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

CHAPTER VII.THE BISHOPS BOOK OF 1537.

Failure of the Ten Articles. Cranmer and Luther’s Catechism. The Commission to prepare another Document. Cranmer and Fox vs. Stokesley. Indebtedness of the “Book” to Luther’s Catechisms, the Augsburg Confession, the Apology, and Luther’s explanation of the Ave Maria. Other Sources. The King’s Amendments, and Cranmer’s Answer.

The Articles of 1536, like all compromises, inspired no enthusiasm. They were too Lutheran for the hierarchists; they were too Romish for the Lutherans. They were too ambiguous for those whose consciences demanded the clearest and most definite answers to the questions which, by the agency of the Holy Spirit, most profoundly move the heart. They were too meagre, even where they were clearest. They were too theological for popular use. The evangelical leaven was doubtless spreading among the people; a model of plain instruction to be furnished pastors was much needed. There can be no doubt, that Cranmer, during his stay in Germany in 1531 and 1532, and especially while tarrying with Osiander at Nürnberg, learned to know well Luther’s Catechisms and their vast influence; and the result shows that they gave an important suggestion concerning a new Confession.

Early in 1537, we find, therefore, a commission assembled at Cranmer’s residence, composed mostly of bishops, engaged in the preparation of a book to be promulgated by authority, for the purpose of meeting these various wants. Gardiner and Stokesley were the leading hierarchists. Cranmer and Fox, again headed the Lutheranizing element, while Latimer also was [[@Page:105]]present with his practical and impetuous mind vexed at the labor spent in the discussion of speculative points of theology, which to him had little interest, and longing to escape from the turmoil by once more becoming rector of Kingston, instead of Bishop of Worcester. At certain stages of the work, especially that pertaining to the sacraments, questions were submitted by the Archbishop to which each member of the commission gave his answers in writing, which, when gathered, were used in the final formulation of the document. It was completed early in the summer, and its publication was superintended by Bishop Fox. Although generally known as “The Bishops Book,” its proper title is that of “Institution of a Christian Man.” Erasmus, had published a book with this very same title in 1518. Tyndale’s book of 1528 was “The Obedience of a Christian Man.” Cranmer is universally conceded to have contributed by far the most part to it, while Fox also must have much of the credit for the contents, as he was their chief advocate in the commission. Although still retaining some Romish elements, it was a great triumph for the Lutheran side, especially as all opposition was for the first time silenced, and even Gardiner added his signature. “By this work, the Reformation was placed on the loftiest ground which it was ever destined to reach during the reign of Henry.”¹⁴⁹ “It is altogether an illustrious monument of the achievements of Cranmer and his colleagues against the intrigues and opposition of a party, formidable at once for their zeal, number and power.¹⁵⁰

The very list of contents makes us suspect its origin. They are: “1. The Apostles Creed. 2. The Sacraments. 3. The Ten Commandments. 4. The Lord’s Prayer. 5. The Ave Maria. 6. Justification. 7. Purgatory.” This is the framework of an exposition which in ordinary type would form a large volume. If some of its contents seem strange, it is well to remember that among Luther’s earlier catechetical works is his [[@Page:106]]”Betbüchlein” of 1522, containing: 1. The Ten Commandments. 2. The Apostles Creed. 3. The Lord’s Prayer. 4. The Ave Maria; and that Melanchthon’s “Handbüchlein” of 1523 contains, 1. The Lord’s Prayer, 2. The Ave Maria, 3. The Apostles Creed, etc. Our readers should remember that the angelic salutation in Luke certainly admits of an evangelical explanation, and, as such, is not to be lightly esteemed.

Into this scheme, the material of the Ten Articles wherever possible is introduced, occasionally with slight changes, but generally with verbal exactness. The exposition is to a great extent changed into the form of a personal confession, prayer, etc., after the model of Luther’s Small Catechism. What Löhe says of Luther’s Catechism: “It is a fact which no one denies, that no other catechism in the world can be made a prayer of but this,” must be modified if parts of the Bishops Book are examined, which are after all nothing but paraphrases of Luther’s Catechism, of exquisite beauty, and which should be cherished as of imperishable worth. Froude, writing entirely from a literary standpoint, pronounces it¹⁵¹ “in point of language beyond all question the most beautiful composition that had as yet appeared in the English language.”

For those well acquainted with the Small Catechism, we need only quote some extracts from this second confession of the Church of England.

“I believe also and confess, that among his other creatures he did create and make me, and did give unto me this my soul, my life, my body, with all the members that I have, great and small, and all the wit, reason, knowledge and understanding that I have; and finally all other outward substance, possessions and things that I have or can have in this world.” This is not exactly Luther’s Small Catechism, though the same in substance. But its correspondence with Luther’s Large Catechism is still closer, which reads (p. 440). “I believe that I am a creature of God, that is, that he has given and constantly preserves to me [[@Page:107]]my body, soul and life, members great and small, all my senses, reason and understanding, food and drink, shelter and support, wife and child, domestics, house and possessions, etc.

The Bishops Book continues:

“And I believe also and profess that he is my very God, my Lord, and my Father, and that I am his servant and his own son, by adoption and grace, and the right inheritor of his kingdom, and that it proceedeth and cometh of his mere goodness only, without all my desert, that I am in this life preserved and kept from dangers and perils, and that I am sustained, nourished, fed, clothed, and that I have health, tranquility, rest, peace, or any other thing necessary for this corporal life. I acknowledge and confess that he suffereth and causeth the sun, the moon, the stars, the day, the night, the air, the fire, the water, the fowls, the fishes, the beasts and all the fruits of the earth, to serve me for my profit and my necessity.

With the latter sentence compare again Luther’s Large Catechism:

“He causeth all creatures to serve for the necessities and uses of life—sun, moon and stars in the firmament, day and night, air, fire, water, earth and whatever it bears and produces, bird and fish, beasts, grain and all kinds of produce.”

The exposition of the Second Article of the Creed is of such extraordinary beauty and force, and so happily expands the most precious section of our Catechism, as to justify a long extract.

“And I believe also and profess that Jesus Christ is not only Jesus, and Lord to all men that believe in him, but also that he is my Jesus, my God, my Lord. For whereas of my nature I was born in sin, and in the indignation and displeasure of God, and was the very child of wrath, condemned to everlasting death, subject and thrall to the power of the devil, and sin, having all the principal parts or portions of my soul, as my reason and understanding, and my freewill, and all the other portions of my soul and body, not only so destituted and deprived of the gifts of God, wherewith they were first endowed, but also so blinded, [[@Page:108]]corrupted and poisoned with error, ignorance and carnal concupiscence, that neither my said powers could exercise the natural function and office, for the which they were ordained by God at the first creation, nor I by them could do or think anything which might be acceptable to God, but was utterly dead to God and all godly things, and utterly unable and insufficient of mine own self to observe the least part of God’s commandments, and utterly inclined and ready to run headlong into all kinds of sin and mischief; I believe, I say, that I being in this case, Jesus Christ, by suffering most painful and shameful death upon the cross, and by shedding of his most precious blood, and by that glorious victory which he had, when he descending into hell, and there overcoming both the devil and death, rose again the third day from death to life, and ascended into heaven, hath now pacified his Father’s indignation towards me, and hath reconciled me again into his favor, and that he hath loosed and delivered me from the tyranny of death, of the devil, and of sin, and hath made me so free from them, that they shall not finally hurt or annoy me. … So that now I may boldly say and believe, as indeed I do perfectly believe, that by his passion, his death, his blood, and his conquering of death, of sin, and of the devil, by his resurrection and ascension, he hath made a sufficient expiation or propitiation towards God, that is to say, a sufficient satisfaction and recompense, as well as for my original sin, as also for all the actual sins¹⁵² that ever I have committed, and that I am so clearly rid from all the guilt of my said offences, and from the everlasting pain due for the same, that neither sin, nor death, nor hell shall be able or have any power, to hurt me or to let me, but that after this transistory life I shall ascend into heaven, there to reign with my Saviour Christ perpetually in glory and felicity.”

We find also the following amplification of one of the articles in the Third Part of the Creed:

“I believe that in this catholic church, I, and all the lively [[@Page:109]]and quick members of the same, shall continually and from time to time, so long as we shall live here on earth, obtain remission and forgiveness of all our sins as well original as actual,¹⁵³ by the merits of Christ’s blood and passion, and by the virtue and efficacy of Christ’s sacraments, instituted by him for that purpose, so oft as we shall worthily receive the same.”

We add yet the explanation of the First Commandment, which the reader will do well to compare with that of Luther in the Large Catechism:

“To have God is not to have him as we have other outward things, as clothes upon our back, or treasure in our chests; nor also to name him with our mouth, or to worship him with kneeling or other such gestures; but to have him our God is to conceive him in our hearts, to cleave fast and surely unto him with heart, and to put all our trust and confidence in him, to set all our thought and care upon him, and to hang wholly on him, taking him to be infinitely good and merciful unto us.”

THE BISHOPS BOOK, AND THE OTHER LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.

We find in the Bishops Book traces, not only of Luther’s Catechisms, but also of the other Lutheran Confessions which were then extant. Not only does it incorporate within itself “The Ten Articles,” which are based upon the Apology and the Augsburg Confession, but other passages are directly taken from the same sources.

Augsburg Confession, ([[Art. V >> BookOfConcord:AC:I: 5]].)	Bishops’ Book.
“For the obtaining of this faith, the ministry of teaching this gospel, and administering the sacraments was instituted. For by the Word and Sacraments, as by instruments, the Holy Spirit is given who worketh faith.”	“To the attaining of which faith, it is also to be noted, that Christ hath instituted and ordained in the world but only two means and instruments, whereof the one is the ministration of his word, and the other is the administration of his sacraments instituted by him; so that it is not possible to attain this faith, but by one, or both of these two means. [[@Page:110]]
Apology (Latin [[Eng. Trans, p. 163 >> BookOfConcord:AP 8, 10]].) “It says Catholic church, in order that we may not understand the church to be an outward government of certain nations, but rather men scattered throughout the whole world, who agree concerning the gospel and have the same Christ, the same Holy Ghost, and the same sacraments.” Apology (German, Mueller, p. 153.) “That no one may think that the church is like any other outward polity, bound to to this or that land, kingdom or rank, as the Pope of Rome wants to say; but that it abides certainly true, that that body and those men are the true church, who here and there in the world from the rising of the sun to its setting, truly believe in Christ, who have one Gospel, one Christ, one Baptism and Sacrament, and are ruled by one Holy Ghost.”	“I believe that, this Holy Church is catholic, that is, to say, that it can not be coarcted or restrained within the limits or bonds of any one town, city, province, region, or country; but that it is dispersed and spread universally throughout all the whole world. Insomuch that in what part soever of the world—be it in Africa, Asia, or Europe, there may be found any number of people, of what sort, state or condition soever they be, which do believe in one God the Father, Creator of all things, and in one Lord Jesu Christ, his Son, and in one Holy Ghost, and do also profess and have all one faith, one hope and one charity, according as it is prescribed in holy scripture, and do all consent in the true interpretation of the same scripture, and in the right use of the sacraments of Christ.”

It will be noticed that the English paraphrase follows the German almost as closely, as the German translation follows the text of the original Latin.

The explanation of the Ave Maria shows traces of a sermon of Luther of 1523.¹⁵⁴

Luther.	Bishops’ Book.
Du siehestu dass hierinne Kein Gebet, sondern eitel Lob und Ehre begriffen ist. Gleichiwie in den ersten Worten des Vater Unsers auch Kein Gebet ist, sondern Lob und Ehre Gottes, dass er unser Vater and im Himmel sei.	This Ave Maria is not properly a prayer, as the Paternoster is. Nevertheless the church hath used to adjoin it to the end of the Paternoster, as an hymn, laud and praise, partly of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, for our redemption, and partly of the blessed virgin for her humble consent.

Even the Smalcald Articles which had been subscribed only on February 22d, 1537, in their completed form being but four months earlier than the English Confession may have been utilized. For the resemblance between not only the historical portions of Melanchthon’s Appendix “On the Power and Primacy [[@Page:111]]of the Pope,” but also Luther’s treatment in [[Part II. Art. IV >> BookOfConcord:Smalcald:II, 4]]., and the argument against the Papacy in the formula before us, is very marked. The Augsburg Confession, the Apology and the Smalcald Articles all seem to have been laid under contribution in the preparation of the chapter on “The Sacrament of Orders,” although a hierarchical doctrine pervades it not found in the Lutheran formularies.¹⁵⁵ We know that on March 5th, Melanchthon’s paper on the reasons why “the princes, estates and cities of the Empire, professing the pure and catholic doctrine of the Gospel, declined to attend the Council at Mantua,” was signed, that it was at once published, and copies sent to the Kings of England and France,¹⁵⁶ that it was “immediately translated into English,”¹⁵⁷ and published. The translator was Miles Coverdale, distinguished as a translator of the Bible. Such was the importance which the evangelical element of the English Church then attached to everything which emanated from the Wittenberg Faculty. Even though Melanchthon’s “De Recusatione Concilii” were not officially transmitted until November 14th, as seems probable from a letter in the Corpus Reformatorum, the argument for proving the dependence of the English theologians is in no way invalidated.

Nor would time be lost, if space permitted, in a careful examination of the source in Lutheran authorities of much of the teaching of this book, even where no special formulary has been closely followed. Sometimes it has been regarded as receding from “The Ten Articles,” since while the former, following [[@Page:112]]the Apology, gives only three sacraments, the Bishops Book allows the full number of seven claimed by the Romanists. But the Rev. Henry Jenkyns who has edited the works of Archbishop Cranmer, found a manuscript in the Chapter House at Westminster showing that this supposition is erroneous. In connection with the Ten Articles a declaration had been made and signed by the evangelical theologians, conceding the name of sacrament to the four other ordinances, but with limitations which the advocates of the Old Learning were unwilling to publish. In the Bishops Book, what is essentially this declaration comes to light. Its argument is mainly that of the Apology, which is directed entirely to the importance of making a distinction between rites instituted by God’s command, in which, through a visible element, the promise of the gratuitous forgiveness of sins is sealed, and all others. If this distinction be conceded, Melanchthon maintains that it does not make much difference what is called a sacrament, and suggests that even prayer and almsgiving and afflictions might be called sacraments, provided the distinction between them, and what he regarded then as three sacraments, be kept unimpaired. So the Bishops Book declares: “There is a difference between them and the other three sacraments. First. These three be instituted of Christ. Secondly. They be commanded by Christ to be ministered and received in their outward visible signs. Thirdly. They have annexed and enjoined unto their said visible signs, such spiritual graces whereby our sins be remitted and forgiven, and we be perfectly renewed, regenerated, purified, justified, so oft as we worthily and duly receive the same.”

THE KING’S AMENDMENTS.

Without attempting an examination and enumeration of Romanizing elements still retained, which are principally those of “The Ten Articles,” though to a considerable extent less, there is yet one item of interest connected with its history, that is worthy of notice. There is in the Bodleian Library a copy of “The Institution,” or Bishops Book, with marginal criticisms [[@Page:113]]in the handwriting of Henry VIII., and in the Library of Corpus Christi College at Cambridge, the annotations of Cranmer upon these proposed corrections of his sovereign, are to be found. Henry’s notes indicate no little critical ability, but, at the same time, his real want of thorough understanding or appreciation of the doctrine of the Gospel as there set forth. It is his main purpose to introduce limitations and qualifications, whereby the universality of the divine provisions and promises maybe modified, so as to include, if possible, the conditions of the application. Cranmer shows that he has been a sufficiently faithful pupil of the Reformers, to be able with clearness and decision to declare to his monarch the real points of discrimination that should be made. For instance, in the explanation of the First Article of the Creed, where the Bishops Book, says: “He is my very God, my Lord, my Father, and that I am his servant and his own son,” Henry proposes to add “as long as I persevere in his precepts and laws.” To this Cranmer would not hear. The declaration, he maintains, is that of “the very pure Christian faith and hope which every good Christian man ought to profess.” It belongs to the sphere, he says, of special faith, and not to that of general faith, which even devils have. The voice of true faith claims God as its own, without the interposition of any such condition; although of course when this condition is not present, the pure faith thus confessed is “only in the mouth,” and not in the heart. He maintains that every man should examine himself as to whether he actually have “the right faith and sure trust of God’s favor;” but, this done, “it shall not be necessary to interline or insert in many places, where we protest our pure Christian faith, these words or sentences, that be newly added, namely, ‘I being willing to follow God’s precepts,’ ‘I rejecting in my will and heart the Devil and his works,’ ‘I willing to return to God,’ ‘If I continue not in sin,’ ‘If I continue a Christian life.’” When the Second Article is reached “that Jesus is my Lord,” the king again wants this limited by the clause, “I being Christian, and in will to [[@Page:114]]follow his precepts;” and when it says “I am restored to the light and knowledge of God,” he proposes the insertion of “Rejecting, in my will and heart, the Devil and his works,” both of which receive a similar answer. There are other corrections of the king, showing more decidedly his essentially Romanistic position, as, for example, where he qualifies the statement, which to Cranmer is so important, that Christ’s sufferings were a satisfaction for original as well as for all actual sins, by a clause limiting the actual sins for which atonement was made, to those alone which were committed “before my reconciliation.” Unfortunately, Cranmer’s answer shows at this point a weakening, since while opposing the insertion of the qualifying clause, he, at the same time, concedes that the propitiation of Christ cannot be extended to sins committed after reconciliation. [[@Page:115]]