Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	authority_n	church_n	person_n	1,479	5	5.0691	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

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

the offence and consent unto the sentence The Church there meant is that part of the Church which the party refuses to heare but he refuses to heare the Presbytery who doe speake to him not the people who doe not authoritatively speake to him ergo to tell the Church is to tell the Presbytery Sol. 2. The Church is never put for the Presbytery alone in the New Testament Reply 1. This is to beg the question we say it must so be understood in this place and you doe not disprove it Nay 2. you rather confirme it by your answer to the first objection Our Saviour alludes to the Church-censure in the Iewish Church But there the Church censuring was the Synagogue a Court of the Consistory ergo as shall further appeare in the next Obj. 2. In the old Testament the Congregation is often put for the Elders and Rulers of the Church Sol. Not alone but sitting in the presence of the Congregation Reply That is enough for our purpose For we doe not deny but the people might be present to heare things then and so they may now But if the Elders be called the Church as distinct from the people when they sate in presence of the people much more may they be called the Church when they sit alone And to that custome of the Jewes your selfe acknowledge in answer to the first objection doth our Saviour allude when he sayes Tell the Church But the custome of the Jewes was to tell the Elders and Rulers not the people And whereas you say If a sentence illegall was passed by them the people did sometimes protest against it sometime refuse to execute it and the same they might and ought to doe at any time in like cases Though this may be true when things are done in an illegall way and evidently illegall as the instances are yet it is a dangerous assertion to Government for under that pretence people will take liberty to make void any sentence if they conceive it but illegall Obj. 3. By Church he meant a Synod or Classis of Presbyters of many Churches Sol. 1. We find not any where that a Church is put for a Synod of Presbyteries Reply The question is of this place and you must not beg that it is not here meant of a Synod of Presbyteries If it be meant but of the Congregationall Presbytery it quite destroyes the power of the people But we doe not say it is directly meant of a Synod of Presbyteries but by a just consequence If a Congregationall Presbytery be here meant as we thinke it is to reclaime a particular offending party in a Congregation Then by proportion here is meant a Synod of Presbyteries when a whole Church erres or is hereticall or else Christ hath not provided so well for a whole Church as for a particular person And thirdly we cannot see a reason why a Church may not be taken for a Synod of Presbyteries as well as a Synod may be called A Church of Churches as it is by your selfe page 49. A Congregation of Churches a Church of Churches for what is a Synod but a Church of Churches so you Sol. 2. As a Congregation cannot reach the removall of all offences so it may be said that it were not fit to trouble Synode with every offence and when they doe meet they may erre also and so may a generall Councell and so no remedy for them Reply 1. We doe not say that Synods are to be troubled with every small offence or to take the businesse of a Congregation out of their hands but only with greater matters and when the Congregationall Presbytery cannot end them or is so bad it will not 2. Synods and Councels may erre but not so easily as a particular Congregation And alicubi sistendum there must be an end of pursuit and referre the businesse to the judgement of Jesus Christ the King of the Church As in case of Parliaments the highest Tribunall that we have they may erre and if they doe private persons must sit downe or appeale to the next But that is a strange assertion That it was not the purpose of Christ to prescribe a rule for the removall of all offences out of the Church but only such private and lesse hainous as grow notorious by obstinacy For if they be publicke the Apostle gives another rule to cast such a person out of all communion without that admonition c. Reply The Apostle did not meane absolutely that they should cast out the incestuous person but supposing his impenitency and obstinacy to give satisfaction For I cannot imagine that the Apostle would have an humbled penitent offender cast out of all communion And you know it is supposed by many learned Divines the man was not excommunicated but upon the charge reproofe and admonition yeelded and escaped the censure Of which more by and by But say you What if the whole Presbytery offend or such a party as will draw a faction in the Church The readiest course is to bring the matter to a Synod But you have prescribed two other remedies elsewhere 1. The Brethren may withdraw or 2. they may proceed to censure their whole Presbytery that is I thinke to excommunicate them why then should they trouble themselves with a Synod which is hardly procured If the Congregation be found faithfull and willing to remove an offence by due censure why should the offence be called up to more publick Iudicature and the plaister made broader than the sore They are your owne words page 42. I forbeare the other objections Arg. 3. From the practise and example of the Church of Corinth Obj. This was the act of Paul no act of judiciall authority in the Church but rather of subjection to his sentence c. Sol. The judgement of Paul was not a judiciall sentence delivering him to Satan but a judicious doctrine and instruction teaching them what to doe in that case Reply Thus you may evade that other Text where yet you grant that Paul alone did excommunicate Alexander and justifie his doing of it as having in him the power of the whole Church and when absent from the Church or party he might use it Are not the places paralell I have delivered him to Satan and I have judged already that such an one be delivered to Satan Else it might be said Paul did not deliver Alexander to Satan but only judged it doctrinally that the Church ought to excommunicate him And that the Church did by a juridicall sentence deliver the incestuous person to Satan is not evident as I said afore but rather that hearing of the Apostles sentence decreed against him he repented and so the execution was stayed Sufficient unto the man is the rebuke of many 2 Cor. 2.6 As for their forgivenesse of him it might be only brotherly by way of charity as offended by him not juridicall by way of authority For the brethren by your owne confession had only Liberty not

I Have diligently perused this Treatise called Vindiciae Clavium and perceiving that the judicious Authour hath exactly performed what he undertakes I cannot but conceive it will conduce very much to the ending of our Vnchristian Contentions concerning Church-Government the setling of some that waver and reclaiming of some that are mis-lead and appose Imprimatur IA. CRANFORD July 4 1645. VINDICIAE CLAVIVM OR A Vindication of the KEYES of the Kingdome of Heaven into the hands of the right Owners Being some Animadversions upon a Tract of Mr. I. C. called The Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven As also upon another Tract of his called The way of the Churches of NEVV-ENGLAND Manifesting 1. The weaknesse of his proofes 2. The Contradictions to himselfe and others 3. The Middle-way so called of Independents to be the Extreme or By-way of the Brownists By an earnest well-wisher to the Truth IER 6.16 Stand ye in the wayes see and aske for the old pathes where is the good way and walke therein LONDON Printed by T.H. for Peter Whaley and are to be sold in Ivy-Lane at the Signe 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 bin published hath not satisfied our expectation Nor do we think them able to satisfie any unprejudiced man The 32. Questions The Apologeticall Narration The Reasons of the dissenting Brethren The way of the Churches c. Now by them published have all been answered which yet these Brethren take no notice of The Keyes are now in question in the following discourse how well they doe fit the words in The way described or how sutable they are to the parties allowed to weare them There is one thing very suspicious That the Brethren doe 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 professe That they doe not yet fully close with some expressions passim frequent in the Booke 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 doe pace tanti Authoris or they could not assert the Booke And will this satisfie any indifferent Reader In the Title page they promise us a full declaration of the Church-way in all particulars But in the second page of their Epistle they tell us They doe not close with some expressions in the Book And there are no lesse than ten Stars affixed in the margine of the Booke wherein they intimate they cannot assert the Booke Of the same minde are the other two Brethren Ep. p. 6. the Prefacers to the Keyes and that not in bare expressions but in Doctrinall assertions How should such Tracts satisfie us when themselves are not satisfied And no marv●ll for those Brethren in their Apologeticall Narration doe wisely professe they keep a reserve open to alter their judgements upon occasion of New-light Besides this its evident that the Author of the Keyes does directly contradict the Authour 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 beleeve it in this because the Prefacers to The way Ep. p. 3. bring us his owne words in a Letter newly written comming to their hands when their Epistle was in the Presse wherein he affirmes 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 Keyes wherein the alteration is If he have not they would be requested to reconcile him to himselfe For I find he doth as flatly contradict himselfe as ever any man did I will instance but in one place and leave the rest to the following Discourse In the Keyes page 4. he sayes The Keyes were delivered to Peter as an Apostle as an Elder and as a Beleever The sense of the words sayes he will be most full if all the severall considerations be taken joyntly together But in The way page 27 he sayes The power of the Keyes is given to the Church to Peter not as an Apostle not as an Elder but as a profest Beleever in the name of Beleevers c. Is not this a flat contradiction and yet the Prefacers seeme to approve it for they set no Starre in the margine I shall leave it to them to reconcile How justly then may we call for a fuller Declaration and how unjustly doe the Brethren quarrell us for calling for it Ep. p. 5. Doe not they themselves promise us yet a fuller Treatise of the same Subject with amplier demonstrations by joynt consent of the Churches of Old and New-England That 's it that we expect the joynt-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 peeces by setting up the practise of a New way and not be agreed of the platforme whereby they practise There are as I touched before no lesse then ten severall Stars affixed by these Brethren wherein I should conceive they differ from their Authour if not their Master not in bare expressions but in the Doctrine there delivered as page 45. VVhether the Church hath power to proceed against all her Officers if they be culpable in hereticall Doctrine or scandalous crime The Authour holds the affirmative they seeme to hold the Negative Againe page 53. VVhether a Church may consist of lesse than seven p. 55 VVhether confession of sinnes and profession of faith be necessary for a member admitted page 68. VVhether sitting at the Sacrament have a Symbolicall use made by Christ himselfe 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 doe 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 Authour of the Keyes I referre to the judgement of the indifferent Reader when he hath read the following Discourse Animadversions upon the Brethrens Epistle to the Reader IT is indeed the great controversie of

which makes me wonder at the liberty taken by Separatists and allowed and practised by your self The way p. 41. That the Church or Brethren without Officers may not only elect but ordaine and impose hands upon their highest Officers As for the third place Acts 14.23 The word cannot be well rendred They ordained them Elders chosen by lifting up of hands For it is not to be referred to the people but to Paul and Barnabas who surely did not ordaine Elders by lifting up but by laying on of hands And so taken it excludes the people for the Substantive to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Paul and Barnabas If they chose the Elders by lifting up of hands then the people are excepted not only from ordination of their Officers but from election too by this Text. But further some of your Brethren hold that election is the chiefest peece of a Ministers calling and ordination but a complement to the solemnity of it And if so the people doe ordaine them as well as elect and that 's more then a liberty even as full authority as the Brownists give to the people Your selfe doe acknowledge some where The way p. 48. that Ordination is a worke of Rule And yet you say also Ibid. 45. That the Brethren may ordaine their Officers Therefore the people have more than a key of liberty The Keyes p. 8. and often Ordination jurisdiction pertaine indifferently to all the Presbyters The way p. 49 they have a key of rule and authority which yet againe you doe reserve as proper to the Elders Consider how you can reconcile the contradictions That the people have a liberty justly to except or rationally to approve of their Officers is granted but this is I still say nothing to the power of the Keyes which consists in Ordination of Officers chosen not in the election of Officers to be ordained 2. The second liberty of the people is To send out messengers for the publicke service of the Church Phil. 2.25 This may be granted a liberty but nothing to the power of the keyes People may assent to or approve of the reasonable choice of messengers to be sent forth just as poore Cottiers in the Countrey that have no votes in the election of their Knights and Burgesses have yet a consent and approbation to send them to the Parliament 3. A third Liberty To accept against such as offer themselves to communion or unto the seales of it Acts 9.26 This is nothing more to the power of the keyes than the former Any woman may in a scandall except against any that offers to partake of the Sacrament by way of information to the Officers yet hath no interest in the keyes 4. A fourth To joyne with the Elders in inquiring hearing judging of publick scandals so as to bind notorious offendors under censures and to forgive the penitens If this be not aequivocaly spoken it is certainly more then a liberty That they may enquire for their own satisfaction and heare by way of presence is a liberty not to be denyed But if you meane any more it is more then a liberty an act of rule and authority Heare your owne words spoken with respect to Bishops but will better fit our purpose The way p. 48. If the Holy-Ghost had appointed the people to any share in the keyes he would have appointed them also some eminent worke But what shall that be Shall it be Ordination Why that is a work of Rule Or shall it be hearing accusations against Elders and censuring them accordingly Why that is a worke of Rule also Let me adde shall it be judging of publick scandals so as to bind notorious offendors under censure Why that is a worke of Rule also And consider now whether they have not a key of authority as full as the Elders themselves If you meane a judgement of discretion only which all the multitude have at an Assizes it is just nothing to the purpose a stranger none of the Congregation a woman an heathen may doe as much But you say The Apostle alloweth to all the Brethren a power to judge them that are within 1 Cor. 5.22 But either this is fallacious There was a power in the Church of Corinth to judge those within ergo this power was in the people or else it is false if meant of authoritative judgement or if only a judgement of discretion it is quite besides the question But you fearing an objection prevent it to judge is an act of Rule which is proper to the Elders you answer There is a judgement of discretion As in the Iury it is an act of their popular liberty in the Iudge an act of judiciall authority To this I have many things to say 1. A judgement of discretion will not serve your turne for that as I said is common to all the people at an Assizes and that is common to women and heathens if present at your Consistories and if this be all what difference is there between the judgement of a woman an heathen and of one of your Church-members 2. The judgement of the Iury is indeed an act of popular liberty but not of their liberty more than of those that are not of the Iury. For I aske why are not all the rest of the people whom it concernes as much as those twelve men of the Iury admitted to the same judgement with them Are not they wronged in point of popular liberty would not you say The Brethren not admitted to the hearing and judging of an offender were wronged if only twelve of the Congregation were designed to heare and judge him In our native Countrey the Iudge dispenses no sentence but according to the verdict of the Iury c. The way p. 102. 3. The judgement of the Iury is more than of discretion so all by-standers judge even of authority in some degree and kind though not compleat For they condemne or acquit the party which all the rest together cannot doe 4. The Iudge I take it may not condemne who they acquit nor acquit whom they condemne except by a speciall indulgence and that 's farre more than a judgement of discretion in the Iury. If it be so with the Brethren here as the Epistolers say it is certainly they have more than a judgement of discretion But your selfe say as much you give the Brethren not only joyned with their Elders but without any Officers at all full power to censure offenders Remember your owne words The way p. 45 101. As for mutuall instruction and admission election and ordination of officers opening the doores of the Church by admission of members and shutting the same by Church-censures These things they may doe if need be without Officers yea and if all their Officers were found culpable either in hereticall doctrine or scandalous crime yet the Church hath lawfull authority to proceed to the censure of them all If this be not as full or more authority

than the Elders have over all the Brethren I professe I understand nothing in this controversie yet this I understand that you speake cleare otherwise sometimes denying the Brethren any rule or authority reserving it only to the Elders As if you meant no more but that the people did but yeeld consent to the judgement of their Elders by obedience to the will of Christ and many such like words 5. But to the point in hand The Iury then doth not represent the Brethren but the Ruling Elders which ruling Elders stand in stead of all the Brethren as the Iury doth in stead of all the people and so the priviledge of the people is saved Otherwise all the people should be of the Iury as all the Congregation are allowed by you and others to be Iudges of the offender And the truth is it is a liberty or priviledge to the party that is arraigned that he may be judged by his Peeres It is not a liberty of the Iury So it is a priviledge for any accused brother that he shall be tryed and judged by his Peeres the ruling-Elders It is no priviledge of the rest of the Brethren to be his Iudges as it is no priviledge of all the people at the Assizes that they may claime a place in the Iury. 6. That which you adde that there is great difference between the Iudge and Iury For say you though the Iury have given up their verdict yet the malefactor is not thereupon legally condemned much lesse executed but upon the sentence of the Iudge This being rightly paralelld will make against you so though the ruling-Elders representing the people give up their votes and judgement yet the party is not excommunicated but upon the sentence of the Pastor And indeed the Iury rather seeme to acquit or condemne than the Iudge he doth but pronounce the sentence as they have adjudged it so the ruling-Elders being more in number by votes determine the cause which is pronounced by the Pastor and so the paralell is faire and full But that all the people at the Assizes should give up their verdict as well as the Iury is not in practise in the Common-wealth and so spoiles the paralell of the votes of all the Brethren in the Church And yet you persist to say The whole Church may be said to bind and loose in that they consent and concurre with the Elders both in discerning it to be just and in declaring their judgement by lifting up of hands or by silence and after by rejecting the party c. Iust as all the people at an Assizes may be said to condemne or acquit because they consent with the Iudge and Iury both by discerning it to be just and in declaring their judgement by lifting up their hands or by silence and after by rejecting the party But what if the people doe not consent as discerning it not to be just nor will reject the party Is he then acquitted Thus it must be or it holds not proportion with the case in hand For if the Brethren doe no more but approve and execute the sentence of the Presbytery this is just nothing to the power of the keyes intended to be given them and is a meere passive priviledge And that you may see your owne inconstancy consider what you say elsewhere page 11. The Brethren stand in an Order even in an orderly subjection according to the order of the Gospell page 15. They give consent in obedience to the will of Christ page 37. They the people discerning the light and truth readily yeeld obedience to their overseers page 41. That they may consent to the judgement and sentence of the Elders Had you kept your selfe constant to these expressions you had both preserved the truth of the Gospell and the peace of the Church And now for a conclusion of this Section Let me urge you with an argument of your owne against Episcopacy page 39. Hierome sayes the Churches were governed by the Common-councell of the Presbyters * That nothing was done without their counsell implyeth that nothing was done without their authority The way page 31. The Prelates evasion is By their counsell asked not followed You answer This would imply a contradiction to Hieromes words For in asking their counsell and not following it the Bishop should govern the church against their Councel which is a contradiction So say I The Church say you is governed by the consent of the Brethren I aske whether you meane their counsell and consent asked only or followed also If the later then the Brethren have as full authority with the Elders as the Presbyter had with the Bishop If the former it is a contradiction to say The Church is governed by the consent of the Brethren and yet is governed against their consent so that the question clearly stated is this Whether the Brethren have such concurrence and consent as that they have a negative vote or casting voice If they have it s that popular Anarchy of you know whom If not it s nothing to the power of the Keyes Only let me but remember you what elsewhere you say concerning the peoples power in government of the Church The way p. 100. In case the Officers doe erre and commit offence they shall be governed by the whole body of the Brethren though otherwise the Brethren are bound to obey and submit to them in the Lord. How you can reconcile these things I know not But now you propound a sad question Whether the Church hath power of proceeding to the utmost censure of their whole Presbytery Before I take your answer I observe 1. That you might have made the question also whether the Presbytery hath power to proceed to the utmost censure of the Church and the Brethren the Epistolers resolve both negatively Epist p. 4. 2. That you suppose here that the Church may proceed to some though not to the utmost censure of their Presbytery and that as you would seeme to deny it in your answer so is more than liberty it is a great degree of Authority not only over one of your members but over your Overseers And now I shall view your answer 1. Answ It cannot say you be well conceived that the whole Presbytery should be proceeded against because some a strong party perhaps will side with them and then the Church ought not to proceed without consulting with the Synod Reply But 1. this is besides the question which supposes the whole Presbytery and the whole Church opposed and so your answer may seeme to intimate that if none did side with them the Church might proceed against them and that to the utmost censure but only in a dissension of the Church they may not 2. If in any case they ought not to proceed doth not this destroy their independency if they must fly to a Synod No say you they ought only to consult the Synod But if the Synod have no power to determine and censure they

Authority and ergo could not authoritatively forgive him as nor authoritatively bind him The same power binds and looses But the Elders only did or could authoritatively bind ergo Obj. 2. Some in the Church of Corinth did it viz. the Presbytery Sol. It is apparent by the Text that the Brethren concurred and that with some act of power viz. such power as the want of putting it forth retarded the sentence and the putting it forth was requ●site to the administration of the sentence Reply This is not evident in the Text yea if such power be in the Brethren surely it is more than liberty it is direct authority viz. a negative vote to retard the sentence which is as much as the Elders have If you meane only a judgement of discretion and a withdrawing to execute the sentence it is true that liberty they have a rationall consent or dissent but that is rather a passive than an active concurrence to the sentence But the question is whether the sentence be null if they will not concurre to it If so then the Apostles own sentence might have been nullified when he delivered this party or Alexander to Satan and he could not say I have delivered him unto Satan For it was in the peoples power and a liberty you say purchased for them by Christ to retard or speed the sentence Not one of your reasons prove that the Brethren concurred actively to the sentence For 1. the whole Church might and were reproved for not mourning and for not withdrawing for their parts not for not sentencing of him 2. The Commandement was directed to the Church when gathered together yet not to all alike the presence of the Brethren the sentence of the Elders Many things are so directed to a whole Church which yet must respectively be executed As if the Apostle should say when you are all gathered together I will that there be preaching and administration of Sacraments doth this command concerne actively the Brethren 3. The Apostles words doe not declare this act of theirs to be a judiciall act when he sayes Doe not ●ou judge them that are within Even this first may be referred to the Officers and secondly it is by your selfe understood of a judgement of discretion not of authority of which we speake A judgement of discretion is allowed all the people at an Assizes but this hath no power at all in it properly so called And truly if the Apostles words carry any colour of judgement in the Brethren it may seeme to import a judgement of authority rather than of discretion so he gives them more than you dare plead for though not more than I feare they will ere long usurpe 4. It is granted the Brethren may and must forgive him as well as the Elders but not with one and the same kind of forgivenesse The people at an Assizes doe in their judgement of discretion acquit the party whom the Iudge and Iury doe acquit with the judgement of Authority What poore and weak proofes are these for a matter of such moment as easily denyed as affirmed Obj. 3. Corinth was a Presbyteriall Church Sol. No such thing appeares Reply It more than probably appeares it being a Mother-City where God had much people and they had many Elders and Teachers with excellent gifts as you gran● it is not likely therefore they had but one Congregation And if there were many it may as probably be said that this command was directed to the Elders of severall Congregations met together as the contrary can by you be proved Arg 4. From the guilt of offence which lyeth upon every Church when any offence committed by their members lyeth uncensured as on Pergamus Thyatira c. Sol. It doth not appeare that those Churches were each but one single Congregation but of some of them the contrary as Ephesus which had many Elders and much people converted c. And besides I desire you would call to mind your owne exposition of some of those Texts when it is said To the Angell of such a Church that is say the Prelaticall party To the Bishop you answer Angell is put for Angels The way p. 49. a company of Elders Not a single person but the whole company of the Ministers of the Church the whole Presbytery of persons more than one as is evident by his speech unto them as unto many unto you and some of you c. whence these 3. things may be collected 1. That the guilt is not imputed to the whole Church but to the Angell of such a Church that is say you the Ministers which quite destroyes your Argument 2. That these Ministers were a whole Presbytery the whole company of the Ministers of the Church therefore it s very probable there were more Congregations than one in each of those Churches and so we find Presbyteriall not Independent Churches 3. That the Church is sometime taken for the Presbytery of the Church which afore you have denyed However I pray consider that the Brethren are never called the Angels of the Church nor yet are the Ruling-Elders any where called Angels but the Ministers only as you call these Angels which makes it more than probable that it is spoken to a Presbyteriall Church the Ministers of severall Congregations even according to your owne exposition at least to the Presbytery of each Congregation which confutes your assertion that the Brethren have any interest in the power of the Keyes 4. Propos In case a particular Church be disturbed with error or scandall and the same maintained by a faction amongst them Now a Synod of Churches or of their Messengers is the first subject of that power and authority whereby errour is judicially convinced and condemned the truth searched out and determined and the way of truth and peace declared and imposed upon the Churches This Proposition you undertake to make good by two Arguments First From the want of power in such a Church to passe a binding sentence because the promise of binding and loosing is made to a Church 1. not erring 2. agreeing truth 18.17 c. In answer hereunto I will not say That this Argument proves not the proposition for it proves indeed that a particular Church is not the first Subject of this power and authority but it doth not prove that a Synod is But this I say that by this way of arguing a Church can seldome or never have power to bind or loose when there is not an universall agreement which how rarely it happens experience tels us now and will doe more hereafter in your owne Churches Few Churches there are that so walke together in peace and truth that there is no disagreeing party amongst them therefore that power is seldome in their hands but upon every difference or faction amongst them their power reverts to a Synod and so a Synod must be called which is not easily done and troubled with every difference of a Congregation which you impute unjustly