Only it must be remembred, that he who fubfcribes this Article, is not fuppofed thereby to declare his Approbation of every Particular, which is found in the Homilies. For tho' our Subfcription to the Articles ties us up to every fingle Propofition of the faid Articles: yet 'tis unreasonable to extend a fingle Propofition in the Thirty fifth Article, to an Approbation of every Propofition, that may be found in a whole Folio Book, of merely Human Compofition; and in which, upon that Account, 'twould be a Miracle, if nothing were either really amifs, or what an honeft Man might with a very good Confcience diffent from. And I dare fay, whoever carefully examins the Homilies, provided he be otherwife well affected to the Eftablifhed Church, will heartily with for, and be very ready to allow, this Senfe of our Subfcription.

་་

But yet, becaufe in Matters of Subfcription a Man ought to take effectual Care, that he deals openly and fairly, that he does not trifle with Sacred Obligations, and play with Setled Impofitions, and thereby give his Confcience, either fuch a Wrench as may often make his Heart ake, or fuch a Loofe as may debauch it in other Inftances; for thefe Reasons, I fay, and also that I may both filence fuch as strain every thing to a falfe and bad Senfe, and render thofe perfectly eafy, who are willing to admit a good and true one; I fhall fubjoin a decifive Explanation of our Subfcription to this Article. vtrum 1

X

Bishop Morton having wrote a Defence of the Sur plifs, the Crofs, and Kneeling at the Sacrament, Dr. Ames publifh'd a Reply to it. To this Reply Dr. John Burgesvreturn'd an Anfiver, which occafioned Dr. Ames's Fresh Suit, to which Mr. Ritchel rejoined, and fo the Controverfy ended.

Now Dr. Burges had formerly, by fome indifcreet Superior, been deprived for Nonconformity. But afterwards he prefented his Senfe of the Terms required, firft by the Hands of the Bishop of Winchefter (Dr. Lancelot Andrews, I prefume) to King James the First, and then to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, Dr. G. Abbot: and thereupon he was reftored to the Exercise of his Ministry.

He gives us an Account of this Matter in the Preface to his Answer to Dr. Ames, p. 18. in these Words, And after that time, even the very Day in which I was deprived for refufal of Subscription, I did openly before (I take it) an Hundred Witnesses (whereof Some yet remain) profefs, that if it should be made plain to me, that there was no fuch Alteration in the Church's Intendment as I apprehended, I would then subscribe, as I had done before, without Scruple. And accordingly afterwards I did freely fubfcribe, after that His Majefty bad feen the Interpreta tion of things which I had conceived, and fatisfied my felf in, and bad allowed them and after that my Lord's Grace of Canterbury that now is, had told me, that they were not my Senfes, but the very true Meaning and Senfe of the Church of England, whatfoever fome Men out of the Ryot of their Wits had difcourfed. These Interpretations I will fubjoin to this Difcourfe, because it may do fome Men good.

Accordingly he does fubjoin that Paper, Pref. p. 23, &c. under this Title, A Particular of thofe In terpretations of fome Things queftioned in the Matter of Subfcription, with which I had fatisfied my felf in former times, and with which I offered to fubfcribe the fame Day wherein I was deprived for not fubfcribing; which were after prefented to His Majeftie by the then Bishop of Winchefter, and after to my Lord's Grace of Canterbury, upon which I was restored to my Minifterie. And at the End of it he has thefe Words, Thefe Interpretations

King

King James accepted, and my Lord's Grace of Canterbury affirmed them to be the true Senfe and Intention of the Church of England.

Now it must be obferv'd, that this Book was publish'd by the fpecial Command of King Charles the Firft, as the Title Page informs us, and that the Doctor's Dedication to that King begins in thefe Words,

Moft Gracious and Dread Soveraigne,

It pleas'd your excellent Majestie by your Letters to me vouchsafed, both to fignify your Highness dislike of my fuppreffing what I had written fome Years paft in Maintenance of the Reverend Father the Lord Bishop of Coventrie and Litchfield, bis Defence of the Ceremonies of this Church of England, against an intemperate and fcurrilous Reply made thereunto by a nameless Author: And alfo ftraitly to charge me forthwith to deliver my Papers on that Subject, into the Hands of the faid Reverend Bishop my Diocefan, that it might be feen, how well I had vindicated the Honor both of this Church, and of that worthy Prelate, from the Calumnies and Indignities caft upon both by that Replier.

In dutiful Obedience to that your Majesties Injunction, I bave fo done; not keeping back any part of what I had then finish'd, nor prefuming to stay it any longer in my Hands, till the reft might have been added, for fear of incurring your Majefties Difpleasure. And now, that my Rejoinder (even unperfect as it was) has taken Life and Motion from the Breath of your Majefties Command, it comes abroad into the World.

Whoever confiders the Circumftances above related, will be forc'd to acknowledge, that no Interpretation of the Senfe of our Subfcription to the Thirty fifth Article can be more authentic, than that which was accepted, as well by King James the First (in whofe Time the Canon prefcribing the Form of it was made) as by the Arch-Bishop of

Can,

• Canterbury, and publicly declar'd to have been so accepted, in a Book publifh'd by fo remarkable a Command of King Charles the Firft. Now that Interpretation of the Subfcription follows in these very Words.

X. Of the Two Books of Homilies.

I undertake not to approve of every Phrase or Allegation of Scripture, as fitly applied to the Mind of the Holy Ghost: but that dogmatically there is nothing delivered in thofe Homilies, that I know to be contrary to the Word of God, but that they may lawfully and profitably be read to the Peo ple for their Edification, when better Means are wanting: And in this Senfe I fubfcribe to thofe Books alfo:

Wherefore let any confcientious and candid Perfon judge. The Article afferts, that the two Books of Homilies do contain a godly and wholfom Do Arin neceffary for thefe Times: Nor is there any Doubt, but we are abfolutely bound to fubfcribe the Truth of this Propofition. But the Question is, in what Sense this Propofition is true, and whether that Senfe be allowed in the Subfcription. Now I think, the Truth of that Propofition, in Dr. Burges's Senfe, is exceedingly evident and you fee, that Senfe is allowed and declared to be the true one by the moft competent Authority. So that I do not pretend, that a Man may fubfcribe the Thirty fifth Article in a loofer Senfe, than he fubfcribes the other Articles (for that would be downright Kna very and Prevarication) but I contend, that that Propofition, to which we do thus abfolutely fubfcribe, as fully and heartily as to any of the reft, is not to be understood in that rigid Senfe, which fome Perfons, for very ill Ends, would faften on it.

And therefore I heartily wifh, that those Learned Gentlemen, who write upon this Point, would

exprefs

express themselves more properly than they ufually do. They talk very frequently of our Subfcription to the Homilies; whereas in Reality there is no fuch thing required of us. We muft fubfcribe the Articles, 'tis true: but not the Homilies. For if we were in Reality and Propriety of Speech required to fubfcribe the Homilies; I muft own, I think, we should be oblig'd thereby to profess our Belief of the Truth of every Propofition contain'd in the Homilies even as by our Subfcription to the Articles we profefs our Belief of every Proposition contain❜d in the faid Articles. And yet, tho' I have a very profound Veneration for that excellent Collection of Difcourfes, which the twoBooks of Homilies contain (as every Man furely must have, who confiders the Contents, the Occafion, and the Circumftances of them) I declare to the whole World, that I do by no Means conceive my self bound to profefs my Belief of every Propofition contain❜d in them.

Perhaps 'twill be roundly faid, that a Subfcription to the Thirty fifth Article, is a Subfcription to the Homilies. But then I utterly deny the Truth of that confident Affirmation. For in the Thirty fith Article we do not fubfcribe the Homilies, but we fubfcribe this Propofition relating to the Homilies, viz. that they contain a godly and wholfom Doctrin neceflary for thefe Times. Surely there is a vaft difference between fubfcribing the Homilies themfelves, and fubfcribing a Propofition concerning them. This Distinction ought carefully to be noted; otherwise we fhall perplex our felves with improper Expreffions, and wrangle everlastingly about them; at the fame time that the things themfelves are clear, and fuch as all Perfons will naturally agree in, when they understand what is really meant by their Oppofers.

If