NO NECESSITY OF REFORMATION OF THE PUBLICK DOCTRINE OF THE Church of England By JOHN PEARSON D. D. LONDON Printed by J. G. for Nathaniel Brook at the Angel in Cornhill 1660. No Necessity of Reforming THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH Of ENGLAND WHereas there hath lately come forth a Book endeavouring to give Reasons shewing the Necessity of Reformation of the Publike Doctrine offered to the Consideration of the Parliament by divers Ministers of sundry Counties in England being I have hitherto constantly believed the Publique Doctrine of our Church to be true and Orthodoxe and have often blessed God for continuing me in the Faith professed amongst us since the Reformation I did resolve to examine impartially at my first leisure the Reasons pretending to shew the Necessity of Reforming that Doctrine Perusing that Part of the Book which treateth of this subject with some diligence I found not any one Reason which could in the least perswade me that there is any such Necessity of Reformation of the publique Doctrine of our Church and consequently did resolve notwithstanding what is yet brought to the contrary to continue in the Faith which I have hitherto professed and not to repent of my Subscription to the Articles of the Church of England After this private satisfaction of mine own Conscience entring into a further consideration that it is an undoubted disparagement of any Doctrine to be in a Necessity of being reformed and fearing lest some if not of the Parliament to whose consideration the Reasons are offered yet of the People for whose instruction they are published might hereby conceive some sinister Opinion of the Doctrine of our Church I thought it not unfit to give a publique account of my private thoughts concerning this Particular But lest any man may imagine that this writing of one Minister against others might hinder that Union of all Parties which as at all times so especially at this is to be wished and embraced I shall begin with this unfeigned Profession that I do heartily and earnestly desire a full compliance concurrence and union with such persons as those Ministers who offer the Reasons professe themselves to be that is to say such as truly and unfeignedly will make good those words It is far from our thoughts to oppose or disparage Orthodox Doctrine a well-composed Liturgy Rites for decency and order Ordination of Ministers Apostolical Episcopacy or due Rules of Discipline We are for all these with truth and against rigid impositions which may debar a Christian of any liberty allowed him by Christ And lest this Publication might any way become or be thought guilty of hindering or retarding that so much expected and desired Union I have resolved to use my Pen with such brotherly temper and Christian moderation as that there come not from me any provocation or the least Reflection either upon their Persons their Parties or Perswasions applying my self wholy and solely to a due examination and orderly discussion of their Reasons weighing and trying whether they have in them any force to inferre the pretended Conclusion and in case they prove not of that validity discovering and declaring the insufficiency and weakness of them Now the Proposition or Conclusion propounded and to be proved by them according to the Title of their Book and Front of the first Part is this There is a Necessity of the Reformation of the Publique Doctrine of the Church of England This Proposition I confesse to be the opinion of some men for it is the Tenet of the Church of Rome and I am assured that there is not one Papist who doth not resolutely maintain it but that it is or ever was since the Reformation of the Church and Confirmation of the Articles the Opinion of the Ministers of sundry Counties in England still professing themselves Ministers of the Church of England I never yet understood To this Proposition they have added an Appendage in these words Reputed to be but indeed not established by Law Which Addition must be considered in the laying down or fixing the Conclusion to avoid all manner of misconception In order whereunto in the first place I shall lay down this Assertion Whether the Publique Doctrine be established indeed by Law or whether it be Reputed onely to be established there is no Necessity of the Reformation of it And the reason of this Assertion in relation to the Appendage or Addition is clear because the adding of these words Established or Reputed can have no influence at all upon the Reformation of the Doctrine For if the Publique Doctrine be indeed established by Law as it is reputed the establishment by Law cannot put it into a Necessity of Reformation because no Doctrin◠〈…〉 the worse by a Legall establishment if the Publique 〈…〉 be onely Reputed to be established by Law and be indeed not established the Nonestablishment may put it in need of a Confirmation but can put upon it no Necessity of Reformation because the truth of the Doctrines of Religion dependeth not upon the Legall establishment There is therefore a necessity of distinguishing these two conceptions of Reformation and Confirmation of the Publique Doctrine They are not more industriously confounded in their Treatise then they must be carefully distinguished in our Answer Wherefore I shall make my opposition distinâ—t and deliver it in two Conclusions the one opposed to the pretended Necessity of Reformation the other to the objected want of Confirmation Of the first I shall treate resolvedly as a Divine to whom it properly appertaines to speake of Theologicall Doctrines and shall take the leave earnestly to contend for the Faith of the Church of the other I shall speake with all reverence and submission to the Learned in the Laws who understand the force of them better then I can with any modesty pretend to do Our first Conclusion then is this There is no Necessity of a Reformation of the Publique Doctrine of the Church of England This I here present by way of negation opposing it to their affirmation not designing here to prove it but onely to vindicate the truth of it from their objections and to shew the invalidity of their Reasons They begin to lay the Foundations of their Reasons thus The Publique Doctrine of the Church of England as it is commonly received and insisted upon is said to be contained in the 39. Articles c. Where it is to be observed First that it is not said All the Publique Doctrine of the Church is contained in the 39. Articles Secondly that whatsoever Publique Doctrine of the Church is not contained in the 39. Articles is not so much as pretended to be in a Necessity of Reformation So that if there be any Publique Doctrine not contained in the Articles as I conceive they will confesse there is that Doctrine is not onely clear from all their exceptions but will serve also to invalidate something of them when they are brought against the rest Their Reasons framed against
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
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