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
Creation and this you urge as a Defect Now I ask What misconstruction can you shew in any Article by vertue of this supposed defect or what expression can therefore render any Article fit to be rejected for this reason onely because it containeth nothing of the Creation If there be no other misconstructions in the Articles then what arise from that which is not in the Articles if there be no other expressions as now they are worded to be rejected but such as are not contained we may safely pronounce the Articles in and of themselves to be in no great danger of misconstructions and to contain in them no rejectable expressions Your fourth Generall is this Whereas we assert that many necessary Doctrines are wanting in those 39. Articles we intend not therefore to reject any of the Articles themselves so far as they concur with the holy Scriptures but the Reformation we desire this particular is onely an Addition of those necessary Truths duly set forth and explained as may make the Publick Doctrine of our Church compleat before Subscription to those few as if they were all which our Church will own Here we say again that a necessary Addition is properly a Reformation of that which is defective to make it perfect To which I answer that while you say you intend not to reject any of the Articles so far as they concur with the holy Scriptures you might have said as much of other things no way so much concerning as the Publick Doctrine the Question is whether you do believe the Articles do condur with the holy Scriptures and when you give your unfeigned assent you are supposed to so much you know what was resolved by all the Judges of England that he which subscribed the 39. Articles with this Addition so far as the same are agreeable to the Word of God might by his own private opinion take some of them to be against the Word of God While therefore you make that profession only that you intend not to reject them with that limitation ye may at the same time intend to reject any of them because you may at the same time believe that they concur not with the Scriptures The Reformation you desire is onely an Addition and I say that whatsoever is onely an Addition is not a Reformation For wheresoever there is a Reformation something must be reformed But where there is onely an Addition there is nothing reformed For if any thing were thereby reformed it must either be that which is added or that to which it is added but neither that which is added is at all reformed by only being added neither is that to which it is added at all reformed by the sole adding of something to it which hath no other operation on it to which it is added Whereas you speak of making the Publick Doctrine of our Church compleat before Subscription to those few as if they were all which our Church will own So far as I understand your words for to say the truth what coherence you intend those words before Subscription to those few I do not apprehend you seem to mistake the Subject of the Question that is the Nature of the Book of Articles and the design of the Church in agreeing upon them and subscribing to them For the Book of Articles is not nor is pretended to be a compleat Body of Divinity or a Comprehension and Explication of all Christian Doctrines necessary to be taught but an Enumeration of some Truths which upon and since the Reformation have been denyed by some persons who upon their deny all are thought unfit to have any cure of souls in this Church or Realme because they might by their opinions either infect their flock with error or else disturbe the Church with schism or the Realm with sedition This appeareth by the Title of the first Articles agreed upon in the year 1552. for the avoiding of Controversie in opinions and the establishment of a godly Concord in certain matters of Religion If therefore some Necessary Doctrine of Religion in which all agree or some other Doctrine in which an explicite consent or agreement in all the Pastors of the Church is not necessary be not contained in the Articles it doth render them no way defective because they cannot be said thereby to want any thing for which they were intended When therefore you say again that a Necessary Addition is properly a Reformation first I deny your Addition to be necessary and then I say again that such an Addition to the Articles would be no more a Reformation of the Articles then the Book of Exodus is a Reformation of Genesis then Joshuah a Reformation of the Books of Moses then the addition of the Judges was a Reformation of Moses or the addition of St. Johns Gospel the Reformation of St. Matthew's Your fifth Generall followed thus Whereas you struggle to prove that the 39. Articles do include many if not all of those Doctrines which we hold needfull to be added We admit that some of them are touch'd upon by name but not explained as the nature of the things requireth and as those points be which are the subjects of the 39. Articles If then the naming them on the by be enough to prove that there is no need of more then the bare naming of the Titles of the 39. Articles had been sufficient without the body of the Articles themselves or else those other Doctrines which are but named ought to be explained as well as the other Or no subseription to be urged but onely to the holy Scriptures themselves which are infallible and contain all Doctrines necessary to salvation To what purpose then is that assertion that the Creed being mentioned in the Articles there is no need of adding more Articles because they are comprehended within the Creed or named in the 39. Articles To which I answer that when you say you admit that some of the Doctrines are touch'd upon by name and not explained as the Nature of the things requireth you deny that which is true and admit that which is false For those Doctrines which I instanced in saying and proving that it was not true which you asserted of them viz. that the Articles contain nothing of them are not touch'd upon by name but expressed in the Nature of them The first Article I affirmed to contain something of the Creation but it does not touch upon the name The 17. Article I affirmed to contain something of Effectuall calling in which the name is not mentioned but the nature of it delivered The 35. Article I affirmed to contain something of Faith and Repentance which doth not so much as touch upon the name of either but confirmeth the Homilies which treateth fully of the nature of each Whereas you say they are touch'd upon by name but not explained as those Points be which are the Subjects of the 39. Articles this is also untrue in the Doctrine of Sin for that
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
the remainder of the Paragraph I deny that I make you speake any thing which you never mentioned in your Reasons and whensoever you shall produce any such particular I will make my deniall good Your Second Generall is this We argue a Necessity of Reformation I. From the Doubtfulness 2. From the Defect of the 39. Articles But you will needs have us to speake in a sense contrary to our meaning We doubt not of the Doctrines themselves rightly explained but of the Words wherein they are set forth For the Words which should be clear being ambiguous are capaple of more senses then one and so may be and are wrested to patronize Errours Therefore they ought to be reformed by such an Orthodox explanation as may distinctly and positively expresse the true sense of the Church and not left so homonymous and equivocal as to countenance those Errours which we believe the Church of England disclaimeth To the first part of which Paragraph I answer that you did so argue I confess that you made good any Argument I deny and that I would have you speake in a sense contrary to your meaning I also deny if you mean what you say To urge a Necessity of Reformation of Doctrine in regard of the Doubtfulnest and at the same time to say We doubt not of the Doctrines seemeth to me very strange noâ—â—o doubt of that which we declare doubtfull or to declare that doubtfull of which we doubt nor being equally unreasonable As for your way of salving this Contradidion We doubt not of the Doctrines themselves rightly explained but of the Words wherein they are set forth I shall earnestly contend and evidently shew that it will no way salve it for if you doubt of the Words wherein the Dodrine is set forth you must doubt what is the Doctrine which is set forth in the Words and the Reason is plain because the Doctrine which is set forth in the Words is nothing else but the meaning of the Words in which it is set forth When you say you doubt of the Words it is not a doubt whether such words be in the Article or no but whether the Words have this or that sense as they stand in the Article If this or that sense make no variation in the Doctrine then the Doubt of the sense is no way Materiall if this or that sense make a variation in the Doctrine then a doubt of the sense must be a doubt of the Doctrine In vain therefore do you pretend not to doubt of the Doctrines themselves rightly explained while you profess to doubt of the Words wherein they are set forth because while you doubt of the true meaning of the Words you must also doubt whether they be rightly explained for the true meaning of the words and the right explaining is the same thing Either therefore say you doubt not of the Doctrines and doubt not of the Words or else say you doubt of the Words and doubt what are the Doctrines for to say you doubt of the one and doubt not of the other is a Contradiction except you could find in the Articles Doctrines without words The next words of the Paragraph are very farre from any truth in their Assertion and farther if it be possible in their Collection For the first you say the Words are very ambiguous and capable of more senses then one and I say it is to be believed that there are not so many Words in any so many Doctrinall Assertions in the world which are not as ambiguous and capable of as many senses as they are For the second you say the Words may be and are wrested to patronize Errours and I say so are the words of the Scripture or else the Apostle speaketh not truth But when follow with your earnestness of Reformation you clearly discover the weakness of your Argumentation in these words Therefore they ought to be reformed by such an Orthodox explanation for there may be an explanation of that and that explanation Orthodox which cannot be reformed I hope you think not of Reforming the Scriptures and yet I hope if you have an occasion to explain them you will do it Orthodoxly If therefore you have occasion to give an Orthodox explication of an Article do not imagin that you have Necessity to reform it The possibility of being wrested to patronize Errours toucheth no more the Words of the Articles then the Word of God which we are assured the ignorant and unstable may wrest and we are not assured that any other can wrest the Words of the Articles but such as can wrest the Word of God As for the last words of this Paragraph touching Errours which you believe the Church of England disclaimeth I confess I know not how well to answer them for this reason and no other because I know not what you believe Neither can I imagine that you will believe either Church or Parliament when you deny any Sacriledge of things not required by God by express command or given by his special warrant in your address to this Parliament which hath unanimously declared Sacrilege in the taking away the Utensils of the Church which you can never prove were expresly commanded by God or given by his special warrant Your third Generall if I may so call it is this In our particular instances of Defects in the 39. Articles we deny not any truths contained in them but onely shew what mis-constructions are or may be made of them as now they be worded Therefore our purpose is not to press the rejecting of them as to the matter but onely as to the expressions which we desire may be reformed by amending of them To which I answer that as often as I read this Paragraph I might question my self whether I understand any thing of this Controversie or no. When I consider the matter of it I am so kind to my self as to imagin I understand it when I consider the Author I am so kind to you as to suspect my self to be mistaken for if I be not there is not onely no truth but no sense in it For what do these words signifie In our particular instances of Defects in the 39. Articles we deny not any truths contained in them Is it possible to deny any truths contained in the Articles by any particular instances of defects in the Articles Is a Defect any thing else then a Negation of something which you conceive should be in them and can a supposed Negation of that which should be in them cause a falsity of that which is really in them In brief I absolutely deny that by any particular instances Defects you have or can shew any misconstructions in the Articles as now they be worded And if by such Defects you cannot shew such misconstructions you cannot with any reason upon the same Defects press the rejecting of the Articles as to the expressions For example you say the Articles contain nothing of the Doctrine of the
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