Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A91567
|
An ansvver to Dr. Burges his vvord 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.
|
Pearson, John, 1613-1686.
|
1660
(1660)
|
Wing P993; Thomason E1045_4; ESTC R202285
|
15,143
|
22
|
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
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