A Connected History of the Public Life and Divine Mission of Jesus Christ, as recorded in the Narratives of the Four Evangelists with Reflections By Catharine Cappe. To which, are added, Notes selected from the Short-band Papers of the late Rev. Newcome Cappe. Second edi tion. 8vo. 12s.

The Father of Jesus the Christian's God; or the Doctrine of Seripture concerning the Object of Religious Worship contrasted with Prevalent Forms of Prayer: a Sermon, preached at the Seventh Anniversary of the Association of Scottish Unitarian Christians, held at Edinburgh, April 25, 1819. By Benjamin Mardon, Minister of Union Chapel, Glasgow. 12mo. 8d.

The Peculiar Doctrines of the Gospel: a Sermon preached at the Chapel in Parliament Court, Artillery Lane, London, on Wednesday, June the 2nd, 1819, before the Friends and Supporters of the Unitarian Fund. By James Yates, M. A. M. G. S. one of the Ministers of the New Meeting, Birmingham. 12mo. Is.

The Friendly Monitor; intended as a Companion to "The Pastoral Visiter," by the Rev. R. Housman, B. A., containing Remarks on his "Triumphant Proofs" of the Deity of Christ. By Omicron. 8vo. 1s.

Mental Wanderings: or Fragments on Priesteraft and Superstition. A Tale of Other Times. By Phileleutherus. 12mo.

3s.

Essays, Biographical, Literary, Moral and Critical. By the Rev. John Evans.

The Law of Mercy, a Poetical Essay on the Punishment of Death, with Illustrative Notes. 3s. 6d.

An Apocryphal Book, of a very Early

Date, supposed to have been entirely lost, called the Ascension of Isaiah, in Ethiopic, with a Latin and English Translation. By Richard Laurence, LL.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew in the University of Oxford. 8vo. 7s. 6d.

A Popular Abstract of the New System of Physical Philosophy, proposed by Sir Richard Phillips. Folio sheet. 6d.

The Anti-Deist, a Vindication of the Bible. By John Bellamy. 8vo.

A Second Reply to the Further Remarks in the Quarterly Review, on the New Translation of the Bible. By J. Bellamy. 8vo. 1s. 6d.

Two Dialogues on the Trinity. By James Harrington Evans, lately a Minister of the Establishment, and formerly Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford. 6s.

A Ready Reply to a pamphlet entitled "Human Deity Developed; or, Familiar Remarks on a pamphlet entitled God in Christ." By George Bevan, Author of "God in Christ," and lately a Minister in the National Religious Establishment. 9d.

A Few Remarks, occasioned by a pam. phlet entitled "The Doctrine of Three Divine Persons stated and vindicated." The substance of which first appeared in the 47th Number of the New Evangelical Magazine. 3d.

Scripture Compared with Itself, in Proof of the Catholic Doctrine of the Holy Trinity; and (by necessary induction and consequence) of the Personality and Divinity of the Holy Ghost; and of the Divinity of our blessed Saviour, equal to the Father in the Unity of the Godhead; in a Letter to a Friend. By John Vaillant, Esq., M. A., late of Christ Church, Oxon, Barrister at Law. 2s. 6d.

On the Controverted Clause in the Twentieth Article of the Church of England.

IN

N the common editions of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, subscribed by the Clergy of the Church of England, the Twentieth Article reads thus: "The Church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, and authority in matters of faith and yet, it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy writ, yet as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same, ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of salvation." The genuineness is disputed of the first clause of this Article: "The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith, and yet"-and of the corresponding words in the Latin editions: "Habet Ecclesia ritus statuendi jus, et in fidei controversiis autoritatem, quamvis" The following facts are stated, not as sufficient to decide the controversy, but to direct the attention of the members of this society to the subject, which is not altogether destitute of importance or interest, and to call forth the information which they may possess for its elucidation.

Few things are more directly influenced by our characters, prejudices and habitual modes of thinking, than the estimates which we form of internal evidence. It is with some the most convincing, and with others the least satisfactory, kind of proof which can be employed. Some cannot perceive a particle of it, where others find it in abundance, even so as to amount to moral demonstration. The contents of the New Testament have

been deemed so extraordinary as to require a greater body of external evidence than any other book in the world; and it has also been contended, that they "afford good reason to believe the persons and transactions to have been real, the letters genuine, and the narration in the main to be true," even on the supposition of its being now first discovered in some antiquarian library, and coming to our hands "destitute of any extrinsic or collateral evidence whatever." Thus Bengelius found the interual evidence in favour of the text relative to the three heavenly witnesses resistless, notwithstanding the total absence of external authority; and the Editors of the Improved Version find it equally resistless against the initial chapters of Matthew and Luke, which exist in every known manuscript and version whatever. Alleged facts must be met by facts; but to a display of internal proof, however clear to the writer, the simple words "I don't see it," are an incontrovertible reply by his reader. That the clause in question looks like a forgery; that it is clumsily dovetailed into the remaining part of the Article; that the whole is rendered by it inconsistent and contradictory, &c., are, therefore, considerations which it is not worth while to dwell upon. A perception of them depends so much upon the constitution and training of the minds of individuals, that it can rarely be communicated. And even if they be well-founded, the inconsistency of creedmakers is not altogether an impossible supposition; though it must be allowed that they have rarely manifested it, when aiming at tyranny over conscience.

Without venturing to advance a decided opinion, I shall mention a few facts bearing upon the genuineness of the controverted clause, and affording materials for the discussion,

though not, perhaps, for the decision of the question.

This assertion of the Church's authority is no part of the Forty-two Articles of Edward VI. which were chiefly the work of Cranmer, who, whatever his errors, had such views of carrying further the Reformation, as would have induced him to make provision for simplifying the service of the Church, as it then existed, rather than for increasing its rites and ceremonies. These Articles were in force (except during the reign of Mary) up to the meeting of Convocation in 1562, when they underwent some alteration, and being reduced to thirty-nine, became the permanent creed of the Church. They were subjected to a second revision in 1571, but the changes then made were very trifling indeed. In the interval between these two periods the clause in question seems to have made its first appear

ance.

:

The transactions of the Convocation in 1562, might be ascertained by four kinds of evidence, three of which are in existence. 1. The testimony of those who took part in its proceedings, or of contemporaries. This is wanting and that it is, operates perhaps rather against the clause, for it seems likely that the Puritans would not have silently allowed so portentous an addition to an authority which, in their opinion, savoured much too strongly of Popery before. Its surreptitious introduction they could neither provide nor protest against. 2. The manuscript then subscribed. 3. The records of Convocation. 4. The copies thereafter printed and published.

The manuscript then subscribed remained in the possession of Archbishop Parker, and was by him, after the lapse of some years, deposited in Bennet College, Cambridge, where, I believe, it is still to be seen. It is in Latin, signed by both Houses of Convocation, by the Upper on 29th January, and the Lower on 5th February, and consists of the Forty-two Articles of Edward VI. with the erasures, alterations and additions then agreed upon, and many of which are in Parker's own hand. The clause is not in this manuscript. There are in it many additions which are struck through with the red pencil, which

Parker was in the habit of using, and which probably were submitted to the meeting, discussed and rejected; but the clause does not appear even in that shape. This evidence is therefore strong against it.—I should think it fatal; but for the next kind of proof appealed to, viz.

The Records of Convocation. These are not now extant. They perished in the fire of London. But they were preserved in the registry at Lainbeth previously, from the year 1562, and even appealed to by Laud, in his famous speech in the Star-chamber, to repel the charge of having himself forged this very clause of which he had repeatedly been accused. The extract produced by Laud, on this occasion, certified by a public notary, was in the possession, many years after, of the descendents of Chief Justice Hale, who was executor to the celebrated Selden, by whom it was, probably, obtained from Prynne, who seized the papers of Laud, by virtue of an order of Parliament. In this minute of the proceedings, the Twen tieth Article has the controverted clause. That the extract was faithfully made there are two reasons for believing. 1. The document was a public one, the office public, access to it not difficult at any time, and the whole soon after in the uncontrolled possession of Laud's bitterest enemies, and yet the correctness of the transcript was never impeached. 2. These very records were again appealed to during the Protectorate. Fuller says, in his Church History, "The clause in question lieth at a dubious posture, at, in, and out, sometimes inserted, sometimes omitted, both in our writ ten and printed copies. Inserted in, The Original of the Articles, 1562-3, as appeareth under the hand of a public notary, whose inspection and attestation is only decisive in this case. Omitted in, The English and Lati Articles set forth 1571. In a word concerning this clause, whether the bishops were faulty in their addition, or their opposites in their substraction, I leave to more cunning statearithmeticians to decide." To which Dr. Heylin replied, that he had himself inspected the records of Convoca tion, and seen it there, and adds"Which makes me wonder at our Author, that having access to those

It should be observed, that the record gives the Articles, not only as resolved upon, but as subscribed on the 29th January, 1562, so that it is in the most complete opposition to the MS. copy referred to. Were this the whole of the conflicting evidence, the conclusion must be, that the record had been interpolated-not by Laud perhaps, for under all the circumstances detection could scarcely have been avoided, but previously the next head of evidence is

Printed Copies. The Articles having been framed, corrected and passed, in Latin, the first Latin edition, after the rising of Convocation in 1562, seems entitled to great weight in the argument. It is to be presumed that it was intended for the use of the clergy, and so many of them were present, (one hundred and seventeen,)

that

any important variation was not likely to pass undetected. This edition was printed by Wolfe in 1563, and has the clause! There are two old English editions, without date, which are supposed to have been printed before the revisal in 1571, for this reason the title of the twentyfirst Homily of the second tome, which was occasioned by the Northern Rebellion in 1569, is not added to the thirty-fifth Article, as it is in the subsequent editions; they were printed by Richard Jugge, a name not unknown to the black-letter stu

dent as connected with the publications of that period. They have not the controverted clause. By what authority, or by whom, this English translation was made, does not appear. Besides that omission, it has another remarkable agreement with the subscribed manuscript, and difference from Wolfe's edition, which seems to prove that it was not translated from that edition. In the thirty-seventh Article, Of the Civil Magistrate, it says, "The Queen's Majesty hath the

chief power in this realm," &c.— faithfully rendering, Regia Majestas, &c., summam habet potestatem— whereas Wolfe has (and no other known edition) jure summam habet potestatem: transforming it from an assertion of fact, to one of right.

It is certain that after they passed the Convocation the Articles were submitted to the Queen, and ratified by her; and it is, perhaps, worth considering, whether this addition and that of the controverted clause were not made on that occasion by Elizabeth herself.

The Convocation met again in 1566, but no business was done, except granting a subsidy to the Queen; however in that year, a bill was brought into Parliament for obliging the clergy to subscribe the Articles, which passed the Commons, but was stopped in the Lords, by the Queen's interference. This was ascribed to evil counsellors, but it was quaintly replied, that on this occasion, as on many others, "all Elizabeth's counci rode upon one horse." The Bill was the same as passed in 1571. It is mentioned here, because the title of the Articles being recited in English, gives a greater authority to the translation than it would otherwise have had, and consequently makes against the clause.

We come now to the Convocation of 1571. At the commencement of this sitting, the Lower House, in consequence of the command of Archbishop Parker, subscribed in a body the Articles as passed in 1562. For this purpose they made use of the Latin printed edition, which has the controverted clause; but the very copy, with their names affixed, was preserved in the Bodleian Library, and that clause is struck through with a pen. The Articles now were discussed in English, using as a basis the translation which had been published in the interval, of which the manuscript copy, with the alteratious made by the bishops, and subscribed by them, is in Bennet College Library, presented also by Parker, and having no trace of the controverted clause. The Lower House again subscribed, after the alterations were made, but whether to the same copy as in 1562, or to another, is not known, and their. signatures are not extant.

There are also four editions, by the same printers, of the same date, with the clause.

An edition, without date, but supposed to be only a year or two less ancient, printed by Jugge only, is

without the clause.

In one, and only one, of the English editions of 1571, there is a marginal reference to a passage in the works of St. Augustin, in proof of the doctrine, for which his authority is cited in Article twenty-nine. This reference is in the Bennet College manuscript, subscribed by the bishops in that year, in the hand-writing of Parker. There was also preserved, amongst Mr. Petyt's papers in the Inner Temple Library, the rough draft of a letter in Parker's hand, without address, and supposed to be intended for Lord Burleigh, concerning the propriety of this appeal to the authority of St. Augustin, from which it appears that the applicability of the place cited, had been disputed. At this time the Articles were passing through the press; the citation from Augustin was withdrawn; but as the only edition, most probably therefore the first, which has the citation, also has the controverted clause, these facts demonstaate that, whether it was there rightfully or wrongfully, Parker was privy to its insertion.

The Puritans were very powerful in the House of Commons at this time; and Laud has directly and forcibly charged them with causing the fraudulent omission of the clause. To this accusation two replies may be made. First, The bishops, and they alone, seem to have had the controul of the publication of the Articles, which were actually printed before they came under the consideration of Parliament, and the printed book referred to in the Act. And, Secondly,

of sufficient moment to undertake such a measure, as this is one of the arti cles, the subscription of which it seems that Legislature did not expect would be enforced, and which in fact they did not ratify at all. The statute of 13 Eliz. c. 12, enjoins subscription to all the Articles of religion which only concern the confession of the true Christian faith, and the doctrine of the Sacraments. The articles of discipline, to which, I presume, this must belong, were purposely omitted, as appears by the following well-known anecdote: "When some members of the House of Commons, and among the rest Sir Peter Wentworth, were sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury (Parker) for the Articles which then passed the House; the Archbishop took that occasion to expostulate with them, Why they did put out of the book the Articles for the Homilies, consecrating of Bishops, and such like? (Meaning, by the limiting clause, confining subscription to articles only of a certain tenor.) Surely, Sir,' said Wentworth, because we were so occupied in other matters, that we had no time to examine them, how they agreed with the word of God.' What!' said the Archbishop, surely you mistook the matter; you will refer yourselves wholly to us therein.' Sir Peter replied, 'No, by the faith I bear to God, we will pass nothing before we understand what it is; for that were but to make you popes; make you popes who list, for we will make you none."" The bishops, however, soon managed to make the clergy subscribe the whole. But the circumstance serves to render it improbable that the fraud rested there, and also to account for the various readings not exciting more contemporary discussion.

In 1604, the whole Convocation again solemnly subscribed the Articles. They used an English printed copy, by Christopher Barker, 1593, with the controverted clause.

In 1633 the authenticity of this clause was publicly debated in the divinity schools at Öxford, upon occasion of Heylin's disputing for his Doctor's degree. Prideaux, the professor, read the Latin article out of the Corpus Confessionum, published at Geneva, 1612, without the clause.