Against Human Ceremonies in Gods Worship, Part 2 · Chapter 1 · Section 5
SECT. 13.14. Concerning the ancient fathers arguing negatively from Scripture.
1. TO diverse sentences of ancient Writers, about this matter alledged, the generall answer is givē. 1. that they speak of thinges contrarie to Scripture: which when the Repl. granteth, complaining of the Def. his wilfull mistaking, or mis-interpreting our meaning, the Rejoynder lest he should seem lesse wilfull, repeateth the same imputation, which yet he acknowledgeth to be contrarie to the Repliers owne confession.
What should a man say to suche Rejoyners, that know full well our meaning, and yet will never leave threaping another meaning upon us.
Wee never sayd, or thought, that all particular rites pertaining to order and decencie, are punctually determined in the Scripture. Wee never dreamed that all suche rites being beside the particular determination of the Scripture, are against it, wee speak of double or treble rites as the Rejoynder stileth them, which no mere order and decencie doeth necessarily require, but onelyonly the mere will of man injoine.
All this the Rejoynder knoweth: and yet he ceasseth not to beat the ayre, with endelesse repetitions of this imputation, guilded over with some varietie of tanting phrases, that it may be the easlier, swallowed by his unwary reader. 2. It is secondly answered by the Def. that the ancient writers speak of doctrines, not of ceremonies. Wherunto the Repl. granting that to be true for the most part yet answereth, that the trueth of their sayings may be taken so generally, as to include all re…igious Ceremonies. Here the Rejoynder objecteth that limitation (for the most part) is onelyonly to abuse the simple, and that the ambiguous terme of religious Ceremonie, is a bush to hide I know not what in.
Now for the former charge Compare here the Abrigment and Def. The later accusation of hiding-bush, etc. cannot otherwise be avoyded (as it seemeth) except to avoyd the same, we would upō every occasion, when we are to speak of the questioned kinde of ceremonies, repeat the Rejoynder his beadroul of termes: double or treble significant, sacred by application, mutable, ambalatorie, arbitrarie, reductively sacramentall, morall Ceremonies, immediate worship, in respect of meanes by vertue of some thing else, in respect of the manner, and reductively, in respect of the utmost ende Divine worship.
Whersoever we observe not these termes partly of his owne forging, since the Replie was written he may as well spie a bush over our head, as in this place. It is thirdly answered, that a generall proposition may well be extended beyond one speciall conclusion to which it is upon occasion applied. To this (after that out of splen (as I take it) he styleth it the mans stomacke) the Rejoynder answereth that it may onelyonly be applyed to other of the like kinde. This therfor is onelyonly the difference, whether those Ceremonies which bear all those titles even now rehearsed, bee not of the like kinde, or have not one common nature, with some of those thinges which the Rejoynder calleth substantiall, and doctrinall, poynts: of which we have disputed before, andshall after, by Gods grace.
2. To Tertullians wordes: Prohibetur quod non ultro est permissum: that is prohibited, which is not permitted, the first answer made by the Def. was, that our Ceremonies are permitted. Heerunto it was replied, that Tertullians meaning must needs be of other permission then the Def. can challenge to our Ceremonies, otherwise ther should be no sense in his wordes. The reason is, because the Def. doeth not say that our Cerem. are otherwise permitted, then that they are not forbidden. Whiche kinde of permission if Tertullian understood, then his saying is: that is prohibited, whi…h is not unprohibited.
The Rejoynder here for resolution of this difficultie sayth, that Tertullians meaning was to account that not to be permitted by the word, against which any reasons out of the word may be given, though ther be no particular word against it.
Now if he had attended unto the question, considering that it was onelyonly what Tertullian in this place meant by this phrase not permitted, and that his meaning for the word must be the same, with that immediately before opposed: Quod non prohibetur ultro permissum est, he would not have given that glosse, for then the meaning of this sentence must be: that which hath no particular word against it, can have no reasons out of the word made against it. Suche …ustian is that clause of the Rejoynder, our meaning and hìs, are alike, and wee hold our Ceremon…es to be so perm…tted, and therfor not prohibited. So permitted is, by his interpretation, not to be prohibited by consequence, prohibited must needs be ey…her the same, or else p…ohibited by particular word: if the former, then he sayth thus: our Ceremonies are not p…ohibited by consequence: therfor they are not prohibited by consequence, if the later, then this is his saying: our Ceremonies are not forbidden by consequence onelyonly, therfor they are not by particular word forbidden. The former is no reason; the later neyther is consequence, nor toucheth any quaestion.
The Def. his second answer was, that wee may blush, to speak of Tertullian, because he professeth traditions in the same book. It was answered, that then all may blush, which allege the Fathers for that which they in other places gainesay. The Rejoynder graunting, that those neede not blush, because the Fathers sometime are deafe and hear not themselves speak, and in some particulars left their sound generall principles, yet will needs have us blush (if it be not unpossible, as his Rejoyning charitie suspecteth it is) because they never held that which wee allege them for. But how doeth this appear, because they allowed of sundrie Ceremonies not praescribed in the word. Now except he could prove, they were not as deafe on this the ceremoniall ear, or side, as they were on the other, or that they did not leave their sound generalls, in the particulars of Ceremonies, as well or ill as in other.
this occasion, especially with his affected exaggerations if it be not impossible.
And that the Rejoynder cannot prove this, D. Morton sheweth in his appeal. pag. 324. They that erred in points of doctrine, could not be altogether free from some sprinklings and spots of Ceremoniall corruptions.
Moreover, how the best of those ancient writers allowed of sundrie humane Ceremonies, then in use, Augustine shewe…h, epist. 119.Multa husu… modi, propter nonnullarum, vel sanctarum, vel turbulentarum persona…um scandala d…vitanda, liberius im…obare non audeo: Many such things I dare not so freely gainsay to avo…de the offense partly of some holy minds and partly of some turbulent Spirits.
Which is the very case of the best English Divines that doe so sparingly speak against our Ceremonies, and yet sufficiently insinuat, that they would speake more, if they durst for the times. How also our Divines doe not blush to alledge their testimonies against humane Ceremon. though they know that in other places they speak for them this may be seen in D. Whitaker. tom. 1. pag. 116.Augustinu… n…s illis paucissim▪ Ceremonijs content…s esse vul…, quae in Canonicis Scripturis continentur. Si quid usquam scripserit quod cum hac sententia minus conveniat, in conciliandit ejus singulus dictis, non magnam operam insumam. Augustine will have us be content with those very few Ceremonies which are conteyned in the Canonical Scriptures. If elswhere he have written ought that may lesse agree with this sentence▪ for my pa…t I will not much tro…ble my selfe to reconcile all his speeches. D. Fulke, Rejoynder to Martial, ar 1. sayth plainely: The gates of hell in idle Ceremonies did assault the Churche. The fathers (in them) declined from the simplicitie of the Gospel, and art. 3. Every idle Ceremonie that praevayled, had the Praelates of the Churche, eyther for authors or for approvers, But Christ committed his Churche to them, to be fed with his word, and not with dumbe signes, and dead images, which things he hath forbidden.