On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
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.
-
-
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
records , and making frequent use of them in this present History , he should declare himself unable to decide the doubt , whether the addition of this clause was made by the bishops ,
or the subtraction of it by the opposite party . But * none so blind as he that will not see / says the good old proverb . " Of this , Fuller in his reply , took no notice , nor did HeyJin advert to it in his rejoinder .
It should be observed , that the record gives the Articles ^ iiot only as resolved upou , but as suo $€ &ibed on the 29 th January , 1562 , so that it is in the most complete opposition to the MS . copy referred to . Were this the whole of the conflicting evidence , the conclusion must be , that the
record had been interpolated—not by Laud perhaps , for under all the circumstances detection could scarcely have been avoided , but previouslythe next head of evidence is
Printed Copies . The Articles having been framed , corrected and passerf , in Latin , the first Latin edition , after the rising of Convocation in 1562 , aeems entitled to great weight in the argument . It is to be presumed that it was intended for the use of the
clergy , and so many of them were present , ( onehundred and seventeen , ) that any important variation was not likely to pass undetected . This edition was printed by Wolfe in 1563 , and has the clause ! There are two
old English editions , without date , which are supposed to have been printed before the revisal in 1571 , for this reason : the title of the twentyfirst Homily of the second tome , which was occasioned by the Northern Rebellion in 1569 , is not added
to the thirty-fifth Article , as it is in the subsequent editions ; they were printed by Richard Jugge , a . name riot unknown to the black-letter student as connected with the publications of that period . They have not the controverted clause . By what authority , or by whom , this English
translation was made , does wot appear . besides that omission , it has another remarkable agreement with the subscribed manuscript , and difference from Wolfe ' s edition , which seems to prove that it was not translated from that edition . In the thirty-seventh Article , Of the Civil Magistrate , it says , *« TJie Queen ' s Majesty hath the
Untitled Article
chief power in this realm , " &c . — faithfully rendering , Regia Majestas , &c , suflimam habet potestatem—; whereas Wolfe has ( and no other known edition ) jure sum in am habet potestatena : transforming it from an assertion of fact , to one of right .
It is certain that after they passed the Convocation the Articles were submitted to the Queen , and ratified by her ; and it is , perhaps , worth considering , whether this addition and that of the controverted clause were not made on that occasion by Elizabeth herself .
The Convocation met again in 1566 * but no business was done , except granting a subsidy to the Queen 5 however in that year , a bill was brought into Parliament for obliging the clergy to subscribe the Articles , which passed the Commons , but was stopped in the Lords , by the Queeu ' s interference . This was ascribed to evil
counsellors , but it was quaintly replied , that on this occasion , as on many others , " all Elizabeth ' s council rode upon one horse . " The Bill was the same as passed in 1571 . It is mentioned here , because the title
of the Articles being recited in English , gives a greater authority to the translation than it would otherwise have had , and consequently makes against the clause . We come now to the Convocation
of 1571 . At the commencenvent of this sitting , the Lower House , in consequence of the command of Archbishop Parker , subscribed in a body the Articles as passed in 1562 , For this purpose they made use of the Latin printed edition , which has the
controverted clause ; but the very copy , with their names affixed , was preserved in the Bodleian Library , and that clause is struck through with a pen . The Articles now were discussed in English , using as a basis
the translation which had been published in the interval , of which the manuscript copy , with the alterations made by the bishops , and subscribed by them , is in Bennet College Library , presented also by Parker , and having no trace of the controverted clause .
The Lower House again subscribed , after the alterations were made , but whether ti > the same copy as in 156 & # or to another , is not known , and their signatures are not extant .
Untitled Article
^ v . s The Nonconformist . No . XIII . 463
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Aug. 2, 1819, page 463, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1775/page/3/
-