Lutheran movement in england during the reigns of henry VIII. And edward VI
CHAPTER VI. THE TEN ARTICLES OF 1536
Yüklə 0,51 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- THE ROMISH LEAVEN.
- ESTIMATES.
CHAPTER VI. THE TEN ARTICLES OF 1536.Thomas Fuller’s Comparison. Archbishop Laurence’s Discovery. The Articles of Melanchthonian Origin. The Evidence in Parallel Columns. Romish Leaven. Explanation of Inconsistencies. Estimates of Foxe (1559), Fuller (1662), Strype (1694), Laurence (1804), Lingard (1819), Tracts for the Times (1836), Lathbury (1842), Hardwick (1852), Ranke (1859), Blunt (1868), Schaff (1877), Geikie (1879), Perry (1879), Jennings (1882), Franklin (1886). Canon Dixon’s criticism examined. The result of the Convocation of 1536 was the subscription and publication of the first English Confession: “Articles devised by the Kinges Highest Majestic to stablyshe Christen Quietnes and Unitie amonge us, and to avoyde contentious opinions.”122 It is certainly a strange medley, combining the evangelical and Romish doctrines in such strange proportions and with such startling contradictions, as to vividly recall the Roman poet’s figure: If a painter would put a horse’s neck to a human head, and attach feathers to the members,” etc. Thomas Fuller, writing a little more than a hundred years afterwards says:123 “As when two stout and sturdy travelers meet together and both desire the way, yet neither are willing to fight for it in their passage, they so shove and shoulder one another, that dividing the way betwixt them both, yet neither get the same; so those two opposite parties were fain at last in a drawn battle to part the prize between them, neither of them being [[@Page:89]]conquering or conquered; but a medley-religion as an expedient being made up betwixt them both, to salve the credits of both.” We defer making an estimate of this unique document, until we have first examined its contents. The Melanchthonian origin of much that it contains was asserted by Archbishop Laurence in 1804, because of several sentences which he believed had been from Melanchthon’s Loci. Every writer has peculiar phrases, and every teacher fixed definitions which are necessarily repeated in various connections. We propose to show that the Apology formed the ground-work for the articles. The Augsburg Confession was also used; as well as certain Articles124 which in February, 1536, Melanchthon prepared against the Anabaptists. One of the papers which Melanchthon himself wrote during the March conferences, (possibly the Repetitio of 1536, which the commission carried with them to England) may have embodied all these elements; or one of the evangelical English theologians as Bishop Fox, may have prepared a document thoroughly Lutheran in its character. This was then amended, and interpolated by Romanizing qualifications, and supplemented by Romanizing articles, possibly by the King’s own hand, possibly by that of hierarchical theologians who were scarcely their monarch’s equal, or possibly by Cranmer’s policy of surrendering much to gain what he regarded more for the cause which he represented, until it is no wonder that its relation to the Apology has not been suspected by English writers. We submit the evidence that has convinced us. The “Ten Articles” are divided into two sections, the first treating of doctrines, and the second of ceremonies. The First Article, on “The principal articles concerning our faith” defines the relation of the English Church to the three œcumenical creeds, and is possibly in the main from the pen of Melanchthon, although we have not been able to trace it more definitely. It greatly resembles the Introduction to the First Part of the Confessio Saxonica of 1551, and both may have a common origin. [[@Page:90]]The next three articles treat of the Sacraments, as this was the first subject of discussion in the Convocation. The very fact that the number of sacraments is here determined as three, first led us to suspect the fact that the Apology was used in its preparation, it being well-known that this is the number fixed in the Apology. The Sacrament of Baptism is treated at considerable length, principally in order to prove the validity of Infant Baptism. That one-seventh of the space devoted to doctrine should be occupied with the recapitulation of arguments on a subject concerning which there was no difference between the two sides, and no false charge made in the list of sixty-seven points, embracing as one would think, every conceivable item of misrepresentation, will scarcely admit of any other explanation, than that of the controversies with Anabaptists in Germany, with which Melanchthon was occupied during the presence of the English embassy in Wittenberg. Although Hardwick says of the Anabaptists:125 “Traces of them occur in England as early as 1536,” yet they could not have had such importance as to have demanded such conspicuous treatment at this time. Here we find Melanchthon’s “Adversus Anabaptistas” used.
The traces of the Apology become then more apparent.
Next the Augsburg Confession is called into service.
Passing to Article III, “The Sacrament of Penance,” which with certain qualifications the Apology allows as a sacrament, although with a different conception of Poenitentia, which is no longer Penance, but Repentance, the resemblance is, if anything, more striking.
The hand of the Romanizing emendator is apparent in the above substitution of “Confession” for “Faith.” As a [[@Page:92]]compromise, he introduces “Faith” as an element of “Contrition.” The “Contrition” of the Ten Articles, therefore, is the “Repentance” of the Confession and Apology.
There is a very skillful combination of two arguments which by changing the emphasis, and removing the passages from their connection, somewhat changes the meaning of our Lutheran Confessions:
The argument of the Apology concerning the rewards granted the obedience of believers, not as rewards of merit, but as the promised free gifts of God’s love, is also dexterously turned, to a Romish interpretation.
Article IV. “Of the Sacrament of the Altar,” is very Melanchthonian in its style, but seems at first sight to vary [[@Page:94]]from the Lutheran doctrine by maintaining that, “under the form and figure of bread and wine the very selfsame body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ is verily, substantially, and really contained and comprehended.” Thus stated, it may be regarded as teaching impanation. Yet the deviation from the phraseology which Melanchthon was in the habit of using at that time, before it was liable to be misinterpreted, is comparitively slight. Thus the Schwabach Articles of Luther and Melanchthon, and their associates, of October 10th-15th, 1529, forming the groundwork of the first part of the Augsburg Confession read (Art. X): “There is truly present in the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ.”128 Melanchthon’s opinion concerning the Sacramentarians of August 1st, 1530, reads: “We teach that Christ’s body is truly and really present with the bread, or in the bread,” although with the limitation: “We reject the opinion of those who say that the body is contained in the bread like wine in a goblet.” “We deny that the body is locally present in the bread.”129 The “contained and comprehended” are possibly an interpolation and the article in its original form, is possibly also from Melanchthon. It does not teach transubstantiation as some have inferred. In Article V, “Of Justification,” Archbishop Laurence found the sentence by which he connected the Articles with Melanchthon’s Loci.
Even the passage in the Apology which seems to confound Justification with Renovation, and which finds its explanation in the fact that like the terms Regeneration, Sacrament, etc., the Protestant definition had not as yet attained its fixed form as determined in the Formula of Concord, is here employed:
The correspondence in the definition of good works is especially marked:
These citations could be readily multiplied; but what have been given are sufficient to establish the fact that the evangelical statements of the articles were taken not only largely from the Apology, but also from the Augsburg Confession, and other writings of Melanchthon. “It has been denied,” says Canon Dixon in his recent “History of the Church of England,”130 “that there was any Lutheranism in the First English Confession, and certainly it must not be forgotten that this time the doctrines of Germany were heresy in England. But with all that is known of Henry’s negotiations with German princes, it seems impossible to explain away the plain evidence which Laurence has brought to prove that the reformed doctrine infused into the Confession came from Germany.” And yet Archbishop Laurence’s inference was based upon the evidence of but one or two sentences! Mr. Froude’s plea for Henry VIII, on the supposition that the deep theological reasoning, employed in the book, (which without sufficient evidence he thinks prepared by the King’s own hand) [[@Page:96]]is a complete refutation of the generally received opinion of his guilt in the execution of one wife, and the marriage of another only three weeks before,131 of course falls to the ground, when the parts of the Articles worthy of especial admiration are found to be the rich fruit of Melanchthon’s labors. So far as the articles vary from the Apology, and the other Melanchthonian documents, they certainly do not exhibit any distinguished merit. Ranke approaches very closely the true solution of the origin of the Ten Articles when he says that the first five have their origin “in the Augsburg Confession or in commentaries on it.”132 THE ROMISH LEAVEN.While the main treatment in “The Ten Articles” has been shown to be from Melanchthon, yet a little Romish leaven, leavens the whole lump. Much that is conceded to the Lutheran position is neutralized by other statements to which no evangelical Christian could knowingly subscribe. Scripture is to be received “only as the holy approved doctors of the Church do entreat and defend the same.” Repentance is still “doing penance.” Faith can be attained in no other way than through Confession and Absolution. The relation of faith to justification is altogether misinterpreted. It is placed in the same category with prayers, fastings, works of charity, as co-ordinate means of apprehending the merits of Christ. While the very language of the Apology is so freely appropriated, the main point of the most elaborate chapter in that matchless document is directly antagonized, when, “perfect charity” with “perfect faith,” is made a condition of justification. Prayers to the saints [[@Page:97]]and Purgatory are strenuously maintained. The retention of images in the churches, and the long list of ceremonies approved, are less objectionable features, as their defence is accompanied with injunctions that the people shall be taught “they have no power to remit sins, but only to stir and lift up our minds to God,” and the “kneeling to, and censing” of images is forbidden. ESTIMATES.The evangelical theologians of the type of Cranmer, Fox, and Latimer, doubtless thought that so great an advance had been made in the acceptance of the principles of the Augsburg Confession, that the Romanizing elements interpolated could be allowed to stand and could even be subscribed, as liable, in the presence of the fuller light of the truth, to gradually die out. Of course such an agreement was doomed the very moment it was signed. Opposing systems cannot he reconciled by com promise. What is truth is truth, and must disengage itself from all compromises with error. Yet we must not regard the English Lutheran theologians of that period mere temporizers. Men do not become great reformers all at once; nor do they understand the full force of concessions they may be inclined to make in the interest of peace and external harmony. In the beginning, contradictory opinions may be held by the same person, in his unconsciousness that they are contradictory. Luther’s Ninety-five Theses are as full of contradictions as the “Ten Articles,” and, therefore, could never have had any permanence as a Church Confession. The two elements which they contained had to come into conflict, in which the one was to be conquered and expelled by the other. It has been said that when a man is found half way up hill, it makes all the difference, in judging him, if we find from which direction he has come; and on the same principle we are not disposed to harshly condemn those who unconsciously surrendered the cardinal doctrines of the Reformation, while, at the same time, confessing so much that is precious. The Interim of 1548 has sometimes been [[@Page:98]]compared with these articles, as both being unfortunate compromises. But the Interim was favored by men who had had the full light of Evangelical truth, and had done praiseworthy service in its diffusion; it was a retrogression by which expelled Papacy was again to be gradually introduced where the gospel had been established; while “The Ten Articles,” with all their objectionable features give royal endorsement to doctrines heretofore known as heresies, and secure their introduction in churches where previously they had never been heard. Luther appreciated the real conditions involved when a few months before, after the negotiations at Wittenberg had ended, he wrote concerning affairs in England: “It is indeed true, that we ought to have patience even though everything in doctrine be not realized all at once, (as this has not occurred even among us.)”133 Nevertheless we cannot but admire the consistency of Gardiner on the other side, in withholding his signature, however strongly we may suspect that his course was only a stroke of policy. It is well to note some of the various estimates placed upon these articles. We must bear in mind in so doing, that from a Lutheran standpoint some of the principles maintained, must necessarily be seen in a far different light than from a Reformed standpoint. There are some features which the latter might judge as Romanizing, that we do not concede as such, however we may agreee in a joint condemnation of the articles on other subjects. John Foxe, (1559): “Wherein although there were many and great imperfections, and untruths not to be permitted in any true reformed church, yet notwithstanding, the king and his council, to bear with the weaklings which were newly weaned from their mother’s milk of Rome, thought it might serve somewhat for the time.134 [[@Page:99]] Thomas Fuller (1662): “Some zealots of our age will condemn the Laodicean temper of the Protestant bishops. Such men see the faults of the Reformers, but not the difficulties of the Reformation. These Protestant bishops were at this time to encounter with the Popish clergy, equal in number, not inferior in learning, but far greater in power and dependencies. Besides the generality of the people of the land, being nestled in ignorance and superstition, could not on a sudden endure the extremity of absolute Reformation. Should our eyes be instantly posted out of midnight into noonday, certainly we should be blinded with the suddenness and excellency of the lustre. Nature therefore hath wisely provided the twilight as a bridge, by degrees to pass us from darkness to light.”135 Strype, (1604): “We find, indeed, many Popish errors mixed with evangelical truths; which must either be attributed to the defectiveness of our prelate’s knowledge as yet in true religion, or being the principles and opinions of the king, or both. Let not any be offended herewith, but let him rather take notice what a great deal of gospel doctrine came to light, and not only so, but was owned and propounded by authority to be believed and practiced. The sun of truth was now but rising and breaking through the mists of that idolatry, superstition and ignorance, that had so long prevailed in this nation and the rest of the world, and was not yet advanced to its meridian brightness.”136 Archbishop Laurence, (1804), “Certain articles of religion were drawn up and edited in the king’s name, which were evidently of a Lutheran tendency.”137 Lingard, (Roman Catholic, 1819-25): “Throughout the work Henry’s attachment to the ancient faith is most manifest; and the only concession which he makes to the men of the new learning, is the order for the removal of abuses, with perhaps the omission of a few controverted subjects.”138 [[@Page:100]] Tracts for the Times, (1836): “It is now universally admitted as an axiom in ecclesiastical and political matters, that sudden and violent changes must be injurious; and though our own revolution of opinion and practice was happily slower and more carefully considered than those of our neighbors, yet it was too much influenced by secular interest, sudden external events and the will of individuals, to carry with it any vouchers for the perfection and entireness of the religious system thence emerging. The proceedings for instance of 1536 remind us at once of the dangers to which the church was exposed, and of its providential deliverance from the worst part of them; the articles then framed, being according to Burnet, in several places corrected by the king’s own hand.”139 Lathbury, (1842): “Though much error was retained, yet these articles were calculated to advance the Reformation, for they embody many sentiments at variance with the received doctrines of the Romish Church. That Cranmer was concerned in the preparation of these articles, there is good reason to believe.”140 Hardwick, (1852): “They are the work of a transition period, of men who had not learned to contemplate the truth in all the fulness of its harmonies and contrasts, and who consequently did not shrink from acquiescing in accommodations and concessions which to their riper understanding might have seemed a betrayal of a sacred trust. … They were treading upon ground with which few of them were as yet familiar, and we need not wonder if they sometimes stumbled or even wholly lost their way. An example of this want of firmness may be traced in the conduct of Bishop Latimer. Although one of the sermons which he preached at the assembling of the Convocation is distinguished by a resolute assault upon the received doctrine of purgatory, he ultimately put his hand to the statement, enjoining men to ‘pray for the souls of the departed in the [[@Page:101]]masses and exequies, and to give alms to other to pray for them, whereby they may be relieved and holpen of their pain.’”141 Ranke, (1859): “The first five are taken from the Confession of Augsburg or from commentaries on it; as to these the Bishop of Hereford [Fox], agreed with the theologians of Wittenberg. In the following articles, the veneration, even the invocation, and no small part of the existing ceremonies is allowed though in terms which with all their moderation, cannot disguise the rejection of them in principle. Despite these limitations the document contains a clear adoption of the principles of religious reform as they were carried out in Germany.”142 Blunt, (1868): “It will be observed, that the clergy were now feeling their way to a sound theological basis for the reformation of doctrine. … Both sides gave way in some particulars, for the sake of coming to a common standing ground.”143 Schaff, (1877): “They are essentially Romish, with the Pope left out in the cold. They cannot even be called a compromise between the advocates of the old learning headed by Gardiner, and of the new learning headed by Cranmer.”144 Geikie, (1879): “Like all compromises the Ten Articles pleased neither side.”145 Perry, (1879): “The Ten Articles were the declaration as to how far the English Church was prepared to go with the Augsburg Confession.”146 Jennings, (1882): “In the preparation of the Ten Articles the king was helped probably by Cranmer and Fox. Policy or higher motives infused into this formulary, a spirit of concession, so that while it was a compliment to the Protestants, it enforced [[@Page:102]]on the conservative party at home nothing which they would deem objectionable.”147 Franklin, (in Church Cyclopaedia, 1886): “The hands of both Gardiner and Cranmer appear in them with not a little of the dash of Henry VIII.” We defer, to the last, the words of Canon Dixon, whose “History of the Church of England” in three large octavos, has been received with high favor within that communion and its affiliated branches: “From the beginning to the end, the English Confessions, (of which these articles were the first) have borne the impression of a settled intention which was such as caused them to be different from the curious, definite and longsome particularity of the Continent. They had the design of preserving the unity of the English Church. This was the characteristic of the nation, and exhibited an undeviating determination which has survived the violence of every age. … Though he enslaved and robbed the Church of which he was the Supreme Head, he had no thought of destroying her.148 This is a candid acknowledgment; and it is worth while not only to seriously test the assertion here made, that it is the aim of the whole series of English Confession to avoid such “definite particularity” as characterizes the Lutheran Confessions, but also, if the statement be true, to note the price that is paid, for readiness to accept even error, or to subscribe in the same document to contradictory and mutually exclusive doctrines, in order thereby to escape from the calamity of “destroying” the Church. There is also another matter worthy of some thought, viz., as to how if a communion be the Church, its clear and definite confession of the truth can destroy it, when to the truth of the Church’s confession the promise is attached, that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it?” Can any association that is in such peril be the Church? [[@Page:103]] There is besides another important lesson here suggested, and that is the fatality attending all efforts to modify and adjust to peculiar relations of time and place the unalterable principles set forth in the Augsburg Confession and Apology. [[@Page:104]]
|