(1) In the Latin MS. of Parker, which was signed by himself and the other bishops, on the 29th of January, 1563. Nor (2) in an English 'minute' of the Articles, among the Elizabethan State Papers1, dated January 31, 1563 (two days later). Nor (3) in a fair copy of this English draft, also among the State Papers, and endorsed Articles of Religion agreed on, 1562, in the Conuocation hous.' Nor (4) in the English version of the Articles, as printed by Jugge and Cawood, in 1563. Nor (5) in the English Manuscript of Parker signed by the bishops in the Convocation of 1571. Nor (6) in one Latin and one English edition, printed by Jugge and Cawood, in 1571. On the other hand, it is found (1) In an early Latin draft of the Articles, among the Elizabethan State Papers3, where it was inserted by the same hand, after the draft itself was made, so as to fill exactly one line. (2) In the Latin edition of Reynold Wolfe, 1563, as expressly authorised by the Queen. (3) In two or more English editions of Jugge and Cawood, 1571. (4) In six or more English editions from 1581 to 1628; and in all subsequent copies. (5) In the transcript made in 1637 from an original copy of the Articles, as deposited in the registry of the see of Canterbury. ness esta Now those persons who maintain that the clause in Its genuinequestion was foisted into the Articles without authority, blished. either from the Convocation or the Crown, should recollect that the importance of the Manuscript evidence against it rests on the assumption that the documents now extant in the Parker Library present us with the ultimate form of the Articles, the form in which they stood when finally 1 'Domestic,' Vol. XXVII. § 40. 2 Ibid. § 41. Н. А. 3 Ibid. § 41, A: cf. above, p. 143, n. I. 10 passed by Convocation and sanctioned by the Crown; but (as both Strype and Bennet argue1), an assumption of this kind is utterly precluded (1) by the slovenly condition of the manuscripts themselves, (2) by their place in a private repository, and above all (3) by their deficiency in tokens, which invariably appear in acts and instruments put forward under royal approbation. With regard to those early printed copies in which the paragraph is also wanting, they are more than balanced by the weight and number of others in which it actually exists. On one side is the Latin text of 1563, the very earliest publication of the Articles, issuing from the press of the Queen's printer, and containing her emphatic sanction; on the other, is an English version laying claim to no kind of authority, either civil or ecclesiastical, and if made, as there is every reason to believe, from the Parker Manuscript, entitled to no higher appreciation than the Manuscript itself. But even if it be conceded that the printed evidence is equal, the fact that such a clause had been inserted in the Convocation-record, as attested by a public notary in 1637, is absolutely fatal to the plea that it had found its way into some printed copies in defiance both of civil and ecclesiastical authority. It may possibly have issued from the Synod at a later stage of their proceedings and before the Articles had been submitted to the Queen, or else, which is more likely, it might afterwards have been interpolated while the document was in the hands of the royal council; but no reasonable man will doubt the fairness of its claim to be regarded as a genuine portion of the copy which had long existed in the archives of St Paul's cathedral, and which perished in the fire of 1666. The testimony of that record was produced upon the trial of archbishop Laud, in the most open and explicit manner, at a time when it was perfectly accessible to his accusers, or was rather in the hands of his infuriated enemies, and yet 'not one of them 1 See references above, p. 136, n. 1, and compare British Critic (1829), pp. 96, 97. ever ventured to question the truth of the assertions, or attempted to invalidate the proofs on which his defence had rested'.' From these remarks on the revision of the Articles in 1563, we may proceed to the investigation of some further changes that befel them in the course of the Elizabethan period. The last touches were applied on the assembling of Convocation in 1571; for then the series was reduced exactly to the form in which it is transmitted to ourselves, and also was imposed as a preliminary test on candidates for Holy Orders. in connexion cles, in 1566. In the interval, however, that elapsed between the Proceedings passing of the code in 1563 and its final ratification, it had with the Artinot unfrequently been chosen as a subject of debate in the civil legislature, where attempts were made by sundry of the Commons to exact subscription from the clergy. For example, on the 5th of December, 1566, we read that 'the bill with a Little Book printed in the year 15623, (which was the fourth or fifth of her Majesty's reign) for the sound Christian religion, was read the first time.' The 'Little Book,' it is now universally conceded, was a copy of the Elizabethan Articles of Religion, and most probably the second English edition, in very small octavo, from the 1 British Critic, as above, p. 96. Attention is there drawn to the further statement of Archbishop Laud, that the contested clause was also found in the Articles subscribed by the lower house in 1571. Heylin, Examen Historicum, in alluding to the same discussions, writes as follows (pp. 144, 145): 'Having occasion to consult the records of Convocation, I found this controverted clause, verbatim, in these following words: Habet ecclesia ritus statuendi jus et in fidei controversiis authoritatem ;' where also it is worthy of notice, the two words, 'sive ceremonias,' are wanting. One of the stoutest opponents of the genuineness of the clause was An The Bishops in favour of the plan for legalising subscription. press of Jugge and Cawood1. It is again mentioned in the 'Journals of Parliament,' on the 10th of December, when the bill which claimed for the new document a wider currency, was read the second time2. On the 13th of December, some fresh traces of it are detected; 'the bill, with the Articles printed 1562 for Christian Religion,' being passed at the third reading3. On the next day (the 14th) it was sent up to the House of Lords, but there abruptly 'steyd by commandement from the Queen:' her reason being, as we learn from one of Parker's letters (Dec. 21, 1566), not that she disliked the 'doctrine of the Book of Religion, for that it containeth the religion which she doth openly profess, but the manner of putting forth the book'.' The primate, and indeed the bishops generally, appear to have been most desirous of accelerating the course of this bill about Religion through the House of Lords; as we conclude from a petition or address exhibited by them 'to the Queen's Majestye the 24th of Decembre, anno 1566.' Although the credit or discredit of the measure was due entirely to the Lower House, the bishops urge that they accepted it as likely to produce a greater uniformity of faith and practice. They declare, that 'thapprobation of thies Articles by your Majestie shal be a verie good meane to establyshe and confirme all your Highnes subjects in one consent and unitie of true doctrine, to the great quiete and safetie of your Majestie and this your realm; whereas now for want of a playn certeintie of Articles of Doctrine by law to be declared, great distraction and dissention of myndes is at this present among your subjects, and dailie is like more and more to encrease, and that with verie great daunger in policie, the circumstances considered, if It is reprinted in Dr Lamb's publication, where it may be noted that although the 29th Article is wanting, the number is made 'nine and thirty,' by dividing the 6th Article into two portions. D'Ewes, ubi supra. Ibid. p. 133. 4 Parker's Corresp. p. 291. 5 Parker's Corresp. pp. 292 sq. Bennet, pp. 258-260. It is interlined in the handwriting of archbishop Parker, and is written in the name of 'the Archebyshope and Byshops of both the Provinces.' the said Boke of Articles be now steyd in your Majesties hand or (as God forbid) rejected.' resists the the Commons; Their petition was, however, unavailing; for the Queen, The Queen immoveably resolved to guard what she considered her measure of prerogative, cut short all further 'doings of the Commons' by dissolving Parliament on the 2nd of January. Her strong conviction at this period harmonized entirely with the message she sent down upon a similar occasion, when the project for securing uniformity in religion was revived in 1571. 'She approved their good endeavours, but would not suffer these things to be ordered by Parliament';' and with especial reference to the Articles, it was reported on the 1st of May, 'that the Queen's Majesty having been made privy to the said Articles, liketh very well of them and mindeth to publish them [i. e. in a fresh edition], and have them executed by the bishops, by direction of her Majesty's regal authority of supremacy of the Church of England, and not to have the same dealt in by Parlia ment.' But, strange as it may be, the rigour which gave utterance to this magisterial language, speedily relaxed; and when the same measure had been introduced afresh into the House of Commons (April 7, 1571), and from thence transmitted to the Lords on the 3rd of May, Elizabeth was but finally forced into compliance; and the bill', entitled 'For the 29, 1571. 1 D'Ewes, p. 185. Stat. 13 Eliz. c. 12. It enacts 'by the authority of the present parliament, that every person under the degree of a bishop, which doth or shall pretend to be a priest or minister of God's holy Word and Sacraments, by reason of any other form of institution, consecration, or ordering, than the form set forth by parliament in the time of the late king of most worthy memory, King Edward the Sixth, or now used in the reign of our most gracious sovereign lady, before the feast of the Nativity of Christ next following, shall, in the presence of the bishop or guardian of the spiritualities of vields, May |