Proposed Surrender of the Prayer-Book and Articles of the Church of England: A Letter to the Lord Bishop of London on Professor Stanley's Views of Clerical and University "Subscription"Irons, William J. (William Josiah)
Religion
Proposed Surrender of the Prayer-Book and Articles of the Church of England: A Letter to the Lord Bishop of London on Professor Stanley's Views of Clerical and University "Subscription"
Irons, William J. (William Josiah)
Church and college -- England -- History -- 19th century; Church of England -- Doctrines -- History -- 19th century; Church of England -- Liturgy -- History -- 19th century; Church of England. Book of common prayer; Church of England. Thirty-nine Articles; Dissenters, Religious -- England -- History
Is it possible to suppose that Dr. STANLEY means this for a fair
representation of the spirit and design of the Church of England, from
the beginning of the Reformation to the 12th year of Elizabeth? He
writes as though the Articles were all really to be signed, and the
Prayer-book all settled, and that the Church during all that time
deliberately intended to leave her members such freedom of opinion as he
and others would now restore. If he does not mean this, his argument
falls to the ground. But what are the facts of the case?
Elizabeth ascended the throne at the close of the year 1558. Every
position of trust throughout the country was then held by Roman
Catholics. The bishops and the clergy were generally devoted to Rome.
The Convocation met, in two months, and drew up Articles presented to
Parliament, which are described as “flat against Reformation, and
_subscribed_ by most of the University.” Even Cambridge is said to have
given her approval. At such a crisis, it was evident that some years
must elapse before any such Revision of Edward VI.’s Articles could be
hoped for, as would obtain general consent. But to represent this pause
as a kind of freedom from “Subscription” enjoyed in earlier and more
liberal times, to say that “the Church,” at least, was ignorant of this
device, when “Subscription” to certain “Articles” was the first step
which the Convocation and the Universities naturally took, immediately
Elizabeth came to the throne, surprises me beyond what I like to express.
The “general reader” is entirely at the mercy of so eloquent a writer as
Dr. STANLEY, and it is not too much to ask that he use his power with a
little generosity; or if he will not, it becomes imperative that his
representations be translated into a humbler style, that the world may
judge how they look. The facts of the case are, in truth, opposed to all
that Dr. STANLEY’S argument requires. Instead of the twenty years and
more, which preceded Elizabeth’s 12th year, being years in which the
Church of the Reformation adopted laxity as its principle, the whole of
the period, from the beginning of the reign of Edward to the year 1571
(with the exception of the brief interval of Mary’s government), was
occupied in a careful effort on the part of the Reformers to tie down
both clergy and laity by the strictest body of ecclesiastical law,
perhaps, ever attempted to be enacted in the Christian world.
The Reformatio Legum.
I refer, of course, to the “Reformatio Legum.” The Archbishop of
Canterbury, the subsequently-elect Archbishop of York, and certain
suffragans; great Reformers, such as Peter Martyr and Rowland Taylour;
known scholars, such as Sir John Cheke and Dr. Haddon, were engaged in
this business, which was looked to as the crowning act of the Reformation
of Religion. Archbishop Parker took up the work which Cranmer had begun,
and even pressed it on the reluctant Queen as far as he dared.
Subscription demanded in 1553.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account