Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	church_n	old_a	testament_n	6,574	5	8.1314	4	true

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

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

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