Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	apostle_n	church_n	creed_n	2,605	5	10.2206	5	false

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

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