In the fourteenth line of this Article, immediately after thefe words (But pet Have not like natuze with Baptism and the Lord's Supper) follows, quomodo nec pœnitentia, which being marked underneath with minium, is left out in the tranflation. This Article agrees with the original, as far as thefe words, (and hath given occalion ARTICLE XXVI. ARTICLE XXIX. Of the Lord's Supper. The Supper of the Lord to many Superftitions) is not only a Sign of, &c. where follows, Chriftus in cœlum afcendens, corpori fuo immortalitatem dedit, naturam non abftulit, humanæ enim naturæ veritatem (juxta Scripturas) perpetuo retinet, quam uno et definito loco effe, et non in multa vel omnia fimul loca diffundi oportet; quum igitur Chriftus in cœlum fublatus, ibi ufque ad finem fæculi fit permanfurus, atque inde, non aliunde (ut loquitur Auguftinus) venturus fit, ad judicandum vivos et mortuos, non debet quifquam fidelium, carnis et ejus et fanguinis realem, et corporalem (ut loquuntur) præfentiam in Euchariftia vel credere vel profiteri. These words are marked and fcrawled over with minium, and the words immediately following (Corpus tamen Chrifti datur, accipitur, et manducatur in coena, tantum cœlefti et fpirituali ratione) are inferted in a different hand just before them, in a line and a half left void; which plainly appears to be done afterwards, by reafon the fame hand has altered the first number of lines, and, for viginti quatuor, made quatuordecim. The three laft Articles, viz. the 39th, Of the Refurrection of the Dead; the 40th, that the Souls of Men do neither perifh with their bodies (neque otiofi doriniant is added in the original); and the 42d, that all shall not be faved at laft, are found in the original, diftinguifhed only with a marginal line of minium: but the 41ft, Of the Millenarians, is wholly left out. The number of Articles does not exactly agree, by reafon Some are inferted, which are found only in King Edward's Articles, but none are wanting that are found in the original. Corpus Corpus Chrifti Col. Feb. 4th, 1695-6. UPON examination we judge these to be all the ma terial differences, that are unobferved, between the original manufcripts and the B. of Salisbury's printed copy. Witness our hands. Jo. Jaggard, Fellows of the faid College. After I had procured this, I was defirous likewife to have the printed editions collated with the fecond publication of the Articles in the year 1571; in which the Convocation reviewed those of 1562, and made some small alterations and these were very lately procured for me by my reverend friend, Dr. Green, which I will fet down as he was pleased to communicate them to me. : [Note, MS. ftands for Manufcript, and Pr. for Print.] Art. 1. MS. and true God, and he is everlasting, without body. Pr. and true God, everlafting, without body. Art. 3. MS. fo alfo it is to be believed. Pr. fo alfo is it to be believed. Art. 4. MS. Chrift did truly arife again. MS. until he return to judge all men at the last day. Pr. until he return to judge men at the last day. Art. 6. MS. to be believed as an Article of the Faith. Pr. to be believed as an Article of Faith. MS. requifite as neceffary to falvation. Pr. requifite or neceffary to falvation. MS. in the name of holy Scripture. Pr. in the name of the holy Scripture. MS. but yet doth it not apply. Pr. but yet doth not apply. MS. Baruch. Pr. Baruch the prophet. MS. and account them for canonical. Pr. and account them canonical. Art. 8. MS. by moft certain warranties of holy Scripture. Pr. by moft certain warrant of holy Scripture. Art. Church are only bound to acquiefce filently to them; and that the fubfcription binds only to a general compromife upon thofe Articles, that fo there may be no difputing nor wrangling about them. By this means they reckon, that though a man fhould differ in his opinion from that which appears to be the clear fenfe of any of the Articles; yet he may with a good confcience fubfcribe them, if the Article appears to him to be of fuch a nature, that though he thinks it wrong, yet it feems not to be of that confequence, but that it may be borne with, and not contradicted. I fhall not now examine whether it were more fit for leaving men to the due freedom of their thoughts, that the fubfcription did run no higher, it being in many cafes a great hardfhip to exclude fome very deferving perfons from the fervice of the Church, by requiring a fubfcription to fo many particulars, concerning fome of which they are not fully fatisfied. I am only now to confider what is the importance of the fubfcriptions now required among us, and not what might be reasonably wifhed that it fhould be. As to the laity, and the whole body of the people, certainly to them thefe are only the Articles of ChurchCommunion; fo that every perfon who does not think that there is fome propofition in them that is erroneous to fo high a degree, that he cannot hold communion with fuch as hold it, may and is obliged to continue in our communion: for certainly there may be many opinions held in matters of religion, which a man may believe to be falfe, and yet may efleem them to be of fo little importance to the chief defign of religion, that he may well hold communion with those whom he thinks to be fo miftaken. Here a neceflary diftinction is to be remembered between Articles of Faith and Articles of Doctrine: the one are held neceffary to falvation, the other are only believed to be true; that is, to be revealed in the Scriptures, which is a fufficient ground for efteeming them true. Articles of Faith are doctrines that are fo neceffary to falvation, that without believing them there is not a foederal right to the covenant of grace: thefe are not many, and in the establishment of any doctrine for fuch, it is neceflary both to prove it from Scripture, and to prove its being neceffary to falvation, as a mean fettled by the covenant of grace in order to it. We ought not indeed to hold communion with fuch as make doctrines, that we believe not to be true, to pass for Articles of Faith; though we may hold communion with fuch as do think them true, without ftamping fo high an authority upon upon them. To give one inftance of this in an undeniable particular. In the days of the Apoftles there were Judaifers of two forts: fome thought the Jewish nation was ftill obliged to obferve the Mofaical law; but others went further, and thought that fuch an observation was indifpenfably neceflary to falvation: both thefe opinions were wrong, but the one was tolerable, and the other was intolerable; because it pretended to make that a neceffary condition of falvation, which God had not commanded. The Apoftles complied with the Judaisers of the first fort, as they became all things to all men, that 1 Cor. ix, fo they might gain fome of every fort of men: yet they 19. to 23. declared openly against the other, and faid, that if men were circumcifed, or were willing to come under such a yoke, Chrift profited them nothing; and upon that fuppofition he had died in vain. From this plain precedent we see what a difference we ought to make between errors in doctrinal matters, and the impofing them as Articles of Faith. We may live in communion with those who hold errors of the one fort, but muit not with those of the other. This alfo thews the tyranny of that Church, which has impofed the belief of every one of her doctrines on the confciences of her votaries, under the highest pains of anathemas, and as Articles of Faith. But whatever thofe at Trent did, this Church very carefully avoided the laying that weight upon even those doctrines which the receives as true; and therefore though the drew up a large form of doctrine; yet to all her lay-fons this is only a ftandard of what the teaches, and they are no more to them than Articles of Church-Communion. The citations that are brought from thofe two great primates, Laud and Bramhall, go no further than this: they do not seem to relate to the clergy that fubfcribe them, but to the laity and body of the people. The people, who de only join in communion with us, may well continue to do fo, though they may not be fully fatisfied with every propofition in them unless they fhould think that they ftruck against any of the Articles, or foundations of Faith; and, as they truly obferve, there is a great difference to be obferved in this particular between the imperious fpirit of the Church of Rome, and the modeft freedom which ours allows. : But I come in the next place to confider what the clergy is bound to by their fubfcriptions. The meaning of every fubfcription is to be taken from the defign of the impofer, and from the words of the subscription itfelf. The title of the Articles bears, that they were agreed agreed upon in convocation, for the avoiding of diverfities of Opinions, and for the ftablishing confent touching true Reli gion. Where it is evident, that a confent in opinion is defigned. If we in the next place confider the declaration that the Church has made in the Canons, we shall find, that though by the fifth Canon, which relates to the whole body of the people, fuch are only declared to be excommunicated ipfo facto, who fhall affirm any of the Articles to be erroneous, or fuch as he may not with a good confcience subscribe to; yet the 36th Canon is exprefs for the clergy, requiring them to fubfcribe willingly, and ex animo; and acknowledge all and every Article to be agreeable to the word of God: upon which Canon it is that the form of the fubfcription runs in these words, which feem exprefsly to declare a man's own opinion, and not a bare confent to an Article of Peace, or an engagement to filence and fubmiffion. The ftatute of the 13th of Queen Elizabeth, cap. 12, which gives the legal authority to our requiring fubfcriptions, in order to a man's being capable of a benefice, requires that every clergyman fhould read the Articles in the Church, with a declaration of his unfeigned affent to them. Thefe things make it appear very plain, that the fubfcriptions of the clergy must be confidered as a declaration of their own opinion, and not as a bare obligation to filence. There arofe in King James the Firft's reign great and warm difputes concerning the decrees of God, and those other points that were settled in Holland by the fynod of Dort against the Remonftrants; divines of both fides among us appealed to the Articles, and pretended they were favourable to them: for though the first appearance of them feems to favour the doctrine of abfolute decrees, and the irrefiftibility of grace; yet there are many expreffions that have another face, and fo thofe of the other perfuafion pleaded for themfelves from thefe. Upon this a royal declaration was fet forth, in which after mention is made of thofe difputes, and that the men of all fides did take the Articles to be for them; order is given for stopping thofe difputes for the future; and for shutting them in God's promifes, as they be generally fet forth in the holy Scriptures, and the general meaning of the Articles of the Church of England, according to them; and that no man thereafter fhould put his own fenfe or comment to be the meaning of the Article, but should take it in the literal and grammatical fenfe. In this there has been fuch a general acquiefcing, that the fiercenefs of thefe difputes has gone off, while men have been left to fubfcribe the Articles according to their literal and grammatical fenfe. From which two |