No Sacrilege or Sin to Alienate or Purchase Cathedral Lands, Postscript
A WORD by way of Post-script, to Dr. Pearson, and his No Necessity of Reformation of the Publick Doctrine of the Church of England.
SIR,
ALthough your Tract be of another Subject, which wise and learned men hold unworthy of Answer; yet finding a little wast 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 ofReformation 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 VsUs. 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.
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, until 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 onelyonly with your own shadow. Let them part you, that have a mind to it: we have other business to do.
2. We argue a Necessity of Reformation; 1. 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 sorth. For, the Words (which should be clear) being ambiguous, are capable of more senses, than 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 express 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.
3. In our particular instances of Defects in the 39 Articles, we deny not any truths contained in them; but only 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 only, as to the expressions, which we desire may be reformed by amending of them.
4. 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 in this particular, is onelyonly 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.
5. 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 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 subscription 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?
6. 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 your self 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 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 wholsome Doctrine, necessary for these times. And if it be not; then whether there be not a a necessity of Reforming that 35th Article, as to that point of the Homilies.
7. As touching the Regal Supremacy, we own and will assert it as far as you do, or dare. OnelyOnly 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 not 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, 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.
8. 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 pag. 61. & 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 yourself also, by
Your Servant (and Brother, if you please) C. BURGES.
FINIS.
End of the text · Cornelius Burges, No Sacrilege or Sin to Alienate or Purchase Cathedral Lands (1660)