The Catholic Hierarchy, Chapter 22
CHAP. XXII. Of the Impoſition of Ceremonies.
§ 1. NExt to the conſideration of decencies and order, it may be meet to enquire a little into the lawfulneſs of impoſition 1. of Ceremonies, 2. of a form of Prayer.
Whether a Ceremony uncommanded by God, may be uſed in the Worſhip of God, is not our preſent Undertaking to diſcuſs; for in ſome caſes it may be lawful, ſo it be ſuch as is duely qualified, and be uſed as indifferent and occaſionally, by the Rules of diſcretion: but our preſent Enquiry ſhall be,
Whether the Church is liable to the impoſition of ſuch Ceremonies as Chriſt hath not made neceſſary by any Law of his? Many Arguments before urged againſt the Churches Legiſlative power, might be here of equal force. I ſhall onelyonly adde ſomething proper upon this ſtate of the Queſtion, to prove that ſuch an impoſition is not in the Churches power.
§ 2. Arg. 1. Becauſe the Church by ſuch impoſition doth ſubjugate herſelf in her Members to a yoke of bondage, which Chriſt hath freed her and them from. That Chriſtians are freed from ſuch yokes, ſee Gal. 4.31. ch. 5.1. and the Church is not to return to any bondage that ſhe is freed from by Chriſt, ſhe being not a competent Judge of her own bondage or freedom. The Church of the Jews were not ſo; for they are condemned by the Spirit of God for not laying aſide that bondage to ceremonies which Chriſt would have eaſed them of. Hence in judgment her Ear is bored, and ſhe is become a profeſſed Vaſſal thereto, until the time of the fulneſs of the Gentiles; and would account it her greateſt felicity, might ſhe but have opportunity to return to the full enjoyment and exerciſe of the old obſolete Rites of the ceremonial Law. Hence nothing can be a more unqueſtionable truth, than that a Goſpel-Church may not return her ſelf or members to a ſubjection to a ceremonial Yoke: for, 1. If a Chriſtian or Church may return to one Yoke that Chriſt hath redeemed them from, then as well to another; if to that of a ceremonial Law, then to that of the covenant of Works alſo. 2. Again, if they may return to bondage, then they may ſtay in bondage as the Jews did: for both ways Chriſt equally profits them nothing, as a Redeemer profits not a Slave that will remain a captive, or return into it. 3. There's nothing can be more diſpleaſing to a Redeemer, than ſo to overthrow his whole deſigne of redemption.
§ 3. That Chriſt hath freed his Churches and Chriſtians from ceremonies as a yoke of bondage, viz. from all not inſtituted and ratified by himſelf, I thus prove. 1. If Chriſt hath not freed the Church of the New Teſtament from all ceremonies beſides his own, the condition of the Goſpel-church would be much worſe than the Moſaical, whoſe bondage was under a Law of ceremonies of God's own promulgation; and ſure if a Chriſtian muſt be under the plague of ceremonies, it is far better to fall into the hands of God than Man; and the Jewiſh Church muſt needs be more happy than the Chriſtian, who lie at the mercy of mens vain Imaginations and tyrannical Will. It was known to them of the Old Teſtament how great their burden was, though preſcribed by God, and circumſcribed exactly as to the latitude, and extent, and bulk of them; ſo that they could not eaſily be impoſed upon by man: and yet we ſee they could not eſcape the Traditions of the Elders, and ſuperſtitious Obſervations of the Phariſees. But what a miſerable condition are Churches of the New Teſtament in, who are ſo liable to ſo heavie and intolerable a bulk of ceremonies, without bounds or meaſure, arbitrarily to be increaſed by men of corrupt minds and intereſt, calling themſelves the Church: and were there a tythe of the ceremonies in the Jewiſh Church of what is in the Romiſh, which the Papiſts have accumulated upon this ground. And Chriſt hath given leave to the Church under the Goſpel, to deviſe and impoſe what ceremonies ſhe in her wiſdom thinks meet? 2. Unleſs Chriſt hath freed the Goſpel-church from ceremonial bondage, how is the Goſpel-church the free Woman? Was not the bondage-ſtate of the Jewiſh Church very much, yea moſt in this reſpect? But is not the Goſpel-church in far greater ſervitude? for the Jews were in bondage to God's ceremonies, the Chriſtian to mans. And if Chriſt allows us not to return to ceremonial bondage of God's impoſition, ſure he allows us not a return unto ſuch of mans phanatick deviſing, and mercileſs impoſition. 3. To be in bondage under ceremonies for divine Worſhip, is to be in bondage under the Elements of the world; but the Goſpel-church is delivered by Chriſt from bondage to the Elements of the world, Gal. 4.3.9. for foreign Elements or Principles of the world, Coloſſ. 2.8. they are deſcribed to be foreign, according to the tradition of men; and verſ. 20. they are thoſe that Chriſt hath redeemed us from, and weak and beggarly, Gal. 4.9. and if the ceremonies of the Jews, once inſtituted by God himſelf, were ſuch, how much more are the ceremonious Relicts of heatheniſh Idolatry, or any other that are products of mens Brains and corrupt Wills? What poor, wretched, and abominably beggarly things are they, for the members of Chriſt to be enſlaved to? What pitiful Ornaments are old rotten Hangings to put up in Chriſt's houſe, that excellent Fabrick of his own building? If they, I ſay, (Jewiſh) were worldly, much more thoſe which are originally from the world, of worldly contrivance and intereſt: for all ſuch muſt be of God or the world; but they are not from God either immediately or mediately; not immediately, becauſe not inſtituted by him; not mediately, becauſe he never deputed any authority to inſtitute them: Ergo, of the world. Hence the Church and Chriſtians ſhould be dead with Chriſt, to the Rudiments of the world, and not live in the world ſubject to ſuch Elements, Col. 2.20. &c. 4. The ceremonies ſpoken of, Gal. 4. & 5. which the Galatians returned to, were but humane commandments, though Jewiſh; for they ceaſed now to be commanded of God, yea, were forbidden by him; and all the Sanction which now they had, was from man: And the Apoſtle doth convincingly prove the unlawfulneſs of Reſanction of Jewiſh ceremonies; by doing of which, he doth ſufficiently caſt down all humanely-inſtituted ceremonies in divine Worſhip: and by the Prelates practice, many Jewiſh ceremonies, as Muſick, Altars, Ephods, &c. are not onelyonly lawful as things indifferent, but required as things not to be diſpenſed with, therefore neceſſary. 5. Chriſt hath freed his Church and Members from being ſervants unto men in the Worſhip of God; Ergo, from humane ceremonial Laws: That place 1 Cor. 7.23. muſt be underſtood of ſervitude unto men, in an Eccleſiaſtical, or at leaſt Religious ſence: for he ſaith, Let every man abide in the Calling wherein he is called; ſervants in obedience to their Maſters, children to their Parents, ſubjects to their governours, &c. For the Corinths thought that there was a neceſſity on their converſion to alter their Callings which they had before; as if a man were called, being a ſervant, to be a Chriſtian, that thereby he became his brother, and ought not any longer to ow… him as Maſter. But the Apoſtle clears up this doubt, and ſaith, Thou being a ſervant, do not think thy relation to thy Maſter is diſſolved ever the more becauſe of thy converſion; thou art as much a ſervant as before; and therefore he ſaith, being called, do not preſently renounce thy relation, and refuſe ſubjection to thy Maſter, upon pretence that thou art Chriſt's freeman, but abide in the place of a ſervant as before; thou art nevertheleſs God's freeman, thy Conſcience free for God's Worſhip, to ſerve him according to his revealed Will: and therefore in this kind be not a ſervant to men, or any ſort of men; though thou mayſt lawfully remain a Family-ſervant, yet be not a Conſcience-vaſſal unto any men.
§ 4. Arg. 2. If it be lawful for the Church or other power to enact and impoſe Laws for Ceremonies, whereby Churches and Chriſtians are liable to ſuch Laws, then it's lawful to erect a ceremonial Law under the Goſpel: for what is a Law of, or for a body of Ceremonies, but a ceremonial Law? But Chriſt would never pull down one ceremonial Law by his death, for man to erect another; and pull down one Jewiſh, and leave it lawful for man to erect one more heatheniſh; would he aboliſh one ceremonial Law of divine Inſtitution, and leave it to man to eſtabliſh a new one of his own deviſing; yea, a thouſand ceremonial Laws of as many ſorts as there are ſeveral Churches and Ages in the world? It's a moſt abſurd and untheological conceit, that a ceremonial Law is conſiſtent with the ſtate of the Goſpel, wherein all Vails whatever is removed from the Lord Jeſus, beſides the vail of his fleſh; neither is the Spirituality of his Ordinances to be clogged with ſuch a bulkie maſs of fleſhly Inſtitutions.
§ 5. Arg. 3. If we be not liable to an impoſition and enforcement of Chriſt's own by a temporal Penal Law, much leſs liable to ſuch impoſition of ceremonies by Eccleſiaſtick or other authority; for all impoſition is by a Penal Law: but we know Chriſt never made any Penal Law to be Eccleſiaſtically adminiſtred, thereby to enforce men to Baptiſm and receive the Supper: His people that ſubmit to his Ordinances, muſt be willing and free: whereunto they are brought by enlightning the Underſtanding, and perſwading the Will, as the great end of the Goſpel preached. Thoſe that will ſay otherwiſe, muſt juſtifie the Spaniards in America, in bringing the poor Indians to their baptiſm by force. The claim that any make to the uſe of the Magiſtrates Sword, or force of Arms, to prevail with men to ſubmit to any things pretended to be ſpiritual, is of like nature, and will fall under the like condemnation: And how much worſe by the Rule of Proportion muſt that needs be, to enforce ceremonies of humane inſtitution, than thoſe of divine? Would not Chriſt give ſuch a power to the Church to enjoyn his own inſtitution under Corporal or Penal Mulcts? how much leſs will he bear ſo great an uſurpation for any to erect a body of ceremonial Laws, with Penalties annexed, thereby to enforce them on the Conſciences and practices of others? The Argument ſtands very fair and forcing, from the greater to the leſs: That power that cannot juſtifie the impoſing any of Chriſt's own Ordinances on men, even on unregenerate, and no viſible Members, cannot juſtifie the impoſing humane Ordinances on the viſible Members of Jeſus Chriſt; but no Power can juſtifie the impoſing any of Chriſt's Inſtitutions by a Penal Law, &c. Ergo, there is none can pretend to defend any ſuch proceedings, by any plauſible Argument from Scripture or right Reaſon.
§ 6. Arg. 4. If the Church is liable to the impoſition of Ceremonies not inſtituted by Chriſt, it's either to the impoſition of inſignificant, or of ſignificant. It's not ſubjected to the impoſition of inſignificant, i. e. of childiſh or irrational empty ceremonies of no ſignification: for this were to mock God, and imitate the Heathens in a groſs manner, to uſe antick geſtures and actions (in God's ſolemn Worſhip) of which there can be no plauſible reaſon pretended; therefore ſuch things are abſolutely vain and unlawful. 2. For ſignificant Ceremonies, Church-powers cannot impoſe them, 1. Becauſe none may deviſe and enact ſuch into a Law at pleaſure. 2. None can pretend ſufficiently to the ſigne and thing neceſſarily requiring ſignification thereby in Chriſt's Worſhip, but Chriſt himſelf. A ſignificancy in divine ſervice, muſt be ſuch as Chriſt would have, & no other; he will not have ſuch things ſignified as are heterogenious to his ſervice: and homogenious things onelyonly may be repreſented by homogenious ſignes; and who can determine ſuch, but the moſt wiſe Legiſlator and King of his Church? 3. Significant Ceremonies are ſo by virtue of adaptation of a ſigne by ſome Law to the thing ſignified, and they are either Moral or Inſtituted: Moral and natural are ſuch wherein there is a natural or moral relation between the ſigne and thing ſignified, or at leaſt acquired by uſe and cuſtom, as bowing the body, and uncovering the head, of reverence and ſubjection, &c. and there is nothing in this kind neceſſary to be done in the Worſhip of God, which is not already done: for if Chriſt had ſeen a neceſſity of any more ceremonies of that kind, he would have annexed them. Again, ceremonies of limited Inſtitution are not to be impoſed; for ſuch are either Typical or Sacramental. 1. There can be no Typical Ceremonies under the New Teſtament, becauſe the Body is come, and the Shadows muſt flie away. 2. Nor can there be any Sacramental Ceremonies inſtituted: for herein lies the exerciſe of Chriſt's Prerogative, to inſtitute Sacraments; neither doth he enforce the uſe of any by corporal or pecuniary Penal Laws 3. A Sacrament (according to the Church of England) is a viſible ſigne of an inviſible Grace; in which ſence all ſignificant ceremonies ſhould be Sacraments, as the Surplice a ſigne of inward Purity; but they that have not power to give the thing ſignified as well as the ſigne, have no power to make a Sacrament; which Chriſt does in all his. 4. A Sacrament is not every ſignificant ſign in divine things, but ſuch a ceremony as is a federal ſigne and ſeal; ſuch was Circumciſion and the Paſſover of old, Baptiſm and the Lords Supper under the New Teſtament; ſuch (though humane Innovatious) is the Croſs in Baptiſm, and the Ring in Marriage: for they are conſecrated Ceremonies, ſignificant, and federally obligatory; which appears by the Churches inſtitution of them. But there may be no Sacramental ceremony inſtituted by the Church: this would be a groſs addition to Chriſt's Sacraments annexed to the New Covenant, which muſt not be altered, nor have any new ones ſuperadded: for if any humane power may increaſe the number of Sacraments, viz. to three or four, they may go to ſeven with the Papiſts; and why not as well to ſeventy? Thoſe two additional which ſome Proteſtant Churches retain, they are beholding to Rome for the inſtitution of them. Mr. Bradſhaw and others hath ſufficiently proved that no Church can inſtitute ceremonies of Sacramental ſignificancy and intent; and therefore I need not enlarge here upon it.