THE ARTICLES
[To the Editor of THE SPncr.►roa.] am sorry to be a fly in the Rector of Devizes" ointment. But I do not quite grasp the nature of my offence. I did but quote, as a loyal Anglican, and with the minimum of cont- inent (and that all applauding), a few extracts from the Articles of Religion of my Church, which I have always regarded us particularly agreeable compilations. May I not do that ? Whatever views I may hold on the Christian ethics of war, I expressed none, though Mr. Clarke seems to suggest that I did. He goes on, " But there is worse to come," and accuses me of (a) trying to score off a bishop ; (b) parading my knowledge of some of the Articles as Calvinist ; (c)" tilting against the royal preface." The very idea of scoring off a
bishop or tilting against a royal preface shocks me inexpressibly, and I have searched my little article for these offences in vain. As to Calvinist influences on Cranmer, these are admitted by most commentators and historians, including that Mr. Bicknell to whose commentary Mr. Clarke would seem to refer, calling it one of the best. The well-known fact that Cranmer based part of the Articles on the Lutheran Augsburg Confession does not dispose of this. On Predestination and the Pelagian heresy Lutherans and Calvinists took and developed the same (the Augustinian) view ; Melanchthon was not, surely, anti-Calvinist on this point. Finally, my only reference to the royal preface was to quote, with an approving comment, a charming extract from it. Is this to tilt ?
But perhaps the trouble between me and Mr. Clarke is that neither of us quite understands the other's use of words. I am certainly puzzled by his. (He need not be troubled, by the way, about criticising a great-niece of the historian of my name : I am only a cousin.)—I am, Sir, yours faithfully, ROSE MACAULAY.
Previous page
