Art. XXVI. Art. XXVII. Art. XXVIII. Art. XXIX. Service-Books should be intelligible to the body of the people. The twenty-sixth article, 'Of the Sacraments,' had a two-fold application to the circumstances of the times. The first and second clauses were designed to limit the number of evangelical rites to which the term 'sacrament' may be properly affixed, and to guard against the error of supposing that Baptism and the Eucharist produce their effects without any regard to the state of their subjects. The third clause is, on the contrary, directed like the ninth of the Thirteen Articles, against the prevailing Zwinglian notion, that sacraments were no more than empty rites and external badges1. The twenty-seventh, which is included in the fifth of the Thirteen Articles, maintains, in opposition to the sectaries of the day2, that the validity of sacraments is unimpaired by the personal unfitness of the clergy. The twenty-eighth, Of Baptism,' is a continuation of the censure which had been passed with reference to both the 'sacraments of the Gospel' in Article XXVI. It distinctly affirms that baptism is far more than a professional badge or barely outward symbol, and proceeds to vindicate the custom of the Church' in her retention of infant baptism3. The twenty-ninth, 'Of the Lord's Supper,' while 1 This intention is clearly established by the testimony of the 'Reformatio Legum.' In speaking of the 'heresies' then current, it observes: 'Magna quoque temeritas illorum est, qui sacramenta sic extenuant, ut ea pro nudis signis, et externis tantum indiciis capi velint, quibus tanquam nobis hominum Christianorum religio possit a cæteris internosci, nec animadvertunt quantum sit scelus, hæc sancta Dei instituta inania et vacua credere.' Ibid. c. 17; cf. Bp Latimer's Remains, 252; ed. P.S. 2 The same authority speaks of Anabaptists, who separated from the Lord's Table on the plea that they were deterred, 'vel ministrorum improbitate, vel aliorum fratrum,' c. 15. Luther (as quoted by Dr Hey, Iv. 255.) says of them: Anabaptistæ propter hominum vitia vel indignitatem damnant verum baptisma: cf. Alley, Poore Mans Librarie, 1. 242, b. 8 Ibid. c. 18. de Baptismo,' where we have a glimpse of cer avoiding the errors of the Zwinglian school, condemns the opposite dogma of a physical transubstantiation in the elements, as repugnant to the Word of God, and as inconsistent with the true humanity of our Saviour and his local residence in heaven1. The thirtieth article, like the third in the Second Art. xxx. Part of the Augsburg Formulary, affirms the perfection of the one sacrifice which our Lord offered on the cross, in reply to the current misbelief touching the repetition of that offering in the sacrifices of masses.' The thirty-first article is aimed at the medieval Art. XXXI. error which regarded the marriage of the clergy as absolutely sinful2. The thirty-second and thirty-third relate to the in- Art. XXXII. ternal discipline and usages of the Church, which had Art. xxxiil been made the subjects of vehement disputation in the reign of Edward VI.3 The former denounces the excommunicate as unfit for the society of Christians; the latter declares that traditions,' or ecclesiastical rites and customs, may not be violated by any at the mere impulse of his 'private judgment.' It is observable that the language of the second of these laws is borrowed from Art. V. of the Thirteen Articles. The thirty-fourth simply authorises the use of the Art. xxxiv. First Book of Homilies, which had been circulating with the royal sanction since 1547. The thirty-fifth, in like manner, authorises and Art. xxxv. commends the Ordinal and the Service-Book which had been previously put forth by the king and the parliament,' in 1550 and 1552. 6 The thirty-sixth, 'Of Civil Magistrates,' is directed Art. XXXVI. partly against the Romanizing faction who continued to assert the supremacy of the pope, and partly tain errors rising, it would seem, out of an opposite quarter. One of them attributed the effects of baptism to a physical virtue in the element employed; a second absolutely denied the possibility of salvation without the intervention of the sacra- 1 Cf. Reform. Leg. Ibid. c. 19. Articles,' 67, note (3). 3 See above, p. 97, note (5). Art. XXXVII. against the Anabaptists, who impugned the rights of the civil power and the lawfulness of war1. The thirty-seventh and the thirty-eighth are Art.xxxvIII. levelled at the same revolutionary spirits, the one proscribing their notion of a community of goods, the other refuting their scruples on the subject of taking oaths2. Art. XXXIX. Art. XL. Art. XLII. What was the authority Articles? The four remaining articles, three of which were drawn from the Augsburg Confession, are condemnatory of four other notions zealously inculcated in the reign of Edward VI. by the Anabaptist teachers3. The first determines, that the resurrection of the dead will extend also to the body, and has not been already finished in the quickening of the soul. The second, that the spirit does not perish with the body, and is still possessed of its former consciousness in the state of separation; the third, that the heretical fable of the 'Millenarii' is repugnant to the Word of God; the fourth, that to believe in the ultimate recovery of all men is a false and a deadly notion. Having thus shewn in detail the intimate bearing of the XLII. of the XLII. Articles on the circumstances of the times in which they were compiled, it remains for us to consider the amount of the authority by which they could originally challenge the adherence of the Church. This consideration will resolve itself into an inquiry which has been the cause of vehement debates among the historians of the period: Were the Articles of 1552 ever formally submitted to the English Convocation, or were they circulated during the brief remainder of this reign on the sole authority of the royal council? The latter view has been adopted by writers of opposite theological opinions, as well as of considerable weight in all questions of this nature1, and 1 Ibid. c. 13. See above, p. 92. 2 Reform. Legum, c. 14, and c. 15. 3 See above, pp. 92, 95: and compare Reform. Leg. Ibid. c. 12. 4 Palmer, Treatise on the Church, 1. 388. 3rd ed.; Burnet, III. 361. seqq.; Lamb, His the convoca rity of the Articles of therefore is entitled to a full and impartial examination. They rest it mainly on the fact, that the objections to registers of the Convocation, which had been sum- tional authomoned for March 19, 1552', (i. e. in modern language 1553), contain no mention of the Articles; being 'but one degree above blanks,' and 'scarce affording the names of the clerks assembled therein.' So long, however, as we may explain the absence Answer. of this public testimony, either on the supposition of carelessness in the time of Edward, or of deliberate mutilation in the following reign, it will create no absolute presumption against the synodical authority of the Articles. The Convocation may have been 'barren,' (to use Fuller's phraseology), because its proceedings were either unreported or subsequently destroyed, and therefore we cannot follow him in drawing the conclusion that it had no commission from the king to meddle with Church-business.' But it is alleged, in the second place, that the title Objection 2. prefixed to the Articles of 1552 betrays a like want of ecclesiastical sanction. They are merely said to have been agreed on 'by the bishops and other learned men, in the synod at London' ('inter episcopos et alios eruditos viros3): whereas, in the subsequent promulga torical Account of XXXIX. Articles, 4, 5. 1 Wake, State of the Church, 598; yet he adds in the next page, that the Convocation actually met on the 2nd of March. 2 This is the statement of Fuller, (Church Hist. 420, 421. fol. ed.), who had the opportunity of examining the records, and Heylin (1. 256.) so far agrees with him, remarking that 'the acts of this Convocation were so ill kept, that there remains nothing on record touching their proceedings, except it be names of such of the bishops as came thither to adjourn the house.' 3 Heylin has struck out a theory by which this language is readily explained, but the theory is itself altogether conjectural; unless indeed he was alluding to the commission for framing ecclesiastical laws (see below, p. 108). He thinks that the lower house of Convocation, to whom the Articles were submitted, 'had devolved their power on some grand committee, sufficiently authorised to debate, conclude, and publish what they had concluded in the name of the rest.' 1. 257. A somewhat kindred solution has been proposed by Dr Card Answer. Objection 3. tion of them in 1562, they are described as 'agreed upon by the archbishops and bishops of both provinces, and the whole clergy,' &c. The apparent vagueness of the former statement is not, however, unparalleled in the contemporary records of the Church, even when no doubt can possibly exist touching the convocational authority of the document to which that language is applied'. The argument drawn from this source must therefore be deemed as inconclusive as the one adverted to above. A third reason for disputing the synodical approbation of the Articles is based upon the language of Cranmer and Philpot, when questioned on this very subject at the opening of the reign of Mary. It has been already noticed, that when the Articles were published in 1553, they appeared both in a separate form and in the company of a certain 'Catechism.' Of this second work a complaint was introduced by Weston (the prolocutor of the Convocation, which had assembled in the following autumn), to the effect that it bore the name of the honourable synod, although, as he understood, put forth without their consent.' Philpot, who was present as archdeacon of Winchester, explained at some length in what way it might be well said to be done in the Synod of London,' although the members of the present house had no notice thereof before the promulgation.' According to his view the clergy had authorised certain persons to make ecclesiastical laws3, and had concentrated in this committee their own synodical rights: but Cranmer in his Disputation at Oxford,' in April, 1554, well, who, while admitting the 1 See above, p. 48: and compare British Critic' for 1829; VI. 84. 2 Fox, 1410. The date was Oct. 20. 3 He must have alluded to the Commission appointed in 1551 to draw up the 'Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum.' |