PARKER, Another against the credit of this MS. Strype's Annal, p. 289. The MS. refers to is an argu Fourthly, The manuscript itself, by the form just before the subscription, is sufficient to disprove its being the authentic original. At the end of the articles, the words written by archbishop Parker's direction are these, "Hos articulos Fidei Christianæ continentes in universum novendecim paginas in autographo quod asservatur apud reverendissimum in Christo patrem Dom. Mathæum Cantuar. Archiepiscopum totius Angliæ primatem et metropolitanum: et in prima pagina quatuor articulos, et lineas triginta quatuor," &c. (Naming also how many articles and lines are contained in all the following pages :) "Nos archiepiscopi et episcopi utriusque provinciæ regni Angliæ in sacra synodo provinciali legitime congregati, recipimus et profitemur, et ut veros atque orthodoxos manuum nostrarum subscriptionibus approbamus, vicesimo nono die mensis Januarii, anno Dom. secundum computationem Anglicanæ ecclesiæ, millesimo quingentesimo, sexagesimo secundo, et illustrissimæ princip. Elizabethæ, D. G. Angliæ, Franciæ et Hiberniæ, reginæ, Fidei defens., etc. Dominæ nostræ Clementissimæ anno quinto." After these remarks upon the manuscript, the list of the subscription follows. These directions at the end of the manuitself, which script refer to an autographum; from whence it may be reament of its sonably inferred this manuscript cannot be the original, unless not being an original. we can suppose it should refer to itself, which is very unusual. And if this had been the case, why was not the language more clear and decisive? Why was it not said, "In hoc autographo," as well as "hos articulos?" Why was not "asservabitur," or "asservandum est," made use of, instead of "asservatur apud reverendissimum," &c.? Farther, what occasion was there of mentioning either the autographum, or where it was kept, since without the sight of the manuscript the directions could signify nothing. It is granted, the postscript of the first Latin edition, printed by Wolfe in the year 1563, is couched in the same terms. Now this postscript is, without question, a true certificate of the register, transcribed in all probability from the record itself; but then, if that record was the subscribed original, these words, " in autographo quod asservatur,' though necessary in the certificate to direct where to find the autographum, yet such a direction was of no service in the autographum, and therefore may be supposed not to have been inserted. Vindication, p. 89. BETH. To proceed the learned vindicator argues against the ELIZAauthority of the other Benet College manuscript, subscribed Ann. 1571. MS. dis imperfect First, From the incompleteness of the list. This manu- The other script is so far from being an authentic record, that it falls proved first short of the preparatory advances of that above mentioned. from the For though it was designed, as appears by the form, to be sub- list. scribed by the archbishops and bishops of both provinces, yet, Bishop Burnet's Expoas it happened, there are no more hands to it than that of the sition of the archbishop of Canterbury, and ten of his suffragans. This Thirty-nine Articles, manuscript, therefore, receiving a check in the progress, and p. 15. failing in the execution, can pass for no more than an imperfect memoir. Ibid. Secondly, As this subscription is defective with respect to Secondly, the list, it is likewise no less with regard to the articles: for from the number of here the number falls short. The form of the subscription the articles. reckons them no more than thirty-eight articles; though through all the impressions from that year downwards, they have always reached to thirty-nine. And here the earliest editions of the articles, with numbers annexed, are those of this year 1571: all which editions were printed after the articles had been subscribed by this convocation, as appears from the express mention of that subscription in the ratification. Is it therefore at all likely, that the first impression after this subscription should differ so remarkably from the original? Is it likely they should be published with the additional division, if the record had made no such distinction? Or can we imagine they would have outstretched the number fixed by the convocation, and printed them thirty-nine, if they had found no more than thirty-eight in the original? From hence it appears this manuscript is a paper of no authority, and has not so much as the face of an authentic record. Several 490. copies still of the arti To go on, in the year 1563, the articles were printed by Renault Wolfe in Latin: this, in all likelihood was the first impression and published soon after the articles were agreed in the convocation; for the printers are particularly early in their remaining dates, and reckon the year from Michaelmas-term. Now, cles, with the according to this computation, the articles were both passed clause, and printed in the year 1563. There are three copies of this printed in Latin impression still remaining in our universities; Benet college, Cambridge, and two in the Bodleian contested the year one in 1563. library &c. p. 152. Vindication, PARKER, This impression of Wolfe was, as the author of "Priestcraft" Abp. Cant. observes, cited by archbishop Laud in the Star-chamber, and has the controverted clause of the 20th article in it. One of these printed copies in the Bodleian library has a parchment roll tacked to it, subscribed by the lower house of convocation. This subscription the author of "Priestcraft" endeavours to prove a forgery, because the list of the subscribers are not the same with those in Mr. Strype's annals. But this objection has no weight; for what wonder is it if the names and titles are not the same, since the list belongs to two distinct convocations? to two convocations which sat at Id. p. 44, 45. nine years distance from each other. That in Mr. Strype's annals belongs to the convocation of 1562: but the other with a roll tacked, is a list of the convocation which sat in the year 1571. Nowel was prolocutor in the first, and Ailmer in the latter. the copy in library vindicated. Selden's Table Talk, P. 54. The credit of This original subscription tacked to the printed articles, was the Bodleian preserved by the famous Selden, a man whom the reader has no reason to suspect of partiality to the Church. This learned antiquary when the question was put whether the contested clause was fraudulently thrown into the 20th article, answers categorically, "that it is most certain they (that is, those words disputed) were in the book of articles that was confirmed, though in some editions they have been left out. That this subscription roll was authentic, and tacked to the book conVindication, firmed by the convocation of 1571, Selden was well assured, &c. p. 179. by finding the copy carefully revised, and all the errors of the press corrected by a hand of that age, which nice correction was no more than necessary to prepare it for the subscription of a synod. Selden likewise had farther evidence of the genuineness of this roll, by comparing the hands of this list with those members of the same name who sat in the convocation of 1562. This was no difficult task to so great an antiquary, considering many of the members of both these convocations were men of character and public business: and thus their hands standing upon record on the registers of colleges or chapters, the comparing them with the label above mentioned was very practicable. And as the undertaking was feasible we have no reason to question Selden's inclination and industry: Selden, I say, to whom a proof of forgery in this matter would have been a very acceptable discovery. But the case This copy attested by Selden. BETH. being so clear, this learned adversary makes no scruple to ELIZAvouch the copy in the most determining language. And for the reader's farther satisfaction, the learned vindicator has carried his enquiry to the utmost nicety, procured the hands compared, and received satisfaction of their being exactly the same. Id. P. 180. Some Ne Reforma &c. p. 185. Farther, we may imagine a person of Selden's curiosity and temper, would fly the game home, bring the point to the strictest test, and consult the records themselves. That this was matter of fact, we are assured by an author the "Priestcraft" writer has no reason to question. This gentleman affirms, Hamilton, that during the long parliament and sitting of the assembly at cessity of Westminster, Mr. Selden was employed to search the arch- tion, p. 14. bishop's office. But here was no serviceable matter for the Vindication, faction; no report made upon enquiry, to prove foul play upon the archbishop. Neither was any thing of this kind attempted in a long answer to Laud's speech, published a year after it was spoke in the star-chamber: to which may be added Id. p. 57 et archbishop Williams' short notes upon the margin of a print of this speech. In these remarks, where, though warmth of temper and misunderstanding between this prelate and Laud, makes him exceed in his censure, yet he advances nothing to blast Laud's credit, with respect to the contested clause. 185. Id. p. 186. As to Selden's search, it was probably made at the same time that a committee of the house of Commons sent to the archbishop, then in the Tower, to give them an account under his hand what originals of the articles were in his custody. The archbishop believed the design of this message was to make a search about the controverted clause of the twentieth article. Upon this, he thought it proper to repeat something of what he had delivered in the star-chamber, and declares expressly, that the contested passage (though left out in divers printed copies, yet) in the original articles of 1562, the words History of are plain, and manifest, without any interlining at all. And, Laud's which is still more remarkable, this pretended forgery was Troubles, p. 208, 209. never objected against the archbishop at his trial. This we Archbishop Laud not may be assured was not overlooked out of tenderness: this, charged with could it have been made good, would have struck the most in- any forgery of this kind delible blemish upon his memory and would have been one of at his trial. the worst complexioned articles of the impeachment to which may be added, neither did the assembly attempt to purge the VOL. VI. сс Archbishop PARKER, article, or venture upon a censure of the archbishop for conAbp. Cant. veying in the spurious clause. Heylin's History of p. 248. Presbytery, Besides Wolfe's Latin edition of the year 1562, there is an English impression of the same year, with the contested clause in it. This is expressly affirmed by the learned Heylin, and may likewise be fairly collected from sir Simon D'Ewes's p. 132, 133. Journal of parliament. Sir Simon And lastly, the controverted clause is to be seen in Day's Latin edition, anno 1571, and in three English editions of Jugg and Caw-wood printed the same year. And to conclude this matter, if we had no other evidence, the unreasonableness of this charge might be collected from the silence of those times when the articles were first published. A forgery of this kind lay open to detection, and could never have been practised without being observed. In case the imputation could have been proved, what clamours would there have been when Wolfe's edition appeared? What entertainment would such gross insincerity have been to Papists and Precisians? And what advantage would they have made of such a discovery? What a senseless piece of confidence would it have been to have ventured on so clumsy a falsification, when the cheat lay exposed to view, when the articles were lately passed, and the convocation probably still sitting? For this Extract of assembly did not rise until the 14th of April, 1563, before of the Upper which time the articles were printed and dispersed. Had not Convoca- the honour and authority of the Church been considerably tion, fol.126. engaged, I should have waved the report of this controversy: and now having observed enough to disprove the calumny, I shall dismiss the subject, If the reader is desirous to see the author of "Priestcraft" farther detected and exposed, he may consult the learned vindicator of the Church of England, &c.1 491. the Journal House of Some heads of projected discipline. There was a draught of discipline drawn for the view of this convocation. Had it passed, it was to be offered to the queen and parliament for the civil sanction. The first paper having William Exon on the top, to show it was either penned or approved by the bishop of Exeter, is something of an argument it was not the same scheme of discipline which the lower house Id. fol. 123. delivered to the bishops. I shall mention some of the more remarkable heads of this 1 The critical acumen and exact logic of Collier's defence of the integrity of the thirtynine articles have never been surpassed by any controversial writer. |