Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
book_n call_v church_n england_n 3,146 5 6.0876 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A45377 Some necessity of reformation of the publick doctrine of the Church of England. Or a modest and brief reply to Dr Pearson's modest and learned, No necessity of reformation of the publick doctrine of the Church of England. Directed to Dr Pearson himself. By William Hamilton gent. Hamilton, William, gent. 1660 (1660) Wing H489; ESTC R207963 20,948 32

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

too in his time and giving out of Arminianism for the publick Doctrine of the Church of England and of the Articles of Religion even that thus we might either have no setled Doctrine of the Church at all or under the generality of the Articles and the goodness of the Prince abused much Popery and other errours brought in as well as Arminianisme was the Doctrine being made variable by that Declaration from time to time as farre as the Bishops could perswade the King that their Novations were agreeable to the established forme as they had perswaded him that Arminianisme was though undoubtedly it was not to the established forme in King James's time and though Car. 1. professed in that same Declaration He would endure no varying or departing from the established forme in the least degree so cunning and subtill were they to impose upon his Majesty with their pretences It was not therefore the King that is there suspected of unsetling the Church but the Bishops accused of abusing and deluding him to the unsetling of the Doctrine before then established or thought to be established and by your self proved to be so and the ingrafting upon it the new Doctrine of Arminianism or so much if you will and more of older Lutheranisme for they were driving also at a Corporal Presence in the Sacrament as is well known as it is notorious that they were doing contrary to the known Doctrine and meaning of the Articles as received by King James and both Church and Kingdome of England in his time notwithstanding any assurance the words of that Declaration might seem in the word of a King to give to the contrary Therefore Sir without offence give me leave to ask of you these few things and to intreat your answer to them Whether in and by these words of the Declaration The setled continuance of the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England now established or by any other part or all of that Declaration you conceive that Arminianisme was then included in the setled or established forme of Doctrine of the Church of England or any part of Arminianisme in any part or all of that Doctrine of the Church of England or Articles Homilies c If yea then the King there promises by the word of a King never to endure any varying or departing from Arminianism in the least degree And being it is certain that in King James's time Arminianisme was no part of the established Doctrine of the Church of England how came it after that to be so unlesse it were by this Declaration its self And if so how cunningly was his Majesty deluded and what assurance did his word of a King give whilst by the very Declaration and word of a King whereby is promised he would endure no varying or departing from the established forme in the least degree he did establish a varying and departing from it in an high degree But if you say That at the time when this Declaration was emitted Arminianisme was not a part of the established Doctrine of the Church of England nor included in the meaning of it then also what assurance I pray you did the Kings Declaration give or his word of a King that he would endure no varying or departiag from the before setled and established Doctrine of the Church of England or so esteemed to be in the least degree when it is notorious that by that very Declaration and a Proclamation of the Kings the Bishops were bringing in Arminianisme as fast as they could and fathering it upon the Articles and had seduc'd the King to the countenancing of all this and discountenancing to say no worse whereas it might be call'd persecuting all that opposed them or would haue the Articles or other Books of the supposed Doctrine established of the Church of England from Arminianisme and from their other innovations 9. After this is moved an Objection by the Ministers themselves against what they had said to the doubtfulnesse of the Articles or other inconveniences of them or by them as influenc'd or concerned by the Declaration afore-said in their publicknesse or publick establishment to this sense as I take it What ever influence the Declaration may have upon the generalnesse doubtfulnesse and drawablenesse of the Articles to countenance Arminianism or produce other sad consequencesto orthodox Ministers or other absurdities and impertinencies there is an easie cure for all this c. as follows in the words set down by the Ministers themselves This Ellipsis in the Objection which was not exprest but implied and supposed by what had been said before being thus supplyed and exprest it will easily appear That the Ministers Answer to their own Objection makes no wayes unnecessary and of none effect all that they had said before to the doubtfulnesse of the Articles as influenc'd on by the Declaration for so did they speake and not against the Declaration its self but leaves all that as it was and finds out another cause also of much the like effects for as much as though that Declaration be taken away yet the Statute of the 13. of Elizab. requiring subscription leaves the case little better than the Declaration did both as to the doubtfulnesse and drawablenesse of the Articles to countenance Arminianisme or other such errours and innovations and to occasion and produce thereby and other wayes much mischiefe and sad inconveniencies to orthonox Ministers especially if subscription be still continued and required to them Therefore the meaning of these words of theirs This will signifie nothing ought not to be so farre strained as you seem to do but this is the native and true import and meaning of them that the taking away of that Declaration is nothing in comparison of what is expected and should be obtained considering the premisses and considering that the Stat. of the 13. of Elizab. is little better than the Declaration c. Now this Answer of theirs is largely proved 1 In two Paragraphs immediately following the Objection not by arguing against the judgement of two eminent Lawyers as you suppose but by shewing that these eminent Lawyers prove this of the 13. Stat. of Eliz. which they affirm of it in the first of the two Paragraphs aforesaid and then by other Arguments in the second of them 2. It is proved also in and by the proof of the defectivenesse of the Articles For the inconvenience and mischief will be the greater say they if we should be tied to those Articles alone though never so sound to wit as in themselves considered that is without other additions and supplies which they ought to have not only may have as you wrongly take the Ministers for taking away their general doubtfull and indefinite uncertainty in many things wherein they ought to be more definite and certain especially for a Confession of so famous a Church and Kingdome amongst the Reformed as England is And so much of the doubtfulnesse of the Articles as to their publicknesse