On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    though not , perhaps , for the decision of-the question . This assertion of the Church ' s authority is no part of the Forty-two Articles of Edward VI . which were chiefly the work of Cranmer , who , whatever his errors * had such views of carrying further the Reformation , as would have induced him to make

    provision for simplifying the service of the Church , as it then existed , rather than for increasing its rites and ceremonies . These Articles were in force ( except during the reign of Mary ) up to the meeting of Convocation

    in 1562 , when they underwent some alteration , and being reduced to thirty-nine , became the permanent creed of the Church . They were subjected to a second revision in 1571 , but the changes then made were very trifling indeed . In the interval between these two periods the clause in question seems to have made its first

    appearance . ance . The transactions of the Convocation in 1562 , might be ascertained by four kinds of evidence , three of which are in existence . . 1 . The testimony of those who took part in its proceedings , or of contemporaries . This is

    wanting : and that it is , operates perhaps rather against the clause , for it seems likely that the Puritans would , not have silently allowed so portentous an addition to an authority

    which , in their opinion , savoured much too strongly of Popery before . Its surreptitious introduction they could neither provide nor protest against . 2 . The manuscript then subscribed . 3 . The records of Convocation . 4 .

    The copies thereafter printed and published . The manuscript then subscribed remained in the possession of Archbishop Parker , and was by him , after the lapse of some years , deposited in

    Bennet College , Cambridge , where , I believe , it is still to be seen . It is in Latin , signed by both Houses of Convocation , by the Upper on 29 th January , and the Lower on 5 th February , and consists of the Forty-two Articles of Edward VI . with the

    erasures , alterations and additions then agreed upon , and many of which arc in ' Parker ' s own hand . The clause is not in this manuscript . There are in it many additions which are struck through with the red pencil , which

    Untitled Article

    Parker was in the habit of using , anj which probably were submitted to the meeting , discussed and rejectedbut the clause does not appear even in that shape . This evidence is therefore strong against it—I should think it fatal 5 but for the next kind of proof appealed to , viz .

    7 he Records of Convocation . These are not now extant . They perished in the fire of London . But they were preserved in the registry at-Lambeth previously , from the year 1562 , and even appealed to by Laud , in . his famous speech in the Star-chamber

    to repel the charge of having himself forged this very clause of which he had repeatedly been accused . The extract produced by Laud , on this occasion , certified by a public notary , was in the possession , many years

    after , of the desqendents of Chief Justice Hale , who was executor to the celebrated Selden , by whom it was , probably , obtained from Pry line , who seized the papers of Laud , by virtue of an order of Parliament . In this

    minute of the proceedings , the Twentieth Article has the controverted clause . That the extract was faithfully made there are two reasons for believing ; , 1 . The document was a public one , the office public , access to it not difficult at any time , and the whole soon after in the uncontrolled

    possession of Laud ' s bitterest enemies , and yet the correctness of the transcript was never impeached . 2 . These very records were again appealed to during the Protectorate . Fuller says , in his Church History , " The clause in question lieth at a dubious posture , at , in , and out , sometimes inserted ,

    sometimes omitted , both in our written and printed copies . Inserted in . The Original of the Articles , 156 &-3 , as appeareth under the hand of a public notary , whose inspection and attestation is only decisive in this case . Omitted in , The English and JLatin Articles set forth 1571 . In a word

    concerning this clause , whether the bishops were faulty in their addition , or their opposites in their substraction , I leave to more cunning statearithmeticians to decide . " To which Dr . Heyliri replied , that he had himself inspected the records of Convocation , and seen it there , and adds" Which makes me wonder at our Author , that having access to those

    Untitled Article

    462 The Nonconformist . No . XIII .

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Aug. 2, 1819, page 462, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1775/page/2/