and favoured by him, though they were

of authority. In a speech of Sir Edward Dering, made in the house of commons Nov. 23, 1640, we find him remarking on the innovations in the doctrine of the church after the following manner: "With the papists there is a mysterious artifice, I mean their Index expurgatorius, whereby they clip the tongues of such witnesses whose evidence they do not like.—To this I parallel our late Imprimaturs, licences for the press; so handled, that truth is supprest, and popish pamphlets fly abroad, cum privilegio: witness the audacious and libelling pamphlets against true religion, written by Pocklington, Heylin, Dow, Cosins, Shelford, Swan, Reeves, Yates, Hanstead, Studley, Sparrow, Brown, Roberts,-many more; I name no bishops, but I add, &c. Nay, they are already grown so bold in this new trade, that the most learned labours of our antient and best divines must be now corrected and defaced with a deleatur, by the supercilious pen of my lord's young chaplaine; fit perhaps for the technical arts, but unfit to hold the chair for divinity. But herein the Roman index is better than our English licensers: they thereby do preserve the current of their own established doctrine; a point of wisdome. But with us our innovators, by this artifice, doe alter our settled doctrines: nay, they doe subinduce points repugnant and contrarient "."

Those who would know the particulars of these matters, may easily find them in our writers of churchhistory. If it be asked what end the encouragement of these innovations answered in the eye of Charles? the answer is, that it galled the puritans, hateful to his majesty on account of their inviolable attachment to

* Collection of Speeches by Sir Edward Dering, p. 13. 4to. Lond.

most hateful to the body of the nation: and

civil liberty; it brought things nearer to the Romish church, which was what the king and Laud were desirous of (as we shall hereafter shew); and it helped to advance the mighty scheme of despotic sway, which this prince had been meditating and practising from his accession to the throne: for all the Arminians at this time were divine-right and prerogative-men.-I cannot conclude this note without observing, that this declaration of Charles, prefixed to the thirty-nine articles, has been produced and canvassed in the famous Bangorian and Trinitarian controversies, which engaged the attention of the public for a great number of years. This will best be understood by the following quotations.

"If the bishop [Potter] means to lay it down as the rule of subscription, that it must be made in the sense in which the imposers understood the words; I will tell him a few reasons why I can by no means agree to this. 1. Because, in several cases, it is impossible to be certain in what sense they themselves understood them. 2. Because there are not perhaps ten men in the church now, who subscribe, in their sense, to those articles in which their sense is most known. 3. Because I cannot condemn archbishop Laud, bishop Bull, and others, who departed manifestly from the received sense, not of one, but of several articles; nor that declaration of king James I. [Charles I.] by which he openly patronized the subscribing the same articles in several, not only different but contradictory senses: and, in effect, declared it for the honor of the articles that this should be so; and that all should acquiesce in it, without mutual reproaches "." To this it was replied, "It is very uncautiously and unaccurately said, that

Hoadly's Postscript to his Answer to Hare, p. 259. 8vo. Lond. 1720.

all possible encouragement was given to

king Charles I. patronized the subscribing the same articles, either in contradictory or different senses. His order is, that every subscriber submit to the article in the plain and full meaning thereof, in the literal and grammatical sense. What, is the plain and full meaning more than one meaning? or is the one plain and full meaning two contradictory meanings? Could it be for the honor of the article (or of the king), to say this? No: but the royal declaration, by plain and full meaning, understands the general meaning, which is but one, and to which all might reasonably subscribe. And he forbids any one's putting his own sense, or comment, to be the meaning of the article, or to affix any new sense to it: that is, he forbids the changing a general proposition into a particular; he stands up for the general proposition, or, for the article itself; and prohibits particular meanings, as not belonging to the article; nor being properly explications of it, but additions to it. This is the plain import of the royal declaration and it is both wise and just; free from any of those strange consequences, or inferences, which some would draw from it." Dr. Sykes answered this in the following manner.-" During the reign of king James I. and king Charles I. the predestinarian controversy was on foot, and carried on with great heat and animosity. Whilst one party upbraided the other with fraudulent subscribing the articles of the church, those who stood charged with prevarication and fraud, with wiles and subtilties, still appealed to the articles, and insisted that they did not contradict them. In this contest, king Charles I. published his declaration, in which he says, Though some differences have been ill raised, yet we take comfort in this, that all clergy

Waterland's Case of Arian-subscription, p. 41. 8vo. Cambridge, 1721.

other men of the same stamp, whilst their

men within our realm have always most willingly subscribed to the articles established; which is an argument to us, that they all agree in the true, usual, literal meaning of the said articles; and, that, even in those curious points in which the present differences lie, men of all sorts 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 established.' King Charles I. thought it therefore a matter of comfort that all clergymen subscribed, notwithstanding their respective controversies, altercations, and disputes; and was so far from discountenancing, or discouraging such subscriptions, that he plainly encouraged all to subscribe, if possibly they could."And from the other parts of the declarations above quoted, with what Dr. Waterland says is the meaning of it, he further infers, "That whatever particular meanings any clergyman may have of any general propositions in any article, he may lawfully and honestly subscribe to the general expressions; and be free from any guilt of prevarication, fraud, and breach of sincerity and trust.— King Charles enjoined, That no particular private person should presume or pretend to put his own sense or comment to be the meaning of the article: This injunction, as it stands, extended equally to all the thirtynine articles; nor has any man a right to confine it to the predestinarian controversy, i. e. to five or six articles. If therefore any man can satisfy himself that the first or the second article, as it stands in general propositions, is true in its grammatical construction, he may subscribe it, notwithstanding he may, when he descends to particulars, widely differ from the commonly received notions." This gentleman, on these

* Case of Subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles, in Answer to Water land, p. 9, 11. 8vo. Lond. 1721.

2

adversaries met with a very different treat

a

principles, therefore very plainly, and, I think, truly asserts, "That whatever can be said to justify an Arminian in subscribing contrary to the sense of the compilers and imposers, may be said to justify the men whom Dr. W. calls Arians, in the like case of subscription "." The wrath of Waterland was stirred up with this, and he set himself to shew that the articles. were not Calvinistical, and consequently an Arminian might honestly subscribe them. To him Sykes rejoined, and thereby shewed the world, that no test can be so drawn, but that subtle or artful men can find ways to evade it; that they knew better how to attack each other, than defend themselves; and that the thirty-nine articles, which were agreed on for the avoiding of diversity of opinions, were yet thought capable of being subscribed by men in the most opposite sentiments, and actually were so!-I will close this note in the words of a very ingenious clergyman, on the subject of subscription to the thirty-nine articles." I must own," says he, "that I am not highly pleased with this method of establishing of consent touching true religion, because I am apprehensive that it is not the most proper way to avoid diversity of opinions. Are the clergy to this day, notwithstanding they have all, and all along subscribed them, better agreed? Are they of one mind yet? Have we had no dispute upon some of these very articles, which were designed to hinder all disputes?—Yes, we have, and those maintained too by some of the most learned and best of that orderand that very justly;-for true religion can never be established by consent, but by debate. What can be the reason why the clergy should fall upon this method

"Case of Subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles, in Answer to Waterland, p. 39. 8vo. Lond. 1721.