CHAPTER VII. CHAP. ELIZ. Convocation. 1563. Convocation of 1562-3-Prevalence of Puritanism-Second Parliament-Act for the Assurance of the Queen's Power.-Determination to enforce the Habits-Queen's Letter to Parker to enforce Uniformity-Pilkington to the Earl of Leicester on behalf of the PuritansWhittingham to the same-Book of Advertisements-Parker's rigorous Enforcement of Conformity-London Ministers before the Commissioners at Lambeth-Sampson and Humphrey-Humphrey's Letter to the Queen-To Cecil-He conforms-Fox refuses to subscribe— Opposition to the Habits at Cambridge-Letter of the Scotch Church on behalf of the Puritans-Licenses called in-The Ejected Ministers publish in their own Defence-Press restrained. IN January, 1562-3, the Convocation met, which was destined to exhibit more decidedly than circumstances had yet permitted, the objections which were felt to some of the ceremonies of the church. In this assembly the thirty-nine articles, which at present constitute the doctrinal standard of the church of England, were agreed upon; and the question of discipline and ceremonies was warmly agitated. Various alterations were proposed, with a Burnet, iii. 452. The difference, between these articles and those of Edward may be seen in Burnet, iv. 311. Records, lv. The authenticity of the first part of the twentieth article, which affirms that "the church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith," has been impugned on grounds which, to say the least, are entitled to respect. The charge of interpolation was first advanced by Burton during view of rendering the terms of conformity more comprehensive; but though Parker assured the clergy, at the commencement of their meeting, that "they had now in their hands an opportunity of reforming all things in the church," for "the queen did earnestly desire it, and so did many of the nobility," it was soon apparent that neither the the reign of Charles the First. In a letter to the temporal lords of the privy council, he says: "The prelates, to justify their proceedings, have forged a new article of religion, brought from Rome, (which gives them full power to alter the doctrine and discipline of our church at a blow,) and have foisted it into the twentieth article of our church. And this is in the last edition of the Articles, 1628, in affront of his majesty's declaration before them. The clause forged is this: The church.(that is, the bishops, as they expound it) hath power to decree, &c. This clause is a forgery, fit to be examined and deeply censured in the star chamber. For it is not to be found in the Latin or English Articles of Edward the Sixth, or of queen Elizabeth, ratified by parliament. And if to forge a will or writing be censurable in the star chamber, which is but a wrong to a private man, how much more the forgery of an article of religion, to wrong the whole church, and overturn religion, which concerns all our souls." Laud denied the charge, alleging that the puritans had been guilty of publishing mutilated editions of the Articles, in which the contested clause was omitted. "I do openly here," he said in his speech in the star chamber, charge upon that pure sect, this foul corruption of falsifying the Articles of the church of England. Let them take it off as they can." This controversy was revived in the beginning of the last century, by Mr. Anthony Collins, in a publication entitled, Priestcraft in Perfection. He attacked the authenticity of the contested clause, with much ingenuity and force of evidence. Several answers appeared, the principal of which were, A Vindication of the Church of England, from the Assertions of Priestcraft in Perfection, &c.; published in 1710. And, An Essay on the Thirty-nine Articles, by Dr. Bennet, in 1715. Collins replied to these, as well as to Collier and others, in An Historical and Critical Essay on the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, published in 1724: wherein he undertakes to demonstrate that the clause, The Church has Power, &c., is not a part of the Articles, as they were established by Act of iparliament in the thirteenth of Elizabeth, or agreed on by the convocations of 1562 and 1571. It is not easy to form a decided opinion on the question. Fuller, with his usual honesty, acknowledges the difficulty, and abstains from giving judgment. "Whether," he says, "the bishops were faulty in their addition, or their opposites in their substraction, I leave to cunning state arithmeticians to decide." Neal inclines to the view of Collins, but speaks with hesitation; while Strype and Collier maintain the opposite.Fuller's Ch. Hist., ix. 73. Neal's Puritans, i. 147. Strype's Parker, ii. 54. Collier's Eccl. Hist., ii. 486. more CHAP. VII. ELIZ. VII. CHAP. archbishop nor the queen were much concerned to meet the scruples of tender consciences. ELIZ. Bishop Sandys first proposed that women be not authorized to baptize; that the cross in baptism be omitted; and that commissioners be appointed to draw up a set of laws for the discipline and government of the church. More extensive alterations were proposed in another paper, signed by several members of the lower house. They request that the psalms may be sung distinctly by the whole congregation, and that the organs be removed; that ministers only be permitted to baptize, and that the sign of the cross be omitted; that kneeling at the communion be left indifferent; that the use of copes and surplices be discontinued; that such that such gowns and caps as the enemies of Christ's gospel have chosen be not enforced on the ministers of his word; that the thirtythird article, which respects the punishment of not conforming to the ceremonies, be softened; and that all saints' feasts and holydays, bearing the name of a creature, be either abrogated, or commemorated only by a sermon, or some such exercise, adapted for the instruction of the people. f Dey, provost of Eton. Mullins, archdeacon of London. Spencer, archdeacon of Chiches ter. Croley, archdeacon of Hereford. CHAP. VII. This paper not being satisfactory, another, very similar to it, was introduced, on which a division took place that must have surprised and alarmed ELIZ. the high churchmen of that day. This paper con tained the following articles: I. That all the Sundays in the year, and principal feasts of Christ, be kept holydays; and all other holydays to be abrogated. II. That in all parish churches the minister in common prayer turn his face towards the people; and there distinctly read the divine service appointed, where all the people assembled may hear and be edified. III. That in ministering the sacrament of baptism, the ceremony of making the cross in the child's forehead may be omitted, as tending to superstition. IV. That, forasmuch as divers communicants are not able to kneel during the time of the communion, for age, sickness, and sundry other infirmities; and some also superstitiously both kneel and knock; that order of kneeling may be left to the discretion of the ordinary within his jurisdiction. V. That it be sufficient for the minister, in time of saying divine service, and ministering of the VII. CHAP. sacraments, to use a surplice; and that no minister say service, or minister the sacraments, but in a ELIZ. comely garment or habit. VI. That the use of organs be removed. This paper gave rise to an animated discussion in the house; some protesting with much warmth against the alterations proposed, and appealing to the virtues and wisdom of Cranmer and his associates, in defence of the existing ritual. But on a division it was found that of the clergy present forty-three were in favour of the alterations, and thirty-five against them: proxies, however, being allowed, they gave a majority of one to the opponents of concession. The final numbers, including proxies, were fifty-eight for, and fifty-nine against, the alterations proposed." So nearly did the puritan party triumph in this convocation. Outvoted by the smallest possible majority, their learning, character, and past services in the protestant cause gave them greater weight with the country than their opponents possessed. They were known to be the most uncompromising opponents of popery, and to have made the most costly sacrifices in support of their principles "Those," remarks sir 503. Strype's Annals, i. i. 502 "When they went to the suffrage," says Collier, "they found the innovators a considerable number; but, notwithstanding the struggle, the protesting party carried it. And thus the ceremonies and religious decorations continued in their former condition. However, 'tis plain by the contest, the Frankfort and Geneva precisians had no small interest. Many of the English exiles were willing to reform away the ornaments and SOlemnity of divine worship; and thought Calvin's platform a much better regulation than that of the primitive church. But God be thanked, the majority of our reformers had a different sense of these matters; and had more learning and judgment, more steadiness and resolution, than to be overruled with noise and novelty."-Eccl. Hist., ii. 486. |