« AnteriorContinuar »
should serve, he might at leisure have it, and judge whether it were not worthy, by bis belp, to be made public by the Queen's Majesty's authority. For how expedient it were that some treaty of religion should be set forth publicly in the name of our country, his Hor: nour did well understand, seeing the opinion beyond the seas was, that nothing religious was, with any authority or consent of any number of the learned here in our country, taught and set forth : but that a few.private persons taught and wrote their opinions, without the approbation of any authority at all, That for his part he had taken pains, as well about the matter of the book, that it might be consonant unto the true doctrine of the Scriptures, as also that the style might agree with the purity of the Latin tongue. And that aş the book had not misliked their judgments, whom he did both most allow, and also reverence; so, if it might likewise be approved to him, to whose patrocinii in his purpose he appointed it, when he first began it, he should think his pains most happily bestowed.”
After remaining in Cecil's hands above a year, and then with the author till 1570, receiving as, it appears some corrections, it was
Strype's Annals of the Reformation, vol. i. p. 353.
.. called for again by both Archbishops, in order that it might be published.
Accordingly in the Canons, agreed upon by the Archbishop Parker and the Bishops of his province, in 1571, it was enjoined", that schoolmasters should teach no other Latin Catechism but that which was published in the year 1570, (plainly meaning Nowell's Catechism,) and that such children as did not understand Latin should learn the English translation. Again, in the Canons of the Church drawn up and agreed upon in the year 1603, it was ordered', that “ all schoolmasters shall teach in English or Latin, as the children are able to bear, the larger or shorter Catechism, heretofore by public authority set forth.”
Our notice of this important work shall be concluded by an extract from the preface to the Enchiridion Theologicum, published by Bishop Randolph, which will include also all that need yet be said on the propriety of uniting Jewell's Apology to the other authorized documents.
*Sparrow's Canons, &c.
Ibid. * The translation of this work used in this publication is the one found in Bp. Jewell's Defence of the Apology, in answer to Harding. The Apology, as well as Nowell's Catechism, it is well known was published originally in Latin : both remarkable for their classical elegance, and the fornier for a strain of animated
“ It is another object of the present plan to shew the genuine sense of the Church of England in her earliest days, both as to the grounds of separation from the Church of Rome, and the doctrines which, after a long struggle, having entirely emancipated herself from that yoke, she at length finally adopted and ratified. For this purpose my choice has been principally directed to such works as had the sanction of public authority, and which may therefore be relied on as containing the final and decided opinions of our Reformers, approved of in the general by the Church at large; whereas in other cases they may have delivered opinions which they afterwards changed, or private opinions which they did not venture to propose on the part of the Church. Of this kind, that is, thus publicly received, were Jewell's Apology, and Nowell's Catechism, the former of which is said to have been published with consent of the bishops, and was always understood to speak the sense of the whole Church, in whose name it was written; the latter had the express sanction of Convocation.-Both these
works have also a claim to the attention of :: the reader, both for clearness of argument,
:! eloquence, advocating the cause of truth, of soberness, and of genuine religion.
and for elegance of language;" that is, in the Latin, in which they were both first pub. Jished.. .. i . When with these works is united the venerable Liturgy of our Church, it is due to an authority so sacred to make a right distinction with respect to the confirmation thus received in behalf of the Articles of our Church. It is indeed second only to the warrant of $cripture itself. Having then received the materials of that Liturgy, as we now possess it, recovered from the worse than superstitious additions forced into it by popish presumption, and restored to the original purpose for which they were first intended by the primitive Church; we shall do well to compare, with devout and close attention, this summary of our faith, with the language of those prayers which the devotion of early Christians has dictated for the use of succeeding generations.
Perhaps in none will the accordance of the Liturgy with the Articles, and of the Articles with the Liturgy, appear more interesting or more important, than in the Seventeenth. Nor is this observation made with a view to mere controversial points, but with a reference to the cause of true piety: 'of which a more just summary was never made by human wisdom ; nor could Christian experience more
faithfully transfer the testimony of Scripture to the delineation of its own character. The Church, which demands our attention to this portion of her creed, may well make but little account of the attachment of that member of her society, who cannot rise from the discussions of which it has been the occasion", and contemplate, with kindred feelings, the de cisive testimony this Article bears to personal religion, and acknowledge how interesting an agreement there is between the several por
'. It would be well if the following observation were always borne in mịnd by those who undertake the discussion of a subject 80 closely connected with personal religion as the Seventeenth Article :
“ Is it possible that any sincere believer should so far belie his profession, as 'to scoff at this notion of conscious fellowship with the Holy Spirit? When the voice of our Church expressly proclaims “ that the godly consideration of predestination, and our election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the work ing of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things,” can any man who has declared his assent to that Article venture to make the very object it describes a theme of scorn and derision --It is possible the individual against whom the ridicule is aimed may be a hypocrite, or he may be an enthusiast-let God 'be his judge: to his own Master let him stand or fall. But whatever the case may be, he cannot be a greater hypocrite than that man who professes to believe all that our Church believes, and yet vilifies and derides one of her most solemn and explicit declarations.” Dr. Copleston's Four Discourses on Necessity and Predestination. 1821. .