FOr the Liturgie, great respect and heed would be taken, least by inueighing against the dumbe Ministrie due reuerence be not with drawne from the Liturgie. For though the guift of Preaching, bee farre aboue that of Reading, yet the action of the Liturgie is as high and holy as that of the Sermon. It is said, Domus me a domus or ationis vocabitur, The house of Prayer, not the house of Preaching. And whereas the Apostle saith: How shall men call vpon him on whom they haue not belerued? and how shal they beleeue vnlesse they heare? and how shall they beare without a Preacher? It appeareth that as Preaching is the more originall, so Prayer is the more finall, as the difference is between the seed and the fruit for the keeping of Gods Law; is the fruit of the teaching of the Law, and Prayer, or Inuecation, or Diuine seruice, or Liturgie (for these be but varietie of termes) is the mediate hallowing of the Name of God, and the principall worke of the first Table, and of the great Commandement of the Law of God. It is true that the Preaching of the holy word of God, is the sowing of the seed, it is the lifting vp of the brazen serpent, the Ministrie of Faith and the ordinary meanes of saluation, but yet it is good to take example, how that the best Actions of the worship of God may be extolled excessiuely and superstitiously. As the extolling of the Sacrament bred the superstition of the Masse; the extolling of the Liturgie and prayers, bred the superstition of the Monasticall orders and oraisons; And so no doubt Preaching likewise may be magnified and extolled superstitioufly, as if all the whole body of Gods worship should be turned into an eare. So as none (as I suppose) of sound judgement, will derogate from the Liturgie, if the forme thereof be in all parts agreeable to the word of God, the example of the Primitiue Church, and that holy decency which S. Paul commendeth. And therefore first, that there be a set forme of prayer, and that it be not left, either to an extemporall forme, or to an arbitrarie forme. Secondly, that it consist aswell of lawdes, hymnes, and thankesgiuings, as of petitions, prayers & supplications. Thirdly, that the forme therof be quickned with some shortnes, and diuersities of prayers and hymnes and with some interchanges of the voyce of the people, as well as of the voyce of the Minister. Fourthly, that it admit some distinctions of times and commemorations of Gods principal benefits, as well generall as particular. Fifthly, that prayers likewise be appropriated to seuerall necessities and occasions of the Church. Sixtly, that there be a forme likewise of words and Liturgie in the administration of the Sacraments, and in the denouncing of the censures of the Church, and other holy actions and solemnities. These things I thinke will not bee much controuerted.
But for the particular exceptions to the Liturgie in forme as it now stands, I thinke diuers of them allowing they were just, yet seeme they not to be weightie, otherwise then that nothing ought to bee accounted light in matters of Religion and pietie, as the Heathen himselfe could say, Etiam vultu sape laeditur pietas. That the word Priest should not bee continued especially with offence, the word Minister being already made familiar. This may be said that it is a good Rule in translation, neuer to confound that in one word in the translation, which is precisely distinguished in two words in the originall, for doubt of aequiuocation and traducing. And therefore seeing the word […] and […] bee alwayes distinguished in the originall, and the one vsed for a Sacrificer, the other for a Minister, the word Priest beeing made common to both, whatsoeuer the deriuation be, yet in vse it confoundeth the Minister with the Sacrificer. And for an example, of this kind, I did euer allow the discretion and tendernesse of the Rhemish translation in this Point, that finding in the originall the Word […] and neuer […], doe euer translate Charitie, and neuer Loue, because of the indifferencie and equiuocation of the word with impure Loue.
Touching the Absolution, it is not vnworthy consideration whether it may not bee thought vnproper and vnnecessary, for there are but two sorts of Absolution, both supposing an obligation precedent: the one vpon an Excommunication, which is Religious and Primitiue; the other vpon Confession and Pennance which is superstitious, or at least positiue, and both particular, neither generall. Therefore since the one is taken away, and the other hath his proper case, what doth a generall Absolution wherin there is neither Penance nor Excommunication precedent. For the Church neuer looseth, but where the Church hath bound. And surely, I may thinke, this at the first was allowed in a kind of Spirituall discretion, because the Church thought the people could not bee suddenly weaned from their conceit of assoyling, to which they bad heene so long accustomed.
For Confirmation, to my vnderstanding the state of the Question is, whether it bee not a matter mistaken and altered by time, and whether that be not now made a subsequent to Baptisme, which was indeed an inducement to the Communion. For whereas in the Primitiue Church, children were examined of their Faith before they were admitted to the Communion, time may seeme to haue turned it to referre as if it had beene to receiue a confirmation of their Baptisme.
For Priuate Baptisme, by Women or Laypersons, the best Diuines doe vtterly condemne it, and I heare it not generally defended, and I haue often maruelled, that when the Booke in the Preface to publique Baptisme, doth acknowledge that Baptisme in the practise of the Primitiue Church, was anniuersarie and but at set and certaine times, which sheweth that the Primitiue Church, did not attribute so much to the Ceremonie, as they would breake an outward and generall order for it, the Booke should afterwards allow of Priuate Baptisme, as if the Ceremonie were of that necessitie as the very Institution, which committed Baptisme onely to the Ministers, should bee broken in regard of the supposed necessitie. And therefore this point of all others, I thinke was but a concessum propter duritiam cordis.
For the forme of celebrating Matrimonie; the Ring seemeth to many euen of vulgar sence and vnderstanding, a Ceremonie not graue, specially to be made (as the words make it) the essentiall part of the action: besides some other of the words are noted in speech to bee not so decent and fit.
For Musicke in Churches. That there should be singing of Psalmes and spirituall songs, is not denied, so the Question is De modo; wherein if a man will looke attentiuely into the order and obseruance of it, it is easie to discerue, betweene the wisedome of the institution, and the excesseof the late times. For first, there are no Songs or Verses sung by the Quire, which are not supposed, by continuall vse, to bee so familiar with the people as they haue them without booke, whereby the sound hutteth not the vnderstanding, and those which cannot read vpon the booke, are yet partakers of the sence and may follow it with their mind. So againe, after the reading of the Word of God, it was thought fit there should bee some pawse for holy meditation before they proceeded to the rest of the seruice; which pawse was thought fit to be filled rather with some graue sound, then with a still silence, which was the reason of the plaving vpon the Organs after the Scriptures read. All which was decent and tending to edification. But then the curiositie of diuision and reports, and other figures of Musick, haue no affinitie with the reasonable seruice of God, but were added in the more pompous times.
For the Cap and Surplsce, since they bee things in their nature indifferent, and yet by some held superstitious, and that the question is betweene Science and Conscience, it seemeth to fall within the compasse of the Apostles rule, which is, that the stronger doe descend and yeeld to the weaker. Onely, the differenceis, that it will be materially said, that the rule holds between priuate man, and priuate man, but not betweene the conscience of a priuate man, and the order of a Church. But yet since the question at this time is of a tolleration, not by conniuence which may incourage disobedience, but by law which may giue a liberty, it is good againe to bee aduised, whether it fall not within the equitie of the former rule. The rather because the silencing of Ministers by this occasion, is in this scarcitie of good Preachers, a punishment that lights vpon the people, as well as vpon the partie. And for the Subscription it seemeth to bee in the nature of a consession, and therefore more proper to binde in the vnitie of Faith, and to be vrged rather for Articles of doctrine, then for Rites and Ceremonies and points of outward gouernment. For howsoeuer politike considerations and reasons of State may require vniformitie, yet Christian and diuine grounds looke chiefly vpon vnitie.
← Circumstances in the Gouernment of Byshops · Contents · Touching a Preaching Ministry →