are still but where they were What if the Presbytery or Church will not submit to their determination or Declaration for it is no more what remedy hath the Church against their erring hereticall scandalous Presbytery If the Synod have a power of censure then againe you destroy your Independency No The Church may withdraw from them So they might before they consulted the Synod nay they were bound to doe it in your way without consulting the Synod But you may call to mind your former thoughts In your other Tract you give them full power to censure their Officers without any Officers as hath more then once been said above And thus your second answer is also answered already You say Excommunication is one of the highest acts of Rule The way p. 101. and ergo cannot be performed but by some Rulers Yet you contradict this fâ—â—â—ly in your other Tract when you say In case of offence given by an Elder or by the whole Eldership together the Church hath Authority marke that Authority which in this Booke you oft deny to require satisfaction of them and if they doe not give due satisfaction to proceed to censure according to the quality of the offence And yet which is strange me thinks here you resolve the cleane contrary The Church cannot excommunicate the whole Presbytery because they have not received from Christ an office of Rule without their Officers But now if this reason be good then on the other side it might seeme reasonable That the Presbytery might excommunicate the whole Church Apostate because they have received from Christ an office of Rule without the Church No say you They must tell the Church and joyne with the Church in that censure But this is to say and unsay For if the Church must joyne with them then the Church hath received some peece of an Office of Rule which was before denyed If you say they have not received any Office of Rule without their Officers This may imply that with their Officers they have received an Office of Rule which all this while you have seemed to deny allowing them a Liberty but no Rule or Authority And whereas you say They must tell the Church but that cannot be when the Church is Apostate I rejoyne this makes it reasonable to me That there is another Church to which they must tell the offence by way of appeale or else both an erring Presbytery or an Apostate Church have no remedy to recover them instituted by Christ and so the Church a multitude or a Presbytery is not so well provided for as one particular member But you have found a remedy The Church wants not liberty to withdraw from them Is not this even tantamount with excommunication Is it not the execution of that sentence to withdraw especially in your way Excommunication is the contrary to communion Now how doth the Church communicate their Elders Take your owne words As they set up the Presbytery The Keyes p 17. by professing their subjection to them in the Lord so they avoid them that is in sense excommunicate them by professed withdrawing their subjection from them according to God And this is as much as any people doe or need to doe to persons excommunicate unlesse you grant them a power to the very Act and decree of excommunication which as you have clearly done in your other Tract so you doe here giving them a power more than Ministeriall even a Kingly and more than a Kingly power when you say They rule the Church by appointing their owne Officers and likewise in censuring offenders not only by their Officers which is as much as Kings are wont to doe but also by their owne Royall assent which Kings are not wont to doe but only in the execution of Nobles Satis pro imperio 5. The last Liberty of the Church is Liberty of communion with other Churches which is seven wayes exercised c. To this I say in generall This is rather communion of Saints than communion of Churches because in your way every Church is independent and hath no Church-state in relation to any but it s owne members We suppose this communion is the liberty or priviledge of every Christian by vertue of his interest in the generall visible Church and not by any peculiar interest in a particular Congregation He that is a professed Christian and baptized hath a right to all the Ordinances of God where ever he find them As of old he that was a Citizen of Rome or so borne was a freeman through all the Romane Empire and enjoyed the priviledges of a Roman A Christian is a free Deacon in any part of the Christian world A Citizen with the Saints and of the houshold of God Eph. 2.19 And this to me seemes reasonable upon these grounds 1. Because every Christian not yet in a particular Church or Congregation is at liberty to joyne himselfe to any Church tyed by no obligation to one more than another 2. Because it is lawfull for any member of a particular Church upon just reasons to leave that Church and to joyne himselfe to another and nothing can hinder his removall or communion with another Church except he be scandalous c. 3. It was the custome of the first times before Congregations were fixed to adde them to the visible Church were their number lesser or greater and give them communion in all the Ordinances of Christ 4. Because the whole visible Church is but one City one Kingdome though for orders sake divided into severall Corporations It is not so in civill respects A Citizen of one Corporation cannot goe and set up trade in another because they have their severall Charters But in the City of God the Kingdome of Christ there is but one Charter for all and no more is required to admit a man a member of any Congregation but that he professe himselfe a Christian and live accordingly Your New Covenant to tye men to your particular Church that he may not remove without a generall leave will I feare prove a snare and a tyranny worse than yet we can imagine 1. But come we to your particulars First by way of participation of the Lords Supper the members of one Church comming to another Church c. But 1. Why doe you instance in this Ordinance only Have not their children occasionally borne there a liberty also of Baptisme Where neither of the parents can claim right to the Lords Supper there their Infants cannot claime right to Baptisme The way p. 81. Nor the childe of an excommunicate person p. 85. The rather because Baptisme is not administred with respect to this or that Church but to the generall visible Church Unlesse you hold that a man or childe is baptized to no Church but that particular and an Infidell to all the rest Yet some of your brethren will hardly baptize a childe of any but a member of their owne Church which is next doore to
Anabaptisme 2. I aske by what power of the keyes doe 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 owne Church Either then to administer the Lords Supper to a member of another Church is no Pastorall 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 owne Congregation which yet you doe deny 3. You are also very sparing in granting this liberty For you adde In case neither himselfe nor the Church from whence he comes doe lye under any publicke 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 Seale of our Communion with the Lord Iesus and with his members in our owne Church but also in all the Churches of the Saints Whence I inferre then it is not any favour dispensed by you to a member of another Church but a dignity or priviledge common to every member of that body by vertue of that membership and not with respect to his particular Church membership And I pray is not Baptisme also a Seale of our Communion with all the members of Christs body Why then may you not admit the children of the members of any Church to be baptized by your Pastors upon just occasion as well as to admit the parents to the Lords Supper Nay further If the Sacraments be Seales of our communion with all the members of Christ why doe 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 behalfe of Phoebe c. But this is so farre from being any part of the power of the Keyes that it is a duty which a Church or party owe to any Christian that is godly not by vertue 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 Commandement which requires us to beare true witnesse 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 thinke you a part of the power of the Keyes delivered to Peter and the rest of the Apostles Besides if there be any vertue in these letters to admit a member into communion is there not a like vertue 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 beleeve you doe not practise 3. By way of Consultation and 4 by Congregation into a Synod But what is all this to the power of the Keyes If upon Congregation and consultation of other Church-Officers there be not a binding power it is rather a latch of a doore which may be opened and shut at any bodies pleasure than a Key to let in or locke out with any Authority But of the power of Synods more hereafter 4. A fifth way is The liberty of giving and receiving mutuall supplyes one from another gifted men or benevolences c. I conceive first these are rather duties of common charity than of Church liberty or any power of the Keyes 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 followes that a Pastor or Teacher because you may say a Pastor relates to his owne flocke a Teacher so was Barnabas Acts 13.1 is a Teacher to the generall visible Church not to the particular Church only as you hold And then againe a Teacher quâ Teacher may preach to another Church and convert Heathens and not as a gifted brother only as you sometimes speake A sixth way is By way of mutuall admonition when a publicke offence is found amongst them One Church may send to admonish another and if that Church will not heare take two or three other Churches and if not heare them then withdraw c. This admonition is a duty of every brother at least of every Christian as a Christian and no power of the Keyes 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 joyne with a brother offended c. agreeing in a duty of brotherly love c. The way p. 53. doth not make the admonition of one or more brethren any power of the Keyes 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 bâ—o her No Because the Churches are all of equall authority But so are all the members of a Congregation of equall 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 doe 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 Synodicall 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 excommunicâ—tion of an offending brother They doe but determine all shall withdraw communion from him This is therefore but a meere Logomâ—chie 6. The last way of Communion of Churches is by way of propâ—gation or multiplication of Churches But 1. This is rather a division of Churches
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 marvâ—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
beside the way and why may not both But we shall observe greater differences than these hereafter They now againe resume the difference between the peoples interest and the Elders Rule and Authority and illustrate it by the former similitude Of a Company of Aldermen and a Common-Councell or Body of the people in some Corporations where the interest of the one is distinct from the other so as without the concurrence of both nothing is esteemed as a City act But so as in this Company of the Elders this power is properly Authority but in the people is a priviledge or power Enough hath been said to this already Only I would know why they call the Common-Councell a Body of the people Sure they doe not know any Corporations I thinke where the whole Corporation meets with the Aldermen as a Body The Common-Councell are a distinct Body from the common-people a Body representative only But then the parallell is spoiled for the Brethren as distinct from the Elders are not a representative Body for whom should they represent And if all the people of a corporation should meet as the Common-Councell so that nothing may be esteemed as a City Act without their concurrence Surely the Government were Democraticall The great mistake in the plot is That the Presbytery is compared to the Court of Aldermen and the Brethren to the Common-Councell But so they are not for the Common-Councell are Governours of the Corporation It cannot be said in the Company of Aldermen it is Authority but in the Common-Councell a priviledge for it is Authority also in the Common-Councell and if it be so in the Brethren as it must if they be parallell to the Common-Councell I see not but the Independent way and the way of the Brownists one of the extremes forementioned is one and the same And let the Brethren consider The multitude of the Church doth ordinarily execute all discipline and censures by the Presbyters the Presbyters by their consent The way p. 98. whether the Brownists doe not select two or three or more persons and put them in Office and betrust them with an entire interest of power for a multitude to which that multitude ought by a command from Christ to be subject and obedient as to an Ordinance to guide them in their consent and in whose sentence the ultimate formall Ministeriall Act of binding and loosing shall consist and yet place the Rule and Authority originally and chiefly in the people And then see how little difference there is between themselves and them It s true indeed that without the concurrence of the Aldermen and Common Councell in the major part nothing is esteemed as a City Act But without the concurrence of the body of the people it is So without the concurrence of the Pastors and Elders nothing is to be esteemed as a Church act but if the parallell be right without the Brethren it is That the Brethren have any power of concurrence with the Elders in their Acts is begged not proved And their owne words confute it The multitude say they ought by a command from Christ to be subject and obedient to the power of the Elders as to an Ordinance c. as Rulers set over them But if they ought to be subject and obedient to the acts of their Elders or Rulers they have no more concurrence to their acts by way of power than the common people have to the acts of the Aldermen and Common-Councell which is a meere passive concurrence and consent The next similitude of a Virgin is nothing parallell to the case in hand A Virgin say they hath a power ultimately to dissent upon an unsatisfied dislike and the match is not valid without her consent But the common people in a Corporation have no such power ultimately to dissent then againe the Government were Democraticall And if they give this power to the Brethren ultimately to dissent they give them more than an interest even a power of Authority to annull all acts and censures made by the Elders which I take it is no lesse than Brownisme for they can say no more Againe they suppose a Government tempered of Aristocracy and Democracy in which the people have a share and their actuall consent is neccessary to all Lawes and sentences whereas a few Nobles that are set over them in whom the formall sanction of all should lye in these it were Rule and Authority in that multitude but power or interest But I pray is not that Government where the peoples actuall consent and so their dissent is necessary to all Lawes and sentences meerely popular and in shew only Aristocraticall The case is just the Brownists Their Church seemes to be tempered of Aristocracy in their select Officers chosen and ordained by themselves as yours are and Democracy in the body of the people But they granting the peoples actuall consent and dissent necessary to all Acts and sentences swallow up the votes of the Elders and so their Government is wholly or chiefly popular Give such a power to the people as you doe and I will use your owne words All that is said in the New Testament about the Rule of the Elders and the peoples obedience to them is to be lookt upon but as Metaphors and to hold no proportion with any substantiall reality of Rule and Government The Brethren to make their way more plausible shew a reason of the difference between the Times of the Old and New Testament Then the Church was in her Nonage and therefore the sole power of all Church-matters was in their Tutors and Governours But now the Church is out of her Nonage and more generally able being visible Saints as they should be to joyne with their guides c. But they forget themselves presently confessing the weaknesse and unskilfulnesse of the people for the generality of them in comparison of their Officers gifted for the Government He hath therefore placed a Rule and Authority in those Officers over them not directing only but binding so as not only nothing should be done without them but not esteemed validly done unlesse done by them Now I pray was it any more in the Government of the Church of the Old Testament were not they to be visible Saints were not their Guides gifted for that purpose sutable to those Times And I thinke the Brownists may grant them thus much Their Officers are but the Churches servants and yet they say nothing may in an ordinary way of Church-Government be done without them nor validly done unlesse done by them But I marvell they should call the power of the Elders a binding power when as they said before The Elders had no power to censure without the concurrence of the people as nor the people without the Elders which is just the same which Brownists say Nor can this ballancing of the power prevent Anarchie what ever it may doe Tyranny for certainly if the peoples consent and concurrence be necessary
to every Church-act it s an easie thing for them to bring in Anarchy being alwaies the greater number and so to swallow up the votes of the Elders as Brownists doe That Ministeriall Doctrinall 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 Doctrinall Authority is an affluxe of Order But to sever Rule and Authority from the power of concurrence to excommunication and censures as they doe in the people is a meer nullity of Rule and Authority too That the power of excommunication should be inseparably linked to a Congregation they would faine illustrate by a knowne comparison As the custome is in our Land The sentencing of a man to death is not by Lawyers nor by Iudges alone but by his Peeres a Iury of men like himselfe Their similitude still halts on the maine legge For who are the Iudges with them but the Presbytery and who are the Iury but all the Brethren But this is not so in a Corporation All the City are not the Delinquents Peeres but a select dozen of men Now suppose a man be accused as an offender in a Corporation shall the whole City be his Peeres or Iury to try him have they any such interest or priviledge is their consent or dissent regarded So the parallell 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 Iury for the Government of the Congregation but all the people are to be his Peeres or Iury 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 generall 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 legall sentence also of cutting men off This is all begged and is the question And it is as if they should say in the parallell instance God would have all the Corporation personally concurring to the legall sentence or cutting off a malefactor not by delegation only as the Iury doe 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 legall sentence c. but the Iudge and Iury only so the Brethren are to have no concurrence to the legall sentence of excommunication except to yeeld obedience in the execution but the Elders only and so the parallell is full And to conclude if the distance of the Presbyteries Clasficall c. may necessitate the censure to pertaine to the particular Congregation because of the circumstances better knowne to them By the same reason every Towne where a malefactor lives should have the Sessions kept amongst them because there the person and fact is better knowne 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 Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven CHAP. I. What the Keyes be and what their power 1. THat by the Kingdome of Heaven is meant both the Kingdome of Glory which is above and the Kingdome 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 meane by the Church Whether 1. The invisible and mysticall Church of true Beleevers opposed to Reprobates or 2. The Catholicke visible Church opposed to Heathens or 3. The particular Congregation of Beleevers associated in Church-communion as you use to speake If we may guesse at your meaning by the whole proceeding of this Tract or by your discovery of your selfe in the other Discourse called The way of the Churches in New-England which though it was published after this of the Keyes yet was written and went up and downe in the darke before it I thinke you meane 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 Gospell hath instituted The way p. 1. and to which he hath committed the Keyes c. 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 Saviours words Mat. 16.19 For 1. By the Kingdome of Heaven on Earth he meanes that Church of which he had spoken before in v. 18. But that was either the Catholicke visible Church or rather the invisible mysticall Church for that only is built upon the rocke and against that the gates of hell shall never prevaile whereas particular Churches may faile 2. The kingdome of Glory the one part of the meaning of the Kingdome of Heaven is not contradistinguished to a particular Congregation but to the generall visible Church on Earth opposed to the World by your selfe The Keyes 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 spake these words to Peter 4. You say againe 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 Beleevers 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 joyne 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 lesse administred in a Church of Beleevers without Officers 6. When you say Christ committed the Keyes to the Church that is a particular Congregation you must meane it either Subjectivè or Objectivè If you meane it in the latter sense That the Keyes are committed to the Church as the object of the exercise of the Keyes that is for the use and good of the Church you say true but nothing to the purpose In this sense the Keyes are given first and more immediately to the invisible mysticall Church All are yours whether Paul c. then
the Keyes from the Scripture nor yet from antiquity though you would faine have us beleeve you would not sticke upon the former distribution if the words be rightly explained As how 1. Let them say you allow some spirituall power to the Key of knowledge though not a church power But have you not all this while been speaking of the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven that is the Church and now is the power of the Key of knowledge no Church power Againe have not you your selfe 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 onâ—y enters himselfe into the Kingdome of Heaven but also opens the doore for others to enter no Church power You adde 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 seemes hath divided the Key of Office from the Key of jurisdiction for hee 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 your selfe in the instance of Deacons Concerning whom say you our Lord spake 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 bee jurisdiction without an Office at least instituted by Christ as it was in Chancellors Commissaries c. Nay is it not as strange that there should be Authority that is jurisdiction to binde and loose 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 generall That as the Keyes be divers so are the Subjects to whom they are committed divers But this is very doubtfull and disputable because at first all the Keyes were given to Peter at once and therefore one subject may possesse them all And sure they all meet in Pastors every one of them hath all the Keyes 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 Keyes by your confession They might exhort as Pastors The Keyes 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 Gospell 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 Keyes it concernes them who plead it to make it good by Scripture Vpon this reason there are some who as they question the Office of a ruling Elder having 1. no direct or expresse instituted for it in the Scripture 2. No instance of any such that ruled and were not also Pastors 3. Nor doe you say That Peter received the Keyes as a ruling-Elder but as a Pastor so they would not yeeld the Office of the Deacon but that they finde expresse 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 faithfull whether joyned to any particular Church or no. But 1. Then one of the Keyes of the Kingdome 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 doore to enter into the fellowship of the Church But sure the Apostle Peter did not represent Infidels when the Keyes were committed to him 2. The Keyes 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 entred into the Church who hath received Christ and makes profession of his faith Yes you may say into the mysticall Church but not into a particular church-fellowship I answer he is entred also into the generall visible Church by profession of his faith to which Church we thinke the Keyes were first given and after to the particular Church But you have so long dreamed of a particular Church to be the first and only instituted Church that you seeme to forget the visible generall Church The way p. 10 and indeed to call it a Chimara This we thinke you learned from your Cousins if not your Brethren the Brownists Heretofore in Scripture language so soone as men beleeved 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 ought we know as the Eunuch and some others but to the generall visible Church And I pray what Key was it that opened the doore to enter them into the Church Was it the key of their owne particular knowledge or Faith or the key of preaching viz. the key of knowledge in the Ministers of the Gospell and not in themselves You say here which is the truth that they find an open doore 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 doore 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 meane by Order as afore If Order and Office be all one as you seemed to yeeld then 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 your selfe speak in this very Paragraph For orderly subjection according to the order of the Gospell it is just nothing to the power of the Keyes For keyes imply an active power orderly subjection is morally passive 2. It is also doubtfull what is meant by Church in this place If it be taken for the generall visible Church that hath nothing to doe with the power of the keyes which are committed say you to the particular Church If for the particular Congregation it is then doubtfull still For it may be asked what power have the Brethren in
Church Order in the keyes of Order more than one not yet in Church Order Your selfe speake confusedly here in my judgement when you say Every faithfull soule that hath received a key of knowledge you should rather say knowledge by the key of preaching is bound to watch over his Neighbours soule as his owne c. non ratione ordinis sed in tuitu charitatis Not by vertue 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 doe it in both respects c. But 1. A Christian of no particular Church as yet is in a Church-Order with respect to the generall visible Church or else what differs he from an Infidell and so is bound to watch over his Neighbour not only by vertue of common charity but of that Christian-Order wherein he stands 2. Nay an Infidell is bound in tuitu charitatis by vertue of common naturall love and charity to watch over and admonish his brother and is a Christian not yet in Church-Order as you call it bound no more than he to watch over his brother If he be as he is by a nearer relation unto the mysticall body and visible Church of Christ then he is to doe it by vertue of his Order or state of Christianity If he be not what differs he from an Infidell It was a morall Law Lev. 19.18 Thou shalt not hate thy brother but rebuke him c. Which Cain despised when he said Am I my brothers keeper Surely it is want of naturall charity not to watch over a brother that is not in Church-Order as you meane it And it is not becomming 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 doe so for an Infidell and is he bound no more to a Christian Suppose one in your Church-Order see a Christian not in Church-Order walke unorderly is he not bound to admonish him by that royall Law of Church-Order Mat. 18.1 And if he will not heare him to take two or three more and if he will not heare them to tell it to the Church and afterwards to walke towards him as God directs the Church to order it Hath Christ ordained no better remedy to reclaime a Christian not in Church-Order than to reclaime an Infidell But further An Officer or one in a superiour Order by reason of his office is bound to watch over his brothers soule not only in tuitu charitatis but also ratione ordinis Is a brother bound as much as he or he no more then a brother out of office Againe a Deacon is in a superiour Order by reason of his office as you speake 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 naturall charity out of the Church And it is observable that since this new Church-fellowship and Church covenant hath been set up charity is growne very cold and some of them have been heard to professe they had nothing to doe with an offendor not of their owne particular Church-communion And doe indeed account all not of their way little better than Infidels or as they speake without and in a manner say with Cain Am I my brothers keeper Never was there so little charity so much scorne and contempt of all not in their owne way as is found in them that professe themselves the only people that have found the way of Christ though in severall Sections CHAP. IV. Of the Subject of Church-Liberty THis Key is given to the Brethen 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 common-wealth the welfare of it stands in the due ballancing of the liberties or priviledges of the people and the authority of the Magistrate so in the Church the safety of it is in the right ordering of the priviledges of the Brethren and the ministeriall authority of the Elders All this is granted But the right ballancing of either lyes 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 Democraticall But as in our State the ballancing of the priviledges of the people and the authority of the Magistrate supreme lyes in the authority of the Parliament where there are Knights and Burgesses representing the people so I thinke it is in the Church the ballancing of the Brethrens priviledges and the Ministers authority seemes to lye 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 Monarchicall and so easily Tyrannicall or else Democraticall and so lyable to Anarchy and confusion as experience shewes us in the Papall and Episcopall tyranny and the Separatists Anarchy the two extremes before observed But let us take a view of the particulars Their Liberties are 1. To chuse their owne Officers so Acts 1. and 6. and 14. In generall 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 Keyes 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 himselfe determined it and not the Apostles much lesse 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 knowne to them and so better to be trusted with their owne stocke But they did but nominate or present the men they did not ordaine so much as a Deacon Looke you out seven men whom we marke it may appoint or ordaine to this businesse It is never found in all the New Testament that ever the people ordained or imposed hands upon any Officer
Churches So perhaps would the Presbyteriall Churches But the question is what is to be done if the Officers of the particular Churches be dead or hereticall who then shall doe those acts Either the Synod must doe 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 followes the Brethren without Officers must both ordaine 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 Synodicall Ordination that Matthias was so called to be an Apostle Acts 1. you answer It appeares not they acted them in a Synodicall way But I pray Sir remember what you said above concerning that Synod Acts 15. That it rise up to be a Synod or generall Councell 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 doe by your grants who urge the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Keyes 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 worke of the Apostleship nor in a Synod but in a particular Church yet it was in a Presbytery of Prophets and Teachers perhaps of severall Churches there occasionally met and yeelds us this instruction That Elders of one or more Churches may impose hands that is ordaine in your sense Elders imployed in other Churches for so were Paul and Barnabas Whence we would inferre two things more 1. That if a Classis or Presbytery may ordaine then may a Synod ordaine 2. That however the people or Brethren have no power to ordaine 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 errour and repented 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 passe what is said of Christ the soveraigne Subject of all power as out of all question we consider only what you say of Ministeriall power 1. Propos A particular Church or Congregation of Saints is the first subject of all the Church-offices with all their spirituall gifts and power 1 Cor. 3.22 c. 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 priviledge 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 Apollos 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 priviledge to the Church of Corinth only Yea is not this meant of the invisible mysticall 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 thinke you meane 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 referre it to the Apostles is but a meere criticisme 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 generall visible Church so the paralell 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 weake proofes 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 reade of Officers more than Nationall given to the Churches even universall as Apostles and Prophets And some thinke we reade 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 Ierusalem 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 typicall sense as the Church of the Jewes 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 Iohn speaks of the dimensions of many particular Iewish Churches combining together in some causes even to the communion of a thousand Churches and all of them will have such mutuall care and yeeld such mutuall help and communion one to another as if they were all but one Body The Keyes p. 56. and there determine and enjoyne 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 meere 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
distributes it among the Officers respectively Then say I your middle way fals out to be the extreme of Brownists who make the people the first subject of all power But I thinke 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 faithfull men that might be able to teach others also 2 Tim. 2.2 To conclude this You said above That the Keyes were distributed into severall 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 needfull 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 spirituall 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 walke in truth and Peace But if they walke 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 walke in truth and peace If not then neither of them single nor both together are the first subject of all power needfull to be exercised amongst themselves And we shall heare anon a Synod is the first subject of all power needfull to be exercised amongst themselves When there are divisions and factions among them page 47. Yet againe in your other Tract you give the particular Congregation of Brethren the whole power of chusing ordaining Officers and censures of their Officers if they be hereticall 1. That the Brethren are the first subject of Church-liberty you labour to prove thus By removall of any former subject whence they might derive it Not from their Elders for they had power to chuse their owne Elders Not from other Churches for all Churches are equall Not from a Synod they of Antioch borrowed none of their Liberties from Ierusalem 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 priviledges that a Congregation hath as distinct from Elders comes to them by vertue of their interest either in the Body mysticall or Catholicke 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 priviledge to associate before they can all be associated Now thence it followes that those Elders that first converted them did virtually derive that liberty or priviledge to them Faith comes by hearing How shall they heare without a Preacher Remember your owne words The Keyes p. 10. The Key of knowledge or which is all one the Key of Faith belongeth to all the faithfull whether joyned 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 beleeved Therefore the Church of a particular Congregation are not the first subject of Church-liberty but every particular Beleever hath it first and that derived from some Elders And certainly in the first plantation of Churches the Officers Elders I meane were before the Churches themselves The Planters were before the plantation The Apostles being first converted and ordained by Christ himselfe 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 chuse their owne 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 doe chuse and ordaine 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 doe chuse their Elders yet I hope they doe not make or ordaine them Elders but after they are ordained chuse them to be theirs The Keyes p 55. You speake sometimes of translation of an Elder from one Church to another which in my apprehension implyes him an Elder before he be translated to another Church Though I know you are not constant to your selfe herein holding it as a principle Elder and flocke are relates and giving the Brethren without any Officers power not only to chuse but to ordaine their Elders and so your Churches are before their Elders and give them their power by election and ordination and Brownists doe no more I would gladly know a reason why if the Churches had power to chuse and ordaine their owne Officers the Apostle should trouble himselfe and them to send Timothy and Titus to ordaine Elders in every City had it not been easier to have written to the Churches to doe 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 chusing 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 intrusted by them with that power When you say The Office it selfe 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 ordaines the Office but who ordaines the Officers Those that the Apostles ordained had their Office immediately from Christ but had not their Ordination immediately from Christ that was the priviledge of the Apostles Now from whomsoever the Officers derive their Ordination immediately from them immediately they doe derive their Authority But say you the Officers doe immediately derive their Ordination from the Church of Brethren ergo they derive immediately their Authority from the Church of Brethren And consequently the Church of Brethren is the first subject of authority as well as of Liberty and not the Elders Certainly all your 3 characters of a first subject fall upon the Apostles and their Successors 1. They first received their power from Christ 2. They first put forth the exercise of that power 3. They first communicated that power to others You say here God hath not given a spirit of Rule and Government ordinarily to the greater part of the body of the Brethren and ergo neither hath he given them the first receit of the Key of Authority to whom he hath not given the gift to imploy it But you give the body of the Brethren alone the first receit and exercise too of the Key of Authority when you give them power to chuse and ordaine their Officers which Ordination is confessed by your selfe to be an Act of Rule and authority ergo The way p. 48. you doe directly contradict your selfe without any possibility of reconciliation that I can imagine Obj. 1. How can the Brethren invest an Elder with Rule if they had not power of Rule in themselves Sol. Partly by chusing him to that Office which God hath invested with Rule partly by subjecting themselves unto him Reply 1. Your first reason is of no validity chusing to an Office doth not invest with the Rule of that Office Election gives not an Office but only nominates or designes a person fit for that Office It is Ordination that gives the Office and the Rule or authority of that Office The seven Deacons chosen by the people were not Officers till the Apostles had ordained them If they were not then election gives no Office and consequently no authority belonging to that Office If they were then Ordination is a meere empty Ceremony and the Brethren doe properly give them authority which themselves have not to give Besides election to this or that place presupposes at least sometimes the party invested with authority before as in the case of translation of an Elder from one Church to another and only admits him to the exercise of it pro hic nunc as they speake 2. Your second reason is as weake as the former Because they professe their subjection to him This cannot invest him with the Rule such as we speake of Suppose a company of Brethren chuse a gifted Brother to prophesie to them and professe their subjection to him in the Lord doth this invest him with authority of an Elder to rule over them If it doe then Ordination is a thing not necessary either by the Brethren or Elders yet by and by we shall heare you require Ordination of Elders to make a compleat Elder If it doe not then you have not satisfied the objection Obj. 2. The Church is Christs Spouse Wife Queene ergo she hath the Keyes of Rule at her girdle Sol. There is a great difference between Queens and poore mens Wives The first have their Officers for every businesse and service and so no Key left in their hands of any Office but of Liberty to call for what they want according to the Kings Royall allowance But poore mens wives that have no Officers may carry the keyes at their owne girdles Reply This answer overthroweth it selfe For 1. the liberty which you grant this Queene the Church is part of the power of the Keyes and a great part too if not the whole viz. to chuse and ordaine her owne Officers and to censure them offending which no Queene is allowed to doe ergo the Church hath the Keyes at her girdle which a Queen hath not 2. You say and that truly The Queene hath only a liberty to call for what she wants but hath no power to make her owne Officers The King doth that by some Officers deputed by himselfe for that purpose to set them apart to give them their commission or oath c. Just so it is in the Church All the Officers are given to the Church objectivè for the good and benefit of the Church but they have no power to make and ordaine their owne Officers but only to call upon them for that allowance which the King of the Church hath granted them 3. If poore mens wives may carry the Keyes of any Office at their owne girdles when their husbands have no Officers you seeme to give a greater honour and liberty to them then to Queenes or Ladyes and withall you give us leave to inferre That Churches that have no Officers of their owne are in better case than those that have They that have Officers have put the Keyes in their Officers hands They that have none may and doe weare them at their owne girdles which if you affirme as you often doe I dare affirme it to be flat Brownisme and not the middle way you pretend Obj. 3. The whole body naturall is the first subject of all the naturall power as sight is first in the body before in the eye Soil It is not in the mysticall as with the naturall body there the faculties are inexistent not so here Reply 1. This againe contradicts your first proposition where you say a particular Church is the first subject of all Church-offices and power And here you say they are not actually inexistent how then is it the first Subject seeing accidentis esse est inesse 2. If the Church chuse out of themselves Officers gifted are not they then inexistent 3. You confesse they are in some cases unlesse say you some of them have all the gifts of all the Officers which often they have not True but oftentimes they have either Presbyters or men fit to be Presbyters And then you answer not the objection And if they have Presbyters before they chuse them to be theirs as your words seeme to import they may then they doe not invest them with power of Elders by chusing them as formerly you seemed to assert Lastly you say If the power of the Presbytery were given to a particular Church of Brethren as such primò per se then it would be found in every particular Church of Brethren But say I you assert both the Antecedent in the first proposition Every particular Congregation is the first subject of all Church power and the consequence when you say Every particular Church hath power to chuse ordaine and censure ergo Obj. 4. The Government is mixt of Monarchy Aristocracy and Democracy ergo the people have some power in Government Sol. Your first answer seemes to
yeeld the thing In a large sense Authority may be acknowledged in the people As 1. when a man acteth by counsell he is then Lord of his owne action But that 's nothing to the objection The people of the Assizes act by counsell in approving the sentence If you grant the Brethren no more you mocke them and grant them nothing 2. But you grant them far more Election of Officers concurrence in censures determination of Synodall acts c. you might have added Ordination and then you had given them full Authority by these they have a great stroke or power in ordering Church affaires A great stroke indeed as full Authority as you give the Elders And this you grant when you give your reason to the contrary and would allow them only liberty For say you no act of the peoples power or liberty is binding unlesse the authority of the Presbytery concurre with it No more doth any act of the Presbytery bind unlesse the power of the people joyne with it So say your Prefacers Epist p. 4. So say your self when you allow them such a power as the want thereof retards the sentence But why doe you darken your owne meaning by such ambiguous answers when you grant the Government to be democraticall The way 100 but not meerely democraticall yea if I understand any thing you make it as meerely democraticall as Brownists themselves when you give them power without any Officers to chuse ordaine censure even Officers themselves as we have often told you I pray Sir when the Brethren ordaine or censure Officers without a Presbytery doth not that act of theirs properly bind It must or it is meere vanity having no Presbytery to joyne with them And if so is not this properly Authority without more adoe But you would prove Elders to be the first Subject of Authority from removall of other Subjects They have is not from the Elders of other Churches or from a Synod All Churches and all Elders are equall But 1. This is apparently false in the Scripâ—ure way For the Elders of the first Churches were ordained by the Apostles and Evangelists who were Elders of all Churches and as Elders not as Apostles ordained Elders and so gave them their Authority immediately from Christ 2. Your reason because they are all equall will hurt your selfe For if that be a good reason why they cannot derive it from Elders of the other Churches because they are equall it is much more strong against you they cannot derive it from the people who are their inferiours Besides by this rule Elders of their own Church cannot ordaine any Elders to that Church when they want for they are all â—quâ—ll But by your favour he that is to receive the Office and with it the Authority of an Elder is inferiour to those Elders who are to ordaine him for the lesser is blessed of the greater though when he is once ordained he be their equall And though the Elders of a Synod be equall singly considered yet joyntly they are superiour to any one single and have more Authority than he hath or else all you speake of Synods is but vanity But if they have not their Authority derived from Elders of other Churches nor from Synods nor from the Elders of their owne Church because they are all equall either they must derive it from the people or they have none of all and so the people have as much Authority as any Elder of them all yea in your way more 3. The third branch of the third Propos Both Elders and Brethren together are the first subject of all power needfull amongst themselves You prove it by instance 1. In point of Ordination which is compleat when the people have chosen him and the Presbytery of the Church have laid their hands upon him But 1. I observe that here you make Ordination an Act of Authority and place it in the Elders ergo either the Brethren cannot ordaine Elders which yet you say they may or else they have Authority which yet you seeme to deny 2. Some of your Brethren here hold Ordination to be nothing but a ceremoniall solemnity the substance of a Ministers calling is say they in the peoples election ergo either Authority is in the people who give the substance and liberty only in the Elders who give but the ceremony or the calling of a Minister is compleat without Ordination and yet you require Ordination to the integrity of it But if the Brethren may ordaine without their Officers then they alone are the first Subject not of Liberty only but of Authority also And so this Proposition is needlesse A second Argument is taken from their independent and indispensable power in Church censures which are ratified in Heaven The same answer will serve to this also For first the Brethren alone without Elders say you may censure and if rightly done it is indispensable not to be reversed by any power on Earth because ratified in Heaven ergo they are the first subject of all Church-power needfull within themselves 2. And that the rather if they can ordaine Elders too for then the Elders derive their power from them 3. But suppose which is possible enough the Brethren and Elders erre in their censure of a member is not the censure then reversible I aske by whom if all power needfull for themselves be within themselves what shall the wronged party doe Is he remedilesly miserable If it be dispensable and reversible it must be by some other Church or Clâ—ssis c. But then a Congregation of Brethren and Elders are not the first subject of all power needfull amongst themselves If you say you meane when they walke in truth and peace you should yet have told us what the party must doe when they walke not in truth and peace And if they have not a power to right a wronged party they have not all power needfull to be exercised among themselves The Objections by you brought and answered rather concerne the Episcopall than the Presbyteriall way at least some of them only 2 or 3 may be vindicated Obj 1. To tell the Church is to tell the Presbytery of the Church Sol. We deny not the offence is to be told to the Presbytery yet not to them as the Church but as the guides of the Church Reply This is partly to yeeld the cause For you grant that the businesse is to be told first to the Presbytery who if upon hearing the cause and examining the witnesses they find it ripe for publicke censure they are then to propound it to the Church c. And you grant the people no more but consent to the judgement and sentence of the Elders The Presbytery also are to admonish the party authoritatively and if he will not heare them to passe the sentence upon him ergo the Presbytery is the Church there meant and not the people who neither admonish nor censure authoritatively but only discerne the nature of
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
as a fault upon the Presbyteriall way 2. You have otherwise determined in the way Suppose the whole Presbytery be in an errour or scandall as they may shall the faction now devest the Brethren of their power and authority to censure and cast them out which you have fully given them there and here doe seem to take away 3. You mitigate the businesse much when you say A Synod of Churches is the first subject of that power whereby errour is convinced c. and the way of â—ruth and peace declared and imposed on the Church For all this is only a doctrinall declaration and imposition not authoritatively by way of jurisdiction The censure you reserve to the Congregation where you had placed it before But what if the Synod of Churches erre or disagree there be a faction also amongst them you will know your owne words An erring or disagreeing Church binds not So all will come to nothing The censure of the Synod binds not for they can but declare what is truth The censure of the particular Church binds not for they are in a faction so you give the Brethren a power and presently take it away againe If then a considerable party fall into errour or faction by variance they presently lose like the Bee her sting their power of binding and loosing and if this be but once knowne as it cannot be hid how easie is it for any Delinquent to make a party or faction and so escape all binding censure seeing neither the Church erring or at variance nor a Synod hath any binding power Your second Argument is From the patterne Acts 15.1 c. When there grew errour and faction in the Church of Antioch they determine not the case but referred it to the Apostles and Elders But first the Church of Ierusalem did only doctrinally declare the truth they did not censure the erring Brethren so you pleaded above but referred that to the Church of Antioch 2. If declaration had been sufficient the Church of Antioch needed not to have sent so farre as Ierusalem Paul and Barnabas were able enough to declare the truth at home and so that particular Church though erring and at variance was the first subject of that power here given to a Synod 3. You mislay the comparison when you say As in the case of an offence of a faithfull brother persisted in the matter is at last judged in a church which is a Congregation of the faithfull so in the offence of a Church the matter is at last judged in a congregation of Churches c. For the judgement is not of the same kind but you doe meerely aequivocate with us The judgement of the Church upon a Brother is juridicall even by way of censure of excommunication But the judgement of a Synod is only doctrinall and declarative If you grant any more you and we are agreed Before I conclude this proposition I only animadvert these few things 1. That you grant the Assembly of the Apostles and Elders at Ierusalem Acts 15.1 to have been a formall Synod wherein your Disciples here doe discent from you as appeares in their Epistle and call it only a Consultation by way of Arbitration To which Arbitration it seemes the Church of Antioch was not bound to stand for they did not for ought appeares promise or bind themselves to stand to their arbitrement nor might they so bind themselves by your doctrine and theirs too for that were to give away their priviledge purchased by the bloud of Christ 2. You yeeld also The Keyes p. 57. that the Apostles did not act herein as Apostles and determine the matter by Apostolicall Authority but as Elders in an ordinary way as the whole proceeding in the businesse proves as you well observe Yet your Schollers here submit not to your doctrine as they professe in their Epistle though they neither shew any reason for it nor confute yours 3. You call a Synod a Congregation of Churches for what is a Synod but a Church of Churches and yet deny that a Presbytery of Churches is ever called a Church 4. You say The Elders there at Jerusalem were not a few the Beleevers in Jerusalem being many thousands Therefore say wee they were more than could meet together in one place and yet called but one Church whence we may inferre There was not an Independent Church of one but a Presbyteriall Church of many Congregations Lastly you say This patterne plainly sheweth to whom the Key of Authority is committed when there groweth offence and difference in a Church But the Key of Authority if you remember what you said above hath this power in it as to administer the Seales so to bind an obstinate offender under excommunication and to release and forgive him upon repentance Grant but your Synod of Churches such a Key of Authority to bind an offending party or Church and to release them upon repentance and the matter is at an end But if you grant no more but a doctrinall declarative power you grant but what every Pastor single hath And whether this be the Key of Authority given by our Saviour to the Church let every indifferent Reader judge And now you come to your Corollaries concerning the Independency of Churches to shew how they are or are not Independent Wherein I purpose not to follow you and that for this reason because for the most part you doe but repeate what you have said before You say your selfe You take the first Subject and the Independent Subject to be all one Therefore say I if the Church of a particular Congregation be not the first Subject of all Church-power as is evinced above neither is it the Independent Subject of that power I have only some things to observe in your second Corollarie and then I shall conclude You say The establishment of pure Religion and the Reformation of corruptions in Religion doe much concerne the civill peace If Religion be corrupted there will be warre in the gates Judges 5.8 and no peace to him that commeth in or goeth out 2 Chron. 15.3 5 6. But where Religion rejoyceth the civill State flourisheth And this you truly refer to the Civill Magistrate partly by commanding and by stirring up the Churches and Ministers thereof to goe about it in their spirituall way partly also by civill punishments upon the wilfull opposers and disturbers of the same Whereupon I desire to know 1. By what Authority our Brethren here in Old-England having not only Christian Magistrates covenanting to reforme but also calling and commanding an Assembly of Divines to reforme according to the Word doe take upon them to set up and establish a forme of Church-Government of their owne before they have demonstrated it to be the way of God to the great disturbance of the peace both of Church and State 2. I doe demand also why many of your disciples here plead for a Toleration of all Religions which you will not tollerate in New-England which they call Liberty of conscience and the prosecution of such disturbers they call persecution When as they may heare you say It belongs to the Magistrate to punish the wilfull opposers and disturbers of Reformation And more then that you tell them Of the Times of the New Testament it is prophesied that in some cases capitall punishment shall proceed against false Prophets and that by procurement of their nearest kindred Zach. 13.3 And the execution thereof is described Rev. 16.4 to 7. Where the rivers and fountaines of waters that is the Priests and Iesuits that conveigh the Religion of the Sea of Rome throughout the Countries are turned to bloud that is have bloud given them to drinke by the civill Magistrate Does this hold true only against Priests and Jesuits and are all other erroneous schismaticall blasphemous Sectaries to be tolerated I leave them to consider it and you and them to reconcile this and other your many differences and contradictions amongst your selves And when you are well agreed in the way we shall consider how farre you agree with the Truth FINIS Errata Page 7. l. 22. reade offender and often after p. 23. l. last r. institution p. 24. l. 4. r. institution p. 25. l. 16. r. for p. 26. l. 26. for 1. r. 15. p. 30. â— 23. r. except p. 32. l. 15. r. whom p. 34. l. last but one r. Counsell p. 35. l. 8. r. Presbyters p. 45. l. 17. put out the second in p. 53. l. last for And r. from p. 55. l. 2. for feare r. heare p. 76. l. 10. for of r. at