By Traditions the Church plainly means, not Do&trins (in which Senfe 'tis frequently used, particularly in our Difputes with the Church of Rome) but Practices or Ufages in the Service of God, even the fame which the expreffes immediately by the word Ceremonies (which is only explanatory) and which the afterwards calls Rites, fuppofing them

the fame with Ceremonies.

The Three First Propofitions. The Church infers the First from the Second and Third. Now the Second is a Truth, which none can doubt of, that is acquainted with Ecclefiaftical Hiftory. 'Tis impoffible for me at present to prove it by a compleat Induction of Particulars: nor do I remember, that any Party denies it. However, the Inftances given by St. Austin in his Epiftle to Januarius, and in his Retractations, lib. 2. cap. 20. by Socrates in his Hiftory, lib. 5. cap. 22. and by Sozomen in his Hiftory, lib.7. cap. 19. are undeniable Evidence, with refpect to the Times in which they wrote. As for the Third Propofition, fince the Church has Power to decree Rites and Ceremonies (fee the Twentieth Article, Prop. 1.) the Church muft of course have Power to change them. For what fhould hinder the Church from altering what is founded upon her own Power? And common Senfe informs us, that the Church must in making Alterations be guided by a regard to the Diversity of Countries, Times, and Mens Manners, and that nothing may be ordained contrary to God's Word. Now from these Two, the Seond and Third Propofitions, the First neceffarily follows. For tho' the Diversity of Traditions and Ceremonies in all Ages is a very good Presumption that they may be lawfully diverse;

yet

yet the Power of changing them is a Demonftration, that there is no Neceffity of their being in all Places one and utterly like.

The Fourth Propofition is manifeftly built upon the Suppofition of a Chriftian State, and that the Magiftrate has actually interpofed in the Appointment or Confirmation of Traditions and Ceremonies. This being obferved, the Truth of the Propofition is felf evident, provided the Magiftrate may in fuch Cafes exercife his Authority, touching which Point fee the Difcourfe of the Independency of the Church on the State, Chap.

The Fifth Propofition neceffarily follows from, or rather is contained in, the Third.

The THIRTY FIFTH ARTICLE. Of Homilies.

THE

HE fecondbook of Homilies, the feveral titles whereof we have joyned under this article, doth contain a godly and wholfom doctrin, and neceffary for these times, as doth the former book of Homilies, which were fet forth in the time of Edward the VI. and therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the minifters, diligently and difinally, that they may be understood of the people.

I.

Of the Names of the Homilies.

F the right Ufe of the Church.
2. Against Peril of Idolatry.

3. Of Repairing and Keeping clean of Churches.
4. Of Good Works: First, Of Fafting.
5. Against Gluttony and Drunkenness.
6. Against Excefs of Apparel.

7. Of Prayer.

8. Of the Place and Time of Prayer.

9. That Common Prayers and Sacraments ought to be miniftred in a known Tongue.

10. Of the Reverent Estimation of God's Word. 11. Of Alms-doing.

12. Of the Nativity of Christ.

13. Of the Paffion of Christ.

14. Of the Refurrection of Christ.

15. Of the Worthy Receiving the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ.

16. Of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost.

17. For the Rogation Days.

18. Of the State of Matrimony.
19. Of Repentance.
20. Against Idleness.
21. Against Rebellion.

These Expreffions, we judge them to be read in Chur ches, &c. muft needs mean, that the Homilies are fuch as may lawfully and profitably be read therein. But this, as the Rubric in the Communion Office exprefly declares, is upon Suppofition, that there be no Sermon. For our Church does not allow of using a Sermon and Homily at the fame time.

Now that the Two Books of Homilies do contain godly and wholfom Doctrin, and neceffary for thefe Times (viz. the times of which the Compilers undoubtedly fpake, even their own Times) and that they may confequently be read in Churches, &c. will appear upon the perufal of them; for they establish and confirm their own Doctsin by Reafon, Scripture and Antiquity.

Only it must be remembred, that he who fubscribes this Article, is not fuppofed thereby to declare his Approbation of every Particular, which is found in the Homilies. For tho' our Subfcription to the Articles ties us up to every fingle Propofition of the faid Articles: yet 'tis unreasonable to extend a fingle Propofition in the Thirty fifth Article, to an Approbation of every Propofition, that may be found in a whole Folio Book, of merely Human Compofition; and in which, upon that Account, 'twould be a Miracle, if nothing were either really amifs, or what an honeft Man might with a very good Confcience diffent from. And I dare fay, whoever carefully examines the Homilies, provided he be otherwise well affected to the Eftablished Church, will heartily wish for, and be very ready to allow, this Senfe of our Subscription.

But yet, because in Matters of Subscription a Man ought to take effectual Care, that he deals openly and fairly, that he does not trifle with Sacred Obligations, and play with Setled Impofitions, and thereby give his Confcience, either fuch a Wrench as may often make his Heart ake, or fuch a Loofe as may debauch it in other Instances; for thefe Reasons, I fay, and also that I may both filence such as strain every thing to a false and bad Senfe, and render thofe perfectly eafy, who are willing to admit a good and true one; I fhall fubjoin a decifive Explanation of our Subscription to this Article.

Bishop Morton having wrote a Defence of the Surplifs, the Crofs, and Kneeling at the Sacrament; Dr. Ames publish'd a Reply to it. To this Reply Dr. John Burges return'd an Answer, which occafioned Dr. Ames's Frefb Suit, to which Mr. Ritchel rejoined, and fo the Controverfy ended.

Now

Now Dr. Burges had formerly, by fome indiscreet Superior, been deprived for Nonconformity. But afterwards he prefented his Senfe of the Terms required, first by the Hands of the Bishop of Winchefter (Dr. Lancelot Andrews, I prefume) to King James the First, and then to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, Dr. G. Abbot: and thereupon he was reftored to the Exercise of his Ministry.

He gives us an Account of this Matter in the Preface to his Answer to Dr. Ames, p. 18. in these Words, And after that time, even the very Day in which I was deprived for refusal of Subscription, I did openly before (I take it) an Hundred Witneffes (whereof fome yet remain) profefs, that if it should be made plain to me, that there was no fuch Alteration in the Church's Intend ment as I apprehended, I would then fubfcribe, as I had done before, without Scruple. And accordingly afterwards I did freely subscribe, after that His Majesty had feen the Interpretation of things which I had conceived, and fatisfied my felf in, and bad allowed them: and after that my Lord's Grace of Canterbury that now is, had told me, that they were not my Senfes, but the very true Meaning and Senfe of the Church of England, whatfoever fome Men out of the Ryot of their Wits had dif courfed. Thefe Interpretations I will fubjoin to this Difcourfe, because it may do fome Men good.

Accordingly he does fubjoin that Paper, Pref. p. 23, &c. under this Title, A Particular of those Interpretations of fome Things queftioned in the Matter of Subfcription, with which I had fatisfied my felf in former times, and with which I offered to fubfcribe the fame Day wherein I was deprived for not fubfcribing; which were after prefented to His Majeftie by the then Bishop of Winchefter, and after to my Lord's Grace of Canterbury, upon which I was restored to my Minifterie. And at the End of it he has thefe Words, Thefe Interpretations La 2

King