T. C. Pag. 128. Sect. 1.
In the. 118. page, vnto the example of Philip he addeth S. Stephen, whyche was one of the Deacons, which he affirmeth to haue preached. But I denie it: for all that long oration which he hath in the seuenth of the Actes, is no sermon, but a de〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ense of him selfe, agaynst those accusations whych were layde agaynst hym, as (*) 1.1 M. Beza dothe very learnedly and substantially proue in his annotations vpon those places of S. Stephens disputations and defense. Nowe to defende himselfe beeing accused, is lawfull not for the Deacons onely, but for any other Christian, and we reade nothing that Stephen did there, eyther touching the defense of his cause, or the sharpe rebu∣king of the obstinate Pharisies and Priestes, but that the holy Martyrs of God which were no deacons nor ministers haue done with vs, when they haue bene conuented before their persecutors: and whereas he 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ayth, that Philip baptised, I haue shewed before by what authoritie he dyd it, that is, not in that he was a Deacon, but for 〈◊〉〈◊〉 he was an Euangelist.
This is a harde and new deuised shifte. You imagine (as I thinke) that you are in* 1.2 the Logike or Philosophy scholes, where you may feyne what distinctions you liste, but al wil not serue. The accusations are conteyned in the. 13. &. 14. verse of the. 6. chap. let the Reader compare his sermon with them, & iudge whether he spake in the way of preaching, or of defending himselfe. Although a man may make his Apologie in preaching, & answere accusations in a sermon: and surely that sharpe & seuere re∣pr〈1 line〉〈1 line〉hension, that he concludeth with, beginning at the. 51. verse, doth euidently declare that it was a sermon: Moreouer it was in the Synagogue which was called the Sy∣nagogue of the Libertines. &c. The ende of it was to proue true religion, and the true worshipping of God, to be affixed neither to the Temple, nor to external ceremonies, but to consist of fayth in God. And yet I do not deny but that Stephē also did vse this sermon as an answere to those matters, wherof he was accused: but he answered in the way of preaching, & not of pleading. And that doth M. Gualter directly affirme: for* 1.3 although he cal this an oration, & a defense, yet in the. 8. chap. he proueth by this exam∣ple of Stephen, that Deacōs were permitted togither with the charge of the goods of the Churche, and of the poore, to preache, as I haue shewed before. And the Authors of the Centuries, speaking of that time, say thus: It appeareth also out of the. 6. & 8. of the Acts* 1.4 that Deacons did teach. And in the same booke & chap. Others were Deacons, whose office was to serue the tables at Ierusalem, so long as there was there a cōmunitie of goods. Act. 6. notwithstāding it appeareth by Steuen, Act. 6. & by Philip, Act. 8. that they did teach & work myracles, & euery where in other Churches, the office of Deacons was to teach & minister.
I can not finde in M. Beza his Annotatiōs any such thing, as you héere affirme. Al∣though if it were so, yet doth it not improue this to be a sermon: for then was the ora∣tion of Peters no sermō. Act. 2. wherin he answered to those that accused the Apostles of drunkennesse: neyther can Paule be sayde to haue preached. Act. 24. If this be true that an Apologie may not be made by the way of preaching. If it be lawfull thus to inuent distinctions to shift off so manyfest examples of Scriptures, then it is an easy matter to shift off any thing that shall be propounded.