bishops and archdeacons, gave too great | period owes so much, was, as we have an occasion to those stoical and irregu- seen, at one moment a prey to puritanlar rovers to multiply their invectives ism, at another engaged in disputes against the state of our clergy." And which tended to any thing rather than in another letter to Whitgift, when again edification. speaking of filling up preferments, that ❝he saw such worldliness in many that were otherwise affected before they came to cathedral churches, that he feared the places altered the men." The universities contributed little to remedy or obviate the danger of the times the state of Oxford was deplorable; she was overrun with popery and disorder: and Cambridge, to which this The feeling which the more attentive study of these times is calculated to inspire, is the conviction of the superintendence of Providence over the church of Christ. The exertions of the best of human beings are often misdirected, are oftener thwarted by the evil passions of the interested; and yet all things work together for good to them that love God. A LIST OF THE AUTHENTIC COPIES OF THE THIRTY-NINE No date. Reg. Wolfe. C. C. C. Oxf. Bodley Sparrow. Lat. Lamb. Eng. Burney. Lat. Burney. 8vo. Jugg & Cawood. Ch. Ch. Oxford. Eng Lamb. Bodley. 3 cop. C. C. C. Oxford. APPENDIX C. TO CHAPTER X. HISTORY OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 481. The Forty-two Articles. 482. Probably framed by Cranmer. 483. Taken partly from the Augsburg Confession. 484. Not sanctioned by convocation. 485. Parker prepares the articles for convocation; subscription required. 486. The controverted clause in the twentieth article. 487. Idea of the author. 488. Laud, not to blame about the article. § 481: ALTHOUGH the value which | tually appointed Oct. 6th, "And this we attach to the Thirty-nine Articles year the archbishop was directed to must depend on other grounds than the draw up a book of Articles for preservauthority to which they owe their ex- ing and maintaining peace and unity istence, or our respect for the individu- of doctrine in the church; that being als by whom they were framed; yet the finished, they might be set forth by history of their composition and the de- public authority." This he did, and tails which attended the original publi- they were delivered "to other bishops cation and revision of them, can never to be inspected and subscribed, I supfail to be interesting and instructive. pose by them." (A. D. 1552.) In the May following, the archbishop was directed by the council to send the Articles, and to signify whether the same were set forth by any authority; alluding, probably, to the power vested in the commissioners by the act of 1549, and which would continue in force till the end of 1552. In September the archbishop sent the book which he had now set in order, by supplying what was wanting, and prefixing titles to the several articles, to Sir William Cecil and Sir John Cheke, desiring them to take the same into their serious consideration, and to present them to the king. They, however, imagined that it would be better for the metropolitan to offer them himself; and he did so. In October a letter was addressed by the council to Harley, Bell, Horn, Grindal, Pern, and Knox, to consider certain articles, which could hardly be any other than these. The archbishop received the articles from the council Nov. 23d, and sent them back on the 24th, expressing, at the The Articles of our Church were first published in the year 1553;1 they came forth under the title, "The articles agreed upon by the bishops and other learned and godly men, in the last convocation at London, in the year of our Lord MDLII., for to root out the discord of opinions, and establish the agreement of true religion; likewise published by the king's majesty's authority, 1553." They were published together with a short Čatechism, (§ 331,) and were printed, as well as the Catechism, in Latin and English. They were in number forty-two, and do not exactly correspond with the present Thirty-nine. The accounts which have been handed down to us of their first composition are involved in so much uncertainty, that what is generally received concerning them is more worthy of the name of tradition than of history. § 482. The power which had been originally granted to Henry VIII., of appointing a committee for the formation of ecclesiastical laws, and of which no use was made during his reign, was renewed in 1549 to Edward VI., by an act of parliament which limited its duration to the space of three years.3 (A. D. 1551.) The committee was ac in the summer of 1551; but it seems not to have 4 The first sketch of the articles was prepared contained the whole of the articles which were published in the spring of 1553. The five first, the IXth, Xth, and XVIIth, were wanting; and the clause in the XXVIIIth, (the XXIXth of the Forty-two,) against consubstantiation, or the ubiquity of Christ's body, was added, which was subsequently omitted in 1563. (Laurence's Bampt. Lect. 228, and p. 39.) These circumstances are gathered from a book published at Antwerp in 1564, giving an account of a dispute which had been held between Hooper and two of his prebendaries, on the subject of these articles, in 1552. (Strype's Cranmer, 390.) 5 Strype's Cranmer, 391. same time, a wish that the bishops trine, but in many places the very might be empowered to require sub- words of the one are transferred into scription to them. All these details, the other. Several of the present arwhich form the whole which is known ticles are taken from papers drawn up of the composition of the Articles, by the committee of doctrines, 1540; strongly tend to confirm the idea that but as these do in two instances correthey were composed by Cranmer him- spond also with the Augsburg Confesself; and when he was examined before sion, it is not improbable that they likethe commissioners appointed during the wise owe their origin to the pen of the reign of Queen Mary, he acknowledged archbishop himself. We may also con"that they were his doings." He is clude that the XIth Article, on Justifigenerally said to have made use of the cation, is drawn from no other source assistance of Bishop Ridley, and the than the laborious investigations of Crandraft of them might probably have been mer. In a book of his own, wherein he submitted to the inspection of other di- had written out a large collection of vines; but it is quite uncertain whether quotations from Holy Scripture as well they received any alterations from these as from different authors," he sums up persons, or whether they were even the argument in words corresponding, examined by them. It is indeed most in a great degree, with those of the probable that this was the case for in article; and reference is made in the the letter of Edward VI., dated June 9, same article to the Homily on Salvation, 1553, and addressed to the bishops, though under a false title, which is genethey are called "Certain Articles de- rally esteemed to be the production of vised and gathered with great study, Cranmer. With regard to the XVIIth and by counsel and good advice of the article, great uncertainty prevails congreatest learned part of our bishops of cerning the author; yet there are some this realm, and sundry others of our cler- passages in the works of Luther and gy;" expressions which would hardly Melancthon, which, from the similarity have been used, unless more bishops of idea, and occasionally of expression, than Cranmer and Ridley had been if they formed not a text on which the concerned in their preparation. framers of the articles commented, might at least have been in their view when engaged in the composition of it, and § 483. Whether they were composed by Cranmer, or were drawn up by any other hand, it will be curious to inquire from what sources they are chiefly derived, since it is not probable that a man possessed of so much caution as marked the general conduct of the archbishop, would have suffered a document to be prepared, which was intended to convey the authoritative opinion of the church of England, without consulting, and perhaps imitating works of the same description which had already been received among the most distinguished of the reformers. 4 Articles I. and II. of the Thirty-nine are ob viously taken from articles I. and III. of the Confession: the first sentence of XXV., and most of XXXI., agree, in above half the words which they contain, with expressions used in the Augsburg Confession; the IXth and XVIth are principally derived from the same source. Articles IV. XIV. XXIII. XXVI. XXXII. XXXIV. contain expressions which leave little doubt in the mind that the Augsburg Confession was familiar to the person who was drawing them up. Articles XXIV. and XXX. might be added to these, but they were introduced by Archbishop Parker, and are not in the Forty-two Articles. The article on the Holy Ghost (V.) is wanting in the Augsburg (A. D. 1536.) Whatever use he might Confession, and so it is in the Forty-two. The have made of the Helvetic Confessions term ex opere operato occurs in the Article of the Forty-two which corresponds with the present in forming his own opinions, he does XXVth, and the same term exists in the XIIIth not appear to have introduced it into article of the Augsburg Confession. The verbal the work in which he was engaged: but correspondence is more strongly marked by comparing these coincidences with those parts of the with regard to the Confession of Augs- Helvetic Confession, in which the same ideas are burg, (1530, printed 1531, and repub-conveyed in very dissimilar language. See Apolished with alterations 1540,) there is crypha, 17; Trinity, 20; Predestination, 34. not only a general agreement in doc 1 Strype's Cranmer, 390, ch. xxvii. 2 Strype's Mem. II. ii. 105. 5 Strype's Mem. I. ii. 442, No. 112. 7 Luther wrote his preface to the Epistle to the Romans in German, and it was translated into Latin by Justus Jonas, 1523. The quotation is long, but too curious to be omitted. I have to leave little doubt that it was derived | Archbishop Parker. The method which from the German school of theology. was pursued in this work was as fol§ 484. From the title under which lows. He prepared a copy of the Arthe Articles were originally published, ticles for the examination of the convoit might be supposed that they derived cation, into which he introduced contheir authority from the sanction of siderable alterations of his own; he convocation; but if they were ever sub- omitted four of those of King Edward mitted to the upper house, which is very VI., which formed the Xth, XVIth, questionable, it is indubitable that they XIXth, and XLIst, of the Forty-two. were never brought before the lower; He introduced four new ones, V. XII. while all the original mandates which XXIX. XXX.; and altered, more or remain, prove that they were promul- less, seventeen of the others, II. VI. gated by a royal proclamation alone.1 VII. IX. X. XI. XVII. XXII. XXIV. Their publication, however, was so rapidly followed by the re-establishment of popery under Queen Mary, that only a small part of the clergy ever actually subscribed them. § 485. (a. D. 1562.) The examination of the Articles early engaged the attention of the church when it was re-established in the reign of Elizabeth; and the task of remodelling them, and of making such alterations as circumstances, or a further view of the subject, might dictate, fell into the hands of destinationis necessitas summe necessaria est. XXV. XXVII. XXVIII. XXXII. XXXIV. XXXV. XXXVI. XXXVII. The convocation which met on January 11, (1563,) made several alterations in this copy prepared by Parker. They omitted XL. XLI. and XLII. ; and when they were printed, the XXIXth also was left out; they altered III. IX. XXI. XXV. XXVIII. XXXIV., and the title of XVI. The Articles so changed were subscribed by the upper house of convocation on the 29th, and by the lower house on the 5th of February. They were printed in Latin and in English, and consist of XXXVIII. thank my friend Dr. Burton for pointing it out to me. (Works, Witeb. 1554, v. 100.) (A. D. 1566.) An attempt was after"Et hæc certe stabilis sententia et immota præ-wards made to bring in a bill for uniTam imbecilles enim sumus, ut si in nostris mani-formity of doctrine, by requiring the bus situm esset, paucissimi aut nulli salvarentur, clergy to subscribe the Articles of Rediabolus enim omnes vinceret. Nunc cum hæc ligion; it passed the commons, but was stopped in the lords by the queen, who deemed it an infringement on her ecclesiastical supremacy. stabilis et certissima Dei sententia mutari non possit, nec ab ulla creatura convelli, tum certe spes est nobis reliqua, tandem vincendi peccati, quantumvis etiam nunc in carne sæviat. "At hic curiosuli illi habenis cohibendi sunt, qui antequam Christum et virtutem crucis discant, abyssum illam prædestinationis scrutantur, et num prædestinati sint necne, frustra investigant. Nam hi haud dubie in confusionem conscientiæ aut desperationem, sua hac inepta curiositate ducent et præcipitabunt seipsos. Tu vero in ratione discendarum sacrarum rerum sequere seriem et ordinem hic traditum ab Apostolo. "Primum disce cognitionem Christi, ut agnoscas omnes vires tuas nihil valere nisi ad peccandum. Deinde ut per fidem cum carne tua assidue lucteris, quemadmodum, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, capite docuit. Mox cum ad caput 8 perveneris, hoc est, ubi crucem et tribulationes expertus fueris, hanc mortificationem esse salutarem et repetendam, tum primum dulcescet necessitas hæc prædestinationis, tum primum senties in 9, 10, et 11, quam plena consolationis sit prædestinatio. Nam nisi tribulationem expertus sis, nisi ad portas inferi aliquando, ut in Davide et aliis sanctis videmus, ductum te senseris, non poteris hanc prædestinationis sententiam, sine periculo et blasphemo quodam fremitu nature contra Deum tractare." The passages from Melancthon, and another from Luther, are printed by Archbishop Laurence, (Bampt. Lect. notes 4 and 6. Serm. viii. 430, &c.) Strype's Cranmer, 432. Mem. II. ii. 24, 278. 2 Cranmer, 422. In 1571, the same attempt was again made on the part of the commons ; and Elizabeth, with that wisdom which marked her whole government, withdrew an opposition which would pro 3 Lamb, 13. 4 Many of these alterations are taken from the Wirtemberg Confession, which was composed in 1551, and in the following year exhibited in the Council of Trent; e. g. part of the IId, the Vth, VIth, Xth, XIth, XIIth. The archbishop of Cashel adds the XXth. (Laurence's Bampton Lect. 233.) I almost doubt of this. The sense is the same, not the words. The only changes which are worthy of remark, from proving any alteration in point of doctrine, are to be found in the VIth and the XXVIIIth. The VIth is less favourable to traditions, and draws the distinction between the canonical and apocryphal scriptures; and the XXVIIIth leaves out a sentence contradictory of consubstantiation or ubiquitinarianism. Burnet can hardly be correct in his supposition that this was done to please the Roman Catholics. Transubstantiation is denied in the sentence before, which is not altered. 5 Lamb, 24. 6 Ibid. 25. bably have had no other effect than that of entailing upon herself an ultimate defeat. The Articles which the clergy are by this act called upon to subscribe are designated as comprised in a book imprinted, intituled, "Articles," &c. ; but the extent of the subscription is again limited, by their being subsequently confined to those "which only concern the confession of the true Christian faith, and the doctrine of the sacraments" comprised, &c.; by which expressions the XIXth, XXth, XXXVth, and XXXVIth are virtually excluded. In the convocation which was sitting at the same time, Parker commenced a review of the Articles, for the purpose of sanctioning, by the authority of convocation, the Articles to which subscription should be required of the clergy. When some trifling alteration had been made, and the XXIXth article restored, these Articles, then consisting of the present XXXIX, were subscribed by the upper house on the eleventh of May, and afterwards published under the superintendence of Bishop Jewel, and the ratification with which they now conclude was added. But it is very extraordinary that disputes have arisen, and the greatest uncertainty still prevails, as to the copy of the Articles which may be deemed the authorized one, from this period till the point was virtually settled by the canons passed in the convocation of 1604. § 486. The records of the English convocations were unfortunately burnt at the fire of London in 1666, so that it is impossible to refer to the original documents and the manuscript and printed copies of them exhibit such variety as tends rather to involve the question in greater difficulty. "The church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith; and yet" it is not lawful for the church, &c. The testimonies concerning the authenticity of this clause are as follows: It is not found, 1. In the Latin manuscript signed by the archbishops and bishops in the convocation, 1562. 2. In the English editions of Jugg and Cawood, 1563,* 3. In the English manuscript signed by the archbishop of Canterbury and bishops in the convocation of 1571. 4. In the Latin edition' of Day, 1571. 5. In the English edition of Jugg and Cawood, 1571. It is found, Published un of der the direction Bishop Jewel. 1. In the Latin edition of Wolfe of 1563. 2. In one (or two?) of the later editions of Jugg and Cawood of 1571. 3. And appears frequently after 1579.5 (A. D. 1637.) But in the examination of Laud, when the question was agitated," a declaration of a notary public was produced before the star chamber, which testified that the clause did exist in the authoritative copy of the acts of the convocation, 1562, then still remaining in St. Paul's. (See the previous note.3) § 487. If then, in order to reconcile these conflicting testimonies, and to mark the grounds of his own opinion of the authenticity of the clause, a writer may be allowed to hazard a conjecture, he must state that he believes the clause to be in a certain degree genuine, and to have been inserted through that unquestioned sort of supremacy which was The disputed clause is that with which the XXth Article now commences. produced at Laud's trial. The word jus too is "Habet ecclesia ritus sive cæremo- translated power, a method of rendering it to which nias statuendi jus, et in fidei controver-sented, by allowing that the church had the power, many an honest puritan might readily have assiis auctoritatem; quamvis" Ecclesiæ but no right. non licet, &c. 1 This can be no other than that published 1563, by Jugg and Cawood, which does not contain the controverted clause of the XXth Article. See § 486. 2 Bishop Jewel made several minute corrections of the Articles, which may be seen in Lamb, p. 30, and put the finishing hand to our present Articles. 3 It is curious that the words sive cæremonias do not exist in Wolfe's edition of 1563, nor in the transcript from the records of convocation 1562, 4 Lamb, 37. 5 Historical and Critical Essay, art. XXXIX. 6 Bennet on the Thirty-nine Articles, 167. 7 That this was done by Elizabeth may be presumed from the following internal evidence. The clause itself is in strict correspondence with the prepossessions of a child of Henry VIII.; the XXIXth article was omitted at the same time; and Elizabeth is well known to have been favourable to the idea of the corporal presence-witness the exclusion of the rubric at the end of the Com munion Service in 1560; but the subscription at |