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
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
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