And in his Unreasonableness of Separation he (g) propofeth, in order to Accommodation with the Dif fenters, who refufed to fubfcribe the Thirty nine Articles, that they may be allowed to make an abfolute Subfcription to all thofe Articles, which concern the Doctrine of the true Chriftian Faith, and the Ufe of the Sacraments; and a folemn Promife under their Hand, or Subscription of peaceable Submiffion as to the rest, so as not to oppofe or contradict them, either in Preaching or Wri ting; which neceffarily implies, that in the Bifhop's Judgment an abfolute Subfcription (viz. a Subfcription of Belief, as oppofed to a Subfcription of peaceable Submiffion) is at present injoined, as a Term of Minifterial Conformity. Wherefore I hope the moft Learned Bifhop Stilling fleet will no longer be accounted a Patron of that Interpretation of the present Subscription, which he has fo plainly and frequently declared himself against.

How long this Opinion which I have been confuting, has been broached, perhaps 'tis needlefs to fhew. In the Year 1670 a certain Writer faid, it is most reasonable to prefume, that the Church requires Subfcription to the Articles, as to an Inftrument of Peace only; and he endevor'd to confirm his Notion by alleging thofe Words of Archbishop Bramhall, which I have already confidered, and proved to be foreign to the Purpose. The fame Author afterwards added, that be bad fhewn (I fuppofe, in the Paffage already referr'd to) that the Governors and Reprefentatives of our Church do not require our internal Affent to their Articles, but injoin our Submission to them, as to an Inftrument of Peace only. I verily believe, this Author was the firft Man, that openly favor'd this Opinion. Nor can I perfuade my felf, that it has gained much

(g) Pref. p. 91. Lond. 1681. Works, Vol. 2. p. 468.

Ground.

Chap. XXXIV. Ground. I am fure, I can remember but one Writer more that has declared himself for it, before the Clofe of the laft Century. 'Twas a Person that wrote in the Year 1690, but he conceal'd his Name.

I confefs, we have (b) been affured, that it has obtained with High Church, that our Articles are not Articles of Belief, but of Peace; and that their fubfcribing 'em is not to be confider'd as a Declaration of their Opinion, but as a bare Obligation to Silence. But I challenge that Libeller to fupport his Charge by producing so much as one fingle Inftance. I am fure, the Writer whofe Words I quoted juft now, lived long enough to demonftrate, that he abhorred the Name of an High Church Man. The Truth is, as far as my Converfation can inform me, I believe, both High Church and Low Church (fince I am neceffitated to mention that Knavish Distinction) fubfcribe the Articles with equal Sincerity, and are fully perfuaded, that by Subfcription they are understood to profefs the Belief of them.

However, if fuch as think it lawful for thofe to fubfcribe the Articles, who do not believe them true, were much more numerous and confiderable, than can poffibly be pretended; yet their Authority is by no means fufficient to overbalance the plaineft and most exprefs Words of our Statutes and Canons, the unanimous Refolution of all the Judges of England in the Year 1581, the ftrict Form of our Subfcription, and the conftant Senfe of all our Learned Divines, from the beginning of the Reformation down (at least) to the Restoration.

(b) Preface to the Rights of the Church.

CHAP.

CHA P. XXXV.

What Liberty the Church allows to the Subfcribers of the Articles.

I

F it be inquired with refpect to the particular Senfe of each Article, and the feveral Propofi tions contained therein, how much we are confin'd by our Subfcription, or what Liberty is ftill indul ged us; my Anfwer is fhort and plain. When an Article, or any Propofition contained therein, is fairly capable of different Interpretations; that Man may undoubtedly be faid to believe the Truth of that Article or Propofition, who believes it true in any fuch Senfe, as it will reasonably admit, without doing violence to the Words, and contradicting what our Church has elsewhere taught, and required us to acknowledge. Wherefore any fuch Senfe, in which the Article or Propofition may fairly be understood, is to be admitted, and may honeftly be meant by the Subfcriber. Because the Church requires only the Belief of the Articles in general; and does not reftrain us to the Belief of any one Article or Propofition in any particular Senfe, farther than we are confined and determined by the Words themselves. And therefore, where the Words themfelves do allow a Liberty, the Church does alfo allow the fame; nor are we bound to abridge our felves, where the Church has left us free.

Had the Church fo much as intended otherwise, 'twas in her Power to have penn'd the Articles more ftrictly, and to have determined every Propofition abfolutely. And if fhe has found, that

Men

1

Chap. XXXV. Men have invented fuch new Explications, as were not known at the time of the firft Compiling of the Articles; there is the fame Legislative Authority ftill in Being, which can prevent or ftifle any fuch Explication as the Church will not admit of. Wherefore, till the Church exerts fuch an Authority, her firft Defign, or prefent Permiffion (either of which is fufficient, and of equal confideration, in this Cafe) is manifeft. Nor is any Perfon bound, either in Law or Confcience, to inquire farther, or to make any other Compliance.

Befides, when an Article or Propofition is fairly capable of two different Senfes; I would fain know, who has Power to determin which is the Church's Senfe. The Church determins no farther than her Words do neceffarily mean; and when her Words do not abridge our Liberty, can a private Perfon give an authentic Explication of her Words, and oblige his Equals to admit the fame? If fo; then every Man has equal Power to oblige his Equals to admit and profefs, what he declares to be the Church's Senfe. And then every private Man's Senfe will be neceffary; and every Man will be obliged to as many different Senfes, as there have been private Perfons bold enough to make Senfes for him. How abfurd this Fanfy is, and with what Confequences 'twill neceffarily be attended, I need not fay.

It may be pretended, perhaps, that the concurrent Senfe of the firft Writers, ought to interpret the Church's Words, and to restrain the Senfe of the Articles. But to this the Answer is easy. "Twill, I fear, be difficult to get (what may truly deferve the Name of) a concurrent Senfe of Writers in the far greater Number of Cafes. A fingle Writer or two will not do. For did they write by Authority?

Authority? Or were all that lived in their Time of the fame Opinion? Might not the Convocation themfelves differ as much as the Words are capable of admitting? And muft we be determin'd only by a very few that happen'd to write, when the reft had equal Authority? For my part, I think it much more reasonable to fuppofe, that the Church intended a Liberty, and was refolv'd to determin no more than the thought neceffary; and that when she had fecured fuch Truths, as fhe was most concern'd for, and had chiefly at Heart, fhe was content to leave Matters of inferior Moment undetermin'd. This was undoubtedly the Cafe in many Instances; particularly the Defcent into Hell; when the Majority were plainly of an Opinion, which is now generally exploded; and the Church fo contriv'd the Article on purpose, as that it might receive different Senfes. And why the might not purposely intend the fame Latitude in all other Articles, where her Words do fairly bear different Interpretations, I cannot conceive.

In fhort, the bare Impofition of public Declarations (whether upon Oath, by Subfcription, or otherwife) plainly fhews, what Liberty is intended and allow'd to thofe that make them. They are injoin'd by Superiors as Tefts of the Sentiments and Difpofitions of their Subjects. And fince Superiors themselves do best know, what measure of Satisfaction and Information they defire; 'tis therefore in their Power to make the Tefts as full and expreffive as they please. Wherefore, when Superiors leave a manifeft Latitude in the Expreffions, or a fair Capacity of different Senfes; or when 'tis notorious to Superiors themselves that different Senfes of a Teft are given by fincere and good Men, and that the Words will fair

Gg

ly