stantiation, and to affirm that Christ was present A.D. after a spiritual manner, and received by faith*. 1562. If the reformers of Elizabeth, in their abridge- Elizabeth. ment of this article, were actuated by such an intention, they were not guided by their usual soundness of judgment: but that they had any such intention may be safely denied. The metaphysical argument of the impossibility that a human body should be at one and the same time in many places," is by no means the strongest argument against transubstantiation. Metaphysical arguments might be applied with equal success to disprove any of the mysterious doctrines of Christianity. Why is Transubstantiation rejected, and the Trinity retained by the church of England? Not because the doctrine of the Trinity is within the reach of human comprehension, but because it is deducible "from the plain words of Scripture ;" because it has been the belief of the primitive church, and because it is consistent with the scheme of human redemption. All these arguments Transubstantiation wants. It is "repugnant to the plain words of Scripture;" it "overthroweth the nature of a sacrament;" it cannot be proved to have been the belief of the Christian church for the first nine centuries, and it "hath given occasion to many superstitions." These arguments the article retains; to have urged more would have been undoubtedly superfluous; and to have omitted the weakest cannot be interpreted into a disposition to temporize. If this omission were one of those * Burnet's History of the Reformation, vol. ii. b, 3. This he calls the secret of the omission. XVI. CHAP. things which drove the ancient puritans out of the established church*, it only proves their want of judgment, or their want of charity. That no undue concession to the Romanists was intended is evident, from the circumstance that all the other articles of Edward were retained which are inconsistent with transubstantiation. To affirm that the wicked do not receive Christ's body and bloodt, is the same thing with denying that Christ is corporally present in the sacrament. To affirm that both parts of the sacrament are "to be ministered to all Christian men alike‡," is to deny the Romish doctrine of concomitance, which is built on that of the corporal presence. To affirm that the one oblation of Christ is a perfect satisfaction for sin§, is to deny the sacrifice in the mass, and the use of private masses, which cannot subsist without transubstantiation. Having thus considered the articles of Elizabeth in reference to the church of Rome, there are some other alterations which relate to controversies subsisting among protestants. In the article of Edward, entitled "Of the going down of Christ into Hell ||," a determinate sense was annexed to this fundamental tenet of the creed: it was added, that the body of Christ lay in the grave until his resurrection; but his spirit, which he gave up, was with the spirits which were detained in prison, or in hell, and there preached to them, according to the testimony of Saint Peter. The reformers of Elizabeth, whatever might be their * Confessional, c. 4. Note. + Ibid. 30. § Ibid. 31. || Ibid. 3. A. D. 1562. private interpretation of this article, avoided any authoritative explanation in an article of faith, and were satisfied simply to quote the words of the Elizabeth. apostles' creed, without affixing to them a literal or a figurative meaning. A similar latitude of opinion was left by the reformers of Elizabeth on certain points, which the articles of Edward had decided in peremptory terms. The four last articles of Edward-“ 1. That the resurrection of the dead is not already past," as if the resurrection were spoken figuratively only of the soul; 2. That the souls of the deceased do not perish with their bodies, nor sleep without sense till the last day; 3. That the millennium is contrary to the Scriptures, and a Jewish dotage; 4. That all men shall at last be saved, though never so ungodly;"-were omitted by the reformers of Elizabeth. The reason of the omission was not that a decided change in opinion had taken place with respect to these points; but they either related to errors which, as they had been exploded, it was needless formally to condemn; or to questions on which difference of opinion might safely exist, and which ought to be left to private judgment. The articles of Elizabeth, considered with respect to the controversies among protestants, enlarged the terms of communion, by their omissions of many points of doubtful disputation. The additions which they contain are not on points of a controversial nature; but it is necessary to advert to the enlargement of two articles, though on subjects widely different. The twentieth article, "On the Authority of the XVI. CHAP. Church," is chiefly remarkable, because it has given rise to a charge of interpolation. In its present form it consists of two parts, the first asserting a power in the church to decree rites and ceremonies, and to judge in matters of faith; the second limiting this power, and submitting it to the rule of Scripture: but it has been disputed whether the first clause was originally a part of the article as drawn up by the reformers of Elizabeth. That the clause is not to be found in the corresponding article of Edward proves nothing against its genuineness: the strongest argument for its interpolation is its omission in the two manuscripts of the articles preserved in the library of Corpus Christi college, in the university of Cambridge. But that these manuscripts are originals is a point which remains to be proved; and it is certain that the questionable clause occurs in the earliest printed edition of the articles. The records of the convocation being destroyed, it is impossible now to appeal to an evidence which would be conclusive; but in the time of archbishop Laud these records were in existence, and when examined by him the clause was found, and they were afterwards inspected by Heylin, who confirms the testimony of Laud. Fuller declares that he is unable to decide the question; but Fuller is not superior to Heylin in candour, and far below him in accuracy. Besides, it is not certain that Fuller had the same privilege of perusing the records of convocation with Laud and Heylin. The diligent and impartial researches of Strype ended in favour of the genuineness of the clause. The question is now 1562. purely one of literary curiosity, because the article A. D. with the disputed clause was afterwards confirmed by parliament. The thirty-fifth article relates to the homilies. When the articles of Edward were compiled, there was but a single book, consisting only of twelve; but at the end there was an announcement that more were to follow*. Another book was completed about the time of Edward's death, but was not published. The common error must therefore be corrected, that the second book of homilies was the work of Elizabeth's reign, and that Jewel was its principal composer: whereas it was the work of Edward's reign, and must be attributed to Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer. In the thirty-fifth article, the titles of the second book of homilies are enumerated, and one historical observation must not be forgotten. The last homily, against rebellion, was not composed till some years after the articles had been confirmed by parliament, and it was then added to the others. From the homily itself, and from the prayer at its conclusion, it appears to have been penned after the rebellion of the earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland, at a time when the nation was suffering under a civil war. After repeating that the design of this work does not embrace an exposition of the articles, and that the observations already offered have an historical reference, it remains to be observed, that the articles were concluded, and the subscription finished, in the chapter-house of Saint Paul's, in the ninth * Hereafter shall follow sermons of fasting, prayer, almsdeeds, &c. Postscript to first book of homilies, p. 146, 8vo. Oxford edit. 1822. Elizabeth. |