This formidable array of antitheses by no means ex- hausts the list of practical contradictions embodied in the Church of England. Rejecting the supremacy of the pope, she accepted, or, rather, had forced upon her, that of the temporal sovereign, subjecting her to the most extravagant assumptions of an unscrupulous mon- arch. Macaulay, on this point, says: "What Henry and his favorite counsellors meant at one time by su- premacy was certainly nothing less than the whole power of the keys. Tlie king was to be the pope of his kingdom, the vicar of God, the expositor of catholic verity, the channel of sacramental graces. He arro- gated to himself the right of deciding dogmatically what was orthodox doctrine and what was heresy, of drawing up and imposing confessions of faith, and of giving religious instruction to his people. He pro- claimeil tliat all jurisdiction, spiritual as well as tem- poral, was derived from him alone, and that it was in his power to confer episcopal authority and to take it away. He actually ordered his seal to be put to com- missions by which bishops were appointed, who were to exercise their functions as his deputies and during his pleasure. ... As he ajipointed civil officers to keep his seal, to collect his revenues, and to dispense justice in his name, so he api)ointed divines of various ranks to preach the Gospel and to administer tlie sacraments. It was unnecessary that there should be any imposition
of hands. The king — such was the opinion of Cran- mer, given in the plainest words — might, in virtue of authority derived from God, make a priest, and the priest so made needed no ordination whatever."
Under Edward VI there \vas a speedy revolt from such extreme absurdities, and a form of ordination by the imposition of hands was incorporated in the ritual. But even in that ritual, which is generally considered to represent the best Protestantism of the English Ref- ormation, while the mass is rejected, yet the idea and order of a priesthood is retained in a form for ordaining all ministers of the second grade as priests. Notwith- standing that serious error, the ritual in question is specially distinguished for the prominence it gave to the scriptural idea of a personal divine call — an idea that had been obscured, if not obliterated, in the rituals of the Church for a tliousand years previously. It re- quired a solemn declaration on the part of' every can- didate for holy orders of his personal conviction that he is " moved by the Holy Ghost" to take upon himself this sacred ministration. Bishop Burnet explains the action of the British Reformers in this regard in the fol- lowing language :
"Our Church intended to raise the obligation of the pastoral care higher than it was before, and has laid out this matter more fully and more strictly than any Church ever did in any age, as far, at least, as my inquiries can carry me. . . . No Church before ours at the Reformation took a formal sponsion at the altar from such as were or- dained deacons and priests. That was, indeed, always demanded of bishops, but neither in the Roman nor Greek pontifical do we liud any such solemn vows and promises demanded or made by priests or deacons, nor does any print of this appear in the constitutions or the ancient canons of the Church. Bishops were asked many questions, as appears by the first canon of the fourth Council of Carthage. They were required to profess their faith and to promise to obey the canons, which is still ob- served in the Greek Church. The questions are more ex- press in the Roman pontifical, and the first of these de- mands a promise 'that they will instruct their people iu Christian doctrine according to the Holy Scriptures,' which was the foundation upon which our bishops justi- fied the Reformation, since, the first and chief of all their vows binding them to this, it was to take place of all oth- ers, and if any other parts of those sponsions contradicted this, such as their obedience and adherence to the see of Rome, they said that these were to be limited by this. . . . Our Reformers, observing all this, took great care iu re- forming the office of ordination, and they made both the charge that is given and the promises that are to be taken to be very express and solemn, so that both the ordainers and the ordained might be rightly instructed iu theirdnty, and struck with the awe and dread that they ought to be under in so holy and so important a performance; . . . yet to make the sense of these promises go deei)er, they are ordered to be made at the altar, and in the nature of a stipulation or covenant. . . . Om- Church, by making our Saviour's words the form of ordination, must be con- strued to intend by that that it is Christ only that sends, and that the l)ishops are only his ministers to pronounce his mission."
Yet the ver}' ritual which required the candidate for ordination to solemnly profess that he was ''inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon him this office and ministration to serve God," and that he was truly called " according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ," also required him, in the "Oath of the King's Suprem- acy," to swear, " I from honcclirth will accept, repute, and take the king's majesty to be the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England."