Against Human Ceremonies in Gods Worship, Part 2 · Chapter 3 · Section 22
SECT. 34.
1. IN this last section, this reason is brought (accordding to the Rej. his construction) If all Ceremonies (properly so called) must some way be significant; then either all Ceremonies are unlawfull, or some significant Cer… monies are lawfull. To which I answer 1. that all outward actions designed or purposely observed, and done in reference to some other thing, beside the cause or part thereof, which is the Rej. his definition of a Ceremony, Manuduct. p. 29.30. are not mystically …ignificant, by the Rejoynder his owne doctrine, ibid. pag. 32.33. Mysticall signification, or the want of it, doth not make a Ceremonie, or no Ceremonie. A character of significancie, maketh a double or treble Ceremony; Relation without signification, maketh a single Ceremonie ▪ So, pag. 39. Simple Ceremonies are those, whose use is onelyonly for order and decencie: Double are those, which serve also to edífication, 1. by some profitable signification. 2. If all Ceremonies were significant, yet it doeth not follow, that they all teach a spirituall dutie, by their instituted mysticall signification: of which kinde of signification, all the question is in this chapter, as is to be seene in the first section. 3. If all Ceremonies be significant, then there is no sense in exposing double Ceremonies to significant: because none are, or can be dumbe. A…d yet this opposition is made use of by the Def. and Rej. as other where, so in these two last sections.
2. The Repl. taking from the Def. this proposition: Nothing is properly called a Ceremony, if it bee altogether destitute of signification; sayth that this convinceth not us at all: because, if this be true, then our tenet is, that all ceremonies properly so called, of mans invention, should be packed out of the Church. What? (sayth the Rej.) even Sitting at the Communion, and a communion-Table? Yea, say we, even these if they can be prooved to bee Ceremonies of mans invention.
3. From the former consideration, the Defen. was challenged, for having gone about to deceive us, often times before, by confounding all circumstances of order and decency, with properly called Ceremonies; whereas now, in the winding up of all, he confesseth, that they cannot be properly called Ceremonies, except they be significant. The Rejoynder his answere is, that all such circumstances are some way significant, though not symbolically: because they signifie some way what is to be done, or where, or when, or why, or how. Now though every circumstance doeth some way argue that whereof it is a circumstance, and so in a large sense may bee called a signe of it; yet 1. every circumstance is not a signe of what is to be done: because some have no place, untill the thing be done. 2. Both the Def. and Rej. have hitherto confounded indicant and symbolicall signes, except onelyonly one place, where (for a shift) the Rej. sayth, Beza, differing in phraze from other Divines, meaneth by Symbolicall, Sacramentall signes, pag. 264.265. Heere therefore to distinguish them, is to confesse their former dealing not faire.
4. If all circumstances belonging to time, place, person, instruments or manner of actions sacred, be sacred significant Ceremonies; then not the Clocke onelyonly, but the leaden weights of it, not the ground onelyonly upon which men stand in worship, but the Rushes also strowed by occasion upon it, or the Besome wherewith it is swept; not the Preachers voyce onelyonly, but his black Cap, his comely heard; not the Communion Table-clothe onelyonly, but the colour of it; not distinct speaking onelyonly, but every Preachers proper Tone, are sacred, significant, ceremoniall Weights, Rushes, Bezomes, Caps, Beards, Colours, Tones, &c.
See what an argument the Def. made against us, according to the Rej. his explication: If Signes Indicant that is, such as by the nature of the things themselves, without any religious signification put upon them by institution, are lawfull; then Symbolicall signes, that is, those which teach a spirituall duty, by their mysticall instituted signification, cannot be unlawfull. In striving to helpe the Def. out of the water, hee hath sunke, and followed him deeper in, then before he seemed to bee plunged.
5. Calvin (said the Def.) and some other, doe accuse some Popish Ceremonies, because they are dumbe. They accuse them also (answereth the Repl.) for speaking: as the Scripture doth condemne images, both for being dumbe, and also for teaching lies.
Well said, (saith the Rej) When the Ceremonies are altogether dumbe, they condemne them for not speaking: when they speake idly, or falsely, they condemne them for speaking amisse. But you condemne them simply for not being dumbe. But heer is a great mistaking of the Rejoynders. For we condemne humane Ceremonies for speaking idely, that which Gods Ordinances doe sufficiently speak; and falsely also for their manner of speaking, as if they had just commission to speake in Gods name, when they have not. When an image of the blessed Virgine, spake in the Church, to Bernard▪ good morrow Bernard, good morrow; Bernard answered, … Madam you forget your Sexe: it is not lawfull for a woman to speake in the Church.
The Scriptures also condemned the same image for standing (at other times) dumbe in the Church. Even so we condemne humane Ceremonies, both for standing in the Church dumbe and unprofitable; and also for speaking in such a place, idely, and above that which beseeme their Sexe or degree. I repeat therefore againe, not as a meere jest, in which name the Rejoynder putteth it off, but as a sad and serious trueth, that which the Replier concluded this Argument withall: Lay all together which our Divines say, and you shall finde, that in their judgements, Humane Ceremonies in Gods worship, are like a foole in a place of honor, who whether he speaketh, or holdeth his peace, still sheweth himselfe unworthy of that place.