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
Apostles Creed as they say and not in the Articles when the words of the Article speak as expressely of it as the Creed It cannot be said that the Articles contain nothing of the fall of man when the 10. Article begins thus The condition of man after the Fall of Adam is such and then goeth on to expresse the condition of man fallen It cannot be said that the Articles contain nothing of Sin or the Punishment of sin when the 9. Article giveth a full Description of Originall Sin which is it self a sin and the fountain of all other sins when the 15. Article sheweth Christ alone to be without sin and sin to be in every one beside him when the 16. Article treateth of the nature of sin after Baptisme When the second Homily whose doctrine is approved by the Articles treateth at large of the misery of all mankind and of his condemnation to death everlasting by his own sin It cannot be said that the Articles contain nothing of Effectual calling when the 17. Article treating of Praedestination to life hath these words Wherefore they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to Gods purpose by his Spirit working in due season they through grace obey the calling they be justified freely they be made sons of God by adoption c. Certainly this is an Effectuall Calling and that with something of Adoption It cannot be said the Articles contain nothing of Faith when the 4. Homily the Doctrine whereof is confirmed by the Articles treateth solely thereof according to the Title A short Declaration of the true lively and Christian Faith Much lesse can it be said they contain nothing of Repentance when the 19. Homily intituled of Repentance is expressely named Article 35. and the Doctrine acknowledged which Homily treateth largely of that subject in three Parts It cannot be suid the Articles contain nothing of the Law when the 7. Article speaketh of the state of those which lived under the Law of the cessation of the Ceremoniall and Judiciall Law and the continued obligation of the Morall Law From these and others which I might yet mention it appeareth that it is not justly charged upon the Articles that they contain nothing of the Doctrines enumerated As for the other part pretending a Necessity of adding or inserting those Doctrines or Heads of Divinity because taught as they say by the Scriptures as Necessary which they prove onely thus because as they say it appears by the comprizing most of them in the Apostles Creed To this I answer First that it cannot possibly appear thereby For granting that most of them were comprized in the Apostles Creed granting that whatsoever is comprized in the Apostles Creed is taught by the Scriptures as necessary yet it no way followeth that the other Heads or Common-places not comprized in the Creed are taught by the Scriptures as necessary For no Doctrine in the Creed can transferre the Necessity of it to another which is not in the Creed or if it can it must be by a Necessary consequence from it or Dependance of it But if any one should argue thus the Doctrine of Creation is comprized in the Creed from whence it is esteemed as necessary therefore the Doctrine of Liberty of Conscience which is not contained in the Creed must be equally esteemed as necessary the Doctrines of the Resurrection and the last Judgment are necessary as contained in the Creed therefore the Doctrines of Marriage and Church-discipline are necessary which are not contained in it I say if any one should argue thus a man with modesty might deny the Consequence If therefore most of the Doctrines mentioned were comprized in the Apostles Creed yet it followeth not that all the rest were Necessary Secondly I answer by a flat denyall The most of those Doctrines mentioned are not comprized in the Apostles Creed Which thus I make good The Doctrines mentioned as not at all contained in the Articles are these 1. Creation 2. Providence 3. Fall of man 4. Sin 5. Punishment of sin 6. God's Covenants 7. Effectuall calling 8. Adoption 9. Sanctification 10. Faith 11. Repentance 12. Perseverance 13. Law of God 14. Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience 15. Sabbath or Lords day 16. Marriage and Divorce 17. Communion of Saints 18. Church-government and Discipline 19. Resurrection 20. The Last Judgment Which are in number 20. at the least But the most part of these are not comprized in the Apostles Creed except four or five be the most part of 20. I answer Thridly that it seems to me a very strange Objection to say that most of these Doctrines are comprized in the Apostles Creed and nothing of them contained in the Articles when the Apostles Creed it self is contained in the Articles and two Creeds more which have been generally looked upon as the Expositions of that Creed For these are the words of the 8. Article The three Creeds Nice Creed Athanasius Creed and that which is commonly called the Apostles Creed ought throughly to be received and believed Being then severall of those Doctrines are contained in the Articles being they are no otherwise proved to be necessary then because they are comprized in the Creed being farre the major part of them are not to be found in the Creed being all which are in the Creed must be contained in the Articles which contain the Creed it self I therefore conclude the third Argument doth no way prove that the Articles are defective Again being those are no more then these three Arguments brought to evince the Defectivenesse and all these are answered being I have formerly shewed the invalidity of those which pretended to prove the Doubtfulnesse of our Doctrine being there is no other Topick used beside these two of the Doubtfulnesse and Defectivenesse of the Articles to prove the Necessity of a Reformation I therefore stick to my first Conclusion There is no Necessity of a Reformation of the Publique Doctrine of the Church of England Having thus vindicated the Doctrine in it self we shall now consider by what Authority it is established having shewed that it wanteth not any Reformation we will enquire whether it stand in need of any Confirmation Certain it is that the Publique Doctrine of the Church of England is reputed to be established by Law but divers Ministers of sundry Counties tell us that though it be reputed yet indeed it is not so established To make way for as clear a Determination of this Question as I can I shall shew all the ways by which the Articles of our Church have been confirmed and then consider upon the whole whether it amount to a Legall Confirmation or no The first Articles of Religion framed since the Reformation were made in the Raign of Edward the sixth in the year 1552. the Authority which they had was from the King and from the Clergy This appeareth by the English Edition set forth by John Day with this Title Articles