THE QUESTION, TO Whom it belonged Anciently TO PREACH: AND Whether all PRIESTS might, or did: Discussed out of ANTIQUITY: As also, what Preaching is, properly.  
By MERIC CASAUBON, D. D. and one of the prebend's of Ch. Ch. CANTERBURY.  
LONDON, Printed for Timothy Garthwait, at the King's Head in St. Paul's Churchyard. 1663.   

OF PREACHING, AS Anciently used.  
SInce the late Directions to Ministers, sent by his Grace of Canterbury to all Parishes; a Question was put to me by a Friend, a Pious Orthodox Minister, and well affected to the Government, what ground there was for those words in the said Directions; That Preaching was not anciently the work of every Priest, but was restrained to the choicest persons for gravity, prudence, and learning: Not that he so much doubted, as I suppose, the truth of what was alleged, or scrupled at the obedience and submission, but that his obedience and submission (for to that purpose he expressed himself) upon fuller information and evidence, might be more rational; or rationally justifiable before God and men, if there should be occasion. I cannot say I use his very words, but to this effect I am sure, as I apprehended him. His Question came to me by a Letter, and by a Letter Answer was made. In my Answer, I was forced to contract myself as much as I could, being then wholly taken up by some other more pressing duties of my place. But afterwards when I was more at leisure, consulting with my Adversaria, and finding, that as many (known to me) as had treated of that Argument, had not only done it very slightly, as I thought, but also committed divers mistakes in setting down the practice of Antiquity; and that it might be the case of more than this one, who had addressed himself to me for further satisfaction: I thought it would not be unseasonable service, if I published what by diligent reading was come to my observation upon this Argument. I shall not keep myself so precisely to the words of the Question, but take the liberty of any thing that offers itself by the way, having some reference to it, and may be useful and fit to be known of its self.  
And first of all, that there may be no mistake about the word, wherein some men of no small account, for want of a right understanding, have been misled in their judgements and opinions; it will be very requisite, that we consider and agree, what Preaching is in general; and what is that Preaching particularly, and by what names known unto the Ancients, which is the subject of this discourse.  
I will not insist upon the Latitude of the words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Greek; or of concio, or sermo, and such others, whether in Greek or Latin. Though Optatus Bishop of Milevis in Africa, was once put to it, when he wrote, Episcopalis tractatus, probatur ab omnibus sanctitate vestitus: salutatione scilicet geminata: yet I think there is no man so ignorant in these days, but can distinguish between a set Speech or Oration in general, of any common subject, ordinary or extraordinary, public or private, but publicly delivered, or fitted, at least, for public audience, (besides the difference, either of places, or persons;) and that which we usually call a Sermon, though both go often under one title in ancient Books. But whether any set Speech publicly delivered (setting aside the consideration of the Speaker at present) tending to reformation of life; as, a serious exhortation to virtue, and contempt of the world, dissuasion from vice, and all sensuality, and the like, may be called Preaching, may be some question, and the resolution of it of some consequence. It is very certain, that long before and since Christ, both among the Romans and Grecians (not to speak of other Nations less known in those days) such a practice was, answerable in many respects, to what we now call Preaching. Certainly, if the visible fruits of what we call mortification and renouncing of the world, if outward abstinence and sobriety in life and conversation, if liberal distributing to the necessities of others, if strictest bonds of mutual love and amity be the proper effects and evidences of powerful Preaching, it cannot be denied, but such have been the effects often of that kind of Preaching which hath been in use among Heathens; for which we have not the authority of the Heathens only, but of Christians also, Fathers and others, who bear witness and tell us of particular examples. And though it is not improbable, that many such things might be done for ostentation only, or some other worldly end, as among Christians but too often: yet there is more ground to believe, that more frequently Speakers dealt with all simplicity, aiming at the edification (as we now speak) of their hearers, as may appear by that excellent passage of Musonius the Philosopher (who lived under Nero the Roman Emperor) recorded by Aulus Gellius l. FIVE. c. 1. and by sundry Epistles of Seneca, as particularly the 52. and 108. well worth the reading. Whence it is, that the Greek Fathers use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (especially St. chrysostom) so frequently, for piety and godliness And this may be some reason too, which made some of the Greek Fathers (as understood by many, at least) to extend the power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in general, so far as to maintain, that even before the true and essential 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (or Word) the second Person of the Trinity was fully revealed unto the world; the natural 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (reason, or speech, though natural, yet the gift of God, that too) well managed and improved with care and industry, was able to save; of which assertion, for it, and against it, much hath been written by some late writers.  
But though for the matter of their moral discourses and exhortations, they might have much affinity, those that were made by Heathens, with those that were made by Christians, called Sermons; yea, and excel too for the most part in pregnancy of wit, and ornaments of speech; yet one main difference is this, that their grounds and motives related unto this life only, as having no knowledge, much less assurance of another life after this: which will much aggravate the case of Christians at the day of Judgement, who having so much more to ground upon, as promises of Eternity, and being partakers of the Divine Nature, have therefore the more to answer for; if exhortations do not work more potently upon them, than they did upon Heathens, among whom nevertheless they did produce such wonderful effects.  
Now if we look into the property of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, usually translated into Latin, praedicare; from whence our English, to preach, is derived; it doth import a solemn proclaiming, or announcing of somewhat of public concernment which was not known before; so doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too: both which words have particular relation unto Christ his blessed Incarnation for the Redemption of the world. His coming into the world, who was the subject of so many Prophecies before, and the expectation (as both the Greek and Latin translation render it, Gen. 49. 10.) and the desire of all Nations, Hag. 2. 7. as it was solemnly proclaimed or Preached by Angels at the first, so it is still the proper subject of all Preaching; and though moral discourses and exhortations be also necessary, as a consequent of Christ his coming into the world; yet are they not properly Preaching, such as the Church may challenge as peculiar unto itself, except they be grounded upon Christ, whether as a Priest, or a Prophet, or a King, in the authority of his commands, the obligation of his example and sufferings, and the excellency of his rewards. For the truth is, the consideration of Christ laid aside, though good language and excellency of wit may go far with some men to persuade, and with all, or most, to please, and delight; yet bare virtue of itself, all things soberly considered, will prove generally but a weak Plea; and as Brutus at his death is said to have bemoaned himself; rather words, than reality. We conclude therefore, First, That moral discourses and exhortations by set speeches and elaborate elocution are not properly Preaching, but as grounded, not implicitly only, (which may be said of the speeches of Philosophers in some sense) but explicitly and expressly upon Christ, and the ends of his coming unto the world.  
Secondly, That all public performances (by speech, or word of mouth) tending to the manifestation of Christ, and his coming unto the world, and the ends of his coming, (to which end, holy days were instituted and are of special use,) may truly and properly be called Preaching.  
I say public, because indeed the original word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth import some kind of publickness. But then we must know that a man may be said to Preach publicly, as well he that goes from house to house, so far as he can, or is permitted, as he that doth it in a public auditory before a multitude: for which we have ground in the Scripture itself, Acts XX. 20, 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: publicly and from house to house: in Socrates his expression upon the like occasion, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Plat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 121. Greg. Mag. Epist. lib. 4. 44. ad Rom.   
Gregory, Pope of Rome the first of that name (not unworthily surnamed the Great) in one of his Epistles, hath these words concerning Deacons: Iniquum esse, ut in Diaconatus ordine constituti, modulationi vocis inserviant, quos ad praedicationis of ficium, eleemosynarumque studium, vacare congruebat. Bellarmin. De Cler. l. 1. c. 13. doth quote this passage, to prove that Deacons were sometimes allowed to Preach. But this doth not prove, that they were allowed sometimes, but that it was part of their duty at all times. Again, in the Council of Ancyra, can. 2. lapsed Deacons, though permitted upon their repentance to continue in the place; that is, to retain the title and honour of it, yet not permitted to discharge the duties, not to minister at the holy Table, by distributing the consecrated Bread and Wine, nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Preach. Filesacus, a learned Antiquary, doth quote this Canon (as Bellarmin, St. Gregory) to prove 
Fil. varia de episcoporum authorit. c. 15. p. 349.  that Deacons were allowed to Preach sometimes. But by this Canon (as by Gregory's passage) it would appear, that it doth belong unto them as part of their office: And which is worse, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are promiscuously used often, to signify Preaching; in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Canon; Filesacus either by a mistake of memory, or purposely, thinking to interpret the one by the other, doth substitute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which doth much alter the case, and would oblige us to believe, that the Canon did intend it of Preaching indeed (as Preaching is ordinarily understood) as part of the Deacons duty. But otherwise, it is sure enough, that neither the Canon by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor Pope Gregory by praedicare did intent any such thing, as is now understood by Preaching. In two respects Deacons were then said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or praedicare, according to the propriety of the words, the Greek especially. First, in that it was part of their office to read the Gospel at the administration of the Sacraments: For though there were the Lectores besides, whose peculiar office it was to read the Scripture to the people generally; yet at certain times, as peculiarly at the time of the administration of the Sacrament of Christ's body, the Deacons read the Gospels: so that as the Lectores were properly said praedicare, when they read in the Church, audibly and distinctly, both the mysteries of our Faith, those especially that concern Christ revealed, and the instructions and exhortations contained in the Word of God; Decret. 1. dist. 21. c. 1. so for the same reason and respect were the Deacons too when they read the Gospels. And so is the word used in the very Scriptures, Acts xv. 21. where Moses is said to be Preached, that is, read (as St. james doth interpret himself) in the Synagogues every Sabbath day: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word there. But Gregory doth explain himself, when what he called before praedicationis officium, he doth afterwards as it were expound by Evangelicae lectionis officium. Again, Deacons were said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or praedicare, when by loud voice or proclamation, they did warn the people in several parts of the Service what was done, or to be done, that accordingly they might prepare and order themselves, both in their hearts and with their bodies, agreeably to that which was done or performed by the Ministers of God, that all things might be performed with good order and due reverence. So they were said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (praedicare) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the like. Among other cries belonging to every part of the Liturgy (in the Greek Church) one was, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in giving warning to the people (which was the innocency of those holy times, which had some ground also upon the custom of the times:) when they should salute one another with a holy kiss: which continued till cyril of jerusalem, as doth appear by his Catecheses', which Catecheses' I have, compared with an ancient Manuscript with many additions and alterations. But this is according to the Printed Copy; which must be corrected (according to the translation) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. which 
Cyr. Hieros. Catach. myst. 5. p. 534.  doth very well fit the coherence. The Heathens also in their Sacra, had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the same purpose, to regulate the carriage of the people, and to prevent confusion; mentioned by Athenaeus, in his fourth Book, and by others. But this, by the way only.  
After so much of Preaching in general, and different notions of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and praedicare: which are the most ordinary words, by which Preaching in ancient Books is expressed; to make some application of what hath been said to the Question proposed, and so to a positive decision, or determination of it:  
I say, first: That Preaching at large; by way of Catechism, or by way of familiar, but solid and sober reasoning; tending, not only to the publishing or spreading of the Gospel of Christ, and conversion of Infidels; but also to the confirmation, and further edification of them that were already converted; did always belong, as unto all devout Christians in general, as opportunity did offer, and ability did afford; so particularly unto all Priests, as part of their charge and Ministry.  
I say secondly, that at the very beginning of Christianity, it is the opinion of some, that all things or most things at least, were common to all men. So the Author of the Comment upon the Epistles, ascribed unto St. Ambrose, who upon the fourth Chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians, hath these words: Tamen postquam omnibus locis Ecclesiae sunt constitutae, & officia ordinata; aliter composita res est, quam coeperat. Primùm enim, omnes docebant, & omnes baptizabant, quibuscunque diebus vel temporibus fuisset occasio. Nec enim Philippus, etc. Vt ergo cresceret Ecclesia, & multiplicaretur, omnibus inter initia concessum est, & evangelizare, & baptizare, & Scripturas in Ecclesia explanare. At ubi omnta loca circumplexa est Ecclesia, conventicula (in a good sense, as frequently in ancient Books) constituta sunt, & rectores; & caetera officia in Ecclesiis sunt ordinata, ut nullus de clero auderet, qui ordinatus (appointed, licenced) non esset, praesumere officium, quod sciret non sibi creditum, vel concessum, etc. Hinc ergo est, quod neque diaconi in populo praedicant; (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, here) neque Clerici vel Laici baptizant (so all editions I have seen; and so quoted by learned men: but I know not what sense can be made of the words, except we read: neque ubi Clerici, Laici baptizant: or to that effect; which is agreeable to what Tertullian, and others witness of those times: that where a Clergyman was not to be had; that is, in case of necessity; it was lawful for any to baptise. Except Clerici be here intended properly the inferioris gradus Clerici: that is, all under the order of a Deacon. For Episcopi, Presbyteri, and Diaconi, were often joined under the title of Sacerdotes, in general) neque quocunque die credentes tinguntur, nisi aegri. But it was not so long; nor then neither, generally, so: but at extraordinary times, and occasions only.  
Thirdly, I say: That as soon as matters of the Church came to some regulation; and a certain Government by Bishops, Priests, and Deacons established: Bishops within their own Diocese, had the sole power of holy functions: Priests and Deacons were added to them, to help them, and to be employed by them, according to their degree and abilities, as they should see occasion. So that a Priest might not baptise, nor administer the Communion, nor teach, or interpret the Scriptures de loco superiore sedis Ecclesiae, as St. Augustin calls it, or de cathedrâ, as St. Ambrose: as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a Doctor: (for so they were then called, that did it, either by their own authority as Bishops; or were allowed it, as Priests: which is the preaching now in use) without peculiar allowance of the Bishop of the Diocese. In many places Priests generally were not allowed it: it was not then thought to belong unto them, but unto Bishops only.  
For baptising, and the administration of the Lords Supper, we have Ignatius his testimony, in those words which are found in the ancient Copies, & are warranted by the old Interpreter, to be genuine; the words are these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Ignat. Epist ad Smyrn. ed. 4. p. 117  And a little after, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The Latin there is, Nemo praeter Episcopum aliquid agat eorum, quae ad Ecclesiam pertinent. Firma Eucharistia reputetur, quae ab Episcopo concessa fuerit, etc. Propterea non licet sine Episcopo neque baptizare, etc. So Tertullian of baptism: Dandi quidem (baptismum) habet jus summus sacerdos, qui est Episcopus. Dehinc Presbyter, & Diaconus, non tamen sine Episcopi authoritate, propter Ecclesiae honorem, quo salvo, salva pax est. And so St. Jerome, Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis dignitate 
Hieron. cont. Lucif. 10. 1. p. 199.  pendet: cui si non exors quaedam, & ab hominibus (s. omnibus) eminens detur potestas, tot in Ecclesiis efficientur schismata, quot sacerdotes. Ind venit, ut sine chrismate (which Chrisma therefore was provided, and for that purpose distributed to the Priests, at certain times of the year, by the Bishop of every See, as by ancient Canons doth appear) & Episcopi jussione, neque Presbyter, neque Diaconus, jus habeat baptizandi. As for the Communion, or Eucharist; besides Ignatius, whom we have heard but now; the author of the Epistle, ad Rusticum Narbonensem, de septem gradibus Ecclesiae, by divers (and indeed it hath much of Jerome in it, and is ancient enough, whosoever is the Author) ascribed unto St. Jerome; and in the Canon Law, Decret. distin. 95. c. 6. registered under that name; Nec ego dico praesentibus Episcopis atque astantibus altari, Presbyteros posse Sacramenta conficere. Sed si fortè usus exegerit, etc. We might add to those, the supposed Dionysius Areopagita; whom though we do not acknowledge under that name; and could give some reasons, if need were, that have not yet been given, to prove him counterfeit: yet we acknowledge him, and all men must, ancient enough to bear testimony in this cause. He speaks as peremptorily, as any doth; and ascribes all power, both of baptising, and of consecrating, and teaching, to the Bishop: but he is not easily to be understood, but by them that are acquainted with his style; and worse in a translation, except a man take the liberty of a Paraphrase, then in his own original language. But it may suffice to have named him; there is no need of his words, which have so much of affected obscurity.  
Now, though it might easily be granted perchance, that those who were not allowed to baptise, or to consecrate, without permission; were much less allowed to Preach: yet there is much to be said in that behalf, of Preaching particularly, which is our particular undertaking here; and therefore, not to be omitted. But I will first inquire into the reasons, or grounds, why it was so ordered; and produce my testimonies, in their orders.  
The first ground, or reason was, because the Bishop, representing more immediately Christ himself, in his office; he was looked upon, as the wellspring, from whom all holy duties were derived: which made him so absolute in his Diocese, that it was accounted great usurpation for any man, to challenge any power in the Church (in spiritualibus) but under him; and by his deputation. This is well expressed, by the forenamed Author, who goes under the name of Dionysius Areop. where he doth tell us: that the supreme order in the Ecclesiastical hierarchy, is both supreme, and lowest too: as comprehending all others within its self. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Dion. Areop. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which is yet more fully set out by Maximus, the Greek Scholiast. St. Ambrose also, speaks much to the same effect, where he saith, 
Ambros. ubis. p. 355.  Nam in Episcopo omnes ordines sunt, quia primus est sacerdos, & princeps & propheta, & Evangelista, & caetera, ad implenda officia Ecclesiae in ministerio fidelium. And so strict were they in those times, to preserve this absoluteness of a Bishop in his Diocese, that by some Canons of the Church, no less than deposition was the mulct, if one Bishop had presumed to preach in another's Diocese, without his leave first obtained: and this too, in those times; when Bishops, wherever they were, at home (within their own Diocese) or abroad, if no lawful impediment, as age, or other accidental indisposition of body; or some other more advantageous employment to public concernments did hinder; thought themselves bound, and by some Canons of Councils in some places, were bound to preach every Sunday. I have heard, when young myself, from some ancient Divines, that it was so in Queen Elizabeth's time; which among the common people could not but add much to that veneration, which is due from all men unto their place.  
A second ground, or reason, was, the insufficiency of many Priests, in those days (and when was it not so?) for so great an employment. What Seneca somewhere saith of his Philosophy, is very appliable here: Damnum quidem fecisse Philosophiam, non erit dubium, postquam prostituta est: sed potest in penetralibus suis ostendi, si modo non institorem, sed antistitem nacta est. And this he speaks upon occasion of the many Philosophers of his 
Sen. ep. 53. p. 240.  time, who thought themselves brave fellows, because people did run after them to hear them, and with loud cries & acclamations testified their great esteem, & approbation of their performances. This made them to applaud themselves, because applause was the thing they sought after, & chiefly proposed to themselves: but whether their admirers were really the better in their lives, and conversation, for what they heard, was no part, or the least part, at least, of their care: it being generally observed, that they profited (or edified) lest, who were most ready to applaud, and by outward expressions, showed greatest pleasure. These he calls institores, and saith, that Philosophy was prostituted by them. And St. Austin hath much to that purpose too: and so divers other Fathers. But this is not my business. When that is done, we may think of it again in the end.  
That insufficiency was a great reason, and that Preaching (such Pulpit Preaching, or teaching by way of authority, which gave them the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Doctores) was thought too great a work, then, for every Priest (who might find work enough otherwise, if they acquitted themselves, as they were bound) to undertake, or to be trusted with; one passage of St. chrysostom, will so clearly evidence, that we shall not need to seek further. Upon those words of S. Paul, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians and first Chapter (ver. 17.) For Christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach the Gospel: treating of the labour and toylesomness of it (besides the danger, which he doth not here mention, but elsewhere he doth; vain glory and popularity) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. that is, to preach the Gospel of Christ (out of the Pulpit as a Doctor, must be supplied in the words) it is well, if one or two may be found that are fit: but to baptise, any man that is but a Priest. And a little after, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Therefore, saith he, to this day we commit that (baptising: he doth only mention baptising, though much more did belong unto Priests, because baptising only is mentioned by S. Paul) to the weaker: but the business of preaching (or teaching) to them that are more learned (or wise:) nothing can be clearer, or more express, than this. To St. chrysostom, we shall add Balsamon, who was well acquainted with Ecclesiastical businesses, both of his time, and of former times, (and though no friend to the Pope, yet is commended for his diligence by divers Papists) whose assertion upon the Councils, inmore than one place, is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that Priests are not Preachers, or Teachers; and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That to teach the people (that is, de loco superiore, or out 
Balls. ad Cens. 2. Syn. Const. & Can. 19 Syn. Trull.  of the Pulpit) is granted unto the Bishops only; (or unto them, who have authority from the Bishops, must be supplied out of others, though not here expressed.) The same more fully, upon the sixty fourth Canon of the Council in Trullo: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Pag. 439.  etc. To teach the people of God, and to interpret the divine decrees (〈…〉 the Scriptures) is granted by the grace of the holy Spirit unto Bishops only, and unto them that are permitted (or authorized) by them. It is true, that the same Balsamon elsewhere, doth seem to contradict himself, when upon the fifty eighth Canon of those called the Apostles, having first laid down that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. he doth add, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. That such also (teachers) Priests, aught to be, as they that have the privilege of higher seats, (in the Choir, or Church) next unto the Bishop. But in effect, there is no repugnancy; neither in the words of Balsamon, nor in the words of the Canon. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which is the expression of the Canon) to instruct to godliness, in general: there is no question, but Priests also are bound by their office, as Priests: and in case they be allowed by the Bishop, as Doctors, to teach, or to preach out of the Pulpit, and neglect it, (which is all that can be made of Balsamons' interpretation of the Canon, compared with other places) they are liable to censure. Indeed upon the twentieth Canon of the Synodus Trull. we find somewhat, that hath much more appearance of repugnancy: in those words: Sacerdotis autem munus; accipe etiam de docendi munere; & non de sola sacrificii celebratione. Sacerdotes enim antiquitùs, necesse habebant etiam docere. But whose words these are, I know not: for I find no Greek in the Text, to answer to this Latin.  
Now for the Latin Church: Of the Churches of Africa, so numerous in those days; we have good records, attested by the most eminent of the Latin Fathers, as St. Jerome, and St. Augustin: that till Valerius his time (by whom St. Augustin was consecrated) Priests were not allowed to preach; or to speak more properly, that the Pulpit was one of the Bishop's peculiar privileges. Valerius, they all say, was the first, that did alter the custom in his Church: whose example, was soon followed by others: as peculiarly by Aurelius Bishop of Carthage; for which he was much commended by Saint Augustin: as may appear by those congratulatory Letters of his unto the said Aurelius, upon that occasion. Baronius hath it at large out of Possidonius, jerom, and St. Augustin. Tentavit S. Valerius (saith Baronius) quod ante nullus Episcoporum Africanorum attigerat; nempe ut Presbyter Evangelium praedicaret, cum non nisi Episcopi id obirent muneris. Which also is attested by Optatus Milevitanus, a Bishop of those days, in his books against the Donatists, who doth not argue 
Opt. l. 3. contra Don.  it, but delivers it upon occasion, as a thing notoriously known, that tractare, est Episcoporum. However, those testimonies in Baronius, deliver it not so generally; that it was not lawful, absolutely: but not lawful, or allowed, that they should do it, praesente Episcopo. But to our purpose, it comes all to one, whether they might not absolutely, before, till Valerius had broken the ice, and others followed his example: or, whether it was praesente Episcopo only, that it was not lawful; certain it is, that all did not; and none did, but those that were licenced by the Bishops. And certainly, that was the practice over all Churches in those days: neither do I believe, that one Priest of a hundred, was allowed it, or ever did it.  
But we must distinguish of times too. For there was a time, when all Priests had their maintenance from the Bishop immediately; and were called sportulantes Presbyteri; and were employed by him, as he saw occasion. Then, after the increase of Christianism, Parishes came to be divided; and upon that division, particular Parishes assigned to particular Priests. Since which time, it is apparent by some Canons of later Councils, that Priests (now Persons) were not only allowed; but also, called upon, and enjoined to preach in their Parishes; to which end Pulpits were erected in most Parishes.  
But of all things I have read upon this Argument, I have always most wondered at the relation of Sozomens, the Greek Historian; who, where he treats of different customs, in different places, doth attest, that as in Alexandria (which is also attested by Socrates) the Bishop only did preach, or teach: so in Rome, neither Bishop, nor any body else: his words are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. and then, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is translated by Cassiodorus, in his, Historia, Tripartita, Apud Romanos in unoquoque anno, semel psallunt alleluja; primo die Paschae, it a ut Romani velut pro juramento habeant (a ridiculous mistake: he found it in his Copy, as we have it to this day, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; the true reading, certainly; that is, pro re difficili & multi laboris habeant) ut hunc hymnum audire mereantur (that is; audiant.) In qua Ecclesia, neque Episcopus, neque alter quisquam coram populo docet. There is so much to be said against this, as that I must needs mistrust a mistake. And yet it were as hard to believe, that Sozomen, either (wittingly or willingly) would misinform, where he could be so easily convinced: or could be misinformed himself, in a thing of so public observation. I conceive the mistake may lie in those words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which may import (being translated, in Ecclesia) that it was not the fashion in Rome, for any body to preach in the middle of the Church: but in the Choir only; or from the stairs, or ascent, tending to the Choir, as in divers other places. History Records tell us, that chrysostom, by reason of the multitude of people, that flocked from all places to hear him, was forced to change his place. Baronius saith, he did, suggestum in medio Ecclesiae collocare; but I think he is mistaken. For his Authors, though he name them not, were no other, certainly, than Sozomen, and Nicephorus: both which say, that he did it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: ex lectorum ambone, seu pulpito: from the reader's Pulpit, seated in those days, in the middle of the body of the Church. Now it is probable, that others, both before, and since Chrysostom did the same. Socrates also, speaking of origen's preaching, hath the same words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It seems therefore, that it was usual enough, in those places: but not so at Rome. If so, then Cassiodore was much mistaken, in rendering those words, in this place (for otherwise the words will bear it very well; and of the two, it is the most warrantable translation, as to the words) coram populo: where it was intended, in Ecclesia; of the place, precisely. Or it may be, because Sermons were in the Choir, not in the body of the Church, as elsewhere: though the people might come and hear; yet not so many as when, or where, in the body of the Church: therefore not thought so properly to preach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, populo. If any man can devise any thing more probable, I shall be glad; for I have no great confidence in this. But I have not yet met with it, I am sure.  
However, this occasion being given me, I cannot but profess my great dislike, that Service, and Sermon, should be parted any where; the one, in one place; the other, in another; if it may possibly be avoided. Especially at such a distance, as it is here with us, in the Cathedral and Metrapolitical Church of Christ in Canterbury. I conceive it to be one main reason, that so few are acquainted, and by consequent, not more in love, with the Service: which if better known unto them, and the many benefits they might reap, by observing diligently every part of it (which the ancient Fathers of the Church, do often refer their auditors unto) would certainly be in far greater request; that I say not, admiration: which yet I profess to believe, that it doth highly deserve, at the hands of all both religious and wise. That the place is not so convenient for many to hear (though I believe there be but few Quires in England, either more spacious, or more stately) is but a weak plea, against such apparent mischief, by contempt of the Service, and therein of God himself; of his holy Word especially, which makes a great part of the Service. But this by the way only; out of a deep sense of the abuse, and earnest desire of redress.  
We will now consider, what can out of antiquity (for that is all we have to do) be objected to the contrary; in opposition, I mean, to that assertion, (the subject of our discourse) that Preaching was not anciently the work of every Priest. Franciscus Bernardinus Ferrariensis, (to begin with him first) one of the Doctors of the College of Milan, in his book, De ritu Concionum, Printed at Milan, a. d. 1600. takes upon him to prove, jam inde à primis Ecclesiae temporibus, concionandi munus etiam 
Fran. Bern. Fer. l. 11. c. 1  presbyterorum fuisse: That it belonged unto Bishops principally; (Episcoporum maximè proprium fuisse) he doth not deny. But he adds, Sed & presbyteros, ijsdem primis Ecclesiae temporibus, publicè concionari solitos, quoniam quidem non satis notum iis videtur, qui multa in hanc rem collegerunt, Nos ex Apostolicarum Constitutionum autore, etc. It should seem by him, some that had undertaken the same before him, had performed it but very slenderly, as he thought; and therefore did expect he should do them no small pleasure. His chief, and as I may say, only Author (for the rest prove nothing of ancient times; much less, de primis Ecclesiae temporibus) is the compiler of the Apostolical Constitutions; so entitled. What some Protestants, great pretenders to the knowledge of Antiquity, have made bold to affirm, concerning these Constitutions, I know well enough. But great undertakers, are not always the surest men, either to perform, or to be trusted too. The most learned Papists, have given them over long ago, as Bellarmin, Baronius and others, as not justifiable: and he that desireth further satisfaction, let him read the Prolegomena of that truly pious and learned Prelate, James Usher, Archbishop of Armach, to his edition of Ignatius his Epistles: who is of opinion, that the book, as now interpolated, was not known to the world, till the sixth age after Christ. And in case it had been known before, some part of it; yet being a counterfeit book, at the first; what credit his testimony, or, a testimony rather (if it be the work of many hands) taken out of him, may deserve; let the reader judge. The other testimonies, which he doth produce, they concern later times, and import no more than this, that power is given unto Priests: or, that for the time to come, they are appointed and commanded to preach in their Parishes; or lastly, that Bishops were to take care, that those whom they knew able, should be employed: which rather shows, that anciently it was not so ordinary for Priests to be employed; but not at all, that till licenced, or appointed by the Bishop of the Diocese, they did ever presume (or might legally) to do it. It is not doubted, but that all Priests, by virtue of their ordination, have a legal capacity to preach, as now understood: but their ordination doth neither confer ability of performance, in point of parts: nor giveth power of actual execution at pleasure, for time, or place: the trial of the one, and the allowance of the other, altogether depending of the Bishop, in those times. So that in effect, all that Ferrarius doth bring to prove his assertion, for which he did expect thanks, it seems, from some, who had attempted it before, but with little success; is no more than what we grant, and may grant, without prejudice to our assertion, and present undertaking. The reader may take notice, that the words of the Constitutions, quoted by Ferrarius out of Turrianus his translation; are by Bovius (Episcopo Ostunensi) very differently translated, quite to another sense, which hath nothing of 
Turr. p. 40. Bovi. ed. p. 44.  preaching in it. I had not at this time (I once had, I am sure) the Original Greek to consult. But I guess, that Turrianus was in the right; and Bovius mistaken.  
But again: Possidonius in the life of St. Augustin, where he speaks of the custom of the African Churches, that no Priest, absolutely, saith Baronius; no Priest before his Bishop, saith Possidonius; might preach; and how that custom was altered by Valerius; Et eidem presbytero (Augustino scil.) potestatem dedit coram se in Ecclesia Evangelium praedicandi; ac frequentissimè tractandi, contra usum quidem, & consuetudinem Africanarum Ecclesiarum. Vnde etiam ei nonnulli Episcopi detrahebant. Then follows, Sed ille vir venerabilis ac providus, in Orientalibus id ex more fieri, sciens, utiliter Ecclesiae consulens, etc. What can we infer upon this? This, as I conceive: Not that a Priest, by the custom of the Place might preach in the Eastern Church, without a licence from the Bishop: but that, once licenced and allowed, he might without offence preach before his Bishop, as well as in his absence.  
Again, some ground of objection against what we here maintain, may be taken from the words of the Epistle, ascribed unto S. Jerome (which, as I intimated before, hath much of St. Jerome his sense and spirit in it, though for some other reasons it is very likely that it is not his) ad Rusticum Narbonensem Episcopum, de septem gradibus Ecclesiae. Nemo hinc Episcoporum (saith he) invidiâ 
Hieron. to IV. (vellX.) ed. Plant. p. 55. etc.  Diabolicae tentationis inflatus, irascatur in templo, si presbyteri interdum exhortentur plebem; si in Ecclesia praedicent; si plebibus, ut scriptum est, benedicant, etc. and then tells us, that Romae, and in Oriente, in Italia, in Creta, in Cypro, in Africa, in Illyrico, in Hispania, in Britannia, and, ex parte, per Gallias: it was so. If this be true, than France was the only place at that time, where Priests were not allowed, or licenced to preach at all. Or at least, not to preach, praesente Episcopo: which those words, irascatur in templo, may seem to import. But because in this whole Chapter, he doth always speak, absolutely, without any such limitation, or intimation, as praesente Episcopo: I rather suspect a transposition; (not by any fault of the Copy; but from the Author himself; which is ordinary enough to best writers) and that those words, in templo, belong not to nemo Episcoporum; but to, si presbyteri exhortentur, etc. What then shall we, or can we make of this testimony? This, certainly, and no more: That Priests who for learning and other parts, were found fit, which formerly in many places, whether fit, or not fit, would not be granted; were then in most places, allowed, or licenced to preach: or, being allowed, and licenced; might do it praesente Episcopo; as well as when he was out of the way.  
But when all is done, or said, that can be said upon this subject; we must acknowledge, that according to difference of times, and places; great variety may be observed; as in other things, observed by Ecclesiastical writers; so in this particular. We do not therefore undertake to prove, that always, and in all places of Christianity, it hath been so: but that in ancient times, and most generally, Priests did not preach (in that sense as preaching is now generally understood) except they were called, and licenced to it, by the Bishop. I know well enough, that upon some extraordinary occasions, some Deacons: and some, who were neither Priests, nor Deacons, have been allowed, and employed: but this proves nothing against what we maintain: and I hope there hath been enough said, to satisfy, that it is so indeed.  
Now from the consideration of all that hath been said: if without offence I may, I would by way of Corollary, propose it to the consideration of all, truly sober, and impartially judicious; whether those men that have reduced, or endeavoured to reduce, all holy duties, or functions, belonging to a Priest, or Presbyter, to Pulpit preaching; leaving men to the liberty, not of moral discourses, at large, only, (in which kind I dare undertake, that some discourses of ancient Heathens, judiciously selected, may pass for good Sermons) but also of Politic speculations, and passages of the time (witness many, if not most Sermons under the late Rebellion and Tyranny:) and those Churches, (we will call them so) where Pulpit preaching is, or hath been the only public exercise of Religion: without any standing Liturgy; any administration of the Sacraments, (as many were in those days) any observation of holy days, properly relating to Christ; (for the observation of the Sunday, or Lords day, as pressed by many; is rather Jewish, than Christian; if not Antichristian: contrary to the judgement and practice of purest antiquity:) Whether I say, those men, in the judgement of antiquity, so far as may be gathered by the premises; would have been: or should any of those ancient Fathers of the Church, whom for their labours and their sufferings, for Christ and his Church, all true Christians so much honour, and reverence; now revive; would be accounted right Priests, worthy of that name and title: or those Churches, true Christian Churches. I leave all men to the liberty of their judgements: let them consider of it soberly. But this must be understood as proposed of Priests and Churches, in times of peace and liberty, not of persecution: which in many particulars may alter the case. And since we have said so much of preaching in general; I think it will not be amiss, before we end, to inquire a little further into the nature of that we call Pulpit preaching; and wherein the true advantage, and excellency of it, lieth.  
The end, as I conceive, of all preaching, tending to edification; (which all preaching doth pretend unto) is, either to inform, or to reform: that is, to teach, or to persuade. Where both those may effectually be attained, whether out of the Pulpit, or without: it will be granted I hope, that that may be called preaching. Of teaching, there will be less question, or difficulty: Persuasion is the thing that public preaching doth especially aim at. Some men are of opinion, that no preaching is effectual to persuade; that is not set out with some ardour, and vehemency of speech, and action: which they call, the life of preaching: and upon that account speak scornfully of Homilies, or reading of Homilies, as destitute of that life, which they require. Indeed flectere, or persuadere, is by Rhetoricians ordinarily made the proper effect of that which they call, grandis oratio. And St. Augustin in those elaborate books De Doctrina Christiana, (for the most elaborate part whereof, he was much beholding to Tully) he seems to be of that opinion too; he is very copious in the commendation of it. However, upon better consideration, both of the nature of things, and of the nature of men, it will easily appear, that there be more ways to persuade; and some perchance not less powerful, then that so much extolled faculty. It is a noble question in the Schools, and in the speculation of nature, Vtrum voluntas necessariò determinetur ab intellectu? For my part, notwithstanding that ordinary objection from the Poet,  — Video meliora, proboque Deteriora sequor; 
I profess, I am very inclinable (if the matter be rightly stated) to believe that it is. My meaning is, that all or most sins proceed from ignorance. Let a man be rightly informed, wherein true happiness doth lie; what is truly expedient, and profitable, and what is not: that this, or that particularly is against his interest, and main end: so informed, that he believe it; and be fully satisfied, or convicted, in his mind, or understanding, by clear light and evidence of reason, that it is so indeed: I think he will need no other persuasion. Seneca hath two Epistles of this argument, whether the dogmata of Philosophy, by which the understanding is rightly informed, be sufficient to produce good living; without particular precepts, or, Rhetorical exhortations: it is argued on both sides very learnedly, and copiously; according to the exuberancy of his wit. Et fortasse, rebus ipsis cognitis, it● movebuntur, ut eos non opus sit majoribus eloquentiae viribus jam moveri: St. Augustin saith, even where he doth so amply set out his grandis oratio.  
Besides, as all kind of Music doth not fit all ears, either to please, or to stir affections: so neither doth one kind of Oration, equally prevail with all men. 
Cic. in Ora.  Flumen aliis verborum, volubilitasque cordi est; qui ponunt in Orationis celeritate eloquentiam: Distincta alios, & interpuncta; intervalla, moraeque, respirationesque delectant. Nay, not particular men only, differ in their judgements, in point of oratory, but whole nations: some affect one 
Cic. ibid.  way, some another: so that what among some is applauded 
Aberat tertia illa laus:— neque erat ulla vis atque contentio: sive consilio, quod eos quorum altior oratio, actioque esset ardentior, furere & bacchari arbitraretur: sive, etc.  and admired; is by others exploded, and vilified, as foolish and ridiculous; as by the same grand Master of Rhetoric is well observed. I do not deny, but ardent and vehement speech, is generally most plausible and powerful: yet I find that some accounted learned and judicious, have avoided it, as having too much affinity, with madness and distraction. Wise men are apt to suspect any thing that is accompanied with passion; as knowing that passion and reason seldom go together; and that a calm temper of the mind, is the best temper, for the discovery of the truth. Neither is that, which is most popular, and plausible, always most profitable. Vehement language, with voice and action suitable, is most apt to stir up the affections, we grant it: but as the wind upon the water, whilst it bloweth; so that, whilst it is heard, or read: when the sound is out of the ear, and the impressions out of the fancy, which will soon be: the stir of the affections is abated, and men for the most part, are the same as before.  
But when by strength of reason and ratiocination, the judgement is convicted; and a man's reason fully satisfied, that it is so, and so; and in point of practice ought to be so; the fruits and effects of such conviction, are usually more durable, and of greater operation upon the soul and affections. If to persuade, be the chiefest and noblest work of Rhetoric, or eloquence; and which gives the grandis oratio, the pre-eminence above the two other kinds; as we are taught by the Masters of that Art: I do not doubt, but we may find the power of persuasion in some other faculties and ways, as eminent, as in vehement language. How admirably did Socrates work upon the affections of men, even to astonishment, if we consider the effects; merely by familiar interrogations? Or, if not only so; yet chiefly so, I am sure, as by best records of those times may appear. The ancients had a way; it was much used in ancient times; and it hath much affinity with Christ his way, by parables; to persuade men by moral apologues, and fables; which made Aesop so famous in his days. And do not we read of wonderful things achieved this way, when no other oratory would prevail? Did not Menenius Agrippa, when the common people of Rome, provoked by the cruelty of usurers, were gathered together in a seditious manner, and had taken arms, to the great terror of the Senate, and whole City; pacify them, and to the admiration of all men, by that famous apologue, of the members of the body (St. Paul, Romans the twelfth, hath much of it) reduce them to obedience? So Arsinoe the Queen, as we read in Plutarch, when nothing could allay her immoderate weeping and lamentation for the death of her son; one of the Philosophers of those times, found a way by such an apologue of his own devising, to persuade her to patience. And what use did Nathan, the Prophet, make of such a device or made story, to make David his King, who perchance would not have endured it another way; sensible of his great unthankfulness towards his God, who had done so much for him; in that in despite of God's Commandment, Thou shalt not commit adultery, he had seized upon another man's wife; and because his plot would not take, which he had plotted, to save his credit, (as one sin doth often beget another) was provoked to plot the death of her husband? If therefore, the chief end of preaching, be to teach, or to persuade: conversion, or reformation; how it can be said, that eloquence, or studied oratory, is the only way, I leave it to the judgement of men, who are more led (which few are) by reason, than prejudice, or prejudicated opinions. For my part, I think, catechising, if rightly used, hath much the advantage of it. There is another way too, which with men who are more for reason, than words, is of great force; and that is, by short aphorisms. My opinion is, that the frequent reading of Epictetus (especially, as fitted anciently for the use of Christians) may go much further to persuade a man, that is rational; then many Sermons, such as he may hear in many Churches. And so may Ludovicus Vives his Introduction to wisdom; digested and compiled by certain short rational aphorisms. It is true, that much good may be done by Rhetoric: but, as much good; so, much evil also; for which reason it hath been forbidden formerly in some judicatories.  
But since speech and oratory (as once among the Athenians, when it ruled all there; and since that, among the Romans) is now become in so much request, among both great and small; that nothing almost is accounted Religion, or learning, but what cometh out of the Pulpit: and that this is the very way, which the enemies of the Church's peace, and government, since the Reformation of Religion, have ever gone in England, to gain credit with the people: this way, this popular way of preaching, though perchance, less of it otherwise, might serve in some places, if all other things were duly performed; aught to be in great request unto all, unto whom, the peace and prosperity of the Church is dear and precious: so that still care be taken, so far forth, as by good means it may be prevented; that none be allowed, or licenced to preach, but such as are true sons of the Church.  
However, though for divers respects, we maintain the necessity of this way; yet it were very requisite, I think, that people should be made to understand everywhere, how much, and how dangerously they are deluded, when they are made to believe, that there is no other preaching effectual to the conversion of souls; and that this is the Word of God, that which is uttered out of Pulpits; so much commended, and so necessary to salvation. Which conceit, when men are once prepossessed with; it makes them to despise the true Word of God (the infallible true Word of God, I mean; for Sermons also, if Orthodox, may be called the Word of God at large) when it is read in the Church, out of the Old, and New Testament: and this contempt of it, bereaves them of the benefit, which they might reap by it. I am persuaded, that all the blasphemies, which some Papists have belched out against the Scriptures, being put together; will scarce make one half, of what the Puritans and Precisians of England have done, to advance the honour of Pulpit Preaching, wherein they did conceive (and they were right in that) their advantage to lie. Let them be beaten off from that advantage, which may easily be done, if care be taken (and God be praised, care hath been taken in London of late, the chiefest City: might it be so too in all other places) it is to be hoped, that the quarrel will soon be at an end.  
But see (I pray the Reader to give me leave) the impudence of some of those men; far be it from me, to censure all. The Author of that infamous Pamphlet, called Puritanismus Anglicanus (a man, both for this, and 
Purit. Angl. sive praecipua, etc. Francof. 1610. Auctore Gulielmo Amesio.  his other writings; some of which have been Printed, I am loath to say where: of no small account, among them that are bred that way) the very first mark, by which he doth describe, and set out an English Puritan, is, that, verbum Dei, Prophetarum & Apostolorum scriptis comprehensum, numeris omnibus perfectum esse, arctè tenent, (so he speaks) accurateque defendunt. Whereas in very deed, of all things (not a few) that can be laid to the Puritans charge, I know not any thing, either more notorious, or more detestable, than this very thing, that they so vilify the pure Word of God, comprehended in the writings of the Prophets and Apostles, daily read in Churches, at the time of Divine Service; as to make it of no use at all to the Conversion of Souls: appropriating as much, as in them lieth, that sacred title of God's Word, to their own Pulpit Preaching. Which also they will often call the Gospel, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and without any limitation, whereby people (deluded silly people) are brought to believe, that there is no other Gospel, but what is Preached out of Pulpits: and in case any of that Party (though the occasion be never so just) be prohibited to Preach, that the Gospel doth suffer thereby, and is in danger.  
Another great and dangerous error, in this business of Preaching, which would be looked into, is, that many, because they hear Sermons with joy; and are eager after them; through ignorance of the nature of speech, in general; and of former times, withal: without any further examination, what operation it hath upon their lives; they are ready to flatter themselves, that this love they bear unto the Word, must needs be an argument of grace; and an effect of the spirit of regeneration; and in this confidence, they live secure, and regardless of any thing else, by which they might edify: and not only so, but become proud, insolent, and censorious; many of them. Whereas there is nothing more certain, then that it is the nature of speech, whatever the argument be, if it be fitted to the ears of the auditors, to be winning, and be witching: not only to delight, but even to ravish: to cause admiration, and astonishment: in brief; to have the same effects as music, even the best music and melody can have upon the minds of men. It is a secret of nature, which every body doth not understand: but I have argued it elsewhere at large; and clearly by evidence of reason, evinced it, that there is music in words, in the composition of words; in the ordering; in the pronounciation: in the tone, and action of the speaker: briefly, in all that belongs unto Oratory. And such hath been the power of speech and Oratory, in former ages among Heathens, that whole towns and villages have been forsaken (for a time) of inhabitants; whilst men both rich and poor, did run after some Sophist, or Philosopher, who would entertain them, it may be, with some moral discourse; it may be with somewhat else, that had no reference at all to life, and manners; much less, to godliness and piety: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, indeed; amazement and astonishment, was the very thing, that Sophists did affect, and propose to themselves; and he that could not attain unto it (great indeed was the labour they did undergo to bring this to pass) was accounted to have miscarried in his profession. What operation the moral discourses of ancient Philosophers, have had upon some men, as not only to produce plentiful tears at present, but also a sudden change of life; yea sometimes an absolute forsaking of the world, and the pleasures of this life: hath been touched before. But it is as certain, and examples of it have been produced elsewhere, that many, notoriously wicked and impious, yet were very studious to hear such discourses, as pleasant and delightful for the excellency of speech. To which may be added, that anciently many professed Heathens, enemies to the Christian Religion; did studiously repair to the Sermons, and Homilies of some learned, and eloquent Bishops; not to edify by their doctrine: but to partake to the pleasure of good language.  
Some perchance, for what I have said (for I cannot expect it should please all men) will be ready to suspect, or to traduce me, for one that is no friend to Sermons. Truly, I should be sorry to give just cause: I wish, where there is one, there might be two; so the Ministers be Orthodox, and that it be not to the prejudice of God's holy Word. I think the better of them, because I doubt much, when they come to be disused, or less used, learning in general (for the extempore prattlings of illiterate fanatics, and Enthusiasts, I do not call Sermons) will suffer; as at this day, in Moscovia, and divers other places. But I must suspect his sincerity to Religion, that is not sensible of the wrong done unto God's holy Word, by those, who seem (but for their own ends, I doubt) to be most zealous for Sermons.  
St. chrysostom, what he was for a Preacher, his very name or surname rather, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) is some argument: but his works yet extant, a stronger evidence. Somewhat was said of him before. It grieved his pious soul, when he observed, that there was no such crowding, when the Word of God was read in time of Divine Service, as when he preached. In one place, he doth expostulate the matter with his auditors: and among other things, sticks not to tell them, that Preaching (Pulpit Preaching) was not absolutely necessary, but only for the daintiness of men: the bare Word of God, that was read in the Church, being sufficient to salvation: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith he) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (so printed; I think it must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is: It is our daintiness (or sloathfulness: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is a great word in S. chrysostom, very comprehensive, and not easy to be expressed: propter fastidia plurimorum, etiam ipsa, sine quibus vivi non potest, alimenta condienda sunt: saith St. Augustin, upon the like occasion) that hath made this need (to wit, of Pulpit 
August. de Doct. Chri. c. XII.  Preaching) All things are plain and obvious to the eyes; all things manifest, that are necessary, in the Divine Scriptures. But because you must hear with pleasure, that is it, that makes you to require this way of Preaching also. And then he meets with another objection; that it is tedious and unpleasing, to hear the same thing (though it be the Scripture) over and over, often: which they must needs do, if they did constantly, as was required, attend the Service. It is excellently well answered by him. O, that all popular Preachers (I intent it not as a reproach; for I look upon it, as a great blessing, if it be well used) would imitate this pious man's zeal, for God and his holy Word! who are so far from it, many of them, that it is their endeavour and main design (it is for their honour and reputation: but for their profit too; and to the advantage of their cause, most of all) to maintain the people in that conceit, that Sermons are the only Word of God; that there is no Preaching of the Word, but that: that to love Sermons, and to run after Sermons, is a certain sign of grace and regeneration; that God loves them, and they love God: and in that conceit, though their lives and their actions show nothing of the power of godliness; how many live and die!  
This was the zeal of this holy Father, for God's holy Word, read in the Church publicly, in time of Divine Service. Who nevertheless himself, was a zealous constant Preacher of the Word, as any age (though most Bishops, great Preachers, then) hath known: and as much followed, and admired, by all sorts of people. Some part of the year, he preached every day; and yet could not preach often enough, to satisfy the longings of the people: a man indeed endowed with extraordinary parts, for that holy function. And lest any man for want of piety and industry (though piety indeed, if true and real, will make a man industrious) should be ready to take the advantage of these words of St. chrysostom, that Sermons are not needful: let them know, that though just indignation, and a holy zeal, for God's holy Word, and the Church Service, made him say so here: yet that it was not his opinion, absolutely and positively; as may appear, not only by his practice (the best evidence) but also by what he writes elsewhere; as particularly upon 1 Tim. 5. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith he) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And shortly after; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where be they now, who say, there is no need of Sermons (o● teaching)— whereas in very truth, it is a great thing: I say a great thing; and of great concernment for the edification of the Church, that the Governors of it (Bishops, properly: but it may now extend to all that are called Rectores Ecclesiarum, and their substitutes; Curates, and Vicars) be Teachers, or Preachers: and the want of it, is the occasion of much evil in the Church. Certainly, the Church will be happy in it, if both in the one, and in the other: in his zeal for the true Word of God, as it is read daily in the Church: and in his diligence to Preach the same (which in regard of the intention, or institution of Preaching, may be called the Word of God also) he may have many followers. God grant it. And here I end.  
FINIS.