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
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
in reference to this Homily when it saith it containeth a godly and wholesome doctrine and necessary for these times The second Objection is taken out of the Homily of Almes-deeds the second part The Design of which Part of the Homily is to shew How profitable it is for a man to exercise himself in Almesdeeds and particularly it proveth that to be mercifull and charitable is a means to keep a soul clean in the sight of God Which part of the Doctrine is grounded there on Luke 11.41 Give almes of such things as you have and behold all things are clean unto you and being thus stated and confirmed for a further Illustration or enlargement the Homily proceedeth to accumulate Authorities in which accumulation if any prove improper it cannot make the Doctrine false or doubtfull and that is still plainly true which the Article holds forth even in reference to the Homily of Almesdeeds that it containeth a godly and wholesome doctrine and necessary for these times The sixth sad consequence presenteth the Queens Majesty as having the chief power in the Realme of England and raiseth a strong doubt whether the 37. Article intend any power to any other person beside Queen Elizabeth But certainly the Kings Majesty hath the same power in his Dominions that the Queens Majesty had in her Dominions there is no difference in reference to the Sex or if there were it is not probable that the weaker sex should have the stronger power The Article hath expresse reference to the Queens Injunctions set forth in the year 1559. and those Injunctions take particular care that no other duty allegiance or bond should be required to the Queen then was acknowledged to be due to the most noble Kings of famous memory King Henry the Eight her Majesties Father or King Edward the Sixt her Majesties Brother The words of the Article it self sufficiently declare that the Doctrine contained in it concerneth all the Kings as Kings The Title in Generall is of the Civil Magistrates and the words run thus Where we attribute to the Queens Majesty the chief government we give not to our Princes c. shewing that what they gave to her they gave to all the Kings of England Which will appear more plainly out of the first Latine Copy printed in the time of Queen Eliz. in the year 1563. read and approved by the Queen the words whereof are these Cùm Regiae Majestati summam gubernationem tribuimus quibus titulis intelligimus animos quorundam calumniatorum offendi non damus Regibus nostris aut verbi Dei aut Sacramentorum administrationem c. Being therefore the Article expressely mentioneth and concerneth the Kings of England as they are the Kings of England the mention of the Queens Majesty in the Article can make the Doctrine no more doubtfull then it doth our allegiance in that Oath which was made 1. Eliz. where the Heires and Successors of the Queen are to appoint who shall accept the oath the words of which are that the Queens Highnesse is the onely supreme Governour of this Realme But I hope the Heirs and successors of Queen Elizabeth did never appoint that Oath to be taken in the name of the Queens Highnesse but in their own I therefore earnestly desire not onely that divers Ministers of sundry Counties but that all the Ministers of all the Counties in England would acknowledge and confesse that it is the undoubted Doctrine of our Church that to the Kings of England their Heirs and Successors the chief government of all Estates whether they be Ecclesiasticall or Civil in all causes doth appertain as the 37. Article expresseth it The last sad consequence doth no way touch the present Articles and consequently doth not prove them doubtfull but onely suggesteth fears and jealousies that if the Kings Declaration should be continued we should have no setled or fixed Doctrine of the Church of England at all It seemeth very strange to me that King Charles of blessed memory should be suspected of unsetling the Church who dyed rather then he would make any alteration in it and left this as a Maxime to His Son that His Fixation in matters of Religion will not be more necessary for His Souls then His Kingdomes Peace It were very strange if His Declaration should threaten any alteration in the Doctrine of the Church when those very words which they cite out of it as a cause of their fears give the greatest assurance imaginable of the continuance and perpetuity of that which is already setled For these are the expresse words so much feared and impugned by them The Bishops and Clergy from time to time in Convocation upon their humble desire shall have licence under our broad Seal to deliberate of and to doe all such things as being made plain by them and assented unto by Vs shall concern the setled continuance of the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England now established from which we will not endure any varying or departing in the least degree What can be a greater assurance of a setled and a fixed doctrine in the Church what words can more satisfactorily prevent all alterations of the Publique profession of faith the whole power promised to the Bishops was onely for the setled continuance of the Doctrine and Discipline then established the Doctrine then established is acknowledged by the same Declaration to be that which is contained in the Articles the Bishops then were never to have any power from the King to make any alteration in the Doctrine of the Articles and if any should suspect the Bishops had a design or would ever attempt to alter the Doctrine in any particular we were sufficiently assured they should never have power to effect it by the word of a King who said of the doctrine established From which we will not endure any varying or departing in the least degree Thus have I dispatched the seven sad consequences so farre as they have in them any the least shew of proof of the Doubtfulnesse of the Publique Doctrine For the rest of this part of the Discourse pretending to prove the Publique Doctrine Doubtfull it consisteth in an Answer to an Objection whiâ—h Answer of it selfe makes clearly unnecessary and of none effect all which hath been said by them against the Declaration of the King of blessed memory The Objection is The Kings Declaration is no Law and may be taken away The Answer which they give is that this will signify nothing if Ministers be still tyed to Subscription If this be true to what purpose were those sad Consequences drawn from the Kings Declaration For if the taking it away will signify nothing of good then the continuing of it can signify nothing of evil for if it did the removing of that evil would be good The rest of that Answer is spent in arguing against the Judgement of two Eminent Lawyers which because it hath no relation to the Doubtfulnesse of the Doctrine I may