Charles, King & Martyr

ARE BISHOPS WORTH DYING FOR?

Feast of Charles, King & Martyr

Are Bishops worth dying for?

Well they were as far as King Charles I was concerned. He was beheaded outside the banqueting house in Whitehall on the 30th January 1649.

And they were as far as the Prayer Book compilers were concerned. They included "A Form of Prayer with Fasting to be used yearly on the 30th January, being the day of the Martyrdom of the Blessed King Charles 1st" in their book of 1662. It remained included until 1859.

The purpose of the service was: "To implore the mercy of God, that neither the Guilt of that sacred and innocent Blood, nor those other sins, by which God was provoked to deliver up both us and our king into the hands of cruel and unreasonable men, may at any time hereafter be visited upon us or our posterity".

Looking at an old copy of the Prayer Book, which I have in my possession, I note that a special form of service, consisting of readings and prayers was included to be used at Morning Prayer, Holy Communion and Evening Prayer.

Instead of a sermon, the Rubric instructs that the first and second part of the Homily against Disobedience and Wilful Rebellion were to be read to the congregation. Alternatively it states that: "the Minister who officiates shall preach a Sermon of his own composing upon the same argument".

Why did Charles choose to die for the sake of bishops in the Church of England and why did the 1652 Prayer Book compilers provide for a special service? Why does the Alternative Services Book 1980 include the observance of his death on the 30th January and what relevance does it have for us today?

It is important for us to recall that the Church of England, or the Anglican Church, has always sought to pursue a policy of the "middle way" - the Via Media - throughout history. It is not extreme Catholic and it is not extreme Protestant. It is in the middle.

Yet throughout history, there has been pressure to pull it to either extreme. Sometimes people have tried to pull it towards the extreme Catholic position, and sometimes people have tried to pull it towards the extreme Protestant position.

Never was the problem of extremism more acute than in the seventeenth century during the reign of King Charles 1st.

Henry VIII reformed the Catholic Church in England, removing it from the control of the Pope. His illegitimate son Edward attempted to maintain the position. This is reflected in the Prayer Book of 1549. However, strong Protestant influences were at work, fanned by Calvinism on the continent, and the revision of the Prayer Book in 1552 demonstrated that they were winning the day. The accession to the throne of the Roman Catholic, Mary, put the clock back to before the days of Henry VIII and the English Prayer Book was abolished and the Church in England once again reflected Medieval Catholicism and came under the control of the Bishop of Rome.

Queen Elizabeth endeavoured to pursue a more "middle of the road" approach in the Prayer Book of 1559. It did not satisfy the extreme Catholics. It did not satisfy the extreme protestants. Nevertheless, it sought to strike a happy balance. Meanwhile the extremists began campaigning.

By the time James VI of Scotland moved south to become King of England in the summer of 1603, the extreme Catholics had been quietened by the defeat of the Spanish Armada, whereby the Pope had sought to impose his will by military force. However, the extreme protestants, represented by the Puritans were particularly active and confident, disliking the Prayer Book and Bishops. They were wanting complete religious freedom and did not want to be ordered about, either by a prayer book or by Bishops.

James refused to give way, and so the pressure mounted and came to a head when Charles 1 came to the throne.

Like his father, he believed in the divine right of kings, except he put that belief into practice, maintaining that he owed account of his actions "to God alone". Charles put himself above the law. He believed he was free to make laws and unmake laws without consulting the people, and that the Ministers of the Crown and Bishops were there to see that the king's wishes were carried out.

To this end, he found two like-minded collaborators in the Earl of Stafford, who he put in charge of the secular affairs of state, and Archbishop William Laud, who he put in charge of the religious affairs of state. Both were determined men, keen to enforce their opinions by law, and punish those who differed from them.

Charles tried to eliminate any possible opposition by suspending parliament in 1629 for eleven years.

Unfortunately King Charles, the Earl of Stafford and Archbishop William Laud, misjudged the climate of the time and came unstuck with Stafford being executed in 1645, William Laud in the same year and King Charles four years later.

The seventeenth century was an age of revolt against all authority, whether it be of the Church or the State. Parliament was wanting a greater say in the life of the nation and was not content just to provide money and lend moral support.

The whole situation was not helped by King Charles marrying Henrietta Maria, a Roman Catholic, whose encouragement of the King to show tolerance towards Roman Catholics infuriated the violent anti-popery of the masses and led to a half-hearted enforcement of the laws against Roman Catholicism.

In England, Charles refused to give in to the Puritans' wish to abolish the Prayer Book and the Episcopacy. He insisted on law and order and declined to give them the religious freedom they wanted.

At the same time, his desire to impose the Via Media north of the border caused even greater trouble and unrest and finished up with Scotland becoming Presbyterian in 1638.

Here extreme Protestantism had taken much stronger roots. As early as 1560, the General Assembly of the Kirk had broken with Rome, declaring that the Bishop of Rome had no jurisdiction in the realm. It continued to remain partly episcopal and bishops received the encouraging support of James 1.

Charles sought to destroy the Kirk and Presbyterianism, by imposing upon them a Prayer Book which Archbishop Laud secured in 1637. Immediately the cry went up "The Mass is entered amongst us". The Church of Scotland signed a Covenant voting for the abolition of Bishops and the Prayer Book and in 1639 war broke out between Scotland and England.

In order to rescue the situation, Charles summoned Parliament in 1640, but the tide had turned and the Puritans were very much in the ascendancy and showed little sympathy with the despotic king, and so civil war became inevitable between the king's supporters and the Puritans - the Cavaliers and the Roundheads. Parliament sought the help of Scotland.

Anglicanism was replaced by Presbyterianism in 1644 with clergy either becoming Presbyterians or going into exile. The Prayer Book was abolished in 1644 and bishops were dismissed.

At the end of the Civil War, King Charles made a last bid for Scottish support by offering to establish Presbyterianism in England for three years. This incensed the very extreme Protestants and soon Cromwell was wanting the head of Charles 1. As the full horror of the death of the king was realised people turned against Cromwell.

Whilst we may disapprove of the despotic method of rule by King Charles as expressed through the divine right of kings; whilst we may think him ill advised at trying to force his Christian understanding of episcopacy upon Scotland, and whilst we may think him foolish at not being more attuned to the thinking of his people; we cannot but admire his courage and determination at insisting that the Church of England remain the Via Media - the middle way between extreme catholicism and extreme protestantism.

Charles insisted that the Church in England worship according to the Prayer Book which reflected this sense of balance and that it be governed by Bishops. He had no desire to restore Medieval Catholicism and allow the Church in England to be subject to the Pope in Rome, no more than he desired to go down the road of Calvinistic reform of abolishing bishops and placing the government exclusively in the hands of the laity. For this he was prepared to shed his martyred blood.

Make no mistake, my friends, keeping that sense of balance, maintaining that "middle way", is not easy.

Even today, there are some within the Church of England who would wish for the Church to be governed by the Bishop of Rome, as represented by the extreme Anglo Catholic wing, and there are those who would wish for the Church to be governed by the laity as represented by the extreme evangelistical wing.

Central to the Anglican Church's teaching is the role of the Bishop who is seen not only as the focus of unity within the Church, but also the continuous link with the tradition of the early church. In his office, he expresses the Catholicism of the Church.

It is this which Iay behind the Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1888, which maintains the necessity of episcopacy being included in any unification of the Church. Hence the need for Methodists to be ordained in the failed Anglican Methodist Conversation of the 1970s.

It is this, which lay behind the refusal of the church to permit lay celebrations of the Eucharist, which some would advocate today, since they have not been episcopally ordained and authorised.

It is this, which lay behind the Church being permitted to use only those services which have been lawfully authorised by the House of Bishops who are the historic guardians of the Christian faith.

It is this which distinguishes the Church of England from the nonconformist churches, who do not have Bishops, and are therefore deemed to be not part of the Catholic Church of Christendom.

Above all it was the principle of the need for episcopacy, that Charles 1 was prepared to die for, for which we give thanks annually on his Feast Day, in the calendar of the Church of England.

Whether or not you are prepared to die for Bishops, Charles 1 certainly was prepared to die.