A reformation treatise on the sacraments.
If its identification is accepted, this is a document of considerable importance despite its brevity. It would allow us a picture of Cranmer's doctrinal leanings at a time when we have very little written by him, and provide us with a kind of key to his Commonplace Books of which only Peter Brooks has attempted a detailed exploration.(2) It would also give limited evidence of Cranmer's liturgical work from a period which has given us only a draft of the Office.(3)
Briefly the document quotes with approval Melanchthon's Loci Communes and is a positive response to the Lutheran theology of three sacraments. All the traditional seven sacraments are discussed in order and subjected to the test of a true sacrament, namely that it be instituted in the New Testament for the forgiveness of sins. Only the three sacraments recognized by the Lutherans pass that test, though it is allowed to grace the others with the name of sacraments.
I. THE MANUSCRIPT
The manuscript is at present bound up with a collection of papers many, but by no means all, of which are associated with Archbishop Cranmer. MS 1107 begins with Cranmer's Collections of Canon Law (published in the Appendix to Volume III of the 1854 edition of Strype's Memorials of Archbishop Cranmer). The present document follows directly afterwards; there are then fourteen other documents, most of which were contemporary with Cranmer and some of which bear his notes or signature. Others, however, include the Confutatio Articulorum quorundam impiorum, quos praetendunt Anabaptistae, a translation of Melanchthon's Verlegung etlicher uncristlicher Artikel welche di Widerteuffer furgeben, and a document dated 1599.(4) It is not known when the collection was compiled or when it came to the Lambeth Palace Library. While a large amount of the material is connected with Cranmer in one way or another, an ascription to him can be made only on the internal evidence. Likewise it must be acknowledged that we have no ascription of a document of this name or contents to Cranmer with which the MS can be identified.(5)
Originally De Sacramentis was a separate gathering. It is composed of six sheets of paper folded double. The outside sheet is entirely blank, and the text fills the other twenty sides. There is no original foliation. The hand is not one which the present writer has met with in Cranmer's papers. It is the opinion of Dr I. Doyle of the University Library, Durham, who has seen a microfilm copy, that the hand shows some German influence: perhaps an English writer who had lived for a time in Germany. The watermarks likewise give us no information: the hand surmounted by a crown was common from 1526 through the century, though the closest examples given by C. M. Briquet are dated from 1531 to 1558.(6)
The document is evidently a fair copy. The hand begins very neatly but quickly becomes looser, and indeed the whole essay is written with little care. The headings fit badly: 'De Sacramentis' is used as a heading twice. In two places the heading 'Concordia' interrupts a sentence. It is possible that the present copy was written up from an original in which the headings were added in the margin to a text, and that the secretary was a poor copyist.
The introduction, which fills the first two sides, looks as though it has been added subsequently. The third page ([85.sup.r]) is the neatest of all and was probably the original beginning, but the addition is by the same writer and must have been made almost at once. A clumsy beginning of a sentence is added to the end of [84.sup.v] in order to link it with [85.sup.r]. It is only the additional introduction which seems to address the Lutherans rather than talk about them in the third person, which again suggests that it is an addition. However there is nothing else to suggest that this introduction was written by a different person from the author of the main body of the text.
II. CONTEXT AND DATE
The internal evidence points to an attempt to weld links with the Lutheran states. The most likely date is 1537-38, when there were high hopes of an Anglo-Lutheran agreement and also intense political work on the part of the English government to forestall a General Council, to which the essay refers. The reference in the essay to Erasmus (died 1536) as 'bonae memoriae' would fit well the suggested date of 1537-38.
There is no evidence that the essay ever reached publication. However, an essay in English largely based on it, apparently written in the hand of Richard Moryson, is to be found in the Public Record Office.(7) This has been seen as part of the preparatory work for the Institution of a Christian Man, or Bishops' Book, of 1537.(8) However, like this essay, it begins with enough references to the foreign situation for us to suppose that it, too, had an eye to the negotiations with the Lutherans.(9) Moryson's work is clearly secondary to the present one, as comparison with the sources of De Sacramentis immediately shows (for example, the use of Melanchthon's Loci Communes).(10)
Negotiations with the Lutherans had been lengthy but must have seemed very hopeful.(11) In 1535 Bishop Fox of Hereford, Nicholas Heath, and Robert Barnes were sent on an embassy to the Duke of Saxony and engaged in discussions with Luther, Melanchthon, Bugenhagen, Cruciger, and Jonas. In March 1536 these parties drew up the Wittenberg Articles which were based on the Augsburg Confession but include concessions to the English delegates.(12) The embassy returned to England in time for the drafting of the Ten Articles, passed by Convocation on 9 June. The Articles looked towards the Lutheran reader with discussions of the three Lutheran sacraments but no mention of the other four, and also contained close parallels to the Wittenberg Articles, including, as we shall see below, material in the Article on Penance.
The German envoys were in London from May to September 1538 but the negotiations ended in failure. A draft agreed formulary of faith, the Thirteen Articles, was drawn up, based on the Wittenberg Articles and the Augsburg Confession, but it was never ratified.(13) The Lutherans objected to the Anglicans retaining private masses, the witholding of the cup from the laity, and the enforced celibacy of the clergy, and Henry refused to yield on these points. In the meantime there was controversy among the English delegates. Cranmer in a letter to Cromwell on 23 August mentions that some of his colleagues the bishops were threatening to raise the issue of the four sacraments not recognized by the Lutherans which, if they succeeded, would simply have put the talks back further still.(14) In the light of this threat, which Cranmer must have foreseen, it would be reasonable to suppose that the present document was written before the beginning of the negotiations, at least partly with the intention of persuading the conservative English bishops to concede the issue of the sacraments to the Lutherans. There is no evidence that the essay had any direct influence on the composition of the Thirteen Articles.
The essay effectively gives reasons for agreeing with the Lutherans on all major points in this area. Perhaps it was hoped that the reader would not be aware of the extent to which Lutheran documents were being quoted, but the reasons supporting the conclusions showed a certain independence of thought and a loyalty to traditional Catholic sentiments. Particularly striking in this respect is the favourable mention of Cajetan and Pope Paul III in the section on unction.(15) The added introduction, which looks towards an international readership, suggests that the purpose of the document was changed. (The rest of the document addresses, in the last words, only a general 'dominus' which hardly refers to any specific person but would be a general polite address. The Lutherans are discussed in the third person,(16) and so the balance of evidence points to the original readership being English dignitaries concerned with relations with the Lutherans.) Lutheran readers might have been more impressed by the patristic scholarship than struck by any originality.
Within the history of English official religious documents De Sacramentis has certain parallels and connections. The Ten Articles of 1536 would seem to be the basis of the comments in the introduction that Henry had appointed concord in his Church with the consent of the bishops and clergy. But there is little in the way of connections to be drawn beyond that. The Ten Articles discuss only baptism, Eucharist, and penance, which suggests a conciliatory gesture towards the Lutherans. These discussions are very cautious and conservative and depend chiefly on scriptural quotations, unlike De Sacramentis which includes a survey of patristic and later authorities. That on baptism tells us nothing out of the ordinary; that on the Eucharist affirms the Real Presence but ignores both transubstantiation and sacrifice. Under penance, auricular confession is said to be instituted by Christ and necessary for the forgiveness of sins committed after baptism. In this respect the Article is different from De Sacramentis. Also there is a discussion in the Article of the remission or mitigation of punishment in this world, but we may note that it is discreetly silent on the issue of temporal punishment in the next life, something explicitly denied in the essay. (Prayers for the departed are allowed and commended, but speculations about purgatory are discouraged and Popish abuses attacked.)(17)
These Articles were incorporated in the Bishops' Book. The other four sacraments are also discussed, and of these the treatment of marriage and unction show particular connections with De Sacramentis.(18) There is nothing of note, for our purposes, in the discussion of confirmation and orders.(19) De Sacramentis fits in the context of these official publications when there is discussion of how many sacraments should be recognized and also specific connections in particular instances. However, the order of the sacraments discussed in the essay is the same as in the later King's Book.(20) It may be that this document should be assessed in the context of the discussions which were carried on after the publication of the Bishops' Book and the evolution of the much delayed King's Book. For this reason we are inclined to date the document to 1537/8, between the publication of the Bishops' Book and the arrival of the Lutheran envoys, but in any case after the Ten Articles of 1536.
Thus far there is no reason at all for supposing that Cranmer was the author of this particular essay among the many documents which survive from the failed negotiations. However a comparison with his Commonplace Books and with other known writings makes this ascription very likely.
First the essay shows multiple connections with the Commonplace Books. They supply by no means all the authorities mentioned in the pamphlet, but the list of coincidences is most impressive. One particular example is that, in the section concerning the Eucharist, the essayist quotes Tertullian and Augustine as authorities for a tropological understanding of the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ, while Cyril and Theophylact are said to propose a literal understanding. These four authorities are all listed in the Commonplace Book Royal MS 7 B XI and the opinions mentioned by the essayist are either underlined or noted in the margin. The relevant passages are quoted in the footnotes accompanying the text of De Sacramentis below, as are a selection of other striking parallels, thus providing the reader with the means to appreciate the intimate connection between the writer of the pamphlet and the compiler of the Commonplaces.
Secondly, the interests and views expressed by the essayist are sufficiently similar to those we know that Cranmer held for it to be most likely that he is indeed the writer. As our first example, the general approach of the document and much of its wording are similar to the record of a speech delivered by Cranmer at an Assembly of Bishops.(21) The date and precise context of the occasion are not clear. Alexander Aless, who reported the event, says it was in 1537, and in this respect he is followed by Jasper Ridley.(22) Basil Hall follows earlier writers in placing the debate in 1536.(23) The earlier date would suggest that the discussions led up to the promulgation of the Ten Articles; the later date has been taken to imply the drafting of the Bishops' Book. It is possible, given the new evidence here presented, that the debate was in fact looking more towards the negotiations which were being pursued with the Lutherans throughout this period, but that is not in any way a necessary conclusion. What we see in both the debate and this document is a consistent policy of tactfully promoting Lutheran theology. The two could be intimately linked, or they could equally represent the same policy being implemented over a number of years using the same stock phrases.
But close similarities there certainly are, so much so that it is worth quoting the entire speech and noting the phrases which find close parallels particularly in the introduction and conclusion of our document. The notes to the text point out only the verbal similarities. There are broader similarities of doctrine, namely in that the two documents present the same understanding of penance as comforting the conscience when it feels itself accused by the law; also there are differences of emphasis, in that the speech makes much more of other issues than just that of the sacraments, and also that it emphasises very strongly the evils of brawling over words. But these differences are natural and, indeed, to be expected.
It beseemeth not men of learning and gravity to make much babbling and brawling about bare words,(24) so that we agree in the very substance and effect of the matter.(25) For to brawl about words is the property of sophisters and such as mean deceit and subtilty, which delight in the debate and dissension of the world, and in the miserable state of the church; and not of them which should seek the glory of Christ and should study for the unity and quietness of the church.(26) There be weighty controversies(27) now moved and put forth, not of ceremonies and light things, but of the true understanding and of the right difference of the law and of the gospel; of the manner and way how sins be forgiven; of comforting doubtful and wavering consciences, by what means they may be certified that they please God, seeing they feel the strength of the law accusing them of sin; of the true use of the sacraments, whether the outward work of them doth justify man', or whether we receive our justification by faith.(28) Item, which be the good works, and the true service and honour which pleaseth God: and whether the choice of meats, the difference of garments, the vows of monks and priests, and other traditions which have no word of God to confirm them, whether these, I say, be right good works, and such as make a perfect christian man, or no. Item, whether vain service, and false honouring of God, and man's traditions, do bind men's consciences, or no. Finally, whether the ceremony of confirmation, of orders and of annealing, and such other (which cannot be proved to be institute of Christ, nor have any word in them to certify us of remission of sins,) ought to be called sacraments, and to be compared with baptism and the supper of the Lord, or no.(29)
These be no light matters, but even the principal points of our christian religion. Wherefore we contend not about words and titles, but about high and earnest matters. Christ saith, 'Blessed be the peace-makers, for they shall be called the sons of God.' And Paul, writing unto Timothy, commanded bishops to avoid brawling and contention about words,(30) which be profitable to nothing but unto the subversion and destruction of the hearers; and monisheth him specially, that he should resist with the scriptures, when any man disputeth with him of the faith: and he addeth a cause, whereas he saith: 'Doing this thou shalt preserve both thyself and also them which hear thee.' Now if ye will follow these counsellors, Christ and Paul, all contention and brawling about words must be set apart, and ye must stablish a godly and perfect unity and concord out of the scripture. Wherefore in this disputation we must first agree of the number of sacraments(31) and what a sacrament doth signify in the holy scripture;(32) and when we call baptism and the supper of the Lord sacraments of the gospel, what we mean thereby. I know right well that St Ambrose and other authors call the washing of the disciples' feet, and other things, sacraments; which I am sure you yourselves would not suffer to be numbered among the other sacraments.
The text of the speech is given to us by Aless.(33) Ridley calls it a summary,(34) but the detailed similarities with De Sacramentis suggest perhaps more an extract or at least detailed notes from the speech. Indeed, this reader of the text of the speech finds it quite incomplete. Cranmer points out the importance of the issue but goes no further. We are led to expect either a detailed discussion of the various points or concrete proposals of how they might be discussed. However, it is unlikely that Aless should be seen as the author of the speech or of De Sacramentis. Ridley portrays him as altogether lacking the tact which is evident in these works; indeed, Aless was removed from the discussions and took no further part.(35) However, he retained good and even intimate relations with Cranmer and would have been in an excellent position to have learnt and been able to quote the Archbishop's manner of handling such thorny questions.(36) One Can also see links with other writings of Cranmer. For the most part the similarities are less close, but there is little or nothing to stand in the way of the ascription of authorship.
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', and adds that confession should be retained for good reasons, even though it is not prescribed in Scripture.(37) This sentiment goes beyond the other English-Lutheran statements, but fits well with the approach of De Sacramentis, which attacks the canonical obligation.(38)
Cranmer's Annotations on Henry VIII's Corrections to 'Institution of a Christian Man' provide two passages which are close enough to be quoted in the footnotes to this edition. The denial that marriage is a sacrament because it does not confer the forgiveness of sins is one with the argument of De Sacramentis, but does not of itself show a necessary close link with that document. Of more interest is the same stress on unction as conferring healing and, somewhat unusually, the attention paid to the plural priests as in the letter of James.(39)
Cranmer's answers to some Queries concerning Confirmation provide nothing opposing his authorship of De Sacramentis rather than any positive evidence in favour. He denies any institution by Christ and the scriptural justification for the use of chrism (a feature on which De Sacramentis is cautiously silent). Perhaps we see the same openness of mind in both documents when Cranmer's answers mention 'strength and constancy, with other spiritual gifts', just as De Sacramentis notes the gifts of miracles and tongues.(40)
In late 1540 Cranmer, with other divines, gave answers to a long list of Questions concerning the Sacraments and the Appointment and Power of Bishops and Priests.(41) In answer to the question, 'What a sacrament is by the ancient authors?', Cranmer replies, 'The ancient authors call a sacrament, sacrae rei signum, or, visibile verbum, symbolum, atque pactio qua sumus constricti.' This differs slightly from De Sacramentis in which we have an attempt to classify the sacraments by the definition, invisibilis gratiae forma visibilis. Other divines use this phrase in 1540, but Cranmer does not. However, the term, pactio qua sumus constricti, might point to the feature we shall see as distinctive in Cranmer's approach to the sacraments, the 'precept' or command to celebrate them.
The seventh question, 'What is found in scripture of the matter, nature, effect, and virtue of such as we call the seven sacraments...?' produces an answer from Cranmer which is much closer to what we find in De Sacramentis.
I find not in the scripture the matter, nature and effect of all these which we call the seven sacraments, but only of certain of them, as of baptism, in which we be regenerated and pardoned of our sin by the blood of Christ:
Of eucharistia, in which we be incorporated unto Christ, and made lively members of his body, nourished and fed to the everlasting life, if we receive it as we ought to do, and else it is to us rather death than life.
Of penance also I find in the scripture, whereby sinners after baptism returning wholly unto God, be accepted again unto God's favour and mercy. But the scripture speaketh not of penance, as we call it a sacrament, consisting in three parts, contrition, confession, and satisfaction; but the scripture taketh penance for a pure conversion of a sinner in heart and mind from his sins unto God, making no mention of private confession of all deadly sins to a priest, nor of ecclesiastical satisfaction to be enjoined by him.
Of matrimony also I find very much in scripture, and among other things, that it is a mean whereby God doth use the infirmity of our concupiscence to the setting forth of his glory, and increase of the world, thereby sanctifying the act of carnal commixtion between the man and the wife to that use; yea, although one party be an infidel: and in this matrimony is also a promise of salvation, if the parents bring up their children in the faith, love, and fear of God.
Of the matter, nature, and effect of the other three, that is to say, confirmation, order, and extreme unction, I read nothing in the scripture, as they be taken for sacraments.
The only difference to be seen is the new approach to marriage, and this is also a difference from Cranmer's views as expressed in his Annotations to Henry VIII's Corrections. The treatment of penance is very close to that in De Sacramentis, where we find both the dislike for the traditional threefold categories (although they are still used)(42) and, as we have already seen, the denial of the requirement to confess all one's sins to a priest.
Our conclusion from these multiple connections is that De Sacramentis was written by Thomas Cranmer in 1537/8 as part of the preparation for the Lutheran embassy. As an attempt to achieve a doctrinal consensus among those involved in the debate, it may be compared with the role suggested by David Selwyn for a vernacular tract on the Eucharist - that it was canvassed as an attempt at consensus in connection with the introduction of the 1549 Book of Common Prayer.(43) But beyond noting the same general principle which has been suggested for both documents, further comparison lies beyond this present discussion.
IV. DE SACRAMENTIS AND THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER
With regard to the evolution of the Prayer Book, there are a number of striking parallels in this document, namely with the exposition of the Gospel in the baptism service,(44) the introduction to the marriage service,(45) and with the delivery of the Bible at the ordination of priests.(46) It cannot be said that any are overwhelmingly likely to be the source of the Prayer Book phrases, but they are all closer in some particular aspect to the liturgical text than other suggested parallels, and the incidence of three such texts in so short a document is in itself a remarkable statistic. If they are indeed to be accepted as sources of Prayer Book phrases (an hypothesis which largely depends on acceptance of the attribution of authorship to Cranmer) then we are to conclude that the Archbishop was engaged in extensive liturgical drafting in the late 1530s. We have a manuscript draft form of Daily Office in Latin from this period,(47) but this essay would seem to suggest work on the occasional offices, either in Latin form which was subsequently translated into English, or in vernacular but whose Latin equivalents were readily recalled in Cranmer's bilingual mind.
The structure of the 'prayers of consecration' in the baptism and communion services is also foreshadowed in the theology of sacraments described here, though it would be another matter to suggest that it had already reached liturgical drafting. The addition of the 'precept' to Melanchthon's 'institution'(48) is echoed by Cranmer's 'did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue' in the Holy Communion and, in baptism, by 'did shed out of his most precious side both water and blood, and gave commandment to his disciples that they should go, teach all nations and baptize them...'.
V. THE CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENT
The Sacraments (fos. [84.sup.r]-[85.sup.v], pp. 167-9)
The essay begins with a preamble which sets the European scene: the controversy in matters of religion which led the Pope to propose a Council, and the noble example of Henry VIII in establishing concord in his realm (probably referring to the Ten Articles).
The author surveys the question of the number of sacraments from a patristic perspective, and then attempts a common definition. He adopts that of Peter Lombard - that the sacrament is a visible form of an invisible grace, and that it is concerned with justifying grace. He also quotes the saying of Augustine, that the word comes to the element and it becomes a sacrament, to underline the two features in the sacrament of word and element. He then emphasizes that the word of God belongs to the Gospel, not to the law which offers only ceremonies but not the remission of sins.
The subheading 'De Sacramentis' effectively interrupts the discussion, but it was in all probability the original beginning of the document. It introduces a lengthy adaptation of a passage of Melanchthon's Loci Communes which is quoted in Royal MS 7 B XI. The essayist follows Melanchthon in acknowledging three true sacraments, baptism, Eucharist and absolution, and 'in the common definition that the sacrament is the visible sign of invisible justifying grace, instituted in the Gospel. He adds that the sacrament has to be commanded (praecepta) as well as instituted, a theme which recurs in the 'consecration' prayers of 1549 and 1552.
The description of holy orders is interesting for its fore-shadowing of the Anglican Ordinal; it departs from Melanchthon's 'teach the gospel' and takes the later Prayer Book's 'preach the gospel and minister the sacraments'.
Baptism (fos. [85.sup.v]-[86.sup.v], pp. 170-1)
The verse giving the institution and command is said to be Mark 16: 15-16. The remainder of the section is concerned with justifying the baptism of infants. First its necessity for salvation is stated, with regard to both adults and children alike. Scripture (John 3: 5) is quoted and patristic writers. Like Melanchthon, the author states that circumcision in the Old Testament gave access to the people of God, and baptism in the New Testament allows entry into the Kingdom of Heaven, which is the Church. John 3: 5 succeeds Gen. 17: 14.
The necessity of baptism to counter original sin is affirmed, again with the testimony of both Scripture and the Fathers, and the essayist uses the Lutheran treatment of John the Baptist to affirm that children can have faith. He denies (against the Anabaptists who rely on Rom. 10: 17) that the Gospel must be preached and received before accepting the sacrament, and asserts instead the story of Christ blessing the children. This passage is most remarkable: the actions in the story are set out as a list and subsequently numbered in the manuscript. After ordering the children to be brought to him, Jesus first took them into his arms, then laid his hands on them, then blessed them. By saying that thus he sanctified them, forgiving their sins and imparting the Holy Spirit, the essayist makes the intimate connection with baptism complete. We have here the basic principle which will underlie the liturgical use of the story in 1549 and 1552.(49)
If we are correct to date this document to c. 1537, the treatment of Jesus and the children raises an interesting problem in that, far from being a later adaptation of continental models, it represents a very early version of this use of the gospel passage. This date would make the essay contemporary with the exhortation in the Strasburg liturgy of 1537 which uses the model of the story for the baptism of infants,so and predates the Albertine-Saxony baptism service of 1540, whose wording in this section is very close to the Prayer Books of 1549 and 1552. The principal author of the Kirchenordnung of Albertine-Saxony was Justus Jonas, who was a personal friend of Cranmer, and among the Lutheran ambassadors to London was another author, Frederic Myconius.(51)
It would seem likely, on the basis of the close correspondence between the various documents, that the essay here reflects the theological discussions underlying the development of the liturgical use of the gospel passage. Is it even possible that Cranmer had a hand in initiating this use of the motif?
Penitence (fos. [86.sup.v]-[89.sup.v], pp. 171-5)
The author agrees with Melanchthon in treating the subject of penitence in the traditional threefold framework of contrition, confession, and satisfaction, while allowing a theological alternative scheme of contrition and faith. Typically, much of the argument and the conclusions accord closely with Melanchthon, but much of the material quoted, especially from the Fathers, is gleaned from elsewhere. One probable source here is Calvin's 1536 edition of the Institutes, which is quoted extensively in the Commonplace Books but does not seem to have been otherwise used by Cranmer.
The essayist, like Melanchthon, wishes to see confession retained for the administering of absolution, and for monitoring and correcting people's beliefs about the Eucharist. But he does not wish to follow the medieval rule of obligatory auricular confession. Canon 21 of the Fourth Lateran Council is ascribed to Pope Innocent III, conveniently but perhaps less than candidly, by a writer who wishes to promote General Councils against the power of the Papacy. The author produces his own list of authorities, which seem to be gleaned from Cranmer's Commonplace Books, for confession to God alone. Many of these seem to have been taken from passages discussed by Peter Lombard.(52)
The author goes on to affirm that the doctrine of purgatory and indulgences is a late one, unknown even to Peter Lombard. Satisfaction is appropriate with regard to one's fellow human beings and with the treatment of scandalous behaviour, but has no place before God. But God may mitigate even earthly punishments for sin.
Eucharist (fos. [89.sup.v]-[91.sup.r], pp. 175-6)
The essayist seems to draw heavily on Cranmer's Commonplace books here. The examination of the conscience in 1 Corinthians 11 is bound up with recognizing the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament. The tropological understanding is denied: here the argument is based on that of the Syngramma Suevorum. However, quite remarkably, the author admits that Tertullian and Augustine can be ambiguous on the matter, and his candid admission that the testimonies of the Fathers are weak on the Eucharist stands in opposition to Cranmer's public confidence, such as we see in his letter to Vadianus. (For a full discussion of this passage and its relation to the Commonplace Books see below.)
The essayist denies the ability of priests to apply the Mass to specific aims, but he wants to keep some language of sacrifice: that the whole Mass (rather than the consecrated bread and wine) be a sacrifice of thanksgiving, with prayers for the living and thanksgiving for the dead, or a spiritual or bloodless sacrifice. Here he is drawing on Melanchthon's Apologia Confessionis Augustanae and Greek liturgical forms such as we see quoted in the Commonplace Books.
Marriage (fo. [91.sup.r-v], pp. 177-8)
The section on marriage may well belong to English concerns such as we see in the Bishops' Book and which are carried through eventually into the Preface of the Marriage Service of the Book of Common Prayer. In this respect we may note the institution by God in paradise and the repeated emphasis that marriage is 'honourable'. However the greater part of the article is taken up with an attack on compulsory celibacy, a subject about which Cranmer no doubt felt strongly. In the event, the celibacy of the clergy was to be one of the issues on which the negotiations would fail. The last sentence, which speaks explicitly about the Lutherans, strongly suggests that this article, at least, was written as a preparatory internal document rather than being presented as part of the negotiations.
Church Orders (fos. [91.sup.v]-[92.sup.r], pp. 178-9)
Again the article concentrates on a particular issue, namely that of the restriction of ordination to bishops. It says that this is not scriptural and furthermore, that the consent of the people is required. But it also affirms that a gift of God is imparted in the ordination, fortitude in preaching the Gospel and gifts for building up the Church.
The question of the competent authority for the appointment of clergy is taken up in later English documents. The Questions and Answers concerning the Sacraments and the Appointment and Power of Bishops and Priests of 1540 has four questions opening up the question of appointment of priests by the civil authority.(53) The King's Book is more reticent in its approach: 'And here is to be noted, that although this form before declared is to be observed in giving orders, yet there is no certain rule prescribed or limited by the word of God for the nomination, election, presentation or appointing of any such ecclesiastical ministers; but the same is wholly left unto the positive laws and ordinances of every Christian region, provided and made or to be made in that behalf, with the assent of the prince and ruler.'(54)
Confirmation (fo. [92.sup.r-v], p. 179)
Here the traditional line is taken that confirmation confers the Holy Spirit for strengthening. But there is no forgiveness of sins - which is conferred in baptism - so, according to the working definition of a sacrament, confirmation is not included with baptism, penance, and the Eucharist. At the end of the article the essayist concedes the advantage of having adults make the profession of faith which had been made on their behalf at baptism; here again he is following Melanchthon. Typically, a concern about the Anabaptists creeps in: this use of confirmation will answer their criticism.
Unction (fo. [93.sup.r-v], pp. 179-80)
The introduction to this article mentions the addition of a promise to the ceremony, namely the healing of the sick person. In this respect it may be compared with the article in the Bishops' Book. But this present passage is taken up almost entirely with a quotation of Cajetan pointing out the differences between the prescription by James and the sacrament as currently practised. The optimism with regard to the effect of the sacrament is reflected in Cranmer's own notes to Henry VIII and the Bishops' Book, but is tempered in the King's Book.(55)
VI. infirma Patrum Testimonia: A Reassessment Of The Eucharistic Theology in Cranmer's Commonplace Books
The admission in De Sacramentis that the testimonies of the Fathers are uncertain guides for the theology of the Eucharist is a statement extraordinary for its candour. One may doubt whether Cranmer would be so open in later years when his early plans for Reformation lay in ruins and his own life seemed to be in great danger. The reserve which he normally observed in stating his personal beliefs has made it very difficult to establish his precise views and how they developed. But Peter Brooks has presented a strong case for the position that Cranmer for many years took a Lutheran line before moving over to the Reformed camp by 1548. Brooks based much of his study on the Commonplace Books, and we must here see how his position is supported or undermined by De Sacramentis.
First, however, Brooks reminds us that the issue is wider than that of the eucharistic controversy: Cranmer also wrote on salvation by faith in his Homily of Salvation.(56) But for detailed evidence of an allegiance to Lutheran eucharistic theology, Brooks turns to Cranmer's Commonplace Books and correctly sees in many of the pages that the Archbishop was making his collection from the point of view of a belief in the Real Presence. In particular there is a section of the Commonplaces where he marshals the arguments of Lutherans and Swiss, and clearly makes the Lutheran position his own.(57) In another section, of patristic quotations, Brooks is right to say the quotations are collected from a Real Presence point of view, though it is intriguing that, as Brooks suggests, Cranmer seems to have gleaned many of them from Oecolampadius' Quid de Eucharistia Veteres tum Graeci tum Latini senserint.(58)
Brooks presents us with a picture of Cranmer having a 'Lutheran phase' in his doctrinal development, in which he rejected transubstantiation but 'nevertheless held firmly to an understanding of the Real Presence by faith in the straightforward terms of Holy Scripture'.(59) He acknowledges that detailed acceptance of Lutheran theology would have made the move to the Reformed position more difficult, and so we might expect some difference.(60) But we are left with the impression that the real Cranmer of the late 1530s is the one represented in his letter to Vadian in which he 'is plainly convinced of the truth of the Real Presence'.(61)
However, this is by no means the entire story. The essay De Sacramentis opens the possibility of doubt and uncertainty in Cranmer's position, and in the light of this essay we can return to his Commonplaces and read the same uncertainty. First, a more detailed survey of the contents of the Eucharistic Commonplaces in Royal MS 7 B XI is necessary. They can be described as follows:
(a) scriptural references (pp. 211-13) (b) patristic quotations (pp. 213-58) (c) scriptural verses which support the Sacramentarians (p. 259) (d) extracts from Brenz's Syngramma Suevicum (pp. 261-75) (e) Lutherans vs. Reformers (pp. 276-90) (f) patristic quotations (pp. 291-302).
Brooks' evidence is taken from sections (b) and (e). Most of the other sections are entirely unremarkable for our present purposes: (a) and (c) are nothing more than we might expect from a systematic theologian, and (d), being from a Lutheran document, does not surprise us by its presence. Section (f), however, seems to have been collected from a different point of view than that which underlies (b). It is no coincidence that the patristic authors cited in favour of the Real Presence in De Sacramentis are to be found in section (b) and those whose writings suggest a tropological approach are all grouped in section (f). And, indeed, in that section there are no marginal comments, but all the underlining would seem to support a tropological understanding of the eucharistic presence.
What can we conclude from this? First it reveals the common mind of the collector of the Commonplaces and the writer of De Sacramentis. And if this is the Cranmer of c. 1537, then we can see a somewhat different Cranmer from the confident letter-writer to Vadian.
Secondly, the Commonplaces are revealed to be very uncertain witnesses of Cranmer's own mind unless we possess corroborating material. Brooks is correct to say that they - or at least most of them - were collected from a Real Presence position, but the final section, and the conclusions as represented by De Sacramentis, show that the collection was not solidly in support of the Lutheran position. Cranmer, as we know from his letter to Vadian, publicly espoused a Real Presence position, and there is no particular reason to doubt his sincerity. But the Commonplaces reveal the possibility of doubt which is clear in the light of De Sacramentis.
Thirdly, we can no longer assume that the changes in Cranmer's theological position were like a progression along a spectrum. If De Sacramentis is indeed his original composition, as we believe it is, and represents his true mind, he was already strongly influenced by the tropological approach to the eucharistic presence, and it is perhaps more remarkable that he still espoused the Lutheran cause than that he moved to the Reformed position ten years later.
De numero, usu et efficacia sacramentorum magna est controversia in ecclesia. Scholastici contendunt septem esse, et per haec conferri gratiam ex opere operato.(2) Alii affirmant tria tantum esse necessaria quae oporteat etiam cum fide accipi. Anabaptistae negant parvulos tingendos esse; multi praeterea non recte sentiunt de eucharistia. In tanta dissentione plures videas qui [MS om: aquam] frigidam suffundant, qui student concordiae paucissimos. Episcopi iudicant vi et armis opprimendos esse qui aliquid reprehendunt in usitata doctrina; contra clementissimus Caesar eos audiendos sentit in synodo libera. De qua nulla spes est, cum Pontifex hanc in Italia, contra conventuum Imperii deliberationes et summorum Regum voluntates, habere constituit. Quare piissimus princeps Henricus octavus, Dei gratia Rex Angliae et Franciae dominus Hiberniae etc. in sua ecclesia concordiam constituit cum episcoporum et omnium ordinum ecclesiasticorum consensu.(3) Huius exemplo ceteri principes si in suis ditionibus lites componerent de doctrina religionis, aequiori animo ferre possimus Romani episcopi tyrannidem qui negat nobis liberam synodum, et nihil opus esset Consilio Generali. Sed de numero sacramentorum contentio oritur, magis ex vocum [GREEK TEXT OMITTED] quam ex natura rerum pugnantium. Quod vel hac ratione facile intelligi potest cum hi qui inter se litigant eos libenter pro orthodoxis agnoscunt ([84.sup.v]) qui diversum numerum sacramentorum posuerunt. Dionysius in Coelesti Hierarchia quinque numerat sacramenta, omittens poenitentiam et matrimonium.(4) Augustinus libro tertio de Doctrina Christiana capite nono tantum duo ponit, baptismum et eucharistiam. Huius verba sunt, 'Dominus et apostolica doctrina tradidit pauca quaedam signa sicut est baptismi sacramentum et celebratio corporis et sanguinis domini.'(5) Et ad Januarium epistula 118 [MS: 115]: 'Jesus Christus sacramentis numero paucissimis, observatione facillimis, significatione praestantissimis, societatem novi populi colligavit sicut est baptismus trinitatis nomine consecratus et celebratio corporis et sanguinis ipsius.' Nec plura ponit in expositione Psalmi 105. Sed qui de aliqua re disputant, necesse est eos a definitione incipere ut intelligatur id de quo disputetur et ne [GREEK TEXT OMITTED] a Paulo prohibitam sequantur. Nam constat sacramentum varie accipi a Sententiariis et Scholasticis; hoc facile permittitur ab aliis iuxta eam definitionem, qua sacrae rei signum dicitur, septera esse sacramenta, sed communis definitio sacramenti est quod sit invisibilis gratiae forma visibilis, et de gratia iustificante se loqui dicit Magister nec dissentiunt Sententiarii et Summistae.(6) In hanc etiam sententiam Augustinus ad Marcellum epistula quinta dicit, 'Signa visibilia quando ad res divinas pertinetur appellari sacramenta',(7) et in 15 caput Johannis octavo tractatu, 'Accedit verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum'. Constat igitur sacramentum omnium consensu duabus rebus, scilicet verbo et elemento,(8) et verbo quidem ipsius Dei, quae non est vox legis tantum praecipientis fieri ceremoniam, sed Evangelii quod pollicetur nobis in ceremonia remissionem peccatorum. Scholasticis convenit cum aliis quod... ([85.sup.r])
Sacramenta Novi Testamenti sunt visibilia signa invisibilis gratiae iustificantis,(9) vel ceremoniae institutae in Evangelio ut significent remissionem peccatorum, quia hoc proprie in Novo Testamento promittitur,(10) sicut Christus testatur dicens, Hic est calix Novi Testamenti, qui pro vobis et multis effunditur in remissionem peccatorum. Quare si ceremonia non sit in Evangelio:
3 Vel non proprie significat remissionem peccatorum, non est necesse numerare hanc inter sacramenta Novi Testamenti.
2 Coena domini
3 Absolutio sunt ritus instituti in Evangelio et usurpantur ad significandum hanc promissionem Evangelii propriam. Baptizamur ut credamus nobis peccata condonata esse sic et Coena Domini et Absolutio certes nos faciunt de remissione peccatorum. Confirmatio significat donum constantiae vel fortitudinis in asserendo Evangelio, ut Magister Sententiarum ex Rabani testimonio probat distinctione 7 quarto.
Extrema Unctio ceremonia est doni sanationum sicut verba quae pro hoc sacramento ex Jacobo producuntur indicant. 'Infirmatur aliquis inter vos etc, et oratio fidei salvum reddet laborantem et eriget eum dominus etc'. Idem sentit Caietanus.
Matrimonium non est primo institutum in Novo ([85.sup.v]) Testamento, nec habet promissionem remissionis peccatorum.
Ordo qui per impositionem manuum auctoritate sacerdotii datur tribuit potestatem praedicandi Evangelii et ministrandi sacramenta,(12) magisquam remissionem peccatorum. Et tamen studiosi pacis facile permittent haec [erased: non tantum retineri in ecclesia sed] etiam dici sacramenta, modo populus recte doceatur de eorum significatione, quod non significent remissionem peccatorum sed alia dona Spiritus Sancti.
Baptismus per Christum est institutus, et habet praeceptum cum promissione, Marci ultimo, 'Ite in mundum universum et praedicate Evangelium omni creaturae. Qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit salvus erit'. Est etiam parvulis necessarius iuxta dictum [erased: praeceptum] Christi, 'Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu non potest ingredi regnum caelorum'. Hoc ad parvulos proinde atque adultos dici, ex doctrina apostolorum receptum est in ecclesia, ut testantur omnes orthodoxi. Sic Origenes in sextum caput ad Romanos,(13) Augustinus libro iiii contra Donatistas(14) et super Genesim libro 10 capite 23, et Cyprianus dicit quendam in synodo damnatum quod negaret parvulos ante octavam diem baptizandos esse.(15) Nam extra ecclesiam non est salus, parvuli autem sunt extra ecclesiam ante baptismum, sicut Iudaeorum infantes ante circumcisionem, de quibus lex dicit, 'Parvulus cuius preputii caro non fuerit circumcisa peribit illius anima de populo'. Huic dicto successit, 'Nisi quis ([86.sup.r]) renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu non potest ingredi regnum coelorum', id est ecclesiam.(16) Sed Anabaptistae negant peccatum originis sicut Pelagiani. Quare non iudicant parvulis opus esse baptismo, sed haec haeresis est contra apertam scripturam, ad Romanos quinto, quam omnes orthodoxi exposuerunt de peccato originis. Verba sunt Augustini ad Hieronimum de Origine Animarum, 'Cum baptizandis parvulis festinatur et curritur, quia sine dubio creditur eos aliter in Christo vivificari non posse. Qui autem non vivificantur restat ut in ea condemnatione maneant de qua apostolus ad Romanos quinto: "Per unius delictum propagatum est malum in omnes homines ad condemnationem'". Idem sentiunt ceteri orthodoxi, Cyprianus epistula octava ad Fidum, et Nazianzenus in oratione de Sancto Lavachro. Quod autem Anabaptistae negant parvulos esse baptizandos propterea quod non habeant fidem, hoc primo temerarium est quia constat Johannem Baptistam suam declarasse fidem etiam adhuc in utero matris, et Christus per suum sacramentum et propter promissionem additam sacramento tam efficax esse potest per Spiritum Sanctum in parvulis, sicut fuit ad matris suae orationem in Baptista. Fides etiam Dei donum est quam, sicut non omnes audientes ([86.sup.v]) praedicationem assequuntur, ita temerarium est dicere parvulis non dari per sacramentum sine praedicatione. Nam Christus iussit adduci parvulos ad se,
1 accipit in ulnas
2 imponit manus
3 benedicit,(17) id est sanctificat, remittendo peccata et imparciendo Spiritum Sanctum.(18)
Adhaec ipse prophetiam, 'Ex ore infantium et lactentium perfecisti laudem', interpretatur de parvulis clamantibus in Templo Hosanna filio David, et addit, 'Si isti tacuerent lapides clamabunt'. Quare constat ipsos tunc impulsore Deo testimonium reddisse Christo et Spiritum Sanctum in parvulis efficacem esse. Postremo ipse Christus testatur parvulos habere fidem dicens, 'Qui offenderit unum de pusillis istis qui in me credunt'. Constat eum isthic loqui de pueris sicut praecedentia et sequentia convincunt.
Christus iussit praedicari poenitentiam et remissionem peccatorum in ipsius nomine. Quare haec duo semper coniungenda sunt, scilicet contritio et fides.(19) Et Bernardus haec coniungit sermone tertio de Annunciatione et in aliis plerisque locis.(20) Nam fides est quae distinguit inter Petri et Judae poenitentiam.(21) Et esset contritio ipsa desperatio nisi accederet spes veniae et fiducia misericordiae. Absolutio habet promissionem Christi, 'Quaecum solveritis super terram', Matthei 18. Constat Christum isthic loqui non de baptismo, ut quidam negantes poenitentiam esse speciale sacramentum imaginantur, sed de confessione peccatorum quotiescumque fiat coram ecclesia. ([87.sup.r]) Confessio peccatorum ibi praecipitur, 'Si non audierit ecclesiam, sit tibi velut ethnicus et publicanus'. Satisfactio quae sit ecclesiae et offensis eodem loco iubetur. Nam hoc significat audire ecclesiam obsequi mandato ecclesiae. Hinc ortae sunt poenitentiae et satisfactiones publicae sicut ex Corinthiis apparet et primitiva ecclesia.
Contritionem definit Paulus 2 Corinthiorum 7 contristationem secundum Deum pro offensa Dei, et voluntatem vindicandi peccatum de semetipso. Haec enim significant omnia illa verba isthic posita, estque contritio vera tanta tristitia ut hominem extinguere possit vel ad laqueum adigere nisi consolatio misericordiae eam mitigaret. At proinde Paulus eadem epistula capite 2 iubet Corinthios consolari poenitentem, ne ex nimia tristitia extingueretur. Hanc hypocritae non habent qui putant poenitentiam in externis tantum castigationibus iuxta humanas traditiones positam esse, et non in illo certamine consciae cum desperatione quam tantum vincere potest fiducia misericordiae gratuitae et gratis promissae. Nam necesse est hominem desperare si nolit sibi ignosci nisi propter propriam satisfactionem et meritum. Hoc Cain gratuitam misericordiam renuens testatur. 'Maior', inquit, 'est mea ([87.sup.v]) impietas quam ut veniam merear.' Hoc etiam dicunt omnes desperantes et damnati, sed sancti in contritione vincunt desperationem per fiduciam gratuitae misericordiae. Sic David cum fatetur se in media morte et inferno esse petit liberationem tantum propter misericordiam dicens, 'Convertere, Domine, eripe animam meam salvum me fac propter misericordiam tuam. Quoniam non est in morte memoria tui etc.' Sic Ezechias moriturus, 'Domine, vim patior; responde pro me. Nam ego quid respondere possum cum ipse id me fecisse agnoscam?' Sic latro in cruce, 'Domine, memento mei etc.' In hoc agone, inter has angustias, sentient sero hypocritae nostra merita et satisfactiones non posse consistere in iudicio Dei, nec sanctissimum heremitam aut Baptistam iustificari coram Deo ex operibus. Tunc apparebit neque demonum neque omnium qui se credere dicunt esse fidem, ut Paulus testatur.
De confessione coram Deo, nulla est quaestio neque dubitatur utrum excommunicati debeant agnoscere sua peccata coram ecclesia. Est etiam de privata confessione
quod retinenda sit in ecclesia cum propter multas alias causas tum propter absolutionem, et quod indecorum sit inexploratos admittere ad communionem. Et Paulus iubet communicantes seipsos probare utrum sint in fide, quod commodisse fit in confessione, ubi rudes interrogantur et docentur quid debent credere.(22) Bonae memoriae Erasmus collegit utilitates ([88.sup.r]) et incommoda quae sequuntur privatam confessionem, sed non est contentio utrum expediat retinere hanc in ecclesia. Omnis controversia oritur ex lege quam tulit Innocentius tertius, 'Omnes utriusque sexus semel in anno confiteantur omnia sua peccata proprio sacerdoti', et hanc legem aggravarunt Scholastici qui exigunt a confitente enumerationem occultorum peccatorum. Et allegant pro hoc dogmate testimonia quaedam ex patribus et quae citat Magister ex xvii distinctione quarti pro privata confessione manifestorum criminum.(23) Sed constat eos iniuriam facere Magistro qui praecessit Innocentium annis plus minus quinquaginta, et patres tantum loquuntur de excommunicatis ab ecclesia et palam facinorosis qui principio fatebantur sua peccata coram tota multitudine, postea eorum verecundiae consultum est ut privatim confiterentur. Sed patres non iudicabant illam privatam confessionem esse necessariam, alioqui quomodo potuisset Nectareus episcopus hanc Constantinopoli abrogare?(24) Et sunt apertiora Ambrosii Chrysotomi Prosperi et aliorum sententiae quas [Sic: scilicet testimonia quae?] contra privatam confessionem Magister citat(25) quae ut ipse haec possit refutare, quaeque ad ([88.sup.v]) publicam confessionem trahere sit conatus. Sed hanc glossam non admittunt illa verba Ambrosii, 'Lacrimae delent peccatum quod vere pudor est confitere',(26) nec illa Chrysostomi, 'Solus Deus te confitentem audiat. Non dico ut confitearis ea conservo tuo etc.'(27) Et ad eorum argumentum iudex non pronuntiat nisi cognita crimina ergo sacerdos non potest absolvere sine enumeratione peccatorum,(28) respondit tomo 7 homelia 9 de poenitentia, 'Medicinae', inquit, 'locus est, non iudicii, non poenas sed remissionem peccatorum tribuens'.(29)
Ex his testimoniis, maxime Chrysostomi,(30) facile indicare potest quid patres senserunt de tota ista doctrina quae dicit sacerdotem potestate clavium commutare poenam eternam in poenam Purgatorii et huius partem remitti eadem auctoritate reliquum redimendum esse satisfactionibus, quae docent esse opera indebita suscepta sine verbo Dei, et posse praestari in peccato mortali et pontificem posse liberare animas de Purgatorio per indulgentias, haec doctrina quia pugnat cum scriptura et est ignota patribus atque ipso Longobardo, ideo alii sic docent de ([89.sup.r]) satisfactione, sicut irasci Dei, est eterna voluntas puniendi peccatum, ita miserere Dei est, est remittere poenam debitam peccato.(31) Minatur autem Deus peccatis praesentes poenas et eternas; de temporalibus post hanc vitam scriptura non indicavit. Eternae poenae omnium consensu remittuntur propter sanguinem Christi sed reliquae sunt praesentes poenae propter schandalum et iniuriam factam fratribus. Sic Nathan interpretatur afflictionem Davidis post poenitentiam de adulterio et homicidio. Nam ut dixit, 'Peccavi Domino', statim, 'Audivit Dominus quoque transtulit peccatum tuum, veruntamen quia occasionem male loquendi de Israel dedisti inimicis Domini in re ista, morietur filius qui natus est tibi.' Istas temporales poenas non possunt tollere humanae satisfactiones, sed interdum propter veram resipiscentiam quam mundo testamur externis indiciis, Dominus comminatas poenas propter schandalum mitigat aut ex toto remittit, sicut apparet in Ninivitis,(32) et sic accipiendi sunt loci illi 'peccata tua eleemosynis redime'(33) et similes. ([89.sup.v])
Interim hoc semper statuendum est quod omnem aliam poenam quae neque mundo satisfacit neque est mortificatio praesentis peccati in carne, sed quae in iudicio Dei quod nobis cum ipso coram suis angelis est ex ipsius iustitia debetur, remittat propter satisfactionem Christi sicut tota scriptura testatur.
De Sacramento Eucharistiae
Hoc sacramentum est a Christo institutum et praeceptum sicut verba ipsa clare testantur cum ait, 'Hoc facite'. Et Paulus, 'Probet semetipsum homo et sic de pane illo edat'. Haec 'probans' est consciae interrogatio utrum vere credat verbis quae dicuntur, 'Hoc est meum corpus quod pro vobis traditum est; hic est sanguis Novi Testamenti qui effusus est in remissionem peccatorum'. Nam si non discernimus inter corpus domini et quemlibet panem, inter poculum et quodlibet vinum, hoc est, si nihil aliud ibi esse, nisi in quolibet pane et communi vino credimus, rei sumus corporis et sanguinis domini. Quare accipienda sunt verba simpliciter sicut sonant, neque tropi qui ex aliis locis utantur ([90.sup.r]) probant hic tropum esse. Christus se vitem dixit(34) sed sicut apostoli essent palmites et Pater agricola. Dicit etiam scriptura circumcisionem esse foedus, sed eodem loco exponit esse signum foederis. Et Christus vere erat illa spiritalis petra de qua Paulus loquitur,(35) Johannes etiam re vera erat Helias de quo Christus scriptum dicit a Malachia, 'Ecce ego mitto nuntium meum ante te'. Matthei 11(36) Neque permittimus ibi tropum esse, 'Hoc poculum Novum Testamentum est', quia Matthaeus et Marcus clare exponunt, 'Hic est calix Novi Testamenti in meo sanguine', et, 'Hic est calix sanguinis mei qui effunditur etc'. Et quamquam ex Tertulliano(37) et Augustino(38) quaedam ambigua citantur ad probandum tropum, tamen Cyrillus(39) et Theophylactus(40) clare dicunt esse verum corpus et verum sanguinem. Sed cum patres sibi ipsis non constant in multis dogmatis, infirma sunt eorum testimonia, et in nullo loco infirmiora quam in hoc sacramento. ([90.sup.v])
De usu huius sacramenti consensu communi laici tantum accipiunt per id remissionem peccatorum, sed Scholastici contendunt sacerdotibus esse sacrificium non tantum [Greek text omitted], sed etiam propitiatorium et satisfaciendum pro peccatis. Sed Paulus reclamat ad Hebreos, dicens tantum unum in mundo fuisse sacrificium propitiatorium quod iterari non potest, ad satisfactionem pro peccato, alioqui inquit oportuisset Christum toties passum fuisse a condito mundo quoties homines peccassent. Et iniuria est Christi, dicere sacerdotes posse applicare hoc pro sua voluntate ad aliquos quod Christus ex aequo obtulit pro omnibus et quilibet per suam fidem ad se applicat. Sed possit constitui...
ut dicamus totam missam in qua sunt multae orationes pro vivis et gratiarum actiones pro mortuis esse [GREEK TEXT OMITTED] [MS: [GREEK TEXT OMITTED]], aut sicut quidam patrum loquuntur sacrificium pro vivis et mortuis, sic enim Canon Graecorum vocat orationes [GREEK TEXT OMITTED] et incruentam hostiam,(41) alioqui ([91.sup.r]) mors domini fuit nimis cruenta.
De sacramento matrimonii
Matrimonium a Deo in Paradiso institutum(42) et ad primam integritatem ab Phariseorum commentis restitutum a Christo constat,(43) et Paulus magnum mysterium vel sacramentum vocat ad Ephesios propter significationem desponsationis Christi cum ecclesia,(44) et prodest cohonestare nuptias nomine sacramenti propter hypocritas qui a nuptiis abhorrent quasi re immunda et indigna sanctis viris. Sed reclamat Paulus qui dicit honorabile coniugium inter omnes et thorus immaculatus.(45) Quare constat in omni statu et ordine hominum probari coniugium et stat praeceptum Dei contra hominum commenta invectum, 'Unusquisque suam uxorem habeat propter fornicationem. Falsissimum et hoc est, omnes posse continere vel impetrare donum coelibatus, sicut horribiles hypocritarum ([91.sup.v]) libidines clamant et Christus testatur, qui ait, 'Non omnes sunt capaces',(46) et quid opus est errare in re tam manifesta? Nam si coelibatus omnibus esset possibilis Paulus haud dubie eum omnibus consuluisset quem multis nominibus commodiorem dicit coniugio. Sed probari non potest in matrimonio offerri remissionem peccatorum, nec institutum esse tamquam signum huius promissionis, quod est Evangelio proprium.(47) Sed facilis est concordia de hoc sacramento quod ipsi Lutherani magis cohonestant quam sacerdotes quamquam distinguant ipsum ab illis quae sunt certa signa remissionis peccatorum.
De Ordine Ecclesiastico
Satis constat ex Actis Apostolorum et epistulis Pauli ad Timotheum ministros ecclesiae ordinandos esse per impositionem manuum sacerdotis.(48) Sed ecclesia postea eorum ordinationem detulit episcopis sicut testatur Hieronimus ad Titum(49) et tomo tertio ad Evagrium.(50) Cyprianus libro primo epistula 4 de Martiale et Basilide,(51) et Origenes super Leviticum ([92.sup.r]) homelia sexta(52) declarant quomodo in ordinandis omnibus ecclesiae ministris requirantur electio et consensus populi. Adhaec Paulus aperte dicit per impositionem manuum et auctoritatem sacerdotii dari donum Dei. 'Noli', inquit, 'negligere donum Dei quod in te est per impositionem manuum mearum',(53) sed quia textus dicit istud donum esse fortitudinem in asserendo Evangelio, et patres Chrysostomus(54) et Ambrosius(55) exponunt de donis Spiritus Sancti quae prosunt ad instituendam ecclesiam, sicut sunt prophetia, scripturae intellectus, dona miraculorum et similia, ideo non oportet hoc adnumerare sacramentis quae sunt instituta ad significandam remissionem peccatorum.
De sacramento confirmationis
Confirmationem neque necessariam esse neque conferre remissionem peccatorum fatentur Scholastici, et Magister probat ex distinctione septima quarti ex Rabani testimonio. 'Virtus,' inquit, 'huius sacramenti est donatio Spiritus Sancti ad robur, qui in baptismo datur ([92.sup.v]) ad remissionem peccatorum. Unde Rabanus a summo sacerdote per impositionem manus Paracletus traditur baptizato, ut roboretur per Spiritum Sanctum ad praedicandum aliis illud quod ipse in baptismo est consecutus.' Et Hieronimus clare dicit ante hanc donationem Spiritus Sancti conferri remissionem peccatorum et, 'Quomodo', inquit, 'Spiritum Sanctum ab ecclesia recipiet qui ante remissionem peccatorum non est consecutus?(56) Chrysostomus etiam in Actis super illo loco, 'Tunc imponebant manus', quem citant pro confirmatione, dicit dona miraculorum et linguarum per hanc manuum impositionem data esse. Quare constat nec hoc sacramentum eis adnumerandum esse quae sunt certa signa remissionis peccatorum, sed prodest retinere confirmationem in ecclesia maxime. Sed ab adultis tunc reciperetur professio fidei quam susceptores in baptismo pollicentur,(57) et hac ratione facile opprimi possit furor Anabaptistarum qui propterea senes baptizant. ([93.sup.r])
De Extrema Unctione
Constat verba quae pro hoc sacramento ex Jacobo citantur dicta esse de dono sanationum cui addita fuit promissio super aegros, manus imponetur et bene habebunt.(58) Hoc etiam iam Caietanus, non postremus inter Thomistas agnoscit. Huius verba sunt in expositione illius loci, 'Infirmatur aliquis inter vos' etc. 'Nec ex forma nec ex effectu verba haec loquuntur de extrema unctione, sed de unctione magis quam Dominus instituit in Evangelio a discipulis exercendam in aegrotis. Textus non dicit 'Infirmatur quis usque ad mortem', sed absolute, 'Infirmatur aliquis', et effectum dicit infirmi sanationem, et de remissione peccatorum non nisi conditionaliter loquitur cum extrema unctio non nisi prope mortis articulum detur, et directe, ut huius forma sonat, tendit ad remissionem peccatorum. Praeter haec id quod Jacobus ad unum aegrotum multos ([93.sup.v]) presbyteros tum orantes tum ungentes mandat vocari ab extremae unctionis ritu alienum est.'(59) Et Paulus pontifex tertius hanc Caietani expositionem defendit contra Parisienses. Quare nihil opus est vel pro hoc sacramento vel pro ceteris quae non sunt instituta in Novo Testamento ad significandam remissionem peccatorum rixari et est haec verbalis contentio indigna gravibus viris et levior quam ut turbetur pro ea suavissima illa harmonia concordiae ecclesiasticae, quam quilibet bonus suo sanguine redemptam optare deberet. Ostendi iam quae sunt necessaria sacramenta et quae propter concordiam tollerari possunt, quod si non satisfacio iis qui suis opinionibus sunt addicti, mihi tantum non perit opera si tibi meo domino cui omnia mea studia debeo non fuerit ingrata.
VIII. Translation On The Sacraments
There is a great controversy in the Church about the number, use, and efficacy of the sacraments. The Schoolmen contend that there are seven, and that through these grace is conferred ex opere operato. Others affirm that only three are necessary and that these should be received by faith. The Anabaptists say infants should not be baptized; furthermore, many have wrong beliefs about the Eucharist. In such disagreement you will see the majority cast scorn and very few striving for concord. The bishops decree that those who have any objection to the traditional teaching are to be put down by force of arms; on the other hand the most gracious Emperor believes they should be heard in a free synod. But there is no hope of that, since the Pope has decided to hold it in Italy against the consultations of the councils of the Empire and the will of the most important kings.
Therefore the most pious prince Henry VIII, by the grace of God, King of England and France, Lord of Ireland etc., has appointed concord in his church with the consent of the bishops and all the ecclesiastical orders. If the other princes were to use his example and make laws on religious doctrine in their territories, we would be able to bear with a more even temper the tyranny of the bishop of Rome who forbids us a free synod, and there would be no need of a General Council.
But a dispute is rising about the number of the sacraments, more from the ambiguity of words than actual contradictions in reality. It can perhaps be easily understood in this way, when those who are in dispute with one another freely recognize as orthodox those who have proposed a different number of sacraments. Dionysius in the Celestial Hierarchy numbers five sacraments, omitting penitence and matrimony. Augustine in De Doctrina Christiana 3.9 proposes two only, baptism and Eucharist. These are his words: 'The Lord and the teaching of the apostles handed down a certain few signs such as the sacrament of baptism and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord.' And in his letter 118 to Januarius, 'Jesus Christ has united the society of his new people by sacraments, very few in number, very easy of observance, most sublime in their meaning, namely baptism hallowed by the name of the Trinity, and the celebration of his body and blood.' And he does not propose more in the exposition of Psalm 105. But those who are discussing anything must begin from a definition so that it is understood what it is that they are discussing and they avoid the disputes over words forbidden by Paul (1 Tim. 6: 4). For it is evident that a sacrament is understood in various ways by the commentators on the Sentences and the Schoolmen. It is easily allowed by some that there are seven sacraments according to that definition by which it is called the sign of a sacred thing. But the common definition of a sacrament is that it is the visible form of an invisible grace. The Master of the Sentences says that it speaks of a justifying grace; the commentators on the Sentences and the Summa agree. On this opinion Augustine says in the fifth letter to Marcellus, 'Visible signs are called sacraments when they pertain to divine things', and in sermon eight on John 15, 'the word comes on the element and it becomes a sacrament'. So by the agreement of all, a sacrament consists of two things, that is the word and the element, and the word is indeed that of God himself, not the voice of the Law which ordains only the performance of a ceremony, but of the Gospel which in the ceremony promises to us the remission of sins. For it is agreed with the other Schoolmen that...
On the Sacraments
The sacraments of the New Testament are the visible signs of an invisible justifying grace, or ceremonies instituted in the Gospel to signify the remission of sins, since this is promised as specific to the New Testament, as Christ bears witness when he says, 'This is the cup of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins.' Therefore if the ceremony is not in the New Testament
(3) or does not specifically signify the remission of sins, there is no necessity to number it among the sacraments of the New Testament.
(2) The Lord's Supper
(3) Absolution are rites instituted in the Gospel and used to signify this promise which is specific to the Gospel. We are baptized so that we may believe that our sins have been forgiven and likewise the Lord's Supper and absolution make us certain of the remission of sins.
Confirmation signifies the gift of constancy or fortitude in confessing the Gospel, as the Master of the Sentences proves by the testimony of Rabanus (dist. 7.4).
Extreme unction is a ceremony of the gift of healing as is indicated by the words which are taken from James for this sacrament: 'Is anyone sick among you, etc., and the prayer of faith will heal the sick person and the Lord will raise him up etc.' (Cajetan thinks the same.)
Matrimony was not first instituted in the New Testament, nor does it have the promise of the remission of sins.
Holy order, which is given through the imposition of hands by the authority of the priesthood, confers the power to preach the Gospel and minister the sacraments, rather than the remission of sins.
However those who are striving for peace easily allow these to be [not only retained in the Church but] even called sacraments, provided that the people be correctly taught about their signification, that they signify not the remission of sins but other gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Baptism was instituted through Christ, and has a command with a promise, in the last chapter of Mark: 'Go into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.' It is necessary even for infants according to the saying of Christ, 'Whoever is not born again by water and the Spirit cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.' It has been received in the Church from the teaching of the apostles that this is spoken of infants just the same as of adults, as all the orthodox bear witness. Thus Origen on the sixth chapter of Romans, Augustine Against the Donatists book 3, and On Genesis 10.23; and Cyprian says that someone was condemned in a synod because he said that infants should not be baptized before the eighth day. For there is no salvation outside the Church, but infants are outside the Church before baptism just as the children of the Jews were before circumcision; of them the Law says, 'The soul of the infant the flesh of whose foreskin is not circumcised will perish from the people.' This saying is succeeded by, 'Whoever is not born again by water and the Spirit cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven', that is the Church.
But the Anabaptists deny original sin just as did the Pelagians, and so they conclude that infants have no need of baptism. But this is heresy against the clear meaning of scripture, Romans 5, which all the orthodox have expounded to be about original sin. These are the words of Augustine, To Jerome On the Origin of Souls, 'When they hurry and run to have their infants baptized, it is because they believe without any doubt that they cannot be brought to life in Christ in any other way; it remains that those who are not brought to life stay under that condemnation of which the apostle says in Romans 5, 'Through the sin of one man evil was propagated to all for condemnation'.' [Rom. 5: 17]. The other orthodox believe the same: Cyprian in his eighth letter to Fidus, and Nazianzenus in his Oration on the Sacred Font.
As for the Anabaptists' claim that infants should not be baptized because they do not have faith, this is foolhardy - first because it is evident that John the Baptist declared his faith while he was still as yet in his mother's womb, and Christ through his sacrament, and because of the promise added to the sacrament can be as efficacious through the Holy Spirit in infants as he was in the Baptist by means of his mother's voice. Faith indeed is a gift of God and, just as it is not acquired by everyone who hears preaching, so also is it foolhardy to say it is not given to infants through the sacrament without preaching. For Christ ordered infants to be brought to him.
(1) he takes them into his arms
(2) he lays his hands on them
(3) he blesses them, that is, he sanctifies them, by forgiving their sins and imparting the Holy Spirit.
Furthermore he himself interprets the prophecy, 'Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings you have perfected praise', of the infants crying 'Hosanna to the Son of David' in the Temple, and he adds, 'If these are silent the stones will cry out.' So it is evident that they bore witness to Christ then at the behest of God, and that the Holy Spirit is efficacious in infants. Finally Christ himself bears witness that infants have faith when he says, 'Whoever offends one of these little ones who believe in me.' It is evident that he is here speaking of children as the preceding and following passages make clear.
Christ ordered penitence and the remission of sins to be preached in his name. And so these two are always to be joined together, that is, contrition and faith. And Bernard joins these in the third sermon on the Annunciation and in many other places. For it is faith which distinguishes between the penitence of Peter and Judas. And contrition would be desperation itself were it not for the hope of forgiveness and trust in mercy. Absolution has the promise of Christ, 'Whatever you loose on earth' (Matthew 18). It is evident that here Christ is speaking not about baptism, as some imagine who deny that penitence is a special sacrament, but about the confession of sins whenever it is done before the Church. The confession of sins is commanded in the place, 'If he does not hear the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a Publican.' Satisfaction owing to the Church and to those offended is ordered in the same place. For hearing the Church means to obey the Church's order. From this arose public acts of penitence and satisfaction as we see from Corinthians and the primitive Church.
In 2 Corinthians 7 Paul defines contrition as godly grief for offences against God and the will to right the sin of one's own accord. For this is the meaning of all those words placed there, and true contrition is such grief as to destroy someone or reduce them to hanging themselves unless the consolation of mercy should soften it. And indeed Paul in the same letter, chapter 2, orders the Corinthians to console the penitent, lest he should be destroyed by excess of grief. The hypocrites do not have this contrition when they think that penitence is located simply in external punishments according to human traditions, and not in that battle of the conscience with despair which is won only by trust in the free mercy freely promised. For a human being must despair if he does not wish to be forgiven except by his own satisfaction and merit. Cain bears witness to this when he renounces the free mercy. 'My guilt is too great for me to deserve forgiveness', he says, and so say all who despair and are damned. But the saints in contrition overcome despair by trust in free mercy. Thus David, when he confesses that he is in the midst of death and hell, asks for deliverance only on the basis of mercy when he says, 'Turn to me, O Lord, save my life, deliver me for thy mercy's sake. For in death there is no remembrance of thee, etc.' And Hezekiah facing death says, 'O Lord, I am oppressed, answer for me. For what can I answer, since I acknowledge that I myself have done it.' So the thief on the cross says, 'Lord, remember me' etc. In this agony, in such straits, the hypocrites realize too late that our merits and satisfactions cannot stand in the judgement of God, nor can the most holy hermit or the Baptist be justified before God by their works. Then will appear neither the demons nor any of all those who say that their own belief is faith, as Paul bears witness.
Of confession before God, there is no question nor is it doubted whether the excommunicate must confess their sins before the church. But there is about private confession
that it should be retained in the Church for the sake of, among many other reasons, that of absolution, and that it would be improper to admit people to communion without examination. And Paul orders those receiving communion to test themselves whether they are in faith. This is most appropriately done in confession when the simple are questioned and taught what they must believe. Erasmus of happy memory collected the uses and injuries that attend on private confession, but there is no dispute whether it is right to keep it in the Church. All the controversy arises from the law which Innocent III passed, that everyone of both sexes must confess all their sins once a year to their own priest, and the Schoolmen aggravated this law when they demanded from the person making his confession a list of his hidden sins. As testimonies for this teaching they choose certain passages from the Fathers which the Master of the Sentences quotes (4.17) in support of the private confession of public crimes. But it is clear that they distort the Master who lived some fifty years before Innocent, and the Fathers speak only about those excommunicated by the Church and open evil-livers who originally confessed their sins before the whole assembly but later people took into account their shame that they confessed privately. But the Fathers did not declare that that private confession was necessary, otherwise how could bishop Nectarius abrogate it in Constantinople? And there are perfectly clear opinions of Ambrose, Chrysostom, Prosper, and others against private confession which the Master quotes, either so that he may be able to refute them or in an attempt to apply them to public confession. But the words of St Ambrose do not allow this interpretation, 'Tears wipe away the sin which indeed it is shameful to confess', nor do those of Chrysostom, 'Let only God hear you confessing. I do not say that you should confess those things to your fellow servant', etc. And to their argument that the judge does not pronounce sentence unless the crimes are known, and so the priest cannot absolve without a listing of the sins, he answers in volume seven, homily nine on penitence, 'It is the place of medicine', he says, 'not of judgement, which accords not punishments but the remission of sins.'
From these testimonies, especially those of Chrysostom, it is easy to show what the Fathers believed about the whole of that doctrine which says that a priest by the power of the keys commutes eternal punishment into the punishment of Purgatory and that part of this is remitted by the same authority and the rest is to be remitted with satisfactions, which they teach are works not binding on us but undertaken' without the word of God, and can be of use in mortal sin, and that a Pope can free souls from Purgatory by indulgences. For this doctrine opposes scripture and is unknown to the Fathers and indeed to Lombard. So others teach about satisfaction, that just as the anger of God is his eternal will to punish sin, so the mercy of God is to forgive the punishment owing for sin. But God threatens present and eternal punishments for sins, but scripture has given no indication of temporal punishments after this life. All agree that eternal punishments are remitted because of the blood of Christ but what remains are present punishments because of scandal and the injury done to the brethren. So Nathan interprets David's affliction after his penitence for adultery and murder. For when he said, 'I have sinned against the Lord', at once Nathan replied, 'The Lord has heard you and put away your sin; however because you have given the Lord's enemies an opportunity for speaking ill of Israel in this matter, the son who is born to you will die.' Human satisfactions cannot take away those temporal punishments, but sometimes, because of the true repentence which we show to the world by external signs, the Lord softens or completely remits the punishments threatened because of scandal. So it seems with the people of Nineveh, and passages like 'Redeem your sins with charity' should be understood in this way. Nevertheless it must always be maintained that every other punishment, which neither makes satisfaction to the world nor is a mortification of present sin in the flesh but which is demanded by his own justice in that judgement which is God's own judgement of us in the presence of his angels, he remits because of the satisfaction of Christ as the whole of scripture bears witness.
On the Sacrament of the Eucharist
This sacrament was instituted and commanded by Christ as the words themselves clearly bear witness when he says, 'Do this'. And Paul says, 'Let a person examine himself and so eat of that bread.' This 'examining' is a questioning of the conscience whether he truly believes in the words which are said, 'This is my body which is given for you; this is the blood of the New Testament which is shed for the remission of sins.' For if we do not discern between the body of the Lord and ordinary bread, between the cup and ordinary wine, that is, if we believe that there is nothing there other than in ordinary bread and common wine, we are guilty of the body and blood of the, Lord. And so the words are to be understood simply as they sound, nor do the tropes which are used in other places prove that this is a trope. Christ calls himself a vine, but in the way in which the apostles are the branches and the Father is the farmer. Also scripture says that circumcision is a covenant, but in the same place it declares it to be the sign of the covenant. And Christ was in truth that spiritual rock of which Paul speaks, likewise John was truly Elijah to whom Christ refers the passage from Malachi, 'Behold I send my messenger before you' (Matthew 11). Neither do we allow it to be a trope where it says, 'This cup is the New Testament', since Matthew and Mark clearly declare, 'This is the cup of the New Testament in my blood', and, 'This is the cup of my blood which is shed' etc. And though some ambiguous passages may be quoted from Tertullian and Augustine in defence of the trope, yet Cyril and Theophylact clearly say that it is the true body and true blood. But when the Fathers disagree with one another in many dogmas, their witnesses are weak, and in no place are they weaker than in this sacrament.
On the use of this sacrament, by common consent the laity receive by it only the forgiveness of sins, but the Schoolmen claim that for priests it is not only a sacrifice of thanksgiving but also of propitiation and satisfaction for sins. But Paul speaks against this in Hebrews when he says that there has been only one sacrifice of propitiation in the world and that it cannot be repeated to make satisfaction for sin; otherwise, he says, Christ would have to have suffered as many times from the foundation of the world as people have sinned. And it is a wrong to Christ to say that priests can, according to their will, apply the sacrifice to some when Christ offered it equally for all and each applies it to himself by his own faith. But one can establish...
...that we say that the whole mass in which are many prayers for the living and thanksgivings for the dead is a liturgy of thanksgiving or, as some of the Fathers say, a sacrifice for the living and the dead, for thus the Greek Canon calls the prayers a spiritual sacrifice and an unbloody offering; otherwise the death of the Lord would be too bloody.
On the Sacrament of Matrimony
It is evident that matrimony was instituted by God in Paradise and restored by Christ to its original wholeness from the interpretations of the Pharisees, and in Ephesians Paul calls it a great mystery or sacrament because it signifies the marriage of Christ with the Church, and it is right to honour marriage with the name of a sacrament because of the hypocrites who abhor marriage as if it were unclean and unworthy of holy men. But that Paul inveighs against when he says that marriage is to be honoured among all and the marriage bed undefiled. So it is evident that marriage is approved for people of every rank and order, and the command of God stands in condemnation of human fabrications: 'Let each man have his own wife because of fornication.' It is utterly false to say that all can be chaste or take on the gift of celibacy as the hypocrites cry in their dreadful imaginings; and Christ bears witness to this when he says, 'Not all are able', and what need is there to go astray in such an obvious matter? For if celibacy were possible for everyone Paul would no doubt have advised it for all, since he said that it was in many ways more advantageous than marriage. But it cannot be shown that the remission of sins is offered in matrimony, nor was it instituted as a sign of this promise which belongs to the Gospel alone. But agreement is easy over this sacrament since the Lutherans themselves honour it more than the priests, though they distinguish it from tile sacraments which are certain signs of the remission of sins.
On Ecclesiastical Orders
It is evident enough from the Acts of the Apostles and from the letters of Paul to Timothy that the Church's ministers are to be ordained by the laying on of the priest's hands. But afterwards the Church transferred their ordination to bishops as Jerome bears witness in his commentary on Titus and in book three to Evagrius. Cyprian in book one, letter four on Martial and Basilides, and Origen in his sixth homily on Leviticus declare how election and the consent of the people are required for the ordaining of all the Church's ministers. Moreover Paul clearly says that a gift of God is given by the imposition of hands and priestly authority. 'Do not neglect the gift of God', he says, 'which is in you by the imposition of my hands.' But because the text says that that gift is fortitude in preaching the Gospel, and the Fathers, Chrysostom and Ambrose, speak of the gifts of the Holy Spirit which are given for the building up of the Church, such as prophecy, understanding of scripture, gifts of miracles, and the like, so it should not be numbered with the sacraments which were instituted to signify the remission of sins.
On the Sacrament of Confirmation
The Schoolmen admit that confirmation is neither necessary nor does it confer the remission of sins, and the' Master proves this (dist. 7.4) by the testimony of Rabanus. 'The power of this sacrament', he says, 'is the gift of the Holy Spirit for strengthening, who is given in baptism for the remission of sins. According to Rabanus the Paraclete is conferred on the baptized by the high priest through the imposition of hands, so that he is strengthened by the Holy Spirit to preach to others what he himself has received in baptism.' And Jerome clearly says that the remission of sins is conferred before this gift of the Holy Spirit and says, 'How can one receive the Holy Spirit from the Church if one has not already obtained the remission of sins?' And Chrysostom, on that place in Acts 'Then they laid hands on them', which they quote in support of Confirmation, says that gifts of miracles and tongues were given by the imposition of hands. So it is evident that this sacrament is not to be numbered among those which are certain signs of the remission of sins, but it is of very great advantage to retain Confirmation in the Church. But then the profession of faith which is promised in baptism by sponsors might be undertaken by adults, and by this means the raging of the Anabaptists might easily be stilled, since that is why they baptize older people.
On Extreme Unction
It is evident that the words which are quoted from James in support of this sacrament are spoken about the gift of healing, to which is added the promise over the sick: 'Let a hand be laid on them and they will recover.' This is acknowledged by Cajetan, himself no mean Thomist. His words in explanation of that place, 'If any among you is sick' etc., are, 'These words do not speak of extreme unction either with regard to form or effect, but rather about the unction which the Lord instituted in the Gospel to be applied by the disciples to the sick. The text does not say, "If any is sick to the point of death", but simply "If any is sick", and it says that the effect is the healing of the sick person. It does not speak about the remission of sins except conditionally, while extreme unction is not given except at the point of death and, as its form shows, is specifically aimed at the remission of sins. Besides this, the fact that James commands that many presbyters be called to one sick man and pray over and anoint him is foreign to the rite of extreme unction.' And Pope Paul III defends this exposition by Cajetan against the Parisians. So there is no need to quarrel in defence of this sacrament or the others which were not instituted in the New Testament to signify the remission of sins. This arguing over words is unworthy of serious men and too light a thing to cause a disturbance of the sweet harmony of concord in the Church which any good person should be willing to save with his blood. I have shown here what sacraments are necessary and what can be tolerated for concord's sake. If I do not satisfy those who are devoted to their own opinions, at least my work is not in vain if it is pleasing to you, my lord, to whom I owe all my effort.
1 I am very grateful to his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Trustees of Lambeth Palace Library for their kind permission to reproduce this document. I am also very grateful to Dr I. Doyle, Dr P. Mussett, and Mrs M. McCollum for their helpful suggestions in transcribing the manuscript, and to The Revd D. Selwyn for his many comments and suggestions.
2 Royal MSS 7 B XI and 7 B XII; P. N. Brooks, Thomas Cranmer's Doctrine of the Eucharist (London, 1965, 1992).
3 Royal MS 7 B IV, J. W. Legg (ed.), Cranmer's Liturgical Projects (Henry Bradshaw Society no. 50; 1915).
4 MS 1107 is described most fully in J. Strype, Memorials of Archbishop Cranmer, III, Appendix (Oxford, 1854), 737-40.
5 The list of his works produced by Bale in 1559 includes an unidentified 'De Eucharistia cum Luthero' but this hardly accords with either' the title or contents of this present document. For a full survey see D. G. Selwyn, 'Thomas Cranmer's Writings; A Bibliographical Survey', in P. Ayris and D. Selwyn (eds.), Thomas Cranmer: Churchman and Scholar (Woodbridge, 1993), 281-302 and esp. 302.
6 Les Filigranes, revised facsimile edition, A. Stevenson (ed.), II (Amsterdam, 1968), 573 and illustrations 11.390-98.
7 LP xii (2), 405 (ii); PRO Sp. 6 vol. 8, pp. 273-302. This document carries an ascription of authorship. to Bishop Tunstall, but a later note says, 'Not Tunstall's hand but Moryson's.' The opinions also are not those of Tunstall.
8 J. K. McConica, English Humanists and Reformation Politics under Henry VIII and Edward VI (Oxford, 1965), 162.
9 e.g. fo. [137.sup.r] which reproduces much of the first page of De Sacramentis.
10 Moryson, fo. [138.sup.r], cf. De Sacramentis fo. [85.sup.r], below pp. 168-9. It might also be mentioned here that Moryson omits, among other features of De Sacramentis, the reference to the 'infirma testimonia patrum' which will be discussed below.
11 For the history of the negotiations, see N. Tjernagel, Henry VIII and the Lutherans (Saint Louis, 1965) and J. Ridley, Thomas Cranmer (Oxford, 1962), 161-65.
12 Text G. Mentz (ed.), Die Wittenberger Artikel von 1536 (Leipzig, 1905); ET in Tjernagel, op. cit. 255-86. For the concessions to the English see Tjernagel, 161-62.
13 Works of Archbishop Cranmer, J. E. Cox (ed.), PS II (Cambridge, 1846), 472-80.
14 Works, PS II, 379.
15 fo. [93.sup.r-v]; below pp. 179-80.
16 fo. [91.sup.v]; below p. 178.
17 C. Lloyd (ed.), Formularies of Faith (Oxford, 1825), xviii-xxvi, xxxi-xxxii. For the treatment of auricular confession see Lloyd, xxiv-v and De Sacramentis fo. [89.sup.r-v], below pp. 172-4. We shall see below that Cranmer's own views on its necessity seem more in accord with De Sacramentis than with the Ten Articles.
18 See below, pp. 177-8, 179-80.
19 Lloyd, op. cit. 82-129.
20 Ibid. 253-94.
21 Works, PS II, 79.
22 Op. cit. 119.
23 'Cranmer's Relations with Erasmianism and Lutheranism', in P. Ayris and D. Selwyn, op. cit. 22-23.
24 De Sac: est haec verbalis contentio indigna gravibus viris.
25 Cf. De Sac's contention that the dispute over the sacraments has arisen more from ambiguity than any point of substance.
26 Cf. De Sac's comparison between those who cast scorn and the few who try for concord.
27 See the next note.
28 De Sac: ...de efficacia sacramentorum magna est controversia in ecclesia. Scholastici contendunt septem esse, et per haec conferri gratiam ex opere operato. Alii affirmunt tria tantum esse necessaria quae oporteat etiam cure fide accipi.
29 This sentence is essentially the whole issue tackled by De Sacramentis.
30 De Sac: ...et ne [GREEK TEXT OMITTED] a Paulo prohibitam sequantur.
31 De Sac: ...de numero sacramentorum contentio oritur.
32 De Sac: necesse est...a definitione incipere.
33 Of the auctorite of the word of God against the bisshop of London (? Leipzig, 1540).
34 Op cit. 119.
35 Ibid. 120-21.
36 Ibid. 146.
37 Works, PS II, 472-80, esp. 475-77.
38 fos. [87.sup.v]-[88.sup.v], below pp. 172-4.
39 Cranmer's Works, PS II, 99-100. See text below, pp. 179-80.
40 Works, PS II, 80. For other responses see J. D. C. Fisher, Christian Initiation: The Reformation Period (London, 1970), 208-20.
41 Works, PS II, 115-17. For other responses see G. Burnet, The History of the Reformation of the Church of England, revised by N. Pocock, (Oxford, 1865), vol. 4, 443-96.
42 fo. [86.sup.v], below p. 171.
43 'The "Book of Doctrine" the Lords' Debate and the First Prayer Book of Edward VI: An Abortive Attempt at Doctrinal Consensus?' JTS NS, 40 (1989), 446-80.
44 fo. [86.sup.v], below p. 171.
45 fo. [91.sup.r], below p. 177.
46 fo. [85.sup.v], below p. 169.
47 See n. 2 above, and G. J. Cuming, The Godly Order (London, 1983), 1-25.
48 fo. [85.sup.r], below p. 169.
49 For a general survey of the use of the motif in Cranmer and Lutheran writers, see G. P. Jeanes, 'Liturgy and Ceremonial', in Liturgy's Companions: Essays in Memory of Ronald Jasper, P. Bradshaw and B. D. Spinks (eds.), (London, 1993), 21-26.
50 J. D. C. Fisher, op. cit. 40-41.
51 For the text and authors of the Albertine-Saxony Kirchenordnung, see E. Sehling, Die evengelischen Kirchenordnungen des xvi. Jahrhunderts, (Leipzig 1902), vol. 1, 266. The ambassadors to London were Francis Burgard, George a Boyneburg, and Frederic Myconius (Calendar of State Papers Foreign and Domestic 1538 (2), e.g. item 497). G. Cuming says that Justus Jonas visited London in 1539 (A History of Anglican Liturgy, 2nd. edn. (London, 1982), 60) but I have not been able to find any evidence for this.
52 Cf. Liber Sententiarum 4. Dist. 17.3, 6.
53 Works, PS II, 117.
54 C. Lloyd, op. cit. 278.
55 Ibid. 124, 291.
56 'Cranmer Studies in the Wake of the Quartercentenary', Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church 31 (1962), 367.
57 Thomas Cranmer's Doctrine of the Eucharist, 21-34.
58 Ibid. 34-35.
59 Ibid. 37.
60 Ibid. 36.
61 Ibid. 4; Cranmerus Joachimo Vadiano, Epistolae Tigurinae PS, 9. This letter is generally believed to date from 1537 but might be later. It must postdate the publication of Vadian's Aphorisms in 1536.
1 Spelling and punctuation have been standardized in both Latin and English. More important additions to the text are marked in italics, and suggested corrections by the editor (except spelling errors) are noted where appropriate. In the footnotes, underlinings in the Commonplace Books extracts are reproduced, and marginal comments included after the text.
2 Cf. Melanchthon, Loci Communes, Corpus Reformatorum 21, col. 467: Primum igitur reprehendenda est Pharisaica et prodigiosa opinio Scholasticorum, qui finxerunt homines utentes sacramentis Novi Testamenti ex opere operato iustos fieri.
3 Cf. Ten Articles: '[We (the King) 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... they have concluded and agreed upon the most special points and articles...for the establishment of that charitable concord and unity in our church of England.' Lloyd, op. cit. xvi.
4 Perhaps the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy.
5 Cf. 7 BXI, p. 118.
6 Cf. 7 B XI, p. 131.
7 Cf. Cranmer's copy of this text in Augustine, Opera (Paris, 1531/2: British Library press mark C.79.i.1), vol. 2, fo. 4, col. 4: de varietate signorum, quae cum ad res divinas pertinent sacramenta appellantur and marginal note: sacramentum quid.
8 Melanchthon, Loci Communes, col. 467: Ideoque duabus rebus constat, elemento et verbo, ut extet memoria promissionis.
9 Cf. Sentences IV. i.2. Sacramentum est sacrae rei signum... Item sacramentum est invisibilis gratiae visibilis forma (7 B XI, p. 131).
10 Melanchthon, Loci Communes, col. 470 (quoted in 7 B XI, p. 127): Itaque si sacramenta vocamus ceremonias seu ritus in Evangelio institutos et proprie pertinentes ad hanc praecipuam promissionem et Evangelii propriam, scilicet de remissione peccatorum,...
11 Melanchthon continues: ...facile est diiudicare quae sint Sacramenta: Baptismus, coena Domini et absolutio. Nam hi ritus instituti sunt in Evangelio et usurpantur ad significandam hanc promissionem Evangelii propriam. Baptizamur enim, ut credamus nobis peccata condonata esse. sic et coena Domini et absolutio admonent nos, ut credamus certo nobis remitti peccata.
12 Cf. Melanchthon, Loci Communes, col. 470: Maxime autem mihi placet, Ordinem, ut vocant, inter Sacramenta numerari, modo ut intelligatur et ipsum ministerium Evangelii, et vocatio ad hoc ministerium docendi Evangelium et administrandi Sacramenta. Ordinal 1550: Take thou authority to preach the word of God, and to minister the holy Sacraments in this congregation.
13 Cf. Melanchthon, Loci Communes, col. 473.
14 De Baptismo Contra Donatistas 4.21. Cf. Cranmer's copy of this text in Augustine, Opera, (see n. 5 above) vol. 7, fo. 88, col. 3, Quod traditum tenet universitas Ecclesiae cum parvuli infantes baptizantur and marginal note: baptismus parvulorum. Cf. also Melanchthon, Loci Communes, col. 473.
15 Cf. 7 B XI, p. 157 (Augustine, De verbis Apostoli, 13); Melanchthon, Loci Communes, col. 473.
16 Cf. Melanchthon, Loci Communes, col. 474: Quod vero non sit extra Ecclesiam salus, constat quia Ecclesia est regnum Christi... Testatur idem locus in Genesi [17.14] de circumcisione. Masculus, cuius praeputii caro non fuerit circumcisa, delebitur anima illa de populo, quia pactum meum irritum facit. Hic clare pronuntiat eum, qui signum non habet, reiici a Deo. Fuit autem et Circumcisio signum Ecclesiae Dei, sicut nunc Baptismus.
17 Cf. Baptism service, 1549 and 1552 Prayer Books: 'Friends you hear in this gospel the words of our Saviour Christ, that he commanded the children to be brought unto him...he embraced them in his arms, he laid his hands upon them, and blessed them.' The term 'commanded the children to be brought unto him' agrees with this passage rather than with the other parallel in Albertine-Saxony. (Cf. F. E. Brightman, The English Rite, vol. 1 (London, 1915), cxviii.)
18 Cf. Metanchthon, Epistola, IV.524; CR I, col. 963: Postremo Marcus inquit, Benedicebat eis, quod accipi non potest aliter, nisi quod receperit eos in gratiam, quod commendavit eos patri sanctificandos et servandos etc.
19 Melanchthon, Loci Communes, col. 489: Scholastici numeraverunt tres partes poenitentiae, Contritionem, Confessionem, et Satisfactionem... Nos docendi causa partes duas poenitentiae facimus, Contritionem et Fidem.
20 Cf. 7 B XI, pp. 383-84, quoting Bernard, sermo natalis Johannis Baptistae; Wittenberg Articles IV, N. Tjernagel, op. cit. 261.
21 Melanchthon, Loci Communes, col. 490: Haec fides discrimen facit inter contritionem Petri et Iudae, Davidis et Saulis.
22 Melanchthon, Loci Communes, col. 494: Ceterum prodest retinere in Ecclesiis Confessionem; Primum propter absolutionem, de qua postea dicemus; Deinde etiam propter disciplinam, quia per eam occasionem indocti audiri et commodius institui de tota doctrina possunt. Et indecorum est prorsus, inexploratos accedere at Communionem.
23 Cf. 7 B XI, p. 320.
24 Cf. 7 B XI, p. 333.
25 Cf. 7 B XI, pp. 333-36.
26 Cf. 7 B XI, p. 338: Ambrosius de poenitentia Petri Apostoli sermone 46: ... lavat enim lacrima delictum quod voce pudor est confiteri.
27 Cf. 7 B XI, p. 333: tomo 6 [degrees] sermone de poenitentia et confessione ... absque teste sit hoc iudicium. Solo te deus confitentem videat.
28 Melanchthon, Loci Communes, col. 494: Sed si qui obiiciet: Iudex non absolvit, nisi prius cognoscat; hic fit absolutio; ergo necesse est etiam fieri cognitionem atque enumerationem criminum.
29 Cf. 7 B XI, p. 334: tomo 7 homelia 9a Medicinae locus hie est, non iudicii, non poenas sed peccatorum remissionem tribuens deo solo dic peccatum tuum.
30 Cf. 7 B XI, pp. 367-77.
31 Melanchthon, Loci Communes, col. 496: Sic enim dicunt Scholastici: Deum, cum sit misericors, remittere culpam, sed cum sit etiam iustus et vindex, mutare poenam aeternam in temporalem purgatorii. Deinde addunt partem illarum poenarum remitti potestate clavium, partem redimendam esse satisfactionibus.
32 Melanchthon, Loci Communes, col. 499: Non est enim verum: nulla peccata sine poenis remitti; imo saepe promittit Deus remissionem etiam temporalium poenarum his qui agunt poenitentiam. Et est notum exemplum Ninives. The remission or mitigation of temporal punishment is discussed in a similar manner in the Ten Articles (op. cit. xxiv-v) and in the Wittenberg Articles (Tjernagel, op. cit. 271).
33 Daniel 4.24. Cf. 7 B XI, p. 390 (Calvin Institutes, CR 29, col. 171): Daniel sua exhortatione qua suadebat Nabuchadreser ut peccata inscita redimeret et iniquitates suas miseratione pauperum. Comment in margin: de redimendis peccatis eleemosyna.
34 Cf. 7 B XI, p. 275.
35 Cf. 7 B XI, p. 262.
36 Cf. 7 B XI, pp. 263-64.
37 Cf. 7 B XI, p. 295. E.g. IDEM [Tertullianus] adversus Marcionem li. 4... acceptum panem et distributum discipulis, corpus suum illum fecit, Hoc est corpus meum dicehalo, id est figura corporis mei, figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus.
38 Cf. 7 B XI, pp. 296 ff. E.g. (p. 296) AUGUSTINUS in praefatione 3 psalmi... ad convivium in quo corporis et sanguinis figuram discipulis suis commendavit et tradidit. Ibid. 297. IDEM li. 3 de doctrina Christiana ca. 16 Si autem flagitium vel facinus iubere videtur, figurata locutio est, Nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis non habebitis vitam in vobis, facinus vel flagitium videtur iubere, figura est ergo praecipiens passioni domini communicandum etc.
39 Cf. 7 B XI, p. 222: Cyrillus in Johannem ca.6... Quoniam igitur salvatoris caro, verbo dei (quod naturaliter vita est) coniuncta et vivifica effecta est, quando eam comedimus tunc vitam habemus in nobis, illi coniuncti que vita effecta est, and comment in margin: Ipsam carnem comedimus.
40 Cf. 7 B XI, p. 254: Theophylactus ille Bulgarorum episcopus exponens illud Johannis ...panis qui a nobis in mysteriis manducatur non est tantum figuratio quaedam carnis domini sed ipsa caro domini. Non enim dixit, panis quem ego dabo figura est carnis. Transformatur enim arcanis verbis panis ille per mysticam benedictionem, et accessionem spiritus sancti in carnem domini. Et ne quem conturbet, quod credendus sit panis caro. Comment in margin: In eucharistia non tantum figura sed et vera est caro Christi.
41 Cf. Melanchthon, Loci Communes, col. 482: Itaque praeter unum Sacrificium propitiatorium, scilicet mortem Christi, cetera sacrificia in novo Testamento tantum sunt [GREEK TEXT OMITTED]. Sicut docet Petrus, 1 Petri 2 [vs 5.] Sacerdotium sanctum, ut offeratis hostias spirituales.
Melanchthon, Apologia Confessionis Augustanae (editio altera, 1531); CR 27, col. 625-26: Nec Graecus Canon applicat oblationem tanquam satisfactionem pro mortuis, quia applicat eam pariter beatis omnibus Patriarchis, Prophetis, Apostolis. Apparet igitur Graecos tanquam gratiarum actionem offerre, non applicare tanquam satisfactionem pro poenis. Quamquam etiam loquuntur non de sola oblatione corporis et sanguinis Domini, sed de reliquis Missae partibus, videlicet orationibus et gratiarum actionibus. Nam post consecrationem precantur ut sumentibus prosit, non loquuntur de aliis. Deinde addunt [GREEK TEXT OMITTED], [GREEK TEXT OMITTED], [GREEK TEXT OMITTED], [GREEK TEXT OMITTED], [GREEK TEXT OMITTED] etc.
Ibid. col. 624: Graecus Canon etiam multa dicit de oblatione, sed palam ostendit se non loqui proprie de corpore et sanguine Domini, sed de toto cultu, de precibus et gratiarum actionibus.... Nam ipsas preces vocat hostias incruentas. Sicut et paulo post [GREEK TEXT OMITTED]. Offerimus inquit hunc rationalem et incruentum cultum. Inepte enim exponunt qui hic rationalem hostiam malunt interpretari, et transferunt ad ipsum corpus Christi cum Canon loquatur de toto cultu et [GREEK TEXT OMITTED] a Paulo dicta sit, contra opus operaturm, videlicet, de cultu mentis, de timore, de fide, de invocatione, de gratiarum actione etc.
7 B XII, p. 347: EX MISSA CHRISOSTOMI circa principium Postremo accipiens quartam oblationem dicit, Pro archiepiscopo nostro N, pro venerabili presbyteratu et in Christo diaconatu et omni gradu sive ordine ecclesiastico, pro memoria et remissione peccatorum semper recolendorum fundatorum mansionis istius. Et hic tam viventium quam mortuorum quos vult sacerdos nominatim commemorat.
Et omnium in spe resurrectionis vitae eternae tuo communione defunctorum ortho-doxorum patrum et fratrum nostrorum humanissime domine indulge.
Ibidem in medio ferme missae Praeterea offerimus tibi rationabilem hostiam hanc pro his qui in fide requiescunt, progenitoribus, patribus, patriarchis, prophetis, apostolis, praedicatoribus, evangelistis, martyribus, confessoribus, continentibus et omni spiritu in fide defuncto. Vocaliter praecipue sancta immaculata semper benedicta gloriosa domina nostra Dei genetrice et semper virginis Maria. Et mox sancto Iohanne propheta praecursore et baptista, sanctis gloriosis apostolis, sancto N cuius memoriam celebramus et omnibus sanctis tuis. Quorum precibus tuere nos, Deus, et memento omnium praede-functorum in spe resurrectionis vitae eternae, hic sacerdos memorat quos vult, vivos et mortuos: pro vivis dicit, pro salute, tuitione, remissione peccatorum servi tui N, pro mortuis dicit, pro requie et remissione animae servi tui N, in loco lucido unde fugit tristitia et luctus requiescere facias eos, Deus noster, et requiescere fac eos ubi faciei tue lux speculatur.
42 Cf. 1549 and 1552 Prayer Books: 'An honourable estate instituted of God in Paradise'; King's Book, Lloyd, op. cit. 272: 'the first institution of Matrimony as it was ordained by God in Paradise'.
43 Bishops' Book, Lloyd, op. cit. 87.
44 Cf. 7 B XI, p. 397; Bishops' Book, ibid. 84-85; 1549 and 1552 Prayer Books: 'signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church'.
45 Cf. Bishops' Book, ibid. 89.
46 Bishops' Book, ibid. 88.
47 Cf. Cranmer's Annotations to Henry VIII's Corrections of 'The Institution of a Christian Man' (Works, PS II, 99-100): 'Of matrimony, of baptism, and of penance'. The causes there assigned may not be well applied to matrimony; that it should be, as the others were, by the manifest institution of Christ: or, that it is of necessity to salvation: or, that thereby we should have the forgiveness of sins, renovation of life, and justification, etc.'
48 Cf. 7 B XI, p. 417.
49 Cf. 7 B XI, pp. 431-32.
50 Cf. King's Book, op. cit. 277-78.
51 Cf. 7 B XI, pp. 423-24. This passage is one of the few marked in Cranmer's copy of Cyprian, Opera (Basle, 1525: British Library press mark 3623.e.16), p. 20. The printed marginal note says: Episcopus plebe praesente eligendus.
52 Cf. 7 B XI, p. 452.
53 Cf. 7 B XI, p. 478: Noli negligere gratiam quae in te est, quae data est tibi per prophetiam cura impositione manuum presbyterii [I.sup.a] [4.sup.o] Comment in the margin: Gratia data ordinatis per manuum impositionem.
54 Cf. 7 B XI, pp. 426-30.
55 Cf. 7 B XI, pp. 433-36.
56 Cf. 7 B XI, p. 502.
57 Melanchthon, Loci Communes, col. 470: Sed confirmatio magnopere probanda esset, si usurparetur ad hoc, ut examinaretur iuventus et fidem propriam profiteretur.
58 Bishops' Book, op. cit. 123: 'St James...prescribed a certain rule...that whensoever any person should fortune to fall sick, he should call or send for the priests or ancients of the church and cause them to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of our Lord; and further added hereunto as an assured promise, that by the said prayer of the priests and the sick man, made in right faith and confidence in God, the sick man should be restored unto his health and God should set him on foot again, and if he were in sin, his sins should be forgiven him.'
These two emphases, the plural priests and the healing of the sick person, are issues in De Sacramentis and also are observed by Cranmer in his Annotations on Henry VIII's Corrections (Works, PS II, 99): 'That then they minister the same.' 'The commandment requireth first, that the sick man should call for the priests, and that they, being called should pray over him. And the promise made of the prayer in time of anointing is stricken out [by the King], which chiefly ought to be known.'
By way of comparison, 'A boke of annotations of certain defaults founded in the bysshopes boke' (BL MS Royal 7 C XVI, fos. 199 ff.) preserves the comments of the Bishop of Chichester on this same passage, and he does not mention either of these concerns.
59 Thomas de Vio, Cardinal Cajetanus, Epistolae Pauli et aliorum apostolorum... iuxta sensum literalem enarratae (Paris, 1532). Cf. 7 B XI, p. 524: CAIETANUS Super Jacobum, Infirmatur quis in vobis etc. Nec ex verbis nec ex effectu verba haec loquuntur de sacramentali unctione extreme unctionis sed magis de unctione quam instituit dominus Iesus in evangelio a discipulis exercendum in aegrotis. Textus enim non dicit, Infirmatur quis ad mortem, sed absolute, Infirmatur quis, et effectum dicit infirmi alleviationem et de remissione peccatorum non nisi conditionaliter loquitur, cum extrema unctio non nisi prope articulum mortis detur et directe (ut eius forma sonat) tendit ad remissionem peccatorum, praeter hoc quod Iacobus ad unum aegrotum, multos presbyteros tum orantes, tum ungentes mandat vocari quod extremae unctionis ritu alienum est.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||The Journal of Theological Studies|
|Date:||Apr 1, 1995|
|Previous Article:||Self-representation in the will of Gregory of Nazianzus.|
|Next Article:||Karl Barth, the Fathers of the Church, and 'Natural Theology.'|