« EelmineJätka »
said to offer vp Christ for obtaining the remission of paine or guilt for the quicke and the dead, is neither agreeable to Christs ordinance nor grounded upon doctrine Apostolike; but contrary wise most ungodly and most iniurious to that all-sufficient sacrifice of our Sauiour Christ, offered once for euer vpon the Crosse, which is the onely propitiation and satisfaction for all our sinnes.
100. Priuate Masse, that is, the receiuing of the Eucharist by the Priest alone, without a competent number of communicants, is contrary to the institution of Christ. Of the state of the soules of men, after they be departed out of this life : together with the generall Resurrection,
and the last Iudgement. 101. After this life is ended the soules of Gods children be presently receaued into Heauen, there to enjoy ynspeakable comforts; the soules of the wicked are cast into Hell, there to endure endlesse torments.
102. The doctrine of the Church of Rome, concerning Limbus Patrum, Limbus Puerorum, Purgatorie, Prayer for the dead, Pardons, Adoration of Images and Relickes, and also Inuocation of Saints is uainely inuented without all warrant of holy Scripture, yea and is contrary ynto the same.
103. At the end of this world the Lord Iesus shall come in the clouds with the glory of his Father ; at which time, by the almightie power of God, the liuing shalbe changed and the dead shalbe raised ; and all shall appeare both in body and soule before his iudgement seat, to receaue according to that which they haue done in their
104. When the last iudgement is finished, Christ shall deliuer
vp the Kingdome to his Father, and God shalbe all in all.
The Decree of the Synod. If any Minister, of what degree or qualitie soeuer he be, shall publikely teach any doctrine cotrary to these Articles agreed vpon, If, after due admonition, he doe not conforme himselfe, and cease to disturbe the peace of the Church, let him bee silenced, and depriued of all spirituall promotions he doth enjoy.
To the question as to the authority of these Articles, Dr. Bernard answers*: “I can testify that I have heard him (Ussher] say, that in the forenamed year 1615, he saw them signed by Archbishop Jones, then Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and Speaker of the House of the Bishops in Convocation, signed by the Prolocutor of the House of the Clergy in their names, and also signed by the then Lord Deputy Chichester, by order from King James, in his name.” But this evidence will not prove that the Articles were fully sanctioned; for it does not appear that they ever were submitted to Parliament: and without that sanction they could not be legally enforced.
In 1635, the Irish Convocation assembled, and, at that period, the two Churches of England and Ireland were actuated by the same spirit, and presented, in a great
degree, the same appearance as to their religious provisions; for, indeed, the reformation of the latter had followed the direction of the former. But in the construction of their respective Articles of Religion, the Church of Ireland had declined the example of the sister Church ; and, in particular, had defined certain speculative questions which had been in England, more wisely, perhaps, and tenderly, left undetermined. By many sincere and zealous friends of both Churches, this absence of perfect unity was lamented, and an entire harmony of profession desired.
The course to be pursued was the adoption by the Irish Church of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. This measure was strongly recommended by Bishop Bramhall : it was cordially encouraged by the English and Irish Governments : it received the concurrence, if not the zealous co-operation, of the Lord Primate : and to procure the general consent of the bishops and clergy, and so to establish a perfect and unequivocal identity in the profession of Christian doctrine, was a principal object of the present Convocation. *
The chief, if not the only, difficulty, which attended the measure, seems to have arisen out of the different body of articles which the Church of Ireland had agreed upon in 1615.
“ The Bishop of Derry,” says his biographer Bishop Vesey,t “ laboured in the Convocation, to have the correspondence between the two Churches more entire and
* 1 Mant, Hist. Church of Ireland, 485.
+ Life of Primate Bramhall, cited i Mant, Hist. Church of
accurate : and discoursed, with great moderation and sobriety, of the convenience of having the Articles of peace and communion in every national Church, worded in that latitude, that dissenting persons in those things, that concerned not the Christian faith, might subscribe, and the Church not lose the benefit of their labours for an opinion, which, it may be, they could not help: that it were to be wished that such Articles might be contrived for the whole Christian world, but especially that the Protestant Churches under his Majesty's dominion might ‘all speak the same language;' and, particularly, that those of England and Ireland, being reformed by the same principle and rule of Scripture, expounded by universal tradition, councils, fathers, and other ways of conveyance, might confess their faith in the same form.
For, if they were of the same opinion, why did they not express themselves in the same words ?”
But he was answered, “that, because their sense was the same, it was not material if the expressions differed i and therefore it was fitter to confirm and strengthen the Articles of this Church, passed in convocation, and confirmed by King James, in 1615, by the authority of this present synod.”
To this the Bishop of Derry replied, “That though the sense might be the same, yet our adversaries clamoured much that they were dissonant confessions ; and it was reasonable to take away the offence, when it might be done easily : but for the confirmation of the Articles of 1615, he knew not what they meant by it; and wished the propounder to consider, whether such an act would not, instead of ratifying what was desired, rather tend to the diminution
of that authority, by which they were enacted, and seem to question the value of that synod, and consequently of this : for that this had no more power than that, and therefore could add no moments to it, but by so doing might help to enervate both.”
By this prudent line of argument the English Articles, after some additional discussion, were
at last admitted. And the Convocation approved of the following canon: “For the manifestation of our agreement with the Church of England, in the confession of the same Christian faith and the doctrine of the sacraments; we do receive and approve the Book of Articles of Religion, agreed upon by the archbishops and bishops and the whole clergy in the Convocation holden at London, in the
year of our Lord God 1562, for the avoiding of diversities of opinions, and for the establishing of consent touching true religion. And therefore if any hereafter shall affirm that any of those Articles are in any part superstitious or erroneous, or such as he may not with a good conscience subscribe unto, let him be excommunicated, and not absolved before he make a publick revocation of his error.”
Much controversy has arisen, whether or not the Irish Articles were repealed by this canon.
It seems, observes Dr. Elrington,* a mere question of words. The Primate, in a letter to Dr. Ward, says : “The Articles of Religion agreed upon in our former synod, anno 1615, we let stand as we did before. But for the manifesting of our agreement with the Church of England, we have received and approved your Articles, also con