Horae sacramentales : the sacramental articles of the Church of England vindicated from recent misrepresentations, and illustrated by the writings of their compilers and last editor, and by other documents published under the sanction of the Church between the years 1536 and 1571

Front matter

O PRINCETON, N. J. 33*

Britton, Thomas Hopkins.

Horae sacramentales

Preface

The object of the present volume is to correct some of the erroneous statements which have been put forth relative to the compilation and design of the Thirty-nine Articles, and to ascertain the doctrine which the Church of England has enunciated in them respecting the nature of the Sacraments of the Gospel, especially Baptism. It seems particularly desirable, at the present moment, to make the forms of expression, carefully selected by the Church, easy and familiar to the understanding of a numerous class of Churchmen, who have neither leisure nor opportunity for searching after the truth on this important subject, nor of procuring sufficient authentic information to enable them satisfactorily to explain the obscurities and disentangle the complicated webs of error, in which these mysteries have been industriously veiled. It has been thought necessary to correct the errors alluded to, first, because their natural tendency is to frustrate the very purpose for which the Articles were drawn up, which was professedly to " contain the principal grounds of Christian Religion, in which also is to be determined the truth of those things which in that age were called into controversy ;" 1 secondly, because subscription to them as a test of religious

1 From a notable paper in the Petyt Collection, Cardwell's Synodalia, vol. ii. p. 496.

VI

PREFACE.

opinion and security for orthodoxy would be useless ; and thirdly, because the Church is now suffering severely from the encouragement given to them. The Romanizing and Puritanical parties each congratulate themselves on the admission that the Articles are designedly ambiguous, and the Prayer Book teaches no doctrine, and consider themselves respectively justified in resorting to the non-natural (now miscalled charitable) construction, which is so far from being agreeable to the old established rules of construction and those principles of interpretation which are applied to laws, covenants, and oaths, that it is a direct violation of them, and a specious guise for substituting a something in the place of the Church's words, not equivalent in meaning, but which will make them capable of a sense consistent with the private views of the interpreter.

Considerable pains have been taken to ascertain what the Church has pronounced essential to the nature of a true and proper Sacrament of the Gospel. And upon examination it appears that the following particulars must meet together to constitute such a sacrament as Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

First. There must be a visible sign or ceremony ordained by God the Son.

Secondly. There must be a promise of grace annexed to the sign by Christ, and that not of spiritual grace generally, but a promise of remission of sins.

Thirdly. There must be a form of words appointed by Christ to apply the promised grace to the duly qualified receiver.

Fourthly. There must be a Divine command to use it.

If then the Church had held that Baptism had not the promise of remission of sins, she must have excluded it from the category of Sacraments of the Gospel, as well as Orders, Confirmation, Matrimony, and Extreme unction.

I must here take the opportunity of introducing an important chapter from the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum, which should have appeared in the table of the definitions of the

PREFACE.

vii

Sacraments. It is entitled " Quid in Sacramento quserendum sit."

Cap. II.

It is hoped the present undertaking will prove acceptable to Churchmen generally, but especially to the Clergy and candidates for Holy Orders. It lays before them in a few pages, not the opinions of some private individuals, but tbe accredited doctrine of the Church herself, collected together with much pains, and no inconsiderable expense, from records which have been unexamined, or at least unused, by all previous expositors. To those persons who are called upon to subscribe their names to the Articles in evidence of their approbation of them, and in acknowledgment of their truth and agreement with the word of God, it must be satisfactory to know what is the judgment of the Church on any matter of dispute. For their own credifs sake also they would avail themselves of all means within their reach of acquiring accurate information. For " a clearer and fuller comprehension of the several truths of the Gospel may be expected from the clergy than from mere laymen. And when it is considered, that the clergy are intrusted with explaining, and instructing men, in the truths of Christianity, too much care cannot be taken to prevent the ill effects either of their ignorance or error. For, however these may be pardonable in common

Vlll

PREFACE.

Christians, whose business it is to learn ; they can admit much less, excuse in clergymen, whose employment it is to teach." 1 Neither do I doubt but that every man of an ingenuous disposition will feel it his conscientious duty to receive the Articles, not in any sense of which the words are capable, but in that precise and determinate sense alone in which the Church of England wills and expects them to be understood.

1 Bishop Conybeare, on subscription ; Enchiridion Theologicum, vol. iii. p. 238.

ERRATA.

Page 7, note 3 and elsewhere, for Lawrence read Laureuce. ,, 11, line '21, for Article read Articles. „ 12, note, line 3, for wantonly read not only. ,, 1", line 1", for adapted read adopted. ,, 29, ,, 12, expunge so. „ 30, „ 23, for fears read fences. ,, 31, ,, 33, for customs and read custom is. ,, 37, ,, 13, for our read one.

,, 42, ,, 14, for or debarred read and is increased or diminished by. „ 43, ,, 23, for 1536 read 1538.

,, 46, „ 27, enclose the words from "a remark" to "disciples" in brackets. „ 59, ,, 3, for Goode read Goode's letter. >• 68, ,, 7, for there read then. ,, 90, ,, 1 8, for and read as.

,, 91, expunge marginal note, Extreme unction, &c.

,, 164, ,, 26, for and read as.

,, 193, ,, 2, for pertaining read pertains.

„ 195, „ 21, for them read then.

A

^mtitratum of t&e Sacramental article*, &<v*^«.

Chapter I. Preliminary Remarks

Dangerous tendency of the New Principles op Interpretation. Cranmer, the Compiler of the Articles of 1552. They were not prepared by, or discussed in Convocation.

The conflicting opinions which are now published both by the Laity and Clergy respecting the design and true interpretation of the Liturgy and Articles of the Church of England, are a source of deep regret to every one of her faithful sons. The J udicial Committee, in their recent judgment, instead of deciding the question at issue have left it in a more unsatisfactory and confused state than they found it. They have reversed the sentence of the Ecclesiastical Court without deigning to consider the principles upon which that judgment was founded or attempting to satisfy Churchmen that the Judge of the Court of Arches was in error. They have assumed that the Church of England has no plain per- The Arian spicuous and unambiguous confession of the true faith of a Chris- mischievous tian, and have given their sanction to such a licence of interpre- thTnenwyintation as, if applied to the laws of the land, would speedily tion. endanger all the temporal rights of Englishmen. They have adopted the reasoning of the Arians Dr. Samuel Clarke and Dr. Sykes, and laid it down as a sound rule that " the sense in which any human forms appear to a man's self to be consistent with Scripture,1 (i.e. with his view of Scripture) and not the presumed meaning of the compilers, is to be the rule and measure of his

1 Waterland, ii. 295.

understanding them." The natural force of the words of the formularies and articles and the known views and designs of their compilers, may, it seems be wholly disregarded by those who subscribe them, and instead of the Clergy being required to conform their teaching to the obvious doctrine of the Church, it is considered allowable to bend the latter into conformity with the private judgment of pious and conscientious persons. If the principles of interpretation adopted by Mr. Gorham be justifiable,1 the Clergy are licensed under cover of " a just and favourable construction," here to add a word or there explain it away ; here to alter a mood and there a tense, here to deny a relative is absolutely connected with its antecedent, and there to treat a conjunction as a disjunctive particle; in short, it is allowable " intentionally [to] swerve from the old-established rules of construction [and to] depart from the principles which have received the sanction and approbation of the most learned persons in times past, as being on the whole the best calculated to determine the true meaning of the documents to be examined."

That the indulgence of such a licence is fraught with incalculable mischief1 to the Church and State of England is felt by every sober-minded man. As regards religion, the Churchman

1 Waterland in his " Case of Arian Subscription considered," vol. ii. p. 284, makes some, remarks to which I wish to call the reader's serious attention. " My business is to show that, as the Church requires subscription to her own interpretation of Scripture, so the subscriber is bound, in virtue of his subscription, to that and that only ; and if he knowingly subscribes in any sense, contrary to or different from, the sense of the imposers, he prevaricates and commits a fraud in so doing. This is a cause of some moment : it is the cause of plainness and sincerity, in opposition to wiles and subtleties. It is in defence, not so much of revealed as of natural religion ; not of the fundamentals of faith, but of the principles of moral honesty, and every heresy in morality is of more pernicious consequence than heresies in point of positive religion. The security and honour of our Church are deeply concerned in this question. As to its security, everybody sees what I mean ; and as to the honour or reputation of our Church abroad, whenever we have been charged with Socinianism or Popery, or any other monstrous doctrines, we had no defence so ready at hand, or so just and satisfactory as this ; that our subscriptions were sufficient to wipe off all slander and calumny. The good of the Slate as well as the Church, is likewise concerned in this question, because there can be no security against men's putting their own private senses upon the public lairs, oat/is, injunctions, &c, in contradiction to the sense of the imposers, //"these principles about Church Subscription should ever prevail amongst us."

is now left without any standard of doctrine. Heretofore in it robs the cases of uncertainty or difficulty he used to betake himself with of his Rale confidence to the Book of Common Prayer or the Thirty-nine Doctrine, Articles for information and a resolution of his doubts, believing the Church to have recorded her doctrine in unequivocal language. But now that the new system of charitable and hypothetical construction is introduced with all its subtleties, refinements, and nice distinctions, he finds the most absolute expressions rendered uncertain and doubtful, and a sense forced upon the Liturgy and Articles the very reverse of that which the language would convey to a simple-minded and guileless person. Now it certainly does seem most unaccountable that the Church of England should have expressed herself in such an unguarded manner, in terms which have deceived not merely the unlearned but some of the brightest ornaments of her communion, as well Was un. as some hundreds of learned, pious, and conscientious Puritans thePuritans, who, perceiving tbe doctrine of the spiritual regeneration of every the Articles Infant, in and by the sacrament of Baptism, to be distinctly taught Boo/unl" in the Liturgy, and being unable to reconcile it with their fond telllglbletheory of special individual election and the indefectibility of grace, separated from the communion of the Church of England. To what purpose did Cranmer earnestly contend for the administration of the Sacraments in our native tongue1 if he expressed himself so incautiously as to be misunderstood by a large majority of thoughtful persons ? Is it not as plainly repugnant to the Word of God to minister the Sacraments in the English tongue if that be not understood by the people, as in the Latin or Greek languages ? So far as the instruction of those who are not favoured with the key to this mystic language is concerned, the case is all one, they cannot profit by what is repeated in their hearing.

1 In his preface to the Common Prayer Archbishop Cranmer says, " Whereas S. Paul would have such language spoken to the people in the Church as they might understand and have profit by hearing the same ; the service in the Church of England, these many years, hath been read in Latin to the people, which they understand not, so that they have heard with their ears only, and their hearts, spirits, and minds have not been edified thereby." ]t certainly does not appear very consistent to reject the Latin Service Book because it did not edify the hearts and spirits and minds of the people, and then to supply its place by an English Prayer Book which was equally unintelligible.

B 2

Tiiepieathat An attempt is now made to justify this modern system of in- Bookteyiess terpretatioii upon the plea that the Articles, which are said to be ( .uiy exact the sole and severely accurate standard of the doctrine of the tides is 1 Church of England, take lower views of the doctrine of the Sacra-

i i 1 1 I 1 ' ill 1 6SS . ■

ments than the Liturgy, which latter is asserted to be " less theologically exact," because we presume it is supposed to be more obviously contradictory to the tenets of the new school. Accordingly it is maintained " that the Formularies are not to govern the construction of the Articles, but that the Articles must decide the construction of the Formularies."1 We cannot agree in opinion with Mr. Gorham, and extol the Articles to the disparagement of the Prayer Book. We believe the theology of the Prayer Book to be as exact and as strictly agreeable with the Holy Scriptures and the doctrine of the old learned fathers, (from which two sources it was avowedly derived) as is that of the Thirty-nine Articles.2 All historical facts connected with the

1 Gorham's ans. 127.

s Archbishop Cranmer gives (he Papists this challenge : — " If the Queen's Majesty will grant hereunto, I, with the said Peter Martyr, and four or five which 1 shall choose, by Gon's grace will take upon us to defend, that not only the Common Prayers of the Church, the ministration of the Sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies, but also that all the doctrine and religion set out by our late Sovereign Lord King Edward VI., is more pure and according to God's Word, than any other doctrine that hath been used in England these thousand years, so that God's Word may be the Judge, and that the reasons and proofs on both parties may be set out in writing ; to the intent, as well that all the world may examine and judge therein, as also that no man shall start back from bis writings. And when they boast of the faith which hath been in the Church these thousand years, we will join with them in this point : for that doctrine and usage is to be followed, which was in the Church fifteen hundred years past. And we shall prove that the order of the Church set out at this present time in this realm by Act of Parliament, is the same that was used in the Church fifteen hundred years past. And so shall they never be able to prove theirs.'' Cranmer's works, vol. iv. p. 164. Strype, too, in the preface to his life of Archbishop Parker, p. 6, folio edition, says, " And all these spiritual advantages are conferred upon us in the Communion of the Church of England. The blessings of which Church I choose to express in the words of one of the most eminent and learned Bishops of those times in a sermon preached at the Queen's Chapel. ' For the truth of doctrine according to the Word of God, for the right administration of the Sacraments, for the true worship of God in our prayers, laid down in the Book of Service (since the Apostles' age unto this present age of restoring the Gospel), there was never Church upon the face of the earth so nigh the sincerity of God's Truth as the Church of England is at this day.' " — See Jewel, i. 335 — 336.

Archdeacon Philpot, the Martyr (p. 302, Parker Society's Edition), also warns his friends against those Antichrists who go about to teach any other compilation and revision of the Liturgy go to prove thus much, both that the Book of Common Prayer was designed to teach doctrine, and that pure and agreeable to God's word, and that the Papists and Puritans have all along understood it to do so. And indeed, when we consider that both these books were drawn up by the same persons, we should reasonably expect that the same views of doctrine would appear in both, and we feel confident that when they are fairly interpreted according to the true intent and meaning of their composers, they will be found to form one harmonious and consistent whole, and teach such a body of sound Divinity as (to use the words of Cranmer, whose pride and glory they were) " without boast or dispraise of other be it spoken, was never a better set forth since the Apostles' time."

But however confident Mr. Gorham is that the Articles are Mr. Gorham

and the Ju-

the sole and severely accurate standard of the doctrine of the diciai com-

J J " mittee take

Church of England, the Judicial Committee have thought proper g°t^Jfe^p°" to take the very opposite view of them, and to represent them the ArUcios. as compiled in very general and ambiguous language, with the design of admitting of some difference or latitude of interpretation. We are at a loss to discover the external historical facts which they called in to their assistance and from which they have derived this conclusion. The most approved Church historians express no such opinion, and we shall presently prove that it has no foundation in fact. Before entering on the interpretation of the Articles, it is thought advisable to put the reader in possession of correct information as to their compilation, and the principles which governed those who formed them.

It is the unanimous opinion of our historians1 that Archbishop Cranmer the Cranmer was, if not the sole, yet certainly the principal compiler the sole of our Articles. In 1551 he received an order,2 probably at his theArtieies doctrine than they have received in King Edward's days, in the which (praised be God !) all the sincerity of the Gospel teas revealed, according to the pure use of the primitive Churches, and as it is at this present time of the true Catholic Church allowed through the worll. Where, pray, was this sincere doctrine of the Gospel then revealed but in the Prayer Book and Articles ?

1 Burnet's History, part ii., B. 1 , p. 166, folio, 1681. Collier, ii. p. 310 (0) folio, 1714. Neal's History of the Puritans, vol. i., pp. 49,50. Lamb's Historical Account, p. 2. Cardwell's Synodalia, p. 2, note.

2 Strype's Cranmer, p. 272. Jenkyn's Preface to Cramnei's works, pp. ovi, cvii.

own request, to frame a Book of Articles of Religion for preserving and maintaining peace and unity of doctrine in the Church. And " in ohedience hereunto/' says Strype, " he drew up a set which were delivered to certain other Bishops to be inspected and subscribed he supposes by them." In framing this book Their origin the Archbishop took the course which would naturally have been story' expected by such persons as are acquainted with his anxious wish for a General Confession of Faith for all the Reformed Churches, and with the suggestion made to him by his singular friend Melancthon. Some Articles had been compiled by himself and some other English and German Divines in a Synod held at London, in 1538, upon the basis of the much admired confession of Augsburg of 1530. These he made the groundwork of the Articles of 1552, and thus whilst he spared himself much labour and responsibility, he complied with the suggestion of his singular friend Melancthon, and drew up a form of sound doctrine approved by the most eminent Lutheran Divines, and agreeable to the sentiments of the most learned Bishops and Clergy of the English Church. tSobthe privy In May l553> tlie Privy Council1 sent for these Articles, inagaYrfre and qu^'ing at the same time whether they were " set forth by any cranraeyr public authority." On the 19th2 of September, the Archbishop forwarded them to Sir John Cheke after he had revised them, arranged them in a different order and prefixed titles to them. They were then communicated to some other Divines by the King's order about the beginning of October, and on the 23rd of November the Council again forwarded them to him with orders to examine them further and give them the last improvement of his judgment and pen. With this command the Archbishop immediately complied, and returned them on the following day,3 " beseeching their Lordships to be the means unto the

1 Strype's Cranmer, p. 272. Cranmer's Works, i. pref. p. cvii. Archbishop Lawrence's Bampton Lectures, p. 29.

2 Archbishop Cranmer in a letter to Cecil, dated from Croydon, the 19th of September, 1552, writes, " I have sent the Book of Articles for Religion unto Mr. Cheke, set in a better order than it was, and the titles upon every matter, adding thereto that which lacked. I pray you consider well the Articles with Mr. Cheke, and whether you think best to move the King's Majesty therein before my coming. I refer that unto your two wisdoms." Cranmer, i. p. 355.

3 Cranmer in his letter to the very good Lords of the King's Majesty his most honourable council, dated from his house at Forde, the 24th of November, [ 1 552] ,

King's Majesty, that all the Bishops may have authority from him to cause all their Preachers, Archdeacons, Deans, Prebendaries, Parsons, Vicars, Curates, with all their Clergy to subscribe the said Articles ; and then he trusted that such a concord and quietness in religion would shortly follow thereof as else is not to be looked for many years ; God shall thereby be glorified, His truth shall be advanced, and your Lordships shall be rewarded of Him as the setters forth of His true Word and Gospel."

The Royal authority, though tardily given, was granted on published by the 19th day of the following June,1 but before the publication datefand"

i ■ ii o l , -11 l subscription

of this mandate letters from the King were issued to the several required. Prelates,2 informing them that " certain Articles were sent devised and gathered with great study and by counsel and good advice of the greatest learned part of the Bishops and sundry others of the Clergy," and exhorting them both to subscribe themselves and also to cause them to be subscribed by all others who do or hereafter shall preach or read within their Dioceses.

The Articles were printed in Latin and English, and prefixed jjisnop to them was " A short catechisme3 or playne instruction con- catechism

1 * prefixed.

says, " after my very humble recommendations unto your good Lordships; I have sent unto the same, the book of Articles which yesterday I received from your Lordships. I have sent also a cedule enclosed, declaring briefly my mind upon the said book, beseeching your Lordships to be the means unto the King's Majesty, &c.'' Cranmer, i. p. 257. Collier, ii. p. 41 1. Wake, in Cardwell's Synodalia, p. 2, note.

1 Cranmer's works, ii. 357, note.

2 The King's mandate to the Bishop of Norwich sent with the Articles, bears date June 9th, 1552. Cranmer, iv. 389. On the 19th of June a mandate was also issued to the Dean of Arches, commanding him to publish some Articles concerning true Religion, and other things " rectam Christi fidem spirantia," and to require subscription on the 23rd of June. Cranmer's works, iv. p. 392.

s The composition of this Catechism has been ascribed to Cranmer, Ridley, and Dean Nowel. It is now however certainly known that Bishop Poinet was the author. In a letter which Sir John Cheke wrote to Bullinger, on June 7, 1553, published by the Parker Society, he says, "that Edward VI. has lately recommended to the Schools by his authority the Catechism of John, Bishop of Winchester, and has published the Articles of the Synod in London, which, if you will compare with those of Trent, you will understand how the spirit of the one exceeds that of the other." Original Letters, portion i. p. 142. Two Liturgies of Edward VI. Parker Society, pref. p. xii. Cranmer's Works, i. pref. cviii. note. Lawrence's Bampton Lectures, p. 219. It may be as well to remark, the Catechism being prefixed to the Articles gave its name to the whole Book, and consequently the Articles themselves are frequently spoken of under the title of taynynge the sumrae of Christian learning, set fourth by the King's Majestie's authorities, for all Schoolmaisters to teache." This Catechism was also printed in Latin in 1552, and English in 1553, and was composed by Poinet, Bishop of Winchester.

cranmer From the above account of what passed between the Privy

supposed to 1 *

be the au- Council and the Archbishop, it is evident that he had the chief

thor of the . '

Articles by hand in the compilation of the Articles, and that nothing was

his contem- . . . . °

poraries. inserted into tbem without his approbation. And a question put to Cranmer in his examination before Brokes, Bishop of Gloucester, proves that the Papists attributed the authorship of them to him, and held him responsible for their contents. He was charged with having "compiled and caused to be set abroad divers books/' and in the catalogue we find the " Catechismus Brevis Christianas Discipline, etc." and the " Articuli de quibus in Sinodo Londonien. a.d. 1552," specially named. And we are told that in reply " he denied not such books which he was author of. As for the Catechism, the book of Articles, with the other book against Winchester, he granted the same to be his doings."1 This acknowledgment of Archbishop Cranmer's satisfactorily establishes the fact of his having had so large a share in the compilation of the Articles as to justify him in calling them his own. It has however been supposed that Bishops

He probably Ridley and Latimer were consulted by Cranmer, and contributed

Bishops their valuable aid towards the framing of this important confes- Latimer. sion. It is very probable that such was the fact, for these two Divines were greatly beloved by the Archbishop, who admired the powerful and highly cultivated mind of the one, and the good sense and manly honesty of the other.2

the Catechism or the Articles of the Catechism. Ridley is accused of compelling the Papists to subscribe to the Catechism. This Catechism must also be distinguished from that of Justus Jonas, translated by Cranmer, or at his command, in 1548, and from tbe Catechism prefixed to the Order of Confirmation in Edward VI. 's first Book of Common Prayer, and which (the questions and answers on the Sacraments being added after the Hampton Court Conference in 1604) now passes under the name of the Church Catechism.

1 Cranmer, iv. 102. Cranmer's answer is reported in Latin in the following terms : " Et quoad Catechismum et Articulos in eodem ; fatetur se adhibuisse ejus consilium circa ediiionem ejusdem." — lb. p. 106, art. 7.

2 The following exlract from Strype shows what deference was paid to Cranmer's judgment. The Archbishop's " authority was now very great, so that there was undoubtedly great deference paid to it, as also to bis wisdom and learn-

These are the circumstances under which historians represent p/gj^red'nor the Articles to have been compiled, and the reader will notice that jjy^o^subthey were not the result of any public discussion in Convocation. £0"^° They were prepared by Archbishop Crannier at his leisure, and tlou' probably in his own study, then submitted by him to the King, to the Privy Council and to such Divines whose judgments they prized, and after receiving the Archbishop's last corrections were made public by Royal Authority. Their title, says Dr. Lamb, is indeed " so ambiguously worded as to lead to the notion that the Articles had been prepared, or at least sanctioned by the Convocation of 1552, but this was not the case they were neither submitted to Convocation nor confirmed by Act of Parliament." This statement is coiToborated by the objection which Dr. Weston took to the title of the Catechism on the first day of Convocation, being October 16, 1553. He then stated that " there is a book2 of late set forth called the Catechism, which he showed forth, bearing the name of this honourable Synod, and yet put forth without their consent as he had learned ; being a book very pestiferous and full of heresies," and then proposed beginning the disputation with the Articles of the Catechism concerning the Sacrament of the Altar. To this charge Archdeacon Philpot made the following reply : — " Concerning the Articles of the Catechism, he thought they were deceived in the Title of the Catechism, in that it beareth the title of the Synod of London last before this, although many of them which then were present were never made privy thereof in setting it forth, for that this house had granted the authority to make Ecclesiastical laws unto certain persons to be appointed by the King's Majesty ; and whatsoever Ecclesiastical laws they, or the most part of them did set forth according to the statute3 in that behalf provided, it might