CHAP. I. What the Keyes be, and what their power.

1. THat by the Kingdome of Heaven, is meant both the Kingdome of Glory, which is above, and the Kingdome of Grace, which is the Church on Earth, I easily grant. But I only de­sire (in the beginning of this dis­course) to be informed what you meane by the Church: Whether 1. The invisible and my­sticall Church of true Beleevers opposed to Reprobates; or 2. The Catholicke visible Church, opposed to Heathens; or [Page 2] 3. The particular Congregation of Beleevers associated in Church-communion, as you use to speake. If we may guesse at your meaning by the whole proceeding of this Tract; or by your discovery of your selfe in the other Discourse, cal­led, The way of the Churches in New-England; (which though it was published after this of the Keyes, yet was writ­ten, and went up and downe in the darke before it) I thinke you meane it in the latter sense, for a particular Congregation. For your first Proposition, there gives us this Resolution; [That the Church which Christ in the Gospell hath instituted, The way p. 1. and to which he hath committed the Keyes &c. it coetus fide­lium, a combination of godly men, commonly called a particular visible Church.] But of all the rest, this is the most impro­bable sense of our Saviours words, Mat. 16.19. For 1. By the Kingdome of Heaven (on Earth) he meanes that Church, of which he had spoken before, in v. 18. But that was, either the Catholicke visible Church, or rather, the invisible mysticall Church; for that only is built upon the rocke, and against that the gates of hell shall never prevaile: whereas, particular Churches may faile. 2. The kingdome of Glory, the one part of the meaning of the Kingdome of Heaven, is not contradistin­guished to a particular Congregation; but to the generall visi­ble Church on Earth, opposed to the World by your selfe, The Keyes, p. 2. [On Earth, that is say you) in the Church on Earth, for he gave him no power to bind in the World.] 3. That Church was there meant (say you, the way p. 1.) whereof Peter was one: But Peter was not a member of such a particular con­gregation; for there was none such extant, when Christ spake these words to Peter. 4. You say againe, it was that Church unto which Peter or any offended brother might tell the offence, and have it censured: But that was never done in a Church of Saints, Beleevers, without officers; neither was the [Page 3] church of Corinth, such a church as you described before; for that had Officers, who authoritatively might censure the in­cestuous person, yet you joyne them both together. 5. It was (say you) a Church, who all met in one place for the admini­stration of the Ordinances of Christ: But the Ordinances of Christ are not to be found, much lesse administred in a Church of Beleevers, without Officers. 6. When you say, Christ committed the Keyes to the Church, that is, a particular Congregation; you must meane it either Subjectivè, or Ob­jectivè: If you meane it in the latter sense, That the Keyes are committed to the Church, as the object of the exercise of the Keyes, that is, for the use and good of the Church, you say true, but nothing to the purpose. In this sense, the Keyes are given, first and more immediately to the invisible mysticall Church (All are yours, whether Paul, &c.) then to the generall visible Church, for their sakes: and then to the particular Con­gregation, as a part or member of that generall visible Church: But if you meane it in the former sense, (as you doe and must, or else you aequivocate with us from the beginning, and throughout your whole Booke) you fall into that ex­treme of the Brownists, which you so labour to avoid: For to take the Church, in Mat. 16. for a particular Congregation of Beleevers, without Officers, is a new, and strange, and false glosse, maintained by none but Brownists, and such like Sepa­ratists. To conclude, The Church of which our Saviour speaks, is called here, the Kingdome of Heaven (on Earth:) But a particular Congregation of Beleevers is never called the Kingdome of Heaven; being but a member or corpora­tion of that Kingdome. It were as improper to call a con­gregation Christs Kingdome, as to call London, the King­dome of England; yet so your party speake sometimes. This I thought good to note, to cleare the way, for the better [Page 4] understanding of that which followes: And now goe on.

2. The next thing to be explicated is, what the Keyes of the Kingdome be; wherein you resolve us thus: [The Keyes are the Ordinances of Christ, which he hath instituted to be ad­ministred in his Church; as the preaching of the Word, as also the administring of Seales and censures.] I take what you grant, only I shall animadvert some things. In this Para­graph, as you doe clearely lay downe the state of the que­stion: so you doe strongly confute the scope of your whole Booke, which is to give the people a share in the power of the Keyes, that is, in the government of the Church: which ap­peares upon these considerations; 1. You say, the Keyes are the Ordinances, which Christ hath instituted: But the Or­dinances of Christ are given indeed for the Church of Be­leevers, that is, for their good and benefit, objectivè: But are never in all the Scripture, nor in all Antiquity, said to be gi­ven to that Church, subjectivè. It sounds ill at first hearing, to say that the people have any power to exercise Ordinances, of preaching, or administring of Seales or Censures. The power of preaching or administring Sacraments by the peo­ple, as none but Separatists doe usurpe: so your selfe complaine of it page 6. And why you should allow them power in cen­sures, there is very little reason. 2. You say, the Keyes are Ordinances, which Christ hath instituted to be administred in his Church: What Church? the Church of Beleevers, a particular Congregation; for so you meane, as was shewed afore: Marke it; to be administred in that Church ( scil. by Officers instituted for that purpose) not by that Church without Officers. 3. You adde that which to me clearly ex­cludes the people of your Church: [These Keyes are neither sword nor scepter, &c. for they conveigh not soveraign power but stewardly & ministeriall.] Whence thus I argue: The people or [Page 5] Congregation of Beleevers have no stewardly, or ministeriall power over themselves; ergo, they have nothing to doe with the power of the Keyes: They are not as Hilkiah was, whose Office was over the house, Isa. 22.15, 22. nor Stewards in the house, as he was, Gen, 43.19. nor as those are, who are spoken of, 1 Cor. 4.1, 2. Stewards of the mysteries of God. But you adde a clause to draw in the people, saying, [This power (to open and shut the gates of Heaven) lyeth partly in their spiri­tuall calling (whether it be their Office, or their place and order in the Church, &c.] I suppose the word calling, should be taken here of a speciall calling, or office, as we use to call it: which againe, would exclude the people from any power in the Keyes, as having no office in the Church: But you adde, by way of explication of your owne sense: [Whether it be their Office, or their place and order in the Church] on purpose to steale in the interest of the people, in some share of the Keyes: But if place & order in the Church, give the people out of office, any power in the Keyes, that is, the Ordinances, (so you say again) then may women & children claim an in [...]erest in those Keyes; for they have a place and Order in the Church as well as men; which yet you would seeme to deny: But let me professe at first, what I shall make good from your selfe here­after, I see not, but women and children may challenge a great part of that power of the Keyes, w ^ch you give to the Brethren.

3. Concerning the third: What are the Acts of the Keyes, and the fourth, what is the subject, to be bound and loosed, I shall not contend with you. The fifth, To whom the power of the Keyes is given, requires a more serious considera­tion, as being the very foundation of all your new Fabricke, which stands or fals with it. The Text is expresse: [To thee (Simon Peter) will I give the Keyes, &c.] in a cleare contra­distinction to the Church before mentioned: upon this rock [Page 6] (of thy confession) will I build my Church: which you take for a particular congregation, (though by a great mistake, as was shewed above.) But let it be granted for the present to be so; then the words in all cleare construction run thus: I will build my Church, the particular congregation, upon that rocke; and I will give the Keyes of that Church (called the Kingdome of Heaven, and so by you interpreted) to thee Peter, and to such Officers as thou art: Otherwise he would have said: On this rocke will I build my Church, and I will give unto it the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven, that is, of the Church it selfe; which is scarse a reasonable interpretation of the words. To make way therefore for your great designe, you undertake to resolve that busie que­stion (as you call it,) [ How Peter is to be considered in recei­ving this power of the Keyes; whether as an Apostle, or as an El­der, or as a Beleever, &c.] Before I come to consider your answer, I would make bold to put one ingredient more into the question; whether Peter was not considered as a Dea­con, as well as an Elder, or Beleever: For seeing a Deacon is one of the Officers of the New Testament; The Keyes, p. 32. The way, p. 83. (some say Iudas was Christs Deacon) and your selfe say, all the Officers of the Church were virtually in the Apostles; They were Pastors, Teachers, Ruling-Elders, Deacons, &c. It may not un­fitly be questioned, whether Peter did not then represent a Deacon as well as an Elder or Beleever. And then againe, whether the Keyes were not given to Peter as a Deacon; and why a Deacon only is denyed any power in the Keyes, when beleevers are admitted to have a share therin; seeing a Deacon hath power to collect and distribute the goods and treasury of the Church; I leave these to your consideration, or theirs who shall reply, and come to your answer. To shew your desire of peace, and your impartiality in inclining to any [Page 7] party, you consider (you say) Peter in a threefold notion when he received the Keyes [As an Apostle, Elder, Beleever; so the sense of the words (you say) will be most full, if all the con­siderations be taken joyntly together.] The sense indeed is most full to your purpose, but (I thinke) least of all true. The power of the Keyes is given to the Chur [...]h, to Pe­ter, not as an Apostle, not as an Elder, but as a profest Beleever; in the name of Beleevers, &c. The way, p. 27. a flat contra­diction. And you doe beg the question, to say Peter received the power of the Keyes, as all these, and in particular, as a Be­leever: For of all the senses, the last was least thought on in any age of the Church, till this last, when the Brownists and such like stumbled upon it. When Saint Austin said, [Peter received the Keyes in the name of the Church:] Whether he did mistake the sense of the place or no, you doe utterly mistake him, to draw him to your meaning: For 1. he did not meane your Church, a particular congregation; but ei­ther the generall v [...]sible Church; or the invisible mysticall Church. 2. Nor that neither, subjectivè, but objectivè, that the Keyes were given to Peter as an Officer, for the use and benefit of the Church.

But you proceed to say: [ It appeares Christ gave the power of the Keyes to the Body of the Church, even to the fraternity, with the Presbytery, Mat. 18.17, 18. When they are met in his Name, and agree together in the censure of an offendor.] But by this place (and your former notion of Peter as a Belee­ver) you may as well inferre, that the Keyes are given to the Sororietie, q.d. as to the Fraternity, as Beleevers, and as a part of the Body of the Church, which I thinke is flat Anabap­tisme, worse than Brownisme. You know there are some, who deny that, Mat. 18.17, 18. holds forth any censure of excom­munication at all: Others that grant it, yet by Church there, understand the Officers of the Church, such as the Apostles were, to whom Christ spake: [ What ye binde, what ye loose, &c.] You must not therefore beg a foundation to your buil­ding, [Page 8] lest, if it be fetched home, your building fall on your owne head. But you say, [All agree in this, That no offender is to be excommunicated, but with some concourse of the congre­gation; at least, by way 1. of consent to the sentence. 2. of actuall execution of it, by withdrawing themselves from him; and this we conceive is some part of the exercise of the power of the Keyes.] But truly, this is but the gingling of the Keyes at most, no part of the power of the Keyes: For 1. it belongs to Stewards in a Family, only to exercise the power of the Keyes, to take in, and cast out what servants they please: The rest of the servants heare the Keyes gingle, when they turne the Keyes, but have no part in the exercise of them; no, not so much as by consent, active consent, I meane, so that if they consent not, nothing is done; but by a passive consent only, as approving what the Steward hath done: If you grant the Fraternity any more, you make them joynt Stewards of the Family, the Church, as you shall heare hereafter. Nay, some­times you seeme to give them no more [The people discerning and approving the justnesse of the censures before administred by the Elders, The Keyes, p. 15. they give consent in obedience to the will and rule of Christ] which is no part of the exercise of the power of the Keyes. For suppose the censure be justly administred, and the people deny their consent; shall not a Delinquent be censured unlesse they will consent? If not, they have full power in the Keyes, arising to authority, which is the errour of the one extreme: If so only as passively to consent, its evident, this is no part of the power of the Keyes. 2. For their with­drawing, thats much lesse any power in the Keyes. The Steward of a Family having discharged a naughty servant, and turned and locked him out of doores, all the rest of the servants are to withdraw from him; but this is not by way of active power, but passive obedience. Is the withdrawing of [Page 9] people from a man outlawed in civill affaires, any interest in the Keyes of Iudicature? If it be said, except the people consent and withdraw communion from a censured person, the censure is in vaine. I answer: If the people should be so rebellious to civill Authority, as not to withdraw from an outlawed man, nothing were done, the sentence was so farre in vaine. If no man could be gotten to execute a malefactor condemned, the sentence were frustrated in respect of the execution. But doth this inferre, that the people have an in­terest in the Keyes of secular power? The question is not de facto, what the people stubbornly may doe; but whether they ought not to consent and withdraw; and whether if they doe not, they can challenge any interest in the power of the Keyes. Againe, if the Keyes were given to Peter as a Beleever, I see no reason but women and children may come in and challenge a power in the Keyes. It suffices not to say (as the Epistolers say, pag. 3.) [Women and children are ex­cepted by a Statute Law of Christ, against their enjoyment of any part of this publick power.] For though they be forbid­den to speake in the Congregation, or might by impotence (as some say) be excepted in some particulars; yet there seemes no reason why they should be exempted from that power here given to the Fraternity, which concernes them as well as men, and they are as well able to exercise it as men; viz. to give a (passive) consent, or to withdraw from the party excommunicated; which they may and must doe as well as men: For as women may be offended, so they should in reason have satisfaction, by consenting to the sen­tence: And as women may offend, in keeping company with a brother or sister excommunicated, so they ought to withdraw from them & then if this be any exercise of the power of the Keyes, you may heare them gingle at the womens girdles; [Page 10] which is an extreme beyond the Brownists, even downright Anabaptisticall. But you give the Fraternity more power than this hereafter, there we shall consider it. Hitherto you have given them nothing, but what is common to them with women.

CHAP. II. Of the distribution of the Keyes.

YOu first lay downe the ordinary Distribution of the Keyes, and then except against it, as defective in foure things.

1. [That any key of the kingdome of hea­ven should be left without power; for the key of knowledge is contradistinguished from a key of power.

To this I answer: It may be this distribution is not every way exact and perfect, yet I thinke yours is rather worse: And your exception fals upon your owne distribution, a lit­tle more remotely. For your key of Faith, or knowledge (for you make them both one) is distinguished from the key of Order; which Order is either of power, or authority, and so your key of knowledge is left without power also. 2. Your key of power (as you call it) is it selfe left without all power, at least active power, being only an obedientiall power, to consent and yeeld submission to the will of Christs, made knowne by the Elders.

[Page 11]2. [There wants (say you) an integrall part of the keyes, the key of power or liberty, belonging to the Church it selfe.] But to this I say: This is so farre from being an integrall part of the keyes, that it is no key at all, no proper power at all, as hath partly been shewed already. A key, in all mens judgement, that ever writ of the power of the Church, carries in the no­tion of it, a power and authority, properly called, power in government, till now of late; yea, even the Brownists them­selves make it a key of Authority and Rule in the people: Onely you, to make us beleeve you differ from them, call it a power (improperly called Authority, pag. 36.) or a liber­ty, or a priviledge; which was never before called a key, till now: For there are many liberties or priviledges belonging to servants in a family, or people in a State; which no man cals a key of power, or a power in the Keyes. And the truth is, you are not constant to your selfe: For sometimes you call it only liberty, &c. sometimes you give the Church, the Brethren, without their Officers, as full power as the Officers themselves have; and as full rule and authority as the Brow­nists give them, as we shall manifest in the sequell.

But you adde; [Protestant Churches having recovered the liberty of preaching the Gospell, and ministry of the Sacraments, have looked no farther, some of them nor d scerned the defect of Church power or liberty due unto them in point of dis­cipline.] To this I say: The errour of the Protestant Chur­ches, was not, that they looked not after the power of disci­pline for the people; but that they laboured not to recover it for their Elders, letting the Prelates keep quietly the disci­pline to themselves. But the errour on the other hand was more easie to be fallen into, and more dangerous (which you observe to have followed) [That others finding themselves wronged (as they did but suppose) in the withholding a key of [Page 12] power which belongs to them, have wrested to themselves an undue power, which belongs not to them, the key of Authority.] True it is, some have done so; for being allowed (by some, perhaps your selfe) the key of power, or liberty in discipline, as you call it, they have wrested, not only the key of know­ledge, in preaching and administring Sacraments, which be­longs not to them; but also the key of authority, as you speake; And so will your people too ere long, I feare, when they are once possessed a while of the key of power, wrest the key of authority in all; both in preaching, and administring Sacraments, and pronouncing censures; and well they may by your owne grants, as we shall heare anon.

3. A third defect you observe; [ In dividing the Key of Order, from the Key of jurisdiction, of purpose to make way for the power of Chancellors, &c.] But 1. That might be the errour of the distributors, not of the distribution. For the distribution, gives both the keyes to the same men. For the same men that had the key of knowledge, had also the key of order and jurisdiction, in the intention of the first sounders of that distribution, which after ages divided in practise. And yet, their Chancellors, and Commissaries, &c. some of them at least were Deacons, who were reputed of the Cler­gy (as they speake) and might preach if they would; and so had both keyes in one person, though limited in some particular acts of them. But if our late Deacons were (as some of our brethren have said they were) virtually Presby­ters, and needed no new Ordination; then certainly they had the power of jurisdiction, with the power of Order, though limited, by the corruption of the distributors. 2. This defect may chance to fall upon your owne distribu­tion. Doe not you divide the key of Order from the key of jurisdiction in your owne Deacons: You say expresly in these [Page 13] words: [The Order of Deacons, The Keyes, page 6. whereof our Lord spake no­thing touching jurisdiction] I hope you will not say, the Of­fice of a Deacon, fals not under the key of Order; yet, for ought I perceive, you make little account of him in your distribution. 3. You say [ Those Chancellors, &c. were in­vested with jurisdiction, and more than ministeriall authority, even above those Elders, who labour in Word and Doctrine.] But doe not you invest the people with as much power and jurisdiction more than ministeriall, even above those Elders, who labour in the word and doctrine, both to open and shut the doores of the Church against them, page 9. besides what you say elsewhere. 4. I would gladly be resolved, whether you doe not divide the key of Order, into a key of power or liberty, and a key of authority, on purpose to make way for the power of the people, as they of old did, for the power of the Chancellors, &c. Lastly, I pray you seriously to consider, whether by this [ sacrilegious breach of Order, investing the people with a key of power, even above those El­ders that labour in the Word and Doctrine, to open and shut the doores against them, page 9. (which is the breaking as it were of the files and rankes in an Army; they are your owne words) Satan is not like againe to rout and ruine a great part of the li­berty and power of Church officers, and the purity of the Chur­ches, and of all the Ordinances of Christ in them.]

4. A fourth defect is, [That Order is appropriated to the Officers of the Church only: We put a difference between Office and Order.] We shall speake more fully to this hereafter. All we say for the present is but this: That Office and Order in the strict and Ecclesiasticall sense of the word (Order) have hitherto been taken for the same. And your selfe grant, page 7. [They may be admitted as aquivalent] in a right sense.

Let us now consider your owne Distribution: [There is (say you) a key of Faith, and a key of Order,] and you have a Text of Scripture for it, Col. 2.5, 6.

But by Faith and Order there, the Apostle meanes not the keyes of the kingdome of Heaven, as they are understood in this controversie; but (as I take it) their Faith manife­sted in their orderly walking, as becomes Christians pro­fessing the Gospell. So that by Order there is meant their morall orderly walking, as in other duties according to the Rule: so in their submission to the order of government, or exercise of the keyes, in the hands of their Officers. I be­leeve no Interpreter (but your selfe and some others of late) ever tooke those words in an Ecclesiasticall sense, for the keyes delivered unto Peter. But we goe on.

[The key of Faith (say you) is the s [...]me with the key of knowledge, Luke 11.52. which the Lawyers had taken aw y.] But 1. by your favour, the key of Faith and knowledge are not both one, if you understand it of justifying Faith: A man may have much knowledge and no Faith: Knowledge may in a sense be said to be the key of Faith, as being the inlet or Antecedent of Faith; but so Faith and knowledge are not the same. 2. The key of knowledge is one thing, and know­ledge is another: The key of knowledge is the great Ordi­nance of preaching (you said) the keyes of the kingdome of Heaven were the Ordinances of Christ, as the preaching of the Word (the opening and applying of it, p. 2) &c. But this key of knowledge here you speake of, is (you say) common to all Beleevers; but a little before this, you complaine that private Christians had usurped this key, to preach the Gos­pell, &c. page 6, Whereas this key of knowledge is peculiar to the Ministers of the Gospell: [The Priests lips keep the key of knowledge, &c. and Faith comes by the Word preached.] [Page 15] This was the key of knowledge which the Lawyers had taken away, either by not interpreting, or misinterpreting the Scripture: They could not take away the peoples know­ledge, much lesse their Faith. They might take away the key, both of knowledge and Faith, that is, preaching, as the Papists doe, by locking up the Word in a strange language; and ours lately did, by crying and putting downe preaching. 2. Whereas you say: [They that had the key of knowledge, had power to enter into the kingdome of Heaven, and it may be, to open the doore to others to enter also.] I answer: The key s given to Peter, Matth. 16. were not to open the Kingdome of Heaven to himselfe (for that key, if a key it was, he had before) but to open it to others, by opening and applying the Word (as you said above) our Saviour speaks of binding and loosing others: Whose sins ye bind on earth, &c. and of o­pening for, and shutting out others, not himselfe. Keyes are given to Stewards, not properly to let in, or shut out them­selves; but by way of Office, to let in, or locke out others. Besides, A priviledge to find an o­pen doore to enter into the fellowship of the Church, p. 11. which is passive, and in plaine sense, one fit to be admitted into the Church. So the Epistolers, p. 2. The key of knowledge hath opened their hearts; that is, I think, preaching. the key of knowledge and Faith which you describe here, is common to all Beleevers, even women; but I be­leeve you will not give them a key to open and shut heaven to others, that is the key of preaching. Then againe, why doe you dislike the former distribution; when you also make one key to be the key of knowledge, and so leave one of the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven without power, contra-distinguishing the key of Faith or knowledge (for with you they are both one) from the key of power, which fals under your key of Order? Lastly, whereas you say a faithfull soule by this key entreth into a state of grace, and into the fellow­ship of the Church, &c. You may remember, that by the Kingdome of Heaven, which is the Church on Earth, you understand a particular Congregation. But a man may have [Page 16] this key of Faith or knowledge, and never enter into your particular Church, and so this key is given to a man out of the Church; and yet you say, the keyes are given to the Church, I leave you to consider it. These things hang not well together.

In the next place you come to the key of Order; of which you thus write: [The key of Order, is the power whereby every member of the Church walketh orderly himselfe, according to his place in the Church, and helpeth his brethren to walke order­ly also.] But this is a strange expression of the key of Order, never heard of before, too generally and aequivocally spo­ken: For Order may be taken either morally, or Ecclesiasti­cally; Passively, or Actively. Morally, so it is taken pas­sively, for a conformity in carriage, to the rules of the word, in Doctrine, as well as discipline: But Ecclesiastically, it is an Active power, acting upon others. The very name of a key, imports a power, intrusted for others good, and not their owne properly. Every one is to keep Order, but every one hath not the key of Order. Order and Office in this Ecclesiasti­call sense are both one. None hath the key of Order, but one in Office. But your key of Order is common to every mem­ber of the Church: The Keyes, p ge 21. And that it is no more than morall or pas­sive Order, your selfe doe seeme to grant, when you say, [The brethren stand in an Order, even in an orderly subjection, according to the order of the Gospell.] Every servant in a Fa­mily, and every man, woman and childe in a corpora­tion stand in such an order, and must walke orderly them­selves, and help others to walke orderly also; but will any man say, therefore these have interest in the keyes of the Fa­mily or Corporation? If every member of a Congrega­tion have this key of Order, how and why are women and children excepted? or are they no members of the Church? [Page 17] or may they walke disorderly? The instance of Saint Pauls walking orderly, according to the orders of the Iewish Church, manifests the morall sense of the word: For cer­tainly, the Fraternity of the Iewes had no power of the Keyes. The meaning was, that Saint Paul by his confor­mity to some Iewish Ceremonies, should manifest, that he did not absolutely oppose the Rites of the Iewish Church, not that he had any power of the Keyes of the government of that Church. Surely the Iewes were bound all of them to withdraw from every brother that walked disorderly; yet did not beleeve that that was any part of the exercise of the key of Order. No more was it in those of Thessalonica; when they did warne the unruly, or withdraw from him that walked disorderly: And this Key of Order, if a Key it were, was common not only to Elders and Brethren, as you say, but even to women and children, as I said afore.

[ Of Order (you say) there be 2. Keyes; one of power or in­terest, another of Authority or Rule; The first of these is called in Scripture, Liberty, &c.]

Before I examine the particulars, I shall note some few things: 1. How modest errour is at first: Here it is first cal­led power, mollified by interest, and then by liberty, after by priviledge; all which are rather passive than active; but afterwards it is called [...], power, which though it some­times signifies a priviledge, honour, or dignity, Iohn 1.12. in a passive construction, as given and received; yet when it relates to Government, or a power of the Keyes, civilly, it then is taken actively, and signifies Authority, Romanes 13.1. But page 36. it is called, [...], which properly, (though you say otherwise, signifies Authority; [Authority, after a sort, may be acknowledged in the people.] And the acts there (and elsewhere) given to the people, some of them [Page 18] at least; as [ joyning in Censures, and in determination of Sy­nodall acts, &c.] called, [a great stroke or power in ordering Church affaires;] amounts almost to as full authority, as the Elders have any. 2. Another thing I note is, that this power, interest, priviledge of the people, &c. was never called a Key, till some new Lock smiths made this new pick-locke of the power of Church-Officers. For what is all that is given them, if no more than is their due) to the government of the Church? In a Family, in a Corporation (I say it againe) the servants and Citizens have some priviledges and inte­rests, who yet have no stroke in ordering of the Keyes, either of Family, or City. 3. I desire to know, under which of the parts of this distribution doth the Deacon fall. There be 2. Keyes of Order; of power or interest; of Authority or Rule. Now a Deacon, qua Deacon, fals under neither of these: Not the first, for so he is considered only as a Be­leever: Not the second, for so he is denyed jurisdiction, as we heard afore. If you say he fals under the Key of Order, as an Officer; yet then you divide the Key of Order from the Key of jurisdiction, (which you blamed in the other di­stribution) and levell the Deacon an Officer, with people no Officers. We should now come to the particulars of the power, or interest of the Brethren: They have a liberty (say you) in many things; but they are more fully laid downe in Chapter 4. there we shall consider them: Only now we shall consider the proofe of this power of the people, out of the Scripture: Your Text is, Gal. 5.13. Brethren, you have been called unto Liberty, &c.] This Text (under favour) is miserably mistaken; and that not in mine only, but in the judgement of all Interpreters; which you knowing, had ra­ther appeale to the Context, than to the Commentators. I shall follow you at your owne weapon; Your strength lyes in [Page 19] the word Liberty. [They have a power and liberty, to wit, to joyne with the sounder part of the Presbytery in casting them out, &c.] But I shall appeale the Apostle himselfe to be Iudge between us: In the first verse of this Chapter he uses the same word, [ Stand fast in the Liberty, &c.] where it is without all controversie, understood of their liberty, or freedome from the Ceremoniall Law; called there, the yoke of bond [...]ge, which some false teachers would impose upon their necks. Now that the Apostle speaking still of the same matter, should use the same word in so different a sense, is no wayes probable. Nay secondly, in the 11. verse, the Apostle sayes: [If I yet preach circumcision, why doe I yet suffer persecution, &c.] And then ver. 13. comes in againe with this: [ Brethren you are called unto Liberty, &c.] viz. from that Law of Circumcision, and the like, not to the liberty by you pretended; [ To chuse Officers, or to joyne in Censures, &c.] though, these were granted to them, yet not in this place: And your glosse is very far fetcht and impro­bable. [I would they were cut off that trouble you; where (say you) he declares what censure he wishes against those that trou­bled them, viz. cut off, to wit, by excommunication. Obj. But what power have we to cut them off? The Apostle answers: They have a power and liberty, to wit, to joyne with the sounder part of the Presbytery, in casting them out: For (saith he) you are called unto Liberty.] There is not one word of this glosse in the Text. And if there were any such power, the people have full power given themselves to cut them off; for here is not one word of joyning with a Presbytery. See againe, v. 16. where the Apostle resumes his exhortation, ver. 13. [Vse not your liberty as an occasion unto the flesh; saying, I say then, walke in the spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh:] Which makes it evident, that the Apostle [Page 20] chiefly exhorts ad bonos mores, though he touch other things by the bye, but discipline is least of all intended. And lest they should use their liberty from those legall and ceremo­niall yokes, to contention or licentiousnesse, he cautions against it, v. 13, 16. [Carnall contention is indeed (as you say) an usuall disease of popular liberty;] which I feare, you and your partners too much foment, by giving the people this power and liberty, which you so much talke of; and by gingling these Keyes in the eares of the people, have almost made them wilde; not only one against another, but against their Elders or Governours also. And no marvell, when you grant them so much power [As to open a doore of entrance to the Ministers Calling: so to shut the doore of entrance a­gainst them in some cases, page. 9.] much more than which the Brownists doe not grant then. And so much of the pick-locke of Order.

The Key of Authority is a morall power, in a superiour order or state, binding or releasing an inferiour in point of subjection.] To this I say; 1. To call Authority a morall power, is very improper: For every single Pastor, (yea, perhaps brother,) hath a morall power to bind and release, not only an infe­riour, but a superiour also, in point of subjection, by pro­pounding the commands of God. You might rather have called it, a juridicall, or Ecclesiasticall power, and that with­out any danger, seeing you reserve this power to the Offi­cers or superiours in Order. But 2. you speake too confu­sedly: For the people have a power to joyne with the Offi­cers in the censures, that is, in binding and releasing, as you say, page 14. [The whole Church may be said to binde and loose;] Nay, to open and shut the doores against their Mi­nisters, who are their superiors; and so Authority is a morall power in inferiours also. And page 12. you say the people [Page 21] have a power, [To prevent the tyranny, and Oligarchy, and exorbitance of the Elders.] Surely this must be by a nega­tive voice, and thats more than liberty, even full authority; and being by inferiours, is flatly against your owne defini­tion. Furthermore, as you say [ the Brethren with the El­ders have power to open and shut, &c.] So you say, [the El­ders with the Brethren doe bind and release,] page 10. So it seemes, as the Brethren can doe nothing without the Elders: so the Elders can doe nothing without the Brethren, as the Epistolers say expressely, page 4. And who would not now conclude, that the liberty is equall in both; or rather, the au­thority is the same in both, and what say the Brownists more?

And now I thinke you cannot truly say, you have recei­ved this distribution of the Keyes from the Scripture, nor yet from antiquity; though you would faine have us be­leeve, you would not sticke upon the former distribution, if the words be rightly explained. As how? 1. [Let them (say you) allow some spirituall power to the Key of knowledge, though not a church power.] But have you not all this while been speaking of the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven, that is, the Church; and now is the power of the Key of know­ledge, no Church power? Againe, have not you your selfe taken away from the Key of knowledge, not only Church power, but all power whatever, by contradistinguishing it to the Key of power? 3. Is that Key, whereby he that hath it, [ not on [...]y enters himselfe into the Kingdome of Heaven, but also opens the doore for others to enter, no Church power?]

You adde secondly, [Let them put in a Key of liberty, as well as of authority into Church power.] But both these are but one Key, or nothing, as we have said; Nothing indeed to purpose, if both these must consent, or nothing is done, [Page 22] as you and the Brethren assert. 3. [Let them not (say you) divide from the Key of Order or Office, the Key of juris­diction; for Christ hath given no jurisdiction, but to whom he hath given Office.] But 1. Christ (it seemes) hath di­vided the Key of Office, from the Key of jurisdiction; for hee hath given no jurisdiction to Deacons. 2. You should have said, and your scope required it, Christ hath given to none the Key of Order or Office, but to whom he hath given the Key of jurisdiction, but that had con­tradicted your selfe in the instance of Deacons: [Con­cerning whom (say you) our Lord spake nothing of juris­diction, page 6.] Now is it not as strange, that there should be an Office in the Church, without some juris­diction; As that there should among the Prelates, bee jurisdiction without an Office, at least, instituted by Christ? as it was in Chancellors, Commissaries, &c. Nay, is it not as strange that there should be Authority, that is, jurisdiction, to binde and loose, in those that have no Office at all; as there is in the people in your way; as that there should be an Office without juris­diction? And now I leave you to consider, whether of these Distributions is most consentaneous to the truth.

CHAP. III. Of the Subject of the Key of Knowledge and Order.

YOu first tell us in generall; [That as the Keyes be divers, so are the Subjects to whom they are committed divers.] But this is very doubtfull and disputable; because at first, all the Keyes were given to Peter at once, and therefore one sub­ject may possesse them all: And sure they all meet in Pastors, every one of them hath all the Keyes; of knowledge and of power; of Or­der and jurisdiction, according to the old distribution, and perhaps in yours also. As the Apostles had all the Keyes by your confession; [They might exhort as Pastors, The Keyes, p. 32. teach as Teachers, rule as Rulers, receive and distribute the oblati­ons of the Church as Deacons:] So, I see no reason, but eve­ry Minister of the Gospell hath virtually in him all the same power and Offices: And if they be since divided into more hands, for case and Order, yet the subject is primarily but one; and for the diversity of subjects of the Keyes, it con­cernes them who plead it, to make it good by Scripture. Vpon this reason, there are some, who as they question the Office of a ruling Elder, having 1. no direct or expresse in­stituted for it in the Scripture. 2. No instance of any such, [Page 24] that ruled, and were not also Pastors. 3. Nor doe you say, That Peter received the Keyes as a ruling-Elder, but as a Pa­stor: so they would not yeeld the Office of the Deacon, but that they finde expresse instituted of it afterwards by the Apostles. But I will not multiply controversies, but come to your particulars.

1 [The Key of knowledge (or which is all one, the Key of faith) belongeth to all the faithfull, whether joyned to any particular Church or no.] But 1. Then one of the Keyes of the King­dome of Heaven belongs to women, yea to Infidels; When God gives them Faith, [he gives them a Key to receive Christ, and to find an open doore to enter into the fellowship of the Church.] But sure the Apostle Peter did not represent In­fidels when the Keyes were committed to him. 2. The Keyes (you said) were given to the Church; but now you say, they are given to some before they enter into the Church. But I pray, Sir, is not he entred into the Church, who hath recei­ved Christ, and makes profession of his faith? Yes, you may say, into the mysticall Church, but not into a particular church-fellowship. I answer, he is entred also into the generall visible Church, by profession of his faith; to which Church, we thinke, the Keyes were first given, and after, to the particular Church. But you have so long dreamed of a particular Church, to be the first and only instituted Church, that you seeme to forget the visible generall Church, The way, p. 10 and indeed, to call it a Chimara. This, we thinke, you learned from your Cou­sins, if not your Brethren, the Brownists. Heretofore, in Scripture language, so soone as men beleeved, and professed their faith, they were said, to be added to the Church, not to a particular Congregation (for so some were never added, for ought we know, as the Eunuch, and some others) but to the generall visible Church. And I pray, what Key was it that [Page 25] opened the doore to enter them into the Church? Was it the key of their owne particular knowledge or Faith? or the key of preaching, viz. the key of knowledge in the Ministers of the Gospell, and not in themselves? You say here (which is the truth) that [they find an open doore to enter into the fel­lowship of the Church:] which is passively, to be capable to be admitted into the Church, and not actively, to open the doore to themselves.

2. [The Key of Order, belongeth to all such as are in Church order, whether Elders or Brethren.] But this is doubtfully spo­ken in a double respect: 1. What you meane by Order as afore. If Order and Office be all one (as you seemed to yeeld) then the key of Order belongs not to the Brethren at all, but to the Elders, who are in office. If Order be taken for orderly carriage, or, (as you your selfe speak in this very Paragraph) For [orderly subjection, according to the order of the Gospell] it is just nothing to the power of the Keyes: For keyes imply an active power, orderly subjection is mo­rally passive. 2. It is also doubtfull, what is meant by Church in this place: If it be taken for the generall visible Church, that hath nothing to doe with the power of the keyes, which are committed (say you) to the particular Church: If for the particular Congregation, it is then doubtfull still. For it may be asked, what power have the Brethren in Church Order, in the keyes of Order, more than one not yet in Church Order? Your selfe speake confusedly here, in my judgement, when you say; [Every faithfull soule that hath received a key of knowledge (you should rather say, knowledge, by the key of preaching) is bound to watch over his Neighbours soule, as his owne, &c. non ratione ordinis sed in tuitu charitatis; Not by vertue of a state or order which he is in (till in Church-fellowship) but as of common Christian love and charity; one in Church-Order, [Page 26] is bound to doe it in both respects, &c.] But 1. A Chri­stian of no particular Church as yet, is in a Church-Order, with respect to the generall visible Church, (or else what dif­fers he from an Infidell?) and so is bound to watch over his Neighbour, not only by vertue of common charity, but of that Christian-Order, wherein he stands. 2. Nay, an Infidell is bound, in tuitu charitatis, by vertue of common naturall love and charity, to watch over, and admonish his brother: and is a Christian (not yet in Church-Order, as you call it) bound no more than he, to watch over his brother? If he be, (as he is, by a nearer relation unto the mysticall body, and visible Church of Christ) then he is to doe it, by vertue of his Order, or state of Christianity: If he be not, what differs he from an Infidell? It was a morall Law, Lev. 19.18. [ Thou shalt not hate thy brother, but rebuke him, &c.] Which Cain despised, when he said;, [Am I my brothers keeper?] Surely it is want of naturall charity, not to watch over a brother, that is not in Church-Order as you meane it. And it is not becomming a Christian to say: [ A Christian in Church-Order is not to watch over a brother not in Church-Order, ratione ordinis, but only in tuitu charitatis:] He is bound to doe so for an Infidell, and is he bound no more to a Christian? Suppose one in your Church-Order, see a Chri­stian not in Church-Order, walke unorderly; is he not bound to admonish him, by that royall Law of Church-Order, Mat. 18.1. And if he will not heare him, to take two or three more; and if he will not heare them, to tell it to the Church; and afterwards, to walke towards him, as God di­rects the Church to order it? Hath Christ ordained no better remedy to reclaime a Christian, not in Church-Order, than to reclaime an Infidell? But further: An Officer, or one in a superiour Order, by reason of his office, is bound to watch [Page 27] over his brothers soule, not only in tuitu charitatis, but also ratione ordinis. Is a brother bound as much as he? or he no more then a brother out of office? Againe, a Deacon is in a superiour Order, by reason of his office (as you speake here of Elders) in what different respect is he bound to watch over his brother? no otherwise then a brother out of office? Truly then it is all one in your way, to be in an office, and out of office. And this is the way to banish, if not Christian, yet naturall charity out of the Church: And it is observable, that since this new Church-fellowship, and Church covenant hath been set up, charity is growne very cold, and some of them have been heard to professe [they had nothing to doe with an offendor, not of their owne particular Church-commu­nion:] And doe indeed account all not of their way, lit­tle better than Infidels, or as they speake without; and in a manner say with Cain, Am I my brothers keeper? Never was there so little charity, so much scorne and contempt of all not in their owne way, as is found in them that professe themselves the only people, that have found the way of Christ, though in severall Sections.

CHAP. IV. Of the Subject of Church-Liberty.

THis Key is given to the Brethen of the Church; for so faith the Apostle, Gal. 5.23. Brethren you are called unto liberty] Concerning the vindication of that Text enough hath been said above. Be­fore [Page 28] you come to the particulars of their liberties, you Rhe­toricate a little, to make it more passable. [As in the common­wealth, the welfare of it stands in the due ballancing of the li­berties or priviledges of the people, and the authority of the Ma­gistrate: so in the Church, the safety of it is in the right or­dering of the priviledges of the Brethren, and the ministe­riall authority of the Elders.] All this is granted: But the right ballancing of either, lyes not in the multitude of the people, as having any immediate influence into the govern­ment of Church or State: For then the government of both were Democraticall. But as in our State, the ballancing of the priviledges of the people, and the authority of the Magi­strate supreme, lyes in the authority of the Parliament; where there are Knights and Burgesses representing the peo­ple: so, I thinke it is in the Church; the ballancing of the Brethrens priviledges, and the Ministers authority, seemes to lye in the Ruling-Elders, who are the representatives of the people. But take away this ballast or poise of the govern­ment, and it will be either absolutely Monarchicall, and so easily Tyrannicall, or else Democraticall, and so lyable to Anarchy and confusion, as experience shewes us, in the Papall and Episcopall tyranny, and the Separatists Anarchy; the two extremes before observed. But let us take a view of the par­ticulars. Their Liberties are;

1. [ To chuse their owne Officers: so Acts 1. and 6. and 14.] In generall I answer thus: The election of the people, was no more but a designation, or propounding the persons, and presenting them to the Apostles, not by way of vote or suf­frage, but by way of desire, if they were found fit, to have one or some of them ordained. But this is little or nothing to the power of the Keyes. That place Acts 1. was an extra­ordinary case, wherein the people had little or no hand: [Page 29] For 1. they were confined to some sort of men, hat had con­versed with our Saviour. 2. They propounded two, it was not in their power so much as to nominate the particular man. 3. The Lord himselfe determined it, and not the Apostles, much lesse the people; As for that word, [...], stood upon, it cannot be properly taken, as if they by their votes or suffrages, had constituted or ordai­ned Mathias to be an Apostle, but barely thus: Seeing God had chosen and ordained him, they accepted him by an or­derly subjection to the revealed will of Christ. For the se­cond, Acts 6. It was expedient, that the people should at least have the nomination of their Deacons, because better knowne to them, and so better to be trusted with their owne stocke. But they did but nominate or present the men, they did not ordaine so much as a Deacon; [Looke you out seven men, whom we (marke it) may appoint, or ordaine to this bu­sinesse.] It is never found in all the New Testament, that ever the people ordained or imposed hands upon any Officer; which makes me wonder at the liberty taken by Separatists, and allowed and practised by your self; The way, p. 41. [That the Church or Brethren without Officers, may not only elect, but ordaine and impose hands upon their highest Officers.] As for the third place, Acts 14.23. The word cannot be well rendred: [They ordained them Elders, chosen by lifting up of hands:] For it is not to be referred to the people, but to Paul and Barnabas: who surely did not ordaine Elders by lifting up, but by lay­ing on of hands. And so taken, it excludes the people; for the Substantive to [...], is Paul and Barnabas: If they chose the Elders by lifting up of hands, then the people are excepted, not only from ordination of their Officers, but from election too, by this Text. But further: some of your Brethren hold, that election is the chiefest peece of a Mini­sters [Page 30] calling, and ordination, but a complement to the solem­nity of it: And if so, the people doe ordaine them as well as elect, and thats more then a liberty, even as full authority as the Brownists give to the people: Your selfe doe ac­knowledge some where, The way, p. 48. that [Ordination is a worke of Rule,] And yet you say also, Ibid. 45. [That the Brethren may ordaine their Officers;] Therefore the people have more than a key of liberty, The Keyes, p. 8. and often. Ordination & jurisdiction pertaine indif­ferently to all the Presbyters. The way, p. 49 they have a key of rule and authority; which yet againe you doe reserve as proper to the Elders. Consider how you can reconcile the contradictions. That the people have a liberty, justly to except, or rationally, to approve of their Officers, is granted; but this is (I still say) nothing to the power of the Keyes, which consists in Ordination of Officers chosen, not in the election of Officers to be ordained.

2. The second liberty of the people is, [To send out mes­sengers for the publicke service of the Church, Phil. 2.25.] This may be granted a liberty, but nothing to the power of the keyes: People may assent to, or approve of the reasonable choice of messengers to be sent forth, just as poore Cottiers in the Countrey, that have no votes in the election of their Knights and Burgesses, have yet a consent and approbation to send them to the Parliament.

3. A third Liberty▪ [To accept against such as offer them­selves to communion, or unto the seales of it, Acts 9.26.] This is nothing more to the power of the keyes, than the former. Any woman may in a scandall, except against any that offers to partake of the Sacrament, by way of infor­mation to the Officers; yet hath no interest in the keyes.

4. A fourth: [To joyne with the Elders, in inquiring, hearing, judging of publick scandals, so as to bind notorious offendors under censures, and to forgive the penitens.] If this be not aequivocaly spoken, it is certainly more then a liberty. [Page 31] That they may enquire for their own satisfaction, and heare by way of presence, is a liberty not to be denyed. But if you meane any more, it is more then a liberty, an act of rule and authority. Heare your owne words, spoken with respect to Bishops, but will better fit our purpose: The way, p. 48. [If the Holy-Ghost had appointed the people to any share in the keyes, he would have appointed them also some eminent worke. But what shall that be? Shall it be Ordination? Why that is a work of Rule: Or shall it be hearing accusations against Elders, and censuring them accordingly? Why that is a worke of Rule also.] Let me adde, shall it be judging of publick scandals, so as to bind notorious offendors under censure? Why, that is a worke of Rule also. And consider now, whether they have not a key of authority, as full as the Elders themselves. If you meane a judgement of discretion only, which all the multitude have at an Assizes, it is just nothing to the purpose; a stranger, none of the Congregation, a woman, an heathen may doe as much. But you say, [ The Apostle alloweth to all the Bre­thren a power to judge them that are within, 1 Cor. 5.22.] But either this is fallacious; There was a power in the Church of Corinth, to judge those within; ergo, this power was in the people, or else it is false, if meant of authoritative judgement; or if only a judgement of discretion, it is quite besides the question. But you fearing an objection, prevent it, to judge is an act of Rule, which is proper to the El­ders: you answer, [There is a judgement of discretion; As in the Iury it is an act of their popular liberty, in the Iudge an act of judiciall authority.] To this I have many things to say: 1. A judgement of discretion will not serve your turne; for that (as I said) is common to all the people at an Assizes; and that is common to women, and heathens, if present, at your Consistories; and if this be all, what difference is there [Page 32] between the judgement of a woman, an heathen, and of one of your Church-members. 2. The judgement of the Iury is in­deed an act of popular liberty; but not of their liberty, more than of those that are not of the Iury. For I aske, why are not all the rest of the people, whom it concernes as much as those twelve men of the Iury, admitted to the same judge­ment with them? Are not they wronged in point of popular liberty? would not you say, [The Brethren not admitted to the hearing and judging of an offender, were wronged, if only twelve of the Congregation were designed to heare and judge him.] In our native Countrey, the Iudge dispen­ses no sen­tence, but ac­cording to the verdict of the Iury, &c. The way, p. 102.] 3. The judgement of the Iury, is more than of dis­cretion (so all by-standers judge) even of authority, in some degree and kind, though not compleat: For they condemne, or acquit the party, which all the rest together cannot doe. 4. The Iudge, I take it, may not condemne who they acquit, nor acquit whom they condemne, (except by a speciall in­dulgence) and thats farre more than a judgement of discre­tion in the Iury. If it be so with the Brethren here (as the Epistolers say it is) certainly they have more than a judgement of discretion: But your selfe say as much; you give the Brethren, not only joyned with their Elders, but without any Officers at all, full power to censure offenders: Remember your owne words; The way, p. 45, 101. [As for mutuall instruction, and admis­sion, election, and ordination of officers, opening the doores of the Church, by admission of members, and shutting the same by Church-censures: These things they may doe (if need be) without Officers: yea, and if all their Officers were found cul­pable, either in hereticall doctrine, or scandalous crime, yet the Church hath lawfull authority to proceed to the censure of them all.] If this be not as full or more authority than the Elders have over all the Brethren, I professe, I understand nothing in this controversie: yet this I understand, that you [Page 33] speake cleare otherwise sometimes; denying the Brethren any rule or authority, reserving it only to the Elders: As if you meant no more, but that the people did but yeeld con­sent to the judgement of their Elders, by obedience to the will of Christ, and many such like words. 5. But to the point in hand: The Iury then doth not represent the Brethren, but the Ruling Elders; which ruling Elders stand in stead of all the Brethren, as the Iury doth in stead of all the people; and so the priviledge of the people is saved. Otherwise, all the people should be of the Iury, as all the Congregation are al­lowed by you, and others, to be Iudges of the offender. And the truth is, it is a liberty or priviledge to the party that is arraigned, that he may be judged by his Peeres; It is not a liberty of the Iury: So it is a priviledge for any accused brother, that he shall be tryed and judged by his Peeres, the ruling-Elders: It is no priviledge of the rest of the Brethren to be his Iudges; as it is no priviledge of all the people at the Assizes, that they may claime a place in the Iury. 6. That which you adde, that there is great difference between the Iudge and Iury: [ For (say you) though the Iury have given up their verdict, yet the malefactor is not thereupon legally condemned, much lesse executed, but upon the sentence of the Iudge.] This being rightly paralelld, will make against you: so, though the ruling-Elders (representing the people,) give up their votes and judgement; yet the party is not excom­municated, but upon the sentence of the Pastor. And indeed, the Iury rather seeme to acquit or condemne, than the Iudge; he doth but pronounce the sentence, as they have adjudged it: so the ruling-Elders, being more in number, by votes de­termine the cause, which is pronounced by the Pastor, and so the paralell is faire and full. But that all the people at the Assizes should give up their verdict, as well as the Iury, is not [Page 34] in practise in the Common-wealth; and so spoiles the pa­ralell of the votes of all the Brethren in the Church. And yet you persist to say: [ The whole Church may be said to bind and loose, in that they consent and concurre with the Elders, both in discerning it to be just, and in declaring their judgement, by lifting up of hands, or by silence, and after, by rejecting the party, &c.] Iust as all the people at an Assizes, may be said to condemne or acquit, because they consent with the Iudge and Iury, both by discerning it to be just, and in declaring their judgement, by lifting up their hands, or by silence, and after, by rejecting the party. But what if the people doe not consent (as discerning it not to be just) nor will reject the party? Is he then acquitted? Thus it must be, or it holds not proportion with the case in hand: For if the Brethren doe no more but approve and execute the sentence of the Presbytery, this is just nothing to the power of the keyes, intended to be given them, and is a meere passive priviledge. And that you may see your owne inconstancy, consider what you say elsewhere, page 11. [ The Brethren stand in an Order, even in an orderly subjection, according to the order of the Gospell page 15. They give consent, in obedience to the will of Christ, page 37. They (the people) discerning the light and truth, readily yeeld obedience to their overseers, page 41. That they may consent to the judgement and sentence of the Elders.] Had you kept your selfe constant to these expressions, you had both preserved the truth of the Gospell, and the peace of the Church.

And now for a conclusion of this Section; Let me urge you with an argument of your owne, against Episcopacy. page 39. [ Hierome sayes, the Churches were governed by the Common-councell of the Presbyters] That nothing was done without their counsell, im­plyeth, that no­thing was done without their authori­ty. The way, page 31. The Prelates evasion is, [By their counsell asked, not followed:] You answer: [Page 35] This would imply a contradiction to Hieromes words: For in asking their counsell, and not following it, the Bishop should go­vern the church against their Councel, which is a contradiction.] So say I: The Church (say you) is governed by the con­sent of the Brethren: I aske, whether you meane their coun­sell and consent asked only, or followed also. If the later, then the Brethren have as full authority with the Elders, as the Presbyter, had with the Bishop: If the former, it is a contradiction, to say, The Church is governed by the con­sent of the Brethren, and yet is governed against their con­sent; so that the question clearly stated is this: [Whether the Brethren have such concurrence and consent, as that they have a negative vote, or casting voice:] If they have, its that popular Anarchy, of you know whom: If not, its nothing to the power of the Keyes. Only, let me but remember you what elsewhere you say, concerning the peoples power in government of the Church: The way, p. 100. [In case the Officers doe erre, and commit offence, they shall be governed by the whole body of the Brethren; though otherwise, the Brethren are bound to obey and submit to them in the Lord.] How you can recon­cile these things I know not.

But now you propound a sad question: [Whether the Church hath power of proceeding to the utmost censure of their whole Presbytery.] Before I take your answer, I observe 1. That you might have made the question also, whether the Presbytery hath power to proceed to the utmost censure of the Church, and the Brethren the Epistolers, resolve both negatively, Epist. p. 4. 2. That you suppose here, that the Church may proceed to some, though not to the utmost censure of their Presbytery; and that (as you would seeme to deny it in your answer, so) is more than liberty, it is a great degree of Authority, not only over one of your members, [Page 36] but over your Overseers: And now I shall view your an­swer.

1. Answ. [It cannot (say you) be well conceived, that the whole Presbytery should be proceeded against, because some, a strong party perhaps, will side with them, and then the Church ought not to proceed, without consulting with the Synod.] Reply. But 1. this is besides the question, which supposes the whole Presbytery, and the whole Church opposed; and so your answer may seeme to intimate, that if none did side with them, the Church might proceed against them, and that to the utmost censure; but only in a dissension of the Church, they may not. 2. If in any case, they ought not to proceed, doth not this destroy their independency, if they must fly to a Synod? No (say you) they ought only to con­sult the Synod. But if the Synod have no power to deter­mine, and censure, they are still but where they were. What if the Presbytery or Church will not submit to their deter­mination, or Declaration? (for it is no more) what remedy hath the Church against their erring, hereticall, scandalous Presbytery? If the Synod have a power of censure, then againe you destroy your Independency: No; [The Church may withdraw from them:] So they might before they con­sulted the Synod; nay, they were bound to doe it in your way, without consulting the Synod. But you may call to mind your former thoughts. In your other Tract, you give them full power [to censure their Officers without any Officers;] as hath more then once been said above.

And thus your second answer is also answered alrea­dy. You say, [Excommunication is one of the highest acts of Rule, The way, p. 101. and ergo, cannot be performed but by some Ru­lers;] Yet you contradict this f [...]ly, in your other Tract, when you say; [In case of offence given by an Elder, [Page 37] or by the whole Eldership together, the Church hath Authority, (marke that, Authority, which in this Booke you oft deny) to require satisfaction of them; and if they doe not give due satisfaction, to proceed to censure according to the quality of the offence.] And yet (which is strange, me thinks) here you resolve the cleane contrary: [The Church cannot excommu­nicate the whole Presbytery, because they have not received from Christ an office of Rule, without their Officers.] But now if this reason be good, then on the other side it might seeme reasonable; That the Presbytery might excommunicate the whole Church Apostate, because they have received from Christ an office of Rule, without the Church: No, say you, [They must tell the Church, and joyne with the Church in that censure.] But this is to say and unsay: For if the Church must joyne with them, then the Church hath received some peece of an Office of Rule, which was before denyed: If you say, they have not received any Office of Rule, without their Officers; This may imply, that with their Officers they have received an Office of Rule, which all this while you have seemed to deny, allowing them a Liberty, but no Rule or Authority. And whereas you say; [They must tell the Church, but that cannot be, when the Church is Apostate:] I rejoyne, this makes it reasonable to me, That there is ano­ther Church, to which they must tell the offence, by way of appeale; or else, both an erring Presbytery, or an Apostate Church, have no remedy to recover them, instituted by Christ; and so the Church, a multitude, or a Presby­tery, is not so well provided for, as one particular mem­ber.

But you have found a remedy; [The Church wants not li­berty to withdraw from them.] Is not this even tantamount with excommunication? Is it not the execution of that [Page 38] sentence, to withdraw, especially in your way. Excommuni­cation is the contrary to communion. Now how doth the Church communicate their Elders? Take your owne words: [ As they set up the Presbytery, The Keyes, p 17. by professing their subjection to them in the Lord: so they avoid them (that is, in sense, excommunicate them) by professed withdrawing their subje­ction from them, according to God] And this is as much as any people doe, or need to doe, to persons excommunicate; unlesse you grant them a power to the very Act and decree of excommunication; which as you have clearly done in your other Tract, so you doe here, giving them a power more than Ministeriall, even a Kingly, and more than a King­ly power, when you say; [ They rule the Church, by appoin­ting their owne Officers, and likewise in censuring offenders, not only by their Officers (which is as much as Kings are wont to doe) but also by their owne Royall assent, which Kings are not wont to doe, but only in the execution of Nobles.] Satis pro imperio.

5. The last Liberty of the Church, is Liberty of communion with other Churches, which is seven wayes exercised, &c.] To this I say in generall: This is rather communion of Saints, than communion of Churches; because in your way, every Church is independent, and hath no Church-state, in relation to any, but its owne members. We suppose this communion is the liberty or priviledge of every Christian, by vertue of his interest in the generall visible Church, and not by any peculiar interest in a particular Congregation. He that is a professed Christian, and baptized, hath a right to all the Or­dinances of God, where ever he find them; As of old, he that was a Citizen of Rome, or so borne, was a freeman, through all the Romane Empire, and enjoyed the privi­ledges of a Roman. A Christian is a free Deacon in any [Page 39] part of the Christian world; [ A Citizen with the Saints, and of the houshold of God, Eph. 2.19.] And this to me seemes reasonable upon these grounds: 1. Because every Christian, not yet in a particular Church, or Congregation, is at liberty to joyne himselfe to any Church, tyed by no obligation to one more than another. 2. Because it is lawfull for any member of a particular Church, upon just reasons to leave that Church, and to joyne himselfe to another, and nothing can hinder his removall or communion with another Church, except he be scandalous, &c. 3. It was the cu­stome of the first times, before Congregations were fixed, to adde them to the visible Church, were their number les­ser or greater, and give them communion in all the Ordi­nances of Christ. 4. Because the whole visible Church is but one City, one Kingdome, though for orders sake, divi­ded into severall Corporations. It is not so in civill respects; A Citizen of one Corporation, cannot goe and set up trade in another, because they have their severall Charters: But in the City of God, the Kingdome of Christ, there is but one Charter for all; and no more is required to admit a man a member of any Congregation, but that he professe him­selfe a Christian, and live accordingly. Your New Cove­nant to tye men to your particular Church, that he may not remove, without a generall leave, will, I feare, prove a snare and a tyranny, worse than yet we can imagine.

1. But come we to your particulars: [First, by way of par­ticipation of the Lords Supper, the members of one Church comming to another Church, &c.] But 1. Why doe you in­stance in this Ordinance only? Have not their children oc­casionally borne there, a liberty also of Baptisme? Where neither of the parents can claim right to the Lords Supper; there their Infants cannot claime right to Bap­tisme. The way, p. 81. Nor the childe of an excommu­nicate person, p. 85. The ra­ther, because Baptisme is not administred with respect to this or that Church, but to the generall visible Church: [Page 40] Unlesse you hold, that a man or childe is baptized to no Church, but that particular, and an Infidell to all the rest. Yet some of your brethren will hardly baptize a childe of any, but a member of their owne Church, which is next doore to Anabaptisme. 2. I aske by what power of the keyes, doe your Pastors admit a member of another Church, to par­take of the Lords Supper, in yours? Or in what relation doth your Pastor stand to that member of another Church? You say, Pastor and Church are relates, and he is a Pastor to none but of his owne Church: Either then, to administer the Lords Supper to a member of another Church, is no Pastorall act, but may be done by a gifted brother: Or else, a Pastor and his Church are not so relates, but that he is a Pastor be­yond the limits of his owne Congregation, which yet you doe deny. 3. You are also very sparing in granting this li­berty: For you adde; [In case, neither himselfe, nor the Church from whence he comes, doe lye under any publicke of­fence.] But what if that party be free from the guilt of that offence? Shall the innocent suffer for the nocent? what charity, what justice is in this? 4. But your reason I like very well: [For we receive the Lords Supper, not only as a Seale of our Communion with the Lord Iesus, and with his members in our owne Church, but also in all the Churches of the Saints:] Whence I inferre, then it is not any favour dispensed by you, to a member of another Church, but a dignity or privi­ledge, common to every member of that body, by vertue of that membership, and not with respect to his particular Church membership. And I pray, is not Baptisme also a Seale of our Communion, with all the members of Christs body? Why then may you not admit the children of the members of any Church, to be baptized by your Pastors, upon just occasion, as well as to admit the parents to the [Page 41] Lords Supper? Nay further: If the Sacraments be Seales of our communion with all the members of Christ, why doe you not admit any true Christian, and his children, to the communion of the Sacraments, though they be not as yet admitted members of any particular Congregation? How dare you deny any member of that Body, communion with its fellow-members, when it hath union and communion with the Head? Consider it.

2. A second way of your communion of Churches, is, [ By way of recommendation as Paul in the behalfe of Phoebe, &c.] But this is so farre from being any part of the power of the Keyes, that it is a duty, which a Church or party owe to any Christian that is godly, not by vertue of any parti­cular Church-membership, but by the common interest of Christianity; yea, by the common right of humanity, even to an honest Heathen, according to the ninth Commande­ment, which requires us, to beare true witnesse to our brother, if we be thereto required. The letters are only declarative, of the good behaviour of the party, occasioned to remove to such a place. Was this (thinke you) a part of the power of the Keyes, delivered to Peter, and the rest of the Apostles? Besides, if there be any vertue in these letters, to admit a member into communion, is there not a like vertue in them, to excommunicate one ungodly? And if these letters di­missory have power to admit a member of one Church, to be a member of another, without any new covenanting, have they not the like power to admit the Pastor of one Church, to be a Pastor of another Church, without any new Ordina­tion? which yet, I beleeve, you doe not practise.

3. [By way of Consultation; and 4 by Congregation into a Synod.] But what is all this to the power of the Keyes? If upon Congregation, and consultation of other Church-Officers, [Page 42] there be not a binding power, it is rather a latch of a doore, which may be opened and shut at any bodies pleasure, than a Key to let in, or locke out with any Au­thority. But of the power of Synods more hereafter.

4. A fifth way is: [ The liberty of giving and receiving mutuall supplyes one from another; gifted men, or benevolen­ces, &c.] I conceive first, these are rather duties of common charity, than of Church liberty, or any power of the Keyes: And I desire to know what those gifted men were, that the Church of Antioch sent to other Countries? Were they not Apostles, or Prophets, or Teachers in Office? Then they were Pastors or Teachers by Office, before they were sent, before they were elected or ordained by the Churches to which they were sent. Thereupon it followes, that a Pastor or Teacher (because you may say a Pastor relates to his owne flocke) a Teacher (so was Barnabas, Acts 13.1.) is a Teacher to the generall visible Church, not to the particular Church only, as you hold. And then againe, a Teacher, quâ Tea­cher, may preach to another Church, and convert Hea­thens; and not as a gifted brother only, as you sometimes speake.

A sixth way is, [ By way of mutuall admonition, when a publicke offence is found amongst them: One Church may send to admonish another, and if that Church will not heare, take two or three other Churches; and if not heare them, then withdraw, &c.] This admonition is a duty of every brother, at least of every Christian, as a Christian, and no power of the Keyes at all: And let it be considered, that the place, Matth. 18.15, 16. Those two or three are not considered as a Church-body, but as a sufficient num­ber of witnes­ses, to joyne with a bro­ther offended, &c. agreeing in a duty of brotherly love, &c. The way, p. 53. doth not make the admonition of one or more brethren, any power of the Keyes, but a duty only con­cerning every man, in order to the censure of the Church: But if one or more Churches may proceed with a Church-offending, [Page 43] as private persons with an offending brother; why may they not take the third step, as the last remedy, to ex­communicate her, being obstinate, as the Church doth an ob­stinate b [...]o her? No; [Because the Churches are all of equall authority:] But so are all the members of a Congregation of equall authority, yet the whole may excommunicate him: And if there be as much Church-communion between Chur­ches, as there is between members of a particular Congre­gation; I see no reason, why many Churches assembled in a Synod, may not as well excommunicate an obstinate Church, as a Congregation, a particular member. If you deny excommunication of a Church, others will (and doe) deny excommunication of a member, and say, non-commu­nion, or withdrawing is as much as can be done. And if you say, the Churches may withdraw communion; I demand, first, what is that in effect, but excommunication, wanting only a Synodicall Decree; yet page 25. you say, [A Synod hath power to determine, to withdraw communion from an offen­ding Church:] And is it any more in the excommunic [...]tion of an offending brother? They doe but determine all shall withdraw communion from him. This is therefore but a meere Logom [...]chie.

6. The last way of Communion of Churches, is, [by way of prop [...]gation, or multiplication of Churches:] But 1. This is rather a division of Churches, than either propaga­tion, or multiplication: For these very Churches were be­fore all one Church, now only divided into two The Apo­stles and the first Planters, did not thus propagate Churches; but went into places, where no Churches were, no Christi­ans, and there gathered and multiplyed Churches. We have enough of this division of Churches, (since your way set up) but little of the propagation or multiplication. Primi­tive [Page 44] and Apostolicall. For I pray Sir, tell us, next time you write over, how many Churches have you multiplyed a­mongst the Indians in New-England? Not one, that I ever heard of: You have d vided Churches indeed, from old Eng­land, but propagated none. And our Brethren at home, how many Churches have they divided and d [...]stracted since their returne, but have multiplyed none? If some new Teachers should arise in New England, and gather (or rather steale) some members out of every of your Congregations, would you call this multiplication of Churches, or rather division? Had you gone into New England, and sent out your Pastors, (who are by calling, spirituall Fathers) to convert Indians, (as was pretended) or our Brethren here gone and sent into Wales, and other parts, little better than heathens, and con­verted them, and had gathered them into Churches, this had been a propagation of Churches indeed. But this they doe not, nor will doe, nor well can doe: For their opinion is, (and yours too in New England) that no Pastor is a Pastor to any, but his particular Congregation: so their Pastors are only Nurses to give sucke, not spirituall Fathers, to propa­gate and beget children to God and his Church. That they leave to every gifted brother, to raise up seed to their Bre­thren, and not to themselves. For if once the children be borne, and a little growne up, then these (Fathers in Law) take them up, or rather steale them from them, who have spent their strength in begetting, and breeding them, travel­ling in paine, till Christ was formed in them. But if a Pa­stor and flocke be relates, is a Teacher so too? They may doe well then to send Teachers to beget children for their Pastors; lest it be said: [No man in Office hath any skill, or will, or power, to propagate but only to divide Churches.]

Againe, why doe you call this a power of the Keyes; for a [Page 45] Church to send out a Congregation (as an Hive doth a swarm) when they are too full? This is their liberty, not yours. They have power without you, to gather themselves to­gether, and to enter into a Church-way, and to chuse their Officers, and doe all, as well as you had.

Lastly, if Pastors, quâ Pastors, or Teachers, quâ Teachers, are tyed to a particular Congregation, then cannot they pro­pigate Churches; only gifted Brethren can doe that: And so gifted Brethren, not Pastors and Teachers, are the Succes­sors of the Apostles: We thinke Pastors and Teachers are Officers to the whole Church as the Apostles were; You will say, then they are Apostles: First, will you say your gifted Brethren are Apostles, because they goe abroad to convert and propagate Churches? Secondly, it followes not; That which made the Apostles differ from the Pa­stors, is delivered by your selfe, to stand in two things: 1. The Keyes, p. 32. [ That an Apostle had in him in all ministeriall power of all the Officers of the Church. 2. That Apostolicall power exten­ded to all Churches as much as to any one.] But withall you say, [That this power conjoyned in them, is now divided by them, amongst all the Churches, and all the Officers of the Churches respectively.] I aske then, what Officer of the Church hath power to plant and propagate Churches? Your gifted Brethren are no Officers of the Church: I hope, Ruling Elders and Deacons are tyed as well to their particular Churches, as the Pastors and Teachers; ergo, it must fall upon the Pastors and Teachers, or there is no such thing now, as propagation of Churches. But take once more your owne grant in this Paragraph, where now we are: [ Though the Apostles be dead, whose Office it was to plant and gather Churches; yet the worke is not dead, but the same power of the Keyes is left with the Churches in common, &c.] Marke, first, [Page 46] you call it a power of the keyes, to plant and gather Churches, and an Office of the Apostles: But this power of the Keyes, this Office is not bequeathed to gifted Brethren, nor to Ruling-Elders, or Deacons; ergo, it is left to the Pastors or Teachers. Next, you say, the same power of the Keyes is left with the Churches in common: You should say, with the Pastors or Teachers of the Church, or with the Chur­ches indeed, but in the hands of her Officers: Otherwise, you make not only the brethren, but sisters too (according to their measure, as you speake) Fathers and Mothers [To propagate and inlarge the Kingdome of Christ, throughout all generations, as God shall give opportunity.] But were it so, yet then much more would it concerne the Pastors and Teachers (the Successors of the Apostles, if they have any at all) to propagate and inlarge the Kingdome of Christ, as God shall give opportunity.

CHAP. V. Of the Subject of the Key of Authority.

THe Key of Authority or Rule is committed to the Elders of the Church, and so the Act of Rule is proper to their Office.] But, me thinks, you should have done well, to distinguish both of Authority and Rule, and also of Elders, preaching from those they call Ruling-Elders: For Authority and Rule may be distinguished; be­cause [Page 47] there is Rule in those that are called Ruling-Elders, but not Authority to preach and administer Sacraments: I would not have noted it, but that you confusedly reckon up the particulars of Authority and Rule, without distinction, what belongs to one sort of Elders, what to another; As if they did equally belong to both.

1. The first is: [ That which the Eld [...]rs, who labour in the Word and Doctrine, are to attend unto chiefly, that is, the preaching of the word, and the administration of the Sacra­ment [...].] For the first, [the preaching of the Word,] some of your Brethren say, that private gifted Brethren may prophe­cye, that is, preach, and others say they may baptize too; who yet are denyed power in ruling, as being not Elders, not Officers, to whom the Act of Ruling is proper: Indeed you seeme to deny gifted Brethren power to prophesie publick­ly; but your Prefacers write, Magister hic non tenetur. Yet their owne resolution of the case, and their practise doth not well agree. They say, a gifted Brother may [occasionally preach, not in an ordinary course.] But we see, they doe it ordinarily and constantly; witnesse all their Lecturers, their double and treble beneficed Lecturers; and one who takes a Benefice, (but perhaps not the charge of soules, nor ad­ministration of Sacraments) where he constantly preaches. If you say, They are Elders or Pastors: I answer, they are so, to their owne select Congregations, but they are but as gifted Brethren to other Congregations; for their principle is, [Pastor and flocke are relates:] which, if it be not a fine de­lusion, let the world judge. We deny not, but gifted Bre­thren, of such abilities as are fit for Office, for learning and judgement, &c. may for approbation, exercise their gifts. But we only note the difference of these Masters; and that these of ours are nearer to Brownisme; who by their con­stant [Page 48] preaching as gifted Brethren, countenance and encou­rage private members, supposing themselves gifted suffici­ently to preach ordinarily; yea, and to administer the Seales, which as it is lesse Christ sent me not to bap­tize, but to preach the Gospell. than preaching, so also is annexed unto preaching, Mat. 28. as your selfe here speakes, and complaine of this practise, page 6.

2. A second Act of Authority common to the Elders, is, [They have power to call the Church together.] 1. You said before, Rule was an Act proper to the Office of Elders: Now you say it is common, you meane perhaps common to both sorts of Elders: But then you should have explained the difference, or resolved us, whether the Ruling-Elders have equall power with the preaching Elders in this Act. For your instance of the Apostles, calling the Church to­gether, Acts 6.2. is but for one sort of Elders, and you bring nothing for the other. 2. Besides, to call the Church toge­ther, seemes rather a matter of Order, than of Authority: For one Elder of either sort, may be deputed to this worke. But if this be proper to Elders, what if the Elders be all offenders, who shall call the Church together then? Truly, this power seemes first to be in the Church, in your way; who as they had power to gather themselves into one Body, without Officers, so much more, to call an Assembly of themselves. That of Ioel 2. for the Priests, is weakly al­leadged: For it appeares not that they were called on, to call an Assembly, (but only to weep, v. 17.) it was rather the Magistrates Act to proclaime a Fast.

3. [To examine all, members or Officers, before they be re­ceived of the Church.] But this, according to your princi­ples, is spoken to the whole Church, and so no proper Act of Elders. And expressely above, you made this one part of the priviledge or liberty of the people, to propound just excep­tions [Page 49] against such as offer themselves; and if so, then also to examine them, page 13.

4. A fourth Act of their Rule, is, [Ordination of Offi­cers.] But 1. This is too confused: What Elders doe you meane? Preaching or Ruling? Have the Ruling-Elders power of Ordination of Pastors and Teachers? This, as it is without all president of Scripture, so it is against a Rule: [The greater is blessed of the lesser;] which cannot be by the Apostles Divinity. 2. This is no Act proper to the Elders, but common to the Brethren, by your owne judgement, if your minde be not altered since you writ, The Way, p. 50, 51. See it.

5. [To open the doores of speech and silence in the Assem­bly.] But 1. one Elder doth this; ergo, one Elder hath power and authority, not over the Church only, but over his fellow Elders also. 2. You take it from them presently in some cases: [ When the Elders themselves lye under offence, the Brethren have liberty to require satisfaction, &c.] That is, the Brethren may open the doore, and begin to speake. And still you are confused, not declaring whether this power belongs to either sort of Elders, or both alike; especially your instance of the Rulers of the Synagogue, seeming to carry it to the Ruling Elders.

6. [ To prepare matters before hand for the Church, and to reject causelesse and disorderly complaints, &c.] But doe not you hold, Mat. 18.17. to speake of the Church of the Bre­thren, with the Elders? then that place is impertinently al­leadged, to prove an Act proper to the Elders. 2. Have the Elders power to judge a complaint to be causelesse, and to reject it, without the cognizance of the people? why then have they not power to judge a complaint to be just, and to censure it, without their cognizance also? Doe you not [Page 50] intrench a little too much upon your peoples Liberty?

7. [ The Elders have authority in handling an offence, before the Church, both jus dicere, and sententiam ferre.] But all this, I thinke the Brownists yeeld, who yet give the chiefe, if not the only power to the people; and give the Elders leave, sen­tentiam ferre, to pronounce the sentence, as their mouth and Deputies. And you say: [ They are first to informe the Church, what the Law of Christ is, which is, jus dicere; and then when the Church discerneth the same, and condiscendeth to it, by con­sent, to give sentence.] But what if the people discerne it not, or condiscend not, that the sentence shall passe? Then they may have power, jus dicere, which every understan­ding brother hath, but not sententiam ferre: A goodly Au­thority!

8. [They have power to dismisse the Church, with a Blessing.] To this I say little; only I say, it is too confused, what Elders you meane, preaching or Ruling? and then, I say, this is but a matter of Order, one only does it, and yet I thinke you will not say, he hath Authority over his fellowes.

9. [ The Elders have power to charge any of the people in pri­vate, that they live not inordinately, &c. 2 Thes. 3.6. &c.] This is very weakly alleadged by a man of your strength: The Apostle speaks this to all the Brethren, the Thessalonians, yea, it may concerne women sometimes, to warne the un­ruly, especially being to be done in private; and doe you bring this for the power of your Elders? which sort of Elders doth it concerne to doe this, for neither are men­tioned? Againe, the Apostle speaks not of charging or warning at all; but peremptorily bids them withdraw, v. 6. and to [ note him by a Letter, and have no company with him, v. 14.]

10. [ If the Church fall away to blasphemy against Christ, [Page 51] &c. and no Synod hoped for, or no help by it; The Elders have power to withdraw the Disciples from them, and to carry away the Ordinances with them, &c.] But 1. the case is mislaid; for Acts 19.9. the Jewes that there blasphemed, were not of the Church; but only such as came to heare Paul preach, which an Infidell might doe; but then this was no proper withdrawing, as a power of the Keyes: For what had Paul to doe, or the Elders with them that are without. 2. Suppose the whole Church fall away, what shall the Elders doe now? They may not excommunicate them, you said above; and if they may withdraw, thats no more power than the Brethren have of the Elders Apostate. 3. How can the Elders carry away the Ordinances from them? For first the Elders cease to be Elders, when the flocke is separated, and ceases to be their flocke. Secondly, the Brethren may keep the Ordinan­ces with them, and have power in your way, to chuse new Officers, to exercise the Ordinances; and then what care they for their withdrawing, either themselves or the Ordinances? 4. It seemes not justifiable, that Elders should withdraw, and carry away the Ordinances from a company of erring Bre­thren. The Prophets of old did not so, but continued still to preach, though the people were obstinate: For this is the remedy to cure their obstinacy, and so the Apostle directs, 2 Tim. 2.25, 26.

In the close of this Chapter, you propound a question: [If the Elders have this power of Rule, how are they then the servants of the Church?] You answer by a similitude: [ A Queen may call her servants her mariners, to conduct her over Sea; yet they being called by her to such an Office, she must not rule them in steering their course, &c.] If such be the case be­tween the Church and her Elders (as you say it is) I see little or no difference between you and the Brownists; For they [Page 52] make the Church a Queen, and the Elders but her servants, called by her to such an Office; to exercise the power of the Keyes in her name: You say here, [ The Elders rule the Church from Christ, and so from their call; and above, sect. 7. The Church condiscending to the information of the Elders, what the Law of Christ is, it is a further act of the Elders power, to give sentence against the offender.] Just as the Mari­ner, when the Queene, who hath called him to that Office, tels him she is resolved to goe to such a place, puts her command in execution, by steering his course to that place.

CHAP. VI. Of the Authority of Synods.

IN that you acknowledge Synods as an Ordi­nance of Christ, and set downe the causes of assembling Churches into Synods, we shall easily agree with you: The maine contro­versie is about their power. Concerning which you move three questions.

1. Q. What power it is they have received; which you thus resolve: [Not only to counsell and give light, but also to command and enjoyne things to be beleeved and done.] But this [Page 53] (as was noted in your Prefacers Epistle) is but an empty grant. For you meane it rather materially, than formally, by any Authority the Synod hath to bind them to obedience or censure: Yes, formally (you say) [from the authority of the Synod, which being an Ordinance of Christ, bindeth the more for the Synods sake.] But the great scruple is, To make their counsell the more weighty and accepta­ble; but not to invest them with more rule or autho­rity. The way, p 51. what kind of Authority this is, whether it differ specifically from the power of a single Pastor, or of a Congregationall Presbytery, or only gradually, as a greater testimony; for so some of yours under­stand it: If in this latter sense, I see not how it can be cal­led an Ordinance of Christ, or authority distinct from the Authority of one single Pastor: For he hath Authority ministerially to declare and command people, what God commands and declares to be his will, with all Authority: And this seemes to be your meaning; for you say [A truth of the Gospell taught by a Minister, bindeth to faith and obe­dience, not only because it is Gospell, but also because it is taught by a Minister for his callings sake.] Now suppose 20, or 40, or more Pastors met together, teach and declare a truth of the Gospell; & enjoyne it to their severall Congregations, by way of a Decree; I aske what difference is there between this Authority of theirs, and the Authority of any one of them single? If you say, none but graduall, then I say, they have no Authority as a Synod, but as Pastors: If you say, speci­ficall, that is, juridicall, whereas a Pastors is but doctrinall, you yeeld the cause as we would have it. But then they have a power, not only of decreeing, which one Pastor hath not; but also of censuring upon the disobedience of the people, which you will not easily grant. Againe, I thinke you take the authority of a Presbytery in a Congregation, to be an Ordinance of Christ, and to differ, not only gradually, but specifically; And the authority of a Pastor, or Teacher, [Page 54] or Ruling-Elders single. Now it may seeme strange, if a Synod be an Ordinance of Christ (as you grant) that a single Presbytery should have a juridicall authority, to decree and censure; and yet a Synod, which is a Presbytery of Presby­teries, should have but only a doctrinall authority: You may rather deny Synods to be an Ordinance of Christ, and call them (as your Prefacers call the first Synod of the Apostles) a Consultation, or if you will, a Reference by way of Arbitra­tion, for deciding of controversies, &c. Which the parti­cular Churches (unlesse they bind themselves by promise) need not stand to, but may plead their owne Liberty. But (say you) [they have a power, (if they cannot heale the offen­ders) to determine to withdraw communion from them.] This power all the Brethren have, as to withdraw from their owne Elders, apostate: so from other Churches obstinate, against their admonitions. Or if you place any emphasis in the word (determine) that is, to decree a separation from them; then you give them a juridicall power, which is aequivalent with the power of excommunication, whereof withdrawing is but the execution.

2. Q. [How far the Fraternity may concurre with the El­ders in the power of the Synod.] You resolve it in 3 particu­lars: 1. [ They have liberty to dispute their doubts among the Elders, Acts 15.7.12.] The place I thinke is much mi­staken. The disputation, for ought appeares, was amongst the Apostles and Elders, before the Brethren; not by the Brethren. And when in v. 12. the whole multitude are said to keep silence, it proves not that they did dispute: For 1. certainly that had been too much confusion, for a multitude to speake all at once. 2. Their silence now, argues not that they disputed before; Acts 21.40. & 22.2. the word [...], signifies no more but this; they were quiet, or held their peace from [Page 55] noise or murmurings, usuall with multitudes, as at an Assizes; we feare it; they hearkened attentively. 2. [They had liberty to joyne with the Apostles and Elders, in approving the sen­tence, and determining the same, as the common sentence of them all.] That they had a liberty to joyne in approving the sentence, is no more than the multitude at an Assizes have to joyne with the Judge in approving of his sentence: But that they joyned in determining the same, as the com­mon sentence of them all, is far more than the multitude have at the Assizes, and is as full Authority as the Elders have; And yet this you presently deny, when you say: [ Yet the Authority of the Decrees lay chiefly (if not only) in the Apostles and Elders [...]] The Apostles and Elders did no more but joyne with Iames in determining the sentence, as the common sentence of them all. 3 [They had liberty to joyne with the Apostles and Elders, in chusing and sending mes­sengers, and writing Synodall Letters, in the names of all.] If you meant no more than a passive approbation, it might be yeelded; but if you meane an actuall, or active concur­rence, that they had not been valid without their votes and consent; its far more than liberty, as good authority as any the Apostles and Elders had.

Obj. But Elders in a Synod have no authority to determine any act to bind the Churches, but according to their instru­ctions. You answer: [We doe not so apprehend it: For what need Churches send to a Synod for light and direction, if they be resolved afore hand, how far they will goe?] Reply: Here either you destroy the liberty of the Brethren, afore granted, and give the Synod a binding power, which you seeme to deny? or else prevaricate in this cause. For according to your principles, the Synod hath no power to bind the Churches to stand to their arbitrement (for thats the true power of your [Page 56] Synods) under any penall censure; only they may withdraw; And then I returne you your owne words: [ What need Churches send to a Synod for light and direction, &c. if they be resolved afore hand, how far they will goe?]

3. Q. [Whether the Synod hath power to enjoyne things both in their nature and use indifferent.] You resolve it nega­tively.

1. [ From the patterne of Synods, Acts 15.28. who enjoyned nothing but necessaries, in nature or use.]

Sol. This is an Argument from Scripture, negativè; they did not here enjoyne any thing but necessaries; ergo, they had no power to enjoyne things indifferent: The conse­quence is naught. 2. [ The Apostles are commanded to teach what Christ commanded; ergo, if they teach more, they exceed their commission.]

Sol. This Argument is like the former: They were to teach what Christ commanded; ergo, they might teach nothing else in things indifferent: They might teach nothing as a commandement of Christ doctrinally, in matters of Faith or worship; but this hinders not, but they might enjoyne some things indifferent; as they did forbid the use of some things indifferent in their owne nature; viz. bloud, and strangled. If it be said, those were not indifferent in their use, at that time: I answer; There is nothing in the indi­viduall, properly indifferent in the use; because it fals under some generall rules of Scripture; and so is to be used or not used accordingly: The question therefore should be; [Whether a Synod may enjoyne (or forbid) the use of a thing in its owne nature indifferent?] And then I should answer affir­matively, and defend my selfe by this very president of the Apostles, Acts 15. Who did forbid the use of somethings in their owne nature indifferent? I would not therefore [Page 57] answer: [Christ speaketh only of teaching such things which he had commanded, as necessary to salvation:] But I would say, Christ speaks of matters of faith, or worship: That they should teach nothing to be beleeved, as a Doctrine of Faith: or practised as a part of Gods worship, but what he had commanded them. Otherwise the Apostles did goe beyond their commission, in teaching as necessary, to abstaine from bloud, &c. which Christ never commanded them, but ra­ther forbad, in abrogating the Ceremoniall Law. And whereas you say; [ The Apostle 1 Cor. 14.40. doth not at all enjoyne, nor allow the Church to enjoyne such things as decent, whose want or whose contrary is not undecent: nor such orders, whose want or contrary would be no disorder.] I answer: that for men to pray or prophesie with their heads covered, or with long haire, and women uncovered, were things in their owne nature indifferent (unlesse you make it necessary, as a morall duty, for men to pray or prophesie uncovered, and women contra; which no Interpreters upon that Text doe) and yet the Apostle enjoynes the Corinthians so to doe; ergo, the Synod may doe so too: And for your instance of preach­ing in a gowne; [ A gowne (say you) is a decent garment to preach in, yet such an injunction (for Ministers to preach in a gowne) is not grounded upon that Text of the Apostle: For then, a Minister in neglecting to preach in a gowne, should neglect the commandement of the Apostle; which yet he doth not; for if he preach in a cloake, he preacheth decently enough.] True, he sins not in point of decency; but supposing such a custome in a Church (as the custome was for men, amongst Corin­thians, to preach uncovered, and the women to be convened in the Congregations) the Synod might enjoyne all the Mi­nisters to preach in a gowne, (as the Apostle did enjoyne them to preach uncovered) and he that shall preach in a [Page 58] cloke, preaches decently indeed, but not orderly; and so sins against the Apostles rule of order, though not of decency. You so speake, as if there were only one Rule to be obser­ved, or two at most, in the use of things indifferent; whereas there are at least five to that purpose: And by the same reason, that the Apostle enjoynes men to keep decency, he enjoynes to keep order; and so other rules, concerning things indifferent. Doth not the Apostle complaine of disorder in the Corinthians preaching covered? yet the contrary Order was not necessary, but in it selfe indifferent. The eating of things offered to Idols, was a thing in it selfe, before that de­cree of the Apostles, indifferent, 1 Cor. 10.25. 1 Cor. 8.8. yet was now forbidden: If you say, this was offensive to the Iewes, and ergo necessary pro hic & nunc: I answer, this rea­son made it necessary only, where such eating was knowne to be offensive, but the Canon made it necessary every where.

3. A third reason is taken (you say) from the nature of the [ Ministeriall Office in Church or Synod: which is stewardly, not Lordly, and ergo, they may dispense no more injun­ctions to Gods house, than Christ hath appointed them.] I an­swer, its true, he may dispense nothing as an institution of Christ, but what he hath commanded: But yet a Steward may require of the Family, and enjoyne them the use of things in themselves indifferent, for Order and uniformity. As that all shall meet in such an houre, in such a place, to prayers, &c. So I thinke you doe in your owne Churches. It is indifferent to receive the Lords Supper at Morning or at Evening, yet some of you enjoyne it to be done at Evening. It is indifferent to baptize, in a river, in a paile, in a Font, in a Bason; yet, I beleeve, you enjoyne one of these, and forbid the other. And whereas you say, [Christ in these things never [Page 59] provided for uniformity, but only for unity.] I answer: then the Apostle exceeded his commission, in enjoyning the Co­rinthians uniformity, in their orderly praying or prophe­cying; yea, unity is much preserved by uniformity.

But you propound à question; [Whether a Synod hath power of Ordination or excommunication:] And answer 1. That you doubt it was not so from the beginning. 2. That if any such occasion should arise amongst you, you (in a Synod) should determine it fit to be done, but referre the administration of both, to the Presbytery of severall Churches.] So perhaps would the Presbyteriall Churches. But the question is, what is to be done, if the Officers of the particular Churches be dead, or hereticall, who then shall doe those acts? Either the Sy­nod must doe it, but that you refuse, or a Classis, The way, p. 50, 51. or a Presbytery of another Congregation; but that you also deny, as having no warrant: Then it followes, the Brethren without Offi­cers must both ordaine Elders, Page 100. and excommunicate offen­ders; which you fully grant in the other Tract. But as clearly contradict in this, as is evident in the former Chap­ter.

If it be said, for Synodicall Ordination, [that Matthias was so called to be an Apostle, Acts 1.] you answer: [It appeares not, they acted them in a Synodicall way.] But I pray Sir, re­member what you said above, concerning that Synod, Acts 15. [That it rise up to be a Synod, or generall Councell, by the Apostles presence, they being Elders of all the Churches.] So it may be said of that Assembly, Acts 1. the Apostles presence, and the whole Church, then extant, there assembled, made it a Synod; and if so, then in a Synod, there was an Apostle ordained: If I may use that word of an Apostle, which I may the better to doe, by your grants, who urge the word [...], The Keyes, p. 12. [he was voted by the common suffrages of them [Page 60] all.] And if an Apostle, much more a Deacon, or other Offi­cers, as Acts 6. in another like Assembly. The other in­stance of the Presbyters imposing hands upon Paul and Bar­nabas, Paul and Bar­nabas were or­dained to that Office (of A­postleship) by the imposition of hands of some Officers or members of the Church: The way, p. 45 was not indeed an Ordination, properly so called, though you call it a [separation of them to the worke of the Apostleship.] nor in a Synod, but in a particular Church; yet it was in a Presbytery of Prophets and Teachers, perhaps of severall Churches, there occasionally met, and yeelds us this instruction; That Elders of one or more Churches, may im­pose hands, that is, ordaine (in your sense) Elders imployed in other Churches; for so were Paul and Barnabas. Whence we would inferre two things more: 1. That if a Classis or Presbytery may ordaine, then may a Synod ordaine. 2. That however the people or Brethren have no power to ordaine or impose hands: for those were Prophets and Teachers, that imposed hands on Paul and Barnabas.

To conclude this Chapter: whereas you said, [ The Sy­nod, Acts 15. did dispense no censure against the false Teachers, an evident argument, they left the censure to the particular Churches.] I answer: This is an Argument like the former: They dispensed no censure, ergo, they had no power, per­haps they revoked their errour, and repented, and so there was no need: However, the Synod could not censure them, till they knew them obstinate. What was after done, we know not.

CHAP. VII. The first Subject of all this Power; and of Independency.

LEtting passe what is said of Christ, the sove­raigne Subject of all power, as out of all que­stion, we consider only what you say of Mi­nisteriall power.

1. Propos. [A particular Church, or Con­gregation of Saints, is the first subject of all the Church-offices, with all their spirituall gifts and power,] 1 Cor. 3.22, &c. But, under favour, all the Texts produced to prove the Pro­position, are mistaken, or misapplyed. The first, 1 Cor. 3.22. is not spoken to the Church of Corinth, or any other parti­cular Church, as a peculiar priviledge unto them; but either, of all Saints in the world, or of those in the Church of Co­rinth, as Saints, not promiscuously of the whole Church, as a Church, consisting of good and bad: For, was Paul and Apollos; was life and death, were things present, and things to come, given to wicked men and hypocrites in that Church? was Paul an Apostle, and Cephas another, given as a pecu­liar priviledge to the Church of Corinth only? Yea, is not this meant of the invisible mysticall Church, and not of any particular Church? For the second, 1 Cor. 14.23. you say, [Theirs was such a Church, of whom it is said; They came al­together [Page 62] into one place.] But we have told you, at the begin­ning, this was not such a Church as you described, [A Con­gregation of Saints professing the faith] without their Officers: which I thinke you meane here also; (for these things are taken out of, The way, p. 1.) This was a Church that had many Officers. The third Text, 1 Cor. 12.28. is not meant of a particular Church. For I pray, were the Apostles set in the Church of Corinth only, as a particular Church? Were not they Ministers of all, and given to all Churches? Your labour about [...], some, to referre it to the Apostles, is but a meere criticisme; for let it be some, or which, it mat­ters not. For those Apostles or Prophets were not set in the Church of Corinth, as the first subject thereof, but in the generall visible Church: so the paralell place, Eph. 4.12. is necessarily meant of the Church of Saints, or the body of Christ generally, or indefinitely, not of this or that parti­cular Church. What weake proofes are these, for a propo­sition of so great concernment, as being the very foundation of the Independent Government?

But you read of no Nationall Church, nor Nationall Offi­cers given to them by Christ: Yet (say we) we reade of Offi­cers more than Nationall, given to the Churches, even uni­versall, as Apostles and Prophets: And some thinke we reade of Nationall Officers, such was Titus for Crete; as an Evan­gelist, though we take these to be extraordinary. 2. We read of Nationall Churches, living under one common go­vernment, as the Churches of Galatia; yet but one Church; and the Church of Ierusalem, had many Congregations, yet but one Church: And if many Congregations may be called one Church in a City; why all the Congregations in a Nation, may not be called one Nationall Church, I see no great reason? Not indeed in a typicall sense, as the Church [Page 63] of the Jewes was, a Nationall Church. 3. You grant, that the Officers of particular Churches of a Province, or Na­tion, may meet, as a Synod, by an Ordinance of Christ; Iohn speaks of the dimensi­ons, of many particular Iewish Chur­ches combi­ning together in some cau­ses, even to the communion of a thousand Churches, and all of them will have such mutuall care, and yeeld such mutuall help and communi­on one to ano­ther, as if they were all but one Body. The Keyes, p. 56. and there determine, and enjoyne things for all their Churches; and this Synod you call, a Church of Churches: Now, are not those Officers, Officers to all those Churches, and may not they be called Nationall Officers, in a candid sense? It is therefore a meere Logomachy, to dispute, whether there be a Nationall Church, or Nationall Officers, or no: But [ the Officers themselves (say you) and the Synods themselves, and all their power, are primarily given to the severall Chur­ches of particular Congregations, either as the first subject in whom they are resident, or as the first object, about whom they are conversant, &c.] Let me first tell you, you plainly vary the question, which is, of the first subject, not of the first ob­ject.

2. The first object of all the Church Officers, is not the particular Churches; certainly the first object of the Apostles and Prophets was the generall visible Church, not any par­ticular Church: Nay, every Pastor is first given to the whole Church, secondarily to this or that particular Church as the object; as I thinke, I have proved above, at least, you doe not sufficiently disprove it: But 3. that the power which a Synod puts forth, [ is subjectively first in the Synod; The Keyes. p. 47.] is your owne assertion in your 4. proposition; you did there­fore much forget your selfe here, to assert the contrary; and thinke to evade, by altering the state of the question, put­ting the first object, for the first subject, or joyning them to­gether, when the question is of the first subject only. Surely, if the power of a Synod be any thing more than the power of a particular Congregation; the particular Congregation can­not be the first subject, in whom the power of the Synod [Page 64] is resident. But when I consider your first proposition bet­ter, I begin to thinke your meaning is, that the Church par­ticular, even without Officers, is the first Subject of all Church-power; because 1. such a Church you define in, The Way, to be the only instituted Church; and secondly, you give them power to derive their power upon their Offi­cers, in chusing and ordaining them, and then sending them to a Synod; and so indeed, they are the first Subject, even of the power put forth in the Synod: But if this be not downright Brownisme, I confesse, I know not what is. Let me but make use of your owne characters of the first Sub­ject of all power: [The first subject of any power hath it re­ciprocally:] But a particular Congregation of Saints, hath not all Church-offices, and all spirituall power reciprocally: For it may be without all Officers: so cannot fire, the first Subject of heate, be without heate. Againe, take the se­cond character: [It first putteth forth the exercise of that po­wer.] But say I, a particular Congregation without Offi­cers, doth not first put forth the power of an Officer, or of a Synod; ergo, If you say, yet the third will fit it rightly: [It first communicateth that power to others.] because the Church first makes her owne Officers, and then imployes them in the Church or Synod. I aske, whether this be not that ex­treme which the Brethren speake of; giving [ the chiefe, if not the whole of the power into the hands of the people (without their Officers) as if Christ had radically and originally estated it in the people, Epist. p. 2.]

2. Propos. [The Apostles were the first subject of Aposto­licall power.] But then 1. why doe you not say, proporti­onably, that the Pastors are the first Subject of Pastorall power; and the Ruling-Elders of Ruling power, &c? 2. If the first Subject of all the Church-offices, with all their [Page 65] spirituall gifts and power, be a particular Congregation, how can you say now, that the Apostles were the first sub­ject of Apostolicall power? Nay rather, in your way, the particular Congregation, is the first subject, even of Aposto­licall power; and the Apostles had it by derivation from them; and so make the Church the Queene, that bestoweth all these Offices upon her Officers; and so say the Brow­nists. But to the contrary, its certaine, there were Apostles, who had this Apostolicall power, before there was any par­ticular Congregation; As shall appeare in the particu­lars.

1. You say, their power stood in this; [That each Apostle had in him all ministeriall power of all the officers of the Church, Pastors, Teachers, Rulers, Deacons.] But this is a flat con­tradiction to your first proposition, That a particular Congre­gation was the first subject of all the Church-offices and power: There cannot be two first subjects, much lesse three first subjects of one Adjunct; and yet here you joyne Evan­gelists with Apostles, and say, that [one Apostle or Evange­list, carried about with him the liberty and power of the whole Church; and ergo, might alone baptize and censure.] If you should say, they received this power from the Church, you say, that which jumps with the Brownists opinion, and that which is apparantly false. Take all your 3. characters of a first subject: 1. It first receiveth that power. 2. It first puts forth the exercise of that power. 3. It first communicateth that power to others: They all fall upon the Apostles, be­fore there was any particular Congregation; They first re­ceived power from Christ; They first exercised that power; They first communicated that power, by making Pastors, Elders, Deacons: Besides, in your other Tract you say, expressely as much, or more. The way, p. 83. [One Apostle received both [Page 66] the gifts and power of all the Officers of the Church, and might exercise them all alone, without the Church.] Though your Brethren that published that Tract, doe affixe their Starre against it, which (according to their intimation in their Epistle) signifies as much as, Magister non tenetur. And no marvell, for you are not constant to your selfe: Your first and second propositions doe directly contradict one another.

2. [ Apostolicall power (say you) extended it selfe to all Churches, as much as to any one; and so they were the first and last subject of Apostolicall power.] This still makes the con­tradiction greater: For how then, could you truly say; [The particular congregation was the first subject of all Church-power:] when the power of a particular Congregation extends it selfe no further then its owne bounds, and Apo­stolicall power extends to all Churches? 2. How can you say they were the last subject of all power; when you said afore, The particular congregation is the first subject of all power? And when you say here, [That ample and univer­sall latitude of power, which was conjoyned in them, is now di­vided even by themselves, amongst all the Churches, and all the Officers respectively.] Then it followes 1. That the Church is not the first subject of all power; for it is divided by the Apostles, amongst all the Churches. 2. That the Apostles were not the last subject of all Apostolicall power; for it is left with the Churches and Officers: But still the question is, whom the Apostles did betrust first, with the ordinary power of Pastors, Teachers, Elders, Deacons? The Churches (say you) and the Officers respectively: But what doe you meane? that one part of that power was given first to the Churches; another part, first to the Officers? This is not consentaneous to your first proposition: where you say, [The Church is the first subject of all Church offices, [Page 67] and all Church power:] Or doe you meane (as you should, if you speake congruously) that the Church receives all power first, and then distributes it among the Officers re­spectively? Then (say I) your middle way, fals out to be the extreme of Brownists; who make the people the first subject of all power. But I thinke the truth is; That the Apostles betrusted the power of the Officers, not first with the Chur­ches, but with the Officers themselves: They, and Evan­gelists, ordained Elders in every City, not the Churches: Paul gives Timothy a charge, [ to commit that which he had re­ceived of him, to faithfull men, that might be able to teach others also, 2 Tim. 2.2.] To conclude this: You said above, That the Keyes were distributed into severall hands; the Key of Liberty unto the Brethren; the Key of Authority unto the Officers; and is not this a contradiction to what your first proposition doth assert; That the particular Church of Brethren, is the first subject of all Church-offices, and of all Church-power, and so of the Authority of the Officers? consider it.

3. Propos. [When the Church of a particular congregation, walketh together in the truth and peace, the Brethren are the first subject of Church liberty, and the Elders thereof, of Church-authority; and both, of all Church-power, needfull to be exercised amongst themselves.] This is very cautelously deli­vered, yet not enough to cover your contradiction. Either this proposition is the same with the first, or else it contra­dicts it. There you said, that the particular congregation of Saints, was the first subject of all the Church-offices, with all their spirituall gifts and power: Now you divide this power, between them and the Elders; giving the one Church-liberty, the other, Authority. 2. There is a limi­tation for this too; it is but when they walke in truth and [Page 68] Peace: But if they walke not so, what is the first subject of all that power? Have not the Brethren their Liberty, and the El­ders their Authority, as the first Subjects, when they differ? If so; then your caution is idle, [ when they walke in truth and peace: If not, then neither of them single, nor both toge­ther, are the first subject of all power needfull to be exer­cised amongst themselves: And we shall heare anon, a Sy­nod is the first subject of all power needfull to be exercised amongst themselves; When there are divisions and factions among them, page 47. Yet againe, in your other Tract, you give the particular Congregation of Brethren, the whole power, of chusing, ordaining Officers, and censures of their Officers, if they be hereticall.

1. That the Brethren are the first subject of Church-liberty, you labour to prove thus: [By removall of any for­mer subject, whence they might derive it: Not from their El­ders; for they had power to chuse their owne Elders: Not from other Churches, for all Churches are equall: Not from a Sy­nod; they of Antioch borrowed none of their Liberties from Ierusalem.] I answer; the enumeration is not sufficient: For though they received it from none of those, yet they might derive it from some others; namely, from the Elders of other Churches, by whom they were first converted to the Faith: For the Liberties or priviledges that a Congrega­tion hath, as distinct from Elders, comes to them by ver­tue of their interest, either in the Body mysticall, or Catholicke visible Church; which is in Order, before their member­ship of a particular Congregation: They must be visible Saints, before they can gather into a congregation of visible Saints; and every one single hath a liberty or priviledge to associate, before they can all be associated: Now thence it followes, that those Elders that first converted them did [Page 69] virtually derive that liberty or priviledge to them; Faith comes by hearing: How shall they heare without a Preacher? Remember your owne words: The Keyes, p. 10. [The Key of knowledge (or which is all one the Key of Faith) belongeth to all the faithfull, whether joyned to any particular Church, or no; which argueth, that the key of knowledge is given not only to the Church, but to some before they enter into the Church.] Now who gave them this key of Faith, instrumentally, but [the Ministers by whom they beleeved?] Therefore, the Church of a particular Congregation, are not the first subject of Church-liberty; but every particular Beleever hath it first, and that derived from some Elders. And certainly, in the first plantation of Churches, the Officers, Elders I meane, were before the Churches themselves: The Planters were before the plan­tation. The Apostles being first converted and ordained by Christ himselfe, were sent abroad, and converted people, many times single; afterwards, when they were increased, they united into Churches. Now, you suppose the Church to be before the Elders; because they chuse their owne El­ders, which is not generally true. Though it may be so in Churches planted, yet not in the first plantation of Chur­ches. Indeed, in your way, the Churches are before their Elders, and doe chuse and ordaine their Elders; but from the beginning it was not so: And besides, Elders now, in order of nature, if not in time, are before the Churches, in all Re­formed Churches; being ordained for the most part to be Elders, before they be Elders to this or that particular Church: And though your Churches doe chuse their El­ders, yet I hope they doe not make or ordaine them Elders: but after they are ordained, chuse them to be theirs. The Keyes, p 55. You speake sometimes of [translation of an Elder from one Church to another;] which, in my apprehension, implyes him an [Page 70] Elder before he be translated to another Church: Though I know you are not constant to your selfe herein; holding it as a principle; [Elder and flocke are relates:] and giving the Brethren, without any Officers, power not only to chuse, but to ordaine their Elders; and so your Churches are before their Elders, and give them their power, by election and or­dination; and Brownists doe no more. I would gladly know a reason why, if the Churches had power to chuse and or­daine their owne Officers, the Apostle should trouble him­selfe, and them, to send Timothy and Titus, to ordaine Elders in every City; had it not been easier to have written to the Churches to doe it themselves?

2. That the Elders are the first subject of Rule and Autho­rity, you endeavour to prove: 1. [Because the charge of Rule over the Church, is committed to them immediately from Christ.] But this first, is contradictory to your first propo­sition, which made the particular congregation, the first sub­ject of all Church-officers, and all Church-power; and the Church communicates and derives that power to the Offi­cers, chusing and ordaining them. 2. If the charge of Rule be immediately committed to them from Christ, how can the Church be the first subject of all power? The Apo­stles indeed had all their power immediately from Christ; but other Officers had it immediately from them, and from others intrusted by them, with that power: When you say, [The Office it selfe is ordained by Christ, though the Elders be chosen to their Office by the Church of Brethren] You vary the question: For the question is not, who ordaines the Office; but who ordaines the Officers: Those that the Apostles ordained, had their Office immediately from Christ, but had not their Ordination immediately from Christ; that was the priviledge of the Apostles. Now from [Page 71] whomsoever the Officers derive their Ordination immedi­ately, from them immediately they doe derive their Au­thority. But (say you) the Officers doe immediately derive their Ordination from the Church of Brethren; ergo, they derive immediately their Authority from the Church of Brethren: And consequently, the Church of Brethren is the first subject of authority, as well as of Liberty, and not the Elders. Certainly, all your 3 characters of a first sub­ject, fall upon the Apostles, and their Successors. 1. They first received their power from Christ. 2. They first put forth the exercise of that power. 3. They first communi­cated that power to others. You say here; [ God hath not given a spirit of Rule and Government ordinarily to the greater part of the body of the Brethren; and ergo, neither hath he gi­ven them the first receit of the Key of Authority, to whom he hath not given the gift to imploy it.] But you give the body of the Brethren alone, the first receit (and exercise too) of the Key of Authority, when you give them power to chuse and ordaine their Officers (which Ordination is confessed by your selfe, to be an Act of Rule and authority) ergo, The way, p. 48. you doe di­rectly contradict your selfe; without any possibility of recon­ciliation, that I can imagine.

Obj. 1. How can the Brethren invest an Elder with Rule, if they had not power of Rule in themselves? Sol. [Partly by chusing him to that Office, which God hath invested with Rule; partly, by subjecting themselves unto him.] Reply 1. Your first reason is of no validity; chusing to an Office, doth not invest with the Rule of that Office. Election gives not an Office, but only nominates or designes a person fit for that Office: It is Ordination that gives the Office, and the Rule or authority of that Office. The seven Deacons chosen by the people, were not Officers, till the Apostles had ordained [Page 72] them: If they were not, then election gives no Office, and consequently, no authority belonging to that Office: If they were, then Ordination is a meere empty Ceremony; and the Brethren doe properly give them authority, which them­selves have not to give: Besides, election to this or that place, presupposes (at least sometimes) the party invested with au­thority before (as in the case of translation of an Elder from one Church to another) and only admits him to the exercise of it; pro hic & nunc, as they speake. 2. Your second rea­son is as weake as the former; [Because they professe their subjection to him:] This cannot invest him with the Rule, such as we speake of. Suppose a company of Brethren chuse a gifted Brother to prophesie to them, and professe their sub­jection to him in the Lord; doth this invest him with autho­rity of an Elder, to rule over them? If it doe; then Ordina­tion is a thing not necessary, either by the Brethren or Elders; (yet by and by we shall heare you require Ordination of El­ders, to make a compleat Elder:) If it doe not, then you have not satisfied the objection.

Obj. 2. The Church is Christs Spouse, Wife, Queene; ergo, she hath the Keyes of Rule at her girdle. Sol. [There is a great difference between Queens and poore mens Wives: The first have their Officers for every businesse, and service; and so no Key left in their hands of any Office, but of Liberty, to call for what they want, according to the Kings Royall allowance: But poore mens wives, that have no Officers, may carry the keyes at their owne girdles.] Reply. This answer overthroweth it selfe: For 1. the liberty which you grant this Queene, the Church, is part of the power of the Keyes, and a great part too (if not the whole) viz. to chuse and ordaine her owne Of­ficers, and to censure them offending; which no Queene is allowed to doe; ergo, the Church hath the Keyes at her gir­dle, [Page 73] which a Queen hath not. 2. You say, and that truly, [The Queene hath only a liberty to call for what she wants;] but hath no power to make her owne Officers. The King doth that by some Officers deputed by himselfe for that purpose, to set them apart, to give them their commission or oath, &c. Just so it is in the Church: All the Officers are given to the Church, objectivè, for the good and benefit of the Church; but they have no power to make and ordaine their owne Officers, but only to call upon them for that allowance which the King of the Church hath granted them. 3. If poore mens wives may carry the Keyes of any Office at their owne girdles, when their husbands have no Officers; you seeme to give a greater honour and liberty to them, then to Queenes or Ladyes; and withall, you give us leave to inferre, That Churches that have no Officers of their owne, are in better case than those that have: They that have Officers, have put the Keyes in their Officers hands: They that have none, may and doe weare them at their owne gir­dles; which if you affirme (as you often doe) I dare affirme it to be flat Brownisme, and not the middle way, you pre­tend.

Obj. 3. The whole body naturall, is the first subject of all the naturall power; as sight is first in the body, before in the eye. Soil. [It is not in the mysticall, as with the naturall body; there the faculties are inexistent, not so here.] Reply 1. This againe contradicts your first proposition; where you say, a particular Church is the first subject of all Church-offices and power: And here you say, they are not actually inex­istent, how then is it the first Subject, seeing accidentis esse, est inesse? 2. If the Church chuse out of themselves, Officers gifted, are not they then inexistent? 3. You confesse they are in some cases: [ unlesse (say you) some of them have all [Page 74] the gifts of all the Officers, which often they have not.] True, but oftentimes they have, either Presbyters, or men fit to be Presbyters; And then you answer not the objection: And if they have Presbyters, before they chuse them to be theirs, (as your words seeme to import they may) then they doe not invest them with power of Elders, by chusing them, as formerly you seemed to assert. Lastly, you say; [ If the power of the Presbytery were given to a particular Church of Brethren, as such, primò & per se, then it would be found in every particular Church of Brethren.] But say I, you assert both the Antecedent in the first proposition; [Every parti­cular Congregation is the first subject of all Church power;] and the consequence, when you say; [Every particular Church hath power to chuse, ordaine, and censure;] ergo,

Obj. 4. The Government is mixt of Monarchy, Aristo­cracy, and Democracy; ergo, the people have some power in Government. Sol. Your first answer seemes to yeeld the thing: [ In a large sense, Authority may be acknowledged in the people: As 1. when a man acteth by counsell, he is then Lord of his owne action.] But thats nothing to the objection. The people of the Assizes act by counsell, in approving the sen­tence: If you grant the Brethren no more, you mocke them, and grant them nothing. 2. But you grant them far more; [ Election of Officers, concurrence in censures, determination of Synodall acts, &c. (you might have added, Ordination, and then you had given them full Authority) by these they have a great stroke or power in ordering Church affaires.] A great stroke indeed; as full Authority as you give the Elders: And this you grant, when you give your reason to the con­trary, and would allow them only liberty: [For (say you) no act of the peoples power or liberty is binding, unlesse the au­thority of the Presbytery concurre with it.] No more doth any [Page 75] act of the Presbytery bind, unlesse the power of the people joyne with it. So say your Prefacers, Epist. p. 4. So say your self; when you allow them such a power, as the want there­of retards the sentence. But why doe you darken your owne meaning, by such ambiguous answers? when you grant the Government to be democraticall, The way, 100 but not [meerely democraticall;] yea, (if I understand any thing) you make it as meerely democraticall, as Brownists themselves, when you give them power, without any Officers, to chuse, ordaine, censure, even Officers themselves, as we have often told you. I pray Sir, when the Brethren ordaine, or censure Officers, without a Presbytery, doth not that act of theirs properly bind? It must, or it is meere vanity, having no Presbytery to joyne with them: And if so, is not this properly Authority without more adoe?

But you would prove Elders to be the first Subject of Au­thority, from removall of other Subjects: [They have is not from the Elders of other Churches; or from a Synod: All Chur­ches and all Elders are equall.] But 1. This is apparently false in the Scrip [...]ure way: For the Elders of the first Churches were ordained by the Apostles and Evangelists, who were Elders of all Churches; and as Elders, not as Apostles, ordained Elders, and so gave them their Autho­rity immediately from Christ. 2. Your reason, because they are all equall, will hurt your selfe: For if that be a good rea­son why they cannot derive it from Elders of the other Chur­ches, because they are equall, it is much more strong against you; they cannot derive it from the people, who are their in­feriours: Besides, by this rule, Elders of their own Church cannot ordaine any Elders to that Church, when they want; for they are all [...]qu [...]ll: But by your favour, he that is to receive the Office, and with it, the Authority of an Elder, is [Page 76] inferiour to those Elders who are to ordaine him; for the lesser is blessed of the greater: though when he is once ordai­ned, he be their equall: And though the Elders of a Synod be equall, singly considered; yet joyntly, they are superiour to any one single, and have more Authority than he hath; or else, all you speake of Synods is but vanity: But if they have not their Authority derived from Elders of other Churches, nor from Synods; nor from the Elders of their owne Church, because they are all equall; either they must derive it from the people, or they have none of all; and so the people have as much Authority as any Elder of them all; yea, in your way more.

3. The third branch of the third Propos. [Both Elders and Brethren together, are the first subject of all power, need­full amongst themselves] You prove it by instance, 1. [In point of Ordination: which is compleat, when the people have chosen him, and the Presbytery of the Church have laid their hands upon him.] But 1. I observe, that here you make Or­dination an Act of Authority, and place it in the Elders; ergo, either the Brethren cannot ordaine Elders, which yet you say they may; or else, they have Authority, which yet you seeme to deny. 2. Some of your Brethren here, hold Ordi­nation to be nothing but a ceremoniall solemnity, the sub­stance of a Ministers calling, is (say they) in the peoples ele­ction; ergo, either Authority is in the people, who give the substance; and liberty only in the Elders, who give but the ceremony: or the calling of a Minister is compleat without Ordination; and yet you require Ordination to the integrity of it: But if the Brethren may ordaine without their Officers, then they alone are the first Subject not of Liberty only, but of Authority also: And so this Proposition is need­lesse.

A second Argument, is taken from [their independent and indispensable power in Church censures, which are ratified in Heaven,] The same answer will serve to this also: For first, the Brethren alone without Elders (say you) may censure, and if rightly done, it is indispensable, not to be reversed by any power on Earth, because ratified in Heaven; ergo, they are the first subject of all Church-power needfull within themselves. 2. And that the rather, if they can ordaine El­ders too; for then the Elders derive their power from them. 3. But suppose, (which is possible enough) the Brethren and Elders erre in their censure of a member, is not the censure then reversible? I aske, by whom? if all power needfull for themselves be within themselves, what shall the wron­ged party doe? Is he remedilesly miserable? If it be dis­pensable, and reversible, it must be by some other Church or Cl [...]ssis, &c. But then, a Congregation of Brethren and Elders, are not the first subject of all power needfull amongst themselves. If you say, you meane, when they walke in truth and peace; you should yet have told us what the party must doe, when they walke not in truth and peace; And if they have not a power to right a wronged party, they have not all power needfull to be exercised among themselves.

The Objections by you brought and answered, rather concerne the Episcopall, than the Presbyteriall way, at least, some of them, only 2 or 3 may be vindicated.

Obj 1. To tell the Church, is to tell the Presbytery of the Church. Sol. [We deny not, the offence is to be told to the Presbytery; yet not to them, as the Church, but as the guides of the Church.] Reply. This is partly to yeeld the cause: For you grant that the businesse is to be told first to the Presby­tery; [ who if upon hearing the cause, and examining the wit­nesses, they find it ripe for publicke censure, they are then to [Page 78] propound it to the Church, &c. And you grant the people no more, but [consent to the judgement and sentence of the El­ders.] The Presbytery also are to admonish the party au­thoritatively; and if he will not heare them, to passe the sen­tence upon him; ergo, the Presbytery is the Church there meant, and not the people, who neither admonish, nor cen­sure authoritatively, but only discerne the nature of the of­fence, and consent unto the sentence: The Church there meant, is that part of the Church, which the party refuses to heare; but he refuses to heare the Presbytery, who doe speake to him, not the people, who doe not authorita­tively speake to him; ergo, to tell the Church, is to tell the Presbytery. Sol. 2. [The Church is never put for the Presby­tery alone in the New Testament.] Reply 1. This is to beg the question: we say, it must so be understood in this place, and you doe not disprove it. Nay 2. you rather confirme it by your answer to the first objection; Our Saviour alludes to the Church-censure in the Iewish Church: But there the Church censuring, was the Synagogue, a Court of the Consi­story; ergo, as shall further appeare in the next.

Obj. 2. In the old Testament, the Congregation is often put for the Elders and Rulers of the Church. Sol. [Not alone, but sitting in the presence of the Congregation.] Reply: That is enough for our purpose: For we doe not deny, but the people might be present, to heare things then, and so they may now: But if the Elders be called the Church, as di­stinct from the people, when they sate in presence of the people, much more may they be called the Church, when they sit alone. And to that custome of the Jewes (your selfe acknowledge in answer to the first objection doth our Saviour allude; when he sayes, [Tell the Church] But the custome of the Jewes, was to tell the Elders and Rulers, not [Page 79] the people. And whereas you say: [If a sentence illegall was passed by them, the people did sometimes protest against it, sometime refuse to execute it, and the same they might and ought to doe, at any time, in like cases.] Though this may be true, when things are done in an illegall way, and evidently illegall (as the instances are) yet it is a dangerous assertion to Government; for under that pretence, people will take li­berty to make void any sentence, if they conceive it but ille­gall.

Obj. 3. By Church, he meant a Synod, or Classis of Presby­ters of many Churches. [ Sol. 1. We find not any where that a Church is put for a Synod of Presbyteries.] Reply: The que­stion is of this place, and you must not beg, that it is not here meant of a Synod of Presbyteries. If it be meant but of the Congregationall Presbytery, it quite destroyes the power of the people: But we doe not say, it is directly meant of a Synod of Presbyteries, but by a just consequence: If a Con­gregationall Presbytery be here meant (as we thinke it is) to reclaime a particular offending party in a Congregation: Then by proportion, here is meant a Synod of Presbyteries, when a whole Church erres, or is hereticall; or else, Christ hath not provided so well for a whole Church, as for a par­ticular person. And thirdly, we cannot see a reason, why a Church may not be taken for a Synod of Presbyteries, as well as a Synod may be called [A Church of Churches,] as it is by your selfe, page 49. [A Congregation of Churches, a Church of Churches; for what is a Synod, but a Church of Chur­ches?] so you.

Sol. 2. [As a Congregation cannot reach the removall of all offences: so it may be said, that it were not fit to trouble Synode with every offence; and when they doe meet, they may erre also, and so may a generall Councell, and so no remedy for them.]

Reply 1. We doe not say that Synods are to be troubled with every small offence, or to take the businesse of a Con­gregation out of their hands; but only with greater matters, and when the Congregationall Presbytery cannot end them, or is so bad it will not. 2. Synods and Councels may erre, but not so easily as a particular Congregation: And alicubi sistendum, there must be an end of pursuit, and referre the businesse to the judgement of Jesus Christ, the King of the Church. As in case of Parliaments, the highest Tribunall that we have, they may erre; and if they doe, private persons must sit downe, or appeale to the next. But that is a strange assertion, [ That it was not the purpose of Christ to prescribe a rule for the removall of all offences out of the Church; but only such private and lesse hainous, as grow notorious by obstinacy: For if they be publicke, the Apostle gives another rule, to cast such a person out of all communion, without that admonition, &c.] Reply: The Apostle did not meane absolutely, that they should cast out the incestuous person; but supposing his impenitency, and obstinacy, to give satisfaction: For I can­not imagine, that the Apostle would have an humbled, pe­nitent offender cast out of all communion; And you know, it is supposed by many learned Divines, the man was not excommunicated, but upon the charge, reproofe, and admonition, yeelded and escaped the censure: Of which, more by and by.

But (say you) What if the whole Presbytery offend? or such a party as will draw a faction in the Church? The readiest course is to bring the matter to a Synod] But you have prescribed two other remedies elsewhere: 1. The Brethren may with­draw; or 2. they may proceed to censure their whole Pres­bytery, that is, (I thinke) to excommunicate them; why then should they trouble themselves with a Synod, which is hardly [Page 81] procured? If the Congregation be found faithfull and willing to remove an offence, by due censure, why should the offence be called up to more publick Iudicature, and the plaister made broa­der than the sore?] They are your owne words, page 42. I forbeare the other objections.

Arg. 3. From the practise and example of the Church of Co­rinth.] Obj. This was the act of Paul, no act of judiciall authority in the Church, but rather of subjection to his sen­tence, &c. Sol. [The judgement of Paul, was not a judiciall sentence, delivering him to Satan; but a judicious doctrine, and instruction, teaching them what to doe in that case.] Reply: Thus you may evade that other Text, where yet you grant, that Paul alone did excommunicate Alexander, and justifie his doing of it, as [having in him the power of the whole Church; and when absent from the Church, or party, he might use it.] Are not the places paralell? I have delivered him to Satan; and I have judged already, that such an one be de­livered to Satan: Else it might be said, Paul did not deliver Alexander to Satan, but only judged it doctrinally, that the Church ought to excommunicate him; And that the Church did, by a juridicall sentence, deliver the incestuous person to Satan, is not evident (as I said afore) but rather, that hearing of the Apostles sentence decreed against him, he repented, and so the execution was stayed. Sufficient un­to the man is the rebuke of many, 2 Cor. 2.6] As for their for­givenesse of him, it might be only brotherly, by way of cha­rity, as offended by him, not juridicall by way of authority: For the brethren (by your owne confession) had only Li­berty, not Authority, and ergo, could not authoritatively for­give him, as nor authoritatively bind him: The same power binds and looses: But the Elders only did or could authori­tatively bind; ergo,

Obj. 2. Some in the Church of Corinth did it; viz. the Presbytery. Sol. [It is apparent by the Text, that the Bre­thren concurred, and that with some act of power; viz. such power as the want of putting it forth, retarded the sentence and the putting it forth, was requ [...]site to the administration of the sentence.] Reply: This is not evident in the Text; yea, if such power be in the Brethren, surely it is more than liberty, it is direct authority; viz. a negative vote, to retard the sen­tence, which is as much as the Elders have: If you meane only a judgement of discretion, and a withdrawing, to execute the sentence, it is true, that liberty they have, a rationall con­sent, or dissent; but that is rather a passive, than an active concurrence to the sentence. But the question is, whether the sentence be null, if they will not concurre to it: If so, then the Apostles own sentence might have been nullified, when he delivered this party, or Alexander to Satan; and he could not say, I have delivered him unto Satan: For it was in the peoples power (and a liberty, you say, purchased for them by Christ) to retard or speed the sentence. Not one of your reasons prove, that the Brethren concurred actively to the sentence: For 1. the whole Church might (and were) reproved, for not mourning, and for not withdrawing, for their parts; not for not sentencing of him. 2. The Com­mandement was directed to the Church, when gathered to­gether, yet not to all alike; the presence of the Brethren, the sentence of the Elders: Many things are so directed to a whole Church, which yet must respectively be executed. As if the Apostle should say, when you are all gathered to­gether, I will that there be preaching and administration of Sacraments; doth this command concerne actively the Brethren? 3. The Apostles words doe not declare this act of theirs to be a judiciall act: when he sayes, [Doe not [...]ou [Page 83] judge them that are within?] Even this first may be refer­red to the Officers; and secondly, it is by your selfe under­stood of a judgement of discretion, not of authority (of which we speake.) A judgement of discretion, is allowed all the people at an Assizes; but this hath no power at all in it, pro­perly so called: And truly, if the Apostles words carry any colour of judgement in the Brethren, it may seeme to im­port a judgement of authority, rather than of discretion; so he gives them more than you dare plead for; though not more than, I feare, they will ere long usurpe. 4. It is gran­ted, the Brethren may and must forgive him, as well as the Elders, but not with one and the same kind of forgivenesse. The people at an Assizes, doe in their judgement of discretion, acquit the party whom the Iudge and Iury doe acquit, with the judgement of Authority. What poore and weak proofes are these, for a matter of such moment? as easily denyed, as affirmed.

Obj. 3. Corinth was a Presbyteriall Church. Sol. [No such thing appeares.] Reply: It more than probably ap­peares, it being a Mother-City, where God had much people, and they had many Elders and Teachers, with ex­cellent gifts (as you gran [...]) it is not likely therefore they had but one Congregation: And if there were many, it may as probably be said, that this command was directed to the El­ders of severall Congregations, met together, as the contrary can by you be proved.

Arg 4. [ From the guilt of offence which lyeth upon every Church, when any offence committed by their members, lyeth uncensured as on Pergamus, Thyatira, &c.] Sol. It doth not appeare that those Churches were each, but one single Congregation; but of some of them the contrary; as Ephesus, which had many Elders, and much people con­verted, [Page 82] [...] [Page 83] [...] [Page 84] &c. And besides, I desire you would call to mind, your owne exposition of some of those Texts; when it is said, [To the Angell of such a Church;] that is, say the Prelaticall party, To the Bishop: you answer; Angell is put for Angels, The way, p. 49. a company of Elders; [Not a single person, but the whole company of the Ministers of the Church, (the whole Presbytery of persons, more than one), as is evident, by his speech unto them as unto many; unto you, and some of you, &c.] whence these 3. things may be collected: 1. That the guilt is not imputed to the whole Church, but to the Angell of such a Church; that is, (say you) the Ministers; which quite destroyes your Argument. 2. That these Ministers were a whole Presbytery; the whole company of the Ministers of the Church; therefore its very probable, there were more Congregations than one, in each of those Churches, and so we find Presbyteriall, not Independent Churches. 3. That the Church is sometime taken for the Presbytery of the Church, which afore you have denyed: However, I pray consider, that the Brethren are never called the Angels of the Church; nor yet are the Ruling-Elders any where cal­led Angels, but the Ministers only, as you call these An­gels: which makes it more than probable, that it is spoken to a Presbyteriall Church, the Ministers of severall Con­gregations, even according to your owne exposition; at least, to the Presbytery of each Congregation, which con­futes your assertion, that the Brethren have any interest in the power of the Keyes.

4. Propos. [In case a particular Church be disturbed with error, or scandall, and the same maintained by a faction a­mongst them. Now a Synod of Churches, or of their Messen­gers, is the first subject of that power and authority, whereby errour is judicially convinced and condemned, the truth searched [Page 85] out, and determined, and the way of truth and peace declared, and imposed upon the Churches.

This Proposition you undertake to make good by two Arguments: First, [ From the want of power in such a Church, to passe a binding sentence; because the promise of binding and loosing is made to a Church: 1. not erring; 2. agree­ing truth, 18.17, &c.

In answer hereunto, I will not say, That this Argument proves not the proposition; for it proves indeed, that a parti­cular Church is not the first Subject of this power and au­thority, but it doth not prove that a Synod is: But this I say, that by this way of arguing, a Church can seldome or ne­ver have power to bind or loose, when there is not an uni­versall agreement, which how rarely it happens, experience tels us now, and will doe more hereafter, in your owne Churches: Few Churches there are, that so walke together in peace and truth, that there is no disagreeing party amongst them; therefore that power is seldome in their hands, but upon every difference or faction amongst them, their power reverts to a Synod; and so a Synod must be called (which is not easily done) and troubled with every difference of a Congregation; which you impute (unjustly) as a fault, upon the Presbyteriall way. 2. You have otherwise determined in the way. Suppose the whole Presbytery be in an errour or scandall (as they may) shall the faction now devest the Brethren of their power and authority, to censure and cast them out? which you have fully given them there, and here doe seem to take away. 3. You mitigate the businesse much; when you say, [A Synod of Churches is the first sub­ject of that power, whereby errour is convinced, &c. and the way of [...]ruth and peace declared and imposed on the Church.] For all this is only a doctrinall declaration, and imposition, [Page 86] not authoritatively, by way of jurisdiction. The censure you reserve to the Congregation, where you had placed it be­fore. But what if the Synod of Churches erre or disagree, & there be a faction also amongst them? you will know your owne words: [An erring, or disagreeing Church binds not.] So all will come to nothing: The censure of the Synod binds not; for they can but declare what is truth: The cen­sure of the particular Church binds not; for they are in a faction: so you give the Brethren a power, and presently take it away againe. If then a considerable party fall into errour or faction, by variance, they presently lose (like the Bee her sting) their power of binding and loosing; and if this be but once knowne (as it cannot be hid) how easie is it for any Delinquent to make a party, or faction, and so escape all binding censure; seeing neither the Church erring, or at variance, nor a Synod hath any binding power?

Your second Argument, is, [ From the patterne, Acts 15.1. &c. When there grew errour and faction in the Church of Antioch, they determine not the case, but referred it to the Apo­stles and Elders.] But first, the Church of Ierusalem did only doctrinally declare the truth; they did not censure the erring Brethren (so you pleaded above) but referred that to the Church of Antioch. 2. If declaration had been suffici­ent, the Church of Antioch needed not to have sent so farre as Ierusalem; Paul and Barnabas were able enough to de­clare the truth at home; and so, that particular Church, though erring and at variance, was the first subject of that power, here given to a Synod. 3. You mislay the compa­rison; when you say, As in the case of an offence of a faith­full brother, persisted in, the matter is at last judged in a church, which is a Congregation of the faithfull: so in the offence of a Church, the matter is at last judged in a congregation of Chur­ches, [Page 87] &c.] For the judgement is not of the same kind, but you doe meerely aequivocate with us. The judgement of the Church upon a Brother, is juridicall, even by way of censure, of excommunication: But the judgement of a Synod is only doctrinall and declarative. If you grant any more, you and we are agreed.

Before I conclude this proposition, I only animadvert these few things: 1. That you grant the Assembly of the Apostles and Elders at Ierusalem, Acts 15.1. to have been a formall Synod, wherein your Disciples here doe discent from you, as appeares in their Epistle; and call it only a Con­sultation, by way of Arbitration: To which Arbitration, it seemes the Church of Antioch was not bound to stand; for they did not (for ought appeares) promise or bind them­selves to stand to their arbitrement; nor might they so bind themselves (by your doctrine, and theirs too) for that were [to give away their priviledge purchased by the bloud of Christ.] 2. You yeeld also, The Keyes, p. 57. that the Apostles did not act here­in as Apostles, and determine the matter by Apostolicall Au­thority; but as Elders, in an ordinary way, as the whole pro­ceeding in the businesse proves, as you well observe: Yet your Schollers here, submit not to your doctrine, as they pro­fesse in their Epistle; though they neither shew any reason for it, nor confute yours. 3. You call a Synod a Congrega­tion of Churches (for what is a Synod but a Church of Chur­ches) and yet deny, that a Presbytery of Churches is ever called a Church. 4. You say: The Elders there (at Jeru­salem) were not a few, the Beleevers in Jerusalem being many thousands.] Therefore, say wee, they were more than could meet together in one place, and yet called but one Church: whence we may inferre, There was not an In­dependent [Page 88] Church of one, but a Presbyteriall Church, of many Congregations. Lastly, you say; [This patterne plainly sheweth to whom the Key of Authority is committed, when there groweth offence and difference in a Church.] But the Key of Authority (if you remember what you said above) hath this power in it, as to administer the Seales, so to bind an obstinate offender under excommunication; and to release and forgive him upon repentance. Grant but your Synod of Churches, such a Key of Authority, to bind an offending party, or Church, and to release them upon repentance, and the matter is at an end. But if you grant no more, but a doctrinall declarative power, you grant but what every Pastor single hath. And whe­ther this be the Key of Authority, given by our Saviour to the Church, let every indifferent Reader judge.

And now you come to your Corollaries, concerning the Independency of Churches, to shew how they are, or are not Independent: Wherein, I purpose not to follow you; and that for this reason; because, for the most part, you doe but repeate what you have said before: You say, your selfe, [You take the first Subject, and the Inde­pendent Subject to be all one.] Therefore, say I, if the Church of a particular Congregation be not the first Subject of all Church-power, as is evinced above, nei­ther is it the Independent Subject of that power. I have only some things to observe in your second Corollarie, and then I shall conclude: You say, [ The establishment of pure Religion, and the Reformation of corruptions in Re­ligion, doe much concerne the civill peace: If Religion be corrupted; there will be warre in the gates, Judges 5.8. and no peace to him that commeth in, or goeth out, 2 Chron. [Page 89] 15.3, 5, 6. But where Religion rejoyceth, the civill State flourisheth.] And this you truly refer to the Civill Magi­strate; [partly by commanding, and by stirring up the Churches and Ministers thereof, to goe about it, in their spirituall way: partly also, by civill punishments upon the wilfull opposers and disturbers of the same.] Where­upon I desire to know, 1. By what Authority our Bre­thren here in Old-England, having not only Christian Magistrates, covenanting to reforme; but also, calling and commanding an Assembly of Divines, to re­forme according to the Word, doe take upon them to set up, and establish a forme of Church-Government of their owne, before they have demonstrated it to be the way of God; to the great disturbance of the peace, both of Church and State? 2. I doe demand also, why many of your disciples here, plead for a To­leration of all Religions (which you will not tollerate in New-England) which they call Liberty of conscience, and the prosecution of such disturbers, they call per­secution: When as they may heare you say, [It be­longs to the Magistrate to punish the wilfull opposers and disturbers of Reformation:] And more then that, you tell them; [ Of the Times of the New Testament it is prophesied, that in some cases, capitall punishment shall proceed against false Prophets, and that by procurement of their nearest kindred, Zach. 13.3. And the execution thereof, is described, Rev. 16.4. to 7. Where the rivers and fountaines of waters (that is, the Priests and Iesuits, that conveigh the Religion of the Sea of Rome, through­out the Countries) are turned to bloud, that is, have bloud given them to drinke by the civill Magistrate.] Does [Page 90] this hold true only against Priests and Jesuits: and are all other erroneous, schismaticall, blasphemous Secta­ries to be tolerated? I leave them to consider it, and you and them to reconcile this and other your many differences and contradictions amongst your selves: And when you are well agreed in the way, we shall consider how farre you agree with the Truth.