Chap. XXXIII. to approve any thing for true and found by their Hands, which is oppofite, or not agreeable to, the revealed Will and Scriptures of God. For he takes it for granted, as all Men did in his Days, that all who fubfcribed, did by their Hands approve what they fubfcribéd, for true and found.

In one Word, we muft obferve the Difference between what the Church requires of her Laity, and what the requires of her Clergy. In her Canons of 1603 fhe admits the Laity to her Communion, provided they conform to her Liturgy, &c. and do not impugn the Articles. I confefs, if any Lay Perfon fhall affirm the faid Articles to be in any part fuperftitious or erroneous, or fuch as may not be with a good Confcience fubfcribed; he is cenfured by the fifth Canon: but if he holds his peace, and makes no oppofition to them, he is not obliged to fubfcribe the Articles, and thereby to acknowledge, that he profeffes and believes them true. This I fpeak of the Laity in general; for it must be remembred, that fome Lay Perfons, in particular Cafes, are obliged to make the Subfcription prefcribed in the Thirty fixth Canon; and confequently must do it in the Senfe before declar'd. But then as for the Clergy, the Church does not fuffer them to be ordained, or entrusted with any public Miniftration, without that exprefs Subfcription of which we have been speaking, and a folemn Repetition of it upon every Occafion. This Method The takes, that the may the more effectually fecure the Orthodoxy of fuch as are to inftruct others; and thereby prevent, as much as in her lies, the broaching and increafe of falfe and pernicious Doctrins.

And upon this foot have Matters ftood ever fince. Tho' the fame Subfcription has been afresh

in

of

injoined fince the Death of King James the First; yet not the leaft Expreffion has been dropped in any Statute, or other public Act, which may give the leaft Countenance to an Alteration of the Importance of the Subfcription. On the contrary, in the memorable Declaration of King Charles the First, we find thefe Words; Tho' Jone Differences have been ill raifed, yet we take comfort in this, that all Clergymen within our Realm, have always most willingly fubfcribed to the Articles eftablished: which is an Argument to us, that they all agree in the true usual literal Meaning of the faid Articles and that even in thofe curious Points in which the prefent Differences lie, Men of all forts take the Articles of the Church of England to be for them which is an Argument again, that none of them intend any Desertion of the Articles eftablished. A Man can't read this Paffage without obferving, that every Subfcriber to the Articles was then fuppofed to believe them true; tho' in fone Propofitions dif ferent Men understood them differently: Even as thofe Men acknowledge the Scriptures to be true, who give different Expofitions of fome particular Texts. And therefore, fince all our Laws do fpeak this Language, without the leaft Variation to this Day; the Senfe of the Subscription does and must continue the fame, and neceffarily imply a Profeffion and Belief of the Truth of the Articles.

And indeed this was conftantly the Senfe of the Subfcribers themfelves, in the Reigns, not only of Queen Elizabeth and King James I. (as I have al ready faid) but alfo of the bleffed Martyr. The Declaration aforefaid is fufficient Proof of this. But to confirm it, I challenge any Perfon to produce a fingle Paffage to the contrary from the Writings of thofe Times.

CHAP.

CHÁ P. XXXIV.

An Objection from fome Paffages of Archbishop Laud, Mr. Chillingworth, Archbishop Bramhall, and Bishop Stillingfleet, answered.

Archbishop Laud, and Mr. Chillingworth, do favor another Senfe of the Subfcription; and intimate, that our Church does not thereby require a Belief, but only Non-opposition to her Doctrin. I fhall therefore confider the feveral Paffages quoted for this Purpose.

The Archbishop (a) has these Words;

I did not fay, that the Book of Articles only was the Continent of the Church of England's public Doctrine. She is not so narrow, nor has fhe purpose to exclude any thing, which she acknowledges hers; nor doth fhe willingly permit any Croffing of her public Declarations; yet fhe is not fuck a Shrew to ber Children, as to deny her Bleffing, or denounce an Anathema against them, if fome peaceably diffent in fome Particulars remoter from the Foundation, as your own School-men differ. And if the Church of Rome, fince she grew to her Greatness, had not been fo fierce in this Courfe, and too particular in determining too many things, and making them Matters of neceffary Belief, which bad gone for many Hundreds of Years before, only for things of pious Opinion, Christendom (I perfuade my self) had been in happier Peace at this day, then, I doubt, we shall ever live to fee it.

(a) Conference with Fiber, Sect. 14. p. 50, 51, 52. Lond. 1639.

Well,

Well, but A. C. will prove the Church of England a Shrew, and fuch a Shrew. For in her Book of Canons fhe excommunicates every Man who shall hold any thing contrary to any part of the faid Articles. So A. C. But furely thefe are not the very Words of the Canon, nor perhaps the Senfe. Not the Words; for they are: Whofoever fhall affirm, that the Articles are in any part fuperftitious, or erroneous, &c. And perhaps not the Senfe. For it is one thing for a Man to hold an Opinion privately within himself; and another thing boldly and publicly to affirm it. And again, 'tis one thing to hold contrary to fome part of an Article, which perhaps may be but in the manner of Expreffion; and another thing pofitively to affirm, that the Articles in any part of them are fuperftitious, and erroneous. But this is not the Main of the Bufinefs. For tho' the Church of England denounce Excommunication, as is before expreffed; yet she comes far Short of the Church of Rome's Severity, whofe Anathema's are not only for Thirty nine Articles, but for very many more, above One hundred in matter of Doctrine; and that in many Points as far remote from the Foundation, tho' to the far greater Rack of Men's Confciences, they must be all made Fundamental, if that Church have once determined them: whereas the Church of England never declared, That every one of her Articles are Fundamental in the Faith. For 'tis one thing to say: No one of them is fuperftitious or erroneous: And quite another to fay: Every one of them is Fundamental, and that in every part of it, to all Men's Belief. Befides the Church of England prescribes only to her own Children, and by thofe Articles provides but for her own peaceable Confent in thofe Doctrines of Truth: But the Church of Rome feverely impofes her Doctrine upon the whole World under pain of Damnation.

Chap. XXXIV. Now thefe Words do manifeftly relate, not to the Subcription required by the Thirty fixth Ca❤ non, but to what the Church requires of the Laity in general by the Fifth Canon, of which I have already difcours'd. The Church of Rome declares of all her Errors contain'd in the Trent Creed. that they are that Faith, extra quam nemo faluus effe poteft; and confequently requires the Profeffion of her Doctrins, as fundamental and neceffary to Salvation: Whereas the Church of England on the contrary, as the Archbishop argues, declares no སཔ་ fuch thing concerning her Articles, and admits thofe to her Communion, who do not difturb her Peace by openly impugning the Articles.

But what is all this to the Subcription required by the Thirty fixth Canon? The Church of Eng Land may indulge the Laity in general as much as fhe pleafes, and thereby act quite contrary to the Church of Rome, which binds all the Laity to the Profeffion of her numberlefs Errors; altho' fhe requires the Clergy (and fome few of the Laity, in particular Cafes) to fubfcribe her Articles, and thereby to profefs the Belief of them. For furely, 'twill not follow, that because the Church does not oblige the Laity in general to profefs the Truth of her Articles in the Fifth Canon, upon which the Archbishop exprefly grounds his Difcourfe; therefore fhe does not oblige the Clergy (and fome few of the Laity, in the Cafes before hinted at) to believe thofe Articles true, which they fubcribe in obedience to the Thirty fixth Canon. And had either the Jefuite or the Archbishop intended more than the general Cafe of the Laity, and the different Ufage of them in the Church of England and that of Rome; they could not have failed to quote and argue upon the Thirty fixth Canon: Whereas they mention only