thirty nine Articles as in it self considered and as you take them to oppose it and accordingly answer them as if they had this could not have been true which they here say Wherefore I conclude that you state not the Question as they intended nor answer them according to their meaning and therefore your resolved treating of No necessity of Reformation as a Divine to whom it properly appertains to speak of Theologicall Doctrines and your earnest contending for the faith of the Church in that Scripturall sense not ecclesiastick as you speak it which you profess pag. 4. 1. and which takes up the most part of your Book might wholly have been spared as not contradicting the Ministers as you may see by their plain and open profession to the Parliament Yet I confess if you lookt only to the first Impression which wanted the Epistle to the Parliament as I take it for I certainly remember not nor have it now by me their scope and way that they held being thereby less clear you were the more excusable if you mistooke their meaning they being nothing so clear and accurate therein if I have taken them right as they might have been for which ingenuous and harmless freedome I hope both of you will pardon me who truly love and honour you both as I think you well deserve Their conclusion then to be proved was this There is a necessity of Reformation of the publick Doctrine of the Church of England The appendage as you call it which they thereto added I take to be an explication only of the publickness of the Doctrine of the Church of England as they conceived it doubtfull and defective for the establishment and Authority establisher and the property and proprieter or whose publick Doctrine and confession it was and for the too great generality of it and want of much that it should have to sustaine the name and nature of a sufficient publick Confession of faith or publick Doctrine of so eminent a Church as England is and therefore in these respects and so farre to be reformed I thus therefore according to the former stating of the question forme their argument What is commonly received for the publick Doctrine or Confession of faith of the Church of England ought not to be too generall and doubtfull whether for exclusion of errours or for publick establishment and authority establisher or for the owners or those whose Confession it is cald or defective and imperfect for want of ought that it should have for a sufficient and creditable Confession of so eminent a Church whether in points or heads of matter or distinctness definitness specialty and clearness both of matter and manner or expression or Scripturall proofs and evidences but if it be doubtfull or defective in any or all of these respects in so farre it ought to be reformed But the Doctrine contained in the thirty nine Articles is commonly received for the publick Doctrine or Confession of the Church of England and yet is doubtfull and defective in all or most of the foresaid respects Therefore the Doctrine of the thirty nine Articles commonly held to be the publick Doctrine or Confession of the Church of England ought to be reformed in all the respects aforesaid The major proposition neither is nor needed to be formally exprest not needed any thing to the probation of it it is so clear in its self But if any part of it must needs be proved it will be the last clause to wit but if it be doubtfull or defective in any or all these respects in so farre it ought to be reformed for probation whereof the next Section will suffice The minor or assumption is fully enough exprest though not formally but sparsedly and the first part needs no probation to wit That the Doctrine contained in the thirty nine Articles is commonly received for the publick Doctrine or Confession of Faith of the Church of England not do you any way question it But if it needed proof the Stature of 13. Eliz. joyned to common estimation proves it enough The second part of the assumption is also exprest and as it only needed proof so it is proved and to it only all the proofs directed Yet before I show in particular how the proofs are pertinent and concludent I think needfull to avoid repetition to premise some generals once for all The difference being such as it is between you in stating the question there must needs be difference also in sundry others notions and things between the Ministers and you For they have a farre other notion of reformation of doubtfullness of defectiveness of necessity of reformation than you have or use and therefore in these also you do not truely oppose one another They mean but a reformation of the Doctrine in as farre as doubtfull and defective or of the doubtfullness and defectiveness of it as they understand them and go about to prove them not as you take them Again A necessity of reforming but not so great and internall to the Doctrine its self as you would put upon the Ministers and make common to them with Papists somewhat invidiously I confess but to be excused as unavoidably arising from your mistaking of their meaning but a necessity of precept or duty only which binds us to reforme the least things that we know or ought to know to be amiss to reforme the doubtfullness and defectiveness of it in generall and in particulars as by them proved which you might well know and understand to have been the opinion of many unconforme Ministers of sundry Counties of England still professing themselves Ministers of the Church of England and not separating from it as Brownists and Barrowists did or semi-separating from her as semi-brownists and semi-barrowists the Independents did and do at least some of them before now as well at this time had you looked into their doings as it seems you did not by what you profess pag. 3. 1. of your Book Again For defectiveness they are farre from the notexson of it that you would put upon them and so arguing as you present them Defective to them is not that to which something may be added but to which something should be added for the dignity office and end or ends that it sustains or that which wants something that it ought to have for the foresaid respects or the like which is indeed the true notion of it For it is an undeniable maxime or axiom shining by its own light That whatsoever is defective ought to be or is necessary to be reformed And by these notions thus explained and rescued from misprision the last part of the major proposition is made undeniably clear Therefore the major as we said needed no proof but a right taking and understanding of these termes Here now I might stay and needed not to answer any more where there is so wide a mistake that runs through most of your Book and hinders it to meet with their meaning
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. LONDON Printed for John Sherley at the Signe of the golden Pelican in Little-Britain M.DC.LX TO HIS Reverend and worthy Friend JOHN PEARSON Doctor of Divinity AND To the Courteous Readers both of him and me Reverend Sir I Am not so wise as to account your Book unworthy of Answer as some too angrily do nor can esteem it weakness but the contrary rather a too great sturdiness and stoutness Christianly to have gone about to shew you that you mistook the Ministers meaning because I cannot think so ill of your self that you would wilfully go so farre aside from their meaning as I am confident you have done And I am of opinion that he himself who hath thus forestald other mens answers as farre as he could with such a censure should rather have civilly replied himself where he found his Antagonist mistaken which was but Christian duty and that which himself seems to acknowledge so and promises in another case Yet I shall request of you or any other of my courteous Readers to excuse what weakness they may find upon any other account seeing this Answer was hasted and after twice reading of your Book only presently and ex tempore poured forth as you see Ever since the Bishop of Armaghs recommending me to your acquaintance with such a character as he gave you I have had a reverent opinion of you and found afterwards sufficient cause not to change it Wherefore I intreat you Sir that you will satisfie the world candidly whether you can now think you mistook the Minispers or no and to do them and the truth so farre right as to let it be seen that you did not nor will not intend any thing against the truth nor ingenuity of mind but for both and you shall anew obliege Sir From my Chamber in Blackfriers Lond. Sept. 6. 1660. Your formerly obliged Servant in the Lord William Hamilton Some Necessity of Reforming THE PUBLICK DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH of ENGLAND Reverend Sir WOuld to God that many who account themselves the only loyaller sounder and orthodox Clergy and Divines of England were of your mind and as heartily and earnestly desired a full union with such persons as those Ministers who offer the reasons that you answer to professe themselves to be to wit Such as truly and unfeignedly will make good That it is farre from their thoughts to oppose or disparage orthodox Doctrine a well composed Liturgie Rites for Decency and Order Ordination of Ministers Apostolical Episcopacy or due Rules of Discipline because they are for all these with truth and against rigid impositions which may debar a Christian of any liberty allowed him by Christ and that by their Oath and Covenant as I take it For if they will not truly and unfeignedly make good all this they are not worthy with whom you should desire a full union You are much therefore to be thanked Sir by all such men a lover of whom I professe my self to be though one of the meanest that you use your Pen with such brotherly temper and Christian moderation as that there comes not from you any provocation or the least reflection either upon their persons their parties or perswasions but that you apply your self wholly and solely to a due examination and orderly discussion of their reasons weighing and trying them whether they have force to inferre their conclusion and in case they prove not of that validity discovering and declaring the insufficiency and weakness of them which all Writers of controversies especially Divines if they behave themselves therein like Christians should do and which by Gods assistance in this piece of mine I intend towards you And therefore Sir I hope you will with that same moderation and equity that you have already shown to others excuse me also if I am induced to think that you have not fallen upon the best way of satisfying the Ministers reasons untill you better rectifie my judgment wherunto I promise that with all candor I wil be ready For the conclusion propounded by the Ministers to be proved being this That there is a necessity of Reformation of the publick Doctrine of the Church of England This conclusion you think not sufficiently proved but the orthodox Doctrine of the 39. Articles disparaged contrary to the Ministers profession That it was farre from their thoughts to disparage orthodox Doctrine c. For say you pag. 2. 2. after private satisfaction of mine own conscience entering into a further consideration That it is an undoubted disparagement to be in a necessity of being reform'd least people might hereby conceive some sinister opinion of the Doctrine of our Church therefore you thought it not unfit to give a publick account of your private thoughts concerning this particular What that satisfaction of your own conscience and private thoughts concerning this particular was you set down pag. 1. 2. to wit That you found not any one reason which could in the least perswade you That there is any such necessity of a Reformation of the publick Doctrine of the Church of England and that consequently you did resolve notwithstanding what was yet brought to the contrary to continue in the faith which you had hitherto professed and not repent of your subscription to the Articles of the Church of England whereas I am confident it was never their mind to put you to change your faith which you had hitherto professed unlesse that had been Arminianism or an allay of Popery Therefore I saw by this that it was very like you mistook their meaning and differ'd from them in the state of the Question For about stating of the Question or fixing the conclusion as your self speak pag. 3. 2. that you were to oppose To avoid all manner of misconception between you you distinguish between Reformation and Confirmation of the publick Doctrine hinting withall That they industriously confounded these in their Treatise contrary to what you conceived they should have done and therefore that you must as carefully distinguish them in your answer And accordingly you make your opposition distinct in two Conclusions 1. That there is no necessity of a Reformation of the publick Doctrine of the Church of England pag. 4. The second is That the Articles of Religion of the Church of England are established by the Law of England p. 21 22. In order to your fixing the first conclusion for avoiding of misconception still you first lay down this assertion That whether the publick Doctrine be established indeed by Law or whether it be reputed only to be established there is no necessity of the Reformation of it This you briefly go about to prove and do it indeed where you lay it down pag. 3. 2.
a testimony of the great wisdome and moderation of the Church which in points doubtfull and controverted hath propounded only that which with no sober man can be matter of doubt or subject of controversie if you mean it that they should not be so farre reformed as the Assembly of Westminster did by explication and addition to them though retaining themselves you thereby condemne the procedures of a wiser Church than your own the Church Universall in her best oecumenick Councels of Nice Chalcedone c. which thus reformed the Apostles vulgarly so cal'd Creed its self by explaining it and adding to it their own and Athanasius's Creeds to the exclusion of Arrianisme and other Heresies and therefore it is meet you be desired to explaine your selfe about Arminianisme which you so farre obliquely at least and afarre off pleade for 4. In the third sub-paragraph or sad consequence the doubtfullness of the generality and indefiniteness of the 20. Article is spoken to and of its publiqueness 1. As it is cal'd the Doctrine of the Church and yet what is meant by the Church is not in the Articles explained but left generall and doubtfull nor might it be inquired after or laboured to be explained as the Articles were stated in their publiqueness by that Declaration and Proclamation of the Kings and therefore also all the publiqueness and authority that they could have from the Church must remain doubtfull till it be known whether it came from the Church habente potestatem to give them publiqueness and authority or from the right Church having just and undouted power to make and authorize with a sufficient ecclesiastick publiqueness and authority such Articles of Religion as a Confession of her faith 2. For as much as it left doubtfull beside the former respects influencing this part also and generall only what rites she may ordain suppose the Church were distinctly explained and set forth And 3. How farre her authority extends in controversies of faith with an absurdity that follows upon adherence to or urgeing that doubtfull generality and indeterminateness of the Articles according to considerations aforesaid To all which you answer nothing but that the Doctrines of that Article as considered in themselves are undoubted truths Which is true enough but nothing to Rhombus as we have often said For the Ministers speak of the doubtfullness as proceeding from their too great generality and unfitness to exclude errors by and of their doubtfullness of publiqueness and authority and therefore though the Article take not away the liberty of right interpretation in these respects yet the publiqueness of it as flowing from that Declaration and depending on it doth and the the Article it self gives not that due sense of its self fully enough pro ratâ sùa portione for its own ratable proportion that is requisit for a present Confession of faith and sufficient obviation of errours and therefore is so farre under a necessity of reformation and being supplyed Thus also doth this Section of the Ministers stand firm against any thing that you have answered as I suppose I have here sufficiently shown But yet concerning this 20. Article I have this further to adde about the doubtfullness of it and it may make the rest also the more suspected that when Mr Burton accused it that it was interpolated and a clause added to it that the true and best Copies had not Bishop Laud in the Star-chamber when they were about to Pillory Burton in his speech as I take it June 14. 1637. could not deny that some Copies wanted it but saies that he sent to the publique Records in his Office and had returned him under his Officers hand who was a publique notary the 20. Article with the affirmative clause in it that other Copies wanted and that there also the whole body of the Articles was to be seen Then he saies it was likest that the pure faction themselves i.e. the Puritans did rather take away that clause from the Copies that want it because it is known saith he who did then ride the Church meaning Leicester as I think a great favourer of Non-conformists and a favorite of the Queens rather than that any did adde it to the Copies Recorded c. But first If the Articles will not give us a good enough description of their Church Bishop Land will give us this That she was one that might be ridden by any great favorite of the Prince and so neither so respective to God nor her King whatever she pretended as Bucephalus was to Alexander which neither of his greatest favorites could ride though the one was Philobasileus and the other Philalexander by Alexanders own Confession 2. It hath often been found that Bishops and their servants or favourers have falsified Copies and Records of that nature witness the Bishop of Rome but never was proved I think that Non-conformists and Puritans did it Moreover the Bishops reason failes him because this diversity of Printed Copies as to that clause controverted was in the very year wherein they were agreed upon that is 1562. i. e. the 4. or 5. of Eliz. long before Leicester could ride the Church or any for him so farre as I can learn in favours of the Puritans as to that time And is it a thing likely that so soon after the Convocation Puritans durst or would do such a thing and pass so quietly away with it and without noise made by the Bishops as that diversity of Copies was past over if the Bishops had not made the diversity themselves to their own advantage or some of theirs for them by their privity and allowance 3. Since the Act 13. Eliz. or of Anno. 1571 referres only to a Printed Book of Articles 1562 the same year wherein they were agreed upon but specifies not what Printed Copy of that year the Act leaves it therefore doubtfull whether it hath confirmed that affirmative clause which the Bishops said that his Records had seeing in that very year there were two printed Editions of the Articles one in English and another in Latine whereof the one had the clause and the other wanted it and by this not specifying the Impression that it follows as undoubtedly uncorrupt it leaves some doubt upon the rest that they might be corrupt as well as this before that Act confirmed them Yea it leaves a great doubt whether there were any better Copy to be followed than that they refer'd to since it is not like the Parliament would referre to a printed Copy if they had known of any Autograph And what if both the Bishop and his Officer egregiously imposed upon the Star-chamber and neither his Office nor he had any thing to show but that printed Copy which Burton complained of subscribed with the hands of the Bishops and lower house of Convocation at diverse times I have heard as much and I believe some honest Puritans can and will make it good that during the long Parliament and sitting of the Assembly
and as containing the publick Doctrine or Confession of Faith of the Church of England which they have proved firmly as farre as we have shown though not so much the doubtfulnesse of the Articles in themselves saving as to their too great generality and indefinitenesse which both may be called theirs as in themselves and theirs also not so much in themselves as in reference to errours and novations that by them should be excluded as in reference to their publicknesse and establishment by publick Authority Here then let us esteeme That the Ministers by way of supposition give the Articles were confirm'd by this Statute but grant not that they are and so do not contradict themselves nor give sufficient enough ground to argue against them ad hominem or ad homines though the legal establishment by Law were proved and so the undoubtednesse of the publick authority yet this is nothing to take away but rather to make worse the generalnesse and doubtfulnesse of the Aritcles thereby and drawablenesse of them to countenance Arminianisme and like novations and occasion mischief to orthodox Ministers if subscription be still required 10. Now though I have set down both their Arguments which you divide in one compounded Syllogisme concerning both the doubtfulnesse and defectivenesse of the Articles and that because themselves reduce their defectivenesse but to a medium of proving their doubtfulnesse yet because you divide one from the other and that is not material to be stood upon I shall here set down their argument of the defectivenesse of the Articles as I think themselves would have fram'd it had they divided it from the other and as they would have differed from you in setting it down thus Whatsosoever publick Doctrine commonly holden for the National Confession of Faith of the Church of England wants any thing considerable that it ought to have whether in points and heads of matter or sufficiently cleer definit and special explication of them to exclude dangerous errours and novations by that have been and may be still laboured to be fastened upon it as its true meaning or in Scripturall grounds and proofes of it ought to be or is in a necessity of being so farre Reformed But the Doctrine contain'd in the 39. Articles is commonly holden for the publick Doctrine or National Confession of the Church of England and yet wants something considerable which it ought to have or is defective in all the three foresaid respects Therefore the 39. Articles or publick Doctrine contain'd in them ought to be or is in a necessity of being reformed in all the foresaid respects The major neither is nor needed to be formally exprest not yet any thing to be brought for the proof of it it is so manifest in its self when thus proposed The Assumption is both exprest though not formally yet materially enough and proved also as to the second part of it which onely needed proof though you lay all the stresse upon the major because you frame the Argument otherwise than they would have done But of this in the close 11. Their first proof of defectivenesse I think concludes strongly enough for a Reformation of the Articles and for an enumeration of the Canonical Books of the New as well as of the Old Testament because the description by you mentioned and your reasons for it is not sufficient enough to excuse the want of an enumeration because some of the Reformed Churches as Lutherans namely have questioned and as I take doe so still some of the Epistles which others of the Evangelicks doe not Neither ought the Councel of Trents enumerating the Canonical Books of the New Testament make us affect a needlesse differing from them in that wherein we differ not indeed since it is no shame to imitate that which is truly laudable even in our greatest opposites but our duty rather to praise it and to come up as neer to them as conveniently we can It was more invidious therefore than material to intreat the Ministers of sundry Counties that they would not preferre the Councel of Trent to the Articles of the Church of England where nothing material could be objected to either since the defectivenesses that the Ministers desire to be reformed though not so material weighty and internal to the soundnesse or unsoundnesse of the Articles as you would have them onely to look at yet both material and necessary enough for the cleernesse certainty and specialnesse of a National Confession of a Reformed Church when Reformed and Evangelicks differ from them therein 12. Their second proof concludes strongly a necessity of reforming the Articles at least so farre as the Assembly at Westminster did And in your Answer to this proofe you passe by the maine thing intended by the Ministers and insisted on and lay hold onely on a word spoken but in the by and by way of amplification and there you dwell without answering a word to the drift of the Argument It is certaine Arminianisme was a Novation and alteration of Doctrine that was laboured to be defended by and fathered upon the Articles Homilies c. though wrongfully as appeares by King James and the Church of his times opposing to it and countenancing the Synod of Dort and its procedures and definitions against it It is certaine secondly that considering what mischief this bred it was very necessary that the general and doubtfull indefinitenesse of the Articles as to those Arminian Novations matters so rerequiring it as they did then should have been helped and supplied some way as the Assembly of Westminster after did with their honour preserved from being altered in corpore or in themselves Whence we conclude That they were in a necessity of Reformation in this sort at least to which you answer nothing and we wonder thereat and hope it is not out of any favour to Arminianisme 13. Neither am I satisfied with your answer to the Ministers third proof of defectiveness because you seem to me to strain their words beyond their scope For their meaning to me is not That the Articles have nothing at all of these but not enough or sufficient of them which is a nothing comparatively to what they should have because indeed they want sundry heads of matter or Doctrine sufficiently explained that they should have nor have the Articles any proofs from Scripture which yet certainly they should have as they stand in the place of a Confession of Faith unlesse the Convocation would have men to resolve their Faith into their Dictates or Articles nor in the heads of matter which they have have they sufficient Explication definiteness and specialty to exclude contrary pernicious errors that pretend to impe themselves on their generality and grow kindly and truely out of them Secondly When it is said All which the Scripture teacheth as necessary as appears by comprizing most of them in the Apostles Creed the meaning is not 1. That those that are comprized in the Apostles Creed vulgarly so