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 [Page 2] 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; [Page 3] 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 [Page 4] 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.

[Page 5] 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 17 ^o Car. 1. nor so [Page 6] much as their being, as Bishops, sithence; nor the Canons so, much contended for, are indeed established by Law. 2. That none of these, as they now stand, (meaning of the Articles in particular, as they are commonly held of themselves to be a sufficient summe, or Confession publick, of the Doctrine of the Church of England,) ought to be confirmed, and setled. But all with submission, say they. And before immediately, they seem sufficiently to insinuate, that they intended no impugnati­on of the Doctrine in the Articles, as in its self considered; be­cause say they, We offer no polemicall discourse, or theologicall debates, proper for a Divinity-Schoole, or Synod; but only what we humbly conceive more suitable to a Parliament. But had that been their drift, theologically to impugne the Doctrine of the thirty nine Articles, as in it self considered, and as you take them to oppose it, and accordingly answer them, as if they had; this could not have been true, which they here say. Wherefore I conclude, that you state not the Question, as they intended, nor answer them according to their meaning, and therefore your resolved treating of No necessity of Reforma­tion, as a Divine, to whom it properly appertains, to speak of Theologicall Doctrines, and your earnest contending for the faith of the Church, in that Scripturall sense (not ecclesiastick) as you speak it, which you profess, pag. 4. §. 1. and which takes up the most part of your Book, might wholly have been spared, as not contradicting the Ministers, as you may see by their plain and open profession to the Parliament. Yet I con­fess, if you lookt only to the first Impression, which wanted the Epistle to the Parliament, (as I take it, for I certainly remem­ber not; nor have it now by me) their scope, and way that they held, being thereby less clear, you were the more excusa­ble, if you mistooke their meaning; they being nothing so clear and accurate therein (if I have taken them right) as they might have been: for which ingenuous and harmless freedome, I hope both of you will pardon me, who truly love and honour you both, as I think you well deserve.

Their conclusion then to be proved, was this: There is a necessity of Reformation of the publick Doctrine of the Church of England. The appendage, as you call it, which they there­to [Page 7] added, I take to be an explication only of the publickness of the Doctrine of the Church of England, as they conceived it doubtfull and defective, for the establishment, and Authority e­stablisher, and the property and proprieter, or whose publick Doctrine and confession it was; and for the too great generality of it, and want of much that it should have, to sustaine the name and nature of a sufficient publick Confession of faith, or publick Doctrine, of so eminent a Church, as England is; and therefore in these respects, and so farre to be reformed. I thus therefore, according to the former stating of the question, forme their argument.

What is commonly received for the publick Doctrine, or Confession of faith of the Church of England, ought not to be too generall and doubtfull, whether for exclusion of errours, or for publick establishment, and authority establisher; or for the owners, or those whose Confession it is cald; or defective and imperfect, for want of ought, that it should have, for a suffici­ent and creditable Confession of so eminent a Church, whether in points, or heads of matter; or distinctness, definitness, spe­cialty, and clearness both of matter, and manner, or expressi­on; or Scripturall proofs and evidences; but if it be doubtfull, or defective in any, or all of these respects, in so farre it ought to be reformed. But the Doctrine contained in the thirty nine Articles, is commonly received for the publick Doctrine, or Confession of the Church of England; and yet is doubtfull and defective in all, or most of the foresaid respects. Therefore the Doctrine of the thirty nine Articles, commonly held to be the publick Doctrine, or Confession of the Church of England, ought to be reformed in all the respects aforesaid. The major proposition neither is, nor needed to be formally exprest; not needed any thing to the probation of it, it is so clear in its self. But if any part of it must needs be proved, it will be the last clause; to wit, [ but if it be doubtfull, or defective in any, or all these respects, in so farre it ought to be reformed.] for probation whereof, the next Section will suffice. The minor, or assumption is fully enough exprest, though not formally, but sparsedly; and the first part needs no probation, to wit, That the Doctrine contained in the thirty nine Articles, is common­ly [Page 8] received for the publick Doctrine, or Confession of Faith, of the Church of England; not do you any way question it. But if it needed proof, the Stature of 13. Eliz. joyned to common estimation, proves it enough. The second part of the assump­tion is also exprest; and as it only needed proof, so it is proved, and to it only all the proofs directed. Yet before I show in par­ticular, how the proofs are pertinent and concludent; I think needfull, to avoid repetition, to premise some generals once for all.

The difference being such as it is between you, in stating the question, there must needs be difference also in sundry others notions and things, between the Ministers and you. For they have a farre other notion of reformation, of doubtfullness, of defectiveness, of necessity of reformation, than you have, or use; and therefore in these also you do not truely oppose one ano­ther. They mean but a reformation of the Doctrine, in as farre as doubtfull and defective, or of the doubtfullness and defective­ness of it, as they understand them, and go about to prove them; not as you take them. Again, A necessity of reforming, but not so great, and internall to the Doctrine its self, as you would put upon the Ministers, and make common to them with Papists, somewhat invidiously I confess, but to be excused, as unavoidably arising from your mistaking of their meaning; but a necessity of precept or duty only (which binds us to reforme the least things, that we know, or ought to know, to be a­miss) to reforme the doubtfullness, and defectiveness of it, in generall, and in particulars, as by them proved: which you might well know, and understand, to have been the opinion of many unconforme Ministers of sundry Counties of England, still professing themselves Ministers of the Church of England, (and not separating from it, as Brownists and Barrowists did) or se­mi-separating from her, (as semi-brownists and semi-barrowists, the Independents did, and do; at least some of them) before now, as well at this time, had you looked into their doings; as it seems you did not, by what you profess, pag. 3. §. 1. of your Book. Again, For defectiveness, they are farre from the notexs­on of it, that you would put upon them; and so arguing, as you present them. Defective to them is, not that, to which some­thing [Page 9] may be added; but to which something should be added, for the dignity, office, and end, or ends, that it sustains; or that which wants something, that it ought to have, for the foresaid respects, or the like: which is indeed the true notion of it. For it is an undeniable maxime, or axiom, shining by its own light, That whatsoever is defective, ought to be, or is necessa­ry to be reformed. And by these notions thus explained, and rescued from misprision, the last part of the major proposition is made undeniably clear. Therefore the major (as we said) needed no proof, but a right taking, and understanding of these termes.

Here now I might stay, and needed not to answer any more, where there is so wide a mistake, that runs through most of your Book, and hinders it to meet with their meaning. Yet I will show particularly how they prove their assumption; and at the same time consider your observations, and answers in particu­lar, as much as shall seem needfull, where by their stating of the question will also appeare, (as we marked before, and re­ferd to this place to be observed) seeing it is to be supposed, that their proofs were framed, according to the meaning of the con­clusion they had to inferre, if such application can be made of them as here we show, that it not only can easily, but should and must.

1. Then in the first two Paragraphs, where they speak to the doubtfullness of the publick establishment of the Articles by Law only, though their proofs were so farre good, as to prove a doubtfullness indeed of that establishment or confirmation, both to themselves, and many others, had not you helped; yet I in­genuously confess, that you have almost satisfied me in this, from page 20. of your Book to the end; and therefore have nothing to reply to this point, save what is said at the place that specially concerns the 20 ^th Article, and in some measure the establish­ment; and so the thirty fourth Article about the Homilies, nor almost to any thing in all that space of your Book, but very little, which will fall to be spoken, about their own objection and answer to it; till when we referre it.

2. In the third Paragraph, and first sub-Paragraph, or sad consequence, they so speak to the doubtfull generallness of the [Page 10] Articles, as too much adhered to, and abused; and to the want of a sufficient clearness, specially, and definiteness to exclude Arminianism by, which most in the time Car. 1. would have fastened upon them; and to the abusing and seducing of the King, so far as to countenance this course, and discountenance the opposers of it; that would have vindicated the Articles from it, but were hindred by the Kings Declaration, and Proclama­tion; that they indeed sufficiently conclude and prove a neces­sity of the Articles being reformed after that, from such doubtfull­ness and defectiveness, as made them unable readily and easily e­nough to exclude and condemn Arminianisme, and such like errors; and fit to be made a snare of, for godly, orthodox, and con­stant Ministers and Preachers of the Truth: to which I find not, that you have any way sufficiently answered. All the answer you have given to this, pag. 7. of your Book, §. 2. is, That the Ministers 3. §. only recite part of the Declaration of 10. Car. 1. prefixed to the Articles: and that is there recited only (say you) to shew the inconveniences supposed to flow from it. As yet therefore there is nothing brought (say you) to manifest the doubtfullness of the Doctrine, and if there shall appear to be anything, it must be contained in the seven sad consequences, which are mainly and directly intended against the Declaration of that pious King—,but obliquely strike at the Articlse them­selves, and the Doctrine contained in them. But by your good leave, Sir, the Declaration is not recited there, only to show the inconveniences supposed to flow from it; but chiefly from the too great generallness, and doubtfullness of the Articles, whereof the Bishops strove to make that advantage, or abuse, to seduce the King, to father Arminianisme upon them, as their true and genuine sense, and consequents. Nor is there any o­ther main, and direct intention against the Kings Declaration here, as is somewhat individuously again insinuated upon mi­stake of the Ministers, than there is against the Statute 13. of Eliz. (which was none, nor do you there complain of any such) as the Ministers own Prolepsis, and their answers make clear. Also their words to the Parliament in their Epistle, shows that their main and direct intention is rather against the Books of Articles, Common Prayer, Ordination, &c. than a­gainst [Page 11] the Laws, or Declarations, &c. but indeed against neither of these directly, and as in themselves; but a­gainst the publickness, or publique establishments of the Books, as conceived to be given by those Laws, and Declarations, &c. but indeed not given, nor furnished to the Books by them, as the Ministers think. And whereas you say, as yet there was nothing brought to manifest the doubtfullness of the Doctrine, you mean as considered in its self; which was not their intent to do, further than we have shown, against the too great general­nesse and indefinitenesse of them, and the like before rehearsed. This Argument therefore of the Ministers is sufficiently conclu­dent of a necessity of reforming these Articles, as an imperfect confession only, of the Church of England, and not answerable to her worth and place, that she deserves amongst the reformed Churches; and stands firme and unshaken for ought, that you have replyed. For we cannot suspect that you so slightly past it over, cunningly and upon design to favour Arminianisme, and say nothing against it; but upon mistake, as we have said, of the Ministers meaning; though some perhaps will be apt to think that you favour Arminianisme, since in all your Book, you have no expression disfavouring it, though you had often occasion to open your mind.

Thirdly, Again, in the first and second Subparagraph or sad consequences, the Ministers speak more to the unjust, and too much urging of the generalnesse and doubtfulnesse of the Articles, and show two or three absurds, or inconveniences, that follow on it: whereby is sufficiently concluded a necessity so farre to reform them, which you by your answers, pag. 7. §. 3. & 4. no way remove or meet with; requiring the doubtful­nesse of the Doctrine in its self to have been proved, as it ab­stracts from this too much generality, which the Ministers in­tended not; but you expresly professe to be that only you look to pag. 8. and saying nothing to this doubtfulnesse by their genera­lity, and unfitnesse to anticipate errours, to which only they spake, and you should have answered, and shewed how by the Articles, as influenc'd on by the Kings Declaration, Arminia­nism could be excluded. How they could be cleerer, certainer, and more evident, than any part of Gods Word, or fundamen­tallest [Page 12] Doctrine in it, which both needs, and admits interpreta­tion and application, and rejects it not, as needlesse, notwith­standing of its certainty, evidence, perspicuity. How the Arti­cles were not thus idolized in a sort, and prefer'd far to the Scri­pture, while no Minister shall have the liberty to interpret any one of them, which is not only allow'd him, but requir'd of him in his Ordination, to interpret Scripture it self withall: while their Doctrine is supposed certainer, evidenter, persbicuouser, than any fundamentall the certainest, evidentest, perspicuoufest in all the Scriptures. The notoriousness of the proceeds menti­oned, much concerned the Ministers proof, and doubtfullness of Articles, which they meant, and not that which you miscon­ceive they should have meant, and proved: and if their Nar­ration had been false, it could no wayes have proved their in­tent. What therefore you subjoyne, that the contrivance of the Articles by such generality and indefiniteness, gives 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, [Page 13] 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 M ^r 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 [Page 14] 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 Non­conformists, 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, [Page 15] 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 M ^r 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 [Page 16] 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 [Page 17] 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 [Page 18] 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 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, [Page 19] 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) [Page 20] all that opposed them, or would haue vindic ated 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 [Page 21] 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, and as containing the publick Doctrine, or Confession of Faith of the Church of England; which they have proved firmly, as farre as we have shown, though not so much the doubtfulnesse of the Articles in themselves (saving as to their too great generality, and indefinitenesse, which both may be called theirs, as in themselves; and theirs also, not so much in themselves, as in reference to errours, and nova­tions, that by them should be excluded) as in reference to their publicknesse and establishment by publick Authority. Here then let us esteeme, That the Ministers by way of sup­position, give the Articles, were confirm'd by this Statute, but grant not that they are, and so do not contradict themselves, nor give sufficient enough ground to argue against them, ad hominem, or ad homines; though the legal establishment by Law were proved, and so the undoubtednesse of the publick authority; yet this is nothing to take away, but rather to make worse the generalnesse, and doubtfulnesse of the Aritcles thereby, and drawablenesse of them to countenance Arminia­nisme, and like novations; and occasion mischief to ortho­dox Ministers, if subscription be still required.

[Page 22]10. Now though I have set down both their Arguments (which you divide) in one compounded Syllogisme, concerning both the doubtfulnesse, and defectivenesse of the Articles; and that because themselves reduce their defectivenesse but to a medium of proving their doubtfulnesse; yet because you di­vide one from the other, and that is not material to be stood upon; I shall here set down their argument of the defective­nesse of the Articles, as I think themselves would have fram'd it, had they divided it from the other, and as they would have differed from you, in setting it down, thus. Whatso­soever publick Doctrine commonly holden for the National Confession of Faith of the Church of England, wants any thing considerable, that it ought to have, whether in points, and heads of matter; or sufficiently cleer, definit, and spe­cial explication of them, to exclude dangerous errours and novations by, that have been, and may be still laboured to be fastened upon it, as its true meaning; or in Scripturall grounds and proofes of it; ought to be, or is in a necessi­ty of being so farre Reformed. But the Doctrine contain'd in the 39. Articles, is commonly holden for the publick Doctrine, or National Confession of the Church of England, and yet wants something considerable, which it ought to have, or is defective in all the three foresaid respects. Therefore the 39. Articles, or publick Doctrine contain'd in them, ought to be, or is in a necessity of being reformed in all the foresaid respects. The major neither is, nor needed to be formally exprest, not yet any thing to be brought for the proof of it, it is so manifest in its self, when thus pro­posed. The Assumption is both exprest (though not for­mally, yet materially enough) and proved also, as to the second part of it, which onely needed proof, though you, lay all the stresse upon the major, because you frame the Ar­gument otherwise, than they would have done. But of this in the close.

11. Their first proof of defectivenesse, I think, concludes strongly enough for a Reformation of the Articles, and for an enumeration of the Canonical Books of the New, as well as of the Old Testament, because the description by you men­tioned, [Page 23] and your reasons for it, is not sufficient enough to excuse the want of an enumeration, because some of the Reformed Churches, as Lutherans namely, have questioned, and as I take, doe so still, some of the Epistles, which others of the Evangelicks doe not. Neither ought the Councel of Trents enumerating the Canonical Books of the New Testa­ment, make us affect a needlesse differing from them in that, wherein we differ not indeed; since it is no shame to imi­tate that which is truly laudable, even in our greatest oppo­sites, but our duty rather to praise it, and to come up as neer to them, as conveniently we can. It was more invidi­ous therefore than material, to intreat the Ministers of sun­dry Counties, that they would not preferre the Councel of Trent to the Articles of the Church of England, where no­thing material could be objected to either: since the defe­ctivenesses that the Ministers desire to be reformed, though not so material, weighty, and internal to the soundnesse, or unsoundnesse of the Articles, as you would have them one­ly to look at; yet both material, and necessary enough for the cleernesse, certainty, and specialnesse of a Na­tional Confession of a Reformed Church, when Reformed and Evangelicks differ from them therein.

12. Their second proof concludes strongly a necessity of reforming the Articles, at least so farre as the Assembly at Westminster did. And in your Answer to this proofe, you passe by the maine thing intended by the Ministers, and insisted on, and lay hold onely on a word spoken but in the by, and by way of amplification, and there you dwell, without answering a word to the drift of the Argument. It is certaine Arminianisme was a Novation and alteration of Doctrine, that was laboured to be defended by, and fa­thered upon the Articles, Homilies, &c. though wrongful­ly, as appeares by King James, and the Church of his times opposing to it, and countenancing the Synod of Dort, and its procedures and definitions against it. It is certaine se­condly, that considering what mischief this bred, it was ve­ry necessary, that the general, and doubtfull indefinitenesse of [Page 24] the Articles, as to those Arminian Novations, matters so re­requiring it, as they did then, should have been help­ed, and supplied some way, as the Assembly of West­minster after did, with their honour preserved, from be­ing altered in corpore, or in themselves. Whence we con­clude, That they were in a necessity of Reformation in this sort at least; to which you answer nothing, and we won­der thereat; and hope it is not out of any favour to Ar­minianisme.

13. Neither am I satisfied with your answer to the Ministers third proof of defectiveness, because you seem to me to strain their words beyond their scope. For their meaning to me is not, That the Articles have nothing at all of these; but not enough, or sufficient of them, which is a nothing compara­tively to what they should have; because indeed they want sundry heads of matter, or Doctrine sufficiently explained, that they should have; nor have the Articles any proofs from Scripture, which yet certainly they should have, as they stand in the place of a Confession of Faith, unlesse the Convo­cation would have men to resolve their Faith into their Di­ctates, or Articles; nor in the heads of matter, which they have, have they sufficient Explication, definiteness, and spe­cialty, to exclude contrary pernicious errors, that pretend to impe themselves on their generality, and grow kindly, and truely out of them. Secondly, When it is said, [ All which the Scripture teacheth, as necessary, as appears by com­prizing most of them in the Apostles Creed,] the meaning is not, 1. That those, that are comprized in the Apostles Creed, vulgarly so cal'd, are comprized there with suffici­ent Explication, as they ought to be in the publick Doctrine, or Confession of a Nationall Church, especially in these times, and considering the weighty Controversies, that are agitated about most, or many of them. 2. When most of them are said to be comprized in the Apostles Creed, the meaning is not, That most of them are comprized there for­mally, or in terminis, but by the likenesse of necessarinesse to that of some of those, which are there formally, and inter­minis, [Page 25] though the Ministers expressions for this, be not so clear, as I could have wished. Yet charity, and not only possibility that they may, but probability that they are to be taken so, makes me so understand, and expound them. Wherefore I conclude upon the whole, That the 39. Articles are in a necessity of reformation, such at least, as the Assembly at Westminster hath applied unto them.

14. And now to draw to an end, I shall close the whole with two Observations more; which shall serve instead of a Recapitulation. Whereas page 5. of your Book, §. 1. after your putting their first Argument into forme, you remarke, that the minor proposition, on which (according to your framing the Syllogisme) the reason mainly depends, hath no formall proof annexed to it; but in stead of proving the doubtfullnesse of the Doctrine contained in the Articles, (which can be the only case, say you, of a necessity of Re­formation of Doctrine; though we have seen the contrary) the doubtfullnesse of the Confirmation of the Articles, is only insisted upon: And whereas page 6. after putting in­to forme their second Argument, you deny the major, and insist on that only, according to your framing the Reason, as that on which all the stresse lay, though it have no proof annexed to it, as you frame it, and take it: This me­thinks, Sir; might have made you suspect, that you ap­prehended them not aright; since it was not so easily to be supposed; that they would be so impertinent, and incohe­rent in their purpose, as the way that you understood them, would have made them to be; and that in an ad­dresse of that weight to no lesse and meaner Arbiters, than a Parliament of England.

15. And lastly, Page 4. §. 3. you observe, That the Mi­nisters say not, [ All the publick Doctrine of the Church is contained in the 39. Articles.] 2. [ That whatsoever pub­lick Doctrine of the Church is not contained in the 39. Arti­cles, is not so much as pretended to be in a necessity of Refor­mation. So that if there be any Doctrine not contained in the Articles, (as I conceive, say you, they will confesse there [Page 26] is,) that Doctrine is not only clear from all their exceptions, but will serve also to invalidate something of them, (to wit, of the exceptions, as I take it,) when they are brought a­gainst the rest:] to wit, which is in the Articles, it I un­derstand this aright. To which I say, 1. That I remem­ber none of that Doctrine, which you bring from any o­ther Book, than the Articles, to invalidate any thing of the exceptions, that are brought against the Articles. 2. That most of their exceptions brought against the Articles, are nei­their brought against them, as their Doctrine is abstractly considered in its selfe, nor as it is only contained in them, but as it is commonly received to be chiefly contained in them; and therefore they are brought also against any o­ther Doctrine, contained in the Book of Common Prayer Ordination, &c. especially the two Books of Homilies, and Canons, in reference to the two aforesaid considerations, as themselves sufficiently expresse in their Epistle to the Par­liament ubi suprà, and in their first sad consequence, by the two instances in the Books of Homilies; and the other Books are afterwards spoken to, in the following points of worship, &c. unlesse we say, that in them is no publique Doctrine, because in some conderation distinct from Do­ctrine, as proposed in the Articles; which I think none will say. 3. That the advantage therefore that you would make by these Observations, will not be great, as it seems to me. But be that, as it may be, may not the Ministers pretend to a like advantage from you, in this manner? 1. It is not said by the Reverend Dr. Pierson; No necessity of Reformation of the publick Worship, Rites, Church-Govern­ment, Discipline, &c. but only of the publick Doctrine of the Church of England. 2. That of whatsoever we have shewed a necessity of Reformation, and is not so much as pre­tended by the Reverend Doctor to be defended, is not only clear from any defence he hath made, but may also serve to invalidate something of his defence of the publick Doctrine, and reasons of denying it to be in a necessity of Reformation. Therefore to conclude, Sir, I would earnestly intreat you, [Page 27] after this Answer, or some like made unto your self, by your self in your own mind, upon better review of the Ministers Reasons, or by some others verball bearing it upon you, that you would candidly confesse; That the Ministers also in sundry Counties took it for granted, that there is no difference between them and the Articles, rightly understood, or defenders of them, in matter of Doctrine, especially as in its self considered.