The influence of the Church of England on the development of the state

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content # # f é of the Church of England
on the
Development of the State.
A Thesis
Presented to the
Department of History
University of Southern California.
Written for the Degree
of
Master of Arts
by
A. Noel Porter
April 24th, 1915
UMI Number: EP67336
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Dissertaiion Publishing
UMI EP67336
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 - 1346
/f/b'
T h is thesis has been accepted by the
G ra d u a te C o u n c il in p a r t ia l f u l f i l l
m e n t o f the re q u ire m e n ts f o r the degree
o f M a s te r o f A rts .
M a jo r P m fessor
Secretary
Contents
Chapter Page
I. The Early Church..................................... 1
Its antiquity ................................... - 2
II. The Coming of the Anglo-Saxons ................ ..... 2
Sources of information ....................... 3
The Conversion of the English ......... 3
Significance of Theodore * s organisation........ 5
Establishment of Statehbyythe Church.......... 7
The effect of the Danish Invasions ........ ... 7
The Treaty of Wedmore ................... 8
III. The Norman Conquest ......................... 10
Church now a Society within State . 12
IV. The Struggle between Church and State ........... 13
Under Anselm .................................. 16
Contest inevitable ..................... 16
The Great Charter .......... 16
Influence of Stephen Langton................. ^ 17
The Church the Mother of English liberty .... 18
Influence on framework of Constitution ....... 19
Against unjust taxation....................... 21
V* The Constitutional History during 14th and 15th
centuries .............................. 22
Church begins to lose hold on nation............22
Statutes against encroachments of pope ........ 23
The Church and Higher Education................24
Her influence in Politics........................25
VI. The Reformation in England .............. 26
The royal tyranny ......................... 27
The Church under Archbishop Laud ..... 29
Chapter Contents (continued) Page
After the Restoration ......... 30
Sinister record of Bishops ........ 31
VII. The Church To-day ............ 31
Bibliography ............. 33 to 35
The Influence cf the Church of England on the Development of
the State•
1 No one knows when the Church was first planted in Britain. It
must have been at a very early date, for Tertullian (circ.196-801)
says "that places in Britain not yet visited by the Romans, were
1
subjected to Christ." The manuscript known as the "Canon of
Mur a tori" ( dating^robably circ. 175) mentions St .Paul *as journejyihg
to Spain; and Theodoret extends his travels to the "islands lying
in the ocean", thus apparently making him the founder of British
2
Christianity.
But more probably Christianity came over the sea with the Ro
man soldiers, or in the wake of the rich tourists from Gaul who
built their villas at Silchester or Verulam, Chichester or Canter
bury, and bathed in the medicinal waters of Bath. There are re
mains of churches, built during the Roman occupation, at both
Canterbury and Silchester.
Unfortunately, the memorials of the existence of the early _
British Church are exceptionally scanty. It appears to have been
poor and struggling, the Church mainly of the poorer Roman provinc
ials. Nevertheless, it was a fully organised branch of the Cath
olic Church. It possessed Bishops at London and York, and probably
3
at Lincoln. Tradition says that British martyrs, among them S.Alban ^
1 :
Adv. Judaeos, VII.
2
For the whole subject, see Stillingfleet, Orig.Brit., Vol.I., pp.
37-39, Oxford, 1842; Alford, Com., Vol.III., Proleg., p.104;
^ Lewin. Life and Epistles of S.Paul, Vol.II., pp.392-397.
See Haddan and Stubbs * Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents
(toi.I.,pp.3-21).
suffered death about 300 in the last great persecution of Diocletian*
Early in the fourth century Constantine legalised Christian worship,
and from this time onward evidences of the existence of British
Christianity become clearer.
Records of the very early Church Councils of Arles (@*D*314),
of Sardica (A.D.347), of Ariminium (A.D.359), mention the presence
1
at these well-known assemblies of British bishops. Allusions
also, v/hich presuppose the antiquity of the Island Church, are made
by S.Athanasius, S.Hilary, 8.Jerome, and S.Chrysostom— all living
in the fourth century— -Hilary especially congratulating his British
brethren on the freedom of their Church from the contagion of the
heresy of Arius.
With the closing years of the fourth century the Church seemed
to awake more and more to her responsibilities towards the Celtic
population. This was largely due to the individual personal gifts
of great men like S.Ninian, S.Germanus, and S*Patrick. Schools
were formed round great teachers, homes of a rude religious life
established by great saints, churches built and bishoprics founded
by great leaders. The magic of personal influence, not the strength
of sturdy institutions, was the inspiring force. Under it geew up
a Church loose and ill-jointed in organisation and government, but
instinct with personal holiness, inspired by missionary zeal, and
imbued with a passion for learning, which was able to exert consid
erable power over the lives of the people.
II. Ihe Coming of the Anglo-Saxons. Whatever success the Celtic
Church had, its fruits were speedily swept away by the incursions of
the pagan barbarians. Our knowledge of the details of the English
1
See Haddan and Stubbs* Councils and Ecclesiastical Documants
(Vol.I.,pp.3-21).
occupation of Britain is unfortunately very incomplete. We have
to rely mainly upon two British sources of information, namely the
writings of Gildus and Nennius, and upon two English sources, name
ly the history of Bede and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. The Brit
ish writers, though they lived nearer than the English ones to the
times of which they treated, were so filled with hatred of the in
vaders of their country that their narratives are often mere inco
herent ravings. Bede and the early Chroniclers, though they are
calmer and more informative, lived too long after the events nar
rated to escape traditionary and legendary error. During recent
years efforts have been made to check the records of the old Eng
lish historians by means of the discoveries of archeolegists and
philologists.
This much we know. The Roman legions, sorely needed for the
defence of Italy against the Barbarians, were withdrawn from Brit
ain, 409 A.D. Soon after the pagan Angles, Jutes, and Saxons
began the conquest of the island and drove the old Celtic Church
of Roman Britain westward into Cornwall and Wales and Strathclyde.
England became practically pagan.
Gradually, as the English settlement became more complete,
the need for political organisation began to be felt. Out of the
mass of families and tribes emerged bit by bit larger political
associations of a rude sort --the Heptarchic kingdoms.
The Conversion of the Enpilish. The Anglo-Saxon invaders re
ceived their Christianity from two sources. The South of England
was evangelised by a series of missions from Rome, of which Aug
ustine * 8 was the earliest and most important. Paulinus, one of
Augustine’s colleagues, carried the Christian faith into Northum
bria, but his work was almost destroyed after the defeat of the
4
Northumbrian king Edwin by Penda of Mercia. It was from the
island of Iona, where an Irish monk, Columba, had established
his great monastic mission, that Christianity found its way into
Northumbria, and thence into Mercia.
The South of England thus looked to the Church of Rome as
its mother-church, while the north was connected with the Irish
Church. As the Roman and Irish Churches differed in several
important particulars, England might have had two Churches, one
modelled on Irish uses and the other on those of Rome. From this
danger English religion was saved by the decision of the North
umbrian king, at the Synod of Whitby, in 664, to conform to the
Roman use. Thus the Church throughout English kingdoms was
brought v/ithin the scope of one vast organisation and became the
model and antitype of national unijsy. Stubbs says; "The unity
of the Church in England was the pattern of the unity of the
State ; the cohesion of the Church was for ages the substitute for
the cohesion which the divided nation was otherwise unable to
realise....It was to an extraordinary degree a national Church;
national in its comprehensiveness as well as in its exclusiveness,
Englishmen were in their lay aspects Mercians or West Saxons; on
ly in their ecclesiastical relations could they feel themselves
1
fellow-countrymen and fellow-subjects."
A few years later Archbishop Theodore organised a diocesan
system for the whole country. He more than doubled the number
of bishops, making the boundaries of the new dioceses coincide
as far as possible with the territorial limits of the tribes which
had originally settled in the land, and placed the seat of the
bishop almost invariably in a small village, where his independ
ence would be more secure than in a town. He then instituted
Stubb'§ Constitutional History,Vol.I., Chap,viii., "The Anglo-
Saxon Church."
a synod of all the bishops, to be held under the presidency of
the Archbishop of Canterbury every year, and so provided for com
bined action and personal direction. The system thms begun by
Theodore soon spread further. Just as each bishop was allotted
a definite area of no very considerable size, if the sparseness
of population is considered, for the management, of which he was
responsible to the archbishop.;, so each township or, when the pop
ulation was small, a collection of townships, was formed into the
parish for the spiritual necessities of which the parish priett
was responsible to the bishop. So by degrees, quite apart from
the missionary work of the monasteries, England became divided
for spiritual purposes, into the definite areas of parishes and
dioceses, for the ministrations of which definite ecclesiastical
authorities were responsible. In later times, when England
gained political unity in much the same way as she had at this
time gained ecclesiastical unity, the State took advantage of the
local area which had now become so well known, and the parish,
instead of the township or the hundred, became the recognised unit
of local government. The origin of parishes, though not directly
due to Theodore, was the natural result of his system, which was
to make the Church of England national instead of provincial, and
English instead of Kentish, Mercian or West-Saxon. By the eccles
iastical unity thus achieved, he gave to the English people a
fore^taste of the political unity to which they might one day at
tain, and to the English Church a position apart from, and in some
respects superior to, the kingdoms amongst which she was placed.
This enabled her to develop her own organisation with great free
dom, to gain a considerable amount of political liberty and priv
ilege, and even to do much in guiding the policy of the different
states among the difficulties v/hich surrounded them. She began
to exercise a leading influence upon the development of the nat
ional life.
Thus in his work of organisation, in his increase of bishop
rics, in his' arrangement of dioceses, and the way in which he
grouped them round the see of Canterbury, in his national synods
and ecclesiastical canons, Theodore was unconsciously doing an
invaluable political work. The old divisions of kingdom and
tribes about him, divisions which had sprung for the most part
from mere accidents of the conquest, were fast breaking down.
The smaller states were by this time practically absorbed by the
three larger ones, and of these three Mercia and Wessex had for
a time bowed to the overlordship of Northumbria* The tendency
to national unity which was to characterise the new England had
thus already declared itself ; but the policy of Theodore clothed
with a sacred form and surrounded with divine sanctions a unity
which as yet rested on no basis but the sword. The single throne
of the one Primate at Canterbury accustomed men’s minds to the
thought of a single throne for their one temporal overlord at
York, or, asin the later days, at Lichfield or at Winchester.
The regular subordination of priest to bishop, of bishop to pri
mate, in the administration of the Church, supplied a mould on
which the civil organisation of the state quietly shaped itself.
Above all, the councils gathered by Theodore were the first of
all national gatherings for general legislation. It was at a
much later time that the Wise Men of Wessex, or Northumbria, or
Mercia, learned to come together in the Witenagemot of all Eng
land. It was the ecclesiastical synods which by their example
led the way to the national Parliament, as it was the canons en
acted in such synods which led the way to a national system of law.
The relation of the Church and the State in Englp.nd.,_in early
times, may not unfairly be described as the establishment of the
1
State by the Church.
The effect of the Danish Invasions. During the long permod
of political confusion, which lasted until the time of Egbert,
while one kingdom after another was enjoying a brief period of
pre-eminence, from which it was sure to fall back into a condition
of chaos worse than before, the Church became the only constant
factor in the State policy. To the bishops.., accordingly, fell
so considerable a portion of political power, that in some cases
it would seem that the Church actually played the part of king
maker. This could not fail seriously to affect the spiritual
authority of the clergy. Insensibly the standard of clerical life
begins to sink among the secular clergy, as it had already sunk
amongst the regulars ; and with it sinks the standard of education
and culture. Bishops are found worldly enough to lead their men
into the battlefield. On the accession of Alfred in 871, the ignor
ance of Latin was so great that there were no clergy south of the
Thames who could understand their brev/aries, and the books in the
monastic libraries were perishing from neglect. Upon a Church so
2
deteriorated the Danish conquest came like a whirlwind. Swift
and terrible was its work. The religious houses were destroyed,
abbeys and churches were burned, and bishoprics were wiped out.
Before the close of the year 874 by far the largest half of England
had passed under the Viking rule, while Christianity had almost
1
See Masterman*s,The Church of England, chap.II., p.51
For.the Danish Wars see "The Conquest of England" by J.R.Green.
See also* The Making of England, by F. J. C .Hearnsharw,
chap. Vi . ,pp*, 52-60.
8 .
vanished from the North, the Midlands and East of England. However
in 878, Alfred succeeded in completely defeating the Danish forces,
and had no difficulty in making with them an honorable and enduring
peace, a peace commonly known as the Treaty of Wedmore. Its terms
were: first, that the Northmen were to evacuate Wessex and the east
ern half of Mercia, and engage never again to molest them; secondly,
that their chiefs were to accept Christian Baptism. The abandonment
of paganism by the Vikings was doubly notable: on the one hand it
measured the completeness of their defeat, for they were the ôlect
champions of the old Teutonic gods; on the other hand it marked the
removal of the only serious barrier to their amalgamation with the
English people, to whom they were akin and with whom they had many
ideas and insti tutmons in common.
Alfred’s striking picture of the state of the Church, at the
close of the ninth century, occurs in his preface to the "Régula
Pastoral!s" of Gregory the Great, addressed to Bishop Werfrith of
SherborneM " I let it be known to thee" wrote the king "that it has
very often come into my mind what wise men there formerly were through
out England, both of sacred and secular orders; and what happy times
there were then throughout England; and how the kings who had power
over the nation in those days obeyed God and His ministersand ale.
how zealous the sacred orders were both in teaching and learnmng, and
in all the services they owed to God; and how foreigners came to this
land in search of wisdom and instruction, and how we should nww have
to get them from abroad if we were to have them. So general was its
decay in England that there were very few on this side of the Humber
who could understand their rituals in English, or translate a letter
from Latin into English;....There were so few of them that I cannot
remember a single one south of the Thames when I came to the throne.
Thanks be to Almighty God that we have any teachers among us now.
in our stalls." ...Again he wrote, "When I all this*thci.
I. rememberedlalsb W I saw, before it was all ravaged and burnt,
how the Churches throughout the English nation were filled with
treasures and Books, and also with a great multitude of God's
servants." Such was the state of Ehgland when Alfred succeeddd
in arresting the wave of Viking conquest.
The work of ^rebuilding the Church of England went on during
the reign of the great Anglo-Saxon monarch. Many churches were
rebuilt; monasteries were restored; libraries again established;
a flourishing vernacular literature sprang into existence; and a
band of real scholars headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury sur
rounded the king. These set themselves to reform, rebuild, and
to reorganise ÿhe whole ecclesiastical system. The Church again
became the center of education and of the benefictent work designed
for the welfare of the people. Amid all the successful labors of
Alfred in his task of restoring the prosperity of England, his
first care was to build up a strong church which could inspire men
with high aims and a noble purpose. An elaborate code of Church
laws was compiled suitable to the sadly altered circumstances of
the realm. A portion of the royal revenue was yearly set apart
for Church purposes; and the spiritual power became more closàly
united to, and more dependent on, the royal power than before.
With the growth of dependence came a corresponding loss of initiative.
During the tenth and eleventh centuries the Archbishop of
Canterbury takes his place as the trusted, often the. chief, adviser
of the king. The bishops play a large part in the assemblies of
1
tSe Witan. Under Edgar the Church is seen openly directing and
1
For the Bishops and the Witenagemot see Kemble's The Saxons in
England, Vol.I,
10
controlling the national policy. Dunstan, although the leader of
a great clerical reformation, is much more a great statesman hhan
a great ecclesiastic. He is the first of a long line of English
ministers who, without forgetting their priestly office, still less
unmindful of the privileges of their order, have yet devoted their
time and their talents mainly to the secular work of carrying on
the government of the country. In such men the close connection
between Church and State appears to the best advantage, when, like
Dunstan, they busy themselves in removing all traces of difference
between Danes and Englishmen, in establishing the supremacy of the
English king firmly over all the subject princes of the island, in
furthering the cause of religious education; to the worst advantage,
when, like Ranulf Flambard, they lend themselves to be the ministers
and syc%ophant8 of an unprincipled despot. In the last few years
of early English kingship it is clear from the liberality of the
successive kings that the Church v/as powerful enough for the great
men of the day to wish to gain her favor.
IIL The Norman Conquest. • The effects of the Norman Conquest are
seen at their greatest in the history of the Church. Under Will
iam everywhere the Church gave signs of new vigor. The monasteries
became again the seats of study and learning. New churches were
built, and the sees of bishops were transferred from srillages to
populous towns, as when the Bishop of Dorchester, in Oxfordshire,
migrated to Lincoln, and the Bishop of Thetford to Norwich. The
Churchy though made dependent on William, was independent, so far
as its spiritual rights were concerned, of the civil courts. Eccl
esiastical matters were discussed, not in the Witenagemot, but in
the Church synod, and in course of time by Church courts on eccles
11
iastical offenders. Placed thus under the authority of courts
of their own, governed by the canon law and not the common law,
they became responsible in the last instance to the pope and not
to the king, but the avenue to the papal court was carefully barred
by the necessity of first obtaining the assent of the king before
the appeal to the pope was allowed to be lodged.
In carrying out this policy, William had as an instrument^
his friend and adviser the Abbot Lanfranc^who within four years of
the decisive Norman victory at Hastings became Archbishop of Can
terbury. Lanfranc combined in a singular manner the zeal of an
ecclesiastic with the wisdom of a statesman. Italian by birth
and Norman in spirit, he knew the strength and the weakness of the
papal system, now growing to maturity under Hildebrand. He had
been more than once the special advocate of Rome. He was now the
trusted minister of a king who prided himself on admitting no sup
erior authority to his own realm of England. If only the central
isation of Rome, its business capacity, its moral power, its legal
system, could be made to work harmoniously with a constitution
which, depending on no principle and embodying no theory, had yet
hitherto given to the people of England a large amount of personal
independence and political self-government, and was in the future,
with all the changes introduced by the conquest, to save them from
anarchy of unchecked feudalism and the misery of unchecked tyranny;
if the relations between Church and State could be so regulated
that the moral power of the Church might prevail to prevent the
despotism of the king from degenerating into unpatriotic privilege,
how great might be the future of England! This was the problem
to be eventually worked out.
Under Lanfranc*s guidance Y/illiam remodelled the old English
12
system. Most of the English bishops and abbots were replacdd by
Normans. However these foreign ecclesiastics made the Church more
effective, and though Lanfranc and William acted together in com
plete accord, succeeding kings ofteh found in the Church leaders
their starkest opponents. Anselm, Henry of Winchester, Thomas
Becket, Stephen Langton, Grosseteste of Lincoln-*— all alike were
champions of English liberty as well as leaders of English religion®
Under William the Conqueror the dependence of the Church on
the royal power was strictly enforced. Homage was Exacted from
bishop as from baron. No royal tenant could be excommunicatdd
without the king's leave. No synod could legislate without his
previous assent and subsequent confirmation of its decrees. No
papal letters could be received within the realm save by his per
mission. William firmly repudiated the -claims put forward by the
court of Rome. When Gregory the Vllth called on him to do fealty
for his realm, the king sternly refused to admit the claim. "Fealty
I have never willed to do, nor do I will to do it now. I have never
1
promised it, nor do I find that my predecessors did it to yours."
As the result of William and Lanfranc*s policy the Church
became a Society within the State, organised purposely as a power
apart from the State. She absorbed most of the intellect, and
consequently embodied most of the political thought, of the nation.
She no longer makes English law coincide with Church discipline,
but nevertheless quickens its growth by the spur of her own rival
system of the canon law--a system more scientific in character and
more extensive in scope*
1
See Stubb's, Constitutional History, Vol.I.,p.310.
Green's, Short History of English People,Vol.I.,p.106
Freeman's, Norman Conquest,. Vol.IV.
13
Churoh and State are now organised as separate and possibly
rival institutions. Hitherto Church and State together, have,
under the leadership of the Church, taught England to gain her
unity, given to England her national feeling, and formed for her
in no slight measure her polity. In the future we have to trace
how, as separate powers, sometimes in alliance, sometimes in enmity,
always in competition, each assists in the growth of the other,
and helps to evolve out of the chaos of conflicting interests,
something of the orderly principles and practical good sense char
acteristic of the English constitution.
W. The Struggle between Church and State. With the death df
William the Conqueror passed the terror which had held the baron
age in awe, while the severance of his dominions roused their hopes
of successful resistance to the stern rule beneath which they had
bowed. William bequeathed Normandy to his eldest son Robert;
Y/illiam, his second son, hastened to England with his father's
ring, where the influence of Lanfranc at once secured him the crown.
The baronage seized the opportunity to rise in arms under pretext
of supporting the claims of Robert. The new king was thrown almost
wholly on the loyalty of his English subjects. But the national
stamp which William had given to his kingship told at once. The
alliance of the Church and the Crown and the people resulted in the
defeat of the feudal baronage.
While the spirit of national patriotism rose to life again in
this struggle of the Crown against the barons, the boldness of a
single ecclesiastic revived a national opposition to the mere ad
ministrative despotism which now pressed heavily on the land. The
profligacy and extravagance of William the Red soon exhausted the
royal exchequer, and the death of Lanfranc left him free to fill it
14
at the expense of the Church. But with the promotion of Anselm
to the Archbishopric, William soon found himself face to face with
an opponent whose meek and. loving temper rose into firmness and
grandeur when it fronted the tyranny of the King. The conquest,
as we have seen, had robbed the Church of all moral power as the
representative of the higher national interests against a brutal
despotism by placing it in a position of mere dependence on the
Grown; now the boldness of Anselm's attitude not only broke the
tradition of ecclesiastical servitude, but infused through the
nation at large a new spirit of independence. The real character
of the contest appears in the primate's answer, when his remonstr
ances against the lawless exactions from the Church were met l?y a
demand for a present om his own promotion, and his first offer of
five hundred pounds was contemptuously refused. "Treat me as a free
man," Anselm replied, "and I devote myself and all that I have to
your service, but if you treat me as a slave you shall have neither
me nor mine." The Red King's fury drove the Archbishop from court
but his example had not been lost, and the close of William's reign
found a new spirit of freedom in England with which the greatest of
the Conqueror's sons was glad to make terms.
The coronation of Henry I was followed by two great measures—
his grant of a charter and his marriage with Matilda, the daughter
of King Malcolm^of Scotland and of Margaret, the sister of Eadgar
Aetheling. Henry's charter is important, not merely as a direct
precedent for the Great Charter of John, but as the first limitat
ion which had been imposed on the despotism established by the Con
quest. The crowning of Matilda as his Queen meant that for the
first time since the Conquest an English sovereign sat on the Eng
lish throne. Henceforth it was impossible that the two peoples
15
should remain parted from each other; so quick indeed was their
union that the very name of Norman had passed away in half a cent
ury, and at the accession of Henry's grandson it was impossible
to distinguish between the descendants of the conquerors and those
of the conquer(#'ed at Senlac.
Henry I recalled Anselm and for the moment all difficulties
were cleared away. But before long the struggle between Crown
and Church became again apparent— over the question of lay invest
iture. It ended in the victory of the Church, largely because
the champion of the Church was Anselm. Englishmen realised that
the conflict between Anselm and Henry was but part of the etej^ial
struggle between right and wrong. They felt dimly that bound up
with the resistance of the archbishop was the sacred cause of their
own liberty. Anselm was fighting for the liberties of England no
less than for his own conscience or the claims of the pope. The
Church was the one power in England not yet reduced under the iron
heel of the Norman kings. The clergy were the one body which still
dared to dispute their will. To them fell the noble task of hand
ing ; on the torch of liberty amid the gloom of a tyrannical age.
The all-mastering despotism of the crown was the special danger to
England in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. It was the Church
which in that time of crisis rescued England from slavery. Had
there been no Anselm, Henry I would have issued no charter of lib
erties. Had there been no Becket, Stephen Langton would have fail
ed to inspire the barons to wrest the Great Charter from the ee-
luctant hands of John.
During the reigns then of HenryI and Henry II, the Grown and
the Church v/ere increasing in power side by side— the Crown by
being the center of the opposition to the feudal baronage, the
16
ehurch by her connection with a wider world abroad, by her offic
ial relations with the Grown at home, and by her hold on the aff
ection of the people as representing a power higher than that of
mere force. A contest was inevitable between the two, as -sooiij
either attempted to assert complete freedom from the control of
the other. It is here that the constitutional importance of the
struggle between Church and State in the twelfth century really
lies. The complete victory of either party would have been fatal
to the well-being of the nation, for the Church represented the
only idea of moral government attainable in that age of force,
and without the idea of moral government, constitutional liberty
is impossible; while the Crown represented the only idea of nation
al unity attainable in an age of feudalism, and without natioanal
unity constitutional liberty could not be won. It was just be
cause neither was completely victorious, but'because each was vict
orious in its ov/n sphere, that the ultimate achievement of liberty
1
was assured.
The Great Charter. The exactions of Richard I and the tyr
anny of John broke the alliance between the Crowm and the Ohurch#
From the death of Hubert Walter in 1205, the influence of the
Church is thrown on the side of the barons and the people, in op
position to the Crown. The king, clasping all the strings of ad
ministration in his hands, wanted to be all-powerful. The baron
age, leaderless and divided, might murmur or rebel, but they had
nothing to oppose to the royal tyranny except vague demands for
the shadowy liberties of the past. The people had not political
_
For the Struggle between Church and State see Wakeman's,
History of the Church of England, chap.VI.,p,95.
17
capacity enough to take action for themselves. They suffered in
silence and. patience, not knowing what they wanted. The Church
and the Church alone, with its superior education, its own aptit
ude for government, its old traditions of popular support, and its
prestige of recent victory, could point the way to reform and for
mulate a policy. The Church and Barons and people openly united
in a definite claim of liberty and law, under the leadership of
the new Archbishop whom Innocent had set on the throne of Canter
bury . From the moment of his landing in England, Stephen Langton
had assumed the constitutional position of the Primate as champion
of the old English customs and law against the personal despotism
of the kings. As Anselm had withstood William the Red, as Theo
bald had rescued England from the lawlessness of Stephen, so Lang
ton prepared to withstand and rescue his country from the tyranny
of John. At a meeting of the baronage and clergy at St.Paul's
on August 25th, 1213, the archbishopJiroduced a copy of the charter
of Henry I, explained the nature of the liberties which it guaran
teed, and took an oath fromall present not to rest until those
liberties had been secured. Two years afterwards, on June 15th.,
1215, the signature of the Great Charter by John at Runnymede set
the seal to this policy, and gave to the English nation the found-
1
ation and the witness of its essential freedom.
By the passing of the Great Charter in the reign of John the
foundation of the liberties of the English nation was laid, but
the fabric was not secured until the establishment of Parliaimant
by Edward I. It was not enough that there should be a document
to which to appeal when liberties had been grossly violated, it
was necessary that there should be a living organisation always
at hand to prevent them from being violated at all. This was the
See McKechnie, Magna Charter*
18
special work of the eighty years which followed the granting of
the Charter. By gradual steps, by natural growth, the solution
of difficulties worked itself out. At first men claimed simply
the reissue, the confirmation of the Charter, when government went
amiss. Then they tried the temporary supersession of the govern-
ment^ bol .ily into their ^ hards, and called a representative body
of the whole nation to support their power and justmfy their act
ion. Lastly, Edward I, recognising the strength of representative
institutions, gave permanence to such a body in the form of Parl
iament. He boldly called upon the nation to take part in its
own affairs. In this great national work the Qhurch took her full
share. It was from the Church that the principle of represent
ation was borrowed. Archbishops of Canterbury like Stephen Lang
ton and Edmond Rich took the lead in opposition to tyranny and
misgovernment. Bishops like Robert Grosseteste and friars like
Adam de Marisco, were the strenuous supporters of Simon de Mont-
fort. So close was the sympathy between the Church and the earl
that the baron's war was looked upon in the light of a crusade,
and the cause of Simon de Montfort preached as the cause of God.
1
The Church stood as "the nursing mother of English liberty".
By the organisation of Parliament the structure of the Eng
lish constitution was complete. As we have seen, the Church play
ed an important part, both politically and constitutionally-- pol
itically by severing her old alliance with the Crown, and giving
herself over more or less unreservedly to the cause of liberty as
maintained by the barons and people in their struggles with John
and Henry III,— constitutionally by the influence she exerted on
the actual result of the framework of the constitution, on the
Wakeman, Hist. Church of England, p.131.
19
legislature, and on the executive.
The Church's influence upon the framework of the Constitution
worked in three ways. The keynote of the English constitution is
the principle of representation. The ease with which this great
constitutional principle established its supremacy among English
institutions, was largely due to the example of the Church. Rep
resentation was a mode of obtaining the opinion of large numbers
of people quite familiar to ecclesiastical statesmen like Roger
of Salisbury, Becket, and Hubert Walter, to whom is mainly due
its development as the leading principle of civil administration.
The ecclesiastical councils, diocesan, provincial, or national,
had been based on this principle drom the earliest times. The
close connection between Church and State which had existed before
the Conquest had accustomed men's minds to a system which was reas
onable in itself and convenient in practice. The nmmber of importa=nt
councils summoned by the popes during the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries had shown how valuable might be the support given by a
body of representatives, coming from different parts of Christen
dom, to a cause which claimed to depend upon moral right rather
than upon force. The plan, familiar to an ecclesiastical"'body, of
electing proctors to represent their case when disputes arose, be
fore the courts of pope or the king, possibly suggested the similar
machinery of sworn knights to nominate the recognitors of the Great
Assize. Naturally, therefore, when in the thirteenth century it
was found necessary to enlist in some definite way the support of
the whole nation in the effort to secure for all classes the benefits
won for them by Magna Charta, recourse was had to a principle of
government, which, through the example of the Church, was well
known to the people ; amd which had brought to the Y/estern’ Church in
2C
its contest with the emperor just the very kind of strength which
the nation was now seeking in its struggles with the Grown.
Again, in the legal system, the influence of the Church is
strongly felt. For the ecclesiastical system of law preceded
the national system in time and excelled it in precision. The
canon law had been codified and systematised by Ivo of Chartres
and Gratian before the statute-book began to be. It is not uhtil
the law takes the fully defined form of statute under Edward I,
that the analogy to the ecclesiastical camon is complete. There
is reason to think that the practice of the royal courts was copied
direct from the practice of the courts ecclesiastical. The Church
holy days, appointed to be observed by the canon law by the cess
ation of all litigation, were equally observed in the roye^ courts.
The forms of pleading by which suits were begun were substantially
the same; the same rules of practice obtained, and even apparently
the same law of evidence. Records of proceedings were orderdd to
be kept, in imitation of the documents found so useful in'eccles-
iastical litigation. At the same time it must be remembered that
after the time of HenryIII, the influence of the ecclesiastical
law and procedure ceased to be the direct influence of an example,
and became merely educational, that of a rival system of juris
prudence, without direct bearing on the practice of the courts.
The Church had also consistently stood for the vindication
of individual rights. In all questions whidh affected the per
sonal rights of the individual, she witnessed to a higher civil
isation and truer standard of duty. From the first she had al
ways set her face against the institution of slavery, and had
succeeded in mitigating, and eventually, in the twelfth century,
in putting an end to it, chiefly through the efforts of men like
21
Wulfstan, Remigius, and Anselm. Since then personal slavery has
been unknown in England. The reform of criminal procedure^carried
out by Henry II, received the hearty support of the Church. A few
years later witnessed the abolition of the practice of ordeal in
obedience to the decisions of the Lateran Council of 1215.
In matters of unjust taxation the Church was still more de
cidedly in the forefront of the battle. To Becket we owe the first
refusal of a subject to pay a tax to the Crown which he believed
to be unjust; when he refused^in 1163, to admit the king's right
to levy Danegeld on Church lands as a part of the ordinary revenue
of the Crown,— a refusal as bold, if not so patriotic, as that of
John Hampden centuries later. To Hugh of Lincoln is due the cre
dit of being the first who maintained successfully the doctrine
that lands in England were not taxable by the king for the maint
enance of a foreign war with which England had no concern. Geof
frey, Archbishop of York, went intè exile in 1207, rather than
consent to the levying of a tax upon the clergy of a thirteenth on
moveables, which they had not in any way consented to give. Robert
Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln, the friend and adviser of Simon de
Montfort, led the opposition to the attempt of the king to take a
tenth of the revenues of the clergy in 1252, on the pretext of a
crusade, and protested, with a freedom unusual in that age, against
the unholy alliance of king and pope to plunder the English nation
and Church. To Winchilsey, quite as much as to Bohun and Bigod,
is due the obtaining of the confirmajsion of the Charters by Edward I,
by which taxation was put under the control of Parliament. That the
constitution of England was eventually under Edward I formed on the
basis of a monarchy limited by the law and defended by Parliament,
was due in no small measure to the educating effect of Church prin-
22
ciples, to the example of Church polity, and to the self-denying
patriotic labors of men like Stephen Langton, Edmund Rich, and
Winchilsey, the leading minds among the clergy.
Y. The constitutional history of England during the 14th and 15th
centuries is the history of the gradual acquisition of political
power by Parliament at the expense of the king, and by the Commons
at the expense of the king and nobility, and the constitutional
importance of the Church will be found in the influence she brought
to bear upon the combatants on either side. No longer^as in former
times, does she educate political opinion;, no longer does she stand
forth as the champion of popular right, or the representative of
popular instincts. Her place in these matters is taken by Pari
lament. The Church began to lose her hold upon the nation. The
influence she exercised upon the development of the constitution
arose no longer from the fact that she represented the best thought
of the nation, but from the fact that she was a great institution,
rich, educated, and strông, an âmist?6eratIciChurch, $ihe policy of
which could nojs fail to affect powerfully the fortunes of the coun
try .
All through the 14th and 15th centuries we are conscious of
the existence of as deep-seated a feeling of discontient among the
people with clerical wealth and clerical power as with papal mis-
government and extortion. It found expression from time to time
in literature. It came to the front openly and boldly in times of
great popular excitement. Occasionally it broke out in Parliament
and took formal shape under kingly patronage in the statute-book.
In 1344 was presented the first of a long series of petitions of
the Commons against the undue privileges of the clergy. In 1351
an important step was taken against the continual and increasing
\o
encroachments of the pope by the passing of the first statute of
Provisors, which made the obtaining of a benefice by reservation
or provision from the pope, in derogation of the rights of patrons,
an offense punishable by fine or imprisonment. This was quickly
followed, in 1353, by the first statute of Praemunire, which made
those who sued in foreign courts subject to the penalty of outlaw
ry. In 1366 this statute was re-enacted and strengthened wihh
special reference to the papal court. In 1366 Parliament finally
repudiated the payment of the annual tribute to the pope, agreed to
be paid by John, which had for many years been in arrears. In the
Parliament of 1371 a strong anti-clerical feeling showed itself.
A successful attack was made upon clerical ministers which obliged
William of Wykeham to resign the chancellorship, and Church endow
ments were threatened. In 1390 the Statute of Provisors was re
enacted with additional safeguards. In 1394 the statute of Prae
munire was again re-enacted and made more stringent, while the'grow
ing dissatisfaction with the existing Church system among the laity
was shown most emphatisally by the presentation to Parliament of a
bill of tv/elve articles which comprised the conclusions of the Lol
lards against the Church of England. In 1410 the Commons, prob
ably acting under Lollard influence, made a representation to the
king pointing out that by the disendowment of the bishops and mon
asteries he could found one hundred hospitals and maintain a stand
ing army. It is evident from the mere record of Parliamentary
action such as this that in the 14th century the Church had ceased
to be the leader of the national life, and the clergy the champions
of the national liberty. On the contrary, the popes had sunk to
be heads of an elaborate and powerful organisation, whose claims
were felt to be incompatible with the national welfare, though their
24
assistance was often necessary to particular kings or politicians,
while the higher clergy had lost the leadership of the people, and
become instead the objects of their suspicion and envy.
And yet amid all the deterioration there was a brighter side.
It was a period in which the Church took up definitely the work of
the higher education of the nation. Universityystudents of the
13th century were ah indepemdent cosmopolitan race, living from
hand to mouth, unruly, without disirpline and sometimes without re
ligion. Here was the opportunity of the Church. Dominicans and
Franciscans settled in the grimy purlieus of Paris and Oxford and
soon acquired a commanding ihfluence. But more than influenee
was wanted, and Walter de Merton, at the close of the 13th cehtury^
brought to its aid the consolidating influence of a corporate life.
He instituted the collegiate system--the foundation of a number of
corporate bodies, whose members might live a common life of religion
and study in connection with the university. Such have left a no
table mark upon the national character, and have exercised an unden
iable influence upon the national church. It has been the boast
of the Church of England that her clergy, except for some years
during the Reformation, have on the whole, been men of learning. This
she owes largely to the collegiate system, for the colleges were the
special gift of the Church to the higher education of the natèon.
The university was a lay corporation, colleges are religious corpor
ations. Scholars produced the university. The Church founded the
colleges. During the 14th and 15th centuries churchman after-çhurch-
man came forward to found and endow colleges in Oxford and Cambridge.
In 1382, William of Wykeham founded a college at Winchester for the
teaching and training of boys for‘ *\rniversity, and became the founder
of the English public-school system. In the next century foundation:
25
for the education of hoys played as large a part in the schemes of
munificent churchmen as foundations for higher education at the un
iversities.
The vigor of Church life in the 14th century was to be found
in the humble parsonage, and amid the intellectual strife of the
universities, rather than upon the episcoïÿL bench. On the whole,
from the scanty light which we have to guide us, from the paucity
of mention of serious offences in the disciplinary canons, from
the undoubtedly high character for devotion which England possess
ed in Europe, from the high-minded and patriotic action usually
taken by the clergy in political matters, from the continued att
achment of the laity even through the 15th century as shown in the
enlargement and enrichment of so many parish.churches, from the
multiplication of books of devotion, we may fairly conclude that
the parish clergy of England in the Middle Ages were just as much
superior to the standard of their age as it is right to expect cler
gy to be. It is among the ranks of the clergy that Chaucer finds
the most attractive and religious of hid characters. Religion in
the Middle Ages played a very large part in man’s life. It aas
entwined with his every action, public and private.
But in spite of these evidences of vital life, the cause of the
Church becomes identified in men’s minds with the cause of the no
bles. The Church more and more becomes an aristocratic Church.
And what is worse, she exercised her great influence in politics
and on the nation primarily for her own selfish advantage, and only
secondarily for the people, whose trustee she was. Accordingly,
when the crash came, and the reformation she had refused to under
take for herself was forced on her from without, she received a
fitting reward for the past by the loss of her undisputed rule
26
over the inner life of all Englishmen, and by the fatal gain
of an Influence, perhaps greater than before, over the politics of
1
the nation.
YL The Reformation in England. The deterioration of the ethical
standard of the papacy and the growth of the doctrine of nationalty
led to the Reformation. Loyalty ÿo the king took the place of
loyalty to the Church as the inspiring principle of life. Patriot
ism rather than faith became the mainspring of action. No longer
the common father of Christendom, the pope sank enen in the eyes of
churchmen to be looked upon as but one among the territorial sover
eigns of Europe, to whom happened to be annexed certain definite
legal rights as the head of a great organisation which affected all
Europe, and certain indefinite spiritual claims which were of little
practical importance. On the continent, when all reform of the
papacy seemed impossible, men lost heart and lost faith in the
Church. They rose in hot rebellion against spiritual wickedness in
high places. They over threw the Church in their anger and manu
factured for themselves a new theology and a new organisation.
In England the movement took quite another shape. There was
no attempt to form a new organisation, there was no rising of the
people in moral indignation, no prophet like Luther to claim their
allegiance, no logician like Calvin to dominate their intellects.
The English Reformation began as a matter of policy, an affair of
kings and ministers and parliaments. It concerned itself with the
assertion of national liberties, with the refusal of foreign claims,
and with questions of legal and constitutmonal history. It was
not until the personal tyranny established by Henry VIII had degen-
erated iiito an official tyranny carried out under Edward VI that
1 See Political History of England, Hunt and Poole; also Tavlor,
Origin & Growth Eng.Constitution.
27
any seriqus effort was made to construct a new theology for the
Church of England, and to alter her formularies in accordance with
it.
The power claimed by Henry VIII, under the title of Head of
the Church was four^fold. It included, in the first place, ïhe
king's prerogative which had always been maintained by English
law; and secondly, the papal usurpations from the Grown hy; appeals
provisions, and annates. These were recovered by two Statutes.
The Act in Restraint of Payment of Annates was passed provisionally^
then confirmed by theiking in,letters patent on July 9th., 1533,
and finally, confirmed and supplemented by parliamentary statute.
The Act of Supremacy or the Style of Supreme Head, defined the
king's position as that of “the only supreme head on earth of the
Church of England.“ It gave to the headship two sets of functions
— one which has been described as indeterminate, consisting of in
herent powers such as the enjoyment of honors, dignities, and priv
ileges belonging to the said dignity; another determinate set of
functions, such as were authorised by the Statute, namely the auth
ority to visit and reform all ecclesiastical mischiefs. The king
also claimed the power usurped by the papacy from the Church of
England. This was recovered and added to the Crown by three stat
utes. The Acts in Restraint of Payment of Annates provided for the
appointment and consecration of bishops within the kingdom. The
Act of Citations, with a view to limiting the power which the
Archbishop had exercised in virtue of his legateship, forbade one
to be cited out of his or her diocese. Finally the Act in Rest
raint of Appeals which was ammended by the Act for the Submission
of the Clergy, provided for appeals in ecclesiastical cases up to
the king in Chancery. A fourth set of powers was made up of claims
28
which the king had never hitherto put forward.
Under Edward VI the action of the new power acquired by the
king as Head of the Church was pushed even further than it had been
under Henry VIII, both Orders of Council and Acts of Parliament bein^
used for the purpose. The work of Church reformation was-ent
rusted to Archbishop Cranmer and the steps in his advance may
be traced in the history of the formularies of the English Church.
But the reforming party was a minority of the nation and its aapid
changes shocked the popular mind; it owed its political support to
the selfish greed of a body of courtiers, who were willing to use
the Reformation as a means of enriching themselves. Hence the re
action under Mary was first greeted with delight; but it was too
complete to be permanent. Mary was at heart a Spaniard and not
an Englishv/oman. Events had necessarily made her so. She could
not unddrstand the passionate patriotism of the English race; she
shut her mind to the national and independent claims of the Egglish
Church. To her the Church mean^ the pope, and so the breach with
the papacy which had taken place under her father's direction app
eared to her as a national sin, and she could not rest until it had
been expiated. The Catholicism of Mary was anti-national, and the
successive failures of Protestants under Edward VI and Mary prepared
the way for the religious settlement of Elizabeth.
The first Statute of Elizabeth's reign, though reviving the
ten statutes of Henry VIII. did not include among them Henry's
Act of Supremacy. It consequently abolished the claim to the tit
le of Supreme Head ^which Elizabeth's advisers represented to her
as unscriptural. The title was changed to Supreme Governor, and
as Elizabeth had no intention of parting wmth the exercise of the
ecclesiastical supremacy, all ancient jurisdiction over courts and
persons was restored. But while the power of the Crown was b x —
Ô9.
tonded and strengthened, the method of procedure was altogether
more moderate. Thus (a) the Act of Supremacy restored the mode
of election of bishops by chapters and in accordance with the cong :
d'elire of the Crown: moreover (b) to Convocation was given the duty
of reducing the 42 Articles to 39, and of authorising a second bool:
of Homilies; though it will be remembered that Elizabeth used her
power to annul, as well as to authorize, canons of Convocation; (c)
Parliament was at the same time carefully restrained from meddling
in ecclesiastical laws.
Elizabeth and the early Stuarts stoutly maintained the inviol
able nature of the royal supremacy. Under Archbishop Laud the
cause of the Church became identified with the cause of the king,
whereas the Puritan party became more and more identified with the
party of constitutional opposition to the Crown. As a result every
act of royal misgovernment weakened the moral appeal of the Church*
Every act of ecclesiastical discipline was interpreted by English
men in the light of the royal tyranny. Both stood together and
both fell together. When Charles, humbled and impotent, had to
meet the Long Parliament of 1640, the victory of Puritanism over
the Church was for the time no less assured than the victory df con
stitutional liberty over prerogative. “No bishop no king" hdd been
the motto of the royal and ecclesiastical party since the days of
the Hampton Court conference, and militant Puritanism took it at
its word and overwhelmed both in a common catastrophe in the days
of its triumph. In March 1646, Parliament ordered the establish
ment of presbyteries all over England, whose business it should be
to govern ecclesiastical affairs under the general supervision of
Parliament. For fifteen years, in the eyes of the law, the religicix
of England v/as Presbyterian, and the Church of England became, like
the Roman Catholic Church, a religious body without legal rights
and subject to legal penalties. But the victory of Puritanism
over the Church in reality was the victory of constitutional liberty
over prerogative.
After the Restoration the Bishops again became parasites of the
Crown. The Church became the tool and the plaything of party spirit.
Spiritual deadness became visible in all departments of Church life*
The corporate activity of the Church was destroyed by the suppression
of Convocation, its practical energy was sacrificed to State policy,
its mission spihit evaporated under Latitudiuarian leadership, its
conscience became dulled by the repression of enthusiasm? its very
life blood chilled by the supremacy of reason and the worship of ex
pediency. The evils of pluralities and non-residence were conspicu
ous throughout the eighteenth century especially among the bishops
whose duty it was to suppress them. The bishops did not wish to be
centers of great diocesan activity. They satisfied their conscience,
by setting an example of dignified and decorous Christian life, by
exercising a stately hospitality, by displaying vigorous and effect!
erudition, and by giving a steady dynastic vote in the House of Lords
They stood for compromise and conservatism, for apathy and exclusive
ness.
Even the loss of the followers Qt Whitefield and Wesley,did not
arouse the Church. Few abuses were remedied, until the energy of the
Parliament of 1832 forced the question of reform to the front, and
dealt with it trenchantly-if not always wisely. Individuals such as
Charles Simeon exercised a magnetic influence upon those whom they
were brought into contact with, but except as individuals they never
attempted to grapple with the terrible problems occasioned by the
enormous increase of population and the growth of industrial towns.
3 1 .
T2-3 teeming population was allowed to grow up without churches,
without schools, without religion. Neither the Church nor the
State made the smallest provision for their souls or their bodies
in the interests of religion, of morality, or of health. Dissent
increased with alarming rapidity and the Church stood still. The
bishops remained inert and lethargic, with but little idea of spir
itual leadership. One principle, amd one only, still remained
vigorous and powerful, that of the strenuous maintenance of the
alliance with the State. To draw closer that alliance, to enlist
the powers of the State on behalf of the Church, was the constant
anxiety of Churchmen. To that tiiey were willing to sacrifice what
was left of the indepemdence of the Church, to weaken what remained
of her spiritual efficAcy.;' There is no more sinister record in
the long history of mankind than that which attaches to the Englisli
bishops in their corporate and legislative capacity from Elizabeth'
time to ours; there is none in connection with which the terms
“caitiff" and "poltroon" come more easily or more rightly to the
lips. Their vote in the House of Lords has been from first to
last a roll call of disgrace.
VW _ The history of the Church of England during the past fifty
years is the history of a gradual increase of efficiency and cor
porate self-consciousneas. Since 1852 the convocations of the
two English provinces have met regularly for the dispatch of eccles
iastical business, and are now assisted in their deliberations by
elected Houses of Laymen. In foreign missions, home missions, the
support of the clergy, the relief of their widows, the education
of their childreh, tfee spread of the Bible, the publication of
good literature, the maintenance of hospitals, convalescent hmmes,
orphanages, and countless charities for the sick and the outcast.
3 2 .
the poor and the degraded, in the working of clubs and institutes,
in the direction of national education, the Church, has taken more
than her full share. All over the English Church the standard of
devotion among religious people is sensibly rising, and the Church
is exerting a great power in the life of the English nation. With
all her imperfections the Church of England to-day is not unworthy
of her parentage and her history, for she id striving: to be the
leader of the English people and the moulder of their national life.
3 3 .
Bibliography.
I. Sources
Adams and Stephens, Select Documents of English Constitutional
History, Macmillan, New York, 1901.
Baldwin, James P., Early Records of the King's Council, Macmillan,
New York, 1905.
Gee, Henry & W.J.Hardy, Documents Illustrative of English Church
History, Macmillan, London, 1896.
Giles,J.A., ed., The Venerable Bede's Ecclesiastical History of
England: also the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. 2nd ed. Bohn, London,
1849.
Haddan and Stubbs, Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents, Vol.I.,
pp. 3-21. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1869—1871.
Prothero, G.W., Select Statutes and other Constitutional Documents
illustrative of the reigns of Elizabeth and James I., 2nd ed.,
Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1898.
II. Secondary Authorities
Beard, C.A., Introduction to the English Historians, Macmillan,
New York, 1906.
Bagehot, Walter, The English Constitution and Other Political Essays,
Appleton, New York, 1901.
Boutmy, Emile, The English Constitution, Macmillam, London, 1891.
Burnet, Gilbert,, The History of the Reformation of the Church of
England, 2 vols., Orr, London, 1850.
Cannon, H.L.,•Reading References for English History. Ginn & Co.,
Boston, 1910.
Dixon, R.W., History of the Church of England. Clarendon Press,
Oxford, 1902.
3 4 .
Fr s email, E.A^. The Norman Conquest, its Causes and Results. 6 vols.
Rev. American ed., Macmillan, New York, %873.
Freeman, E.A., The Growth of the English Constitution from the earl
iest times, 4th ed. Macmillan, London, 1884.
Gardiner, S.R., A Student's History of England. Longmmans, Green &
Co., New York, 1904.
Green, J.R., The Making of England. Harper, New York, 1881.
Green, J.R., The Conquest of England. Harper, New York. 1883.
Green, J.R., A Short History of the English People. Harper, New York,
1890.
Hearnshaw, F.J.C., England in the Making, before 1066. Jack, London,
1912.
Hallam, Henry, Constitutional History of England. 2 vols. Armstrong,
New York.
Hodgkin, Thomas, The History of England from the Earliest Times to
the Norman Conquest. Longmans, New York, 1908.
Hume, David, The History of England from the invasion of Julius Ceas-
ar to the revolution of 1688. New ed. 6 vols. Longmans, London,
1848-
Hunt, William, History of the English Church. 597-1066. Macmillan,
LondOQL, 1899.
Hunt and Poole, Political History of England. 12 vols. Longmans,
New York.
Kemble, John M., The Saxons in England. 2 vols. Quaritch,London, 1876.
Littell,J.S., The Historians and the English Reformation. The Young
Churchman Co., Milwaukee, 1912.
Masterman,J.H.B., The Church of England. Jack, London, 1913.
Medley, D.J., A Student's Manual of English Constitutional History.
2nd. ed. Simpkin, London, 1898.
3 5 .
Me.Kechnie, W.S., Masna Charta: a Commentary on the Great Charter
of King John, with an historical introduction. Maclehose &
Sons, Glasgow, 1905.
Ollard and Crosse, Dictionary of English Church History. Mowbrays,
London, 1912.
Oman, Charles, England before the Norman Conquest. Methuen, 1910.
Ransome, Cyril, Rise of Constitutional Government in England. Riv-
ington's, London, 1883.
Shaw, W.A., A History of the English Church. 1640-166#. Longmans,
Green & Co., New York, 19pp.
Spence, H.D.M., A History of the English Church. Dent, London, 1899.
Stephen, Leslie and Sidney Lee, eds., Dictionary of National Biograph;
Smith, Elder, & Co., London, 1890-1900.
Stubbs, W., The Constitutional History of England. 3 vols. Clarendon
Press, Oxford, 1896-1897.
Taylor, Hannis, The Origin and Growth, of the English Constitution. ^
2 vols. Low, London, 1889, 1898.
Wakeman, Henry Offley, An Introduction to the History of the Church
of England. Rivingtons, London, 1908.
Wakeman, H.O., and Arthur Hassall, eda. Essays introductory bo the
Study of English Constitutiomal History. Longmans, London,1901,
Ward, Prothero, Leathes, eds., Cambridge Modern History. 12 vols.
Macmillan, New York, 1902-.

Asset Metadata

Creator Porter, A. W. Noel (author)

Core Title The influence of the Church of England on the development of the state

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Master of Arts

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,philosophy, religion and theology,Social Sciences

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c39-283560

Unique identifier UC11317348

Identifier EP67336.pdf (filename),usctheses-c39-283560 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier EP67336.pdf

Dmrecord 283560

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Porter, A. W. Noel

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA