Page images

it is remarkable that it is sought in vain. On all these topics, which were among the principal subjects of debate in the early days of the Reformation—questions which concern the condition of man, and the means of his salvation-our reformers took an independent line of their own, which differs in a very marked way from the line taken at Augsburg. Nor should it be forgotten that in some of the matters in which indebtedness to the Lutheran formulary cannot be denied, the Anglican statements are far stronger and more precise than those to which the Lutherans were called on to subscribe, e.g. on the Sacraments, the Confession of Augsburg said that they were instituted, “ not only to be marks of profession among men, but rather to be signs and witnesses of God's goodwill towards us, offered to quicken and confirm faith in those who use them." In the Thirteen Articles of 1538 this was altered into the statement “ that sacraments insti. tuted by the word of God are not only marks of profession among Christians, but rather certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God's goodwill towards us, by which God works invisibly in us .... and through them faith is quickened and confirmed in those who use them.” 1

1"De usu Sacramentorum docent quod Sacramenta instituta sint, non modo ut sint notæ professionis inter homines, sed magis ut sint signa et testimonia voluntatis Dei erga nos ad excitandam et confirmandam fidem in his qui utuntur proposita.”—Conf. August. xiii.

“Docemus quod Sacramenta quæ per verbum Dei instituta sunt, non tantum sint notæ professionis inter Christianos, sed magis certa quædam testimonia et efficacia signa gratiæ et bonæ voluntatis Dei erga nos, per quæ Deus invisibiliter operatur in nobis et suam gratiam in nos invisibiliter diffundit, siquidem ea rite susceperimus ; quodque per ea excitatur et confirmatur fides in his qui eis utuntur.”—Thirteen Articles of 1538, No. IX.

“Sacramenta per verbum Dei instituta non tantum sunt notæ professionis Christianorum, sed certa quædam potius testimonia et efficacia signa gratiæ atque bonæ in nos voluntatis Dei, per quæ invisibiliter ipse in nobis operatur, nostramque fidem in se non solum excitat, verum etiam con. firmat.”—Forty-Two Articles of 1553, No. XXV,

This is much more emphatic than the language of Augs. burg, and it is remarkable that it was retained by Cranmer in 1553, when his views on the sacraments had considerably changed from what they were fifteen years previously. The result of the retention of these words is to bring Article XXVI., in which they occur, into rather startling contrast with Article XXIX. The two Articles really belong to different dates, and harmonise ill together, for whereas the earlier passage taken from the Thirteen Articles of 1538 describes the position of sacraments of the gospel as channels of grace in terms which leave nothing to be desired, the Twenty-Ninth Article of 1553 reflects the opinion to which Cranmer was committed at a later date when he had fallen under the influence of John a Lasco, and its teaching on the presence in the Eucharist, if not actually Zwinglianism, is perilously near to it. Happily, as will be pointed out further on in the introduction, the changes made in this Article in Elizabeth's reign have altered its character, and by the removal of the objectionable clause, and the substitution of another for it, have brought it into harmony with the teaching of Article XXV. (= XXVI. of 1553).

During the years in which the Forty-Two Articles were being shaped, another work was also in course of preparation (probably by the very same men to whom the Articles are due), viz. the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum. The exact relation of this to the Articles is hard to determine. That a relation of some sort exists is perfectly clear, the wording of many passages being identical, or nearly so. But it is not easy to decide which document can claim priority. As early as 1532 mention is made of a design for the reform of the ecclesiastical laws, but it is uncertain whether anything was actually done before the reign of Edward vi. In 1549 an Act of Parliament was passed empowering the King, by the advice of his Council, to appoint thirty-two persons "to compile such ecclesiastical laws as should be thought by him, his Council, and them, convenient to be practised in all the spiritual courts of the realm.” Two years elapsed before any such persons were nominated. But in 1551 two commissions were issued, the one to thirty-two persons, as provided in the Act of 1549, the other to a smaller number of divines, by whom the actual work was to be done, as the full commission of thirtytwo was apparently considered too large. The authors of the code, as it finally appeared, were Cranmer, Goodrich, Cox, Peter Martyr, May, Rowland Taylor, John Lucas, and Richard Goodrick. The work was completed early in 1553. Cranmer was, however, unable to obtain the sanction of Parliament for it before the death of the King in the summer of the same year.

Thus the scheme fell to the ground, and although the volume was subsequently printed during the reign of Elizabeth, the revised code of ecclesiastical law was never imposed upon the Church by any authority whatsoever. Its interest, then, is purely historical. But, regarded as a contemporary exposition of the Articles, and as either furnishing one of the sources from which they were drawn, or as containing an expanded version of some of them, parts of the work are of the highest value. The first two sections are headed, “De summa Trinitate et Fide Catholica," and “De Hæresibus." In these the passages corresponding with the Articles occur, and it will frequently be found that, being in a fuller and more amplified form, they supply exactly what is wanting to enable us to determine the exact drift of the more condensed statements of the Articles, or they indicate precisely the quarter from which the errors condemned in the Articles were proceeding. 1

* For the history of the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum, seo Dixon, vol. iii. 350 seq.

3. THE ELIZABETHAN ARTICLES. It will be convenient once more to subdivide the subject before us, and distribute it under the following headings :

(a) The history of the revision of 1563.

(6) The character of the revision, and comparison of the Elizabethan with the Edwardian Articles.

(c) The final revision in 1571.

(a) The history of the revision of 1563.—It would appearthat during the reign of Mary (1553-1558) no notice whatever was taken of the Forty-Two Articles. As they had never been enjoined by Parliament, there was no necessity for an Act to repeal them. Consequently they were quietly dropped. Nor were they immediately revived on the accession of Elizabeth. For some time after this Archbishop Parker provided, on his own authority, an independent test, consisting of eleven Articles, which all the clergy were required to read publicly, not only on entry into any cure, but also twice in the course of every year. But when Convocation met, at the beginning of 1563, one of the first works undertaken by it was a revision of the Edwardian Articles, with a view to their revival in a modified form. This resulted in the publication of the Thirty-Eight Articles of 1563. Even before the meeting of the Synod, Archbishop Parker, aided probably by Guest, Bishop of Rochester, had been at work on the Articles; and there still exists among the MSS. of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, a copy of the Latin Articles as presented by him to the Synod, with the signatures of the bishops who subscribed this document on January 29, after further alterations had been introduced by them. By the

1 See Strype, Eccl. Annals, vol. i. p.

218. ? A copy of this, with a facsimile of the signatures, is printed in Lamb's Historical Account of the Thirty-Nine Articles. Among those whose sig:

help of this paper it is possible to discover exactly which of the changes were made by Parker in his preparatory revision, and which are to be assigned to the bishops during the passage of the Articles through Convocation. From the Upper House they passed on February 5 to the Lower, and were signed by the members of that house. They were then laid before the Queen in Council, and published in Latin by Wolfe, the royal printer, under the direct authority of the Queen herself. But it is remarkable that this published copy differs in two important particulars from the MS. as signed by the bishops on January 29th. (1) It prefixes to Article XX. the affirmative clause;

“ Habet ecclesia ritus statuendi jus et in fidei controversiis autoritatem,” which now makes

its appearance for the first time. (2) It omits Article XXIX.: “De manducatione

Corporis Christi, et impios illud non manducare." This article, to which there is nothing corresponding in the Edwardian series, had been added by Parker, and apparently accepted by the Synod, as it is in the MS. copy to which the signatures of the bishops are

attached. The detailed examination of the questions that arise in connection with these changes is reserved for the commentary on the Articles in question. It will be sufficient to say here that both alterations were probably due to the Queen herself, and that they were made after Datures are attached to this document are the Archbishop of York and the Bishops of Durham and Chester. “Though the Northern Convocation as a body had no direct influence in the compiling of the Articles, its concurrence was, to some extent, implied in the signature of the Archbishop of York and his two suffragans. . In 1605 all doubts and scruples on this question were set at rest by the formal acceptance of the Articles in the Convocation of York."-Hardwick, p. 140.

« PreviousContinue »