AN ANSWER TO Dr. BURGES HIS WORD BY WAY OF POSTSCRIPT. In Vindication of No Necessity of Reformation of the Public 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. BURGES.  
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, etc. 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 Public Doctrine, etc. wherein you set up Shawfowles of your own (calling them ours) and then shoot at them as you list, which you call Answers to Us. 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 outleaps, 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 real 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 subjoin my Answer to them.  
Your Reply you return by way of Generals, the first of which ●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 show, 1. that there is no necessity of subscription, by virtue 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, until they be reform. But, you make us speak that we never so much as dreamt of, nor ever mentioned in our Reasons: and so, you fight only with your own shadow. Let them part you, that have a mind to it: we have other business 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 Public Doctrine of the Church in the Nonestablishment by Law. The truth, of which thus I prove. In what you did place the Doubtfulness of the Articles, in that you did place the Necessity of Reformation. This is a clear Proportion. For having first propounded REASONS SHOWING 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 Doubtful 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 Nonestablishment by Law you did place the Doubtfulness of the Articles. This also is a clear Proposition; for thus you proceeded in your Argument, 1. Doubtful, because it appears not that they were all or any of them confirmed by Parliament in the 13. Eliz. From these two Propositions, as Premises, necessarily followeth this conclusion, In the Nonestablishment 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 despair of persuading you to place the Necefssity of this Reformation no where.  
To the next words of this Paragraph, But our work is to show, First, that there is no necessity of subscription by virtue of the Act of 13. Eliz. 12. because that thereby those Articles now urged do not appear to be by that Law established. I answer, Your proposal was, There is a Necessity of Reformation, your work, you say, is to show that there is no Necessity of Subscription; therefore your proposal is one thing, and your work is another. Whereas one would imagine that the work of him which writes should be to show 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 do not appear to be established by Law, while you say yourself you do not place the Necessity of Reformation in their Nonestablishment 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 until they be reform, 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 success. 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, show 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 legal Convocation, and a greater establishment than this is not to be had in this Church or Kingdom: if you mean a continuation of establishment, that they ought no longer to stand established; you do in some sense oppose yourself 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 only to the Clergy, but the whole Realm: for as the same Learned Lord Chief Justice teacheth us in his 4. Inst, cap. 1. The Court of Parliament consisteth of the King's Majesty sitting there as in his Royal politic capacity, and of the three Estates of the Realm, one of which he saith representeth all the Commons of the whole Realm.  
As for the remainder of the Paragraph, I deny that I make you speak any thing which you never mentioned in your Reasons: and whensoever you shall produce any such particular, I will make my denial good.  
Your Second General 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 speak 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, than one; and so, may be, and are wrested to patronise Errors. Therefore they ought to be reform by such an Orthodox explanation, as may distinctly and positively express the true sense of the Church; and not left so homonymous and equivocal, as to countenance those Errors 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 speak 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: no●●o doubt of that which we declare doubtful, or to declare that doubtful 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 show 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, than the Doubt of the sense is no way Material; if this or that sense make a variation in the Doctrine, than 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 fare 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 than one, and I say it is to be believed that there are not so many Words in any so many Doctrinal 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 patronise Errors; 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 reform by such an Orthodox explanation; for there may be an explanation of that (and that explanation Orthodox) which cannot be reform. 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 imagine that you have Necessity to reform it. The possibility of being wrested to patronise Errors toucheth no more the Words of the Articles than 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 Errors 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 Sacrilege 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 expressly commanded by God, or given by his special warrant.  
Your third General, 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 only show what misconstructions 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 only as to the expressions, which we desire may be reform by amending of them.  
To which I answer, that as often as I read this Paragraph, I might question myself whether I understand any thing of this Controversy or no. When I consider the matter of it, I am so kind to myself as to imagine I understand it; when I consider the Author, I am so kind to you, as to suspect myself to be mistaken; for if I be not, there is not only, no truth, but no sense in it. For, what do these words signify, 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 show any misconstructions in the Articles, as now they be worded. And if by such Defects you: cannot show 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 Creation, and this you urge as a Defect. Now I ask, What misconstruction can: you show in any Article by virtue of this supposed defect? or what expression can therefore render any Article fit to be rejected, for this reason only 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 General is this, Whereas we assert that many necessary Doctrines are wanting in those 39 Articles, we intent 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 only an Addition of those necessary Truths, duly set forth and explained, as may make the Public Doctrine of our Church complete, 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 intent 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 Public 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 intent not to reject them with that limitation, ye may at the same time intent 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 only an Addition, and I say, that whatsoever is only an Addition, is not a Reformation: For wheresoever there is a Reformation, something must be reform. But where there is only an Addition, there is nothing reform. For if any thing were thereby reform, 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 Public Doctrine of our Church complete, 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 intent 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 complete 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 denied by some persons, who upon their deny all are thought unfit to have any cure of souls in this Church or Realm, because they might by their opinions, either infect their flock, with error, or else disturb 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 Controversy 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 explicit 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, than the Book of Exodus is a Reformation of Genesis, than Joshuah a Reformation of the Books of Moses, than the addition of the Judges was a Reformation of Moses, or the addition of St. John's Gospel, the Reformation of St. Matthew's.  
Your fifth General followed) thus, Whereas you struggle to prove that the 39 Articles do include many, if not all of those Doctrines which we hold needful to be added; We admit that some of them are touched 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, aught to be explained as well as the other: Or, no subseription to be urged, but only 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 touched 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 touched 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 Effectual 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 touched 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 alleged 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 alleged, 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 inconsequential, because the bare naming of them, upon which it was grounded, is a fiction.  
To the latter part of the Paragraph, where you ask 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 ask, to what purpose is that Question? for there was no such Assertion delivered by me. All which I spoke was only to show 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 comprised 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 only 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 show that the most part of the 20. Doctrines mentioned by you are comprised in the Creed; which I absolutely deny: Prove if your can that, because some of them are comprised 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: Show that being comprised 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 General followeth, As for your many Quibbles and Retortions, (all built upon these sandy foundations) I shall value them no more than you value us. Only that mistake of the Homily in point of Title, may be pardoned, when yourself confess 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 justify, 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 entreat you to show 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 civil reply; howsoever I am resolved so far to value you and your writings. The mistake of the Homily in point of Title is easily pardoned, 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 showed your mistake, you refuse to rectify it. I did clearly distingnish between the Doctrines delivered in the Articles, and the Illustrations of them; I did show that the 35. Article did bind us to the acknowledgement 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 only against some expressions in the Illustrations or accumulated authothorities: when I had shown 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 easy; for it is no more than this, That the people ought to read the Scriptures is a godly and wholesome Doctrine: This is the only Doctrine of one of the Homilies accused. That it is profitable for a wan to exercise himself in Almsdeeds, is a godly and wholesome Doctrine; this is the only Doctrine of the other Homily accused. The Articles speak 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 General is this, As touching the Regal Supremacy we own and will assert it as far as you do, or dare. Only we had reason to take notice of the improper Expression in the 37. Article, that the Queen's 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 random what was indeed the meaning, unless 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 Queen's 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 denied to be His; though asserted, framed, penned by himself; His Book denied to be His, though none could pen it but himself: He was denied to have declared what He did constantly profess, to have written what He wrote, to have spoken what He spoke; 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 hide the King's 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 Queen's time, and yet there was no Declaration then to enforce them not to alter the words. Do you imagine 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 yourself, it was not the Power of the King's 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, acknowledge the Declaration to be the Kings, as Mr. Burton did, and say not that it was fathered 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 itself gives not any command expressly for the words, but only for the Literal and Grammatical sense.  
And now the Printer hath done his part to print the Queen's Majesty, according to his Copy; The Incumbent, without any other Act of Parliament for alteration of those words, or without an annulling of the King's Declaration, may read the King's Majesty, and not thereby be in danger of any Law; and the reason is clear, because the King's Majesty and the Queen's 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 been and ought to be understand, that the Kingly or Regal Office of this Realm, and all Dignities, Prerogative, Royal Power, Preheumencer, Privileges, Authorities and Jurisdictions thereunto annexed, united or belonging, being invested either in Male or Female, are, and be, and aught to be, as fully, wholly, absolutely and entirely deemed, judged, accepted, invested and taken in the one as in the other, etc. 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 King's 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, being 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 yourself 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 King's Majesty, and there is no necessity of an Act of Parliament to make or justify 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 aught 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 yourself also, by  
Your Servant (and Brother, if you please) C. BURGES.  
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 Legal Confirmation of our Public 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 fare 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 expressly 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 several 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 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 substantial 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 substantial 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 substantial alteration of, or addirion to those Articles mentioned in the Act of 13. Eliz. and do assert that, the Articles, to which the late King's Declaration was affixed, are the same with them in number, nature, substance, words; as I am assured having myself diligently collated them with an Edition of the Articles printed by Richard Jugge, and John Cawood, Printers to the Queen's Majesty in Anno Domini 1571. Being therefore the Articles enjoined 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 only reference in itself to the Alterations which I have denied, and having no reference in the Ground to the Articles at all, can require no further answer here, where the Articles, only are concerned.  
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 mean 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 several 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 several Grounds, that it will be very difficult to show them all; first, the supposition of the Quere is incongruous, as implying that which is contrary to the proceed 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 plead Not guilty, but upon proof made in the Ecclesiastical 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 Offender against that Statute, appeared from the proceed against John Durston, mentioned in 6. part of Sir Edward Coke's Reports, page 29. in Green's case, whole words are these. Le Signior Pawlet 6. Aprilis 1574. Present all 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. all suit del dit Thomas Signior 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 enjoined 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 Proceed in the Case, and putteth that upon the Plaintiff which belongeth to the Defendant, and therefore the Quere may be wholly denied in every part of it.  
Again, as the Quere is inconsistent to itself, so the Grounds are either false in themselves, or at lest no way concerning the intent of the Quere. The first Ground I have already refuted, showing that the Record, that is, the Original of the Articles is to be found, and if it were not, the Articles comprised 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 find any more than the Act expresseth. And if any man read 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 several times altered since the Act of 13. of Eliz. It is so far from truth, that I can aver, as I have done before, that the Articles now in force are the same with the Articles comprised 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 King's 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 punished 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 enroled 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 careful 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 persuade any man that your new plea, if there were any such to be admitted, would prove invalid.  
Your fourth Quere concerneth the Canons only 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 stepped 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 only because I think it not proper to confound the Subjects of which I intent to treat. 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 show that there is no such Necessity of a Reformation of the Public 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 myself 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 myself,  
Your Servant and Brother, J. PEARSON.  
FINIS.