Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

King James accepted, and my Lord's Grace of Canterbury affirmed them to be the true Senfe and Intention of the Church of England.

Now it must be obferv'd, that this Book was publish'd by the fpecial Command of King Charles the Firft, as the Title Page informs us, and that the Doctor's Dedication to that King begins in thefe Words,

Moft Gracious and Dread Soveraigne,

It pleas'd your excellent Majeftie by your Letters to me vouchfafed, both to fignify your Highness dislike of my fuppreffing what I had written fome Years past in Maintenance of the Reverend Father the Lord Bishop of Coventrie and Litchfield, his Defence of the Ceremonies of this Church of England, against an intemperate and fcurrilous Reply made thereunto by a nameless Author: And alfo ftraitly to charge me forthwith to deliver my Papers on that Subject, into the Hands of the faid Reverend Bishop my Diocefan, that it might be feen, how well I had vindicated the Honor both of this Church, and of that worthy Prelate, from the Calumnies and Indignities caft upon both by that Replier.

in

In dutiful Obedience to that your Majesties Injunction, I have fo done; not keeping back any part of what I had then finish'd, nor prefuming to stay it any longer my Hands, till the rest might have been added, for fear of incurring your Majefties Difpleasure. And now, that my Rejoinder (even unperfect as it was) has taken Life and Motion from the Breath of your Majesties Command, it comes abroad into the World.

Whoever confiders the Circumftances above related, will be forc'd to acknowledge, that no Interpretation of the Sense of our Subscription to the Thirty fifth Article can be more authentic, than that which was accepted, as well by King James the First (in whofe Time the Canon prefcribing the Form of it was made) as by the Arch-Bishop of

Can

[ocr errors]

Canterbury, and publicly declar'd to have been fo accepted, in a Book publifh'd by fo remarkable a Command of King Charles the First. Now that Interpretation of the Subfcription follows in these very Words.

X. Of the Two Books of Homilies.

I undertake not to approve of every Phrafe or Allegation of Scripture, as fitly applied to the Mind of the Holy Ghoft: but that dogmatically there is nothing delivered in thofe Homilies, that I know to be contrary to the Word of God, but that they may lawfully and profitably be read to the People for their Edification, when better Means are wanting: And in this Senfe I fubfcribe to thofe Books alfo.

Wherefore let any confcientious and candid Perfon judge. The Article afferts, that the two Books of Homilies do contain a godly and wholfome Do&trin neceffary for these Times: Nor is there any Doubt, but we are abfolutely bound to fubfcribe the Truth of this Propofition. But the Question is, in what Sense this Propofition is true, and whether that Sense be allowed in the Subfcription. Now I think, the Truth of that Proposition, in Dr. Burges's Senfe, is exceedingly evident: and you fee, that Sense is allowed and declared to be the true one by the most competent Authority. So that I do not pretend, that a Man may fubfcribe the Thirty fifth Article in a loofer Senfe, than he fubfcribes the other Articles (for that would be downright Knavery and Prevarication) but I contend, that that Propofition, to which we do thus abfolutely fubscribe, as fully and heartily as to any of the reft, is not to be understood in that rigid Senfe, which fome Perfons, for very ill Ends, would fasten on it.

And therefore I heartily wish, that thofe Learned Gentlemen, who write upon this Point, would exprefs

L 3

express themselves more properly than they ufually do. They talk very frequently of our Subfcription to the Homilies; whereas in Reality there is no fuch thing required of us. We muft fubfcribe the Articles, 'tis true: but not the Homilies. For if we were in Reality and Propriety of Speech required to fubfcribe the Homilies; I muft own, I think, we should be oblig'd thereby to profefs our Belief of the Truth of every Propofition contain❜d in the Homilies: even as by our Subfcription to the Articles we profefs our Belief of every Propofition contain❜d in the faid Articles. And yet, tho' I have a very profound Veneration for that excellent Collection of Difcourfes, which the two Books of Homilies contain (as every Man furely must have, who confiders the Contents, the Occafion, and the Circumftances of them) I declare to the whole World, that I do by no Means conceive my felf bound to profefs my Belief of every Propofition contain❜d in them.

Perhaps 'twill be roundly faid, that a Subfcription to the Thirty fifth Article, is a Subfcription to the Homilies. But then I utterly deny the Truth of that confident Affirmation. For in the Thirty fifth Article we do not fubfcribe the Homilies, but we fubfcribe this Propofition relating to the Homilies, viz. that they contain a godly and wholfom Doctrin neceffary for thefe Times. Surely there is a vast difference between fubfcribing the Homilies themfelves, and fubfcribing a Propofition concerning them. This Diftinction ought carefully to be noted; otherwise we fhall perplex our felves with improper Expreffions, and wrangle everlastingly about them; at the fame time that the things themfelves are clear, and fuch as all Perfons will naturally agree in, when they understand what is really meant by their Opposers,

If

If it be asked, by what Rule we shall know, what those Doctrins are, which we profefs our Approbation and Belief of, by fubfcribing the Thirty fifth Article concerning the Homilies; I anfwer, that our Subfcription does undoubtedly extend to all the Doctrins contain'd in every one of thofe Homilies, which our Subscription includes: and that we must judge which are the Doctrins in each Homily, after the fame manner, as we judge with respect to other Writings. Now by the Doctrins of any other Writing we constantly mean those Points which the Author laies down, and fets about the Proof of, giving his Judgment and Determination concerning them. Thus we are understood, when we fay, that such a Book contains found Doctrin. We are not supposed to declare, that every Argument therein urged is in our Opinion valid, that every Propofition in the declamatory Part is ftrictly true, that every Illuftration is exactly just and home; thefe, I fay, and the like Particulars are by no means implied in our faying, that the Book contains found Doctrin: but our faying fo fignifies thus much (and no more) viz. that thofe Propofitions, which the Author attempts to establish and convince his Reader of, by fuch Arguments as he produces and offers for that Purpofe; that those Propofitions, I fay, which he delivers dogmatically (to ufe Dr. Burges's Expreffion in the Interpretation above recited) are really true: tho' perhaps at the fame time diverse Mediums for the Confirmation of them, diverse occasional Affertions, and the like, may juftly be excepted againft. The Application of this Rule to our Homilies is fo very eafy, that no Man of common Senfe can mistake it; and therefore I fhall not waft Words upon it.

[blocks in formation]

A

Befides, it must be obferv'd, that our Church, at the fame time that fhe obliges her Clergy to fubfcribe this Article, wherein 'tis declared, that the Homilies do contain good and wholsom Do&trin, and neceffary for the Times they were writ in; permits fuch of her Clergy as are duly qualified, to preach their own Sermons, and confequently the leaves them intirely at liberty, whether they will ever read any of the Homilies. From whence it follows, that by the Doctrin of the Homilies fhe does not understand those very Forms of Words, those very Arguments for the Establishment of particular Tenets, thofe very Illuftrations of matters afferted and maintained, &c. which the Books of Homilies exhibit to us; but only those Points, which the allows her Clergy to deliver in their own Words, to establish by fuch Arguments as they like beft, to illuftrate as their own Judgments lead them, &c. Otherwise the very Forms of the Homilies would be declared neceffary to be used, even by those that never were esteem'd to lie under any Obligation to use them.. Whereas, if by the Do&trin of the Homilies we understand, as the Church manifeftly did and does, thofe grand Propofitions which he would have the People convinced of ; there is no doubt, but thofe who agree in the Truths themselves, do preach the fame Doctrin that was neceffary for thofe Times, whether they read the Homilies, or pronounce Difcourfes of their own compofing, infinitely diverse from each other, as the Sermons of numberlefs Preachers muft, with respect to Form, of Neceffity be.

I might confirm what I have been faying, by an Hiftorical Account of the bad Ufe that has been made of the Authority of the Homilies. But I am unwilling to relate fuch melancholy Particulars.

The

« ÖncekiDevam »