A fresh suit against human ceremonies in God's worship. Or a triplication unto. D.…A fresh suit against human ceremonies in God's vvorship. Or a triplication unto. D.…

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.