What were but was interrupted by two Romanizing prebendaries, whom he found unwilling to acquiesce in certain of the doctrines which he had propounded in his Articles of Religion. This act of resistance on their part led the way to a disputation with the bishop, an account of the result of which was immediately communicated by him to the royal council (Oct. 25, 1552); while Joliffe, one of the prebendaries, after the accession of Elizabeth, gave the whole of the controversy to the world in a book published at Antwerp, in 1564. This volume1 comprises the arguments of the objectors, together with the answer returned to them by Hooper, and a confutation of that answer by Gardiner, who was at the time a prisoner in the Tower: but, what is still more interesting and important, it has also presented us with a copy of the Articles which were the moving cause of the dispute. At first sight we may be inclined to consider them Articles?" altogether distinct from the Formulary which was subsequently circulated by the King, for subscription in the Church at large. Such indeed appears to have been the inference of Strype2; and the language of Hooper, where he speaks of the Articles 'gathered' by himself out of the Holy Scriptures, would unquestionably tend to the same conclusion. Yet, on the other 1 See some account of it in Strype's Eccl. Mem. II. 354. The title of a copy in the Library of the University of Cambridge is as follows: 'Responsio venerabilium sacerdotum Henrici Ioliffi et Roberti Jonson, sub protestatione facta, ad illos Articulos Ioannis Hoperi, episcopi Vigorniæ nomen gerentis in quibus a Catholica fide dissentiebat, etc. Antv. 1564.' 2 When he visited them he gave them Articles concerning Christian religion, to the number of fifty.' Cranmer, 11. 220. A full account of the visitation was perused by Strype in a certain folio MS. of which a copy from Dr Williams' Library has been obligingly furnished for the use of the present writer, by the Editor of Bp Hooper's 'Remains,' (preparing for immediate publication). The title there given describes the Articles as composed for the unity and agreement, as well as for the doctrine of God's Word, as also for the conformity of the ceremonies agreeing with God's Word.' blance to the 1552. hand, there is satisfactory proof that the two documents are very closely related, or had even proceeded from a common source; for out of the nineteen Articles animadverted on by the prebendaries, ten will be found to coincide precisely (a few cases of varying phraseology excepted) with the Latin Articles of 1552, though the order in which they occur is different throughout; while of the nine remaining Articles, seven are as obvi- Their resemously the same in substance, though not so fully Articles of enunciated as certain parallel definitions of the later Formulary. The only Articles of which no traces were preserved in those of 1552, are the first and the eighteenth in Joliffe's publication; the former being directed against errors on the subject of our Saviour's Incarnation, and the oneness of His propitiatory sacrifice1; the latter, against the superstitious services of the mass as they had been commonly celebrated anterior to the Reformation. There are expressions also in the reply of Hooper, which although hardly reconcileable with his previous language, imply that the Articles tendered by him to the Worcester clergy were in some way sanctioned by the authority of the King, or perhaps in accordance with the Formulary drawn up at the royal order. These passages2 1 'Christi corpus non ex virili semine, nec ex ulla alia materia nisi tantum ex substantia Virginis Maria, opera Spiritus Sancti factum est, idque semel, et semel tantum oblatum est.' Art. I. fol. 13. 'Missa quæ consuevit a sacerdotibus dici, superstitionis et abusus plena erat, et præter epistolas, evangelia et verba cœnæ, perpauca instituta per Christum habuit: sed a Romanis Pontificibus et ab aliis ejusdem notæ hominibus inventa et excogitata est.' Art. xvIII. fol. 188. b. 2 Hooper (or, as some suspected, Harley or Jewel) began his confutation of it in the fol- Their num ber. Why so few were answered. have prompted the idea that after the Articles were returned by Cranmer to the privy council in May, 1552, the King had by a private act1 recommended the well-affected prelates to urge them upon the notice of the clergy, for the purpose of ascertaining their willingness on the matter of subscription. Yet on the contrary, it must be remembered that early in the year preceding, allusion had been made by Hooper to what he then designated his Articles; and since they in their turn are frequently identical with those, which he offered in 1552 to the prebendaries of Worcester, a rough sketch of the document, hereafter published by authority, was already in active circulation, at least among some of the reforming prelates". Be this, however, as it may, there is not evidence enough to support the conclusion of archbishop Laurence, that the number of Articles, as originally compiled at Lambeth, did not exceed nineteen, or that Cranmer in the first instance composed little or nothing more than a condemnation of 'Romish' errors3. It is clear from an extant English copy, that the list of bishop Hooper, amounted to no less than fifty Articles, and if some of these only were refuted by the disaffected prebendaries of Worcester, the reason might be that the remainder were considered less open to attack, or were even such as the objectors had no scruple in subscribing. Nor is this view altogether unsanctioned by the mus, sacræ Scripturæ, analogiæ 1 Soames, Reform. III. 651. the Articles in Hooper's 'Visitation-Book' are a popular English form of this original draft, enlarged by ritual injunctions for the guidance of his clergy, as well as modified in different ways. Very many of his extreme statements are softened down in the authorized Articles, as may be seen from the collations in Append. No. III. (6). 3 Bampton Lectures, II. note testimony derivable from the work itself; for in the 'argument' prefixed by Joliffe, he admits that while some of the many Articles' were heretical and impious, others entitled to the name of catholic' had been artfully interspersed, in order that the simple and incautious might be the more easily led astray1. In such a case, it is evident that we can hope to recover the Articles of 1552, from the records of the Worcester disputation, so far only as they were distasteful to the party who opposed the reformationmovement and accordingly when we ascertain the subjects which were handled in the longer of these lists, but omitted in the shorter, we find them generally bearing upon questions which were common to theold' and the new learning,' and therefore unlikely to have called for rebuke from the champions of the Romish' tenets. It has been remarked, for example, as somewhat singular that the first Article of 1552, touching the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, has no equivalent definition in the report of the controversy between Hooper and the Worcester clergy, yet the existence of such an Article in the series which was actually submitted to their notice, appears to have been placed beyond reasonable doubt; for in the 'True Copy of Bishop Hooper's Visitation-Book,' there is an order to the following effect: That they faithfully teach and instruct the people committed unto their charge, that there is but one God, everlasting, incorporate, almighty, wise and good, Maker and Conserver of heaven and earth, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom also He will be called upon by us. And albeit there be but one God in essence and unity in the Godhead, nevertheless in the same unity. there be Three distinct Persons 2,' &c. The same view is further illustrated by the first Article in Joliffe's 1 'Is (i. e. Hoperus) sub annum sextum Edouardi Regis VI. articulos multos, alios errore atque hæretica impietate plenos, alios catholicos, quo simplices et incautos magis deciperet....probandos subscriptione postulavit atque docendos obtrusit.' fol. 6. 2 Art. II. Against whom were directed? publication. It was chiefly directed against the errors not of the Romanizing but of the Anabaptist party, as we learn from a contemporary work', in which it has reappeared; yet as the closing observation was intended to glance at the scholastic dogma of a repeated oblation of our Lord in the sacrament of the altar, it was so far assailed in the reply of the Worcester prebendaries: and to this circumstance alone are we indebted for the preservation of all the Article. But while the theory of archbishop Laurence, as to the Articles the number and nature of the original draft, is thus shewn to be wanting in solid proof, it may suggest an important investigation connected with the history of the Articles, and one which has not hitherto been pursued with the minuteness it deserves. What was the leading aim of the reformers in selecting the particular subjects which are handled in the Articles of 1552? On what principle may we explain the introduction of this point, or the omission of that? Were they designed to be a complete system of theology, or simply to express the judgment of the English Church on a variety of sacred topics at that time actually controverted within her own jurisdiction? Internal evi dence on this subject. The internal evidence afforded in the solution of these queries may be stated in a few words. In nions reprobated by the compilers there is one quite identical with that which stands first in the Worcester controversy (cf. above p. 85): 'Qui errores omnes sacrarum Scripturarum authoritate sic corrigendi sunt ut Christus meliore natura Deus sempiternus accipiatur, et quidem æqualis sit Dei Patris; humana vero corpus habeat ex tempore factum, neque sæpius quam semel, neque ex alia materia quam ex Mariæ virginis vera et sola substantia. |