CHAP. VIII.

That the Bennet College Latin MS. of 1562. is no Record.

Confefs, it has been pretended, that the Bennet College Latin MS. is the Record of the Articles paffed in 1562. Whereas, befides that pofitive and irrefragable Evidence, which I have already given, that the Record of the Articles was lodg'd in the Registry of the See of Canterbury; this fingle Confideration confutes fo ridiculous an Affertion, viz. that Archbishop Parker had no more Right or Power to difpofe of the Records of Covnocation by Will; than the Lord Chancellor has to difpofe of the Records of Parliament after the fame manner.

But what I chufe rather to infift upon, and which indeed muft needs be efteem'd abundant Demonftration by any confidering Perfon, is the Nature and Condition of the MS. it felf. Infomuch that I am perfuaded, none who has feen and examin'd it, can poffibly think it a Record. For I appeal to any Man of common Senfe, whether a MS. fo frequently and fo odly corrected, fometimes with red Lead, at other times with black Ink; in which fo many Portions, great and fmall, are ftruck out, and so many Particulars are inferted; nay, in which English and Latin are mixed together; and all this without any the leaft Memorandum or other Indication, by which Pofterity might understand, what thofe Articles really were, which had been agreed to; whether fuch a MS. as this, I fay (tho' it might well ferve for a preparatory Draught, and be fubfcrib'd as fuch, by thofe who understood the Meaning of every Mark, and were agreed in their Opinions

Opinions and Designs relating to it) could ever be intended for a Record, in a Matter of fo high Concern, as that of eftablishing the Articles of our Church.

Nay, I think my self indifpenfably bound in Chriftian Charity to believe, that had thofe Perfons, who delight and labor to abuse the pretended Authority of this MS. to the vileft Purposes, been in any tolerable Meafure acquainted with the Nature and Condition of it; they would have been afham'd to own and juftify that Notion of it, which they have taken the utmost Pains to establish.

CHA P. IX.

That the Record of the Articles in the Registry of the See of Canterbury was not fubfcrib'd, nor had the broad Seal affix'd to it,

BUTT

UT it may be ask'd, whether the Record in the Archbishop's Regiftry, was fubfcrib'd by the Members of that Convocation which paffed the Articles. I answer, that tho' we have no direct Evidence on either fide, yet to me it feems moft probable, or rather almoft certain, that 'twas not fubfcrib'd by them. For, 1. There was no need of any fuch Subfcription. 'Tis notorious, that the Articles were fubfcrib'd, when they were pass'd, and the Regifter's Atteftation evinces the Certainty of that Subfcription: but what need was there of repeating it in the Record? 2. It feems to me impoffible, that they fhould have been fubfcrib'd, as they food entred into the public Acts, from the Account we have of the Pages. For the

Pa

219 Paper produc'd by Archbishop Laud fhews, that the Record of them was entred in the Body of the Acts of that Convocation. Now the Register's Atteftation, which was fubjoin'd to the Arti cles in that Book, and which mentions the Subscription of them (and which confequently must have been fubfequent to the Subscription made in that very Book, if any fuch had been made) was written in p. 31. and the Twentieth Article was written in p. 27. of the fame Volume. And I appeal to any. Perfon, whether it be conceivable, that all the following Articles, and the intire Subfcriptions of both Houses, could be crammed into that Volume between p. 27. and p. 31. inclufively; fince the Account of a few Seffions (which,the Reader will find, do fill a very few Pages of the Synodus Anglicana) do, with the preceding Articles, take up from p. 19. to P. 27. inclufively, of the fame Volume.

It may be alfo ask'd, whether the broad Seal was affix'd to that Record. Now here again we have no direct Proof. But it feems to me incredible, that the broad Seal fhould be affixed to the Leaf of a Book, as in this Cafe it must have been.

CHAP. X.

Of the Queen's Approbation of the Articles.

OWEVER, 'tis certain, that the Queen read and examin'd the Articles, and that she gave. her Royal Affent to them. This the Poftfcript to Wolf's Édition affures us of: And probably that very Copy, which I fuppofe to have been fairly tranfcrib'd, and fent to the Lower Houfe, was, after it

had

had been publicly read therein, and approv❜d by them (for that their Subfcriptions were not annex'd or faften'd to it, I prefume, will now be granted) prefented to her Majefty, and fubmitted to her Royal Cenfure.

- Whether her Affent was in this Cafe legally neceffary, I fhall not inquire, much lefs determin. 'Tis certain, the Lower Houfe were very fearful of Danger (as they had juft Reafon) and therefore that cautious Proteftation, Ifta fubfcriptio facta eft, &c. was made; and the Queen for their Security (or rather perhaps, that the might extend her Prerogative by a ftrong Precedent, as far as fhe could poffibly, an Art which Queen Elizabeth never abhorred) gave her Royal Affent and Approbation, which was accordingly taken notice of in the Poftfcript to Wolf's Edition; tho' the Register's Atteftation of the Articles, tranfcrib'd from the Record in Archbishop Laud's Paper, mentions it not; nor was it probably ever inferted in any other pare of the Registers of that Convocation.

In what manner the Queen gave her Affent, or teftified her Approbation, does not appear. My Lord Coke (a) faies, that the Articles were ratified by Queen Elizabeth under the great Seal of England. If fo; they were doubtlefs engrofs'd, and that Inftrument of them was depofited in fome of the Royal Offices. And what if it fhould in God's good Time appear? Let us confider, that affixing the broad Seal to Acts of Convocation was then a new thing, and that the Inftances of it even to this time have been very rare; fo that probably no new Of fice was ever erected forRecords of thatNature. And

therefore it might be lodg'd in a Place intended for other Purposes, and by that Means it may ftill lie undifcover'd. I muft own, 'twill not furprize me, tho' 'twill much rejoice me, if ever fuch an Inftrui ment should be discover'd...

СНАР. XI.

That the Articles were paffed, recorded, and ratified in 1562, in Latin only.

Muft now obferve, that the Articles were in this Year (for I do not at prefent concern my felf with what was afterwards done) paffed, recorded and ratified in Latin only. That they were paf+ fed, recorded and ratified in Latin, I believe no body queftions. Or if it be queftion'd, yet it has been fully prov❜d. For all thofe Evidences, which prove that they were paffed, recorded and ratified at all; do at the fame time fpecify the Language they were paffed, recorded and ratified in. But there is not the leaft Evidence, that they were alfo paffed, recorded and ratified in English. Nay, had they been paffed, recorded and ratified in English, doubtless Archbishop Laud or Dr. Heylyn (or their Adverfaries for them) would have deliver'd fome Hint of it, by appealing to the English as well as to the Latin Records, and obferving the Agreement or Difference between them. But this can't be pleaded. And therefore we have almoft a direct Evidence, that they were pafled, recorded and ratified in Latin only.

СНАР.