Charles Hardwick. "History of the Articles." Chapter 5, 66-72: "42 Articles."

Charles Hardwick. "History of the Articles." Chapter 5, 66-72: "42 Articles." We'll be spending alot of time in this section, the period between 1549-1553, especially on these 42 Articles. This is a very able work by Hardwick. First appearances, Cranmer was not Zwinglian and not Lutheran, but Reformed. We know that by 1550, he was a firm and well-researched predestinarian which affected his view of the sacraments, notably baptism (cf. MacCullough's Cranmer). Cranmer also was not a rash, slash-and-burn Puritan, but was cautious, temperate, and scholarly--hallmarks of Anglicanism. More as this story emerges on the close relationship between the 42 and 39 Articles.

An history of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion of the Church of England, a temperate history.

http://www.archive.org/stream/ahistoryarticle00hardgoog/ahistoryarticle00hardgoog_djvu.tx

-------------------------------
CHAPTER V.

THE XLII. ARTICLES OF 1553.

THE death of Henry, which took place in 1547, like that of Luther in the previous year, excited a most lively joy among the members of the counter-reformation party then assembled at Trent. Their triumph was, however, premature, and in so far as it related to ourselves, was utterly illusive for the reign of Edward VI.was destined to extend the breach already opened by his predecessor, and established the whole structure of the English Reformation on a deeper and more permanent basis. The reactionary school, with Gardiner its chieftain, was discredited and rapidly displaced; it had no chance of counterworking the determined spirits who stood first in royal favour; and if like apprehension mingled with the joy of sober and devout reformers, it was prompted by misgivings lest the boyish flexibility of the monarch should be used by an ill-regulated zeal or by political partisanship for propelling the more sanguine of his subjects into rash and revolutionary changes.

Of the men, who were raised up to guide their country through the perils of that stormy crisis, and who finally succeeded in rebuilding for us what has proved itself a sanctuary not only from the malice of the Romanist, but also from a flood of Puritanical innovations, none was so illustrious and untiring as the primate of all England. After granting that the life of Cranmer was disfigured here and there by human blemishes; after granting that the caution and timidity of his nature had degenerated, on some rare occasions, into weakness and irresolution, he is still, if we regard him fairly as a whole, among the brightest worthies of his age: to him we are indebted, under God, for much of the sobriety of tone that marks the English Reformation, or in other words, for the accordance of our present system with the Apostolic models.

For this reason it becomes important to inquire into the leading principles of Cranmer in the years immediately after the accession of king Edward; since although we ought not to identify the teaching of the Church with that of individual writers, the opinions of a man like Cranmer must have always exercised a mighty influence on the public formularies of the age). An answer to our question has been partly furnished by the fact, that in the first year of the new reign (1548), he had ‘set forth' an English Catechism, of a distinctly Lutheran stamp indeed originally composed in German and translated into Latin, by Justus Jonas the elder, one of Luther's bosom friends. With the exception of one single tenet, on the "nature and manner of the Presence in the holy Eucharist,” the views of Cranmer afterwards underwent no variation with respect to any of the agitated questions of that day. His predilections were again most clearly manifested in the framing of the First Service-Book of Edward VI., which came into use on Whitsunday, 1549 ; for, like the kindred compilations of the Saxon reformers our own Prayer Book is substantially derived from old or Medieval Liturgies, — the Daily Service from the Sarum Portiforium, and the Office for the Holy Communion from the Sarum Missal.

The conservative temper, everywhere displayed in the adoption of these measures, is still more discernible contrasting the English Prayer Book, as originally arranged by Cranmer and his colleagues, with the earliest forms of worship substituted for the Mediaeval services by Zwingli and the German-speaking Swiss; or with the less denuded system subsequently introduced by Calvin at Geneva. Of the latter even it has been remarked, with equal justice and severity, that Calvin chose rather to become an author than a compiler, preferring the task of composing a new Liturgy to that of reforming an old one. And the Second Prayer Book of king Edward, though considerably modified, and maimed (as some have thought) in more than one particular, evinced no disposition to withdraw from the traditional ground on which its predecessor had been planted. The great bulk of the materials out of which it was constructed are the heirloom of far distant ages ; so that while it practically bears witness to the continuity of Church-life, it illustrates the guiding spirit of the English reformers.

Deference to the general teaching of the past is also traceable on every page of the first book of Homilies (1547), and more especially perhaps in those portions which are known to have proceeded from the pen of archbishop Cranmer: while even his polemical Treatises on the vexed question of the Eucharist, in which, if ever, he has been occasionally betrayed into the use of language varying from the primitive standards, all abound with fresh professions of adherence to the doctors of the Early Church. Lest any man, he writes, 'should think that I feign anything of mine own head, without any other ground or authority, you shall hear, by God's grace, as well the errors of the papists confuted, as the Catholic truth defended, both by God's sacred Word, and also by the most old approved authors and martyrs of Christ's Church.' And again: ‘This is the true Catholic faith, which the Scripture teacheth and the universal Church of Christ hath ever believed from the beginning, until within these four or five hundred years past, that the bishop of Rome, with the assistance of his papists, hath set up a new faith and belief of their own devising.' Or to take another extract from his memorable appeal, in 1556, when he was standing on the very brink of death : ‘Touching my doctrine of the sacrament, and other my doctrine, of what kind soever it be, I protest that it was never my mind to write, speak, or understand, anything contrary to the most Holy Word of God, or else against the holy Catholic Church of Christ; but purely and simply to imitate and teach those things only which 1 had learned of the Sacred Scripture and of the holy Catholic Church of Christ from the beginning; and also according to the exposition of the most holy and learned Fathers and Martyrs of the Church.'

Carrying with us, therefore, these important indications of the kind of influence which presided over the construction of our later Formularies of Faith, we pass to the particular inquiry opened in the present chapter. It has seemed surprising to most writers, that so long an interval was suffered to elapse from the death of Henry VIII. in 1547, to the publication of the XLII. Articles in 1553; because a consequence had been, that the ‘Necessary Doctrine of a Christian Man' continued to be one of the accredited standards of belief, so far as it was not repressed or overruled by the more recent teaching of the Homilies, the Ordinal, and the Prayer-Book. Now, whatever else may have contributed to this delay, one cause must be unquestionably sought for in a scheme which Cranmer cherished at the time, with the idea of embracing all Reformed communions in one great society. The thought had been suggested as far back as 1539, in a letter of Melancthon to king Henry VIIL It was revived in 1542, and afterwards propounded more distinctly at the opening of the reign of Edwards. Captivated by a project, which, in days of controversy and religious isolation, was peculiarly attractive to a mind like his, archbishop Cranmer lost no time in his arrangements for attempting its immediate execution. In July 1548, we find some learned men arriving from the continent upon this errand; and although Melancthon's slackness to participate in the new plan appears to have deferred and ultimately to have frustrated the business of the conference, the anxiety of Cranmer to secure the help of Saxon theologians is evinced by his repeated applications, one of which was sent to them as late as March 1552. Their slackness, and especially Melancthon's, may have been occasioned in some measure by political perplexities, and the domestic troubles of the Wittenberg reformers; but the failure of the scheme of comprehension they had been invited to consider, is attributable to its own inherent difficulties. A congress of the kind now contemplated by the English primate, was to be attended not by Lutherans only nor by members of the ‘mediating school' as represented by the pliant Bucer, but also by the different shades of Swiss reformers, who were now beginning to exert some influence in England. The discussions must have therefore turned ere long upon the doctrine of the Eucharist, respecting which, as had been shewn by recent effors, there was little or no hope of harmony between the Saxon and the Swiss divines. Indeed, a letter written by John Laski (July 19, 1548), before his own arrival in England,represents the calming of the ‘sacramentary contention,' as the principal object of the meeting : and though Cranmer (March 24, 1552) was himself desirous of extending the discussion to a great variety of controverted topics, — to 'all the heads of ecclesiastical doctrine, and not only to the things themselves, but also to the forms of speech,' — he could not wait to hear amid dissensions on the ‘sacrament of unity,' a most emphatic reason for the course he had pursued.

We have no means of ascertaining the precise time at which this theory was abandoned; but it is indisputable that some such project was still cherished both by Cranmer and his friends long after they began to fashion a domestic Formulary. A sketch of the new document, which constitutes, as we have reason to believe, the basis of our present Articles, appears to have been made as early as the autumn of 1549, if not, indeed, still earlier. In a letter from Micronius to Bullinger, dated London, May 28, 1550, we discover that some kind of Articles had been already offered as a test to Hooper; and the following extract from one of Hooper's own epistles, bearing date Feb. 27, 1549, enables us to carry back the origin of such Articles into the previous year: ‘The archbishop of Canterbury entertains right views as to the nature of Christ's presence in the Supper, and is now very friendly towards myself. He has some Articles of Religion to which all preachers and lecturers in divinity are required to subscribe, or else a licence for teaching is not granted them' This statement is repeated Feb. 5, 1550,'and with no expression of distrust or disapproval; yet on Hooper's nomination to the see of Gloucester (May 15, 1650), he objected strongly, as will be hereafter noticed more at length, to three important members of the series.

The existence of a code of Articles, so early in reign of Edward, was unknown until the publication of the letters just referred to. Strype, and others following in his track, assigned the preparation of such a document to the summer of 1551 ; the king and privy council having then directed ‘the archbishop to frame a book of Articles of Religion, for the preserving and maintaining peace and unity of doctrine in this Church, that being finished they might be set forth by public authority.' If this statement be correct, the series which the primate had been using as a test of doctrine, for at least two years, was either an early draft of the great Formulary afterwards issued as the XLII. Articles, or else was a distinct production of his own, as well as circulated on his own authority. The former supposition is more probable, on various grounds, especially when we bear in mind that Cranmer is himself declared to be the principal forerunner of both documents. But be this as it may, we are entirely justified in stating that the work which grew at last into the Articles of Religion, was transferred by Cranmer, long before its final publication, to the other English prelates. It remained with them until the spring of the following year (1552), when a communication from the privy council, bearing date May 2nd, called on the Archbishop to send the Articles that ‘were delivered the last year (1551) to the bishops, and to signify whether the same were set forth by any public authority, according to the minutes.' They were now forwarded to the council in obedience to this order, but soon afterwards appear to have returned to the Archbishop, in whose hands they remained until Sept. 19. He next digested them more carefully, and after adding titles and some supplementary clauses, sent a copy of them to Sir Wm. Cecil and Sir John Cheke, the lay patrons of the Reformation at the court,' desiring their opinion and revision. The document was finally submitted to the king himself, with a request that measures might be taken to secure for it authority, entitling prelates to enforce it as a test on all the clergy of both provinces.

Delays, however, still continued to intervene; for on the 2nd (or 21st) of the following October a letter was addressed to six royal chaplains, Harley, Bill, Home, Grindaiy Peme, and Knox, directing them to 'consider certaine Articles exhibited to the Kinges Majesty, to be subscribed by all suche as shal be admitted to be preachers or ministers in any part of the realme and to make report of theyr opinions touching the same.' At this particular stage the Articles, though not in substance very different from the final issue, were forty-five in number, and entitled ‘Articles concerning an Uniformite in Religion.’ Having passed this further scrutiny, the work was remitted (Nov. 20) to the archbishop at one of his country houses, for the ‘last corrections of his judgment and his pen;' and on the 24th of the same month he sent it to the council, accompanied by the following observations: ‘I have sent unto the same [your good lordships] the Book of Articles, which yesterday I received from your lordships. I have sent also a schedule inclosed, declaring briefly my mind upon the said book; beseeching your lordships to be means unto the King's majesty, that all the bishops may have authority from him to cause all their preachers, archdeacons, deans, prebendaries, parsons, vicars, curates, with all their clergy, to subscribe to the said Articles. And then I trust that such a concord and quietness in religion shall shortly follow thereof, as else it is not to be looked for many years.'

How far the fresh procrastination of the court was due to the assembling of Convocation in the following March, or how far it was connected with the scruples felt in certain quarters on the use of anti-Zwinglian phraseology in speaking of the Sacraments, we may determine more conveniently hereafter. It is now important to observe, that in compliance with Cranmer's wish a mandate (June 19, 1553) was issued, in the name of the King, to the officials of the province of Canterbury, requiring them to see that the new Formulary was publicly subscribed; and in the few remaining days of Edward's reign, the order was obeyed, to some extent at least, in two or three dioceses of the realm.

There can be no doubt, however, that a fortnight or three weeks before this date, the Articles had been in general circulation; as we learn, among other sources, from the following title: ‘Articles agreed on by the bishops and other learned men in the synod at London, in the year of our Lord 1552 [=1553], for the avoiding of controversy in opinions, and the establishment of a godly concord in certain matters of religion. Published by the King's Majesty's commandment, in the month of May, 1553.

Articles are said to have been ' agreed on by the bishops and other learned and godly men in the last Convocation (in ultima synodo), A.D. 1552 [=1553], but in describing their object the language somewhat varies from that employed above, in Grafton's copy.

It has been remarked already, that the earliest draft of this important manifesto was made by archbishop Cranmer, and by him submitted to a series of revisions over eighteen months, and probably a longer period. With the sole exception of the form it had assumed when in the hands of the royal chaplains (Oct. 1552) we have no definite means of judging as to the degree of modification it was made to undergo in the course of this protracted criticism ; and yet the letter of the King to Ridley, bearing date June 9, 1553, as well as that of the Archbishop to Cecil in the previous September, lead us to suppose that the amount of alteration had been considerable ; for it describes the Articles, which were then publishing in their final form, as ‘devised and gathered with great study, and hy counsel and good advice of the greatest learned part of our bishops of this realm and sundry others of our clergy.’ We are, therefore, justified in concluding that the work had been submitted to a searching criticism, and gradually amended by a number of auxiliary hands, before subscription to it was enforced upon the clergy by royal mandate.

Some of the uncertainty in which this question has been long enveloped, is dispelled by records appertaining to the visitations of bishop Hooper in 1551 and 1552, — the very time, as we have seen, in which the Articles were in process of formation, but not publicly enjoined by Convocation or the Crown. In one of his pastoral letters to the clergy of Gloucester, bearing date 1551, and signifying his intention to visit that diocese in the following summer, he informs them that 'according to the talent and gift given him of the Lord, he collected and gathered out of God's holy Word, a few Articles, which he trusted would much profit and do them good.' In the course of the visitation he proceeded to require subscription to these Articles, as we infer from his account in writing to Cecil, July 6, 1552. That step, however, had been taken solely on his own responsibility; for in the latter he expresses a desire that some such document, more binding on the clergy, might be circulated from still higher quarters. ‘For the love of God,' writes Hooper, ‘cause the Articles, that the King's majesty spake of, when we took our oaths, to be set forth by his authority.’ October, 1552, he arrived at Worcester in continuation of the same visit; but was there resisted by two Romanizing prebendaries, who declared themselves unwilling to accept a portion of the doctrines he propounded in his Articles of Religion. This resistance on their part resulted in a vehement disputation with the bishop, an account of which was instantly communicated by him to the royal council (Oct. 25, 1552); while Joliffe, one of the refractory prebendaries, after the accession of Queen Elizabeth, gave the controversy to the world in a small volume published at Antwerp, in 1564. His work comprises some of the main arguments of the objectors, together with replies returned to them by Hooper, and a confutation of his answer from the pen of Gardiner, who had been thrown into the Tower; but more interesting still is the discovery, that Joliffe has preserved an actual copy of the Articles, which formed the moving cause of the dispute.