should be pleaded in the place of them such Articles so pleaded I conceive might be voided but that would be little to your purpose because the true Articles meant by the Law might still be pleaded If a man should read the old true Articles and should be accused for not reading Articles set forth since with additions or substantiall alterations I make no question but the plea would be void But if he should be required without Law to read a Book with-alterations and should omit to read a Book which hath no substantiall alteration and is required by Law I suppose the Statute would be of force against him But howsoever I do absolutety deny that there is any substantiall alteration of or addirion to those Articles mentioned in the Act of 13. Eliz. and do assert that the Articles to which the late Kings Declaration was affixed are the same with them in number nature substance words as I am assured having my self diligently collated them with an Edition of the Articles printed by Richard Jugge and John Cawood Printers to the Queens Majesty in Anno Domini 1571. Being therefore the Articles enjoyned to be read by a Law have received no alteration I answer your Quere that they cannot be voided in Law if pleaded in Law The second Quere having onely reference in it self to the Alterations which I have denyed and having no reference in the Ground to the Articles at all can require no further answer here where the Articles onely are concern'd The third Quere is this If any man be indicted or sued at Law upon the Statute of 13. Eliz. for not reading the Articles of 1562. and the Defendant plead Not guilty and deny these Articles to be those confirmed by that Law till the Plaintiff prove them to be of Record whether is not the Plaintiff bound to prove that and in the meane time the Defendant not punishable by that Statute The Grounds of this Quere are first that there are no Records of these to be found secondly the Book hath been severall times altered since that Act and thirdly many punished upon the said Acts because that Book hath been generally received and used as established by Law There are so many mistakes in this Quere and these severall Grounds that it will be very difficult to shew them all first the supposition of the Quere is incongruous as implying that which is contrary to the proceedings in this case for if any Person inducted into a Benefice do neglect or refuse to read his Articles according to the Statute of 13. Eliz. I conceive he is not to be indicted or sued at Law and so as a Defendant to pleade Not guilty but upon proof made in the Ecclesiasticall Court that he hath not read those Articles he must be forthwith deprived according to that Statute which saith that he shall be upon that default ipso facto immediately deprived That this is to be done by sentence Declaratory before the Bishop of the Diocese and that this is the ordinary proceeding in case of an Offendor against that Statute appeared from the proceedings against John Durston mentioned in 6. part of Sir Edward Coke's Reports page 29. in Greenes case whole words are these Le Seignior Pawlet 6. Aprilis 1574. Present al dit esglise un John Durston que a ceo fuit admit institute induct ne lia les Articles solonque lestatute de 13. Eliz. cap. 12. Per quel cause 10. Martii 1583. al suit del dit Thomas Seignior Pawlet il fuit deprive per sentence Declaratory devant Levesque Being therefore the Nature of the Statute is such that the proof is not put on the Plaintiff but on the Defendant who is bound to read the Articles enjoyned by the Statute and if he be accused for not reading is bound to prove that he hath read them and consequently to produce the Articles which he hath read as those intended in the Statute it is easily answered to your Quere that it supposeth something wholly inconsistent with the Proceedings in the Case and putteth that upon the Plaintiff which belongeth to the Defendant and therefore the Quere may be wholly denyed in every part of it Again as the Quere is inconsistent to it self so the Grounds arc either false in themselves or at least no way concerning the intent of the Quere The first Ground I have already refuted shewing that the Record that is the Originall of the Articles is to be found and if it were not the Articles comprized in a Book imprinted commanded by the Law to be read are to be found which is enough to evacuate the Quere because it cannot be necessary to finde any more then the Act expresseth And if any man reade those Articles which are to be found it must lie upon the Plaintiff to prove that such Articles so read were not the Articles intended in the Statute As for the second Ground that the Book of Articles hath been severall times altered since the Act of 13. of Eliz. It is so far from truth that I can averre as I have done before that the Articles now in force are the same with the Articles comprized in a Book imprinted when the Act was made without any the least alteration and whosoever readeth either those of 1571. or any Edition printed since the Kings Declaration and giveth his full assent to the same shall never be in danger of a Declaratory sentence of Deprivation upon that Statute The third Ground of your Quere the more of truth it hath in it hath the less of reason to Ground the Quere for the more have been punish'd upon the said Act because the Book hath been generally received as established by Law the less is it probable that it should not be so established The Articles are as much enrolled now as they were when any persons were punished for not reading them and it is to be presumed that they were as desirous and carefull to preserve themselves in those Benefice into which they instituted and inducted as others are now and that the Learned of the Law did as well understand how to avoid the sentence of the Statute as now they do and therefore the constant practice to the contrary is enough to perswade any man that your new plea if there were any such to be admitted would prove invalid Your fourth Quere concerneth the Canons onely made by the Convocation and ratified by the King and therefore requireth no present reply in this discourse confined to the Justification of the 39. Articles Thus far have I stept out of my way in answer to your Queres hoping thereby to invite you to a ferious reply to the Law-part at the least of my Discourse And though I have omitted that part of your Queres which concern the Common-Prayer and the Canons it is not at all as if I thought them unanswerable but onely because I think it not proper to confound the Subjects of which I intend to treate I do therefore but reserve that part of the Queres which concerneth the Common-Prayer unto my answer to the matter of Worship and that of the Canons unto the part which followeth assuring you that by the assistance of God I shall very suddenly shew that there is no such Necessity of a Reformation of the Publick Worship of the Church of England as you pretend neither will it be long before I demonstrate the same concerning the Ceremonies and the Discipline Being near the Conclusion of my Answer to your Postscript there fell accidentally into my hands a more civil Address written by William Hamilton Gent. who undertakes to be an Interpreter to you and the Ministers of sundry Counties and to defend your Book by altering the State of the Question and the Conclusion to be proved I conceive it reason at the present not to answer that Treatise because I am sure he hath much mistaken the meaning of my words and therefore it is very probable that he may have as much mistaken yours and I shall not oblige my self to answer any other meaning then your own Howsoever in this your Postscript I have waved nothing except your bad language which 1 shall ever wave assuring you that no provocations shall ever tempt me to break my resolution of writing with a Brotherly temper and Christian Moderation in love to which as well as to the truth I subscribe my self Your Servant and Brother J. PEARSON FINIS
AN ANSWER TO Dr. BVRGES HIS WORD BY WAY OF POSTSCRIPT In Vindication of No Necessity of Reformation of the Publick Doctrine of the Church of England By John PEARSON D. D. LONDON Printed by J. G. for Nathaniel Brook At the Angel in Cornhill 1660. AN ANSWER TO Dr. BVRGES SIR YOu are pleased to begin with me thus Although your Tract be of another Subject which wise and learned men hold unworthy of Answer yet finding a little waste Paper at the end of this Treatise I am content to fill it up with a few words touching your No Necessity c. to save further labour about it in another way You are pleased under the guise of a Brotherly temper and Christian Moderation to make sport with the Authors of the Reasons of a Necessity of Reformation of the Publick Doctrine c. wherein you set up Shawfowles of your own calling them ours and then shoot at them as you list which you call Answers to Vs But he that judiciously compareth both cannot but hold him a weak man that shall foul so much Paper as to give a particular Reply to all your out-leaps and fictions which deserve neglect rather than punctual Replications Therefore at present take these Generals till you more rationally make out your Particulars To which I answer that I am resolved to proceed with a Brotherly temper and Christian Moderation as being not at all discouraged with any misinterpretation of such reall inclinations and lest I should seem to set up Shawfowles of my own as I am accused how deservedly let the Reader judge I shall represent your words as they lie in your Postscript and so subjoyn my Answer to them Your Reply you return by way of Generals the first of which â—s thus printed 1. We place not the Necessity of Reformation in the not establishing the Doctrine of our Church by Law but our work is to shew 1. that there is no necessity of subscription by vertue of the act of 13. Eliz. 12. because that thereby those Articles now urged do not appear to be by that Law established 2. That as they now stand and as now worded they ought not to be established untill they be reformed But you make us speak that we never so much as dreamt of nor ever mentioned in our Reasons and so you fight onely with your own shadow Let them part you that have a mind to it we have other businesse to do To the first words of this Paragraph We place not the Necessity of Reformation in the not establishing the Doctrine of our Church by Law I answer it is well you do not it seemeth my Treatise hath prevailed something with you for in your former Book you did place the Necessity of Reformation of the Publick Doctrine of the Church in the Non-establishment by Law The truth of which thus I prove In what you did place the Doubtfulnesse of the Articles in that you did place the Necessity of Reformation This is a clear Proportion For having first propounded REASONS SHEWING the Necessity of Reformation of Doctrine you argue thus The Doctrine is said to be contained in the 39 Articles but those Articles are both Doubtfull and Defective Therefore you did place the Necessity of Reformation in the Doubtfulness of the Articles Neither can you with any reason deny you did so because in the next Paragraph of thisPostscript your own words are these We argue a Necessity of Reformation 1. from the Doubtfulness 2. from the Defect of the 39. Articles Now I subsume In the Non-establishment by Law you did place the Doubtfulnesse of the Articles This also is a clear Proposition for thus you proceeded in your Argument 1. Doubtfull because it appears not that they were all or any of them confirmed by Parliament in the 13. Eliz. From these two Propositions as Premisses necessarily followeth this conclusion In the Non-establishment by Law you did place the Necessity of Reformation Since therefore my Treatise you profess not to place the Necessity of Reformation in that in which before you placed it and before I have done treating of this Subject I shall not despaire of perswading you to place the Necefssity of this Reformation no where To the next words of this Paragraph But our work is to shew First that there is no necessity of subscription by virtue of the Act of 13. Eliz. 12. because that thereby those Articles now urged doe not appear to be by that Law established I answer Your proposall was There is a Necessity of Reformation your work you say is to shew that there is no Necessity of Subscription therefore your proposall is one thing and your work is another Whereas one would imagine that the work of him which writes should be to shew that which he professeth to write of You pretend to give Reasons of Necessity of Reformation and you labour to prove there is no necessity of subseription And yet the Reason you render of no Necessity of Subscription is because the Articles doe not appear to be established by Law while you say your self you doe not place the Necessity of Reformation in their Non-establishment by Law What agreement is this To the next words of the same Paragraph As they now stand and as now worded they ought not to be estabjshed untill they be reformed I answer first that this present standing and wording of the Articles is new language not heard of in your former Discourse by which it appears that you have a mind to alter your way of reasoning against them as you had need your first having so ill successe Secondly that the present standing and wording of the Articles I look upon as that which is no way subjet to reprehension for that very standing and wording which you particularly oppose shew the Articles to be the same which were agreed upon in the Convocation 1562. to which the subscription was required and enacted by a Law as I have already proved Thirdly whereas you say they ought not to be established if you mean any new establishment they need it not because they are established by an Act of Parliament in full force according to an agreement made by a full and legall Convocation and a greater establishment then this is not to be had in this Church or Kingdome if you mean a continuation of establishment that they ought no longer to stand established you doe in some sense oppose your self to the whole Clergy for as Sir Edward Coke writes in his 4. Inst cap. 74. In domo Convocationis the whole Clergy of either Province are either present in person or representation and not onely to the Clergy but the whole Realme for as the same Learned Lord Chief Justice teacheth us in his 4. Inst cap. 1. The Court of Parliament consisteth of the Kings Majesty sitting there as in his Royall politick capacity and of the three Estates of the Realme one of which he saith representeth all the Commons of the whole Realme As for
which I alleadged was the very subject of three Articles 9.15.16 and one Homily and as untrue in the Doctrine of the Law for that which I alleadged was not the name of the Law but the whole subject of the 7. Article All your discourse therefore which followeth being grounded upon the bare naming of those Doctrines must necessarily prove inconsequentiall because the bare naming of them upon which it was grounded is a fiction To the latter part of the Paragraph where you aske that Question To what purpose is that Assertion that the Creed being mentioned in the Articles there is no need of adding more Articles I answer it is far more proper for me to aske to what purpose is that Question for there was no such Assertion delivered by me All which I spake was onely to shew the inconsequence of your discourse who undertaking to prove that the Articles contain nothing of 20. necessary Doctrines argued them all to be necessary because most of them were comprized in the Creed which you know is certainly false und from thence and upon no other ground endeavoured to infer your Conclusion that the Articles contained nothing of those Doctrines when you know that they contain the Creed You cannot therefore justly charge me with any such Assertion when of that discourse I onely said that it seemed to me a very strange Objection and so I may say it seemeth still Make not therefore any Assertions for me but free your own Argumentation first from those untruths with which I charged it endeavour to shew that the most part of the 20. Doctrines mentioned by you are comprized in the Creed which I absolutely deny Prove if your can that because some of them are comprized in the Creed therefore for that reason for no other is mentioned all the rest must be acknowledged to be necessary which I also deny Shew that being comprized in the Creed the Articles comprehending the Creed and the Expositions of the Creed contain nothing of them which I thirdly deny and when you have proved them I will give you leave to fix what Assertion you please upon me Your sixth Generall followeth As for your many Quibbles and Retortions all built upon these sandy foundations I shall value them no more then you value us Onely that mistake of the Homily in point of Title may be pardoned when your self confesse the words themselves We were far from our Books and so might mistake the Title of the Homily But so long as we have not falsified the matter which you dare not to justifie but acknowledge not to be proper and which we affirm to be absurd and false we leave it to all to judge whether that be a godly and wholesome Doctrine necessary for these times And if it be not then whether there be not a necessity of Reforming that 35 th Article as to that point of the Homilies For my Quibbles and those many I shall not desire you to value them but I intreat you to shew them I beseech you be plain with me declarewhat they are and shame me with them For the Retortions if you mean by them my Answers I could wish you would value them so far as to give them a civill reply howsoever I am resolved so far to value you and your writings The mistake of the Homily in point of Title is easily pardon'd the rather because it is the least of your mistakes for even in this particular though you have not falsified the matter that is the words produced yet you have mistaken the Argument and though I have plainly shew'd your mistake you refuse to rectifie it I did clearly distingnish between the Doctrines delivered in the Articles and the Illustrations of them I did shew that the 35. Article did binde us to the acknowledgment of the one and doth not require us to maintain the other I did make it appear that your Objections did no way touch the Doctrine of the Homilies but were onely against some expressions in the Illustrations or accumulated authothorities when I had shewn all this you vouchsafe no answer to it all but leave it to all to judge and I make no Question but the judgement is easie for it is no more then this That the people ought to read the Scriptures is a godly and wholesome Doctrine This is the onely Doctrine of one of the Homilies accused That it is profitable for a wan to exercise himself in Almes-deeds is a godly and wholesome Doctrine this is the onely Doctrine of the other Homily accused The Articles speake of nothing else but the Doctrine of the Homilies therefore there appeared no necessity of reforming the 35th Article as to that part of the Homilies Your seventh Generall is this As touching the Regal Supremacy we own and will assert it as far as you do or dare Onely we had reason to take notice of the improper Expression in the 37. Article that the Queens Majesty hath the Supreme Power For if the Declaration fathered on the late King and prefixed to the Articles had so much power with his Printer that he durst net to alter the word Queen into King even in the year 1642. and those Articles must be read verbatim without alteration or explanation then we say again there is a necessity of reforming that Article in the expression of it and not to talk at randome what was indeed the meaning unlesse we may have leave when we read it Regia Declaratione non obstante to declare the sense which the Declaration alloweth us not to do Your Resolution to assert the Regal Supremacy I am glad to hear but how the Expression in the 37. Article should be improper I cannot understand The Article was made in the year 1562. the Subscription is required to the Article made in that year by the Act of the 13. Eliz. The Expression which you call improper is the Queens Majesty hath the Supreme Power and is this improper in an Article acknowledged to be made in that year was there not then a Queen which had the Supreme Power that is to say a Queen Regnant As for your expression of the Declaration fathered on the late King it seemeth to me much more improper I believe you cannot prove but that Declaration was His own as much as any other Declaration was His or any King's And for a Subject to speak so of His King or to judge and declare what Declaration is His and what is not is certainly at least very improper That pious King and blessed Martyr was too often thus used but never that I know by any that professed themselves so daring to assert His Regal Supremacy as you do His Declarations were denyed to be His though asserted framed pend by himself His Book denyed to be His though none could pen it but himself He was denyed to have declared what He did constantly profess to have written what He wrote to have spoken what He spake and at last sure some
will deny Him to have suffered what He endured But as to that conceit of yours that this Declaration had so much power with the Printer that he durst not to alter the word Queen into King even in the year 1642. it seems to me so strange that I cannot imagine that you ever considered it when you wrote it you are so angry with the Declaration that it must be guilty of every thing The Articles were several times Printed after the death of Queen Elizabeth and before the Declaration of Charles I. and in them you will find the word Queen not turned into the word King and I pray you what power hid the Kings Declaration with the Printers then They were printed by Robert Norton 1612. by Bonham Norton and John Bill 1624. both Editions have the words as they were in the Queens time and yet there was no Declaration then to inforce them not to alter the words Do you imagin that the Printers had any power to alter the words of the Articles of the Church if there were no Declaration to preserve them entire Assure your self it was not the Power of the Kings Declaration but the duty of the Printer which caused him not to vary from his Copy from which none of the Printers from die death of the Queen did ever vary and that for the same cause I beseeeh you therefore Sir acknowledg the Declaration to be the Kings as Mr. Burton did and say not that it was father'd upon that blessed Martyr which Mr. Burton himself would not endure and when you have acknowledged that the Declaration was the Kings acknowledge also that it was not the cause of the continuation of the words of the Articles because those words were constantly continued without that Declaration and which is more the Declaration it selfe gives not any command expresly for the words but onely for the Literall and Grammaticall sense And now the Printer hath done his part to print the Queens Majesty according to his Copie The Incumbent without any other Act of Parliament for alteration of those words or without an annulling of the Kings Declaration may reade the Kings Majesty and not thereby be in danger of any Law and the reason is clear because the Kings Majesty and the Queens Majesty speaking of a Queen regnant as the Article speaketh is the same thing in the Law For you may be pleased to take notice what was declared by the second Parliament 1 Mariae cap. 1. Be it declared and enacted by the Authority of this preesnt Parliament That the Laws of this Realm is and ever hath bin and ought to be understand that the Kingly or Regal Office of this Realm and all Dignities Prerogative Royal Power Preheumencer Priviledges Authorities and Jurisdictions thereunto annexed united or belonging being invested either in Male or Female are and be and ought to be as fully wholly absolutely and entirely déemed judged accepted invested and taken in the one as in the other c. And therefore Sir Edward Coke in his Commentaries upon the Statute of 25. Ed. 3. de Proditionibus making it Treason to imagine the death of our Lord the King saith that a Queen Regnant is within these words Nostre Seignior le Roy for she hath the Office of a King and whereas the same Statute maketh it Treason to imagine the death of the Kings eldest Son and Heir he saith that the eldest Son and Heir of a Queen Regnant is within this Law Being then the Law maketh no distinction between a King and a Queen Regnant being it looketh not upon the Sex which may be different but upon the Office which is wholly the same in either Sex beeing the Doctrine of the Church is wholly agreeable with the Law of the Land in this particular therefore there needeth no reformation in this case because whatsoever assertion is set forth concerning the Sovereign power if it be spoken in the life of a Queen and in the Title of a Queen it may be also spoken in the life of a King in the title of a King if it be asserted in the life time of a King under the Title of a King it may be spoken in the life of a Queen under the Title of a Queen and that without fear of the breach of any Law of the Land or Doctrine of the Church Assure your self therefore that notwithstanding the Act of the 13. of Eliz. and notwithstanding the Declaration of Charles I. you may yet read in the Articles the Kings Majesty and there is no necessity of an Act of Parliament to make or justifie that alteration Your last Paragraph is this As concerning the Law part though you strain hard yet I hold it not worth one line of Reply till you have answered the four Queries propounded in page 61. and 62. of our Book Not that I would wave ought which deserveth Answer but to spare labour where it would be in the judgement of wise men ridiculous to bestow it This is spoken in love to the truth and to your self also by Your Servant and Brother if you please C. BVRGES To which I answer First that till you Answer that Law-part I shall take it to be unanswerable as to use your language many wise and learned men do 2. The condition required by you is very strange that you will not answer my Discourse till I have answered those four Queries when one of the four hath no kind of Relation to the Articles and the Ground of another concerns them not But that if it be possible I may obtain a serious Reply from you to what I nave delivered concerning the Legall Confirmation of our Publick Doctrine I will here punctually answer to the Queries so far as they concern the Articles which are now in question and do further promise that I will answer the rest of the same Queries so farre as they concern any other subject when I come to treat of that subject which they concern Your first Quere as to the Articles runs thus page 61. Whither if there be anything of substance altered in or added to the Articles and those Alterations not expressely mentioned and confirmed by Parliament this doth not make those Articles to be void in Law if pleaded in Law The Ground of this Quere is the Act of the 13. Eliz. This is the Quere and the ground but how that Act should be produced as the Ground of that Quere I cannot see The Act relateth to the Subscription of the Articles the Ground of the Quere is a supposed alteration of the Articles for if the Articles were not altered to what purpose is the Quere and certainly Alteration and Subscription are two severall things It is required by the Law that every person admitted to a Benefice with cure do declare his assent unto all the Articles comprised in a Book imprinted with a certain Title if those Articles so comprised be pleaded in Law they can be no way voided in Law if any other1 Articles