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
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.
according as you consider Doctrine to wit abstractedly from the publicknesse of it and from being the Confession of the Church of England that is considering the Doctrine in its self which I humbly conceive you should not have done For though for my part I think you deserve great praise and thanks for being so distinct candid and cleer in the way that you have taken yet I doubt whether that was the way fully to oppose and contradict the Ministers meaning you considering the Doctrine in its self and thereto applying a scholastical Dispute and examination of their reasons as if they were brought against that and they sufficiently disowning both if I understand them rightly Therefore partly your distinguishing where they intended no distinction and partly your not distinguishing where they would most have had distinction have been so farre from removing misconception between you that in my humble opinion this hath fixed a continued misconceiving almost through the whole dispute That this may appear I shall humbly propose my judgement to you and them and leave it to both to be considered of as either or both shall think it deserves in relation to truth and right which I only seek 1. Then I conceive that they speak of the publick Doctrine of the Church of England not as in its self but as aggregated with the due qualifications of it publicknesse and the Church of Englands propriety in it but not of the Doctrine considered in its self and abstractedly from these as you do because they held the Articles of Religion as the publick and national confession of the Religion of the Church of England according to the Stat. 13. Eliz. speaking of the Articles of Religion as they concern the confession of the true Christian faith and the Dactrine of the Sacraments i.e. as they hold forth the publick and national confession of the Church of England and her Doctrine of the Sacraments And as thus considered they held the Articles rather to stand in need of a Reformation for their too much generalnesse wherein alwayes is included doubtfulnesse as to determining of controversies which the Ministers meant according to that Dolus est in generalibus and defectivenesse to make a good and perfect enough confession of Faith for so famous a reformed Church as England was than for any unsoundnesse of them in themselves which they intended not to impugne Secondly they doubted of the establishment of the Articles as a sufficient enough confession of the Church of England and in what notion the Church was to be taken when they are so call'd and accounted her confession which distinction of Church that they desired they have not yet obtained and so the doubtfulnesse of the Articles or at least the defectivenesse of them as the confession of the Church of England in the best and rightest notion of it is not yet removed For a publick confession of a National Church is much concerned in the undoubted establishment it hath from a right and sufficient authority and as much concerned in the right and best notion of the Church whose confession it is said to be and as long as the establishment is doubtfull or defective and insufficient or the authority doubtfull or defective and insufficient so long must the publicknesse of that confession and so farre will it be doubtfull and defective or insufficient And as long as the Church is doubtful or defective and not taken in a right enough notion whose confession it is said to be so long will the confession be subject to much imperfection and but an individuum vagum a vulgivagous thing that can lay no certain claim either to right father or mother here below For these therefore and more particular considerations the Ministers thought it necessary to be reformed or in a state of necessity to be reformed By this time Sir I believe you perceive how I think they have stated the Question in their mind and meaning Their stating of the Question appears to me by their Conclusion which they laid down to be proved and by their manner of proving of it and setting down their main scope and work that they intended Their conclusion which we have set down before we take in their meaning to be equivalent to his It is needfull that the Church of England have and hold forth a more distinct and perfect forme of her truely and rightly so called Nationall confession of faith and of her Doctrine of the Sacraments than the thirty nine Articles amount to Their manner of proving it will appear when we answer your particulars from which for brevities sake and avoiding repetitions we will abstaine here and deferre to set down untill then Their main scope and work that they intended they show not to have been an opposing the Doctrine of the thirty nine Articles as considered in it self seeing 1. They told you That the assembly at Westminer approved that as so considered and thought it fit to be retained but with all to be more fully cleared and explained for exclusion of Arminianisme and other like errors and to have more added to it which it should have had for bearing the reputation of a sufficient Nationall confession with pertinent Scripture-proofs to manifest that the very Articles themselves and all the rest are all evidently grounded upon the Word of God whereas the Articles wanted these there being no Text of Scripture produced in them to make out any one of them This is clear enough evidence that the Ministers intended not to impugne the Doctrine of the thirty nine Articles as in it self considered See pag. 17. of their Book last Impres and 1 2. at the end of each 2. In their Epistle to the Parliament They sufficiently told any that they intended no such opposition to the thirty nine Articles while they professed their work chiefly was out of the Laws which they as Ministers were bound to take speciall notice of and out of the Books said to be by those Laws setled to make good these two things 1. That so farre as they could apprehend nether the Articles of Religion the Books of Common Prayer or Ordination the Jurisdiction of Bishops claimed before 17o Car. 1. nor so much as their being as Bishops sithence nor the Canons so much contended for are indeed established by Law 2. That none of these as they now stand meaning of the Articles in particular as they are commonly held of themselves to be a sufficient summe or Confession publick of the Doctrine of the Church of England ought to be confirmed and setled But all with submission say they And before immediately they seem sufficiently to insinuate that they intended no impugnation of the Doctrine in the Articles as in its self considered because say they We offer no polemicall discourse or theologicall debates proper for a Divinity-Schoole or Synod but only what we humbly conceive more suitable to a Parliament But had that been their drift theologically to impugne the Doctrine of the
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
at Westminster when that Office was searched That Mr Selden imployed therein could find no other 5. In the fourth Sub-Paragraph or sad consequence is spoken to the doubtfullness of the 34. Article both in respect of the undefinite generallness of traditions and what is meant thereby and what by Church as before and what by common authority as also in respect of the uncertainty of traditions in reference to the publiqueness or authority of the Articles laid upon them by the Declaration which the Convocation and Clergy by the power granted to them might absurdly abuse c. To this you answer nothing according to the Ministers mind saving that to me you vindicate that Article sufficiently frow the strangenesse of the expression which they glanced at 6. In the fifth Sub-paragraph is spoken to the doubtfull and too generall and indefinite allowance and admitting of both Books of Homilies to contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine necessary for the times by Article 35. whereby as the Homilies and all that is in them is approved for godly and wholesome Doctrine so it is manifest that hereby men must subscribe to false Doctrines as by two instances is proved at large Here although you have made a long and learned defence of the two Books of Homilies yet as it is clear that the Ministers understand that clause of the 35. Article far otherwayes than you do so I am not fully satisfied by you that they understand it amiss For with them To contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine necessary for the times is all one as to contain nothing but godly and wholesome Doctrine that is necessary for the times c. Wherein because I am not fully enough resolved on either side I shall but Quaere from you as followeth When the Article saies the Books of Homilies contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine c. means it one particular and definite Doctrine only or more One can not be said because it is acknowledged by your self that one part only of some of them contain two and every Homily must at least contain one Besides if one should be said amongst so many contained there it could not be determined which is it But if more than one whether all or not if not all what and how many are excepted but if all how shall we know how many Doctrines are contained in them yea how many Doctrines every Homily contains and why not all and every part of each of them that is assertive and uttered by affirmation or negation is not to be thought such a Doctrine in the sense that the Article speaks in and the Ministers understand it seeing if it had not spoken in this sense but in that whereby you interpret it it would seem that it would not have then spoken in the singular but plurally godly and wholesome Doctrines c. your self also makes a false Doctrine and a false Assertion equivalent terms And if thus understood doth not the Article call something a godly and wholesome Doctrine which is false Doctrines and doth it not bind Ministers to subscribe false Doctrines But if you will not understand the Article thus but to speak of the theames or chief Subject or Subjects only of Homilies how do you prove this to be the Articles meaning the Act affirming the Articles and by them the Homilies expounds not the Doctrine nor distinguishes it thus ubi lex non distinguit non est distinguendum Doth not the Law therefore leave this doubtfull Yea do not you your self prove de facto in your differing thus from the Ministers and in understanding so queintly by a godly wholesome Doctrine many godly wholesome Doctrines but not all that are in the Homilies to be such that the Article in so farre is doubtfull in its self and needs an Explication or Reformation since those words though few are of great consequence and bind to the subscription of the whole two Books of Homilies But thiswith submission to such as shall shew me more light 7. In the sixt subparagrap or sad consequence they prove more than doubtfulnesse or a bare defectivenesse of the 37. Article not as in its self considered but as influenc'd upon by the Declaration printed with the Articles that were only to be used as the publick and authoriz'd ones to wit an absurd impertinency and unsuitablenesse to the time of his then Majesty reigning with as absurd consequences of it so powerfull were some then to abuse his Majesties goodnesse while by the Declaration as that Article was thus printed The Queens Majesty hath the chief power in the Realm of England so it must still be read in the time of Car. 1. her Successour and not altered by substituting the Kings Majesty in place of the Queens Majesty or else the Minister reading the Kings Majesty must be deprived yea if in reading it the Queens Majesty he take it not in the sense of the very letter of it than which what could be more absurd Since every Minister was thus to read it after his induction and well too if he escap'd an Oath whether he had in all points read it so or no and whether he kept not to all the very words of the Articles in reading of them Now what you answer to this though it be elaborate and learned as considering the Articles and the Doctrine therein contained in themselves onely and not as influenc'd on by the Declaration aforesaid yet because the Ministers consider them only here as so influenc'd in their publicknesse and authority by the Declaration afore-mentioned therefore you may easily perceive how little you contradict them or refute their proofs of what they intended namely that the Articles and Doctrine thereof as to the publicknesse of their authority and as to their authorization were not only in a necessity to be reformed from some doubtfulnesse and defectivenesse that became not a Confession of Faith of so eminent a Reformed Church as England but also from impertinency and unsuitablenesse to the times that follow'd the Queens death In the end therefore of your Answer to this consequence your desire That all the Ministers of England would acknowledge That it is the undoubted Doctrine of the Church of England That to the Kings of England their heirs c. doth appertain as the 37. Article expresseth it might have been spared and was no wayes needfull seeing this was by the Ministers no way questioned nor intended to be questioned as your desire insinuates 8. In the 7th and last subparagraph more is also proved than the doubtfulnesse of the Articles or of the Doctrine in them Yet not as in themselves but as influenc'd by that Declaration and the power in it given to the Bishops and Clergy in Convocation to put what sense they should see meet upon the Articles so they could but perswade his Majesty thereto by abusing his goodnesse as they did to the countenancing of Arminianisme directly contrary to his Father King Jameses mind and the Churches
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
cal'd are comprized there with sufficient Explication as they ought to be in the publick Doctrine or Confession of a Nationall Church especially in these times and considering the weighty Controversies that are agitated about most or many of them 2. When most of them are said to be comprized in the Apostles Creed the meaning is not That most of them are comprized there formally or in terminis but by the likenesse of necessarinesse to that of some of those which are there formally and interminis though the Ministers expressions for this be not so clear as I could have wished Yet charity and not only possibility that they may but probability that they are to be taken so makes me so understand and expound them Wherefore I conclude upon the whole That the 39. Articles are in a necessity of reformation such at least as the Assembly at Westminster hath applied unto them 14. And now to draw to an end I shall close the whole with two Observations more which shall serve instead of a Recapitulation Whereas page 5. of your Book 1. after your putting their first Argument into forme you remarke that the minor proposition on which according to your framing the Syllogisme the reason mainly depends hath no formall proof annexed to it but in stead of proving the doubtfullnesse of the Doctrine contained in the Articles which can be the only case say you of a necessity of Reformation of Doctrine though we have seen the contrary the doubtfullnesse of the Confirmation of the Articles is only insisted upon And whereas page 6. after putting into forme their second Argument you deny the major and insist on that only according to your framing the Reason as that on which all the stresse lay though it have no proof annexed to it as you frame it and take it This methinks Sir might have made you suspect that you apprehended them not aright since it was not so easily to be supposed that they would be so impertinent and incoherent in their purpose as the way that you understood them would have made them to be and that in an addresse of that weight to no lesse and meaner Arbiters than a Parliament of England 15. And lastly Page 4. 3. you observe That the Ministers say not All the publick Doctrine of the Church is contained in the 39. Articles 2. That whatsoever publick 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 Doctrine not contained in the Articles as I conceive say you they will confesse there is that Doctrine is not only clear from all their exceptions but will serve also to invalidate something of them to wit of the exceptions as I take it when they are brought against the rest to wit which is in the Articles it I understand this aright To which I say 1. That I remember none of that Doctrine which you bring from any other Book than the Articles to invalidate any thing of the exceptions that are brought against the Articles 2. That most of their exceptions brought against the Articles are neitheir brought against them as their Doctrine is abstractly considered in its selfe nor as it is only contained in them but as it is commonly received to be chiefly contained in them and therefore they are brought also against any other Doctrine contained in the Book of Common Prayer Ordination c. especially the two Books of Homilies and Canons in reference to the two aforesaid considerations as themselves sufficiently expresse in their Epistle to the Parliament ubi suprà and in their first sad consequence by the two instances in the Books of Homilies and the other Books are afterwards spoken to in the following points of worship c. unlesse we say that in them is no publique Doctrine because in some conderation distinct from Doctrine as proposed in the Articles which I think none will say 3. That the advantage therefore that you would make by these Observations will not be great as it seems to me But be that as it may be may not the Ministers pretend to a like advantage from you in this manner 1. It is not said by the Reverend Dr. Pierson No necessity of Reformation of the publick Worship Rites Church-Government Discipline c. but only of the publick Doctrine of the Church of England 2. That of whatsoever we have shewed a necessity of Reformation and is not so much as pretended by the Reverend Doctor to be defended is not only clear from any defence he hath made but may also serve to invalidate something of his defence of the publick Doctrine and reasons of denying it to be in a necessity of Reformation Therefore to conclude Sir I would earnestly intreat you after this Answer or some like made unto your self by your self in your own mind upon better review of the Ministers Reasons or by some others verball bearing it upon you that you would candidly confesse That the Ministers also in sundry Counties took it for granted that there is no difference between them and the Articles rightly understood or defenders of them in matter of Doctrine especially as in its self considered FINIS
Yet I will show particularly how they prove their assumption and at the same time consider your observations and answers in particular as much as shall seem needfull where by their stating of the question will also appeare as we marked before and referd to this place to be observed seeing it is to be supposed that their proofs were framed according to the meaning of the conclusion they had to inferre if such application can be made of them as here we show that it not only can easily but should and must 1. Then in the first two Paragraphs where they speak to the doubtfullness of the publick establishment of the Articles by Law only though their proofs were so farre good as to prove a doubtfullness indeed of that establishment or confirmation both to themselves and many others had not you helped yet I ingenuously confess that you have almost satisfied me in this from page 20. of your Book to the end and therefore have nothing to reply to this point save what is said at the place that specially concerns the 20th Article and in some measure the establishment and so the thirty fourth Article about the Homilies nor almost to any thing in all that space of your Book but very little which will fall to be spoken about their own objection and answer to it till when we referre it 2. In the third Paragraph and first sub-Paragraph or sad consequence they so speak to the doubtfull generallness of the Articles as too much adhered to and abused and to the want of a sufficient clearness specially and definiteness to exclude Arminianism by which most in the time Car. 1. would have fastened upon them and to the abusing and seducing of the King so far as to countenance this course and discountenance the opposers of it that would have vindicated the Articles from it but were hindred by the Kings Declaration and Proclamation that they indeed sufficiently conclude and prove a necessity of the Articles being reformed after that from such doubtfullness and defectiveness as made them unable readily and easily enough to exclude and condemn Arminianisme and such like errors and fit to be made a snare of for godly orthodox and constant Ministers and Preachers of the Truth to which I find not that you have any way sufficiently answered All the answer you have given to this pag. 7. of your Book 2. is That the Ministers 3. only recite part of the Declaration of 10. Car. 1. prefixed to the Articles and that is there recited only say you to shew the inconveniences supposed to flow from it As yet therefore there is nothing brought say you to manifest the doubtfullness of the Doctrine and if there shall appear to be anything it must be contained in the seven sad consequences which are mainly and directly intended against the Declaration of that pious King but obliquely strike at the Articlse themselves and the Doctrine contained in them But by your good leave Sir the Declaration is not recited there only to show the inconveniences supposed to flow from it but chiefly from the too great generallness and doubtfullness of the Articles whereof the Bishops strove to make that advantage or abuse to seduce the King to father Arminianisme upon them as their true and genuine sense and consequents Nor is there any other main and direct intention against the Kings Declaration here as is somewhat individuously again insinuated upon mistake of the Ministers than there is against the Statute 13. of Eliz. which was none nor do you there complain of any such as the Ministers own Prolepsis and their answers make clear Also their words to the Parliament in their Epistle shows that their main and direct intention is rather against the Books of Articles Common Prayer Ordination c. than against the Laws or Declarations c. but indeed against neither of these directly and as in themselves but against the publickness or publique establishments of the Books as conceived to be given by those Laws and Declarations c. but indeed not given nor furnished to the Books by them as the Ministers think And whereas you say as yet there was nothing brought to manifest the doubtfullness of the Doctrine you mean as considered in its self which was not their intent to do further than we have shown against the too great generalnesse and indefinitenesse of them and the like before rehearsed This Argument therefore of the Ministers is sufficiently concludent of a necessity of reforming these Articles as an imperfect confession only of the Church of England and not answerable to her worth and place that she deserves amongst the reformed Churches and stands firme and unshaken for ought that you have replyed For we cannot suspect that you so slightly past it over cunningly and upon design to favour Arminianisme and say nothing against it but upon mistake as we have said of the Ministers meaning though some perhaps will be apt to think that you favour Arminianisme since in all your Book you have no expression disfavouring it though you had often occasion to open your mind Thirdly Again in the first and second Subparagraph or sad consequences the Ministers speak more to the unjust and too much urging of the generalnesse and doubtfulnesse of the Articles and show two or three absurds or inconveniences that follow on it whereby is sufficiently concluded a necessity so farre to reform them which you by your answers pag. 7. 3. 4. no way remove or meet with requiring the doubtfulnesse of the Doctrine in its self to have been proved as it abstracts from this too much generality which the Ministers intended not but you expresly professe to be that only you look to pag. 8. and saying nothing to this doubtfulnesse by their generality and unfitnesse to anticipate errours to which only they spake and you should have answered and shewed how by the Articles as influenc'd on by the Kings Declaration Arminianism could be excluded How they could be cleerer certainer and more evident than any part of Gods Word or fundamentallest Doctrine in it which both needs and admits interpretation and application and rejects it not as needlesse notwithstanding of its certainty evidence perspicuity How the Articles were not thus idolized in a sort and prefer'd far to the Scripture while no Minister shall have the liberty to interpret any one of them which is not only allow'd him but requir'd of him in his Ordination to interpret Scripture it self withall while their Doctrine is supposed certainer evidenter persbicuouser than any fundamentall the certainest evidentest perspicuoufest in all the Scriptures The notoriousness of the proceeds mentioned much concerned the Ministers proof and doubtfullness of Articles which they meant and not that which you misconceive they should have meant and proved and if their Narration had been false it could no wayes have proved their intent What therefore you subjoyne that the contrivance of the Articles by such generality and indefiniteness gives