Truth prevailing and detecting error, or, An answer to a book mis-called, A friendly conference between a minister and a parishioner of his, inclining to Quakerism, &c. by Thomas Ellwood.

CHAP. VII. Of Taking Texts, Studying Sermons, and Selling them to the People.

THE next thing the Priest takes in hand to treat of, is their Manner of Prea∣ching from a Text, which he brings in after this manner; You pretend your selves (sayes the Parishioner to him) to be the Apostles Suc∣cessors and Imitators; if so, how comes it to pass, that you preach not as they did; but sin∣gle out a Text, our of which you compose your Sermons? what Warrant have you for so do∣ing? To this he replies, The Apostles them∣selves took Texts out of Scripture, to expound and apply them: St. Peter did so in his Ser∣mon, Acts 2. and St. Paul in the Synagogue at Antioch, Acts 16. (I suppose it should be Acts 13 for in the 16th chapter there is no such thing.)

Answ. If he and his Brethren have no better Warrant for singling out a Text, and

composing their Sermons out of it, then these Scriptures afford, their Practice will appear to be very weakly grounded. For Peter took no Text at all, but began his Speech thus, Ye Men of Judea, and all ye that are at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words; for these Men are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third Hour of the Day. No man I think will take these words to be Peter's Text: yet if any should, I desire him to shew me whence Peter took them. But if this be not Peter's Text, then Peter began without a Text; for this is the Beginning of his Sermon. 'Tis true, in the progress of his Discourse, he takes notice of several Passages of Scripture, though not naming the places; and if from hence the Priest will infer he took a Text, he may with the same Reason say, he took half a Dozen Texts together: for I think he referred to not fewer then half a dozen several Scriptures in that short Sermon of his.

But he sayes, Both Peter and Paul also preacht Christ out of the same Text, namely, Psal. 16.10.

Answ. That Peter does mention the words

in Psal. 16.10. I grant; but that he took them for his Text, or composed his Sermon out of them, I deny: for he was beyond the mid∣dle of his Sermon, before he mentioned those words of the Psalmist. How then could they be his Text? The like is to be said of his other Instance of St. Paul. He took no Text neither, as appears plainly Acts 13.16. where he thus began, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God, give audience; The God of this People of Israel chose our Fathers, &c. and so he goes on to give an Historical Account of the Dealings of God with that People, un∣til the time of Christ, and many Passages of Scripture he refers to in Deuteronomy, Ioshua, Iudges, Samuel, Isaiah, and the Psalms; yet did not take any of them as a Text to com∣pose his Sermon out of. But as for that place, Psal. 16.10. (which the Priest would have to be his Text) he mentioned it not at all till he had well-nigh done his Sermon, so far was he from making that his Text, or composing his Sermon out of it. These Instances then afford no Warrant for the Priest to take a Text, and compose his Sermon out of it. And that which he next offers is as little (or less) to the Purpose.

He says, The whole 4th Chapter to the Ro∣mans

is but an inlarged Discourse upon, Gen. 15.6.

Answ. If he does not mean that Paul took Gen. 15.6. for a Text to compose that Chap∣ter out of, he speaks nothing to t••e Business: But if he does mean so, he discovers the greater Weakness. For what can it be but Weakness in any one to imagine, That the Apostle, in writing an Epistle, after he had gone so far in it as the three first Chapters, without a Text, should take a Text to com∣pose the 4th Chapter only out of, and the•• go on again without a Text; especially con∣sidering, that that Epistle, when he writ it, was one intire piece, not divided, as it now is, into Chapters and Verses? But if he will needs have it, that Paul took Gen. 15.6. for a Text, out of which to compose this Chapter, because in this Chapter that Passage is mentioned; he may not only say the same of other Sciptures referr'd to in the same Chapter, but with the like Reason infer, that the Apostle, in that Epistle, took twice as many Texts as the whole Epistle is divided into Chapters, since more then so many pla∣ces of Scripture are in that Epistle referr'd to.

But, as suspecting the Authority of his

own Instances he adds two more, which, he sayes, were produced by Dr. Sherlock, whom he represents as speaking worthily, and like himself.

Answ. Who Dr. Sherlock is I know as little as I do who my present Adversary is: But this I know, that my Adversary has gone at least half as far as that Doctor; for he has spoken like himself, though not worthily. But let us see the Intances.

One is of Christ, who (he sayes) took a Text, and preacht upon it, Luke 4.17, 22. The other is of Philip, who (he sayes) took a Text which the Eunuch read, Acts 8.30.

Answ. To the Instance of Christ, I say, first, That it was in the time of the Law, and suitable to that Ministration; when Reading and Expounding the Law and the Prophets was a part of the Iewish Service: But it is not a sufficient Warrant for the like Practice in the time of the Gospel. 2. That it is no where recommended by Christ, or any of his Apostles, as an Example or Pattern for Gospel Ministers. 3. It is a particular Case (for in all the Sermons that our Saviour preacht, while he was upon Earth, we do not read the like) and the Priest himself sayes, p. 127. When any Text

hath a Relation to a particular Case, that Text must not stand for a general Rule: for it is a grand Fallacy (he sayes) to draw an Vni∣versal Conclusion from Particular Premises.

To the Instance of Philip, I answer, That he did not take a Text to preach on, but o∣pened that Scripture which the Eunuch was reading, and that too at his Request. Phi∣lip did not single out any Text to compose a Sermon out of; but hearing the Eunuch read that Scripture, and being desired by the Eu∣nuch to inform him in the Meaning of it, he thereupon took an Occasion to preach Christ to the Eunuch. He abuses his Reader there∣fore, in saying, Philip took a Text: for it is evident that Scripture in Isaiah was of the Eunach's choosing, not Philip's. So that if he will needs have it, that a Text, was taken, he should rather have said, The Eunuch took one; for he was reading it when Philip came to him. These Instances therefore afford him no more Warrant for his Practice of singling out a Text. and composing Sermons out of it, then the former; so that if this be all they have to say, the Doctor and he are still to seek a Warrant for their Practice.

But he falls fiercely (and foully too) upon Rich. Hubberthorn, for the Reply he made

to Dr. Sherlock, which he sayes was in these words, O thou Enemy and Slanderer of Christ and the Apostles! Did they take Texts to g••e Mone with them, and to lie a Quarter of a Year or Half a Year in a Text? Christ came to fulfil the ••crip••ure, and the Apostles shewed how he fulfilled the Scripture. And this he calls a Brutish Reply, and sayes, Did Dr. Sherlock any where lay such a Slander upon Christ and his Apostles, as to say, they took Texts to get Money with them, or to lie Half or a Quarter of a Year in them, as this Man so injuriously infers? Who then, think you, is the Slanderer? and who stood at this Man's Elbow to dictate unto him that wretched Vn∣truth? p. 88.

Answ. For all his big words I would have him take notice, that he deals very unfairly with us, in reporting a Reply of R. H.'s, and not quoting the Page, nor so much as Book out of which he takes it; therein fal∣ling short of the common Honesty of every fair Adversary. Yet will I not therefore (as I justly might) pass over this place unanswer∣ed; but supposing the words to be truly re∣cited, I say thus: Our Charge against the Priests is not only and barely for taking Texts, and composing Sermons out of them (though

for that having no divine Warrant, they are condemnable) but also for selling those Texts and Sermons to the People for Money. Thus making a Trade of the holy Scriptures, they lie some of them three, some six Moneths in a Text; and what, by the Helps of Invention and Study, they gather into their Under∣standings that by Measure they sell out to the People, taking some Ten, some Twenty, some Forty Shillings and more, for an Hour's Discourse. This is Matter of Fact, and too Notorious to need Proof. Dr. Sherlock (as he calls him) to defend the Practice of the Priests, urges the Examples of Christ and Philip: Whereupon R. H. replies, Th••u Enemy and Slanderer of Christ and the Apo∣stles, did they take Texts to get Money with them, and to lie a Quarter of a Year or Ha•••• a Year in a Text. As if he had said, If thou dost bring the Examples of Christ and Philip to justifie the Priests Practice in taking Text•• to get Money with them (as you Priests do) and in lying a Quarter or Half a Year in a Text (as some of you do) thou art a Slander∣er and Enemy of Christ and the Apostle: for did they ever do thus? Now, this being our Charge against the Priests, not only that they

take Texts, but that thay make a Trade of the Scriptures, taking Texts to get Money by, &c. Doth not Dr, Sherlock, in bringing the Examples of Christ and Philip to justifie the Priests Practice, plainly intimate he in∣tends, that they took Texts as the Priests do? What else then is that, but implicitly to in∣fer, that they took Texts to get Money by? So that if the Case be truly stated and rightly considered, it will appear that the Doctor did slander Christ and Philip (in urging their Ex∣amples to justifie so bad a Practice) not R.H. the Doctor. But I observe my Opponent does not ••t all deny that the Priests take Texts to get Money with them: but stepping over that, he insists a little upon the other part of the Charge, namely, their lying a Quarter or Half a Year in a Text, which (sayes he) I think very few do, nor any but when their Text hath such plenty and variety of Matter in it, as requires much Time in the handling of it. &c. So that, at least, the one part of the Charge he grants, and the other he does not deny.

Notes

• Acts 2.14.