Link to Chronology
Not so much Calvinism as the history of the Church of England
A History of Europe by Henri Pirenne
University Books, first published 1938 but written during the Great War
Book Nine
The Renaissance and the Reformation
Chapter II
The Reformation
2. The Spread of the Reformation. Calvinism [But we will start with England]
p571 ...It was because the times had changed that the dispute with regard to indulgences almost immediately assumed the form of a religious revolution. Fifty years earlier the same man, [Luther] with the same conviction, the same fire, the same eloquence, would have interested, at the very most, a few theologians in his own province, and history would have passed over him in silence... [so the Reformation was a side effect of technology and media. Without the press, it could not have occurred. ] And further, it may readily be shown that the fundamental ideas of Lutheranism itself were not really individual to Luther. In the Low Countries Wessel Gansfort, who died ignored in 1489, and whose works were not published until 1522, has already formulated the majority of these ideas; and we find them again in France among the members of the little circle that gathered, about 1515, round Lefevre of Etaples...
p572 ...Closely subjected to the secular power, the Landeskirchen lacked the liberty of procedure and the independence which would have been necessary for an effective external propaganda. They were too completely adapted to the political environment of Germany... Their nationalism, so to speak, made it impossible beforehand that they should exercise a universal influence. The only conquest of Lutheranism was that of the Scandinavian countries, and it was victorious there because the kings declared for it...
p573 ...Promulgated by authority and accepted in obedience, it progressed... by annexation. Conversion came afterwards, and slowly, just as a conquered people is slowly assimilated to the conquering nation.
...
It is only too evident that in those countries whose princes remained faithful to Rome the Church had nothing to fear from the Lutherans... It was soon realized that they were not very dangerous, and even in the Low Countries the Inquisition of Charles V, so ferocious in its treatment of the Anabaptists, prosecuted the Lutherans with a certain laxity.
...Henry VIII, who prided himself on his theology, regarded Luther as a mere heretic, and attacked him in his Assertio septem sacramentorum, which earned him the title of "Defender of the Faith," conferred upon him by Leo X. He persecuted Tyndale, and placed an interdict on his translation of the Bible. The motives of his opposition to Rome, and of the constitution of the Anglican Church, were entirely external to the domain of faith. Neither Henry nor -- above all -- the English people felt the least inclination to reject the traditional beliefs of Catholicism... The Pope's opposition to the King's divorce from Catherine of Aragon certainly induced him to have himself proclaimed by the assembly of the clergy "the chief protector of the church and clergy of England" (1531), in order that he might obtain the dissolution of his marriage (1533). But there matters might have stopped... The elevation of Thomas More to the post of Chancellor, after the condemnation of Cardinal Wolsey (1530), proves that the government had no thought of turning away from Catholicism. Parliament, which supported the King's cause... wished to profit by the situation and establish a national Church. But no one was dreaming of a schism, much less of a heresy. On accepting the post of Chancellor, More no doubt intended to lead the English Church... toward those moderate reforms of which the humanists had dreamed. Like Erasmus, he wished to preserve the traditional faith while purifying it... But the government was then in the hands of a man who was devoting all his energies and his genius to making England an absolute monarchy. Formed in the school of the Italian politicians, Thomas Cromwell's only conception of the State was one in which the Crown was omnipotent. [I strongly recommend reading that Wiki entry on T. Cromwell. What a life. And during a time when politics was played for keeps. It seems there are a number of films and mini-series dealing with the later stages of his life, but I would love to see something about his younger days wandering around Europe.] For him, as for Machiavelli, the Church was merely a factor of politics, but whose importance was proportionate to its influence over men's minds. To place it at the service of the prince was therefore to invest him with a power and ascendancy which he derived from its sacred character. In 1534, profiting by the obedience of Parliament and its hostility to the court of Rome, he caused it to pass the "act of Supremacy," acknowledging the king as the sole and supreme earthly head of the Church of England... In the following year the king appointed Cromwell his vicar-general in ecclesiastical affairs... This was schism, but it was not yet heresy...
p575 ...all the monasteries were subject to a "visit," the result of which was a foregone conclusion. The all-powerful minister had resolved to confiscate their property, partly for the benefit of the Crown, and partly for that of the nobles, in order that the lords and gentlemen of the country might henceforth be unanimous in favor of maintaining the new ecclesiastical constitution, just as the purchasers of national properties in the France of the Revolution were in favor of the maintenance of the Revolutionary regime... The "Articles of Religion" which the assembly of the clergy accepted without protest in 1536 cut the last tie which, by community of faith, still bound the English Church to the Catholic Church. As the bases [basis?] of dogma they accepted only the Bible and the three first Oecumenical Councils ("the Bible and the Three Creeds"), retaining as sacraments only Baptism, Penitence and the Eucharist. No modification was introduced either in the ritual or in the organization of the hierarchy. A position was adopted which was half-way between Protestantism and Catholicism, and apparently very like that toward which the humanists had wished insensibly to lead the Papacy.
p576 Yet the best and most celebrated of these humanists, Thomas More, had resigned his position as Chancellor as early as 1532, and two years later his head had fallen on the scaffold. The most pious and enlightened spirits among those who aspired to reform the Church were revolted by the violence which was imposed upon it. The government appeared to them, and actually was, a moral despotism imposed by terror. Cromwell's police carried on a veritable inquisition; and victims, chosen for the sake of example among the most illustrious men in the country, were pitilessly sacrificed to the end envisaged by the terrible minister...
...After 1536... [Henry VIII] sought to return to tradition, and the six Articles which were submitted for the approval of the clergy in 1539 marked a fairly definite revulsion in the direction of the Catholic faith. The sensational fall and death of Cromwell in 1540 were explained in part by his attempts to draw England into an alliance with the Lutherans of Germany...
p577 After... [the death of Henry VIII] there was chaos. The minority of Edward VI (1547-1553) enabled the "Protectors" -- the Duke of Somerset, followed by the Earl of Warwick -- openly to favor Protestantism. The Mass was suppressed, images were removed from the churches, the celibacy of the priests was abolished, and a Prayer Book was adopted, together with new articles of religion, constituting the doctrine to which the Anglican Church has remained faithful to this day. All these things were imposed by violence, in the midst of veritable religious anarchy. While the exasperated Catholics were inciting to revolt on every side, a new party had lately made its appearance. Calvinism had entered upon the stage.
I will tell you what you can't tell, because you don't have the book in your hand. We are very close to the end. While this entire work is supposed to be a first draft, this section seems to be especially rough. For instance, this section really should be two sections. Here we shift from the history of the Anglican Church to Calvinism from one paragraph to the next. Since I can't do the best thing and create a new section, I will simply break here and resume next time with Calvin.
This break is all the more important as the Lutheran and Anglican sections share an indifference to the beliefs of the actual faithful. So far we've been talking about a new faith imposed by princes and kings. That this -- seemingly arbitrary, though profitable to men of importance -- change continued to split English society into the 20th century is pretty amazing. Especially when you consider what a degraded institution the Catholic Church was at this time. And I love (holding Burke's proxy here) how even the realization of the reform ideas of the "humanists" took the form of a "terror" with random victims.
Perhaps next time we will actually get into matters of faith, because so far this all seems to be much ado about nothing.
To be continued...
The Great War
I believe we are now ahead of the events one hundred years ago in Europe. The tide on the Western Front is yet to turn, yet Pirenne is wrapping up. He seems eager to pack his bags and return home, leaving me frustrated at missing the next phase of European history.
The Entente Powers were planning a big offensive for 1919 including improved tanks and many more American divisions. If only this had been allowed to happen Pirenne might have made it up to the European centuries I'm more familiar with. Suddenly I find myself sympathizing with the Tietjens boys... though I still don't understand what they would have preferred to have happened in 1918. I just don't want Pirenne released from his confinement.
I haven't mentioned The Great War for some time. This year, and last, has not been encouraging for any optimists in the audience. The stupidity of man, or at least of military men, has been repeatedly confirmed. Ludendorff (for the sake of simplicity) came up with a clever system of defenses in depth on the Western Front for 1917 that allowed the Germans to hold their front, by not defending every square mile of it, with a modest force that made German divisions available for the more vulnerable Eastern Front. This all went well for the Germans as both Russia and Romania were forced out of the war.
The French and English figured out what Ludendorff was doing in the West, and the English, of all people, came up with clever tactics for taking advantage of the defense in depth. They would take just as much as the Germans were willing to risk, and then stop. Brilliant... though Haig was unable to control himself and went back to trying to "break through" with the usual results.
This year, 1918, the Germans threw divisions freed up by the collapse of the Eastern Front against the West in an attempt to defeat the Entente before the Americans had time to arrive in strength. The French had also learned the lessons of defense in depth and, officially, adopted that idea... only many of the army commanders refused to agree to something so practical and un-glorious. But here's the funny part: When the Germans were able to break through the too-thin French lines, they quickly ran into the usual logistical problems of not being able to reinforce and supply their attacks as quickly as the defenders could bring help up by rail. It was the American Civil War in Virginia all over again. The idiocy of the French generals lost them more men, but actually succeeded in ruining the German offensives through too quick a success.
And now the first American units are catching a first sight of the elephant at places like Belleau Wood. The German window of opportunity is closing.
No comments:
Post a Comment