A Vindication of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, Chapter 1
CHAP. I. What the Keyes be, and what their power.
1. THat by the Kingdome of Heaven, is meant both the Kingdome of Glory, which is above, and the Kingdome of Grace, which is the Church on Earth, I eaſily grant. But I only deſire (in the beginning of this diſcourſe) to be informed what you meane by the Church: Whether 1. The inviſible and myſticall Church of true Beleevers oppoſed to Reprobates; or 2. The Catholicke viſible Church, oppoſed to Heathens; or 3. The particular Congregation of Beleevers aſſociated in Church-communion, as you uſe to ſpeake. If we may gueſſe at your meaning by the whole proceeding of this Tract; or by your diſcovery of your ſelfe in the other Diſcourſe, called, The way of the Churches in New-England; (which though it was publiſhed after this of the Keyes, yet was written, and went up and downe in the darke before it) I thinke you meane it in the latter ſenſe, for a particular Congregation. For your firſt Propoſition, there gives us this Reſolution; [That the Church which Chriſt in the Goſpell hath inſtituted, The way p. 1.and to which he hath committed the Keyes &c. it coetus fidelium, a combination of godly men, commonly called a particular viſible Church.] But of all the reſt, this is the moſt improbable ſenſe of our Saviours words, Mat. 16.19. For 1. By the Kingdome of Heaven (on Earth) he meanes that Church, of which he had ſpoken before, in v. 18. But that was, either the Catholicke viſible Church, or rather, the inviſible myſticall Church; for that only is built upon the rocke, and againſt that the gates of hell ſhall never prevaile: whereas, particular Churches may faile. 2. The kingdome of Glory, the one part of the meaning of the Kingdome of Heaven, is not contradiſtinguiſhed to a particular Congregation; but to the generall viſible Church on Earth, oppoſed to the World by your ſelfe, The Keyes, p. 2. [On Earth, that is ſay you) in the Church on Earth, for he gave him no power to bind in the World.] 3. That Church was there meant (ſay you, the way p. 1.) whereof Peter was one: But Peter was not a member of ſuch a particular congregation; for there was none ſuch extant, when Chriſt ſpake theſe words to Peter. 4. You ſay againe, it was that Church unto which Peter or any offended brother might tell the offence, and have it cenſured: But that was never done in a Church of Saints, Beleevers, without officers; neither was the church of Corinth, ſuch a church as you deſcribed before; for that had Officers, who authoritatively might cenſure the inceſtuous perſon, yet you joyne them both together. 5. It was (ſay you) a Church, who all met in one place for the adminiſtration of the Ordinances of Chriſt: But the Ordinances of Chriſt are not to be found, much leſſe adminiſtred in a Church of Beleevers, without Officers. 6. When you ſay, Chriſt committed the Keyes to the Church, that is, a particular Congregation; you muſt meane it either Subjectivè, or Objectivè: If you meane it in the latter ſenſe, That the Keyes are committed to the Church, as the object of the exerciſe of the Keyes, that is, for the uſe and good of the Church, you ſay true, but nothing to the purpoſe. In this ſenſe, the Keyes are given, firſt and more immediately to the inviſible myſticall Church (All are yours, whether Paul, &c.) then to the generall viſible Church, for their ſakes: and then to the particular Congregation, as a part or member of that generall viſible Church: But if you meane it in the former ſenſe, (as you doe and muſt, or elſe you aequivocate with us from the beginning, and throughout your whole Booke) you fall into that extreme of the Browniſts, which you ſo labour to avoid: For to take the Church, in Mat. 16. for a particular Congregation of Beleevers, without Officers, is a new, and ſtrange, and falſe gloſſe, maintained by none but Browniſts, and ſuch like Separatiſts. To conclude, The Church of which our Saviour ſpeaks, is called here, the Kingdome of Heaven (on Earth:) But a particular Congregation of Beleevers is never called the Kingdome of Heaven; being but a member or corporation of that Kingdome. It were as improper to call a congregation Chriſts Kingdome, as to call London, the Kingdome of England; yet ſo your party ſpeake ſometimes. This I thought good to note, to cleare the way, for the better underſtanding of that which followes: And now goe on.
2. The next thing to be explicated is, what the Keyes of the Kingdome be; wherein you reſolve us thus: [The Keyes are the Ordinances of Chriſt, which he hath inſtituted to be adminiſtred in his Church; as the preaching of the Word, as alſo the adminiſtring of Seales and cenſures.] I take what you grant, only I ſhall animadvert ſome things. In this Paragraph, as you doe clearely lay downe the ſtate of the queſtion: ſo you doe ſtrongly confute the ſcope of your whole Booke, which is to give the people a ſhare in the power of the Keyes, that is, in the government of the Church: which appeares upon theſe conſiderations; 1. You ſay, the Keyes are the Ordinances, which Chriſt hath inſtituted: But the Ordinances of Chriſt are given indeed for the Church of Beleevers, that is, for their good and benefit, objectivè: But are never in all the Scripture, nor in all Antiquity, ſaid to be given to that Church, ſubjectivè. It ſounds ill at firſt hearing, to ſay that the people have any power to exerciſe Ordinances, of preaching, or adminiſtring of Seales or Cenſures. The power of preaching or adminiſtring Sacraments by the people, as none but Separatiſts doe uſurpe: ſo your ſelfe complaine of it page 6. And why you ſhould allow them power in cenſures, there is very little reaſon. 2. You ſay, the Keyes are Ordinances, which Chriſt hath inſtituted to be adminiſtred in his Church: What Church? the Church of Beleevers, a particular Congregation; for ſo you meane, as was ſhewed afore: Marke it; to be adminiſtred in that Church (ſcil. by Officers inſtituted for that purpoſe) not by that Church without Officers. 3. You adde that which to me clearly excludes the people of your Church: [Theſe Keyes are neither ſword nor ſcepter, &c. for they conveigh not ſoveraign power but ſtewardly & miniſteriall.] Whence thus I argue: The people or Congregation of Beleevers have no ſtewardly, or miniſteriall power over themſelves; ergo, they have nothing to doe with the power of the Keyes: They are not as Hilkiah was, whoſe Office was over the houſe, Iſa. 22.15, 22. nor Stewards in the houſe, as he was, Gen, 43.19. nor as thoſe are, who are ſpoken of, 1 Cor. 4.1, 2. Stewards of the myſteries of God. But you adde a clauſe to draw in the people, ſaying, [This power (to open and ſhut the gates of Heaven) lyeth partly in their ſpirituall calling (whether it be their Office, or their place and order in the Church, &c.] I ſuppoſe the word calling, ſhould be taken here of a ſpeciall calling, or office, as we uſe to call it: which againe, would exclude the people from any power in the Keyes, as having no office in the Church: But you adde, by way of explication of your owne ſenſe: [Whether it be their Office, or their place and order in the Church] on purpoſe to ſteale in the intereſt of the people, in ſome ſhare of the Keyes: But if place & order in the Church, give the people out of office, any power in the Keyes, that is, the Ordinances, (ſo you ſay again) then may women & children claim an in…ereſt in thoſe Keyes; for they have a place and Order in the Church as well as men; which yet you would ſeeme to deny: But let me profeſſe at firſt, what I ſhall make good from your ſelfe hereafter, I ſee not, but women and children may challenge a great part of that power of the Keyes, wch you give to the Brethren.
3. Concerning the third: What are the Acts of the Keyes, and the fourth, what is the ſubject, to be bound and looſed, I ſhall not contend with you. The fifth, To whom the power of the Keyes is given, requires a more ſerious conſideration, as being the very foundation of all your new Fabricke, which ſtands or fals with it. The Text is expreſſe: [To thee (Simon Peter) will I give the Keyes, &c.] in a cleare contradiſtinction to the Church before mentioned: upon this rock (of thy confeſſion) will I build my Church: which you take for a particular congregation, (though by a great miſtake, as was ſhewed above.) But let it be granted for the preſent to be ſo; then the words in all cleare conſtruction run thus: I will build my Church, the particular congregation, upon that rocke; and I will give the Keyes of that Church (called the Kingdome of Heaven, and ſo by you interpreted) to thee Peter, and to ſuch Officers as thou art: Otherwiſe he would have ſaid: On this rocke will I build my Church, and I will give unto it the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven, that is, of the Church it ſelfe; which is ſcarſe a reaſonable interpretation of the words. To make way therefore for your great deſigne, you undertake to reſolve that buſie queſtion (as you call it,) [How Peter is to be conſidered in receiving this power of the Keyes; whether as an Apoſtle, or as an Elder, or as a Beleever, &c.] Before I come to conſider your anſwer, I would make bold to put one ingredient more into the queſtion; whether Peter was not conſidered as a Deacon, as well as an Elder, or Beleever: For ſeeing a Deacon is one of the Officers of the New Teſtament;The Keyes, p. 32. The way, p. 83. (ſome ſay Iudas was Chriſts Deacon) and your ſelfe ſay, all the Officers of the Church were virtually in the Apoſtles; They were Paſtors, Teachers, Ruling-Elders, Deacons, &c. It may not unfitly be queſtioned, whether Peter did not then repreſent a Deacon as well as an Elder or Beleever. And then againe, whether the Keyes were not given to Peter as a Deacon; and why a Deacon only is denyed any power in the Keyes, when beleevers are admitted to have a ſhare therin; ſeeing a Deacon hath power to collect and diſtribute the goods and treaſury of the Church; I leave theſe to your conſideration, or theirs who ſhall reply, and come to your anſwer. To ſhew your deſire of peace, and your impartiality in inclining to any party, you conſider (you ſay) Peter in a threefold notion when he received the Keyes [As an Apoſtle, Elder, Beleever; ſo the ſenſe of the words (you ſay) will be moſt full, if all the conſiderations be taken joyntly together.] The ſenſe indeed is moſt full to your purpoſe, but (I thinke) leaſt of all true.*The power of the Keyes is given to the Chur…h, to Peter, not as an Apoſtle, not as an Elder, but as a profeſt Beleever; in the name of Beleevers, &c. The way, p. 27. a flat contradiction. And you doe beg the queſtion, to ſay Peter received the power of the Keyes, as all theſe, and in particular, as a Beleever: For of all the ſenſes, the laſt was leaſt thought on in any age of the Church, till this laſt, when the Browniſts and ſuch like ſtumbled upon it. When Saint Auſtin ſaid, [Peter received the Keyes in the name of the Church:] Whether he did miſtake the ſenſe of the place or no, you doe utterly miſtake him, to draw him to your meaning: For 1. he did not meane your Church, a particular congregation; but either the generall v…ſible Church; or the inviſible myſticall Church. 2. Nor that neither, ſubjectivè, but objectivè, that the Keyes were given to Peter as an Officer, for the uſe and benefit of the Church.
But you proceed to ſay: [It appeares Chriſt gave the power of the Keyes to the Body of the Church, even to the fraternity, with the Presbytery, Mat. 18.17, 18. When they are met in his Name, and agree together in the cenſure of an offendor.] But by this place (and your former notion of Peter as a Beleever) you may as well inferre, that the Keyes are given to the Sororietie, q.d. as to the Fraternity, as Beleevers, and as a part of the Body of the Church, which I thinke is flat Anabaptiſme, worſe than Browniſme. You know there are ſome, who deny that, Mat. 18.17, 18. holds forth any cenſure of excommunication at all: Others that grant it, yet by Church there, underſtand the Officers of the Church, ſuch as the Apoſtles were, to whom Chriſt ſpake: [What ye binde, what ye looſe, &c.] You muſt not therefore beg a foundation to your building, leſt, if it be fetched home, your building fall on your owne head. But you ſay, [All agree in this, That no offender is to be excommunicated, but with ſome concourſe of the congregation; at leaſt, by way 1. of conſent to the ſentence. 2. of actuall execution of it, by withdrawing themſelves from him; and this we conceive is ſome part of the exerciſe of the power of the Keyes.] But truly, this is but the gingling of the Keyes at moſt, no part of the power of the Keyes: For 1. it belongs to Stewards in a Family, only to exerciſe the power of the Keyes, to take in, and caſt out what ſervants they pleaſe: The reſt of the ſervants heare the Keyes gingle, when they turne the Keyes, but have no part in the exerciſe of them; no, not ſo much as by conſent, active conſent, I meane, ſo that if they conſent not, nothing is done; but by a paſsive conſent only, as approving what the Steward hath done: If you grant the Fraternity any more, you make them joynt Stewards of the Family, the Church, as you ſhall heare hereafter. Nay, ſometimes you ſeeme to give them no more [The people diſcerning and approving the juſtneſſe of the cenſures before adminiſtred by the Elders, The Keyes, p. 15.they give conſent in obedience to the will and rule of Chriſt] which is no part of the exerciſe of the power of the Keyes. For ſuppoſe the cenſure be juſtly adminiſtred, and the people deny their conſent; ſhall not a Delinquent be cenſured unleſſe they will conſent? If not, they have full power in the Keyes, ariſing to authority, which is the errour of the one extreme: If ſo only as paſsively to conſent, its evident, this is no part of the power of the Keyes. 2. For their withdrawing, thats much leſſe any power in the Keyes. The Steward of a Family having diſcharged a naughty ſervant, and turned and locked him out of doores, all the reſt of the ſervants are to withdraw from him; but this is not by way of active power, but paſsive obedience. Is the withdrawing of people from a man outlawed in civill affaires, any intereſt in the Keyes of Iudicature? If it be ſaid, except the people conſent and withdraw communion from a cenſured perſon, the cenſure is in vaine. I anſwer: If the people ſhould be ſo rebellious to civill Authority, as not to withdraw from an outlawed man, nothing were done, the ſentence was ſo farre in vaine. If no man could be gotten to execute a malefactor condemned, the ſentence were fruſtrated in reſpect of the execution. But doth this inferre, that the people have an intereſt in the Keyes of ſecular power? The queſtion is not de facto, what the people ſtubbornly may doe; but whether they ought not to conſent and withdraw; and whether if they doe not, they can challenge any intereſt in the power of the Keyes. Againe, if the Keyes were given to Peter as a Beleever, I ſee no reaſon but women and children may come in and challenge a power in the Keyes. It ſuffices not to ſay (as the Epiſtolers ſay, pag. 3.) [Women and children are excepted by a Statute Law of Chriſt, againſt their enjoyment of any part of this publick power.] For though they be forbidden to ſpeake in the Congregation, or might by impotence (as ſome ſay) be excepted in ſome particulars; yet there ſeemes no reaſon why they ſhould be exempted from that power here given to the Fraternity, which concernes them as well as men, and they are as well able to exerciſe it as men; viz. to give a (paſsive) conſent, or to withdraw from the party excommunicated; which they may and muſt doe as well as men: For as women may be offended, ſo they ſhould in reaſon have ſatisfaction, by conſenting to the ſentence: And as women may offend, in keeping company with a brother or ſiſter excommunicated, ſo they ought to withdraw from them & then if this be any exerciſe of the power of the Keyes, you may heare them gingle at the womens girdles; which is an extreme beyond the Browniſts, even downright Anabaptiſticall. But you give the Fraternity more power than this hereafter, there we ſhall conſider it. Hitherto you have given them nothing, but what is common to them with women.