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
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
their writings shew most plainely Yea and being yet more mad and swelling like Aesops frogge with greater pride of themselues euen to the cracking of their skinnes they haue challenged to the combat euen Moses and Aaron to dispute the case before the King himselfe and all the Princes of the land as Iannes and Iambres did But being vndertaken they haue beene found vpon the trial to be as blind as bold and all that they could say to be indeed nothing els but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aristophanes speaketh that is A hoarse and harsh croking of vnreasonable frogges Who though they were at that time as soundly charmed by some of our most reuerend and learned Bishops as certaine frogges in France were once by Bishop Regulus which haue continued dumbe silent euer since like Seriphian frogs yet our frogs lesse modest continue stil to trouble the whole land with their croking as though nothing had euer beene spoken against them Notwithstanding that action was both begunne and proceeded in with as great a solemnity and preparation as euer was any since the time of great Constantine our Constantine himselfe in his owne royall person vouchsafing to sustaine the greatest part of the burden and with admirable dexteritie to confound their garrulity The third and last meane whereby the truth shall be resisted by this brood of hypocrisie is The cruelty of blood Of which although it may truely be sayd Gods name be praised for it that As yet we haue not resisted vnto blood as it is in the Epistle vnto the Hebrews yet that must be ascribed rather vnto Gods most merciful dispensation then vnto their merciful disposition For that they intended blood yea and blood vpon blood their diuulged libels shew threatning Fistes and Clubbes and Bickerings that shall make all our harts ake yea and Blood spilt by butchers They be their owne words and I gather no more then their owne pennes haue skattered and that they were not in ieast when they threatned these thinges their owne ouert actitions commenting vpon their inward intentions haue notably declared Their strength was suruayed their armie mustred and found to be an hundred thousand hands strong as they themselues haue boasted if happily their muster-maister was not deceiued Nay the sword was almost drawne to haue struck a deadly stroke yea and that euen at our soueraigne head The signe was giuen by them and the trumpeters themselues were mounted vp aloft but it was but in a cart a worthy chariot for such worthlesse persons but yet euen there they sounded vnto the battaile proscribing by name diuers honorable Counsellers and intending by a more effectuall Metamorphosis then euer Iannes and Iambres did to haue turned the water of our riuers into blood All this is well knowne vnto those that doe remember the furious commotion of Haccket and Copinger which as all men know was not done in a corner but proclamed in the open streetes of our chiefest citie and all this for the furthering of the new pretended Discipline But it pleased the Lord in mercie to confound their conspiracie and by the blood of a few to spare the blood of many in powring that blood which they thought to haue shed by his mercifull prouidence vpon their owne head And so be it vnto all that seeke the trouble of Israel Whereunto let euery true hart say Amen FINIS An answere vnto certaine obiections of one vnresolued as concerning the vse of the Crosse in Baptisme Vestra solum legitis vestra amatis caeteros causa incognita condemnatis Cic. lib. 2. de Nat. Deor. Peccat qui damnat quasi peccata quae nulla sunt Aug. lib. 3. de libero arbitr cap. 15. Primus felicitatis gradus est non delinquere secundus delicta cognoscere Cyprian Cornelio The Obiectors praeface FIrst I humbly desire that this may be interpreted as not done of mee in derogation of the booke of Common-prayer which I haue euer vsed with reuerence and respect nor of contradiction to the Estate or opposition to authority to which I haue euer submitted my selfe Secondly in all the time of my forbearance I would haue it knowne and considered that I neuer inueighed against it or condemned others that did vse it or disswaded any from doing it and carried my forbearance so as none or few espied what I did vpon care not to be offensiue by mine example My conformity in other things showeth that this is omitted neither contentiously nor contemptiously Answer FOr the protestation vsed in this Praeface I rest charitably perswaded because it is made both by one who best knowes what hath beene done in that matter and by one who as I trust for the feare of God would not make any protestation contrary to his practise I likewise desire that what I shall write in answere of these obiections may be held and esteemed as mine owne free iudgement begotten in me onely by an indifferent inquisition into these causes and not imposed vpon me by an ouer-weening opinion of any mens persons that haue waded before me in the search of these questions whose reasons in many points I may happily follow but their authority without reason in none at all The first obiection First by forbearing it I was sure I did not sinne by vsing it I doubted least I should haue sinned seeing it hath neither word of Christ nor example of the Apostles to warrant it And whatsoeuer is done doubtfully is sinne to him that doeth it Answere As concerning both your positions deliuered in the ingresse of this first obiection my iudgement is opposed ex diametro vnto yours That if you had vsed the signe of the crosse it being so inioyned you by a Christian law you might haue beene sure that you had not sinned but hauing forborne it you could not but know that therein you greatly sinned My reason is this because Sinne is nothing else but a transgressing of the law either Diuine or Humaine where diuine doth not resist it And therefore your yeelding obedience vnto such a law must needs yeeld you assurance that therein you sinned not On the other side your detracting of obedience from such a law must needs resolue you as fully that therein you sinned as you knew assuredly the law was by you transgressed both these consequents be grounded vpon the Apostles owne definition of sinne of which you could not be ignorant Ob. But happily you will say that sinne is but onely a transgression of the law of God and not of the law of man Such as the crosse is Resp. I answere that whosoeuer disobeyeth the law of man commanding in things of indifferent nature he therein transgresseth the law of God and consequently committeth sinne For the Apostle Peter commandeth vs to submit our selues not onely vnto the law of God but also vnto the ordinances of man and that for the Lords sake Which place of Saint Peter eyther giueth the Magistrate commission to
it for a good reason that the rule could not be good because it is fetched out of the Canon-law was no better but a Popes-decree But wee will not vse such peeuishnesse but leaue that to our aduersaries Let vs heare what the law sayth and how farre it maketh for you Per hoc magna authoritas est habenda in ecclesia vt si nonnulli ex praedecessoribus et maioribus nostris fecerint aliqua quae illo tempore potuerunt esse sine culpa et postea verâ—untur in errorem et superstitionem sine tarditate aliqua et cum magna authoritate à posteris destruantur In which sentence there be two things to be considered of vs. The first is the quality of the persons of whoÌ„ he speaketh the second his qualified maner of speaking For the persons heere ment by the name of Posterity it must needs be vnderstood of men in authority not of any priuate persons The words of the decree are most plaine pregnant These ought to be of great authority in the church Why that if things wel begun do degenerate into euill by that great authority they may bee destroyed whereby hee implyeth that hee which will do the worke of Ezechias in destroying things abused he ought to haue the authority of Ezechias Otherwise if therbe a disparity in the agents there wil certainly follow a disparity in the actions For if that clause in the latter end of the decree cum magna authoritate a posteris destruantur bee so construed as some men haue wrested it that the very example of Ezechias in destroying the brazen serpent which before he had alledged doth giue great authority vnto euery other man to do the like it is not onely a manifest peruerting of the Gramatical coÌ„struction but would also proue the subuerting of all ciuill constitutions For what authority doth the example of magistrates which orderly repeale inconuenient lawes giue vnto priuate men disorderly to breake them whilst they stand in force Or how doth the action of the Magistrate who hath his authority inuested in himselfe as a publike person authorize priuate men to do the same worke by their voluntary immitation If this licence were granted it would proue not the taking away of abuses but the sowing of ten thousand abuses for one Saint Augustine speaking of this fact of Ezechias saith that he destroyed this serpent by his publike authority not by any priuate fantasie He did religiosa potestate deo seruire Caluin vpon the second coÌ„mandement expounding that place of Deuteronomie yee shall destroy all the places wherein those nations serued their Gods yee shall ouerthrow their altars and breake downe their pillers and burne their groues with fire c. He citeth the iudgement of S. Augustine who saith that this commandement was not giuen vnto priuate men but to the publike Magistrate And hee commendeth his iudgment to bee very sound and wise Wolphius likewise who handleth this question ex professo Whether priuate men may destroy the monuments of idolatry He pereÌ„ptorily denieth it Priuatis hominibus vt haec agant pius ac sapiens author est nemo Speaking euen of this very fact of Ezechias in destroying the brazen serpent And he strenghneth his iudgment by the example of Gedion who all the while that he was a priuate man he indured the Alter the groue of Baal laid no hand to pull downe that idolatry but when he once was called vnto the magistracie furnished thereby with lawfull authority then hee did the deed he did it throughly So that the magistrate beeing the person whome the decree vnderstandeth by the name of posterity his example can bee no warrant for any man to do the like if he lacke the like authority Now for the qualification of the speech which was the 2. thing to bee considered in the law the forme of speech which it vseth is but onely permissiue granting a liberty and not preceptiue imposing a necessity leauing place for the Magistrate with aduisement to consider whether the abuse be such as doth necessarily require such an vtter destruction The law saith That posterity may destroy them You say that posterity must destroy them From May to Must is no good consequence That Logike rule as you know is growne almost into a prouerbe A posse ad esse non valet argumentum we yeeld that posterity may destroy them if the abuse can hardly bee reformed that it must destroy them if it can not be reformed at all But neither of these can bee said of the crosse whose abuses wee haue reformed with very great facility and yet not destroyed the right and true vse of it as experience sheweth plainly And therefore those men which match our crosse with the brazen serpent thinke it as necessary to bee destroyed as that they truly fall into that censure of Caluin that praecisé vrgendo quod per se medium est sunt nimio rigore superstitiosi Ob. But happily you will say that if this sentence of the Canon law do not inforce the abolishing of the crosse yet the example of good King Ezechias doth For if he destroyed the brazen serpent being GODS owne ordinance because it was idolatrously abused then much more ought wee to abolish the crosse which is but mans inuention it hauing bene likewise idolatrously abused Resp. This example of Ezechias is very much stood vpon and therefore it would be the more narrowly examined Your argument is inforced A maiori ad Minus and it may be framed thus Ezechias spared not the ordinance of GOD but destroyed it because it had beene abused Ergo much lesse ought wee to spare the ordinance of man but destroy it if it haue bene likewise abused I answer that your Antecedent which is the ground of your argument is not true Ezechias in destroying the brazen serpent did not therein destroy the ordinance of GOD. For in the brazen serpent there be things to be considered Viz the first erection for the healing of the people and the preseruation for the remembrance of that benifit The first erection was indeed the ordinance and iniunction of GOD himselfe but the preseruation was the meere inuention of man It issuing from the good intent of the people without any warrant or commandement from GOD. Now that worke beeing finished in the wildernes for which GOD erected it that which Ezechias destroyed was but onely mans inuention to witt the preseruation of it So that if the crosse be but onely an humane inuention and not Apostolicall tradition yet euen so that thing in the serpent which Ezechias destroyed was no better And therefore the ground of your argument A maiori faileth it beeing rather a false presumption then a true position Ob. But happily you will say that the brazen serpent had yet a further vse ordained by GOD namely to be a figure of our sauiour CHRIST And so ought to
fullest of them heere in this world when hee awaketh and riseth vp vnto the resurrection shall finde himselfe emptied of them all When the hungry shal be filled with good things but the rich shall be sent empty away as it is in the Gospel For as Christ when he came to vs in mercy did empty himselfe quite of all his heauenly glory so we when we go vnto Christ in iudgement shall likewise be emptied of all our earthly glory we shall appeare before him naked being stript of all those gay and goodly trappings which now so much glorifie and vanifie foolish worldlings as euen Plato himselfe noteth And then as I noted before out of the booke of Wisdome wee shall truely see the Vanity of all these earthly glories when wee see how bare and how naked and how empty they haue left vs. This briefly for Vanity as it is Inanity that is voyde and empty of all those good things whereof it seemeth to haue store and plenty The second branch of Vanity in this second signification is Vanum opposed vnto Graue or Ponderosum and so Vanity signifieth a thing light and windy so that Vanitas and Leuitas be in this sense Synonyma In this sense doth Salust vse the name of Vanity as Nonnius citeth him Maurivanum genus He calleth the Morians a vaine nation that is Light and vnconstant Ingenio mobili as he noteth them in an other place So likewise doth Tully vse this word Vanity in his booke of Diuination where he complaineth that the notable Art of Diuination is brought into comtempt Leuitate Vanitate hominum By the leuity and Vanity of men For as the excellent Art of Musicke is growne into contempt through the basenes and lightnes of certaine vagrant musitians which prostistute their comming at euery drunken feast so likewise that renouned Art of Diuination grew into great comtempt through the vilenes of certaine roguing mountbanks cosoning fortunetellers which out of mens forheads and faces and hands would take vpon them to diuine and to reade hidden destinies and thereupon it was that Tully so complained that the dignity of so noble an Art had suffered such a preiudice through the leuity and Vanity of certaine hir professors Vsing Leuity Vanity Promiscuè for one thing And in the same sense doe likewise the Scriptures vse the name of Vanity for lightnes and that which hath no waight or worth in it The Prophet Moses calleth Idoles Vanity and the Prophet Isay calleth them Wind both words noting out their lightnes vnto vs they are as light as wind which is the lightest of all things yea as light as nothing as it followeth in that place for an Idoll is nothing as is noted in an other place The Prophet Dauid likewise discoursing of the vaine condition of man he vseth the same word in the very same sense for he saith that Man is deceitfull vpon the waights Yea and altogether lighter then Vanity it selfe Lighter thâ—n Vanity Which must needs imply that Vanity is a very light and windy matter when as it is put for a principall instance and example of lightnesse as there you see it is The third branch of Vanity in this second signification is Vanum opposed vnto Verum and so Vanity signifieth a thing false crafty so that Vanitas and Falsitas be in this sense Synonyma In this sense doth Plautus vse the name of Vanity in his Mostellaria Vera cantas Vana vellem You speake the Verity I would it were Vanity opposing Vanum vnto that which is Verum In this sense doth Terence also vse the name of Vanity in his Eunuchus Si falsum aut Vanum aut fictum continuò palam est he calleth that a Vaine thing which is a false and a fained thing expressing Vanum by his Synonymon as Plautus did by his Oppositum And in this sense I find the name of Vanity applied most commonly vnto three seuerall things First in spirituall matters I find Idolatry to be called by the name of Vanity because it is but a false religion it is Falsum and therefore Vanum as you heard before out of Terence It hath a shew of godlines as the Apostle Paul speaketh but yet it lacketh the power of it In this sense doth Moses vse the name of Vanity in the booke of Deuteronomie where complaning of the Iewes in the person of God he saith that They moued him to iealousie with that which is not God they prouoked him to anger with their Vanities As Idols are false gods so idolatrie is false worship and both these called Vanity because they be false Hence likewise the Prophet Dauid calleth such heathen worship Superstitious Vanity Superstitious because idolatrous and Vanity because false Secondly in common life I find Lying to be called by the Vanitie because it is a false speech it is Falsum and therefore Vanum as before I noted In this sense doth Tully vse the name of Vanity in the first of his Offices where speaking of the falsehood of tradesmen in their artes he saith that Nihil proficâ—unt nisi admoâ—um mentiantur nec quicquaem est turpius Vanitate He saith their chiefest profit ariseth from their lying rather then from their buying which he calleth a dishonest kind of Vanity A good item for such men So likewise doth Virgil vse the name of Vanity for lying and faining Nec si miserum fortuna Sinonem Finxit vanum etiam mâ—ndacemque improba finget Where as you plainely see he vseth Vanus and Mendax a Vaine man and a Lying man as two wordes of one sense So likewise that Apoliinaris in Gellius of whom I spake before he defineth Vanos to be properly Mendaces et Infidos that is Liers and Vnfaithfull men And in this same sense doe likewise the Scriptures vse the name of Vanity O yee sonnes of men saith the Prophet Dauid how long will yee loue vanity and seeke after lies Where the latter word expoundeth what is meant by the former to wit that by Vanity he vnderstandeth Lying So likewise in an other place Vanitatem loquuntur quisque cum proximo suo They speake Vanity euery man with his neighbor that is they speake deceitfully and tell lies Thirdly in friendship I find Flattery to be called by the name of Vanity because it is but a false and a counterfeit loue It likewise is Falsum and therefore Vanum In this sense doth Tully vse the name of Vanity in his booke De Amicitia Assentatio ea est molestissima saith he cùm ad vanitatem accedit authoritas He saith that Flattery is then a most dangerous quality when as men of authority doe abiect themselues to so vile a Vanity In this sense doth Accius vse the name of Vanity also putting Vanans for Fallens as Nonnius obserueth and he citeth this place out of his Alcmena which notably expresseth the whole nature of
Sonne our Sauiours sake to whom with the Father and the holy Spirit be all honour and glory both now and for euer Amen The second Sermon at Canterbury at the Lord Archbishops visitation ECCLES 1. VER 2. Vanity of Vaniities saith the Preacher Vanity of Vanities all is Vanity I Haue partly here and partly elswhere vnfolded the whole substance of this present Scripture yea and that in many Sermons as you may remember deliuering in all of them such profitable doctrines as I thought best befitted the nature of the hearers which I purpose not at this time to rehearse againe vnto you but onely to offer vnto your considerations a modest defence of some speciall doctrines which haue beene much traduced as false and erroneous that so those questions which arise in the Church may peaceably be both heard and determined not in any blind and obscure conuention as some of them haue beene but in a learned and a lawfull congregation For our fitter ingresse into which discourse let me onely repeat thus much That the generall partes which I considered in this Scripture were in number two The Author and the Matter or his Doctor and this Doctrine The Author is heere called by the name of a Preacher Saith the Preacher The Matter is deliuered in the forme of a censure defininitiuely pronouncing of all earthly glory that it is indeede nothing but Vanity of Vanity In the Author of this doctrine I made this obseruation that hee calleth not onely himselfe A Preacher who spake this Sermon with his liuely voyce as Athanasius affirmeth but he calleth this booke A Preacher too though it haue neither voyce nor language as the Psalmist speaketh From whence I then collected these three positions for the cleering of certaine truths which haue beene greatly obscured Atramento Sepiarum as the Orator speaketh by the writings of certaine troublers and disturbers of our peace First that all the bookes of the Scriptures are Preachers vnto vs which teach vs most plainely the way of Saluation not onely when they bee expounded but also when they are humbly and faithfully read This position I then proued first by the authority of king Salomon in this place who calleth this booke as you see A Preacher which had beene an vnfit a misapplied title if the books themselues did not preach vnto vs. Secondly I proued it by the authority of S. Iames in the Actes of the Apostles who calleth Reading expresly by the name of Preaching Moses saith hee hath them that Preach him in euery citie seeing he is read euery sabboth day He saith that he is preached because he is read Because for euen Beza himselfe in his translation expresseth that place by this causal coÌ„iunction Quum Because So that he which denieth the reading of the Scripture to be a preaching to vs he denieth the authority both of the old and new Testaments For Salomon affirmeth it in the old Iames affirmeth it in the new yea as Eusebius noteth of the Metaphrasis of Talianus hee putteth the holy Ghost himselfe to schoole and wil teach him how to speake more fitly exactly though Sus. Mineruam For the holy Ghost as you see calleth a booke a Preacher and hee calleth Reading Preaching which certaine men amongst vs count an absurd kind of speaking nay a false and an erroneous doctrine blaspheming therein euen the Spirit of truth himselfe The second position which I deduced out of the former obseruation in his calling a booke by the name of a Preacher was this that this Reading is not a faint or a feeble kind of Preaching as some men affirme of it who call bare reading but bare feeding but it is a mighty and a powerfull kind of preaching both sufficient and efficient to beget in our hearts both faith and all other spiritual vertues if wee rightly come prepared vnto the reading of them and if God vouchsafe his blessing vnto our labours in them two necessary conditions vnto our profitable â—eading the first of them giuen by S. Augustine the second by S. Chrysostome yea and both of them no lesse necessary in preaching then in reading without which it is no more in the Preachers power then it is in the Readers to beget any good in the hearts of the hearers But these two being granted euen bare reading as some scornefull spirits doe in derision terme it may be as actiue a kind of preaching and as operatiue of all true Christian vertues as their most adorned or impassioned Sermons This position I proued first by the authority of the Prophet Moses who ordained in the booke of Deuteronomie that the booke of the Law should be read vnto the people yea and that vnto them all men women and children yea and that euery time that they appeared before the Lord. Now to what end must all this reading be yea and reading so often of one and the same thing He telleth vs in that place that these three effects shal insue follow of it the knowledge of God the feare of God and the faithfull keeping of the commandements of God All which notable effects as there he noteth the bare reading of the word shal effect and bring forth yea and that not onely in men of vnderstanding but also euen in women and children yea and that not onely in the Israelites but also in the Heathen and stranger that should heare it Which point I pray you diligently to note that euen bare reading is able of it selfe not onely to nourish faith in the heart of the faithfull but also to beget faith in the heart of the infidell and such as before did neither know God nor his word Secondly I proued the same position by the authority of Ezra who found by his experience the former prediction of Moses to be true for when as he had but onely read the booke of the Law vnto the people it was of so mighty powerfull an operation that it cast them all into mourning and weeping yea and that so excessiue that he himselfe was constrained by a publique edict and commandement to restraine it Now though in that place there be some mention made of exposition and giuing the sense yet note I pray you that this notable effect of their mourning is not there ascribed vnto the exposition but onely to the reading for it is said that it was the wordes of the Law which wrought this vehement passion and not any glosse which was made vpon them A like effect also did the bare reading of the Law produce in King Iosias it had so powerfull an operation in him that it caused him to rend his clothes off from his backe and his heart to melt away within him and yet was there heere no exposition but onely bare reading The same points I yet further backed by the testimonies both of Ieremie and Baruck The first of whom foretold as much as Moses and the second sound performed
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