zeal, to conserve and maintain the church committed to our charge in unity of true religion, and in the bond of peace; and not to suffer unnecessary disputations, altercations, or questions to be raised, which may nourish faction both in the church and commonwealth. We have 5 therefore upon mature deliberation, and with the advice of so many of our bishops, as might conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this declaration following: That the articles of the church of England, which have been allowed and authorized heretofore, and 10 which our clergy generally have subscribed unto, do contain the true doctrine of the church of England agreeable 1628; and it may be inferred from the proceedings of the house of commons that it appeared during the interval between the prorogation of the 26th of June and the reassembling of the parliament on the follow- 15 ing 20th of January. Dr. Burn copied his mistake from Gibson's Codex, in which it appears to have originated; and Dr. Blackburne assumed it on grounds which are altogether untenable; as has been shewn by Gloc. Ridley in his Letters to the Author of the Confessional." 3d Lett. Postscr. p. 172. 20 The controversies of earlier origin, as well as those that were created by the recent synod of Dort, were revived and exasperated by the strong measures employed in the collection of the loan, and by the prominent part that was taken in its favour by many of the established clergy. It was thought advisable to republish the Thirty-nine Articles, 25 and to require all persons to abstain from all curious disputes and speculations; but the inevitable consequence was to condemn the Calvinistic interpretation which had hitherto prevailed. It was a contest in which one party was admitted to be the stronger of the two, but both were equally silenced. The declaration therefore that was issued by the 30 king, and was prefixed to the new edition of the articles, was pronounced by the puritans to be Arminian and popish. The effect of it certainly was to repress the proceedings of the Calvinists; as was shewn in the case of bishop Davenant, who was called before the council in March - 1630, and rebuked for a sermon he had preached on the subject of the 35 seventeenth article, not because he had inculcated any strange or erroneous doctrine, but solely because he had been disobedient to the royal mandate. (Two letters of bp. Davenant, in the Tanner MSS. vol.ccxc. p. 89.) The parliament had been prorogued in June immediately after the 40 to God's word; which we do therefore ratify and confirme, requiring all our loving subjects to continue in the uniform profession thereof, and prohibiting the least difference from the said articles; which to that end we command 5 to be new printed, and this our declaration to be published therewith. That we are supreme governor of the church of England; and that if any difference arise about the external policy, concerning the injunctions, canons, or other conIo stitutions whatsoever thereto belonging, the clergy in their convocation is to order and settle them, having first obtained leave under our broad seal so to do; and we subsidies had been granted, which the king had purchased from the 15 commons by acceding to the petition of rights; but one of the first acts of the lower house after their reassembling in January 1629, was to protest against the declaration in the following manner: "We the commons in parliament assembled do claim, protest, and avow for truth, the sense of the articles of religion, (which were established by parliament 20 in the 13th year of our late queen Elizabeth,) which by the public act of the church of England, and by the general and current expositions of the writers of our church has been delivered unto us. And we reject the sense of the Jesuits and Arminians and all others wherein they differ from us." 25 Bishop Laud was accused at his trial of having interpolated this edition of the articles by inserting a sentence of his own, at the beginning of the 20th article, respecting the authority of the church. There was some apparent foundation for the charge, inasmuch as the passage was not to be found either in the first edition or in most of those that 30 followed it. But it certainly existed in others; and it was probably introduced by the queen after the articles had been approved by the convocation of 1562. We may admit however that we are indebted to bishop Laud for the publicity and confirmation that the passage has Rushw. vol. i. Collier, vol. ii. p. 746. Neal, 35 Purit. vol. i. p. 519. Lamb's Articles, p. 35. Heylin's Laud, p. 188. Canterb. Doom, p. 163. Lingard, vol. vi. p. 288. subsequently obtained. e which we do therefore ratify and confirm] It was the constant maxim of queen Elizabeth, derived not so much from the statute of supremacy (1 Eliz. c. 1.) as from the inseparable rights and prerogatives of the 40 crown, that she might establish or repeal canons, and might ordain or approving their said ordinances and constitutions, provided that none be made contrary to the laws and customs of the land. That out of our princely care, that the churchmen may do the work which is proper unto them, the bi- 5 shops and clergy from time to time in convocation, upon their humble desire shall have license under our broad seal to deliberate of, and to do all such things, as being made plain by them, and assented unto by us, shall concern the settled continuance of the doctrine and discipline 10 of the church of England now established; from which we will not endure any varying, or departing in the least degree. That for the present, though some differences have been ill raised, yet we take comfort in this, that all 15 clergymen within our realm have always most willingly abolish any religious rite or ceremony; and that in so doing she might call in the aid of her council, of a commission of divines, of a convocation or a parliament, as she judged most expedient. In the case of the Articles she considered their authority to rest upon her ratification of 20 them after they had been prepared by the synod of the clergy for her examination and approval. This doctrine was adopted by archbishops Whitgift and Bancroft, and was sanctioned by solemn decisions from the highest legal authorities. It was also asserted by king James I. who declared in his first proclamation (No. CXVI.) that he would 25 "proceed according to the laws and customs of this realm by advice of his council, or in his high court of parliament, or by convocation of his clergy, as he should find reason to lead him," and afterwards commanded alterations to be made in the Book of Common Prayer without the authority of parliament. The proper ratification of articles on the 30 part of the crown seems also from this declaration to have been maintained by king Charles I. and his advisers; but it may be inferred from the passage, in which he declares his supremacy as governor of the church, that he limited his powers more narrowly than his predecessors had done, and that he allowed the necessity of calling in the aid of the 35 clergy in their convocation, not only in deciding points of doctrine, but also in case of difference arising on matters of external policy. This change was doubtless owing to the suggestions of Laud, and to the influence, which the church had obtained in the royal counsels. subscribed to the articles established; which is an argument to us, that they all agree in the true usual literal meaning of the said articles, and that even in those curious points, in which the present differences lie, men of 5 all sorts take the articles of the church of England to be for them; which is an argument again that none of them intend any desertion of the articles established. That therefore in these both curious and unhappy differences, which have for so many hundred years, in 10 different times and places, exercised the church of Christ, we will that all further curious search be laid aside, and these disputes shut up in God's promises, as they be generally set forth to us in the holy scriptures, and the general meaning of the articles of the church of England 15 according to them. And that no man hereafter shall either print or preach to draw the article aside any way, but shall submit to it in the plain and full meaning thereof; and shall not put his own sense or comment to be the meaning of the article, but shall take it in the 20 literal and grammatical sense. That if any public reader in either of our universities, or any head or master of a college, or any other person respectively in either of them shall affix any new sense to any article, or shall publicly read, determine, or hold any 25 public disputation, or suffer any such to be held either way in either of the universities or colleges respectively; or if any divine in the universities shall preach or print any thing either way, other than is already established in convocation with our royal assent; he, or they the of30 fenders, shall be liable to our displeasure and the church's censure in our commission ecclesiastical, as well as any other; and we will see there shall be due execution upon them. CXXXVII. Archiepisc. Cant. GEO. ABBOT 23. Anno Christi Reg. Angliæ The archbishop's letter about the ministering and receiving of the sacrament in the church of Crayford in Kent.Reg. II. Abbot, fol. 143. b. GEORGE, by the providence of God archbishop of Cant. primate and metropolitan of all England, to our well beloved in Christ the parson, churchwardens, and other the parishioners and inhabitants of the parish of Crayford in the county of Kent and deanery of Shoreham, 5 of the peculiar and immediate jurisdiction of us, and of our cathedral and metropolitical church of Christ Cant. and to all other persons whatsoever, to whom these presents shall come, or may any way concern, greeting in our Lord God everlasting. Whereas upon some dif- 10 ference arising among you about the decent and reverend ministering and receiving of the holy communion in the chancel of the said church of Crayford, we upon the petition of you the parson did refer the viewing of the said church, and examination of the said difference unto 15 The archbishop's letter] The petition that gave occasion to this letter grew out of the different interpretations of the 82nd canon, which required that at the time of the communion the table" shall be placed in so good sort within the church or chancel, as thereby the minister may be more conveniently heard of the communicants in his prayer and 20 ministration, and the communicants also more conveniently, and in more number, may communicate with the said minister." The one party desired that it should be placed in the body of the church, in order that the eucharist might be considered as a religious feast, the other wished it to be placed altar-wise at the east end of the chancel, 25 in order that it might correspond with the nature of a religious sacri |