Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	bishop_n	consent_n	presbyter_n	2,792	5	10.0660	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A78437	Vindiciæ clavium: or, A vindication of the keyes of the kingdome of Heaven, into the hands of the right owners. Being some animadversions upon a tract of Mr. I.C. called, The keyes of the kingdome of Heaven. As also upon another tract of his, called, The way of the churches of Nevv-England. Manifesting; 1. The weaknesse of his proofes. 2. The contradictions to himselfe, and others. 3. The middle-way (so called) of Independents, to be the extreme, or by-way of the Brownists. / By an earnest well-wisher to the truth.	Cawdrey, Daniel, 1588-1664.	1645 (1645)	Wing C1640; Thomason E299_4; ESTC R200247	69,538	116

than the Elders have over all the Brethren I professe I understand nothing in this controversie yet this I understand that you 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 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 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 it s that popular Anarchy of you know whom If not it s 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 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

beside the way and why may not both But we shall observe greater differences than these hereafter They now againe resume the difference between the peoples interest and the Elders Rule and Authority and illustrate it by the former similitude Of a Company of Aldermen and a Common-Councell or Body of the people in some Corporations where the interest of the one is distinct from the other so as without the concurrence of both nothing is esteemed as a City act But so as in this Company of the Elders this power is properly Authority but in the people is a priviledge or power Enough hath been said to this already Only I would know why they call the Common-Councell a Body of the people Sure they doe not know any Corporations I thinke where the whole Corporation meets with the Aldermen as a Body The Common-Councell are a distinct Body from the common-people a Body representative only But then the parallell is spoiled for the Brethren as distinct from the Elders are not a representative Body for whom should they represent And if all the people of a corporation should meet as the Common-Councell so that nothing may be esteemed as a City Act without their concurrence Surely the Government were Democraticall The great mistake in the plot is That the Presbytery is compared to the Court of Aldermen and the Brethren to the Common-Councell But so they are not for the Common-Councell are Governours of the Corporation It cannot be said in the Company of Aldermen it is Authority but in the Common-Councell a priviledge for it is Authority also in the Common-Councell and if it be so in the Brethren as it must if they be parallell to the Common-Councell I see not but the Independent way and the way of the Brownists one of the extremes forementioned is one and the same And let the Brethren consider The multitude of the Church doth ordinarily execute all discipline and censures by the Presbyters the Presbyters by their consent The way p. 98. whether the Brownists doe not select two or three or more persons and put them in Office and betrust them with an entire interest of power for a multitude to which that multitude ought by a command from Christ to be subject and obedient as to an Ordinance to guide them in their consent and in whose sentence the ultimate formall Ministeriall Act of binding and loosing shall consist and yet place the Rule and Authority originally and chiefly in the people And then see how little difference there is between themselves and them It s true indeed that without the concurrence of the Aldermen and Common Councell in the major part nothing is esteemed as a City Act But without the concurrence of the body of the people it is So without the concurrence of the Pastors and Elders nothing is to be esteemed as a Church act but if the parallell be right without the Brethren it is That the Brethren have any power of concurrence with the Elders in their Acts is begged not proved And their owne words confute it The multitude say they ought by a command from Christ to be subject and obedient to the power of the Elders as to an Ordinance c. as Rulers set over them But if they ought to be subject and obedient to the acts of their Elders or Rulers they have no more concurrence to their acts by way of power than the common people have to the acts of the Aldermen and Common-Councell which is a meere passive concurrence and consent The next similitude of a Virgin is nothing parallell to the case in hand A Virgin say they hath a power ultimately to dissent upon an unsatisfied dislike and the match is not valid without her consent But the common people in a Corporation have no such power ultimately to dissent then againe the Government were Democraticall And if they give this power to the Brethren ultimately to dissent they give them more than an interest even a power of Authority to annull all acts and censures made by the Elders which I take it is no lesse than Brownisme for they can say no more Againe they suppose a Government tempered of Aristocracy and Democracy in which the people have a share and their actuall consent is neccessary to all Lawes and sentences whereas a few Nobles that are set over them in whom the formall sanction of all should lye in these it were Rule and Authority in that multitude but power or interest But I pray is not that Government where the peoples actuall consent and so their dissent is necessary to all Lawes and sentences meerely popular and in shew only Aristocraticall The case is just the Brownists Their Church seemes to be tempered of Aristocracy in their select Officers chosen and ordained by themselves as yours are and Democracy in the body of the people But they granting the peoples actuall consent and dissent necessary to all Acts and sentences swallow up the votes of the Elders and so their Government is wholly or chiefly popular Give such a power to the people as you doe and I will use your owne words All that is said in the New Testament about the Rule of the Elders and the peoples obedience to them is to be lookt upon but as Metaphors and to hold no proportion with any substantiall reality of Rule and Government The Brethren to make their way more plausible shew a reason of the difference between the Times of the Old and New Testament Then the Church was in her Nonage and therefore the sole power of all Church-matters was in their Tutors and Governours But now the Church is out of her Nonage and more generally able being visible Saints as they should be to joyne with their guides c. But they forget themselves presently confessing the weaknesse and unskilfulnesse of the people for the generality of them in comparison of their Officers gifted for the Government He hath therefore placed a Rule and Authority in those Officers over them not directing only but binding so as not only nothing should be done without them but not esteemed validly done unlesse done by them Now I pray was it any more in the Government of the Church of the Old Testament were not they to be visible Saints were not their Guides gifted for that purpose sutable to those Times And I thinke the Brownists may grant them thus much Their Officers are but the Churches servants and yet they say nothing may in an ordinary way of Church-Government be done without them nor validly done unlesse done by them But I marvell they should call the power of the Elders a binding power when as they said before The Elders had no power to censure without the concurrence of the people as nor the people without the Elders which is just the same which Brownists say Nor can this ballancing of the power prevent Anarchie what ever it may doe Tyranny for certainly if the peoples consent and concurrence be necessary

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 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 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 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 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

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 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 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 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 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 it s 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 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