of others And I can sincerely professe I consulted with none or very few books of this controversie but comparing your books one with another my own reason and judgement suggested to me those contradictions in them that left me altogether unsatisfied in your way and at this day I am left so still if not more confirmed that the Independent way is not the way of God that is so inconsistent with the Scriptures and with it self That others have more elaborately disputed this cause I shall easily yeeld but I think I may truly say without vanity none have more distinctly discovered the weaknesses of your proofs and your contradictions to your selves in holding out your Way then I have done Nor am I at all troubled that you chuse rather to consider what hath been written by Learned and Reverend M. Rutherford and M. Baily though you sere M. Baily as you doe me never name him more in all your following discourse had you but made good your promises to consider also what I had said to vindicate your self from your contradictions and to clear the truth in question But seeing you are pleased so to neglect me I hope you will not be troubled if I conceive it losse of time and labour to follow you any further and consider what Learned and Reverend M. Hooker hath elaborately written in this controversie Only give me leave to present you with a Scheme of your remaining contradictions or contrarieties at least noted in Vind. Clav. out of your own books and then leave you to your choise whether you will reconcile them or confesse them A Scheme of Contradictions and Contrarieties in the Independent way 1. THe Keys were given to Peter as an Apostle as an Elder and as a beleever So the sense most fill The Keys pag. 4. It appears that Christ gave the Keys to the fraternity with the Presbytery Ib. See also the Way cleared par 2. pag. 22. 1. The power of the Keys is given to Peter not as an Apostle nor as as Elder but as a profest believer The way pag. 27. 1. Peter received no◠the Keys meerly as a beleever but as a beleeve publikely professing hi◠faith c. The Way cleared par 2. f. 39. Not beleevers as beleevers but as beleevers covenanting and fitly capable according to Christ appointment M. Hooker Surv. par 1. p. 203. 2. The Keys are given to the Church of beleevers The Way p. 1. that is a combination of faithful men as M. Hooker 2. The Key of knowledge belongeth to all the faithfull whether joyned to any particular Church or no. The Keys pag. 11. 2. The Key of Knowledge is given not only to the Church but to some before they ente◠into the Church Th◠Keyes p. 11. 3. The Key of order is common to all the members of the Church Keys p. 8. Then say we to women and children 3. It is not every place or order in the Church that giveth power to receive Ordinances much lesse to dispense them as children and women Way cleared par 2. pag. 19.  4. Ordination is a work of Rule The way p. 49. Ordination and jurisdiction both acts of Rule pertain indifferently to all the Presbysers Ib. 49. 4. As for election and Ordination of Officers c. these things they the brethren may doe if need be without Officers The way p. 45. 101. 4. Ordination is not an Act of supream jurisdidiction but of order rather in H. Survey part 2.75 5. The Key of authority or Rule is committed to the Elders of the Church and so the Act of Rule is the proper Act of their Office The Keys p. 20. The people discerning and approving the justice of the censure give consent and obedience to the Will and Rule of Christ The Keys pag. 15. 37. 41. The brethren stand in an order even an orderly subjection according to the order of the Gospel p. 11. 5. In case the Officers do erre and commit offence they shall be governed by the whole body of the brethren The Way pag. 100. The Church exerciseth severall acts of authority over the Elders The way p. 101. The people have some stock of power and Authority in government of the Church the Keys pag. 36. They rule the Church by appointing their own Officers Ib. p. 16.  6. Excommunication is one of the highest Acts of Rule and therefore cannot be performed but by some Rulers the Keys p. 16. The Church cannot excommunicate the whole presbytery because they have not received from Christ an office of Rule without their Officers Ibid. No act of the peoples power doth properly binde unlesse the authority of the Presbytery joyn with it Ibid. 36. 6. If all their Officers were sound culpable either in hereticall doctrine or scandalous crime the Church hath lawful Authority to proceed to censure of them all The Way p. 45. In case of offence given by an Elder or whole Eldership together the Church hath authority to require satisfaction and if they give it not to proceed to censure Ibid. p. 101. 6. Excommunication is not an act of power of office but of judgement nor an act of highest rule but of supream judgement seated in the fraternity Survey par 3. p. 45. As a Church of brethren cannot proceed to any publike censures without Elders so nor the Elders without concurrence of the people c. Pref. to the Keys pag. 4. 7. It was a sacrilegious breach of order that Commissaries and Chancellors wanting the key of Order no Ministers have been invested with jurisdiction yea and more then ministerial authority above those Elders who labour in the word and doctrine The Keys p 6. 7. There is a Key of power given to the Church with the Elders as to open a door of entrance to the Ministers calling so to shut the door of entrance against them in some cases c. The Keys pag. 9. yea to censure all their Elders without Elders the way p. 45. c. as afore  8. We are far from allowing that sacrilegious usurpation of the Ministers office practised in some places that private Christians ordinarily take upon them to preach the Gospel publikely The Keys pag. 6. 8. This is ordinarily practised in old England and allowed by the Independent brethren Yea they being but in the notion of gifted brethren no Ministers to other Congregations do it ordinarily themselves  9. A particular Church of Saints professing the faith that is members without Officers is the first subject of all the Church Offices with all their spirituall gifts and power The Keys p. 31. 9. As the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven be divers so are the subjects to whom they are committed divers The Keys p. 11. The Apostle were the first subject of Apostolical power Ib. p. 32. A Synod is the first subject of that power whereby error is convinced and condemned c. ib. p. 47. 9. The power of the Keys belongs firstly to a Congregation of Covenanting beleevers Surv.
distinction of heaven and earth respects the whole Church rather then any particular Church 2. And this your second Answer implies You did not mean it in any one single Congregation on earth but generally and indefinitely in every particular Church on earth for every Apostle had transcendent power in every particular Church on earth But 1. why may you not say as well generally in the whole Catholike Church on earth seeing Peter received power to binde and loose in the whole Church primarily being an Apostle and secondarily in particular Congregations 2. If Peter as an Apostle received such power in the whole Church what is that to Elders and Beleevers to challenge power of the Keys from this Text in all particular Congregations Sure they have not transcendent power indefinitely much lesse generally in every particular Church on earth 3. How did Peter receive the Keys in every particular Church indefinitely As an Apostle or as an Elder or as a beleever Not as an Apostle or Elder that you denied in the way Not as a Beleever for if they have any power in the Keys it is in the particular Congregation Whence I conclude by Kingdom of heaven there is not meant a particular but the Catholike visible Church as contra-distinguished to the Kingdome of glory Obj. 3 That Church is meant said I whereof Peter was one but Peter was not a member of a particular Congregation for there was none such then extant You are pleased to jeer me with your Logick and tell me there is a fallacy in such arguing to be left to Sophisters or used when I will refresh my wit with young scholars But I pray Sir where lies the fallacy The major is your own the minor cannot be denied Peter was not a member of a particular Congregation The proof of this last Proposition is because there was none extant at that time This is also true and partly confessed by your self where then lies the fallacy The Copula doth connotate Time which it ought not to do c. You instance in a Sophism fit indeed for young scholars But nothing parallel to my arguing And your other Argument from resurrection is far wide you say The Proposition is true because the subject and praedicate have true connexion in the nature of the thing though not in the present order of time But so it is not in my arguing For Peter was not at any time a member of a particular Congregation neither then nor afterwards There was then no fallacy or sophism in my arguing The weaknesse was in the proof For whereas I said Peter was not a member of a particular Congregation because there was none extant at that time I should have said Peter being an Apostle was never a member of a particular Congregation Therefore the Church there mean could not be a particular Congregation Obj. 4 I said Fourthly That Church whereof Peter received the Keys was such whereto an offended brother might tell an offence and have it censured but that was never done in a Church of Saints without Officers c. This say you is another passage of Sophistry Here are quatuor termini in this Syllogism might tell an offence and did tell an offence make two different Mediums Make you the Syllogism right as you would have it you make the minor thus But the Church of Saints without Officers was not such to whom an offended brother might tell an offence and have it censured And this you deny But I shall prove it thus 1. From the judgement of your brethren here who say The brethren cannot proceed to any publike censures without Officers Therefore it is to no purpose to tell an offence to a Church of beleevers without Officers 2. From your self who expresly say Excommunication is one of the highest Acts of Rule and therefore cannot be performed but by some Rulers The Keys pag. 16. though I confesse you flatly contradict your self in the way pag. 101. And now my Syllogism may easily be defended and cleared from a Sophism by adding the minor more explicitly thus But a Church of Saints without Officers is not such a Church This is proved by what I say That was never done in a Church of Saints without Officers that is no example can be brought from Scripture or History of such a practice where a Church of Saints without Officers did censure an offence Therefore the Church of Corinth which you instance in was not such a Church for it had Officers who as I said might authoritatively censure offenders What of that say you if a Church of Saints without Officers have power from Christ to elect Officers then also to admit members And if to admit without Officers then to exclude them without Officers Surely whatever mine was this is a fallacy and a Sophism called petitio principij For you know we deny that a Church of Saints without Officers have power to elect that is ordain and make Officers and you ought not to beg it And what mean you by power to admit members Admission of members is either at their first conversion which is done by baptism and so your self say None but Officers can admit for none but Officers can baptize or it is at the removall of a member from one Church to another to admit into the communion of another Church but this either is no part of the power of the Keys or if it be it belongs to a Church with Officers Nay your argument will recoil upon your self It is the same power to open and shut to admit and exclude But a Church of Saints without Officers cannot exclude or shut out therefore nor can they admit or open The minor is your own a little above and your brethrens also Excommunication being an Act of Rule cannot be performed but by some Rulers And here I desire you to take notice That a great gâ—ound of your mistakes lies in the misapplication or attribution of the power of the Keys to the brethren to elect that is to make and ordain their own Officers making election the principall and ordination but a circumstance or solemnity not necessary by the Institution of Christ to belong to the Officers Indeed it seems to follow rationally They that may ordain their own Officers may de-ordain them or cast them out for it is the same power instituere destituere as you say And then if the brethren may ordain and de-ordain their Officers much more may they admit or exclude members But me thinks the Antecedent is to be denied and we prove it thus They that may ordain Officers to such employments may in case of necessity at least formally themselves perform them But you constantly deny The Way pag. 44. and then par 2. p. 3. Par. 2. pag. 33. that any but Officers can administer Sacraments The major is also your own Assertion in this last book of yours thus you speak I confesse I do not well understand how a man in case of necessity
have received all the power of the Keys formally and may administer them without any Officers which is worse then Brownism But I have distinguâ—shed above when the Church is said to receive the Keys subjectivè it may be meant either immediately her self without Officers or mediatly by and in her Officers and I illustrated it by the body naturall As sight is immediatly trusted with the eye as the next subject of it but mediatly with the body In the first sense you cannot say the Church is the immediate subject of the Keysâ— for then she might immediatly administer them all without Officers as I said In the latter sense it is nothing to your purpose for then as fight is entrusted with the eye first for the good of the body so the Keys are entrusted with the Officers for the good of the Church Par 2. pag. 22. The body is not first entrusted with sight to convey it to the eye nor are the Keys committed first to the Church to convey them to the Officers You say afterwards If Christ have given them Pastors c. to the Church the Church is the Recipient subject of them As if the eye be given to the body the body is the recipient subject of it All this is true in a sense The Officers are given to the Church as the immediate recipient subject of them But is our Question of the Officers or of the Keys We say the Keys are given to the Church both objectivè for its good with reference to the brethren and subjectivè with reference to the Officers yea subjectivè to the Church as the subject of the Officers that is mediatly but not subjectivè as the immediate subject of the Keys Your comparison was ill laid you should have instanced in the sight that resembles the Keys not in the Eye it self The body is the immediate subject of the eye but the eye of the sight So the Church is the immediate subject of the Pastors c. but the Pastors are the immediate subject of the Keys And this as I have often said is evident in the Text in hand For Christ doth not say I give to the Church the power of the Keys or the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven that is of it self but I give to thee Peter the Keys of the kingdom of heaven that is of the Church not the least colour here of giving the Keys to the Church Ibid. pag. 23. Materials of a Church c. pag. 27. See pag. â—0 When the proposition c. But I desire you will consider your inconstancy and the inconsistency of your assertions You say presently after the last words cited Pastors c. are given to the Church as integrall parts of the Church as the Church is Totum Integrale Then say I they are not given to the Church as meer adjuncts nor doth the Church receive them as the subject of them And that upon your own reason For integrall parts are intrinsecall and essentiall to a Totum Integrale and not extrinsecall as the object is to a thing Integrall parts are not subjects and adjuncts one to another But you say When I wrote that proposition in the first words of the Way it was not then in my minde to understand any other but a Congregation of beleevers with Officers For I spake of such a Church whereof Peter was one and he was an Officer 1. Whatever was in your minde I know not but the words hold out rather a Congregation of believers without Officers and so that acute and judicious M. Ruth understood you The Way p. 1. as well as I For you say there The Church to which Christ hath committed the Keys of the Kingdom the power of binding and loosing the Tables and Seals of his Covenant and mark that the Officers and Censures of the Church is a communion of Saints c. But can the Officers be committed to the Church with Officers And do not you commonly distinguish Saints or beleevers from Officers When you said Pastors are given to the Church and the Church is the recipient subject of them must not the Church be taken then for a company of Saints without Officers 2. In your present defence you understand it all along of a Church without Officers or I understand you not 3. When you adde That you spake of such a Church whereof Peter was one and he was an Officer You vary the sense and words of the proposition For there you say The Church to which Christ committed the power c. was a company of such as whereof Peter was one beleevers professing that faith c. Mark that one beleever not one Officer And elsewhere you say the were Keys committed to Peter not as an Apostle or Elder that is not as an Officer but as a beleever How these things agree I see not Yet you will defend it granting that sense They have received some part of the Keys formally c. Of which we have spoken before and refer you thither Only I shall observe your similitude for illustration of your assertion The stock of the vine growing from the root hath not immediate power to bring forth grapes yet hath power to produce branches which do bring forth grapes So the body of the Church of beleevers though they have not immediate power of rule authoritatively to dispense the Word or to administer Sacraments at all yet they have a power to produce such Officers as may perform the same But I fear your similitudes do deceive you Do the Brethren immediatly give that power to the Officers which they have not formally in themselves Epist to Keys pag. 3. Did not the Officers receive their power immediatly from Christ or his Apostles who had that power formally in themselves Have not your Praefacers to the Keys told us that your self lay this fundamentall Maxime That look whatever power or right any of the possessours and subjects thereof may have they have it each alike immediatly in respect of a mediation of delegation or dependance on each other from Christ and so are each the first subjects of that power which is allotted to them But now you make the Officers to depend immediatly upon the Church of beleevers and to derive their power from them by mediation or delegation as the branches derive their being and vertue to produce grapes from the stock of the Vine Which if it be not to jump with the Brownists who place all power radically and originally in the Church of beleevers and make the Officers derive it as their servants immediatfy from them I must professe I understand nothing in this controversie Survey part 1. p. 195. prop. 4. Doth not M. Hooker make the Church of beleevers the first subject of all Church power and do not the Brownists just so whereas you sometimes at least in the judgement of your brethren here as afore make two first subjects of the power of the Keyes and each to have
the gates of the Church here and of heaven hereafter are opened or shut to the sons of men Would not any man think these were all the Keys necessary and alsufficient for those ends on earth and in heaven But say you In instancing these I supposed no man would be of so narrow apprehension as not to conceive those things to be included without which these cannot duely be performed As vocation unto such administrations and some who have power from Christ to give such a vocation But I pray Sir are these any part of the Keys themselves If a Steward be trusted with the Keys of the Family as Peter with the Keys of the Church there must be doors and locks and servants to be let in or shut out but are those any part of the Keys Mend your distribution of the Keys and will you say The Keyes are vocation and some that have power to give such a vocation We such is the narrownesse of our apprehension think your distribution afore-given is full enough nor can we tell pardon our dulnesse how you can mend it but you will make it worse We have been accustomed so long to that ancient distribution of Clavis Scientiae which you call preaching of the Word and Clavis potestatis which you call Administration of Seals and Censures that we wonder at your new pick-locks presented to the world as Keys of the kingdom of heaven And I yet think your new distribution labour under so many Incongruities as Vind. Clav. hath given you to understand though you are not pleased to take notice of them or to vindicate them that it is far worse then the old one so long received in the Churches of Christ I had thought to have added your own words appliable enough to your new distribution in end of Sect. 3. pag. 6. of the Keys but I forbear It seems to me though you insinuate the contrary to be of great weight for the expediting of many controversies about the Keys and your new Way to know what those Keys be and what Ordinances they include Is not one main controversie betwixt you and us about the nature and extent of the Keys and who are the Key-bearers which cannot be decided unlesse we know what be those Keys But let us hear your new definition of the Keys Keys of the kingdom of heaven are spirituall powers to dispense the Treasures of his Kingdom c. Is not this almost the same with that afore Keys are the Ordinances of Christ to be administred in his Church for opening and shutting the gates of the Church here and of heaven hereafter But what mean you by spirituall powers you mean Spirituall callings and spirituall gifts fitting for them enabling to some spirituall Acts for these are Ordinances I pray Sir is every spirituall calling and every spirituall gift fitting for them a Key intended in the text to be given to Peter callings and gifts help to dispense the Keys but they are no Keys But they are Ordinances Be it so is every Ordinance a Key The Deacons office is an Ordinance and the Widows too say you and spirituall gifts are requisite to fit for that calling but is a Deacon or his office a Key and a Key given to Peter in that Text Prayer and singing are Ordinances but who ever numbred them among the Keys Well what are the Treasures dispensed by those powers or Keys I mean by them say you the Word Seals and censures c. Before you said the preaching of the word and Administration of the Seals and Censures were these Keys and now you call them the Treasurers to be dispensed by the Keys What incongruity is here Now let us hear your Distribution of the Keys according to this your definition Keys spirituall powers are either the Key of Knowledge or Faith both one wâ—th you or the Key of Order The Key of Order is either the Key of power or the Key of Authority or Rule Is not this an accurate distribution The spirituall powers are either Keys of power or of Authority And is not the Key of knowledge a key of order an Ordinance peculiar to some order or office of men what confusion is here In a word your new definition of the Keys better fits the Key-bearers then the Keys themselves ver 9. A Pastor or Teacher is a spirituall power given by Christ to his Church to dispense the Treasures of his kingdom c. And your own Exposition fits it better By spirituall powers is meant spirituall callings such is the calling of a Pastor and spiritual gifts are requisite for the fitting of them to spiritual Acts But no man ever said that a Pastor was a Key but a Steward to dispense the Keys New waies must coin new notions and distinctions to make them as amiable as strange But the old way is the good way 1. And now you come to animadvert upon my animadversions 1 I said you confuted your scope in the whole book which is to give the people a share in the government of the Church This you peremptorily deny to be your scope and say I mistake your meaning Let your Praefacers speak first Praef. to Keys pag. 3. His scope is to demonstrate a distinct and several state and interest of power in matters of common concernment vouchsafed to each of these the Officers and people and dispersed among both by charter from the Lord as in some corporate Towns the Aldermen as Rulers and a Common Counsell a body of the people which that it amounts to a share in the Ruling power is demonstrated in my Vind. Clav. in answer to that preface and in the Tract it self But you take no notice of it Next let your own books speak wherein you often give the brethren without Officers power to ordain Officers and to censure them all without Officers which if they be not the highest acts of Rule and so the brethren have the greatest share in the government I shall still professe my Ignorance in this controversie And upon my observation you deny them power in nothing but administration of Sacraments You allow them power in jurisdiction by giving them power in admission and ejection of members and Officers You allow them liberty in preaching the Word only not ordinarily nor so authoritatively as to Pastor or Teacher what can you give them more but administration of Sacraments and that being lesse an Act of Rule then the former you may go on and grant them that too or they will take it and so they do I said in prosecution of my charge of your confuting the scope of your book If the Keys be the Ordinances of Christ there by you specified preaching and administration of Sacraments and Censures they are given for the Church of beleevers objectivè but are never in Scripture or all antiquity said to be given to the Church subjectivè You are pleased to deride me as if I had not read all Antiquity which I professe I have
not though in this particular controversie it is easie to finde what Antiquity hath said or had forgotten what is recorded by the most ancient Antiquity for the space of the first three hundred years But of that you vouchsafe not to give me any account how pertinent soever to our present businesse but referre me to that account you have given M. Baily to whom in way of requitall not of revenge I shall referre you to wait for your unswer But you say what power you give to the Church of beleevers subjectivè you alledge Scriptures for it which when Vindex taketh in hand to evade them you shall return him an answer You did alledge Scripture and the Assertor not Avenger did in their place answer them not evaded them as you phrase it and expected your reply but I perceive he may go seek it for you never come at the place where it is handled though you promise here and once or twice more you would do it but either evaded it or forgot it of which more anon It sounds very ill I said at first hearing to say that the brethren have any power in the Keys or Ordinances of preaching or administring Seals or Censures you answer If those preaching the Word and administring Seals were all the Ordinances and no more I say true it would sound ill at first at second and third hearing too to say The people have any power to exercise these Ordinances c. But 1. Why do you leave out Censures which not only I put in but your self also in defining the Keys Does it not sound ill at first second and third hearing to all reformed Churches but your own and such like that the people have any power yea the greatest power to exercise censures For they can censure all their Officers but all their Officers without them cannot censure them nor any one of them It is indeed no unpleasant sound to you or your people yea it would sound very ill and harsh to you at least to your people to hear That they have no power in the Keys mentioned preaching and administring of Seals and Censures But if those Keys were given to Peter they were given to him either as an Elder and then the people have nothing to do with them at all one or other Or as a Beleever but then they may as well exercise the Ordinances of preaching and administring Seals as exercise and administer the Ordinance of Censures But you go on by way of Recrimination I say not by way of Revenge with an argument ad hominem You marvell it should sound so ill to allow the people a power in censures to them whose ears have been wonted long to hear of suspensions and Excommunications by Chancellors and Commissaries who generally are no Ministers c. Truly Sir this toucheth not me who have as well thought it to sound ill at first or second hearing that Chancellors c. no Ministers should suspend and excommunicate as I now think it harsh to hear this power is allowed to and practised by the people Though people may perhaps be the better men yet not so well authorized as some Chancellors and Commissaries for some of them were Ministers who had more colour of Authority to suspend c. then your people have who are quite out of office But you wonder more that I that could alledge all Antiquity should think it to sound ill Who know what reverend Testimony ancient Tertullian giveth of the Brethrens power c. and what Cyprian gives to the people c. I had thought to let you wait for your answer from M. Baily but seeing you are pleased to vouchsafe me the Testimonies I shall anticipate his answer in the mean time 1. For Tertullians I finde you cite him not at all to M. Baily as if then you took it to be of no great strength What saith Tertullian Quum probi cum boni coeunt c. When honest good godly chaste people meet together it is not to be called a faction but a Court What is this to power of the people in censures Unlesse you begge it hence that the word Curia signifies a Court But I pray what mention is here of Officers at all Did the people at that time censure alone without their Officers You will hardly prove that or are not Officers good and honest men Or doe good men never meet but in a Court to censure As for Cyprian you leave me in the dark to go look what he sayes or to turn back to what you say to M. Baily I shall consider the place and his Testimonies In the first you clearly to my understanding confute your own way of Ordination of Ministers Thus Cyprian speaks As they have received from the Apostles so they hold it that for the orderly celebration of Ordination all the neighbour Bishops of the same Province where a Minister is to be ordained come together to that people c. Of Sabinus he saies this Office was put upon him by the suffrage of the whole brotherhood and by the judgement of all the Pastors present c. and so hands were imposed on him I pray do you gather all the neighbour Bishops or Pastors of the Province where a Minister is to be ordained Do those Pastors impose hands upon him yet these Cyprian saies they received from the Apostles True it is the Minister was chosen in the presence of the people and good reason as to whom his life is best known But the judgement of his abilities was in the Pastors as also the Imposition of hands But the people had their Suffrage that is nothing but some rationall consent or some manifestation of their approbation not any authoritative vote or ordination See the Way pa. 41. and 58. But this is not the new way of Ordination for you allow the brotherhood suffrage consent judgement and imposition of hands too upon their Officers This you never received from the Apostles Another Testimony is this The people fearing God c. have chiefly the power of choosing worthy Ministers and refusing the unworthy But power of election of one Minister rather then another and rejection of an unworthy Minister is not denied the people of God That Election is but their consent or approbation of such a Minister as the Pastors in their judgement think fit and worthy and Rejection is but withdrawing communion from one unworthy and judged fit to be excommunicated But this we say is no part of the power of the keys we doubt not but pious and godly women should have this liberty or priviledge to except against known unworthy persons and to withdraw communion from them yet surely you will not allow them power in the Keys When Cyprian saies All things shall be examined you being present and judging He means not a judgement of Authority but of discretion And the last place I determined to do nothing without your counsell and consent declares his meaning fully to be for
consent not Authority And so those times give no expresse lineaments of Congregationall discipline Shew us in any Antiquity of Scripture or story that the people had power without Officers to create or ordain Officers to impose hands upon them or to censure all their Officers or you say nothing to the present controversie 2. When you had said The Keys convey not Soveraign power but stewardly I inferred that this clearly excludeth the people for they have no stewardly or ministeriall power over themselves I might have added much lesse over their Officers You answer by a question As if the people were not Stewards of the grace of God given to them c. But truly Sir this is no better then a fine elusion To take Stewards in a larger sense then I intended it Stewards to me are Officers and can the people be Stewards over their Stewards Your self say pag. 28. It implieth a contradiction that the Church should be its own Officer for the very term of Officer implieth subordination So say I it implieth a contradiction that the Church should be its own Steward And again p. 30. We acknowledge say you that a company of professing believers destitute of Officers are not Stewards by office c. Then say I you answer equivocally taking the word in another sense then it is commonly taken in this controversie Let a man esteem of us as Stewards of the mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4.1 Did not the Apostle there mean it only of Officers Nor will the Apostle Peter help you out 1 Pet. 4.10 For either he takes Stewards in the strict sense for Officers with reference to the 11. verse Or in the large sense for any Dispensers of any kinde of gifts as the referring it to the 9. verse seems to carry it Now we take the word in one sense and you in another and so you answer nothing but misleade your Reader while you evade Yet you go on If they have received any gift of grace they are either Stewards of it or Lords Apply this to women yea to Infidels If they have received any gift or grace they are either Stewards of it or Lords Lords they are not what are they else Stewards they are your own words But we answer it is not any gift that we are speaking of but the gift of the Keys that 's your first evasion And then we say they are neither Stewards nor Lords in our sense of Stewards but members of the family in subordination to the Lords and Stewards having nothing to do with the Keys at all But say you Election of Officers is a publike gift and that must be dispensed publikely Grant Election of Officers to be a publike gift and yeeld it to the people yet say we it is no part of the gift of the Keys Lastly when you say the people are not as Lords to elect whom they list but as Stewards and Ministers to Christ c. either you make them Officers or you doe prevaricate all along his Paragraph and that I think you doe And the like you do in the word calling which I said should be taken of some speciall calling or Office which would exclude the people from having an office in the Church or any power of the Keys You say There is no reason for that if speciall denote a specification of a calling distinct from other members of the Church but if it only signifie a distinct state or order from such as are not members so it is true every member hath a speciall calling from such as are not yet received as members of a particular Church But Sir you cannot well understand it otherwise then I do when you speak of a speciall calling in such as to whom the Keyes are given with a power to open and shut the gates of heaven that is the Church For I suppose every member of the Church particular hath not such a speciall calling or such power of the Keys to open and shut the gates of heaven as women and children for example yet have they in your sense a speciall calling state or order in the Church as was more fully said in Vind. Clav. And surely in this controversie speciall calling and office have ever been taken for the same thing not for state or place or order at large Beleevers not yet members of a particular Church have a distinct calling in your sense from Infidels a state place order in the visible Catholike Church yea if they be men they have as good a state order c. in a particular Church as your women and children have in regard of any power of the Keys Yet you say Every member of a particular Church hath a calling to put forth some acts of power of his own Church which members of another Church have not there Had you not said His I would have asked what acts of power women may put forth in their particular Church yet certainly women may put forth some acts of power in their own Church or else their calling state place order is very mean and contemptible There is no member of the body naturall not the least but it hath in your notion a function action office in the body a power to put forth some acts in its own body which it cannot do in another body nor the members of another body in its body The question is not of some acts of power but some acts of power of the Keys which is an office power But say you still Every member of the body of a particular Church women and all say I hath some function and action or as the new Translation Office in the body Ro. 12.4 5. All the members have not the same office which implieth they all of them have some office though not the same Truly Sir this is but a prevarication Fos 1. By body there is not meant a particular Church but the whole Church We being many are one body in Christ and every one members one of another Paul puts in himself and he was no member of the Church of Rome in your sense 2. When they render the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 office they either mean it largely and not for a speciall office as we take it or strictly and then it relates to the Officers of the Church only as the following verses may seem to insinuate whether Prophecy or Ministry c. where your self and others do finde all the Officers of the Church and so taken it is nothing to your purpose but rather against you When I said you added that explication whether it be their office or place and order in the Church to steal in the interest of the people in some share of the Keys you answer It is not stealth but justice to give to every man his own the Psalmist foretold it in a new song Psa 159.9 Such honour have all his Saints c. But you must first prove it their own and that that Text is so to be understood
or else it is as well sacrilege or stealth taking it from the right owners if the Lord hath not given them this honour as it is to deny it or take it from them if the Lord hath given it to them Lastly and so you will have done with me you conclude It is not every place or order in the Church that giveth power to receive the Ordinances much lesse power themselves to to dispense Ordinances as children and women c. This is very true yet you asserted before Every member of a particular Church hath a calling to put forth some Acts of power in his own Church c. Then say I women and children for they are members too yea we think except but that of speaking in the Church 1 Cor. 14.34 1 Tim. 2.11 12. expresly forbidden and we do not finde any one thing granted by Christ in respect of the power of the Keys to men the common members of the Church that women may not be allowed to act as I often told you in Vind. Clav. 1. Women widows at least who contribute maintenance may have some power in choosing that is in your sense ordaining Officers 2. To propound just exceptions against such as offer themselves to be admitted 3. To admonish in case of private scandall 4. To judge with a judgement of discretion you sometimes allow the brethren no more Keyes pag. â—4 They may tell the Church they may consent and concurre with the Elders at least passively 5. To withdraw from one excommunicate c. as was suggested to you elsewhere And now before I conclude I shall set before you an observation of your inconstancy in assigning the first subject of the power of the Keys The Keys were given 1. To Peter as an Apostle as an Elder and as a beleever 2. To Peter not as an Apostle not as an Elder but as a believer and consequently to all believers 3. Not to believers as believers but as making publike confession of their faith before the Lord and their brethren The way cleared part 2. pag. 39. and publike profession of their obedience of the faith to the Lord Jesus in the publike Ordinances of his worship pag. 40. 4. Not to believers as believers but as believers covenanting and fitly capable according to Christs appointment M. Hooker Surv. par 1. pag. 203. Or as you here it is not every place or order in the Church that giveth power to receive or dispense Ordinances as not that place or order of children and women c. Whereas when first you began you asserted The Keys were given to Peter as a beleever and so by your own argument a quatenus tale to all beleevers as beleevers you are forced to make severall distinctions to help it out That position that needs so many distinctions gives strong suspition it is not the truth And now I shall conclude this second Section with your own words Let every soul enjoy such priviledges and liberties as the Lord hath given him or her in their place and order and neither effect nor attempt more Happy had it been for the Church of God if this had been done The Keys p. 6. I shall but minde you of what I suggested to you in Vind. Clav. pag. 13. in your own words I pray you seriously 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 p. 9. of Keys which is the breaking of the files and ranks in an Army Satan is not like again to rout and ruine a great part of the liberty and power of Church-Officers and the purity of the Churches and of all the Ordinances of Christ in them SECT III. I now expected you should have gone on with Vind. Clav. and have vindicated your book and self from those other many wickednesses and contradictions charged I still think justly upon you But you fairly if you doe not rather in way of Revenge shake hands with me or rather slightly shake me off and never meet again And this is the more remarkable because you promise at least three times with attestation of the name of God twice at least pag. 15. and pag. 16. and again pag. 19 a further consideration of them In the first place thus when Vindex takes in hand to evade the Scriptures alledged I shall return him God willing further answer In the second place thus again What reason there is for their the Brethrens power in Church-censures we shall further consider God willing in its place To which places you never come near Is not this to take Gods Name in vain And new in the third Section you promise though you undertake those two Reverend Antagonists M. B. and M. Ruth Yet by the way not to neglect what personal exceptions Vindex hath taken at your self But reading over the following discourse I finde not that you do so much as take any notice of me or your threefold engagement but as if Vindex were some contemptible person that deserved to be slighted as his best answer you neglect all his I shall only say Et si ego dignus hac contumelia vel maximè At tu indignus qui faceres tamen Who both are charged with so many contradictions which for your own honour it concerned you to answer and also have charged your self three times to give a further answer Besides this there were seven Chapters in Vind. Clav. wherein you were not a little concerned to give if not me the world satisfaction and you are pleased to answer if you have answered but to one and but to two Sections of three in that chapter which is a slighting and contempt of an adversary not usually heard of And now I leave it to the Judicious Reader to resolve who deserves best Adversarius litis non personae and most justly the name and title of Vindex or Avenger Yet you give some reason of this slighting and neglect for so you say I conceive it losse of time and labour to argue the question with Vindex alone whose exceptions so far as they concern the point in controversie are but collections out of the writings of others who have more distinctly and elaborately disputed the cause I pray Sir why do you conceive it losse of time and labour to argue this Question with me Do you mean your answers would be so unsatisfying as the former now will appear to be as that the time and labour would be ill spent Your Reader will think so if you answer no better to that remaining then to what is gone before And why do you say this Question as if there were no more betwixt us then this But I most of all admire why you should say my excâ—ptions are but collections out of the writings of others I beleeve the Reader will finde my exceptions are Collections of contradictions out of your own writings more then out