The natural inference from the wording of the title would be that the Articles had been submitted to Convocation. There is evidence, however, which tends to show that they were never presented at all. Cranmer himself admitted that the title was added without his permission, and meant nothing more than that Convocation was sitting at the time.1 The Archbishop himself seems to have had the chief hand in the compilation of the Articles. Finally, they were published by the "King's Majesty's commandment," June 1553,3 and all beneficed clergy were ordered to sign them on pain of deprivation. King Edward, however, died in July of the same year, and all through Queen Mary's reign the Articles were in abeyance.

1559. THE ELEVEN ARTICLES.

After the accession of Elizabeth it was intended to revise the XLII. Articles, but meanwhile Arch

1 Cranmer's reply to Weston's question runs thus

"I was ignorant of the setting to of that title, and as soon as I had knowledge thereof I did not like it; therefore when I complained thereof to the Council, it was answered thus by them, that the book was so entitled because it was set forth in the time of Convocation."-Cranmer's Works, IV. pp. 64-65.

Cf. the words of Archdeacon Philpot in Convocation, Oct. 1553. In defence of the Catechism which had appeared under the same sanction as the Articles, he said

"This house had granted the authority to make ecclesiastical laws unto certain persons to be appointed by the King's Majesty; and whatsoever laws they, or the most part of them, did set forth, according to the statute in that behalf provided, it might be well said to be done in the Synod of London, although such as be of this house have had no notice thereof before the promulgation; and in this point he thought the setting forth thereof nothing to have slandered the house."-Britton, Horae Sacramentales, pp. 9-10.

2 In 1551 the Archbishop received an order from the King and Privy Council to frame a book of Articles of Religion for preserving and maintaining peace and unity of doctrine in the Church. "In obedience hereunto he drew up a set which were delivered to certain other bishops to be inspected and subscribed," &c. (Strype's Cranmer, p. 272). In May 1552 the Privy Council sent for these Articles. The Archbishop forwarded them on September 19th to Sir John Cheke. About the beginning of October they were, by the King's order, communicated to other divines, and on November 23rd the Council once more sent them to Cranmer for final revision, the Archbishop returning them the following day. The Articles were thus privately prepared, and were not the result of any public discussion in Convocation.

3 There was prefixed to the Articles "A shorte catechisme or playne instruction contaynynge the summe of Christian learning set fourth by the King's Majestie's authorities, for all schoolmaisters to teache." This was composed by Poinet, Bishop of Winchester.

bishop Parker drew up XI. Articles for circulation amongst the clergy. The meaning and force of such formularies is well illustrated by these Articles. They make the barest reference to the fundamentals of the Faith, merely affirming the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and referring to the Creeds, but they define the position of the Church of England upon points debated at the time. They lay down

(a) The authority of Scripture.

(b) The rights of National Churches, their power to decree ceremonies, &c.

(c) The rights of the State; the Royal, as against the Papal, Supremacy.

(d) Points of divergence from Rome.

Certain prac

tices, such as the use of images, relics, &c., and private masses, are condemned, and the right of the laity to partake of the cup is affirmed, but it is noteworthy that there is no condemnation of the doctrine of Transub

stantiation.

This is the most comprehensive of all the series of English Articles. Points debated amongst the Reformers are omitted, and even those who wished to hold Roman doctrine on the Sacraments might subscribe to these Articles, provided only they would accept the Royal Supremacy. The most prominent feature of this formulary is the assertion of the freedom from Papal interference of the National Church, which desires to embrace within itself the whole nation.

A few words should be said about

THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER, published in this same year, because it throws light upon the state of religious opinion in England at the time. It was the wish of the Queen, Parker, and Cecil to restore the first Prayer-Book of Edward VI., but this was soon found to be impossible, owing to the number and influence of the returned Marian exiles, whose wish it was to remodel the English Church after the pattern of Geneva. The most that could be done was to revive the second Prayer-Book of Edward, which was

of a much more strongly Reforming type than the first. Two very significant changes were however made, much to the annoyance of the returned refugees and their party.' (1.) In the Communion Office the words of administration from the first Book were prefixed to the words of administration as contained in the second Book. So long as the words of the second Book only were used, it might be maintained that that part of the service favoured Calvinistic and anti-sacramental doctrine; but the addition of the words from the first Book was understood at the time, and was doubtless intended, to imply a recognition of the Real Presence.

(2.) The "Ornaments Rubric" was inserted, which restored such vestments of the clergy and furniture of the Church" as were in this Church of England, by the authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth." What may be called the "Puritanism" of the Prayer-Book of 1552 was thus altogether neutralised.

1562-3. Convocation met in January of this year. XLII. Articles were presented. These were the XLII. Articles of 1553, which had been revised by Archbishop Parker, aided principally by Cox (Bishop of Ely) and Guest (Bishop of Rochester). Four of the XLII. Articles had been struck out, viz. :

(1.) On Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.

(2.) On Grace.

(3.) On the Moral Law [but part of this was incorporated with Art. VII.].

Their opinion is well illustrated by a letter of George Withers to the Elector Palatine

"The high Parliament of the whole realm was assembled, popery again cast out, and the second form of Prayers, which Edward left behind him at his death, was restored to the Church. But the ceremonies which, as was above stated, were retained in the Church at the first reformation of Edward, are restored under the same name. In what way the Sacraments are disfigured by human inventions will easily appear from the public form of prayer, the royal injunctions, and the admonitions, or (as they call them) the advertisements of the Bishops. What must we say when most of them (ie., the English clergy) are popish priests, consecrated to perform mass ?" -Zurich Letters, vol. ii. pp. 161-163.

(4.) Against the Millenarians.

Four Articles had been added, viz.:

(1.) On the Holy Ghost. (2.) On Good Works.

(3.) On the non-participation of the wicked in the Holy Communion.

(4.) On Communion in both kinds.

No less than seventeen Articles had been more or less modified. The Upper House of Convocation omitted three more Articles which condemned opinions no longer of much importance in the controversies of the time: these were:-.

Art. XXXIX. "The resurrection of the dead is not yet brought to pass."

Art. XL. "The souls of them that depart this life do neither die with the bodies nor sleep idly."

Art. XLII. "All men shall not be saved at length."

A few verbal changes were also made by Convocation. Thus the number of the Articles was reduced to ΧΧΧΙΧ.

In the Latin Articles sanctioned by the Queen two important changes were made :

---

(1.) A clause was added at the beginning of Art. XX. on the authority of the Church, "Habet

ecclesia ritus statuendi jus et in fidei controversiis auctoritatem."

(2.) Article XXIX., on the non-participation of the wicked, was struck out.

The Articles, thus reduced to the number of XXXVIII. by the omission of Article XXIX., were published in 1563 as agreed upon by the Archbishoppes and Bishoppes of both prouinces and the whole cleargie, in the Conuocation holden at London in the yere of our Lord God MDLXII. . . for the auoiding of the diuersities of opinions, and for the stablishyng of consent touching true religion." They do not seem, however, to have met with general acceptance between 1563 and 1571. In the lastnamed year they were re-issued both in Latin and

1571.

English, with the addition of the Article struck out by the Queen in 1563, and thus, forming XXXIX. in number, were subscribed by both Houses of Convocation. Subscription was enforced by Act of Parliament, being required from all clergy, and from all taking degrees at the Universities.1

In this same year the REFORMATIO LEGUM was brought into Parliament. The "Submission of Clergy" had provided that no new canons could be put forth by the clergy without the Royal sanction. The old Canon Law remained in force, but it was agreed that it should be revised by a Commission. Three times in Henry's reign a statute was passed for the appointment of the commissioners,2 but it is not clear that any revision took place. By 3 & 4 Edward VI. 11, the king was empowered to appoint thirty-two persons to compile such ecclesiastical laws as should be thought convenient." The Commission was appointed in October 1551, but in the next year the time allowed by the Act expired, and the work had not been completed. In the Parliament which met in 1571 an attempt was made to revive the " Refor matio Legum," but the attempt failed, and after this date the book disappears from Church history. As matters now stand, the Canons of the Church universal are binding in this country when they have been accepted by English synods, and are not contrary to the statute law of the land. The "Reformatio Legum' has thus no authority whatever, but its statements, especially in the section "De Hæresibus," illustrate the Articles, as they often throw light upon the controversies of the time.

1 The second section of the "Act for ministers of the Church to be of sound Religion" (13 Eliz. c. 12) contains the following passage :—

2

"If any person ecclesiastical, or which shall have any ecclesiastical living, shall advisedly maintain or affirm any doctrine directly contrary or repugnant to any of the said Thirty-Nine Articles, and being convicted before the Bishop of the diocese, or the Ordinary, or before the Queen's Commissioner in causes ecclesiastical, shall persist therein, or not revoke his error, or, after such revocation, affirm such untrue doctrine, such maintaining, or affirming, or persisting, shall be just cause to deprive such person of his ecclesiastical functions, and it shall be lawful for the Bishop of the diocese, or Ordinary, or such Commissioner, to deprive such person."

25 Hen. VIII. 19; 27 Hen. VIII. 15; and 35 Hen. VIII. 16.