Vindiciae Vindiciarum, Chapter 1

Vindiciae Vindiciarum · Chapter 1

VINDICIAE VINDICIARƲM, OR A further manifeſtation of M. J. C. his contradictions, inſtanced in Vindiciae Clavium, BEING A Rejoinder to his Reply (to ſome few of thoſe many Contradictions) in his laſt Book, called, The Way of Congregationall Churches Cleared, Part. 2.

By D. C.

JAMES 1.8.

A double minded man is unſtable in all his waies.

Veritas ſimplex, error multiplex.

LONDON, Printed by A. M. for Chriſtopher Meredith at the Sign of the Crane in Pauls-Church-yard, 1651.

p. 1VINDICIAE VINDICIARƲM. CHAPTER I.

SECTION I. Of the Church to which Chriſt committed the power of the Keys.

THe Queſtion between us in this firſt Section, was concerning the meaning of thoſe words, The Kingdom of heaven, in Mat. 16.19. and conſequently, What Church it was to which the Keys were by Chriſt committed. For the finding out whereof I proceeded by a diſtinction, It the Kingdom of heaven did there ſignifie the Church; it muſt either be taken 1. Of the Inviſible Church of true believers, oppoſed to Reprobates. 2. The Catholike viſible Church oppoſed to Heathens; or (as you in anſwering the firſt queſtion pag. 2. of Keys) to the World. 3. Or a particular Congregation. Give me leave I pray to be now little more exact in ſtating the queſtion, by enquiring what is the ſenſe of thoſe words, and the terms of the queſtion.1. What is meant by the Kingdom of Heaven. 1. Of glory. 2. Of grace. 3. Of both.

1. What is meant by the Kingdom of heaven, whereof the Keys are here given to Peter. The Kingdom of heaven in Scripture uſage, ſignifies, either 1. The Kingdom of glory (as frequently) or 2. The Kingdom of grace, as in ſome places, grace being p. 2the beginning of or firſt ſtep into that Kingdom of glory, Or 3. It ſignifies both the Kingdom of grace and glory. And we are both agreed, that in this text it ſignifies both: My firſt words in Vind. Clav. grant it, and you affirm it; [By the Kingdom of heaven here, is meant, both the Kingdom of grace, which is the Church, and the Kingdom of glory which is in the higheſt heavens.] And you give a very good reaſon for it; [For (ſay you) Chriſt giving to Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven, conveyeth therewith not only this power to binde on earth (that is, in the Church on earth, for he gave him no power at all to binde in the world; the Kingdom of Chriſt is not of this world) but he gives him alſo this priviledge, That what he bound on earth ſhould be bound in heaven: And heaven being diſtinguiſhed from the Church on earth, muſt needs be meant of the kingdom of glory.] Let this be remembred againſt anon.

2. What that Church is to whom the Keys are committed.2. The Kingdom of heaven, ſignifying the Church (and that both in heaven and earth (both triumphant and militant) for what he cals in the 19. verſe The Kingdom of heaven, he cals in the 18, verſe, his Church.) We muſt enquire what Church, or what part of his Church it is to which the Keys are given: This Queſtion (I confeſſe) is needleſſe, in reſpect to the Text it ſelf; For it ſayes nothing at all of giving the Keys to the Church, but of giving to Peter the Keys of the Church, called by the name of the Kingdom of heaven, which is worth your obſervation. For it is your importunity rather that hath cauſed this queſtion, who have arrogated the Keys out of the hands of Peter, to whom Chriſt in this text gave them, and given them to the Church, that is (incongruouſly) to the Kingdom of heaven: but of his more anon: We ſhall therefore follow you (rather then the Text) and conſider, what is meant here by the Church: Church is taken Eccleſiaſtically for, 1. The whole Church, either 1. The inviſible Catholike Church.It is taken in the Eccleſiaſticall uſe (for I paſſe by the civill) in many ſenſes: briefly thus.

1. For the whole Church, called commonly by the name of the Catholike Church, and that in a double notion:

1. The Inviſible Catholike Church, the whole number of the Elect, in heaven and earth, in all places and times: ſo it is commonly underſtood, Eph. 5.23, 25, 26, 27, 32. Col. 1.18. &c.

p. 32.2. The viſible Catholike Church. The Catholike viſible Church containing the whole multitude of profeſſors of Religion, elect or hypocrites, in this world, as oppoſed to the Church of the Jews, or to the men of the world: So it is taken Act. 5.11. and 8.3. at leaſt as contra-diſtinguiſhed to a particular Congregation.

2.2. For ſome parts of the Church in combination, 1. A particular Congregation, and that a Church 1. Politicall. For ſome parts of the Church, to whom is attributed the name of the whole, from their Aſſembling together in different combinations: And then it is taken,

1. For a particular Congregation, or particular Saints, aſſembled together; and this again is by ſome diſtinguiſhed into

1. Politicall or Organicall, conſiſting of Officers and Members, as the Integrall parts thereof; and thoſe Congregations being members of the Catholike viſible Church, as Integrall parts thereof. The texts are obvious where it is ſo taken.

2. Entitive 2. Entitive.(as they call it) or Eſſentiall, conſiſting only of a company of Saints combined by conſent, without any Officers: So the Reverend M. Hooker and others uſe to ſpeak. But (that I may note it by the way) to me, This Entitive Church (ſo called) ſeems rather to be a notion, never exiſting, but in mens fancy, in the Reſolution or Analyſis of a Church into its materials, or elſe it is very improperly called a Church: To my obſervation and underſtanding hitherto, there is not in Scripture ſuch an Entitive Church to be found, gathered, and exiſting without any Officers. That place Act. 15.4.22. produced by the learned and judicious M. Hudſon, in his vind. pag. 3. where he ſaies [Church is taken for the members as diſtinct from Officers, ] doth not hold out a Church Entitive, without any Officers (for that had Officers) but only diſtinguiſheth the Integrall parts of that Church, into Officers and members: The ſenſe is no more but this, either it means, The Apoſtles and Elders, with the reſt of the Church members; or (if the Church was then diſtinguiſhed into divers Congregations) it takes in all the Congregations as the whole Church: for ſo the words are expreſſed verſ. 22. the whole Church: And your ſelf call that which we call the Catholike viſible Church, by the name of the whole Church; when you ſay here pag. 5. [The whole Church (or which is all one, the Catholike Church) may be viſible in her ſingular members] However it appears not, that then p. 4there was any Entitive Church, exiſting without Officers. That other Text, Act. 14.23. ſeems rather to imply it [And when they had ordained them Elders in every Church ] as if there had been Churches gathered and exiſting without any Officers. But the ſenſe of the place may be this, when they had gathered and ſetled Churches, of Elders and members, both at once; So ſoon as there were members enough to make a Church, they ordained them Elders, and made them a politicall Church: If not ſo, yet the Apoſtles Paul and Barnabas, were Officers to them, before; Catholick Officers to them as yet members only of the Catholick Church; and now they being to depart ordained them Elders in their ſtead, and made them particular politicall Churches. If thoſe members were not confederate by conſent (whereof the Scripture ſaies nothing) they themſelves ſay, they were not a Church, but only Materials of a Church, and ſo members of the Catholike Church only, or of none. I ſhall ſay ſomething more to this in another place; I preſcribe not to any mans judgement, but ſubmit it to conſideration, and proceed.

2. The Officers of the Church.2. As a Congregation is called a Church, as afore; ſo ſometimes the Officers not only diſtinguiſhed, but as ſeparated into a Court, are called the Church: Our Saviour alluding to that cuſtome amongſt the Jews; and not relating to a Congregationall Church not yet known, nor yet in being: And now the queſtion returns upon us, To what Church of all theſe, the keys were committed. Some ſay one thing, ſome another: you ſay, to the particular Congregation, which we ſhall conſider, when we have added that,

3. How the Keys are given to the Church, whether3. It is to be conſidered in this queſtion, when the Keys are ſaid to be given to the Church (which is never ſaid expreſly in Scripture) how they are underſtood to be given to the Church. Whether 1. Objectivè, 1. Objectivè.that the Church is the object of the exerciſe of the Keys, that is, they are given for the good and benefit of the Church: Or 2. Subjectivè, 2. Subjectivè.that the Church is the Subject Recipient, to imploy and exerciſe the Keys: and this, either immediatly by her ſelf, in whole, or in part, without Officers: or mediatly by her Officers: that is, whether the Church be the next and firſt ſubject of the Keys, to convey them, or any part of them to her Officers; Or that ſhe is ſaid to be p. 5the remote ſubject, as including the Officers, to whom primarily and immediatly Chriſt hath committed the Keys for the good of the Church; as ſight is immediatly intruſted with the eyes, for the good and benefit of the whole body. And if it ſhould happen that any power of the Keys ſhould appear to be given to the Church as diſtinct from her Officers; whether it belong firſt to the Catholike viſible Church, or to a particular Congregation. The Queſtion then is clearly this [Whether the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven be given ſubjectivè to the Church-Catholike in her Officers, on the particular Congregation without (or with) her Officers.]

And now we ſhall conſider what you reſolve, upon this queſtion; Thus you aſſert. [The Church to which the Lord Jeſus committed the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven, Matth. 16.29. is caetus Fidelium, commonly called a particular viſible Church, &c. To which I anſwered (not as an Avenger, there is not the leaſt colour of that, but as an Aſſertor, giving alſo my reaſons) Of all the reſt, this is the moſt improbable ſenſe of our Saviours words, if by the Kingdom of Heaven, on earth, he meaneth that Church of which he ſpake in verſ. 18. But that was either the Catholike viſible Church; or rather the Inviſible myſticall Church, &c. That one, or both of theſe (for by my word rather, I do not exclude the other) is meant, and that primarily, is to me ſtill moſt probable; upon theſe reaſons.

1. This being the firſt time, that the Church (my Church, the evangelical Church is named, it is not probable, that our Saviour, would intend it onelyonly of a particular Congregation, but of the Catholike Church; for that is primarily Chriſts Church, and that is properly built upon the rock; and againſt that the gates of hell ſhall never prevail; whereas, (as I ſay afterwards) particular Churches may fail, and have failed. There is farre more colour for a particular Church to be meant. Matth. 18.17. Tell the Church: becauſe excommunication is executed in a particular Church firſt, and conſequently in the Catholike Church: but there is not any ſhadow for it in the text in hand. Did Chriſt mean, I will build my Church, that is, a particular Church onelyonly, upon this rock, and not rather the Catholike Church, and the particular ſecondarily, as a member thereof? It may be a p. 6queſtion between the Inviſible, and Viſible Catholike Church, which is meant there, (as after,) but none, till of late, ſo much as made the queſtion, betwixt the Catholike and particular Church.

2. Peter, was an Apoſtle, and had given to him the Keyes of the Catholike Church, not of any particular Church; for he (and ſo his fellow-Apoſtles) were never Pastors of any particular Church: therefore, it ſeems more reaſonable, that the Catholike Church is there meant. They had habitually the Keyes of particular Churches, in the Catholike; as Paſtors have habitually the Keyes of the Catholike Church, in a particular: They were actually Elders of the whole Church; as Paſtors are actually Elders of a particular Church.

3. The Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven, that is, the Church, are given to Peter, as diſtinguiſhed from the Church, therefore they are not there given to the Church. As if a Lord ſhould ſay to him whom he conſtitutes his Steward, I give to thee the Keyes of the Family, to open and ſhut the doors of the Houſe; could the ſervants, or children, or any for them, conclude from this grant, the Keyes were given to the Family? was Peter the Church to whom the Keyes of the Church were given? And therefore, as diſtruſting this ſenſe of this Scripture, you ſay, (as you had ſaid of the other Apoſtles and Elders) [The Church or Congregation of profeſſed believers received that portion alſo of Church-power,The Keys pag. 5. which belonged unto them, if not there, (that is, in this text in hand) yet elſewhere.] Not here for certain; whether elſewhere or no, ſhall be tried hereafter. It is not a reaſonable conſtruction of this text, to ſay, I give to thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven, that is, of the Church: and to mean, I give to the Church, the Keyes of the Church. I ſaid therefore, (and I think truly,) that of all the reſt this is the moſt improbable ſenſe of our Saviours words; that it is a particular Church, to which the Keyes were given, Matth. 26.19. It muſt then be taken of the Catholike Church, either Inviſible, or Viſible, or none.

But you are pleaſed to take away the ſubject of this queſtion, denying any Catholike viſible Church: [For (ſay you) I do not read, that the Scripture any where, acknowledges a Catholike p. 7viſible Church at all.] It is ſuppoſed by very Judicious Divines, that you may read of it often in Scripture, and in this place for one. It cannot be denied, but the Church, is often put for the whole multitude of beleevers, whether in truth, or in ſhew only: Acts 8.3. Saul made havock of the Church: and Acts 12.1. &c. It was not any particular Church, but any of any Churches, any of that way, Acts 9.2. which muſt needs ſignifie the Church indefinetely as oppoſed to the world, not any particular Church: Nor was it the Catholike Inviſible Church that they perſecuted, as ſuch; for they could not know them to be ſuch: Therefore it muſt be the Catholike Viſible Church. Beſides, your ſelf unawares confeſſe it, in the following words; [Though the whole Church, (or which is all one, the Catholike Church) may be viſible, in her ſingular members, &c.] Is not this to confeſſe a Catholike viſible Church? But (ſay you) [So they are not a Church: or though it may be viſible in the ſeverall particular Congregations, yet none of them is Catholike.] I hope you do not imagine, that any is ſo ſimple, to think that the whole Church can be ſeen at once; D. A. ſaid well, Eccleſia non eſt tota ſimul viſibilis: The Church (he means the Catholike Church) is not all viſible at once or at one view: then it were more then viſibilis, even viſa: not viſible ſo much as ſeen; I know you obſerve the difference: :But if the whole Church be viſible in her members, whether in the particular perſons, or particular Congregations, is not the whole viſible, though not viſa, ſeen at once? No more is the whole world viſible, but in its parts, yet the world is viſible: No more is a Congregation of many perſons viſible, that is, ſeen at once; yet you will not ſay but the whole is viſible. True, but then none of thoſe particular Congregations are Catholike. [The Catholike Church, is not viſible as a Church, and the Church that is viſible, is not Catholike.] But 1. If there be a Catholike Church, (which you ſuppoſe here in theſe words.) 2. If that Church be viſible in its parts, the ſingular members, which you alſo grant. 3. If the particular Congregations, as parts, be alſo viſible, as Churches. 4. If the whole Church be made up of choſe particular Churches which are viſible: muſt not the whole, or (which is all one) the Catholike Church be viſible? and then the whole Church that p. 8is 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 p. 9conviction 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: The Church before Chriſts coming was built upon the ſame foundation, with this difference, They profeſſed p. 10the 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.

p. 11But 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. S…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 onelyonly, 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 p. 12himſelf, 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.…. 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. OnelyOnly 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 onelyonly, is built upon the rock, and againſt that the gates of hell ſhall never prevail. But if you underſtand the Rock, to be that confeſſion of Peter, or rather Chriſt, ſo confeſſed, as he was by Peter; and the building on that foundation, for an external profeſſion, or (in your words) in an outward form: Then I ſay, the viſible Church is ſo founded upon the rock: But then I adde, that it muſt not be reſtrained to a particular Church (againſt which the gates of hell have prevailed, which contradicts our Saviours promiſe) but declared to the Catholike viſible Church (exiſting in the particulars, as M. Hooker ſaid) againſt which the gates of hell (what ever they be) ſhall never prevail. And now I conſider what you ſay, [It is not true, &c. for particular Churches are built upon a rock alſo:] But then Sir, I pray, how will you (without a diſtinction) anſwer the Text, which ſayes, the gates of hell ſhall never prevail againſt that Church which is built on the rock? You ſay [Built they are upon divine inſtitution, &c.] But I ſuppoſe you do but elude and not anſwer here: Is it all one to be built upon p. 13the rock, and upon divine inſtitution? Then particular Churches ſhould not fail: for thoſe that are built upon a rock ſhall never fail: Particular Churches are built upon a rock alſo; True, ſo far as they are true beleevers: Others of them are expreſly ſaid to be built upon the ſand; yet are they built upon Chriſts inſtitution: Suppoſe a particular Church, conſiſting of all hypocrites, (it's poſſible to be ſo) having all externall Ordinances; will you ſay, thoſe are built upon the rock Chriſt? or will you ſay, they are no Churches of Chriſt, becauſe they are not built upon Chriſt as a rock or foundation? Neither of theſe can you ſay, not the latter, for they are built upon the Inſtitution of Chriſt not the former, for hypocrites have not Chriſt for their foundation, but are built upon the ſand. Hear your own words, pag. 40. [If the profeſſion of the doctrine of faith be true, though the grace of faith in the profeſſour be uncertain, and may be hypocriticall, and ſo falſe, yet we dare not deny the nature and power of a Church to ſuch.] But ſay I again, ſuch are not founded upon the rock Chriſt, though they be upon his Institution: Therefore Inſtitution and rock, are not both one. But you confute your ſelf, when you ſay [Chriſt is not the head of that Church, whereof he is not the foundation, and where he is the foundation, he is alſo the rock:] Now (ſay I) Chriſt is not the head of hypocrites, therefore not the foundation, nor the rock for (as you adde) Chriſt is not a ſandy foundation: yet are they built upon the Inſtitution of Chriſt; and may and do fail, which they could not if they were built upon Chriſt a rock: But ſay you [What then? ſo may the true diſciples of Chriſt fail (in reſpect of bodily ſubſiſtence) and yet the gates of hell never prevail againſt them,] Did Chriſt mean in regard of bodily ſubſiſtence, that the gates of hell ſhould not prevail againſt the Church? Do not ſome particular Churches fail in regard of the truth it ſelf, and the gates of hell prevail againſt the ſouls of all their members? yet Chriſt ſayes, they ſhall not prevail againſt the Church built upon the rock. Or rather did he not mean it of the Catholike viſible Church, in this ſenſe; that he will ever have a Church in one place or other? yes, ſay you [God may remove the Candleſtick, that is, his particular Church, yet he will have ever ſome or other particular p. 14Churches viſible, in one place or other.] That is, ſay I, God will have ever a Catholike viſible Church, exiſting in the particulars: and ſo (ſayes M. Hooker) viſible Church doth nor fail. Yet you go on to ſay, [Thoſe Churches that were founded upon Chriſt, and built upon that rock, neither failed nor fell away.] But (I aſſume) thoſe Churches that were founded upon his Inſtitution, fell away and failed, therefore they were not built upon the rock. You adde again [If the poſterity of a holy Church do degenerate, they were never founded upon Chriſt, but in an outward form] True, ſay I, yet they as well as their predeceſſors were built upon Chriſts Inſtitution. Therefore to be built upon divine Inſtitution meerly, is not the ſame, as to be built on a rock: And ſo you have eluded, not anſwered the argument.

I have but one thing more to ſay to your Teſtimonies from M^r. Whit. Junius, and D. Ames: You ſay, [They diſpute Catholike viſible Church, but maintain the Catholike Church to be inviſible] But 1. The Church Catholike of I which thoſe Divines ſpeak, againſt Papiſts, is not the ſame with ours in this Diſpute: They intend it of the Church of the Elect, of all ages and times, which is the Catholike Church mentioned in the Creed, as the object of our faith, not of our ſenſe: but we take it in the ſecond ſenſe delivered in the beginning, for the whole multitude of beleevers, or profeſſours of the Goſpel in all places of the world at once; And the parts of this Church whether particular members or particular Congregations being viſible, the whole (or which is all one, the Catholike Church) muſt needs be viſible.D. Ameſ. Med. lib. 1. cap. 31. ſect. 7. cap. 32. ſect. 1. And D. Ames by name, having defined this Church to be Caetus hominum vocatorum, fidelium, vel caetus eorum qui ſunt in Chriſto, &c, Of this ſame Church (which cannot be only the particular Church, he ſaies, it is viſibilis in ſuis partibus: and in the former chapter, Sect. laſt, Eccleſia nunquam planè deſinit eſſe viſibilis: The Church Catholike (of that he ſpake) never wholly ceaſeth to be viſible. 2. The Catholike Church which they diſpute againſt, is in the Romiſh ſenſe, a Catholike Romane Church, animated by the Pope as an head, and by Catholike Officers actually, in a ſubordination, as a Politicall body: But this we deny as well p. 15as they. We take it only for the whole multitude of beleevers, diſtinguiſhed into ſeverall Congregations, which all make up one body, whereof Chriſt alone is the Head. Survey part. 1. pag. 15, 16. O… which Chriſt is an Head by political government.We ſhall take it in M. Hookers words, [The Church is the viſible kingdom of Chriſt, in which he reigns by the Scepter of his Word and Ordinances, and execution of diſcipline,] which viſible kingdom of Chriſt, is the whole Church, or (which is all one) the Catholike Church, viſible in her members.

And now I come to my ſecond Reaſon, or (as you call it) Obj. 2 Objection, The kingdom of glory (one part of the meaning of the Kingdom of heaven, Mat. 16.19.) is not contra-diſtinguiſhed to a particular Congregation, but to the generall viſible Church on earth. You anſwer 1. [There is not any particular Church on earth, but may be, upon juſt occaſion contra-ditinguiſhed from the kingdom of glory] It may be ſo, but very improperly, and with reſpect to the whole Church on earth: But what's this to the Text or Objection? The queſtion is not, what may be elſewhere, but what is the meaning in this Text: It ſaies not, whatever thou ſhalt binde in a particular Congregation, but in earth, that is, the viſible Church on earth, as contra-diſtinguiſhed to the world here,See the Keys pag. 2. ſ. 1. and the kingdom of glory above: And beſides, he that is bound in any particular Church, is bound in all the Churches on earth; and ſo the diſtinction of heaven and earth reſpects the whole Church, rather then any particular Church. 2. And this your ſecond Anſwer implies, [You did not, mean it in any one ſingle Congregation on earth, but generally and indefinitely in every particular Church on earth; for every Apoſtle had tranſcendent power in every particular Church on earth.] But 1. why may you not ſay as well ["generally in the whole Catholike Church on earth.] ſeeing Peter received power to binde and looſe, in the whole Church primarily (being an Apoſtle) and ſecondarily in particular Congregations? 2. If Peter as an Apoſtle received ſuch power in the whole Church, what is that to Elders and Beleevers; to challenge power of the Keys from this Text, in all particular Congregations? Sure, they have not tranſcendent power indefinitely, much leſſe generally, in every particular Church on earth. 3. How did Peter receive the Keys in every particular p. 16Church indefinitely? As an Apoſtle, or as an Elder, or as a beleever? Not as an Apoſtle or Elder; that you denied in the way? Not as a Beleever, for if they have any power in the Keys, it is in the particular Congregation. Whence I conclude, by Kingdom of heaven there, is not meant a particular, but the Catholike viſible Church, as contra-diſtinguiſhed to the Kingdome of glory.

Obj. 3, That Church is meant (ſaid I) whereof Peter was one, but Peter was not a member of a particular Congregation; for there was none ſuch then extant. You are pleaſed to jeer me with your Logick; and tell me [there is a fallacy in ſuch arguing, to be left to Sophiſters, or uſed, when I will refreſh my wit with young ſcholars:] But I pray Sir, where lies the fallacy? The major is your own, the minor cannot be denied; Peter was not a member of a particular Congregation. The proof of this laſt Propoſition is, becauſe there was none extant at that time: This is alſo true, and partly confeſſed by your ſelf, where then lies the fallacy? [The Copula doth connotate; Time, which it ought not to do, &c.] You inſtance in a Sophiſm; fit indeed for young ſcholars: But nothing parallel to my arguing: And your other Argument from reſurrection is far wide: you ſay [The Propoſition is true, becauſe the ſubject and praedicate have true connexion in the nature of the thing though not in the preſent order of time.] But ſo it is not in my arguing; For Peter was not at any time a member of a particular Congregation, neither then nor afterwards: There was then no fallacy or ſophiſm in my arguing; The weakneſſe was in the proof; For whereas I ſaid, Peter was not a member of a particular Congregation, becauſe there was none extant at that time; I ſhould have ſaid, Peter, being an Apoſtle, was never a member of a particular Congregation; Therefore the Church there mean could not be a particular Congregation

Obj. 4 I ſaid Fourthly, That Church whereof Peter received the Keys, was ſuch, whereto an offended brother might tell an offence, and have it cenſured; but that was never done in a Church of Saints, without Officers, &c. [This (ſay you) is another paſſage of Sophiſtry: Here are quatuor termini in this p. 17Syllogiſm: might tell an offence, and did tell an offence, make two different Mediums.] Make you the Syllogiſm right as you would have it; you make the minor thus, [But the Church of Saints without Officers was not ſuch, to whom an offended brother might tell an offence, and have it cenſured.] And this you deny. But I ſhall prove it thus. 1. From the judgement of your brethren here, who ſay, [The brethren cannot proceed to any publike cenſures without Officers:] Therefore it is to no purpoſe to tell an offence to a Church of beleevers without Officers. 2. From your ſelf, who expreſly ſay: [Excommunication is one of the higheſt Acts of Rule, and therefore cannot be performed, but by ſome Rulers:The Keys pag. 16.] though I confeſſe, you flatly contradict your ſelf in the way, pag. 101. And now my Syllogiſm may eaſily be defended and cleared from a Sophiſm, by adding the minor more explicitly, thus, [But a Church of Saints without Officers, is not ſuch a Church:] This is proved by what I ſay, That was never done in a Church of Saints, without Officers; that is, no example can be brought from Scripture or Hiſtory, of ſuch a practice, where a Church of Saints without Officers did cenſure an offence; Therefore the Church of Corinth (which you inſtance in) was not ſuch a Church, for it had Officers, who (as I ſaid) might authoritatively cenſure offenders. [What of that? (ſay you) if a Church of Saints without Officers, have power from Chriſt to elect Officers, then alſo to admit members; And if to admit without Officers, then to exclude them without Officers:] Surely, whatever mine was, this is a fallacy and a Sophiſm, called petitio principij: For you know, we deny, that a Church of Saints without Officers, have power to elect, that is, ordain and make Officers, and you ought not to beg it. And what mean you by power to admit members? Admiſſion of members is either at their firſt converſion, which is done by baptiſm, and ſo your ſelf ſay, None but Officers can admit, for none but Officers can baptize; or it is at the removall of a member from one Church to another, to admit into the communion of another Church; but this, either is no part of the power of the Keys, or if it be, it belongs to a Church with Officers. Nay, your argument will recoil upon your ſelf, It is the ſame p. 18power to open and ſhut, to admit and exclude; But a Church of Saints without Officers cannot exclude or ſhut out, therefore nor can they admit or open. The minor is your own a little above, and your brethrens alſo: [Excommunication being an Act of Rule, cannot be performed but by ſome Rulers.]

And here I deſire you to take notice, That a great g…ound of your miſtakes, lies in the miſapplication or attribution of the power of the Keys to the brethren, to elect, that is, to make and ordain their own Officers; making election the principall, and ordination but a circumſtance or ſolemnity, not neceſſary by the Inſtitution of Chriſt, to belong to the Officers. Indeed, it ſeems to follow rationally, They that may ordain their own Officers, may de-ordain them, or caſt them out; for it is the ſame power instituere & deſtituere, as you ſay: And then if the brethren may ordain and de-ordain their Officers, much more may they admit or exclude members. But me thinks the Antecedent is to be denied, and we prove it thus: They that may ordain Officers to ſuch employments, may in caſe of neceſſity at leaſt formally themſelves perform them: But you conſtantly deny,The Way, pag. 44. and then par 2. p. 3. Par. 2. pag. 33. that any but Officers can adminiſter Sacraments: The major is alſo your own Aſſertion, in this laſt book of yours thus you ſpeak [I confeſſe, I do not well underſtand how a man in caſe of neceſſity hath any virtuall power to this or that Act, but he hath alſo a formall power to do ſuch an Act in that caſe of Neceſſity.] But (I aſſume) the brethren in a caſe of Neceſſity (ſay you) have a virtuall power to ordain their Officers, who can doe thoſe Acts, adminiſter Sacraments, &c. therefore in that Neceſſity, when they have no Officers, they have a formal power to adminiſter Sacraments. Nor can I ſee any reaſon why thoſe that may ordain Officers, and adminiſter cenſures without Officers, may not alſo adminiſter Sacraments. For to adminiſter Sacraments is one of the loweſt acts of a Miniſter, certainly leſſe then preaching [Chriſt ſent me not to baptize but to preach the Goſpel,Par. …. pag. 81.] q. d. that was the chiefeſt part of his errand, ſaies M. Hooker. And Excommunication (and ſo admiſſion of Officers by Election) is one of the higheſt acts of Rule, (ſay you:) But you allow your brethren to preach, and to elect, and caſt out Officers; therefore they may p. 19as well if not better be allowed to adminiſter Sacraments; which yet you do deny. How Independent indeed is your way? how inconſiſtent your doctrines? I wiſh you would at laſt conſider it. Obj. 5

I ſaid in the fifth place, The Church to which the Keys are given, are ſaid (by you) to be ſuch as do all of them meet 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: Therefore. To this you anſwer thus, [The truth is, though the Ordinances may not all of them be adminiſtred in a Church of beleevers without Officers, as authoritative diſpenſing of the Word and cenſures, and miniſtration of Sacraments: yet ſome Ordinances may be found and adminiſtred there:] But Sir, 1. Did not you intend it of all Ordinances, that they may and muſt be adminiſtred in a Church of beleevers? Did you not define a Church to be a company of beleevers met together to enjoy all Ordinances? 2. I ſaid (all) the Ordinances are not to be found in a Church of beleevers without Officers, you firſt take no notice of that, but ſay, though all may not be administred there: and then confeſſe, Some of them cannot be found and adminiſtred there: Surely thoſe that cannot be found there (as ſome cannot) cannot be adminiſtred there: But (ſay I) in that Church to which the Keys were given, all Ordinances (which are the Keys) may be found and adminiſtred. Therefore that Church and yours are not the ſame: 3. What are thoſe Some Ordinances which may be found there? [1. Two or three to meet together, and pray, and admoniſh one another, &c.] But are two or three a Church? You ſay ſomewhere 7. are the leaſt number. And may not any two or three beleevers, not in your Church-order, no members of any particular Church, meet and pray, &c? have they then the power of the Keys? Is not reading of the word alſo an Ordinance of Chriſt, and ſinging of Pſalms, &c. Are theſe alſo part of the power of the Keys? [2. It is an Ordinance of Chriſt to elect Officers, for this is the power and priviledge of the Church of Brethren] Let me uſe your own words to me in this paragraph [This latter propoſition is left naked and unguarded without proof, and is but an ipſe dixit, &c.] for you know we deny it. And ſuppoſe p. 20thoſe were Ordinances, and part of tho power of the Keys, yet they are not the Ordinances that I intended, viz. adminiſtration of Sacraments and cenſures; Theſe you have confeſſed (though you again deny it) are not to be found or adminiſtred in a Church without Officers;They are not capable of adminiſtration o… S craments without Offi- p 20, there. [The truth is (your own words) the Ordinances of Chriſt may not all of them be adminiſtred in a Church without Officer?, as authoritative diſpenſing of the word and cenſures, and miniſtration of Sacraments:] what need I prove my latter propoſition when you confeſſe it? But you have an help for this: [If a Church of beleevers may ſupply themſelves with Officers, when they want them (which you know we deny, unleſſe you mean they may procure them elſewhere) and if Officers and brethren have all ordinary Church-power (which we alſo deny to the brethren) and ſo all Ordinances of Chriſt, which are ordinarily adminiſtred, found there, then what hindereth, but that a Church of beleevers hath in it, as ſome Ordinances formally, ſo all radically and virtually, and the ſame adminiſtred, and adminiſtrable amongſt, them?) This diſcourſe is a meer begging, of the queſtion firſt, and then a varying of it; A begging in that you take for granted, that the Brethren have a power in the Keys, eitheir formally or radically; and that becauſe they have a power to elect their own Officers; If by Election you mean the Creation or making of Officers, we deny then any ſuch power: If you mean a deſignation or choice of a fit perſon, to be ordained by other Officers, that is no power of the Keys; which your ſelf ſay [are the Ordinances of Chriſt,The Keys. p. 2. as the preaching of the Word, and adminiſtring of the Seals and cenſures,] You alſo vary the queſtion, by putting in two words; firſt, ordinarily administred, whenas I ſpake of all Ordinances ordinary, as thoſe mentioned, or extraordinary, as Synods, which your ſelf acknowledge an Ordinance of God; and I think will not ſay it may be adminiſtred in a particular Church of beleevers, without or with Officers. Secondly, You ſhuffle in another word Adminiſtrable amongſt them; whereas the queſtion was of Ordinances adminiſtred; They are not all to be found, much leſſe adminiſtred in ſuch a Church: But all Ordinances, ordinary and extraordinary, are both adminiſtrable and adminiſtred in the Church, to which p. 21the Keys were given; therefore that and yours is not the ſame; and that and not yours is underſtood in that Text.

I ſaid further; If the Keys were committed to the Church, Obj. 6 the particular Congregation, you muſt mean it either objectivè for the uſe of the Church (but that's not to the purpoſe) or ſubjectivé, and then you fall into the extreme of Browniſts, &c. To this you anſwer, [I meant it indeed ſubjectivè, though not excluding objectivè: The particular Church receiveth the power of the Keys, both ſubjectivè to it ſelf, and objectivè, for it ſelf:] But I reply, and ask, what you mean by Subjectivè, to it ſelf? and of what Church you intend it, whether Entitive, (as you ſpeak) conſiſting only of beleevers without Officers, or politicall with Officers? If you mean that the Church Entitive of beleevers without Officers is the ſubject of the Keys, then they have not only virtually but alſo formally received the Keys, and may adminiſter all Ordinances without Officers (which yet you deny) for Peter here received them all formally, and you ſay, as a beleever; then (ſay I) beleevers not only in a Church jointly, but even ſingly have received all the power of the Keys formally, and may adminiſter them without any Officers, which is worſe then Browniſm. But I have diſtingu…ſhed above, when the Church is ſaid to receive the Keys ſubjectivè it may be meant, either immediately her ſelf, without Officers; or mediatly by and in her Officers; and I illuſtrated it by the body naturall; As ſight is immediatly truſted with the eye, as the next ſubject of it; but mediatly with the body. In the firſt ſenſe, you cannot ſay, the Church is the immediate ſubject of the Keys… for then ſhe might immediatly adminiſter them all without Officers (as I ſaid) In the latter ſenſe, it is nothing to your purpoſe, for then, as fight is entruſted with the eye, firſt for the good of the body, ſo the Keys are entruſted with the Officers for the good of the Church:Par 2. pag. 22. The body is not firſt entruſted with ſight to convey it to the eye, nor are the Keys committed firſt to the Church, to convey them to the Officers. You ſay afterwards [If Chriſt have given them (Paſtors, &c.) to the Church, the Church is the Recipient ſubject of them. As if the eye be given to the body, the body is the recipient ſubject of it.] All this is true, in a ſenſe, The Officers are given to the p. 22Church as the immediate recipient ſubject of them: But is our Queſtion of the Officers, or of the Keys? We ſay, the Keys are given to the Church both objectivè for its good, with reference to the brethren; and ſubjectivè with reference to the Officers: yea, ſubjectivè to the Church as the ſubject of the Officers, that is, mediatly; but not ſubjectivè as the immediate ſubject of the Keys: Your compariſon was ill laid; you ſhould have inſtanced in the ſight (that reſembles the Keys) not in the Eye it ſelf: The body is the immediate ſubject of the eye: but the eye, of the ſight. So the Church is the immediate ſubject of the Paſtors, &c. but the Pastors are the immediate ſubject of the Keys. And this (as I have often ſaid) is evident in the Text in hand; For Chriſt doth not ſay [I give to the Church the power of the Keys, or the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven that is, of it ſelf) but I give to thee Peter the Keys of the kingdom of heaven, that is, of the Church:] not the leaſt colour here, of giving the Keys to the Church.Ibid. pag. 23. Materials of a Church, &c. pag. 27. See pag. …0, When the propoſition, &c. But I deſire you will conſider your inconſtancy, and the inconſiſtency of your aſſertions. You ſay preſently after the laſt words cited, [Paſtors, &c. are given to the Church as integrall parts of the Church, as the Church is Totum Integrale,] Then ſay I, they are not given to the Church as meer adjuncts, nor doth the Church receive them, as the ſubject of them. And that upon your own reaſon [For integrall parts are intrinſecall and eſſentiall to a Totum Integrale, and not extrinſecall, as the object is to a thing.] Integrall parts are not ſubjects and adjuncts one to another.

But you ſay [When I wrote that propoſition (in the firſt words of the Way) it was not then in my minde to underſtand any other, but a Congregation of beleevers with Officers; For I ſpake of ſuch a Church whereof Peter was one, and he was an Officer.] 1. Whatever was in your minde, I know not, but the words hold out rather a Congregation of believers without Officers (and ſo that acute and judicious M. Ruth. underſtood you,The Way. p. 1. as well as I) For you ſay there, [The Church to which Chriſt hath committed the Keys of the Kingdom, the power of binding and looſing, the Tables and Seals of his Covenant, and (mark that) the Officers and Cenſures of the Church, is a communion of Saints, &c.] But can the Officers be committed p. 23to the Church with Officers? And do not you commonly diſtinguiſh Saints or beleevers from Officers? When you ſaid, Paſtors are given to the Church, and the Church is the recipient ſubject of them, muſt not the Church be taken then for a company of Saints without Officers? 2. In your preſent defence, you underſtand it all along of a Church without Officers, or I underſtand you not. 3. When you adde [That you ſpake of ſuch a Church whereof Peter was one and he was an Officer,] You vary the ſenſe and words of the propoſition. For there you ſay, [The Church to which Chriſt committed the power, &c. was a company of ſuch (as whereof Peter was one) beleevers profeſſing that faith, &c.] Mark that, one beleever, not one Officer; And elſewhere you ſay, the were Keys committed to Peter, not as an Apoſtle or Elder, that is, not as an Officer but as a beleever. How theſe things agree, I ſee not: Yet you will defend it (granting that ſenſe) [They have received ſome part of the Keys formally, &c.] Of which we have ſpoken before, and refer you thither. Only I ſhall obſerve your ſimilitude for illuſtration of your aſſertion: [The ſtock of the vine (growing from the root) hath not immediate power to bring forth grapes, yet hath power to produce branches which do bring forth grapes: So the body of the Church of beleevers, though they have not immediate power of rule, authoritatively to diſpenſe the Word, or to adminiſter Sacraments at all, yet they have a power to produce ſuch Officers as may perform the ſame.] But I fear your ſimilitudes do deceive you. Do the Brethren immediatly give that power to the Officers, which they have not formally in themſelves?Epiſt. to Keys, pag. 3. Did not the Officers receive their power immediatly from Chriſt or his Apoſtles, who had that power formally in themſelves? Have not your Praefacers to the Keys, told us, that your ſelf lay this fundamentall Maxime, [That look whatever power or right any of the poſſeſſours and ſubjects thereof may have, they have it each alike immediatly (in reſpect of a mediation of delegation or dependance on each other) from Chriſt, and ſo are each the firſt ſubjects of that power which is allotted to them?] But now you make the Officers to depend immediatly upon the Church of beleevers; and to derive their power from them by mediation p. 24or delegation, as the branches derive their being and vertue to produce grapes, from the ſtock of the Vine. Which if it be not to jump with the Browniſts, who place all power radically and originally in the Church of beleevers, and make the Officers derive it as their ſervants immediatfy from them; I muſt profeſſe I underſtand nothing in this controverſie:Survey part. 1. p. 195. prop. 4. Doth not M. Hooker make the Church of beleevers the firſt ſubject of all Church power? and do not the Browniſts juſt ſo? whereas you (ſometimes at leaſt in the judgement of your brethren here, as afore) make two firſt ſubjects of the power of the Keyes and each to have it immediatly from Chriſt: I deſire you would conſider whom M. Hooker meant in thoſe words [That conceit is more wide from the mark, &c. ] pag 195. ſect. 2. It is ſtrange that all this while you ſhould agree no better.

Obj. 7 I ſaid laſtly, The Church there meant is called the Kingdom of heaven, but a particular Congregation of beleevers is never called ſo: being but a member of it, &c. You anſwer, [It is not materiall, whether it be called ſo or no, it is enough it is called a Church, yea, as diſtinguiſhed from Church-Officers, Acts 25.22,Suprà, pag. 7. 23. &c.] I gave the ſenſe and roſolution of that Text afore; The ſum is this, it doth not hold a Church of beleevers, as exiſting without Officers; for that Church had Officers: but only diſtinguiſheth the Integrall parts (as your ſelf call them above) of that Church into Officers and members;] [The Apoſtles, Elders, and whole Church; ver. 22.] that is, the brethren or beleevers, ver. 23. aſſembled together, ver. 25. which is no more then if he had ſaid, the whole Church, conſiſting of Apoſtles, Elders, and Brethren. But you muſt remember that you are diſputing the power of the Keyes to be given to a Church beleevers without Officers and you bring an inſtance of a Church that had Officers: Shew (if you can) a Church of beleevers, exiſting without Officers, which took upon them the name of a Church, or the tide of the Kingdom of heaven. I yet beleeve, whereever the Church is called the Kingdom of heaven, in Scripture, it is meant of the whole Church, not of any particular Congregation. Your own Texts produced do hold out as much, Mat. 20.1. It is called a vineyard, which ſignifies either the ſtate of the Goſpel, or the whole viſible Church; If he had p. 25meant it of particular Churches, he would have rather ſaid, into his vineyards; for all thoſe Officers could not be hired for one particular Church: You ſay, ["It was into this or that particular Church reſpectively] true, with reſpect to the whole viſible Church, which is but one. A man that hath a large vineyard, hires ſervants to work, in ſeveral places or parts of that vineyard; but this or that part is not called a vineyard, but with reſpect to the whole, they are all hired to labour in his vineyard. Or what if that Parable be rather underſtood of particular perſons, then particular Congregations? God cals all Chriſtians into his Church, and ſets them to work; Some come in at one hour, ſome at another; they that come firſt, think they deſerve more, then they that come in late, at the eleventh hour: Chriſt would intimate, that God is free, and his grace free to do what he will with his own; and there is no merit at all; Many are called but few are choſen: But your Expoſition reſtrains the parable only to Officers, as diſtinct from the Church of beleevers. The like my be ſaid of your ſecond Text, Mat. 25.1, 2. It is not meant as an a deſcription of the eſtate of each particular Church, as you ſtrain, rather then interpret it: but of every particular profeſſing Chriſtian, whereof ſome have lamps of profeſſion, but no oyl of true grace; others have both: And the ſcope of the parable is intimated in the foreign or application, ver. 23. [Watch ye therefore (every one of you) for you know not the day nor hour when the Son of man cometh,] Your next of Luk. 17.21. is wider from the mark, [The Kingdom of God "is within you,] that is, either the Meſſias whom you ſeek as abſent, is now among you, as Beza, or the power of the Goſpel is within you or upon you. Thoſe other of Rev. 1.6. and 1 Pet. 2.9. are as much miſtaken, if applied to a particular Congregation. All the faithfull are Kings and Prieſts, and all together, are a Kingdom of Prieſts, both Officers and beleevers. I ſuppoſe you will not apply this either only to the Officers, or only to beleevers, but to both ſingly and jointly, and reſpectively to the whole Church.

To conclude this whole firſt Section, I added, a particular Congregation is but a member or Corporation of that kingdom: and it were as improper to call a Congregation Chriſts kingdom, p. 26as to call London the kingdom of England, You anſwer, [Every ſimilar part of a ſimilar body doth properly partake both in the name and nature of the whole; Every part of water is water, &c. and ſuch a part of ſuch a body is a particular viſible Church.But ſuch is not the ſtate of London, &c. ] You ſaid a little above [It was not in your minde to underſtand any other particular Congregation, but one furniſhed with Officers:] But then if you will ſpeak properly and ſtrictly, you cannot ſay, that a particular Congregation of Officers and beleevers is a ſimilar part of a ſimilar body; for it is a d…ſſimilar body conſiſting of diſſimilar parts: and ſo London, and it, agree in ſtate; and that Church can no more properly be called the Kingdom of heaven, then London the kingdom of England. Again, if you will (to help your ſelf out of this Labyrinth) underſtand it of a particuar Church without Officers, you fall into another gulf as bad as the former. For if particular Congregations conſiſting of ſimilar parts (of beleevers only) may be called Kingdoms, as they are called Churches, then it will fairly follow, that every particular member of that ſimilar body, may be called not only a Church, but a Kingdom too; becauſe every ſimilar part of a ſimilar body (it is your own reaſon) doth properly partake in the Name and Nature of the whole: So then, as every drop of water is water, ſo every member of ſuch a Church, is a Church; and of ſuch a Kingdom, is a Kingdom. Your following of metaphors and Parables too far, is guilty of theſe miſcarriages; as I elſewhere often ſhew; where I alſo ſhew how a particular Church conſiſting of Officers and beleevers, may, in a candid ſenſe be ſaid to be a ſimilar body, to which I referre you.

SECT. II. What the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are.

IF in opening what the Keys of the kingdom of heaven be, it was not your intent to enumerate them all diſtinctly and particularly, (as you here ſay) Surely you intended not the buſineſſe p. 27you had in hand, when you were purpoſely engaged to anſwer this Queſtion. What are the Keyes of this Kingdom? would not any Reader expect (from an Expoſitor, of that text) a full and perfect enumeration of the Keys? what, and how many they are? Had you ſaid only thus [The Keys are the Ordinances which Chriſt hath inſtituted to be adminiſtred in his Church.] You might afterwards have referred them (as you ſay) to their ſeverall ſubjects. But when you adde [As the preaching of the Word, as alſo the adminiſtration of the Seals and Cenſures;] Would not any Reader take it for a full diſtribution of the Keys? And when you adde [By the opening and applying of theſe both the gates of the Church here, and of heaven hereafter are opened or ſhut to the ſons of men.] Would not any man think, theſe were all the Keys neceſſary, and alſufficient for thoſe ends on earth and in heaven?

But (ſay you) [In inſtancing theſe, I ſuppoſed no man would be of ſo narrow apprehenſion, as not to conceive thoſe things to be included, without which theſe cannot duely be performed. As vocation unto ſuch adminiſtrations, and ſome who have power from Chriſt to give ſuch a vocation.] But I pray Sir, are theſe any part of the Keys themſelves? If a Steward be truſted with the Keys of the Family (as Peter with the Keys of the Church:) there muſt be doors and locks, and ſervants to be let in, or ſhut out; but are thoſe any part of the Keys? Mend your diſtribution of the Keys; and will you ſay, The Keyes are vocation, and ſome that have power to give ſuch a vocation? We (ſuch is the narrowneſſe of our apprehenſion) think your diſtribution afore-given, is full enough; nor can we tell (pardon our dulneſſe) how you can mend it, but you will make it worſe. We have been accuſtomed ſo long to that ancient diſtribution of Clavis Scientiae (which you call preaching of the Word) and Clavis poteſtatis (which you call Administration of Seals and Cenſures) that we wonder at your new pick-locks, preſented to the world, as Keys of the kingdom of heaven. And I yet think, your new diſtribution labour under ſo many Incongruities (as Vind. Clav. hath given you to underſtand, though you are not pleaſed to take notice of them, or to vindicate them,] that it is far worſe then the old one, ſo long received in the Churches of p. 28Chriſt. I had thought to have added your own words (appliable enough to your new diſtribution) in end of Sect. 3. pag. 6. of the Keys, but I forbear.

It ſeems to me (though you inſinuate the contrary) to be of great weight for the expediting of many controverſies about the Keys, and your new Way, to know what thoſe Keys be, and what Ordinances they include. Is not one main controverſie betwixt you and us, about the nature and extent of the Keys, and who are the Key-bearers? which cannot be decided, unleſſe we know what be thoſe Keys. But let us hear your new definition of the Keys: Keys of the kingdom of heaven are ſpirituall powers, to diſpenſe the Treaſures of his Kingdom, &c.] Is not this almoſt the ſame with that afore, Keys are the Ordinances of Chriſt to be adminiſtred in his Church, for opening and ſhutting the gates of the Church here, and of heaven hereafter? But what mean you by spirituall powers? you mean [Spirituall callings and ſpirituall gifts fitting for them, enabling to ſome ſpirituall Acts, for theſe are Ordinances.] I pray Sir, is every ſpirituall calling, and every ſpirituall gift fitting for them, a Key intended in the text to be given to Peter? callings and gifts help to diſpenſe the Keys, but they are no Keys: But they are Ordinances? Be it ſo, is every Ordinance a Key? The Deacons office is an Ordinance (and the Widows too, ſay you) and ſpirituall gifts are requiſite to fit for that calling; but is a Deacon or his office a Key? and a Key given to Peter in that Text? Prayer and ſinging are Ordinances, but who ever numbred them among the Keys? Well, what are the Treaſures diſpenſed by thoſe powers or Keys? [I mean by them (ſay you) the Word, Seals, and cenſures, &c.] Before you ſaid the preaching of the word, and Adminiſtration of the Seals and Cenſures, were theſe Keys: and now you call them the Treaſurers to be diſpenſed by the Keys: What incongruity is here? Now let us hear your Distribution of the Keys, according to this your definition: [Keys, ſpirituall powers, are either the Key of Knowledge or Faith (both one w…th you) or the Key of Order: The Key of Order is either the Key of power, or the Key of Authority or Rule:] Is not this an accurate diſtribution? The spirituall powers are either Keys of power or of Authority? p. 29And is not the Key of knowledge a key of order, an Ordinance peculiar to ſome order or office of men? what confuſion is here? In a word, your new definition of the Keys better fits the Key-bearers then the Keys themſelves, ver. 9. A Paſtor or Teacher is a ſpirituall power given by Chriſt to his Church, to diſpenſe the Treaſures of his kingdom, &c. And your own Expoſition fits it better: By ſpirituall powers is meant, ſpirituall callings: ſuch is the calling of a Paſtor: and ſpiritual gifts are requiſite for the fitting of them to ſpiritual Acts: But no man ever ſaid, that a Paſtor was a Key, but a Steward to diſpenſe the Keys. New waies muſt coin new notions and diſtinctions, to make them as amiable, as ſtrange. But the old way is the good way.

1. And now you come to animadvert upon my animadverſions; 1 I ſaid you confuted your ſcope in the whole book, which is to give the people a ſhare in the government of the Church: This you peremptorily deny to be your ſcope, and ſay I miſtake your meaning. Let your Praefacers ſpeak firſt,Praef. to Keys, pag. 3. [His ſcope is to demonſtrate a diſtinct and ſeveral ſtate, and intereſt of power, in matters of common concernment, vouchſafed to each of theſe (the Officers and people) and diſperſed among both, by charter from the Lord: as in ſome corporate Towns, the Aldermen as Rulers, and a Common Counſell a body of the people.] which that it amounts to a ſhare in the Ruling power, is demonſtrated in my Vind. Clav. in anſwer to that preface, and in the Tract it ſelf; But you take no notice of it. Next, let your own books ſpeak; wherein you often give the brethren without Officers power to ordain Officers, and to cenſure them all without Officers; which if they be not the higheſt acts of Rule, and ſo the brethren have the greateſt ſhare in the government, I ſhall ſtill profeſſe my Ignorance in this controverſie. And upon my obſervation, you deny them power in nothing, but adminiſtration of Sacraments: You allow them power in juriſdiction, by giving them power in admiſſion and ejection of members and Officers: You allow them liberty in preaching the Word, only not ordinarily, nor ſo authoritatively as to Paſtor or Teacher: what can you give them more but adminiſtration of Sacraments; and that being leſſe an Act of Rule, then the former, you may go on, and grant them that too, or they will take it, and ſo they do.

p. 30I ſaid, in proſecution of my charge, of your confuting the ſcope of your book, If the Keys be the Ordinances of Chriſt, (there by you ſpecified) preaching and adminiſtration of Sacraments and Cenſures, they are given for the Church of beleevers, objectivè, but are never in Scripture, or all antiquity ſaid to be given to the Church ſubjectivè: You are pleaſed to deride me, as if I had not read all Antiquity, which I profeſſe I have not (though in this particular controverſie it is eaſie to finde what Antiquity hath ſaid) or had forgotten what is recorded by the moſt ancient Antiquity, for the ſpace of the firſt three hundred years: But of that you vouchſafe not to give me any account, how pertinent ſoever to our preſent buſineſſe, but referre me to that account you have given M. Baily; to whom (in way of requitall, not of revenge) I ſhall referre you to wait for your unſwer.

But you ſay [what power you give to the Church of beleevers ſubjectivè, you alledge Scriptures for it, which when Vindex taketh in hand to evade them, you ſhall return him an anſwer.] You did alledge Scripture, and the Aſſertor (not Avenger) did in their place anſwer them (not evaded them, as you phraſe it) and expected your reply; but I perceive he may go ſeek it, for you never come at the place, where it is handled; though you promiſe here, and once or twice more, you would do it; but either evaded it, or forgot it, of which more anon.

It ſounds very ill (I ſaid) at firſt hearing to ſay, that the brethren have any power in the Keys, or Ordinances of preaching, or adminiſtring Seals or Cenſures: you anſwer, (If thoſe, preaching the Word, and adminiſtring Seals, were all the Ordinances, and no more, I ſay true, it would ſound ill at firſt, at ſecond, and third hearing too, to ſay, The people have any power to exerciſe theſe Ordinances, ] &c.But 1. Why do you leave out Cenſures, which not only I put in, but your ſelf alſo, in defining the Keys? Does it not ſound ill, at firſt ſecond, and third hearing, to all reformed Churches (but your own and ſuch like) that the people have any power, yea, the greateſt power to exerciſe cenſures? For they can cenſure all their Officers, but all their Officers without them cannot cenſure them, nor p. 31any one of them: It is indeed no unpleaſant ſound to you, or your people: yea, it would ſound very ill and harſh to you, at leaſt to your people, to hear, That they have no power in the Keys mentioned, preaching and adminiſtring of Seals and Cenſures. But if thoſe Keys were given to Peter, they were given to him, either as an Elder, and then the people have nothing to do with them at all, one or other: Or as a Beleever, but then they may as well exerciſe the Ordinances of preaching and adminiſtring Seals, as exerciſe and adminiſter the Ordinance of Cenſures.

But you go on, by way of Recrimination (I ſay not by way of Revenge) with an argument, ad hominem [You marvell it ſhould ſound ſo ill (to allow the people a power in cenſures) to them whoſe ears have been wonted long, to hear of ſuſpenſions and Excommunications, by Chancellors and Commiſſaries, who generally are no Miniſters, &c.] Truly Sir, this toucheth not me, who have as well thought it to ſound ill, at firſt or ſecond hearing, that Chancellors, &c. no Miniſters, ſhould ſuſpend and excommunicate, as I now think it harſh to hear, this power is allowed to, and practiſed by the people. Though people may perhaps be the better men, yet not ſo well authorized, as ſome Chancellors and Commiſſaries (for ſome of them were Miniſters) who had more colour of Authority to ſuſpend, &c. then your people have, who are quite out of office. But you wonder more that I that could alledge all Antiquity, ſhould think it to ſound ill [Who know what reverend Teſtimony, ancient Tertullian giveth of the Brethrens power, &c. and what Cyprian gives to the people, &c.] I had thought to let you wait for your anſwer, from M. Baily; but ſeeing you are pleaſed to vouchſafe me the Teſtimonies, I ſhall anticipate his anſwer in the mean time. 1. For Tertullians, I finde you cite him not at all to M. Baily, as if then you took it to be of no great ſtrength. What ſaith Tertullian? Quum probi, cum boni coeunt, &c. [When honeſt, good, godly, chaſte people, meet together, it is not to be called a faction, but a Court.] What is this to power of the people in cenſures? Unleſſe you begge it hence, that the word Curia ſignifies a Court? But I pray, what mention is here of Officers at all? Did the people at that time p. 32cenſure alone without their Officers? You will hardly prove that: or are not Officers good and honeſt men? Or doe good men never meet but in a Court to cenſure? As for Cyprian you leave me in the dark, to go look what he ſayes; or to turn back to what you ſay to M. Baily: I ſhall conſider the place, and his Teſtimonies. In the firſt, you clearly to my underſtanding confute your own way of Ordination of Miniſters: Thus Cyprian ſpeaks [As they have received from the Apoſtles, ſo they hold it, that for the orderly celebration of Ordination, all the neighbour Biſhops of the ſame Province, where a Miniſter is to be ordained, come together to that people, &c. Of Sabinus he ſaies, this Office was put upon him by the ſuffrage of the whole brotherhood, and by the judgement of all the Paſtors preſent, &c. and ſo hands were impoſed on him.] I pray, do you gather all the neighbour Biſhops or Paſtors of the Province, where a Miniſter is to be ordained? Do thoſe Paſtors impoſe hands upon him? yet theſe, Cyprian ſaies, they received from the Apoſtles. True it is, the Miniſter was choſen in the preſence of the people, and good reaſon, as to whom his life is beſt known: But the judgement of his abilities was in the Paſtors; as alſo the Impoſition of hands. But the people had their Suffrage; that is nothing, but ſome rationall conſent, or ſome manifeſtation of their approbation, not any authoritative vote, or ordination.See the Way. pa. 41. and 58. But this is not the new way of Ordination; for you allow the brotherhood, ſuffrage, conſent, judgement and impoſition of hands too, upon their Officers. This you never received from the Apoſtles. Another Teſtimony is this: [The people fearing God, &c. have chiefly the power of chooſing worthy Miniſters, and refuſing the unworthy.] But power of election of one Miniſter, rather then another, and rejection of an unworthy Miniſter, is not denied the people of God: That Election is but their conſent or approbation of ſuch a Miniſter, as the Paſtors in their judgement, think fit and worthy: and Rejection is but withdrawing communion from one unworthy, and judged fit to be excommunicated. But this we ſay is no part of the power of the keys, we doubt not but pious and godly women ſhould have this liberty or priviledge to except againſt known unworthy perſons, and to withdraw communion from p. 33them; yet ſurely, you will not allow them power in the Keys. When Cyprian ſaies [All things ſhall be examined, you being preſent and judging,] He means not a judgement of Authority, but of diſcretion. And the laſt place, [I determined to do nothing without your counſell and conſent,] declares his meaning fully to be for conſent, not Authority: And ſo thoſe times give no expreſſe lineaments of Congregationall diſcipline. Shew us in any Antiquity of Scripture or ſtory, that the people had power without Officers to create or ordain Officers, to impoſe hands upon them, or to cenſure all their Officers; or you ſay nothing to the preſent controverſie.

2. When you had ſaid [The Keys convey not Soveraign power, but ſtewardly,] I inferred, that this clearly excludeth the people, for they have no ſtewardly or miniſteriall power over themſelves (I might have added, much leſſe over their Officers,) You anſwer by a queſtion, ["As if the people were not Stewards of the grace of God given to them? &c.] But truly Sir, this is no better then a fine eluſion. To take Stewards in a larger ſenſe then I intended it. Stewards to me are Officers, and can the people be Stewards over their Stewards? Your ſelf ſay, pag. 28. [It implieth a contradiction, that the Church ſhould be its own Officer, for the very term of Officer implieth ſubordination.] So ſay I, it implieth a contradiction, that the Church ſhould be its own Steward; And again, p. 30. [We acknowledge (ſay you) that a company of profeſſing believers, deſtitute of Officers, are not Stewards by office, &c.] Then (ſay I) you anſwer equivocally; taking the word in another ſenſe, then it is commonly taken in this controverſie [Let a man esteem of us as Stewards of the myſteries of God, 1 Cor. 4.1.] Did not the Apoſtle there mean it only of Officers? Nor will the Apoſtle Peter help you out:1 Pet. 4.10.1 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, p. 34they 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, p. 35place, 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 foreign, 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 p. 36honour 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. …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. p. 37pag. 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) p. 38power 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 exc…ptions are but collections out of the writings of others: I beleeve the Reader will finde my exceptions are Collections p. 39of 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.

p. 40A Scheme of Contradictions and Contrarieties in the Independent way.

End of the text · Daniel Cawdry, Vindiciae Vindiciarum (1651)