Against Human Ceremonies in Gods Worship, Part 2 · Chapter 3 · Section 2
SECT. 3. Concerning S. Augustine.
1. AVgustine, in the Abridgement, was amonge other Divines cited, as allowing of one proof belonging to this Argument, taken from significancie. This the Def. catched holde of before the time or place of it, as matter of a section by it self, distinct from the testimonies of other Divines. Which dealing we must not speak of: because the Rejoynder sayth, it was orderly doen. But if their Printer-hath failed in right noting the numbers, he will needs have that a very slipery tricke. If also the Def. brought in this testimonie out of place, that was (in the Rejoynder his language) because he would not teather us up too straight. All this we may let passe, as formalitie of wordes, sutable to his Ceremonies, which he seeketh to mainteyne.
2. But (sayth the Rejoynder) if in stead of lib. 3. c. 35. be put in lib. 2. cap. 1. as the Repl. would have it, yet nothing is found to the purpose. Now (though it skilleth not muche: because this place was but conjecturally pointed at, in stead of another miscited yet) in that place, this is to be found, so muche to the purpose, that I know not how the Rej. will avoyde the weight of it: that S. Aug. distinguishing betwixt naturall, and instituted signes, sayth presently after, that there is no use or cause of instituted signes, nisi ad expromendum, & trajiciendum in alierius animum, id quod in animo gerit is qui dat, i.e. but to declore and make intelligible, what the institutor meaneth. From whence, we gather, that our Prelates instituting significant Ceremonies, can signifie no more then what they would have, and not what God would have.
3. Another place of Augustine was alledged. out of Ep. 5. Signes when they belong to divine things are called Sacraments. Signa, cum ad res divinas pertinent, Sacramenta appollentur…Of these wordes. the Rej. (differing from the Def. sayth) that his meaning was to shew, that the name of Sacraments belonge properly to divine thinges, and not to all signes of holy thinges.
But it is plaine, that his meaning was, to shew, that all thinges instituted imbuendo virtutibus animo, i. e. to stir up the minde to vertue, as he speaketh immediatly before, are Sacraments. In defense of the Def. he answereth, with the Def. that in Augustines language, all signes of holy thinges, are familiarly called Sacraments, and that we bewray small acquaintance with Augustines language.
Where (because both the Defend. and Rej. would seeme so familiarly acquainted with Augustines language) I would desire onelyonly, that they would interpret unto us (strangers from it) the meaning of these wordes of his, Epist. 119. Dies natalis Domini, non in Sacramento celebratur, sed tantum in memoriam revocatur, quod gestum est. Pascha sic agimus, ut Sacramenti significationem non omittamus. Sacramentum est in celebratione quum rei gestae ita commemoratio fit ut aliquid etiam significari intelligatur quod sancte accipiendum est. i. e.
The celebration of Christs nativitie is no Sacrament: but the celebration of Easter is a Sacrament. Here we must have a new distinction, never head of since Augustines time, or else it cannot stand (whiche yet they, who will seeme so versed in Augustines phraze, will needs dictate unto us) that all signes of holy thinges, are, Augustines phraze, Sacraments: except perhaps (against their often professed tenet) they will say, that holy-days no not that which is appointed for memorie of Christs owne nativitie, is a signe of a holy thinge. Neyther can it be (according to Augustines phraze) but all suche significant Ceremonies as Easter was, must have more then the mere name of Sacraments.
4. And this was that, for whiche Augustines testimonie was onelyonly brough in for, viz: to shew that religious significant Ceremonies participate part of the Sacraments nature. To this (after some wordes of course) it is rejoined, that the name Sacrament improperly given to other thinges, doeth not prove them to participate the propertie and nature of Sacraments, no more then the Swanne in Houlborne, or the Idols of the Gentiles, doe participate the nature of a Swanne, and God: suche denominations not being reall, and proper, but logicall, or relative. And if it were so, then the taking away of that name from our Ceremonies, doeth discharge them from partaking the nature of Sacraments. To whiche I have this to say 1. that our Argument is not taken from the meer name: for we know that some names are common to thinges quite differing in nature, so falling (as they say) by chaunce, But this communitie of the name Sacrament, was not so: it was communicated to Mysticall Ceremonies upō certeine counsell and reason. And that reason was not meer similitude outward, suche as is betwixt the picture of a Swanne and a living Swanne: Because ther is no suche outward likenesse betwixt the Crosse, and any proper Sacrament: but frō some proportion of inward nature, eyther in mens esteeme, as an Idols was called God, or in deed wholly so farre as mans institution can effect, as …he Popish five Sacramentes are so called, or else in part, as this kinde of significant Ceremonies, which are in quaestion. Now that this last was the reason, Augustine himselfe teacheth in the for-alleged sentence, concerning Easter: and Chemnitius, out of him, doeth largely declare, in the beginning of his 2. tome, de Sacramentorum numero. Bellarmin also (de effect. Sacrament. l. 2. T. 24.) giveth the same rule,Sacramentae dicuntur omnia, quae mysticum sensum habent, & f… gue sunt & typt aliarum rerum. and reason: All are called Sacraments which have a mysticall sense, and are types or figures of other things. 2. From the former answer, the Rej. his Hoste in Holborne can gather, that not the picture of a Swanne, but a living Goose, hath that proportion to a living Swanne, whiche is betwixt other mysticall Ceremonies, and proper Sacraments. 3. It is but a picture of a reason, whiche the Rejoynder maketh, from giving of the name Sacrament, to the taking of it away. For no man will say, that a name taken from the nature of a thing doeth argue more the nature of it, then the taking away the name alone, doeth argue the taking away of the nature. The ancient naming of suche Images as the Papists are, did argue them to have an idolatrous nature: but the removing of that name from them, by the Papists, doeth not argue they are now of idolatrous nature.
5. From the name Sacrament, which first was given to this kinde of Ceremonies, it came that afterward they were called Sacramentalls. For so sayth Swarez de Relig. Vol. 1. tract. 3. lib. 4. cap. 14.Sacramentalium nomin… significari solent, vel generalius omnes Ceremoniae & benedictiones sacrae, qua in Ecclesia fiunt.) They use to be styled Sacramentalls, or more generally allCeremonies & holy blessings done in the Church. To this observation of the Replier, the Rejoynder answereth, that the name Sacramentall, taken properly, is given out of relation to Sacraments, not out of participation or resemblance of their nature. And that analogically suche Ceremonies as are consecrated to s…gnifie and worke supernaturall effects are called Sacramenta…is. The first of which interpretations we doe not denie: saving onelyonly, we see not why the Rejoynder should say in that sense onelyonly that name istaken properly.
In the second, he confesseth as muche as we desire: saving that he shufleth in two termes unfitting: consecrated to worke. For many Mysticall Ceremonies were not consecrated at all among the Papists (as the aereall signe of the Crosse etc.) and some were consecrated in Augustines time, (the practise wherof is here defended by the Rejoynder) nor can be condemned by those that consecrate Churches, Churche-yarders, Altars etc.
And as for working, if it be understood of morall working by admonition▪ then it cannot be denied unto mysticall signes by institution admonitorie.Sacramentalia non operantur remissionem peccatorum venialium, nequè instituta sunt ad cam significandam, sed ad excitandum animum in detestationem illorum. Howsoever a principall Iesuit may professe as muche at Rome, of Popish Ceremonies, as the Rejoynder doeth here of ours. So Vasquez (in 3. Disp. 128. cap. 5. ar. 4. Sacramentals do not work remission of venial Sins nor are instituted to that end, but to stir up the mind to detest them.
6. It was in the conclusion of this passage, granted by the Repl. that neyther Augustine, nor other fathers, did constantly in doctrine, and practise reject humane mysticall Ceremonies. Wherupon the Rejoynder inferreth, that Augustine therfore is wronged, and wee are mere Navalists. But here he forgat, that all our Divines, and also our English Articles of confession with our Apologie, doe reject divers thinges (as prayer to, & for the dead, mens falling from grace etc.) which those Fathers did not constantly in doctrine and practise, reject, and yet are neyther to be esteemed mere Novalists, not yet accused of wronging those Fathers, when they cite some testimonies out of their writings, against those errors. Concerning Ceremonies, it is the commune sentence of our Divines, which Beza expresseth (ad Bald winum) It is not to be doubted but that most of your ancient Bishops were somewhat too busy in devising rites etc. but unhappy was the Counsel.Extra controver…iam est, in excogitandos vitibus, ple rosque veteres Episcopo… …lus aquo fuisse soli…itos etc. Hoc autem confilium fuit infelix
7. To make an ende of this one testimonie, which it pleased the Defend. to take into so large consideration, for advantage. Augustine Epist 119. ad Ian. is cited by all, as condemning the multitude of humane Ceremonies which were then crept into the Churche and worship of God: and therin (without all doubt) he sayd that out, which many other godly men did inwardly conceyve: yet neyther he, nor they, did constantly reject that multitude, nor he declare his minde, but when he was urged by Ianuarius. The stream of the times, bearing toward Poperie, made him (with others despairing of reformation) yeeld too muche unto suche abuses. Yet in that famous place (Epist. 119.) not onelyonly the number, but even the nature of suche Ceremonies is condemned. 1. For the manifesting wherof, I note these passages: 1. He noteth these Ceremonies, that they were instituted, ut quasi observatio Sacramenti sint. i. e. so that they partaked the nature of Sacrament. For as quasi contractus, and quasi peculium castrense, doe in the Civill law note participation of the nature of suche thinges to which they are quasi; so doeth, quasi Sacramentum. 2. He professeth, that by reason of times, he durst not speake against suche Ceremonies so freely as his judgement did lead him: liberius improbare non andeo. 3. He calleth them servilia onera, and humanas presumptiones: servil burdens, and humane praesumtiones. 4. He accounteth the Churche, in regard of them, to be troubled with muche chaffe, & tares: inter multam paleam, multaque zizania constitutam. 5. He sayth, that suche Ceremonies, though they were tolerated, yet they were not to be allowed of, but upon the first oportunitie to be cashiered resecanda, yea though it were not discerned, how they made against faith or good manners.
Let any man now judge, if Augustine did in this his clear sentence about Ceremonies, agree with our Def. and Rejoyner.