these articles. In 1826, the royal court of Paris, declared that they formed part of the fundamental laws of the kingdom". Such in fact was the judgment of the civil power; though Bouvier, bishop of Mans, did not see how the Gallican declaration could have the force of a civil law. However, this prelate in reply to the question, "whether it is lawful to subscribe this declaration," observes: "First, it is certain, as we have said, that it is altogether lawful to hold and teach the doctrine contained in it: it does not appear therefore, why it should be unlawful to subscribe to it, not as a doctrinal judgment, but as an exposition of opinions. ... Secondly, it is certain that those who subscribe to it, merit no censure," &c. This most

fully justifies the clergy of England for subscribing to some doctrines which are not matters of faith.

SECTION III.

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ARTICLES.

That the meaning of a great part of the articles is clear, is not denied, I believe, by any one: but as some parts of them are understood differently, it is a matter of some importance to ascertain by what general rules we should be guided in their interpretation. It has been suggested by some writers, that the sentiments of the compilers of the articles furnish the true key; but this view seems to involve us in very considerable difficulties. First, it would not be easy to say who really compiled the articles. The convocation of 1562 may lay a fair claim to this office, because, although

a La Mennais, Affaires de Rome, p. 52, 53.

e

Bouvier, De Vera Eccl. p.

379.

f Ibid. p. 379, 380.

they adopted certain articles of 1552 as their basis, they examined, corrected, and reformed those articles", and thus in fact made them their own; and though they doubtless agreed in general with those who compiled the former articles, they may not have held the same views on every point. On the other hand, those who wrote in 1552, certainly composed the groundwork of the existing articles; and it may be said that where their work was not altered, their sense was preserved; or that their sense in general was approved by the convocation of 1562, and the corrections were merely in the modes of expression, not in the doctrine itself. But this is not all: for the articles of 1552 appear to have been based on a body of thirteen articles, agreed on in 1538, during the reign of Henry VIII. by some of the English bishops, together with certain Lutheran theologians, who were engaged in a negotiation for a more perfect union with our churches. The views of the compilers of these articles, if known, might probably give a new complexion to the discussion. Besides this, it is a matter of extreme difficulty, if not totally impossible, to pronounce what the sense of these respective bodies of compilers was individually, when they composed their articles. We have reason to believe that they were not all perfectly united in opinion. The majority of the synod of 1562 probably have left no record of their individual sentiments on any one doubtful point in the Thirty-nine Articles. Besides, those individuals whose books remain, may not have been exactly in the same mind when they composed the articles, as

a Wilkins, Concilia, t. iv. p. 232, 233.

b Cranmer's Works by Jen

kyns, vol. iv. p. 273. See also Mr. Jenkyns' Remarks, vol. i. p. xx-xxiv.

when they wrote their books. In fine, it is uncertain who actually composed the articles of 1552. Several bishops, as Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, are said to have had a considerable share in it, but various other theologians (we know not how many) were also consulted, and aided in the work. There is the same uncertainty as to the compilers of the articles of 1538. Hence it appears to me, that there can be nothing but a mere vague probability attained, by deriving the exposition of the articles from the sentiments of one or more theologians in the sixteenth century.

Se

It has been said with more reason, that the true sense of the articles is that designed by the imposers, or by the authority which proposes them for adoption and subscription: and in this opinion, rightly understood, I concur. The question first arises, By whom are the articles thus proposed? First: it is not the individual prelate who receives subscriptions to the articles, for he only discharges an obligation imposed on him by the spiritual and temporal powers. condly, the clergy are obliged to profess the Thirtynine Articles by the act of parliament made in 1571, which being unrepealed, the power of the state imposes the articles: but the state then and now could not have had any intention of imposing them in a sense different from that of the church of England. Thirdly, they are imposed by the church of England; for the canon of the synod of 1571, renewed and confirmed by that of 1604, has always since remained in force; and therefore the articles are proposed for subscription by the whole church of England. The sense of the church of England, therefore, is the sense in

Todd's Cranmer, vol. ii. p. kyns, vol. i. p. cvii. 288; Cranmer's Works by Jen

which the articles are to be understood, and the church has always understood them as she did in the sixteenth century, because she has never, by any act whatsoever since that time, expressed any change of interpretation. In still continuing, without remark, the same law which she enacted in the sixteenth century, she has afforded a pledge of her retaining the same sense she then had. How then is this sense of the church to be ascertained? I reply first, that the articles being designed to produce unity of opinion, the meaning of a large part of them is doubtless plain and clear, as every one admits it to be. This will, in itself, furnish one rule for the interpretation of the remainder: viz. that it shall not be contradictory to what is elsewhere clearly stated in the articles themselves. Secondly, the formularies of public worship, comprising creeds, solemn addresses to God, and instructions of the faithful, which have been also approved, and always used by these catholic churches, furnish a sufficient testimony of their doctrine: for they could never have intended that their articles should be interpreted in a sense contrary to the doctrine clearly and uniformly taught in their other approved formularies. Thirdly, since it is the declaration of the church of England, that "a just and favourable construction ought to be allowed to all human writings, especially such as are set forth by authority," it is apparently her desire, that where any doubt shall remain of her

d Synod, 1571. Can. de Concion. Wilkins, Conc. t. iv. p. 267; Synod, 1604, Can. iv. Xxxvi. This rule was violated by Clarke and the Arian party, who attempted to force an Arian interpretation on the Articles, in

defiance of the clear and manifest orthodoxy, not only of those formularies, but of our creeds and ritual. See Waterland's case of Arian subscriptions.

-

e Preface to Book of Common Prayer, &c.

real sense, that sense may be always understood to be the best, i. e. the sense most conformable to scripture and to catholic tradition, which she acknowledges as her guides. The very convocation of 1571, which originally enjoined subscription to the articles, declared at the same time the principle of the church of England, that nothing should be taught as an article of the faith, except what was supported by the authority of scripture and catholic tradition '.

In fine, it appears to be the persuasion of the most learned men, and it is consistent with the practice of these churches to suppose, that they have in some disputed points, especially in the article on predestination, employed language which is designed to teach simply the doctrine of scripture, without offering any decision on certain differences of private opinion: and this should lead us carefully to avoid imposing on the articles, any doctrines except what they actually teach, either expressly or by necessary consequence; and to view with charity and forbearance those who may differ from us on points which have, for many centuries, been debated in the universal church.

SECTION IV.

ON SUBSCRIPTION TO THE ARTICLES.

I have above shewn the right of the church to demand a sincere adhesion to her articles of faith, doctrine, and opinion. The particular mode in which this is effected, is by subscription. It remains to examine the lawfulness and meaning of this practice. The meaning of subscription to a body of articles, in

f See above, p. 260.