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
in like sort the decent and orderly ceremonies of the Church though abused in one place yet in an other be restored vnto their right vse especially the abuse which is offered in ceremonies being but only secunda idolatria as Tertullian noteth but a second and inferiour degree of idolatry whereas that which is offered in the creatures is often-times the principall they beeing honored for very Gods Where finde you Gods creatures in this case of idolatry to haue any greater priuiledge then the Churches ceremonies If they after they haue beene made idols in the highest degree may yet haue their vse in the seruice of God why may not the other too which can be made idols but in an inferiour degree If the idolatrie with creatures do not destroy the vse of the same indiuidua why should the idolatry of ceremonies which is a lesse abuse destroy the vse of all the whole species the translators of our Geneua Bible in setting out the picture of the golden Calfe insinuate these two things First that the abuse offered to one idol of that kind though it were idolatry in the highest degree yet hath not so corrupted the whole species of it but that other may both lawfully and profitably bee vsed Secondly that though that idols were but a mans inuention had bin so notably abused vnto idolatry yet that it is not debarred from helping vs euen in the seruice of God for that must needs be the end of their figuring it in that booke Beza as you heard before goeth further for hee alloweth the very same alter which hath beene the instrument of an idolatrous sacrifice to be vsed as an instrument of our christian Sacrament In which iudgement diuers martyrs in Queene Maries time concurred who were content to vse the same Surplices and Chalices which had beene abused in adolatrous masses The like did the christians in the primitiue church they conuerted the same temples into the houses of God which had beene consecrated to the seruice of abhominable idols yet are both idolatrous Temples and Alters mans owne meere inuentions and not Gods eyther creatures or ordinances So that though our crosse were the same which was abused and but a mans inuention yet might it by these examples be defended But secondly I answere vnto your consequent That if it were granted that the signe of the crosse were but a mans inuention yet can it not bee granted with any truth that the protestants crosse is the same which the Papists haue abused ours differing from theirs both in the Agents and in the ends of the action two very great and materiall differences Thirdly I demand how those men which condemne all humaine inuentions which haue idolatrously beene abused do agâ—ee with them selues when they condemne kneeling and commend sitting at the holy communion making this to bee a significant signe of our eternall rest which is both meerely an humaine inuention and hath notably beene abused vnto idolatry Ob. Perhaps you will say that sitting is agreeable to Christs owne institution and that he himselfe sat at his last Supper Resp. But that is not so hee vsed an other site of his body as distant from sitting as kneeling is He leaned and so did the rest of his Disciples according to the custome and fashion of those times Looke Clauis Scripturae in voce sinus Stuckius de ritibus conuiuialibus lib. 2. cap. 34. Ob. But happily you thinke that sitting hath not beene so wickedly abused vnto idolatry as kneeling hath Resp. Nay much more and to more horrible idolatry too For in the kingdomes of Calecute and Narsiâ—ga and in diuerse other prouinces of the East and West India where they worship the diuill in a most deformed image they represent him alwayes sitting and they worship him not kneeling but prostrate So that they which reiect kneeling and retaine sitting whilest they auoide the iesture of Christian idolaters they imâ—tate the iesture of Heathen idols Therefore where sitting is allowed I know not why either kneeling or crossing should be abolished Then to recapitulate the summe of this long answer If neitâ—er wee our selues nor the papits our aduersaâ—ies doe thinke our crosse auaileable to the driuing away of diuils nor to the sanctifying of our selues nor yet do adore it with diuine or holy worship then is not our crosse made an idoll either by our owne practise or by their opinion and therefore not to be debarred from the seruice of God by force of your first argument Againe if our crosse be either no humaine inuention but rather an Apostolicall tradition or being an humaine inuention yet hath neuer beene abused vnto idolatry then is it not excluded from the seruice of God by vertue of your second argument But the first of these is true as I haue shewed in the body of this answere Ergo the second also The fift obiection For as much as our profession of Christ is a part of the couenant Rom. 10.8.9 I haue doubted how man may appoint the signe of the crosse as a token of our profession This being Gods owne prerogatiue as to ordaine the couenant so to ordaine meete signes for it Gen. 17.7.11 Answer This fift obiection is very intricate but I gesse that â—t may be explicated thus No man may adde signes to the couenant of God Gen. 17.7.11 But our profession of Christ is the couenant of God Rom. 10.8.9 Ergo no man may adde signes to our profession of Christ. And by consequent the signe of the crosse may not bee added to our profession in baptisme In which argument the Maior must be answered by distinction That the outward signes of our profession or couenant with God bee of two diuers natures for either they bee sacramentall or ceremoniall signes For sacramentall signes wee plainely confesse that they must needs bee of Gods owne institution and haue his owne promise annexed vnto them and therefore no man hath any power to ordaine them but this as you truly say is Gods sole prerogatiue But â—or rituall and ceremoniall signes made either for the ordering of the Church within it selfe or for the distinguishing of it from other assemblies the case is farre otherwise such thinges may bee made by the Churches constitution without any incroching vppon Gods prerogatiue by the iudgement of the most Diuines both old and new I reffere you for breuities sake vnto the ninety fiue page of Bishoppe Whitgifts booke continuing vnto page 128. In which long and learned discourse hee citeth many testimonies of the ancient fathers declaring many rites ceremonies to haue beene ordained in the primitiue Church by hir owne authority without any expresse warrant of the word for them sauing onely that generall warrantize of Saint Paule Omnia decenter et ordine fiant In which rule he naming not the seuerall particulars but leauing them to the Churches discretion he giueth it power to ordaine lawes and ceremonies so that these conditioÌ„s be not transgressed
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
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
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
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
the Church doth not tyrannize ouer mens consciences in ordaining significant rites and ceremonies but these men would tyrannize ouer the Church who would spoile her of that her lawfull authoritie especially they not being able to produce any Scripture whereby shee is abridged of that power Ob. But though the Church should haue power to ordaine rites and ceremonies for priuate order in it selfe yet hath it no power to appoint any out-ward signe to bee a note of our generall profession but that is GODS owne peculiar prerogatiue Gen 17 7.11 Resp. That the Church hath authority in greater matters then either in adding significations to ceremonies or outward notes to our profession very many instances doe notably declare First that whereas Christ instituted his supper at the time of supper it hath changed that time from the euening to the morning which is an altering in circumstance of Christs owne institution Secondly whereas the Apostles decreed in a generall councell that Christians should abstaine from bloud and from stranglers that hath it likewise altered and so cancelled an Apostolicall constitution The like authority they shewed in altering the ancient day of the Sabboth and administring Baptisme vnto children in this they wanting the commandement of Christ in that they changing the commandement of God From which instances we may argue as from the greater to the lesse That if they erred not in those fore-named ordinances much lesse haue they erred in adding significations vnto their ceremonies by the same reason why hath not the church as great a power to adde outward signes vnto our profession as to ordaine other ceremonies concerning our Ecclesiasticall administration Is the signe the lesse lawfull because it is a signe of our profession Why then is none at all lawfull for not onely this signe of the crosse but also all other Ecclesiasticall ceremonies as Aquinas teacheth vs are signes of our profession Hee saith that Omnes ceremoniae be protestationes quaedam fidei Tertullian being newly conuerted vnto Christianity forsooke his old habit which was a gowne and betooke him to a new which was a Cloake that so with the change of his garment hee might notifie to the world the change of his profession which certainly hee would neuer haue done if he had beene perswaded that the adding of such a signe vnto his profession had beene an incroching vpon GODS owne prerogatiue and peculiar iurisdiction The Christians likewise in the primitiue Church euer from the time of the very Apostles haue vsed this same ceremonie of the crosse which is now in question as a marke and a signe of their profession and yet did neuer either they themselues thinke it or the greatest aduersaries that they had impute it as a presumption and incroching against Gods owne prerogatiue as Saint Basil obserueth Nec his quisquam contradicit saith hee speaking of the traditions and ceremonies of the Church Quisquis sane vel tenuiter expertus est quae sint iura ecclesiastica So that this obiection of yours if it be good condemneth not onely our vse of the crosse now after it hath beene abused by the Papists but euen the vse of it in the primatiue Church before it was abused Or if it be weake it is weake against vs as well as against them For the vse of it now is no more an incrochment vppon Gods owne prerogatiue then it was in that time Ob. But you proue by that place Gen 17.7.11 that God onely hath power to adde signes vnto his couenant and by consequent that they which adde any such signes presume to enter vppon Gods owne prerogatiue Resp. But this proofe which you alledge hath two great faults in it First that it is not ad idem and secondly that it is not concludent in the cause not ad idem thus To proue that the Church may not adde any ceremoniall signe vnto our profession you produce a place of scripture which speaketh onely of sacramentall signes It is circumcision which was a sacramentall signe that God in that place did adde vnto his couenant Such signes I do yeald that God onely may institute But as for the crosse wee make it not a sacrament but onely a ceremonie And wee may truly say of it as Saint Augustine doth of the birth day of Christ Non in sacramento celebratur sed tantum in memoriam reuocatur Secondly if your proofe were ad idem and proper to the purpose yet is it inconcludent For by what rule of reason can this consequent follow God added a sacramentall signe vnto his couenant Ergo man may not adde a ceremoniall signe if God added signes vnto his couenant to assure vs of his faithfull performance of his part why may not wee adde signes vnto our couenant to assure him of our faithfull performance of our part Tertullian saith that Licet omni fideli constituere quod deo congruat quod disciplina conducat and quod saluti proficiat Dicente domino cur autem non et a vobis ipsis quod iustum est iudicatis marke et a vobis ipsis Iosua when he had heard the people make an earnest profession that they would serue the Lord not any other God he rested not in their bare profession but sealed it by this ceremonie by pitching vp a great stone vnder an oke which hee sayd should witnesse against them if they brake their couenant as Iacob before by the like ceremonie had sealed the couenant betweene him and Laban So that wee are not debarred by that place of Genesis but that we may adde signes if not seales vnto Gods couenant if Gods couenant and our profession be Synonima as you seeme to make them in your Maior proposition Now for your Minor That our profession of Christ is the couenant of God it may in some sense bee allowed to bee true although as you know the couenant betweene God and man doth passe in some-what an other forme viz. That he should be our God and we should be his people where the Prophet expoundeth our part of the couenant to bee the faithfull obeying of him and not the outward professing of him As for faith confession which you alledge out of the Rom. cap. 10.9 to be the whole sum of our profession and of our part of the couenant with God that is not true they bee partes indeede of our couenant with God but our whole part they be not vnlesse you take both faith confession in a very large signification faith not only for beleeuing with the heart but also for working with the hand And confession not onely for the speeches of the tongue but also for the gestures and behauiours of the body By which meanes though not there nominatim expressed yet our God ought to bee serued and the truth both of our faith and confession to be testified So that vnto those two points of beleeuing and confessing we not onely may but also must adde