But English and Latin, put forth in the same year'. made by the It is remarkable that neither this royal sanction, No allusions nor the canons passed in the present Synod, providing 3 Queen or 1 The Latin, 'apud Johannem Dayum, typographum. An. Domini, 1571' the English, 'at London in Powles Churchyard, by Richarde Iugge and Iohn Cawood, Printers to the Queenes Maiestie, in Anno Domini, 1571.' 2 Chap. xx. 3Quivis minister Ecclesiæ, antequam in sacram functionem ingrediatur, subscribet omnibus Articulis de religione Christiana, in quos consensum est in synodo; et publice ad populum, ubicunque episcopus jusserit, patefaciet conscientiam suam, quid de illis Articulis, et universa Synod to the Nature of the alterations in the Articles, in 1571. that candidates for holy orders shall henceforward sign the Articles, make the slightest allusion to the Act of parliament by which they had been previously incorporated into the statute-law of England. This silence, on the part of Queen Elizabeth, is to be explained by her unflinching belief in the boundless prerogatives of the Crown; and on the part of the clergy, by their disinclination to recognise the difference which had been drawn in the recent Act, between the doctrinal and the other Articles: they both unquestionably foresaw, with more or less distinctness, that the intermeddling of such a body, in questions of this kind, would foster the growth and ultimate predominance of the democratic element in the Church, and end (if not providentially counteracted) by imperilling alike the altar and the throne. So far, indeed, was the Convocation of 1571 from bending under the puritanical storm which was now raging in all quarters, that the Articles issued from the last revision without suffering the threatened mutilation, or any considerable change. The twentyninth (as we have already noticed) was now inserted into every copy; and the clause affirming the authority of the Church,-though wanting in the draft which had been subscribed by some of the bishops, as it was also in the English edition of 1563, upon which that Manuscript was modelled1-is found in all the English copies of this date, which have any claim to be regarded genuine. It is wanting indeed in one atque auctoritate serenissimæ 127. Cf. 'Articuli per archiepiscopum etc. in Synodo,' 1584, ib. I. 141. 1 Bennett, 336. 2 Ibid. c. xxiv. This point is proved from a minute correspondence between an English copy (in Bennett's work marked E) and the language of a letter of Archbishop Parker (dated June 4, 1571, i. e. immediately after the close of the convoca Latin edition of 1571, printed by John Day, although it appears to have existed in other copies1 in the same language, of the same date, and from the same press; so that whether we attribute the omission to accident or design, to the intrigues of Leicester and the puritan party, or to the timidity of the editor3 appointed by the Synod to superintend the publication of the Articles, there can be little doubt of its approval at that time, and none of its present obligation1. The rest of the changes which appear in the authorised versions of this period will be hereafter exhibited in detail: it is sufficient to observe at present, that they leave the original purport of the Articles altogether unaffected, and are either emendations in the wording of the titles, or corrections in the English draft from the older Latin copy, or explanations of a few words which were capable of misconstruction. The only positive addition is in the list of apocryphal books, which now for the first time appeared at the end of the sixth Article. and English But a more important subject belonging to this Are the Latin stage of our inquiry, is suggested by the existence of Articles tion). In this edition, authenticated by the allusion of the primate, the disputed clause is found. 1 e. g. in the Latin edition, by John Day, printed in Bp Sparrow's 'Collection,' which differs in three other material particulars from the extant copy of Day's edition. 2 Fuller speaks of him as the 'patron-general of non-subscribers.' 3 i.e. Bishop Jewel (see above, p. 147). This is the supposition of Mr Soames, Elizabethan Hist. 152. If any such omission was made by that prelate, he clearly exceeded the powers which had been granted by the synod: for 4 The disputed clause occurs canon. 5 See Append. No. II., where the Articles, in this their final shape, are printed at length in Latin and English, by the sido of the Forty-two Articles, together with collations of the most authentic copies of 1563. equally authoritative? Are the the Articles both in English and in Latin. two versions equally authentic, or, in the event of a discrepancy between them, can either be regarded as the paramount record? This question has been so clearly and summarily stated by Dr Waterland in his Supplement to the Case of Arian Subscription,' that we cannot return a more satisfactory answer than by adopting his cogent language: As to the Articles, English and Latin, I may just observe for the sake of such readers as are less acquainted with these things; first, that the Articles were passed, recorded, and ratified in the year 1562, and in Latin only. Secondly, that those Latin Articles were revised and corrected by the Convocation of 1571. Thirdly, that an authentic English translation was then made of the Latin Articles by the same Convocation, and the Latin and English adjusted as nearly as possible. Fourthly, that the Articles thus perfected in both languages were published the same year, and by the royal authority. Fifthly, subscription was required the same year to the English Articles, called the Articles of 1562, by the famous act of the 13th of Elizabeth. 'These things considered, I might justly say with bishop Burnet, that the Latin and English are both equally authentical. Thus much, however, I may certainly infer, that if in any places the English version be ambiguous, where the Latin original is clear and determinate; the Latin ought to fix the more doubtful sense of the other, (as also vice versa,) it being evident that the Convocation, Queen, and Parliament intended the same sense in both2.' 1 A few such variations have been pointed out: e. g. in the ninth Article, the English, for them that believe and are bap = tized' the Latin, 'renatis et credentibus; and just before, the English, 'there be no condemnation' the Latin, 'nulla = propter Christum est condemnatio.' Similarly, in the twelfth Article, the English, 'follow after justification' = the Latin, 'justificatos sequuntur.' 2 Works, II. 316, 317. Oxf. 1843. not intended In the whole course of the investigation which the language of Waterland so aptly closes, one thought must have been peculiarly impressed on the mind of every reader, as to the strong and uniform connexion subsisting between the Articles which we are now called upon to subscribe, and the actual state of the Church at the time of their compilation. This fact, The Articles so steadily attested by contemporary writers, to say try standar nothing of the evidence supplied by the title of the of doctrine. document itself, cannot fail to have modified our views of its character as a standard of Christian truth. It was manifestly designed to be pacificatory, and at the same time polemical: it strove either by silence or by general statements of doctrine to calm the feverish speculations of the clergy upon a host of debateable questions; while on the other hand it provided a test by which the advocates of absolute errors, whether Romish or Anabaptist, Zwinglian or Puritanical, were excluded from the office of teaching within the jurisdiction of the English Church. To appeal, therefore, to the Articles of Religion as the one single measure of truth, or as a full and formal body of theology, sufficient for all times, is to forget the circumstances of the age in which they were produced; it is to mistake what are justly regarded as a strong though modern bulwark, for the whole of the venerable fortress in which the ark of God is treasured'. Such has never been the language of those who in the period of the Reformation, as well as in the |