« EelmineJätka »
which they saw always to have been given to all godly princes in holy scripture, by God himself: that is to say, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they were ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain, with the civil sword, the stubborn and evil doers."
An act passed in the third year of king James the first, which prescribed an oath of allegiance and obedience. Both these oaths, and the oath of supremacy, prescribed by the act of the first of queen Elizabeth, were abrogated by an act passed in the first session of the first year of king William and queen Mary; and by the same act, a new oath of allegiance and supremacy were established in their place. An act made in the second session of the first year of king George the first introduced a new oath of supremacy.
The explanations, by which queen Elizabeth qualified the supremacy attributed to her, and still more the explanations given by king James the first in his Apology for the Oath of Allegiance, -in his Præmonition,-and in his Remonstrance for the Rights of Kings, have induced some respectable writers, both protestant and catholic, to suppose, that the supremacy attributed to the sovereign by the statutes, which have been mentioned, was only meant to express an unequivocal acknowledgement of the monarch's right to temporal sovereignty over the ecclesiastical, as well as over the secular part of his subjects; and a recognition, that all the
eivil power, by which ecclesiastical persons or ecclesiastical courts can enforce their spiritual rights or sentences, is derived from the crown. It is probable, that, if a legislative declaration should now be given of the sense, in which the supremacy of the crown in ecclesiastical concerns should be understood, it would be found to accord with this explanation. But, to the writer of these pages it appears impossible to reconcile it, either with the language of the statutes, or of the oaths, which have been mentioned, or with the constructions, which the sovereigns of England, since the time of the Reformation, have evidently put upon them.
2. The other theological oaths are the Declarations against Transubstantiation, prescribed by an act of the 25th of king Charles the second; and the Declaration against Transubstantiation, the Invocation of Saints, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, prescribed by a statute passed in the 30th year of the reign of the same monarch.
The Ten Articles and Six Articles of King Henry the eighth.
1. HENRY the eighth's innovations in religion occasioning much diversity in the doctrine delivered in the pulpits, his majesty, on the 12th of July, 1536, sent a circular letter to the bishops,
ensuing Michaelmas. In the mean time he framed Ten Articles of religious credence, and sent them to the convocation, then sitting at St. Paul's.
It is observable, that, in foreign countries, a convocation, or ecclesiastical synod, consists wholly of bishops in England, it is a miniature of a parliament. The archbishop presides in regal state; the upper house, contains the bishops, and represents the house of lords; the lower house, is composed of representatives of the several dioceses, and of each particular chapter in them; and resembles the house of commons, with its knights of shire and burgesses.-But the honours of the houses of convocation should be spoken of, rather in the past than in the present tense: they still indeed have a legal capacity of existence; but have not, for nearly a century, been permitted to meet for business.
The convocation having received the ten articles from the king, passed them unanimously. Baptism, penance, and the sacrament of the eucharist, with the doctrine of transubstantiation, auricular confession, and prayers to the saints were retained in them they left the doctrine of purgatory doubtful.
II. In the parliament of the year 1538, the last which was held in the reign of Henry the eighth, the statute for abolishing diversity of opinions in certain articles concerning christian religion,' commonly called "the statute of The Six Articles,"
was passed.-All these six articles accord with the doctrines of the roman-catholic church.
The Forty-two Articles of Edward the sixth.
In the fourth year of the reign of Edward the sixth, it was resolved in council, to reform the doctrine of the church. Archbishop Cranmer and bishop Ridley accordingly framed forty-two articles of christian doctrine. Copies of them were sent to several bishops, and other divines, for their consideration. Being returned by them, the articles were approved in council, and had the royal sanction. In the title page, they were styled "Articles agreed upon, by the bishops and other learned men, in the convocation, held at London in the year 1552, for avoiding diversity of opinion, and establishing consent touching true religion, published by the king's authority." But it is certain by Cranmer's own admission, in the subsequent reign, that these articles never were submitted either to parliament, or to the convocation. They are generally understood to be the same in substance as the thirty-nine articles.
The Thirty-nine Articles.
IN January, 1562, both the parliament and the convocation of the province of Canterbury were
convened. It appears that the draught of the thirty-nine articles was presented to the convocation by archbishop Parker; and that the convocation approved them unanimously. All the registers of the convocation having been burned at the memorable fire of London, our information of its proceedings upon the articles must be derived from other sources, and these, unfortunately, are very imperfect. We find, that the convocation first met at the Chapter-house at St. Paul's, on the 12th day of January, and held thirty-six several sessions; sometimes at the Chapter-house, and sometimes, by continuation, at king Henry the seventh's chapel at Westminster. Archbishop Parker presided, and was the great mover of all its proceedings. The convocation began by taking into consideration the articles of Edward the sixth. From forty-two, they reduced them to thirty-nine, making alterations in some of them. With these alterations, the convocation adopted them unanimously; and thus, they had all the authority that the convocation of Canterbury could confer on them.
In 1566, a bill was brought into parliament to confirm them. It passed the Commons; but was dropt in the house of Lords, by the queen's particular command. In the year 1571, the convocation revised the articles of 1562, and made some alterations in them. In the same year an act was passed" to provide, that the ministers of the church should be of sound religion." It enacted, that all