Part 17 (2/2)
2. For deprecation, when we fear some evil.
3. For humiliation, when, by our sins, we have provoked G.o.d's wrath.
Neither can there be any occasion of fasting whereof I may not say that either it is particularly designed in Scripture, or else that it may be by necessary consequence defined out of Scripture; or, lastly, that it is of that sort of things which were not determinable by Scripture, because circ.u.mstances are infinite, as Camero hath told us.
_Sect._ 5. Thus having failed by those rocks of offence, I direct my course straight to the dissecting of the true limits, within which the church's power of enacting laws about things pertaining to the wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d is bounded and confined, and which it may not overleap nor transgress.
Three conditions I find necessarily requisite in such a thing as the church hath power to prescribe by her laws:
1st. It must be only a circ.u.mstance of divine wors.h.i.+p; no substantial part of it; no sacred significant and efficacious ceremony. For the order and decency left to the definition of the church, as concerning the particulars of it, comprehendeth no more but mere circ.u.mstances. Bishop Lindsey(883) doth but unskilfully confound things different when he talketh of ”the ceremonies and circ.u.mstances left to the determination of the church.” Now, by his leave, though circ.u.mstances be left to the determination of the church, yet ceremonies, if we speak properly, are not.
Bishop Andrews avoucheth(884) that ceremonies pertain to the church only, and to the service of G.o.d, not to civil solemnities. But so much, I trust, he would not have said of circ.u.mstances which have place in all moral actions, and that to the same end and purpose for which they serve in religious actions, namely, for beautifying them with that decent demeanour which the very light and law of natural reason requireth as a thing beseeming all human actions. For the church of Christ being a society of men and women, must either observe order and decency in all the circ.u.mstances of their holy actions, time, place, person, form, &c., or also be deformed with that disorder and confusion which common reason and civility abhorreth. Ceremonies, therefore, which are sacred observances, and serve only to a religious and holy use, and which may not, without sacrilege, be applied to another use, must be sorted with things of another nature than circ.u.mstances. _Ceremonioe_, ”ceremonies (saith Dr Field(885)) are so named, as Livy thinketh, from a town called Caere, in the which the Romans did hide their sacred things when the Gauls invaded Rome. Others think that ceremonies are so named _a carendo_, of abstaining from certain things, as the Jews abstained from swine's flesh, and sundry other things forbidden by G.o.d as unclean. Ceremonies are outward acts of religion,” &c. _Quapropter etiam_, saith Junius,(886) _ritus et ceremonias inter se distincimus, quia in jure politico sunt imperati et solennes ritus; ceremonioe vero non nisi sacroe observationes in cultu divino appellantur. Ceremonia_, saith Bellarmine,(887) _proprie et simpliciter sic vocata, est externa actio quoe non aliunde est bona et laudabilis, nisi quia fit ad Deum colendum._ From which words Amesius(888) concludeth against him, that he, and others with him, do absurdly confound order, decency, and the like, which have the same use and praise in civil things which they have in the wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d, with religious and sacred ceremonies. Yet Dr Burges(889) rejecteth this distinction betwixt circ.u.mstances and ceremonies, as a mere nicety or fiction. And would you know his reason? ”For that (saith he) all circ.u.mstances (I mean extrinsical) which incur not the substance of the action, when they are once designed or observed purposely in reference to such a matter, of whose substance they are not, they are then ceremonies.” If this be not a nicety or fiction, I know not what is. For what means he here by a matter?
An action sure, or else a nicety. Well, then, we shall have now a world of ceremonies. When I appoint to meet with another man at Berwick, upon the 10th day of May, because the place and the day are purposely designed in reference to such a matter, of whose substance they are not, namely, to my meeting with the other man, for talking of our business, therefore the town of Berwick, and the 10th day of May, must be accounted ceremonies. To me it is nice, that the Doctor made it not nice, to let such a nicety fall from his pen.
When I put on my shoos in reference to walking, or wash my hands in reference to eating, am I using ceremonies all the while? The Doctor could not choose but say so, forasmuch as these circ.u.mstances are purposely designed and observed in reference to such matters, of whose substance they are not.
_Sect._ 6. 2d. That which the church may lawfully prescribe by her laws and ordinances, as a thing left to her determination, must be one of such things as were not determinable by Scripture, on that reason which Camero hath given us, namely, because _individua_ are _infinita_. We mean not in any wise to circ.u.mscribe the infinite power and wisdom of G.o.d, only we speak upon supposition of the bounds and limits which G.o.d did set to his written word, within which he would have it contained, and over which he thought fit that it should not exceed. The case being thus put, as it is, we say truly of those several and changeable circ.u.mstances which are left to the determination of the church, that, being almost infinite, they were not particularly determinable in Scripture; for the particular definition of those occurring circ.u.mstances which were to be rightly ordered in the works of G.o.d's service to the end of the world, and that ever according to the exigency of every present occasion and different case, should have filled the whole world with books. But as for other things pertaining to G.o.d's wors.h.i.+p, which are not to be reckoned among the circ.u.mstances of it, they being in number neither many, nor in change various, were most easily and conveniently determinable in Scripture. Now, since G.o.d would have his word (which is our rule in the works of his service) not to be delivered by tradition, but to be written and sealed unto us, that by this means, for obviating Satanical subtility, and succouring human imbecility, we might have a more certain way for conservation of true religion, and for the instauration of it when it faileth among men,-how can we but a.s.sure ourselves that every such acceptable thing pertaining any way to religion, which was particularly and conveniently determinable in Scripture, is indeed determined in it; and consequently, that no such thing as is not a mere alterable circ.u.mstance is left to the determination of the church?
_Sect._ 7. 3d. If the church prescribe anything lawfully, so that she prescribe no more than she hath power given her to prescribe, her ordinance must be accompanied with some good reason and warrant given for the satisfaction of tender consciences. This condition is, alas! too seldom looked unto by law-makers, of whom one fitly complaineth thus:-
Lex quamvis ratio Ciceroni summa vocetur, Et bene laudetur lex que ratione probatur, Invenies inter legistas raro logistas: Moris et exempli leges sunt juraque templi.
But this fas.h.i.+on we leave to them who will have all their anomalies taken for a.n.a.logies. It becometh not the spouse of Christ, endued with the spirit of meekness, to command anything imperiously, and without a reason given.
_Ecclesioe enim est docere primum, tuin proescribere_, saith Camero.(890) And again: _Non enim dominatur cleris, nec agit c.u.m iis quos Christus redemit, ac si non possent capere quod sit religiosum, quid minus._
Tertullian's testimony(891) is known: _Nulla lex_, &c. ”No law (saith he) owes to itself alone the conscience of its equity, but to those from whom it expects obedience. Moreover, it is a suspected law which will not have itself to be proved, but a wicked law, which not being proved, yet beareth rule.”
It is well said by our divines,(892) that in rites and ceremonies the church hath no power ”to destruction, but to edification;” and that the observation of our ecclesiastical canons ”must carry before them a manifest utility.”(893) _Piis vero fratribus durum est, subjicere se rebus illis quas nec rectas esse nec utiles animadvertunt_.(894) If here it be objected, that some things are convenient to be done, therefore, because they are prescribed by the church, and for no other reason. For example, in two things which are alike lawful and convenient in themselves, I am bound to do the one and not the other, because of the church's prescription. So that, in such cases, it seemeth there can be no other reason given for the ordinance of the church but only her own power and authority to put to order things of this nature.
I answer, that even in such a case as this, the conveniency of the thing itself is anterior to the church's determination; anterior, I say, _de congruo_, though not _de facto_, that is to say, before ever the church prescribe it, it is such a thing as (when it falleth out to be done at all) may be done conveniently, though it be not (before the church's prescribing of it) such a thing as should and ought to be done as convenient. Which being so, we do still hold that the conveniency of a thing must always go before the church's prescribing of it; go before, I mean, at least _de congruo_. Neither can the church prescribe anything lawfully which she showeth not to have been convenient, even before her determination.
_Sect._ 8. These things being permitted, I come to extract my projection, and to make it evident that the lawfulness of the controverted ceremonies cannot be warranted by any ecclesiastical law; and this I prove by three arguments:-
1st. Those conditions which I have showed to be required in that thing which the church may lawfully prescribe by a law, are not quadrant nor competent to the cross, kneeling, surplice, holidays, &c.
For, 1. They are not mere circ.u.mstances, such as have place in all moral actions, but sacred, mystical, significant, efficacious ceremonies, as hath been abundantly shown in this dispute already. For example, Dr Burges(895) calleth the surplice a religious or sacred ceremony. And again,(896) he placeth in it a mystical signification of the pureness of the minister of G.o.d. Wherefore the replier(897) to Dr Mortoune's _Particular Defence_ saith well, that there is a great difference betwixt a grave civil habit and a mystical garment.
2. It cannot be said that these ceremonies are of that kind of thing which were not determinable by Scripture; neither will our opposites, for very shame, adventure to say that things of this kind, to which cross, kneeling, &c., do belong, viz., sacred significant ceremonies, left (in their judgment) to the definition of the church, are almost infinite, and therefore could not well and easily be determined in Scripture.
Since, then, such things as are not mere circ.u.mstances of wors.h.i.+p can neither be many nor various (as I said before), it is manifest that all such things were easily determinable in Scripture.
3. Our ceremonial laws are not backed with such grounds and reasons as might be for the satisfying and quieting of tender consciences, but we are borne down with Will and authority; whereof I have said enough elsewhere.(898)
_Sect._ 9. 2d. If the ceremonies be lawful to us because the law and ordinance of the church prescribes them, then either the bare and naked prescription of the church, having no other warrant than the church's own authority, makes them to be thus lawful; or else the law of the church, as grounded upon and warranted by the law of G.o.d and nature. Not the first; for divines hold,(899) _legem humanum ferri ab hominibus, c.u.m ratione procedunt ab illis aliis antegressis legibus. Nam legis humanae regula proxima est duplex. Una innata quam legem naturalem dicimus, altera inspirata, quam divinam_, &c. _Ex his ergo fontibus lex humana procedit: hoec incunabila illius a quibus si aberrat, lex degener est, indigna legis nomine._ We have also the testimony of an adversary; for saith not Paybody himself,(900) ”I grant it is unlawful to do in G.o.d's wors.h.i.+p anything upon the mere pleasure of man?”
If they take them (as needs they must) to the latter part, then let them either say that the ceremonies are lawful unto us, because the church judgeth them to be agreeable to the law of G.o.d and nature, or because the church proveth unto us, by evident reasons, that they are indeed agreeable to these laws. If they yield us the latter, then it is not the church's law, but the church's reasons given for her law, which can warrant the lawfulness of them unto us, which doth elude and elide all that which they allege for the lawfulness of them from the power and authority of the church.
<script>