A Just Defense of Hearing the Sermons, Chapter 5 · Section 5
Sect. 5 All particularities of Decency and Order in things sacred, are not determined in Scripture.
But let this be granted, suppose that 'tis the priviledge and duty of the Church to make Laws and Constitutions, for the binding of the consciences of men in matters of Decency and Orders; this Church herein is bounded by the Scripture, or it is not: If it be (for which he cites in the Margin these words of, Macovius in loc. com. cap. 83. p. 851. The Laws by which the Governours of the Church are to judge, are such as are prescribed in the Word of God) bounded by the Scripture, then when it hath no prescription therein for its commands, its not to be obeyed, and so we are where we were before, that Decency and Order is to be determined by the Scripture: If it be not bounded thereby, then whatever ceremonies it introduceth not directly contrary thereunto, they must be subjected to; which how fair an inlet it is to the whole farrago of Popish inventions, who sees not?
Answ. I say not, 'Tis the priviledge and duty of the Church to make Laws and Constitutions for the binding of the Consciences of m…n in the matters of Decency and Order; but that the particularities of Decency and Order not determined in Scripture may by Canons to that end, be prescribed; the general rules in Scripture, the Laws of Nature, Right Reason, other laudable Customs and just Laws being duely observed; and that persons are to obey them, not as bound in conscience directly, and by the things themselves, but indirectly and by accident,; because appointed by Rulers, to whom God requires obedience in those things: which being rightly understood, both horns of the dilemma are avoided, they being bounded in the Scripture, in the general are to be obeyed as other humane Laws; and the particularities not being there determined, the wayes of Decency and Order not determined by Scripture, are to be received: and yet it follows not that whatever Ceremonies Rulers introduce not directly contrary to Scripture, must be subjected to; much less a fair inlet made to the whole farrago of Popish inventions. For if indirectly they be contrary to Scripture, or otherwise hurtful, or not subservient to the ends of such Laws, or become by reason of their number or imposition, such a yoke as Christ hath freed us from, there may be a relaxation from them, more than from other humane Civil Laws; and for all, or some of these reasons, the whole farrago of Popish inventions is to be excluded, though other Ecclesiastical Laws of the Church of England be subjected to. Wherein I meddle not with the Question about the Ceremonies controverted, and therefore may let pass that which this Author adds; yet were this also yielded them, they were never a jot nearer the mark aimed at, except it can be proved, that supposing a power of introducing Ceremonies to be invested in the Church, thence a power for the institution of new Orders and Ordinances, the introducing of Heathenish, Jewish, and Superstitious practices in the Worship of God, may be evinced; there being no necessity that in answering his Argument I should avouch the imposition or use of those Ceremonies, which the Non-conformists argue against. Nor need I reply to what he adds: And yet should all this be yielded them, none of which will they be able to prove to the Worlds end; how will they manifest those Lordly Commands and Constitutions are the Constitutions of a truly constituted Church of Christ, (a strong supposition hereof is the foreign of the present Objection:) and yet sail they in the making good their ground herein: who sees not that their Plea hitherto impleaded sinks of it self? Sith I neither plead for the Constitutions of the Church of England in particular; nor is it my supposition, that only the Constitutions of a constituted Church of Christ bind in things of Divine Worship and Church Rule, and therefore my Answer and position need not sink for want of making good this plea. And accordingly might put him off to others to answer his impertinent questions, What is it then they mean by the Church, whose foreign we are without disputing to subject to? is it the National Church of England? But where find they any National Church of the Institution of Christ, in the Oeconomie of the Gospel? How prove they that the Church of England is so? Nevertheless, I may say I know not any that hold concerning the Church of England that its foreign proper opinions are to be subjected to, without dispute; though the Romanists hold it of the Church of R…me: and for a National Church I refer him to what is before in answer to his Preface, sect. 15. But there are more questions behind. Yet should this also be granted, where are the Constitutions and Laws of this Church, that we may pay the homage to them as is meet? Which Question he might answer himself, who in this Chapter cites so many of the Canons of the Church of England.
But he yet enquires, When was it assembled foreign in the same place together, in its several members freely to debate, (1 Cor. 11.20. and 14 23.) and in the Margin, Maccovius in loc. com. append. de Adi. p. 861. Things indifferent, he tells you, ought not to be introduced into the Church, but by the common consent thereof, according to Acts 15.) determine what Laws and Constitutions were fit to be observed by them?
To which I answer, The Church of England was assembled at London, Anno 1603. in its several members by deputation freely to debate things, as was the usage in the Synods of ancient and later times, and even in New England at Cambridge, there about the Antinomian opinions in Mr. Welds History; in England in the Assembly at Westminster, of the Congregational Churches by their Elders and Messengers in their Meeting at the Savoy, Octob. 12. 1658. which kind of Meeting must be allowed as the Meeting of the whole Church, which they represent, there being no other way, in which orderly many particular Churches throughout a Nation can convene and debate freely, either points of Doctrine or Discipline, than by such Deputies; and therefore as the whole Kingdom is said to meet in the Parliament, so the whole Church may be said to meet in their Synod. Nor is there any thing against this, in 1 Cor. 11.20 or 1 Cor. 14.23. unless it be supposed, that all those must meet to debate matters of Doctrine and Discipline, who did then meet for worship, which is not to be said: For then in such things women also must have a voice contrary to the Apostles resolution, 1 Cor. 14.34. and the practice of all the Churches. As for Act. 15. the Synod was about a point of Doctrine, and though it be said, ver. 22. that it pleased the Apostles and Elders, with the whole Church, to send some to Antioch; yet the whole Church is not likely to be meant of every particular member, but as Acts 6.2, 5. Acts 21.20, 22. and elsewhere, by the multitude, or whole Church, is meant a great part or indefinite number. However those from Antioch, mentioned Acts 15.2. were not many, and therefore if that Synod be a pattern for after times; yet it cannot be a rule in respect of the number of persons convening, when Churches are so increased, or so far distant one from another, as that they cannot commodiously meet in their multitudes or debate orderly, but must of necessity act by Deputies, and their Constitutions are to be taken as the Constitutions of the whole Church, for whom they appear. But this Author excepts:
If it be said, that this is not requisite, it is enough that it be assembled in its several Officers, or such as shall be chosen by their Officers, whose laws every member is bound to be obedient to. We answer, But these Officers are the Church, or they are not; if they are not (as there is nothing more sure) I owe no subjection to their Laws or Constitutions, it being pleaded, that 'tis the Church that hath only power in this matter: if they are the Church, let them by one Scripture prove they are so: or where the true Officers of a true Church are so called, and as Nonius saith out of N…vius to them, Dum vivebo fidelis ero. Yet except this also be yielded them, there is nothing of moment in the Objection produced.
Answ. The Objection, as it is by me made, is not the Plea as here is supposed. The power in this matter, is by me ascribed to Rulers, and Texts requiring obedience to them have been produced; and notwithstanding this Authors exceptions, there is something of moment in the Objection; and the speech is not made good, That the present Ministers of England, submit, own, and subscribe to Laws and Constitutions that are not in any sense of Christ revealing; nor if it were, doth it follow, Therefore they oppose the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ.