The preface to the Ten Articles implies the need of concessions by both traditionalists and reformers so that “unity and concord in opinions ... may increase and go forward”, since “we being of late, to our great regret, creditably advertised of such diversity in opinions, as have grown and sprangen up in this our realm.”45 The third article is on the sacrament of penance and is categorical that the sacrament was instituted by Christ and necessary for salvation. It appears to take a traditional stance and to counter some of the concerns about the reformers’ teaching on penance. For example: item 31 of the ‘protestation of the clergy’ was concerned that some reformers taught “that it is sufficient that the sinner do say ‘I know myself a sinner’”, and item 46 that “prayers, suffrages, fasting or alms deeds do not help to take away sin.”46 Against these the article defines contrition as the penitent’s sorrow and shame at offending God, brought about by hearing and considering God’s laws and acknowledging the abomination of his sin, and insists that “by penaunce and further good works of the same we shall not oonly obteigne everlasting lif but also we shall deserve mitigassion of these present paynes.”47 Yet some of the phraseology seems set to conciliate reformers. There is a Lutheran tone to the sections on absolution and faith: “for the absolution given by the priest was
institute of Christ to applie the promises of godd’s grace and favor to the penitent”; and faith
43 Richard Rex, “Introduction”, Henry VIII Fid, Def.: His Defence of the Faith (London 2008), p. xxvi. 44 Swanson, Church and Society, p. 506.
45 Records of Convocation, p. 220. 46
Ibid., pp, 216-7.
68 is trust in God’s mercy “that god will forgive him his synnes and repute him justified [my italics] ... but for thonly merites of the blodd and passion of our Saviour Iesu Christ.”48 The article makes no mention of the frequency of confession, nor whether it is essential for all sins to be confessed, nor of sins which previously had been reserved for bishops to pronounce penance. Yet while the tone might have been more acceptable to evangelicals they would have found it hard to accept that contrition, confession to a priest, and penitential good works were necessary for salvation.49
How far did the Lutheran tone of the Ten Articles reflect the position of the evangelical reforming group in convocation? Negotiations had been undertaken with Lutherans from Germany in 153550 but had soon collapsed since the Lutheran theologians were not prepared to recognise Henry’s divorce. However before this the theologians had prepared a draft confession for the English to consider. These Wittenberg Articles were not published and were unknown before a German copy was rediscovered in 1904. George Bernard considers that “it is unlikely that the Ten Articles were directly and specifically influenced by the Wittenberg Articles.”51 The Ten Articles, however, deal only with three sacraments, follow the same sequence as the Wittenberg Articles, and use many of its key ideas, especially in the first five of the Ten Articles.52 There is strong emphasis on repentance, justification and good works, “which had become the mainstays of Lutheran theology by the mid 1530s.”53 The section in the Wittenberg Articles on “Penitence and Justification” insists that “penitence and remission of sins are necessary in order to obtain salvation and eternal life.”54 The value of confession is that the penitent may be “strengthened by the gospel and by absolution which applies the promises of God’s grace to the individual.”55 These words are used verbatim in the Ten Articles. Similarly ideas are taken and applied to the English situation, though without reference to their origin. Ashley Null finds the influence of Philip Melanchthon (thought to have been the author of the Wittenberg Articles as well as his Loci Communes) in
48 Ibid., fos. 67v, 66r.
49 It was the conclusion of Cranmer’s De Sacramentis’that “because of its positive benefits the sacrament was
expedient to be retained but not necessary.” Ashley Null, Thomas Cranmer’s Doctrine of Repentance: Renewing the Power to Love (Oxford 2000), p. 138.
50 Rory McEntegart, Henry VIII, the League of Schmalkalden, and the English Reformation (Woodbridge
2002), pp. 51-61: considers that in 1534 Henry was not far from considering a definitive statement of faith. Melanchthon was invited to England in 1534 and approached again by Robert Barnes in 1535. However after the breakdown of these talks Henry “retained particular yet profound suspicions of Lutheranism.”
51 Bernard, The King’s Reformation, p. 650, n. 238.
52 Diarmaid MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer (London 1996), p.161. 53 Documents of the English Reformation, p. 118.
54
Ibid., p. 123.
69 Archbishop Cranmer’s Great Commonplace books and also in De Sacramentis,56 which he attributes to Cranmer after careful scrutiny.57 From these he concludes “that one of the tactics of Cranmer and the evangelical party was to try to define in Lutheran terms the traditional Catholic instrument for justification after mortal sin – the sacrament of penance.”58 Some parts of the article on penance may have had a Lutheran tone, and the omission of the word ‘satisfaction’ may have encouraged evangelicals but the fact that the sacrament of penance continued to be necessary for salvation, and justification was attained “by contrition and faith joined with charity” (“an explicit repudiation of Lutheran solifidianism”59) suggest that the traditionalists, rather than the evangelical reformers, would have been best pleased with the outcome.
The Ten Articles were not a comprehensive statement of the doctrine of the Church of England under Henry’s headship but a response to areas of dispute caused by radical preachers.60 A fuller account of the faith of the Church was soon produced by the bishops. This included the articles but set them in the context of an exposition of the Apostles’ Creed, Ten Commandments, Paternoster and Ave, with an exposition, or declaration61 of the Seven Sacraments and with articles on Justification and Purgatory.62 The Bishops’ Book (The Institution of a Christian Man, 1537) was not formally authorised by the king but he took a considerable interest in it. On 14th January 1538, Cranmer received a copy of the Bishops’ Book with corrections by the king, which he was commanded “to peruse, oversee, and inform the King of his opinions.”63 Cranmer had by this time rejected the traditionalist penitential theology of John Fisher.64 He responded to the king’s instruction with surprising openness. Although the Book insisted that penance was necessary, since “suche men, whiche after baptisme do fal agayne into synne, if they do not penaunce in this lyfe ... shall undoubyedly
56
Lambeth Palace Library Ms. 1107, fos. 84-93.
57 Null, Thomas Cranmer’s Doctrine of Repentance, pp. 269-276. 58 Ibid., p. 134.
59 Rex, Henry VIII and the English Reformation, p. 147. 60
With the exception of article 9, on the controversial article ‘Of rites and ceremonies’, each article began with the instruction that “we will that all bishops and preachers shall instruct and teach our people committed unto their spiritual charge ...”
61 Some of the bishops had been concerned that only three sacraments had been refered to in the articles. 62
Bodleian 4o Rawlinson 245; BL. Cleopatra E v fos. 64v-74r; Formularies of Faith, ed. Charles Lloyd (Oxford 1956), pp. 21-211.
63 PRO SP 1/128, fo. 69.
64 He had declared the preaching of Hugh Payne to be “erroneous and seditious”, when the ex-Observant curate
of Hadleigh had been quoting from the fourteenth century manual Manipulus Curatorum., Null, Thomas Cranmer’s Doctrine of Repentance, pp. 120-1.
70 be damned”65 Henry wanted to stress the importance of good works. Where the text stated that penitents have the hope of forgiveness, justification and election “not * for the worthynes of any merite or worke done by the penitent but * for the onely merites of the blode and passion of our Savyour Iesu Christe”, Henry wanted to insert (in places marked *) the words “only” and “chefely”.66 Cranmer forcefully commented:
These two words may not be put in this place in anywise: for they signify that our election and justification cometh partly of our merits, though chiefly it cometh of the goodness of God. But certain it is, that our election cometh only and wholly of the benefit and grace of God, for the merits of Christ’s passion, and for no part of our merits and good works: even as St Paul disputeth and proveth at length in the epistle to the Romans and Galatians, and divers other places, saying “Si ex operibus, non ex gratia; si ex gratia non ex operibus.”67
He stressed later that assurance of forgiveness comes from heart-felt repentance and faith, and that these will be followed by good works, “but they be not the cause thereof. And if we should esteem our works so highly we should glorify against Christ.”68 Henry was adamant in his rejection of solifidianism. Again he felt the Book did not leave enough space for good works. The text made it clear that justification is received through “only goddes grace promised in the merites of Christes passion”, though by means of the sacrament of penance.69 Henry wanted to insert into the heading of this section: “Item that the chefe and first mene werby sinners atayne ... iustification” was the love of Christ, implying that human merits also have a part.70 Cranmer boldly declared that “they that think they come to justification by performance of the law, by their own deeds and merits ... go from Christ, they renounce his grace.”71 Cranmer returned the Book on 25th January with some annotations, which he trusted that the King will pardon, and he referred all to the King’s judgement.72
Ashley Null has carefully traced the trajectory of the development of Cranmer’s penitential theology. By 1536 he did not believe that sacramental penance was necessary for salvation.73
65 Bodleian 4o Rawlinson 245 fo.37v. 66 Ibid., fo. 37r.
67
Henry Jenkyns, The Remains of Thomas Cranmer (Oxford 1833, 4 volumes), 2. 78.
68 Ibid.
69 Bodleian 4o Rawlinson 245 fo. 96v. 70 Ibid., fo. 96v.
71
Henry Jenkyns, 2. 95.
72 BL. Cleopatra E v 101v.
73 Gordon Jeanes, “A Reformation Treatise on the Sacraments”, The Journal of Theological Studies (April
1995), p. 157: “Proposed corrections in Cranmer’s hand to a surviving text of the Thirteen Articles of 1538 show that he opposed the obligation of auricular confession. Throughout the section Cranmer three times changes ‘necessarius’ to ‘commodus’.”
71 By 1540 he rejected penance as a sacrament. In his answer to the Questions concerning the Sacraments and the Appointment and Power of Bishops and Priests he stated:
the scripture speaketh not of penaunce, as we call it a sacrament, consistyng in three partes, contrition, confession and satisfaction; but the scripture taketh penaunce for pure conversion of a synner in harte and mynde from his synnes unto god, making no mention of private
confession of all deadly sinnes unto a priest, nor of ecclesiasticall satisfaction to be enjoyned by him.74
In the debates on this subject he had one significant victory. During the debate in the House of Lords on the Six Articles the Duke of Norfolk put the question “whether auricular
confession was necessary by divine law of God, or not?” Cranmer argued for three days that it was not necessary by scriptural injunction for salvation but was expedient “for encouraging the spiritual health of God’s people.”75 The outcome in the last of the Six Articles of 1539 was that auricular confession was declared to be “expedient and necessary to be retained and continued, used and frequented in the Church of God.”76 As with the other articles, the punishment for refusing, denying or abstaining from the sacrament of penance was severe. Such offence was counted as felony. However in the proceedings ten bishops and two abbots had stated that they can not find expressly by the word of God that auricular confession is necessary, but they do affirm that it is “expedient to be retained and continued, used and frequented in the church of God.”77 Tunstall, who had been leading the discussion of the very issues contained in the Six Articles with the embassy from the Schmalkaldic League,78 was unhappy that the article did not say auricular confession was necessary by divine law and sent a note to the king to that effect.79 Henry’s stinging reply not only referred to Cranmer’s arguments in Parliament but he identified himself with them. Henry claimed that Tunstall’s authorities, Bede and Paul, “shewyth nothynge but that they did confesse theyre syns and yet do nott they afferm that it was by commandement wherefore they make for myne argument and not for yours.”80 Bernard sees Henry’s religious policy as being what he wanted it to be rather than being influenced or determined by others. He sees Henry’s involvement over
74 BL. Cleopatra E v fo. 57v.
75 David Wilkins, Conciliar Magnae Britanniae ab MCCCL ad MDXLV (4 volumes 1737), III.845. 76 Documents of the English Reformation, p. 224.
77
David Wilkins, Concilia Magnae Britanniae ab MCCCL ad MDXLV (1737).
78 Glyn Redworth, “A Study in the Formulation of a Policy: the Genesis and Evolution of the Act of Six
Articles”JEH, vol. 37, no. 1 (Jan. 1986).
79 BL. Cleopatra E v fos. 123v-125r. 80
Ibid., fo. 131r; Henry concludes: “I be nott of your opinion ... and I think that I have more case to thynke you obstinate than you me.”
72 auricular confession as showing that he was not so straightforwardly conservative as has been characterised.81 Henry was conscious of abuses of the confessional from the writings of Erasmus82 but Cranmer had discussed penitence with Henry on theological grounds rather than using the more practical arguments of Erasmus, and as he demolished Tunstall’s
arguments Henry claimed that these were the opinions “both of the bishop of Canterbury and me.”83 It was a considerable change of heart for Henry who had affirmed in his Assertio Septem Sacrimentorum that “I am unable to believe or conceive that [auricular confession] was established or upheld by any human invention but rather by the divine order of God” “sed divino plane mandato et constitutam esse, et conservatam.”84 Having stressed that the evangelical reformers “conformed to the king’s reformation”, Bernard eventually concedes that some, for example Cranmer, did influence Henry’s policy but only over details.85 What was conceded in the sixth article, however, was a principle rather than a detail, a principle that would be fundamental to Cranmer’s policy on penance in the reign of Edward VI, that auricular confession may be helpful to the penitent but was not instituted by Christ and is therefore not necessary for salvation.