I Have diligently perused this Treatise, (called Vindiciae Clavium) and perceiving that the judicious Author hath exactly performed what he undertakes, I cannot but conceive it will conduce very much to the ending of our  Contentions concerning Church-Government, the settling of some that waver, and reclaiming of some that are misled, and appose  
Imprimatur  
JA. CRANFORD, July 4, 1645.   

VINDICIAE CLAVIUM:  
OR, A Vindication of the KEYS of the Kingdom of Heaven, into the hands of the right Owners.  
Being some Animadversions upon a Tract of Mr. I. C. called, The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.  
As also upon another Tract of his, called, The way of the Churches of NEW-ENGLAND.  
Manifesting; 

1. The weakness of his proofs.  
2. The Contradictions to himself, and others  
3. The Middle-way (so called) of Independents, to be the Extreme, or By-way of the Brownists.    
By an earnest wellwisher to the Truth.  IER. 6.16. Stand ye in the ways, see and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein. 
LONDON, Printed by T.H. for Peter Whaley, and are to be sold in Ivy-Lane, at the Sign of the Gun. 1645.   

To the READER.  
IT is true, which the Prefacers to the Tract, called, The way of the Churches of Christ in New-England, do say, That we have long called for a fuller Declaration of themselves. For all that hath as yet been published, hath not satisfied our expectation, Nor do we think them able to satisfy any unprejudiced man. The 32. Questions, The Apologetical Narration, The Reasons of the dissenting Brethren, The way of the Churches, etc. Now by them published, have all been answered; which yet these Brethren take no notice of. The Keys are now in question, in the following discourse; how well they do fit the words in The way described, or how suitable they are to the parties allowed to wear them. There is one thing very suspicious, That the Brethren do not agree among themselves, in the use and application of them: For those two Brethren tell us in their Epistle, That they hold with the Churches of New-England, yet it is evident they agree not with their Author, in The way: For they profess, That they do not yet fully close with some expressions, passim, (frequent) in the Book, before some of which, (belike there are more) they minded it, to note a Star in the Margin. This they could not but say and do (pace tanti Authoris) or they could not assert the Book. And will this satisfy any indifferent Reader? In the Title page, they promise us a full declaration of the Churchway in all particulars. But in the second page of their Epistle, they tell us, They do not close with some expressions in the Book; And there are no less than ten Stars affixed in the margin of the Book; wherein they intimate, they cannot assert the Book. Of the same mind are the other two Brethren, 
Ep. p. 6.  the Prefacers to the Keys; and that not in bare expressions, but in Doctrinal assertions. How should such Tracts satisfy us, when themselves are not satisfied? And no marvel, for those Brethren, in their Apologetical Narration, do (wisely) profess, they keep a reserve open, to alter their judgements, upon occasion of New-light. Besides this, its evident, that the Author of the Keys, does directly contradict the Author, of The way, that is, himself, which, when I have pleaded to some friends of his, I have been told, that he hath altered his judgement, since he writ The way, in many particulars. I have heard indeed he hath often altered his judgement since he went to New-England: But I cannot well believe it in this; because the Prefacers to The way, 
Ep. p. 3.  bring us his own words, in a Letter newly written, coming to their hands, when their Epistle was in the Press; wherein he affirms, That there is not a jot of difference in any Doctrine of Divinity, or Church practise. So Mr. Cotton, in his Letter to Mr. R.M. If it be true, that he hath altered his opinion since he writ the Way, they have done him wrong to publish it, after the Keys, wherein the alteration is; If he have not, they would be requested to reconcile him to himself. For I find he doth as flatly contradict himself, as ever any man did. I will instance but in one place (and leave the rest to the following Discourse.) In the Keys, page 4. he says, The Keys were delivered to Peter, as an Apostle, as an Elder, and as a Believer. The sense of the words (says he) will be most full, if all the several considerations be taken jointly together. But in The way, page 27, he says, The power of the Keys is given to the Church, to Peter, not as an Apostle, not as an Elder, but as a professed Believer, in the name of Believers, etc. Is not this a flat contradiction? and yet the Prefacers seem to approve it, for they set no Star in the margin. I shall leave it to them to reconcile. How justly then may we call for a fuller Declaration? and how unjustly do the Brethren quarrel us for calling for it? 
Ep. p. 5.  Do not they themselves promise us yet a fuller Treatise of the same Subject, with amplier demonstrations, by joint consent of the Churches of Old and New-England? That's it that we expect, the joint-consent of the Churches and Brethren; for their inconstancy, and difference in judgement, hath caused, as our non-satisfaction, so our just lamentation, That they should rend a poore-rent-already-Church into pieces, by setting up the practice of a New way, and not be agreed of the platform whereby they practise. There are (as I touched before) no less than ten several Stars, affixed by these Brethren; wherein, I should conceive, they differ from their Author (if not their Master) not in bare expressions but in the Doctrine there delivered, as page 45. Whether the Church hath power to proceed against all her Officers, if they be culpable in heretical Doctrine, or scandalous crime: The Author holds the affirmative; they seem to hold the Negative. Again, page 53. Whether a Church may consist of less than seven, p. 55: Whether confession of sins, and profession of faith be necessary for a member admitted, page 68 Whether sitting at the Sacrament, have a Symbolical use (made by Christ himself) to teach the Church their Majority over their Ministers in some cases, &c In these and the rest, we are unsatisfied, and these Brethren may do well to declare their judgement in their fuller Treatise promised. This disagreement amongst themselves, is prejudicious to their cause and way, to those that are judicious, that are not sworn to the words of any Master, but Christ; much more, when the same person is not at agreement with himself; which, if it be not the case of the Author of the Keys, I refer to the judgement of the indifferent Reader, when he hath read the following Discourse.   

Animadversions upon the brethren's Epistle to the Reader.  
IT is indeed the great controversy of the times, [What is the complete subject of Church power, or the power of the Keys.] These Brethren say, (perhaps truly) that the Truth herein hath been long lost in a double extreme: The one was the tyranny of the Clergy (so called) or rather of the Prelacy, who engrossed all, or the chief part of that power unto themselves, not only from the people, but also from the Pastors of particular Congregations. The other is, the Anarchy or popularity of the Separatists, or Brownists, (as they after call them) who gave the people a place and claim to the whole power, and made the Elders set over them; but their servants to exercise that power which was properly theirs.  
Probable it is, that Truth may lie in the middle, between these two extremes; but how to find it out, is not so easy. Our Brethren go about it; but, me thinks they do not hit it: They say, [The Saints (in these knowing Times) finding that the Key of knowledge hath so far opened their hearts, that they see with their own eyes into the substantials of godliness, etc. They do begin more than to suspect, that some share in the Key of power should likewise appertain unto them] Truly just one as much as another: The Brethren suppose the Saints have a share in the Key of Knowledge; when they say, they suspect they have likewise a share in the Key of power. But first, they have no share in the Key of knowledge, (which is, preaching and administration of the Seals, as the Author speaks) except passively, as to have their hearts opened by it (as the brethren's words are:) So, nor have they any share in the Key of power, except it be by a voluntary [consent, in obedience to the Will and Rule of Christ] as the Author himself speaks, page 15. And divers times elsewhere, as we shall hear; [even an orderly subjection, according to the Order of the Gospel, page 11.] Though the truth is, some have taken more upon them than to suspect they have a share, even to practise the Key of power, and that [through the instruction and guidance of their Teachers;] which, how little it comes short of the plea and practice of the other extreme, shall ere long appear. For the present: These Brethren say, they conceive [the disposal of this power may lie in a due allotment into divers hands, according to their several concernments, rather than in an entire and sole trust committed to any one man, or any one sort, or rank of men, or Officers.] Herein perhaps we might agree with them: But I am sure they agree not with their Author herein, who places all the power in one sort of men alone; that is, 
The way, p. 45.  the Brethren without Officers, and gives them leave [to elect ordain Officers, admit members, and pass Church censures without any Officers, yea, to censure all their Officers.] though, we think, he contradicts himself in this Tract of the Keys.  
The Brethren tell us, The Author (to whom they Preface) takes upon him to distribute the bounds of this power. And lays down this as a maxim; [That look in whose hands soever it fall, they have it immediately from Christ; that is, in regard of delegation or dependence on each other.] And thus fare we do not descent: [He then (say they) considers the power of a Congregation; which supposing to have a Presbytery of its own, he asserteth to be the prime subject of entire power within itself yea, and the sole native subject of the power of Ordination and Excommunication.] But 1. he needed not to have made such a supposition, that the Congregation hath a Presbytery of its own: 
The way, p. 50, 51.  For if they have no Presbytery of their own, he asserteth, that they have the power of Ordination and Excommunication, which is the highest censure within themselves; and [want a Warrant to repair to the Presbytery of another Church for either.] 2. Both he and these Brethren know, that this is denied by many, who make the first Subject of all Church-power to be the general visible Church, and secondarily the Congregation, though having a Presbytery of its own: As a man is the first subject of Risibility, Peter, but at second hand. The Congregation consisting of Elders and Brethren; [For as for women and children, there is a special exception by a Statute Law of Christ, against their enjoyment of any part of this public power] (say the Brethren) which I see no reason for, in regard of some part of this power, (as we shall see anon) the Author labours to share the interest and power between the Elders and the Brethren. And he manifests it (say they) by way of a parallel. [As in some of our Towns corporate, the power is given to a company of Aldermen the Rulers and a Common Council, a Body of the people.] But I pray observe the dissimilitude in this similitude: His main design is, to give the people a share in the Church power of Government: But then the parallel will not run even. For the Company of Aldermen, and the Common-council, are both Rulers of the Corporation, though in several ranks and subordination: But I suppose, neither the Author, nor the Brethren, can truly say, the whole company of the people are Rulers in the Church, as the Common-council is in the Corporation. If all the people be Rulers, who are the ruled? In the City there are multitudes of people, subject to the Company of Aldermen, and Common-council; but here are all Governors, or governed. The parallel were fairly laid thus; The Company of Aldermen, resemble the Pastors and Teachers; The Common-council, the Ruling-Elders (Officers of another rank;) The Citizens besides those, the Brethren out of Office, in the Congregation. Thus all things correspond well. But they make the Presbytery to be the Aldermen, and the whole Body of the people to be the Common-council; which sure they are not, what ever they say; for then the distinction of Rulers and ruled is lost: And this appears clearly in his application of this similitude. [He gives to the Elders or Presbytery, a binding power of Rule and Authority; unto the Brethren, a power to concur with them; and that such affairs should not be transacted without a joynt-agreement of both.] What power? such as the Common-council hath in the Corporation? that's more than a bare privilege; that's a power of Rule and Authority, a binding power, concurring with the Aldermen; But they should have said: Not the Common-council, but the Common people of a City, have such a power to concur with the Aldermen, that such affairs be not transacted, but with their joynt-agreement. But this they cannot say, and then the parallel will not hold, unless they change the Common-people for the Common-council, thus. As the people of a City only cannot proceed to any public sentence, unless they have Aldermen over them: so, nor have the Aldermen power to sentence without the concurrence of the people, which is apparently false. The parallel must be thus: As the Brethren only cannot proceed to any public 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 parallel: As on the one side, the Common-council cannot do any valid act, without the Aldermen; nor the Aldermen, without the Common-council, (unless there be some reserved cases) so, as the Ruling-Elders cannot censure without the Pastor, so nor the Pastor, without the Ruling-Elders; but applied to the Brethren, is (as in the City, if so it were) to make the Government popular, as those do, that are in the one extreme, or I understand nothing. And then, the last clause of the Brethren, is to be paralleled thus: As the Common-council have not power of censuring the whole Court of Aldermen; nor the Aldermen, the whole Common-council, 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 there's one thing wanting; The Aldermen and Common-council have power over all the people of the City, as well as over particular persons amongst themselves. But in these brethren's way; There are no other people, over which the Presbytery and Brethren should have power; and so the Scene is mislaid. I only note again, That the Brethren and the Author are not both of one mind: They say, [The Brethren only could not proceed to any public 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 hear anon; this I am sure he says: 
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 Ministerial power, to determine and enjoin things concerning the Congregations.] The words are full and fair, but the sense is flat and empty: For all this power of determining and enjoining, is but Doctrinal, or declarative, 
Every Minister hath in himself, alone, a Ministerial Doctrinal 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 losing, but doctrinally only, not armed with power of censures, if injunctions be not obeyed. But if this power of the Synod, be not juridical, 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 virtue of his Order, might decree and impose it upon the Congregation: which is denied by all; Therefore it must be a power of jurisdiction; which yet these Brethren, and their Author do deny. And if it be not armed with power of censure, it will come to nothing; as shall appear 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 Author, though so fare remote as New-England (But men agree in error sometimes, that never knew one another.) Their middle way, is this very way held forth by this Author: 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 Brownism, and the Presbyterial Government, as it is practised, etc.] But if they remember themselves well, the two extremes were Prelacy and Brownisme: [Whereof the one doth in effect put the chief (if not the whole) of the Rule and Government into the hands of the people, etc. The other taking the principal parts of that Rule (the due of each Congregation) into the jurisdiction of a common Presbytery of several Congreg●tions etc.] I appeal their wisdom, if the latter part do not better fall upon the Prelacy; who in the other extreme, took the principal parts of Rule (due in part to the Pastors of Congregations) into their own hands. Then the middle way, may chance fall out to be the Presbyterial way, and not theirs. For certainly, that is between those two extremes. And their way, I dare say, (and hope to make it appear) comes nearer to Brownism, than the Presbyterial way, to the Prelatical. For the present, only mark; That the Presbyterial way, gives the power of Church Government; neither to the Clergy alone, as the Prelacy, nor to the people alone, or chief, as the Brownists do, but to both. For the Presbyteries (Classical as well as congregational) 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, ordain, censure, etc. (as the Author doth, whatever these Brethren do) is to put, not only the chief (as Brownists do) but the whole of the Rule into their hands: which, for aught I know, the Brownists do not. Nor doth the Presbytery swallow up the people's interests, (as they affirm) 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-council, chosen by themselves. And that the votes of the Elders of that Congregation concerned, should be swallowed up in the Classis, etc. is no more absurd, than that the votes of the Burgess 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; unless the Brethren think, a Synod may not determine or decree any thing without the joint-consent of every Elder there assembled.  
After all this agreement of the Brethren, with this absent Author, (to a wonder, if not to a miracle, as they would have us think, though we believe they were not strangers to the plot of this Author, either before or since his going over) they enter their dissent, against some opinions and passages of this Author, in the platform by him described. I purpose not here to debate, much less to decide the controversy between them. I only desire to have it observed, That it may rather seem a wonder, that these and other Brethren, having so long studied and professed this middle way, should not yet be able to walk hand in hand therein. When will they be agreed, that we may see their new platform to be uniform? One of them must needs be beside the way, and why may not both? But we shall observe greater differences than these hereafter.  
They now again resume the difference between the people's interest, and the Elders Rule and Authority; and illustrate it by the former similitude, [Of a Company of Aldermen, and a Common-council, 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 privilege or power.] Enough hath been said to this already: Only I would know why they call the Common-council a Body of the people? Sure they do not know any Corporations, I think, where the whole Corporation meets with the Aldermen, as a Body. The Common-council are a distinct Body from the common-people; a Body representative only. But then the parallel 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-council, so that nothing may be esteemed as a City Act, without their concurrence; Surely the Government were democratical: The great mistake in the plot is; That the Presbytery is compared to the Court of Aldermen, and the Brethren to the Common-council. But so they are not; for the Common-council are Governors of the Corporation. It cannot be said, in the Company of Aldermen it is Authority, but in the Common-council a privilege; for it is Authority also in the Common-council; and if it be so in the Brethren (as it must, if they be parallel to the Common-council) 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 do 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 formal Ministerial Act of binding and losing shall consist; and yet place the Rule and Authority, originally and chief 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 Council, 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 parallel 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 own 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, etc. 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-council; which is a mere passive concurrence and consent.  
The next similitude of a Virgin, is nothing parallel to the case in hand. [A Virgin (say they) hath a power ultimately to descent, 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 descent (than again the Government were democratical.) And if they give this power to the Brethren ultimately to descent; they give them more than an interest, even a power of Authority, to annul all acts and censures made by the Elders; which, I take it, is no less than Brownism; for they can say no more.  
Again, they suppose [a Government tempered of Aristocracy and Democracy, in which the people have a share, and their actual consent is neccessary to all Laws and sentences; whereas, a few Nobles that are set over them, in whom the formal sanction of all should lie, in these it were Rule and Authority, in that multitude, but power or interest.] But I pray, is not that Government, where the people's actual consent (and so their dissent) is necessary to all Laws and sentences, merely popular, and in show only Aristocratical? The case is just the Brownists: Their Church seems 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 people's actual consent (and descent) necessary to all Acts and sentences, swallow up the votes of the Elders, and so their Government is wholly or chief popular. Give such a power to the people (as you do) and I will use your own words: [All that is said in the New Testament about the Rule of the Elders, and the people's obedience to them, is to be looked upon, but as Metaphors, and to hold no proportion with any substantial reality of Rule and Government.  
The Brethren, to make their way more plausible, show 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 Governors: But now the Church is out of her Nonage, and more generally able, being visible Saints (as they should be) to join with their guides, etc.] But they forget themselves presently, confessing, [the weakness and unskilfulness 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, unless 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, suitable to those Times? And I think the Brownists may grant them thus much: Their Officers are but the Church's servants, and yet they say nothing may (in an ordinary way of Church-Government) be done without them, nor validly done, unless done by them. But I marvel 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 balancing of the power prevent Anarchie (what ever it may do, Tyranny) for certainly if the people's consent and concurrence be necessary to every Church-act, it's an easy thing for them to bring in Anarchy, being always the greater number, and so to swallow up the votes of the Elders, as Brownists do.  
That Ministerial Doctrinal Authority should be severed from the power of excommunication, in some parties, we never doubted; because excommunication is an act of jurisdiction, which is common to many; but Doctrinal Authority is an afflux of Order. But to sever Rule and Authority from the power of concurrence to excommunication and censures, (as they do in the people) is a mere nullity of Rule and Authority too.  
That the power of excommunication should be inseparably linked to a Congregation; they would feign illustrate by a known comparison; As the custom is in our Land, [The sentencing of a man to death, is not by Lawyers▪ nor by judges alone, but by his Peers, a jury of men like himself.] Their similitude still halts on the main leg: For who are the judges with them, but the Presbytery? and who are the jury, but all the Brethren? But this is not so in a Corporation: All the City are not the Delinquents Peers, but a select dozen of men. Now suppose a man be accused as an offender in a Corporation; shall the whole City be his Peers or jury, to try him? have they any such interest or privilege? is their consent or descent regarded? So the parallel required. If a brother deserve censure, he shall not be judged by the Pastors alone, or with the Elders, chosen by the people (as his jury) for the Government of the Congregation; but all the people are to be his Peers or jury: This were strange to see in a City, and would breed nothing but Anarchy and confusion. So in the Church:  
That Christ hath not betrusted a general Assembly of Elders, with that power he hath done the Congregation, is begged, not proved. The reason is invalid: [Because (say they) they are abstracted from the people.] But that's not true; for the people are there representatively in their Elders, who are able to represent the case of the offender, with all the circumstances, as fully as if all the people were there present.  
But Christ (say they) [would have this Tribe of men (the brethren personally concurring, not by delegation alone, not to the execution only; but even to the legal sentence also of cutting men off:] This is all begged, and is the question. And it is, as if they should say (in the parallel instance) God would have all the Corporation personally concurring to the legal sentence, or cutting off a malefactor, not by delegation only (as the jury do) nor to the execution only; which were a strange confusion. So that, as at the Assizes, the multitude of the people present, have no concurrence to the legal sentence, etc. but the judge and jury only: so the Brethren are to have no concurrence to the legal sentence of excommunication, (except to yield obedience in the execution) but the Elders only: and so the parallel is full.  
And to conclude, if the distance of the Presbyteries Clasficall, etc. may necessitate the censure to pertain to the particular Congregation, because of the circumstances better known to them: By the same reason, every Town where a malefactor lives, should have the Sessions kept amongst them; because there the person and fact is better known, and not one man to be absent from the censure: Nay, a man being to be excommunicated out of a particular Church, is excommunicated out of all Churches, therefore all the Churches must be present at the censure.   

VINDICIAE Clavium: OR, A Vindication of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.  

CHAP. I. What the Keys be, and what their power.  
1. THat by the Kingdom of Heaven, is meant both the Kingdom of Glory, which is above, and the Kingdom of Grace, which is the Church on Earth, I easily grant. But I only desire (in the beginning of this discourse) to be informed what you mean by the Church: Whether 1. The invisible and mystical Church of true Believers opposed to Reprobates; or 2. The Catholic visible Church, opposed to Heathens; or 3. The particular Congregation of Believers associated in Church-communion, as you use to speak. If we may guess at your meaning by the whole proceeding of this Tract; or by your discovery of yourself in the other Discourse, called, The way of the Churches in New-England; (which though it was published after this of the Keys, yet was written, and went up and down in the dark before it) I think you mean it in the latter sense, for a particular Congregation. For your first Proposition, there gives us this Resolution; [That the Church which Christ in the Gospel hath instituted, 
The way p. 1.  and to which he hath committed the Keys etc. it coetus fidelium, a combination of godly men, commonly called a particular visible Church.] But of all the rest, this is the most improbable sense of our Saviour's words, Mat. 16.19. For 1. By the Kingdom of Heaven (on Earth) he means that Church, of which he had spoken before, in v. 18. But that was, either the Catholic visible Church, or rather, the invisible mystical Church; for that only is built upon the rock, and against that the gates of hell shall never prevail: whereas, particular Churches may fail. 2. The kingdom of Glory, the one part of the meaning of the Kingdom of Heaven, is not contradistinguished to a particular Congregation; but to the general visible Church on Earth, opposed to the World by yourself, The Keys, p. 2. [On Earth, that is say you) in the Church on Earth, for he gave him no power to bind in the World.] 3. That Church was there meant (say you, the way p. 1.) whereof Peter was one: But Peter was not a member of such a particular congregation; for there was none such extant, when Christ spoke these words to Peter. 4. You say again, it was that Church unto which Peter or any offended brother might tell the offence, and have it censured: But that was never done in a Church of Saints, Believers, without officers; neither was the church of Corinth, such a church as you described before; for that had Officers, who authoritatively might censure the incestuous person, yet you join them both together. 5. It was (say you) a Church, who all met in one place for the administration of the Ordinances of Christ: But the Ordinances of Christ are not to be found, much less administered in a Church of Believers, without Officers. 6. When you say, Christ committed the Keys to the Church, that is, a particular Congregation; you must mean it either Subjectiuè, or Objectiuè: If you mean it in the latter sense, That the Keys are committed to the Church, as the object of the exercise of the Keys, that is, for the use and good of the Church, you say true, but nothing to the purpose. In this sense, the Keys are given, first and more immediately to the invisible mystical Church (All are yours, whether Paul, etc.) then to the general visible Church, for their sakes: and then to the particular Congregation, as a part or member of that general visible Church: But if you mean it in the former sense, (as you do and must, or else you aequivocate with us from the beginning, and throughout your whole Book) 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 Believers, without Officers, is a new, and strange, and false gloss, maintained by none but Brownists, and such like Separatists. To conclude, The Church of which our Saviour speaks, is called here, the Kingdom of Heaven (on Earth:) But a particular Congregation of Believers is never called the Kingdom of Heaven; being but a member or corporation of that Kingdom. It were as improper to call a congregation Christ's Kingdom, as to call London, the Kingdom of England; yet so your party speak sometimes. This I thought good to note, to clear the way, for the better understanding of that which follows: And now go on.  
2. The next thing to be explicated is, what the Keys of the Kingdom be; wherein you resolve us thus: [The Keys are the Ordinances of Christ, which he hath instituted to be administered in his Church; as the preaching of the Word, as also the administering of Seals and censures.] I take what you grant, only I shall animadvert some things. In this Paragraph, as you do clearly lay down the state of the question: so you do strongly confute the scope of your whole Book, which is to give the people a share in the power of the Keys, that is, in the government of the Church: which appears upon these considerations; 1. You say, the Keys are the Ordinances, which Christ hath instituted: But the Ordinances of Christ are given indeed for the Church of Believers, that is, for their good and benefit, objectiuè: But are never in all the Scripture, nor in all Antiquity, said to be given to that Church, subjectiuè. It sounds ill at first hearing, to say that the people have any power to exercise Ordinances, of preaching, or administering of Seals or Censures. The power of preaching or administering Sacraments by the people, as none but Separatists do usurp: so yourself complain of it page 6. And why you should allow them power in censures, there is very little reason. 2. You say, the Keys are Ordinances, which Christ hath instituted to be administered in his Church: What Church? the Church of Believers, a particular Congregation; for so you mean, as was showed afore: Mark it; to be administered in that Church (scil. by Officers instituted for that purpose) not by that Church without Officers. 3. You add that which to me clearly excludes the people of your Church: [These Keys are neither sword nor sceptre, etc. for they convey not sovereign power but stewardly & ministerial.] Whence thus I argue: The people or Congregation of Believers have no stewardly, or ministerial power over themselves; ergo, they have nothing to do with the power of the Keys: 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 add a clause to draw in the people, saying, [This power (to open and shut the gates of Heaven) lieth partly in their spiritual calling (whether it be their Office, or their place and order in the Church, etc.] I suppose the word calling, should be taken here of a special calling, or office, as we use to call it: which again, would exclude the people from any power in the Keys, as having no office in the Church: But you add, by way of explication of your own sense: [Whether it be their Office, or their place and order in the Church] on purpose to steal in the interest of the people, in some share of the Keys: But if place & order in the Church, give the people out of office, any power in the Keys, that is, the Ordinances, (so you say again) then may women & children claim an in●erest in those Keys; for they have a place and Order in the Church as well as men; which yet you would seem to deny: But let me profess at first, what I shall make good from yourself hereafter, I see not, but women and children may challenge a great part of that power of the Keys, which you give to the Brethren.  
3. Concerning the third: What are the Acts of the Keys, 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 Keys is given, requires a more serious consideration, as being the very foundation of all your new Fabric, which stands or falls with it. The Text is express: [To thee (Simon Peter) will I give the Keys, etc.] in a clear 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 showed above.) But let it be granted for the present to be so; then the words in all clear construction run thus: I will build my Church, the particular congregation, upon that rock; and I will give the Keys of that Church (called the Kingdom of Heaven, and so by you interpreted) to thee Peter, and to such Officers as thou art: Otherwise he would have said: On this rock will I build my Church, and I will give unto it the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, that is, of the Church itself; which is scarce a reasonable interpretation of the words. To make way therefore for your great design, you undertake to resolve that busy question (as you call it,) [How Peter is to be considered in receiving this power of the Keys; whether as an Apostle, or as an Elder, or as a Believer, etc.] 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 Believer: For seeing a Deacon is one of the Officers of the New Testament; 
The Keys, p. 32. The way, p. 83.  (some say judas was Christ's Deacon) and yourself say, all the Officers of the Church were virtually in the Apostles; They were Pastors, Teachers, Ruling-Elders, Deacons, etc. It may not unfitly be questioned, whether Peter did not then represent a Deacon as well as an Elder or Believer. And then again, whether the Keys were not given to Peter as a Deacon; and why a Deacon only is denied any power in the Keys, when believers are admitted to have a share therein; 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 show your desire of peace, and your impartiality in inclining to any party, you consider (you say) Peter in a threefold notion when he received the Keys [As an Apostle, Elder, Believer; so the sense of the words (you say) will be most full, if all the considerations be taken jointly together.] The sense indeed is most full to your purpose, but (I think) lest of all true. 
* The power of the Keys is given to the Church, to Peter, not as an Apostle, not as an Elder, but as a professed Believer; in the name of Believers, etc. The way, p. 27. a flat contradiction.  And you do beg the question, to say Peter received the power of the Keys, as all these, and in particular, as a Believer: For of all the senses, the last was least thought on in any age of the Church, till this last, when the Brownists and such like stumbled upon it. When Saint Austin said, [Peter received the Keys in the name of the Church:] Whether he did mistake the sense of the place or no, you do utterly mistake him, to draw him to your meaning: For 1. he did not mean your Church, a particular congregation; but either the general visible Church; or the invisible mystical Church. 2. Nor that neither, subjectiuè, but objectiuè, that the Keys were given to Peter as an Officer, for the use and benefit of the Church.  
But you proceed to say: [It appears Christ gave the power of the Keys to the Body of the Church, even to the fraternity, with the Presbytery, Mat. 18.17, 18. When they are met in his Name, and agree together in the censure of an offendor.] But by this place (and your former notion of Peter as a Believer) you may as well infer, that the Keys are given to the Sororietie, q.d. as to the Fraternity, as Believers, and as a part of the Body of the Church, which I think is flat Anabaptism, worse than Brownism. You know there are some, who deny that, Mat. 18.17, 18. holds forth any censure of excommunication at all: Others that grant it, yet by Church there, understand the Officers of the Church, such as the Apostles were, to whom Christ spoke: [What ye bind, what ye lose, etc.] You must not therefore beg a foundation to your building, lest, if it be fetched home, your building fall on your own head. But you say, [Alderman agree in this, That no offender is to be excommunicated, but with some concourse of the congregation; at least, by way 1. of consent to the sentence. 2. of actual execution of it, by withdrawing themselves from him; and this we conceive is some part of the exercise of the power of the Keys.] But truly, this is but the gingling of the Keys at most, no part of the power of the Keys: For 1. it belongs to Stewards in a Family, only to exercise the power of the Keys, to take in, and cast out what servants they please: The rest of the servants hear the Keys jingle, when they turn the Keys, but have no part in the exercise of them; no, not so much as by consent, active consent, I mean, so that if they consent not, nothing is done; but by a passive consent only, as approving what the Steward hath done: If you grant the Fraternity any more, you make them joint Stewards of the Family, the Church, as you shall hear hereafter. Nay, sometimes you seem to give them no more [The people discerning and approving the justness of the censures before administered by the Elders, 
The Keys, p. 15.  they give consent in obedience to the will and rule of Christ] which is no part of the exercise of the power of the Keys. For suppose the censure be justly administered, and the people deny their consent; shall not a Delinquent be censured unless they will consent? If not, they have full power in the Keys, arising to authority, which is the error of the one extreme: If so only as passively to consent, its evident, this is no part of the power of the Keys. 2. For their withdrawing, that's much less any power in the Keys. The Steward of a Family having discharged a naughty servant, and turned and locked him out of doors, all the rest of the servants are to withdraw from him; but this is not by way of active power, but passive obedience. Is the withdrawing of people from a man outlawed in civil affairs, any interest in the Keys of judicature? If it be said, except the people consent and withdraw communion from a censured person, the censure is in vain. I answer: If the people should be so rebellious to civil Authority, as not to withdraw from an outlawed man, nothing were done, the sentence was so fare in vain. If no man could be gotten to execute a malefactor condemned, the sentence were frustrated in respect of the execution. But doth this infer, that the people have an interest in the Keys of secular power? The question is not the facto, what the people stubbornly may do; but whether they ought not to consent and withdraw; and whether if they do not, they can challenge any interest in the power of the Keys. Again, if the Keys were given to Peter as a Believer, I see no reason but women and children may come in and challenge a power in the Keys. It suffices not to say (as the Epistolers say, pag. 3.) [Women and children are excepted by a Statute Law of Christ, against their enjoyment of any part of this public power.] For though they be forbidden to speak in the Congregation, or might by impotence (as some say) be excepted in some particulars; yet there seems no reason why they should be exempted from that power here given to the Fraternity, which concerns them as well as men, and they are as well able to exercise it as men; viz. to give a (passive) consent, or to withdraw from the party excommunicated; which they may and must do as well as men: For as women may be offended, so they should in reason have satisfaction, by consenting to the sentence: And as women may offend, in keeping company with a brother or sister excommunicated, so they ought to withdraw from them & then if this be any exercise of the power of the Keys, you may hear them jingle at the women's girdles; which is an extreme beyond the Brownists, even downright anabaptistical. But you give the Fraternity more power than this hereafter, there we shall consider it. Hitherto you have given them nothing, but what is common to them with women.   

CHAP. II. Of the distribution of the Keys.  
YOu first lay down the ordinary Distribution of the Keys, and then except against it, as defective in four things.  
1. [That any key of the kingdom of heaven should be left without power; for the key of knowledge is contradistinguished from a key of power.  
To this I answer: It may be this distribution is not every way exact and perfect, yet I think yours is rather worse: And your exception falls upon your own distribution, a little more remotely. For your key of Faith, or knowledge (for you make them both one) is distinguished from the key of Order; which Order is either of power, or authority, and so your key of knowledge is left without power also. 2. Your key of power (as you call it) is itself left without all power, at least active power, being only an obediential power, to consent and yield submission to the will of Christ's, made known by the Elders.  
2. [There wants (say you) an integral part of the keys, the key of power or liberty, belonging to the Church itself.] But to this I say: This is so fare from being an integral part of the keys, that it is no key at all, no proper power at all, as hath partly been showed already. A key, in all men's judgement, that ever writ of the power of the Church, carries in the notion of it, a power and authority, properly called, power in government, till now of late; yea, even the Brownists themselves make it a key of Authority and Rule in the people: Only you, to make us believe you differ from them, call it a power (improperly called Authority, pag. 36.) or a liberty, or a privilege; which was never before called a key, till now: For there are many liberties or privileges belonging to servants in a family, or people in a State; which no man calls a key of power, or a power in the Keys. And the truth is, you are not constant to yourself: For sometimes you call it only liberty, etc. sometimes you give the Church, the Brethren, without their Officers, as full power as the Officers themselves have; and as full rule and authority as the Brownists give them, as we shall manifest in the sequel.  
But you add; [Protestant Churches having recovered the liberty of preaching the Gospel, and ministry of the Sacraments, have looked no farther, some of them nor d scerned the defect of Church power or liberty due unto them in point of discipline.] To this I say: The error of the Protestant Churches, was not, that they looked not after the power of discipline for the people; but that they laboured not to recover it for their Elders, letting the Prelates keep quietly the discipline to themselves. But the error on the other hand was more easy to be fallen into, and more dangerous (which you observe to have followed) [That others finding themselves wronged (as they did but suppose) in the withholding a key of power which belongs to them, have wrested to themselves an undue power, which belongs not to them, the key of Authority.] True it is, some have done so; for being allowed (by some, perhaps yourself) the key of power, or liberty in discipline, as you call it, they have wrested, not only the key of knowledge, in preaching and administering Sacraments, which belongs not to them; but also the key of authority, as you speak; And so will your people too ere long, I fear, when they are once possessed a while of the key of power, wrist the key of authority in all; both in preaching, and administering Sacraments, and pronouncing censures; and well they may by your own grants, as we shall hear anon.  
3. A third defect you observe; [In dividing the Key of Order, from the Key of jurisdiction, of purpose to make way for the power of Chancellors, etc.] But 1. That might be the error of the distributors, not of the distribution. For the distribution, gives both the keys to the same men. For the same men that had the key of knowledge, had also the key of order and jurisdiction, in the intention of the first sounders of that distribution, which after ages divided in practice. And yet, their Chancellors, and Commissaries, etc. some of them at least were Deacons, who were reputed of the Clergy (as they speak) and might preach if they would; and so had both keys in one person, though limited in some particular acts of them. But if our late Deacons were (as some of our brethren have said they were) virtually Presbyters, and needed no new Ordination; then certainly they had the power of jurisdiction, with the power of Order, though limited, by the corruption of the distributors. 2. This defect may chance to fall upon your own distribution. Do not you divide the key of Order from the key of jurisdiction in your own Deacons: You say expressly in these words: [The Order of Deacons, 
The Keys, page 6.  whereof our Lord spoke nothing touching jurisdiction] I hope you will not say, the Office of a Deacon, falls not under the key of Order; yet, for aught I perceive, you make little account of him in your distribution. 3. You say [Those Chancellors, etc. were invested with jurisdiction, and more than ministerial authority, even above those Elders, who labour in Word and Doctrine.] But do not you invest the people with as much power and jurisdiction more than ministerial, even above those Elders, who labour in the word and doctrine, both to open and shut the doors of the Church against them, page 9 besides what you say elsewhere. 4. I would gladly be resolved, whether you do not divide the key of Order, into a key of power or liberty, and a key of authority, on purpose to make way for the power of the people, as they of old did, for the power of the Chancellors, etc. Lastly, I pray you seriously to consider, whether by this [sacrilegious breach of Order, investing the people with a key of power, even above those Elders that labour in the Word and Doctrine, to open and shut the doors against them, page 9 (which is the breaking as it were of the files and ranks in an Army; they are your own words) Satan is not like again to rout and ruin a great part of the liberty and power of Church officers, and the purity of the Churches, and of all the Ordinances of Christ in them.]  
4. A fourth defect is, [That Order is appropriated to the Officers of the Church only: We put a difference between Office and Order.] We shall speak more fully to this hereafter. All we say for the present is but this: That Office and Order in the strict and Ecclesiastical sense of the word (Order) have hitherto been taken for the same. And yourself grant, page 7. [They may be admitted as aquivalent] in a right sense.  
Let us now consider your own Distribution: [There is (say you) a key of Faith, and a key of Order,] and you have a Text of Scripture for it, Col. 2.5, 6.  
But by Faith and Order there, the Apostle means not the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, as they are understood in this controversy; but (as I take it) their Faith manifested in their orderly walking, as becomes Christians professing the Gospel. So that by Order there is meant their moral orderly walking, as in other duties according to the Rule: so in their submission to the order of government, or exercise of the keys, in the hands of their Officers. I believe no Interpreter (but yourself and some others of late) ever took those words in an Ecclesiastical sense, for the keys delivered unto Peter. But we go on.  
[The key of Faith (say you) is the s●me with the key of knowledge, Luke 11.52. which the Lawyers had taken awe y.] But 1. by your favour, the key of Faith and knowledge are not both one, if you understand it of justifying Faith: A man may have much knowledge and no Faith: Knowledge may in a sense be said to be the key of Faith, as being the inlet or Antecedent of Faith; but so Faith and knowledge are not the same. 2. The key of knowledge is one thing, and knowledge is another: The key of knowledge is the great Ordinance of preaching (you said) the keys of the kingdom of Heaven were the Ordinances of Christ, as the preaching of the Word (the opening and applying of it, p. 2) &c. But this key of knowledge here you speak of, is (you say) common to all Believers; but a little before this, you complain that private Christians had usurped this key, to preach the Gospel, etc. page 6, Whereas this key of knowledge is peculiar to the Ministers of the Gospel: [The Priests lips keep the key of knowledge, etc. and Faith comes by the Word preached.] This was the key of knowledge which the Lawyers had taken away, either by not interpreting, or misinterpreting the Scripture: They could not take away the people's knowledge, much less their Faith. They might take away the key, both of knowledge and Faith, that is, preaching, as the Papists do, by locking up the Word in a strange language; and ours lately did, by crying and putting down preaching. 2. Whereas you say: [They that had the key of knowledge, had power to enter into the kingdom of Heaven, and it may be, to open the door to others to enter also.] I answer: The key s given to Peter, Matth. 16. were not to open the Kingdom of Heaven to himself (for that key, if a key it was, he had before) but to open it to others, by opening and applying the Word (as you said above) our Saviour speaks of binding and losing others: Whose sins ye bind on earth, etc. and of opening for, and shutting out others, not himself. Keys are given to Stewards, not properly to let in, or shut out themselves; but by way of Office, to let in, or lock out others. Besides, 
A privilege to find an open door to enter into the fellowship of the Church, p. 11. which is passive, and in plain sense, one fit to be admitted into the Church. So the Epistolers, p. 2. The key of knowledge hath opened their hearts; that is, I think, preaching.  the key of knowledge and Faith which you describe here, is common to all Believers, even women; but I believe you will not give them a key to open and shut heaven to others, that is the key of preaching. Then again, why do you dislike the former distribution; when you also make one key to be the key of knowledge, and so leave one of the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven without power, contra-distinguishing the key of Faith or knowledge (for with you they are both one) from the key of power, which falls under your key of Order? Lastly, whereas you say a faithful soul by this key entereth into a state of grace, and into the fellowship of the Church, etc. You may remember, that by the Kingdom of Heaven, which is the Church on Earth, you understand a particular Congregation. But a man may have this key of Faith or knowledge, and never enter into your particular Church, and so this key is given to a man out of the Church; and yet you say, the keys are given to the Church, I leave you to consider it. These things hang not well together.  
In the next place you come to the key of Order; of which you thus write: [The key of Order, is the power whereby every member of the Church walketh orderly himself, according to his place in the Church, and helpeth his brethren to walk orderly also.] But this is a strange expression of the key of Order, never heard of before, too generally and aequivocally spoken: For Order may be taken either morally, or Ecclesiastically; Passively, or Actively. Morally, so it is taken passively, for a conformity in carriage, to the rules of the word, in Doctrine, as well as discipline: But Ecclesiastically, it is an Active power, acting upon others. The very name of a key, imports a power, entrusted for others good, and not their own properly. Every one is to keep Order, but every one hath not the key of Order. Order and Office in this Ecclesiastical sense are both one. None hath the key of Order, but one in Office. But your key of Order is common to every member of the Church: 
The Keys, p goe 21.  And that it is no more than moral or passive Order, yourself do seem to grant, when you say, [The brethren stand in an Order, even in an orderly subjection, according to the order of the Gospel.] Every servant in a Family, and every man, woman and child in a corporation stand in such an order, and must walk orderly themselves, and help others to walk orderly also; but will any man say, therefore these have interest in the keys of the Family or Corporation? If every member of a Congregation have this key of Order, how and why are women and children excepted? or are they no members of the Church? or may they walk disorderly? The instance of Saint Paul's walking orderly, according to the orders of the jewish Church, manifests the moral sense of the word: For certainly, the Fraternity of the jews had no power of the Keys. The meaning was, that Saint Paul by his conformity to some jewish Ceremonies, should manifest, that he did not absolutely oppose the Rites of the jewish Church, not that he had any power of the Keys of the government of that Church. Surely the jews were bound all of them to withdraw from every brother that walked disorderly; yet did not believe that that was any part of the exercise of the key of Order. No more was it in those of Thessalonica; when they did warn the unruly, or withdraw from him that walked disorderly: And this Key of Order, if a Key it were, was common not only to Elders and Brethren, as you say, but even to women and children, as I said afore.  
[Of Order (you say) there be 2. Keys; one of power or interest, another of Authority or Rule; The first of these is called in Scripture, Liberty, etc.]  
Before I examine the particulars, I shall note some few things: 1. How modest error is at first: Here it is first called power, mollified by interest, and then by liberty, after by privilege; all which are rather passive than active; but afterwards it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, power, which though it sometimes signifies a privilege, honour, or dignity, john 1.12. in a passive construction, as given and received; yet when it relates to Government, or a power of the Keys, civilly, it than is taken actively, and signifies Authority, Romans 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 [joining in Censures, and in determination of Synodall acts, etc.] called, [a great stroke or power in ordering Church affairs;] amounts almost to as full authority, as the Elders have any. 2. Another thing I note is, that this power, interest, privilege of the people, etc. was never called a Key, till some new Lock smiths made this new picklock 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 again) the servants and Citizens have some privileges and interests, who yet have no stroke in ordering of the Keys, 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. Keys of Order; of power or interest; of Authority or Rule. Now a Deacon, qua Deacon, falls under neither of these: Not the first, for so he is considered only as a Believer: Not the second, for so he is denied jurisdiction, as we heard afore. If you say he falls under the Key of Order, as an Officer; yet than you divide the Key of Order from the Key of jurisdiction, (which you blamed in the other distribution) and level 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 down in Chapter 4. there we shall consider them: Only now we shall consider the proof of this power of the people, out of the Scripture: Your Text is, Gal. 5.13. Brethren, you have been called unto Liberty, etc.] 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 appeal to the Context, than to the Commentators. I shall follow you at your own weapon; Your strength lies in the word Liberty. [They have a power and liberty, to wit, to join with the sounder part of the Presbytery in casting them out, etc.] But I shall appeal the Apostle himself to be judge between us: In the first verse of this Chapter he uses the same word, [Stand fast in the Liberty, etc.] where it is without all controversy, understood of their liberty, or freedom from the Ceremonial Law; called there, the yoke of bondage, 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 ways probable. Nay secondly, in the 11. verse, the Apostle says: [If I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution, etc.] And then ver. 13. comes in again with this: [Brethren you are called unto Liberty, etc.] viz. from that Law of Circumcision, and the like, not to the liberty by you pretended; [To choose Officers, or to join in Censures, etc.] though, these were granted to them, yet not in this place: And your gloss is very far fetched 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 join 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 gloss 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 joining with a Presbytery. See again, v. 16. where the Apostle resumes his exhortation, ver. 13. [Use not your liberty as an occasion unto the flesh; saying, I say then, walk in the spirit, and you shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh:] Which makes it evident, that the Apostle chief exhorts ad bonos mores, though he touch other things by the buy, but discipline is least of all intended. And lest they should use their liberty from those legal and ceremonial yokes, to contention or licentiousness, he cautions against it, v. 13, 16. [Carnal contention is indeed (as you say) an usual disease of popular liberty;] which I fear, you and your partners too much foment, by giving the people this power and liberty, which you so much talk of; and by gingling these Keys in the ears of the people, have almost made them wild; not only one against another, but against their Elders or Governors also. And no marvel, when you grant them so much power [As to open a door of entrance to the Ministers Calling: so to shut the door of entrance against them in some cases, page. 9] much more than which the Brownists do not grant then. And so much of the picklock of Order.  
The Key of Authority is a moral power, in a superior order or state, binding or releasing an inferior in point of subjection.] To this I say; 1. To call Authority a moral power, is very improper: For every single Pastor, (yea, perhaps brother,) hath a moral power to bind and release, not only an inferior, but a superior also, in point of subjection, by propounding the commands of God. You might rather have called it, a juridical, or Ecclesiastical power, and that without any danger, seeing you reserve this power to the Officers or superiors in Order. But 2. you speak too confusedly: For the people have a power to join with the Officers in the censures, that is, in binding and releasing, as you say, page 14. [The whole Church may be said to bind and lose;] Nay, to open and shut the doors against their Ministers, who are their superiors; and so Authority is a moral power in inferiors 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 inferiors, is flatly against your own definition. Furthermore, as you say [the Brethren with the Elders have power to open and shut, etc.] So you say, [the Elders with the Brethren do bind and release,] page 10. So it seems, as the Brethren can do nothing without the Elders: so the Elders can do nothing without the Brethren, as the Epistolers say expressly, page 4. And who would not now conclude, that the liberty is equal in both; or rather, the authority is the same in both, and what say the Brownists more?  
And now I think you cannot truly say, you have received this distribution of the Keys from the Scripture, nor yet from antiquity; though you would feign have us believe, you would not stick upon the former distribution, if the words be rightly explained. As how? 1. [Let them (say you) allow some spiritual power to the Key of knowledge, though not a church power.] But have you not all this while been speaking of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, that is, the Church; and now is the power of the Key of knowledge, no Church power? Again, have not you yourself taken away from the Key of knowledge, not only Church power, but all power whatever, by contradistinguishing it to the Key of power? 3. Is that Key, whereby he that hath it, [not on●y enters himself into the Kingdom of Heaven, but also opens the door for others to enter, no Church power?]  
You add secondly, [Let them put in a Key of liberty, as well as of authority into Church power.] But both these are but one Key, or nothing, as we have said; Nothing indeed to purpose, if both these must consent, or nothing is done, as you and the Brethren assert. 3. [Let them not (say you) divide from the Key of Order or Office, the Key of jurisdiction; for Christ hath given no jurisdiction, but to whom he hath given Office.] But 1. Christ (it seems) hath divided the Key of Office, from the Key of jurisdiction; for he hath given no jurisdiction to Deacons. 2. You should have said, and your scope required it, Christ hath given to none the Key of Order or Office, but to whom he hath given the Key of jurisdiction, but that had contradicted yourself in the instance of Deacons: [Concerning whom (say you) our Lord spoke nothing of jurisdiction, page 6.] Now is it not as strange, that there should be an Office in the Church, without some jurisdiction; As that there should among the Prelates, be jurisdiction without an Office, at least, instituted by Christ? as it was in Chancellors, Commissaries, etc. Nay, is it not as strange that there should be Authority, that is, jurisdiction, to bind and lose, in those that have no Office at all; as there is in the people in your way; as that there should be an Office without jurisdiction? And now I leave you to consider, whether of these Distributions is most consentaneous to the truth.   

CHAP. III. Of the Subject of the Key of Knowledge and Order.  
YOu first tell us in general; [That as the Keys be divers, so are the Subjects to whom they are committed divers.] But this is very doubtful and disputable; because at first, all the Keys were given to Peter at once, and therefore one subject may possess them all: And sure they all meet in Pastors, every one of them hath all the Keys; of knowledge and of power; of Order and jurisdiction, according to the old distribution, and perhaps in yours also. As the Apostles had all the Keys by your confession; [They might exhort as Pastors, 
The Keys, p. 32.  teach as Teachers, rule as Rulers, receive and distribute the oblations of the Church as Deacons:] So, I see no reason, but every Minister of the Gospel hath virtually in him all the same power and Offices: And if they be since divided into more hands, for case and Order, yet the subject is primarily but one; and for the diversity of subjects of the Keys, it concerns them who plead it, to make it good by Scripture. Upon this reason, there are some, who as they question the Office of a ruling Elder, having 1. no direct or express instituted for it in the Scripture. 2. No instance of any such, that ruled, and were not also Pastors. 3. Nor do you say, That Peter received the Keys as a ruling-Elder, but as a Pastor: so they would not yield the Office of the Deacon, but that they find express instituted of it afterwards by the Apostles. But I will not multiply controversies, but come to your particulars.  
1 [The Key of knowledge (or which is all one, the Key of faith) belongeth to all the faithful, whether joined to any particular Church or no.] But 1. Then one of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to women, yea to Infidels; When God gives them Faith, [he gives them a Key to receive Christ, and to find an open door to enter into the fellowship of the Church.] But sure the Apostle Peter did not represent Infidels when the Keys were committed to him. 2. The Keys (you said) were given to the Church; but now you say, they are given to some before they enter into the Church. But I pray, Sir, is not he entered into the Church, who hath received Christ, and makes profession of his faith? Yes, you may say, into the mystical Church, but not into a particular church-fellowship. I answer, he is entered also into the general visible Church, by profession of his faith; to which Church, we think, the Keys were first given, and after, to the particular Church. But you have so long dreamt of a particular Church, to be the first and only instituted Church, that you seem to forget the visible general Church, 
The way, p. 10  and indeed, to call it a Chimara. This, we think, you learned from your Cousins, if not your Brethren, the Brownists. Heretofore, in Scripture language, so soon as men believed, and professed their faith, they were said, to be added to the Church, not to a particular Congregation (for so some were never added, for aught we know, as the Eunuch, and some others) but to the general visible Church. And I pray, what Key was it that opened the door to enter them into the Church? Was it the key of their own particular knowledge or Faith? or the key of preaching, viz. the key of knowledge in the Ministers of the Gospel, and not in themselves? You say here (which is the truth) that [they find an open door to enter into the fellowship of the Church:] which is passively, to be capable to be admitted into the Church, and not actively, to open the door to themselves.  
2. [The Key of Order, belongeth to all such as are in Church order, whether Elders or Brethren.] But this is doubtfully spoken in a double respect: 1. What you mean by Order as afore. If Order and Office be all one (as you seemed to yield) than the key of Order belongs not to the Brethren at all, but to the Elders, who are in office. If Order be taken for orderly carriage, or, (as you yourself speak in this very Paragraph) For [orderly subjection, according to the order of the Gospel] it is just nothing to the power of the Keys: For keys imply an active power, orderly subjection is morally passive. 2. It is also doubtful, what is meant by Church in this place: If it be taken for the general visible Church, that hath nothing to do with the power of the keys, which are committed (say you) to the particular Church: If for the particular Congregation, it is then doubtful still. For it may be asked, what power have the Brethren in Church Order, in the keys of Order, more than one not yet in Church Order? Yourself speak confusedly here, in my judgement, when you say; [Every faithful soul that hath received a key of knowledge (you should rather say, knowledge, by the key of preaching) is bound to watch over his Neighbour's soul, as his own, etc. non ratione ordinis sed in tuitu charitatis; Not by virtue of a state or order which he is in (till in Church-fellowship) but as of common Christian love and charity; one in Church-Order, is bound to do it in both respects, etc.] But 1. A Christian of no particular Church as yet, is in a Church-Order, with respect to the general visible Church, (or else what differs he from an Infidel?) and so is bound to watch over his Neighbour, not only by virtue of common charity, but of that Christian-Order, wherein he stands. 2. Nay, an Infidel is bound, in tuitu charitatis, by virtue of common natural love and charity, to watch over, and admonish his brother: and is a Christian (not yet in Church-Order, as you call it) bond no more than he, to watch over his brother? If he be, (as he is, by a nearer relation unto the mystical body, and visible Church of Christ) than he is to do it, by virtue of his Order, or state of Christianity: If he be not, what differs he from an Infidel? It was a moral Law, Leu. 19.18. [Thou shalt not hate thy brother, but rebuke him, etc.] Which Cain despised, when he said;, [Am I my brother's keeper?] Surely it is want of natural charity, not to watch over a brother, that is not in Church-Order as you mean it. And it is not becoming a Christian to say: [A Christian in Church-Order is not to watch over a brother not in Church-Order, ratione ordinis, but only in tuitu charitatis:] He is bound to do so for an Infidel, and is he bond no more to a Christian? Suppose one in your Church-Order, see a Christian not in Church-Order, walk unorderly; is he not bound to admonish him, by that royal Law of Church-Order, Mat. 18.1. And if he will not hear him, to take two or three more; and if he will not hear them, to tell it to the Church; and afterwards, to walk towards him, as God directs the Church to order it? Hath Christ ordained no better remedy to reclaim a Christian, not in Church-Order, than to reclaim an Infidel? But further: An Officer, or one in a superior Order, by reason of his office, is bound to watch over his brother's soul, not only in tuitu charitatis, but also ratione ordinis. Is a brother bound as much as he? or he no more than a brother out of office? Again, a Deacon is in a superior Order, by reason of his office (as you speak here of Elders) in what different respect is he bound to watch over his brother? no otherwise then a brother out of office? Truly then it is all one in your way, to be in an office, and out of office. And this is the way to banish, if not Christian, yet natural charity out of the Church: And it is observable, that since this new Church-fellowship, and Church covenant hath been set up, charity is grown very cold, and some of them have been heard to profess [they had nothing to do with an offendor, not of their own particular Church-communion:] And do indeed account all not of their way, little better than Infidels, or as they speak without; and in a manner say with Cain, Am I my brother's keeper? Never was there so little charity, so much scorn and contempt of all not in their own way, as is found in them that profess themselves the only people, that have found the way of Christ, though in several Sections.   

CHAP. IU. Of the Subject of Church-Liberty.  
THis Key is given to the Brethrens of the Church; for so faith the Apostle, Gal. 5.23. Brethren you are called unto liberty] Concerning the vindication of that Text enough hath been said above. Before you come to the particulars of their liberties, you Rhetoricate a little, to make it more passable. [As in the commonwealth, the welfare of it stands in the due balancing of the liberties or privileges of the people, and the authority of the Magistrate: so in the Church, the safety of it is in the right ordering of the privileges of the Brethren, and the ministerial authority of the Elders.] All this is granted: But the right balancing of either, lies not in the multitude of the people, as having any immediate influence into the government of Church or State: For then the government of both were democratical. But as in our State, the balancing of the privileges of the people, and the authority of the Magistrate supreme, lies in the authority of the Parliament; where there are Knights and Burgesses representing the people: so, I think it is in the Church; the balancing of the brethren's privileges, and the Ministers authority, seems to lie in the Ruling-Elders, who are the representatives of the people. But take away this ballast or poise of the government, and it will be either absolutely Monarchical, and so easily Tyrannical, or else democratical, and so liable to Anarchy and confusion, as experience shows us, in the Papal and Episcopal tyranny, and the Separatists Anarchy; the two extremes before observed. But let us take a view of the particulars. Their Liberties are;  
1. [To choose their own Officers: so Acts 1. and 6. and 14.] In general I answer thus: The election of the people, was no more but a designation, or propounding the persons, and presenting them to the Apostles, not by way of vote or suffrage, but by way of desire, if they were found fit, to have one or some of them ordained. But this is little or nothing to the power of the Keys. That place Acts 1. was an extraordinary case, wherein the people had little or no hand: For 1. they were confined to some sort of men, hat had conversed with our Saviour. 2. They propounded two, it was not in their power so much as to nominate the particular man. 3. The Lord himself determined it, and not the Apostles, much less the people; As for that word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, stood upon, it cannot be properly taken, as if they by their votes or suffrages, had constituted or ordained Mathias to be an Apostle, but barely thus: Seeing God had chosen and ordained him, they accepted him by an orderly subjection to the revealed will of Christ. For the second, Acts 6. It was expedient, that the people should at least have the nomination of their Deacons, because better known to them, and so better to be trusted with their own stock. But they did but nominate or present the men, they did not ordain so much as a Deacon; [Look you out seven men, whom we (mark it) may appoint, or ordain to this business.] It is never found in all the New Testament, that ever the people ordained or imposed hands upon any Officer; which makes me wonder at the liberty taken by Separatists, and allowed and practised by yourself; 
The way, p. 41.  [That the Church or Brethren without Officers, may not only elect, but ordain and impose hands upon their highest Officers.] As for the third place, Acts 14.23. The word cannot be well rendered: [They ordained them Elders, chosen by lifting up of hands:] For it is not to be referred to the people, but to Paul and Barnabas: who surely did not ordain Elders by lifting up, but by laying on of hands. And so taken, it excludes the people; for the Substantive to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is Paul and Barnabas: If they chose the Elders by lifting up of hands, than the people are excepted, not only from ordination of their Officers, but from election too, by this Text. But further: some of your Brethren hold, that election is the chiefest piece of a Ministers calling, and ordination, but a compliment to the solemnity of it: And if so, the people do ordain them as well as elect, and that's more than a liberty, even as full authority as the Brownists give to the people: Yourself do acknowledge some where, 
The way, p. 48.  that [Ordination is a work of Rule,] And yet you say also, 
Ibid. 45.  [That the Brethren may ordain their Officers;] Therefore the people have more than a key of liberty, 
The Keys, p. 8. and often. Ordination & jurisdiction pertain indifferently to all the Presbyters. The way, p. 49  they have a key of rule and authority; which yet again you do reserve as proper to the Elders. Consider how you can reconcile the contradictions. That the people have a liberty, justly to except, or rationally, to approve of their Officers, is granted; but this is (I still say) nothing to the power of the Keys, which consists in Ordination of Officers chosen, not in the election of Officers to be ordained.  
2. The second liberty of the people is, [To send out messengers for the public service of the Church, Phil. 2.25.] This may be granted a liberty, but nothing to the power of the keys: People may assent to, or approve of the reasonable choice of messengers to be sent forth, just as poor Cottiers in the Country, that have no votes in the election of their Knights and Burgesses, have yet a consent and approbation to send them to the Parliament.  
3. A third Liberty▪ [To accept against such as offer themselves to communion, or unto the seals of it, Acts 9.26.] This is nothing more to the power of the keys, than the former. Any woman may in a scandal, except against any that offers to partake of the Sacrament, by way of information to the Officers; yet hath no interest in the keys.  
4. A fourth: [To join with the Elders, in enquiring, hearing, judging of public scandals, so as to bind notorious offenders under censures, and to forgive the penitens.] If this be not aequivocaly spoken, it is certainly more than a liberty. That they may inquire for their own satisfaction, and hear by way of presence, is a liberty not to be denied. But if you mean any more, it is more than a liberty, an act of rule and authority. Hear your own words, spoken with respect to Bishops, but will better fit our purpose: 
The way, p. 48.  [If the Holy-Ghost had appointed the people to any share in the keys, he would have appointed them also some eminent work. But what shall that be? Shall it be Ordination? Why that is a work of Rule: Or shall it be hearing accusations against Elders, and censuring them accordingly? Why that is a work of Rule also.] Let me add, shall it be judging of public scandals, so as to bind notorious offenders under censure? Why, that is a work of Rule also. And consider now, whether they have not a key of authority, as full as the Elders themselves. If you mean a judgement of discretion only, which all the multitude have at an Assizes, it is just nothing to the purpose; a stranger, none of the Congregation, a woman, an heathen may do as much. But you say, [The Apostle alloweth to all the Brethren a power to judge them that are within, 1 Cor. 5.22.] But either this is fallacious; There was a power in the Church of Corinth, to judge those within; ergo, this power was in the people, or else it is false, if meant of authoritative judgement; or if only a judgement of discretion, it is quite besides the question. But you fearing an objection, prevent it, to judge is an act of Rule, which is proper to the Elders: you answer, [There is a judgement of discretion; As in the jury it is an act of their popular liberty, in the judge an act of judicial authority.] To this I have many things to say: 1. A judgement of discretion will not serve your turn; for that (as I said) is common to all the people at an Assizes; and that is common to women, and heathens, if present, at your Consistories; and if this be all, what difference is there between the judgement of a woman, an heathen, and of one of your Church-members. 2. The judgement of the jury is indeed an act of popular liberty; but not of their liberty, more than of those that are not of the Iury. For I ask, why are not all the rest of the people, whom it concerns as much as those twelve men of the jury, admitted to the same judgement with them? Are not they wronged in point of popular liberty? would not you say, [The Brethren not admitted to the hearing and judging of an offender, were wronged, if only twelve of the Congregation were designed to hear and judge him.] 
In our native Country, the judge dispenses no sentence, but according to the verdict of the jury, etc. The way, p. 102. ] 3. The judgement of the jury, is more than of discretion (so all bystanders judge) even of authority, in some degree and kind, though not complete: For they condemn, or acquit the party, which all the rest together cannot do. 4. The judge, I take it, may not condemn who they acquit, nor acquit whom they condemn, (except by a special indulgence) and that's fare more than a judgement of discretion in the Iury. If it be so with the Brethren here (as the Epistolers say it is) certainly they have more than a judgement of discretion: But yourself say as much; you give the Brethren, not only joined with their Elders, but without any Officers at all, full power to censure offenders: Remember your own words; 
The way, p. 45, 101.  [As for mutual instruction, and admission, election, and ordination of officers, opening the doors of the Church, by admission of members, and shutting the same by Church-censures: These things they may do (if need be) without Officers: yea, and if all their Officers were found culpable, either in heretical doctrine, or scandalous crime, yet the Church hath lawful authority to proceed to the censure of them all.] If this be not as full or more authority than the Elders have over all the Brethren, I profess, I understand nothing in this controversy: yet this I understand, that you speak clear 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 yield 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 jury than doth not represent the Brethren, but the Ruling Elders; which ruling Elders stand in stead of all the Brethren, as the jury doth in stead of all the people; and so the privilege of the people is saved. Otherwise, all the people should be of the jury, as all the Congregation are allowed by you, and others, to be judges of the offender. And the truth is, it is a liberty or privilege to the party that is arraigned, that he may be judged by his Peers; It is not a liberty of the jury: So it is a privilege for any accused brother, that he shall be tried and judged by his Peers, the ruling-Elders: It is no privilege of the rest of the Brethren to be his judges; as it is no privilege of all the people at the Assizes, that they may claim a place in the Iury. 6. That which you add, that there is great difference between the judge and jury: [For (say you) though the jury have given up their verdict, yet the malefactor is not thereupon legally condemned, much less executed, but upon the sentence of the judge.] 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 jury rather seem to acquit or condemn, than the judge; 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 parallel is fair and full. But that all the people at the Assizes should give up their verdict, as well as the jury, is not in practice in the Commonwealth; and so spoils the parallel 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 lose, in that they consent and concur 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, etc.] Just as all the people at an Assizes, may be said to condemn or acquit, because they consent with the judge and jury, 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 do 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 do no more but approve and execute the sentence of the Presbytery, this is just nothing to the power of the keys, intended to be given them, and is a mere passive privilege. And that you may see your own 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 Gospel's page 15. They give consent, in obedience to the will of Christ, page 37. They (the people) discerning the light and truth, readily yield obedience to their overseers, page 41. That they may consent to the judgement and sentence of the Elders.] Had you kept yourself constant to these expressions, you had both preserved the truth of the Gospel, and the peace of the Church.  
And now for a conclusion of this Section; Let me urge you with an argument of your own, against Episcopacy. page 39 [Hierome says, the Churches were governed by the Common-council of the Presbyters] 
* That nothing was done without their counsel, implieth, that nothing was done without their authority. The way, page 31.  The Prelates evasion is, [By their counsel asked, not followed:] You answer: This would imply a contradiction to Hieromes words: For in ask their counsel, and not following it, the Bishop should govern the church against their Council, which is a contradiction.] So say I: The Church (say you) is governed by the consent of the Brethren: I ask, whether you mean their counsel and consent asked only, or followed also. If the later, than 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 Keys. Only, let me but remember you what elsewhere you say, concerning the people's power in government of the Church: 
The way, p. 100  [In case the Officers do err, 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 seem 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 seem 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, heretical, scandalous Presbytery? If the Synod have a power of censure, than again you destroy your Independency: No; [The Church may withdraw from them:] So they might before they consulted the Synod; nay, they were bound to do 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 than once been said above.  
And thus your second answer is also answered already. You say, [Excommunication is one of the highest acts of Rule, 
The way, p. 101.  and ergo, cannot be performed but by some Rulers;] Yet you contradict this f●●●ly, in your other Tract, when you say; [In case of offence given by an Elder, or by the whole Eldership together, the Church hath Authority, (mark that, Authority, which in this Book you oft deny) to require satisfaction of them; and if they do 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 clean 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 seem 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 join with the Church in that censure.] But this is to say and unsay: For if the Church must join with them, than the Church hath received some piece of an Office of Rule, which was before denied: 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 rejoin, this makes it reasonable to me, That there is another Church, to which they must tell the offence, by way of appeal; 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 own words: [As they set up the Presbytery, 
The Keys, 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 do, or need to do, to persons excommunicate; unless 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 do here, giving them a power more than Ministerial, even a Kingly, and more than a Kingly power, when you say; [They rule the Church, by appointing their own Officers, and likewise in censuring offenders, not only by their Officers (which is as much as Kings are wont to do) but also by their own Royal assent, which Kings are not wont to do, 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 ways exercised, etc.] To this I say in general: 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 own members. We suppose this communion is the liberty or privilege of every Christian, by virtue of his interest in the general visible Church, and not by any peculiar interest in a particular Congregation. He that is a professed Christian, and baptised, 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 Roman Empire, and enjoyed the privileges of a Roman. A Christian is a free Deacon in any part of the Christian world; [A Citizen with the Saints, and of the household of God, Eph. 2.19.] And this to me seems reasonable upon these grounds: 1. Because every Christian, not yet in a particular Church, or Congregation, is at liberty to join himself to any Church, tied by no obligation to one more than another. 2. Because it is lawful for any member of a particular Church, upon just reasons to leave that Church, and to join himself to another, and nothing can hinder his removal or communion with another Church, except he be scandalous, etc. 3. It was the custom of the first times, before Congregations were fixed, to add 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 Kingdom, though for order's sake, divided into several Corporations. It is not so in civil respects; A Citizen of one Corporation, cannot go and set up trade in another, because they have their several Charters: But in the City of God, the Kingdom 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 profess himself a Christian, and live accordingly. Your New Covenant to tie men to your particular Church, that he may not remove, without a general leave, will, I fear, 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 coming to another Church, etc.] But 1. Why do you instance in this Ordinance only? Have not their children occasionally borne there, a liberty also of Baptism? 
Where neither of the parents can claim right to the Lords Supper; there their Infants cannot claim right to Baptism. The way, p. 81. Nor the child of an excommunicate person, p. 85.  The rather, because Baptism is not administered with respect to this or that Church, but to the general visible Church: Unless you hold, that a man or child is baptised to no Church, but that particular, and an Infidel to all the rest. Yet some of your brethren will hardly baptise a child of any, but a member of their own Church, which is next door to Anabaptism. 2. I ask by what power of the keys, do your Pastors admit a member of another Church, to partake of the Lords Supper, in yours? Or in what relation doth your Pastor stand to that member of another Church? You say, Pastor and Church are relates, and he is a Pastor to none but of his own Church: Either then, to administer the Lords Supper to a member of another Church, is no Pastoral act, but may be done by a gifted brother: Or else, a Pastor and his Church are not so relates, but that he is a Pastor beyond the limits of his own Congregation, which yet you do deny. 3. You are also very sparing in granting this liberty: For you add; [In case, neither himself, nor the Church from whence he comes, do lie under any public offence.] But what if that party be free from the guilt of that offence? Shall the innocent suffer for the nocent? what charity, what justice is in this? 4. But your reason I like very well: [For we receive the Lords Supper, not only as a Seal of our Communion with the Lord jesus, and with his members in our own Church, but also in all the Churches of the Saints:] Whence I infer, than it is not any favour dispensed by you, to a member of another Church, but a dignity or privilege, common to every member of that body, by virtue of that membership, and not with respect to his particular Church membership. And I pray, is not Baptism also a Seal of our Communion, with all the members of Christ's body? Why then may you not admit the children of the members of any Church, to be baptised by your Pastors, upon just occasion, as well as to admit the parents to the Lords Supper? Nay further: If the Sacraments be Seals of our communion with all the members of Christ, why do you not admit any true Christian, and his children, to the communion of the Sacraments, though they be not as yet admitted members of any particular Congregation? How dare you deny any member of that Body, communion with its fellow-members, when it hath union and communion with the Head? Consider it.  
2. A second way of your communion of Churches, is, [By way of recommendation as Paul in the behalf of Phoebe, etc.] But this is so fare from being any part of the power of the Keys, that it is a duty, which a Church or party own to any Christian that is godly, not by virtue of any particular Church-membership, but by the common interest of Christianity; yea, by the common right of humanity, even to an honest Heathen, according to the ninth Commandment, which requires us, to bear true witness to our brother, if we be thereto required. The letters are only declarative, of the good behaviour of the party, occasioned to remove to such a place. Was this (think you) a part of the power of the Keys, delivered to Peter, and the rest of the Apostles? Besides, if there be any virtue in these letters, to admit a member into communion, is there not a like virtue in them, to excommunicate one ungodly? And if these letters dimissory have power to admit a member of one Church, to be a member of another, without any new covenanting, have they not the like power to admit the Pastor of one Church, to be a Pastor of another Church, without any new Ordination? which yet, I believe, you do not practise.  
3. [By way of Consultation; and 4 by Congregation into a Synod.] But what is all this to the power of the Keys? If upon Congregation, and consultation of other Church-Officers, there be not a binding power, it is rather a latch of a door, which may be opened and shut at any body's pleasure, than a Key to let in, or lock out with any Authority. But of the power of Synods more hereafter.  
4. A fifth way is: [The liberty of giving and receiving mutual supplies one from another; gifted men, or benevolences, etc.] I conceive first, these are rather duties of common charity, than of Church liberty, or any power of the Keys: And I desire to know what those gifted men were, that the Church of Antioch sent to other Countries? Were they not Apostles, or Prophets, or Teachers in Office? Then they were Pastors or Teachers by Office, before they were sent, before they were elected or ordained by the Churches to which they were sent. Thereupon it follows, that a Pastor or Teacher (because you may say a Pastor relates to his own flock) a Teacher (so was Barnabas, Acts 13.1.) is a Teacher to the general visible Church, not to the particular Church only, as you hold. And then again, a Teacher, quâ Teacher, may preach to another Church, and convert Heathens; and not as a gifted brother only, as you sometimes speak.  
A sixth way is, [By way of mutual admonition, when a public offence is found amongst them: One Church may send to admonish another, and if that Church will not hear, take two or three other Churches; and if not hear them, then withdraw, etc.] This admonition is a duty of every brother, at least of every Christian, as a Christian, and no power of the Keys at all: And let it be considered, that the place, Matth. 18.15, 16. 
Those two or three are not considered as a Church-body, but as a sufficient number of witnesses, to join with a brother offended, etc. agreeing in a duty of brotherly love, etc. The way, p. 53.  doth not make the admonition of one or more brethren, any power of the Keys, but a duty only concerning every man, in order to the censure of the Church: But if one or more Churches may proceed with a Church-offending, as private persons with an offending brother; why may they not take the third step, as the last remedy, to excommunicate her, being obstinate, as the Church doth an obstinate b●o her? No; [Because the Churches are all of equal authority:] But so are all the members of a Congregation of equal authority, yet the whole may excommunicate him: And if there be as much Church-communion between Churches, as there is between members of a particular Congregation; I see no reason, why many Churches assembled in a Synod, may not as well excommunicate an obstinate Church, as a Congregation, a particular member. If you deny excommunication of a Church, others will (and do) deny excommunication of a member, and say, non-communion, or withdrawing is as much as can be done. And if you say, the Churches may withdraw communion; I demand, first, what is that in effect, but excommunication, wanting only a Synodical Decree; yet page 25. you say, [A Synod hath power to determine, to withdraw communion from an offending Church:] And is it any more in the excommunication of an offending brother? They do but determine all shall withdraw communion from him. This is therefore but a mere Logom●chie.  
6. The last way of Communion of Churches, is, [by way of propagation, or multiplication of Churches:] But 1. This is rather a division of Churches, than either propagation, or multiplication: For these very Churches were before all one Church, now only divided into two The Apostles and the first Planters, did not thus propagate Churches; but went into places, where no Churches were, no Christians, and there gathered and multiplied Churches. We have enough of this division of Churches, (since your way set up) but little of the propagation or multiplication. Primitive and Apostolical. For I pray Sir, tell us, next time you writ over, how many Churches have you multiplied amongst the Indians in New-England? Not one, that I ever heard of: You have d vided Churches indeed, from old England, but propagated none. And our Brethren at home, how many Churches have they divided and distracted since their return, but have multiplied none? If some new Teachers should arise in New England, and gather (or rather steal) some members out of every of your Congregations, would you call this multiplication of Churches, or rather division? Had you gone into New England, and sent out your Pastors, (who are by calling, spiritual Fathers) to convert Indians, (as was pretended) or our Brethren here gone and sent into Wales, and other parts, little better than heathens, and converted them, and had gathered them into Churches, this had been a propagation of Churches indeed. But this they do not, nor will do, nor well can do: For their opinion is, (and yours too in New England) that no Pastor is a Pastor to any, but his particular Congregation: so their Pastors are only Nurses to give suck, not spiritual Fathers, to propagate and beget children to God and his Church. That they leave to every gifted brother, to raise up seed to their Brethren, and not to themselves. For if once the children be borne, and a little grown up, than these (Fathers in Law) take them up, or rather steal them from them, who have spent their strength in begetting, and breeding them, travelling in pain, till Christ was form in them. But if a Pastor and flock be relates, is a Teacher so too? They may do well then to send Teachers to beget children for their Pastors; lest it be said: [No man in Office hath any skill, or will, or power, to propagate but only to divide Churches.]  
Again, why do you call this a power of the Keys; for a Church to send out a Congregation (as an Hive doth a swarm) when they are too full? This is their liberty, not yours. They have power without you, to gather themselves together, and to enter into a Churchway, and to choose their Officers, and do all, as well as you had.  
Lastly, if Pastors, quâ Pastors, or Teachers, quâ Teachers, are tied to a particular Congregation, then cannot they propigate Churches; only gifted Brethren can do that: And so gifted Brethren, not Pastors and Teachers, are the Successors of the Apostles: We think Pastors and Teachers are Officers to the whole Church as the Apostles were; You will say, than they are Apostles: First, will you say your gifted Brethren are Apostles, because they go abroad to convert and propagate Churches? Secondly, it follows not; That which made the Apostles differ from the Pastors, is delivered by yourself, to stand in two things: 1. 
The Keys, p. 32.  [That an Apostle had in him in all ministerial power of all the Officers of the Church. 2. That Apostolical power extended to all Churches as much as to any one.] But withal you say, [That this power conjoined in them, is now divided by them, amongst all the Churches, and all the Officers of the Churches respectively.] I ask then, what Officer of the Church hath power to plant and propagate Churches? Your gifted Brethren are no Officers of the Church: I hope, Ruling Elders and Deacons are tied as well to their particular Churches, as the Pastors and Teachers; ergo, it must fall upon the Pastors and Teachers, or there is no such thing now, as propagation of Churches. But take once more your own grant in this Paragraph, where now we are: [Though the Apostles be dead, whose Office it was to plant and gather Churches; yet the work is not dead, but the same power of the Keys is left with the Churches in common, etc.] Mark, first, you call it a power of the keys, to plant and gather Churches, and an Office of the Apostles: But this power of the Keys, this Office is not bequeathed to gifted Brethren, nor to Ruling-Elders, or Deacons; ergo, it is left to the Pastors or Teachers. Next, you say, the same power of the Keys is left with the Churches in common: You should say, with the Pastors or Teachers of the Church, or with the Churches indeed, but in the hands of her Officers: Otherwise, you make not only the brethren, but sisters too (according to their measure, as you speak) Fathers and Mothers [To propagate and enlarge the Kingdom of Christ, throughout all generations, as God shall give opportunity.] But were it so, yet then much more would it concern the Pastors and Teachers (the Successors of the Apostles, if they have any at all) to propagate and enlarge the Kingdom of Christ, as God shall give opportunity.   

CHAP. V Of the Subject of the Key of Authority.  
THe Key of Authority or Rule is committed to the Elders of the Church, and so the Act of Rule is proper to their Office.] But, me thinks, you should have done well, to distinguish both of Authority and Rule, and also of Elders, preaching from those they call Ruling-Elders: For Authority and Rule may be distinguished; because there is Rule in those that are called Ruling-Elders, but not Authority to preach and administer Sacraments: I would not have noted it, but that you confusedly reckon up the particulars of Authority and Rule, without distinction, what belongs to one sort of Elders, what to another; As if they did equally belong to both.  
1. The first is: [That which the Elders, who labour in the Word and Doctrine, are to attend unto chief, that is, the preaching of the word, and the administration of the Sacrament●.] For the first, [the preaching of the Word,] some of your Brethren say, that private gifted Brethren may prophesy, that is, preach, and others say they may baptise too; who yet are denied power in ruling, as being not Elders, not Officers, to whom the Act of Ruling is proper: Indeed you seem to deny gifted Brethren power to prophesy publicly; but your Prefacers write, Magister hic non tenetur. Yet their own resolution of the case, and their practice doth not well agree. They say, a gifted Brother may [occasionally preach, not in an ordinary course.] But we see, they do it ordinarily and constantly; witness all their Lecturers, their double and triple beneficed Lecturers; and one who takes a Benefice, (but perhaps not the charge of souls, nor administration of Sacraments) where he constantly preaches. If you say, They are Elders or Pastors: I answer, they are so, to their own select Congregations, but they are but as gifted Brethren to other Congregations; for their principle is, [Pastor and flock are relates:] which, if it be not a fine delusion, let the world judge. We deny not, but gifted Brethren, of such abilities as are fit for Office, for learning and judgement, etc. may for approbation, exercise their gifts. But we only note the difference of these Masters; and that these of ours are nearer to Brownism; who by their constant preaching as gifted Brethren, countenance and encourage private members, supposing themselves gifted sufficiently to preach ordinarily; yea, and to administer the Seals, which as it is less 
* Christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach the Gospel.  than preaching, so also is annexed unto preaching, Mat. 28. as yourself here speaks, and complain of this practice, page 6.  
2. A second Act of Authority common to the Elders, is, [They have power to call the Church together.] 1. You said before, Rule was an Act proper to the Office of Elders: Now you say it is common, you mean perhaps common to both sorts of Elders: But than you should have explained the difference, or resolved us, whether the Ruling-Elders have equal power with the preaching Elders in this Act. For your instance of the Apostles, calling the Church together, Acts 6.2. is but for one sort of Elders, and you bring nothing for the other. 2. Besides, to call the Church together, seems rather a matter of Order, than of Authority: For one Elder of either sort, may be deputed to this work. But if this be proper to Elders, what if the Elders be all offenders, who shall call the Church together then? Truly, this power seems first to be in the Church, in your way; who as they had power to gather themselves into one Body, without Officers, so much more, to call an Assembly of themselves. That of joel 2. for the Priests, is weakly alleged: For it appears not that they were called on, to call an Assembly, (but only to weep, v. 17.) it was rather the Magistrates Act to proclaim a Fast.  
3. [To examine all, members or Officers, before they be received of the Church.] But this, according to your principles, is spoken to the whole Church, and so no proper Act of Elders. And expressly above, you made this one part of the privilege or liberty of the people, to propound just exceptions against such as offer themselves; and if so, then also to examine them, page 13.  
4. A fourth Act of their Rule, is, [Ordination of Officers.] But 1. This is too confused: What Elders do you mean? Preaching or Ruling? Have the Ruling-Elders power of Ordination of Pastors and Teachers? This, as it is without all precedent of Scripture, so it is against a Rule: [The greater is blessed of the lesser;] which cannot be by the Apostles Divinity. 2. This is no Act proper to the Elders, but common to the Brethren, by your own judgement, if your mind be not altered since you writ, The Way, p. 50, 51. See it.  
5. [To open the doors of speech and silence in the Assembly.] But 1. one Elder doth this; ergo, one Elder hath power and authority, not over the Church only, but over his fellow Elders also. 2. You take it from them presently in some cases: [When the Elders themselves lie under offence, the Brethren have liberty to require satisfaction, etc.] That is, the Brethren may open the door, and begin to speak. And still you are confused, not declaring whether this power belongs to either sort of Elders, or both alike; especially your instance of the Rulers of the Synagogue, seeming to carry it to the Ruling Elders.  
6. [To prepare matters before hand for the Church, and to reject causeless and disorderly complaints, etc.] But do not you hold, Mat. 18.17. to speak of the Church of the Brethren, with the Elders? then that place is impertinently alleged, to prove an Act proper to the Elders. 2. Have the Elders power to judge a complaint to be causeless, and to reject it, without the cognizance of the people? why then have they not power to judge a complaint to be just, and to censure it, without their cognizance also? Do you not entrench a little too much upon your people's Liberty?  
7. [The Elders have authority in handling an offence, before the Church, both jus dicere, and sententiam far.] But all this, I think the Brownists yield, who yet give the chief, if not the only power to the people; and give the Elders leave, sententiam far, to pronounce the sentence, as their mouth and Deputies. And you say: [They are first to inform the Church, what the Law of Christ is, which is, jus dicere; and then when the Church discerneth the same, and condiscendeth to it, by consent, to give sentence.] But what if the people discern it not, or condescend not, that the sentence shall pass? Then they may have power, jus dicere, which every understanding brother hath, but not sententiam far: A goodly Authority!  
8. [They have power to dismiss the Church, with a Blessing.] To this I say little; only I say, it is too confused, what Elders you mean, preaching or Ruling? and then, I say, this is but a matter of Order, one only does it, and yet I think you will not say, he hath Authority over his fellows.  
9 [The Elders have power to charge any of the people in private, that they live not inordinately, etc. 2 Thes. 3.6. etc.] This is very weakly alleged by a man of your strength: The Apostle speaks this to all the Brethren, the Thessalonians, yea, it may concern women sometimes, to warn the unruly, especially being to be done in private; and do you bring this for the power of your Elders? which sort of Elders doth it concern to do this, for neither are mentioned? Again, the Apostle speaks not of charging or warning at all; but peremptorily bids them withdraw, v. 6. and to [note him by a Letter, and have no company with him, v. 14.]  
10. [If the Church fall away to blasphemy against Christ, etc. and no Synod hoped for, or no help by it; The Elders have power to withdraw the Disciples from them, and to carry away the Ordinances with them, etc.] But 1. the case is mislaid; for Acts 19.9. the Jews that there blasphemed, were not of the Church; but only such as came to hear Paul preach, which an Infidel might do; but then this was no proper withdrawing, as a power of the Keys: For what had Paul to do, or the Elders with them that are without. 2. Suppose the whole Church fall away, what shall the Elders do now? They may not excommunicate them, you said above; and if they may withdraw, that's not more power than the Brethren have of the Elders Apostate. 3. How can the Elders carry away the Ordinances from them? For first the Elders cease to be Elders, when the flock is separated, and ceases to be their flock. Secondly, the Brethren may keep the Ordinances with them, and have power in your way, to choose new Officers, to exercise the Ordinances; and than what care they for their withdrawing, either themselves or the Ordinances? 4. It seems 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, etc.] 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 Keys 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 Queen, who hath called him to that Office, tells him she is resolved to go 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 down the causes of assembling Churches into Synods, we shall easily agree with you: The main controversy 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 counsel and give light, but also to command and enjoin things to be believed and done.] But this (as was noted in your Prefacers' Epistle) is but an empty grant. For you mean 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 counsel 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 congregational 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 seems to be your meaning; for you say [A truth of the Gospel taught by a Minister, bindeth to faith and obedience, not only because it is Gospel, 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 Gospel; & enjoin it to their several Congregations, by way of a Decree; I ask what difference is there between this Authority of theirs, and the Authority of any one of them single? If you say, none but gradual, than I say, they have no Authority as a Synod, but as Pastors: If you say, specifical, that is, juridical, whereas a Pastors is but doctrinal, you yield 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. Again, I think 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 seem strange, if a Synod be an Ordinance of Christ (as you grant) that a single Presbytery should have a juridical authority, to decree and censure; and yet a Synod, which is a Presbytery of Presbyteries, should have but only a doctrinal 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, etc. Which the particular Churches (unless they bind themselves by promise) need not stand to, but may plead their own Liberty. But (say you) [they have a power, (if they cannot heal the offenders) to determine to withdraw communion from them.] This power all the Brethren have, as to withdraw from their own 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; than you give them a juridical power, which is equivalent with the power of excommunication, whereof withdrawing is but the execution.  
2. Q. [How far the Fraternity may concur 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 think is much mistaken. The disputation, for aught appears, 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 speak 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 murmur, usual with multitudes, as at an Assizes; we fear it; they harkened attentively. 2. [They had liberty to join 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 join in approving the sentence, is no more than the multitude at an Assizes have to join with the Judge in approving of his sentence: But that they joined 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 chief (if not only) in the Apostles and Elders●] The Apostles and Elders did no more but join with james in determining the sentence, as the common sentence of them all. 3 [They had liberty to join with the Apostles and Elders, in choosing and sending messengers, and writing Synodall Letters, in the names of all.] If you meant no more than a passive approbation, it might be yielded; but if you mean an actual, 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 do 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 go?] Reply: Here either you destroy the liberty of the Brethren, afore granted, and give the Synod a binding power, which you seem 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 penal censure; only they may withdraw; And then I return you your own words: [What need Churches send to a Synod for light and direction, etc. if they be resolved afore hand, how far they will go?]  
3. Q. [Whether the Synod hath power to enjoin things both in their nature and use indifferent.] You resolve it negatively.  
1. [From the pattern of Synods, Acts 15.28. who enjoined nothing but necessaries, in nature or use.]  
Sol. This is an Argument from Scripture, negatiuè; they did not here enjoin any thing but necessaries; ergo, they had no power to enjoin 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 commandment of Christ doctrinally, in matters of Faith or worship; but this hinders not, but they might enjoin some things indifferent; as they did forbid the use of some things indifferent in their own nature; viz. blood, and strangled. If it be said, those were not indifferent in their use, at that time: I answer; There is nothing in the individual, properly indifferent in the use; because it falls under some general rules of Scripture; and so is to be used or not used accordingly: The question therefore should be; [Whether a Synod may enjoin (or forbidden) the use of a thing in its own nature indifferent?] And then I should answer affirmatively, and defend myself by this very precedent of the Apostles, Acts 15. Who did forbid the use of somethings in their own 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 believed, as a Doctrine of Faith: or practised as a part of God's worship, but what he had commanded them. Otherwise the Apostles did go beyond their commission, in teaching as necessary, to abstain from blood, etc. which Christ never commanded them, but rather forbade, in abrogating the Ceremonial Law. And whereas you say; [The Apostle 1 Cor. 14.40. doth not at all enjoin, nor allow the Church to enjoin 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 prophesy with their heads covered, or with long hair, and women uncovered, were things in their own nature indifferent (unless you make it necessary, as a moral duty, for men to pray or prophesy uncovered, and women contra; which no Interpreters upon that Text do) and yet the Apostle enjoins the Corinthians so to do; ergo, the Synod may do so too: And for your instance of preaching in a gown; [A gown (say you) is a decent garment to preach in, yet such an injunction (for Ministers to preach in a gown) is not grounded upon that Text of the Apostle: For then, a Minister in neglecting to preach in a gown, should neglect the commandment of the Apostle; which yet he doth not; for if he preach in a cloak, he preacheth decently enough.] True, he sins not in point of decency; but supposing such a custom in a Church (as the custom was for men, amongst Corinthians, to preach uncovered, and the women to be convened in the Congregations) the Synod might enjoin all the Ministers to preach in a gown, (as the Apostle did enjoin them to preach uncovered) and he that shall preach in a cloak, preaches decently indeed, but not orderly; and so sins against the Apostles rule of order, though not of decency. You so speak, 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 enjoins men to keep decency, he enjoins to keep order; and so other rules, concerning things indifferent. Doth not the Apostle complain of disorder in the Corinthians preaching covered? yet the contrary Order was not necessary, but in itself indifferent. The eating of things offered to Idols, was a thing in itself, 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 jews, and ergo necessary pro hic & nunc: I answer, this reason made it necessary only, where such eating was known to be offensive, but the Canon made it necessary every where.  
3. A third reason is taken (you say) from the nature of the [Ministerial Office in Church or Synod: which is stewardly, not Lordly, and ergo, they may dispense no more injunctions to God's 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 enjoin them the use of things in themselves indifferent, for Order and uniformity. As that all shall meet in such an hour, in such a place, to prayers, etc. So I think you do in your own Churches. It is indifferent to receive the Lords Supper at Morning or at Evening, yet some of you enjoin it to be done at Evening. It is indifferent to baptise, in a river, in a pail, in a Font, in a Basin; yet, I believe, you enjoin one of these, and forbidden 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 enjoining the Corinthians uniformity, in their orderly praying or prophesying; 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 refer the administration of both, to the Presbytery of several Churches.] So perhaps would the Presbyterial Churches. But the question is, what is to be done, if the Officers of the particular Churches be dead, or heretical, who then shall do those acts? Either the Synod must do it, but that you refuse, or a Classis, 
The way, p. 50, 51.  or a Presbytery of another Congregation; but that you also deny, as having no warrant: Then it follows, the Brethren without Officers must both ordain Elders, 
Page 100  and excommunicate offenders; which you fully grant in the other Tract. But as clearly contradict in this, as is evident in the former Chapter.  
If it be said, for Synodical Ordination, [that Mathias was so called to be an Apostle, Acts 1.] you answer: [It appears not, they acted them in a Synodical way.] But I pray Sir, remember what you said above, concerning that Synod, Acts 15. [That it rise up to be a Synod, or general Council, by the Apostles presence, they being Elders of all the Churches.] So it may be said of that Assembly, Acts 1. the Apostles presence, and the whole Church, then extant, there assembled, made it a Synod; and if so, then in a Synod, there was an Apostle ordained: If I may use that word of an Apostle, which I may the better to do, by your grants, who urge the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
The Keys, p. 12.  [he was voted by the common suffrages of them all.] And if an Apostle, much more a Deacon, or other Officers, as Acts 6. in another like Assembly. The other instance of the Presbyters imposing hands upon Paul and Barnabas, 
Paul and Barnabas were ordained to that Office (of Apostleship) by the imposition of hands of some Officers or members of the Church: The way, p. 45  was not indeed an Ordination, properly so called, though you call it a [separation of them to the work of the Apostleship.] nor in a Synod, but in a particular Church; yet it was in a Presbytery of Prophets and Teachers, perhaps of several Churches, there occasionally met, and yields us this instruction; That Elders of one or more Churches, may impose hands, that is, ordain (in your sense) Elders employed in other Churches; for so were Paul and Barnabas. Whence we would infer two things more: 1. That if a Classis or Presbytery may ordain, then may a Synod ordain. 2. That however the people or Brethren have no power to ordain or impose hands: for those were Prophets and Teachers, that imposed hands on Paul and Barnabas.  
To conclude this Chapter: whereas you said, [The Synod, Acts 15. did dispense no censure against the false Teachers, an evident argument, they left the censure to the particular Churches.] I answer: This is an Argument like the former: They dispensed no censure, ergo, they had no power, perhaps they revoked their error, and repent, and so there was no need: However, the Synod could not censure them, till they knew them obstinate. What was after done, we know not.   

CHAP. VII. The first Subject of all this Power; and of Independency.  
LEtting pass what is said of Christ, the sovereign Subject of all power, as out of all question, we consider only what you say of Ministerial power.  
1. Propos. [A particular Church, or Congregation of Saints, is the first subject of all the Church-offices, with all their spiritual gifts and power,] 1 Cor. 3.22, etc. But, under favour, all the Texts produced to prove the Proposition, are mistaken, or misapplyed. The first, 1 Cor. 3.22. is not spoken to the Church of Corinth, or any other particular Church, as a peculiar privilege unto them; but either, of all Saints in the world, or of those in the Church of Corinth, as Saints, not promiscuously of the whole Church, as a Church, consisting of good and bad: For, was Paul and Apollo's; was life and death, were things present, and things to come, given to wicked men and hypocrites in that Church? was Paul an Apostle, and Cephas another, given as a peculiar privilege to the Church of Corinth only? Yea, is not this meant of the invisible mystical Church, and not of any particular Church? For the second, 1 Cor. 14.23. you say, [Theirs was such a Church, of whom it is said; They came altogether into one place.] But we have told you, at the beginning, this was not such a Church as you described, [A Congregation of Saints professing the faith] without their Officers: which I think you mean here also; (for these things are taken out of, The way, p. 1.) This was a Church that had many Officers. The third Text, 1 Cor. 12.28. is not meant of a particular Church. For I pray, were the Apostles set in the Church of Corinth only, as a particular Church? Were not they Ministers of all, and given to all Churches? Your labour about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, some, to refer it to the Apostles, is but a mere criticism; for let it be some, or which, it matters not. For those Apostles or Prophets were not set in the Church of Corinth, as the first subject thereof, but in the general visible Church: so the parallel place, Eph. 4.12. is necessarily meant of the Church of Saints, or the body of Christ generally, or indefinitely, not of this or that particular Church. What weak proofs are these, for a proposition of so great concernment, as being the very foundation of the Independent Government?  
But you read of no Nationall Church, nor Nationall Officers given to them by Christ: Yet (say we) we read of Officers more than Nationall, given to the Churches, even universal, as Apostles and Prophets: And some think we read of Nationall Officers, such was Titus for Crete; as an Evangelist, though we take these to be extraordinary. 2. We read of Nationall Churches, living under one common government, as the Churches of Galatia; yet but one Church; and the Church of jerusalem, had many Congregations, yet but one Church: And if many Congregations may be called one Church in a City; why all the Congregations in a Nation, may not be called one Nationall Church, I see no great reason? Not indeed in a typical sense, as the Church of the Jews was, a Nationall Church. 3. You grant, that the Officers of particular Churches of a Province, or Nation, may meet, as a Synod, by an Ordinance of Christ; 
john speaks of the dimensions, of many particular jewish Churches combining together in some causes, even to the communion of a thousand Churches, and all of them will have such mutual care, and yield such mutual help and communion one to another, as if they were all but one Body. The Keys, p. 56.  and there determine, and enjoin things for all their Churches; and this Synod you call, a Church of Churches: Now, are not those Officers, Officers to all those Churches, and may not they be called Nationall Officers, in a candid sense? It is therefore a mere Logomachy, to dispute, whether there be a Nationall Church, or Nationall Officers, or no: But [the Officers themselves (say you) and the Synods themselves, and all their power, are primarily given to the several Churches of particular Congregations, either as the first subject in whom they are resident, or as the first object, about whom they are conversant, etc.] Let me first tell you, you plainly vary the question, which is, of the first subject, not of the first object.  
2. The first object of all the Church Officers, is not the particular Churches; certainly the first object of the Apostles and Prophets was the general visible Church, not any particular Church: Nay, every Pastor is first given to the whole Church, secondarily to this or that particular Church as the object; as I think, I have proved above, at least, you do not sufficiently disprove it: But 3. that the power which a Synod puts forth, [is subjectively first in the Synod; 
The Keys. p. 47. ] is your own assertion in your 4. proposition; you did therefore much forget yourself here, to assert the contrary; and think to evade, by altering the state of the question, putting the first object, for the first subject, or joining them together, when the question is of the first subject only. Surely, if the power of a Synod be any thing more than the power of a particular Congregation; the particular Congregation cannot be the first subject, in whom the power of the Synod is resident. But when I consider your first proposition better, I begin to think your meaning is, that the Church particular, even without Officers, is the first Subject of all Church-power; because 1. such a Church you define in, The Way, to be the only instituted Church; and secondly, you give them power to derive their power upon their Officers, in choosing and ordaining them, and then sending them to a Synod; and so indeed, they are the first Subject, even of the power put forth in the Synod: But if this be not downright Brownism, I confess, I know not what is. Let me but make use of your own characters of the first Subject of all power: [The first subject of any power hath it reciprocally:] But a particular Congregation of Saints, hath not all Church-offices, and all spiritual power reciprocally: For it may be without all Officers: so cannot fire, the first Subject of heat, be without heat. Again, take the second character: [It first putteth forth the exercise of that power.] But say I, a particular Congregation without Officers, doth not first put forth the power of an Officer, or of a Synod; ergo, If you say, yet the third will fit it rightly: [It first communicateth that power to others.] because the Church first makes her own Officers, and then employs them in the Church or Synod. I ask, whether this be not that extreme which the Brethren speak of; giving [the chief, if not the whole of the power into the hands of the people (without their Officers) as if Christ had radically and originally estated it in the people, Epist. p. 2.]  
2. Propos. [The Apostles were the first subject of Apostolical power.] But then 1. why do you not say, proportionably, that the Pastors are the first Subject of Pastoral power; and the Ruling-Elders of Ruling power, & c? 2. If the first Subject of all the Church-offices, with all their spiritual gifts and power, be a particular Congregation, how can you say now, that the Apostles were the first subject of Apostolical power? Nay rather, in your way, the particular Congregation, is the first subject, even of Apostolical power; and the Apostles had it by derivation from them; and so make the Church the Queen, that bestoweth all these Offices upon her Officers; and so say the Brownists. But to the contrary, its certain, there were Apostles, who had this Apostolical power, before there was any particular Congregation; As shall appear in the particulars.  
1. You say, their power stood in this; [That each Apostle had in him all ministerial power of all the officers of the Church, Pastors, Teachers, Rulers, Deacons.] But this is a flat contradiction to your first proposition, That a particular Congregation was the first subject of all the Church-offices and power: There cannot be two first subjects, much less three first subjects of one Adjunct; and yet here you join Evangelists with Apostles, and say, that [one Apostle or Evangelist, carried about with him the liberty and power of the whole Church; and ergo, might alone baptise and censure.] If you should say, they received this power from the Church, you say, that which jumps with the Brownists opinion, and that which is apparently false. Take all your 3. characters of a first subject: 1. It first receiveth that power. 2. It first puts forth the exercise of that power. 3. It first communicateth that power to others: They all fall upon the Apostles, before there was any particular Congregation; They first received power from Christ; They first exercised that power; They first communicated that power, by making Pastors, Elders, Deacons: Besides, in your other Tract you say, expressly as much, or more. 
The way, p. 83.  [One Apostle received both the gifts and power of all the Officers of the Church, and might exercise them all alone, without the Church.] Though your Brethren that published that Tract, do affix their Star against it, which (according to their intimation in their Epistle) signifies as much as, Magister non tenetur. And no marvel, for you are not constant to yourself: Your first and second propositions do directly contradict one another.  
2. [Apostolical power (say you) extended itself to all Churches, as much as to any one; and so they were the first and last subject of Apostolical power.] This still makes the contradiction greater: For how then, could you truly say; [The particular congregation was the first subject of all Church-power:] when the power of a particular Congregation extends itself no further than its own bounds, and Apostolical power extends to all Churches? 2. How can you say they were the last subject of all power; when you said afore, The particular congregation is the first subject of all power? And when you say here, [That ample and universal latitude of power, which was conjoined in them, is now divided even by themselves, amongst all the Churches, and all the Officers respectively.] Then it follows 1. That the Church is not the first subject of all power; for it is divided by the Apostles, amongst all the Churches. 2. That the Apostles were not the last subject of all Apostolical power; for it is left with the Churches and Officers: But still the question is, whom the Apostles did betrust first, with the ordinary power of Pastors, Teachers, Elders, Deacons? The Churches (say you) and the Officers respectively: But what do you mean? that one part of that power was given first to the Churches; another part, first to the Officers? This is not consentaneous to your first proposition: where you say, [The Church is the first subject of all Church offices, and all Church power:] Or do you mean (as you should, if you speak congruously) that the Church receives all power first, and then distributes it among the Officers respectively? Then (say I) your middle way, falls out to be the extreme of Brownists; who make the people the first subject of all power. But I think the truth is; That the Apostles betrusted the power of the Officers, not first with the Churches, but with the Officers themselves: They, and Evangelists, ordained Elders in every City, not the Churches: Paul gives Timothy a charge, [to commit that which he had received of him, to faithful men, that might be able to teach others also, 2 Tim. 2.2.] To conclude this: You said above, That the Keys were distributed into several hands; the Key of Liberty unto the Brethren; the Key of Authority unto the Officers; and is not this a contradiction to what your first proposition doth assert; That the particular Church of Brethren, is the first subject of all Church-offices, and of all Church-power, and so of the Authority of the Officers? consider it.  
3. Propos. [When the Church of a particular congregation, walketh together in the truth and peace, the Brethren are the first subject of Church liberty, and the Elders thereof, of Church-authority; and both, of all Church-power, needful to be exercised amongst themselves.] This is very cautelously delivered, yet not enough to cover your contradiction. Either this proposition is the same with the first, or else it contradicts it. There you said, that the particular congregation of Saints, was the first subject of all the Church-offices, with all their spiritual gifts and power: Now you divide this power, between them and the Elders; giving the one Church-liberty, the other, Authority. 2. There is a limitation for this too; it is but when they walk in truth and Peace: But if they walk not so, what is the first subject of all that power? Have not the Brethren their Liberty, and the Elders their Authority, as the first Subjects, when they differ? If so; then your caution is idle, [when they walk in truth and peace: If not, then neither of them single, nor both together, are the first subject of all power needful to be exercised amongst themselves: And we shall hear anon, a Synod is the first subject of all power needful to be exercised amongst themselves; When there are divisions and factions among them, page 47. Yet again, in your other Tract, you give the particular Congregation of Brethren, the whole power, of choosing, ordaining Officers, and censures of their Officers, if they be heretical.  
1. That the Brethren are the first subject of Church-liberty, you labour to prove thus: [By removal of any former subject, whence they might derive it: Not from their Elders; for they had power to choose their own Elders: Not from other Churches, for all Churches are equal: Not from a Synod; they of Antioch borrowed none of their Liberties from jerusalem.] I answer; the enumeration is not sufficient: For though they received it from none of those, yet they might derive it from some others; namely, from the Elders of other Churches, by whom they were first converted to the Faith: For the Liberties or privileges that a Congregation hath, as distinct from Elders, comes to them by virtue of their interest, either in the Body mystical, or Catholic visible Church; which is in Order, before their membership of a particular Congregation: They must be visible Saints, before they can gather into a congregation of visible Saints; and every one single hath a liberty or privilege to associate, before they can all be associated: Now thence it follows, that those Elders that first converted them did virtually derive that liberty or privilege to them; Faith comes by hearing: How shall they hear without a Preacher? Remember your own words: 
The Keys, p. 10.  [The Key of knowledge (or which is all one the Key of Faith) belongeth to all the faithful, whether joined to any particular Church, or no; which argueth, that the key of knowledge is given not only to the Church, but to some before they enter into the Church.] Now who gave them this key of Faith, instrumentally, but [the Ministers by whom they believed?] Therefore, the Church of a particular Congregation, are not the first subject of Church-liberty; but every particular Believer hath it first, and that derived from some Elders. And certainly, in the first plantation of Churches, the Officers, Elders I mean, were before the Churches themselves: The Planters were before the plantation. The Apostles being first converted and ordained by Christ himself, were sent abroad, and converted people, many times single; afterwards, when they were increased, they united into Churches. Now, you suppose the Church to be before the Elders; because they choose their own Elders, which is not generally true. Though it may be so in Churches planted, yet not in the first plantation of Churches. Indeed, in your way, the Churches are before their Elders, and do choose and ordain their Elders; but from the beginning it was not so: And besides, Elders now, in order of nature, if not in time, are before the Churches, in all Reformed Churches; being ordained for the most part to be Elders, before they be Elders to this or that particular Church: And though your Churches do choose their Elders, yet I hope they do not make or ordain them Elders: but after they are ordained, choose them to be theirs. 
The Keys, p 55.  You speak sometimes of [translation of an Elder from one Church to another;] which, in my apprehension, implies him an Elder before he be translated to another Church: Though I know you are not constant to yourself herein; holding it as a principle; [Elder and flock are relates:] and giving the Brethren, without any Officers, power not only to choose, but to ordain their Elders; and so your Churches are before their Elders, and give them their power, by election and ordination; and Brownists do no more. I would gladly know a reason why, if the Churches had power to choose and ordain their own Officers, the Apostle should trouble himself, and them, to send Timothy and Titus, to ordain Elders in every City; had it not been easier to have written to the Churches to do it themselves?  
2. That the Elders are the first subject of Rule and Authority, you endeavour to prove: 1. [Because the charge of Rule over the Church, is committed to them immediately from Christ.] But this first, is contradictory to your first proposition, which made the particular congregation, the first subject of all Church-officers, and all Church-power; and the Church communicates and derives that power to the Officers, choosing and ordaining them. 2. If the charge of Rule be immediately committed to them from Christ, how can the Church be the first subject of all power? The Apostles indeed had all their power immediately from Christ; but other Officers had it immediately from them, and from others entrusted by them, with that power: When you say, [The Office itself is ordained by Christ, though the Elders be chosen to their Office by the Church of Brethren] You vary the question: For the question is not, who ordains the Office; but who ordains the Officers: Those that the Apostles ordained, had their Office immediately from Christ, but had not their Ordination immediately from Christ; that was the privilege of the Apostles. Now from whomsoever the Officers derive their Ordination immediately, from them immediately they do derive their Authority. But (say you) the Officers do 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 receipt of the Key of Authority, to whom he hath not given the gift to employ it.] But you give the body of the Brethren alone, the first receipt (and exercise too) of the Key of Authority, when you give them power to choose and ordain their Officers (which Ordination is confessed by yourself, to be an Act of Rule and authority) ergo, 
The way, p. 48.  you do directly contradict yourself; 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 choosing 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; choosing to an Office, doth not invest with the Rule of that Office. Election gives not an Office, but only nominates or designs 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, than election gives no Office, and consequently, no authority belonging to that Office: If they were, than Ordination is a mere empty Ceremony; and the Brethren do 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 speak. 2. Your second reason is as weak as the former; [Because they profess their subjection to him:] This cannot invest him with the Rule, such as we speak of. Suppose a company of Brethren choose a gifted Brother to prophesy to them, and profess their subjection to him in the Lord; doth this invest him with authority of an Elder, to rule over them? If it do; then Ordination is a thing not necessary, either by the Brethren or Elders; (yet by and by we shall hear you require Ordination of Elders, to make a complete Elder:) If it do not, than you have not satisfied the objection.  
Obj. 2. The Church is Christ's Spouse, Wife, Queen; ergo, she hath the Keys of Rule at her girdle. Sol. [There is a great difference between Queens and poor men's Wives: The first have their Officers for every business, 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 King's Royal allowance: But poor men's wives, that have no Officers, may carry the keys at their own girdles.] Reply. This answer overthroweth itself: For 1. the liberty which you grant this Queen, the Church, is part of the power of the Keys, and a great part too (if not the whole) viz. to choose and ordain her own Officers, and to censure them offending; which no Queen is allowed to do; ergo, the Church hath the Keys at her girdle, which a Queen hath not. 2. You say, and that truly, [The Queen hath only a liberty to call for what she wants;] but hath no power to make her own Officers. The King doth that by some Officers deputed by himself for that purpose, to set them apart, to give them their commission or oath, etc. Just so it is in the Church: All the Officers are given to the Church, objectiuè, for the good and benefit of the Church; but they have no power to make and ordain their own Officers, but only to call upon them for that allowance which the King of the Church hath granted them. 3. If poor men's wives may carry the Keys of any Office at their own girdles, when their husbands have no Officers; you seem to give a greater honour and liberty to them, then to Queens or Ladies; and withal, you give us leave to infer, That Churches that have no Officers of their own, are in better case than those that have: They that have Officers, have put the Keys in their Officers hands: They that have none, may and do wear them at their own girdles; which if you affirm (as you often do) I dare affirm it to be flat Brownism, and not the middle way, you pretend.  
Obj. 3. The whole body natural, is the first subject of all the natural power; as sight is first in the body, before in the eye. Soil. [It is not in the mystical, as with the natural body; there the faculties are inexistent, not so here.] Reply 1. This again 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 choose out of themselves, Officers gifted, are not they then inexistent? 3. You confess they are in some cases: [unless (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 than you answer not the objection: And if they have Presbyters, before they choose them to be theirs, (as your words seem to import they may) than they do not invest them with power of Elders, by choosing 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, than 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 choose, ordain, and censure;] ergo,  
Obj. 4. The Government is mixed of Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy; ergo, the people have some power in Government. Sol. Your first answer seems to yield the thing: [In a large sense, Authority may be acknowledged in the people: As 1. when a man acteth by counsel, he is then Lord of his own action.] But that's nothing to the objection. The people of the Assizes act by counsel, in approving the sentence: If you grant the Brethren no more, you mock them, and grant them nothing. 2. But you grant them far more; [Election of Officers, concurrence in censures, determination of Synodall acts, etc. (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 affairs.] 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 people's power or liberty is binding, unless the authority of the Presbytery concur with it.] No more doth any act of the Presbytery bind, unless the power of the people join with it. So say your Prefacers, Epist. p. 4. So say yourself; when you allow them such a power, as the want thereof retards the sentence. But why do you darken your own meaning, by such ambiguous answers? when you grant the Government to be democratical, 
The way, 100  but not [merely democratical;] yea, (if I understand any thing) you make it as merely democratical, as Brownists themselves, when you give them power, without any Officers, to choose, ordain, censure, even Officers themselves, as we have often told you. I pray Sir, when the Brethren ordain, or censure Officers, without a Presbytery, doth not that act of theirs properly bind? It must, or it is mere vanity, having no Presbytery to join with them: And if so, is not this properly Authority without more ado?  
But you would prove Elders to be the first Subject of Authority, from removal of other Subjects: [They have is not from the Elders of other Churches; or from a Synod: All Churches and all Elders are equal.] But 1. This is apparently false in the Scripture 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 equal, will hurt yourself: For if that be a good reason why they cannot derive it from Elders of the other Churches, because they are equal, it is much more strong against you; they cannot derive it from the people, who are their inferiors: Besides, by this rule, Elders of their own Church cannot ordain any Elders to that Church, when they want; for they are all ●qu●ll: But by your favour, he that is to receive the Office, and with it, the Authority of an Elder, is inferior to those Elders who are to ordain him; for the lesser is blessed of the greater: though when he is once ordained, he be their equal: And though the Elders of a Synod be equal, singly considered; yet jointly, they are superior to any one single, and have more Authority than he hath; or else, all you speak 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 own Church, because they are all equal; 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, needful amongst themselves] You prove it by instance, 1. [In point of Ordination: which is complete, 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 ordain Elders, which yet you say they may; or else, they have Authority, which yet you seem to deny. 2. Some of your Brethren here, hold Ordination to be nothing but a ceremonial solemnity, the substance of a Ministers calling, is (say they) in the people's 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 complete without Ordination; and yet you require Ordination to the integrity of it: But if the Brethren may ordain without their Officers, than they alone are the first Subject not of Liberty only, but of Authority also: And so this Proposition is needless.  
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 needful within themselves. 2. And that the rather, if they can ordain Elders too; for then the Elders derive their power from them. 3. But suppose, (which is possible enough) the Brethren and Elders err in their censure of a member, is not the censure then reversible? I ask, by whom? if all power needful for themselves be within themselves, what shall the wronged party do? Is he remedilessly miserable? If it be dispensable, and reversible, it must be by some other Church or Cl●ssis, etc. But then, a Congregation of Brethren and Elders, are not the first subject of all power needful amongst themselves. If you say, you mean, when they walk in truth and peace; you should yet have told us what the party must do, when they walk not in truth and peace; And if they have not a power to right a wronged party, they have not all power needful to be exercised among themselves.  
The Objections by you brought and answered, rather concern the Episcopal, than the Presbyterial 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 yield the cause: For you grant that the business is to be told first to the Presbytery; [who if upon hearing the cause, and examining the witnesses, they find it ripe for public censure, they are then to propound it to the Church, etc. 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 hear them, to pass the sentence upon him; ergo, the Presbytery is the Church there meant, and not the people, who neither admonish, nor censure authoritatively, but only discern the nature of the offence, and consent unto the sentence: The Church there meant, is that part of the Church, which the party refuses to hear; but he refuses to hear the Presbytery, who do speak to him, not the people, who do not authoritatively speak 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 do not disprove it. Nay 2. you rather confirm it by your answer to the first objection; Our Saviour alludes to the Church-censure in the jewish Church: But there the Church censuring, was the Synagogue, a Court of the Consistory; ergo, as shall further appear 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 do not deny, but the people might be present, to hear things then, and so they may now: But if the Elders be called the Church, as distinct from the people, when they sat in presence of the people, much more may they be called the Church, when they sit alone. And to that custom of the Jews (your self acknowledge in answer to the first objection doth our Saviour allude; when he says, [Tell the Church] But the custom of the Jews, was to tell the Elders and Rulers, not the people. And whereas you say: [If a sentence illegal was passed by them, the people did sometimes protest against it, sometime refuse to execute it, and the same they might and ought to do, at any time, in like cases.] Though this may be true, when things are done in an illegal way, and evidently illegal (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 illegal.  
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 congregational Presbytery, it quite destroys the power of the people: But we do not say, it is directly meant of a Synod of Presbyteries, but by a just consequence: If a congregational Presbytery be here meant (as we think it is) to reclaim a particular offending party in a Congregation: Then by proportion, here is meant a Synod of Presbyteries, when a whole Church errs, or is heretical; 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 yourself, 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 removal of all offences: so it may be said, that it were not fit to trouble Synod with every offence; and when they do meet, they may err also, and so may a general Council, and so no remedy for them.]  
Reply 1. We do not say that Synods are to be troubled with every small offence, or to take the business of a Congregation out of their hands; but only with greater matters, and when the congregational Presbytery cannot end them, or is so bad it will not. 2. Synods and Counsels may err, but not so easily as a particular Congregation: And alicubi sistendum, there must be an end of pursuit, and refer the business to the judgement of Jesus Christ, the King of the Church. As in case of Parliaments, the highest Tribunal that we have, they may err; and if they do, private persons must sit down, or appeal to the next. But that is a strange assertion, [That it was not the purpose of Christ to prescribe a rule for the removal of all offences out of the Church; but only such private and less heinous, as grow notorious by obstinacy: For if they be public, the Apostle gives another rule, to cast such a person out of all communion, without that admonition, etc.] Reply: The Apostle did not mean 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, reproof, and admonition, yielded 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 think) to excommunicate them; why then should they trouble themselves with a Synod, which is hardly procured? If the Congregation be found faithful and willing to remove an offence, by due censure, why should the offence be called up to more public judicature, and the plaster made broader than the sore?] They are your own words, page 42. I forbear the other objections.  
Arg. 3. From the practice and example of the Church of Corinth.] Obj. This was the act of Paul, no act of judicial authority in the Church, but rather of subjection to his sentence, etc. Sol. [The judgement of Paul, was not a judicial sentence, delivering him to Satan; but a judicious doctrine, and instruction, teaching them what to do in that case.] Reply: Thus you may evade that other Text, where yet you grant, that Paul alone did excommunicate Alexander, and justify 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 parallel? 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 juridical 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 repent, and so the execution was stayed. Sufficient unto the man is the rebuke of many, 2 Cor. 2.6] As for their forgiveness of him, it might be only brotherly, by way of charity, as offended by him, not juridical by way of authority: For the brethren (by your own confession) had only Liberty, not Authority, and ergo, could not authoritatively forgive him, as nor authoritatively bind him: The same power binds and loses: 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 requisite 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 mean only a judgement of discretion, and a withdrawing, to execute the sentence, it is true, that liberty they have, a rational consent, or descent; 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 concur to it: If so, than 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 people's 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 Commandment 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 concern actively the Brethren? 3. The Apostles words do not declare this act of theirs to be a judicial act: when he says, [Do not ●ou judge them that are within?] Even this first may be referred to the Officers; and secondly, it is by yourself understood of a judgement of discretion, not of authority (of which we speak.) 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 seem 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 fear, they will ere long usurp. 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 forgiveness. The people at an Assizes, do in their judgement of discretion, acquit the party whom the judge and jury do acquit, with the judgement of Authority. What poor and weak proofs are these, for a matter of such moment? as easily denied, as affirmed.  
Obj. 3. Corinth was a Presbyterial Church. Sol. [No such thing appears.] Reply: It more than probably appears, 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 several Congregations, met together, as the contrary can by you be proved.  
Arg 4. [From the guilt of offence which lieth upon every Church, when any offence committed by their members, lieth uncensured as on Pergamus, Thyatira, etc.] Sol. It doth not appear 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, etc. And besides, I desire you would call to mind, your own exposition of some of those Texts; when it is said, [To the Angel of such a Church;] that is, say the Prelatical party, To the Bishop: you answer; Angel 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, etc.] whence these 3. things may be collected: 1. That the guilt is not imputed to the whole Church, but to the Angel of such a Church; that is, (say you) the Ministers; which quite destroys 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 Presbyterial, not Independent Churches. 3. That the Church is sometime taken for the Presbytery of the Church, which afore you have denied: 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 Presbyterial Church, the Ministers of several Congregations, even according to your own exposition; at least, to the Presbytery of each Congregation, which confutes your assertion, that the Brethren have any interest in the power of the Keys.  
4. Propos. [In case a particular Church be disturbed with error, or scandal, 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 error 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 pass a binding sentence; because the promise of binding and losing is made to a Church: 1. not erring; 2. agreeing truth, 18.17, etc.  
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 seldom or never have power to bind or lose, when there is not an universal agreement, which how rarely it happens, experience tells us now, and will do more hereafter, in your own Churches: Few Churches there are, that so walk together in peace and truth, that there is no disagreeing party amongst them; therefore that power is seldom in their hands, but upon every difference or faction amongst them, their power reverts to a Synod; and so a Synod must be called (which is not easily done) and troubled with every difference of a Congregation; which you impute (unjustly) as a fault, upon the Presbyterial way. 2. You have otherwise determined in the way. Suppose the whole Presbytery be in an error or scandal (as they may) shall the faction now divest the Brethren of their power and authority, to censure and cast them out? which you have fully given them there, and here do seem to take away. 3. You mitigate the business much; when you say, [A Synod of Churches is the first subject of that power, whereby error is convinced, etc. and the way of ●ruth and peace declared and imposed on the Church.] For all this is only a doctrinal 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 err or disagree, & there be a faction also amongst them? you will know your own 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 again. If then a considerable party fall into error or faction, by variance, they presently lose (like the Bee her sting) their power of binding and losing; and if this be but once known (as it cannot be hid) how easy 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 pattern, Acts 15.1. etc. When there grew error 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 jerusalem 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 fare as jerusalem; 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 faithful brother, persisted in, the matter is at last judged in a church, which is a Congregation of the faithful: so in the offence of a Church, the matter is at last judged in a congregation of Churches, etc.] For the judgement is not of the same kind, but you do merely aequivocate with us. The judgement of the Church upon a Brother, is juridical, even by way of censure, of excommunication: But the judgement of a Synod is only doctrinal 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 jerusalem, Acts 15.1. to have been a formal Synod, wherein your Disciples here do descent from you, as appears in their Epistle; and call it only a Consultation, by way of Arbitration: To which Arbitration, it seems the Church of Antioch was not bound to stand; for they did not (for aught appears) 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 privilege purchased by the blood of Christ.] 2. You yield also, 
The Keys, p. 57  that the Apostles did not act herein as Apostles, and determine the matter by Apostolical Authority; but as Elders, in an ordinary way, as the whole proceeding in the business proves, as you well observe: Yet your Scholars here, submit not to your doctrine, as they profess in their Epistle; though they neither show 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 Believers in Jerusalem being many thousands.] Therefore, say we, they were more than could meet together in one place, and yet called but one Church: whence we may infer, There was not an Independent Church of one, but a Presbyterial Church, of many Congregations. Lastly, you say; [This pattern plainly showeth 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 Seals, 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 doctrinal 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 show 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 do but repeat what you have said before: You say, yourself, [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 Corollary, and then I shall conclude: You say, [The establishment of pure Religion, and the Reformation of corruptions in Religion, do much concern the civil peace: If Religion be corrupted; there will be war in the gates, Judges 5.8. and no peace to him that cometh in, or goeth out, 2 Chron. 15.3, 5, 6. But where Religion rejoiceth, the civil State flourisheth.] And this you truly refer to the Civil Magistrate; [partly by commanding, and by stirring up the Churches and Ministers thereof, to go about it, in their spiritual way: partly also, by civil punishments upon the wilful 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 reform; but also, calling and commanding an Assembly of Divines, to reform according to the Word, do take upon them to set up, and establish a form of Church-Government of their own, 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 do demand also, why many of your disciples here, plead for a Toleration of all Religions (which you will not tolerate in New-England) which they call Liberty of conscience, and the prosecution of such disturbers, they call persecution: When as they may hear you say, [It belongs to the Magistrate to punish the wilful opposers and disturbers of Reformation:] And more than that, you tell them; [Of the Times of the New Testament it is prophesied, that in some cases, capital 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 fountains of waters (that is, the Priests and jesuits, that convey the Religion of the Sea of Rome, throughout the Countries) are turned to blood, that is, have blood given them to drink by the civil Magistrate.] Does this hold true only against Priests and Jesuits: and are all other erroneous, schismatical, 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 yourselves: And when you are well agreed in the way, we shall consider how fare you agree with the Truth.   
FINIS.   

Errata.  
Page 7. l. 22. read 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. ●. 23. r. except. p. 32. l. 15. r. whom. p. 34. l. last but one, r. Counsel. 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 fear, r. hear. p. 76. l. 10. for of, r. at.