the widest possible distribution among the people. For this purpose, immediately after the translation is completed, the diligent preparation of copies for general use begins. In addition to copies of the complete Bible, parts of it and some of the most commonly used holy books are copied separately, tables of the annual readings of the Apostle and the Gospel are attached: special books are also compiled that contain the entire circle of the Apostolic and Gospel readings of the liturgical year. All these copies are released for public use. Viklef's enterprise, as one might expect, was a complete success. Contemporary chronicler Knighton bitterly complains that the pearls of the Gospel are being scattered before swine, and that thanks to the translation, the Gospel has now become much more accessible to literate laymen and even women than it was before for educated members of the clergy. At the prayer meetings of Wyclef's followers, the most prominent place is occupied by the reading of the Holy Scriptures. During the later prosecution of the Lollards, almost no trial was completed without the accused being accused of having used the English translation of the Bible. Despite the merciless destruction of copies of this translation, twelve of its manuscripts dating back to the end of the 14th century have survived even to this day. And it cannot be said that only the followers of Viclef valued his translation; On his side was the majority of the entire nation, in so far as Parliament then served as the representative of public opinion. In 1390, the Roman Party introduced a bill in Parliament to remove from use and confiscate all copies of the English translation of the Bible. This proposal was met with strong opposition in both houses and the bill could not pass. Both the lords and the commons thus declared themselves to be supporters of the translation. The Duke of Lancaster said at the same time: are we some kind of scum of humanity that we are not allowed to have, like other peoples, the Word of God in our own language?
The measures taken by Viklef fully justified the hopes placed on them. The dissemination of the Holy Scriptures among the people and the activities of itinerant preachers brought Wyclef's views widespread and rapid success. Undoubted confirmation of this can be seen in some documents dating back to the eighties and nineties of the 14th century. Among these documents, special attention is deserved, for example, by the statute rejected by the House of Commons and approved only by the king and lords, relating to the 5th year of the reign of Richard II, 2 two royal orders issued in the fifteenth and seventeenth years of Richard II, and finally the bull of Pope Boniface IX in the name of the same king. From these documents it is clear that the number of Viklef's followers increased in those years with extreme rapidity; that they freely and boldly appeared everywhere, even adopting special clothes; that they openly preached their heretical teachings and denounced the existing church orders, captivating the people with their courage. The church authorities were still powerless and could not put a limit to the spread of heresy, because the heretics did not pay any attention to the church prohibitions directed against them. If their bishop called them to his tribunal, they did not appear, and if he wanted to attract them by force, they left the boundaries of his diocese, where his power no longer extended. The evidence of the chroniclers Knighton and Walsingham, as well as the protocols of the trials, show that Wyclef's teachings found patrons and followers in different classes of society. On the side of these teachings were, first of all, some members of the royal family itself, such as. Dukes of Lancaster and Gloucester, mother and wife of King Richard II. They were followed by many people who belonged to noble noble families, such as. Earl of Salisbury, Clifford, Storry, Gilton, Neuville and others. But most of all there were Wyclef’s supporters among the townspeople, artisans and rural population. We are not able to determine the approximate number of followers of Viklef at the end of the 14th century, because there is not enough data for this; but that his teachings were generally very widespread at that time, we can be convinced of this with certainty from the meager evidence that has survived to us. It goes without saying that the teachings of Wyclef had to spread and establish themselves most strongly in the diocese of Lincoln, since both Oxford and Lutterworth were located there, that is, the places of the main activity of Wyclef himself, as a scientist and as a parish priest. The areas closest to these centers of Lollardism, of course, were more likely to be influenced by it than any other. And indeed in 1389 in Leicester, for example. eight Lollards have already been brought in for interrogation, and it is noticed that there are many others here who adhere to the same way of thinking. The chronicler Knighton, who lived in Leicester, testifies that the Lollards attracted more than half the nation to their teachings. This sect, he says, is so numerous that if you meet two residents on the street, one of them is certainly a follower of Viklef. From the district of Lincoln, Lollardism spread to other dioceses, more or less strong confirmation of which can be found in various modern testimonies. Londoners e.g. They have already sufficiently declared their way of thinking by the support that they provided to Viklef during his clash with the church authorities. The chronicler Walsingham more than once mentions their adherence to the teachings of Wyclef and calls them: Lollardorum sustentatores. These, although not many, pieces of evidence are quite sufficient to recognize as certain that the teachings of Viklef were very widespread among the people at the end of the 14th century. An eloquent confirmation of this conclusion is the event that happened in the parliament of 1395. Two Lollard nobles, Sir Thomas Latimer and Sir Richard Storrie, presented to this Parliament a petition on behalf of the entire Lollard party. This document, consisting of twelve provisions and a short conclusion, contains a decisive statement of Lollard views. It says that since the Church of England, following the example of its Roman stepmother, indulged in worldly acquisitions, faith, hope and love left it, giving way to pride and other mortal sins arising from it. The priesthood, it is said further, originating from Rome and claiming the highest angelic power, is not the priesthood that was established by Christ. The celibacy of the clergy is the source of the sin of Sodom. The fictitious miracle of transubstantiation in the Eucharist seduces people into idolatry. Rituals of blessing performed over wine, bread, oil, water, salt, wax, incense, clothes, walls, etc. are nothing more than witchcraft and necromancy. Occupation of secular positions by the clergy is simultaneous service to God and mammon. Oral confession before a priest encourages the pride of the clergy, who supposedly have the power to bind and decide, and serves as an excuse for them to commit various immoral acts. Further, a petition arises against prayer for the dead, against monastic vows, etc. The petitioners end with the statement that, in expressing their views, they are prompted to do so by Christ Himself and turn with prayer to God for the reform of the church. It is impossible not to notice, of course, that the Lollard petition was an accurate reflection of the views of Wyclef, and in the fourth provision, which treats the Eucharist, the petitioners even directly refer to the “trialogue” of the evangelical doctor, one of Wyclef’s outstanding works, where, in their opinion, the true doctrine of Eucharist. The petition had no practical consequences; it seems that it was not even discussed in Parliament, and the Lollards limited themselves to trying to make it as famous as possible by nailing copies of it to the church doors of London and Westminster. But the very fact of the existence of this petition deserves special attention. It does not resemble the work of some insignificant and despised sect. If the followers of Viklef dare to openly declare their anti-church views, if they come with a formal petition to parliament and demand legislative support for their aspirations from representatives of the entire nation, it is clear that they are aware of the strength and no small force that can stand up for herself and is not afraid to be easily crushed by the majority hostile to her. The Lollards of this time obviously did not want to recognize themselves only as a sect; they did not limit themselves to only demanding that they be given the freedom to profess their views. No, they acted offensively, they wanted to make their teachings dominant; they demanded that the entire existing system of church life be reformed according to their instructions.
The more the Lollards raised their voice against the church, the more boldly they declared their claims, the more, of course, all those who cared about the existing order had to arm themselves against them. It goes without saying that the church authorities acted first in this case. Viklef's teachings, even during his lifetime, had already been examined several times by church authorities and condemned as heresy. In confirmation of this, it is enough to point to the bull of Pope Gregory XI, issued in 1377 at the request of the English bishops, who submitted to Rome for consideration by the papal consistory a whole series of provisions extracted from various writings and sermons of Wyclef, and to the verdict drawn up at the London Church Council of 1382 of the year . But church condemnation was not strong enough to destroy heretical teachings. Despite the condemnation, the heresy continued to spread, and its wandering preachers intensified their activities more and more. To put an end to it, obviously, some more energetic measures were required, for which the church authorities soon took action. After the council verdict of 1382, Archbishop William Courtnay addressed the then assembled parliament and King Richard II, asking for their assistance in stopping the spreading heresy. At the request of the archbishop, a draft law was drawn up, which was submitted for parliamentary approval. This law stated that at present many bad people have proliferated, who wander from place to place and, without the permission of church authorities, preach their teachings everywhere. Upon consideration of these teachings at a special council convened for this purpose by the archbishop, they were recognized as heretical and dangerous for the good of the church and state; but their preachers continue their outrageous activities as before, despising church authority and not paying any attention to its orders and calls for judgment. Wherefore this Parliament ordains that the sheriffs and other officers of the kingdom, upon notice and request of the prelates, shall arrest heretical preachers and all their patrons and accomplices, and keep them in strict confinement until they are acquitted by the laws of the church. . The meaning of this bill was obviously that the church authorities wanted to use the assistance of secular authorities to fight heresy. But this project did not receive full legal approval; it was approved only by the king and the House of Lords, and the communities did not give their consent to it. When, despite the lack of legal approval, this project was nevertheless promulgated as a full-fledged statute, the House of Commons presented on its own behalf at the next meeting of parliament, in October of the same 1382, a petition in which it stated that this statute would never have its consent did not receive it, and therefore demanded its cancellation, which was done. Why this statute did not have the approval of the communities is not known. Maybe it was discussed by the lower house and was rejected, or maybe it was not presented to it at all, knowing in advance that it could not pass in it. From this fact, however, we have no right to draw the conclusion that the House of Commons of that time was decisively on the side of the Lollards and did not want to hinder the activities of their preachers; She was guided in her opposition to the statute by considerations of a completely different kind. Demanding its abolition, the communities declared that they did not at all want to depend on the prelates and obey them more than their ancestors had allowed. Consequently, it was not sympathy for the Lollards that guided the chamber in this case, but a long-standing jealousy of the privileges of the clergy. Be that as it may, the attempt of the clergy to enlist the assistance of parliament in the fight against heresy was unsuccessful. It could only use those means that were in its power, and it actually used them. Immediately after the condemnation of the Wyclephian teachings at the council of 1382, Archbishop Courtnay issued an order to his plenipotentiary commissioner at the University of Oxford, in which, on the basis of the council verdict, he ordered that henceforth no one should dare to carry out the condemned opinions in university lectures, sermons and debates, as well as listen and encourage them; but that defenders of heretical teachings should be avoided by everyone and removed under pain of excommunication. Another order, issued in the name of the Bishop of London, directed that all the bishops of the province of Canterbury should promulgate in all the churches of their dioceses that no one was henceforth permitted to teach or preach condemned views, or to listen to and encourage, secretly or openly, anyone who preached them, under penalty of church excommunication. While visiting the diocese of Lincoln in 1389, Courtnay learned that many of the inhabitants of Leicester adhered to Lollardian teachings. He demanded that they appear before his tribunal, and when they did not comply, he imposed an interdict on the entire city. Wakefield, Bishop of Worcester, in 1387 orders all monasteries and parish priests of his diocese not to allow Lollards to preach in churches, in churchyards or in any other places, even if not consecrated. Militant Spencer, Bishop. Norwich, even on pain of death, forbade the Lollards to visit his diocese. But the ecclesiastical excommunications that the bishops threatened were, of course, not terrible for those who rebelled against the church and did not recognize any significance for them, and all other threats could be impressive only when the church authority had material strength, when it could— would have support in the coercive measures of the secular authorities. Having not received the desired assistance from Parliament, the clergy tried to at least win over King Richard II, so that in his power they could have support in the fight against heresy. Richard's name is known for a number of orders against the Lollard heresy dating back to 1382, 1383, 1388, 1392 and 1393. and addressed by them to the University of Oxford, or to the authorities of the County of Nottingham, or to the Knights and Sheriff of Gerefard, etc. All these documents, in their content, seem to be more or less identical, and therefore, without setting out separately the content of each of them, We will present here only a general outline of them. The king declares that he has always been and always intends to be a zealous defender of the Catholic faith, and therefore, depicting the daring activity of heretics in spreading their harmful teachings and mentioning complaints about them to the ecclesiastical authorities, he assumes the duty to take certain measures in order to put a limit to the success of heresy. He orders that a strict investigation be carried out at the university, and that all infected with heretical teachings be immediately expelled from among its members. He gives the bishops the power to arrest preachers of Lollardism and imprison them until they renounce their views, or send them to the discretion of the king and his privy council. He orders secular officials not to allow Lollard meetings and to provide assistance to church authorities in the persecution of heretics. The king threatens persons who patronize heretics and provide them with any assistance with the confiscation of all their property. Finally, he orders a thorough search to be carried out everywhere to find heretical books, especially those compiled by Wyclef, Hereford and Ashton. He orders these books to be confiscated and immediately sent to the royal council, and the sellers and buyers of these books to be arrested. With the exact execution of all these royal orders, the position of the lollards could obviously be very difficult; but in fact, the orders remained for the most part only on paper and were applied to action very rarely and unwillingly. Until the end of the 14th century. There is almost no news at all about the arrests and imprisonments of the Lollards. If they are called to trial for their teachings, then only the most important teachers of Lollardism, such as for example. Hereford, Biedeman, Repington, Anton Swinderby, etc., so the trials of the lollards are still an exception. And the results of these processes did not seem particularly terrible. Convicts had to e.g. lose their places at Oxford, were subject to excommunication, or forced to renounce their teachings. Such punishments, of course, did not in the least prevent the further spread of heresy, since those who renounced were not ashamed to subsequently preach the same teachings again, which confirms, for example, Swinderby’s modus operandi, according to the testimony of the archbishop himself. There was, apparently, no talk of widespread persecution of the lollards, of the execution of royal orders in their entirety. The chronicler Walsingham even reproaches the bishops for not doing anything against heretics, although they see and hear them. Another chronicler Knighton, regarding one of the most decisive royal orders, notes that, despite all its severity, this order was carried out too weakly, because the time for punishment had not yet arrived. Thus, at the end of the 14th century, Lollardism developed almost unhindered, because there was no one to meet energetic resistance to it. The king did not see the need to pay special attention to the lollards; he himself was not interested in this matter, and therefore, if he did anything, it was at the insistence of the clergy. Parliament did not take any part in everything related to the fight against heresy, and did not issue a single statute on this matter. Only once, namely in 1387, did the lords and communities pay some attention to the question of the persecution of heresy, but only because they were prompted by complaints brought to them. Their entire participation in the matter was limited, however, only to the fact that they exposed the king to the danger that could arise from the spread of heresy for the church and state, but they did not consider it necessary to take any measures on their part. To understand this inactivity of Parliament, it must be taken into account that to legislate for the persecution of heretics meant at the same time strengthening the power of the clergy, which was not at all desirable for Parliament, as this statement of the commons in 1382 testified. Only a serious danger could prompt Parliament to issue such laws, and Lollardism of that time had not yet developed to such an extent as to seem dangerous to the existing church and state system, at least the majority did not yet attach such importance to it. Thanks to these favorable conditions, Lollardism was able to develop quite freely until its rapid successes and its courage finally attracted everyone’s attention. This happened in 1395. The bold petition presented to the Houses by the Lollards served as clear proof that heresy had indeed developed to dangerous proportions. As a result, the clergy with renewed energy began to insist on the need to persecute heretics, Parliament decisively took his side, and King Henry IV, who took the place of the deposed Richard, owed his throne to a large extent to the assistance of the clergy, and therefore naturally had to respect his wishes. From the beginning of the 15th century, real persecution began against the Lollards. In the first convocation that met upon the accession of Henry IV, in October 1399, the king sent his representatives with a statement that he would not take taxes from the clergy and would zealously support all the rights and privileges of the church, and also suppress all false teachings and heresies and persecute heretics. In response to such a pleasant statement, Archbishop Arundel expressed gratitude to the king on behalf of the entire clergy. The new reign thus began with a close friendship between the king and the clergy, and the fruits of this friendship were not slow to appear. When the parliament of 1400 met, the clergy, supported by the communities, presented a petition in which they complained about the insolence and successes of the heretics, exposed the powerlessness of the church authorities in the fight against them, and demanded assistance from the king and the law. The desire of the clergy was fulfilled, all the measures proposed by them were adopted by parliament and the result of this was the statute known as “de heretico comburendo”. The preface of this act states that deceitful and obstinate people, who think reprehensibly about the dogmas of faith, the sacraments and the authority of the church, arrogate to themselves, contrary to Divine and church laws, the right that does not belong to them to preach and teach others. In different places of the kingdom, under the guise of outward holiness, they preach their heretical teachings, gather assemblies, maintain and teach schools, write and distribute books, thus inciting the people to rebellion, sowing discord everywhere and overthrowing the Catholic faith, the rights and authority of the church. They move from one diocese to another, avoiding trial, do not appear when called by bishops and treat church authority with complete disdain. As a result of all this, Parliament now determines that henceforth no one should dare to preach anywhere without permission from the church authorities, with the exception of parish priests and other privileged persons. So that no one dares to preach or teach anything contrary to the Catholic faith and the definitions of the church, to disseminate such teachings in books, to hold meetings, to teach in schools. So that no one dares to provide any kind of patronage or assistance to such heretical preachers, collectors of collections, writers of books, etc. So that anyone who owns books of heretical content should hand them over to the local bishop within forty days from the time of promulgation of this statute. All who are guilty of violating these definitions, whether they be openly convicted or merely suspected, shall, by virtue of this statute, be arrested and kept in prison until they have been acquitted according to the laws of the Church, or have renounced their heretical doctrines. Those who persist in their heresy, as well as those who have revealed themselves but then fallen away again, must be handed over to the secular authorities. In this case, the ecclesiastical authority must pronounce its verdict in the presence of the local mayor, sheriffs or other officials and then deliver the accused into their hands. After the verdict is announced, the secular authorities must take the accused to an elevated place and there burn him in front of the whole people, in order to instill fear in the hearts of others.
The next reign of Henry V began in exactly the same way as the reign of his predecessor. At the request of the clergy and the University of Oxford, the Parliament of 1414 debates and approves a new law against heresy, known as the ex officio statute. By the definition of this new statute, the estates of all persons accused of heresy should be subject to confiscation; and since, according to the statute, heresy is the root of all kinds of unrest and indignation, then in order to better ensure the interests of the state, it is now decreed that the Lord Chancellor, Treasurer, judges, sheriffs, mayors of the city and other officials, upon taking office, , took an oath that they would apply all their efforts to searching for and prosecuting heretics, zealously helping with their influence the activities of bishops. To confirm, clarify and develop the existing legislative definitions, the church authorities also issued their own decrees, such as: the so-called constitutions of the archbishops of Arundel and Chaichley, issued by them in consultation with convocations in 1408 and 1416. The Constitutions of Arundel stipulate that no one should preach without the permission of the bishop, and that these permissions should be made as difficult as possible. So that it is preached only in accordance with the nature of the listeners, that is, so that the clergy is told about their sins, and the laity only about their sins. So that anti-church teachings about the sacraments are not spread under pain of punishment. So that the works of Viklef and others like him are not allowed to be read anywhere except after preliminary consideration and approval of the university and the archbishop. So that the translation of books of the Bible or texts from it into English and the reading of such translations are permitted only with the approval of the church. Chaichdi's constitution went even further; she introduced into England something closely resembling the Inquisition. According to her instructions, bishops, archdeacons and their commissioners were to conduct a strict search in their districts for persons suspected of heresy at least twice a year. In every parish where it is rumored that there are such suspicious people, three or more sworn informers should be kept, who would accurately and immediately bring to the attention of the church authorities any persons who hold heretical views, or who have people of suspicious tendencies in their homes, or having heretical books, or attending meetings, or finally, simply differing in their lifestyle from ordinary Catholics. Based on such denunciations, the constitution requires that trials begin immediately.
Having secured the support of secular power, the clergy could now obviously act with greater persistence and self-confidence than before, and they tried to quickly give practical application to the established laws against heresy. Immediately, upon approval of the statute “de heritico comburendo,” two Lollard priests, John Purvey and William Sawtry, were brought to court of convocation for their heretical views. Purvey was forced to renounce his convictions, and Sotry, who remained firm, was condemned as a stubborn heretic, and in March 1401, in front of a large crowd of spectators, was burned. This was the first martyr of Lollardism, and it served, so to speak, as the signal for the beginning of the persecution. The clergy held the conviction that it was impossible to successfully act to eradicate heresy among the masses unless its main leaders and patrons were destroyed, and therefore special attention was paid to them. Oxford was the scientific center and hotbed of Lollard views, and the clergy first of all tried to cleanse it. The convocation of 1408 decreed that the university authorities were obliged to conduct a monthly survey of the thoughts of all members of the corporation and all students. Suspicious people were first instructed to be admonished, and then deprived of their rights and expelled from the university with excommunication. The archbishop subsequently confirmed this measure several times, and finally, in 1411, he himself made a visit to the university. The consequences showed that the goal of the clergy in this case was achieved. In 1412, the university wrote to the archbishop that a commission of its doctors had extracted 267 provisions from the writings of Wyclef, which the university considered false and heretical and wanted to see them condemned by church authorities. Two years later, the same university presented a note to Henry V, in which, among other things, it demanded that bishops who were careless in the persecution of heresy be deposed, and that secular officials assist the church authorities in the persecution of the Lollards. It is obvious that Oxford, which had previously been the main stronghold of Lollardism, was now filled with its enemies. In addition to the scientific leaders, the Lollards also had political patrons, strong nobles who supported them with their material resources and their influence. The Cobham case showed that the clergy tried to take away this support from the Lollards. The careful, systematic attack of the clergy on this powerful patron of heretics finally ended in 1417 with his public burning over a low fire. While striking the leaders of Lollardism, the persecution at the same time spread to the masses, finding victims in London, Oxford, Leicester, Norwich, Bristol, Worcester and other places. Those persecuted were imprisoned, where they often died, were forced to renounce their views, and, in case of persistence, died at the stake. Of course, we do not need to set out a detailed history of the persecution; it is only important for us to note the fact that in the first quarter of the 15th century, Lollardism took the position of a sect in England, condemned by state and church laws and subjected to systematic extermination.
The rapid successes enjoyed by Lollardism in the eighties and nineties of the 14th century apparently made it impossible to assume that such a sad fate would soon befall it. Then the lollards acted offensively; they wanted to make their teachings dominant; they threatened the very existence of the Catholic Church and, as it seemed to a contemporary, the whole half of the nation sympathized with them; But three decades have passed and the situation has completely changed. Now the Lollards could no longer even think about domination; now their enemies were advancing on them, they were pursued, sought out, driven and burned at the stake. The church, the government, and even the parliament took up arms against them, that is, representatives of the very nation that half sympathized with them. The House of Commons joins the clergy in presenting a petition that strict measures should be taken against the Lollards; Parliament issues its harsh laws, ordering heretics either to renounce their teachings or to be burned at the stake; and when, in consequence of these laws, the first martyr of Lollardism perishes in the flames, the communities offer their solemn thanks to the king for having used due means to destroy those harmful doctrines and their supporters, which undermine the faith of the church and threaten the destruction of the state. They ask him, in the future, to immediately bring to trial all those accused and suspected of Lollardism, so that they suffer due punishment and frighten others by their example. In view of such actions of parliament, there can hardly be any talk of sympathy for the lollards of half the nation. Where is the reason for such a sharp change that has occurred in the public mood regarding Lollardism? We think that, in essence, there was no such change at all. Both in the personal activity of Viklef, and in the Lollardism that degenerated from it, one should distinguish the church-political side from the religious-theological side, talking about the persecution of Lollards as heretics, looking at Lollardism in general as a heresy, we naturally mean primarily its religious and theological side. Therefore, when we are told that half the nation sympathized with the Lollards, we are inclined to think that this sympathy related specifically to their religious views, that is, that half the nation deviated into heresy. But this did not happen at all, and it could hardly have happened. The English nation lived for many centuries under the influence of Catholicism; The generation modern to the Lollards was born and raised in it, and the faith of their grandfathers and fathers is not particularly easy to abandon. People are used to, for example. bow before the altar and see on it in the Eucharist the body and blood of God Himself; he grew up in the need to pray for the deceased close to his heart: he was brought up in the firm conviction that traveling to venerate the relics of a saint is a good and God-pleasing deed, and that it is precisely by such and other good deeds that a person deserves justification before God. Is it possible to think that an entire half of the nation could abandon all these and other dear convictions so easily as to become Lollard within just a few years?! To abandon these convictions, one needed a strong and not short-term influence of teachers, or diligent and long reflection on reading the Holy Scriptures, and in any case, no small internal struggle, a series of doubts, hesitations, remorse, etc. All this, of course, is not The whole half of the nation managed to survive in just a few years, especially since the living word of itinerant preachers and the Bible translated into English not long ago, as we know, touched the people. With this in mind, we think that the words of the chroniclers should be understood more in relation to the church-political side of Lollardism than to the religious-theological side. Half the nation sympathized with the Lollards, not on the question of the Eucharist or prayer for the dead, but in their opposition to the rights and privileges of the clergy, in their denial of the papacy, in their desire to take away church property, etc. If so, then it is not difficult to explain to oneself the mode of action of parliament, which at first glance seems to be a sharp change in the public mood regarding lollardism. Parliament did not sympathize with the religious teachings of the Lollards either at the end of the 14th century or at the beginning of the 15th; both then and now his majority was disposed to stand up for the faith of their fathers. But at first this sympathy was not revealed, because in the spread of Lollardism the parliament did not yet see anything so dangerous as to promote the strengthening of the clergy for its sake. When Lollardism began to develop rapidly and showed unprecedented courage, Parliament, so to speak, woke up from its inaction and expressed its view of the matter in harsh statutes. And as for the church-political tendencies of Lollardism, the parliament, as a representative of the nation, sympathized with them!.. His duality in this regard was clearly expressed in his actions. At the same time, he issued harsh statutes against the Lollard heretics, demanded their executions and thanked the king for the burning of one of them - and at the same time he demanded the abolition of the judicial privileges of the clergy and more than once proposed the secularization of church property . But no matter how strong the parliament’s sympathies were for certain tendencies of Lollardism, they could not shake its loyalty to the Catholic religion, and therefore the Lollards soon had to make sure that their aspirations for dominance were at least premature and that it was their lot to only the position of the persecuted sect.
Thus the church triumphed; royal power and parliament were on her side, and dangerous heresy was persecuted. But the triumph was still not complete. Despite all the efforts of the defenders of the church, despite the increasing severity of the persecution, he was not able to completely kill the heresy, to destroy its very roots, so that no trace remained of it. The anti-church and heretical teachings sown among the people showed such tenacity that their complete extermination turned out to be impossible. For example, persecution had been raging for a whole quarter of a century when Archbishop Chaichley, in 1428, convened a convocation in London, and meanwhile at this convocation he declared that its main goal was the defense of the faith and the church and the extermination of false teachings and heretics, which had increased in extraordinary degrees. He insisted on the need for quick measures, because otherwise the evil would increase every day. With persistent persecution by the ecclesiastical and secular authorities, heresy was not able to intensify, but at least it did not die until the Reformation. During this period of time, there is not a single decade in which there was not a sufficient amount of data indicating its continuous existence. Such data includes, for example, an order from Henry VI dating back to 1440, from which we learn that at that time the Lollards made pilgrimages to the site of the burning of one of their martyrs; or the polemical writings of Bishop Reginald Pecock, dating back to the middle of the 15th century and providing quite a bit of information about the current state of the Lollards. But the richest material for the history of heresy during this time is represented by the acts of trials carried out in different places and over different persons who were brought to trial for their heretical views. To talk about these processes would mean to write an entire martyrology, which, of course, is not our task. We will only note the fact that from the beginning of the 15th century. and until the Reformation, trials on charges of heresy stretched on in an almost continuous thread, then multiplying in number, as was the case, for example, from 1428 to 1431, then in the eighties and nineties of the 15th century, in the early and twenties XVI century, then decreasing and even stopping completely for a while, which depended on the degree of jealousy of one or another archbishop or bishop, or on political conditions. This mass of processes thus serves as the clearest evidence of the existence of heresy that continued until the Reformation. The indictments of the trials and the responses to them from the accused give us full opportunity to learn the very content of the heresy. From them we see that one of the main crimes charged against heretics was their special respect for the Holy Spirit. Scripture. They said that translating the Bible into the vernacular is a necessary matter and deserves full approval, and that reading the Bible is much more beneficial than preaching. Their word in this case was completely consistent with their deeds. Most of the accused, especially since the 16th century, were accused of reading the English Bible and having copies of it in their possession. In addition to reading the Bible, they were also accused of the fact that they are generally very inclined to self-edification by reading religious books, of course heretical, such as the works of Viclef and other false teachers, and that they give great preference to the English language, studying in It contains the most common prayers, commandments and creeds. Among the dogmatic errors of the heretics, the most widespread was their doctrine of the Eucharist, in which they did not recognize the transubstantiation or bodily presence of Christ. They rejected the existence of purgatory, did not recognize the hierarchy’s right to bind and decide, and therefore denied the need for oral confession before a priest. They did not consider saints to be mediators and intercessors for people before God, and therefore did not allow them to be called upon in prayers. Charities and prayers for the dead, in their opinion, cannot have any meaning. By church they meant a society of the elect, in which every righteous person is a true priest and everyone has the right to preach and teach others if he is able to do so. No one has the right to excommunicate from the church. The Church that apparently exists, that is, the Roman Church, is filled with a mass of abuses and is in need of speedy and radical reform; she is too rich, her clergy are drowning in luxury and debauchery; its head, i.e., the Pope, is the Antichrist. There is much in the existing practice of the Catholic Church that only harms Christian perfection and tempts us to superstition and idolatry. Heretics classified, for example, such customs as harmful to the soul. various ceremonies during the performance of the sacraments, the blessing of water, the blessing of bread, pilgrimages, the veneration of icons and relics, holidays in honor of saints, etc. It is not difficult, it seems, to notice that all these teachings of heretics are nothing more than a repetition and development of those the same thoughts that were once expressed and spread by Viklef. Consequently, the heresy that continued until the Reformation was Lollardism, which began at the end of the 14th century. – Despite the persecution, thus, the heresy continued to exist and preach the same teachings that it preached before the persecution. But trials and executions, of course, inevitably had some influence on it, and Lollardism at the end of the 14th century is far from what we see it at the end of the 15th and beginning of the 16th centuries. Then the lollards followed an offensive policy; they declared their demands and wanted to rebuild the existing order in their own way, and the church had to defend its existence and defend itself from their attacks; Now the church went on the offensive, it demanded agreement with its teachings, and the Lollards had to fight only for their existence. At that time, the Lollards could not yet be called a heretical sect; there was a large party dissatisfied with the current order that prevailed in the church - a party that demanded reform; now it is a sect of heretics, condemned by both state and church laws. As condemned and persecuted heretics, the Lollards now, of course, could no longer act in the same way as they had acted before. Then they boldly spoke everywhere preaching their teachings, in churches and in open places they gathered crowds of listeners around them, even presented a petition in parliament; now, only the “conventicula occulta” remained to their share, in secluded peasant huts, as safe as possible from persecution. As a party of reform, Lollardism had the attractive character of liberalism, all the more tempting because it had not yet required any sacrifices. But when he became a sect, to belong to which meant losing the protection of the laws and risking death at the stake, both the self-interested theological scholarship of Oxford and the aristocracy committed to earthly goods gradually recoiled from him; he became the property of predominantly the lower classes of society, acquired a plebeian character, which in turn, in the eyes of many, was a bad recommendation and repelled them from him. Despised and persecuted, Lollardism did not declare itself on the surface of society, it acted as a hidden force; but, if one of the Lollards admitted during the trial in 1518 that he converted up to seven hundred people to his teaching, one can think that this latent force acted persistently and fruitfully.
Through the force of persecution, the church authorities managed to, if not kill heresy, then at least drive it into the lower strata of society. But the upper classes, although they recoiled from Lollardism, were not completely immune from the influence of those anti-church ideas that were preached by the Lollards. At the beginning of the 16th century, these ideas began to penetrate into them in other ways, which apparently had nothing in common with Lollardism.
The Reformation, proclaimed at this time in Germany, immediately found a response in all Catholic countries of Europe. England was no exception in this case. Thanks to England's close trade contacts with the northern provinces of Germany, German reform ideas very soon found access to it. Some evidence for this can be found, for example. trials against heretics dating back to this time; In them we find, among other things, that the heretics recognize the justification of man before God as the sole fruit of faith, an idea that the Lollards had not thought of. In the same processes there is evidence of a more positive nature. Humphrey Mummut eg. directly accused of adherence to Martin Luther and his opinions. The works of German reformers were brought from abroad and distributed in large quantities in England. Richard Byfield was accused e.g. is that he brought from the continent many books of sinful content, such as the works of Martin Luther, Ecolampadius and other heretics. Antwerp, Cologne and Hamburg were hotbeds from which heretical books were shipped en masse to England, and among these books were numerous copies of William Tyndale's new English translation of the Bible. The spread of the reformist ideas of the continent in England was, of course, noticed by the authorities, who were not slow to take action. In May 1521, Cardinal Wolsey considered it necessary to issue his order to all bishops against the most destructive, harmful and seductive opinions of Luther, declaring his works heretical and demanding their extradition. In the same year, the king ordered all authorities to assist the bishops in finding and punishing persons infected with Lutheranism. These measures could not, of course, completely destroy Lutheran influence in England. Polydore Virgil noted that many Lutheran books are in the hands of the English, and Herbert says that Lutheran teachings have taken root in some places in England to such an extent that even the common people have sometimes begun to question what they previously considered to be an immutable truth. As an influence coming from abroad, Lutheranism was reflected, of course, mainly on those classes of English society that had direct relations with the continent, and these were mainly the highest representatives of the commercial class and the class of scientists. People of these particular classes acquired and brought to England the works of continental reformers and even formed special circles for their study. Thus, the anti-church ideas of Lollardism, driven out from here by persecution, penetrated here again in a different way, in the form of Lutheranism.
Finally, another influence came to the aid of the oppressed Lollard ideas, the carrier of which was the very flower of the then European society, the aristocracy of talent, which was courted by both nobles and kings, before which the church itself bowed for some time. We are talking about humanism. As for England, the humanistic movement in it did not have such strength as in Italy or Germany, and such representatives whose influence would have acquired a European character. But for our purpose it is quite sufficient what was expressed by Thomas More and John Colet, although far from great, but at the same time the most prominent representatives of English humanism. No matter how hard Catholic admirers of More tried to prove his orthodoxy, no matter how much More’s personal activity as Lord Chancellor spoke in favor of this orthodoxy, with all that, from the point of view of the strict Inquisition, the thoughts that More developed in his “Utopia” would have been absolutely enough to burn him at the stake as a heretic and enemy of the church. Describing the state that supposedly exists on the island of Utopia, More says that complete religious tolerance prevails among its inhabitants, professing different religions. They adhere to the conviction that religion should conquer people solely by the power of truth itself, and therefore no one is prohibited from spreading its teachings. The priests of the inhabitants of Utopia occupy their positions by choice; they serve not so much as priests, but as teachers and leaders of the people, and therefore both men and women can equally be in this rank. Even those of the inhabitants of Utopia who adhere to the Christian religion are inclined to introduce the same elective priesthood, without any apostolic succession and without any head - a pope. The inhabitants of Utopia do not use icons during Divine services, they do not recognize fasting, because they consider exhaustion of the body a sin, and renunciation of food created by God as ingratitude towards the Creator. There are no idle people on Utopia, partly because there are not, as in other states, a huge number of priests and monks. More ends his description of the political system of Utopia with the vocation that, although he certainly does not hope, he would like such an order to be adopted in his fatherland. It is obvious that the author of Utopia was not happy with the existing order. The thoughts developed in this essay are nothing more than a protest, although expressed in an indirect and subtle form. Kolet declares himself much more direct and consistent in his words and actions. Like his other learned contemporaries, he goes to Italy to improve his education, but from there he returns not only as a classical humanist, but as a humanist theologian, humanist reformer. He begins his lectures at Oxford not about Plato or Plotinus, but about the epistles of St. Pavel. He turns to the Holy Scriptures as the primary source of Christianity and in its explanation he sees the best means of Christian enlightenment. With the general fascination with classicism, Colet respects the study of ancient languages, but he looks at this study as the key to a better understanding of Scripture. In this regard, More agrees with him, who at Oxford solemnly declared that one cannot be a good theologian without thoroughly studying the languages Greek, Latin and Hebrew. When explaining Scripture, Colet constantly keeps in mind that it is precisely this that should serve as the norm in determining the merits or demerits of the existing system of church life, and therefore very often he dwells on modern church phenomena and denounces their inconsistencies with the true spirit of Christianity. Apostle Paul for example. collected voluntary donations for the benefit of those affected by famine in Judea. Regarding this, Colet expands in his explanation of how these voluntary donations are much higher than the money that the modern clergy extorts through cruel exactions from the people under the guise of tithes, etc. The Apostle Paul advises Timothy to flee the love of money and to excel in righteousness, piety, faith, love, patience, meekness. The priests of our time, Colet adds, should pay more attention to this advice of the Apostle, who himself worked, working with his own hands, so as not to give reason to suspect himself of self-interest and not cause temptation. The modern clergy not only causes temptation with their behavior, but even completely undermines the authority of the church. It indulges in constant disputes and bickering about worldly affairs and benefits; in his midst there are quite a few priests who are not afraid to approach the holy altar straight from the arms of a harlot. Even in the rank of bishop there are people who should not be members of the clergy at all; she is extremely ignorant in everything that concerns the Gospel and Christian truths in general, and sets the task of her ministry only to protect the worldly rights and possessions of the church. The general conclusion, so to speak, from all these particulars was the statement that Colet made in his famous speech to the clergy of the convocation. He said that for the church the corrupt life of the clergy is more dangerous than all heresies; that a reform of the church is needed, which should begin with bishops and priests, and then touch the people. Colet and his friends understood this reform not as a correction of only private abuses of the church, but as a general restoration in it and the resurrection of the spirit of Christ. Don't these words of the English humanists remind us of what was said long ago by Wyclef and his followers, the Lollards? Here is the same appeal to the Holy Scriptures as the primary source of Christianity, the same denial, albeit indirect, of the papacy and hierarchy, the same rebellion against some church customs and institutions, the same satire, the same denunciations of the clergy, the same cry about the proximity of the fall of the church, the need for church reform. Meanwhile, humanism was, so to speak, an aristocratic phenomenon; his ideas were the property of only a select minority. If so, then we can again say that the anti-church ideas of Lollardism, forced out of the upper classes of society by persecution, are finding a new way there in the form of humanism. It goes without saying that a learned and elegant humanist would never agree to call the despised and oppressed Lollard his brother, just as a Lollard would never invoke his kinship with this proud aristocrat. But it was absolutely necessary that they reach out to each other. The only important thing was that each of them individually saw something close to themselves in the ideas that the Reformation proclaimed.
The general conclusion to which this chapter leads us seems to require no special explanation. The phenomena presented and analyzed by us, we hope, convince the reader with sufficient clarity that in England, along with the development of political-economic Protestantism, opposition to the church of a different kind also developed, which had its source not in concern for material interests, but in religious thought and religious feeling.
So, in English society, by the beginning of the 16th century, the conviction had already strongly developed that the existing Catholic Church was not what it should be. This church, with its papacy and hierarchy, harms the national interests of the country and the public good, and in its teachings and practice it has deviated far from the model that was outlined for it in the Holy Scriptures by its Divine Founder. Isn’t this the consciousness of deformation that precedes and necessarily determines the existence of the reformation?
History of modern times. Cheat sheet Alekseev Viktor Sergeevich
12. REFORMATION IN ENGLAND
12. REFORMATION IN ENGLAND
The immediate reason for the beginning of the Reformation in England was the refusal of the Pope to allow Henry VIII to divorce his first wife, Catherine of Aragon. And the reason for this was that she was the aunt of the German Emperor Charles V. Since the pope did not want to aggravate relations with him at that moment, it is quite natural that he rejected the request of the English king. In response to the Pope’s refusal, Henry VIII issued the Act of Supremacy (which means “supremacy” in Latin) in 1534. The king was declared the head of the English church, as a result of which all Catholic dogmas and rituals were preserved, but the king took the place of the pope. The episcopate became the support of the absolute monarchy. In 1536 and 1539 Monasteries were closed and monastic property was confiscated: buildings, gold and silver utensils and, most importantly, vast monastic lands.
Sheep farming and cloth production have long been the main occupations of the English and an important source of income for the royal treasury. The British called cloth “the most precious product of the kingdom.” Wool prices rose continuously. Vast pastures were required for grazing sheep. Therefore, landowners seized communal wastelands and pastures and forbade peasants to graze their cattle there. Dissatisfied with this, they tried in various ways to take away their plots from the peasants: they forcibly drove the peasants off the land, destroyed their houses, and demolished entire villages. The forced removal of peasants from the land was called enclosures.
Having seized peasant lands, the nobles raised huge flocks of sheep on them. To cultivate the fields and care for livestock, they hired agricultural workers - farm laborers. The “new nobles” abandoned their knightly armor and sat down to their account books. Some of them started weaving, leather and other enterprises. Tens of thousands of people driven from the land joined the ranks of vagabonds and beggars. The government passed cruel laws against them, which included whipping, branding with a hot iron, and even the death penalty as punishment. Most of these people joined the ranks of the reform movement in England.
England achieved great success during the reign of the intelligent, cautious, well-educated Elizabeth I. Under her, the English Church, independent of Rome, finally took shape, which was called the Anglican Church. In 1559, when she ascended the throne, the organizational structure of the Church of England was established in forms that have largely survived to the present day. During the indicated 30 years, many changes took place, but the British have always been of the opinion that their church is not new, but the same church that has existed in England for more than a thousand years; its reform was carried out to return to the model of the church presented in the New Testament. In support of this continuity, the English refer to their creed, priesthood and liturgy.
But, despite this, as a result of the reform movement in England, a number of serious changes were carried out. The parishioners received the Bible in English, and the clergy began to teach them to regard it as the highest authority in matters of faith and life. Divine services were now conducted in the local language. The Church of England insisted on the independence of national churches in internal affairs, on the right of churches to act at their own discretion in relation to rituals and liturgical practice. The pope's jurisdictional claims over English territory were rejected. Nevertheless, due to the dual nature of its reformation, the Church of England claims to be called both Catholic and Protestant.
From the book of 100 great prophets and teachers author Ryzhov Konstantin VladislavovichREFORMATION
From the book History of Germany. Volume 1. From ancient times to the creation of the German Empire by Bonwech Bernd2. Reformation
From the book Politics: The History of Territorial Conquests. XV-XX centuries: Works author Tarle Evgeniy ViktorovichEssay nine Class struggle in England and resettlement in America. The attitude of the colonists to the metropolis. New England Confederacy. Indian tribes and Dutch colonists. Capture of the territory of New Amsterdam. Louisiana. The Agrarian Question During the era of Walter Raleigh and in the coming years
From the book Grandfather's Stories. History of Scotland from ancient times to the Battle of Flodden 1513. [with illustrations] by Scott WalterCHAPTER IV THE REIGNS OF MALCOLM CANMORE AND DAVID I - THE BATTLE UNDER THE BANNER - THE ORIGINS OF ENGLAND'S CLAIM TO SUPREMINARY IN SCOTLAND - MALCOLM IV CALLED THE GIRL - ORIGIN OF HERALDIC FIGURES - WILLIAM THE LION RECOGNIZES THE SUPREME OF ENGLAND BUT GAINS INDEPENDENCE
From the book Tsar of Terrible Rus' author Shambarov Valery Evgenievich8. HOW THE REFORMATION BEGAN Well, now let's take a look at what was happening abroad at the time described. The protracted wars for Italy made life in this country not at all comfortable. The French and Spaniards invaded, cities changed hands, Rich tycoons tried
author Zuev Yaroslav Viktorovich5.1. Reformation It is believed that the beginning of the Reformation was laid by the German Martin Luther, although before him, of course, there were reproaches against the Catholic clergy, who only pretended to keep the covenants of Christ, but in reality were mired in all the serious things. Luther's 95 Theses posed the question
From the book Big Plan for the Apocalypse. Earth on the threshold of the End of the World author Zuev Yaroslav Viktorovich5.6. “The President's Last Love,” or the Reformation in England It must be said that the ideas of the Reformation crossed the English Channel with the greatest ease. There were several good reasons for this. Firstly, the influence of Italian banking capital in Britain was great in earlier times,
From the book Requests of the Flesh. Food and sex in people's lives author Reznikov Kirill YurievichReformation The Reformation was a consequence of the decline in the authority of the papacy and the awakening of the national consciousness of the peoples of Europe. In 1303, the French king Philip IV arrested Pope Boniface VIII and moved the residence of the popes to the city of Avignon on the Rhone. In 1377 the papal throne returned
From the book World History: in 6 volumes. Volume 3: The World in Early Modern Times author Team of authorsREFORMATION The origins of the Renaissance and the Reformation were largely common. The humanistic movement and the flowering of Renaissance art responded to new cultural needs. But such issues as the liberation of the peoples of Europe from the spiritual dictatorship of Rome and
From the book Yiddish Civilization: The Rise and Decline of a Forgotten Nation by Krivachek Paul From the book From Ancient Times to the Creation of the German Empire by Bonwech Bernd2. Reformation
From the book History of Religions. Volume 1 author Kryvelev Joseph AronovichREFORMATION IN SWITZERLAND, ENGLAND, FRANCE AND THE NETHERLANDS In state-political terms, Switzerland was a confederation of cantons, independent of the German princes and even of the Habsburg Empire. Economically, the different cantons of the Confederation
From the book Chronology of Russian history. Russia and the world author Anisimov Evgeniy Viktorovich1533 Reformation in England The initiator of the Reformation on the island was King Henry VIII. The reason for the sharp turn of the eccentric king - at first an accuser of Luther and a defender of the Catholic faith - towards the Reformation was very prosaic - he wanted to divorce the one who was boring him
From the book History of France in three volumes. T. 1 author Skazkin Sergey Danilovich authorII.6. Reformation
From the book Baltics on the fault lines of international rivalry. From the Crusader invasion to the Peace of Tartu in 1920. author Vorobyova Lyubov MikhailovnaReformation in Livonia Luther's teaching also won in Livonia. It found support among the German colonists, since it became the catalyst for the long-standing hostile relationship between the Catholic bishops and the order. We remember that Bishop Albert was forced to found
