A Weapon-Salve for the Churchs Wounds, Religious treatise 1 · Part 1 · Chapter 6

A Weapon-Salve for the Churchs Wounds · Religious treatise 1 · Part 1 · Chapter 6

p. 104CHAP. VI.

The fourth thing dictated by the Law of Nature, that there must be a way to end Controversies arising, which tend to break the peace of the Society. The nature of schis… considered; Liberty of judgement and authority distinguished; the latter must be parted within religious Societies as to private persons. What way the light of Nature directs to, for ending Controversies, in an equality of power, that the lesse number yield to the greater: on what Law of Nature that is founded. In a subordination of power that there must be a liberty of Appeals defined. Independency of particular Congregations considered. Elective Synods. The Original of Church-Government as to Congregations. The case paralleld between Civil and Church Government. Where Appeals finally lodge. The power of calling Synods, and confirming their acts in the Magistrate.

THe fourth thing which Nature dictates in reference to a§. 1. Church-society, is, That there must be a way agreed upon to determine and decide all those Controversies arising in this Society, which immediately tend to the breaking the peace and unity of it. We have seen already that natural reason requires a disparity between persons in a society: To form and constitute a Society, there must be order and power in some, there must be inferiority and subjection in others answering to the former; And by these we suppose a Society to be now modeld. But Nature must either be supposed defective in its designs and contrivements as to the necessaries required for the management of them; or else there must likewise be implyed a sufficient provision for the maintenance and preservation of the Societies thus entred into. It is no wise agreeable to the wisdom of Nature to erect a Fabrick with such materials, which though they may lye one upon the other, yet if not fitly compacted together, will fall in pieces again assoon as it is set up: nor yet to frame a body with meer flesh and bones, and the superiority of some members above the other; for unlesse there be joints and sinews and ligatures to hold the parts together, p. 105the dissolution (will immediately) follow the formation of it. The end and design of Nature is, preservation and continuance, and therefore things necessary in order to that, must be implyed in the first design of the being of the thing; so that at least, as to its self, there be no defect in order to that. This must in reason be supposed in all Societies, that when they are first entred, it must be upon such terms as may be sufficient to maintain and keep up those Societies in that peace and order which is requisite in order to the continuance of them. For what diseases are to bodies, Age and fire are to buildings, that divisions and animosities are to Societies, all equally tending to the ruine and destruction of the things they seize upon. And as bodies are furnished by Nature, not only with a receptive and concoctive faculty, of what tends to their nourishment, but with an expulsive faculty of what would tend to the ruine of it. So all civill bodies must not only have ways to strengthen them, but must have likewise a power to expell and disperse those noxions humours and qualities which tend to dissolve the frame, compages and constitution of them. A power then to prevent mischiefs is as necessary in a Society, as a power to settle things in order to the advancement of the common good of Society. This therefore the Church as a religious Society must likewise he endowed with, viz. a power to maintain its self, and keep up peace and unity within its self: which cannot otherwise be supposed (considering the bilious humour in mens natures, not wholly purged out by Christianity) without some way to decide Controversies which will arise, disturbing the peace of it. For the clearing of this, which much concerns the power and government of the Church, we shall consider what the controversies are which tend to break the Churches peace: and what way the Law of nature finds out for the ending of them, Which we are the more necessitated to speak to, because nothing hath begotten controversies more then the power of determining them hath done.

The Controversies then which tend to break the peace of§. 2. a religious Society, are either matter of different practice, or matter of different opinion. The former, if it comes from no just and necessary cause, and ends in a totall separation from that Society the person guilty of it was joyned with, p. 106is justly call'd Schism; which (as … it▪) is an Ecclefiasticall sedition, as Sedition i… a Lay Schism; both being directly contrary to that communion and friendlinesse which should be preserved in all Societies. The latter, if impugning somewhat fundamentall, in order to the end of constituting religious Societies, or being a lesser matter, if wilfully taken up, and obstinately maintained, is call'd Here sit; which two are seldom seen out of each others company., and when they are together, are like the blind and same man in the Fable, the one lent the other eyes, and the other lent him feet: one to find out what they desired, the other to run away with it when they had it. The Heretick he useth his eyes to spy out some cause or pretence of deserting Communion▪ the Schismatick he helps him with his leg… to run away from it; but between them both, they rob the Church of its peace and unity. But in order to the making clear what the Churches power is in reference to these, we are to take notice of these things. First, That the Church hath no direct immediate power over mens opinions: So that a matter of meer different opinion lyes not properly within the cognizance of any Church power; the reason of it is this, because the end of power lodged in the Church, is to preserve the peace and unity of its self: now a meer different opinion doth not violate the bonds of Society; for, Opinionum di…er sitas & opinantium unitas non sunt foreign, Men may preserve communion under different apprehensions. So long then▪ as diversity of opinion tends not to the breaking the quiet and tranquillity of the Church of God, a man may safely enjoy his own private apprehensions, as to any danger of molestation from Church▪Governours; That is, so long as a man keeps his opinion to himself, and hath the power of being his own Counsellor. It is not the difference of opinion formally considered when it is divulged abroad that is punishable, but the tendency to Schism, which lyes in the div…lging of it, and drawing others away from the received Truths: For the opinion its self is an internall act of the mind, and therefore is punishable by no externall power, as that of the Magistrate or Church is; as no internall action is under the jurisdiction or authority of a Magistrate, any further then as necessarily p. 107conjoyned with the outward action, or as it hath a direct influence upon it. The case of blasphemy, which is a thing of the highest nature in this kind, is not punishable by men, as blasphemy implyes low and undervaluing thoughts of God; but as being a thing divulged (else no formal blaspemy) it tends apparently to the dishonour of God, and consequently to the breaking in pieces all such Societies, whose great foundation is the belief of the Majesty and glory of God. So Idolatry under the Law was punished, as it was immediately destructive of that obedience which men did owe to the true God. And under the Gospel, it is not meer difference of opinion, judgement, and apprehension, which layes men open to the Censures of that power which moderates and rules a religious Society; but the endeavour by difference of opinion to alienate mens spirits one from another, and thereby to break the Society into fractions and divisions, is that which makes men liable to restraint and punishment. From whence it follows, that where the peace and unity of the Church may be preserved, and yet men keep up different apprehensions of things, there is nothing deserving any severe animadversion from the Rulers of that Society: For a power corrective, and vindictive, must suppose something acted contrary to the Laws and Rules of the Society, and the end of committing that power into the hands of Governours: now here is nothing of that nature; for the Laws of mutual Society are observed; and the end of Church-Government is to see nè quid Ecclesia detrimenti capiat, lest the Church as a Society be any wayes prejudiced: which cannot be while men maintain that love, affection, and communion which becomes the members of such a Society. The unity then required in the Church, is not an unity of judgement and apprehension among the members of it, which though it be their duty to endeavour after, yet it is no further attainable by mens endeavours then perfection is; and Unio Christianorum in this sense, is one of the Jewels belonging to the Crown of Heaven. There, is no necessity then of inquiring after an infallible Judge of Controversies, unlesse we had some promise and assurance from Christ, that the members of his Church should never differ in their judgements from one another, and then what need of an infallible p. 108Judge? and if Christ had appointed an infallible Judg, he would infallibly have discovered it to the minds of all sober men; or else his infallibility could never attain its end: For while I question whether my Judge be infallible or no, I cannot infallibly assent to any of his determinations. And where there is no ground for an infallible Judge, for any to pretend to it, is the worst of supposable errours, because it renders all others incurable by that apprehension, and takes away all possibility of repentance while men are under that perswasion. The Unity then of the Church, is that of Communion, and not that of Apprehension; and different opinions are no further lyable to censures, then as men by the broaching of them, do endeavour to disturb the peace of the Church of God.

That then which seems most lyable to censures in a Church,§ 3. is Schism, as being immediately destructive of that communion which should be maintained in a religious Society. But as to this too, we must observe something further, and not to think and judge every thing to deserve the name, which is by many call'd Schism; it being well observed by a very learned and judicious Divine; that Heresie and Schism, as they are commonly used, are two Theologicall scare-crows, with which, they Tract of Schism, 1642.who use to uphold a party in Religion, use to fright away such, as making enquiry into it, are ready to relinquish and oppose it, if it appear either erroneous or suspitious. For as Plutarch reports of a Painter, who having unskilfully painted a Cock, chased away all Cocks and Hens, that so the imperfection of his Art might not appear by comparison with nature; so men willing for ends, to admit of no fancy but their own, endeavour to hinder an enquiry into it, by way of comparison of somewhat with it, peradventure truer, that so the deformity of their own might not appear. Thus he▪ Schism then, as it imports a separation from communion with a Church-society, is not a thing intrinsecally and formally evil in it self, but is capable of the differences of good and evil according to the grounds, reasons, ends, and circumstances inducing to such a separation. The withdrawing from Society, is but the materiality of Schism; the formality of it must be fetched from the grounds on which that is built. It is therefore a subject which deserve a strict p. 109inquiry, what things those are which may make a withdrawing from a religious Society, to which a man is joyned, to be lawfull: For as it is a great sin on the one hand, unnecessarily to divide and separate from Church-society; so it is an offence on the other side, to continue communion when it is a duty to withdraw it. For the resolving this knotty and intricate Question, I shall lay down some things by way of premisall, and come closely to the resolution of it.

First, Every Christian is under an obligation to joyn in Church-society with others, because it is his duty to professe himself a Christian, and to own his Religion publickly, and to partake of the Ordinances and Sacraments of the Gospel, which cannot be without society with some Church or other. Every Christian as such, is bound to look upon himself as the member of a body, viz. the visible Church of Christ; and how can he be known to be a member, who is not united with other parts of the body? There is then an obligation upon all Christian… ▪ to engage in a religious Society with others, for partaking of the Ordinances of the Gospel. It hath been a case disputed by some (particularly by Grotius the supposed Author of a little Tract, An semper sit communicandum per symbolu? when he designed the Syncretism with the Church of Rome) whether in a time when Churches are divided, it be a Christians duty to communicate with any of those parties which divide the Church, and not rather to suspend communion from all of them. A case not hard to be decided; for either the person questioning it, doth suppose the Churches divided to remain true Churches, but some to be more pure then others, in which case, by vertue of his generall obligation to communion, he is bound to adhere to that Church which appears most to retain its Evangelicall purity; Or else he must suppose one to be a true Church, and the other not; in which the case is clearer, that he is bound to communicate with the true Church: or he must judge them alike impure, which is a case hard to be found; but supposing it is so, either he hath joyned formerly with one of them, or he is now to choose which to joyn with; if he be joyned already with that Church, and sees no other but as impure as that, he is bound to declare against the impurity of the Church, and p. 110to continue his communion with it; if he be to choose communion, he may so long suspend till he be satisfied, which Church comes nearest to the primitive constitution, and no longer. And therefore I know not whether Chrysostomes act were to be commended, who after being made a Deacon in the Church of Antioch by Meletius, upon his death, because Flavianus came in irregularly as Bishop of theSo…at. hist. Eccles. lib. 6, cap. 3. Church, would neither communicate with him, nor with Paulinus another Bishop at that time in the City, nor with the Meletians, but for three years time withdrew himself from communion with any of them. Much lesse were the foreign or the Haesitantes as the Latins called them, to be commended, who after the determination of the Council of Chalcedou against Entyches, because of great differences remainingV. Petavii. Diotrib. de Po…est. Consa, & com. usurp. cap. 4 in Egypt and the Eastern Churches, followed Zenoes Henoticum, and would communicate neither with the Orthodox Churches, nor Eutychians. But I see not what censure J…ome could in …urr, who going into the Diocesse of Antioeh, and finding the Churches there under great divisions, there being besides the Arian Bishop, three others in the Church of Antioch, Meletius, Paulinus, and Vitalis, did so long suspend communion with any of them, till he had satisfied himself about the occasion of the Schism, and the innocency of the persons and Churches engaged in it. But if he had withdrawn longer, he had offended against his obligation to joyn in Church-society with others, for participation of Gospel-Ordinances; which is the necessary duty of every Christian.

Secondly, Every Christian actually joyned in Church-society §. 4.with others, is so long bound to maintain society with them, till his communion with them becomes sin. For nothing else can justifie withdrawing from such a Society, but the unlawfulness of continuing any longer in it. Supposing a Church then to remain true, as to its constitution and essentials, but there be many corruptions crept into that Church; whether is it the duty of a Christian to withdraw from that Church because of those corruptions, and to gather new Churches only for purer administration, or to joyn with them only for that end? This, as far as I understand it, is the state of the Controversie p. 111between our Parochiall Churches, and the Congregationall. The resolution of this great Question must depend on this; Whether is it a sin to communicate with Churches true as to essentialls, but supposed corrupt in the exercise of discipline? For Parochiall Churches are not denyed to have the essentialls of true Churches by any sober Congregational men. For there is in them the true Word of God preached, the true Sacraments administred, and an implicite Covenant between Pastor and People, in their joyning together. All that is pleaded then, is corruption, and defect in the exercise and administration of Church order and Discipline. Now that it is lawfull for Christians to joyn with Churches so defective, is not only acknowledged by Reverend Mr. Norton in his answer to Apollius, but largely and fully proved. ForRespons. ad Syllog. Quest. cap. 16. which he layes down five Propositions which deserve to be seriously considered, by all which make that a plea for withdrawing from society with other Churches. First, A Believer may lawfully joyn himself in communion with such a Church, where he cannot enjoy all the Ordinances of God; a… in the Jewish Church, in our Saviours time, which refused the Gospel of Christ, and the baptism of Iohn; and yet our Saviour bids us hear the Scribes and Pharisees sitting in Moses Chair, which hearing, saith he, doth imply conjunctionem Ecclesiae Iudaicae, a joyning with the Iewish Church: and so with Churches rejecting an article of faith; in the Church of Corinth the doctrine of the Re…rection, in the Churches of Galatia the doctrine of Ju…ion by faith; but the Apostle no-where requires separation on that account from them. Secondly▪ A Believer may lawfully joyn in communion with such a Church, in which some corruption in the worship of God is tolerated without Reformation. As the offering on High-places from Solomon to Hez…kiah in the Church of Iuda, observation of Circumc…sion, and the necessity of keeping the Ceremonial Law in the Churches of Gala…ia. Thirdly, A Believer may lawfully joyn himself in communion with such a Church in which such are admitted to Sacraments, who give no evident signs of grace, but seem to be Lovers of this World; which he proves, because it is every ones main duty to examine himself, and because anothers p. 112sin is no hurt to him, and therefore cannot keep him from his duty; and then by mens coming unworthily, non polluitur communio, licet minuitur consolatio, the communion i… not defiled, though the comfort of it be diminished. He brings instance from the Church of Corinth, among whom were many scandalous, and had not repented, 2 Cor. 12. 20, 21. So in the Jewish Church which lay under great corruptions, when1 Cor. 14. 34. 1 Cor. 6. 4.—15.1 Cor 14:341 Cor 6:4 our Saviour and his Apostles communicated with it. Fourthly, Although a Believer joyn with such a Church, he is not therefore bound with the guilt, nor defiled with the pollutions of others; which he proves, because it is lawfull to do it, and so he contract: no guilt by it. Fifthly, A Believer that hath joyned himself to such a Church, is not bound to withdraw, and separate from such a Church under pain of guilt if he doth it not, because it implyes a contradiction to be lawfull to joyn to such a Church, and yet unlawfull to continue in its communion; for that speaks it to be a Church, and this latter to be no Church; and by that he doth imply it to be unlawfull to separate from any Society which is acknowledged to be a true Church, Thus for that learned and Reverend man, by whom we see that the received Principles of the sober and moderate part of those of that perswasion, are not at such a distance from others, as many imagine. We see then that communicating with a Church not so pure as we desire, i… no sin by the arguments by him produced. And how it should be then lawfull to withdraw from such a Church, meerly for purer communion, I …stand not. This I am sure was not the case of our Churches in their separation from the Church of Rome: the main ground of which was the sin of communicating with that Church in her Idolatry and Superstition, and the impossibility of communicating with her, and not partaking of her sins, because she required a profession of her errours, and the practise of her Idolatry as the necessary conditions of her communion; in which case it is a sin to communicate with her.

And this leads me now to a closer resolution of the case of§ 5. withdrawing from Churches in which men have formerly been associated, and the grounds which may make such a withdrawing lawfull. In order to that we must distinguish p. 113between these things. First, Between corruptions in the doctrine of a Church, and corruptions in the practice of a Church. Secondly, Between corruptions whether in doctrine, or practise, professed and avowed by a Church, and required as conditions of communion in all members of it, and corruptions crept in, and only tolerated in a Church. Thirdly, Between non-Communion as to the abuses of a Church, and a positive and totall separation from a Church, as it is such. From these things I lay down these following Propositions.

First, Where any Church is guilty of corruptions, both in doctrine and practice, which it avoweth and professeth, and requireth the owning them as necessary conditions of communion with her, there a non-communion with that Church is necessary, and a totall and positive separation is lawfull and convenient. I have said already that the necessity and lawfulnesse of this departing from communion with any Church is wholly to be resolved by an inquiry into the grounds and reasons of the action it self. So that the matter of fact must of necessity be discussed, before the matter of Law as to separation from the Church be brought into debate. If there be a just and necessary cause for separation, it must needs be just and necessary; therefore the cause must be the ground of resolving the nature of the …ction. Schism then is a separation from any Church upon any slight, triviall, unnecessary cause; but if the cause be great and important, a Departure it may be, Schism it cannot be. They who define Schism to be a voluntary separation from the Church of God; if by voluntary, they mean that where the will is the cause of it: the definition stands good and true; for that must needs be groundless and unnecessary as to the Church it self: but if by voluntary be meant a spontaneous departing from communion with a Church, which was caused by the corruptions of that Church, then a separation may be so voluntary, and yet no Schism: for though it be voluntary, as to the act of departing, yet that is only consequentially, supposing a cause sufficient to take such a resolution; but what is voluntary antecedently, that it hath no other Motive but faction and humour, that is properly Schism, and ought so to be looked upon. But in our present case, three things are supposed as the causes and motives to such a forsaking communion. First, Corruption p. 114in Doctrine; the main ligature of a religious Society is the consent of it in Doctrine with the rule of Religion, the Word of God. Therefore any thing which tends to subvert and overthrow the foundation of the gathering such a Society (which is the profession and practice of the true Religion) yields sufficient ground to withdraw from communion with those who professe and maintain it. Not that every small errour is a just ground of separation, for then there would be no end of separation, and men must separate from one another, till knowledge comes to its perfection, which will only be in glory; but any thing which either directly or consequentially doth destroy any fundamental article of Christian faith. Which may be as well done by adding to fundamental articles, as by plain denying them. And my reason is this: because the very ratio of a fundamentall article doth imply, not only its necessity to be believed and practised (and the former in reference to the latter, for things are therefore necessary to be known, because necessary to be done, and not è contrà) but likewise its sufficiency as to the end for which it is called Fundamentall. So that the articles of faith called Fundamentall, are not only such as are necessary to be believed, but if they be, are sufficient for salvation to all that do believe them. Now he that adds any thing to be believed or done as fundamentall, that is necessary to salvation, doth thereby destroy the sufficiency of those former articles in order to salvation; for if they were sufficient, how can new ones be necessary. The case wil be clear by an Instance. Who assert the satisfaction of Christ for sinners to be a fundamentall article, and thereby do imply the sufficiency of the belief of that in order to salvation; now if a Pope or any other command me to believe the meritoriousnesse of good works with the satisfaction of Christ as necessary to salvation, by adding this he destroyes the former as a fundamentall article: for if Christs satisfaction be sufficient, how can good works be meritorious? and if this latter be necessary, the other was not; for if it were, what need this be added! Which is a thing the Papists with their new Creed of Pius the fourth would do well to consider: and others too, who so confidently assert that none of their errours touch the foundation of faith. Where there is now such corruption in Doctrine p. 115supposed in a Church; withdrawing and separation from such a Church, is as necessary as the avoiding of her errours, and not partaking of her sins is. Thence we read in Scripture, of rejecting such as are hereticks, and withdrawing from their society, which will as well hold, to Churches as to persons, and so much the more, as the corruption is more dangerous, and the relation nearer of a member to a Church, then of one man to another: And from the reason of that command, we read in Ecclesiasticall History, that when Eulalius, Euphronius, and Placentius were constituted Bishops of Antioch, being Arrians, many both of the Clergy and people,Theodoret. lib. 1. c. 22. who resolved to adhere to the true faith, withdrew from the publike meetings, and had private Assemblies of their own. And after, when Leontius was made Bishop of Antioch, whoId. l, 2. cap. 24. favour'd the Arrians, Flavianus and Diodorus, not only publikely reproved him for deserting the Orthodox faith, but withdrew the people from communion with him, and undertookLib. 2. c. 17. Advers. the charge of them themselves: So when Foelix was made Bishop of Rome, none of the Church of Rome would enter into the Church while he was there. And Vincentius haeres. cap. 16.Lyrinensis tells us a remarkable story of Photinus Bishop of Syrmium in Pannonia, a man of great abilities and same, who suddenly turned from the true faith, and though his people both loved and admired him, yet when they discerned his errours, Quem antea quasi arietem gregis sequebantur, eundem deinceps veluti lupum fugere coeperunt, Whom they followed before as the leader of the flock, they now run away from as a devouring woolf. This is the first thing which makes separation, and withdrawment of communion, lawfull and necessary, viz. corruption of Doctrine. The second is Corruption of practice: I speak not of practice, as relating to the civil conversation of men, but as it takes in the Agenda of Religion. When Idolatrous customs, and superstitious practices are not only crept into a Church, but are the prescribed devotion of it: Such as the adoration of the Eucharist (chiefly insisted on by Mr. Daillé in his Apology, as a cause of separation from the Church of Rome) invocation of Saints and Angels, worshipping Images, and others of a like nature, used among the Papists, which are of themselves sufficient to make our separation p. 116from them necessary. But then thirdly, as an accession to these two, is the publike owning and professing them, and requiring them, as necessary conditions of communion, from all the members of their Church which makes our withdrawing from them unavoidably necessary, as long as we judge them to be such corruptions as indeed they are. For men not to forsake the belief of errours, supposing them to be such, is impossible: and not to forsake the practice and profession of them upon such belief, were the highest hypocrisie: and to do so, and not to forsake the communion of that Church where these are owned, is apparently contradictious (as Mr. Chilling worth well observes) seeing the condition of communionAnsw. to the Pref. p. 16. s. 22. with it is, that we must professe to believe all the doctrines of that Church, not only not to be errours, but to be certain and necessary truths: So that on this account, to believe there are any errours in the Church of Rome, is actually, and ipso facto, to forsake the communion of that Church; because the condition of its communion is the belief that there are none: And so that learned and rationall Author there fully proves, that those who require unlawfull and unnecessary conditions of communion, must take the imputation of Schism upon themselves, by making separation from them just and necessary. In this case, when corruptions in opinion or practice are thus required, as conditions of communion, it is impossible for one to communicate with such a Church without sin; both materially, as the things are unlawfull which he joyns with them in; and formally, as he judgeth them so. This is the first Proposition.

The second is, Where a Church retains the purity of doctrine §. 6.in its publick profession, but hath a mixture of some corruptions, as to practice, which are only tolerated and not imposed, it is not lawfull to withdraw communion from such a Church, much lesse to run into totall separation from it: For here is no just and lawfull cause given of withdrawing; here is no owned corruption of doctrine or practice, nor any thing required as a condition of communion, but what is in its self necessary; and therefore there can be no plea, but only pollution from such a communion, which cannot be to any who do not own any such supposed corruptions in the Church. Men may p. 117communicate with a Church, and not communicate with the abuses of a Church; for the ground of his communicating is, its being a Church, and not a corrupt or defective Church. And that men are not themselves▪ guilty, by partaking with those who are guilty of corruptions in a Church, might be easily and largely proved, both from the Church of the Jews in the case of Elies sons, and the Christian Churches of As…, and Corinth, where we read of many corruptions reproved, yet nothing spoken of the duty of the members of those Churches to separate from them, which would have been, had it been a sin to communicate with those Churches when such corruptions were in it. Besides, what reason is there that one mans sins should defile another, more then anothers graces sanctifie another? and why corruption in another should defile him more then in himself, and so keep him from communicating with himself? and what security any one can have in the most refined Churches, but that there is some scandalous; or at least unworthy person among them? and whether then it is not his duty to try and examine all himself particularly, with whom he communicates? and why his presence at one Ordinance should defile it more then at another? and why at any more then in wordly converse, and so turn at last to make men Anchorets, as it hath done some? Many other reasonsSee Mr. Durham, Tract of Scandal, part. 2. ch. 12. might be produced against this, which I forbear, it being fully spoke to by others. And so I come to the Third Proposition, which is,

Where any Church, retaining the purity of doctrine, doth require the owning of, and conforming to, any unlawfull or suspected practice, men may lawfully deny conformity to, and communion with that Church in such things, without incurring the guilt of Schism. I say not, men may proceed to positive Schism as it is call'd, that is, erecting of new Churches, which from Cyprian is call'd erigere Altare contra Altare; but only that withdrawing communion from a Church in unlawfull or suspected things, doth not lay men under the guilt of Schism: which because I know it may meet with some opposition from those men, who will sooner call men Schismaticks then prove them so, I shall offer this reason for it to consideration. If our separation from the Church of Rome. was therefore lawfull, p. 118because she required unlawfull things, as conditions of her communion; then where-ever such things are required by any Church; non-communion with that Church in those things will be lawfull too; and where non-communion is lawfull, there can be no Schism in it. Whatever difference will be thought of, as to the things imposed by the Church of Rome and others, will be soon answered by the proportionable difference between bare non-conformity, and totall and positive separation. What was in its self lawfull and necessary then, how comes it to be unlawfull and unnecessary now? Did that justifie our withdrawing from them, because they required things unlawfull, as conditions of communion; and will not the same justifie other mens non-conformity, in things supposed by them unlawfull? If it be said here, that the Popes power was an usurpation, which is not in lawfull Governours of Churches; it is soon replyed, That the Popes usurpation mainly lyes in imposing things upon mens consciences as necessary, which are doubtfull, or unlawfull; and where-ever the same thing is done, there is an usurpation of the same nature, though not in so high a degree; and it may be as lawfull to withdraw communion from one as well as the other. If it be said, that men are bound to be ruled by their Governours, in determining what things are lawfull, and what not? To this it is answered: first, no true Protestant can swear blind obedience to Church-Governours in all things. It is the highest usurpation to rob men of the liberty of their judgements: That which we plead for against the Papists, is, that all men have eyes in their heads as well as the Pope, that every one hath a judicium privata discretionis, which is the rule of practice, as to himself; and though we freely allow a ministeriall power, under Christ, in the Government of the Church, yet that extends not to an obligation upon men, to go against the dictates of their own reason and conscience. Their power is only directive and declarative, and in matters of duty can bind no more then reason and evidence brought from Scripture by them doth. A man hath not the power over his own understanding, much l…sse can others have it. Nullus credit Picus Mi-? ra…d. Apol. p. 225. 226.aliquid esse verum, quia vult credere id esse verum; non est enim in potestate hominis facere aliquid apparere intellectui suo verum p. 119quando voluerit. Either therefore men are bound to obey Church-Governours in all things absolutely, without any restriction or limitation; (which if it be not usurpation and dominion over others faith in them, and the worst of implicite faith in others, it is hard to define what either of them is,) or else if they be bound to obey only in lawfull things; I then enquire who must be judge what things are lawfull in this case, what not? if the Governours still, then the power will be absolute again; for to be sure, whatever they command, they will say is lawfull, either in it self, or as they command it: if every private person must judge what is lawfull, and what not, which is commanded (as when all is said, every man will be his owd judge in this case, in things concerning his own welfare) then he is no further bound to obey then he judgeth the thing to be lawfull which is commanded. The plea of an erroneous conscience, takes not off the obligation to follow the dictates of it; for as he is bound to lay it down, supposing it erroneous, so he is bound not to go against it, while it is not laid down. But then again, if men are bound to submit to Governours in the determination of lawfull things, what plea could our Reformers have to withdraw themselves from the Popes yoke? it might have still held true, Boves arabant & Iob 1 14. Summ. 2. 2. q. 2. art. 6.Job 1:14Asina Pascebantur simul, which is Aquinas his argument for the submission of inferiours in the Church to their superiours: for did not the Pope plead to be a lawfull Governour, and if men are bound to submit to the determination of Church-Governours, as to the lawfulnesse of things; they were bound to believe him in that as well as other things, and so separation from that Church was unlawfull then: So that let men turn and wind themselves which way they will, by the very same arguments that any will prove separation from the Church of Rome lawfull, because she required unlawfull things, as conditions of her communion, it will be proved lawfull, not to conform to any suspected or unlawfull practice, required by any Church-Governours upon the same terms; if the thing so required, be after serious and …ober inquiry, judged unwarrantable by a mans own conscience. And withall it would be further considered, whether when our best Writers against the Papists, do lay the imputation o… Schism, p. 120not on those who withdraw communion, but on them for requiring such conditions of communion (whereby they did rather eject men out of their communion, than the others separate from them) they do not by the same arguments, lay the imputation of Schism on all who require such conditions of communion, and take it wholly off from those who refuse to conform for conscience sake. To this I shall subjoyn the judgement of as learned and judicious a Divine, as most our Nation hath bred, in his excellent (though little). Tract concerning Schism. In those Schisms, saith he, which concernMr. Hales of Schism, p. 8. fact, nothing can be a just cause of refusing communion, but only to require the execution of some unlawfull or suspected act; for not only in reason, but in Religion too, that Maxim admits of no release, Cantissimi cujusque praeceptum; Quod dubitas, nè feceris. And after instanceth in the Schism about Image-worship, determin'd by the second Council of Nice, in which he pronounceth the Schismatical party to be the Synod its self, and that on these grounds: First, because it is acknowledged by all, that it is a thing unnecessary. Secondly, it is by most suspected. Thirdly, it is by many held utterly unlawfull: Can then (saith he) the enjoyning of such a thing be ought else but abuse? Or can the refusall of communion here, be thought any other thing then duty? Here, or upon the like occasion, to separate, may peradventure bring personal trouble or danger (against which it concerns any honest man to have pectus praeparatum); further harm it cannot do, so that in these cases you cannot be to seek what to think, or what you have to do. And afterwards propounds it as a remedy to prevent Schism, to have all Liturgies and publike forms of service so framed, as that they admit not of particular and private fancies, but contain only such things, in which all Christians do agree. For, saith he, consider of all the Liturgies that are, and ever have been, and remove from them whatever is scandalous to any party, and leave nothing but what all agree on▪ and the evil shall be, that the publike service and honour of God shall no wayes suffer: Whereas, to load our publike forms, with the private fancies upon which we differ, is the most soveraign way to perpetuate Schism unto the p. 121Worlds end. Prayer, Confession, Thanksgiving, Reading of Scriptures in the plainest and simplest manner, were matter enough to furnish out a sufficient Liturgy, though nothing either of private Opinion, or of Church Pomp, of Garments or prescribed Gestures, of Imagenary, of Musick, of matter concerning the dead, of many Superfluities, which creep into the Church, under the name of Order and Decency, did interpose it self. To charge Churches and Liturgies with things unnecessary, was the first beginning of all Superstition; and when scruple of conscience began to be made or pretended, then Schism began to break in; if the special Guides and Fathers of the Church, would be a little sparing of incumbring Churches with Superfluities, or not over-rigid, either in reviving obsolete customes, or imposing new, there would be far less cause of Schism or Superstition; and all the inconvenience were likely to ensue, would be but this, they should in so doing yield a little to the imbecillity of their inferiours, a thing which Saint Paul would never have refused to do: mean while, wheresoever false or suspected Opinions are made a piece of Church-Liturgy, he that separates is not the Schismatick; for it is alike unlawful, to make profession of known or suspected falshood, as to put in practice unlawful or suspected actions.

Thus far that excellent person, whose words I have taken the pains to transcribe, because of that great wisdome, judgement, and moderation, contained in them; and the seasonableness of his Counsel and Advice, to the present posture of affairs among us. Were we so happy but to take off things granted unnecessary by all, and suspected by many, and judged unlawful by some; and to make nothing the bonds of our Communion but what Christ hath done, viz. one Faith, one Baptism, &c. Allowing a liberty for matters of indifferency, and bearing with the weakeness of those who cannot bear things which others account lawfull, we might indeed be restored to a true Primitive luster far sooner, then by furbishing up some antiquated ceremonies, which can derive their pedegree no higher, then from some ancient Custome and Tradition. God will one day convince men, that the Unnion of the Church lies more in the Unity of Faith and Affection, then in p. 122uniformity of doubtful Rites and Ceremonies. The bond of Church-communion should be somthing common to strong and weak Christians, as S. Austin saith of the rule of faith, that it is pusillis magnis que communis; and certainly the Primitive Church,Ep. 57. that did not charge mens faith with such a load of Articles, as now in these latter ages men are charged with, would much less burden men with imposing doubtful practices upon them, as the ground of Church-communion. And for publick forms of Divine Service, such of all things certainly should be so composed, as to be the least subject to any scruple from any persons whatsoever; being on purpose composed for the declaring mens unity and consent in their publick worship: and those who are the most addicted to any one form, can never plead it unlawful to amend it; whereas others may, that it is not lawful or convenient at least, to use it without such alterations. And therefore, were there that spirit of mutual condescention, which was most certainly in Ecclesiâ primo-primitivâ, as Gratian somwhere speaks, in the first and truly primitive Church in the Apostles time; our breaches as to this thing too, might soon be closed up, and the voice of Schism be heard among us no more. It argued very much the prudence and temper of the French-Churches, in composing their publick forms of prayer, that they were so far from inserting any thing controversiall into them, that Amyraldus tels us, the Papists themselvesDe secess. ab Eccl. Rom. & pace inter Evang. const. p. 225. would use them. Et quod vix credibile esset nisi publicè viseretur, eas inseruerunt in eos libros in quos congesserunt varias precationum formulas, And that which men would scarce believe unless they saw it, they inserted them into their own Prayerbooks. The same temper was used by our Reformers in the composing our Liturgy, in reference to the Papists, to whom they had then an especial eye, as being the only party then appearing, whom they desired to draw into their communion, by coming as near them as they well and safely could: And certainly those Holy men, who did seek by any means to draw in others, at such a distance from their principles as the Papists were, did never intend by what they did for that end, to exclude any truly tender consciences from their Communion. That which they laid as a bait for them, was never intended by them as a hook for those of their own profession, But the p. 123same or greater reason which made them seek so much at that time (before the rent between the Papists and us was grown to that height it is now at; they being then in hopes by a fair complyance to have brought the whole Kingdom to joyn with them) I say the same reason which at that time made them yield so far to them then, would now have perswaded them to alter and lay aside those things which yield matter of offence, to any of the same profession with themselves now. For surely none will be so uncharitable toward those of his own profession, as not to think there is as much reason to yield in complyance with them, as with the Papists. And it cannot but be looked upon as a Token of Gods severe displeasure against us, if any, though unreasonable Proposals of Peace between us and the Papists should meet with such entertainment among many; and yet any fair Offers of Union and Accommodation among our selves, be so coldly embraced and entertained.

Having thus far shewed how far the Obligation to keep in§. 7. a Church Society doth reach to the several Members of it: I now proceed to shew what way the light of nature directs men to, for the quieting and composing any differences which may arise in such a Society tending to break the Peace of it. But before I come to the particular wayes directed to by the Law of Nature, for ending Controversies in the Church, I shall lay down some things by way of caution, for the right understanding of what is already spoken, lest I should be thought, instead of pleading for peace, to leave a door open for an universal liberty, and so pave a new cawse-way towards Babel. First, That though it be lawful not to conform to unlawful or suspected practises in a Church: yet it is not therefore lawful to erect new Churches. For all other essentials supposed in a Church, a meer requiring conformity in some suspected rites, doth not make it to be no true or sound Church, as to other things, from which it is lawful to make a total divorce and separation. A total separation is, when a new and distinct society for worship is entered into, under distinct and peculiar officers governing by Laws and Church-rules different from that form which they separate from. This I do not assert to be therefore lawfull, because some things are required, p. 124which mens consciences are unsatisfied in: unless others proceed to eject and cast them wholly out of communion on that account, in which case their separation is necessary, and their Schism unavoidable. Secondly, therefore I assert, that as to things in the judgement of the Primitive and Reformed Churches left undetermined by the Law of God, and in matters of meer order and decency, and wholly as to the form of Government, every one notwithstanding what his private judgement may be of them, is bound for the Peace of the Church of God to submit to the determination of the lawful Governours of the Church. And this is that power of ending Controversies, which I suppose to be lodged in a Church-Society; not such a one as whereto every man is bound to conform his private judgement; but whereto every private person is bound to submit in Order to the Churches Peace. That is, that in any Controversies arising in a Church, there is such a power supposed, that may give such an authoritative Decision of the controversie in which both parties are bound to acquiesce, so as to act nothing contrary to that Decision. For as it is supposed that in all Contracts and Agreements for mutuall Society, men are content to part with their own Liberties for the good of the whole: so likewise to part with the Authority of their own judgements, and to submit to the Determination of things by the Rulers of the Society constituted by them. For there must be a difference made between the Liberty and freedom of a mans own judgment, and the Authority of it: for supposing men out of all Society, every man hath both; but Societies being entred, and Contracts made, though men can never part with the freedom of their Judgements (Men not having a Depotical power over their own understandings) yet they must part with the Authority of their Judgements; i. e. in matters concerning the Government of the Society, they must be ruled by Persons in Authority over them. Else there can be nothing imagined but confusion, and disorder, in stead of Peace and Unity in every civil State and Society. The case is the same in a religious Society too, in which men must be supposed to part with the Authority of their own judgements in matters concerning the Government of the Church, and to p. 125submit to what is constituted and appointed by those who are intrusted with the care and welfare of it. Else it is impossible there should be Unity and Peace in a Church considered as a Society; which is as much as to say, there neither is, nor can be such a Society. And that God hath commanded that which is Naturally impossible; I mean, freedom from divisions, and the Unity and Peace of his Church: Which will appear from hence, because it can never be expected that all men should be exactly of one mind: Either then men retaining their private apprehensions, are bound to acquiesce in what is publikely determined, or there is a necessity of perpetuall confusions in the Church of God. For the main inlet of all disturbances and divisions in the Church, is from hence that Men consider themselves absolutely, and not as Members of a governed Society, and so that they may follow their own own private judgements, and are bound so to doe in matters belonging to the Government of the Church, and not to acquiesce for the Churches Peace in what is established in Order to the ruling of this so constituted Society, by lawfull Authority.

These things premised, the way is now fully cleared for the§. 8. discovering what wayes are prescribed by the light of Nature for ending controversies in the Church; which will appear to be these two.

1. In societies wherein persons act with an equality of Power, for the ending differences arising, the less number must alwayes acquiesce in the determination of the greater. And therefore it i… a generally received Axiom, that in all Societies pars major …ut habet universitatis, the greater part hath the power of the whole: And it is a standing Rule in the Civil Law, Refertur ad universos quod publice fit per majorem partem, which is determined by the Lawyers to hold, not of the persons in power,C. de decurion. lib. 10. l. nominationem Pet. Fabri. Comment. ad tit. de d…versis Reg. juris Lampridius in Alex. Severo. but of the persons present at the Determination; as when Alexander Severus made fourteen of the Viri Consulares to be Curatores urbis, joyned with the Praefectis urbis, to Determine cases brought before them, what was determined by the greater part of those present, was looked upon as binding, as if the whole number had been there. And this Aristotle layes down as one of the fundamental Lawes of a Democratical Government. foreign p. 126foreign. That must be looked on as a just Politic l. 6. cap. 2.and final decision of a Case debated, which the major part determines. And therefore rationally infers, that in a Democracy the poorer sort (and so likewise the worse) must alwayes bear the greatest sway, because they are the most. Which is an unavoydable inconvenience in that form of Government whether in Church or State. The same he elsewhere applyes to other forms of Government which have a multitude of Rulers, as Aristocracy and Oligarchy: That which seems good to the most obtains as a Law amongst all, Which Appian thus briefly expresseth, foreign and Dionys. Halicarnasseus, V. Grotium de jure bel. &c. lib. …. cap. 5. sect. …7.foreign, the one speaking of matter of Fact, that it doth obtain, the other of matter of Law that it should do so. It appears then from the Law and light of nature, that where ever any multitude acts in an equality of Power, the greater part have the power of the whole; not from any right which the major part hath as superiour over the less; but from the Law of nature, which will have every part ordered for the good of the whole; which good cannot oft times be obtained without a special determination on one side or other; nor that determination have its effect, if the Act of the major part may be rescinded by the less. So that in every thing requiring special determination, this is to be esteemed the most just and final decision which is done by the major part: For it would be manifestly unjust for the lesser part to determine the greater, and therefore by the Law of nature, the greater part hath the right of the whole.

2. In a society consisting of many particular Companies or Congregations, there must be a subordination of Powers by the Law of nature, which grants a right of Appeal to an injured person from the lower and subordinate Power to the higher and superiour. Appealing is defined by the Lawyers to be Provocatio iniquae sententiae querelam contineus. An address to aV. Iac. Omphalium de usurp. Leg l. 7. c. 2 Ulp. l. 1. D. de Appel. H…ttom. com. V. Juris. higher Power with complaint of wrong: and so in geneall it is defined by Ulpian to be ab Inferioris Iudicis sententiâ ad superiorem provocatio: but, as Hottoman observes, appeals may sometimes be made to a co-ordinate power upon complaint of injustice done. As one Praetor, Consul, Tribune might be appealed to, from the sentence of another. The originall of Appeals then is, that injuries may be redressed, and p. 127in order to that, nature dictates that there ought to be a subordination of Powers one to another, lest any injury done through corruption or ignorance of the immediate Judges, prove irremediable. To which purpose our learned Whitaker saith, that Appeals are juris divini & naturalis, & in omni societate Controv. 4. qu. 4. c. 2.admodum necessariae; propter multorum judicum vel iniquitatem, vel ignorantiam; alioqui actum esset de innocente, si non liceret ab iniqua sententia appestare: So that appeals are founded upon natural right, lest men should be injured in any determination of a case by those that have the cognizance of it. And in order to a redress of wrongs, and ending controversies, Nature tells us that Appeals must not be infinite, but there must be some Power, from whence Appeals must not be made: What that should be, must be determined in the same manner that it is in Civils; not that every Controversie in the Church must be determined by an Oecumenical Council, but that it is in the Power of the Supream Magistrate, as Supream head in causes Ecclesiastical, to limit and fix this Subordination, and determine how far it shall go, and no further. The Determination being in order to the Peace of the Church, which Christian Magistrates are bound to look after, and see that causes hang not perpetually without Decision: And so we find the Christian Emperours constituting to whom Appeals should be made, and where they should be fixed, as Iustinian Iust. auth. diss. epis. collat. 9. Theod. cod. de S. S. Eccl. c. omni.and Theodostus did. For when the Church is incorporated into the Common-wealth, the chief Authority in a Common-wealth as Christian, belongs to the same to which it doth as a Common-wealth: But of that already. It is then against the Law and Light of Nature, and the natural right of every man, for any particular company of men, calling themselves a Church, to ingross all Ecclesiastical Power so into their hands, that no liberty of Appeals for redress can be made from it. Which (to speak within compass) is a very high usurpation made upon the Civil and Religious rights of Christians; because it leaves men under a causeless censure, without any authoritative vindication of them from it. As for that way of elective Synods, substituted in the place of authoritative Power to determine Controversies, it is a foreign, which will never be soveraign enough to cure the distemper it is brought p. 128for: For elective Synods are but like that which the Lawyers call arbitrium boni viri, which they distinguish from arbitrium G…ot. de …ure belli a… p…cis, l. 3. cap. 20. sect 46.ex compromisso, and binds no further then the party concerned doth judge the Sentence equall and just. So that this helps us with no way to end controversies in the Church, any further then the persons engaged are willing to account that just which shall be judged in their Case. Taking then a coercive Power, onelyonly for such a one as may authoritatively decide a controv…rsie, we see what great Reason there is for what the Historian observes: Arbitriis ii se debent interponere, qui Vellei. Paterc. hist. lib. 2.non parente… coercere possunt: That all Power of Arbitration should have some juridicall power going along with it, to make a finall end of quarrels. But that which seems yet more strange to me, is this, that by those who assert the Independency of particular Congregation…, it is so hotly pleaded, that Christ hath given every particular Congregation a Power over its own Members, to determine controversies arising between them: but, that if one, or many of these particular Congregations should erre, or break the Rule, he hath left no power Authoritatively to decide what should be done in such cases. Can we conceive that Christ should provide more for the Cases of particular Persons, then of particular Churches? And that he should give Authority for Determining one, and not the other? Is there any more coactive Power given by any to Synods, or greater Officers, then there is by them to particular Churches? which power is onelyonly declarative as to the Rule, though Authoritative as to persons where-ever it is lodged. Is there not more danger to Gods People, by the scandals of Churches, then Persons? Or did Christs Power of governing his People reach to them onelyonly as particular Congregations? Doth not this too strongly savour of the Pars Donati? only the Meridies must be rendred a particular Congregationall Church, where Christ causeth his Flock to rest? But supposing the Scripture not expresly to lay down a Rule for governing many Churches, are men outlawed of their natural Rights? that supposing a wrong Sentence passed in the Congregation, there is no hopes, way, or means to redress his injury, and make his innocency known? Doth this look like an Institution of Christ? But that which I p. 129conceive is the foreign; and the Original of this mistake, is, that the Churches we read of first Planted in Scripture, were onelyonly particular Congregations; and therefore there is no proper Church-power beyond them, or above them. I meddle not with the Ant…cedent now, which is largely discussed by others; but the extream weakness of the consequence, is that I am here obliged to discover. For what a strange shortness of Discourse is it to Argue thus; If when there was but one Congregation, that Congregation had all Power within its self; then when there are more particular congregations, it must be so; and yet this is the very Foundation of all those Kingdomes of Yvetos, as one calls them, those sole self-governing congregations. When there was but one congregation in a Church, it was necessary if it had any Church-power, that it must be lodged in that one congregation: But when this congregation was multiplyed into many more, is it not as necessary for their mutual Government, there should be a common power governing them together, as a joynt-society? Besides, the first congregational Church in the New Testament, viz. that of Ierusalem, could be no particular Organical Church; for it had many, if not all, Universall Officers in it; and if they were the fixed Pastours of that Church, they could not, according to the Principles of those who thus speak, Preach to any other congregation but their own, by vertue of their Office: And so, either their Apostolicall Office and Commission must be destroyed, if they▪ were Pastors of particular Organical Churches; or if their Apostolicall Office be asserted, their Pastorship of particular Organicall Churches is destroyed by their own Principles, who …ssert, that the Pastor of a Church can do no Pastorall Office out. of his own congregation. The case is the same, as to other Churches planted by the Apostles, and govern'd by themselves; which two, as far as I can find in the New Testament, were of an equal extent; viz. That all the Churches planted by Apostles, were chiefly governed by themselves, though they had subordinate officers under them. These first Churches then were not such particular Organized Churches, but they were as the first matter of many congregations to be propagated out of them; which after made one Society, consisting p. 130of those several congregations imbodyed together, and ruled by one common Government. As in a Colledge, every Tutor hath his own Pupils, wich he rules; and if we suppose but one Tutor at first in the Colledge, with his Pupils, all the power, both common to the Society, and peculiar to his Flock, is joyned together; but when there are many more Tutors, having Pupils under their charge, all these, for their better ordering as a Society, must be governed by the common Government of the Colledge, to which the particular Government of every Tutor is and must be subordinate: But this will be more fully made appear in the Original of Civil Government. It is far more evident, that all Civil power lay at first in Adam and his Family, and afterwards in particular Families, than that all Church-power lay in particular congregations at first. We may then with as good Reason say, that there is no lawfull civil: Government now, but that of particular Families; and that no Nationall Government hath any right or power over particular Families, because Families had once all civil Power within themselves; as because it … supposed, that all Church-power lay first in particular congregations, therefore there must be no Church-power above them; nor that particular congregations are subject to such Government as is requisite for the Regulating of the Society in common, as comprehending in it many particular congregations. Let them shew then, how any Government in the State is lawfull, when Families had the first power, and by what right now those Families are subordinate to the civill Magistrate, and what necessity there is for it; and by the very same Reasons will we shew the lawfulness▪ of Government in the Church over many Congregations, and that those are by the same right, and upon the same necessity, to subordinate themselves to the Government of the Church, considere… a Society taking in many particular Congregations. The Parallel runs on further and clearer still: For as the heads of the severall Families after the Flood, had the command over all dwelling under their Roofs, while they remained in one Family; and when that increased into more, there power was extended over them too; which was the first Original of Monarchy in the World: So the Planters of the first Churches, p. 131that while the Church was but one Congregation, had power over it, when this Congregation was multiplyed into more, their Power equally extended over them all. And as afterwards, several heads of Families upon their increase, did constitute distinct Civil Governments, wherein were subordinate Officers, but those Governments themselves were co-ordinate one with another: So in the Church, so many Congregations as make up one Provincial, or National Society (as succession and prudence doth order the bounds of them) do make up several particular Churches, enjoying their Officers ruling them, but subordinare to the Governours of the Church in common: Which Society, National or Provincial, is subordinate to none beyond its self, but enjoyes a free Power within its self of ordering things for its own Government, as it judgeth most convenient, and agreeable to the Rules of Scripture. The summe then of what I say, concerning subordination of Officers and Powers in the Society of the Church, is this, That by the light and Law of Nature it appears, that no individuall company or Congregation, hath an absolute, independent power within its self, but that, for the redressing grievances happening in them, appeals are … to the parties aggrieved, and a subordination of that particu… Congregation, to the Government of the Society in common. …at, the right of Appealing, and Originall of Subordination, is from Nature; the particular manner and form of subordinate and superiour Courts, is to be fetchedGrot. de Imp. summ. Potest. . cap. 7. s. 14, 15, &c. c. 8. s. 13. Chamier: To. 2. l. 13. c. 12. Whitaker Co …tr. 3 q. 2. C…is. de Lib. Eccles. cap. 2. M…r …. c. hist. Papa…us passim.Eccl 2 from positive Lawes; the limitation of Appeals, extent of jurisdiction, the binding power of Sentence, so far as concerns external Unity in the Church, is to be fetched from the power of the Magistrate, and civil Sanctions and Constitutions. The Churches power, as to Divine Law, being onelyonly directive and declarative; but being confirmed by a civil Sanction, is juridicall and obligatory. Concerning the Magistrates power to call, confirm, alter, repeal the Decrees of Synods; see Grotius, Chamier, Whitaker, Casaubon, Mornay, and others, who fully and largely handle it; To whom having nothing to add, I will take nothing at all from them: As for that time when the Church was without Magistrates ruling in it, in those things left undetermined by the Rule of the Word, they acted out p. 132of Principles of Christian Prudence agreeable to the Rules of Scripture, and from the Principles of the Law of nature; One of which we come in the next place to speak to. So much for the Churches Power, considered as a Society for ending controversies, arising within its self, tending to break the Peace and Unity of it.