of the error, but it is to the practical issue that he mainly attends.1 Rogers rejects the doctrine "that all sins, in their own nature, be not mortal or deadly," and so condemns the artificial distinction which lies at the root of this Romish dogma. He further exposes the doctrines that "the effect of anoiling (extreme unction) is to put away venial sins," and that "confession to a priest of all deadly sins which we can remember" is necessary under pain of damnation.2 Bullinger distinguishes between scelera leviora and graviora, the latter being public sins which "touch the Church, and procure the offence of many men "-a distinction which does not go very deep. He also gives the view taken by Tindale and Latimer, and calls it "the most vulgar and apt distinction." This is evidence of its wide currency among the Reformers.3 Jewel challenges Harding's statement that confession of all deadly sins is the institution of God, but he does not investigate the term, and accepts the general distinction without discussion. His object is to condemn, not the distinction between graver and lighter sins, but the difference of method in obtaining their forgiveness; and 1 Bucer, De Anim. Cura., p. 315 f. 2 Rogers, pp. 218, 258n., 264. 3 Bul. iii. 416 f. the absurdity of teaching that forgiveness of venial sins may be obtained by entering a consecrated building, or by a Pater Noster, or by holy water.1 Hooker also discusses the question of the treatment of greater and smaller offences, but without grappling with the fallacy of the Roman distinction.2 The treatment of the subject by the Reformers is disappointing. Jewel and Hooker seem to accept, without discussion, the mediaeval line of distinction. Tindale and Latimer adopt a new one. Now, the former classifies sins objectively according to their heinousness in the eyes of men: the latter subjectively according to the spiritual state of the sinner. Neither of these classifications is in itself satisfactory, apart from the other. It is dangerous to ignore the fact that on the one hand there are sins which are in themselves graviora or leviora: on the other hand, it is still more dangerous to weigh sins only by their intrinsic nature, and to leave out of count the motives and aims with which they were committed. The late Professor Moberly says of venial and deadly sins: "This distinction is true and valuable, if not pressed. The older distinction was with levia, gravia and gravissima, which are obviously indefinite words. But the moment C.A. 1 Jewel, iii. 372 f. 209 2 Hooker, VI. vi. 6. words of degree are pressed into technical distinctions of kind, the definition which aimed at truth has passed into untruth."1 We gather from these passages that, while retaining the phrase "deadly sin" in our Litany and in Article XVI., the Reformers by no means intended to retain the false and dangerous system of which the distinction between Mortal and Venial sins formed a part. The absence of any mention of venial sins must be considered conclusive. But they did not deny that some sins were more heinous than others, or that such sins in certain cases demanded exceptional treatment. 1 Fulham Conf. Rep., p. 34. I may be permitted to express my sincere regret that the Church on earth has lost the services of so able and so honest a scholar. Every member of the last Fulham Conference will recall the earnestness and fervour, the consideration and fairness, with which Professor Moberly put forward his opinions. CHAPTER IV THE MODIFICATION OF CHURCH WE FORMULARIES E have now examined the writings of the Reformers, with a view to ascertaining their interpretation of certain passages of Scripture, and also their deliberate and express judgment on the several parts of the doctrine of "Sacramental Penance."1 Their views upon Repentance or Penance, upon the true remedy for post-baptismal sin, upon Penance as a Sacrament, upon the varied questions which circle round Contrition, Confession and Absolution, and Satisfaction, have been more or less fully examined and the writers have for the most part spoken for themselves. We know something at least of what they thought, and we have seen that in the main they are marvellously at one in their attitude towards Confession and Absolution. In the light of their opinions we now proceed 1 By this phrase is meant, not Confession and Absolution as a necessary preparation for the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper: but Penance in its three recognized parts, claiming place as a Sacrament itself. The subject what the passes from Reformers what they said to did Henry's Luther, 1521 to trace the steps by which changes of great moment were made in our authorized formularies at the Reformation. These were the men who, some to a greater and others to a less extent, influenced the remodelling of our Services, and of our Confessions of faith. What was in their minds, was in the minds of those who compiled our Prayer Book, Articles, and Homilies. No one can claim that their words have authority over us, but without a knowledge of their mind on such points, we cannot hope to understand those writings whose authority we do recognize. In short, we have seen what these men said, we proceed to inquire what they did. We shall pass under review most of the official or semi-official records which bear on the history of this matter in the sixteenth century. First, we notice King Henry's book against Book against Luther, published in 1521. We have recently seen a reigning monarch enter with keen interest into a burning question of theology.1 Some have looked back as far as Julian for a parallel instance. But, not to mention others, Henry VIII was one of the most notable "royal divines." His father had given him a good education, designing, it is said, that he should become Archbishop of Canterbury. Henry was fond of scholastic learning, and evidently was no mean 1 The German Emperor on Biblical Criticism. |