ut qui peccat in publicum ordinem ecclesiæ, quique lædit authoritatem magistratus, et qui infirmorum fratrum conscientias vulnerat, publice, ut cæteri timeantur, arguendus est." The clause had stood without question in the Edwardian Articles, and, in spite of the request of the Puritan party, was left intact. On the other hand it is possible that the tenth of the series of 1553 was omitted out of tenderness to the rising Calvinism of the party, and that for the same reason the first clause was added to our present Article X.

5. There remain a limited number of changes which cannot well be classified under any of the foregoing heads. Of these some were made in order to bring the English into closer conformity with the Latin.2 For others it is not easy to state the precise reason which called for them. None of them, however, are of any great importance.

(c) The final revision of 1571.-The Articles passed by Convocation and approved by the Crown in 1563 underwent a further revision in 1571. Up till this date, although the Articles had been signed by members of Convocation, subscription was not required from the clergy of the Church in general; and the Queen steadily resisted every attempt made to submit them to Parliament. When, however, the Anglo-Roman schism had had been brought about by the publication of the papal bull, excommunicating the Queen in 1570, it would seem that her reluctance to call in the aid of Parliament in enforcing subscription

1 Strype's Annals, vol. i. p. 336.

2 The Parker MS., signed by the bishops, is, it will be remembered, in Latin, as is also the authoritative edition published by Wolfe. But English MSS. of the Articles dating from 1563 still remain among the Elizabethan State Papers ("Domestic," vol. xxvii. §§ 40, 41), one of which is endorsed "Articles of Religion agreed on, 1562, in the Convocation House," and at least two English editions of the Articles were printed by Jugge and Cawood.

was somewhat relaxed, and in the session of 1571 an Act was passed requiring all clergy, who had been ordained by any form except that in the English PrayerBook of Edward VI. or Elizabeth, to subscribe to "all the Articles of religion which only concern the confession of the true Christian faith and the doctrine of the Sacraments, comprised in a book imprinted, entituled, Articles whereupon it was agreed by the Archbishops and Bishops of both provinces, and the whole Clergy in the Convocation holden at London in the year of our Lord God 1562, according to the computation of the Church of England, for the avoiding the diversities of opinions, and for the establishing of consent touching true religion; put forth by the Queen's authority." The Act was evidently due to the Anglo-Roman schism, and was intended primarily to enforce subscription on those who had been ordained. during the reign of Mary. But it also provided that, for the future, "the said Articles" were to be subscribed by all candidates for ordination, and by every person admitted to any benefice with cure of souls.1

Thus, for the first time, subscription to the Articles was required by statute law, and until quite recent times this Act of the 13th of Elizabeth was the only one that could be quoted as enforcing it on all the clergy. This is the more remarkable when it is considered (1) that the edition of the Articles contemplated in the Act was the English edition, printed in 1563, by Jugge and Cawood, which contained neither the

113 Elizab. c. xii., "An Act to reform certain disorders touching ministers of the Church." See Strype, Annals, vol. ii. p. 71, and Prothero's Statutes and Constitutional Documents, p. 64.

2 The Act of Uniformity of 1662 was concerned with the Prayer-Book and not the Articles-only incidentally requiring subscription to the latter from all lecturers. The Articles, it must be remembered, form no part of the Book of Common Prayer, though in modern times generally bound up with it.

Twenty-ninth Article nor the affirmative clause of Article XX; (2) that the terms of the Act were ingeniously drawn, so as to enforce subscription to some only of the Articles, for it is clear that the restrictive word, "only," was inserted in the interests of the Puritan party, and intended to relieve them from the necessity of subscribing to those Articles which were concerned with discipline as distinct from doctrine; and (3) that, without any reference whatever to the action of Parliament, the Articles were revised by Convocation, and that, from that day to this, subscription has been required on the authority of the Church to all the Articles, and to that form of them which was finally accepted by Convocation. Such facts are very significant, and those who maintain that the Church of England is an "Act of Parliament Church" would do well to ponder them.

The Bill referred to above was introduced into the Commons on 7th April, transmitted to the Lords on 3rd May, passed its third reading on the 21st, and obtained the royal assent on the 29th of the same month. On the very day on which it was read the first time in the House of Commons, we find Parker requiring subscription from all members of the Lower House of Convocation, who had not formerly subscribed; and early in May there are signs that a revision of the Articles was taken in hand, and that some alterations and emendations were in contemplation. On 4th May the bishops

were secretly considering the Articles, and came to the conclusion" that when the Book of Articles touching doctrine shall be fully agreed upon, that then the same shall be put in print by the appointment of my Lord of Sarum [Jewel], and a price rated for the same to be sold." On 11th May the bishops were again deliberating, and on that day Parker and ten other bishops

(including Guest of Rochester) signed an English MS. containing the Twenty-ninth Article, but omitting the affirmative clause of Article XX. After this, further deliberations must have taken place, although no record of them is now forthcoming. We only know that the bishops gave up the Book of the Articles to the Queen's Majesty "to peruse them and judge them," and that the Thirty-Nine Articles were finally published in Latin and English with the royal ratification attached to them, which plainly declared the assent of Convocation to them.

2

"This Book of the Articles before rehearsed is again approved and allowed to be holden and executed within the realm, by the assent and consent of our Sovereign Lady ELIZABETH, by the grace of God, of England, France, and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith, etc. Which Articles were deliberately read and confirmed

See Hardwick, p. 150 seq.

Among the State Papers ("Domestic," Elizabeth, vol. lxxviii. No. 37) is an (unsigned) document addressed to Cecil, in Bishop Guest's handwriting, suggesting the introduction of various alterations in the Articles before their final ratification. The Articles which he wished to have modified were the seventeenth, in which he suggests the omission of the words "by His counsel secret to us," on the ground that Ephesians i. really reveals God's counsel. Further, he would have the last paragraph of this article altered, because part of it is not clearly expressed, and part might be thought to countenance the notion of a secret will of God opposed to His revealed one. In Article XXV. he criticises the paragraph on the "five rites commonly called Sacraments," which he wishes to have altered. In XXVIII. he suggests-(1) the omission of the word "only" in the clause, "the body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner," and (2) the addition of "profitably" to the following clause, "the mean whereby the body of Christ is received, etc."; while he urges very strongly that Article XXIX. should not be confirmed and authorised. The paper was quite ineffectual, as none of the changes suggested by him were made. The latter part of the document is quoted in Mr. G. F. Hodge's Bishop Guest-Articles XXVIII. and XXIX. where, however, a wrong reference to the volume of State Papers is given. It should be not lxxv. 36, but (as above) Ixxviii. 37.

again by the subscription of the hands of the arch. bishops and bishops of the Upper House, and by the subscription of the whole clergy of the Nether House. in their Convocation, in the year of our Lord 1571."1

The changes introduced before the Articles were thus ratified and published include the restoration of Article XXIX., and the addition of the complete list of the books of the Apocrypha in Article VI. The affirmative clause of Article XX. was apparently ratified by the Synod, and various other minor alterations were introduced. They are either emendations in the wording of thirteen titles, or corrections introduced into the English form of the older Latin copy, or occasional explanations of phraseology believed to have been capable of misconstruction," but they "left the character impressed upon the Articles of 1563 entirely unaffected."2 The fact that the Articles, as thus revised, were published in both Latin and English, with the royal ratification attached to them, suggests the inquiry, which of the two versions is to be considered the most authoritative; and in answer to this we cannot do better than follow the example of Archdeacon Hardwick in quoting some words of Daniel Waterland, which sum up in a convenient form all that there is to be said on the subject.

"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,

1 The ratification still stands at the close of the Articles as they are printed in modern Prayer-Books.

2 Hardwick, p. 155.