Augsburg, Diet of.

A

TRANSLATION

OF THE

CONFESSION OF AUGSBURG;

WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES,

BY THE

REV. WILLIAM HENRY TEALE, M. A.,

LEEDS.

"The celebrated Confession is every way worthy of notice, both for its own merits
and for the influence it has had, and indeed, to a considerable degree yet retains
in the world..... Another thing much to be noted is the spirit in which the work is
composed. This is such as to make the perusal of it delightful to the pious mind.
It is no mere cold, dry, doctrinal statement: a sacred unction overspreads it. It
bears upon its very face to be the production of men with whom religion is a matter
of deep and serious feeling: it all has a direct reference to what I shall take leave
to call experience, and to practice: to give relief to distressed consciences, and to
produce spiritual obedience......As a whole the work is admirable; a noble monu-
ment of what the reformers contended for-namely, Christian truth, liberty, and
spiritual worship."-Scott's Continuation of Milner's History of the Church of
Christ. Vol. I, c. i.

LEEDS:

T. W. GREEN, COMMERCIAL STREET.
LONDON: RIVINGTONS, BURNS, AND HOULSTON AND

STONEMAN.
1842.

INTRODUCTION.

THE Confession of Augsburg must ever be an interesting document to English Churchmen, the English Reformers having been much indebted to it in framing our first articles,* upon which those enjoined by Convocation in the reign of Elizabeth were grounded. And though the articles, little more than the homilies,+-the first

* See "An Attempt to Illustrate those Articles of the Church of England, which the Calvinists improperly consider as Calvinistical," by Archbishop Lawrence in his Bampton Lectures, 1804.

+ It must not be supposed that the writer considers the homilies of the same authority as the articles. This, perhaps, is a necessary protest, when it is not unusual to style these formularies "The Homilies of the Church of England;" a title, as Bishop Jebb observes, "which is unsanctioned. The proper one is, 'Sermons, or Homilies, appointed to be read in Churches, in the time of Queen Elizabeth, of famous memory.” "The misnomer," the Bishop proceeds to state, " is by no means trivial in its consequences. The former title seems to recognize the homilies as authoritative documents of our Church: the latter styles them as they should be styled-sermons, to be read; NOT authorities, to be alleged and deferred to." The italics are the Bishop's own. See his Letter on the Homilies considered, Practical Theology, ii., p. 283. Archbishop

book of which, it may be observed, also contains several passages obviously taken from this Confession,—can be considered as a system of theology, or the voice of the Church, they are venerable both for their antiquity, and the character of their compilers, as well as highly important from the fact of subscription being required to them by all who minister among us in holy things.

But, besides elucidating many of the articles, and disproving their Calvinistic bias, the Confes

Lawrence expresses the same opinion. "The two books of homilies, written at different periods, were never imposed by our Church upon her respective members, as specific rules of faith... .Should they,

in any instance, prove to be at variance with our Liturgy, it wonld not, I conceive, be difficult to determine in which of the two compositions the creed of our Church is to be found." When the 35th article states, that the second Book of Homilies doth contain a godly and wholesome doctrine (doctrina) and necessary for these times, the meaning of the word doctrina, according to Dr. Hey is, "teaching, instruction, and not what the English word doctrine usually means." The very fact of saying that the homilies convey pious and moral instruction, or "good and wholesome doctrine," seems to me, says Dr. Hey, "to be opposed to any high pretensions; seems to say, they may not be perfect, they may not be above criticism." He also observes that the expression, necessary for these times," refers to "the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign.......I would farther observe, on the word "necessary," that it seems to imply, what we ordinarily call a case of necessity: the nature of which is, to occasion certain measures for a time, and to have them left off when the necessity ceases." Then he adds in a note, "I never was more surprised by a piece of criticism than by one in the Monthly Review, for Sept., 1790, in which the words, “these times” are supposed to be understood by each subscriber of his own times." Dr. Hey also denies that the clergy subscribe to the homilies.-See Hey's Lectures, vol. iv, p. 463, 464, 468.

sion of Augsburg has now an additional claim to our sympathy from its connexion with the newly formed bishopric of the United Church of England and Ireland, at Jerusalem. In the Statement explanatory of that proceeding, put forth by authority, we read that "congregations, consisting of Protestants of the German tongue, residing within the limits of the bishop's jurisdiction, and willing to submit to it, will be under the care of German clergymen ordained for that purpose;" and that "Germans intended for the charge of such congregations, are to be ordained according to the ritual of the English Church, and to sign the articles of that church; and, in order that they may not be disqualified by the laws of Germany from officiating to German congregations, they are, before ordination, to exhibit to the bishop a certificate of their having subscribed, before some competent authority, the Confession of Augsburg." Such being the case, every English Churchman must be solicitous to know what that Confession of faith is, to which, so far as it is Catholic, and not of course to every proposition contained in it, the English bishop is thus pledged to assent. It is partly with a view to gratify this not unreasonable curiosity, that the following translation is now offered to the general reader.

The translation, however, may, by God's