Brotherly Persuasion to Unity and Uniformity, Tract · Chapter 13
CHAP. 13. Touching the yeelding to the now vrged ſubſcription: and anſwering certaine obiections againſt the ſame.
BEing therefore now come to the queſtion about this ſubſcription howſoeuer heretofore it was doubted whether it had any expreſſ law or canon to warrant it or no, now wee are put out of doubte thereof by theſe laſt cannons, and namely by the 36, in that wee ſee and know them all to be ſo authoriſed by his Maieſtie as they are, who hath full and ſufficient authority by his highneſſe tytle & prerogatiue confirmed vntounto him by expreſſe law otherwiſe, ſo to doe. And therefore we cannot be now ignorant, but that our reuerend fathers the Biſhops, hauehave thereby authority, to vrge ſuch miniſters thereunto, as bee vnderunder their iuriſdictions, at ſuch times, and in ſuch caſes, and vponupon ſuch occaſions, and in ſuch manner, as are expreſſed in the ſaid canons, and alſo vnderunder the penalties to the refuſers, then ſpecified in the ſame. Wherefore as I ſaid of the former ſo I muſt needs ſay of this, ſo farre as there is nothing within the compaſſe therof, either in the owne nature, or as it is meant by the order of our Church, and the gouernors thereof, contrary either to ſound faith or good manners, taught in Gods word, conſcience (in reſpect of them and this their authority which they hauehave now by law or canon, though not in regard of the bare nature of eueryevery thing within the reach of the ſame) without all queſtion doth bind vsus, for the Churches good, and our owne, to yeeld thereunto. And this is certaine, the firſt Article touching his Maieſties iuſt Title and ſupremacie therin ſet downe, & the laſt touching the booke of Articles (ſo far forth as they concern faith & the ſacraments) all mē of our religion & profeſſion that hold communion with vsus, hauehave alwaies ſince ſubſcription hath beene firſt required, beene willing and ready to yeeld the ſame, acknowledging, as by the lawes of the realme, ſo alſo by the lawes of God, for the plaine and manifeſt truth therin contained, that they were bound in cōſcience alſo, euen for the matter therof, ſo to do. The queſtion therfore concerning this point lies in this, whether the reſt contained in theſe thre articles mentioned in that 36 canon, & in the form there ſet down, may be yeelded vntounto with a ſafe & good cōſcience, wherūto firſt I ſay, that cōparing the Articles wher vntounto now ſubſcriptiō is required, with the 3 that formerly were wont to be vrged, touching either the whole, or the reſt, now only in queſtion, I find no great difference; ſome words are added in the firſt ſomewhat more fully to expreſſe his Maieſties title and ſupremacy, wherof therefore I think eueryevery one likes ſo much the better, and as for the ſecond, it is word for word, the ſame it was, and that requires that by our ſubſcription therunto, we only aduouch, that thoſe twoe bookes therein named (the booke of common prayer, and the booke of ordering Biſhops, Prieſts and Deacons) containe nothing contrary to the word of God, and in the laſt, as I finde theſe words added; (now to make it plaine how many articles the ſaid booke of Articles containes) being in number 39 beſides the ratification, ſo I obſerue for the word beleeueth, vſed before touching all the Articles therein contained, as it there is expreſly ſet downe, a ſofter word put, namely acknowledgeth, ſo that herein euen in the conſtruction of thoſe that moſt miſlike and write againſt the former, it is moſt cleare, that this now vrged is in reſpect of the matter therof, the very ſame, if not better and eaſier, then it was before, eſpecially conſidering alſo the things amended & explaned in the booke of common prayer of late, as was noted in the beginning.
2 If any ſay yet, now it is worſe then it was, in reſpect of the forme, becauſe now is added ex animo, where it was before but volens, that is ſuch a difference, whereupon it will not follow that it is one iot worſe then it was before: for who can indeed ſay or write that he doth a thing volens, and yet not ex animo? it alſo appearing by that which I hauehave ſaid already of the former point, that our Church by theſe laſt canons, hath in nothing made the ſenſe of any thing harder then it was before, it muſt neees follow that now to refuſe thus to ſubſcribe, for any that hauehave ſubſcribed before, is rather an argument of inconſtancy in them then otherwiſe. And this is well knowne, and doubtles the Biſhop (I am perſwaded, by publike record vnderunder our hands (can proue, that very few or none of vsus, that hauehave entred into the miniſtry, or hauehave beene inſtituted or admitted by them to any liuing ſince the thirteenth yeare of her Maieſties raigne that laſt was, but wee hauehave both for the one, and the other, how oft ſo euer that hath beene in the latter reſpect ſo oft ſubſcribed vntounto; the conſideration whereof, one would thinke might bee ſome motiue vntounto vsus, the leſſe to ſticke at it now againe, if neede ſo require.
3 This alſo in my opinion may bee an other of ſome force the rather to draw vsus thereunto, that we plainely ſee in the ſecond article, the reuerend fathers and our brethren that firſt with them agreed in Conuocation, that this forme (to breed vnitie and vniformitie, as they hoped) of ſubſcription ſhould be vrged, thereby only concluded that we ſhould aduouch nothing to bee contained in thoſe two bookes mentioned in the ſecond article, and about which indeed all the queſtion is, as I hauehave ſayd, in this caſe, contrarie to the word of God. Which (as I, and many others hauehave heard ſome of the chiefe that then were) proteſt, they did of purpoſe therby to eaſe the conſciences of the ſubſcribers, as much as might be: for that as they knew ſundry things within the compaſſe of the ſaid bookes to be prater verbum & diuerſa à verbo (which was lawfull enough in things of that nature that they were) ſo they knew alſo, that it was far les to ſay accordingly that they contained nothing contrarie to the word, then that all things contained therein were agreeable to the word, as they require we ſhould ſay touching the booke of Articles, containing the moſt ſubſtantiall grounds and points of the doctrine of faith and the Sacrament, wherof the third article is: vnleſſe therfore in their ſenſe, we can ſhew ſome things that thoſe bookes containe contrary to the word, we ſay nothing againſt the forme of ſubſcription thereby required.
4 To ſay or thinke that the booke of Common prayer containes ſome thing contrarie to the word of God, either becauſe it appoints the Canonicall Scriptures but to be read as it doth, or the Apocrypha chapters mentioned in the Kalenders, I hope by that which I hauehave ſaid before, at large of both thoſe points, it wil or may appear, that therfore it is not ſo. For therby I hauehave ſhewed that in good conſtruction, (and but yet in ſuch as may well ſtand with any thing ſet downe in those kookes) in both thoſe reſpects, it containes nothing but that which a man may lawfully accordingly practiſe & conforme himſelfe vntounto, & therfore nothing contrary to the word: and the like alſo I hope I may aſſume of all the reſt contained therin, in the foreſaid diſcourſe cleared of the obiectiōs made againſt thē touching cōformity: & that therfore now againe, I ſhall not need to trouble the reader with any further reherſall therof. For as I ſaid in the beginning, ſo far as one may lawfully & with a good conſcience go in his practiſe & vſe, he may alſo go in this forme of ſubſcribing therunto: and this is certaine alſo, that that which the authoriſed book containes not, nor binds vsus to practiſe (lying within the compaſſe of theſe things we ſhold practiſe, if the books meaning were indeed to bind vsus thereuno) that, we need not thinke, that it containes at all, thus farre to be iuſtified by ſubſcription: Let vsus heare therfore what further particularly can be obiected againſt this ſubſcription, either out of the book of comon prayer, or out of the other. Some thing further I find to this end obiected, out of the tracts of the communion &, baptiſm, & ſomething out of that of confirmation.
5 Out of the tract of the communion for the ſicke that there in a certaine caſe, the communion is allowed to be adminiſtred to one alone, as namely when he is ſicke of a contagious diſeaſe, and none can be got to communicate with him, and that it is there in the treatiſe of the publike communion alſo permitted vntounto ſome of the communicants to make the generall confeſſion of ſinnes in his owne name, and of all the reſt, as it is there ſet downe; both which are held to be contrarie to the word, For that the miniſter by the inſtitution is to ſay, eate ye and drinke yee all of this, which he cannot ſay to one alone, and that ſo to make confeſſion of ſinnes is held to be, by the word properly and onelyonly belonging to the miniſter. Neither of theſe I alledged in the former diſcourſe, becauſe though they bee both in the communion booke, yet they are neither of them there ſo ſet downe, as that neceſſarily either of them need euer come into practiſe, and very ſeldome or neuer hauehave they, or are like to do: for in the former it is expreſly ſet downe, that in that caſe onelyonly vponupon ſpeciall requeſt of the diſeaſed, the miniſter may alone communicate with him, it ſaith not that either he muſt or ought; and therfore we may be ſure, for feare of his owne perill, he will chuſe rather not ſo to do, then ſo to adminiſter it, eſpecially ſeeing the preface to the communion for the ſicke, and a rubricke after therein, ſeeme rather to wiſh that to be neuer miniſtred without a conuenient companie, and that the people by oft communicating, and by good inſtruction, ſhall be brought to that vnderſtanding, that they ſhould neuer need to deſire it ſo inconueniently to be adminiſtred, and the 67 Canon now binds not the miniſter to go ſo much as to viſit the ſick, in caſe his diſeaſe be known, or but probably ſuſpected to be infectious: and the other is alſo ſo permitted to one of the receiuers (in the rubricke before the ſayd confeſſion) as that the ſaid confeſſion is to be made either by one of them, or by one of the miniſters, or by the prieſt himſelfe; and therefore (being ſo ſet downe) that alwayes it ſhall lie in the miniſters or prieſts choiſe, whether any of the other lay communicants ſhal ſay it or no, they hauehave, wil, & may, by the book ſo preuēt that incōuenience, that it ſhall need neuer (more then it hath done) come to be ſo vſed, And thus alſo indeed we ſee euen by the ſame reaſons that neither of theſe are ſo contained in the booke, as that they need to trouble any in the ſubſcribing thereunto. And therefore as the latter is not once remembred, either by the writers of the admonition, or by M. Cartwright, as worthy once to be obiected againſt the booke, ſo the other though it be obiected by both, is neither acknowledged nor once defended, by the late Archbiſhop in his anſwer vntounto them (as you may ſee Pag. 528. & 229. of his booke) as at all contained or mentioned in the ſeruice booke; yea Pag. 525. (belike for the reaſons aforeſaid) he ſaith flatly that there is no receiuing of one alone alowed in the booke. But ſuppoſe the worſt; if it ſhould be held to be contrarie to the word, either to miniſter it in a priuat houſe, or that the miniſter in any caſe ſhould miniſter it to one alone, we muſt then condemne all antiquity, euen in Iustin Martyrs, Tertullians, and Cyprians times, in whoſe times Maiſter Cartwright is inforced to confeſſe it was miniſtred in priuate houſes, in the foreſaid page 525. & in Serapians time, who had it ſent him lying ſick on his death bed, to be receiued alone, as we read in Euſebius Lib. 6. Cap. 43. And though there be but two, the miniſter and the ſick, yet in reference to them two, it may be ſaid take ye, eat yee, and wee know that Chriſt hath promiſed that when two or three are gathered togeather in his name, hee will bee in the middeſt of them. Math. 18. And wee know that Bucer and Peter Martyr allowed our communion booke, euen in reſpect of the communion therein preſcribed for the ſick, in their iudgments that they gaue thereof, and likewiſe that Muſculus: de coena Domini confeſſes that it is retained in diuerſe reformed Churches, yea neither Beza nor Caluin, but in ſome caſe they allowed it, and Oecolampadius as it is written in his life, denied it not the ſicke, but in this caſe we need none of theſe helps, becauſe this thing in queſtion is ſo mentioned in the communion booke as rather yet it is diſalowed thereby then allowed, & cannot iuſtly be ſaid to be contained therein, and is ſo ſhut out againe (as we hauehave heard) both by the drift of the ſame, & by the foreſaid Canons explayning the meaning of the book touching the miniſters duty in viſiting of the ſicke. And further of the other neede not be ſaid, for it is ſo there permitted, as with all, ſtreight (as we … hauehave heard) the vſe of that permiſsion is preuented. And yet if it ſhold be vrged as plainly yet permitted there, I think wel may it be Prater verbū, but hardly wil it be proued any more to be contrary to the word, thē the former, for wher hath the word ſo appropriated this to the miniſter, and denyed it vntounto others, that it ſhould be contrary to the word, but … to permit it to another.
6 Further yet, in that (in a rubricke next the creed in that tract) it is ſaid, if there be no ſermon, ſhall follow one of me homilies already ſet forth or to be ſet forth by common authority, eſpecially the 35 article in the booke of Articles, adiudging both the former booke of Homilies ſet forth in King Edward the ſixts time, and the ſecond booke, the ſeuerall tytles wherof are there ſet downe, to be read in the Churches, by the miniſters diligently & diſtinctly, as containing what doctrine is meete & neceſſary for theſe times, ariſe other obiections, which they hauehave againſt this ſubſcription: for ſay they in theſe already extant, ſome faults there are in certaine of them, which cannot ſtand with the word, and further what may be in the reſt, that ſhall bee ſee forth, wee cannot tell, and therfore hard it is to ſubſcribe; howſoeuer when that booke and rubrick was authoriſed firſt Eliza. I there were ſome to be ſet out, yet ſince they that were intended then, hauehave long agoe beene publiſhed, & ſo therefore in that reſpect as I ſaid in the beginnig, this obiection is void. Touching thoſe that then were extant, notwithſtanding the obiected faults againſt ſome of them, very true it is, that there is much wholſome & needfull doctrine contained in them, & moſt of them they can not nor do touch with any faults at all, and thoſe which they obiect againſt any of them, are not of any ſuch momēt, but either with a fauourable conſtructiō, they may be made none at all, or elſe (as they knowe) they are ſuch as about which amongſt the godly learned both of ancient time, & now alſo, there is & hath been great queſtion whether they be to be counted any faults at all or no: and the ſame may as iuſtly bee ſaid of all that ſince hauehave beene authoriſed. But touching thoſe that by authority then ſhould after be ſet out, why ought not men then in charity, aſwell hauehave hoped that they in authority would hauehave a care, that they ſhould containe nothing contrary to the word, as it ſeemeth they did of Sermons to be made? In that therefore they made no exception euer yet againſt the Booke in that reſpect, though then their Sermons be allowed to be made, by preachers eueryevery where, which yet then they could not tell whether they would bee faultleſſe or no … But in very deed, though ſubſcribing to the Booke of Common Prayer, and Articles, we thus ſubſcribe to the allowing of them to be read, yet in that by the preface before the ſecond Booke of Homilies (which interprets the meaning of both theſe bookes, herein) it appeares the miniſter is not tied to read them all, but directed there only out of them all, prudently to chuſe out ſuch as be moſt fit for the time and for the inſtruction of the people, our late Archbiſhop in his foreſaid booke, Pag. 715. and the next, had iuſt cauſe and ground to write (as he hath) fully to remoue this obiection: if any homily (ſaith he) ſhall be appointed hereafter, wherein you miſlike any thing, you need not to read it, for the book appoints you not to read this or that homily, but ſome one which you ſhall like beſt, and if you be diſpoſed to preach, you need read none at all; and touching thoſe which are to be ſet out, if you feare any ſuch thing as you pretend, I thinke, ſaith he, in that caſe a modeſt proteſtation would not be refuſed. Yea as we hauehave heard before, Pag. 720. he refuſeth in plaine and expreſſe words to defend any thing as appointed by the booke to be read, which is not grounded vponupon the word of God. But in very deed I cannot ſee how iuſtly and truely the bookes can be ſaid, to containe all which they appoint or allow in any ſort to be read: ſuch direction for the reading of them, they may well be ſayd to containe, but yet not therfore the things themſelues. Howſoeuer in this caſe, in my conſcience, there is great difference betwixt being bound only by the booke to read the Scriptures in a tranſlation that hath faults, the Apocrapha that hath faults, or homilies that hath faults, & the iuſtifying of them to be faultleſſe: and plain it is (ſuppoſe in this that we were ſtrictly thereby tied to read all theſe) that yet no where, by the bookes, or otherwiſe, are we charged, either by practiſe or ſubſcription, to aduouch that all or any of theſe containe no faults, or that ſo doing, to auer that they are no faults: and therfore this obiection need trouble vsus as litle as any.