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 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 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 bondâ—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 chiefly exhorts ad bonos more 's 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 have a power To prevent the tyranny and Oligarchy and exorbitance of the Elders Surely this must be by a negative voice and that 's 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
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 requâ—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 â—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 granâ— 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
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 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 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 inâ—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 which 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 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
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
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 fâ—â—â—ly in your other Tract when you say In case of offence given by an Elder 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 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 it s 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 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 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
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 it s 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 that 's the true power of your 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 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 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 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
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 â—ruth and peace declared and imposed on the Church For all this is only a doctrinall declaration and imposition 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 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 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. 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 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 FINIS Errata Page 7. l. 22. reade offender and often after p. 23. l. last r. institution p. 24. l. 4. r. institution p. 25. l. 16. r. for p. 26. l. 26. for 1. r. 15. p. 30. â— 23. r. except p. 32. l. 15. r. whom p. 34. l. last but one r. Counsell p. 35. l. 8. r. Presbyters p. 45. l. 17. put out the second in p. 53. l. last for And r. from p. 55. l. 2. for feare r. heare p. 76. l. 10. for of r. at
As the Brethren only cannot proceed to any publick censure without their Elders so nor have the Elders power to censure without the concurrence of the Brethren which is as false as the former Indeed these are very parallell As on the one side the Common-Councell cannot doe any valid act without the Aldermen nor the Aldermen without the Common-Councell unlesse there be some reserved cases so as the Ruling-Elders cannot censure without the Pastor so nor the Pastor without the Ruling-Elders but applyed to the Brethren is as in the City if so it were to make the Government popular as those doe that are in the one extreme or I understand nothing And then the last clause of the Brethren is to be paralleld thus As the Common-Councell have not power of censuring the whole Court of Aldermen nor the Aldermen the whole Common-Councell though together they have power over any particular person or persons of each so the Presbytery alone have not power of excommunicating the whole Body of the Brethren nor the Brethren the Presbytery though together they have power over any person in each But then ther 's one thing wanting The Aldermen and Common-Councell have power over all the people of the City as well as over particular persons amongst themselves But in these Brethrens way There are no other people over which the Presbytery and Brethren should have power and so the Scene is mislaid I only note againe That the Brethren and the Authour are not both of one mind They say The Brethren only could not proceed to any publick censures without they have Elders over them nor retrò But whether he say The Elders have power to censure the Body of the Brethren or no we shall heare anon this I am sure he sayes The way p. 45 The Brethren have power to censure the whole Presbytery as was noted afore The next thing which they comment on is the power of Synods because Congregations may miscarry Wherein say they he grants an Association of Churches as an Ordinance of Christ with power above that of a Congregation a Ministeriall power to determine and enjoyne things concerning the Congregations The words are full and faire but the sense is flat and empty For all this power of determining and enjoyning is but Doctrinall or declarative Every Minister hath in himselfe alone a Ministeriall Doctrinall Authority over the whole Church that is his charge and every person in it Ep. p. 9. differing nothing in kind from the power of every single Pastor but in degree of weight as a greater Testimony as three cords twisted together are stronger than each of them single A power not binding or loosing but doctrinally only not armed with power of censures if injunctions be not obeyed But if this power of the Synod be not juridicall what is it All power in those Pastors thus assembled as an Ordinance of Christ is either a power of Order or of jurisdiction The power of determining or decrecing together is not the power of Order for then every Pastor quâ Pastor by vertue of his Order might decree and impose it upon the Congregation which is denyed by all Therefore it must be a power of jurisdiction which yet these Brethren and their Authour doe deny And if it be not armed with power of censure it will come to nothing as shall appeare hereafter For as for their withdrawing communion it will be little regarded by an offending obstinate Congregation The Brethren Epistolers now begin to applaud themselves as jumping in judgement with their Authour though so farre remote as New-England But men agree in errour sometimes that never knew one another Their middle way is this very way held forth by this Authour Yet they say afterwards in some things in his Discourse Hic Magister non tenetur They say It is the middle way between that which is called Brownisme and the Presbyteriall Government as it is practised c. But if they remember themselves well the two extremes were Prelacy and Brownisme Whereof the one doth in effect put the chiefe if not the whole of the Rule and Government into the hands of the people c. The other taking the principall parts of that Rule the due of each Congregation into the jurisdiction of a common Presbytery of severall Congregâ—tions c. I appeale their wisedome if the latter part doe not better fall upon the Prelacy who in the other extreme tooke the principall parts of Rule due in part to the Pastors of Congregations into their owne hands Then the middle way may chance fall out to be the Presbyteriall way and not theirs For certainly that is between those two extremes And their way I dare say and hope to make it appeare comes nearer to Brownisme than the Presbyteriall way to the Prelaticall For the present only marke That the Presbyteriall way gives the power of Church Government neither to the Clergy alone as the Prelacy nor to the people alone or chiefly as the Brownists doe but to both For the Presbyteries Classicall as well as Congregationall consist of Pastors and Ruling Elders who are the Representatives of the people and chosen by their consent But to give the Brethren the people alone without Officers a power to elect ordaine censure c. as the Authour doth whatever these Brethren doe is to put not only the chiefe as Brownists doe but the whole of the Rule into their hands which for ought I know the Brownists doe not Nor doth the Presbytery swallow up the peoples interests as they affirme for their interest is saved in their Ruling-Elders chosen by themselves as the interest of the common people of a Corporation is saved in their Common-Councell chosen by themselves And that the votes of the Elders of that Congregation concerned should be swallowed up in the Classis c. is no more absurd than that the votes of the Burgesse of a Corporation should be swallowed up in the Parliament or that the votes of the Elders should be swallowed up in a Synod confessed to be the Ordinance of Christ unlesse the Brethren thinke a Synod may not determine or decree any thing without the joynt-consent of every Elder there assembled After all this agreement of the Brethren with this absent Authour to a wonder if not to a miracle as they would have us thinke though we beleeve they were not strangers to the plot of this Authour either before or since his going over they enter their dissent against some opinions and passages of this Authour in the platforme by him described I purpose not here to debate much lesse to decide the controversie between them I only desire to have it observed That it may rather seeme a wonder that these and other Brethren having so long studied and professed this middle way should not yet be able to walke hand in hand therein When will they be agreed that we may see their new platforme to be uniforme One of them must needs be
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 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 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 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 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
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 that 's 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 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 Scripâ—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 â—quâ—ll But by your favour he that is to receive the Office and with it the Authority of an Elder is 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 Clâ—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 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