[This article is No. 22 in the series entitled "A Review of Sunday Legislation in Century Nineteen," but it will be of equal interest to those who have not read preceding numbers.—ED. S. of T.]
IN our last article it was clearly set forth that the Church of England was not at the time of its birth a Protestant church. "The principles contained in the celebrated Protest of Spires, held 19 April, 1529, constituted"—it is D'Aubigne who is speaking—"the very essence of Protestantism." What are these principles? Let the same author tell:—
This protest opposes two abuses of man in matters of faith. The first is the intrusion of the civil magistrate; and the second, the arbitrary authority of the church. Instead of these abuses, Protestantism sets the power of conscience above the magistrate, and the authority of the word of God above the visible church. In the first place, it rejects the civil power in divine things, and says with the apostles and prophets, We must obey God rather than man.
This definition of the "essence of Protestantism" is preeminently correct. But the essence of the Church of England polity is diametrically opposed to the "essence of Protestantism." The Church of England did not oppose "the intrusion of the civil magistrate," nor did she "reject the civil power in divine things." On the contrary, the Church of England was formed by the hand of the first "civil magistrate" of the realm of Great Britain. Moreover, the Church of England has not set "the power of conscience above the magistrate;" on the other hand, she did set the power of the magistrate above "the power of conscience." It therefore logically follows from the reasonings that the Church of England is not Protestant.
Nevertheless, as we said in the last number of this serial, we are fully convinced that the Church of England is in many ways an improvement over the Church of Rome—a very considerable improvement. We will endeavor to state our reasons for holding this opinion clearly and concisely.
The principal founders of the Church of England were mere politicians. Henry VIII., his son and successor, Edward VI., and his daughter, Queen Elizabeth, and the Duke of Somerset, the protector and adviser of the youthful Edward VI., all belonged to the laity. They were none of them ecclesiastics. They were politicians working to accomplish political ends.
We do not believe in any State system of religion. No State system of religion can be Protestant or Biblical and Christian. Therefore personally and for ourselves we regard all State systems as not only valueless but iniquitous.
While for ourselves we tenaciously hold to this doctrine, we readily admit that some State systems of religion are less iniquitous than others. Now in what points of the two State systems does the Church of England possess superiority over the Church of Rome?
As has been stated, the Church of England was founded by politicians. Cranmer and Ridley were the only ecclesiastics who had much to do with the birth of this institution. And that she was founded and her early course molded in great degree by politicians, has in our mind been a blessing to the people of England, and is a point of superiority in the Church of England over the Church of Rome.
And why?—There is no love deeper, purer, better than religious love—the love of Jesus Christ in the human heart. On the other hand, there is no hate so bitter, so vindictive, so thoroughly rancorous in all its bearings, as religious hate. For this reason we would hold that the nation is better off whose statesmen make religion a branch of politics, than the nation whose ministers, clothed with civil power, make politics a branch of religion. In England the State religion is a branch of the civil power. To place the ministers of the church in the place of the ministers of the State always degrades them. The gentleness of Jesus Christ is incompatible with the duties of the civil office. Then they try to serve two masters; they must do this or give up one or the other of their professions. Consequently they grow meaner and spiritually weaker day by day. This greater degree of baseness in ministers holding civil office is well exemplified in the case of the assassination of Mayor Carter Harrison, assassinated in Chicago last year. Mr. Harrison was a Democrat. According to many in his own party, he was anything but a Democrat "of the best sort." He was said to be leagued with the "whisky element." During his life his political foes both in and out of his party spared no pains in trying to cast opprobrium upon his reputation. But when he was brutally murdered, his friends political and foes political all joined in speaking of his good qualities, in paying tribute to whatever part of his memory they consistently could, while his wrongs were forgotten. This is how his political foes treated him when dead. But how different the actions of the Protestant theological fraternity of the city of Chicago. The next Sunday but one after the sad event, almost to a man, they chose for a text—to use the language of the Chicago Herald—"Carter H. Harrison and Him Assassinated," instead of "Christ Jesus and Him Crucified." Mr. Harrison had been unfortunate enough to be mayor of Chicago during the time when the gates of the World's Fair were open on Sunday. He did not take steps to have them closed. And his course in this at least was proper and right. But, nevertheless, by taking this position he called down the wrath of these ministers upon his head. They accordingly preached that his assassination was a visitation of the Divine displeasure and wrath. And they blackmailed his memory all they could. In the majority of the sermons the speakers appeared anxious to hurry the unfortunate man off to hell as fast as possible.
They were not in civil power; had they been, what would they have done? We leave the reader to judge.
According to the papal theory, however, the civil government should be subject to the ecclesiastical. If the combination must exist, we much prefer to see the political element in the ascendant.
To this circumstance, therefore, that her founders were "mere politicians," we firmly believe that the Church of England owes whatever of moderation and tolerance of other creeds there is to be found in her famous "Thirty-nine Articles of Belief." To these circumstances she owes her decent ceremonies, her elevated and "pathetic liturgy." Says Macaulay:—
Her worship is not disfigured by mummery. Yet she has preserved, in a far greater degree than any of her Protestant sisters, that art of striking the senses and filling the imagination in which the Catholic Church so eminently excels.
The British statesman has been content to exercise jurisdiction over the souls of men on earth and has disclaimed all belief in, and all governmental power over, "purgatory, that unknown land which the hierarchy [of Rome] swayed with so absolute a rule" when once the Pope "by a bull had annexed it to his domain," and to which the earth had been rendered a tributary province. In this respect also we consider the Church of England creed in advance of the doctrines, on the same point, of the Church of Rome, and the theology of the British statesman superior to that of the Romish priest.
Again the services of the Church of England are written in English. In their native tongue the people hear them. The services of the Church of Rome are in Latin, which to nine hundred and ninety-nine one-thousandths of the Roman Catholic laity is as unintelligible as mere gibberish. In this also the good sense of the English politicians has predominated over the superstition of the priests of Rome.
Furthermore, auricular confession, that is, the specific confession of individual sin in secret to a priest, is an imperative duty in the Church of Rome. But the love of liberty and the hatred of slavishness so strong in the Anglo-Saxon have brought about the non-appearance of this disgusting dogma in the ritual and liturgy of the Church of England.
The adoration of images is a fundamental doctrine of Romanism. This is one of the most abominable, degrading phases of the filthiest type of heathenism. It, also, the more ingenuous English statesman has relegated to the infernal limbos.
The doctrines of the Church of England were originally set forth in forty-two articles. It is generally believed that these were drawn up by Cranmer and Ridley. The three last of these, condemning some novel opinions, were not renewed under Elizabeth, and a few other variations were made; but upon the whole there is little difference, and none perhaps in those tenets which have been most the objects of discussion. They were never440confirmed by a convocation or by Parliament but imposed by the king's supremacy on all the clergy, and on the universities. These "articles" contain some most excellent principles, and considerable rubbish. Concerning the latter we will say nothing; about the former we will mention a point or two:—
ARTICLE VI. Of the sufficiency of Holy Scriptures for salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.
ARTICLE XI. Of the justification of man.
We are accounted righteous before God, only, for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings; wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort.
ARTICLE XII. Of good works.
Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith, and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith.
ARTICLE XIII. Of works before justification.
Works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of his Spirit are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the school authors say) deserve grace of congruity; yea, rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.
ARTICLE XIV. Of works of supererogation.
Voluntary works besides, over, and above God's commandments, which they call works of supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogance and impiety; for by them men do declare that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for his sake than of bounden duty is required: whereas Christ said plainly, When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, We are unprofitable servants.
Such are a few of the "Thirty-nine Articles" of the Church of England. The truths herein expressed are good. Cranmer, as above cited, probably wrote them, but not of himself. As we have said, Cranmer was not a Christian, and knew nothing of the power of FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST. He copied these sentiments almost literally from the Confession of Augsburg, which was a Protestant document. This is historic fact. With him it was a mere matter of policy; but nevertheless the Church of England was benefited thereby.