THE QUESTION TO Whom it belonged Anciently TO PREACH AND Whether all PRIESTS might or did Discussed out of ANTIQUITY As also what Preaching is properly By MERIC CASAUBON D. D. and one of the Prebends of Ch. Ch. CANTERBURY LONDON Printed for Timothy Garthwait at the Kings Head in St. Pauls Church-yard 1663 OF PREACHING AS Anciently used SInce the late Directions to Ministers sent by his Grace of Canterbury to all Parishes a Question was put to me by a Friend a Pious Orthodox Minister and well affected to the Government what ground there was for those words in the said Directions That Preaching was not anciently the work of every Priest but was restrained to the choicest persons for gravity prudence and learning Not that he so much doubted as I suppose the truth of what was alledged or scrupled at the obedience and submission but that his obedience and submission for to that purpose he expressed himself upon fuller information and evidence might be more rational or rationally justifiable before God and men if there should be occasion I cannot say I use his very words but to this effect I am sure as I apprehended him His Question came to me by a Letter and by a Letter Answer was made In my Answer I was forced to contract my self as much as I could being then wholly taken up by some other more pressing duties of my place But afterwards when I was more at leisure consulting with my Adversaria and finding that as many known to me as had treated of that Argument had not only done it very slightly as I thought but also committed divers mistakes in setting down the practice of Antiquity and that it might be the case of more then this one who had addressed himself to me for further satisfaction I thought it would not be unseasonable service if I published what by diligent reading was come to my observation upon this Argument I shall not keep my self so precisely to the words of the Question but take the liberty of any thing that offers it self by the way having some reference to it and may be useful and fit to be known of its self And first of all that there may be no mistake about the word wherein some men of no small account for want of a right understanding have been misled in their judgements and opinions it will be very requisite that we consider and agree what Preaching is in general and what is that Preaching particularly and by what names known unto the Ancients which is the subject of this discourse I will not insist upon the Latitude of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek or of concio or sermo and such others whether in Greek or Latin Though Optatus Bishop of Milevis in Africa was once put to it when he wrote Episcopalis tractatus probatur ab omnibus sanctitate vestitus salutatione scilicet geminata yet I think there is no man so ignorant in these dayes but can distinguish between a set Speech or Oration in general of any common subject ordinary or extraordinary publick or private but publickly delivered or fitted at least for publick audience besides the difference either of places or persons and that which we usually call a Sermon though both go often under one title in ancient Books But whether any set Speech publickly delivered setting aside the consideration of the Speaker at present tending to reformation of life as a serious exhortation to vertue and contempt of the world disswasion from vice and all sensuality and the like may be called Preaching may be some question and the resolution of it of some consequence It is very certain that long before and since Christ both among the Romans and Graecians not to speak of other Nations less known in those dayes such a practice was answerable in many respects to what we now call Preaching Certainly if the visible fruits of what we call mortification and renouncing of the world if outward abstinence and sobriety in life and conversation if liberal distributing to the necessities of others if strictest bonds of mutual love and amity be the proper effects and evidences of powerful Preaching it cannot be denied but such have been the effects often of that kind of Preaching which hath been in use among Heathens for which we have not the authority of the Heathens only but of Christians also Fathers and others who bear witness and tell us of particular examples And though it is not improbable that many such things might be done for ostentation only or some other worldly end as among Christians but too often yet there is more ground to believe that more frequently Speakers dealt with all simplicity aiming at the edification as we now speak of their hearers as may appear by that excellent passage of Musonius the Philosopher who lived under Nero the Roman Emperour recorded by Aulus Gellius l. V̄ c. 1. and by sundry Epistles of Seneca as particularly the 52. and 108. well worth the reading Whence it is that the Greek Fathers use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especially St. Chrysostome so frequently for piety and godliness And this may be some reason too which made some of the Greek Fathers as understood by many at least to extend the power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in general so far as to maintain that even before the true and essential 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word the second Person of the Trinity was fully revealed unto the world the natural 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reason or speech though natural yet the gift of God that too well managed and improved with care and industry was able to save of which assertion for it and against it much hath been written by some late writers But though for the matter of their moral discourses and exhortations they might have much affinity those that were made by Heathens with those that were made by Christians called Sermons yea and excell too for the most part in pregnancy of wit and ornaments of speech yet one main difference is this that their grounds and motives related unto this life only as having no knowledge much less assurance of another life after this which will much aggravate the case of Christians at the day of Judgement who having so much more to ground upon as promises of Eternity and being partakers of the Divine Nature have therefore the more to answer for if exhortations do not work more potently upon them then they did upon Heathens among whom nevertheless they did produce such wonderful effects Now if we look into the property of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 usually translated into Latin praedicare from whence our English to preach is derived it doth import a solemn proclaiming or announcing of somewhat of publick concernment which was not known before so doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too both which words have particular relation unto Christ his blessed Incarnation for the Redemption of the world His coming into the world who was the subject of so many Prophesies before and the expectation as both the Greek and Latin translation render
the custom in his Church whose example was soon followed by others as peculiarly by Aurelius Bishop of Carthage for which he was much commended by St Augustin as may appear by those congratulatorie Letters of his unto the said Aurelius upon that occasion Baronius hath it at large out of Possidonius Ierom and St. Augustin Tentavit S. Valerius saith Baronius quod ante nullus Episcoporum Africanorum attigerat nempe ut Presbyter Evangelium praedicaret cum non nisi Episcopi id obirent muneris Which also is attested by Optatus Milevitanus a Bishop of those dayes in his books against the Donatists who doth not argue it but delivers it upon occasion as a thing notoriously known that tractare est Episcoporum However those testimonies in Baronius deliver it not so generally that it was not lawful absolutely but not lawful or allowed that they should do it praesente Episcopo But to our purpose it comes all to one whether they might not absolutely before till Valerius had broken the ice and others followed his example or whether it was praesente Episcopo only that it was not lawful certain it is that all did not and none did but those that were licensed by the Bishops And certainly that was the practice over all Churches in those dayes neither do I believe that one Priest of a hundred was allowed it or ever did it But we must distinguish of times too For there was a time when all Priests had their maintenance from the Bishop immediately and were called sportulantes Presbyteri and were employed by him as he saw occasion Then after the increase of Christianism Parishes came to be divided and upon that division particular Parishes assigned to particular Priests Since which time it is apparent by some Canons of later Councils that Priests now Persons were not only allowed but also called upon and enjoyned to preach in their Parishes to which end Pulpits were erected in most Parishes But of all things I have read upon this Argument I have alwayes most wondred at the relation of Sozomens the Greek Historian who where he treats of different customs in different places doth attest that as in Alexandria which is also attested by Socrates the Bishop only did preach or teach so in Rome neither Bishop nor any body else his words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is translated by Cassiodorus in his Historia Tripartita Apud Romanos in unoquoque anno semel psallunt alleluja primo die Paschae it a ut Romani velut pro juramento habeant a ridiculous mistake he found it in his Copy as we have it to this day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the true reading certainly that is pro re difficili multi laboris habeant ut hunc hymnum audire mereantur that is audiant In qua Ecclesia neque Episcopus neque alter quisquam coram populo docet There is so much to be said against this as that I must needs mistrust a mistake And yet it were as hard to believe that Sozomen either wittingly or willingly would misinform where he could be so easily convinced or could be misinformed himself in a thing of so publick observation I conceive the mistake may lye in those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may import being translated in Ecclesia that it was not the fashion in Rome for any body to preach in the middle of the Church but in the Quire only or from the staires or ascent tending to the Quire as in divers other places History Records tell us that Chrysostome by reason of the multitude of people that flocked from all places to hear him was forced to change his place Baronius saith he did suggestum in medio Ecclesiae collocare but I think he is mistaken For his Authors though he name them not were no other certainly then Sozomen and Nicephorus both which say that he did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex lectorum ambone seu pulpito from the readers Pulpit seated in those dayes in the middle of the body of the Church Now it is probable that others both before and since Chrysostom did the same Socrates also speaking of Origens preaching hath the same words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It seems therefore that it was usual enough in those places but not so at Rome If so then Cassiodore was much mistaken in rendring those words in this place for otherwise the words will bear it very well and of the two it is the most warrantable translation as to the words coram populo where it was intended in Ecclesia of the place precisely Or it may be because Sermons were in the Quire not in the body of the Church as elsewhere though the people might come and hear yet not so many as when or where in the body of the Church therefore not thought so properly to preach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is populo If any man can devise any thing more probable I shall be glad for I have no great confidence in this But I have not yet met with it I am sure However this occasion being given me I cannot but profess my great dislike that Service and Sermon should be parted any where the one in one place the other in another if it may possibly be avoided Especially at such a distance as it is here with us in the Cathedral and Metrapolitical Church of Christ in Canterbury I conceive it to be one main reason that so few are acquainted and by consequent not more in love with the Service which if better known unto them and the many benefits they might reap by observing diligently every part of it which the ancient Fathers of the Church do often refer their auditors unto would certainly be in far greater request that I say not admiration which yet I profess to believe that it doth highly deserve at the hands of all both religious and wise That the place is not so convenient for many to hear though I believe there be but few Quires in England either more spacious or more stately is but a weak plea against such apparent mischief by contempt of the Service and therein of God himself of his holy Word especially which makes a great part of the Service But this by the way only out of a deep sense of the abuse and earnest desire of redress We will now consider what can out of antiquity for that is all we have to do be objected to the contrary in opposition I mean to that assertion the subject of our discourse that Preaching was not anciently the work of every Priest Franciscus Bernardinus Ferrariensis to begin with him first one of the Doctors of the Colledge of Milan in his book De ritu Concionum Printed at Milan a. d. 1600. takes upon him to prove jam inde à primis Ecclesiae temporibus concionandi munus etiam presbyterorum fuisse That it belonged unto Bishops
principally Episcoporum maximè proprium fuisse he doth not deny But he adds Sed presbyteros ijsdem primis Ecclesiae temporibus publicè concionari solitos quoniam quidem non satis notum ijs videtur qui multa in hanc rem collegerunt Nos ex Apostolicarum Constitutionum autore c. It should seem by him some that had undertaken the same before him had performed it but very slenderly as he thought and therefore did expect he should do them no small pleasure His chief and as I may say only Author for the rest prove nothing of ancient times much less de primis Ecclesiae temporibus is the compiler of the Apostolical Constitutions so intituled What some Protestants great pretenders to the knowledge of Antiquity have made bold to affirm concerning these Constitutions I know well enough But great undertakers are not alwayes the surest men either to perform or to be trusted too The most learned Papists have given them over long ago as Bellarmin Baronius and others as not justifiable and he that desireth further satisfaction let him read the Prolegomena of that truly pious and learned Prelate James Vsher Archbishop of Armach to his edition of Ignatius his Epistles who is of opinion that the book as now interpolated was not known to the world till the sixth age after Christ And in case it had been known before some part of it yet being a counterfeit book at the first what credit his testimony or a testimony rather if it be the work of many hands taken out of him may deserve let the reader judge The other testimonies which he doth produce they concern later times and import no more then this that power is given unto Priests or that for the time to come they are appointed and commanded to preach in their Parishes or lastly that Bishops were to take care that those whom they knew able should be employed which rather shews that anciently it was not so ordinary for Priests to be employed but not at all that till licensed or appointed by the Bishop of the Diocess they did ever presume or might legally to do it It is not doubted but that all Priests by vertue of their ordination have a legal capacity to preach as now understood but their ordination doth neither confer ability of performance in point of parts nor giveth power of actual execution at pleasure for time or place the tryal of the one and the allowance of the other altogether depending of the Bishop in those times So that in effect all that Ferrarius doth bring to prove his assertion for which he did expect thanks it seems from some who had attempted it before but with little success is no more then what we grant and may grant without prejudice to our assertion and present undertaking The reader may take notice that the words of the Constitutions quoted by Ferrarius out of Turrianus his translation are by Bovius Episcopo Ostunensi very differently translated quite to another sense which hath nothing of preaching in it I had not at this time I once had I am sure the Original Greek to consult But I guess that Turrianus was in the right and Bovius mistaken But again Possidonius in the life of St. Augustin where he speaks of the custom of the African Churches that no Priest absolutely saith Baronius no Priest before his Bishop saith Possidonius might preach and how that custom was altered by Valerius Et eidem presbytero Augustino scil potestatem dedit coram se in Ecclesia Evangelium praedicandi ac frequentissimè tractandi contra usum quidem consuetudinem Africanarum Ecclesiarum Vnde etiam ei nonnulli Episcopi detrahebant Then follows Sed ille vir venerabilis ac providus in Orientalibus id ex more fieri sciens utiliter Ecclesiae consulens c. What can we infer upon this This as I conceive Not that a Priest by the custom of the Place might preach in the Eastern Church without a license from the Bishop but that once licensed and allowed he might without offence preach before his Bishop as well as in his absence Again some ground of objection against what we here maintain may be taken from the words of the Epistle adscribed unto S. Ierome which as I intimated before hath much of St. Ierome his sense and spirit in it though for some other reasons it is very likely that it is not his ad Rusticum Narbonensem Episcopum de septem gradibus Ecclesiae Nemo hinc Episcoporum saith he invidiâ Diabolicae tentationis inflatus irascatur in templo si presbyteri interdum exhortentur plebem si in Ecclesia praedicent si plebibus ut scriptum est benedicant c. and then tells us that Romae and in Oriente in Italia in Creta in Cypro in Africa in Illyrico in Hispania in Britannia and ex parte per Gallias it was so If this be true then France was the only place at that time where Priests were not allowed or licensed to preach at all Or at least not to preach praesente Episcopo which those words irascatur in templo may seem to import But because in this whole Chapter he doth alwayes speak absolutely without any such limitation or intimation as praesente Episcopo I rather suspect a transposition not by any fault of the Copy but from the Author himself which is ordinary enough to best writers and that those words in templo belong not to nemo Episcoporum but to si presbyteri exhortentur c. What then shall we or can we make of this testimony This certainly and no more That Priests who for learning and other parts were found fit which formerly in many places whether fit or not fit would not be granted were then in most places allowed or licensed to preach or being allowed and licensed might do it praesente Episcopo as well as when he was out of the way But when all is done or said that can be said upon this subject we must acknowledge that according to difference of times and places great variety may be observed as in other things observed by Ecclesiastical writers so in this particular We do not therefore undertake to prove that alwayes and in all places of Christianity it hath been so but that in ancient times and most generally Priests did not preach in that sense as preaching is now generally understood except they were called and licensed to it by the Bishop I know well enough that upon some extraordinary occasions some Deacons and some who were neither Priests nor Deacons have been allowed and employed but this proves nothing against what we maintain and I hope there hath been enough said to satisfie that it is so indeed Now from the consideration of all that hath been said if without offence I may I would by way of Corollarie propose it to the consideration of all truly sober and impartially judicious whether those men that have reduced or endeavoured