Against Human Ceremonies in Gods Worship, Part 2 · Chapter 3 · Section 8
SECT. 10. Concerning Suarez the Iesuite, his stating of the Controversie, betwixt Protestants, and Papists.
1. IN this section an obiection of ours is brought in, without ranke or file, in the midle of Examples, forgotten (as the Rej. saith) in the proper place. But nothing of moment is answered thereto, either by the Def. or Rej. which is not sufficiently cleared in the first part of this Writing, Chapter the sixt; except the state which Suarez maketh of the question betwixt us and Papists. This therefore (as being very observable) remaineth heere to be declared.
2. The place quoted is in 3. tom. 3. Disp. 15. Sect. 2. The words (as the Replier hath them) are these: The first errour is, that onelyonly those signes which are written, ought to be retained and vsed in the Church. The second, that no outward worship of God is lawfull, but onelyonly that which is appointed by God. The third, that the Church hath not power of commanding, and ordeyning those things, (he meaneth mysticall Ceremonies) which are necessary for convenient celebration of the Sacraments. Of which three poynts, there is none, wherein Suarez and the Def. doe not jumpe. To this the Rej. first answereth, that Suarez doeth not propounded these three points, as three errours of the Protestants: because hee mentioneth not Protestants, but Heretickes, which reason is not worth the answering: because hee mentioneth Heretickes of this time, which phraze is oftner in the Iesuites writings, understood of Protestants, then of any other, as all know that have looked vponupon them. By the …ame reason, one may argue, that he understood no speciall Sect, or persons: b…cause hee mentioneth not any by name. But it shall appeare, that his meaning could be of no other then Protestants.
3. He addeth in the second place the wordes going before those quoted, he spake of Suenkf…l…ians. And this is true: but nothing to the purpose. For hee leaving them as desperate phantasticks, passeth on to others, that is, Protestants, as by and by shall appeare.
4. In the next place (saith the Rej.) Suarez speaketh of such as allow some externall worship of God, but refuse all Ecclesiasticall Ceremonies in his worship, as the inventions of men; and hold nothing to be lawfull in Gods service, but what is commanded in holy Scriptures; which is the ground of those three errours mentioned by the Replier. This may be called trueth: but it is not all the trueth, which belongeth to our present purpose. For Suarez his words are these: Others reproove Ecclesiasticall Ceremonies as humane inventions without authority or precept in Scripture: Alij Ecclesiasticas Ceremomonias reprehendunt, eo quod sint humana inventa, absque Divino praecepto, vel authoritate in Scriptures contenta. Putant enim ifri, non licere Deum colere alio cultu, nisi illo qui in Scripturis nobis praeceptus est. In quo fundamento tres isti errores continentur &c. Putant isti, non licere Deum colere alto cultu, nisi illo qui in Scripturis nobis praeceptus est.For they thinke it unlawfull to worship God with any other worship then is in Scripture enjoyned. In which ground three …rrours are conteined. Here may a great difference be observed betwixt the Rej. his translation, and Suarez his wordes; especially in that for those words: Th…y think it unlawfull to worship God with any other worship then is in Scripture prescribed, the Rej. giveth these: they hold nothing to be lawfull in Gods service, but what is commanded in Scripture. For many things are lawfull in Gods service, which are not worship: as civill circumstances, &c.
5. After those three errours, the Rej. abserveth Suarez to speake of some that dissalow not Ceremonies in generall, but impugne the Ceremonies of the Church of Rome, as vaine and superstitious. These no doubt (addeth the Rej) are the Protestants: to whom he imputeth there no other errour, but their opposition against Romish Ceremonies, as vaine and superstitious, as the Defender doeth. Concerning this, 1. This therefore was not mentioned by the Replier, because Suarez himselfe testifie…h, that it is concluded in the former: Which errour cannot be founded, but vponupon one of the three above reject…d errours. Qui error non potest nisi aliquo ex supra rejectis (tribus scil. illis) fundari.2. Suarez also addeth that these men of whom he in these wordes speaketh, say nothing against all their Ceremonies, but onelyonly, that they are used with intention of worship, q…oda nobis fiunt intentione cultus, & tanquam pertinentes ad virtutem Religionis.as pertaining to the vertue of Religion: that they are done by us with intention of worship and as pertaining to the vertue of Religion. This they hold Superstitious▪ For though in the Sacraments we are to observe a measure and due circumstances, yet this they will on…ly have as a certeine humane politie, not out of intention of worship and religion: for this they say is Superstitious.Hoc s…e stitiosum esse dicunt: quia licet in Sacramentis, oporteat servare modum, & debitas circumstantias, tamen hoc solum esse volunt propter quandam humanam politiam, non vero ex intentione cultus & r…ligionis: nam hoc dicunt esse superstitiosum.
Out of these two observations, I make these two conclusions: 1. If this error be necessarily founded on those three mentioned, (as Suarez sayth, and sheweth) then suche Protestants as hold this (among whome the Rejoynder professeth the Defend. and his owne name) holde also those. 2. If Protestants holde this tenet, that it is Superstition, for to intend worship in humane Ceremonies (as Suarez sayth) then our Defender and Rejoynder in this point are by Protestants found guiltie of Superstition. For they place speciall immediat, though improper, accidentall, and secondarie worship in humane Ceremonies; as is to be seen in this Rejoynder pag. 125.127. &c.
Heer they cannot …scape, by alleging (as they use to doe) that the Papists place proper essentiall worship in all their Ceremonies. For Suarez in the same place expoundeth the Popish tenet, concerning worship, just as they doe theirs: Sacramental Ceremonies belong to secondarie worship: not onelyonly because they conteine External worship, but also in the very Externall worship it selfe, they are as it were accidents of other more noble actions.Ceremoniae sacramentales pertinent ad cultum secundarium: non solum quia continent cultum ixternum: sed etiam quia in ipsomet externo cultu, sunt veluti accidentia aliarum a…tionum nobiliorum.
6. Hitherto we have had noting directly answered, concerning the three errors, which the Replier sayd Suar…z imputed to Protestants, about Ceremonies in generall. Nor is any other given but this: that Suarez chargeth those errors, not on Protestants, but on Anabaptists: whoe hold this negative argument: whatsoever is not commanded in the Word, is unlawfull. This the Anabaptistes, and not the Protestants, houlde, fanatically even about rites, and formalities, &c. To which I replie 1. that if Suarez his wordes be taken as before they were recited, & not as the Rejoynder doeth ill-translate them, then no man is conversant in the Protestant writings, or have read over that which is formerly cited out of them in these three generall Arguments, but must needs confesse, the very same sense is to be found in most of our principall Divines: and the same words in many:Non licere Deum colere, alto externo cultu, nisi illo, qui in Scriptura nobis praeceptus est: Inventae bumana, quae absque Divino praecepto, vol authoritate in Scripturis contenta, esse reprehendenda. It is not lawfull to worship God with other external worship save with that which is in Scripture praescribed us. And humane inventions withou… warrant from God in Script. are to be reprehended.
2. If all things be Ceremonies, which are circumstances of order, and decencie (as the Defender and Rejoynder doe not onelyonly affirme, but make their cheif Anchor) then (whatsoever Gui de Er…s discourseth of one furious companie of them) muche injurie is doen to the Anabaptists, in making them to holde, that all Ceremonies are unlawfull, whiche are not conteyned in the Word.
For it is well knowen, that they have certain times, & places of meeting for worship; certain order of preaching & praying; nay in Baptizing of men-growne more formalities then many Protestant Churches; and even Bishops over divers Congregations, for order sake (as they say.) D. B. having lived in Holland, can scarce be ignorant of these thinges.
3. To put it out of doubt, that Suarez, under the name of Heretickes, in this place, meant Protestants, let any man look upon his book de Religione, Volume 1. treatise 3. lib. 2. cap. 1. and there he shall finde these wordes, to the same purpose: The Heretiques of these times say every ceremonie, and all worship not praescribed of God, or not conteined in the Gospel is Superstition, yea and Idolatrie. They stand much upon Deut. 12. Hae…etici huius temporu, dicunt omnem Ceremoniam, & omnem cultum, a Deo ip…o non praceptum, seu in Euangelio non contentum, Superstitionem esse, imo & Idololatriam vocant. Fundantur praecepue in Deut. 12.Now 1. this cannot be understood of the Anabaptists: because they make no suche account of Deutronomie, or the olde Testament, as that they found any doctrine cheifly on that. 2. Suarez himself, in the same Chapter, sheweth plainely that he there meant Protestants. For he sendeth the Reader, for confutation of these Heretickes, to Gregorius de Valentia, tom. 3. disp. 6. q. 11. p. 1. where he disputeth against Herbrandus, a Protestant, not an Anabaptist: & to Lessius de just. & jure, l. 2. cap. 43. dub. 4. where he disputeth about this quaestion, against Calvin. And (lest any man should thinke, he meant one kinde of Heretickes there, and another in this place quaestioned, he there referreth his reader, for further satisfaction about that quaestion, unto this very place, in 3. tom. 3. disp. 15. What can be more clear? When as therfore the Rejoynder upon suche sandie groundes, concludeth, that we are somewhat encamped in the Trenches of Anabaptists; because we doe not jumpe with Suarez, in condemning these three Errors; we may better conclude, that he and the Def. by rash undermining of us have, unawares, broken into the workes of Papists; because they doe condemne with Suarez, those three Protestant trueths. And withall (seing so great a School-Papist as Suarez, in stating of the controversie, maketh no mention of merit, necessitie, efficacie, number, or holinesse, eyther inhaerent or adhaerent) it is but an evasion of the Defend. and Rejoynder upon every occasion, to flie unto these, as onelyonly differences betwixt us and Papists, about Ceremonies. And so we have more cleared, then that, for which Suarez his testimonie was produced by the Replier: namely, that learned Papists have no opinion of all their significant Ceremonies, which the Defender and Rejoynder doe not mainteyne.