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
to the generall visible Church for their sakes and then to the particular Congregation as a part or member of that generall visible Church But if you meane it in the former sense as you doe and must or else you aequivocate with us from the beginning and throughout your whole Booke you fall into that extreme of the Brownists which you so labour to avoid For to take the Church in Mat. 16. for a particular Congregation of Beleevers without Officers is a new and strange and false glosse maintained by none but Brownists and such like Separatists To conclude The Church of which our Saviour speaks is called here the Kingdome of Heaven on Earth But a particular Congregation of Beleevers is never called the Kingdome of Heaven being but a member or corporation of that Kingdome It were as improper to call a congregation Christs Kingdome as to call London the Kingdome of England yet so your party speake sometimes This I thought good to note to cleare the way for the better understanding of that which followes And now goe on 2. The next thing to be explicated is what the Keyes of the Kingdome be wherein you resolve us thus The Keyes are the Ordinances of Christ which he hath instituted to be administred in his Church as the preaching of the Word as also the administring of Seales and censures I take what you grant only I shall animadvert some things In this Paragraph as you doe clearely lay downe the state of the question so you doe strongly confute the scope of your whole Booke which is to give the people a share in the power of the Keyes that is in the government of the Church which appeares upon these considerations 1. You say the Keyes are the Ordinances which Christ hath instituted But the Ordinances of Christ are given indeed for the Church of Beleevers that is for their good and benefit objectivè But are never in all the Scripture nor in all Antiquity said to be given to that Church subjectivè It sounds ill at first hearing to say that the people have any power to exercise Ordinances of preaching or administring of Seales or Censures The power of preaching or administring Sacraments by the people as none but Separatists doe usurpe so your selfe complaine of it page 6. And why you should allow them power in censures there is very little reason 2. You say the Keyes are Ordinances which Christ hath instituted to be administred in his Church What Church the Church of Beleevers a particular Congregation for so you meane as was shewed afore Marke it to be administred in that Church scil by Officers instituted for that purpose not by that Church without Officers 3. You adde that which to me clearly excludes the people of your Church These Keyes are neither sword nor scepter c. for they conveigh not soveraign power but stewardly ministeriall Whence thus I argue The people or Congregation of Beleevers have no stewardly or ministeriall power over themselves ergo they have nothing to doe with the power of the Keyes They are not as Hilkiah was whose Office was over the house Isa 22.15 22. nor Stewards in the house as he was Gen 43.19 nor as those are who are spoken of 1 Cor. 4.1 2. Stewards of the mysteries of God But you adde a clause to draw in the people saying This power to open and shut the gates of Heaven lyeth partly in their spirituall calling whether it be their Office or their place and order in the Church c. I suppose the word calling should be taken here of a speciall calling or office as we use to call it which againe would exclude the people from any power in the Keyes as having no office in the Church But you adde by way of explication of your owne sense Whether it be their Office or their place and order in the Church on purpose to steale in the interest of the people in some share of the Keyes But if place order in the Church give the people out of office any power in the Keyes that is the Ordinances so you say again then may women children claim an inâ—erest in those Keyes for they have a place and Order in the Church as well as men which yet you would seeme to deny But let me professe at first what I shall make good from your selfe hereafter I see not but women and children may challenge a great part of that power of the Keyes which you give to the Brethren 3. Concerning the third What are the Acts of the Keyes and the fourth what is the subject to be bound and loosed I shall not contend with you The fifth To whom the power of the Keyes is given requires a more serious consideration as being the very foundation of all your new Fabricke which stands or fals with it The Text is expresse To thee Simon Peter will I give the Keyes c. in a cleare contradistinction to the Church before mentioned upon this rock of thy confession will I build my Church which you take for a particular congregation though by a great mistake as was shewed above But let it be granted for the present to be so then the words in all cleare construction run thus I will build my Church the particular congregation upon that rocke and I will give the Keyes of that Church called the Kingdome of Heaven and so by you interpreted to thee Peter and to such Officers as thou art Otherwise he would have said On this rocke will I build my Church and I will give unto it the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven that is of the Church it selfe which is scarse a reasonable interpretation of the words To make way therefore for your great designe you undertake to resolve that busie question as you call it How Peter is to be considered in receiving this power of the Keyes whether as an Apostle or as an Elder or as a Beleever c. Before I come to consider your answer I would make bold to put one ingredient more into the question whether Peter was not considered as a Deacon as well as an Elder or Beleever For seeing a Deacon is one of the Officers of the New Testament The Keyes p. 32. The way p. 83. some say Iudas was Christs Deacon and your selfe say all the Officers of the Church were virtually in the Apostles They were Pastors Teachers Ruling-Elders Deacons c. It may not unfitly be questioned whether Peter did not then represent a Deacon as well as an Elder or Beleever And then againe whether the Keyes were not given to Peter as a Deacon and why a Deacon only is denyed any power in the Keyes when beleevers are admitted to have a share therin seeing a Deacon hath power to collect and distribute the goods and treasury of the Church I leave these to your consideration or theirs who shall reply and come to your answer To shew your desire of peace and your impartiality in inclining
to any party you consider you say Peter in a threefold notion when he received the Keyes As an Apostle Elder Beleever so the sense of the words you say will be most full if all the considerations be taken joyntly together The sense indeed is most full to your purpose but I thinke least of all true * The power of the Keyes is given to the Churâ—h to Peter not as an Apostle not as an Elder but as a profest Beleever in the name of Beleevers c. The way p. 27. a flat contradiction And you doe beg the question to say Peter received the power of the Keyes as all these and in particular as a Beleever For of all the senses the last was least thought on in any age of the Church till this last when the Brownists and such like stumbled upon it When Saint Austin said Peter received the Keyes in the name of the Church Whether he did mistake the sense of the place or no you doe utterly mistake him to draw him to your meaning For 1. he did not meane your Church a particular congregation but either the generall vâ—sible Church or the invisible mysticall Church 2. Nor that neither subjectivè but objectivè that the Keyes were given to Peter as an Officer for the use and benefit of the Church But you proceed to say It appeares Christ gave the power of the Keyes to the Body of the Church even to the fraternity with the Presbytery Mat. 18.17 18. When they are met in his Name and agree together in the censure of an offendor But by this place and your former notion of Peter as a Beleever you may as well inferre that the Keyes are given to the Sororietie q.d. as to the Fraternity as Beleevers and as a part of the Body of the Church which I thinke is flat Anabaptisme worse than Brownisme You know there are some who deny that Mat. 18.17 18. holds forth any censure of excommunication at all Others that grant it yet by Church there understand the Officers of the Church such as the Apostles were to whom Christ spake What ye binde what ye loose c. You must not therefore beg a foundation to your building lest if it be fetched home your building fall on your owne head But you say All agree in this That no offender is to be excommunicated but with some concourse of the congregation at least by way 1. of consent to the sentence 2. of actuall execution of it by withdrawing themselves from him and this we conceive is some part of the exercise of the power of the Keyes But truly this is but the gingling of the Keyes at most no part of the power of the Keyes For 1. it belongs to Stewards in a Family only to exercise the power of the Keyes to take in and cast out what servants they please The rest of the servants heare the Keyes gingle when they turne the Keyes but have no part in the exercise of them no not so much as by consent active consent I meane so that if they consent not nothing is done but by a passive consent only as approving what the Steward hath done If you grant the Fraternity any more you make them joynt Stewards of the Family the Church as you shall heare hereafter Nay sometimes you seeme to give them no more The people discerning and approving the justnesse of the censures before administred by the Elders The Keyes p. 15. they give consent in obedience to the will and rule of Christ which is no part of the exercise of the power of the Keyes For suppose the censure be justly administred and the people deny their consent shall not a Delinquent be censured unlesse they will consent If not they have full power in the Keyes arising to authority which is the errour of the one extreme If so only as passively to consent its evident this is no part of the power of the Keyes 2. For their withdrawing that 's much lesse any power in the Keyes The Steward of a Family having discharged a naughty servant and turned and locked him out of doores all the rest of the servants are to withdraw from him but this is not by way of active power but passive obedience Is the withdrawing of people from a man outlawed in civill affaires any interest in the Keyes of Iudicature If it be said except the people consent and withdraw communion from a censured person the censure is in vaine I answer If the people should be so rebellious to civill Authority as not to withdraw from an outlawed man nothing were done the sentence was so farre in vaine If no man could be gotten to execute a malefactor condemned the sentence were frustrated in respect of the execution But doth this inferre that the people have an interest in the Keyes of secular power The question is not de facto what the people stubbornly may doe but whether they ought not to consent and withdraw and whether if they doe not they can challenge any interest in the power of the Keyes Againe if the Keyes were given to Peter as a Beleever I see no reason but women and children may come in and challenge a power in the Keyes It suffices not to say as the Epistolers say pag. 3. Women and children are excepted by a Statute Law of Christ against their enjoyment of any part of this publick power For though they be forbidden to speake in the Congregation or might by impotence as some say be excepted in some particulars yet there seemes no reason why they should be exempted from that power here given to the Fraternity which concernes them as well as men and they are as well able to exercise it as men viz. to give a passive consent or to withdraw from the party excommunicated which they may and must doe as well as men For as women may be offended so they should in reason have satisfaction by consenting to the sentence And as women may offend in keeping company with a brother or sister excommunicated so they ought to withdraw from them then if this be any exercise of the power of the Keyes you may heare them gingle at the womens girdles which is an extreme beyond the Brownists even downright Anabaptisticall But you give the Fraternity more power than this hereafter there we shall consider it Hitherto you have given them nothing but what is common to them with women CHAP. II. Of the distribution of the Keyes YOu first lay downe the ordinary Distribution of the Keyes and then except against it as defective in foure things 1. That any key of the kingdome of heaven should be left without power for the key of knowledge is contradistinguished from a key of power To this I answer It may be this distribution is not every way exact and perfect yet I thinke yours is rather worse And your exception fals upon your owne distribution a little more remotely For your key of Faith or
As the Brethren only cannot proceed to any publick censure without their Elders so nor have the Elders power to censure without the concurrence of the Brethren which is as false as the former Indeed these are very parallell As on the one side the Common-Councell cannot doe any valid act without the Aldermen nor the Aldermen without the Common-Councell unlesse there be some reserved cases so as the Ruling-Elders cannot censure without the Pastor so nor the Pastor without the Ruling-Elders but applyed to the Brethren is as in the City if so it were to make the Government popular as those doe that are in the one extreme or I understand nothing And then the last clause of the Brethren is to be paralleld thus As the Common-Councell have not power of censuring the whole Court of Aldermen nor the Aldermen the whole Common-Councell though together they have power over any particular person or persons of each so the Presbytery alone have not power of excommunicating the whole Body of the Brethren nor the Brethren the Presbytery though together they have power over any person in each But then ther 's one thing wanting The Aldermen and Common-Councell have power over all the people of the City as well as over particular persons amongst themselves But in these Brethrens way There are no other people over which the Presbytery and Brethren should have power and so the Scene is mislaid I only note againe That the Brethren and the Authour are not both of one mind They say The Brethren only could not proceed to any publick censures without they have Elders over them nor retrò But whether he say The Elders have power to censure the Body of the Brethren or no we shall heare anon this I am sure he sayes The way p. 45 The Brethren have power to censure the whole Presbytery as was noted afore The next thing which they comment on is the power of Synods because Congregations may miscarry Wherein say they he grants an Association of Churches as an Ordinance of Christ with power above that of a Congregation a Ministeriall power to determine and enjoyne things concerning the Congregations The words are full and faire but the sense is flat and empty For all this power of determining and enjoyning is but Doctrinall or declarative Every Minister hath in himselfe alone a Ministeriall Doctrinall Authority over the whole Church that is his charge and every person in it Ep. p. 9. differing nothing in kind from the power of every single Pastor but in degree of weight as a greater Testimony as three cords twisted together are stronger than each of them single A power not binding or loosing but doctrinally only not armed with power of censures if injunctions be not obeyed But if this power of the Synod be not juridicall what is it All power in those Pastors thus assembled as an Ordinance of Christ is either a power of Order or of jurisdiction The power of determining or decrecing together is not the power of Order for then every Pastor quâ Pastor by vertue of his Order might decree and impose it upon the Congregation which is denyed by all Therefore it must be a power of jurisdiction which yet these Brethren and their Authour doe deny And if it be not armed with power of censure it will come to nothing as shall appeare hereafter For as for their withdrawing communion it will be little regarded by an offending obstinate Congregation The Brethren Epistolers now begin to applaud themselves as jumping in judgement with their Authour though so farre remote as New-England But men agree in errour sometimes that never knew one another Their middle way is this very way held forth by this Authour Yet they say afterwards in some things in his Discourse Hic Magister non tenetur They say It is the middle way between that which is called Brownisme and the Presbyteriall Government as it is practised c. But if they remember themselves well the two extremes were Prelacy and Brownisme Whereof the one doth in effect put the chiefe if not the whole of the Rule and Government into the hands of the people c. The other taking the principall parts of that Rule the due of each Congregation into the jurisdiction of a common Presbytery of severall Congregâ—tions c. I appeale their wisedome if the latter part doe not better fall upon the Prelacy who in the other extreme tooke the principall parts of Rule due in part to the Pastors of Congregations into their owne hands Then the middle way may chance fall out to be the Presbyteriall way and not theirs For certainly that is between those two extremes And their way I dare say and hope to make it appeare comes nearer to Brownisme than the Presbyteriall way to the Prelaticall For the present only marke That the Presbyteriall way gives the power of Church Government neither to the Clergy alone as the Prelacy nor to the people alone or chiefly as the Brownists doe but to both For the Presbyteries Classicall as well as Congregationall consist of Pastors and Ruling Elders who are the Representatives of the people and chosen by their consent But to give the Brethren the people alone without Officers a power to elect ordaine censure c. as the Authour doth whatever these Brethren doe is to put not only the chiefe as Brownists doe but the whole of the Rule into their hands which for ought I know the Brownists doe not Nor doth the Presbytery swallow up the peoples interests as they affirme for their interest is saved in their Ruling-Elders chosen by themselves as the interest of the common people of a Corporation is saved in their Common-Councell chosen by themselves And that the votes of the Elders of that Congregation concerned should be swallowed up in the Classis c. is no more absurd than that the votes of the Burgesse of a Corporation should be swallowed up in the Parliament or that the votes of the Elders should be swallowed up in a Synod confessed to be the Ordinance of Christ unlesse the Brethren thinke a Synod may not determine or decree any thing without the joynt-consent of every Elder there assembled After all this agreement of the Brethren with this absent Authour to a wonder if not to a miracle as they would have us thinke though we beleeve they were not strangers to the plot of this Authour either before or since his going over they enter their dissent against some opinions and passages of this Authour in the platforme by him described I purpose not here to debate much lesse to decide the controversie between them I only desire to have it observed That it may rather seeme a wonder that these and other Brethren having so long studied and professed this middle way should not yet be able to walke hand in hand therein When will they be agreed that we may see their new platforme to be uniforme One of them must needs be
knowledge for you make them both one is distinguished from the key of Order which Order is either of power or authority and so your key of knowledge is left without power also 2. Your key of power as you call it is it selfe left without all power at least active power being only an obedientiall power to consent and yeeld submission to the will of Christs made knowne by the Elders 2. There wants say you an integrall part of the keyes the key of power or liberty belonging to the Church it selfe But to this I say This is so farre from being an integrall part of the keyes that it is no key at all no proper power at all as hath partly been shewed already A key in all mens judgement that ever writ of the power of the Church carries in the notion of it a power and authority properly called power in government till now of late yea even the Brownists themselves make it a key of Authority and Rule in the people Onely you to make us beleeve you differ from them call it a power improperly called Authority pag. 36. or a liberty or a priviledge which was never before called a key till now For there are many liberties or priviledges belonging to servants in a family or people in a State which no man cals a key of power or a power in the Keyes And the truth is you are not constant to your selfe For sometimes you call it only liberty c. sometimes you give the Church the Brethren without their Officers as full power as the Officers themselves have and as full rule and authority as the Brownists give them as we shall manifest in the sequell But you adde Protestant Churches having recovered the liberty of preaching the Gospell and ministry of the Sacraments have looked no farther some of them nor d scerned the defect of Church power or liberty due unto them in point of discipline To this I say The errour of the Protestant Churches was not that they looked not after the power of discipline for the people but that they laboured not to recover it for their Elders letting the Prelates keep quietly the discipline to themselves But the errour on the other hand was more easie to be fallen into and more dangerous which you observe to have followed That others finding themselves wronged as they did but suppose in the withholding a key of power which belongs to them have wrested to themselves an undue power which belongs not to them the key of Authority True it is some have done so for being allowed by some perhaps your selfe the key of power or liberty in discipline as you call it they have wrested not only the key of knowledge in preaching and administring Sacraments which belongs not to them but also the key of authority as you speake And so will your people too ere long I feare when they are once possessed a while of the key of power wrest the key of authority in all both in preaching and administring Sacraments and pronouncing censures and well they may by your owne grants as we shall heare anon 3. A third defect you observe In dividing the Key of Order from the Key of jurisdiction of purpose to make way for the power of Chancellors c. But 1. That might be the errour of the distributors not of the distribution For the distribution gives both the keyes to the same men For the same men that had the key of knowledge had also the key of order and jurisdiction in the intention of the first sounders of that distribution which after ages divided in practise And yet their Chancellors and Commissaries c. some of them at least were Deacons who were reputed of the Clergy as they speake and might preach if they would and so had both keyes in one person though limited in some particular acts of them But if our late Deacons were as some of our brethren have said they were virtually Presbyters and needed no new Ordination then certainly they had the power of jurisdiction with the power of Order though limited by the corruption of the distributors 2. This defect may chance to fall upon your owne distribution Doe not you divide the key of Order from the key of jurisdiction in your owne Deacons You say expresly in these words The Order of Deacons The Keyes page 6. whereof our Lord spake nothing touching jurisdiction I hope you will not say the Office of a Deacon fals not under the key of Order yet for ought I perceive you make little account of him in your distribution 3. You say Those Chancellors c. were invested with jurisdiction and more than ministeriall authority even above those Elders who labour in Word and Doctrine But doe not you invest the people with as much power and jurisdiction more than ministeriall even above those Elders who labour in the word and doctrine both to open and shut the doores of the Church against them page 9. besides what you say elsewhere 4. I would gladly be resolved whether you doe not divide the key of Order into a key of power or liberty and a key of authority on purpose to make way for the power of the people as they of old did for the power of the Chancellors c. Lastly I pray you seriously to consider whether by this sacrilegious breach of Order investing the people with a key of power even above those Elders that labour in the Word and Doctrine to open and shut the doores against them page 9. which is the breaking as it were of the files and rankes in an Army they are your owne words Satan is not like againe 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 4. A fourth defect is That Order is appropriated to the Officers of the Church only We put a difference between Office and Order We shall speake more fully to this hereafter All we say for the present is but this That Office and Order in the strict and Ecclesiasticall sense of the word Order have hitherto been taken for the same And your selfe grant page 7. They may be admitted as aquivalent in a right sense Let us now consider your owne Distribution There is say you a key of Faith and a key of Order and you have a Text of Scripture for it Col. 2.5 6. But by Faith and Order there the Apostle meanes not the keyes of the kingdome of Heaven as they are understood in this controversie but as I take it their Faith manifested in their orderly walking as becomes Christians professing the Gospell So that by Order there is meant their morall orderly walking as in other duties according to the Rule so in their submission to the order of government or exercise of the keyes in the hands of their Officers I beleeve no Interpreter but your selfe and some others of late ever tooke those words in
an Ecclesiasticall sense for the keyes delivered unto Peter But we goe on The key of Faith say you is the sâ—me with the key of knowledge Luke 11.52 which the Lawyers had taken aw y. But 1. by your favour the key of Faith and knowledge are not both one if you understand it of justifying Faith A man may have much knowledge and no Faith Knowledge may in a sense be said to be the key of Faith as being the inlet or Antecedent of Faith but so Faith and knowledge are not the same 2. The key of knowledge is one thing and knowledge is another The key of knowledge is the great Ordinance of preaching you said the keyes of the kingdome of Heaven were the Ordinances of Christ as the preaching of the Word the opening and applying of it p. 2 c. But this key of knowledge here you speake of is you say common to all Beleevers but a little before this you complaine that private Christians had usurped this key to preach the Gospell c. page 6 Whereas this key of knowledge is peculiar to the Ministers of the Gospell The Priests lips keep the key of knowledge c. and Faith comes by the Word preached This was the key of knowledge which the Lawyers had taken away either by not interpreting or misinterpreting the Scripture They could not take away the peoples knowledge much lesse their Faith They might take away the key both of knowledge and Faith that is preaching as the Papists doe by locking up the Word in a strange language and ours lately did by crying and putting downe preaching 2. Whereas you say They that had the key of knowledge had power to enter into the kingdome of Heaven and it may be to open the doore to others to enter also I answer The key s given to Peter Matth. 16. were not to open the Kingdome of Heaven to himselfe for that key if a key it was he had before but to open it to others by opening and applying the Word as you said above our Saviour speaks of binding and loosing others Whose sins ye bind on earth c. and of opening for and shutting out others not himselfe Keyes are given to Stewards not properly to let in or shut out themselves but by way of Office to let in or locke out others Besides A priviledge to find an open doore to enter into the fellowship of the Church p. 11. which is passive and in plaine sense one fit to be admitted into the Church So the Epistolers p. 2. The key of knowledge hath opened their hearts that is I think preaching the key of knowledge and Faith which you describe here is common to all Beleevers even women but I beleeve you will not give them a key to open and shut heaven to others that is the key of preaching Then againe why doe you dislike the former distribution when you also make one key to be the key of knowledge and so leave one of the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven without power contra-distinguishing the key of Faith or knowledge for with you they are both one from the key of power which fals under your key of Order Lastly whereas you say a faithfull soule by this key entreth into a state of grace and into the fellowship of the Church c. You may remember that by the Kingdome of Heaven which is the Church on Earth you understand a particular Congregation But a man may have this key of Faith or knowledge and never enter into your particular Church and so this key is given to a man out of the Church and yet you say the keyes are given to the Church I leave you to consider it These things hang not well together In the next place you come to the key of Order of which you thus write The key of Order is the power whereby every member of the Church walketh orderly himselfe according to his place in the Church and helpeth his brethren to walke orderly also But this is a strange expression of the key of Order never heard of before too generally and aequivocally spoken For Order may be taken either morally or Ecclesiastically Passively or Actively Morally so it is taken passively for a conformity in carriage to the rules of the word in Doctrine as well as discipline But Ecclesiastically it is an Active power acting upon others The very name of a key imports a power intrusted for others good and not their owne properly Every one is to keep Order but every one hath not the key of Order Order and Office in this Ecclesiasticall sense are both one None hath the key of Order but one in Office But your key of Order is common to every member of the Church The Keyes p ge 21. And that it is no more than morall or passive Order your selfe doe seeme to grant when you say The brethren stand in an Order even in an orderly subjection according to the order of the Gospell Every servant in a Family and every man woman and childe in a corporation stand in such an order and must walke orderly themselves and help others to walke orderly also but will any man say therefore these have interest in the keyes of the Family or Corporation If every member of a Congregation have this key of Order how and why are women and children excepted or are they no members of the Church or may they walke disorderly The instance of Saint Pauls walking orderly according to the orders of the Iewish Church manifests the morall sense of the word For certainly the Fraternity of the Iewes had no power of the Keyes The meaning was that Saint Paul by his conformity to some Iewish Ceremonies should manifest that he did not absolutely oppose the Rites of the Iewish Church not that he had any power of the Keyes of the government of that Church Surely the Iewes were bound all of them to withdraw from every brother that walked disorderly yet did not beleeve that that was any part of the exercise of the key of Order No more was it in those of Thessalonica when they did warne the unruly or withdraw from him that walked disorderly And this Key of Order if a Key it were was common not only to Elders and Brethren as you say but even to women and children as I said afore Of Order you say there be 2. Keyes one of power or interest another of Authority or Rule The first of these is called in Scripture Liberty c. Before I examine the particulars I shall note some few things 1. How modest errour is at first Here it is first called power mollified by interest and then by liberty after by priviledge all which are rather passive than active but afterwards it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power which though it sometimes signifies a priviledge honour or dignity Iohn 1.12 in a passive construction as given and received yet when it relates to Government or a power of the Keyes
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
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
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