IN ordinarie Prea­ching vnto Christi­an Congregations to alleage Authori­ties of mē whether Philosophers, Po­ets, or Divines; or to vse Latin, or o­ther languages besides the vulgar, is vnprofitable, vnreasonable, and vn­lawfull.

This is proved and confirmed by 7. Reasons.

First, the example of Christ is the best patterne for vs to follow in all 1 ordinary things, especially in the [Page] works of our Ministery: yea if heere­in we willingly depart from this rule, doubtles we can not want sinne.

But their maner of Preaching who vse Humane Authorities and Latin, &c. is not like Christes. For all men know Christes whole course of tea­ching the Iewes, how familiar and plaine, and yet how Divine & sound it was: even without all shew or sus­picion of such lightnes, curiositie, & ostentatiō, as some now in their fore­said allegations and manner of tea­ching do vse.

Therefore thus ought all Prea­chers to do likewise; viz. after the ex­ample of Christ. And that other ma­ner of teaching (which some vse) wanteth not sinne.

2 Second: The Apostles example & practise is like heerevnto. And as in [Page] other pointes, so even heerin doubt­les we ought to follow them, as we see that they follow Christ.

But in that forenamed maner of teaching which some now vse, nei­ther is their example and practise fol­lowed. For all their ordinary Prea­ching and Writing to the Churches was in great simplicitie, their wordes were all vulgar, their Authorities were all Canonicall: whiche the whole course of the Apostles Actes and Epistles doth testifie. And par­ticularly Paul witnesseth the same of himselfe, saying: 1. Cor. 2.1. I came not to you with excellency of wordes or of wisedom, [but] shewing to you the testimony of God. vers. 4 Neither [stood] my word and my preaching in the intising speach of mans wisdom. But this maner indeed he heere insinuateth to have ben thē the vse and maner of the false tea­chers.

Obiect. Some will say, that the Greeke or Hebrue propriety of speach wil need sometime to be waighed. And then doubtles the wordes are to be shew­ed and considered in the originall language.

Answ. I answer, in handling controver­sies this sometimes indeed is profita­ble. But heere we speak of Ordinary Preaching to Christian Congregati­ons. In which, by thus doing this profitablenes very seldome appea­reth, or rather truly never. For in such ordinary places so exact discus­sing of controversies hath no vse, as experience sheweth vs. Especially, that wee should neede to vse many wordes in a strange tounge.

Obiect. If any say; Paul vsed sometime Heathen authorities: as Act. 17.28. Tit. 1.12.

Answ. We answere; He did so in deed: [Page] which yet nevertheles was but very seldom, even this twise only. Other­wise in all the multitude of his Prea­chings and Writings that are extant, he never vsed any other Authorities then Canonicall. Which teacheth vs, how rarely and how vnwillingly in doctrine we are to vse any other allegations, then such as have in thē ­selves absolut Veritie. That to the Corinthians 15.33. (though it be foūd so written in Menander a Poet, yet) the Apostle citeth it only as a com­mon Proverbe, as a truth out of que­stion, and vulgarly knowen: not as a testimonie from any Humane Au­thor. 2. In those two places before obiected he dealeth directly with the Heathens and Vnbeleevers; that if any thing would move them, they might be convinced by their owne Prophets. Wherefore these touch [Page] not our present question which now we have in hand. For now our que­stion is onely concerning ordinary instruction to Christian Congregations. 3. He citeth these Poets in these 2. places in no other language then that only which was vulgar, and which the common sort vnderstood and knew right well. But with vs the common people vnderstand not, on­ly they admire and wonder at the deepe learning and incomprehensi­ble knowledge of such rare Doctors.

Therefore it still remaineth, that this curious and vain ostentation of strange tongues and Humane au­thorities ought to be shunned by all sound and modest Preachers in their ordinarie teaching of Christians. Con­trariwise, the Apostles plainnes and simplicitie is to be alwayes followed and imbraced, which was their con­stant order and practise.

If God (as it were) debased him­selfe and would not speak vnto vs in 3 his Maiestie as the Divine excellency of his word required that he should, but chose a familiar meanes to teach vs by even the Ministery of men, that is of our brethrē like vnto our selves: and all for this that our simple capa­cities might comprehend, and be comfortably instructed in the myste­rie of his will. Then surely in all rea­son ought Men, who are Gods Mini­sters, to imitate the Lorde heerein: viz. not to affect a profound, mysti­call, and strange kinde of teaching, but to labour for wordes and matter easie and familiar to the capacities of the simplest.

But thus Deut. 18 15,-19. it pleased GOD (as it were) to abase himselfe in the tea­ching of his people.

Therefore, &c.

4 Whatsoever is a stong inducemēt to make many to thinke that the sim­ple worde of God without the ad­ding of Mens Authorities is not suf­ficient, nor the best meanes for do­ctrine to salvation, that same is very scandalous and vnlawfull.

But the alleaging of Fathers and Philosophers, &c. as beeing the best way of ordinary teaching, is a strong inducement to make men think that the simple word of God is not a suf­ficient rule, nor the best meanes for doctrine to salvation. Which expe­rience proveth to much in a number of all sortes of men.

Therefore that vse is very scanda­lous and vnlawfull.

When the hearers cannot proove 5 & see whether the thinges which are [Page] Preached be so or no, then that or­der of Preaching is bad and not to be vsed. For questionles in all sound and profitable teaching that special­lie ought to be provided for, (which we see Act. 17-11. the Apostle had care of) that the hearers may be able by thē ­selves to search and see whether that which they heare be so or no.

But when strange toungs are vsed, authorities and sentences of Fathers and Philosophers alleaged, then the ordinary hearers cannot prove and see whether those things are so or no, which are said.

Therefore this order of Preaching is evill, and not to be vsed.

That maner of teaching wherein 6 all that is said may be vnderstood by all, is better then that wherein many things vttered cannot be vnderstood [Page] by all, but only by som who are ex­traordinary and learned hearers.

But when Fathers and Philoso­phers & strange languages are vsed, many vnderstand not that which yet they foolishly admire. Contrarily when the words are familiar and the matter Canonicall, then all vnder­stand, both the learned and vnlear­ned, and may receave edification.

Therefore this way of teaching is the best, and the other the worst.

7 Lastly, All the Ancient godly Fa­thers themselves (like as the later also) did precisely keepe this maner of teaching, and altogeather shunned the other: namely Augustin, Chry­sostom, Nazianzen, Leo, &c: as ap­peareth in their ordinary Sermons or Homilies which they made to the people.

Therefore in all reason it seemeth, the contrary vse to speake Latin to vs English, to cite Authorities of men in ordinary Preaching, is a great fault in Ministers, and in no wise to be allowed.