Rt. Rev. DD. Nicholas Heath, second legate at Wittenberg
The ‘Christmas Day’ Articles were authored by Philip Melancthon advising terms which German Princes (the Elector of Saxony and Landgrave of Hesse) were to approach Henry VIII as the leader of the Smalkaldic League. The Fourteen points contained therein outlined necessary rules of engagement that would led to the Wittenberg Concord by which the Henrician Ten Articles (1536) were then framed. While the Wittenberg Concord detailed points of agreement between Anglican and Lutheran doctors, areas of impasse left it an insufficient basis for cooperation, aka. the six articles. The outcome was an indeterminate prorogue of discussion, remaining true even after Edward VI’s more sacramentarian reforms. Yet the Ten Articles, if not Wittenberg, go unrecognized as one of many 16-th century altered Augsburg Confessions, setting a model for Protestant media via amongst royal houses in Northern Europe. Likewise neglected is Henry’s overture as the supreme head of Protestantcy, providing an example that James I and Hanoverian-Palatinate Crowns later tried to emulate, offering the British throne as a last court of appeal for Northern Catholics.
The Christmas Day Articles:
Written December 25, 1535, the Christmas Day Articles set terms for Henry on conditions for Anglo-Lutheran unity. The Christmas Day articles was a fantastic example of northern catholic concilarism, though biased on the German side. Its points may be summed in three– 1) the Augsburg Confession as symbol of peace; 2) restrictions on general councils with Rome and non-League churches; 3) logistics of military procurement. For this study the third section is least relevant while the second simply forbade independent engagements with non-Lutherans. But the first section– subscribing the Augsburg– is most pertinent.
In rather bold language the first section showed no deference to Henry VIII’s greater status as “Emperor in England, Wales, and France” vis-a-vis the Hanseatic Elector and Landgrave. Nor Henry’s renowned theological literacy. A letter from Crumwell declares, “The King, knowing himself to be the learnedest prince in Europe, thought it became not him to submit to them, but them to submit to him” (Jacobs, p. 67). For similar reasons and during later negotiations Henry felt the burden of compromise ought to be on the Germans, ”something first, in your [the Lutheran] Confession and Apology be modified by private conferences and friendly discussions between learned men” (p. 72). Neither Henry nor Cromwell felt the Augsburg that privileged enough to warrant the esteemed place Melanchthon’s Christmas Articles would place it. Articles I, II, and VIII disfavored England’s Supremacy, reading:
“I. That the Most Serene King promote the Gospel of Christ, and the pure doctrine of faith according to the mode in which the Princes and confederated states confessed it in the diet of Augsburg, and defended it according to the published apology, unless perhaps some things meanwhile justly seem to require change or correction from the Word of God by the common consent of the Most Serene King, and the princes themselves.
II. Also, that the Most Serene King, together with the Princes and States confederated, defend and maintain the doctrine of the gospel mentioned, and ceremonies harmonizing with the gospel in future council.
…
VIII. Also, that neither the aforesaid Most Serene King, nor the aforesaid Most Illustrious Princes or States confederated, ever will recognize, maintain or defend that the primacy or monarch be held today or ever hereafter as de jure divino…” ( p.63-66).
The Ten Articles vs. Wittenberg:
A disputation and conference was arranged in Wittenberg for the end of Jan. 1536. The conference’s main aim was to unite southern with northern Germans, sealing differences over sacrament. English delegates were also in attendance seeking similar accord. While Anglican and Lutherans arrived with fixed theological positions, alteration of the Augsburg was on the table, possible either through private conference or a regional council. The disputations in Wittenberg carried until late-March. Disagreements revolved around Henry’s divorce with Catherine, alleged abuses in the English Mass, clerical celibacy, and, the right of the King to continue other ceremonies (namely, reverencing images, purgatory, and invoking saints). When the English legates returned four months later with the Wittenberg Concord and Lutheran Repititio (an elaboration on the former), Henry and convocation commissioned the Ten Articles as a formal reply from Canterbury to Saxony.
The Articles, like Henry’s longer Catechisms, were divided into two parts– one portion belonging to doctrine, the other to ceremony. That pertaining to faith generally followed the Wittenberg and Augsburg Apology but with a Henrician emphasis on faith enlivened by good works . Agreeing with the Augsburg (and old faith), penance is counted as a third sacrament that remits actual sin committed after baptism. However, unlike Henry’s vocal defense of seven sacraments in 1522, the Ten Articles were intentionally silent upon the efficacy of the lesser sacraments. This restraint on enumeration continued into the 1540′s until Cranmer fully adopted Bucer/Melanchthon’s view of two sacraments instituted by Christ. Veneration of images and saints, however, were outright banned as early as 1538. But the private mass and concomitance of elements were defended, and for this reason the Lutherans found the Ten Articles, at that particular time, ‘unsatisfactory’. Nonetheless, it was tacitly agreed that remaining differences would be ironed out in in the near future.
Although John Frederick the Elector was anxious to receive the Ten Articles in the summer of 1536, they did not arrive in Germany until late-November. Henry was distracted suppressing a monk revolt in Yorkshire. Once the Articles arrived, of them Melanchthon unflatteringly said, “[they]were put together with the greatest confusion”. But a decade later, Melanchthon would write the Leipzig Interim that was arguably more Roman than the Ten Articles. Aside from the use of the Mass, the Ten Articles doctrinally agreed with the Wittenberg. At this point, Anglo-Lutheran disagreements stemmed over what constituted adiaphoric ceremony. The ceremonies which the 10 articles retained were partly explained in the Preface as continued for ‘charitable concord’,
“…have not only in our own person many times taken great pain, study labour and travails, but also have caused our bishops, and other the most discreet and best learned men of our clergy of this our whole realm, to be assembled in our convocation, for the full debatement and quiet deliberation and disputations, had of and upon the premises, finally they have concluded and greed upon the said matters, as well those which be commanded of God, and necessary for our salvation, as also the other touching honest ceremonies, and good and politic order, as is aforesaid; which their determination, debatement, and agreement, forasmuch as we think to have proceeded of a good, right, and true judgment, an to be agreeable to the laws and ordinances of God, and much profitable for the establishment of that charitable concord and unity in our church of England” (p. 4, Oxford).
Despite differences on retention of catholic ritual, Wittenburg provided vital doctrinal ground-work for the 10 if not later 42 Articles. On this point two things might be added. First, the Ten Articles were formed through official dialogue with Henry to the Augsburg, mostly affirming the earlier Wittenberg conferences. This critical dialogue was not abandoned but continued into the 1540′s against the backdrop of what would become Trent. Gibson is wrong to dismiss the influence of Tridentine sessions. The Diet of Ratisbon and related Leipzig Interim (1541 and 1548 respectively) were both convened and closed before Henry’s last catechism and prior to Cranmer’s 42 articles.
Second, the result of this discourse was a middle-way not between Rome and Lutheranism (Henry officially rejected both) but, more narrowly speaking, between Vienna (Erasmus) and Wittenberg (Melanchthon). The synthesis of reformed-minded Roman Catholics and moderate Lutherans constituted the Reformation’s ‘third way’, embodied in works like the Regensberg Book, Leipzig Interim, Ten Articles, and Witzel’s Reforms. Historians often overlook this period which Henrician standards belong.
The Six Articles: Between the dialectic of Henrician Bishops– Foxe (Lutheran) and Gardiner(RC/EO)– the Rev. Nicholas Heath’s churchmaship shewed itself the better representative of the period, 1535-1545. In 1535 Dr. Nicholas Heath was the king’s chaplain. Sent to Saxony with the “New Learning” Reverends, Edward Foxe and Robert Barnes, Nicholas was effective in putting brakes on Barnes and Foxe’s concord with Lutheran criticisms against certain English rites. This ultimately resulted in a half-way or altered agreement on the Augsburg. Thus, the Ten Articles agreed largely with Melanchthon’s Apology and 1535 Loci, but met only part way on ceremony. This was not an unusual rebuff for Wittenberg theologians. Similar retentions of ‘old faith’ ceremony occurred with German Princes in Bradenburg and Brunswick.
England’s further reforms of minor rites gradually ensued. Between the 1537 Bishop’s Book and Cromwell’s 1538 injunctions, Cranmer was able to draw Henry closer to the Elector. These later reforms, for instance, extirpated the use candles and incense before images. Purgatory was also utterly refuted. And, by 1539, the largest monasteries were finally dissolved. But in April of 1539 Henry published the six articles. This was Henry’s definitive reply to Lutherans on worship. The six articles answered alleged abuses charged by Lutherans going back to 1536. They were rather strong statements outlining where England would go no further– i.e., keeping concomitance, clerical celibacy, the private mass, and vows for laity.
Henry surely had a number reasons for publishing them. The early 1540′s represent a realignment in the catholic direction not only for England but Germany too. Both were preparing for a European-wide Diet at Ratisbon and then an upcoming general council in Trent. Also, by the early 1540′s Swiss sacramentarian views were making headway in the realm. These often accompanied iconoclasm. Much like later Stuart monarchs, Henry implicitly identified iconoclasm with opposition to authority. Henry consequently promoted high-ritual views to both expose and counter such ‘leveling’ tendencies . Furthermore, Henry saw no abuse by the promulgation of the six articles but either justified his positions by scripture or custom. In some cases he went too far, calling celibacy, and, by implication, other evangelical counsels, a ‘law of God’. But terms like ‘substantial’ were also commonly used by Germans to describe the real presence. Thus, the six articles not only were a reply to Lutheran charges of ‘abuse’, but they advertised the emerging conservatism of England’s church that would be the Settlement’s hallmark.
However, the six articles had more bark than bite. Of the 28 subjects executed during its enforcement, 1539-1544, only four were Lutheran, three Romanist, and the remaining 21 were Radicals. By 1544 the optimism regarding Charles V’s Diet and council passed. With the death of Dr. Martin in 1545 the Lutheran movement lost steam. By the mid-1550′s it would be consumed with enshrining more corporal views of the sacrament. This left the English Church to engage reform alone, following what the Ten Articles laid.
For the English church a great amount of old ceremony continued from the medieval, thanks to Heath who avoided commitments with Lutherans at Wittenberg. Holy Week, Creeping the Cross, Candlemas, Ash Wednesday, the Easter Sepulchre, and other laudable rites gained longevity due to Heath’s “right use” arguments, perhaps contributing to the fullness of the Ornament’s Rubric. In 1537 Thomas Cranmer noted the right use of many such ceremonies indifferent,
“If men will indifferently read these late declarations, they shall well perceive that purgatory, pilgrimages, praying to saints, images, holy bread, holy water, holy days, merits, works, ceremony, and such other, be not restored to their late accustomed abuses; but shall evidently perceive that the word of God hath gotten the upper hand of them all, and hath set them in their right use and estimation”. (p. 178, Tjernagel)
Conclusion: More can be said about the Lutheran negotiations, 1535-41. But please note: Lutheranism was rejected, and the Anglican position was the Augsburg be treated through the Ten or what later would amount to the 39 articles. Reproachment with Germans was both privileged and restrained, favoring the English King who understood himself as Supreme head on earth of the English church militant, if not all Northern Catholicism. The differences expressed between Anglicans vs. Lutherans slowly closed by the end of the 1540′s, and were not always doctrinal but dealt with the right use certain medieval rubrics and utensils according to good order and peace. The result was a media via between Ratisbon and Wittenberg, demonstrating the old English mind for conservatism and reluctance to break from past forms.
Anglicans ought to be encouraged to study the Henrician Formularies, 1536-1543, as foundational to Edward and Elizabeth’s “fine-tuning” of the Settlement. A hardcopy can be purchased at Amazon through the same Henry VIII link.
Jacobs, Henry Eyster. The Lutheran Movement in England During the Reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI. Philedelphia, 1890.
Various. Formularies of Faith put Forth by Authority During the Reigns of Henry VIII. Oxford, 1825.
Tjernagel, Neelak Serawlook. Henry VIII and the Lutherans. Concordia, 1965.
While this posting only scratched the surface of Anglo-German relations, Lutheran influence remained formative and largely institutional despite popular Calvinist movements. Elsewhere I’ve been asked to prove the Lutheran content of the Book of Articles, namely, the positive influence of Bishop Edmund Guest especially upon articles 28 and 29 which are normally understood as calvinist. While calvinism was the dominant interpretation among classical English divinity, the Elizabethan revision deserves certain notice, particularly how moderate Lutheran views were comprehended. It remains the thesis of this author the articles on the Supper, composed under the chair of Guest, were a Phillipist, or moderate Lutheran, rather than Calvinist inspiration, so that questions of substantial presence are open to some opinion. Stricter Lutheran clergy, such as Cheyney, were likely disappointed with Guest’s broad terminology. Nor was the language very endearing for those persuaded by Calvin or Bullinger. Provided below are quotes to further assist this understanding:
It’s probable the entreaty with Germans was assumed upon the substance of the Variata since the Articles well-preceded the Formula. Not surprisingly article 28 was framed in the same comprehensive language as the altered Augusta. Again, Guest is credited for the authorship, reassuring Cheyney and Cecil by letter in 1566. According to Hardwick, Guest chaired the revision, was moderate in his Lutheranism, and directly responsible drafting changes from the 42 articles (History of the Thirty-Nine, p. 128), “yet while the romish doctrine of the eucharist was thus rejected, a new paragraph was added, on the motion of bishop Guest, to vindicate the truth from opposite perversions; for this paragraph declares that ‘the body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Lord’s Supper,’ though ‘only after an heavenly and spiritual manner’”.
Another author, Edgar Gibson, likewise attributes these changes to article 29 (from the earlier 42 articles) to Guest, it being written in terms broad enough to assuage stricter men like Cheyney:
However, Guest’s moderation evidently disgruntled both sides of the Lutheran-Reformed (or German-Swiss) divide:
This is where the question of the real presence stood in 1563. The language expressed was comprehensive, like the altered Augusta, settling upon a ‘real, spiritual presence’. However, in 1571 Parker introduced a new article that at least excluded capernatic eating. evidently Guest was opposed to such, hoping to either continue with the omission of the proposed article or slightly amend the earlier one (the 28th). Gibson says:
To sum, Guest was of the opinion the 28th article was comprehensive enough to satisfy men like Cheyney. However, the later inclusion of the 1571 article makes things more complicated. While this author was never troubled by reading the 29th in terms of ‘profitability’ or worthy receiving, evidently this is a strained reading, proven by the contortions of catholic divines like Pusey, G.F. Hodge, and Edgar Gibson. However, the article appeals to Augustine who seems to contextualize it.
Often terminology is dense and the precise terms, such as “only” versus “profitable”, become critical. There can also be plenty of strawman arguments, especially around the notion of ‘ubiquity’. I’ve found Lutheran definitions of terms like “spiritual”, “local”, “natural”, and “carnal” to be helpful, and they can be read either here or gleamed from the solid declaration of Concord. Sketching the differences between receptionism, viritualism, and consubstantion also helps. In this vein, Bicknell’s explanation of ‘receptionism’ provides a useful critique. Bicknell seems to contrast this with the ‘real presence’, giving a definition to the latter which is not calvinist but a lot closer to the Lutherans. I would say Bicknell is comparing, therefore, ‘receptionism’ (or nominalism) to ‘realism’:
Bicknell goes on to defend the objectivity of the sacrament through the incarnation, “the incarnation was an event discerned by faith but in no way produced by faith”, finally dismissing the logical obstacle of Christ’s fleshly body assumed in heaven by marginalizing the necessity of spatial physics. Of course, Bicknell is anglo-catholic, so he represents one voice in a studied departure from English receptionalism.
I believe whatever Lutheran comprehension was smuggled into the Settlement by Guest or the Queen Elizabeth rapidly gave way to Calvinist sacramentology. Article 29 took care of most traditional explanations. Meanwhile, within the spectrum of reformation BCP’s, the 1549 and 1662 were more comprehensive. Eighteenth-century Scottish liturgics eventually used English oblation prayers, appearing first in the 1637 BCP, as a springboard for consubstantialism. The oblation prayers were, again, recognized as dervived from the 1549 book. Thus, we see a certain relationship between the more robust viritualism encouraged by Carolinians with the later “consubstantialism”, or something very akin, of the Scottish Episcopalians. A modest Lutheranism unfortunately failed to make its way back into the English Settlement, not returning in force until Tractarianism’s influence. In this respect, Pusey’s Real Presence paved the way for a popularization not only of a conjoined substance but likewise some Scottish liturgics, previously mentioned. America also had its own native tractarian influence, also owing to the Scottish Office. Nor should the stymied attempts noted above– of Guest and Cheyney– for an Evangelical widening of the Articles be forgotten. But most important were the moderate Lutherans during the Henrician period– men like Barlow, Ridley and Latimer– who imprinted a Phillipist, or comprehensive sacramentology, that Laud restored the basis of through the restoration of the oblation prayer(s).
Furthermore, talks with Germans were not a one-shot matter. Upon the passing of Queen Anne, question of Protestant/Hanoveran succession renewed discussion. A lively debate stemmed from Pufendorf’s 1695 work, The Divine Feudal Law, which examined possible comprehension between Lutherans and Calvinists from a confessional viewpoint. Pufendorf adopts something like Melanchthon’s mediating position, emphasizing what the two systems have in common, namely, ‘right use’ of the Sacrament,
Nonetheless, Pufendorf is critical of receptionist views of the Zwinglian or low-Calvinist kind:
Where differences occur, the Philipist falls back to ‘mystery’, usually avoiding certain specifics of modus. However, for the Philipist, a substantial presence indeed exists together with the elements, conjoined, though not separate from sacramental action (“at” vs. “in”, “do” vs. “is”). In this respect, the Presence might be identified within the Bread, but only in so far the Bread continues as a proper part of the action. In other words, though the Presence can never exist “at” the bread alone, it has presence there given to right administration of the Sacrament, e.g., the instituted course of blessing-distribution-reception. When the body is given over to purposes other than what is instituted, it’s no longer a sacrament.
I hope the 39 articles and the mixed theology of the 1549 bcp are better known by the foresaid middle position. Johnson appears to say something of the same re: Lutheran-Calvinist opinion, quoted from Lewis’s reply to Brett: