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
consent not Authority And so those times give no expresse lineaments of Congregationall discipline Shew us in any Antiquity of Scripture or story that the people had power without Officers to create or ordain Officers to impose hands upon them or to censure all their Officers or you say nothing to the present controversie 2. When you had said The Keys convey not Soveraign power but stewardly I inferred that this clearly excludeth the people for they have no stewardly or ministeriall power over themselves I might have added much lesse over their Officers You answer by a question As if the people were not Stewards of the grace of God given to them c. But truly Sir this is no better then a fine elusion To take Stewards in a larger sense then I intended it Stewards to me are Officers and can the people be Stewards over their Stewards Your self say pag. 28. It implieth a contradiction that the Church should be its own Officer for the very term of Officer implieth subordination So say I it implieth a contradiction that the Church should be its own Steward And again p. 30. We acknowledge say you that a company of professing believers destitute of Officers are not Stewards by office c. Then say I you answer equivocally taking the word in another sense then it is commonly taken in this controversie Let a man esteem of us as Stewards of the mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4.1 Did not the Apostle there mean it only of Officers Nor will the Apostle Peter help you out 1 Pet. 4.10 For either he takes Stewards in the strict sense for Officers with reference to the 11. verse Or in the large sense for any Dispensers of any kinde of gifts as the referring it to the 9. verse seems to carry it Now we take the word in one sense and you in another and so you answer nothing but misleade your Reader while you evade Yet you go on If they have received any gift of grace they are either Stewards of it or Lords Apply this to women yea to Infidels If they have received any gift or grace they are either Stewards of it or Lords Lords they are not what are they else Stewards they are your own words But we answer it is not any gift that we are speaking of but the gift of the Keys that 's your first evasion And then we say they are neither Stewards nor Lords in our sense of Stewards but members of the family in subordination to the Lords and Stewards having nothing to do with the Keys at all But say you Election of Officers is a publike gift and that must be dispensed publikely Grant Election of Officers to be a publike gift and yeeld it to the people yet say we it is no part of the gift of the Keys Lastly when you say the people are not as Lords to elect whom they list but as Stewards and Ministers to Christ c. either you make them Officers or you doe prevaricate all along his Paragraph and that I think you doe And the like you do in the word calling which I said should be taken of some speciall calling or Office which would exclude the people from having an office in the Church or any power of the Keys You say There is no reason for that if speciall denote a specification of a calling distinct from other members of the Church but if it only signifie a distinct state or order from such as are not members so it is true every member hath a speciall calling from such as are not yet received as members of a particular Church But Sir you cannot well understand it otherwise then I do when you speak of a speciall calling in such as to whom the Keyes are given with a power to open and shut the gates of heaven that is the Church For I suppose every member of the Church particular hath not such a speciall calling or such power of the Keys to open and shut the gates of heaven as women and children for example yet have they in your sense a speciall calling state or order in the Church as was more fully said in Vind. Clav. And surely in this controversie speciall calling and office have ever been taken for the same thing not for state or place or order at large Beleevers not yet members of a particular Church have a distinct calling in your sense from Infidels a state place order in the visible Catholike Church yea if they be men they have as good a state order c. in a particular Church as your women and children have in regard of any power of the Keys Yet you say Every member of a particular Church hath a calling to put forth some acts of power of his own Church which members of another Church have not there Had you not said His I would have asked what acts of power women may put forth in their particular Church yet certainly women may put forth some acts of power in their own Church or else their calling state place order is very mean and contemptible There is no member of the body naturall not the least but it hath in your notion a function action office in the body a power to put forth some acts in its own body which it cannot do in another body nor the members of another body in its body The question is not of some acts of power but some acts of power of the Keys which is an office power But say you still Every member of the body of a particular Church women and all say I hath some function and action or as the new Translation Office in the body Ro. 12.4 5. All the members have not the same office which implieth they all of them have some office though not the same Truly Sir this is but a prevarication Fos 1. By body there is not meant a particular Church but the whole Church We being many are one body in Christ and every one members one of another Paul puts in himself and he was no member of the Church of Rome in your sense 2. When they render the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 office they either mean it largely and not for a speciall office as we take it or strictly and then it relates to the Officers of the Church only as the following verses may seem to insinuate whether Prophecy or Ministry c. where your self and others do finde all the Officers of the Church and so taken it is nothing to your purpose but rather against you When I said you added that explication whether it be their office or place and order in the Church to steal in the interest of the people in some share of the Keys you answer It is not stealth but justice to give to every man his own the Psalmist foretold it in a new song Psa 159.9 Such honour have all his Saints c. But you must first prove it their own and that that Text is so to be understood
or else it is as well sacrilege or stealth taking it from the right owners if the Lord hath not given them this honour as it is to deny it or take it from them if the Lord hath given it to them Lastly and so you will have done with me you conclude It is not every place or order in the Church that giveth power to receive the Ordinances much lesse power themselves to to dispense Ordinances as children and women c. This is very true yet you asserted before Every member of a particular Church hath a calling to put forth some Acts of power in his own Church c. Then say I women and children for they are members too yea we think except but that of speaking in the Church 1 Cor. 14.34 1 Tim. 2.11 12. expresly forbidden and we do not finde any one thing granted by Christ in respect of the power of the Keys to men the common members of the Church that women may not be allowed to act as I often told you in Vind. Clav. 1. Women widows at least who contribute maintenance may have some power in choosing that is in your sense ordaining Officers 2. To propound just exceptions against such as offer themselves to be admitted 3. To admonish in case of private scandall 4. To judge with a judgement of discretion you sometimes allow the brethren no more Keyes pag. â—4 They may tell the Church they may consent and concurre with the Elders at least passively 5. To withdraw from one excommunicate c. as was suggested to you elsewhere And now before I conclude I shall set before you an observation of your inconstancy in assigning the first subject of the power of the Keys The Keys were given 1. To Peter as an Apostle as an Elder and as a beleever 2. To Peter not as an Apostle not as an Elder but as a believer and consequently to all believers 3. Not to believers as believers but as making publike confession of their faith before the Lord and their brethren The way cleared part 2. pag. 39. and publike profession of their obedience of the faith to the Lord Jesus in the publike Ordinances of his worship pag. 40. 4. Not to believers as believers but as believers covenanting and fitly capable according to Christs appointment M. Hooker Surv. par 1. pag. 203. Or as you here it is not every place or order in the Church that giveth power to receive or dispense Ordinances as not that place or order of children and women c. Whereas when first you began you asserted The Keys were given to Peter as a beleever and so by your own argument a quatenus tale to all beleevers as beleevers you are forced to make severall distinctions to help it out That position that needs so many distinctions gives strong suspition it is not the truth And now I shall conclude this second Section with your own words Let every soul enjoy such priviledges and liberties as the Lord hath given him or her in their place and order and neither effect nor attempt more Happy had it been for the Church of God if this had been done The Keys p. 6. I shall but minde you of what I suggested to you in Vind. Clav. pag. 13. in your own words I pray you seriously consider Whether by this sacrilegious breach of order investing the people with a Key of power even above those Elders that labour in the word and doctrine to open and shut the doors against them p. 9. of Keys which is the breaking of the files and ranks in an Army Satan is not like again to rout and ruine a great part of the liberty and power of Church-Officers and the purity of the Churches and of all the Ordinances of Christ in them SECT III. I now expected you should have gone on with Vind. Clav. and have vindicated your book and self from those other many wickednesses and contradictions charged I still think justly upon you But you fairly if you doe not rather in way of Revenge shake hands with me or rather slightly shake me off and never meet again And this is the more remarkable because you promise at least three times with attestation of the name of God twice at least pag. 15. and pag. 16. and again pag. 19 a further consideration of them In the first place thus when Vindex takes in hand to evade the Scriptures alledged I shall return him God willing further answer In the second place thus again What reason there is for their the Brethrens power in Church-censures we shall further consider God willing in its place To which places you never come near Is not this to take Gods Name in vain And new in the third Section you promise though you undertake those two Reverend Antagonists M. B. and M. Ruth Yet by the way not to neglect what personal exceptions Vindex hath taken at your self But reading over the following discourse I finde not that you do so much as take any notice of me or your threefold engagement but as if Vindex were some contemptible person that deserved to be slighted as his best answer you neglect all his I shall only say Et si ego dignus hac contumelia vel maximè At tu indignus qui faceres tamen Who both are charged with so many contradictions which for your own honour it concerned you to answer and also have charged your self three times to give a further answer Besides this there were seven Chapters in Vind. Clav. wherein you were not a little concerned to give if not me the world satisfaction and you are pleased to answer if you have answered but to one and but to two Sections of three in that chapter which is a slighting and contempt of an adversary not usually heard of And now I leave it to the Judicious Reader to resolve who deserves best Adversarius litis non personae and most justly the name and title of Vindex or Avenger Yet you give some reason of this slighting and neglect for so you say I conceive it losse of time and labour to argue the question with Vindex alone whose exceptions so far as they concern the point in controversie are but collections out of the writings of others who have more distinctly and elaborately disputed the cause I pray Sir why do you conceive it losse of time and labour to argue this Question with me Do you mean your answers would be so unsatisfying as the former now will appear to be as that the time and labour would be ill spent Your Reader will think so if you answer no better to that remaining then to what is gone before And why do you say this Question as if there were no more betwixt us then this But I most of all admire why you should say my excâ—ptions are but collections out of the writings of others I beleeve the Reader will finde my exceptions are Collections of contradictions out of your own writings more then out
of others And I can sincerely professe I consulted with none or very few books of this controversie but comparing your books one with another my own reason and judgement suggested to me those contradictions in them that left me altogether unsatisfied in your way and at this day I am left so still if not more confirmed that the Independent way is not the way of God that is so inconsistent with the Scriptures and with it self That others have more elaborately disputed this cause I shall easily yeeld but I think I may truly say without vanity none have more distinctly discovered the weaknesses of your proofs and your contradictions to your selves in holding out your Way then I have done Nor am I at all troubled that you chuse rather to consider what hath been written by Learned and Reverend M. Rutherford and M. Baily though you sere M. Baily as you doe me never name him more in all your following discourse had you but made good your promises to consider also what I had said to vindicate your self from your contradictions and to clear the truth in question But seeing you are pleased so to neglect me I hope you will not be troubled if I conceive it losse of time and labour to follow you any further and consider what Learned and Reverend M. Hooker hath elaborately written in this controversie Only give me leave to present you with a Scheme of your remaining contradictions or contrarieties at least noted in Vind. Clav. out of your own books and then leave you to your choise whether you will reconcile them or confesse them A Scheme of Contradictions and Contrarieties in the Independent way 1. THe Keys were given to Peter as an Apostle as an Elder and as a beleever So the sense most fill The Keys pag. 4. It appears that Christ gave the Keys to the fraternity with the Presbytery Ib. See also the Way cleared par 2. pag. 22. 1. The power of the Keys is given to Peter not as an Apostle nor as as Elder but as a profest believer The way pag. 27. 1. Peter received no◠the Keys meerly as a beleever but as a beleeve publikely professing hi◠faith c. The Way cleared par 2. f. 39. Not beleevers as beleevers but as beleevers covenanting and fitly capable according to Christ appointment M. Hooker Surv. par 1. p. 203. 2. The Keys are given to the Church of beleevers The Way p. 1. that is a combination of faithful men as M. Hooker 2. The Key of knowledge belongeth to all the faithfull whether joyned to any particular Church or no. The Keys pag. 11. 2. The Key of Knowledge is given not only to the Church but to some before they ente◠into the Church Th◠Keyes p. 11. 3. The Key of order is common to all the members of the Church Keys p. 8. Then say we to women and children 3. It is not every place or order in the Church that giveth power to receive Ordinances much lesse to dispense them as children and women Way cleared par 2. pag. 19.  4. Ordination is a work of Rule The way p. 49. Ordination and jurisdiction both acts of Rule pertain indifferently to all the Presbysers Ib. 49. 4. As for election and Ordination of Officers c. these things they the brethren may doe if need be without Officers The way p. 45. 101. 4. Ordination is not an Act of supream jurisdidiction but of order rather in H. Survey part 2.75 5. The Key of authority or Rule is committed to the Elders of the Church and so the Act of Rule is the proper Act of their Office The Keys p. 20. The people discerning and approving the justice of the censure give consent and obedience to the Will and Rule of Christ The Keys pag. 15. 37. 41. The brethren stand in an order even an orderly subjection according to the order of the Gospel p. 11. 5. In case the Officers do erre and commit offence they shall be governed by the whole body of the brethren The Way pag. 100. The Church exerciseth severall acts of authority over the Elders The way p. 101. The people have some stock of power and Authority in government of the Church the Keys pag. 36. They rule the Church by appointing their own Officers Ib. p. 16.  6. Excommunication is one of the highest Acts of Rule and therefore cannot be performed but by some Rulers the Keys p. 16. The Church cannot excommunicate the whole presbytery because they have not received from Christ an office of Rule without their Officers Ibid. No act of the peoples power doth properly binde unlesse the authority of the Presbytery joyn with it Ibid. 36. 6. If all their Officers were sound culpable either in hereticall doctrine or scandalous crime the Church hath lawful Authority to proceed to censure of them all The Way p. 45. In case of offence given by an Elder or whole Eldership together the Church hath authority to require satisfaction and if they give it not to proceed to censure Ibid. p. 101. 6. Excommunication is not an act of power of office but of judgement nor an act of highest rule but of supream judgement seated in the fraternity Survey par 3. p. 45. As a Church of brethren cannot proceed to any publike censures without Elders so nor the Elders without concurrence of the people c. Pref. to the Keys pag. 4. 7. It was a sacrilegious breach of order that Commissaries and Chancellors wanting the key of Order no Ministers have been invested with jurisdiction yea and more then ministerial authority above those Elders who labour in the word and doctrine The Keys p 6. 7. There is a Key of power given to the Church with the Elders as to open a door of entrance to the Ministers calling so to shut the door of entrance against them in some cases c. The Keys pag. 9. yea to censure all their Elders without Elders the way p. 45. c. as afore  8. We are far from allowing that sacrilegious usurpation of the Ministers office practised in some places that private Christians ordinarily take upon them to preach the Gospel publikely The Keys pag. 6. 8. This is ordinarily practised in old England and allowed by the Independent brethren Yea they being but in the notion of gifted brethren no Ministers to other Congregations do it ordinarily themselves  9. A particular Church of Saints professing the faith that is members without Officers is the first subject of all the Church Offices with all their spirituall gifts and power The Keys p. 31. 9. As the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven be divers so are the subjects to whom they are committed divers The Keys p. 11. The Apostle were the first subject of Apostolical power Ib. p. 32. A Synod is the first subject of that power whereby error is convinced and condemned c. ib. p. 47. 9. The power of the Keys belongs firstly to a Congregation of Covenanting beleevers Surv.
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