our owne be we neuer so ignorant it must be none other mans be he neuer so learned and it must be our owne not by ordinary course of reading attained either from old or new writers neither yet by often iteration decocted but in a sort after the Anabaptistical manner both sodainely infused and effused This is with those men that noble and that worthy kind of Preaching which must in credit and authority equall the holy Scriptures in power and perspicuity farre excell them A very blind and a bad kind of doctrine For these great inconueniences must needes insue of it First if our Sermons be truely and properly the worde of God as they comonly affirme it will from thence follow that the Preacher in his Sermons cannot erre For The word of God can not erre And so we who haue taught all this while that the Fathers can erre the Pope can erre the CouÌ„cels can erre shall now teach with the selfe same mouth that We our selues cannot erre Which were both an impudent and an impious assertion For what is that which can priuiledge vs from errour in our Preaching The Chaire of Moses could not priuiledge the Pharises from errour the Chaire of Peter cannot priuiledge the Pope from errour the earthly Paradise could not priuiledg the first man from errour nay Heauen it selfe could not priuiledge the Angelles from errour and can onely the Pulpit priuiledge vs from errour Is not Papistry Preached is not Heresie Preached is not Schisme and contention and all errour Preached doe not all these find Pulpits to vent themselues out of Why then it is apparent that a Sermon may not onely bee the word of a man but also sometimes the word of a wicked and vngodly man the word of a Schismatike the word of a Papist the word of an Heretike For as Gregory truly teacheth vs Si desit spiritus nihil adiuuat locus It is not the place can helpe vs if the spirit be not with vs. Secondly if Preaching be truely and properly the word of God as they affirme it will from thence follow that all our glosses must needes be canonicall Scriptures For the word of God is canonicall Scripture and so wee who haue taught all the expositions of the Fathers to be but the bare opinions of men shall foolishly now teach of our owne expositions that they be the very word of God which is to set the Preacher not vp in Moses chaire but to plucke downe God himselfe and to set him vp in Gods chaire Thirdly if Preaching be truely the word of God as they affirme then if I expound the Scripture one way and another man an other way both these must bee taken for canonicall senses and both be true meanings of the word of God though the one of them should be cleane contrary vnto the other as they be but too too often And so euen we our selues should make the holy Scriptures to be indeed no better then a very nose of waxe to be bowed euery way though we bitterly and worthily reproue it in the Papists Fourthly if Preaching be the very word of God and the sole ordinary meanes to beget a true faith in vs as they affirme then will it from thence follow that the Scriptures of themselues are not sufficient to saluation but as the Papists adde vnto them their apocryphal and vnwritten traditions so we must adde vnto them our vocal and speaking expositions to make them perfect These and diuers such like false dangerous consequents must necessarily follow that phantastical doctrine that Preaching is properly the very word of God of which I may truely say with S. Augustine Piget metaÌ„ dicere quà m muita eos vâ—sana sequantur talia sentientes talia dicentes A new and a strange opinion which only doth proceede from humaine pride and ignorance and from an arrogant conceit of men which dote vpon their owne giftes Why is not all this enough which we ascribe vnto Sermons when we acknowledge them to be Gods owne holy institutions to be necessarie meanes of our instruction and powerfull meanes of our conuersion to be truthes which ought of all men to be accepted and honored when they consent and agree with the holy word of God Is not all this I say enough which we lawfully may willingly do ascribe to Sermons but that we must needs make them the very word of God it selfe The Apostle S. Paul though he spake all by Gods owne holy inspiration yet doth hee twice professe in one and the same Chapter that This hee speaketh and not the Lord. He is very well content though hee were an Apostle that where he lacke the warrant of the expresse word of God that part of his writing should be held and esteemed but as the word of a man But some men now adaies are so farre inamored of themselues and so vainely conceited of their owne gift in Preaching as to obtrude all the idle fancies of their owne addle heads vnder none other title but the very word of God Purum putum flat contrary to the doctrine of S. Paul in an other place who telleth vs expresly that a Preacher may take for the foundation of his Sermon The very word of God and yet build vpon it as well Clay and Stubble as Gold and Siluer But these men do tell vs if we will beleeue them that they do build nothing but only pure gold Belike they would faine haue vs to take all for gold that glitters Beloued though we ought in all true sincerity to giue all due honour and reuerence vnto Sermons when they be truely made according to Gods word yet must we alwaies put this difference betweene Sermons and Scriptures The Scriptures we must know to bee Gods owne diuine and holy word containing nothing but pure and tried truthes being all of them writ and penned by Gods holy spirit and by him so commended vnto his holy Church and therefore of all the true members of the Church to be reuerently accepted without all exception But for Sermons we haue an other rule and direction we must in them both examine the spirit of euery speaker exact the matter of euery speech vnto the strict rule of the scripture as the Bereans dealt euen with the Apostle Paul himselfe So that Sermons ought to haue no greater credite with vs then they can gaine vnto themselues by their agreement with the Scriptures if they dissent from them no pulpit can sanctifie them no spirit can make them to bee the word of God if they consent with them yet the Canon of the Scripture being now sealed vp the Truth of God or the Doctrine of God they may be called but The word of God they cannot but onely by some Metonymie or Synecdoche or some other such vnproper and figuratiue speech Therefore it is as true a position to say that a Sermon is the word of a man as it is to say that a House is
or casually or vnaduisedly but for this speciall purpose that we seeing this one word to be so often inculked and so constantly vsed in euery place might take the greater heed vnto it and search with greater diligence into the hidden and inward meaning of it Neither shall it be a vaine or a needles labour thus to hunt out this Vanity but both profitable and necessary vnto our present purpose Profitable because if we know not what vanity meaneth we shall neuer reape any profit by this admonition of King Salomon in telling vs so often that All is vanity for in the perfect knowledge of this one word Vanity consists the perfect knowledge not only of this particular text of which I now preach but also of all this whole booke of the Preacher which is nothing els in effect but as it were a comment vpon this word Vanity as Saint Augustine obserueth And necessary it will be because the true knowledge of this word Vanity is a matter of greater difficulty and more laborious inquisition then any man would at the first imagine as euidently appeareth out of A. Gellius who maketh report of a notable conflict betweene two great and professed Grammarians about this word Vanity what it properly should signifie Their controuersie being grounded vpon a place of Salust where he censureth Cn. Lentulus to be such a one as it was vncertaine whether he were Vanior or Stolidior a more vaine or a more foolish kinde of man the one of them maintayning that both these two words did note but one vice and that Vanity is nothing els but Folly The other that either of them deciphered a seuerall kinde of vice and that Folly is one thing and Vanity another as hee there most plainely proueth But howsoever these two Grammarians dissent as concerning the particular vice designed in this word yet they both consent in this that it is a name of vice and that it implieth that all those things vnto which it is rightly applied are of a reproueable and vitious nature So thas as I said before this Preacher could not possibly haue vsed any word which more fully layeth out and exposeth to our eyes the base and contemptible the bad and vnprofitable nature of all earthly glories then Vanity doth Saint Paul speaking of them he vseth a very homely and dishonourable name to expresse their comtemptible nature by he calleth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is dung or drosse both of them vile and base but yet neither of them so vile as Vanity is For both dung and drosse may haue profitable vses but that which is vaine that hath no vse at all it is vtterly vnprofitable it is like vnto salt when it hath lost his saltnes which is good for iust nothing as our Sauiour Christ teacheth vs. So that this Vanity is of a more vile and abiect nature then the vilest excrements of the most abiect creature for there is none of all them that is clearely without all vse as Vanity is in what significations soeuer you take it as if you will but looke into the diuers significations of this word Vanity deliuered vnto vs by Heathen writers and confirmed out of the holy scriptures you may plainly see For I find this word Vanity to haue sixe significations yet not one good one amongst them all not one that implieth the least fruite or profit to be implied in it To begin with that first which I named last The first signification of this word Vanity is al one with Inutile that is to say a thing without al vse or profit for so it foloweth immediatly after this text Quid emolumenti What profit hath a man of all his labours wherin he hath trauailed vnder the sun He proueth al our labours about these earthly matters to be therfore Vanity because there cōmeth no profit of them for this is one essential note of Vanity to be fruitlesse and vnprofitable And therefore as God heere reasoneth against the world that it is vanity because it is vnprofitable so worldlings els where do reason against God that his seruice is likewise Vanity because it is vnprofitable Ye haue said it is in vaine that we haue serued God and what profit is it that we haue kept his commaundements They conclude it to be vaine because it is vnprofitable And the consequent is good if the antecedent were true So that King Salomons first meaning in calling these earthly matters Vanity is to insinuate thus much that they be altogether fruitlesse and barraine of all good and that there is no profit at all to be found in them Saint Paul appealeth vnto the Romanes owne iudgement what profit these earthly things haue brought them What profit saith he had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed And Salomon bringeth worldlings complaning in this manner of their vnprofitable labour about earthly things What hath pride now profited vs or what hath the pompe of riches brought vs So that when it pleaseth God to open a mans eyes to see the true vanity of all earthly glories in their owne proper colours as he did the Romanes eyes by the preaching of Saint Paul then doe they see most cleerely that there is no profit in them but rather that they be such vaine and foolish things as that they ought to be euen ashamed of them as the Apostle Paul implieth in the fore-alleged place And surely the true reason why men are not ashamed so foolishlie to bestow their vnprofitable paines about these transitorie earthly things is because God as yet hath not opened their eies to see the fruitlesse vanity of them how grossely they be deceiued in them their sight being blinded by the god of this world as the Apostle Paul obserueth To giue you an instance or two to this purpose The theefe when he goeth about to steale he hunteth after profit and thinketh it better to reach out a little then to liue in want because the god of this world hath blinded his eyes but when his punishment commeth then he seeth his owne error and then he is ashamed of it and then he findeth by experience that his stealing hath brought no profit to him but incomparable losse The licentious worldling likewise when he hunteth after pleasure he seeketh after that which seemeth good vnto him because the god of this world hath blinded his eyes but when his punishment commeth then he changeth his minde and then he seeth his folly and then he is ashamed of it That he hath so wearied himselfe in the waies of wickednesse and yet hath got no profit by it as is notably declared in the booke of Wisdome And euen so is it likewise in all other sinnes though the sinner do alwaies propound vnto himselfe at the least in his conceit a kind of profit in them whereunto they seeme to answere with appearing shewes of goodnes yet he still findes in the end when
as much as Ezra in the bare reading of the word for it made the people both to fast and to pray and to weepe and to giue almes vnto their needy brethren Now what or whose preaching could haue wrought more worthy and noble effects then this bare reading did Thirdly I proued the same position by the testimony of S. Iohn who ascribeth euen faith it selfe which is the chiefe point in question vnto this action of reading These things saith he are written that ye should beleeue Now that which is written cannot make vs beleeue but onely by reading Finally I confirmed it by the testimonie of our Sauiour in bidding vs Search the Scriptures that is to read it and adding that so we should find eternal life in it So that by the forecited Scriptures you see that both The knowledge of God and The faith of God and The feare of God and The obedience of God and Eternall life with God which is the highest reward of all vertues is expresly ascribed vnto the bare reading of the word And therefore those men which deny reading to be an effectual kind of preaching disable it froÌ„ begetting either faith or any other spirituall vertue in vs they make Moses and Ieremie two false prophets Nehemiah and Baruck two false historians S. Iohn a false Apostle and our Sauiour a false Christ for all these affirme it The third position which I gathered from the former obseruation in calling a booke by the name of a Preacher was this That Preaching is not alwaies more effectual then reading This position I then proued by two speciall instances The first of them out of Tully who found his vnderstanding the first part of his minde a great deale more instructed by reading a short letter sent vnto him from Atticus then it had beene by hearing a long discourse of Curioes vpon the selfe same points whereupon he cried out vbi sunt qu◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where be they now saith he who say the word spoken hath greater power in it then hath the word written He there confuteth that opinion by his owne experience Quanto â—agis vidi ex tuis literis quam ex illius sermonâ— quid ageretur The second instance was out of S. Paul whose aduersarie found his affection the other part of the mind a great deale more touched by the bare reading of his letters which he plainely confessed to be strong and mighty then euer it had been by the hearing of his Sermons which he despised as light and things of no value His letters indeed saith he are sore and strong but his bodily presence is weake and his speech of no value This is truely and ingeniously the summe of that doctrine which heretofore I haue deliuered as concerning the comparison of Reading and Preaching In all which what was spoken that could giue the least offence vnto any well meaning or but indifferent mind What that any way offended either against any article of our Christian faith or any duty of godly life or against any other point of sound and wholesome doctrine Nay what but iustified by the authoritie both of the old and new Testament and ratified by the testimonie of the holy ghost himselfe Nay yet further what but auouched for a sealed truth by al true ProtestaÌ„ts against the Papists who teach vs that the Scripture is darke and obscure and such as cannot preach vnto vs. With whom I did neuer looke that any of our men professing themselues to be such reformed and reforming Protestants would euer haue ioyned hands as we euidently see by the writings of some and the speeches of others they apparantly doe For those three forenamed positions of mine which I am sure would greatly haue offended the Papists if they had bin my hearers and beene censured of them as hereticall doctrines haue likewise displeased some that call themselues Protestants Who haue in their ignorance traduced all those three former positions both farre and neere and howted them vp and downe not onely as three false and erroneous doctrines but also as doctrines dangerous and such as tend directly vnto the disgrace of preaching and making it of none effect though no word were spoken vnto any such purpose no nor yet that could bee forced vnto any so badde a sense vnlesse it were this one which must bee done with a wrinch too that they which preferre any preachers Sermon either in excellencie or in effecacie before the holy Scriptures they preferre this word of a man before the word of God which I take to be no heresie but an impregnable verity and so I hope to make it to appeare most plainely to you And therefore I must craue your Christian patience that I may clere the former doctrines from the two former imputations especially from that imputation of falsehood which is the greatest infamie if it be true and the greatest iniurie if it be false that can possibly be cast vpon a Preacher yea a farre greater iniurie then to call him either a murderer a theife or a traitor For to be a false teacher is to be all these together it is to be both a murdererer of mens soules a theefe vnto Christs fold and a trator to Gods honour And therefore Saint Hierom saith that Neminem decet in suspicione baereseos esse patientem That no man ought to be patient when his doctrine is impeached And Ruffine though his aduersarie in some other matters yet in this agreeth with him That he which can indure the suspicion of an heretike it is vnpossible for him to be a true Catholicke And therefore I must pray your licence that by a modest and a Christian Apologie I may vindicate these doctrines into their natiue verity and not suffer such tried and approued truthes to runne vp and downe so branded for errors but freely and sincerely to discharge that duty which I owe both vnto God and to his truth and to the Church and to my selfe All whom I should betray into the handes of the wicked if I should permit such innocent truthes to be any longer so scourged and whipped as they haue lately beene and not doe my best indeuour to rescue and deliuer them First therefore as concerning those three positions which haue bin so mightily resisted you are to know thus much which I doubt not but the greatest part of this graue and learned auditore being the flower of our Clergy doth sufficiently vnderstand that there is none of them all which is any nouelty of mine owne inuention but are all of them maine and beaten grounds of religion expresly and positiuely set downe by all our learned Protestants in their disputations vpon these pointes against the Papists Of which I wonder that some of the reprouers of those doctrines should be so vnlearned as to be ignorant For first whereas the Papists teach vs that the Scriptures of themselues are darke and obscure such as cannot teach vs much
lesse preach vnto vs because they lacke a voyce whereupon they call the Scripture in a kind of derision but Mutum magistrum that i sa dumbe Teacher we positiuely set downe both the contraries against them First for their position That the Scriptures in themselues are but darke and obscure and such as cannot teach vs we set downe this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against them that The Scripture is as cleere and as bright as a light which shineth in darkenes as the Apostle Peter teacheth vs nay as bright as the sunne beames as Saint Chrysostom auoucheth they being in themselues so facile and euident that they are able to instruct euen the simple and idiot in all doctrine necessarie vnto their saluation Adeo vt diuina scriptura opus non habeat humana sapientia vt intelligatur as he writeth in an other place So that as the Apostle Paul affirmeth If the doctrine of the Gospell be hid vnto any it is but onely vnto such as perish And this truth we proue against the Papists by many great and strong arguments grounded partly vpon the authority of the holy Scriptures partly vpon the concludencie of necessarie reasons and partly vpon the testimonie of the ancient Fathers being twenty sixe in number as I find them collected by a learned Writer and all of them most excellent answering fully all obiections which are vsually brought either by Papists or Schismatikes against those positions Which because they are all of them most worthy your hearing and yet the time will not now allow me their speaking I referre those that be learned vnto our mens disputation against Bellarmines fourth question vpon the Scriptures where they shall euidently see that there is no point of doctrine necessarie to saluation but that it is most plainely and familiarly deliuered in the Scripture euen to the capacitie of euery simple Reader yea euen the simplest of all Etiam Publicanis Piscatoribus Fabris Pastoribus Illiteratis Idiâ—tir as Saint Chrysostome noteth Vnto which his induction Saint Agustine addeth his generall conclusion Nec in caeteris contrarium est videri though in somewhat other words Vt nemo sit saith he quiiâ—de haurire non possit quod sibisatis sit That for their false position Now for their friuolous reason why the Scriptures cannot teach vs because they lacke a voyce wee set downe this position That the Scriptures haue not onely a liuely voyce in them as birds and beasts haue but also a speaking voyce too as men and Angels haue whereby they doe both teach vs and preach vnto vs. And this wee proue by many sound reasons whereof I will giue you a tast but onely of some one or two because the Arguments be long and the time is short Our first argument is this which because I am now as it were in the Schole and as in a Colonie of both the Vniuersities I will conclude in Scholasticall forme It is in effect thus much If the Scrptures instruct vs with a speaking voyce then doe they likewise preach vnto vs For what other thing is preaching but instructing with the voyce But the Scriptures instruct vs with a speaking voyce Ergo They preach vnto vs. The Assumption we proue by manifold texts of Scripture where the Scripture is expresly affirmed to speake vnto vs. As namely in that place vnto the Romanes Whatsoeuer the law speaketh it speaketh vnto them that are vnder the Law where the Law is said to speake vnto vs. So likewise in another place vnto the Hebrewes Haue yee forgotten the consolation which speaketh vnto you as vnto children where the Prouerbs of Salomon are said to speake vnto vs. For from thence is that testimony fetched So likewise in another place vnto the Romanes What saith the Scripture where the Scripture in generall is said to speake vnto vs. And diuers other such like places there bee alledged by our men against the Papists in discussing the fifth question vpon the Scriptures Wherein we labour to proue it as a ground of our religion against the Papists hereticall doctrine that the Scriptures in themselues doe both speake and preach vnto vs. Our second argument is this That if the Scriptures do expound the Scriptures vnto vs then do they also preach vnto vs. For what other thing is preaching but expounding of the Scriptures But the Scriptures expound the Scriptures vnto vs Ergo They preach vnto vs. The assumption of this argument we proue by many arguments euery one hauing the strength of a firme demonstration and containing sufficient matter to furnish a whole Sermon being all of them deduced either from expresse Scriptures or from necessarie reasons or from the concurring iudgements of the ancient fathers Yea and that you may perceiue how far a learned iudgement doth differ from an ignorant that man of worthy memory M. D. Whitaker whom for his godly labors against the Papists all posterity will reuerence hee deliuereth his iudgement vpon this question in these words which I pray you to marke diligently First he affirmeth that God speaketh vnto vs as plainly in his word as euer hee spake vnto Moses in the cloude when he talked there with him face to face Secondly he affirmeth that the Scriptures doe preach so plainely and so excellently vnto vs that if God should speake vnto vs from heauen in his owne liuely voyce hee neither would deliuer any other matter nor yet dispose it in any other forme then hee hath already deliuered in the Scripture Thirdly hee affirmeth of the contrary opinion that it is falsum impium That is not onely an erroneous but also an impious kinde of doctrine And fourthly he affirmeth of the defenders of it that they be inepti audaces that is not onely an ignorant but also an impudent kinde of persons This is his iudgement of the reprouers of my doctrine So that for the first of my three positions That the Scriptures in themselues doe preach vnto vs you see that it is no such strange and vncouth monster as some men in the deepenes of their ignorance haue imagined it to be preparing theÌ„selues with no lesse folly to fight against it then the souldiers in Pacuâ—ius did against a Snaile which they thought to be some Monstrum borrenduÌ„ informe ingens as the Poet speaketh that is some fierce and terrible monster when they heard it thus described Animal terrigenum tardigradum Domiportum sanguine cassum Thus ignorance and blindenes there faineth many monsters where true and solid knowledge findeth none at all But let vs now proceede vnto our second position that Reading is an effectuall and a powerfull kinde of Preaching For which point whereas the Papists teach vs that the Scriptures as they be darke and cannot teach vs so they be weake and cannot moue vs whereupon they call the Scripture but literam frigidam and egenum elementum that is a weake and beggerly rudiment we positiuely
set down these Theses to the contrary First for the plainenes and perspicuity of the Scripture that Deus nobis in Scripturis planissime loquitur that God speaketh vnto vs most plainely in the Scripture which is Iewels position in his Apologie Secondly for the power and efficacie of the Scripture that Sacra scriptura vel cum ligitur vel cum auditur est ordinarium organon quo spiritus sanctus mentes lectorum auditorum regenerat illustrat viuificat caelestibus virtutibus ornat What can there be more plaine or more full or more direct vnto our purpose And this is the categoricall position of Brentius in his learned disputation vpon this point against Sotus hee expresly affirmeth that the very Scriptures not onely when they be Preached vnto vs but also when they be but onely Read by vs are an ordinarie meanes to regenerate mens soules to inlighten them to quicken them and to beget all heauenly vertues in them and all this it effecteth Veâ— cùm ligitur when it is but onely Read Wordes of great force and great power and such as proue the Scriptures to be neither dumbe nor yet dull teachers but indeed most powerfull and mouing Preachers For proofe whereof amongst other arguments we vse these Scriptures following First that place of the Psalme where the Prophet Dauid ascribeth vnto the word of God not onely to bee able to inlighten the minde and vnderstanding but also to worke vpon the hart and affection He saith that it is able both to giue light vnto the eyes and wisedome to the simple yea and further to comfort the hart yea and euen to conuert the soule What can there be more either performed by the Preacher or desired by the hearer then here you see most plainely ascribed to the Scripture Secondly we alledge that place of the prophet Ieremie where he compareth the worde of God vnto a fire and a hammer which is able to breake euen the strong rocks a sunder and as Iohn the Baptist speaketh euen out of very stones to raise vp children vnto Abraham I trow it must haue no smal strength and power in it that is able to cleaue and to break a stony rocke Thirdly we alledge that place of the Epistle vnto the Hebrewes The word of God is liuely and powerful in operation and sharper then any two edged sword that it pierceth euen to the diuiding of the soule and the spirit the ioynts and the marrow and is able to discerne euen the very inward thoughts and intentions of the heart A notable place indeed and which euidently proueth that the Scripture is not either a dumbe teacher nor yet a dull worker but a mighty and a potent preacher euen to the very harts of men Neither be these places to be vnderstood of the worde Preached onely the onely euasion of our ignorant aduersaries but of the word Read also For to that onely end they be alleaged by vs Protestants against the Papists and otherwise they should be alledged beside the purpose The question being betweene vs not of the Preaching of the Scripture but of the Reading of them of the natiue and inherent perspicuity of the Scripture and not of that accidental light which is brought vnto them by our expositions as they that be learned and conuersant in the controuersies doe right well vnderstand Let vs therfore now proceed vnto our third positioÌ„ which was thought the greatest monster that Preaching is not alwaies more powerful then Reading For that point let me giue you but onely this one watch word that it is knowne to be a notable Art and cunning of the Papists to ioine vnto their former disgraces of Reading an excessiue and hyperbolical commendation of Preaching that so they hauing weaned the people from the reading of the Scripture whereby their errours might bee discouered and brought them on wholly to depend vpon their Sermons and as it were to hang vpon their lippes that their Ipse dixit might passe for demonstrations they might so leade them more easily as it were hooded and blindfold into all kind of errours I pray God it bee not also the drift of some others that would seeme to be farre vnlike vnto the Papists But to returne vnto our question Whereas Petrus a Sâ—â—o a notable Papist setteth downe the whole summe of papistical doctrine as concerning the comparison of Reading and Preaching in this short position that Praedicatio viua longè superat scripturam mortuam that Liuely â—reaching is farre more excellent then is dead Reading that position doth Brentius a very learned Protestant confute and refell as a popish errour in his Defence of the Confession of Christopher Duke of Wittenberge where hee handleth this point both fully substantially both largly and learnedly censuring this forenamed position of Sotus to be a contumely and reproch not only against the holy Scriptures but also against our Sauiour Christ himselfe Againe whereas Hossius an other papist affirmeth vnto the same effect that the Scriptures are but bare and naked elements but Preaching is indeede the liuely word of God that position doth Iewel the iewel of our Church most earnestly confute in his learned Apologie affirming it to be a speech in effect as blasphemous as the horrible heresie of Montanus who presumptuously vaunted of himselfe that hee could speake better then the holy ghost himselfe which is indeed both a true and a wise censure of it For what is it els to prefer our Sermons before the holy Scriptures but to prefer mens speeches before the holy ghost Therefore this doctrine of the Papist the Protestants confute by many strong reasons which proue vnto vs plainely that the Scriptures of themselues are both in Teaching and in Meaning of farre greater power then any mans expositions how artificiall soeuer I will giue you but a taste of some one or two of our mens reasons and so passe on to the second of their scruples First therefore for the first point that the Scriptures haue in themselues a greater power to teach and instruct vs then any preachers Sermons Luther proueth it by this reason Because all Preachers and expounders of the Scriptures doe proue their expositions to bee true by Scriptures But euery proofe must be a Notiori as those that be learned know Ergo the Scriptures be Notiores that is to say More knowen and more plaine then any Preachers expositions This is Luthers opinion confirmed with his reason which the learnedest on our side haue allowed for a good one yea and doe vse the same themselues against the Papists Now secondly for the second point that The Scriptures haue also greater power to mooue vs then any Preacher Sermons that most graue and learned father Brentius for so it pleaseth Bishop Iewel to honour him yea and very worthily too for his great learning and wisdome he not onely affirmeth it as his opinion but also confirmeth it by good and sound reason and he citeth for this
siaurum argento pretiosius dicatur Is therefore siluer made no siluer if a man chance to say that gold is better So may I likewise reason in this our present question Is therefore Preaching made no preaching if in some points it be surpassed by Reading Or must Preaching of necessity be disgraced if Reading in any respect be preferred Hee must needes be a man of a deplored blindnes vnto whom things so distant doe seeme to haue coherence Then why should my commendation of eading which I gaue both according to the holy Scriptures and to the ancient fathers and to the professed doctrine of all true Protestants be rather accounted a disgrace of Preaching then their excessiue commendation of Preaching bee accounted for a disgrace vnto reading or vnto praying both which they haue iustled out of the Church by their Preaching to vse Cartwrights owne wordes This forsooth is the matter that in comparing a Sermon with the Scripture I called Preaching but The word of a man which they confidently hold to be truely and properly the very word of God and resolutely affirme that it ought to find the same credit and authority with all men A very vntrue and an vnsound position that I say no more of it And therefore I pray so much equity of you that be vnlearned which I doubt not to obtaine of those that be learned that that which shall be spoken against this false opinion may not be so peruerted as if it were spoken simply against all Preaching which euery good Christian must of necessity confesse to be a necessary duety in the Church of God and a powerfull instrument to draw mens soules vnto him But yet for all that as Preaching may bee too much depressed so may it be likewise too much aduanced euen to the dishonour of God himselfe whose owne worke it is For as Iob noteth in his booke that a man may speake wickedly euen in defense of God so may a man speake wickedly euen in defence of Preaching Which surely is then done when we make our owne sermons which are but mens inuentions to equall in authority Gods diuine and holy Scripture And therefore that you may the better perceiue the monstrous absurdities of this foolish opinion giue me leaue I pray you in a word or two to set before your eyes that strange kind of doctrine which these men haue deliuered as concerning Preaching for so you shall a great deale more easily discerne whether such kind of Preaching be the word of God or no. First they openly denie that the Reading of Gods word is a Preaching of it because this lacketh exposition And yet S. Iames telleth vs that Moses is Preached whensoeuer he is Read euen without exposition In which onely instance of Reading the Scripture Preaching may truely and properly by called The word of God But yet this Reading though it be of all other in this one respect the most diuine and authenticall kind of Preaching because it deliuereth the word of God most simply and sincerely in his owne proper forme without either any mixture of humane inuention or any tainture of humane corruption yet this do they first of all and most of all cast away from being Preaching and call this no better then playing vpon a Stage They be the very words of some of our chiefe reformers though I know there be many which will hardly beleeue that so leaud and prophane a comparison should euer proceede out of the mouth of a Christian especially of so purified and refined Christians as they would seeme to be Secondly they exclude from Preaching all those discourses which are made by any other persons then onely by our selues Whether it be by way of explication of a text as the Comments and Sermons of diuers great Diuines both ancient and recent or by way of Common place without any certaine text as the Homilies of our Church which be indeede most learned and most godly Sermons howsoeuer disgraced by those scornefull spirits which spare not as you see the word of God it selfe but blasphemously compare the Reading of it vnto the playing vpon a Stage But yet neither of these kindes doe they allow for Preaching because they be not of our owne but of another mans making And yet Baruk was commaunded by the Prophet Ieremie to Read his prophecy vnto the people that is to Read a Sermon of another mans making and was told that it should worke an excellent effect in them as it did in very deed as before I haue shewed But yet this will not those men allow for Preaching though Saint Augustine doth yea sheweth great vse of it in the Church of God Whereupon there doeth follow this euident absurditiâ—e which I pray you well to marke That if a simple and vnlearned Minister shall happily meete with a most learned Sermon of another mans namely Caluines or Bezaes and so shall rehearse it vnto the people that must not be counted Preaching because it is not his owne but his own is Preaching because it is his owne be it neuer so vnlearned neuer so confused Thirdly they reiect from Preaching euen these Sermons that be our owne vnder two conditions First if they be read out of a paper as the weaknes of some mens memories compelleth them to doe who yet may be profitable members in the Church of God But this with them is no preaching though it be our owne inuention and yet Baruk did read not onely the Prophet Ieremies but also his owne Sermon too Out of a paper vnto the people as he professeth of himselfe yea and he found that his Reading to be an effectuall kind of Preaching though it were Out of a paper For it caused both Prince and People both to fast and to pray and to weepe before the Lord. As likewise did the reading of the law euen Out of a paper vnto King Iâ—sias as you heard before Againe euen our owne proper Sermons they reiect from being Preachings if euer they haue beene Preached before though in an other place and to an other audience And yet Saint Paul confesseth vnto the Philippians that He was not ashamed to speake the same things diuers times vnto them adding that for them it was a sound way of instruction Thus you see how great a chaine of errors this one opinion hath linked together and all of them Ex diametro opposed to the Scripture Reading of the Scripture is no Preaching because it lacketh exposition Expositions of either the ancent fathers or moderne writers they be not Preaching because they be not of our owne making Our owne Sermons be no Preachings if we speake them not by heart Nay though we so rehearse them yet be they no Preachings if euer they haue beene Preached before So that now you see what maner of Preaching that is which must be counted equall vnto the word of God and may not without blasphemic be called The word of man It must onely be
especiall point more eminent then the rest which will occupie the whole time Only here let me giue you this one general note to make the way more plaine vnto that particular subiect whereupon I purpose somewhat longer to insist that wheras there be but three kindes or formes of Musikes as Isidore obserueth the first Harmonicall which is expressed by Voyces and Singing the second Rhythmical which is expressed by Strings and Strikings the third Organicall which is expressed by Pipes and Blowing Or as S. Augustine distinguisheth them in somewhat other wordes but to the same effect Cantus Flatus Pulsus Cantus iu choro Flatus in tuba Pulsus in cithara the Psalmist heere calleth for euery one of them and will haue none left out as S. Augustine there obserueth He calleth for ioyfull Singing and loud Singing which is Harmonicall Musike He calleth for Timbrell Harpe and Violâ— which is Rhythmicall Musike and he calleth for Trumpets which be Organicall Musike All these he heere calleth for vnto none other end but onely that as the booke of the Psalmes is concluded euery thing which hath breath might praise the Lord. For the first of those three Musickes to wit Harmonicall musicke he nameth in the first verse two seuerall kinds of it The first is Ioyfull singing which is called Exultation and respecteth the springing and motion of the heart The second is Loud singing which is called Iubilation and respecteth the tuning and modulation of the voyce But yet so that neither Exultation is without the voyce of the body nor yet Iubilation without the ioy of the soule but be only so denominated from that which is predominant being otherwise in vse almost neuer asunder therefore in this place they be ioined both together Exultate Deo adiutorinostro Iubilate Deo Iacob exultate iubilate As likewise againe in the ninety fiue Psalme Exultemus Domino iubilemus Deo and in diuers other places Of the first of these two singings to wit of Exultation I haue already spoken in another place vpon the like occasion which is offered at this time and therefore without either any repetition or further circuition I will now come to the second to wit to Iubilation and shew you what that is Which point I am induced the rather to discusse yea and that somewhat largely because I find it so often euen incullced vnto vs throughout the whole tract of this booke of Psalmes Reioyce and iubilate in one place Sing and iubilate in another Play and iubilate in another And so euer for the most part when there is any exhortation vnto spirituall reioycing there still is ioyned with it this Iubilation as though our inward ioy could not be rightly tempered vnlesse this Iubilation were therewith intermixed Let vs therefore now consider what this Iubilation is whereunto the holy Scriptures doe so often times inuite vs. Iubilation as some thinke is an Hebrew word indenised and made free amongst the Latines as diuers other strang words be because otherwise they could not without long circumlocution expresse the full power and signification of it a worde more familiar amongst Diuines then amongst secular writers it being coÌ„monly applied vnto the expressing of a spirituall and heauenly reioycing In which word there be diuers of the ancient Fathers which thinke there lieth hidden some Diuine and Heauenly mysteries and therefore it is a matter that is worthy the noting to see what strange speculations they haue deuised in it and how greatly they haue laboured and toyled themselues to giue vs the full signification of it Origen when he commeth to expound this word Iubolare professeth that he feeleth himselfe to be inwardly touched he knoweth not by what secret and extraordinarie motion to search into the secret meaning of it hoping verily there to find Thesaurum magnum in parua dictione as Saint Chrysostome writeth in another like case that is Some great treasure couched in this little word And the rather is he so conceited of this word because he findeth a place in the Psalmes where it is thus written Beatus populus qui intelligit Iubilationem Blessed is the people which vnderstandeth that reioycing which is called Iubilation and therefore he saith that he cannot but search out quid istud tantum operis sit quod populum possit beatum facere What great and hidden mysterie or rather indeed what treasurie this Iubilation is which is able to make blessed not onely the practisers but also the very vnderstanders of it Saint Augustine in like sort whether it were that he had read this place of Origen and so by imitation borrowed his conceit from him or whether by the light of his owne vnderstanding he light into the same conceit with him I know not but he also handleth this same word Iubilare after the selfe-same manner For when he commeth vnto the exposition of it he likewise professeth that he cannot by any meanes ouerpasse it finding himselfe instiged by an inward inspiration to search into the inward and hidden meaning of it And he alleadgeth for his reason that same place of the Psalme Beatus qui intâ—lligit Iubilationem Adding further as Origen did before him that it needs must be some great and weighty thing and very worthy to be searched whose bare knowledge is able to make all his knowers blessed as it is said of this word concluding with this praier to attaine vnto the right vnderstanding of it Det mihi Deus noster intelligere quod dicam Det vobis intelligere quod audiatis God giue me vnderstanding to know what I speake and God giue you knowledge to vnderstand what you heare Vnto both parts of which praier I doe hartily say Amen as handling now that sublime and difficult argument which hee then so greatly feared Let vs therefore now approch vnto the secrets and mysteries of this Iubilation vnto which we haue made so great a preparation Hilarie saith that this Iubilare is vox agrestis pastoralis a word that is borrowed out of the countrey but how or by what reason he expresseth not Onely thus much he seemeth by the forenamed titles obscurely to insinuate That Iubilation is a voice which represents that ioy which Shepheards vse to make when as they sheare their sheep or husbandmen when as they inne their fruit which commonly they doe with great gladnes and reioycing as the prophet Dauid noteth in one of the Psalmes where he compareth his owne ioy for the fulnes of it vnto the husbandmans ioy when his corne and wine and oyle increaseth which he insinuateth to be great The prophet Isai likewise vseth that same comparison to expresse that great ioy wherewith God would recompence the sorrow of his people he saith that there shal be such a ioy and such a shouting in the land aâ— is commonly vsed at the shaking of the oliues and the gathering of the grapes when the vintage is ended
side which led you vnto disobedience then vnto the other which led you vnto dutiful and Christian obedience That way which you went you had nothing to carry you but only the blast of a windy opinioÌ„ yea not that neither for your opinioÌ„ was not setled that other way which you left you had two great waightes so sway you viz. the authority of the law both spirituall and temporall and the practise of the Church both ancient and moderne a very heauy counterpoise therefore I wonder how you could set them so light especially you hauing no such waighty authority to vncertain you as the Churches exaÌ„ple might haue bin to resolue you which eueÌ„ in this particular case of the crosse hath both traditioneÌ„ auctricem and consuetudinem confirmatricem therefore oughâ— to haue fidem obseruatricem as Tertullian in the fore-cited booke obserueth So that surely you strained at a gnat swallowed vp a Camell when you were so superstitious in not offending against your own priuate opinion and so little religious in offending against the Churches publike direction Ob. But perhaps you will say that you will not be led by the examples of men nor pin your conscience vpon other mens sleeues Resp. I answere first for the examples of men that though they be not alwaies to be generally followed without all exception nor rashly without due examination yet in scruple of conscience when wee lack the direction of the word of God I do not thinke that the breach of law contempt of the churches example is the safest way to keepe a good conscience S. Augustine had so high an estimation of the Churches example that in the maine foundation of all religion that which led him especially vnto a resolution was the example authority of the Church Ego vero saith he Euangelio non crederem nisi me caetholicae ecclesiae coÌ„moueret authoritas This great opinion had he of the Churches example that in a matter of greatest waight it preuailed more with him to gaine his assent then any other reason or argumeÌ„t could do And therfore in such intricate and doubtfull suspension hee giueth vs this good rule for our direction Quae vera perspexeris tene quae falsa respue quae dubia crede donec aut respuenda esse aut seÌ„per credenâ—a vel ratio doceat vel authoritas pracipiat A very sound rule fit to be obserued in euery Church by al the particular meÌ„bers of it wherin he prescribeth no more vnto vs theÌ„ he had subscribed vnto himself as euidently appeareth out of the former place whose iudgment practice concurring both togiâ—her ought not be so lightly estemed of vs especially we hauing in this case of the crosse beside his authority the example of the Church both rationem docentem and authoritatem praecipientem either of which in his iudgment were sufficient argumeÌ„ts to lead vs to obedience Ob. But you say you will not pin your conscience vpon other mens sleeues Resp. I answer that in matters of faith where you may haue the light of the holy Scripture for your full instruction it is not simply good to pinne your conscience vpon the sleeues of men though how farre Saint Augustine did yeeld euen in this case I haue before declared But in matters of order and obedience such as the obseruation of the crosse is the scriptures themselues do pinne your conscience vnto other mens sleeues For in things in different commanded for orders sake where the authority of the Magistrate goeth before there the conscience of the subiect ought to lead him after as if it were pinned vnto the Magistrates sleeue by the concurring iudgements of the two chiefe Apostles Peter and Paul of whom the one commandeth vs to submit our selues to all ordinances of men for the Lords sake the other to obey them euen for conscience sake Therefore to shut vp this first obiection I conclude with Plato Si positioni non credis reprobare debes Si reprobare non potes positioni credes Either prooue you that the crosse is a thing against conscience or else yeeld obedience vnto it for conscience sake The second obiection Whereas order and comlinesse are the grounds of such things as the Church may adde I haue doubted that this signe exceedeth both these because there is giuen it a spirituall signification of our valour in confessing Christ boldly Answer The signe of the crosse as we now vse it is neither against comlinesse nor against good order but very consonant vnto both euen by Caluines owne description of comlinesse and order and therefore by your owne rule grounded vpon Saint Paul may lawfully be added and vsed by our church Now if besides these two forenamed commodities it haue also a third to wit a spirituall signification yea and that such a one as hath not onely beene allowed but also affected in the primitiue church this ought not to debarre the vse of it amongst vs but rather to inferre that it ought to be in vse For the very same Apostle which prescribeth the two former rules of order and comlinesse in the very same chapter prescribeth a third of greater importance then they both to wit that they tend vnto edification And except our ceremonies be thus conditioned they ought not in any Christian church to be vsed as Caluine himselfe noteth Totum obseruationum vsum finem ad ecclesiae aedificationem referamus saith he referring not onely their intended end but also their dayly vse vnto the edification of the church Ob. But you say that to haue a spirituall signification is to exceede the nature of a ceremonie and to draw it vnto a higher quality Perhaps you meane vnto the nature of a sacrament For that is T. C. conceipt from whom I gesse you borrowed it Resp. But therein you greatly mistake the matter For not onely Sacraments but also ceremonies too ought to haue their spirituall signification of which if they be destitute they vtterly degenerate into vaine and idle gesticulations neither is there any reason why such should haue any place in the Church The Apostle saith of ceremonies that they be shaddowes of things to come of good things and of heauenly things Saint Hierom saith that they be not onely shaddowes but also eminencies too hee calleth them imagines and exemplaria futurorum which ought no lesse to bee obserued in our Christian ceremonies then it was in the Iewish For as Saint Augustine obserueth Whosoeuer obserueth any ceremonie or signe and not vnderstandeth what thing it doth signifie hee doth seruire sub signo hee is a slaue a seruant vnto the outward signe but he that obserueth it knowing the signification of it he serueth not the signe but the thing wherevnto it is referred Yea and Caluin allowing ceremonies in all christian Churches requireth these three conditions in them that they haue In numero paucitatem In
cannot see how the crosse can be said to bee left vnto vs by them vnles you thereby intend that we haue as it were wrung it out of their hands and that so they left that to vs which they could not with-hold from vs. If you take this phrase left vnto vs in a sense so prodigally and prodigiously large that you count all that to bee left vnto vs by those men which haue vsed the same things before vs then may both the sunne and the moone and all the elements bee said to bee left vnto vs by idolaters and consequently to be The monuments of idolatry and so what is there any where which in this so large and so laxe a sense may not be called A monument of idolatry As for this point therefore we truly professe that wee borrow not this ceremonie from the Romish Synagogue though they haue more lately vsed it but from the primitiue Church who first ordained it So that as it cannot truly bee said that the Papists haue left vs either the Lords praier or the Apostles creed or the holy sacraments but that wee take all these by our owne right out of the holy scriptures which are open to vs as well as to them so can it not truely bee sayd that the Papists haue left vnto vs the crosse but that we do borrow it from the primitiue church whose customes the Papists haue no more authority to ingrosse vnto themselues then the Protestants haue but may as freely be vsed by vs as by them for Patet omnibus veritas nondum est occupata But if it were granted that this ceremony of the crosse though left vnto vs by the primitiue church yet were brought vnto vs by the hands of Papists doth that presently make it a monument of idolatry if one should receiue a token by the hand of a Pagan which were sent vnto him from a Christian is it therefore made a monument of idolatry because he that brought it was an idolater Holy orders were giuen vnto the first Protestants by the hands of Papists doth this so defile the orders of our ministery as to make them presently the monuments of idolatry Surely though the Papists haue very foule hands yet do I not take them to bee so vgly foule as the Harpies feete were which defiled all things that they once had touched non mihi persuadeo sayth Peter Martyr papatus impietatem esse tantam vt quicquid attingit contaminatum reddat quò bonis vsui sancto concedi non possit In whose Christian and charitable iudgement I doe willingly sit downe Ob. Now for your third obiection That the change of our end in the vse of the crosse doth not make any change in the nature of the thinge Resp. I wonder you will affirme a thing so contrary vnto the rules of Logike and reason Who knoweth not that of all the causes it is only The end which maketh all actions to be either good or euill especially in things of indifferent nature Tertullian doth giue vs some instances to this purpose et ego mihi gallinaceum macto non minùs quà m Aesculâ—pio Socrates saith he et si me odor alicuius loci offenderit Arabiae aliquid incendo What is the reason then that his killing of a cocke and his burning of incence beeing all one action with that of the idolaters yet is not idolatry as their action was He answereth it himselfe quia vsus ipsius administratio interest And againe that he did these things nec eodem ritu nec eodem habitu nec eodem apparatus quo agitur apud idola So that it was his difference in the end which made such a difference in the actions For as Saint Augustine to the same purpose obserueth non actibus sed finibus pensantur officia which our Sauiour also declareth by three notable instances in the Pharisies viz fasting almes praying al which good actions were in them corrupted by their euill ends because they did them to be seene of men So that the end as you see not only exempteth an action from sinne but also infecteth an action with sinne Ob. But you say That then by altering of the end wee may bring back againe euen heathen idols too Resp. I answere that the comparison is very vnequall For heathen idols are most euidently forbidden and condemned in the scripture which the crosse is not And yet that there may bee such an alteration in the end that euen heathen idols may haue some vse in Gods seruice I haue shewed you before out of Saint Augustines iudgment A reply to fortifie the tenth obiection Ob. All outward formes and liknesses in Gods worship ordained by man and that to edifie teach sturre vp mens affections towards God they are forbidden in the second commandement This is by the very text necessarily consequent Exod. 20 4. But the signe of the crosse is such a likenesse For Maister Hooker an authentike expositor of our ceremonies condemneth all as vaine that are not significant And your selfe shew that to be your iudgement in your answere Ergo c. That of Saint Paul that all ought to be to edifying I pray to haue it considered whether it bee vnderstood of such spirituall gifts onely as God gaue to his Church and as be there named 1. Cor. 14.26 Answere That all outward formes and likenesses ordained by man in the worship of God to edifie teach or sturre vp our affection towards God should bee forbidden in the second commandement I doe vtterly denie and I wonder that either your selfe or any other Christian should affirme it no word of the commandement making for it and the minde of the commandement making cleane against it The iudgment both of Caluin and Beza and of other Diuines I haue shewed against you pag. 21.45 The place which you cite Exod. 20.4 Thou shalt make thee no grauen image c. if you distract it from his meaning which followeth in the next words Thou shalt not bowe downe to them nor worship them doth make rather against the making of all images which errour I thinke you will not maintaine then against the applying them to so good an end as you in this place seeme to condemne Should any thing whatsoeuer be thought vnlawfull which instructeth our mindes and sturreth vp our affections truly towards GOD Surely if you were able to make good that euen Heathen Idols could truly and properly produce these effects I would not doubt to affirme euen them to bee lawfull So farre am I from thinking that any thing is in this commandement forbidden which either inlightneth our vnderstanding or inflameth our affection towards God I rather hold it for a certaine truth that Idols are here forbidden vpon a contrary supposition namely that they blinde our vnderstanding and auert our affection away from God And therefore your proposition wanteth some better proofe then your bare assertion for as I said I doe simply deny