NO NECESSITY OF REFORMATION OF THE public 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 showing the Necessity of Reformation of the public Doctrine, offered to the Consideration of the Parliament by divers Ministers of sundry Counties in England; being I have hitherto constantly believed the public Doctrine of our Church to be true and orthodox, 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 show 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 persuade me, that there is any such Necessity of Reformation of the public 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, entering 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 public 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 profess 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 persuasions; applying myself wholly and solely to a due examination and orderly discussion of their Reasons, weighing and trying whether they have in them any force to infer 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 public Doctrine of the Church of England. This Proposition I confess 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 public Doctrine be established indeed by Law, or whether it be Reputed only 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 public 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 legal establishment: if the public 〈…〉 be only 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 legal establishment.  
There is therefore a necessity of distinguishing these two conceptions of Reformation, and Confirmation of the public Doctrine. They are not more industriously confounded in their Treatise, than they must be carefully distinguished in our Answer. Wherefore I shall make my opposition distin●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 treat resolvedly as a Divine, to whom it properly appertains to speak of theological Doctrines, and shall take the leave earnestly to contend for the Faith of the Church; of the other I shall speak with all reverence and submission to the Learned in the Laws, who understand the force of them better than I can with any modesty pretend to do.  
Our first Conclusion than is this. There is no Necessity of a Reformation of the public 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 only to vindicate the truth of it from their objections, and to show the invalidity of their Reasons.  
They begin to lay the Foundations of their Reasons thus. The public 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 public Doctrine of the Church is contained in the 39 Articles. Secondly, that whatsoever public 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 public Doctrine not contained in the Articles, as I conceive they will confess there is, that Doctrine is not only 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 the public Doctrine contained in the Articles are laid upon two Foundations, upon the Doubtfulness and the Defectiveness of it; more Reasons of a Necessity of Reformation they pretend not to. For thus they assume, But these Articles are both doubtful and Defective. First they endeavour to prove them doubtful at large; and when they have done with the doubtfulness, they proceed immediately to the defectiveness, which having handled much more briefly they conclude their Treatise of the Doctrine.  
As to their Reason grounded on their first Foundation it must run thus, Whatsoever is doubtful is Necessarily to be reformed. But the Doctrine contained in the 39 Articles is doubtful. Therefore the Doctrine contained in the 39 Articles is necessarily to be reformed. The Major Proposition is not by them expressed; neither is there any thing offered for the Proof or credit of it: And yet in some sense it may certainly be denied. But that is not so material. The very Minor Proposition, upon which the Reason mainly depends, hath no formal Proof annexed to it. For in stead of proving the doubtfulness of the Doctrine contained in them, (which can be the only pretence in this case of a Necessity of Reformation of Doctrine,) the doubtfulness of the Confirmation of the Articles is only insisted upon, in the two first Paragraphs, the Declaration of his Late Majesty 10. Caroli is rehearsed in the 3. Paragraph The sad consequences of the Continuation and Confirmation of that Declaration are urged by 7. several Reasons, An Objection foreseen prescribing a Cure by taking away that Declaration is answered in two, Paragraphs, And more than this is not produced to prove that the Doctrine contained in the 39 Articles is doubtful.  
To this I answer in general. Though the Articles had not been confirmed by Parliament, though the Declaration 10. Caroli prefixed to the Articles were of evil consequence, though the Taking away of that Declaration would not give satisfaction if the Ministers be still tied to Subscription, yet it followeth not from any or from all of these that the Doctrine contained in the 39 Articles is doubtful. For the Certainty of the Doctrine dependeth neither upon the Confirmation of the Parliament, nor the Declaration of the King. The Doctrine contained in the Articles was agreed upon, declared and set forth, some years before the Act of Parliament of the 13. of Eliz. many years before the Declaration of K. Charles of blessed memory. If the Doctrine were doubtful after the Act and Declaration, it was doubtful before; if it were not doubtful before it cannot be doubtful after, because it is the same Doctrine both before and after, and neither the Act nor the Declaration is any part of the Doctrine or Articles. Here is no pretence of any doubtfulness in the Articles in themselves antecedent to the Act and Declaration, and independent of them. But unless they prove the public Doctrine itself to be doubtful in itself, they bring nothing at all to prove a Necessity of a Reformation of it.  
According to the foundation of the second Reason grounded upon the Defectiveness of the Articles, their Argument must run thus. Whatsoever is defective is in a Necessity of being reformed. The Doctrine contained in the 39 Articles is defective. Therefore the Doctrine contained in the 39 Articles is in a Necessity of being reformed.  
To which I answer, that they have not expressed the Major Proposition, much less have they brought any Reason to show the truth of it; and that it is, in the sense in which they understand it, untrue, is most certain. For it is not Necessary to reform any one or more Doctrines, only for this reason, because they are not all Doctrines. Nor is any thing in itself therefore false or evil, because there is something else beside it true or good. Their Argument is the same with this. That to which any thing may be added must be reformed. But to the public Doctrine of the Church something may be added. Therefore that Doctrine which is professed must be reformed. They may as well infer a Necessity of reforming the Gospel of S. Matthew, because there may be something added to the Relations contained in it out of the Relations contained in the other Gospels: and thus every Evangelical Harmony would be a Reformation of each Evangelist. There is a large difference between Addition and Reformation. A defect supposes the Necessity of one, not of the other. Were therefore that proved by them which is expressed, it would no way infer the Conclusion, because that is not proved which is implied for the illation of it, and without which the Conclusion cannot follow. For if it be not Necessary that whatsoever is Defective should be Reformed, than he which proves only that any Doctrine is defective, by want of Addition of other Doctrines to it, doth not prove that the Doctrine to which the Addition should be made, must of Necessity be Reformed.  
If therefore I should answer no more than this to either of their Arguments, what hath been already said were sufficient to show, that there is no Reason produced in that Book which doth or can prove the Necessity of a Reformation of the Doctrine of the Church of England. But to give yet fuller Satisfaction, and to leave nothing unanswered which hath the least appearance of Opposition: I shall endeavour to occur to all Particulars which may seem to infer the doubtfulness of the Doctrine, or the Defect of the Articles: omitting nothing which can be brought out of that Discourse to prove either.  
In relation to the First, it is most certain that the two former Paragraphs concern only the Legal Establishment, and therefore shall be considered and refuted in my 2. General Conclusion. The 3. Paragraph only reciteth part of the Declaration of 10 Caroli 1. Prefixed to the Articles, and that is there recited only to show the Inconveniences supposed to flow from it. As yet therefore there is nothing brought to manifest the doubtfulness of the Doctrine: and if there shall appear to be any thing it must be contained in the 7. sad Consequences, as they call them, which are mainly and directly intended against the Declaration of that pious King and blessed Martyr, but obliquely strike at the Articles themselves and the Doctrine contained in them. Whatsoever therefore is contained in them to that purpose I shall examine, and clearly show that is of no Validity to prove the doubtfulness of the public Doctrine.  
The first sad consequence, as they call it, speaks only of barring the Ministers from liberty to interpret the Articles, which is certainly far from proving the doubtfulness of them: for the Interpretation may be prohibited as needless, because of the Certainty, Evidence, and Pers●icuity of the Doctrine. As for the Notorious truth mentioned by them, whether it be a truth, or whether it be notorious, it is equally unconcerned in this proof, and may prove the Doubtfulness of the public Doctrine as much if it be false.  
The second sad consequence, 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 baptism is sin against the Holy Ghost. Now certainly this is in itself 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 doubtful. 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 infers the Doubtfulness of the Doctrine, but rather gives a Testimony of the great wisdom and Moderation of the Church, which in Points doubtful and controverted hath propounded only 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 only a new Particular of the 20. Article in which their Liberty of Interpretation is abridged: whereas the Article itself takes away no such liberty; neither doth it become the more doubtful by any such liberty being taken away by virtue of His majesty's Declaration. For whether the Church be taken for the Church Catholic, 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 aught contrary to God's 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 lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's 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 only 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 break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the word of God, and be ordained by common Authority, aught to be rebuked openly, and so they join 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 showing the Doctrine doubtful, 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 than they undertook. The Design propounded was to show the Doctrine doubtful; here they undertake to prove it false. The Article accused is the 35. and the accusation is, that it teacheth, the books 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 God's worship. In reference to each of these the Article says very true, that this Homily contains 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 affix 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 carnal 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 concur 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 confess 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 only Doctrine which that Homily undertaketh to defend is, that the people ought to read the Scriptures, which in itself 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 custom 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 less true, never the more doubtful; 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 almsdeeds, the second part. The Design of which Part of the Homily is to show, How profitable it is for a man to exercise himself in Almesdeeds; and particularly it proveth, that to be merciful 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 alms 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 doubtful: 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 Queen's Majesty as having the chief power in the realm of England, and raiseth a strong doubt whether the 37. Article intend any power to any other person beside Queen Elizabeth. But certainly the King's Majesty hath the same power in his Dominions, that the Queen's 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 express reference to the Queen's 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 majesty's Father, or King Edward the Sixt, her majesty's Brother. The words of the Article itself sufficiently declare that the Doctrine contained in it concerneth all the Kings as Kings. The Title in general is of the Civil Magistrates, and the words run thus, Where we attribute to the Queen's Majesty the chief government, we give not to our Princes, &c. showing that what they gave to her, they gave to all the Kings of England. Which will appear more plainly out of the first Latin 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 expressly mentioneth and concerneth the Kings of England, as they are the Kings of England, the mention of the Queen's Majesty in the Article can make the Doctrine no more doubtful, than it doth our allegiance in that Oath which was made 1. Eliz. where the heirs and Successors of the Queen are to appoint who shall accept the oath, the words of which are, that the Queen's highness is the only supreme governor of this realm. But I hope the Heirs and successors of Queen Elizabeth did never appoint that Oath to be taken in the name of the Queen's highness, but in their own. I therefore earnestly desire not only that divers Ministers of sundry Counties, but that all the Ministers of all the Counties in England, would acknowledge and confess 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 ecclesiastical 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 doubtful, but only suggesteth fears and jealousies, that if the King's Declaration should be continued, we should have no settled 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 unsettling the Church, who died rather than he would make any alteration in it; and left this as a maxim to His Son, that His Fixation in matters of Religion will not be more necessary for His Souls then His kingdoms. 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 settled. For these are the express 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 do all such things, as being made plain by them and assented unto by us, shall concern the settled 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 settled and a fixed doctrine in the Church? what words can more satisfactorily prevent all alterations of the public profession of faith? the whole power promised to the Bishops was only for the settled 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 than 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 far as they have in them any the least show of proof of the doubtfulness of the public Doctrine. For the rest of this part of the Discourse pretending to prove the public Doctrine doubtful, it consisteth in an Answer to an Objection, whi●h Answer of itself 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 King's Declaration is no Law, and may be taken away. The Answer which they give is, that this will signify nothing, if Ministers be still tied to Subscription. If this be true, to what purpose were those sad Consequences drawn from the King's Declaration? For if the taking it away will signify nothing of good, than 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 doubtfulness of the Doctrine, I may very well omit, and conclude with them, Thus much of the doubtfulness of the Articles, which they have much pretended, no way proved, scarce endeavoured.  
As for the second Part of their charge, the defectiveness of the public Doctrine, they endeavour to prove it by three several Arguments. The First is brought from the 6. Article, the only Article of all the 39 accused by them of defect in itself. 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 do 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 herself otherwise, saying, All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive and account them canonical. Now all the Books named in the Council of Trent, are commonly received, or they are not: if they be not commonly received, than I confess the Article may be thought defective, but this, I suppose, our Brethren will not say, or if they do, it is a known untruth: if they be all commonly received, than hath our Article left none out in her description, more than 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, than 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, than 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 prefer the Council of Trent before the Articles of our Church, where nothing material 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 penned, 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 canonical 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 canonical Books, and another of the apocryphal: but where there was difference neither with them nor among ourselves, 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 defectiveness of the public Doctrine is, that There are no Articles for discovering and condemning sundry points of Popery. To which my Answer is, That if they mean no more than 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 ourselves 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 real Defect, because we can need no more than what is enough.  
But if the Articles did want some Doctrines for the Discovery of Popery (which they do 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 settled, would discover Popery. Whereas it is most evident that the denial 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, than the denying of Arminianism, there would suddenly be Popish Priests enough to possess mine and all your Benefices. I look upon the Dominican friars to be as great enemies of armianism 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 'tis 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 only because they have not sufficiently expressed themselves against Arminianism.  
The third Argument endeavouring to prove the defectiveness of the public Doctrine is an enumeration of several 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 comprising 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 comprised in the Apostles Creed, as they say, and not in the Articles, when the words of the Article speak as expressly 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 express 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 original Sin, which is itself a sin, and the fountain of all other sins; when the 15. Article showeth 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 baptism. 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 predestination to life, hath these words, Wherefore they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's 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 effectual 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 less can it be said, they contain nothing of Repentance, when the 19 Homily entitled of Repentance, is expressly 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 ceremonial and judicial Law, and the continued obligation of the moral 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 only thus, because, as they say, it appears by the comprising 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 comprised in the Apostles Creed: granting that whatsoever is comprised in the Apostles Creed, is taught by the Scriptures as necessary: yet it no way followeth that the other Heads or Common-places not comprised in the Creed are taught by the Scriptures as necessary. For no Doctrine in the Creed can transfer 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 dependence of it. But if any one should argue thus, the Doctrine of Creation is comprised 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 judgement 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 comprised in the Apostles Creed, yet it followeth not that all the rest were Necessary.  
Secondly I answer by a flat denial. The most of those Doctrines mentioned are not comprised 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. effectual 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 Lord's day. 16. Marriage and Divorce. 17. Communion of Saints. 18. Church-government and Discipline. 19 Resurrection. 20. The Last judgement. Which are in number 20. at the least. But the most part of these are not comprised 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 comprised in the Apostles Creed, and nothing of them contained in the Articles; when the Apostles Creed itself 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 several of those Doctrines are contained in the Articles, being they are no otherwise proved to be necessary then because they are comprised in the Creed, being far 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 itself, I therefore conclude the third Argument doth no way prove that the Articles are defective.  
Again, being those are no more than these three Arguments brought to evince the defectiveness, and all these are answered, being I have formerly showed the invalidity of those which pretended to prove the doubtfulness of our Doctrine, being there is no other topic used beside these two of the doubtfulness and defectiveness 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 public Doctrine of the Church of England.  
Having thus vindicated the Doctrine in itself, we shall now consider by what Authority it is established; having showed that it wanteth not any Reformation, we will inquire whether it stand in need of any Confirmation. Certain it is, that the public 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 show all the ways by which the Articles of our Church have been confirmed, and then consider upon the whole, whether it amount to a legal Confirmation or no.  
The first Articles of Religion framed since the Reformation were made in the reign 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 agreed upon in the Convocation, and published by the King's Majesty, and more fully by the Latin Edition, set forth by Renold wolf, 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 catechism, published at the same time with the Articles, and in the English Edition of Richard Grafton set forth by itself; all which were printed in the same year, viz. 1553. Thus far 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 Archbishops 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' avoiding of the diversities of opinions, and for the establishing of consent touching true Religion. Put forth by the Queen's Authority. A Latin Title to the same effect is prefixed to the same Articles of the Latin Edition by Renold wolf, with this addition concerning the Queen's 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 realm, by the assent and consent of our sovereign 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 Archbishops and Bishops of the upper-house, and by the subscription of the whole clergy 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 Latin 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 formal Law, till it was thought fit that not only the Archbishops 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 kingdom, and then these Articles were confirmed by a complete Law, that is, an Act of Parliament made in the same year 1571. by the consent of the Queen, Lords spiritual and temporal, and the Commons of England, 13. Eliz. cap. 20. From whence my Second Conclusion in reference to the Confirmation of the public 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 expressly inserted, nor so much as their number, but only the Title-page of them mentioned. Nor is it known when the original is enrolled. For the Assertion itself 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 King's Declaration may be laid aside, they urge that there is a necessity of repealing that branch of the Act so far 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 expressed 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 confirms, than there is for others to subscribe to all other Acts of Parliament which do concern them. In which words they plainly confess that the Act confirms the Articles: and certainly whatsoever is confirmed by an Act of Parliament, is established by Law. Again, these are their plain and formal words. The Statute doth require belief of every one of these Articles, when it enjoins not only 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 penned 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 Queen's majesty's 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, than 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 itself, you say, establisheth no Religion. If the Act did establish something in Religion, than 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 last confessed 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 confirm 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 legal Confirmation; which seem in the forecited Paragraph to be two. First, forasmuch as they are not therein expressly inserted, nor so much as their number, but only the Title-page of them mentioned. To which I answer First, that this is the same Argument which you used against the Articles for not enumerating the Books of the New Testament; only 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 material 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 affirm 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 fared as ill as he who subscribed them with a condition.  
As for the Number of them it is no way material, because though now they are known under the names and number of 39 yet than 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 affixed to them, neither in the English nor Latin 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 entitled.  
Their second Reason upon which they deny this Legal Confirmation is delivered in these words. Neither is it known where the Original is enroled. To which I answer First, that if the Original Copy of the Articles had never been enroled, yet the Articles themselves had never been the less 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 Queen's majesty's 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 only concern the confession of the true Christian Faith, and the Doctrine of the Sacraments, comprised in a Book imprinted, entitled, ARTICLES whereupon it was agreed by the Archbishops 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 Queen's 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 original were enroled or not enroled, the Articles comprised in the Book imprinted, and so entitled, were confirmed by the Statute.  
I Answer secondly, that the enrolment of the original is not so obscure as they pretend. We know that there was an original enroled, we can tell them how many pages that original consisted of, even determinately 19 we can assure them this was deposited with Matthew Archbishop 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 Latin in the year 1563. by Renald wolf the Queen's 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 Archbishop giveth testimony to the same in his speech delivered in the star-chamber June 14. 1637. His words are these, p. 69. I sent to the public Records in my Office, and here under my officer's hand, who is a public 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 public Records, (unknown perhaps to the Ministers of sundry Counties) it is known where the original is preserved. 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 think 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 penned, 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. Edward's reign, if you look upon those which were printed by Renald wolf in Latin, 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 only 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 reign 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 Lord's Supper, and the 30. Of both kinds, these four are not to be found in the Articles set forth in the reign 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 reign.  
Now being this is all which is objected by them against the legal 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 acknowledgement and public Declaration of the truth of the Faith and soundness of the Religion, hath required all Ministers to declare their unfeigned 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 public 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.