In opposition to that which was alleged for Tertullians respect unto opinion of necessity, and efficacy, in condemning those Ceremonies, it was replied, that he condemneth them only (that is, if they had but this fault alone) that they were empty observations, 1and to be worthily upbraided with vanity, as being done without any warrant from Christ or his Apostles. For such things serve not to religion, but to superstition, and are affected, and forced, and rather over-curious, then any thing rational at all, and even therefore to be restrained, they do so suit the Gentiles. Here the Rejoinder after a little touch upon the particle only, now expounded, answereth, that this was because of a• opinion of necessity, which is properly superstition: because the same Tertullian (de Coron. mil.) alloweth sundry human significant Ceremonies, held as free, and used for instruction. In which answer, the first part is manifestly false; if Tertullians own words may be heard: those Ceremonies are supervacuous and vain, which are used without any authority of Divine or Apostolical command, and are to be accounted superstitious: and even therefore to be repressed, because they make us (in some sort) like the Gentiles. The second part, which containeth a reason, is void of all trueth. For 1. Tertullian did not account those Ceremonies human, but of Apostolical though unwritten tradition: Traditio auctrix, consuetudo confirmatrix, & fides observatrix. 2. For freedom, to allege this, is clean contrary to Tertullians intention: because he went about to prove the necessity ⟨p. 443⟩of abstaining from the Laurel-Crown, by the necessity of observing these unwritten traditions. 3. For instruction, I would be informed, what instruction there was, in Crossing, at every step, 2and going forward and at every turn, at clothing ones self, at washing, at bed, at board &c. 4. D. Abbot (whose judgement of Tertullian, the Rejoinder commendeth, pag. 485.) in that very place which he commendeth (Def. Perk. pag. 883.884. &c.) saith plainly, that Tertullian defended those traditions against the Church; that therein he contradicted himself; and that those traditions were partly heathenish and heretical devises. About Tertullian, nothing material followeth.
In oppsition to that which was alleged for Tertullians respect unto opinion of necessity, and efficacy, in condemning those Ceremonies, it was replied, that he condemneth them onely (that is, if they had but this fault alone) that they were empty observations, 1and to be worthily upbraided with vanity, as being done without any warrant from Christ or his Apostles. For such things serve not to religion, but to superstition, and are affected, and forced, and rather over-curious, then any thing rationall at all, and even therefore to be restrained, they do so suit the Gentiles. Heere the Rejoynder after a little touch upon the particle onely, now expounded, answereth, that this was because of a• opinion of necessity, which is properly superstition: because the same Tertullian (de Coron. mil.) alloweth sundry huma• signi••cant Ceremonies, held as free, and used for instruction. In which answer, the first part is manifestly false; if Tertullians owne wordes may be heard: those Ceremonies are supervacuous and vaine, which are us•d without any authority of Divine or Apostolicall command, and are to be accounted superstious: and even therefore to be repressed, because they make us (in some sort) like the Gentiles. The second part, which containeth a reason, is voyd of all trueth. For 1. Tertullian did not account those Ceremonies human, but of Apostolicall though unwritten tradition: Traditio auctrix, consuetudo confirmatrix, & fides observatrix. 2. For freedome, to allege this, is cleane contrary to Tertullians intention: because he went about to proove the necessitie ⟨p. 443⟩of absteyning from the Lawral-Croune, by the necessitie of observing these unwritten traditions. 3. For instruction, I would be informed, what instruction ther was, in Crossing, at every step, 2and goeing forward and at every turne, at clothing ones selfe, at washing, at bed, at board &c. 4. D. Abbot (whose judgement of Tertullian, the Rejoynder commendeth, pag. 485.) in that very place which he commendeth (Def. Perk. pag. 883.884. &c.) sayth plainly, that Tertullian defended those traditions against the Church; that therin he contradicted himself; and that those traditions were partly heathenish and haeretical devises. About Tertullian, nothing material followeth.
- 1Vacua observationes, quibus vanitas merito exprobranda est, siquidem sine ullius aut Dominici, aut Apostolici praecepta authoritate fiunt. Mujusmodi enim, non religioni, sed superstitioni deputantur, affectata, & co. acta, & curiosi potius quam rationalis officij, certevel […] coercenda, quod Gentilibus ad. •quent.Vacua observationes, quibus vanitas merito exprobranda est, siquidem sine ullius aut Dominici, aut Apostolici praecepta authoritate fiunt. Mujusmodi enim, non religioni, sed superstitioni deputantur, affectata, & co. acta, & curiosi potius quam rationalis officij, certevel 〈…〉 coercenda, quod Gentilibus ad. •quent.
- 2Adomnem progressum, atque prometum, ad omnem aditum, & exitum, ad vestitum, & calceatum, ad lavacra, ad mensas, ad lumina, ad subilia, & ad sedilia?
