Variations in the title. By whom was composed? According to one of the present versions1 they are entitled 'Articles devised by the King's Highness,' &c., and are said to have been also approved by the consent and determination of the hole clergie of this realme:' while another copy describes them as 'Articles about Religion, set out by the Convocation, and published by the King's The authority.' The former of these titles has created a belief that the original document was fashioned by the king himself, when he had witnessed the inextricable feuds in which the upper and lower houses were gradually entangled; nor is other testimony wanting which will give to such hypothesis an air of plausibility. In the royal 'Injunctions' issued during the same year (1536), it is stated that certain Articles were lately devised and put forthe by the King's highnesse authority, and condescended upon by the prelates and clergy of this his realme in Convocation3.' In like manner he declares in a letter written at the same juncture, that the growing discord of the realm constrained him to put his own pen to the book, and to conceive certain Articles, which were by all the bishops and whole clergy of the realm in Convocation. agreed on as catholic4;' and he proceeds to charge the bishops, whom he is addressing, openly in their cathedrals and elsewhere, to read and declare what he entitles 'our said Articles,' plainly and without additions of their own. 6 But though such passages appear to claim the authorship of the Articles absolutely for the king himself, it is most difficult to reconcile that supposition with what is stated in the royal Declaration prefixed to them in nearly all existing copies. Henry there states that being credibly advertised of the diversity of opinions which prevailed in all parts of England, he had 'not only in his own person 1 See the edition of Thomas Berthelet (the king's printer), Lond. 1536, reprinted in the Appendix. This was also the title in Fox's copy, p. 1093. 2 In Burnet, Addend. to Vol. 1. 459 seqq. from a MS. in the Cotton Library (Cleop. E. V. fol. 59). 3 Wilkins, III. 813. 4 Ibid. 825. From this passage, without reference to any other, and with no attempt to weigh the evidence dispassionately, Mr Froude (Hist. III. 67) assigns the whole merit of the document to his royal hero. at many times taken great pain, study, labours, and travails, but also had caused the bishops, and other the most discreet and best learned men of the clergy to be assembled in Convocation, for the full debatement and quiet determination of the same.' conclusion. After weighing all this evidence together, the most Most natural natural inference is, that a rough draft of the Articles was made by a committee1, consisting of the moderate divines of each party, and presided over by the king himself, or placed in frequent communication with him by means of the 'vicar-general.' After various modifications had been introduced to meet the wishes of discordant members, and the censorship of the royal pen had been completed2, the draft was probably submitted to the upper house of Convocation, and perhaps was made to undergo some further criticism at the hands of the remaining prelates who had not assisted in the compilation. There is also ample reason for concluding that the edition printed by Berthelet, in 1536, contains the most authentic record of the Articles; partly on account of the correction, in that copy, of errors which are found in the Cotton Manuscript, and partly from the subsequent incorporation of the Articles as there printed with the 'Institution of a Christian Man,' which was made public in the following year3. Subscrip A further discrepancy of importance has been noticed Two lists of in the different copies of the Articles, apart from certain tions. 1 Strype (Cranmer, Lib. I. c. xi.; 1. 83, ed. E. H. S.) conjectures that the Archbishop of Canterbury had 'a great share therein,' but gives no proof or reason. Archbishop Laurence has noticed a correspondence between the article on justification and the definition contained in Melancthon's Loci Theologici (Bampton Lectures, p. 201, Oxf. 1838), which, together with the Lutheran tendency of some of the other Articles, would point to the influence of Cranmer, and the reforming party. Professor Blunt, relying on evidence adduced by the same writer, believes that Burnet, III. 237, states that he ster. 3 Formularies of Faith, p. vii. Oxf. 1825. Transitional character of minor points, to be exhibited hereafter. Of the two lists of subscriptions as preserved by Collier, one is considerably shorter than the other. The first was derived from a Manuscript in the State-Paper Office, from which also he has printed the copy of the Articles1 contained in his 'History of the Church.' It may have been intended as a record for the single province of Canterbury, since we find in it the signatures of those members only who belonged to the southern jurisdiction. The second and much longer list of assentients is transmitted in the Cotton Manuscript2 alluded to above: and as that list includes the names of both the Archbishops, we are almost entitled to conjecture that in the final sanctioning of the manifesto, the convocations of Canterbury and York had learned for once to act in concert3, as a kind of national synod. We may now pass forward from this sketch of the external history of the Articles, to a consideration of their purport and contents. As seen by us, from the position we now occupy, those these Articles. Articles belong to a transition-period. They embody the ideas of men who were emerging gradually into a different sphere of thought, who could not for the present contemplate the truth they were recovering, either in its harmonies or contrasts, and who consequently did not shrink from acquiescing in accommodations and concessions, which to riper understandings might have seemed like the betrayal of a sacred trust. It is It is ungenerous to suppose with Fox, that both the king and the reforming members of the council had deliberately consented to adulterate the Gospel, through false tenderness for 'weakelings, which were newely weyned from their mother's milke of Rome;' and yet we must allow, on a minute comparison of the fruits of the discussion with the principles avowed in different stages of its progress, that the leading speakers on both 1 Probably one of the earliest drafts, as we may argue from its incompleteness, and the absence of the royal Declaration. Ibid. 2 A facsimile of the signatures is prefixed to Vol. I. of Dodd's Church History, ed. Tierney. 3 Lathbury, Hist. of Convocation, P. 125, 2nd ed. tencies in sides were often willing to recast or modify their system. They were treading upon ground of which but few of them Inconsis as yet had any certain knowledge, and we need not, there- some who fore, wonder if the best among them sometimes stumbled, or completely lost his way. A singular example of this want of firmness or consistency is traceable in the conduct of the honest Latimer. Although a sermon which he preached at the assembling of the Convocation is distinguished by a resolute assault on the received doctrine of purgatory1, he was ultimately induced to sign a statement of the Articles, in which men are enjoined to 'pray for the souls of the departed in masses and exequies, and to give alms to other to pray for them, whereby they may be relieved and holpen of some part of their pain. In the same way, bishop Fox, according to his namesake, was disinclined to lay stress upon the testimonies of 'doctors and scholemen, forsomuch as they doe not all agree in like matters, neither are they stedfast among themselves in all poyntes;'-a sentiment, in which he was but echoing the stronger speech of Cromwell. Nevertheless the names of both are found appended to the document, wherein it is absolutely enjoined that all bishops and preachers shall construe the words of Holy Writ according to the Catholic Creeds, and as the holy approved doctors of the Church do entreat and defend the same3.' If these and other like examples all betray the not unnatural oscillation of men's minds, while contemplating the disputed questions of the Reformation-period, they evince still more completely both the magnitude and depth of the disturbing forces which then operated in all quarters. And the Articles of 1536 are a reflection and expression of the same internal struggles. 1 See above, p. 36, note (2). 2 In Collier's copy, most probably an early draft, the language here italicized was much softer, but it still involved the doctrine against which bishop Latimer had protested. It is of course just possible that 3 Art. I. subscribed them. Art. i. Art. ii. The first of them declares that 'the fundamentals of religion are comprehended in the whole body and canon of the Bible, and also in the three Creeds or symbols: whereof one was made by the Apostles, and is the common creed which every man useth; the second was made by the holy council of Nice, and is said daily in the mass; and the third was made by Athanasius, and is comprehended in the Psalm Quicunque vult.' It adds that whosoever shall obstinately affirm the contrary, he or they cannot be the very members of Christ and His espouse the Church, but be very infidels and heretics and members of the devil, with whom they shall perpetually be damned.' It also recognises the authority of the four holy councils, that is to say, the council of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedonense,' and repudiates the heresies condemned in all those synods. This article was probably directed against the tenets of the 'Anabaptists,' many of whom denied (as we shall see hereafter) both the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and of the Saviour's Incarnation. The second article relates to the Sacrament of Baptism, and was still more obviously intended to repel the same class of misbelievers, as we gather from internal evidence. It declares that baptism was instituted by our Saviour ‘as a thing necessary for the attaining of everlasting life' (John iii.); that by it all, as well infants as such as have the use of reason, obtain 'remission of sins, and the grace and favour of God;' that infants and innocents ought to be baptized, because the promise of everlasting life pertains to them also; that dying in their infancy they 'shall undoubtedly be saved thereby, and else not;' that they must be 'christened because they be born in original sin,' and this sin can only be remitted by the sacrament of baptism, whereby they receive the Holy Ghost;' that rebaptization is inadmissible; that the opinions of Anabaptists and Pelagians are 'detestable heresies ;' that in 'men or children having the use of reason,' repentance and faith are needed in order to the efficacy of baptism. |