Selected quad for the lemma: england_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A53894
|
No necessity of reformation of the publick doctrine of the Church of England. By John Pearson, D.D.
|
Pearson, John, 1613-1686.
|
1660
(1660)
|
Wing P1001; ESTC R202284
|
20,122
|
29
|
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
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