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
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
a testimony of the great wisdome and moderation of the Church which in points doubtfull and controverted hath propounded only that which with no sober man can be matter of doubt or subject of controversie if you mean it that they should not be so farre reformed as the Assembly of Westminster did by explication and addition to them though retaining themselves you thereby condemne the procedures of a wiser Church than your own the Church Universall in her best oecumenick Councels of Nice Chalcedone c. which thus reformed the Apostles vulgarly so cal'd Creed its self by explaining it and adding to it their own and Athanasius's Creeds to the exclusion of Arrianisme and other Heresies and therefore it is meet you be desired to explaine your selfe about Arminianisme which you so farre obliquely at least and afarre off pleade for 4. In the third sub-paragraph or sad consequence the doubtfullness of the generality and indefiniteness of the 20. Article is spoken to and of its publiqueness 1. As it is cal'd the Doctrine of the Church and yet what is meant by the Church is not in the Articles explained but left generall and doubtfull nor might it be inquired after or laboured to be explained as the Articles were stated in their publiqueness by that Declaration and Proclamation of the Kings and therefore also all the publiqueness and authority that they could have from the Church must remain doubtfull till it be known whether it came from the Church habente potestatem to give them publiqueness and authority or from the right Church having just and undouted power to make and authorize with a sufficient ecclesiastick publiqueness and authority such Articles of Religion as a Confession of her faith 2. For as much as it left doubtfull beside the former respects influencing this part also and generall only what rites she may ordain suppose the Church were distinctly explained and set forth And 3. How farre her authority extends in controversies of faith with an absurdity that follows upon adherence to or urgeing that doubtfull generality and indeterminateness of the Articles according to considerations aforesaid To all which you answer nothing but that the Doctrines of that Article as considered in themselves are undoubted truths Which is true enough but nothing to Rhombus as we have often said For the Ministers speak of the doubtfullness as proceeding from their too great generality and unfitness to exclude errors by and of their doubtfullness of publiqueness and authority and therefore though the Article take not away the liberty of right interpretation in these respects yet the publiqueness of it as flowing from that Declaration and depending on it doth and the the Article it self gives not that due sense of its self fully enough pro ratâ sùa portione for its own ratable proportion that is requisit for a present Confession of faith and sufficient obviation of errours and therefore is so farre under a necessity of reformation and being supplyed Thus also doth this Section of the Ministers stand firm against any thing that you have answered as I suppose I have here sufficiently shown But yet concerning this 20. Article I have this further to adde about the doubtfullness of it and it may make the rest also the more suspected that when Mr Burton accused it that it was interpolated and a clause added to it that the true and best Copies had not Bishop Laud in the Star-chamber when they were about to Pillory Burton in his speech as I take it June 14. 1637. could not deny that some Copies wanted it but saies that he sent to the publique Records in his Office and had returned him under his Officers hand who was a publique notary the 20. Article with the affirmative clause in it that other Copies wanted and that there also the whole body of the Articles was to be seen Then he saies it was likest that the pure faction themselves i.e. the Puritans did rather take away that clause from the Copies that want it because it is known saith he who did then ride the Church meaning Leicester as I think a great favourer of Non-conformists and a favorite of the Queens rather than that any did adde it to the Copies Recorded c. But first If the Articles will not give us a good enough description of their Church Bishop Land will give us this That she was one that might be ridden by any great favorite of the Prince and so neither so respective to God nor her King whatever she pretended as Bucephalus was to Alexander which neither of his greatest favorites could ride though the one was Philobasileus and the other Philalexander by Alexanders own Confession 2. It hath often been found that Bishops and their servants or favourers have falsified Copies and Records of that nature witness the Bishop of Rome but never was proved I think that Non-conformists and Puritans did it Moreover the Bishops reason failes him because this diversity of Printed Copies as to that clause controverted was in the very year wherein they were agreed upon that is 1562. i. e. the 4. or 5. of Eliz. long before Leicester could ride the Church or any for him so farre as I can learn in favours of the Puritans as to that time And is it a thing likely that so soon after the Convocation Puritans durst or would do such a thing and pass so quietly away with it and without noise made by the Bishops as that diversity of Copies was past over if the Bishops had not made the diversity themselves to their own advantage or some of theirs for them by their privity and allowance 3. Since the Act 13. Eliz. or of Anno. 1571 referres only to a Printed Book of Articles 1562 the same year wherein they were agreed upon but specifies not what Printed Copy of that year the Act leaves it therefore doubtfull whether it hath confirmed that affirmative clause which the Bishops said that his Records had seeing in that very year there were two printed Editions of the Articles one in English and another in Latine whereof the one had the clause and the other wanted it and by this not specifying the Impression that it follows as undoubtedly uncorrupt it leaves some doubt upon the rest that they might be corrupt as well as this before that Act confirmed them Yea it leaves a great doubt whether there were any better Copy to be followed than that they refer'd to since it is not like the Parliament would referre to a printed Copy if they had known of any Autograph And what if both the Bishop and his Officer egregiously imposed upon the Star-chamber and neither his Office nor he had any thing to show but that printed Copy which Burton complained of subscribed with the hands of the Bishops and lower house of Convocation at diverse times I have heard as much and I believe some honest Puritans can and will make it good that during the long Parliament and sitting of the Assembly
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