Lutheran movement in england during the reigns of henry VIII. And edward VI

CHAPTER XII. A LITERARY FORGERY.

Articles falsely ascribed to Luther and Melanchthon circulated in England in 1539. Similar or identical Articles in France in 1535; also in Germany. Seckendorfs detailed examination presented in full. A genuine Paper on the same topics by the leading Lutheran Theologians in 1540. The Fate of the Six Articles. Anne of Cleves. Melanchthon writes once more to Henry. Negotiations in Contemplation. Argument of the Wittenberg Theologians on “Abuses.” Cranmer intercedes for the King. Another Reaction. Anne repudiated. Fall of Crumwell. Dr. Barnes burned.

The opponents of Lutheranism in England resorted for its suppression not only to open violence, but also to arts not unknown among politicians of the Nineteenth Century. In November, 1539, the ambassadors of the Elector of Saxony to England send to their ruler a series of articles which had been industriously circulated as the joint production of Luther and Melanchthon, signed March, 1539, and expressly recanting any statements which had been hitherto made conflicting with them. The document had been used, it is stated, to prejudice the mind of the king, against the apparent vacillation of the Reformers, and thus to determine his course in reference to the Six Articles. Already in 1535, Luther had complained that a similar forged document, composed largely of garbled statements from Melanchthon’s writings had been circulated in France; and hence Walch²⁰⁴ has inferred that the two papers are identical. Neither without interest in this connection, is Seckendorf’s discovery²⁰⁵ [[@Page:160]]of a somewhat amended and interpolated translation into German of the articles preserved in the Archives at Weimar, with the inscription that they had been sent from the Elector to Charles V. Thus it is probable that this forgery was thrice utilized, viz.: in France, in England and in Germany. We cannot help but admire the ingenuity of the composer, so skillfully has the work been done, and so closely do single statements read like expressions occasionally used by the Wittenbergers.

As no less an English authority than Strype, in his “Memorials of the Reformation,”²⁰⁶ has been misled, and this primary source of information for most English students gives currency to occasional reiteration of these charges by those not acquainted with the facts, we give the articles in full as given by Strype in the English of that time, together with Seckendorf’s examination of each article separately:

“I. We confess that there ought to be a policy in the church and a regime. In the which, there must be bishops; who shall have the power of the examine, and ordinance of the ministration of the same, for to exercise the jurisdiction of the same; who shall diligently see, that the churches committed unto them, may be truly instructed with pure and sincere doctrine.”

Reply: “Luther and Melanchthon never declared that such Episcopal office was necessary as is established in the Roman Church, with all its power and jurisdiction; neither did they acknowledge an essential dictinction between bishops and pastors; as is manifest from all their writings which were never recalled, and especially from the treatise ‘On the Power and Jurisdiction of Bishops,’ composed by Melanchthon in the year 1537 at Smalcald, subscribed by Luther, and annexed to the ‘Articles,’ which he himself composed. They were willing, however, to tolerate bishops, and to comply with the authority of their external administration, provided they saw to it that the Word of God was purely preached, and, abuses being removed, the sacraments be administered according to Christ’s institution.” [[@Page:161]]

“II. We admit that it is good and convenient, that in the church, there be a Bishop of Rome, that may be above other bishops; who may gather them together, to see the examination of the doctrine, and the concord of such, as do teach discrepancies in the church. But we admit not the pomp, riches, and pride of the Bishop of Rome; who would make realms subject unto him. The which things do neither help nor promote the gospel; because the Kings that have right thereto, may and are to rule the same.”

Reply: “Luther was willing to endure the Papacy with advantage to the church, not even by human law; as is evident from the Smalcald Articles. Melanchthon, in this matter of a singular opinion, to which no one assented, thought that something could be conceded, but upon the same condition, upon which the Episcopate could be admitted.”

“III. We confess, that as concerning choice of meats, holy days and ceremonies, there might an agreement be made easily, if there could be a concord in the doctrine of the church, and not such discrepance as there is. For if there were a concord of doctrine in the church, we should not think reasonable to divide us from the church, seen [seeing] that it is not possible that the world might stand without ceremonies and man’s constitutions; seen that all innovations without necessity ought to be excluded; and that there is no peril, to us I mean, in the observation of the said ceremonies, and men’s constitutions; for that the doctrine be purely handled.”

Reply: “They did not deny that separation was necessary because of ceremonies; but regarded these no less than erroneous doctrines a sufficient cause of separation, if they tended to superstition and idolatry, and the opinion of necessity were attached to them, from obligation of conscience and of merit before God, with injury to Christian and ecclesiastical liberty, in view of which it is lawful to change rites for the advantage and profit of the church; but they never used the silly argument from the government of the world to the government of the church, [[@Page:162]]knowing well what injury was introduced into the church thereby.”

“IV. We judge to be profitable that confession and rehearsal of sins be made in the church. For taking the same away, the doctrine of remission of sins, and of the power of the Keys, should be offuscate and taken away; seeing that in the confession, among other things the people ought to be taught, whence cometh the remission of sins. Provided, that there be honest fashion to instruct the persons that be shriven, and that the consciences be not overlaid with rigorous and exact rehearsal of all sins.”

Reply: “Luther never maintained the necessity of the enumeration of sins, or said that, when it was removed, the doctrine of the remission of sins was offuscate; and, therefore, did not censure other churches which, in a diverse manner, aimed at the same end, the preparation and excitation of the communicants in repentance and faith being introduced in the stead of particular confession.”

“V. We believe that justification is made by faith. Because there be no works, whereby we may satisfy or obtain remission of sins. Yet nevertheless the same faith that justifies us, ought not to be idle, but adorned with good and godly deeds.”

Reply: “The particle ‘alone’ is craftily omitted. Nor is it more correct in denying that by certain works justification may occur. For it is indicated that there are works which do this, viz;., love, with which they say that faith ought to be furnished, i. e., as some say, informed. Luther, however, excluded charity from the act of justification; and maintained that it was not the form, bnt the effect and fruit of faith.”

“VI. We confess that free-will, holpen with the Holy Ghost may do somewhat, whensoever we will withdraw from sin.”

Reply: “It is doubtful whether the framers of these articles understood them in a sound sense; and agreed with the evangelicals concerning the co-operation of man after conversion, so as to ascribe to God alone all glory without the ascription of any merit of our own.” [[@Page:163]]

“VII. We confess, that after the remission of sins, the Holy Ghost is given to the man; from the which he departeth again, as soon as he committeth any deadly sin.”

Reply: It should have been added that by repentance, the forgiveness of sins and the Holy Ghost can be recovered, in order that the heresy of Novatus might not be imputed to the evangelicals, as their caluminators were wont to do.”

“VIII. We use the fashion accustomed in the office of the mass. For what should avail a change of ceremonies without necessity? But we admit not the privie masses, because they have occasion of sundry abuses. Because there is an open fair or market made of celebration of masses.”

Reply: “They did not say that they used the accustomed fashion, i. e. that introduced by abuse, but they affirmed that they employed a better one, the canon which they mention, and other forms and rites conflicting with orthodoxy being removed; nor did they disapprove only of the traffic in masses, but its being regarded a propitiatory sacrifice. Accordingly they recalled the mass to the communion alone, liberty being observed in changing the rites which, from the beginning they had observed in order to avoid scandal, or in hope of harmony; and this liberty they also afterwards exercised.”

“IX. We believe thus concerning the Lord’s Supper: That like as Christ, in his last supper did give unto his disciples his true body to be eaten and drunken; and so he gives daily to us his disciples and loyal men, as often as we keep the supper, according to the form commanded, Accipite et comedite, etc., the true body and blood to be eaten and drunk. This is the mind of the three evangelists and St. Paul. And so their words do sound clearly. Wherefore, away with all such erroneous interpretations as are made upon the said words.

We be taught that Christ did give to his disciples his body and blood under both species and kinds; and that, therefore, we ought to observe the same; as we do indeed. But because one of the species hath by men’s constitutions been forbidden [[@Page:164]]by the Bishop of Rome, there might be a remedy found without peril or danger; so that he that would, might have both species; and that there should be a prohibition made, that the one should insult against the other.”

“Reply: “They should have added that the dogma of transubstantiation was rejected by the Evangelicals, with all its consequences of inclusion, circumgestation, and adoration of the Sacrament. It is also false that communion under both kinds or one kind, was a matter of indifference to the Evangelicals; but approved only the former, as prescribed by immutable divine law.”

“X. Seen” [seeing] “that it appeareth by the holy doctors, that the holy days and feasts of saints have been accustomed to be observed; and as we see as yet some holy canons of that matter, but it appeareth not that there is made in the same a mention of their invocation; but it appeareth only by the same, that they be proposed unto us for an example, to learn to follow their lives and conversations, yet, nevertheless, seen that by some custom, the intercession of saints ought to be admitted, then there should be prayers made unto God, that it might like him to hear them by the intercession of some saints; we affirm for a certainty, that the saints do continually intercede for the church; albeit the Christian men ought to be taught, that they shall not convert the same hope to the saints, which they ought to have unto God. Nor do we regret images of Christ and the saints, but only the worship shown them; whence idolatry sprung.”

Reply: “They never affirmed it as a certainty, or an article of faith that the saints intercede for us; Luther indeed, in the Smalcald Articles, admitted the conjecture; nevertheless he denied that they should in any way be prayed to intercede, or that God should be asked to have respect to their intercession.”

“XI. Also we dampne not the monastery, or life of such as be closed in the cloisters; but only the trust that some men have put in the regular observation. Also we reject the vows which [[@Page:165]]have been made upon such things as men cannot observe. Yet, nevertheless we will not the monasteries be put down for the same, but that they be turned to schools; in which good doctrine should be taught. And that the pope may dispense with vows; so that it were free for every man to keep or not keep them. And so the same should be to the quiet and tranquility of mind, and the vows should not be the snares of malice.”

Reply: “The resort to cloisters, they did not approve, but condemned. They maintained that the monastic life could be tolerated, if constraint, the opinion of merit, idle begging, were absent, and other abuses were removed, and the power of entering them be free, without any regard to a Papal dispensation.”

“XII. Then the marriage of priests should be in the Pope’s hands, who might admit the same; and the concubinate of many should be forgiven; for we see few chaste. But if the law to contract should not have place, then, for to avoid slander, there should be none advanced to the dignities ecclesiastical, but grave persons, and of full age.”

Reply: “It is apparent that here falsehoods are fabricated with respect to Luther, as though he would allow the marriage of the clergy to be referred to the judgment and dispensation of the Pope; for this he regarded a matter of divine law, not only allowed, but necessary to all who did not possess the gift of continence. The caution also with respect to ecclesiastical dignities, that they should be conferred upon none but upon men of advanced age, who could be celibate, is not Luther’s.”

“XIII. We think it best to dispute of Purgatory and pardons, in the schools, rather than, in the pulpit, to dispute of the same publicly, without any profit; so that the markets and bargains thereof should be avoided. For we do reject in those things and others, wherein we do not agree, the abuse rather than the thing itself. The which, nevertheless, may be discussed and amended by councils lawfully assembled.”

Reply: “Purgatory itself, and the entire figment of Pontifical indulgences, Luther, with his associates, rejected, as, among [[@Page:166]]other passages, is manifest in the Smalcald Articles; and, therefore, he did not forbid that they be refuted in the sermon; for he did this not only with his vow, but also in his writings.

“XIV. The Zwinglians and Œcolampadians have not yet received those artices, but the simple people shall be easily reduced, and we trust that they shall shortly do conformable thereto.”

Reply: Here Zwingli and the Œcolampadians are invidiously cited, as though only their followers, and not, likewise, the Lutherans, rejected Pontifical abuses. Then, too, it is false that the people were inclined to accept these compromises, or that, through sermons, hope was offered them for these. The contrary was found also after the death of Luther, when, the edict of Charles being published in the year 1548, a very few admitted incrustations not unlike these which were then invented in England, and, although compelled by violence to receive them, nevertheless, in a short time rejected, them.”

“XV. Luther hath revoked all the books, wherein there be many things contrary to those articles, and hath retracted them with his own hands and knowledged his faults. In March 3d, MDXXXIX.”

Reply: “This is so impudently false, as not to be worthy of refutation.”

Some of the prejudices against Lutheranism in England on the part of the more pronounced opponents of hierarchism, have not improbably originated from the false impressions produced by this forgery. To have yielded as much as this document does, would have been to have given up half the battle to the Papacy. It was essentially, as Seckendorf intimates, what afterwards was so stoutly resisted by Lutherans in the Interim. It is amusing to read Strype’s conclusion of the matter:

“But these steps to a good concord between the king and the Germans came to nothing; the king taking some misconceit against the Duke of Saxony, because it was said, he rather [[@Page:167]]inclined to have his sister-in-law, the Lady Anne of Cleves, married in Germany than to him.”

As opposed to this, we have an authentic document of January 18th, 1540, in which Luther, Melanchthon, Jonas, Bugenhagen, Myconius, Sarcerius, Bucer and others unite in stating to the Elector the conditions upon which peace may be made with “the bishops.”

They say: “Since the doctrine in all articles of the confession, as it is understood and taught in our churches, is truly and properly the sure Christian doctrine of the Holy Gospel, we neither will, nor can rriake or assent to any change therein. Therefore, if there be a meeting, first of all the doctrine must be discussed; for if they be silent concerning this, and still hold their own, and thus treat of an external, hypocritical agreement, no firm unity would follow; but they must first consider whether this doctrine be correct, and be allowed by theirs. If, perhaps, they give heed to some articles and receive them in a measure; and say that our writings are numerous and dissimilar, and therefore, certain articles must be composed; and also, perhaps, censure some so as to patch and change them; our judgment is, that we do not allow new, obscure and uncertain articles or patch-work to be prepared, but declare to them that the sum of our doctrine is set forth in the Confession and Apology, from whose doctrine we do not think of departing. And if any one have any fault to find therewith, as though it were not sufficiently explained or were incorrect, we then offer ourselves ready, with all diligence, to show either by writing or orally, what the understanding is in our churches; and so to make answer, that undoubtedly all reasonable and God-fearing men shall be satisfied.”²⁰⁷

THE SIX ARTICLES

were soon lost sight of, except as an historical land-mark. “Its operation seems to have been checked in part at least, as early [[@Page:168]]as the following year.”²⁰⁸ Crumwell’s schemes were successful. In spite of the Elector’s persistent advice to the contrary, because of which he greatly offended his relatives, the marriage of Henry with the Elector’s sister-in-law, Anne of Cleves, was arranged. We need not repeat the story with which readers of English history are so familiar of the flattering portrait painted by Cranach, the impatience of Henry to welcome his bride, his trip to the coast to receive her, his terrible disappointment, his fruitless endeavor to retract from his engagement even after she had entered England for her marriage, his brutal treatment of her, his divorce on the ground “that the king” [poor innocent Henry!] “having married her against his will, he had not given a pure, in ward and complete consent,” and her silent dignity amidst all these wrongs. Had the Elector’s advice been heeded, this mortification would not have been incurred.

THE LUTHERAN ULTIMATUM.

However opposed the Elector had been to the alliance, yet when against his will it was concluded, he was unwilling to lose any opportunity which it would afford for gaining an entrance into England of that pure faith of the Gospel which had been so often repelled by the king. Hence contrary to all former expectations of both statesmen and theologians, the pen of Melanchthon was once more called into service, during the period after the marriage and before the repudiation of Anne of Cleves. April 12th, 1540, he wrote a long letter for the Elector’s use, referring to an oral statement made by Henry as to his hope that he might yet become a member of the Smalcald League, and reminding him that the League has no other object but that of “the defence of true doctrine, and cases connected therewith,” and “if the king wished to enter the League for other reasons than those of religion, that this was entirely at variance with the principles of the League.” The king was severely rebuked for the infamous “Six Articles,” which are [[@Page:169]]ascribed to “the conspiracy and artifices of bishops whose minds are still imbued with veneration for Romish godlessness.” As, however the execution of the “Six Articles” has been arrested, and the king, on the one hand, has expressed again his desire that true doctrine be propagated in his churches, but, on the other, has stated that the Lutherans “in some articles have advanced beyond bounds,” the Elector has had some theologians prepare a memorandum of the arguments on which the articles on abuses rest for the especial consideration of the king and his theologians. A conference between English and German theologians is suggested to be held at Guelders, Hamburg or Bremen, or any other place designated by the English king. “For we greatly desire,” the letter continues, “that true and godly agreement be established between the Anglican and German Churches. Such a consummation would both magnify the glory of God and incite other nations. Accordingly, in this matter, we promise our aid with all our might, both because of the glory of God and our own necessities. Since, moreover, we are now united by a new bond of relationship, we are especially desirous that this union may be of some advantage to the Church of Christ, and the State; as these ought to be the chief ends in view in the friendships of princes.”²⁰⁹ The memorandum accompanying the letter is as follows:

“Writing of the Wittenberg Theologians sent to the King of England.

OF THE MASS.

There is no controversy concerning lessons and prayers in the Mass. For since Paul also in public ceremonies wanted some holy lessons, useful for exciting minds to the fear of God and to faith, to be recited, and prayers and thanksgiving to be added, this custom is not to be abolished, but to be diligently maintained in the Church. For, first, it is especially profitable that, in the common assembly, there be prayer; because Christ expressly gave promises to the church, when he said: ‘If two [[@Page:170]]of you shall agree on earth, as touching anything that they ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.’ Christ, therefore, by his most comprehensive promise, invites us to join with the Church in prayer. God wants the Church to be so bound together that one be affected by the necessity of the other, and pray for the other, and promises that he will hear these prayers. The public usage of the Church in public prayers, in the Mass and other ceremonies, ought to admonish us to learn this, and to exercise such faith. Paul also in 2 Cor. 1., asks that prayers be made by many, that many in turn may thank God for hearing prayer, and for looking upon the afflicted. Then the example of the Church is most useful. For it teaches many to be themselves aroused to believe and pray, especially if in the sermons, the people be admonished concerning the promises made to the Church. For thus they will understand the examples of others, and the custom of the Church will profit them unto edification, as Paul teaches, 1 Cor. 14. Thirdly, the example of the Church serves to admonish individuals in regard to what matters they should be concerned, and what they should ask. For a people untaught, does not understand public necessities. But there it not only hears that private gifts are to be sought, but also learns that each one should participate in the public care, pray for the whole Church, that it be freed from errors, scandals, dissensions, godless services, that true doctrine be propagated, that true worship be rendered God, and we be ruled and sanctified by the Holy Ghost. It learns also that prayers for bodily things, peace, happy government, harvest, against pestilence and like ills, please God. Such prayers in public ceremonies, in the Mass and elsewhere, we hold were devoutly and necessarily instituted. For it is God’s command, both that we call upon him in all dangers, and that, in the public rites, the people be taught concerning this invocation, to learn to believe God, and to seek and expect aid of God.

But concerning the use of the sacrament of the Body and Blood [[@Page:171]]of the Lord in the Mass, we disapprove of those who hold that the use of the sacrament is a service to be applied for others, living and dead, and that it merits for them the remission of guilt and punishment, and this too for the work wrought. For these things are unknown to the Ancient Church, and disagree with the Holy Scriptures, and obscure the doctrine of faith, and produce confidence in the work of another. But when Christ said: This do in remembrance of me, he instituted this sacrament, that there might be there the remembrance in true faith of his death and of the benefits which, by his death, he has merited. And these benefits are applied by the sacrament to the one taking it, when, by this remembrance, it excites faith, which believes that Christ truly bestows upon us his benefits, while he offers us such a testimony that he joins us to himself, that he wishes to keep us as his members, that he cleanses us with his blood. This faith, whereby the benefits of Christ are received, is the spiritual worship of God, and because, with this faith, thanksgiving should be joined, whereby hearts truly give thanks, for the forgiveness of sins and redemption, to God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, the Ancient Church called this use of the sacraments, Eucharist, as Cyprian says most sweetly concerning communicants: Piety dividing itself between what is given and what is forgiven, thanks the bestower of so abundant benefit,’ i. e. Piety considers both, viz., how great the magnitude of the benefit bestowed upon us, grace and life eternal, and, on the other hand, how great is the magnitude of our evils, i. e. of sins and eternal death. Ardent thanksgiving, therefore, arises, when we see that, by unspeakable clemency, such sins are remitted us, and besides we are presented with the Holy Spirit, and the glory of life eternal. And, in this sense, we hold that this most revered ceremony is called by the holy Fathers a sacrifice, who certainly did not think that this work, when applied, merits for others the remission of guilt and punishment, and that, for the work wrought, but held that, in the use of the sacrament, faith is to be exercised and thanksgiving to be rendered. Since, therefore, Christ [[@Page:172]]instituted the use of the sacrament, that it might be a communion, in which the sacrament might be administered to others, and the Church, for a long time, preserved this custom, and did not have private masses, we hold that such rite, wherein there is a communion of some, is godly and in harmony with the Gospel. Then private masses were wont to be performed with the opinion concerning the use of the sacrament, that it is necessary, that this service sprang up in the Church in order to be applied to others, so that it merits for them the remission of guilt and punishment. Such masses, therefore, are to be abrogated, and in order that these scandals be removed, and the institution of Christ, viz. the communion be celebrated, we hold that no one should be compelled to celebrate private masses. For since Paul says that they who abuse the sacrament are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, the greatest care must be taken that the godly and holy use be restored to the glory of Christ and the profit of the Church.

OF BOTH KINDS.

There is no doubt that the Ancient Church, East and West, used both kinds of the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, viz. bread and wine. For Paul also testifies that this was the custom in the church of the Corinthians, and Christ, on instituting the sacrament, ordained this use not only for a part of the Church, viz. for the priests, but for the whole Church; and the declaration of Jerome and others is extant, which shows that this custom remained for a long time in the Church, and in capitulo. We have ascertained, Gelasius declared, that both kinds are taken; wherefore the recent prohibition is only a human tradition. Hence it does not have the authority to change an institution of Christ, nor are men to be compelled, because of a human tradition, to change, against conscience, a custom delivered by Christ, and employed in the Ancient Church, since it is manifest that this usage is lawful and godly. [[@Page:173]]

OF THE MARRIAGE OF PRIESTS.

With respect to virginity and continence and marriage, we follow and defend the manifest declaration of Paul, 1 Cor. VII. And as Christ praises eunuchs who made themselves such for the Kingdom of God, so we also teach that the preservation of virginity is a good work and useful for assiduity in study, in meditation, in prayer, in ecclesiastical ministrations; as Paul says that the husband cares for the things which are of the world, but the unmarried for those which are of the Lord. For the husband is hindered by domestic occupations from giving that uninterrupted attention, needful for studies and public services, but the unmarried is less employed, and can apply greater energy in learning, teaching and other functions; and is less distracted by cares. Therefore it is well to choose and to have in the Church ministers entirely celibate; and they who see that they are fitted, are to be exhorted, by their diligence and temperance, to preserve the gift of God because of the advantage of the Church, and are to be taught that this office pleases God and has great rewards. But inasmuch as Christ himself testifies that not all are fit for perpetual celibacy, we hold that to those who are not fitted for celibacy, marriage neither ought, nor can be prohibited by a vow or human law; because a vow and human laws cannot free us from a divine law and a natural right. But it is a divine law that every one who does not have the gift of continence, should, in order to avoid fornication, have a wife. And the desire for marriage conformably to right reason, is a right of nature. To this natural affection, as it is called, concupiscence is now added, which inflames nature the more; so that the need for marriage as a remedy, is the greater. The law, moreover, which prohibits marriage to priests, is purely a human tradition. And further, this new tradition which prohibits marriage to priests, and dissolves contracts, has not originated from councils, but from the Roman bishops alone. Purity before God, is not to pollute the conscience, but to obey God; wherefore an impure celibacy is not purity, and marriage, since it is sanctified by the [[@Page:174]]Word of God, is purity. For we certainly know that this kind of life pleases God, and it is full of the exercises of godliness; and, accordingly, for a long time, the Church not only in the East, but also in the West, had married priests. History also testifies that this custom was changed in Spain and Germany by violence. The Greek churches still have married priests; and, hence, marriage is not impurity, or a matter unworthy of the ministers of the churches. But what examples, what impurity, what disgrace to the churches, the law of the Bishop of Rome produced, is not obscure. Since the Divine Law enjoins marriage upon those who are not continent, we judge that the pontifical prohibition concerning celibacy, is unlawful, and that marriage is allowed priests.

OF MONASTIC VOWS.

There are many important reasons why it is necessary to support, at the public expense, studious and godly men, destined for sacred literature, in order that the teachers of the churches may be derived thence. For since the more destitute cannot, from their resources, bear the expense of studies, and the rich prefer to resort to other arts, whereby great honors, and great rewards are offered in the state; it is necessary that the Church provide that some be supported at the public expense, in order to give attention to sacred literature and other arts of which the Church has need. Unless this were done, the churches in many places would be without pastors. This duty then is incumbent upon kings and princes, that they provide that pastors be not lacking to the churches, and that they supply the expenses of teachers and scholars. For Isaiah, to this end, calls kings nursing-fathers, and queens nursing-mothers, in order to teach that kings and states ought to defend teachers, and supply the expense. Neither is it unjust that they whose studies are directed to the profit of the Church, be supported, in turn, by the Church; as Paul says: ‘Who goeth a warfare at his own charges?’ Apparently with this design, in the beginning [[@Page:175]]assemblages were instituted in colleges and monasteries, in order that there might be a large number of those engaged in sacred literature, from whom teachers could be chosen; and to this, the laws in the code, and histories bear witness. For this purpose, therefore, it is profitable, provided the godless opinions and services be reformed, that colleges and monasteries be preserved. For it is not enough that the youth who are to be employed here after in the government of the Church, should learn literature, but also should be accustomed, by discipline and godly exercises, to the love of ceremonies and to godliness; for those not trained by such discipline are more profane than is expedient. Besides, the Church has need of learned and skilful pastors. But familiar conversation with men learned in spiritual matters conduces very much to the strengthening of doctrine and the confirming of judgments. For without such intercourse, no one can attain to solid learning. Moreover if pastors be altogether lacking to the churches, or the pastors be unlearned and inexperienced and mere tyros, what do we suppose will be the state of the Church? There will be devastation and barbarism, and, with literary pursuits destroyed, learning will be extinct. Paul prohibits the choice of novices, because he knew that there was need of skilful and experienced teachers. Nazianzen deplores the calamity of the Church, because they who had not previously learned, suddenly became doctors, brought forward not by their learning, but by votes. Basil says that the doctrine of the eminent fathers whom he heard, was still resounding in his ears. Wherefore it is highly desirable that there be such monasteries, in which doctrine may flourish and be propagated, youth be properly trained and be prepared for the service of the Church, in order that learned and well-trained doctors of the churches be had. Such once were the colleges of bishops, as is apparent from the accounts of Ambrose and Augustine and others, in which learning was for a long time propagated. Afterwards, when, in such colleges, the pursuits of learning were neglected, a great change of doctrine followed, which was of no little injury [[@Page:176]]to the Church. Therefore, with the polity preserved, let the opinion of colleges and monasteries be reformed, let superstition be removed, let godless services be rejected and the pursuits of learning be renewed to the profit of the Church. For we hold that the following opinions are godless, viz. that monastic vows merit the forgiveness of sins and eternal life, or that they are Christian righteousness or perfection; and while lawful vows are to be observed, such monastic vows are unlawful, as are made with the false persuasion that works, devised without God’s command, are not matters of indifference, but a service, and merit the remission of sins and eternal life. These vows are invalid. The objection urged from Paul concerning widows, that they have made void their first faith, even though there were vows then, cannot be accommodated to monastic vows of these times, which, when fulfilled with a godless opinion, are not vows. For they transfer the glory of Christ to human observances, and obscure true worship in the Church, viz., faith in Christ and the good works of one’s calling. For who did not prefer the observances of the monks to the office of magistrate and of father? For these works, as profane and unclean, seemed scarcely excusable, and faith was obscured, because they did not teach that forgiveness of sins is gratuitously bestowed for Christ’s sake, but ascribed this honor to their observances. And the rest of the Church imitated these opinions and examples, and superstitiously thought that works are services of human traditions, and merit remission of sins and life eternal. Since, however, the Gospel condemns these opinions, monastic vows, made with this persuasion, are manifestly unlawful. Besides not all are fitted for perpetual continence; while a vow should be concerning a possible matter, and, it is evident that many young men and maidens were forced into monasteries, and to make vows before the just age; how great the peril of which is, is not obscure. We must, therefore, allow those preferring to live in another kind of life, to depart from monasteries. They also do aright who leave the monks, when they are compelled in monasteries to observe [[@Page:177]]godless services, as the abuse of masses, indulgences and many other things. If any, however, adapted to monastic life, prefer to live in these colleges; if their opinion and worship be reformed, and they use ordinances as indifferent matters, we do not censure them, and we judge that many holy and excellent men with this intention lived a godly life in monasteries; aye, it is even to be desired, that such colleges of doctors and godly men exist, among whom the pursuits of Christian doctrine may be cultivated to the common profit of the Church, and youths not only be instructed in learning, but, by godly exercises and this pedagogy of rites, be accustomed to godliness, yet so that they be not held entangled with vows to the peril of conscience. This kind of life, because directed to the profit of the Church, to the instruction and practice of the congregations, from which doctors of the churches can be taken, is godly and pleases God; for it would have services commanded of God. For it is God’s command that those, purposing to enter the ministry, be taught and trained; and, for this reason, God approves the pedagogy of rites. There may also be colleges of nuns, where maidens learn literature and the doctrine of godliness. But young girls who desire to marry are not to be retained in cloisters, nor are any, thereafter, to be burdened with vows. For the doctrine of Paul must be retained, who advises virginity in such wise, as to be unwilling that snares be cast upon consciences.”²¹⁰

We have given this opinion of the Wittenberg theologians, that it may be seen how the entire argument was concentrated on “The Articles on Abuses,” as well as to show the spirit and thoroughness of the treatment. Here were the points from which the Lutheran reformers could not recede a hair’s-breadth; and which, at the same time, Henry was not ready to surrender. The doctrinal articles, as we have already learned, had been already conceded by Henry and his theologians, under the influence of the able presentations of Myconius and his colleagues. As soon as the articles on Abuses would be endorsed by the [[@Page:178]]Anglican authorities, in addition to the doctrinal articles of the Augsburg Confession, a union between the Lutheran and Anglican Churches could be consummated; but until then, such thoughts were useless, and all efforts for union must be directed towards the acceptance of those unalterable scriptural principles therein set forth.

All this was in vain. Cranmer, under date of May 10th, tried to apologize for his monarch, by recounting what great things Henry had already accomplished. Had he not in a short time abolished the supremacy of the Pope, the worship of images, and monasteries? Were not these in themselves labors worthy of Hercules? The Lutherans must have patience. All their arguments will be carefully examined, but they must not be offended if, on some points, the king dissent, as he himself is a very learned man, furnished with the highest critical acumen and soundest judgment, and besides this has the aid of other learned men.²¹¹

The breach was soon made irreparable. Gardiner was master of the field. The repudiation of Anne of Cleves, July 10th, and the formal divorce, July 24th, were closely connected with the arrest of Crumwell, June 10th, and his execution, June 28th, and the martyrdom at the stake, July 3oth, of that most pronounced, though not always judicious advocate of Lutheranism, the intimate friend and table companion of Luther and Melanchthon, who had done all that mortal could, to give England the pure Gospel and to make the Anglican a Lutheran Church, Dr. Robert Barnes. This true English Lutheran, faithful even unto death, to the principles he had learned at Wittenberg, and whose dying testimony was published with an introduction by Luther, written amidst a tempest of wrath against the royal murderer and with many tears for one whom he tenderly loved, will be noticed in the next chapter. [[@Page:179]]