Part 15
Now, to prove that it is not in the powerof synods thus to do to ehurehes, let the following reasons be considered.
- 1. This is a maxim of the reformed churches, that ecclesia sunt pares, churches are equal, and par in parem non habet potestatem, one equal hath
| not power over another.
Admonish they may, withdraw communion they may; for as one brother may do so from another, so these churches may from an erring church; yea, and a synod being an ordinance to them to heal them, and consisting of more elders than are in that church, they may declare
Christ's command and will to them, but yot they have not power to deliver to Satan, to unchureh them, &.
We find not that a synod or company of elders are called a church, and if they should be so named, yet still they have not more of church in them than other churches have ; nay, they have less, for they want a body of the faithful, and their interest joined with these elders, who are more usually called the church.
They are not the seat of the main ordinances for which churches were constituted, they have not the sacraments administered, they are not bodies erected primarily for worship, but only so far as may occasionally accompany and subserve their discus- | Cuar. IIT.] THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST. sions and determinations.
It would therefore be strange that these should have so much more of church in them, as to have power to unchurch other churches and bodies to Christ, when themselves are but representative at moet of the body of Christ (for Christ hath no representative body to him), but every church consisting of elders and people are the body of Christ, and 80 called, when the other never hath that name.
~ 2. To dissolve a church's external estate as to all ordinances is a matter 80 far above excommunicating single persons, though never so many, that it is Christ's prerogative alone to do it.
This is confirmed, (1.) By like instances in civil states, wherein to dissolve an incorporate town, and to call in and take away their charter and privilege, belongs to the supreme power; and though judges and others may deal with persong in corporations, yet the corporations themselves depend on the crown.
(2.) It is confirmed by Scripture, Rev. ii. 5.
Christ from heaven makes it hisprerogative to remove the Ephesian candlestick : 'Repent, or I will come quickly and remove thy candlestick.'
The candlestick was their church state:
Rev. i. 28, 'The seven candlesticks aro the seven churches ;' and therefore he speaks not of their mystical state as they were members of the mystical body, bat of them as they were a candlestick artificially formed up into that holy fellowship amongst them.
So also it was God's prerogative alone to give a bill of divorce to Israel as she was'a church, and so it is expressed.
And if it be said it was done ministerially, by the prophets declaring it, and so may this also be done to a church by its ministers, we reply, that it was done by them prophetically, as foretelling it; but there is no such spirit of prophecy in synods.
(8.) It is Christ's prerogative alone to build and erect a church, without the intervention of ministerial ecclesiastical power to derive power to them; therefore also to dissolve that fellowship, and the use thereof, belongs only to him.
Churches to be erected may and ought to have the direction and consent of neighbour churches, because a new sister is to be added to, and associated with them, but they receive no power from them to become a church.
_It was not the intervention of the apostles' power that constituted churehes, further than as they converted materials for churches to be made out of, and as they directed and taught them to become bodies unto Christ, teaching them to do whatsoever Christ hath commanded them; but we never read that making them churches was a ministerial act in them; wo read they ordained elders, but not that they ordained churches.
Paul says he planted indeed, and he was a wise master buildér; but he speaks the one of converting persons, the other of doctrines, because he speaks of building hay and stubble afterwards.
It is the great error of some of this age, that having lost all church state and ministry, therefore, say they, there must come apostles to make churches again; whereas if all ordinances had been lost ander antichrist, yet if there be saints alive, and they have the spostles' writings, those writings do authorise them as fully to become a church, and choose ministers, and then to ordain them, as if the apostles were alive.
Moses was not the builder of the national church of the Jews, but Christ immediately did it, and not merely gave directions: Heb. iii. 8, 'This man Christ hath more honour than Moses, inasmuch as he that builded the house hath more honour than the house,' whereof Moses was but a part himself.
If it be answered to all this, that by excommunication their fundamental church state is not dissolved, as the character of a brother or of a minister is not 80 defaced when excommunicated; but that, if he repent again, he remains a minister without a new ordination; we reply, Besides the reasons
THE GOVERNMENT OF [Boox V. fore-mentioned, that so likewise if Christ should remove the candlestick and unchurch any, if they repent their church-state would be restored; and 2, if they be thrown out of their own church by excommunication, this church-state must remain as it were in the air, as an accident without a subject ; and 8, if they be cast out of the visible church, which is the greater, by excommunication, then they are vast out of the less also.
It may, and hath been said, that in cases of maladministrations, wherein churches have miscarried and erred, though synods have the power of excommunication in such cases, yet it is not necessary for the rectifying of that evil that they should proceed against the church, so as the church should be the object of their dealing with; but it may be enough for them to deal with persons only that are scandalous, whom the church will not amend; and that then, in case of the church's neglect, they may excommunicate those persons.
Now unto this we reply, that in these cases of evil administrations, what power synods are to be trusted withal is to be primarily, or at leastas much, exercised upon the church that hath miscarried and neglects its dutyasupon the persons ; and therefore it will not salve it that they should let the church alone, or deal more lightly with them, and so take upon them to excommunicate the persons whom the church neglects to excommunicate.
Which is made good by these reasons.
1. From the privilege and power of that church, be it classical or congregational, that is the first subject of excommunication ; they have the power first from Christ to do it, and a command so to do, and the daty lies on them.
And therefore synods are to call upon them, and to provoke them to do it who have that power committed to them, and not to take it out of their hands; for synods are not to assume more power than the apostles did.
When the church of Corinth had neglected to excommunicate the incestuous Corinthian, Paul did not take it upon him and excommunicate him himself ; but in this case he deals with the church for not doing their duty,, because the power ofjudging was committed to them:
' Do not ye judge them that are within ?' 1 Cor. v. 12.
He blames them, lays it upon them as a gin, and if they had still continued in that neglect, their sin had been as great as that of the man himself, and greater. And therefore, Christ also in his epistle from heaven to the church of Thyatira, Rev. ii. 20, blames that | church and the angel thereof for suffering Jezebel to teach, and lays the sin upon them in this case, as well.as upon Jezebel herself.
And therefore, if i synods are to excommunicate at all, and have power to excommunicate the persons, they must proceed against the church also.
(1.) If it be said that the church must be supposed not to see that reason, for want oflight, to excommunicate a member or members, that the synod doth, and so they may not have that cause to deal with the churches that they have with the person or member; we reply, that if the sin be not evidently notorious in all men's eyes, deserving excommunication, but such as it may be well supposed the inferior church might not see ground for excommunication, why should the synod meddle with cases of that nature, why should they not rather rest in the sentence of those inferior courts?
And if it be such a sin as is notorious, and the scandal answerably, then, surely, | this church that person belongs unto is as much, yea more, in fault for their neglect or partiality.
And surely synods, if they had any such authority, : being such great and superior bodies, should not intermeddle but in cases
; suitable to themselves, in cages of moment, great and manifest to all men's | consciences.
And (2) the constitution of synods, and the relation they bear to churches, | Cxur. IT.) THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST.
They are not as totum integrale, but collectioum, not an integral whole; they are not ecclesia inteyralis, but collective, not an integral church, but collective ; that is, they are in our brethren's intent a church of churches, if a church at all, and not in an immediate waya church of the members of those churches singly and apart considered.
Their first and primary relation is therefore to the churches as a part of that whole, and but secondarily unto the members; and they are therefore accordingly
-to deal in all such cases of emission with the churches.
Their work is to have the care and cure of churches, and their miscarriages; and therefore, to deal withmembers only, and let the churehes alone, is to neglect that which is their proper charge.
(8.) So it was in the government of Judah; the Sanhedrim did not themselves meddle with the person to be judged, and pronounce the sentence instead of the judges of a particular city, but left it to them still to judge, according to their proper privilege, but dealt with the judges in case they pronounced not the sentence.
And so here it should be, if we will sappose any sach power at all to be in synods.
2 It may, and hath been said, that presbyterial government supposeth the fault of this excommunication to lie in the elders that excommunicated the man, and so need not deal with the churches by way of coercion to them, but only with those elders that had the hand in it, whomaybe deposed, and others placed in their room.
To which we reply, 1, That the people are supposed also at least to give their consent to the excommunication of a person in a chureh, by their own acknowledgment, and according to the practice of the reformed churches, yea, and are to judge, as the jury doth, by finding a man guilty; and the officers are as the judges;so in the church of Corinth, 1 Cor. v. vi., and if 0, then they are to be judged in fault as well as the officers.
But, 2, if the people are not to be censured and judged, yet suppose they cleave to their officers in this act, as thinking that they ought, and as being eonvinced with them that this man is to remain excommunicated, and therefore dare not partake with him, as it is their duty in such a case, then the people are to be excommunicated as well as their officers, and both of them for this same thing, asbeing a church act according totheir interestscommon to le 8. If the officers only should be excommunicated in this case, and others
' put in their rooms, then, 1, if the people do cleave to their former officers, these officers will want a church to officiate unto ; and why should they desert their elders,when they in their consciences judge their actto be just?
It becomes them to say, Let us all die with them in such a case. And if the synod will excommunicate a pastor and the elders ofa congregation (supposing the people cleave to them), where is it that you will excommunicate him ?
In their own church, or in your churches?
In his own church the people are against it; and if in your churches, where is the people's concurring consent to this man's excommunication ? And if it be done in your churches, you only throw him out of your own; or, 2, if they do not cleave to their officers, yet they conscientiously judging that they ought not to receive the man into communion with themselves, here is still no sufficient remedy for the man by this.
4. Let it be farther considered, that if these elders only should be deposed, yet they are perhaps the whole, the greater part at least, of a classis (for by the greater part everything is carried), and so of the elders of many congregations; yea, if the provincial had seconded the sentence, then the greater part of the elders of a province are to be excommunicated also, and if the people cleave to them (as of old they did use to do to their bishops), then the THE GOVERNMENT OF [Boox ¥. people of all those churches also must be excommunicated, and what a havoc of the churches will this make!
If it be said that in this case,as in a rebellion, some few are singled out for example to the rest, it is answered, 1. It is not in this as in civil government, for there capital punishments are chiefly for example, to prevent and deter others ; but here this of excommunication is for the personal good of those that have sinned, to destroy the flesh that they may be saved, and therefore the souls that deserve it ogght and must be excommunicated; neither is there any warrant to think that when the merit and obstinacy of the sin calls for that ordinance appointed, the only means to cure it (which cure is only to bring sinners to godly repentance), that that sin will be healed by any lower means of making others an example.
The excommunication of some few may be a means to prevent those that are not fallen, but not those that are fallen into obstinacy.
2. In such civil mulcts, princes and states have power to pardon the rebels, or to pass the i crime by, because the injury (so far as it is civil to themselves), but no ecelesiastical court hath power to forgive but where Christ forgives, and he forgives only the penitent; nor yet ought they to forbear if they have the power of inflicting this spiritual punishment.
Lastly, let the inconvenience be considered, if synods should excommunicate persons (when the inferior churches did acquit them) without excommunicating the churches themselves, what confusion and disturbance it is like to bring.
The persons excommunicated will say, Where I am known and am a member, there I am acquitted and not meddled with ; but by strangers and the elders of a nation (having taken the cause out of their hands) I am condemned.
This will bolster up persons, and make them obstinate, and they will oppose sentence against sentence.
Arguments against subordination of synods to exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction or government.—The first argument, that there is no warrant or designment of such a subordination in all the Scriptures.
Though we judge synods to be of great use for the finding out and declaring of truth in difficult cases, and encouraging to walk in the truth, for the healing offences, and to give advice unto the magistrate in matters of religion; and though we give great honour and conscientious respect unto their determinations ; yet since not only an occasional but a standing use of them is asserted and maintained, and that in subordination of one unto another, as juridical ecclesiastical courts, and thie in all cases, we humbly present these
All subordinationsof thesespiritual courts,having greater and lesser degrees | of power, to which in their order causes are to be brought, must have the Greatest and most express warrant and designment in the word for them.
'Whence it is argued thus.
Arg. 1. Those courts that must have the most express warrant and design- ' ment for them in the word, and yet have not the least, their power is to be i suspected, and not erected in the church of God; but these have not the ' least: therefore, &o.
'There ought to be the greatest and most express warrant, and that for two things belonging to them:
1, for their subordination and number; 2, for their bounds and limits of power; and because this principle is made use of '
| Cuar. IV.] THE CHURCHES OF OHERIST. both in the point in hand and other of like nature, namely, to argue 4 part ratione, from like and parallel reason, the argument to establish this proposition ahall proceed accordingly from the strength of like reason in other cases gnd instances, that there ought to be a warrant and designment in the word im.
1. From the like reason, in the case of subordination of officers in the eharch one over another, there was « special institution, and it is required, or we own them not; and that for intensive power and extensive power; and therefore for the subordination of such courts also.
The rule of proportion holds ; for a government of and by special subordinations, whether of one eharch officer or person over another, and of him over others, or of a many in the like degree of subordination, are bat several forme of government, of which there is the like reason in common.
As of subordinations in a monarchical way, wherein but some one person is superior to another ; downwards, or in an aristocratical way throughout, in this they come all to one; that if there be to be an institution or warrant for the one, there is to be for the other, whether God or men be to be the instituters of them.
Now, in the government of the church for the subordination of officers, there was an express institution, or men ought not to have assumed it: 1 Cor. xii. 18,
'God hath set in his church, first apostles, secondarily prophets and evangelists' (who were of a parallel order), ' thirdly teachers ;' and the difference ofpower in apostles and evangelists is by subordination ; but Christ hath not set the like subordination of courts.
2. It is proved from what the presbyterial principles themselves reject.
An institution is required by them in the case of subordination of bishops, archbishops, popes, in their arguing against them and their power ; yea, and by the episcopal writers themselves, who, when it is objected that if there may be a bishop and an archbishop over them, why not a patriarch over archbishops, and a pope over all? thoy deny this, and reject a patriarch or pope (although these popes should renounce infallibility), as not warranted by the word.
They say, an higher and more universal subordination alters the case.
And the usual exception against this subordination of such church governors is, that in Scripture we read neither of the name of an archbishop, nor of the thing, and therefore not of a subordination.
The like may be said of these ; where read we of councils provincial, national, names, or things?
Yea, and in this way of arguing (in this respect) the advantage is on this side rather ; for we are sure that once there was in the church such a subordination in church officers, evangelists over pastors, apostles over evangelists (only they were extraordinary, and so no patterns).
But of such subordinations ofcouncils in an aristocratical way, there is nothing to be found.
8. It is argued from like and just reason, in other societies and bodies politic.
In all kingdoms and commonwealths, well ordered and constituted, there is, and ought to be, a set and express order, by the laws, both of the number and bounds of courts ofjudicatory, from whom and to whom appeals are made, and in what cases, &c. ; and that this subordination should be set forth and fixed by the law, is as necessary as the laws and rules by which men in a kingdom are to be governed.
The wisdom of the law doth judge it not enough to appoint several kinds of officers, as to say, councillors, serjeants, judges; but designeth also and appoints several courts, with their power and bounds, the designment ofwhich (especially standing courts being made up of these) is a matter of much more moment than the other.
Yea, and still the greater and higher such courts and assemblies are, having amplitude of power over others, the more express evidence and warrant for their power there is and ought to be, as for parliamentary power, and the THE GOVERNMENT OF [Boor V. privileges thereof.
And this is evident, as from the example of all kingdoms, so from what the Scripture speaks of the constitution of them.
Each part of the subordination of such power, im all government, both was and is called & creation of men in things human, whether it be in a monarchical or aristocratical way: 1 Pet. ii.,
'Submit yourselves to every human creation.'
| And he speaks there evidently of (and therefore thus styleth) the subordination of powers in » commonwealth, whether officers or courts ; for it
Fj follows, ' whether unto the king as supreme, or unto governors, as those that ; are sent by him,' &c.; and so have subordinations of power under him. Now
| | parallel, spiritual, and ecclesiastical government with this.
As in the rear- | ing of an human fabric, and contignation of power, there must be an ordii nance or creation from man, when God hath left the framing of it (as in this
! case he hath), so this subordination being in divine power, there must be a : divine institution of it, besides that of the distinction of the officers themselves.
4, It is argued with like reason from Christ's institution, Mat. xviii.
If in a particular church Christ hath prescribed the several subordinations of proceedings, and set forth the degrees, bounds, and orders of them, then much more it is required in these, by how mucha larger extent of power is committed to them.
The first rale in Mat. xviii. for proceeding is, 'If thy brother offend thee, tell him thyself ;' then, 2, ' Take two or three, and if he hear not them,' then, 8, 'tell the church.'
If there were a thousand brethren in a congregation, 2 man were not bound, nor were it orderly in an ordinary and set way, to take, as the ehurch shall please, first two or three, and then ten, and then twenty, and still the like proportion of a greater and greater number, ere he comes to the church itself.
But Christ hath set the order, and his wisdom saw it meet thus to design and limit the proceedings in a particular church.
And it had been much more necessary to have appointed the like about these more general and greater assemblies, because every one of these courts (intended) have the power of a sentence and judgment, whereas those two or three proceed but in a way of admonition, in order to a superior court.
Shall he take care of congregations (which are esteemed the meanest), and not for these, of which, if he should not have set the bounds of power, and the subordination thereof, none would know what belongs to them, who is in fault, if offences be not corrected ?
Nor would any know whom first to appeal unto.
I will appeal to the national assembly first, says one, and am not bound to the classical or provincial.
Another would say, I will appeal to a general council, which can best judge, * and will be sure to make an end of it.
Why should any be hindered from going, per saltum, if Christ hath not set forth and obliged us to these subordinations in their order ?
5. In the churches of the Jews, the subordinations that were, were set forth and determined by institution or example, how many courts there should be, and where to rest.
There were the courts of the cities and the towns, and then their Sanhedrim, to which the cause was to be carried, if it were too hard for their partieular courts, Deut. xvii.
In the New Testament, we have, for removing scandals, a congregational standing court and government (or be it a classical standing presbytery, over many congregstions, as our brethren say), and we have an example also of going out from a particular standing church, whether the one or the other, electively to another church or churches, when divisions are therein (which Acts xv. holds forth), but still for such standing subordinations and courts as these, out of this church, nothing at all.
If there had been any national Sanhedrim, a set and constant judicatory, then Christ would have appointed it as he had done
Cuur. IV.) THE CHURGHES OF OBRIST. before ; but he hath not; no example, no constitution, olds it forth, which is the second.
And I come now to prove that these subordinations of synods have not the least warrant and designments of them in the word of God.
1. The New Testament is ailent in it.
And if it be said that all nations were not then converted when the apostles wrote, it is answered, that God, in the Old Testament, took care aforehand to set the order when they had no citios, nor were settled in the land.
And, accordingly, if the apostles had not lived to see that which might occasion such an institution or precept, yet they would some way have left order for time to come.
2. But, secondly, though the apostles lived to see many famous particular churches erected in @ province as well as in cities, in a nation, as in Judea, in Asia, in Crete, there were many cities and eharches in each; and although all the people in those countries were not Christians nor members of churches, yet there was matter for the moulding and casting them into these subordinations, as well as now in France, where not the third part are protestants; or in the low countries, where not the tenth part of the inhabitants are members of their churches.
It had been as necessary to have appointed them.
They set up and appointed all needful remedies for ordering the churches after them when they should be gone.
And it is more strange, that in the case of the spreading of errors they should not write to eburchee as gathered into synods, and as having the standing power to prevent and suppress them (if such ordinary standing assemblies, armed with coercive power, had been then in that existence as now), that upon no gocasion this should be done, when yet they had occasions.
Take the seven churches in Asia, Ephesus, Thyatira, Smyrna, &c., with the rest of the churches there, in a province, called therefore proconsular
Asia, and though therein we find many great disorders, and some in doctrine (the more proper work of these standing synods), yet we see that Christ writes only to each of these ehurches apart, and reproves each for the disorder in each.
Whereas, had they been one church, in such a standing association for government, and had had ordinary provincial and national assemblies extant, as now, the reproofs would have been especially directed thereunto.
As if errors and disorders were in the classical churches (a8 those all are pretended to be) of Scotland, the chief rebuke would now more justly fall upon the national and provincial assemblies, as their constitution is.
8. Yea, thirdly, the Holy Ghost would have at least vouchsafed to these or some other churches that were in like manner in a nation or province, as Galatia, &c., in respect of such a combination, the name of a church, who must have had, according to the principles of this government, so much of the power of a church.
But nowhere are the churches in a province called achureh, but charches, in the plural.
And if the lesser churches, then these ; yea, rather these, having most of the power, should therefore rather have had most of the name.
'Yea, and by how much the church power thereof should have been most independent (as a nation is), and so come most eminently within that rule, Tell the church (from which words these pretend their power, and yet cannot shew so much title thereto as to have the name charch given them), let a rational account be given of this.
THE GOVERNMENT OF [Boox V.
The second argument against subordination of synods, that it would introduce @ foreign ecclesiastical power over every state and kingdom.—The third
| argument, that there is no constant standing rule by which such a subordina- \ tion should be ordered and managed.
Arg. 2. If there be such a subordination of synods in the church of !
Christ, then there is no independency but in an ecumenical council, which, first, would bring in a foreign ecclesiastical power over each state and king- | dom; and secondly, which therefore of all other should have its designation
! and existence in the word, and is more needful than all the other two sorts | of synods mentioned ; for if any should be extant, then that which is reme- | dium efficacissimum.
It is said there is wanting remedium efficax, if these | subordinations be not; but according to these prineiples, there is wanting
| that which is the most efficacious remedy, if a general council be not extant.
| For if there be not a resting in a classical presbytery, but provincial also must be, and appealed to; neither are they reckoned efficacious enough, but there must be national also, upon this supposition, that the greater assembly hath more of the promise and assistance of Christ than the lesser ; then, of all other, a general council must be supposed, in a transcendent manner
| above all the rest, to have the promise of assistance made to it, and so to be the most eminently efficacious (if not the only) remedy on earth; yea, and ! only to be rested in, being that which only is the ultimate.
Some of the papists, they give this to such a general council, that it cannot err; but i secording to these principles of presbyterial divines, though it might err, yet | it is supposable to be transcendently more irrefragable than all the other
| under it, and God more with it than with all the rest.
And therefore God in his word would have given especial order for this above all other; and the same God that suits his providences to his institutions would not have failed in what is the most sovereign remedy of all other, that it might have been existent in all ages; as we see his promise was to the Jews, to keep their land when the males thrice a-year went up to the general assembly at Jerusalem.
But for three hundred years the churches wanted them, and could not enjoy them, and they are adjudged therefore not necessary to the government of the church, which yet, according to these principles, must have been the most necessary of all the rest.
Yea, and further else, thirdly, there must be an injurious independency set up in a national synod; for when a man hath appealed from one court to another, and comes to this national, that is the ultimate existent, and upon the sentence thereof comes next to be banished out of a nation, to have his estate forfeited, to the rain of himself and posterity, then it is he most of all needs the relief of an higher remedy, more efficacious than all those he hath gone through (if sach an one may be); yet then he is left remediless, and (according to those principles) left more unsatisfied than ever; because, thinks he, there is by God's appointment a court that hath more of God and of Christ in it than all these, to judge of the truth and right, and lo it is not, nor can ever be expected.
Let it be withal considered, that when God appointed a subordination of standing vourts, he withal designed out which should be the supreme, and made it the ultimate; and the supremacy and independency of it, in a eet and standing way, was his institution as much as the appointment of the court itself, so that he was to be put to death that obeyed not the sentence
Cup. V.] THE CHURCHES OF OBRIST. of it, and all appeals were thereby cut off.
Therefore if a national church doth take upon it to be an independent church, upon the sentence thereof, to have the extremest punishment executed (but that of death) that ina nation men are capable of, it had need, for the quieting of all men's spirits, that must submit to it, not only shew a warrant from God, to be an ecclesiastical judieatory, but also to be the supreme court, as the Sanhedrim was, that appeals should be made unto.
Arg. 8. To that end, thirdly, let it be examined what set rules thero is, or may be supposed to be, of these subordinations, and their bounds, and the ultimate independency in a national church, which should be fetched from some standing considerations which the word warrants: God never having constituted a church, but he gave the bounds thereof.
All variation of church power is from God.
The alteration of the government of his people, the Jews, from a family government (whieh had been under the law of nature) to national in Moses his time, was by express appointment; and ' as himself made and constituted it a national church, go there was an ecclesiastical government framed by himself suited thereunto.
And in the New Testament there is a reed to measure the temple, Rev. xi. 1, a rule to set oat the limits ofchurch power, as well as ander the Old.
And therefore the argument is framed thus :
That charch power which cannot shew a set and constant divine rule for its variation and subordination, and ultimate independency, is not of God, and so may not be.
But this variation of ehurch power into these subordinations cannot shew any such steady constant rale for these things.
The major is evident from what hath been said. The minor is made good by a removal of all particulars that may be supposed to be the squareof framing these subordinations, &c.
1. Not that rule that the greater number or company of churches should rule and govern the less, and that the whole should rule the part, is a sufficient square by which to frame these subordinations.
For then, 1, there would be as many several subordinations as there can be supposed variations of greater numbers, and that will arise to more than these three only.
Every new greater company would constitute a new synod.
2. Whereis the promise of God, that he will be more with the greatest part of them that profess Christianity, rather than with a few, so far as to constitute a new power and government?
Yea, 8, the greater number of churches professing religion are more corrupted, the pure churches are fewer.
It had been ill for Philadelphia, and the angel and elders thereof, if those seven churches in Asia had been cast into such a subordinate association for government, to be exercised by the angels and elders of all the other six churebes, with the rest in Asia.
And the like may be said of the purer reformed churches in Germany; if the greater number of those that yet were true churches should have ruled the lesser, then (Lutherans and Calvinists being bound to this government) the Lutherans (being also true churches, and yet the more in number) would by virtue of this law have soon corrupted the purer.
And what reason can be pretended (according to this rule and the principles of this government) to leave any true churehes out of an association?
4. Suppose there should be as many elders and churches more purely reformed in one province or shire as in the rest ofawhole nation besides (as instance might be given in some of the reformed churches that there are), why should not God be thought to be as much with them as with the national assembly?
And if all are to give themselves up to this law, how will the greater, which is the worse, either corrupt the purer, or expel
THE GOVERNMENT OF [Boor V. them?
6. If qua greater, then the decrees of greater (viz., general councils) in former ages should bind us more than national or provincial now, for they should have had more of church in them (by this rule), and so more of Christ; and then take all general councils that set up popes and bishops, and all other superstitions, if it be said we chose them not, yet still that is not the ground makes their decrees less divine, or obliging to us, but it lies in the authority of God's ordinance, that they were the greater and more general councils.
And, however, still if this be the rule, that the greater number of churches rule the less, then take the measure of this greatness and number of churches from time, stretching the line over all ages past, as well as from the greater number of churches in such or such a place or nation in the present times, and so look what general councils for most ages of the world did establish, should (by virtue of this law) oblige the present times, and have more force upon us, than the universal church in this present age, much more than of any national assembly, if either be simply considered under a mere ecclesiastical obligation, that is, qua greater, and more of | church. Time varies not the case so, but that all their acts, having been acts
| of the church universal in all ages, should comparatively stand more in force; but, however, the acta of any of the last general councils will stand in force until a general council oflike extent repeal those acts, as the statutes of parliament of our ancestors do, if not repealed by like and equal authority.
2. It is not the notion, or the consideration of their being churches in such or such a nation or province, that can be the rule of making this obligation, or setting of these bounds.
It must be considered that the question is of a mere ecclesiastic obligation, by virtue of church principles, such as should have been a just rule and measure to the primitive churches, ere princes turned Christian, to have reared up the like subordinations.
Now then the limits from hence must either rise, from being first one church in a . kingdom, under the same civil government; or, secondly, one church in a } nation, that is, either from a national respect or political.
(1.) First, in general, from 'neither ; for that instance in Acts xv., of the council there, its rise, or the bounds of its authority, was founded upon neither ; for if either national or political respects should have obliged them, they should have sent to Syria or Cilicia, and not Jerusalem, who were both under a differing government civil, and of another nation.
But, (2.) Secondly, more particularly.
[1.] Not qua church in one kingdom, for that is per accidens to a church, that it grows up to a kingdom, or that the whole nation is converted to Christianity, amd therefore a set rule for all times cannot be fetched from thence.
_ This could not be the certain measure of the independency of church power in the apostles' times.
(2.] This makes the bounds of ecclesiastical independeney and jurisdiction uncertain, varying as the bounds of kingdoms do vary.
When the Roman empire had all kingdoms under it, all the churches must then have been obliged to have had then general standing councils, suited to the extent of the empire, to have been the next unto the provincial, for their supreme judicatory, such as the national are now to the provincial, or else before the empire turned Christian, there was this rule, even as many independencies as churches.
And then again, when this empire was broken into ten kingdoms, yea, and many more, there arose, instead of the former, many new independent boundaries of charch power (of which only the question is, and not of that power which a church doth come to have, and simply and alone holds of the magistrate, which will be merely civil), and then, as kingdomes vary by conquest, the like alteration the bounds of church power must receive.
Among the Jews it did not, which when the church was broken | Cuap. VI.] THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST. into two kingdoms, by God's appointment, yet the church state, by God's institution, varied not, but was still one church.
Lastly, if this independency ariseth from the magistrate, then there is no need of such subordinations, which is proved by experience in reformed churches abroad, who are well enough governed, without these subordinations.
Geneva hath no appeals, but is governed by one classical church ; and why may not all other churches, as well without them, if the magistrate oversees them, and keep each to their duties ?
The churches in the low countries want national synods, and yet are peaceably governed; yea, some for a long time have heen without provincial, and say, if they can, they will never have more; and yet are peaceably and quietly governed.
It is as the civil magistrate will terminate the independency, and himself overlook it.
2. Secondly, If these bounds be fetched from national. respects, then in ° Germany, the Calvinists must be subject to the greater number of Lutherans; and, in this kingdom, all ministers must make up this association, and the . greater number will be the worse, and oppose the good.
If because the Calvinists, that profess a farther reformation, are disobliged from associating with the Lutherans, then those in any nation that profess a further reformation than others, are free by the same law.
Surely uniformity of principles is a more intimate bond of such association than any such outward extrinsecal respects. 2. If qua nation, then Wales must be independent.
8.Ifquanation, then, 1, if nation be taken for a people of the same tongue and kindred, all the Christian Jews in the primitive times, when scattered into any nations, were bound to have made one church distinct from all the churches they eohabited with ; 2, if for a people dwelling in the same national bounds, then the same Jews, being dispersed into several countries and nations, must have made one charch with the several nations where they lived
; whereas Peter in his epistle, and James in his, and Paul to the Hebrews, wrote unto the Jews apart, as churches in all nations.
The fourth argument against subordination of synods, that it requireth representation of spiritual power, arisingfrom other representations.
Arg. 4. That government which necessarily requireth and produceth representations, arising out of other representations of spiritual power, having a derived power therefrom, there is no warrant for.
But these subordinations of synods, provincial, national, ecumenical, for the government of the church, do so, &.
The major shall be spoken to, after the minor proposition is both cleared and proved, which is done by putting two things together: 1, that if there be an authoritative subordination of all churches in the provinces to a national assembly, and so of many nations to an ecumenical, binding unto subjection ; that then all in the provinces must be interested in that national, and all in the nation in that ecumenical ; so as it may be said, that they are all involved and included, and so obliged, as it is in parliamentary power, wherein the shires are involved.
2. That this interest in this subordination cannot arise but either by immediate choice of those elders who shall represent them, by each church and congregation immediately (which is the case of our parliament men, chosen immediately by those they represent), or else, that the provincial elders sent by the congregations shall choose out of themselves some few that shall represent the provinces; and so likewise the THE GOVERNMENT OF [Boox V. national assemblies shall choose out some few that shall represent the whole nation in a general council, Now, the first of these is not, nor can be: the congregations meet not for any such immediate choice, but the elders of them all choose out of themselves.
So as the obligation of all the churches to be subject to a national assembly (arising out of those other subordinations), is not because they are a greater number of elders or divines ; for in a provincial synod there may be assembled as many as in the national; but it ariseth from hence, that some out of all do represent the rest; and otherwise, when a national assembly sits in « great city, all other neighbour
. ministers must come and vote with them, and outvote them who are the representers of the whole.
Now such a representation, having a derived spiritual power from other representations, is not in matters spiritual warrantable.
Besides all argaments against delegated power in matters spiritual, all ministers being immediately Christi vicarii, and that all such representations grow weaker, as reflections use to do; elders represent the churches in classical and provincial assemblies, as being immediately chosen by them ; but the elders in national assemblies are the representations of elders in provinces, and so are a shadow of that first shadow, whereas yet they have the most of power, even all that can be supposed to belong to the whole substance.
Besides such considerations, it is argued thus:
1. If that these few ont of nations should bind all those nations in matters spiritual, and a few out of provinces, the nation, they must be supposed to have the promise, and an assistance answerable.
But where is either the promise, or can gifts in a few be supposed to produce such an obligation?
It is true, ' where two or three are gathered together,' his promise is to be-in the midst of them, and so suppose with more when more are met; but that his promise should be to be with a few out of a nation, as with the whole nation, and those not chosen immediately by the nation, but the representers of them, cannot be expected.
It is granted, that each so met hath the gifts and assistance of an elder; and so the whole, as of so many elders met (as wo in this assembly are to be looked upon, and the judgment thereof accordingly reverenced); but that as 'they are elders representative of hundreds
| of other elders, who themselves are representers of churehes, that any such addition should arise to them, by virtue of this duplicated representation,
. over and above what is in their single gifts and offices, let either a warrant be produced or a promise.
Two things are allowed them, but a third denied them : 1, it is granted, they may have assistance to judge as elders, which is their office; 2, assistance to judge according to theit personal abilities, being thus called to give their advice; but, 8, such a superadded assistance as holds proportion to that spiritual bulk and body whieh they represent (for suppose that always it falls out, that the best and choicest of a nation are chosen, yet still not to hold proportion to a whole nation), there must be a more than ordinary promise for it, and therefore had need be express and evident. That it is otherwise in commonwealths, is because the | representations, and also the power conveyed, being human creations, the persons represented can set up a power which shall represent thom; but this power we speak of is supernatural, and must be from God and his institution.
The Sanhedrim of Jerusalem had « special assistance above all courts else; and therefore God appointed causes to be brought to it, which special assistance is intimated twice in the institution of it, Deut. xvii., by this, that they 'should go up to the place which God should choose,' ver. 8: and 'do according to the sentence which they of that place (which the Lord shall choose) shall shew thee.' An emphasisisputupon the blessing, which | Czar. VII.] THE ORUROHES OF CHRIST. by God's choice and election did accompany that place which God had chosen to put his name, and promised to be in an eminent manner present in, and to aceept their sacrifices there offered (which was a representative worship of that nation), and not elsewhere.
Now, as that was the representative worship of the nation, so these governors were the representative governors of the nation, and both sanctified in that place, as the gift was by the altar, as that which God had chosen. If the like institution were found, with the intimation of such a blessing from a peculiar choice of God's, of national assemblies, all ought to subject to them in matters spiritual.
2. If there be such representations as these, in one or few persons of many churches, they have each for that time, whilst in such an assembly, archiepiscopal and episcopal power; and their case is parallel (parallel then for that time and oceasion, and as met in a synod) with that of so many bishops, when met in @ council, whose episcopal power, as then and therein met, lies in this, that they are so many churches representative; especially this would fall out if these synods should still consist of the same men, or if some few should be always chosen to them.
And why may there not be standing persons, that are more skilful in such affairs through exercise, usually chosen, as well as standing assemblies themselves?
And then as touching matters of jurisdiction in such an assembly, they are for the present the same with so many bishops met in a convocation.
8. If these representations, having the power of all the churehes in the nation, were warrantable, they must be a church.
Besides that they are nowhere go called (we leave the usurpation of that name to the popish clergy), and if so, then a body to Christ; for so every charch is; and where is Christ said to have a representative body of his body?
They are a charch, that is, 2 company of elders personally gathered; but a representative church they are not, cannot be; and yet must. be, or they have not the power of all the churches in a nation in them, nor otherwise do their acts oblige them to subjection.
Reasons against the allegation brought, of Acts xv., for the swbordination of synods, provincial, national, ecumenical.—And reasons against the argument drawnfrom the analogy of Mat. xviii.
Besides what hath been said against this example, alleged to prove presbyterial acts of government; by the elders of the church of Jerusalem, in the reasons formerly presented; proving, 1, that that one example cannot serve to prove both the presbyterial government and synodieal, but that if the assembly will lean to the one, the other must be quitted; 2, that the assembly was not a formal synod, but only a reference by the particular church of Antioch, of Meir differences among themselves, unto this particular chureh of Jerusalem, and no other; it is moreover added, that the example of it is here farther extended, to prove all sorts of synods and subordinations thereof, both provincial, national, and ecumenical, and so it must suit all these so great varieties, when it was not made fit far any one of them.
But if it had been a synod, yet, 1, neither provincial nor national, but the contrary ; for Antioch consults not with the churches of her own nation, but seeks to Jerusalem, a church of Judea, of another nation and another province.
2. Neither is it the instance of a standing synod (which the word subordination doth necessarily infer them to be standing courts, or else the VoL. XI.
THE GOVERNMENT OF [Boox V. links of those chains will not hang together), but elective; for they sent, out of election and choice to them, but about this one question at this time, without any obligation to refer all other matters to them in an ordinary way.
8.- Nor is it the multiplication of synods, but only of one, in whose judgment those of Antioch rested.
4. Much less is it the instance of rearing up of a subordination and contignation of synods, superior and inferior, which is a farther thing; for though, when offences are not healed, and one reference to other churches is not sufficient to cure them, there should be a seeking to others, yet the example obligeth the churches that are in difference, not to take and choose the churches of that provinces, either as of that province, or as the greater number to whom both those among whom the controversy is, and those to whom it was afore referred, must be subordinarily subject.
Much less doth it hold forth, that the churches of that province may judicially challenge a right of anthority to decide it, and oblige them, sub pena, to their determination, and then the churehes of that whole nation challenge the like over all.
But still it rans in this way only, that those who shall be judged meetest and ablest, and faithfallest, to determine and compose it, by those who are to refer it.
The argument is usually drawn from like reason, and let there be found like reason, and it is granted; and though itself is not the pattern of a formal synod, yet it holds forth this rule of equity, that when offences arise among churches, referenees ought to be made, from out of themselves, to charches abroad, to heal them.
But the question is, To what churches these references . are to be made? And let the like reason, held forth in the example, be kept unto, and decide it.
Say we still to those churches, the churches offended or divided shall choose, as fittest and ablest to determine it.
This is clear in the example: Antioch was not bound to refer it tq the ehurch of Jerusalem, as greater, or as a next neighbour, or of the same province, but as best able to judge of the differences. And this way agrees with the law of nature and of arbitration, so usual amongst men, which God hath there set up as an ordinance and pattern ofproceeding in such cases.
But this subordination of synods intended holds so differing a course from this, as, 1, instead of elective synods and occasional, it sets up standing, and so set to be the judge of the churches under them for ever; 2, not in one case (as Antioch to Jerusalem), but in all cases whatever shall fall out; 8, not in a way of multiplication or diversification, as need shall be, but of subordination and settled superiority; and the grounds of this to be, because the greatest must rule the less, and that they are neighbour churches, in the same province or nation.
And this the like reason, in Acts xv., is so far from countenancing, that in all things it is unlike, and so there is a differing constitution, and rise of those synods thus subordinate, from what the reason drawn from Acts xv. will warrant; and therefore doth make a differing formal reason in the government; and human prudence added will not rectify it, when the reason of the institution is so much varied from.
For instance, if the funda- | mental law for remedy of wrongs, and deciding controversies, in any kingdom, were by arbitration elective, to take them their judges whom the parties in difference judge aptest every way for the present controversy, and that the precedents and ruled, cases hold forth no more; and if that the government of another kingdom were, that the greater should rule and determine the causes of the less, and according to the proportion thereof, to have subordinate standing courts erected, to which (by appeal from the one to the other) all causes should be brought; whether were not these two such differing frames of government, so as that he that would mould the first to the second might not be challenged to set up a new government, differing from Caar. VII.) THE CHURCHES OF OBRIST. the fandamental law of that kingdom? and whether the one is not at liberty to withstand the second, if it were vouchsafed to any kingdom (and that is the caso herd)? is humbly submitted.
And the bounds of such assemblies elective needed no set or standing rule, because they rise from occasional electiveness, in case of controversy and offence, and the extent thereof.
And so the condition and nature of the things themselves do preseribe their own limits, and hold forth their own rise, like as the bounds of particular congregations, to be of such as live so as conveniently to meet in one place, ariseth from the nature of the thing itself, and the necessary requisites thereunto.
, I shall now consider the argument drawn from the analogy of Mat. xviii.
1. The strength of the argument runs, that because there should be this remedy, that therefore there is such a remedy.
2. It is granted there is a remedy, which is a going forth to other churches, which Acts xv. holds forth ; but that excommunication (which is the remedy held forth in Mat. xviii.) of the offending church or churches, should be the remedy, is not there held forth, as hath been shewn.
There is a remedy of co-ordination, such as between two nations, and as between pares (as churches are) proceeding in a way suitable to their condition, but not this of subordination, that the greater number of churches should become standing courts, and have power to excommunicate the lesser; but that all churches have a power to declare the offence, and withdraw communion from those churches.
And, in reason, how is it possible for a national church to excommunicate all the churches of a province?
And how ineffectual would that be?
Or for a general council to excommunicate a nation?
And if they cannot use this remedy, to what end is this subordination of synods, having this authority, pleaded for ?
And whereas it is said, that there must be the same remedy that is in a . congregation for an offending brother, or else where the disease is strongest the remedy is weakest, it is answered, 1. That where the disease is strongest, there this, which is called the strongest remedy, cannot be applied, or with an apparent efficaciousness; for when the churches in a province err, or a national, here the disease is strongest, and yet it would be in vain to interdict them communion among themselves or deliver them unto Satan.
Yea, when it comes to the highest, and where the disease is greatest and strongest, there is not only no remedy, but the highest and greatest power to do hurt upon all ander them, as when the generality of the clergy were Arians; and if they err, the error is worse than of a pope's erring or of a bishop's. He is but one, and may be deposed; and in the greater bodies of the clergy the greater part are and have been still the worser and more corrupt, as is apparent in this kingdom at present,
. in which (by virtue of the presbyterial principles) all ministers must be taken in; and if you will put them out, where will others be had in their room ?
Convert men we cannot; and if not converted, ministers of all others are the worst and greatest opposites to religion; and if a national assembly be chosen by these, the greater number are like to be of the worst, and such as may alter all that you now have done.
And if it be said that this would hold against great politic bodies as well, who may undo the commonwealth, the answer is, that the common and equal interest of all, and the common principles of preserving the rights and liberties of a state, and seeking the common good, is natural to the generality of men; but the truth of the gospel and parity of religion, and the power thereof, is contrary to the principles of all natural men, and in all ages the most of the clergy have been aptest to corrupt the one and oppose the other.
And in those ages when — THE GOVERNMENT OF [Book V. such councils began to be standing, and in most credit, after the first three hundred years, then was it that the mystery of popery did work most powerfully, and those superstitious and corrupt opinions grew up which made way for the man of sin, and that body of popish doctrine that hath overspread the world.
And if there should be no danger of corrupting the trath, yet the churches (though reformed) coming all out of popery, and not being fally enlightened in all things, and the first notion of anything further in matters of theology usually falling into the hearts and spirits but of a few, we shall have no further trath taught, but suppressed, till a whole nation is enlightened in it.
2. The efficacy of all remedies doth depend first upon Christ's blessing on them, which depends upon his institution of them. and par ratio, or, like reagon, will never set up an ordinance, unless Christ hath himself appointed it; and in the example, Acts xv., there is not this way of proceeding held forth.
Secondly, it lies in suitableness to the condition of those that are to be dealt with.
Now, when many churches deal with an erring church, the churches in a province with many erring churches, or of a nation with a province, they must be in reason dealt with, suitably to the condition of churches, and of » multitude, and surely a brotherly way of admonition and withdrawing communion is more suitable unto such; as in the civil government, if a province rebelleth, or a great multitude of subjects, should the state presently hang up all in that province? although unto particular persons rebelling this is efficacious to suppress rebellion.
Thirdly, Christ hath suited his remedies unto all times and unto all conditions, and how national and provincial assemblies could be during the first three hundred years, when yet the churches were all governed, is submitted.
8. And lastly, If the analogy of this 18th of Matthew be argued, then first let the analogy be kept, and then when a church hath offended other churches, they are not to bring them to a set court of judicatory at first; for Christ's rule is otherwise in dealing with an offending brother, electively to take two or three churches and admonish them, which is suited to that way fore-mentioned, Acts xv.
But as for the proceedings against a brother in a congregation, there is not a set appointed number of two or three standing persons to be the admonishers of all, ere it comes to the church, nor have
| they power to excommunicate; and thus by this proportion, instead of these set and standing provincial assemblies to whom causes are next brought, and these armed with power of excommunication, there should only be two or three or more neighbour churches to admonish the offending church, and . nota stated court to bring it unto.
Secondly, let it be shewn where a standing synod of elders is called the church, and how then can the analogy hold when it holds not in this, the main, 'Tell the church'?
Lastly, the like reason holds not, unless these particular congregations have the power of excommunication ; for otherwise, if these greater assemblies' power be argued from the analogy of the lesser, and the same remedy, excommunication, and the particular congregations have not that allowed them, then, by the principles of this analogy, it is nowhere to be found ; but as the congregational churches have a power only to admonish and to suspend the sacraments, that 80 the greater assemblies should have no more also.
And though the church universal is called a church, and one body to Christ, yet as materially considered, and not as a politic body in respect to government, which was never yet asserted by this assembly.* * The assembly of divines at Westminster.
Cuar. VIII.) THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST.
CHAPTER VIII Of the intercourse or communion which particular churches are to hold one with another.—That there is a twofold communion of saints, the one arisingfrom the relation which they all bear to one another as members of Christ's mystical body; the other, which proceeds from their being formed into particular churches by Christ's institution.—That the duties of catholic communion,. which one believer owes to another, by virtue of their all being members of the same mystical body of Christ, those duties one or many churches may and ought to perform to another church.
Having proved that neither the church universal, nor a church as national, or in a kingdom, nor a church classical of many congregations associated, are the subjects and seats of political power for juridical censures, as excommanication, &c., but a congregational church only, there yet remaineth to be considered what intercourse, communion, and correspondency we assert to be between each church and their elders, by virtue of any or all those considerations and respects.
We acknowledge that by virtue of the consideration of the chureh universal, whereof each congregation is a part, and by virtue of churches being in a nation of the same language, under the same civil government, or living in the same neighbourhood, and being of the same judgment, there is to be a great and near communion to be entertained between all such churches, and according to such respects. This communion is to be observed
~ with some more nearly and strictly; and such is the nature of this communion, as it will oblige all churches one to another in a multitude of mutual duties, which, if observed, may help to preserve churches from ranning into confusion, may rectify miscarriages, preserve them from errors, and may salve all those inconveniences which uge to be objected against this assertion, of placing only political power in Gongregational bodies.
We lay this for a general rule, that there is a twofold church and churchrelation which the New Testament holds forth;and answerably, a twofold way of communion.
There is, first,a church mystical; and secondly, there is a eharch political, or a politic body, whi¢h is the seat of government by institution.
We said at first, that communion of saints and churches do both ran along together in a parallel proportion, communion of saints being the foundation of uniting all into that body of the church ; and as we said there is a twofold communion of sainta, one fixed, for communion in public ordinances, the other occasional, so there is a double constitution of church.
1. Thero is first a church mystical, and a communion answerable, whether we take it for the invisible company of the elect, or for the visible company of the professors of Christianity, that do walk as saints throughout the world.
The invisible church is acknowledged by all sorts to be a mystical body; but it is not only called a mystical body, as it is opposed to the church visible, but as it is opposed to a church by institution, that is, a politic body.
The visible catholic church is not a body by institution, as in heaven it shall not be. We acknowledge that the visible saints in a kingdom, or in a city, may be ealled the church, as bearing the respect, or consideration, or notion of the mystical universal church; as every part of water bears the name of the whole, so as it is not only the church universal that hath the consideration of a mystical body put upon it, but the same consideration may be put upon any company of saints, whether smaller or greater, in a kingdom, or in a city, or ina province.
And so we believe, that oftentimes in the New THE GOVERNMENT OF (Boor V.
Testament, the saints in such a place are spoken of and called the church ; they are called so, sub considerations mystica, under that mystical consideration, and not as considered as a politic body; as when it is said that Saul persecuted the church, 1 Cor. xv. 9, it was not the church universal that he persecuted, it was not a church under a political consideration, but it was the saints in every place where he came.
So when it is said that prayers were made by the church for Peter, Acts xii. 5, it is not spoken of them as a church congregated for worship, or church political, but the meaning is, that the saints generally in Jerusalem, and about in Judea, prayed for him, the saints being there called a church under that mystical consideration that the church universal is called.
Now answerably unto these two several considerations and notions of church, whether applied to the church universal or to any parcel of saints, there is a twofold communion, and the duties are twofold which the saints
6we one to another: the one in respect of mystical and general relation, as occasionally they meet or are cast together; and the other is as they are formed up into several bodies by Christ's institution.
This maybe exemplified by the like among mankind.
'I'ake all mankind as they are made of one blood, under the general notion and consideration of being men ; by virtue hereof there is a communion that one man may have with another, and there are duties that thence do arise; and as it is the law of nature, singly and apart considered, which obligeth them, as they are men, so answerably there is 8 communion, and there is a duty which every man oweth to every man as & man, and a duty which one man oweth to many men, considered
"a8 many, or to a greater number of mankind; and therefore we say, there is the law of nature, which holds all the world over, and laws of nature that are fundamental to men as men.