XVI.

CHAP. every peer from taking the oath*. The archbishop of Canterbury also, by the queen's order, enjoined the bishops not to tender the oath unless in a case of necessity, and never to press it a second time without his special direction. But he desired that these suggestions might not be interpreted as if he were a favourer of obstinate recusants. 66 My design," he said, " is only to recommend the governing our flocks with a pastoral care, it being part of our character not to be swayed by resentment and private regards, but to proceed by gentle motions, and endeavour to gain the misled by methods of lenity +.

The convocation in which the articles of the church of England and the standard of doctrine Jan. 13. were finally settled, was opened at Saint Paul's on

the day following the meeting of parliament. Day, the provost of Eton, preached the sermon, and the archbishop, in his address, informed the clergy that they had now an opportunity of reforming all ecclesiastical abuses and corruptions: he added, that the queen and the nobility were equally desirous of such a reformation. He then dismissed the lower house to choose its prolocutor, and they elected Alexander Nowell, lately made dean of Saint Paul's, to fill that honourable place.

The queen having granted a licence to the convocation to review the doctrine and discipline of the church, its doctrines were first taken into consideration, and the convocation proceeded with the articles as the parliament had proceeded with the hiturgy. They took the articles of king Edward *Stat. 5 Elizabeth, c. 1.

* Strype's Life of Archbishop Parker.

A. D. 1562.

as the basis of the English confession, and made such alterations as the existing state of Christendom demanded. The alterations are neither Elizabeth. few nor unimportant, and, where they are capable of historical illustration, will necessarily require explanation. If the records of the convocation had been preserved, it would have been easy to trace the variations between the articles of Edward and Elizabeth to their right source; but their cause must now be left to conjecture, in some cases probable, but never amounting to certainty. Some of the alterations, doubtless, must have originated in a change of opinion, and others in a change of circumstances. The extinction of old errors, or the introduction of new, must have rendered it expedient to soften certain articles, and to give a more determinate mode of expression to others.

An appeal to the private sentiments of the reformers is not the safest method of ascertaining the grammatical construction or fixing the doubtful sense of a particular article; but it is an infallible criterion of the spirit and tendency of the whole confession. It is right, therefore, to state the characters of those who were engaged in the revival of the articles, and the circumstances in which the reformers were placed..

It has been already mentioned, that the articles of Edward were the work of Cranmer and Ridley; the articles of Elizabeth were framed by Parker, aided principally by Jewel. The articles of Edward were drawn up, as it has been seen, when the council of Trent was renewed under Julius the Third; the articles of Elizabeth were published,

XVI.

1562.

CHAP. when, after a long intermission, the Tridentine council re-assembled under the pontificate of Pius the Fourth. The reformers of Edward were too intimately connected with the foreign protestant churches to receive an invitation to assist in its deliberations; but Elizabeth, who followed the example of her father, experienced greater courtesy; and not only a papal nuncio was sent to solicit her attendance, but a personal solicitation was sent to Jewel. After the refusal of Elizabeth's council to suffer Martinengo to come into the kingdom, Scipio, a noble Venetian, a friend of Jewel, at Padua, laboured by a private application to gain that point, which the nuncio could not gain as a public minister*. Scipio expostulated with Jewel on the singular conduct of the English nation, in taking no notice of the council of Trent, by neither sending representatives, nor excusing their absence; that it argued pride as well as schism not to appear at the council on the summons of the pope; that at Trent was assembled the learning of Christendom, and the piety of the catholic church; and that to adjust religious differences, as the English were about to settle them, was an attempt equally impious and fruitless.

Jewel, in his reply, disclaimed any participation in the late resolution of the English government of refusing to receive the nuncio; but freely delivered his sentiments on the propriety of that refusal. The English was not the only nation which refused to appear at the council of Trent, for the patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria declined to come; and in Europe the king* Life of Jewel.

A. D.

1562.

doms of Sweden and Denmark, many of the Germanic states, and of the Swiss republics, had no representatives. Having defended the nation from Elizabeth. the charge of singularity, he proved that its refusal was justified by the most cogent reasons. The ancient fathers always declined to appear at councils which were notoriously partial and prejudiced; and Jewel, after having adduced many instances, applied them to the case in point. He expressed his surprise that the pope should summon the English to the council, who had been pronounced heretics by his predecessor. In what character could they appear? Why must they take so long a journey to plead as criminals? They could expect only the alternative of being obliged to recant, or of incurring the anathema of the council *.

With this recorded protestation of Jewel against the authority of the council of Trent; with the indisputable fact, that he was principally concerned in forming the articles of Elizabeth; it is impossible to suppose that there was any disposition in the church of England to homology with the church of Rome. Whatever conciliation might be shown to the Romanists in the revisal of the liturgy, there was no concession of a single point of doctrine.

Thus the article of Elizabeth, "On the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation †," more directly opposes the council of Trent than the correspondent article of Edward ‡. Both arti

* Epist. Jewel. It is inserted at the end of the History of the Council of Trent, by Sleidan; and also bound up with his Apology, in an edition printed in 1685.

† Art. 6.

VOL. II.

+ Art. 5.

E

XVI.

CHAP. cles affirm that the Scriptures are a complete rule of faith, and that the Christian religion is contained in them, and in them alone; but the article of Elizabeth distinguishes the canonical books of Scripture from the apocryphal, and the books belonging to each class are enumerated. The council of Trent has declared the canonical and apocryphal books of Scripture to be of equal authority, and to reduce them to a more palpable equality, the Romanists have intermingled them in their editions of the Old Testament. The English church on the contrary has classified the books of Scripture under the respective divisions of canonical and apocryphal, and has affirmed of the latter, that they are to be read "for example of life and instruction of manners,' but not to be applied" to establish any doctrine."

All the articles of Edward, levelled against the errors of the church of Rome, such as that of purgatory*, of works of supererogation †, of performing divine service in an unknown tongue ‡, of the nature and number of the sacraments §, have been retained in the articles of Elizabeth. The only article which has been selected to show that the reformers, on their revisal of Edward's articles, abated the terms of communion in favour of the papists, is that on the sacrament of the Lord's supper. It has been alleged that the article was mutilated to bring the Romanists into the communion of the church; that an express definition against the real presence was thought to be offensive to many of that persuasion; and therefore it was deemed sufficient to condemn transubIbid. 24.

* Art. 14.

§ Ibid. 25.

† Ibid. 22.

|| Ibid. 28.