Matters, that we had no Time to examine them, how they "agreed with the Word of God. What! faid be, furely you miftook the Matter; you will refer your felves wholly to us therein? No, by the Faith I bear to God, faid I, we will pass nothing, before we understand what it is; for that were to make you Popes. Make you Popes who lift, faid I; for we will make you none. From hence 'tis plain, that there was in this Parliament a Design to ftrike out feveral of the Articles of 1562. This feems to have been the Occafion of adding the little Book to the Bill in the Parliament of 1566 (and probably in this of 1571) in which little Book, 'tis likely, thofe feveral Articles were mark'd, And had the Design taken Effect, probably an Edition would have been publish'd, containing only fuch Articles, as the Clergy would have been legally required to fubfcribe. Otherwife, how fhould the Subject have learnt, what Articles were ftruck out, and what not? If a Book had been affixed to the Record, and all the Articles had been accordingly marked therein; muft every Subject from every County have Recourfe to the public Record to know his private Duty? Would not the fmalleft Portion of Difcretion therefore have obliged the Parliament to cause the Book to be printed with futable Alterations, or Notes of Diftinction? Or would they not have declared in the Body of the Act, how the Subject might be afcertained, what Articles they required him to fubfcribe, and which of them they did not exact Subfcription to? Nay, would any Parliament that intended to fecure Obedience to their own Act (and 'tis plain, the Commons, in whose House it began, were very fond of this particular Bill) have forborn thofe neceffary Meafures?

But

But nothing of this Nature was ever done. Any Man's Eyes may convince him, that nothing whatfoever, much less any printed Book, was ever tacked to the Record. And yet if that had been done, the Body of the Act contains no particular Specifications or Directions; nor was any one Copy of the Articles ever publish'd, from whence 'twas poffible for us to difcover any one Claufe or Syllable, which they would not oblige us to fubfcribe. This therefore demonftrates, that the Commons found the Bill would not pafs, if they made Exceptions to any Articles; and that they therefore chofe to drop the little Book, and leave the Precept general, whatever Claufes they had before inferted; being refolv'd, that the Clergy fhould be forced to fubfcribe all the Articles comprized in that Book, rather than not be forced to fubfcribe any.

Wherefore, tho' thofe Expreffions in the Act, upon which this Objection is grounded, might well denote a Reftriction to certain Articles, if care had been taken to specify Particulars: yet fince they are also notoriously capable of being understood as a general Command equally extending to all the Articles which that Book contain'd (and which in the Opinion of the Legislature did only concern the Confeffion of the true Chriftian Faith, or Belief concerning principal Heads in Divinity, and the Doctrine of the Sacraments, which being a Matter of very great importance, and having been chiefly defiled by those Popish Corruptions from which we were at that time newly reformed, is particularly mentioned, tho' the former general Expreffion would fufficiently have implied or contained it) it follows, that our Legislature did undoubtedly intend to oblige us to fubfcribe every one of the Thirty nine Articles. For the Circumftances before mentioned are a convincing

409 convincing Proof, that they would not endure any Limitation, but injoined a Subfcription to the whole Number of them.

What has been faid, I think, is abundantly fufficient to clear the Defign and Letter of the 13th of Eliz. However, I fhall add a decifive Authority, which would filence all Scruples, if the Matter were otherwife obfcure and doubtful. My Lord Chief Justice Coke has (c) thefe Words; I heard Wray, Chief Justice in the King's Bench, Pafch. 23 Eliz. report, that where one Smyth fubfcribed to the faid Thirty nine Articles of Religion, with this Addition (fo far forth as the fame were agreeable to the Word of God) it was refolved by him, and all the Judges of England, that this Subfcription was not according to the Statute of 13 Eliz. Because the Statute required an abfolute Subfcription, and this Subscription made it conditional; and that this Act was made for avoiding of Diversity of Opinions, &c. and by this Addition the Party might by his own private Opinion take fome of them to be against the Word of God, and by this means Diversity of Opinions fhould not be avoided, which was the Scope of the Statute, and the very Act it felf made touching Subfcription bereby of none effect.

I confefs, Mr. Selden's Authority has been urged on the other fide. In his Table Talk he (d) fays, There is a Secret concerning the Articles: Of late Minifters have fubfcribed to all of them; but by Act of Parliament that confirmed them, they ought only to fubfcribe to thofe Articles which contain Matter of Faith, and the Doctrine of the Sacraments, as appears by the first Subfcriptions. But Bishop Bancroft (in the Convocation held in King James's Daies) he began it, that Ministers should

(c) Inftit. 4. Cap, 74. P. 324.

(d) Under the Title Articles, &c. p. 3, 4. Lond. 1696.

Ee

Subscribe

fubfcribe to three Things, to the King's Supremacy, to the Common-Prayer, and to the Thirty nine Articles; many of them do not contain Matter of Faith. Is it Matter of Faith how the Church should be governed? Whether Infants fhould be baptized? Whether we have any Property in our Goods? &c.

In the foregoing Paffage there are two Parts, 1. His Interpretation of the 13th of Eliz. 2. His Account of the beginning of the Clergy's fubfcribing to all the Thirty nine Articles. As for the former, I oppofe to it the Opinion of all the Judges of England, reported by my Lord Chief Juftice Wray foon after the Statute was made, and before Mr. Selden was born, as 'tis recorded by my Lord Coke. Now if Mr. Selden's Authority were vaftly greater than 'tis ; yet furely that of all the Judges of England, who knew (and probably the greater part of them were perfonally concern'd in) the making of that Statute, will overbalance it. And às for the latter, plain matter of Fact confutes him, as I have evidently proved in the foregoing Chapter. And indeed, the Matter of Fact is fo notorious, that Mr. Selden could not poffibly be ignorant of it. Nor was it poffible for him not to know that clear and decifive Cafe reported in my Lord Chief Juftice Coke's Inftitutes. Wherefore, because Mr. Selden muft otherwise be fuppofed to have fpoken against his Confcience, I am perfuaded, that the Editor of his Table talk has mifreported him.

And I am still the more inclined to charge the foregoing Inftances upon the Ignorance and Mifapprehenfion of the Editor. Because in the former part of the faid Paragraph he makes Mr. Sel den fay thus, The Nine and thirty Articles are much another thing in Latin (in which Tongue they were made) than they are tranflated into English; they were made at three Serve

Several Convocations, and confirmed by Act of Parliament fix or feven times after. This Paffage (which together with that before recited, is all that we find under the head of Articles) contains a Bundle of fuch horrible and palpable Falfehoods, that as they are unwor→ thy of a ferious Confutation, fo I am heartily unwilling to believe Mr. Selden capable of uttering them.

СНАР. ХХХІІІ.

That those who fubfcribe the Articles, are obliged to believe them true.

fcription to the Articles; and inquire, whether they are to be fubfcribed as Articles of Belief, or as Articles of Peace. Some have thought (fays the (a) Bishop of Sarum) that they are only Articles of Union and Peace; that they are a Standard of Doctrine not to be contradicted, or difputed; that the Sons of the Church are only bound to acquiefce filently to them; and that the Subfcription binds only to a general Compromise upon thofe Articles, that fo there may be no difputing no difputing nor wrangling about them. By this means they reckon, that tho' a Man fhould differ in his Opinion from that which appears to be the clear Senfe of any of the Articles; yet he may with a good Confcience fubfcribe them, if the Article appears to him, to be of fuck a nature, that tho' he thinks it wrong, yet it feems not to be of that Confequence, but that it may be born with, and not contradicted. Now as for the Articles agreed on in 1552, and publifh'd by the Authority of King

(a) Exposition of the Articles, Introduct. p. 6., E e 2

Edward