the Puritans about 1628, must be understood as particularly meant.

I will say no more on the general nature of the subject immediately before us; but proceed to other reflexions; only observing first, that I would engage, if I was possessed of a perfect historical knowledge, to make every thing in our Articles clear, intelligible, and familiar;-not to make every doctrine so, but every manner of stating a doctrine. But then, by historical knowledge, I must be understood to mean, not only a knowledge of facts, but of opinions and feelings. Indeed it may be deemed a knowledge of facts, if we know, that such an opinion had, in fact or reality, many favourers at such a time; that such an affection or sentiment, as zeal, disgust, &c. was actually prevalent in such a set or party of men. If any one finds any expression obscure or uncouth in our articles, he may venture to ascribe the obscurity to the imperfection of his historical knowledge.

2. We might open what we have now to say, by observing, that the Articles of one sect may be, in some measure, affected, as to their sense, by changes in other sects. We have hitherto conceived the meaning of words to be affected only by the discovery of errors inherent in them; by internal faults, and internal changes ;--we now would conceive how their meaning may be affected by external changes. To say, that the force of words expressing our doctrines must continue the same, whatever changes happen in other doctrines, is to forget the end and design of Articles of Religion, and all that has been explained in the first and fifth Chapters.-In order to see this, let us recollect what that end or design is.

a

3. The

Strype's Annals for 1562. Chap. xxvii. p. 282.

3. The end or design of a body of doctrines is to maintain unity of doctrine; the intention of each particular article, is to find a remedy for some actual error, which occasions some disturbance, so as to frustrate some end of social religion, or which seems very likely to do so. This it is, which distinguishes a set of Articles from a system of Theology, or a Sermon and a very important distinction I take this to be. The design of a System and a Sermon is, to explain and enforce all doctrines; whereas, Articles only mention those, by which one Society is kept separate from another. A set of Articles is, as it were, a partition wall; not intended for war, so much as to keep all things quiet: like the walls of one's house, to let the domestic society within pursue its proper business in security.

4. If this notion be allowed, each article should be interpreted, and understood, and assented to, as it would have been, if the error at which it aims had been specified; that is, however general the expression of any Article may be, the interpretation of it should be limited and restrained to particular cases. This appears from hence, that, as soon as the Article was made, it would be so interpreted; the reasons of its being made would appear to every one, and no one would think of extending it beyond those reasons: and, if this would be the case, whilst the Article was most clearly understood, it certainly ought to be at all times, as far as we are able to make it so. Propositions ought not to grow more general and unlimited in their interpretation by age: but there is a false appearance, which misguides; they seem to grow more general, as references are forgotten, and that false appearance ought to be corrected.-It seems to deceive many; insomuch that they would be inclined to

Chap. vi. Sect. 1.

gay,

say, shall I assent to an erroneous proposition, expressed in general terms, which has a plain meaning, merely because I see, that some particular errors, condemned by that general proposition, have been rectified? because it is in part useless?' We may at least answer to such a question, let our reasoning be remembered, let it be brought to bear, let it do what it can: and the consequence would generally be, in practice, that the difficulty would be solved, and the general proposition given up, as unmeaning.-But the reasons for such restricted interpretation of Articles, as is here mentioned, will allow of a fuller explication.

5. 1. If propositions are to be understood absolutely, and not as aimed at any particular errors, those who compiled them must have acted wrongly, and have laid a greater restraint than they had any right to lay. Those, who require declarations of opinion, are only to require them, when some good end is to be answered by them; when they are in a manner necessary to promote the ends of social religion. And, when we look back upon men's actions, in all doubtful cases, they are not to be supposed to have meant what it would have been wrong for them to mean. Id voluisse intelliguntur, quod velle eos oportuit".-What men had no right to do, is treated as if it had not been done. If a man had no right to execute a deed of gift, such a deed is unmeaning; and, if he had in part only such a right, the validity of the deed will be partial.

6. 2. Another reason why we should interpret any body of doctrines, to which assent is required, by a reference to the times, is, because we find that something of the sort has been done even by compilers of Articles themselves: I mean to refer to the 35th Article of our Church, but only as I would refer

refer to any other fact. A set of very learned and prudent men say, that certain compositions; by which the doctrines of a Church are to be taught to the people, are peculiarly suited to the times; that is, are, probably, more suited to one situation of things than another. By such an expression we are called upon, in assenting, to see how long the suitableness lasts; we can tell that only by History; and, if we find the times wholly to change, so must the force of the Article.-It may indeed be said, why is reference to times here expressed, if it is always implied? does not its being expressed here prove, that it would be always expressed, if it was meant? I presume the answer to this objection is, that, in the particular expedient of teaching by Homilies, a change was to be clearly foreseen. Though there was a very great scarcity of approved preachers then, (for the Papists and Puritans were possessed of a great share of the clerical learning) yet it was not probable, that this would continue and a change distinctly foreseen was to be provided for. Our natural conclusion is, that, had other changes been foreseen, some provision would have been made for them also: and that what could not be foreseen, must be provided for, when a provision appeared to be wanted. But we should often deprive ourselves of the power of making such provision for changes, if we interpreted articles universally, and not as provisions for particular exigencies.

7. 3. It is always a fair way of judging of the sense of any compositions (if we use it fairly,) to put ourselves in the place of the Authors. If we do this, in the present case, to the best of our power,

we

• Dr. Balguy thinks, that we now are allowed, not required, to read Homilies instead of Sermons. Something was said on teaching by Homilies, Chap. v. Sect. 5, and 6.

we must conclude, that the compilers of articles would not provide any, would not desire to provide any, but as remedies for pressing inconveniences. We have before said, that they ought not; now we say that, of choice, they would not. Let us conceive a council compiling Articles; they condemn and exclude several errors and heresies; they get warm; a Zealot says, let us proscribe this error;' who professes it? no one at present, but some one may hereafter, and we had better anticipate and provide a remedy beforehand:' what can we conceive the wiser part of the council to urge, but something of this sort? No! we have errors sufficient to proscribe, which really exist; we will not imagine new ones; if any should arise in future, we will leave them to posterity: perhaps our provision might suggest an error, which would not else have been thought of; and involve our successors in many needless difficulties.' If such would be the determination, we should receive and interpret Articles as formed after this manner.-And we may add, that the 41st Article of our Church, as it stood for ten years, against Millenarians, was expunged when it seemed (probably) to be unnecessary, though the Doctrine of a Millenium would continue the same; nay, was not revived when the new Millenarians or fifth Monarchy men arose in the 17th Century.

7

An additional consideration is, that, if Articles are supposed to be in force, where no remedy is wanting, why should so few Articles be made? why leave so many parts of a religious system not enforced?-Why make new ones in our Church in 1562, and never since? and then only on a

very

a The Puritans have complained of the number of Doctrines which are omitted in our Articles. See Bingham's Apology, B. ii. Chap. xiii. or Works, vol. II. p. 745.