Five English Reformers by J.C. Ryle. Why were our reformers burned? There are certain facts in history which the world tries hard to forget and ignore. These facts get in the way of some of the world's favourite theories and are highly inconvenient. The consequence is that the world shuts its eyes against them. They are either cut dead as vulgar intruders or passed by as tiresome boars. Little by little they sink out of sight of the students of history, like ships on a distant horizon or are left behind like a luggage train in a siding. Of such facts, the subject of this paper is a vivid example, the burning of our English reformers and the reason why they were burned. It is fashionable in some quarters to deny that there is any such thing as certainty about religious truth or any opinions for which it is worthwhile to be burned. Yet 300 years ago there were men who were certain that they had found out truth and were content to die for their opinions. It is fashionable in other quarters to leave out all the unpleasant things in history and to paint everything with a rose-coloured hue. A very popular history of our English queens hardly mentions the martyrdoms of Queen Mary's days. Yet Mary was not called Bloody Mary without reason, and scores of Protestants were burned in her reign. Last but not least, it is thought very bad taste in many quarters to say anything which just throws discredit on the Church of Rome. Yet it is as certain that the Romish Church burned our English reformers as it is that William the Conqueror won the Battle of Hastings. These difficulties meet me face to face as I walk up to the subject which I wish to unfold in this paper. I know their magnitude, and I cannot evade them. I only ask my readers to give me a patient and indulgent hearing. After all, I have great confidence in the honesty of Englishmen's minds. Truth is truth, however long it may be neglected. Facts are facts, however long they may lie buried. I only want to dig up some old facts which the sands of time have covered over, to bring to the light of day some old English monuments which have been long neglected, to unstop some old wells which the prince of this world has been diligently filling with earth. I ask my readers to give me their attention for a few minutes, and I trust to be able to show them that it is good to examine the question, why were our reformers burned? One, the broad facts of the martyrdom of our reformers are a story well known and soon told, but it may be useful to give a brief outline of these facts in order to supply a framework to our subject. Edward VI, that incomparable young prince, as Bishop Burnett justly calls him, died on the 6th of July 1553. Never, perhaps, did any royal personage in this land die more truly lamented or leave behind him a fairer reputation. Never, perhaps, to man's poor fallible judgment did the cause of God's truth in England receive a heavier blow. His last prayer before death ought not to be forgotten. Oh, Lord God, defend this realm from papistry and maintain thy true religion. It was a prayer, I believe, not offered in vain. After a foolish and deplorable effort to obtain the crown for Lady Jane Grey, Edward was succeeded by his elder sister, Mary, daughter of Henry VIII and his first queen, Catherine of Aragon, and best known in English history by the ill-omened name of Bloody Mary. Mary had been brought up from her infancy as a rigid adherent of the Romish church. She was in fact a very papist of papists, conscientious, zealous, bigoted and narrow-minded in the extreme. She began at once to pull down her brother's work in every possible way and to restore popery in its worst and most offensive forms. Step by step she and her counsellors marched back to Rome, trampling down one by every One by one, every obstacle and as thorough as Lord Strafford in the English service was taken away. No, as thorough as Lord Strafford in going straight forward to their mark, the mass was restored, the English service was taken away, the works of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Tyndale, Buser, Latimer, Hooper, Cranmer were proscribed. Cardinal Pohl was invited to England. The five Protestant resident in England were banished. The foreign Protestants, sorry, the foreign Protestants resident in England were banished. The leading divines of the Protestant Church were deprived of their offices and while some escaped to the continent many were put in prison. The old statutes against heresy were once again brought forward, primed and loaded, and thus by the beginning of 1555 the stage was cleared of that bloody tragedy in which bishops Bonner and Gardiner played so a prominent a part was ready to begin. For unhappily for the credit of human nature, Mary's advisors were not content with depriving and imprisoning the leading English reformers. It was resolved to make them abjure their principles or to put them to death. One by one they were called before special commissions, examined about their religious opinions and called upon to recount on pain of death if they refused. No third course, no alternative was left to them. They were either to give up Protestantism and receive potpourri, or else they were to be burned alive. Refusing to recount, they were one by one handed over to the secular power, publicly brought out and chained to stakes, publicly surrounded with faggots, and publicly sent out of the world by that most cruel and painful of deaths, the death by fire. All these are broad facts which all the apologists of Rome can never gain say or deny. It is a broad fact that during the last four years of Queen Mary's reign, no less than 288 persons were burnt at the stake for their adhesion to the Protestant faith. In 1555, there were burnt 71. In 1556, 89. In 1557, 88. In 1558, 40. Total 288. Indeed, the faggots never ceased to blaze while Mary was alive, and five martyrs were burnt in Canterbury only a week before her death. Out of these 288 sufferers, be it remembered, one was an archbishop, four were bishops, 21 were clergymen, 55 were women, and four were children. It is a broad fact that these 288 sufferers were not put to death for any offence against property or person. They were not rebels against the Queen's authority, caught red-handed in arms. They were not thieves, or murderers, or drunkards, or unbelievers, or men and women of immoral lives. On the contrary, they were with barely an exception some of the holiest, purest, and best Christians in England, and several of them the most learned men of their day. I might say much about the gross injustice and unfairness with which they were treated at their various examinations. Their trials, if indeed they can be called trials, were a mere mockery of justice. I might say much about the abominable cruelty with which most of them were treated, both in prison and at the stake. But you must read Fox's martyrs on these points. I make no comment on the stupid impolicy of the whole persecution. Never did Rome do herself such irreparable damage as she did in Mary's reign. Even unlearned people who could not argue much saw clearly that the church which committed such horrible bloodshed could hardly be the one true Church of Christ. But I have no time for all this. I must conclude this general sketch of this part of my subject with two short remarks. For one thing, I ask my readers never to forget that for the burning of our Reformers, the Church of Rome is holy and entirely responsible. The attempt to transfer the responsibility from the Church to the secular power is a miserable and dishonest subterfuge. The men of Judah did not slay Samson, but they delivered him bound into the hands of the Philistines. The Church of Rome did not slay the reformers but she condemned them and the secular parish executed the condemnation. The precise measure of responsibility which ought to be meted out to each of Rome's agents in the matter is a point that I do not care to settle. Miss Strickland in her Lives of the Queens of England has tried in vain to shift the blame from unhappy Mary With all the zeal of a woman, she has laboured hard to whitewash her character. The reader of her biography will find little about martyrdoms, but it will not do. Mr. Frood's volume tells a very different tale. The Queen and her council and the Parliament and the Popish bishops and Cardinal Pole must be content to share the responsibility among them. One thing alone is very certain. They will never succeed in shifting the responsibility off the shoulders of the Church of Rome. like the Jews and Pontius Pilate, when our Lord was crucified, all parties must bear the blame. The blood is upon them all. For another thing, I wish my readers to remember that the burning of the Marian Martyrs is an act that the Church of Rome has never repudiated, apologised for or repented of down to the present day. There stands the huge blot on her escutcheon, and there stands the huge fact side by side that she never made any attempt to wipe it away. Never has she repented of her treatment of the Vardois and the Albigenses. Never has she repented of the wholesale murders of the Spanish Inquisition. Never has she repented of the massacre of Saint Bartholomew. Never has she repented of the burning of the English reformers. We should make a note of that fact and let it sink down into our minds. Rome never changes. Rome will never admit that she has made mistakes. She burned our English reformers 300 years ago, 450 now I guess. She tried hard to stamp out by violence the Protestantism which she could not prevent spreading by arguments. If Rome had only the power I am not sure that she would not attempt to play the whole game over again. 2. The question may now arise in our minds who were the leading English reformers that were burned? What were their names and what were the circumstances attending their deaths? These are questions which may very properly be asked, and questions to which I proceed at once to give an answer. In this part of my paper I am very sensible that I shall seem to many to go over old ground, but I am bold to say that it is ground which ought often to be gone over. I for one want the names of our martyred reformers to be household words. In every Protestant family throughout the land I shall therefore make no apology, for giving the names of the nine principal English martyrs in their chronological order of their deaths and for supplying you with facts, a few facts about each of them. Never, I believe, since Christ left the world did Christian men ever meet a cruel death with such glorious faith and hope and patience as these Marian martyrs. Never did dying men leave behind them such a rich store of noble sayings, sayings which deserve to be written in golden letters in our histories and handed down to our children's children. One, the first leading English reformer who broke the ice and crossed the river as a martyr in Mary's reign was John Rogers, a London minister, vicar of St Sepulchre and prebendary and reader of divinity at St Paul's. He was burned in Smithfield on Monday the 4th of February 1555. Rogers was born at Derritten in the parish of Aston near Birmingham. He was a man who in one respect had done more for the cause of Protestantism than any of his fellow sufferers. In saying this I refer to the fact that he had assisted Tyndale and Coverdale in bringing out a most important version of the English Bible, a version commonly known as Matthew's Bible. Indeed he was condemned as Rogers alias Matthew, This circumstance in all human probability made him a marked man and was one cause why he was the first who was brought to the stake. Roger's examination before Gardiner gives us an idea of his being a bold thorough Protestant who had fully made up his mind at all points of the Romish controversy and was able to give a reason for his opinions. At any rate, he seems to have silenced and abashed his examiners even more than most of the martyrs did. But argument, of course, went for nothing. Woe to the conquered. If he had the word, his enemies had the sword. And there's a footnote here. Roger's prophetic words in prison, addressed today, Printer of Foxes Acts and Monuments, are well worth quoting. Thou shalt live to see the alteration of this religion and the gospel freely preached again. Therefore have me commended to my brethren as well in exile as others, and bid them be circumspect in displacing the Papists and putting good ministers into churches, or else their end will be worse than ours. On the morning of his martyrdom, when he was roused hastily in his cell in Newgate and hardly allowed time to dress himself, he was then led forth to Smithfield on foot, within sight of the church of St. Sepulchre, where he had preached, and through the streets of the parish where he had done the work of a pastor. By the wayside stood his wife and ten children, one baby, whom Bishop Bonner, in his diabolical cruelty, had flatly refused him leave to see in prison. He just saw them but was hardly allowed to stop and then walked on calmly to the stake. Repeating the 51st Psalm, an immense crowd lined the street and filled every available spot in Smithfield. Up to that day, men could not tell how English reformers would behave in the face of death, and could hardly believe that probenderies and dignitaries would actually give their bodies to be burned for their religion. But when they saw John Rogers, the first martyr, walking steadily and unflinchingly into the fiery grave, the enthusiasm of the crowd knew no bounds. They rent the air with thunders of applause. Even Noel's, the French ambassador, wrote home a description of the scene and said that Rogers went to death as if he was walking to his wedding. By God's great mercy, he died with comparative ease. And so the first Marian martyr passed away. Two. The second leading reformer who died for Christ's truth in Mary's reign was John Hooper, Bishop of Gloucester. He was burned at Gloucester on Saturday the 9th of February 1555. Hooper was a Somersetshire man by birth. In many respects he was, perhaps, the noblest martyr of them all. Of all Edward VI's bishops, none has left behind him a higher reputation for personal holiness and diligent preaching and working in his diocese. None, judging from his literary remains, had clearer and more scriptural views on all points in theology. Some might say that Edward VI Bishop of Gloucester was too Calvinistic, but he was not more so than the 39 articles. Hooper was a far-sighted man and saw the danger of leaving nest eggs for Romanism in the Church of England. In his famous dispute with Cranmer and the other bishops about wearing Romish vestments at his consecration, it has been, I know the fashion, to condemn him as too stiff and unbending, I say boldly that the subsequent history of our church makes it doubtful whether we ought not to reverse our verdict. The plain truth is that in principle Hooper was right and his opponents were wrong. A man like Hooper, firm, stern, not naturally genial, unbending and unsparing in his denunciation of sin, was sure to have many enemies. He was one of the first marked for destruction as soon as Potpourri was restored. He was summoned to London at a very early stage of the Marian persecution. and after lingering 18 months in prison and going through the form of examination by Bonner, Gardner, Tunstall and Day was degraded from his office and sentenced to be burned as a heretic. At first it was fully expected that he would suffer in Smithfield with Rogers. This plan for some unknown reason was given up and to his great satisfaction Hooper was sent down to Gloucester and burnt in his own diocese in the site of his own cathedral ever get the chance to go to Gloucester to visit the Hooper Memorial which is by the Cathedral. On his arrival there he was received with every sign of sorrow and respect by a vast multitude who went out on the Cirencester Road to meet him and was lodged for the night in the house of a Mr Ingram which is still standing and probably not much altered. There, Sir Antony Kingston, whom the good bishop had been the means of converting from a sinful life, entreated him with many tears to spare himself and urged him to remember that life was sweet and death was bitter. To this, the noble martyr returned this memorable reply that eternal life was more sweet and eternal death was more bitter. On the morning of his martyrdom he was led forth, walking to the place of execution, where an immense crowd awaited him. It was market day and it was reckoned that nearly 7,000 people were present. The stake was planted directly in front of the western gate of the cathedral, close, and within a hundred yards of the deanery and the east front of the cathedral. The exact spot is marked now by a beautiful memorial at the east end of the churchyard of St Mary de Lode. The window over the gate where Popish friars watched the bishops dying agonies stands unaltered to this day. When Hooper arrived at this spot he was allowed to pray, though strictly forbidden to speak to the people. And there he knelt down and prayed a prayer which has been preserved and recorded by Fox and is of exquisitely touching character. Even then a box was put before him containing a full pardon if he would only recant. His only answer was, away with it, if you love my soul, away with it. He was then fastened to the stake by an iron round his waist and fought his last fight with the king of terrors, Of all the martyrs, none perhaps except Ridley suffered more than Hooper did. Three times the faggots had to be lighted because they would not burn properly. Three quarters of an hour, the noble sufferer endured the mortal agony, as Fox says, neither moving backward, forward, nor to any side, but only praying, Lord Jesus, have mercy on me. Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And beating his breast with one hand till it was burned to a stump, And so the good Bishop of Gloucester passed away. He suffered very greatly, actually. Three, the third leading reformer who suffered in Mary's reign was Roland Taylor, Rector of Hadley in Suffolk. He was burned on Oldham Common, close to his own parish, the same day that Hooper died at Gloucester on Saturday, the 9th of February, 1555. Roland Taylor is one of whom we know little except that he was a great friend of Cranmer and a doctor of divinity and canon law, but that he was a man of high standing among the reformers is evident from his being ranked by his enemies with Hooper, Rogers and Bradford, and that he was an exceedingly able and ready divine is clear from his examination recorded by Fox. Indeed, there is hardly any of the sufferers about whom the old martyrologist has gathered together so many touching and striking things. One might think he was a personal friend. Striking was the reply which he made to his friends at Hadley, who urged him to flee, as he might have done when he was first summoned to appear in London before Gardiner. will you have me to do? I am now old and have already lived too long to see these terrible and most wicked days fly you and do as your conscience leadeth you. I am fully determined with God's grace to go to the bishop and tell him to his beard that he doth naught. I believe before God that I shall never be able to do so for my God such good service as I may do now." Fox's Acts and Monuments volume 3 page 138. Striking were the replies which he made to Gardiner and his other examiners. None spoke more pithily, weightily and powerfully than did this Suffolk incumbent. Striking and deeply affecting was his last testament and legacy of advice to his wife, his family and parishioners, though far too long to be inserted here except in the last sentence. Quote, for God's sake, beware of potpourri, for though it appear to have in it unity, yet the same is vanity and anti-Christianity, and not in Christ's faith and verity. Fox's Acts and Monuments, volume three, page 144. He was sent down from London to Hadley to his great delight, to be burned before the eyes of his parishioners. When he got within two miles of Hadley, the Sheriff of Suffolk asked him how he felt. God be praised, Master Sheriff, was his reply. Never better, for now I am almost at home. I lack but just two stiles to go over, and I am even at my father's house. As he rode through the streets of the little town of Hadley, he found them lined with crowds of his parishioners who had heard of his approach and came out of their houses to greet him with many tears and lamentations. To them, he only made one constant address. I have preached to you God's word and truth, and then come this day to seal it with my blood. And coming to Olden Common, where he was to suffer, they told him where he was. Then he said, thank God, I am even at home. When he was stripped to his shirt and ready for the stake, he said with a loud voice, good people, I have taught you nothing but God's holy word and those lessons that I have taken out of the Bible and I am come hither to seal it with my blood. He would probably have said more, but like all the other martyrs, he was strictly forbidden to speak and even now was struck violently on the head for saying these few words. He then knelt down and prayed, a poor woman of the parish insisting, in spite of every effort to prevent her, in kneeling down with him. After this he was chained to the stake and repeated the 51st Psalm, crying to God, Merciful Father, for Jesus Christ's sake, receive my soul into thy hands. Stood quietly amidst the flames, without crying or moving, till one of the guards dashed out his brains with a halberd, and so this good old Suffolk incumbent passed away. Four. The fourth leading reformer who suffered in Mary's reign was Robert Ferrer, Bishop of St David's in Wales. He was burned at Carmarthen on Saturday on the 30th of March 1555. Little is known of this good man beyond the fact that he was born at Halifax and was the last prior of Nostle in Yorkshire, an office which he surrendered in 1540. He was also chaplain to Archbishop Cranmer and to the Protector Somerset, and to this influence he owed his elevation to the Episcopal bench. He was first imprisoned for various trivial and ridiculous charges on temporal matters, In the latter days of Edward VI, after the fall of the protector Somerset and afterwards was brought before Gardiner with Hooper, Rogers and Bradford. On the far more serious matter of his doctrine, the articles exhibited against him clearly show that in all questions of faith, he was of one mind with his fellow martyrs. Like Hooper and Taylor, he was condemned to be burned in the place where he was best known, and he was sent down from London to Carmarthen. What happened there at his execution is related very briefly by Fox, partly no doubt because of the great distance of Carmarthen from London in those pre-railway days, partly perhaps because most of those who saw Ferrer burned could speak nothing but Welsh. One single fact is recorded which shows the good Bishop's courage and constancy in a striking light. He had told a friend before the day of execution that if he saw him once stir in the fire from the pain of his burning he need not believe the doctrines he had taught. When the awful time came he did not forget his promise and by God's grace he kept it well. He stood in the flames holding out his hands till they were burned to stumps until a bystander in mercy struck him on the head and put an end to his sufferings. And so the Welsh bishop passed away. 5. The fifth leading reformer who suffered in Mary's reign was John Bradford, prependary of St Paul's and chaplain to Bishop Ridley. He was burned in Smithfield on Monday July the 1st 1555 at the age of 45. Few of the English martyrs perhaps are better known than Bradford and none certainly deserve better their reputation. Stripe calls Bradford, Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer the four prime pillars of the Reformed Church of England. He was by birth a Manchester man, and to the end of his life retained a strong interest in the district with which he was connected. At an early age, his high talents commended him to the notice of men in high quarters. He was appointed one of the six royal chaplains who was sent about England to preach up the doctrines of the Reformation. Bradford's commission was to preach in Lancaster and Cheshire, and he seems to have performed his duty with singular ability and success. He preached constantly in Manchester, Liverpool, Bolton, Bury, Wigan, Ashton, Stockport, Eccles, Prestwich, Middleton and Chester, with great benefit to the cause of Protestantism and with great effect on men's souls. The consequence was what might have been expected. Within a month of Queen Mary's accession, Bradford was in prison and never left it until he was burned. His personal holiness and his extraordinary reputation as a preacher made him an object of great interest during his imprisonment, and immense efforts were made to pervert him from the Protestant faith. All these efforts, however, were in vain as he lived so he died. On the day of his execution he was led out from Newgate to Smithfield about nine o'clock in the morning amidst such a crowd of people as was never seen either before or after. And Mrs Honeywood, who lived to the age of 92 and died in 1620, remembered going to see him burned and her shoes being trodden off by the crowd. Indeed, when he came to the stake, the sheriffs of London were so alarmed at the press that they would not allow him and his fellow sufferer, Leif, to pray as long as they wished. Arise, they said, and make an end for the press of the people is great. At that word, says Fox, they both stood up upon their feet, and then Master Bradford took a faggot in his hands and kissed it, and so likewise the stake." Kiss the stake. When he came to the stake, he held up his hands and, looking up to heaven, said, O England, England, repent thee of thy sins. Beware of idolatry, beware of false antichrists. Take heed, they do not deceive you. After that, he turned to the young man, Leif, who suffered with him, and said, be of good comfort, brother, for we shall have a merry supper with the Lord this night. After that he spoke no more that man could hear, excepting that he embraced the reeds and said, straight is the gate, and narrow is the way that leadeth to eternal life, and few there be that find it. He endured the flames, says Fuller, as a fresh gale of wind in a hot summer day. And so in the prime of life he passed away." And there's a footnote here. Bradford seems to have had a very strong feeling about the causes for which God permitted the Marian persecution. Writing to his mother from prison he says, you all know there never was more knowledge of God unless godly living and true serving of God. God therefore is now come and because he will not damn us with the world he punisheth us. Six and seven. The sixth and seventh leading reformers who suffered in Mary's reign were two whose names are familiar to every Englishman. Nicholas Ridley Bishop of London and Hugh Latimer, once Bishop of Worcester. They were both burned at Oxford back to back at one stake on the 16th of October 1555. Ridley was born at William Mottiswick in Northumberland on the borders. Latimer was born at Thurkiston in Leicestershire. The history of these two great English Protestants is so well known to most people that I need not say much about it. Alas, it's not so well known today. Next to Cranmer there can be little doubt that no two men did so much to bring about the establishment of the principles of the Reformation in England. Latimer was an extraordinary popular preacher and Ridley as a learned man was an admirable manager of the Metropolitan Diocese of London. have left behind them reputations which never have been surpassed. As a matter of course they were among the first that Bonner and Gardner struck at when Mary came to her throne and were persecuted with relentless severity until their deaths. How they were examined again and again by commissioners about the great points in controversy between Protestants and Rome. How they were shamefully baited, teased and tortured by every kind of unfair and unreasonable dealing. How they gallantly fought a good fight to the end and never gave way for a moment to their adversaries. All these are matters with which I need not trouble my readers. Are they not all fairly chronicled in the pages of good old Fox? I will only mention a few circumstances connected with their deaths. On the day of their martyrdom, they were brought separately to the place of execution, which was at the end of Broad Street, Oxford, close to Balliol College. Ridley arrived on the ground first, and seeing Latimer come afterwards, ran to him and kissed him, saying, Be of good heart, brother, for God will either assuage the fury of the flames or else strengthen us to abide it. Then they prayed earnestly and talked with one another, though no one could hear what they said. After this, they had to listen to a sermon by a wretched renegade divine named Smith, and being forbidden to make any answer, they were commanded to make ready for death. Ridley's last words before the fire was lighted were these. Heavenly Father, I give thee most hearty thanks that thou hast called me to a profession of thee, even unto death. I beseech thee Lord God have mercy on this realm of England and deliver the same from all her enemies. Latimer's last words were like the blast of a trumpet which rings even to this day. Be of good comfort Master Ridley and play the man. We shall this day by God's grace light such a candle in England as I trust shall never be put out. When the flames began to rise, Ridley cried out with a loud voice in Latin. Into thy hands, O Lord, I commend my spirit. Lord, receive my spirit. And afterwards repeated these last words in English. Latimer cried as vehemently on the other side of the stake, Father of heaven, receive my soul. Latimer soon died, an old man above 80 years of age. It took but little to set his spirit free from its earthly tenement. Ridley suffered long and painfully from the bad management of the fire by those who attended the execution. At length, however, the flames reached a vital part of him and he fell at Latimer's feet and was at rest. And so the two great Protestant bishops passed away. They were lovely and beautiful in their lives and in death they were not divided. The eighth leading English reformer who suffered in Mary's reign was John Philpott, Archdeacon of Winchester. He was born in Smithfield on Wednesday December the 18th 1555. Philpott is one of the martyrs of whom we know little comparatively except that he was born at Compton in Hampshire, was of good family and well connected and had a very high reputation for learning. The mere fact that at the beginning of Mary's reign he was one of the leading champions of Protestantism, in the mock discussions which were held in convocation, is sufficient to show that he was no common man. The relentless virulence with which he was persecuted by Gardiner is easily accounted for when we remember that Gardiner, when he was deposed from his sea in Edward VI's time, was Bishop of Winchester and would naturally regard his successor Bishop Poney and all his officials with intense hatred. A Popish Bishop was not likely to spare a Protestant Archdeacon. The 13 examinations of Philpott before the Popish Kings are given by Fox at great length and fill no less than 140 pages of the Parker Society volumes. You know he was the Archbishop of Archdeacon of Winchester. Now the Church of England has a transgender Archdeacon. This is just so far they've fallen from the truth. The length to which they were protracted shows plainly how anxious his judges were to turn him from his principles. The skill with which the Archdeacon maintained his ground, alone and unaided, gives a most favourable impression of his learning, no less than of his courage and patience. The night before his execution he received a message while at supper in Newgate to the effect that he was to be burned next day. He answered at once, I am ready, God grant me strength and a joyful resurrection. He then went into his bedroom and thanked God that he was counted worthy to suffer for his truth. The next morning at eight o'clock the sheriffs called for him and conducted him to Smithfield. The road was foul and muddy, as it was the depth of winter, and the officers took him up in their arms to carry him to the stake. Then he said merrily, alluding to what he had probably seen at Rome when travelling in his early days, what will you make me a Pope? I am content to go to my journey's end on foot. When he came into Smithfield, he kneeled down and said, I will pay my vows in thee, O Smithfield. He then kissed the stake and said, shall I disdain to suffer at the stake, seeing my Redeemer did not refuse to suffer a most vile death on the cross for me? After that, he meekly repeated the 106th, 107th, and 108th Psalms. And being chained to the stake, died very quietly. And so the good archdeacon passed away. The ninth and last leading reformer who suffered in Mary's reign was Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury. He was burned at Oxford on the 21st of March 1556. Cranmer was born at Ashlockton in Nottinghamshire. There is no name among the English martyrs so well known in history as his. There is none certainly in the list of our reformers to whom the Church of England on the whole is so much indebted. He was only a mortal man and had his weaknesses infirmities it must be admitted but still he was a great man and a good man. Cranmer we must always remember was brought prominently forward at a comparatively early period in the English Reformation and was made Archbishop of Canterbury at a time when his views of religion were confessedly half-formed and imperfect. Whenever quotations from Cranmer's writings are brought forward by the advocates of semi-romanism in the Church of England, you should always ask carefully to what period of his life their quotations belong. These quotations belong. Informing your estimate of Cranmer, do not forget his antecedents. He was a man who had the honesty to grope his way into fuller light, to cast aside his early opinions and confess that he had changed his mind on many subjects. How few men have the courage to do this. Cranmer maintained an unblemished reputation throughout the reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI, although frequently placed in most delicate and difficult positions. Not a single man can be named in those days who passed through so much dirt and yet came out of it so thoroughly undefiled. Cranmer beyond all doubt laid the foundation of our present prayer book and articles. Though not perhaps a brilliant man, he was a learned one and a lover of learned men, and one who was always trying to improve everything around him. When I consider the immense difficulties he had to contend with, I often wonder that he accomplished what he did. Nothing, in fact, but his steady perseverance would have laid the foundation of our formularies. and say all these things in order to break the force of the great and undeniable fact that he was the only English reformer who for a time showed the white feather and for a time shrank from dying for the truth. I admit that he fell sadly. I do not pretend to extenuate his fall. It stands forth as an everlasting proof that the best of men are only men at the best. I only want my readers to remember that if Cranmer failed as no other reformer in England failed, he also had done what certainly no other reformer had done. From the moment that Mary came to the English throne, Cranmer was marked for destruction. It is probable that there was no other English divine whom the unhappy Queen regarded with such rancour and hatred. She never forgot that her mother's divorce was brought about by Cranmer's advice, and she never rested till he was burned. Cranmer was imprisoned and examined just like Ridley and Latimer. Like them he stood his ground firmly before the commissioners. Like them he had clearly the best of the argument in all points that were disputed. But like them of course he was pronounced guilty of heresy, condemned, deposed and sentenced to be burned. And now comes the painful fact that in the last month of Cranmer's life his courage failed him and he was persuaded to sign a recantation of his Protestant opinions. Flattered and cajoled by subtle kindness, frightened at the prospect of so dreadful a death as burning, tempted and led away by the devil, Thomas Cranmer fell and put his hand to a paper in which he repudiated and renounced the principles of the Reformation for which he had laboured so long. Great was the sorrow of all true Protestants on hearing these tidings. Great was the triumphing and exultation of all Papists. Had they stopped here and set their noble victim at liberty, the name of Cranmer would probably have sunk and never risen again. But the Popish party, as God would have it, outwitted themselves. With fiendish cruelty they resolved to burn Cranmer even after he had recanted. This, by God's providence, was just the turning point for Cranmer's reputation. Through the abounding grace of God, he repented of his fall and found mercy. Through the same abounding grace, he resolved to die in the faith of the Reformation. And at last, through abounding grace, he witnessed such a bold confession in St. Mary's, Oxford, that he confounded his enemies, filled his friends with thankfulness and praise, and left the world a triumphant martyr for Christ's truth. I need hardly remind you how on the 21st of March the unhappy Archbishop was brought out like Samson in the hands of the Philistines to make sport for his enemies and to be a gazing stock to the world in St Mary's Church at Oxford. I need hardly remind you how after Dr Cole's sermon he was invited to declare his faith and was fully expected to acknowledge publicly his alteration of religion and his adhesion to the Church of Rome. I need hardly remind you how, with intense mental suffering, the Archbishop addressed the Assembly at great length and at the close suddenly astounded his enemies by renouncing all his former recantations, declaring the Pope to be Antichrist and rejecting the Popish doctrine of the real presence. Such a sight was certainly never seen by mortal eyes since the world began. But then came the time of Cranmer's triumph. With a light heart and a clear conscience, he cheerfully allowed himself to be hurried to the stake amidst the frenzied outcries of his disappointed enemies. Boldly and undauntedly, he stood up at the stake while the flames curled around him, steadily holding out his right hand in the fire and saying with reference to his having signed a recantation, this unworthy right hand, and steadily holding up his left hand towards heaven. footnote here. Soames is my authority for this statement about Cranmer's left hand. I can find it nowhere else. He also mentions what other historians record that when the fire had burned down to ashes Cranmer's heart was found unconsumed and uninjured. Of all the martyrs, strange to say, none at the last moment showed more physical courage than Cranmer did. Nothing in short, and all his life became him so well as the manner of his leaving it. Greatly he had sinned, but greatly he had repented. Like Peter he fell, but like Peter he rose again, and so passed away the first Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury. I will not trust myself to make any comment on these painful and interesting histories. I have not time, I only wish my readers to believe that the half of these men's stories have not been told them, and that the stories of scores of men and women less distinguished by position might easily be added to them, quite as painful and quite as interesting. But I will say boldly that the men who were burned in this way were not men whose memories ought to be lightly passed over, or whose opinions ought to be lightly esteemed. Opinions for which an army of martyrs died ought not to be dismissed with scorn. To their faithfulness we owe the existence of the Reformed Church of England. Her foundations were cemented with their blood. To their courage we owe in a great measure our English liberty. They taught the land that it was worthwhile to die for free thought. Happy is the land which has had such citizens. Happy is the church which has had such reformers. Honour be to those who at Smithfield, Oxford, Gloucester, Carmarthen and Hadley have raised stones of remembrance and memorial to the martyrs. but I pass on to a point which I hold to be one of cardinal importance in the present day. I'm going to read this as a memorial, there's a footnote here which I missed, but the following martyrdoms are recommended to the special notice of all possessed Foxes Book of Martyrs Lawrence Sanders burned at Coventry, William Hunter at Brentwood, Rawlins White at Cardiff, George Marsh at Chester, Thomas Hawkes at Cogshall, John Bland at Canterbury, Alice Driver at Ipswich, Rose Allen at Colchester, Joan Waste at Derby, Richard Woodman at Lewes, Agnes Prest at Exeter, Julius Palmer at Newbury, John Noyes at Laxfield in Suffolk. Let's go back to section three beginning. Three but I pass on to a point which I hold to be one of cardinal importance in the present day. The point I refer to is the special reason why our reformers were burned. Great indeed would be our mistake if we suppose that they suffered for the vague charge of refusing submission to the Pope or desiring to maintain the independence of the Church of England. Nothing of the kind. The principal reason why they were burned was because they refused one of the peculiar doctrines of the Romish Church. On that doctrine in almost every case hinged their life or death. If they admitted it they might live. they refused it they must die. The doctrine in question was the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the consecrated elements of bread and wine in the Lord's Supper. Did they or did they not believe that the body and blood of Christ were really, that is corporally, literally, locally and materially present under the forms of bread and wine after the words of consecration were pronounced. That's what the Church of Rome calls transubstantiation. Did they or did they not believe that the real body of Christ, which was born of the Virgin Mary, was present on the so-called altar so soon as the mystical words had passed the lips of the priest? Did they or did they not? That was the simple question. If they did not believe and admit it, they were burned. Footnote, the mass was one of the principal causes why so much turmoil was made in the church with the bloodshed of so many godly men. Fox's preface to volume three of Acts and Monuments, The sacrament of the altar was the main touchstone to discover the poor Protestants. This point of the real corporal presence of Christ in the sacrament, the same body that was crucified, was a compendious way to discover those of the opposite opinion. Fuller, Church History, Volume 3, page 399, Teg's edition. End of footnote. There is a wonderful and striking unity in the stories of our martyrs on this subject. Some of them, no doubt, were attacked about the marriage of priests. Some of them were assaulted about the nature of the Catholic Church. Some of them were assailed on other points. But all, without exception, were called to special account about the real presence. And in every case, their refusal to admit the doctrine formed one principal cause of their condonations. One, hear what Rogers said. I was asked whether I believe. believed in the sacrament to be the very body and blood of our Saviour Christ that was born of the Virgin Mary and hanged on the cross really and substantially. I answered I think it to be false. I cannot understand really and substantially to signify otherwise and corporally. But corporally Christ is only in heaven and so Christ cannot be corporally in your sacrament." Corporally means bodily. Fox in loco volume 3 page 101 edition 1684 and therefore he was condemned and burned. Two, hear what Bishop Hooper said, also in Fox. Tunstall asked him to say whether he believed the corporal presence in the sacrament and Master Hooper said plainly that there was none such, neither did he believe in any such thing, whereupon they bade the notaries write that he was married and would not go from his wife and that he believed not the corporal presence in the sacrament, wherefore he was worthy to be deprived of his bishopric. And so he was condemned and burned. Three, hear what Roland Taylor said. The second cause why I was condemned as a heretic is that I denied transubstantiation and concomitant to two, and concomitation, two juggling words, whereby the papist believed that Christ's natural body is made of bread and the Godhead by and by to be joined thereto. So that immediately after the words of consecration, there is no more bread and wine in the sacrament, but the substance only of the body and blood of Christ. Because I denied the aforesaid propistical doctrine, yea, rather plain, most wicked, idolatry, blasphemy and heresy, I was judged a heretic, and therefore he was condemned and burned. Four, hear what was done with Bishop Ferrer. He was summoned to grant the natural presence of Christ in the sacrament under the form of bread and wine. And because he refused to subscribe this article as well as others, he was condemned. And in the sentence of condemnation, it is finally charged against him that he maintained that the sacrament of the altar ought not to be administered on an altar or to be elevated or to be adored in any way. And so he was burned. 5. Hear what Holy John Bradford wrote to the men of Lancashire and Cheshire when he was in prison. The chief thing which I am condemned for as an heretic is because I deny the sacrament of the altar, which is not Christ's supper but a plain perversion as the Papists now use it. be a real natural and corporal presence of Christ's body and blood under the forms and accidents of bread and wine. That is because I deny transubstantiation which is the darling of the devil and daughter and heir to Antichrist's religion." And so he was condemned and burned. 6. Here what were the words of the sentence of condemnation against Bishop Ridley The said Nicholas Ridley affirms, maintains and stubbornly defends certain opinions, assertions and heresies contrary to the Word of God and received faith of the Church, as in denying the true and natural body and blood of Christ to be in the sacrament of the altar, and secondarily in affirming the substance of bread and wine to remain after the words of consecration. And so he was condemned and burned. 7. Here the articles exhibited against Bishop Latimer that thou hast openly affirmed, defended, and maintained that the true and natural body of Christ after the consecration of the priest is not really present in the sacrament of the altar, and that in the sacrament of the altar remaineth still the substance of bread and wine. And to this article the good old man replied, after a corporeal being which the Romish church prescribeth, Christ's body and blood is not in the sacrament under the forms of bread and wine. And so he was condemned and burned. 8. Hear the address made by Bishop Bonner to Archdeacon Philpott. You have offended and trespassed against the sacrament of the altar, denying the real presence of Christ's body and blood to be there, affirming also material bread and material wine to be in the sacrament, and not the substance of the body and blood of Christ. And because the good man stoutly adhered to this opinion, he was condemned and burned. Nine, hear lastly what Cranmer said with almost his last breath in St. Mary's Church, Oxford. As for the sacrament, I believe, as I have taught in my book against the Bishop of Winchester, the which my book teacheth so true a doctrine, that it shall stand at the last day before the judgment of God, when the papist doctrine contrary thereto shall be ashamed to show her face. If anyone wants to know what Cranmer said in this book, let him take the following sentence as a specimen. Quote, they the Papists say that Christ is corporally under or in forms of bread and wine. We say that Christ is not there, neither corporally nor spiritually, but in them that worthily eat and drink, in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine. He is spiritually and corporally in heaven. Grammar on the Lord's Supper, Parker Society edition, page 54. And so he was burned. Now, were the English reformers right in being so stiff and unbending on this question of the real presence? Was it a point of such vital importance that they were justified in dying before they would receive it? These are questions, I suspect, which are very puzzling to many unreflecting minds. Such minds, I fear, can see the whole controversy about the real presence. In the whole controversy about the real presence, nothing but a logomachy or a strife of words. But they are questions, I am bold to say, on which no well-instructed Bible reader can hesitate for a moment in giving his answer. Such an one will say at once that the Romish doctrine of the Real Presence strikes at the very root of the Gospel, and is the very citadel and keep of Popery. Men may not see this at first, But it is a point that ought to be carefully remembered. It throws a clear and broad light on the line which the reformers took, and the unflinching firmness with which they died. Whatever men please to think or say, the Romish doctrine of the real presence, if pursued to its legitimate consequences, obscures every leading doctrine of the gospel, and damages and interferes with the whole system of Christ's truth. Grant for a moment that the Lord's Supper is a sacrifice and not a sacrament. Grant that every time the words of consecration are used, the natural body and blood of Christ are present on the communion table, under the forms of bread and wine. Grant that everyone who eats that consecrated bread and drinks that consecrated wine does really eat and drink the natural body and blood of Christ. that's potpourri, that's transubstantiation. Grant for a moment these things and then see what momentous consequences result from these premises. You spoil the blessed doctrine of Christ's finished work when he died on the cross. A sacrifice that needs to be repeated is not a perfect and complete thing. You spoil the priestly office of Christ. If there are priests that can offer an acceptable sacrifice to God besides him, the great high priest is robbed of his glory. You spoil the scriptural doctrine of Christian ministry. You exalt sinful men into the position of mediators between God and man. You give to the sacramental elements of bread and wine an honour and veneration they were never meant to receive and produce an idolatry to be a board of faithful Christians. Last but not least, you overthrow the true doctrine of Christ's human nature. If the body born of the Virgin Mary can be in more places than one at the same time, it is not a body like our own and Jesus was not the second Adam in the truth of our nature. I cannot doubt for a moment that our martyred reformers saw and felt these things even more clearly than we do, and seeing and feeling them chose to die rather than admit the doctrine of the real presence. Feeling them, they would not give way by subjection for a moment and cheerfully lay down their lives. Let this fact be deeply graven in our minds. Wherever the English language is spoken on in the face of the globe, This fact ought to be clearly understood by every Englishman who reads history. Rather than admit by the doctrine of the real presence of Christ's natural body and blood under the forms of bread and wine, the reformers of the church were content to be burned. For, and now I must ask the special attention of my readers, while I try to show the bearing of the whole subject to our own position and on our own times, I must ask you to turn from the dead to the living. to look away from England in 1555, to England in this present enlightened and advanced age, and to consider seriously the light which the burning of our reformers throws on the Church of England at the present day." Of course, that was in the 19th century with J.C. Ryle. The Church of England today is Ichabod. It's just gone totally. We live in momentous times. The ecclesiastical horizon on every side is dark and alluring. The steady rise and progress of extreme ritualism and ritualists are shaking the Church of England to its very centre. That's the High Anglicans. It is of the very first importance to understand clearly what it all means. A right diagnosis of disease is the very first element of successful treatment. A physician who does not see what is the matter is never likely to work any cures. Now I say there can be no greater mistake than to suppose that the great controversy of our times is a mere question of vestments and ornaments, of chasubles and copes, of more or less church decorations, of more or less candles and flowers, of more or less bowings and turnings, bowings and turnings and crossings, of more or less gestures and postures, of more or less show and form. The man who fancies that the whole dispute is a mere aesthetic one, a question of taste like one of fashion and millinery, must allow me to tell him that he is under a complete delusion. He may sit on the shore like the Epicurean philosopher smiling at theological storms and flatter himself that we are only squabbling about trifles, but I take leave to tell him that his philosophy is very shallow and his knowledge of the controversy of the day very superficial indeed. The things I have spoken of are trifles, I fully concede, but they are pernicious trifles because they are the outward expression of an inward doctrine. They are the skin disease which is a symptom of an unsound constitution. They are the plague spot which tells of internal poison. They are the curling smoke which arises from a hidden volcano of mischief. I for one would never make any stir about church millinery or incense or candles if I thought they meant nothing beneath the surface. But I believe they mean a great deal of error and false doctrine and therefore I publicly protest against them and say that those who support them are to be blamed. I give it as my deliberate opinion that the root of the whole ritualistic system is the dangerous doctrine of the real presence of Christ's natural body and blood in the Lord's Supper under the forms of the consecrated bread and wine. If words mean anything, this real presence is the foundation principle of ritualism. This real presence is what the extreme members of the ritualistic party want to bring back into the Church of England. And just as our martyred reformers went to the stake rather than admit the real presence, so I hold that we should make any sacrifice and contend to the bitter end rather than allow a materialistic doctrine about Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper to come back in any shape into our communion. I will not weary my readers with quotations in proof of what I affirm. They have heard enough, perhaps too much of them, but I must ask permission to give two short extracts. Observe what Dr. Pusey says in a sermon called Will Ye Also Go Away. Pusey was one of the Sarcedotalists, one of the High Anglicans, one of the people bringing in rituals. into the Church of England, essentially Roman Catholic practices into the Church of England. So Pusey says, while repudiating any materialistic conceptions of the mode of the presence of our Lord in the Holy Eucharist, such as I believe is condemned in the term corporal presence of our Lord's flesh and blood, i.e. as though his precious body and blood were present in any gross or carnal way, and not rather sacramentally, really spiritually, I believe that in the Holy Eucharist the body and blood of Christ are sacramentally, supernaturally, ineffably, but verily and indeed present under the forms of bread and wine, and that where his body is, there is Christ. Observe what Dr Littledale says in a tract called The Real Presence. 1. The Christian Church teaches and has always taught that in the Holy Communion after consecration the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ are verily and indeed presents on the altar under the forms of bread and wine. 2. The Church also teaches that this presence depends on God's will not on man's belief and therefore that bad and good people receive the very same thing in communicating the good for their benefit the bad for their condemnation. Three, further, that as Christ is both God and man, and as these two natures are forever joined in his one person, his Godhead must be wherever his body is, and therefore he is to be worshipped in his sacrament. Four, the body and blood present are that same body and blood which were conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, ascended into heaven, but they are not present in that same manner as they were when Christ walked the earth. He as man is now naturally in heaven, there to be till the last day, yet he is supernaturally and just as truly present in the Holy Communion in some way which we cannot explain but only believe." So again teaching the corporal presence. Now you might ask was this only a value or was this only of relevance in Ryle's day? I believe it is just as relevant today and I expect we will see very soon a resurgence of Roman Catholicism and Catholic power even in England at such a time as this. We need to be aware and we need to be ready with our understanding and our teaching of the scripture to oppose such doctrines from rising up again. In both these quotations we may observe that there is an attempt to evade the charge of maintaining a gross and carnal presence. The attempt however is not successful. It is a very curious fact that the Romish controversialist Mr Harding, Bishop Jewell's opponent, said just as much 300 years ago. He said Christ's body is present not after a corporeal or carnal or naturally wise but invisibly, unspeakably, miraculously, supernaturally, spiritually, divinely, and in a manner by him known." Harding's reply to Jewell, Parker Society edition. In both cases we can hardly fail to observe that the very expression which Almatis steadily refused is employed. present under the forms of bread and wine. It is clear to my mind that if Dr Pusey and Dr Littledale had been brought before Gardner and Bonner 300 years ago, they would have left the court with flying colours and at any rate would not have been burned. I might refer my readers to the other published sermons on the Lord's Supper by men of high position in our church. I might refer them to several ritualistic manuals for the use of communicants. I might refer them to the famous book directorium Anglicanum. I simply give it as my opinion that no plain man in his senses can read the writings of extreme ritualists about the Lord's Supper and see any real distinction between the doctrine they hold and downright potpourri. It is a distinction without a difference and one that any jury of 12 honest men would say at once could not be proved. I turn from books and sermons to churches and I ask any reflecting mind to mark, consider and digest what may be seen in any thoroughgoing ritualistic place of worship. I ask him to mark the superstitious veneration and idolatrous honour with which everything within the chancel and around and upon the Lord's table is regarded. I boldly ask any jury of 12 honest and unprejudiced men to look at that chancel and communion table and tell me what they think all this means. I asked them whether the whole thing does not savour of the Romish doctrine of the real presence and the sacrifice of the mass. I believe that if Bonner and Gardiner had seen the chancels and communion tables of some of the churches of this day, they would have lifted up their hands and rejoiced, while Ridley, Bishop of London, and Hooper, Bishop of Gloucester, would have turned away with righteous indignation and said, this communion table is not meant for the Lord's supper or on the Lord's board, but for counterfeiting the idolatrous popish mass. I do not for a moment deny the zeal, earnestness, and sincerity of the extreme ritualists, though as much might be said for the Pharisees or the Jesuits. I do not deny that we live in a singularly free country and that Englishmen nowadays have liberty to commit any folly of fellow d'Essay. But I do not deny that any clergyman, however zealous and earnest, has a right to introduce potpourri into the Church of England. And above all, I deny Sorry, yeah, let me read that paragraph from the start again. I do not for a moment deny the zeal, earnestness and sincerity of the extreme ritualists, though as much might be said for the Pharisees or the Jesuits. I do not deny that we live in a singularly free country and that Englishmen nowadays have liberty to commit any folly short of fellow d'Essay. But I do deny that any clergyman, however zealous and earnest, has a right to reintroduce potpourri into the Church of England. And above all, I deny that he has any right to maintain the very principle of the real presence for opposing which the reformers of his church were burned. The plain truth is that the doctrine of the extreme ritualistic school about the Lord's Supper can never be reconciled with the dying opinions of our martyred reformers. The members of this school may protest loudly that they are sound churchmen, but they certainly are not church men of the same opinions as the Marian martyrs, if words mean anything. Hooper and Rogers and Ridley and Bradford and their companions held one view of the real presence, and the ultra-ritualists hold quite another. If they were right, the ritualists are wrong. There is a gulf that cannot be crossed between the two parties. There is a thorough difference that cannot be reconciled or explained away. If we hold with one side, we cannot possibly hold with the other. For my part, I say unhesitatingly that I have more faith in Ridley and Hooper and Bradford than I have in all the leaders of the ultra-ritualist party. But what are we going to do? The danger is very great, far greater, I fear, than most people suppose. A conspiracy has been long at work for un-Protestantising the Church of England, and all the energies of Rome are concentrated this little island a sapping and mining process has been long going on under our feet of which we are beginning at last to see a little we shall see a good deal more by and by at the rate we are going it would never surprise me if within 50 years the crown of England were no longer on a Protestant head well that hasn't happened but there's been obviously some debate about that with the crowning of King Charles the third but Yes so that hasn't happened but the Church of Rome is gaining strength and people don't see that but the Church of Rome is gaining strength and may yet be the replacement for the woke humanism that we have at the moment and we should never underestimate the danger that we're in ideologically Hymas were once more celebrated in Westminster Abbey and St Paul's. Well you don't just have that, you have Muslims speaking there now. The danger in plain words is neither more nor less than that of our church being un-Protestantised and going back to Babylon and Egypt. We are in imminent peril of pre-reunion with Rome. Men may call me an alarmist if they like for using such language, but I reply there is a cause. The upper classes in this land are widely infected with a taste for sensuous histrionic formal religion. The lower orders are becoming sadly familiarised with all the ceremonialism which is the stepping stone to potpourri. The middle classes are becoming disgusted with the Church of England and asking what is the use of it. The intellectual classes are finding out that all religions are either equally good or equally bad. The House of Commons will do nothing unless suppressed by public opinion. We have no Pyms or Hamdans there now. And all this time, ritualism grows and spreads. The ship is among breakers, breakers ahead and breakers astern, breakers on the right hand and breakers on the left. Something needs to be done if we are to escape the shipwreck. The very life of the Church of England is at stake and nothing less. Take away the gospel from a church and that church is not worth preserving. A well without water, a scabbard without a sword, a steam engine without a fire, a ship without compass and a rudder, a watch without a mainspring, a stuffed carcass without life. All these are useless things. But there is nothing so useless as a church without the gospel. And this is the very question that stares us in the face. Is the Church of England to retain the Gospel or not? Without it, in vain shall we return to our archbishops and bishops. In vain shall we glory in our cathedrals and parish churches. Ichabod will soon be written on our walls. The Ark of God will not be with us. Surely something ought to be done. One thing, however, is very clear to my mind. We ought not lightly to forsake the Church of England. No, so long as her articles and formularies remain unaltered, unrepealed and unchanged. So long we ought not to forsake her. Cowardly in base is that seaman who launches the boat and forsakes the ship so long as there is a chance of saving her. Cowardly, I say, is that Protestant churchman who talks of seceding because things on board our church are at present out of order. What though some of the crew are traitors and some are asleep? What though the old ship has some leaks and her rigging has given way in some places? Of course, things have moved on much further than that now in the Church of England. I would call everybody in the Church of England to come out now. Come out of for my people, says the Lord in the word of God in the Bible. Still I maintain there is much to be done. There is life in the old ship yet. The great pilot has not yet forsaken her. Well, this seems to be the case now. The compass of the Bible is still on deck. The Bible is gone. There are yet left on, you only have to look at the Archbishop of York and his saying that the words of the Lord Jesus Christ that we should pray our Father out in heaven is extremely problematic. And you realize that the compass is gone now. The Bible is not there now. There are yet left on board some faithful and able seamen. So long as the articles and formularies are not romanised, let us stick by the ship. So long as she has Christ in the Bible, let us stand by her to the last plank. Nail our colours to the mast and never haul them down. Once more I say, let us not be wheedled or bullied or frightened or cajoled or provoked into forsaking the Church of England. In the name of the Lord, let us set up our banners. If ever we would meet Ridley and Latimer and Hooper in another world, without shame, let us contend earnestly for the truths which they died to preserve. The Church of England expects every Protestant churchman to do his duty. Let us not talk only, but act. Let us not act only, but pray. He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. You know, last week I was at the Keswick Convention which has forsaken the truth and yet there would have been many Christians from the Church of England in Ryle's day who went to the Keswick Convention. But no, the Church of England is gone. God's people need to get out of the Church of England. God's judgement is against the Church of England. There is a voice in the blood of the martyrs. What does that voice say? It cries aloud from Oxford, Smithfield, and Gloucester. Resist to the death the popish doctrine of the real presence under the forms of the consecrated bread and wine in the Lord's Supper. So that's the end of that. The next chapter is John Hooper, Bishop and Martyr. believe that the Church of England is gone, she's gone. God's people need to get out of her, God's judgments are determined against her. She's got to the point where she is so apostate, so evil, so corrupt, so compromised in her doctrine and in her departure from truth that God's people have to leave. My prayer is that they would do so and that they would be given grace and strength to come out but that they would see the issues clearly and that they would leave the Church of England. I speak as a Reformed Baptist. I'm very, very deeply moved by the accounts of those deaths of those martyrs. Thank God for those men that went before us. May we be worthy of their memory as we seek to serve the Lord Jesus Christ ourselves in perplexing times.