SOME NECESSITY OF REFORMATION OF THE public 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 public Doctrine of the Church of England. Directed to Dr Pearson himself.  
By William Hamilton Gent.  
LONDON, Printed for John Shirley at the sign 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 show you, that you mistook the Ministers meaning; because I cannot think so ill of yourself, that you would wilfully go so far aside from their meaning, as I am confident you have done. And I am of opinion that he himself, who hath thus forestald other men's answers, as far 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 entreat you, Sir, that you will satisfy the world candidly, whether you can now think, you mistook the Minispers, or no; and to do them and the truth so far 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 oblige,  
Sir, From my Chamber in Blackfriers, Lond. Sept. 6. 1660. Your formerly obliged Servant in the Lord, William Hamilton.   

Some Necessity of Reforming THE public 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, profess themselves to be: to wit, Such as truly and unfeignedly will make good, That it is far from their thoughts to oppose, or disparage orthodox Doctrine; a well composed liturgy; 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 profess myself 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 persuasions; but that you apply yourself wholly and solely to a due examination, and orderly discussion of their reasons, weighing and trying them, whether they have force to infer 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 God's 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, until you better rectify my judgement, whereunto I promise that with all candour I will be ready.  
For the conclusion propounded by the Ministers to be proved, being this, [That there is a necessity of Reformation of the public 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 far 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 reformed;— lest people— might hereby conceive some sinister opinion of the Doctrine of our Church, therefore you thought it not unfit to give a public 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 persuade you, [That there is any such necessity of a Reformation of the public 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, unless that had been Arminianism, or an allay of Popery.  
Therefore I saw by this, that it was very like you mistook their meaning, and differed from them in the state of the Question. For about stating of the Question, or fixing the conclusion (as yourself 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 public Doctrine; hinting withal, 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 public 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 public 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 publicness 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 clear, 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 far 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 public Doctrine of the Church of England, not as in its self, but as aggregated with the due qualifications of it; publicness, and the Church of England's 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 public 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 public 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 generalness (wherein always is included doubtfulness, as to determining of controversies, which the Ministers meant, according to that, Dolus est in generalibus) and defectiveness, to make a good and perfect enough confession of Faith for so famous a reformed Church as England was, than for any unsoundness of them in themselves; which they intended not to impugn. 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 called and accounted her confession: which distinction of Church, that they desired, they have not yet obtained; and so the doubtfulness of the Articles, or at least the defectiveness of them, as the confession of the Church of England in the best and rightest notion of it, is not yet removed. For a public 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 doubtful, or defective and insufficient, or the authority doubtful, or defective, and insufficient; so long must the publicness of that confession, and so far will it be doubtful 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 needful that the Church of England have, and hold forth a more distinct and perfect form of her truly, and rightly so called, national 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 brevity's sake, and avoiding repetitions, we will abstain here, and defer to set down until 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 itself, 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 Arminianism, and other like errors; and to have more added to it, which it should have had, for bearing the reputation of a sufficient national 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 impugn the Doctrine of the thirty nine Articles, as in itself 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 special notice of; and out of the Books, said to be by those Laws settled, to make good these two things. 1. That (so far 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 sum, or Confession public, of the Doctrine of the Church of England,) ought to be confirmed, and settled. 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 polemical discourse, or theological debates, proper for a divinity-school, or Synod; but only what we humbly conceive more suitable to a Parliament. But had that been their drift, theologically to impugn the Doctrine of the thirty nine Articles, as in itself 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 theological Doctrines, and your earnest contending for the faith of the Church, in that scriptural sense (not ecclesiastic) 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 looked 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 mistook 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 freedom, 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 public 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 doubtful and defective, for the establishment, and Authority establisher, and the property and proprieter, or whose public Doctrine and confession it was; and for the too great generality of it, and want of much that it should have, to sustain the name and nature of a sufficient public Confession of faith, or public Doctrine, of so eminent a Church, as England is; and therefore in these respects, and so far to be reformed. I thus therefore, according to the former stating of the question, form their argument.  
What is commonly received for the public Doctrine, or Confession of faith of the Church of England, ought not to be too general and doubtful, whether for exclusion of errors, or for public establishment, and authority establisher; or for the owners, or those whose Confession it is called; or defective and imperfect, for want of aught, 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 scriptural proofs and evidences; but if it be doubtful, or defective in any, or all of these respects, in so far it ought to be reformed. But the Doctrine contained in the thirty nine Articles, is commonly received for the public Doctrine, or Confession of the Church of England; and yet is doubtful and defective in all, or most of the foresaid respects. Therefore the Doctrine of the thirty nine Articles, commonly held to be the public Doctrine, or Confession of the Church of England, aught to be reformed in all the respects aforesaid. The major proposition neither is, nor needed to be formally expressed; 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 doubtful, or defective in any, or all these respects, in so far it ought to be reformed.] for probation whereof, the next Section will suffice. The minor, or assumption is fully enough expressed, 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 public 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. joined to common estimation, proves it enough. The second part of the assumption is also expressed; 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 needful, 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 far other notion of reformation, of doubtfulness, of defectiveness, of necessity of reformation, than you have, or use; and therefore in these also you do not truly oppose one another. They mean but a reformation of the Doctrine, in as far as doubtful and defective, or of the doubtfulness 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 internal to the Doctrine itself, 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 reform the least things, that we know, or aught to know, to be amiss) to reform the doubtfulness, and defectiveness of it, in general, 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 far 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 maxim, or axiom, shining by its own light, That whatsoever is defective, aught 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 terms.  
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. 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 needful, where by their stating of the question will also appear, (as we marked before, and referred 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 infer, 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 doubtfulness of the public establishment of the Articles by Law only, though their proofs were so far good, as to prove a doubtfulness 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 refer it.  
2. In the third Paragraph, and first subparagraph, or sad consequence, they so speak to the doubtful generalness 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 hindered by the King's Declaration, and Proclamation; that they indeed sufficiently conclude and prove a necessity of the Articles being reformed after that, from such doubtfulness and defectiveness, as made them unable readily and easily enough to exclude and condemn Arminianism, 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 show the inconveniences supposed to flow from it. As yet therefore there is nothing brought (say you) to manifest the doubtfulness 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 generalness, and doubtfulness of the Articles, whereof the Bishops strove to make that advantage, or abuse, to seduce the King, to father Arminianism upon them, as their true and genuine sense, and consequents. Nor is there any other main, and direct intention against the King's 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 public 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 doubtfulness 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 generalness and indefiniteness 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 firm and unshaken for aught, that you have replied. For we cannot suspect that you so slightly past it over, cunningly and upon design to favour Arminianism, 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 Arminianism, 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 generalness and doubtfulness of the Articles, and show two or three absurds, or inconveniences, that follow on it: whereby is sufficiently concluded a necessity so far to reform them, which you by your answers, pag. 7.§. 3. & 4. no way remove or meet with; requiring the doubtfulness 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 expressly profess to be that only you look to pag. 8. and saying nothing to this doubtfulness by their generality, and unfitness to anticipate errors, to which only they spoke, and you should have answered, and showed how by the Articles, as influenced on by the King's Declaration, Arminianism could be excluded. How they could be clearer, certainer, and more evident, than any part of God's Word, or fundamentallest Doctrine in it, which both needs, and admits interpretation and application, and rejects it not, as needless, notwithstanding of its certainty, evidence, perspicuity. How the Articles were not thus idolised in a sort, and preferred far to the Scripture, while no Minister shall have the liberty to interpret any one of them, which is not only allowed him, but required of him in his Ordination, to interpret Scripture itself withal: while their Doctrine is supposed certainer, evidenter, persbicuouser, than any fundamental the certainest, evidentest, perspicuoufest in all the Scriptures. The notoriousness of the proceeds mentioned, much concerned the Ministers proof, and doubtfulness 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 ways have proved their intent. What therefore you subjoin, that the contrivance of the Articles by such generality and indefiniteness, gives a testimony of the great wisdom, and moderation of the Church, which in points doubtful, and controverted, hath propounded only that, which with no sober man can be matter of doubt, or subject of controversy; if you mean it, that they should not be so far reformed, as the Assembly of Westminster did, by explication, and addition to them (though retaining themselves) you thereby condemn the procedures of a wiser Church than your own, the Church universal, in her best oecumenick counsels of Nice, Chalcedone, &c. which thus reformed the Apostles (vulgarly so called) Creed its self, by explaining it, and adding to it their own, and Athanasius' Creeds, to the exclusion of Arianism, and other Heresies: and therefore it is meet, you be desired to explain yourself about Arminianism, which you so far obliquely at least, and afar off plead for.  
4. In the third subparagraph or sad consequence, the doubtfulness of the generality and indefiniteness of the 20. Article is spoken to, and of its publiqueness, 1. As it is called the Doctrine of the Church, and yet what is meant by the Church, is not in the Articles explained, but left general and doubtful; (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 doubtful, 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 authorise with a sufficient ecclesiastic publiqueness and authority, such Articles of Religion, as a Confession of her faith. 2. For as much as it left doubtful (beside the former respects influencing this part also) and general only, what rites she may ordain, suppose the Church were distinctly explained, and set forth. And 3. How far her authority extends, in controversies of faith; with an absurdity that follows upon adherence to, or urgeing that doubtful 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 doubtfulness as proceeding from their too great generality, and unfitness to exclude errors by; and of their doubtfulness 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 itself gives not that due sense of its self fully enough, pro ratâ sùa portione, for its own ratable proportion, that is requisite for a present Confession of faith, and sufficient obviation of errors; and therefore is so far under a necessity of reformation, and being supplied. 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 add about the doubtfulness 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 says, that he sent to the public Records in his Office; and had returned him under his officer's hand, who was a public 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 says, 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 favourite of the Queens) rather than that any did add 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 favourite 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 favourites could ride, though the one was Philobasileus, and the other Philalexander, by Alexander's 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 Bishop's reason fails 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 far 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, refers 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 doubtful, 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 Latin, 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 refered to, since it is not like the Parliament would refer 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 at Westminster, when that Office was searched, That Mr Selden employed therein, could find no other.  
5. In the fourth subparagraph, or sad consequence, is spoken to the doubtfulness of the 34. Article, both in respect of the undefinite generalness 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 strangeness of the expression, which they glanced at.  
6. In the fifth subparagraph, is spoken to the doubtful and too general, 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 otherways, 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 says, 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 yourself, 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.] yourself 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 themes, 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 doubtful? Yea, do not you yourself prove de facto, in your differing thus from the Ministers, and in understanding so quaintly 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 far is doubtful 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 show me more light.  
7. In the sixt subparagrap, or sad consequence, they prove more than doubtfulness, or a bare defectiveness of the 37. Article, not as in its self considered, but as influenced upon by the Declaration, printed with the Articles that were only to be used as the public and authorised ones; to wit, an absurd impertinency, and unsuitableness to the time of his then Majesty reigning, with as absurd consequences of it (so powerful were some then to abuse his majesty's goodness) 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 successor, 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 Queen's 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 escaped 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 only, and not as influenced on by the Declaration aforesaid; yet because the Ministers consider them only here as so influenced in their publicness and authority by the Declaration aforementioned, 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 publicness of their authority, and as to their authorization, were not only in a necessity to be reformed from some doubtfulness and defectiveness, that became not a Confession of Faith of so eminent a Reformed Church, as England; but also from impertinency and unsuitableness to the times that followed the Queen's 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 ways needful, 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 doubtfulness of the Articles, or of the Doctrine in them; Yet not as in themselves, but as influenced 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 persuade his Majesty thereto, by abusing his goodness, as they did to the countenancing of Arminianism, directly contrary to his Father King James' mind, and the Churches too in his time, and giving out of Arminianism for the public Doctrine of the Church of England, and of the Articles of Religion) even that thus we might either have no settled Doctrine of the Church at all; or under the generality of the Articles, and the goodness of the Prince abused, much Popery, and other errors brought in, as well as Arminianism was, the Doctrine being made variable by that Declaration from time to time, as far as the Bishops could persuade the King, that their Novations were agreeable to the established form, as they had persuaded him that Arminianism was, though undoubtedly it was not to the established form in King James' time; and though Car. 1. professed in that same Declaration, He would endure no varying or departing from the established form, in the least degree: so cunning and subtle were they to impose upon his Majesty with their pretences. It was not therefore the King, that is there suspected of unsettling the Church, but the Bishops accused of abusing and deluding him to the unsettling of the Doctrine before then established, or thought to be established (and by yourself proved to be so) and the engrafting upon it the new Doctrine of Arminianism (or so much, if you will, and more, of older Lutheranism, 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 kingdom 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 entreat your answer to them. Whether in, and by these words of the Declaration [The settled 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 Arminianism was then included in the settled, or established form of Doctrine of the Church of England; or any part of Arminianism, 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' time Arminianism was no part of the established Doctrine of the Church of England, how came it after that to be so, unless 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 form, 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, Arminianism 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 King's Declaration give, or his word of a King, that he would endure no varying, or departiag from the before settled 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 Arminianism, as fast as they could, and fathering it upon the Articles, and had seduced the King to the countenancing of all this, and discountenancing (to say no worse, whereas it might be called persecuting) all that opposed them, or would have vindic ated the Articles, or other Books of the supposed Doctrine established of the Church of England, from Arminianism, and from their other innovations?  
9 After this is moved an Objection by the Ministers themselves against what they had said to the doubtfulness of the Articles, or other inconveniences of them, or by them, as influenced or concerned by the Declaration aforesaid in their publicness, or public establishment; to this sense, as I take it. What ever influence the Declaration may have upon the generalness, doubtfulness, and drawableness of the Articles to countenance Arminianism, or produce other sad consequencesto orthodox Ministers, or other absurdities and impertinencies. there is an easy cure for all this, &c. as follows in the words set down by the Ministers themselves. This Ellipsis in the Objection, which was not expressed, but implied, and supposed by what had been said before; being thus supplied and expressed, it will easily appear, That the Ministers Answer to their own Objection makes no ways unnecessary, and of none effect, all that they had said before to the doubtfulness of the Articles, as influenced on by the Declaration: (for so did they speak, and not against the Declaration itself) 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 doubtfulness and drawableness of the Articles, to countenance Arminianism, or other such errors and innovations, and to occasion and produce thereby, and other ways much mischief, 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 signify nothing] ought not to be so far 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 premises, 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 showing 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 defectiveness 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, doubtful, 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 kingdom, amongst the Reformed, as England is. And so much of the doubtfulness of the Articles, as to their publicness, and as containing the public Doctrine, or Confession of Faith of the Church of England; which they have proved firmly, as far as we have shown, though not so much the doubtfulness of the Articles in themselves (saving as to their too great generality, and indefiniteness, which both may be called theirs, as in themselves; and theirs also, not so much in themselves, as in reference to errors, and novations, that by them should be excluded) as in reference to their publicness and establishment by public Authority. Here then let us esteem, That the Ministers by way of supposition, give the Articles, were confirmed 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 undoubtedness of the public authority; yet this is nothing to take away, but rather to make worse the generalness, and doubtfulness of the Aritcles thereby, and drawableness of them to countenance Arminianism, 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 syllogism, concerning both the doubtfulness, and defectiveness of the Articles; and that because themselves reduce their defectiveness but to a medium of proving their doubtfulness; 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 defectiveness of the Articles, as I think themselves would have framed it, had they divided it from the other, and as they would have differed from you, in setting it down, thus. Whatsosoever public 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 clear, definit, and special explication of them, to exclude dangerous errors and novations by, that have been, and may be still laboured to be fastened upon it, as its true meaning; or in scriptural grounds and proofs of it; ought to be, or is in a necessity of being so far Reformed. But the Doctrine contained in the 39 Articles, is commonly holden for the public 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 public Doctrine contained in them, aught to be, or is in a necessity of being reformed in all the foresaid respects. The major neither is, nor needed to be formally expressed, 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 expressed (though not formally, yet materially enough) and proved also, as to the second part of it, which only needed proof, though you, lay all the stress 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 defectiveness, 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, do so still, some of the Epistles, which others of the Evangelicks do not. Neither ought the council of Trent's enumerating the Canonical Books of the New Testament, make us affect a needless 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 near to them, as conveniently we can. It was more invidious therefore than material, to entreat the Ministers of sundry Counties, that they would not prefer the council 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 soundness, or unsoundness of the Articles, as you would have them only to look at; yet both material, and necessary enough for the clearness, certainty, and specialness 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 far as the Assembly at Westminster did. And in your Answer to this proof, you pass by the main thing intended by the Ministers, and insisted on, and lay hold only 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 certain Arminianism was a Novation and alteration of Doctrine, that was laboured to be defended by, and fathered upon the Articles, Homilies, &c. though wrongfully, as appears 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 certain secondly, that considering what mischief this bred, it was very necessary, that the general, and doubtful indefiniteness 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 Arminianism.  
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, unless 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 imp themselves on their generality, and grow kindly, and truly out of them. Secondly, When it is said, [All which the Scripture teacheth, as necessary, as appears by comprising most of them in the Apostles Creed,] the meaning is not, 1. That those, that are comprised in the Apostles Creed, vulgarly so called, are comprised there with sufficient Explication, as they ought to be in the public Doctrine, or Confession of a national 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 comprised in the Apostles Creed, the meaning is not, That most of them are comprised there formally, or in terminis, but by the likeness of necessariness 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 form, you remark, that the minor proposition, on which (according to your framing the syllogism) the reason mainly depends, hath no formal proof annexed to it; but in stead of proving the doubtfulness 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 doubtfulness of the Confirmation of the Articles, is only insisted upon: And whereas page 6. after putting into form their second Argument, you deny the major, and insist on that only, according to your framing the Reason, as that on which all the stress 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 address of that weight to no less and meaner Arbiters, than a Parliament of England.  
15. And lastly, Page 4. §. 3. you observe, That the Ministers say not, [All the public Doctrine of the Church is contained in the 39 Articles.] 2. [That whatsoever public 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 confess 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 neither brought against them, as their Doctrine is abstractly considered in its self, 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 express 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. unless we say, that in them is no public 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 public Worship, Rites, Church-Government, Discipline, &c. but only of the public Doctrine of the Church of England. 2. That of whatsoever we have showed 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 public Doctrine, and reasons of denying it to be in a necessity of Reformation. Therefore to conclude, Sir, I would earnestly entreat you, after this Answer, or some like made unto yourself, by yourself in your own mind, upon better review of the Ministers Reasons, or by some others verbal bearing it upon you, that you would candidly confess; 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.