VINDICIAE VINDICIARVM OR A further manifestation of M. J. C. his contradictions instanced in Vindiciae Clavium BEING A Rejoinder to his Reply to some few of those many Contradictions in his last Book called The Way of Congregationall Churches Cleared Part. 2. By D. C. JAMES 1.8 A double minded man is unstable in all his waies Veritas simplex error multiplex LONDON Printed by A. M. for Christopher Meredith at the Sign of the Crane in Pauls-Church-yard 1651. VINDICIAE VINDICIARVM CHAPTER I. SECTION I. Of the Church to which Christ committed the power of the Keys THe Question between us in this first Section was concerning the meaning of those words The Kingdom of heaven in Mat. 16.19 and consequently What Church it was to which the Keys were by Christ committed For the finding out whereof I proceeded by a distinction It the Kingdom of heaven did there signifie the Church it must either be taken 1. Of the Invisible Church of true believers opposed to Reprobates 2. The Catholike visible Church opposed to Heathens or as you in answering the first question pag. 2. of Keys to the World 3. Or a particular Congregation Give me leave I pray to be now little more exact in stating the question by enquiring what is the sense of those words and the terms of the question 1. What is meant by the Kingdom of Heaven 1. Of glory 2. Of grace 3. Of both 1. What is meant by the Kingdom of heaven whereof the Keys are here given to Peter The Kingdom of heaven in Scripture usage signifies either 1. The Kingdom of glory as frequently or 2. The Kingdom of grace as in some places grace being the beginning of or first step into that Kingdom of glory Or 3. It signifies both the Kingdom of grace and glory And we are both agreed that in this text it signifies both My first words in Vind. Clav. grant it and you affirm it By the Kingdom of heaven here is meant both the Kingdom of grace which is the Church and the Kingdom of glory which is in the highest heavens And you give a very good reason for it For say you Christ giving to Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven conveyeth therewith not only this power to binde on earth that is in the Church on earth for he gave him no power at all to binde in the world the Kingdom of Christ is not of this world but he gives him also this priviledge That what he bound on earth should be bound in heaven And heaven being distinguished from the Church on earth must needs be meant of the kingdom of glory Let this be remembred against anon 2. What that Church is to whom the Keys are committed 2. The Kingdom of heaven signifying the Church and that both in heaven and earth both triumphant and militant for what he cals in the 19. verse The Kingdom of heaven he cals in the 18 verse his Church We must enquire what Church or what part of his Church it is to which the Keys are given This Question I confesse is needlesse in respect to the Text it self For it sayes nothing at all of giving the Keys to the Church but of giving to Peter the Keys of the Church called by the name of the Kingdom of heaven which is worth your observation For it is your importunity rather that hath caused this question who have arrogated the Keys out of the hands of Peter to whom Christ in this text gave them and given them to the Church that is incongruously to the Kingdom of heaven but of his more anon We shall therefore follow you rather then the Text and consider what is meant here by the Church Church is taken Ecclesiastically for 1. The whole Church either 1. The invisible Catholike Church It is taken in the Ecclesiasticall use for I passe by the civill in many senses briefly thus 1. For the whole Church called commonly by the name of the Catholike Church and that in a double notion 1. The Invisible Catholike Church the whole number of the Elect in heaven and earth in all places and times so it is commonly understood Eph. 5.23 25 26 27 32. Col. 1.18 c. 2. 2. The visible Catholike Church The Catholike visible Church containing the whole multitude of professors of Religion elect or hypocrites in this world as opposed to the Church of the Jews or to the men of the world So it is taken Act. 5.11 and 8.3 at least as contra-distinguished to a particular Congregation 2. 2. For some parts of the Church in combination 1. A particular Congregation and that a Church 1. Politicall For some parts of the Church to whom is attributed the name of the whole from their Assembling together in different combinations And then it is taken 1. For a particular Congregation or particular Saints assembled together and this again is by some distinguished into 1. Politicall or Organicall consisting of Officers and Members as the Integrall parts thereof and those Congregations being members of the Catholike visible Church as Integrall parts thereof The texts are obvious where it is so taken 2. Entitive 2. Entitive as they call it or Essentiall consisting only of a company of Saints combined by consent without any Officers So the Reverend M. Hooker and others use to speak But that I may note it by the way to me This Entitive Church so called seems rather to be a notion never existing but in mens fancy in the Resolution or Analysis of a Church into its materials or else it is very improperly called a Church To my observation and understanding hitherto there is not in Scripture such an Entitive Church to be found gathered and existing without any Officers That place Act. 15.4.22 produced by the learned and judicious M. Hudson in his vind pag. 3. where he saies Church is taken for the members as distinct from Officers doth not hold out a Church Entitive without any Officers for that had Officers but only distinguisheth the Integrall parts of that Church into Officers and members The sense is no more but this either it means The Apostles and Elders with the rest of the Church members or if the Church was then distinguished into divers Congregations it takes in all the Congregations as the whole Church for so the words are expressed vers 22. the whole Church And your self call that which we call the Catholike visible Church by the name of the whole Church when you say here pag. 5. The whole Church or which is all one the Catholike Church may be visible in her singular members However it appears not that then there was any Entitive Church existing without Officers That other Text Act. 14.23 seems rather to imply it And when they had ordained them Elders in every Church as if there had been Churches gathered and existing without any Officers But the sense of the place may be this when they had gathered and setled Churches of Elders and
The Church before Christs coming was built upon the same foundation with this difference They professed the Messiah to come The seed of the woman to break the serpents head was the foundation of their faith from the beginning till Abrahams time After that this was laid as the foundation In thy seed shall all the nations be blessed c. But the Christian or Evangelical Church is built upon this Gospel-foundation or Truth Truth That this particular person Jesus Christ is the Sonne of God and that Messiah which was to come So the woman of Samaria Joh. 4.29 Is not this the Christ and vers 42. We know that this is indeed the Christ the Saviour of the world In like manner the Eunuch Act. 8.37 If thou beleevest thou mayst And he answered and said I beleeve that Jesus Christ is the Son of God And upon this rock or Jesus Christ so confessed was every particular * Women also as well as men member converted built and consequently the Church What Church a particular Congregation yes secondarily as a part of the whole visible Church but primarily the whole Church of the New Testament and that I take to be especially the sense of the word Church in this Text though as I said not excluding the Invisible Church And herein your self seem to agree with me when you say Indeed true it is that Peter and other Preachers of the Gospel have received such a power of the Keys to open to beleevers a door into the invisible Church c But then the invisible Church cannot be excluded from one part of the meaning of the kingdom of heaven whereof Peter received the Keys and consequently the Church to which the Lord Jesus committed the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven Mat. 16.19 is not only caetus fidelium commonly called a particular Church if at all which was your assertion And once more it may be said that the visible Catholike Church cannot be excluded from one part of the meaning of the Kingdom of heaven in that Text for the reason which you give also Because there is a power of the Keys to open a door to profest beleevers into the Catholike visible Church as well as into a particular visible Church But be it meant of the invisible or visible Catholike Church or of a particular visible Church it 's manifest that in this Text the Keys are not given to the Church but the Keys of the Church are given to Peter contra-distinguished as an Officer from the Church But you object Certain it is that when by the power of the Keys a beleever is received into the invisible Church he can never be shut again out of that Church but the Keys here given to Peter have power to shut out of the Kingdom of heaven even the same persons And therefore the the Kingdom of heaven is not meant only of the invisible Church I pray Sir should not your conclusion be from those premises Therefore the Kingdom of heaven is not meant at all of the invisible Church which yet you have asserted to be part of the meaning And did you not from the beginning say that by was meant the Kingdom of grace and glory And doth not the Text say that Peter hath keys given him as well to shut out the Kingdom of heavens as open the door thereof Whatsoever thou shalt binde on earth shall be bound in heaven If so then your proposition is not true That a beleever received into the Invisible Church can never be sent again out of that Church Your self say a little below pag. 8. of this second part It may truly be said whosoever is bound or loosed in any one particular Church is also bound in the Kingdom of glory and is not that as much as to be shut out of the Invisible Church You cannot but know that the judgment of Divines is that if a true beleever be excommunicated for some crime he is for a time suspended from the Kingdom of Heaven See M. Hookers Survey part 1. p. 204. Sâ—ct Visible Saints and so in a sense put out of the Invisible Church and if it were possible for him to die unrepenting he might perish and the text it self seems to justifie it when it sayes whatsoever is bound on earth shall be bound in heaven And now shall consider what you say to the reasons for my Obj. 1 Assertion The first was because that Church there meant was built upon the rock c. To which you answer It is not true that the Invisible Church onely built upon a rock For particular Churches are built upon a rock also built they are upon Divine Institution and Christ is laid for the foundation of them c. Before I answer I must distinguish of those words built upon a rock which not observed cause confusion in this present businesse Two things are here enquirable 1. What is meant by the Rock It may be taken 1. For Christ himself the tried and sure foundation as he is elswhere called and so it may be understood Matth. 7.24 built his house upon a rock opposed there to the sand 2. For Christ confessed to be the Sonne of God and the Messiah as he was by Peter professed to be upon my self so confessed will I build my Church as Mr. Hooker expoundeth it above 2. What it is to be built upon the rock Vide D. Ames Medul lib. 1. c. 5. â— s 11. It is either by internall union with Christ as the rock and foundation or by externall profession as your self insinuate to me the distinction pag. 7. when you say if they degenerate they were never founded upon Christ but in an outward form And now I shall ingeniously acknowledge my self not distinct enough when I said It is the Invisible Church which is built upon the rock c. and do confesse my self beholden to Mr. Ruth and Mr. Hooker for this light and now see that the visible Church also is built upon the rock Onely I differ from Mr. Hooker in this that be by visible Church means only a particular Church but I the Catholike visible Church as was discoursed above But now upon the former distinctions I answer That if you take the Rock for Christ himself and the building on him See part 2. pa 24. your own words It is readily c. for Internall union with him then the Invisible Church onely is built upon the rock and against that the gates of hell shall never prevail But if you understand the Rock to be that confession of Peter or rather Christ so confessed as he was by Peter and the building on that foundation for an external profession or in your words in an outward form Then I say the visible Church is so founded upon the rock But then I adde that it must not be restrained to a particular Church against which the gates of hell have prevailed which contradicts our Saviours promise but declared to the Catholike visible Church existing in
the particulars as M. Hooker said against which the gates of hell what ever they be shall never prevail And now I consider what you say It is not true c. for particular Churches are built upon a rock also But then Sir I pray how will you without a distinction answer the Text which sayes the gates of hell shall never prevail against that Church which is built on the rock You say Built they are upon divine institution c. But I suppose you do but elude and not answer here Is it all one to be built upon the rock and upon divine institution Then particular Churches should not fail for those that are built upon a rock shall never fail Particular Churches are built upon a rock also True so far as they are true beleevers Others of them are expresly said to be built upon the sand yet are they built upon Christs institution Suppose a particular Church consisting of all hypocrites it 's possible to be so having all externall Ordinances will you say those are built upon the rock Christ or will you say they are no Churches of Christ because they are not built upon Christ as a rock or foundation Neither of these can you say not the latter for they are built upon the Institution of Christ not the former for hypocrites have not Christ for their foundation but are built upon the sand Hear your own words pag. 40. If the profession of the doctrine of faith be true though the grace of faith in the professour be uncertain and may be hypocriticall and so false yet we dare not deny the nature and power of a Church to such But say I again such are not founded upon the rock Christ though they be upon his Institution Therefore Institution and rock are not both one But you confute your self when you say Christ is not the head of that Church whereof he is not the foundation and where he is the foundation he is also the rock Now say I Christ is not the head of hypocrites therefore not the foundation nor the rock for as you adde Christ is not a sandy foundation yet are they built upon the Institution of Christ and may and do fail which they could not if they were built upon Christ a rock But say you What then so may the true disciples of Christ fail in respect of bodily subsistence and yet the gates of hell never prevail against them Did Christ mean in regard of bodily subsistence that the gates of hell should not prevail against the Church Do not some particular Churches fail in regard of the truth it self and the gates of hell prevail against the souls of all their members yet Christ sayes they shall not prevail against the Church built upon the rock Or rather did he not mean it of the Catholike visible Church in this sense that he will ever have a Church in one place or other yes say you God may remove the Candlestick that is his particular Church yet he will have ever some or other particular Churches visible in one place or other That is say I God will have ever a Catholike visible Church existing in the particulars and so sayes M. Hooker visible Church doth nor fail Yet you go on to say Those Churches that were founded upon Christ and built upon that rock neither failed nor fell away But I assume those Churches that were founded upon his Institution fell away and failed therefore they were not built upon the rock You adde again If the posterity of a holy Church do degenerate they were never founded upon Christ but in an outward form True say I yet they as well as their predecessors were built upon Christs Institution Therefore to be built upon divine Institution meerly is not the same as to be built on a rock And so you have eluded not answered the argument I have but one thing more to say to your Testimonies from Mr. Whit. Junius and D. Ames You say They dispute Catholike visible Church but maintain the Catholike Church to be invisible But 1. The Church Catholike of I which those Divines speak against Papists is not the same with ours in this Dispute They intend it of the Church of the Elect of all ages and times which is the Catholike Church mentioned in the Creed as the object of our faith not of our sense but we take it in the second sense delivered in the beginning for the whole multitude of beleevers or professours of the Gospel in all places of the world at once And the parts of this Church whether particular members or particular Congregations being visible the whole or which is all one the Catholike Church must needs be visible D. Ames Med. lib. 1. cap. 31. sect 7. cap. 32. sect 1. And D. Ames by name having defined this Church to be Caetus hominum vocatorum fidelium vel caetus eorum qui sunt in Christo c Of this same Church which cannot be only the particular Church he saies it is visibilis in suis partibus and in the former chapter Sect. last Ecclesia nunquam planè desinit esse visibilis The Church Catholike of that he spake never wholly ceaseth to be visible 2. The Catholike Church which they dispute against is in the Romish sense a Catholike Romane Church animated by the Pope as an head and by Catholike Officers actually in a subordination as a Politicall body But this we deny as well as they We take it only for the whole multitude of beleevers distinguished into severall Congregations which all make up one body whereof Christ alone is the Head Survey part 1. pag. 15 16. O◠which Christ is an Head by political government We shall take it in M. Hookers words The Church is the visible kingdom of Christ in which he reigns by the Scepter of his Word and Ordinances and execution of discipline which visible kingdom of Christ is the whole Church or which is all one the Catholike Church visible in her members And now I come to my second Reason or as you call it Obj. 2 Objection The kingdom of glory one part of the meaning of the Kingdom of heaven Mat. 16.19 is not contra-distinguished to a particular Congregation but to the generall visible Church on earth You answer 1. There is not any particular Church on earth but may be upon just occasion contra-ditinguished from the kingdom of glory It may be so but very improperly and with respect to the whole Church on earth But what 's this to the Text or Objection The question is not what may be elsewhere but what is the meaning in this Text It saies not whatever thou shalt binde in a particular Congregation but in earth that is the visible Church on earth as contra-distinguished to the world here See the Keys pag. 2. s 1. and the kingdom of glory above And besides he that is bound in any particular Church is bound in all the Churches on earth and so the
members both at once So soon as there were members enough to make a Church they ordained them Elders and made them a politicall Church If not so yet the Apostles Paul and Barnabas were Officers to them before Catholick Officers to them as yet members only of the Catholick Church and now they being to depart ordained them Elders in their stead and made them particular politicall Churches If those members were not confederate by consent whereof the Scripture saies nothing they themselves say they were not a Church but only Materials of a Church and so members of the Catholike Church only or of none I shall say something more to this in another place I prescribe not to any mans judgement but submit it to consideration and proceed 2. The Officers of the Church 2. As a Congregation is called a Church as afore so sometimes the Officers not only distinguished but as separated into a Court are called the Church Our Saviour alluding to that custome amongst the Jews and not relating to a Congregationall Church not yet known nor yet in being And now the question returns upon us To what Church of all these the keys were committed Some say one thing some another you say to the particular Congregation which we shall consider when we have added that 3. How the Keys are given to the Church whether 3. It is to be considered in this question when the Keys are said to be given to the Church which is never said expresly in Scripture how they are understood to be given to the Church Whether 1. Objectivè 1. Objectivè that the Church is the object of the exercise of the Keys that is they are given for the good and benefit of the Church Or 2. Subjectivè 2. Subjectivè that the Church is the Subject Recipient to imploy and exercise the Keys and this either immediatly by her self in whole or in part without Officers or mediatly by her Officers that is whether the Church be the next and first subject of the Keys to convey them or any part of them to her Officers Or that she is said to be the remote subject as including the Officers to whom primarily and immediatly Christ hath committed the Keys for the good of the Church as sight is immediatly intrusted with the eyes for the good and benefit of the whole body And if it should happen that any power of the Keys should appear to be given to the Church as distinct from her Officers whether it belong first to the Catholike visible Church or to a particular Congregation The Question then is clearly this Whether the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven be given subjectivè to the Church-Catholike in her Officers on the particular Congregation without or with her Officers And now we shall consider what you resolve upon this question Thus you assert The Church to which the Lord Jesus committed the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven Matth. 16.29 is caetus Fidelium commonly called a particular visible Church c. To which I answered not as an Avenger there is not the least colour of that but as an Assertor giving also my reasons Of all the rest this is the most improbable sense of our Saviours words if by the Kingdom of Heaven on earth he meaneth that Church of which he spake in vers 18. But that was either the Catholike visible Church or rather the Invisible mysticall Church c. That one or both of these for by my word rather I do not exclude the other is meant and that primarily is to me still most probable upon these reasons 1. This being the first time that the Church my Church the evangelical Church is named it is not probable that our Saviour would intend it onely of a particular Congregation but of the Catholike Church for that is primarily Christs Church and that is properly built upon the rock and against that the gates of hell shall never prevail whereas as I say afterwards particular Churches may fail and have failed There is farre more colour for a particular Church to be meant Matth. 18.17 Tell the Church because excommunication is executed in a particular Church first and consequently in the Catholike Church but there is not any shadow for it in the text in hand Did Christ mean I will build my Church that is a particular Church onely upon this rock and not rather the Catholike Church and the particular secondarily as a member thereof It may be a question between the Invisible and Visible Catholike Church which is meant there as after but none till of late so much as made the question betwixt the Catholike and particular Church 2. Peter was an Apostle and had given to him the Keyes of the Catholike Church not of any particular Church for he and so his fellow-Apostles were never Pastors of any particular Church therefore it seems more reasonable that the Catholike Church is there meant They had habitually the Keyes of particular Churches in the Catholike as Pastors have habitually the Keyes of the Catholike Church in a particular They were actually Elders of the whole Church as Pastors are actually Elders of a particular Church 3. The Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven that is the Church are given to Peter as distinguished from the Church therefore they are not there given to the Church As if a Lord should say to him whom he constitutes his Steward I give to thee the Keyes of the Family to open and shut the doors of the House could the servants or children or any for them conclude from this grant the Keyes were given to the Family was Peter the Church to whom the Keyes of the Church were given And therefore as distrusting this sense of this Scripture you say as you had said of the other Apostles and Elders The Church or Congregation of professed believers received that portion also of Church-power The Keys pag. 5. which belonged unto them if not there that is in this text in hand yet elsewhere Not here for certain whether elsewhere or no shall be tried hereafter It is not a reasonable construction of this text to say I give to thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven that is of the Church and to mean I give to the Church the Keyes of the Church I said therefore and I think truly that of all the rest this is the most improbable sense of our Saviours words that it is a particular Church to which the Keyes were given Matth. 26.19 It must then be taken of the Catholike Church either Invisible or Visible or none But you are pleased to take away the subject of this question denying any Catholike visible Church For say you I do not read that the Scripture any where acknowledges a Catholike visible Church at all It is supposed by very Judicious Divines that you may read of it often in Scripture and in this place for one It cannot be denied but the Church is often put for the
whole multitude of beleevers whether in truth or in shew only Acts 8.3 Saul made havock of the Church and Acts 12.1 c. It was not any particular Church but any of any Churches any of that way Acts 9.2 which must needs signifie the Church indefinetely as opposed to the world not any particular Church Nor was it the Catholike Invisible Church that they persecuted as such for they could not know them to be such Therefore it must be the Catholike Visible Church Besides your self unawares confesse it in the following words Though the whole Church or which is all one the Catholike Church may be visible in her singular members c. Is not this to confesse a Catholike visible Church But say you So they are not a Church or though it may be visible in the severall particular Congregations yet none of them is Catholike I hope you do not imagine that any is so simple to think that the whole Church can be seen at once D. A. said well Ecclesia non est tota simul visibilis The Church he means the Catholike Church is not all visible at once or at one view then it were more then visibilis even visa not visible so much as seen I know you observe the difference But if the whole Church be visible in her members whether in the particular persons or particular Congregations is not the whole visible though not visa seen at once No more is the whole world visible but in its parts yet the world is visible No more is a Congregation of many persons visible that is seen at once yet you will not say but the whole is visible True but then none of those particular Congregations are Catholike The Catholike Church is not visible as a Church and the Church that is visible is not Catholike But 1. If there be a Catholike Church which you suppose here in these words 2. If that Church be visible in its parts the singular members which you also grant 3. If the particular Congregations as parts be also visible as Churches 4. If the whole Church be made up of chose particular Churches which are visible must not the whole or which is all one the Catholike Church be visible and then the whole Church that is visible in its parts is also Catholike and the Catholike Church is visible in its parts And is it not then true that there is a Catholike visible Church It might be added that a particular Church is not visible as a Church but as a company of men assembled for the form of the Church which you say is the Covenant is not visible And once more you seem to yeeld the Catholike visible Church when you say Though all of them the particular Congregations may be called a Catholike Church or generall Assembly if they were met together Only you adde Yet I would be loth to say that Christ giveth the power of the Keys all Ecclesiasticall power into their hands I should indeed be loth to say so for I do not yet believe that our Saviour in that Text did give the power of the Keys to the Church at all whether particular or Catholike but to Peter to the Officers for the Church To thee Peter I give the Keys of the Church c. Yet the question upon that Text is not resolved whether by Church is meant the Catholike visible or invisible Church seeing it is not to be taken for a particular Church And to this you say That I distrusting the meaning to be of the Catholike visible Church expound it rather to be meant of the Invisible mysticall Church But 1. By my word rather I did not exclude the Catholike visible Church though I was swayed by the reason annexed to incline to that sense Because that Church only is built on the rock and against that the gates of hell shall never prevail whereas particular Churches may fail And I am not alone in this Exposition 2. Visible and invisible do not specifically difference Churches but are as your self say somewhere but adjuncts of the same Church whereupon it may be true of both that by the Kingdom of heaven that is the Church ver 18. may be meant both these as included in the same Church the invisible in the visible But of which our Saviour understood it is worth enquiry Upon second thoughts not excluding the invisible I encline now to think he meant is of the Catholike visible Church The Reverend M. Hooker confesses himself inclined that way by some passages of M. Rutherford to take it of the visible Church though he deny a Catholike visible Church as well as you by the force and conviction of this Argument That Church is here meant which is built upon the Rock Christ by the visible confession of Peter But the invisible Church is not built by a visible profession such as Peters was The proposition is made good by the meaning of the words Thou hast made a confession of my self a rock and upon my self so confessed will I build my Church I must ingeniously confesse I am not convinced by this argument For the Invisible Church is also built upon that rock by a visible profession such as Peters was The invisible Church is the same Church or the same members with the visible and are all built upon the same rock by the same profession of faith True beleevers and false make the same profession of faith and the Elect are visible members of the Church though as they are elect they are invisible visible and invisible are in themselves opposite but not in several respects they may predicated of the same subject That which I observe from him is this he acknowledgeth and argues that the visible Church is here meant the question is whether the Catholike or particular visible Church is there intended For the Catholike visible much hath been said already and now I adde from his confession Upon my self so confessed will I build my Church what only a particular Church and not rather the whole Church yea rather the latter for the reason objected against the particular Church because against the visible Church particular the gates of hell have prevailed he answers The visible Church is attended in a double respect Ibid p. 2. 7. either as this or that particular Congregation or else as a Church universall existing in the particulars and in this latter sense it is taken in this place and then it is a sure and confessed truth That the visible Church doth not fail If now it be taken in the latter sense in this place for the Church universall existing in the particulars then it is meant of the Catholike visible Church not of a particular visible Church See more in M. Hookers Survey p. 217. If I may now declare my judgement take it thus Upon this rock that is my self thus confessed or this confession of my self To be the Christ the Son of the living God will I build my Evangellicall Church
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
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
it immediatly from Christ I desire you would consider whom M. Hooker meant in those words That conceit is more wide from the mark c. pag 195. sect 2. It is strange that all this while you should agree no better Obj. 7 I said lastly The Church there meant is called the Kingdom of heaven but a particular Congregation of beleevers is never called so being but a member of it c. You answer It is not materiall whether it be called so or no it is enough it is called a Church yea as distinguished from Church-Officers Acts 25.22 Suprà pag. 7. 23. c. I gave the sense and rosolution of that Text afore The sum is this it doth not hold a Church of beleevers as existing without Officers for that Church had Officers but only distinguisheth the Integrall parts as your self call them above of that Church into Officers and members The Apostles Elders and whole Church ver 22. that is the brethren or beleevers ver 23. assembled together ver 25. which is no more then if he had said the whole Church consisting of Apostles Elders and Brethren But you must remember that you are disputing the power of the Keyes to be given to a Church beleevers without Officers and you bring an instance of a Church that had Officers Shew if you can a Church of beleevers existing without Officers which took upon them the name of a Church or the tide of the Kingdom of heaven I yet beleeve whereever the Church is called the Kingdom of heaven in Scripture it is meant of the whole Church not of any particular Congregation Your own Texts produced do hold out as much Mat. 20.1 It is called a vineyard which signifies either the state of the Gospel or the whole visible Church If he had meant it of particular Churches he would have rather said into his vineyards for all those Officers could not be hired for one particular Church You say It was into this or that particular Church respectively true with respect to the whole visible Church which is but one A man that hath a large vineyard hires servants to work in several places or parts of that vineyard but this or that part is not called a vineyard but with respect to the whole they are all hired to labour in his vineyard Or what if that Parable be rather understood of particular persons then particular Congregations God cals all Christians into his Church and sets them to work Some come in at one hour some at another they that come first think they deserve more then they that come in late at the eleventh hour Christ would intimate that God is free and his grace free to do what he will with his own and there is no merit at all Many are called but few are chosen But your Exposition restrains the parable only to Officers as distinct from the Church of beleevers The like my be said of your second Text Mat. 25.1 2. It is not meant as an a description of the estate of each particular Church as you strain rather then interpret it but of every particular professing Christian whereof some have lamps of profession but no oyl of true grace others have both And the scope of the parable is intimated in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or application ver 23. Watch ye therefore every one of you for you know not the day nor hour when the Son of man cometh Your next of Luk. 17.21 is wider from the mark The Kingdom of God is within you that is either the Messias whom you seek as absent is now among you as Beza or the power of the Gospel is within you or upon you Those other of Rev. 1.6 and 1 Pet. 2.9 are as much mistaken if applied to a particular Congregation All the faithfull are Kings and Priests and all together are a Kingdom of Priests both Officers and beleevers I suppose you will not apply this either only to the Officers or only to beleevers but to both singly and jointly and respectively to the whole Church To conclude this whole first Section I added a particular Congregation is but a member or Corporation of that kingdom and it were as improper to call a Congregation Christs kingdom as to call London the kingdom of England You answer Every similar part of a similar body doth properly partake both in the name and nature of the whole Every part of water is water c. and such a part of such a body is a particular visible Church But such is not the state of London c. You said a little above It was not in your minde to understand any other particular Congregation but one furnished with Officers But then if you will speak properly and strictly you cannot say that a particular Congregation of Officers and beleevers is a similar part of a similar body for it is a dâ—ssimilar body consisting of dissimilar parts and so London and it agree in state and that Church can no more properly be called the Kingdom of heaven then London the kingdom of England Again if you will to help your self out of this Labyrinth understand it of a particuar Church without Officers you fall into another gulf as bad as the former For if particular Congregations consisting of similar parts of beleevers only may be called Kingdoms as they are called Churches then it will fairly follow that every particular member of that similar body may be called not only a Church but a Kingdom too because every similar part of a similar body it is your own reason doth properly partake in the Name and Nature of the whole So then as every drop of water is water so every member of such a Church is a Church and of such a Kingdom is a Kingdom Your following of metaphors and Parables too far is guilty of these miscarriages as I elsewhere often shew where I also shew how a particular Church consisting of Officers and beleevers may in a candid sense be said to be a similar body to which I referre you SECT II. What the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are IF in opening what the Keys of the kingdom of heaven be it was not your intent to enumerate them all distinctly and particularly as you here say Surely you intended not the businesse you had in hand when you were purposely engaged to answer this Question What are the Keyes of this Kingdom would not any Reader expect from an Expositor of that text a full and perfect enumeration of the Keys what and how many they are Had you said only thus The Keys are the Ordinances which Christ hath instituted to be administred in his Church You might afterwards have referred them as you say to their severall subjects But when you adde As the preaching of the Word as also the administration of the Seals and Censures Would not any Reader take it for a full distribution of the Keys And when you adde By the opening and applying of these both
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