Now it must be observed, that the Lords could not fufpect any Difference between the King's paffing the Bill in Perfon, and his paffing it by Commiffion. For the King's paffing a Bill by Commiffion is exprefly declared as valid, as his paffing it in Perfon, by 33 Hen. VIII. c. 21. Their Doubt was therefore, whether the King's paffing it at all (whether in Perfon or by Commiffion) wou'd not conclude the Seffion. And yet this very Bill was paffed (for Sir Thomas fate in the House on the 15th of May) and the Seffion was not thereby concluded. 'Twas refolved therefore, that the King's paffing a Bill did not conclude a Seffion. And the Reason of their Debate was manifeftly this; they apprehended, that by the King's paffing Sir Thomas's Bill a Stop would be put to all the other Business then depending in both Houses; for that they fhould be obliged to begin every thing de novo, if the Seffion were thereby concluded.

These are clear Cafes. And doubtless the Practice did not vary in the intermediate Space of Queen Elizabeth's Reign, tho' I cannot furnifh the Reader with Precedents in Confirmation of it. Wherefore I conclude that the Bill A (tho' in Subftance, and perhaps in Words, the very fame with that which paffed the Commons in 1566) began de novo, when 'twas brought into that House again on April the 6th 1571; and that tho' fome of the Readings of the Bill touching Religion were omitted in the Original Journal Book (as S. S. D'Ewes obferves) as Matters no great moment; yet the Omiffion of the Readings of the Bill A, which was most certainly of great moment, muft rather be imputed to the Negligence of the Clerc of the House.

СНАР.

What Edition of the Articles we are oblig'd to fubfcribe by the Act of the 13 Eliz. Chap. 12.

HE Statute which injoins Subfcription, re

in a Book imprinted, intituled, Articles, whereupon it was agreed, &c. 'Tis manifeft therefore, that we are by this Statute requir'd to fubfcribe the Articles in English. But then there being a Diversity in the English Copies (fome being of the old, others of the new Tranflation; fome that have, others that have not, the Controverted Claufe of the Twentieth Article) let us confider, what Copy our Legislature confines us to.

'Tis certain, that when this Bill was depending in the Parliament of 1566, and when the Bishops were fo defirous to obtain the Royal Affent, as I have already fhewn; there was no other than the old Tranflation extant, and that the Convocation were not at that time preparing a new one. So that, if the Bill had then paffed, the Clergy had been obliged to fubfcribe the old Tranflation. But 'tis as certain, that whilft the Bill was depending in the Parliament of 1571, the Convocation did actually prepare and finish the new Tranflation; and that it was printed (at least) by the 4th of June. Nor could the new Statute about Subfcription be printed fooner (in all Probability not fo foon) becaufe all the feveral Acts receiv'd the Royal Affent on Tuesday the 29th of May. It will therefore bear an Inquiry, whether the Statute of this Year requires a Subfcription to the old, or to the new Translation.

Da

"Tis

Chap. XXX. 'Tis plain, that the Title Page of the new Tranflation (after it was corrected, as I have shewn in the Twenty thirdChapter) was precisely the fame, as that of the old one; and confequently the Statute, which recites the Title Page at large, and gives us no other Description of the Book, may as well be understood of the new, as of the old Tranflation. The Words of the Statute therefore can't decide the Point before us.

As for the Circumftances, we know, that the Bill began in the Commons Houfe; and that it was paffed by them, and carried to the Lords (and probably 'twas alfo paffed by the Lords) before the new Translation was finish'd by the Convocation, or even by the Bishops themfelves, in whofe Houfe it began. And it may be imagined, that the Parliament would not oblige the Clergy to fubfcribe, what they themfelves had never feen; and confequently that they intended the old Tranflation. But then on the other Hand it must be obferv'd, that the Parliament could not poffibly be ignorant, that the Convocation were preparing a new Tranflation; and that the Articles had never, before that Year, been pafs'd by the Convocation otherwife than in Latin.

Now 'tis most notorious, that all the Corrections of the Titles of the particular Articles, as long as the Articles themselves were fix'd and certain, could create no manner of Difficulty; the Defign of the Act being to fecure a Subfcription, not to the Titles of the Articles, but to the Articles themfelves. And 'tis exceedingly remarkable, that of all the differences between the Latin Text of Wolf, and that of Day, there are only four (except fuch as might proceed from mere Chance) but what are exactly conformable to the English MS. figned by

the

the Bishops on the 11th of May; and that even those four are of no real Moment, nor could poffibly create any Difficulty to the Subfcribers. This I have prov'd in the 22d Chapter, p. 310, 311. Wherefore, even before the Commons had pafs'd the Bill, both Houses of Parliament could not but know, if they pleas'd, that the Latin Articles were still in Subftance and Reality the very fame as in 1562; and all the fmall Alterations therein, either actually made in Convocation, or intended to be made, were confequently fuch as the Parliament heartily approv'd, or at least had no Objection against.

This being the Cafe, fince all that was afterwards done, related only to the Tranflation of the Articles and fince the Parliament knew, that the Convocation meant (and probably had given them the fulleft Affurances, that they were ftedfastly refoly'd) to do no more than amend the old unauthentic Tranflation, and bring it in fome remaining Inftances (as they had already done in a great variety before) to a more thorough Conformity to the Latin Standard, which was actually fetled: how was it poffible for either Houfe of Parliament to fcruple the Paffing of that Act, obliging the Clergy to fubfcribe the new Tranflation, with fome few Particularities of which they might certainly truft the Bifhops (who furely were the moft proper Judges of fuch Matters) fince they knew the Original was not to be farther touched. And as for the Queen, there is no doubt, but fhe was from time to time acquainted with, and encouraged, all the Steps they took. Otherwife we may guefs, what Courfes her well known Difpofition would have inclined her to. You fee therefore, that as the Words of the Statute do equally admit both Tranflations; fo the aforefaid Circumftances do

not forbid us, but moft certainly allow us, to underftand it of the New one. Thus far, I think, every thing is clear.

Let us now fee, whether fome Particulars do not turn the Balance, and give it manifeftly, even neceffarily, for the New Tranflation, and against the Old one. The Ratification exprefly declares, in both Languages, that thofe Articles, viz. the Articles of 1562, as then revifed in 1971, were to be holden and executed within the Realm, &c. Now the Old Tranflation differs very confiderably from thofe revifed Articles. For the whole Twenty -ninth Article, tho' paffed in 1562, is omitted in the Old Tranflation; not to mention other Inftances. And confequently a Subfcription to the Old Tranflation could not be a Subfcription to the Articles then required by the Queen to be holden and exe-cuted. This Ratification therefore, which accompa -nied the Publication of the Articles, and was contemporary with the Publication of the Statute, is a manifeft determination of the Question; it being the Queen's own Teftimony (which furely will be admitted as decifive) that the New Tranflation in particular, which was prepared by the Convocation, and ratified by the Queen (whereas the Queen's Printers never durft pretend any thing like it in their Editions of the Old Tranflation; because the Queen had never authorized it) is to be fubfcrib'd in obedience to the New Statute. 2. Since both Houses of Parliament could not but know, that a New Tranflation was preparing in Convocation, and that the Queen was refolv'd to have it publish'd; and that the Convocation at the fame time made a Canon injoining fuch a Subscription, as muft neceffarily be understood to relate to the Articles of 1562, as then newly revised by them:

cer