The effect, therefore, of this criticism of Parker and his colleagues was first, to add four Articles, secondly, to remove an equal number, and thirdly, to modify by enlargement or subtraction, as many as seventeen of the remainder. No higher proof can be found of the caution with which all these changes were conducted than the very general adoption of them by the Synod to whom they were next submitted. sent. It assembled on the day appointed in the royal Meeting of brief (Jan. 12, 1563), and on the following day, after Convocation. a solemn service at St Paul's cathedral, lost no time in proceeding to the business for which it had been convoked. The primate of all England presided, with Bishops prethe following bishops at his side: Edmund (Grindal) of London, Robert (Horne) of Winchester, William (Barlowe) of Chichester, John (Scory) of Hereford, Richard (Cox) of Ely, Edwin (Sandys) of Worcester, Roland (Merick) of Bangor, Nicholas (Bolingham) of Lincoln, John (Jewel) of Salisbury, Richard (Davis) of St David's, Edmund (Guest) of Rochester, Gilbert (Berkeley) of Bath and Wells, Thomas (Bentham) of Coventry and Lichfield, William (Alley) of Exeter, John (Parkhurst) of Norwich, Edmund (Scambler) of Peterborough, Thomas (Davies) of St Asaph, Richard (Guest) of Gloucester and commendatory of Bristol'. The opening speech of Parker congratulated the Synod on the arrival of this opportunity for promoting the reformation of the Church, and signified the zeal of ministri, sed per ipsum opus operatum, hoc est, per ipsum baptismi sacramentum, gratiam et remissionem peccatorum assequitur, propter Christum in illo sacramento operantem. fol. 173, b. 1 Strype, Parker, 121. It may be observed, that the Original Registers of this Convocation are not extant, having been destroyed in the fire of London, 1666. An important extract, entitled 'Acta in supe- his royal mistress, as well as of the nobles, in forwarding the happy execution of his wishes. He then gave the usual order to the lower house touching the election of their Prolocutor, and on the 16th of January they presented Alexander Nowel, the dean of St Paul's, to serve them in that capacity. On the 19th the Synod reassembled at Westminster, instead of the more usual place of meeting in the chapter-house of St Paul's cathedral. The prolocutor in the name of the clergy, who were generally warm in the cause of reformation, carried up a report to the bishops, in which he stated that 'the Articles published in the Synod of London, during the reign of Edward, had been handed to a committee of the lower house, in order that they might weigh and reconstruct them (if such changes were thought proper), Deliberations in time for the following session?' In the mean while the bishops had begun to deliberate on the same absorbing topics; and as the primate would naturally take the lead, it is probable that he submitted a copy of the Articles, as they had been revised by his own hand, for the approval of his brother prelates. On the 20th, the 22nd, the 25th and the 27th of January3, we may detect other traces, though generally faint and scanty, of the disputations which the projected Formulary was exciting in the upper house: and on the 29th, at an early session in St Paul's', a further discussion 'respecting some of the Articles,' resulted in their unanimous subscription by all the assembled prelates. of the bi shops. The authen tic record of ment (?) One at least of the copies which had been sanctheir agree- tioned by the upper house of Convocation, is the Latin Manuscript of archbishop Parker adverted to above. The signatures which it contains are manifestly autographs; and as prelates of the province of York are included in the number of subscribers 5, we 1 Strype, Parker, ibid. 2 Bennett, 167. 3 Strype, Parker, ibid. 4 Inter horas 8am et 9am ante meridiem. Bennett, ibid. 5 They are Thomas (Young) of York, James (Pilkington) of Durham, William (Downham) of Chester. might infer that this was the actual copy transmitted for the approval of the clergy at that time assembled in the northern Convocation. But a formidable doubt has been thrown on the authority of the Parker MS. by collating a portion of its contents with an extract from the register of this Convocation, as made in the time of archbishop Laud, and attested by a public notary for the satisfaction of his accusers'. Besides exhibiting a different version of the article 'On the Authority of the Church,' the extract from the original record belonging to the see of Canterbury, has preserved a list of the assentient prelates, varying in some points from that in the Manuscript of archbishop Parker2: and to increase the perplexity of the question 1 He was accused of forging the contested clause in Art. XX, and after appealing to four printed copies of the Articles, one of them as early as 1563, and all containing the passage which the Puritans disliked, he added, I shall make it yet plainer: for it is not fit concerning an Article of Religion, and an Article of such consequence for the order, truth, and peace of this Church, you should rely upon my copies, be they never so many or never so ancient. Therefore I sent to the public records in my office, and here under my officer's hand, who is a public notary, is returned to me the twentieth Article with this affirmative clause in it, and there is also the whole body of the Articles to be seen.' Remains, II. 83 (quoted by Bennett, 166). The copy, thus taken before the destruction of the records, is said to be still extant; Bennett made use of it, and has printed it in his Essay,' 167-169. 2 The Parker MS. has the subscriptions of the archbishop of Canterbury, and the bishops of London, Winchester, Chichester, Ely, Worcester, Hereford, Bangor, Lincoln, Salisbury, St David's, Bath and Wells, Coventry and Lichfield, Exeter, Norwich, Peterborough, and St Asaph, besides the three above mentioned belonging to the other province. The copy of the record produced by archbishop Laud omits the three northern prelates, and also those of Chichester, Worcester, and Peterborough. The second includes the bishop of Rochester, but it has been doubted whether he actually subscribed or not (Bennett, 184); while the bishop of Gloucester, though present at some meetings of the synod, appears to have finally dissented. (Strype, Annals 1, 563). The bishopric of Oxford was not full, and Kitchen of Llandaff (from whatever cause) took no part in the proceedings. Value of the as shewing the modifications intro duced by the bishops. the two sets of episcopal signatures are said to have been appended to the Articles on the same day and in the same place. If one may lawfully hazard a conjecture in the midst of these clashing statements, is it not possible that after the house of bishops had subscribed the copy of the primate on the 29th of January, it was forwarded to the northern Convocation, (without waiting for the criticism of the lower house, who continued their discussions for another week); and that on its return it was deposited as a private paper with the rest of the Parker Manuscripts, where it has remained till the present day; while the copy of the Articles as they stood when finally authorised by the whole Synod on the fifth of the following month, found its place among the records of Convocation in the registry appertaining to the see of Canterbury, at the cathedral of St Paul's? But if reasons1 do thus exist for disputing the authority of the Parker Manuscript, or even for rejecting the claims which have been put forth on its behalf to be regarded as the ultimate form in which the Articles were left at the rising of the Synod, it is, notwithstanding, a most valuable guide in tracing the course of their further progress, and the nature of the changes impressed upon them during the deliberations of the house of bishops2. When first exhibited by the primate, about the 19th of January, they were forty-two in number, but on the 29th, which is the date of the subscriptions, 1 See more on this subject in Bennett, c. VIII., and Strype, Parker, 319, 320, where it is argued that this MS. as well as a second of 1571, are no more than 'first schemes or draughts preparatory.' The fact of their being left in the private library of Parker, the variety of corrections in the documents them selves, and the absence of all mention of royal approbation, form the principal arguments of those learned antiquaries. 2 These alterations are distinguished in the MS. by the marks of a red minium pencil, and by the Archbishop's own hand-writing. Dr Lamb, Hist. Account, 17. Articles three whole articles had been erased. These were the thirty-ninth, the fortieth and the forty-second of the Edwardine series, all bearing on speculative points Three more which had been opened by the Anabaptist; and as erased. the errors of his sect were no longer menacing the very being of the Church, there was not the same urgent reasons for proscribing them in detail. Another omission was made in the article respecting our Lord's Descent into Hell,' which had rested in the Formulary of 1552 upon the well-known language of St Peter. The allusion made to a particular text Clause was now altogether abandoned,-we may conjecture, Art. III. on account of the animosity excited by the disputes which this question had engendered in some districts, more especially in the diocese of Exeter1. 1 Among the papers of Alley, bishop of that see, which had been drawn up for the synod of 1562, there is one relating to this very subject. After expressing his desire that the clergy might all preach one kind of doctrine, and not inveigh against each other, he proceeds: 'First, for matters of Scripture, namely, for this place which is written in the epistle of St Peter, that Christ went down into hell, and preached to the souls that were in prison. There have been in my diocese great invectives between the preachers, one against the other, and also partakers with them; some holding, that the going down of Christ His soul to hell, was nothing else but the virtue and strength of Christ His death, to be made manifest and known to them that were dead before. Others say, that descendit in inferna is nothing else but that Christ did sustain upon the cross the A third infernal pains of hell... Finally, dropped in |