very well omit and conclude with them Thus much of the doubtfulnesse of the Articles which they have much pretended no way proved scarce endeavoured As for the second Part of their charge the Defectivenesse of the Publique Doctrine they endeavour to prove it by three severall Arguments The First is brought from the 6. Article the onely Article of all the 39. accused by them of defect in it self Their Objection is this The Article is defective in the not enumerating all the Books of the New Testament And my Answer is plainly this Though the Article doe not enumerate all or any of the Books of the New Testament yet the Doctrine of this Article is not defective and my Reason is because the Article describes them as well as if it did enumerate them so that any man may rest as much satisfied with the Description as with the Enumeration As for Example the Council of Trent doth enumerate all the Books of the New Testament by name Sess. 4. the Church of England not following that Council expresseth her self otherwise saying All the Books of the New Testament as they are commonly received we doe receive and account them Canonicall Now all the Books named in the Council of Trent are commonly received or they are not if they be not commonly received then I confesse the Article may be thought defective but this I suppose our Brethren will not say or if they doe it is a known untruth if they be all commonly received then hath our Article left none out in her description more then they have in their enumeration If they did or could name any one Book which they could prove to belong to the New Testament and yet is not commonly received then they might charge the Article with defect for it would want that Book so named and yet not received But if they can name no Book of the New Testament which is not commonly received then the Article containeth every Book of the New Testament which can be named and if it contain all that can be named it must contain all that can be enumerated and consequently it cannot be defective in the not enumerating Wherefore I entreat our Brethren the Ministers of sundry Counties that they will not preferre the Council of Trent before the Articles of our Church where nothing materiall can be objected to either As for the doubts which have been in the Church of the Epistles of S. James and the second of S. Peter they make nothing against this description for though they have been doubted of yet they are now commonly received and the Article embraceth all as they are commonly received referring to the time in which the Articles were penn'd not to the age before Eusebius wrote the History of the Church and the Differences about the Scriptures Now at this time the Church of Rome had declared and enumerated all the Canonicall Books of the New Testament the Church of England upon the Reformation did no way differ from the Church of Rome in this Particular but had in its Practice received and used all the same Books and therefore needed no other way to denote them then by the Books of the New Testament commonly received Where there was a difference between our Church and theirs there to make good the Reformation it was necessary to enumerate the Books because the difference could not be otherwise known and therefore we have in reference to the Old Testament a Catalogue of the Canonicall Books and another of the Apocryphall but where there was difference neither with them nor among our selves there such an Expression as might acknowledge the consent and no way prejudice the truth was thought most proper In the Article made in the time of King Edward 6. in the year 1552. printed by Richard Grafton 1553. there was neither description nor enumeration of any Books of the Holy Scriptures and therefore it is hard measure that the Church in the days of Queen Elizabeth 1562. adding an enumeration of the Books of the Old Testament and a Description of those of the New for the supplying of a supposed defect should be accused as defective The second Argument to prove the Defectivenesse of the Publique Doctrine is that There are no Articles for discovering and condemning sundry points of Popery To which my Answer is That if they meane no more then that which will discover a man to be a Papist there is abundantly sufficient contained in the Articles to discover any man For we may assure our selves the Church of Rome will admit no man to their Society who shall be ready to subscribe our Articles This therefore as to such a Discovery can be no reall Defect because we can need no more then what is enough But if the Articles did want some Doctrines for the Discovery of Popery which they doe not yet those which our Brethren mention cannot be wanted for that purpose They signify a defect of such Tenets as are opposite to those of Arminius and think that they if they were setled would discover Popery Whereas it is most evident that the deniall of the Doctrines contrary to those of Arminius is no good or sound way to discover a Papist If the Church of England had found out no other way to discover a Romanist then the denying of Arminianisme there would suddenly be Popish Priests enow to possesse mine and all your Benefices I look upon the Dominican Friers to be as great enemies of Armianisme as I or you are and yet to be as much Papists as any are I suppose no man thinks a Praedeterminant or a Jansenian to be inclining to an Arminian and yet 't is probable that the Major part of the Papists are of those Opinions I therefore conclude as a most evident and infallible truth that the Articles are not defective in the way of discovering Popery or Papists for that reason onely because they have not sufficiently express'd themselves against Arminianisme The third Argument endeavouring to prove the Defectivenesse of the Publique Doctrine is an enumeration of severall Common-places in Divinity not comprehended in the Articles For so they argue Those Articles contain nothing of the Creation of Providence Fall of man c. and these they urge thus All which the Scripture teacheth and that as necessary as appears by the comprizing most of them in the Apostles Creed To which I answer That this Argument containeth in it two Objections neither of which can be made good and yet if both were true they could not prove that which they intend The first part of the Argument asserts That the Articles contain nothing of the Creation Providence and the rest of the Doctrines enumerated at least 20. in number Which is a manifest untruth For it cannot be said that the Articles contain nothing of the Creation when the first Article teacheth us that God is the Maker of all things Visible and Invisible How can it be true that the Creation is comprized in the
presenteth nothing but the same complaint of want of Liberty to expound the Articles applied to a certain Particular Doctrine contained in the 16. Article which is Not every deadly sin willingly committed after Baptisme is sin against the Holy Ghost Now certainly this is in it self a most sound certain infallible plain and perspicuous Doctrine and being so the want of liberty to interpret one term of it deadly sin cannot render it Doubtfull For interpret it which way you will either say all sins are deadly or say all sins are not deadly it will be equally true that Every deadly sin is not the sin against the Holy Ghost In the like manner Whether we may fall from grace totally and finally or whether we cannot fall from grace totally and finally which hath been a great doubt without any question After we have received the Holy Ghost we may depart from grace given of that there hath never been any question And so this Exception no way inferres the Doubtfulness of the Doctrine but rather gives a Testimony of the great Wisedome and Moderation of the Church which in Points doubtfull and controverted hath propounded onely that which with no sober man can be matter of doubt or subject of Controversy The third sad consequence addeth nothing to the former Objection but onely a new Particular of the 20. Article in which their Liberty of Interpretation is abridged whereas the Article it self takes away no such liberty neither doth it become the more doubtfull by any such liberty being taken away by virtue of His Majesties Declaration For whether the Church be taken for the Church Catholick or whether it be taken for the Church of England it is most certainly and undoubtedly true That the Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies and Authority in Controversies of Faith which is the first Doctrine contained in the 20. Article And in the same manner whether it doth happen that the Church should ordain ought contrary to Gods Word or expound one place of Scripture repugnant to another or whether this do or shall never happen yet it is a Doctrine most undoubtedly certain That it is not lawfull for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to Gods Word written neither may it so expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another Which is the second Doctrinal Proposition propounded in the 20. Article and that howsoever they would endeavour to interpret it most indubitable The fourth sad consequence presenteth the same objection of want of liberty to expound the 34. Article which is therefore insisted upon because they conceive they have found a strange expression in it and they cannot understand how a Tradition may be said to be ordained This is the first Objection brought by them against any Part of the Doctrine contained in any Article neither is the Objection properly against the Matter but onely against the manner of Speech And yet they were forced to mutilate the Article before they could raise this objection against it For thus they print the words Whosoever doth openly breake the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church which be not repugnant to the word of God and be ordained by common Authority ought to be rebuked openly and so they joyn the word ordained both to Ceremonies and Traditions whereas the Article speaks plainly and distinctly thus and be ordained and approved by common authority that is to say respectively the Ceremonies ordained and the Traditions approved Thus if they please to take the Article entire they will be so far from shewing the Doctrine doubtfull that they will not be able to find in it so much as a strange expression The fifth sad consequence seemeth much more to the purpose then the former for here they endeavour to prove more then they undertook The Design propounded was to shew the Doctrine doubtfull here they undertake to prove it false The Article accused is the 35. and the accusation is that it teacheth the Bookes of Homilies to contain a godly and wholesome doctrine and necessary for these times from whence they say it will necessarily follow that he which subscribeth this Article must subscribe to false doctrines or assertions That therefore which the Article saith is godly wholesome and necessary they say is false The false Doctrines charged upon the Homilies are two The first is pretended to be taken out of Hom. 2. Of the place and time of Prayer That Homily therefore is charged with false Doctrine To which I answer that the second Part of the Homily Of the place and time of Prayer containeth in it these two Doctrines 1. Christians ought to be zealous and desirous to come to Church 2. God is grieved with them who despise or little regard to come to Church on the day set apart for Gods worship In reference to each of these the Article says very true that this Homily containes a godly and wholesome doctrine and necessary for these times and I can assure him whosoever subscribeth it shall subscribe in this to no false Doctrine or assertion The words which they affixe to this Homily and in regard of which they charge it with falsehood are these Pluralities of wives was by special Prerogative suffered in the Fathers of the Old Testament not for satisfying their carnall and fleshly lusts c. But it were very strange if these words should be produced in the Homily to prove the necessity of a place and time of Prayer certainly the Church would set no such example to extravagant preaching Indeed there are no such words in that Homily and the mistake is so plain that I cannot see how divers Ministers in sundry Counties could possibly concurre in it But though the words objected be not found in that Homily by them mentioned yet they may be in another and so I confesse they are and that in the page by them cited which makes the mistake the more remarkable But the Homily in which they are found is An information for them which take offence at certain places of the Holy Scripture and the onely Doctrine which that Homily undertaketh to defend is that the people ought to read the Scriptures which in it self is plain and true and so of no ambiguity Now the Objection made there to this Doctrine was that the People by reading the Scriptures were led into divers mistakes and the Homilist in answer to this Objection endeavours to prevent misinterpretations of some scriptures particularly such as taught that the godly Fathers had many wives and concubines the words then objected are but an Exposition of the Custome of the Patriarchs in answer to an objection raised against the Doctrine propounded and asserted and therefore though the Reason of the Exposition were not proper the Doctrine is never the lesse true never the more doubtfull and so long as that is true as certainly this Doctrine the People ought to read the Scriptures is most true the Article bindeth to no false Doctrine
agreed upon in the Convocation and published by the Kings Majesty and more fully by the Latine Edition set forth by Renold Wolfe with this Title Articuli de quibus in Synodo Londinensi Anno Dom. M. D. LII ad tollendam opinionum dissensionem consensum verae Religionis firmandum inter Episcopos alios eruditos viros convenerat Regiâ Authoritate in lucem editi Which is also prefixed in John Day 's English Edition before the Catechisme published at the same time with the Articles and in the English Edition of Richard Grafton set forth by it self all which were printed in the same year viz. 1553. Thus farre they went in the beginning of the Reformation and this was the Authority which those Articles had and that might be sufficient if no more were thought necessary The same Articles of Religion with some alterations in the Reviviscency of the Reformation in the days of Queen Elizabeth were again Ratified by the Authority of the Queen and of the Clergy as appeareth by the English Edition set forth by Richard Jugge and John Cawood whose title is this ARTICLES whereupon it was agreed by the Arch-bishops and Bishops of both the Provinces and the whole Clergy in the Convocation holden at London in the year of our Lord God M. D. LXII according to the Computation of the Church of England for th' avoyding of the diversities of opinions and for the establishing of consent touching true Religion Put forth by the Queens Authority A Latine Title to the same effect is praefixed to the same Articles of the Latine Edition by Renold Wolfe with this addition concerning the Queens Authority at the Conclusion Quibus omnibus Articulis Serenissima Princeps Elizabeth Dei gratia Angliae Franciae Hiberniae Regina Fidei Defensor c. per seipsam diligenter prius lectis examinatis Regium suum assensum praebuit Thus did they continue for above eight years as they conceived sufficiently confirmed and established The Articles thus established in the year 1562. were again Ratified and confirmed in the year 1571. as appeareth by two English Editions both set forth the same year by Richard Jugge and John Cawood with the same Title before mentioned and with this Ratification added at the Conclusion This book of Articles before rehearsed is again approved and allowed to be holden and executed within the Realme by the assent and consent of our Soveraigne Lady Elizabeth by the grace of God of England France and Ireland Queen Defender of the Faith c. Which Articles were diligently read and confirmed again by the subscription of the hands of the Arch-bishops and Bishops of the Vpper-house and by the subscription of the whole Cleargy in the Neather-house in their Convocation in the year of our Lord God 1571. The same Title and Ratification were printed with the Articles the same year in Latine by John Day Thus were the Articles again established by the Authority of the Queen and the Subscription of the whole Clergy in Convocation But all these Confirmations though greater were never had before in matters of Articles of the Church did notwithstanding not amount unto a full and formall Law till it was thought fit that not onely the Arch-bishops and Bishops and the Clergy convened in the Convocation should subscribe them but that the same Subscription should be required of all the Ministers in all places of the Kingdome and then these Articles were confirmed by a compleate Law that is an Act of Parliament made in the same year 1571. by the consent of the Queen Lords Spirituall and Temporall and the Commons of England 13. Eliz. cap. 20. From whence my Second Conclusion in reference to the Confirmation of the Publique Doctrine is this The Articles of Religion of the Church of England are established by the Law of England Against this Conclusion so plain and evident our Brethren the Ministers of sundry Counties have made some Objections but very short contained in their two first Paragraphs the first of which is this It appears not that they were all or any of them confirmed by Parliament in the 13. of Eliz. forasmuch as they are not therein expressely inserted nor so much as their number but onely the Title-page of them mentioned Nor is it known when the Originall is inrolled For the Assertion it self contained in the first words of this Paragraph It appears not that they were all or any of them confirmed by Parliament in the 13. of Eliz. I shall evince the contrary first ad homines proving out of their own words that they were confirmed which against them is sufficient In their Answer to the Objection that the Kings Declaration may be laid aside they urge that there is a necessity of repealing that branch of the Act so farre as it concerneth subscription But there can be no Necessity to repeal that branch of the Act if neither all nor any of the Articles be confirmed by that Act for the Subscription required by that Act is express'd to be a Subscription to the said Articles and no other Again they argue thus against the Subscription There is no more Necessity for Ministers to subscribe those Articles which that Act confirmes then there is for others to subscribe to all other Acts of Parliament which doe concern them In which words they plainly confesse that the Act confirmes the Articles and certainly whatsoever is confirmed by an Act of Parliament is established by Law Again these are their plain and formall words The Statute doth require belief of every one of these Articles when it enjoynes not onely Subscription but an assent unto them punishing all with Deprivation that shall affirm and maintain any Doctrine repugnant to them Now if it be true that the Statute doth require belief of every one of these Articles How can it be also true that neither all nor any of them is confirmed by that Statute These two Assertions are so different and contradictory that they may well be pend in sundry Counties as well as by divers Ministers Secondly that the Articles were confirmed by the Act of the 13. of Eliz. will thus appear The Act begins thus That the Churches of the Queens Majesties Dominions may be served with Pastors of sound Religion be it enacted by the Authority of this present Parliament c. Either therefore something is established concerning Religion in that Act or nothing If you say nothing then first you charge the Parliament with folly to make an Act for establishing nothing Secondly you make their determinations no way correspondent to their intentions for they make this Act to the intent that the Churches might be served with Pastors of sound Religion whereas the Act it self you say establisheth no Religion If the Act did establish something in Religion then it either established the Articles or something beside the Articles But it is most plain that it established nothing in Religion beside the Articles therefore it must be at
last confess'd that it established the Articles Thirdly Those which are Learned in the Laws are certainly the best Interpreters of the Law and know best what things are established by Law and what not Amongst them the Memory of Sir Edward Coke with me is most precious in relation to himself while he lived and to his Sons since his death and his Authority great with all He therefore speaks in this manner in the fourth Part of his Institutes cap. 74. Subscription required by the Clergy is twofold one by force both of an Act of Parliament confirming and establishing the 39. Articles of Religion agreed upon at a Convocation of the Church of England and ratified by Queen Elizabeth under the Great seal of England In the Opinion therefore and Language of that learned Chief Justice the Act of Parliament doth confirme and establish the 39. Articles and those words I oppose to theirs it appears not that they were all or any of them confirmed by act of Parliament Let us now consider the Reasons inducing them to deny this Legall Confirmation which seem in the forecited Paragraph to be two First forasmuch as they are not therein expressely inserted nor so much as their number but onely the Title-page of them mentioned To which I answer First that this is the same Argument which you us'd against the Articles for not enumerating the Books of the New Testament onely here it is much weaker for there it would have satisfied you if the names of the Books of the New Testament had been enumerated though the whole New Testament had not been inserted in the Article but here nothing can satisfy but an express Insertion of all which is to be allowed Secondly I answer that it is not materiall what is actually inserted to conclude what is actually to be performed The Title of the Articles is inserted and yet neither the sound Religion designed in the Preamble nor the Subscription urged in the body of the Act hath any reference to the Title for there is neither any Religion contained in the Title nor any Subscription required to it But the Articles which are not inserted are affirmed by the Act to concern the Confession of the true Christian Faith and the assent and subscription are required unto them not to the Title Deprivation is denounced to all which shall affirme any Doctrine directly contrary or repugnant to any of the said Articles not to the Title We must not therefore look unto what is inserted but what is intended in the Act. If any Ministers had pleaded before the Lord Chief-Justice Wray or Coke that they were ready to subscribe to the Title of the Book of Articles expressed in the Statute but not to the Articles contained in the Book because they were not expressed in the Act certainly they would have far'd as ill as he who subscrib'd them with a condition As for the Number of them it is no way materiall because though now they are known under the names and number of 39. yet then they were not so generally called The Articles of Edward the sixth were of another number and those which were agreed upon 1562. had no number affix'd to them neither in the English nor Latine Edition They were not therefore then so well known by their number as by their Title and the Act while it rehearseth the Title confirmeth the Book which was so intituled Their second Reason upon which they deny this Legal Confirmation is delivered in these words Neither is it known where the Original is enrolled To which I answer First that if the Original Copy of the Articles had never been enrolled yet the Articles themselves had never been the lesse confirmed and my Reason is because the Act taketh no notice of the Articles as they were at first written but as they were at that time printed For thus the Act speaks That the Churches of the Queens Majesties Dominions may be served with Pastors of sound Religion be it enacted by the authority of this present Parliament that every person under the degree of a Bishop shall declare his assent and subscribe to all the Articles of Religion which onely concern the confession of the true Christian Faith and the Doctrine of the Sacraments comprised in a Book imprinted intituled ARTICLES whereupon it was agreed by the Arch-bishops and Bishops of both Provinces and the whole Clergy in the Convocation holden at London in the year of our Lord God 1562. according to the Computation of the Church of England for the avoiding of the diversities of opinions and for the establishing of consent touching true Religion put forth by the Queens Authority These Articles were agreed upon in the year 1562. and then printed with this very Title before by us transcribed out of that Edition In the year 1571. Those Articles were reprinted and then this Act was published whether therefore the Originall were enrolled or not enrolled the Articles comprised in the Book imprinted and so intituled were confirmed by the Statute I Answer secondly that the Enrollment of the Originall is not so obscure as they pretend We know that there was an Originall enrolled we can tell them how many pages that Originall consisted of even determinately 19. we can assure them this was deposited with Matthew Arch-bishop of Canterbury we can tell them the day when it was done viz. the fifth day of February in the year 1562. All which appeareth by the Postscript printed with the Articles in Latine in the year 1563. by Renald Wolfe the Queens Printer The words are these Hos Articulos Fidei Christianae continentes in universum novendecim paginas in autographo quod asservatur apud Reverendissimum in Christo Patrem Dominum Matthaeum Cantuariensem Archepiscopum totius Angliae Primatem Metropolitanum Archepiscopi Episcopi utriusque Provinciae regni Angliae in sacra provinciali Synodo legitime congregati unanimi assensu recipiunt profitentur ut veros atque Orthodoxos manuum suarum subscriptionibus approbant vicessimo nono die mensis Januarii Anno Domini secundum computationem Ecclesiae Anglicanae millesimo quingentesimo sexagesimo secundo universusque Clerus Inferioris domus eosdem etiam unanimiter recepit professus est ut ex manuum suarum subscriptionibus patet quas obtulit deposuit apud eundem Reverendissimum quinto die Februarii Anno praedicto The Late Arch-bishop giveth testimony to the same in his speech delivered in the Starre-chamber June 14. 1637. His words are these p. 69. I sent to the Publique Records in my Office and here under my Officers hand who is a Publique Notary is returned me the Twentieth Article with this Affirmative Clause in it And there is also the whole Body of the Articles to be seen To those therefore which know the Publique Records unknown perhaps to the Ministers of sundry Counties it is known where the Originall is preserv'd And this I conceive a sufficient Answer to their first Paragraph Their second Paragraph to the same purpose is this Of the 39. there were 36. of them set forth yet not ratified by Parliament the other were added by the Convocation in An. 1562. As for the Parenthesis of this Paragraph signifying that the Articles made in K. Edward 6. time were not ratified by Parliament it no way opposeth them who thinke our Articles established by Law because no man imagines that our Articles were under the Consideration of any Parliament in the days of Edward 6. The other words of that Paragraph are something doubtfully penn'd and seem to be capable of two senses First that in the time of Edward 6. there were but 36. Articles set forth If this be the sense of their words they are not true For the Articles agreed upon in the year 1552. and set forth in the year 1553. that is to say the Articles in K. Edwards Raigne if you look upon those which were printed by Renald Wolfe in Latine or John Day in English you will find 42. Heads or Contents without figures if you look into the Edition of Richard Grafton you will find not onely the Contents but the numbers affixed to each Article to amount to 42. It is not therefore true that in the time of Edward 6. there were but 36. Articles set forth The second sense of the words of that Paragraph may be this That of those 39. Articles set forth in the days of Queen Eliz. there were 36. set forth in the Raigne of Edward 6. And in this sense their words are not true For the 5. Article Of the Holy Ghost the 12. Article Of Good works the 29. Of the wicked which eat not the body of Christ in the use of the Lords Supper and the 30. Of both kinds these four are not to be found in the Articles set forth in the Raigne of Edward 6. And if 4. of the 39. be not to be found there cannot be 36. of the same 39. Wherefore I conclude that I can find no sense in which those words are true that Of those 39. Articles there were 36. of them set forth in Edward 6. his raigne Now being this is all which is objected by them against the Legall establishment of the Articles being an Act of Parliament hath propounded the same Articles as a Confession of the true Christian Faith and sound Religion and acknowledgeth any Doctrine contrary to the said Articles to be untrue Doctrine and upon this acknowledgment and publike Declaration of the truth of the Faith and soundnesse of the Religion hath required all Ministers to declare their unfained assent to the same upon pain of being deprived ipso facto I conclude that the Articles of the Church of England are confirmed by the Law of England And thus having answered all the Objections endeavouring to prove a Necessity of Reformation or Confirmation of the Publick Doctrine of our Church I earnestly entreat all these my Brethren in sundry Counties to advise with the more sober counsels of those of our Brethren who have lately declared that They take it for granted that there is no difference between us in matter of Doctrine FINIS