VII. Neither is the example of the eldest churches a whit more available to this purpose. Notwithstanding some fault undoubtedly there is in the very resemblance of idolaters1. Were it not some kind of blemish to be like unto infidels and heathens, it would not so usually be objected; men would not think it any advantage in the causes of religion to be able therewith justly to charge their adversaries as they do. Wherefore to the end that it may a little more plainly appear, what force this hath and how far the same extendeth, we are to note how all men are naturally desirous that they may seem neither to judge nor to do amiss; because every error and offence is a stain to the beauty of nature, for which cause it blusheth thereat, but glorieth in the contrary. From thence it riseth, that they which disgrace or depress the credit of others do it either in both or in one of these. To have been in either directed by a weak and unperfect rule argueth imbecility and imperfection. Men being either led by reason or by imitation of other men’s example, if their persons be odious whose example we choose to follow, as namely if we frame our opinions to that which condemned heretics think, or direct our actions according to that which is practised and done by them; it lieth as an heavy prejudice against us, unless somewhat mightier than their bare example did move us, to think or do the same things with them. Christian men therefore having besides the common light of all men so great help of heavenly direction from above, together with the lamps of so bright examples as the Church of God doth yield, it cannot but worthily seem reproachful for us to leave both the one and the other, to become disciples unto the most hateful sort that live, to do as they do, only because we see their example before us and have a delight to follow it. Thus we may therefore safely conclude, that it is not evil simply to concur with the heathens either in opinion or in action; and that conformity with them is only then a disgrace, when either we follow them in that they think and do amiss, or follow them generally in that they do without other reason than only the liking we have to the pattern of their example; which liking doth intimate a more universal approbation of them than is allowable.
Faustus the Manichee therefore objecting against the Jews, that they forsook the idols of the Gentiles, but their temples and oblations and altars and priesthoods and all kinds of ministry of holy things they exercised even as the Gentiles did, yea, more superstitiously a great deal; against the Catholic Christians likewise, that between them and the heathens there was in many things little difference; “From them,” saith Faustus, “ye have learned to hold that one only God is the author of all; their sacrifices ye have turned into feasts of charity, their idols into martyrs whom ye honour with the like religious offices unto theirs; the ghosts of the dead ye appease with wine and delicates; the festival days of the nations ye celebrate together with them; and of their kind of life ye have verily changed nothing2:” St. Augustine’s defence in behalf of both is, that touching matters of action, Jews and Catholic Christians were free from the Gentiles’ faultiness, even in those things which were objected as tokens of their agreement with Gentiles3: and concerning their consent in opinion, they did not hold the same with Gentiles because Gentiles had so taught, but because heaven and earth had so witnessed the same to be truth, that neither the one sort could err in being fully persuaded thereof, nor the other but err in case they should not consent with them4.
In things of their own nature indifferent, if either councils or particular men have at any time with sound judgment misliked conformity between the Church of God and infidels, the cause thereof hath been somewhat else than only affectation of dissimilitude. They saw it necessary so to do in respect of some special accident, which the Church being not always subject unto hath not still cause to do the like. For example, in the dangerous days of trial, wherein there was no way for the truth of Jesus Christ to triumph over infidelity but through the constancy of his saints, whom yet a natural desire to save themselves from the flame might peradventure cause to join with Pagans in external customs, too far using the same as a cloak to conceal themselves in, and a mist to darken the eyes of infidels withal: for remedy hereof those laws it might be were provided, which forbad that Christians should deck their houses with boughs as the Pagans did use to do5, or rest those festival days whereon the Pagans rested, or celebrate such feasts as were, though not heathenish, yet such as the simpler sort of heathens might be beguiled in so thinking them.
As for Tertullian’s judgment concerning the rites and orders of the Church, no man having judgment can be ignorant how just exceptions may be taken against it6. His opinion touching the Catholic Church was as unindifferent as touching our church the opinion of them that favour this pretended reformation is. He judged all them who did not Montanize to be but carnally minded, he judged them still over-abjectly to fawn upon the heathens, and to curry favour with infidels. Which as the catholic church did well provide that they might not do indeed, so Tertullian over-often through discontentment carpeth injuriously at them as though they did it, even when they were free from such meaning.
But if it were so, that either the judgment of these councils before alleged, or of Tertullian himself against the Christians, are in no such consideration to be understood as we have mentioned; if it were so that men are condemned as well of the one as of the other, only for using the ceremonies of a religion contrary unto their own, and that this cause is such as ought to prevail no less with us than with them: shall it not follow that seeing there is still between our religion and Paganism the selfsame contrariety, therefore we are still no less rebukeable, if we now deck our houses with boughs, or send new-year’s gifts unto our friends, or feast on those days which the Gentiles then did, or sit after prayer as they were accustomed? For so they infer upon the premises, that as great difference as commodiously may be, there should be in all outward ceremonies between the people of God and them which are not his people. Again they teach as hath been declared, that there is not as great a difference as may be between them, except the one do avoid whatsoever rites and ceremonies uncommanded of God the other doth embrace. So that generally they teach that the very difference of spiritual condition itself between the servants of Christ and others requireth such difference in ceremonies between them, although the one be never so far disjoined in time or place from the other.
But in case the people of God and Belial do chance to be neighbours, then as the danger of infection is greater, so the same difference they say is thereby made more necessary7. In this respect as the Jews were severed from the heathen, so most especially from the heathen nearest them. And in the same respect we, which ought to differ howsoever from the church of Rome, are now they say by reason of our nearness more bound to differ from them in ceremonies than from Turks. A strange kind of speech unto Christian ears, and such as I hope they themselves do acknowledge unadvisedly uttered. “We are not so much to fear infection from Turks as from papists.” What of that? we must remember that by conforming rather ourselves in that respect to Turks, we should be spreaders of a worse infection into others than any we are likely to draw from papists by our conformity with them in ceremonies. If they did hate, as Turks do, the Christians; or as Canaanites did of old the Jewish religion even in gross; the circumstance of local nearness in them unto us might haply enforce in us a duty of greater separation from them than from those other mentioned. But forasmuch as papists are so much in Christ nearer unto us than Turks, is there any reasonable man, trow you, but will judge it meeter that our ceremonies of Christian religion should be popish than Turkish or heathenish? Especially considering that we were not brought to dwell amongst them, (as Israel in Canaan,) having not been of them. For even a very part of them we were. And when God did by his good Spirit put it into our hearts, first to reform ourselves, (whence grew our separation,) and then by all good means to seek also their reformation; had we not only cut off their corruptions but also estranged ourselves from them in things indifferent, who seeth not how greatly prejudicial this might have been to so good a cause, and what occasion it had given them to think (to their greater obduration in evil) that through a froward or wanton desire of innovation we did unconstrainedly those things for which conscience was pretended? Howsoever the case doth stand, as Juda had been rather to choose conformity in things indifferent with Israel when they were nearest opposites, than with the farthest removed Pagans; so we in the like case much rather with papists than with Turks. I might add further for more full and complete answer, so much concerning the large odds between the case of the eldest churches in regard of those heathens and ours in respect of the church of Rome, that very cavillation itself should be satisfied, and have no shift to fly unto.
← That the course which the wisdom of God doth · Contents · That it is not our best policy for the estab →
Footnotes
-
“The councils, although they did not observe themselves always in making of decrees this rule, yet have kept this consideration continually in making of their laws, that they would have Christians differ from others in their ceremonies.” T. C. lib. i. p. 132. ↩
-
August. cont. Faust. Manich. lib. xx. cap. 4. [t. viii. 334. “Schisma aut nihil immutare debet ab eo unde factum est, aut non multum: ut puta vos, qui desciscentes a gentibus, monarchiæ opinionem primo vobiscum divulsistis, id est, ut omnia credatis ex Deo: sacrificia vero eorum vertistis in agapes, idola in martyres, quos votis similibus colitis: defunctorum umbras vino placatis et dapibus: solennes gentium dies cum ipsis celebratis, ut kalendas, et solstitia: de vita certe eorum mutastis nihil.”] ↩
-
[Ibid. § 23. “Si usus quarundam rerum similis videtur nobis esse cum gentibus, sicut cibi et potus, tectorum, vestimentorum, &c… … . . longe tamen aliter his rebus utitur, qui ad alium finem usum earum refert; et aliter qui ex his Deo gratias agit, de quo prava et falsa non credit.”] ↩
-
[Ibid. § 19. “Discat ergo Faustus, … monarchiæ opinionem non ex gentibus nos habere; sed gentes non usque adeo ad falsos Deos esse delapsos, ut opinionem amitterent unius veri Dei, ex quo est omnis qualiscunque natura.”] ↩
-
“Also it was decreed in another council that they should not deck their houses with bay-leaves and green boughs, because the Pagans did use so; and that they should not rest from their labour those days that the Pagans did, that they should not keep the first day of every month as they did.” T. C. l. i. p. 132. [103.] ↩
-
“Tertullian saith, O, saith he, better is the religion of the heathen; for they use no solemnity of the Christians, neither the Lord’s day, neither, &c. but we are not afraid to be called heathen.” T. C. l. i. p. 132. [103.] “But having shewed this in general to be the policy of God first, and of his people afterward, to put as much difference as can be commodiously between the people of God and others which are not, I shall not, &c.” T. C. l. i. p. 133. ↩
-
[Decl. of Discipl. 134.] ↩