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
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