A Vindication of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, Chapter 2
CHAP. II. Of the diſtribution of the Keyes.
YOu firſt lay downe the ordinary Diſtribution of the Keyes, and then except againſt it, as defective in foure things.
1. [That any key of the kingdome of heaven ſhould be left without power; for the key of knowledge is contradiſtinguiſhed from a key of power.
To this I anſwer: It may be this diſtribution is not every way exact and perfect, yet I thinke yours is rather worſe: And your exception fals upon your owne diſtribution, a little more remotely. For your key of Faith, or knowledge (for you make them both one) is diſtinguiſhed from the key of Order; which Order is either of power, or authority, and ſo your key of knowledge is left without power alſo. 2. Your key of power (as you call it) is it ſelfe left without all power, at leaſt active power, being only an obedientiall power, to conſent and yeeld ſubmiſſion to the will of Chriſts, made knowne by the Elders.
2. [There wants (ſay you) an integrall part of the keyes, the key of power or liberty, belonging to the Church it ſelfe.] But to this I ſay: This is ſo farre from being an integrall part of the keyes, that it is no key at all, no proper power at all, as hath partly been ſhewed already. A key, in all mens judgement, that ever writ of the power of the Church, carries in the notion of it, a power and authority, properly called, power in government, till now of late; yea, even the Browniſts themſelves make it a key of Authority and Rule in the people: OnelyOnly you, to make us beleeve you differ from them, call it a power (improperly called Authority, pag. 36.) or a liberty, or a priviledge; which was never before called a key, till now: For there are many liberties or priviledges belonging to ſervants in a family, or people in a State; which no man cals a key of power, or a power in the Keyes. And the truth is, you are not conſtant to your ſelfe: For ſometimes you call it only liberty, &c. ſometimes you give the Church, the Brethren, without their Officers, as full power as the Officers themſelves have; and as full rule and authority as the Browniſts give them, as we ſhall manifeſt in the ſequell.
But you adde; [Proteſtant Churches having recovered the liberty of preaching the Goſpell, and miniſtry of the Sacraments, have looked no farther, ſome of them nor d ſcerned the defect of Church power or liberty due unto them in point of diſcipline.] To this I ſay: The errour of the Proteſtant Churches, was not, that they looked not after the power of diſcipline for the people; but that they laboured not to recover it for their Elders, letting the Prelates keep quietly the diſcipline to themſelves. But the errour on the other hand was more eaſie to be fallen into, and more dangerous (which you obſerve to have followed) [That others finding themſelves wronged (as they did but ſuppoſe) in the withholding a key of power which belongs to them, have wreſted to themſelves an undue power, which belongs not to them, the key of Authority.] True it is, ſome have done ſo; for being allowed (by ſome, perhaps your ſelfe) the key of power, or liberty in diſcipline, as you call it, they have wreſted, not only the key of knowledge, in preaching and adminiſtring Sacraments, which belongs not to them; but alſo the key of authority, as you ſpeake; And ſo will your people too ere long, I feare, when they are once poſſeſſed a while of the key of power, wreſt the key of authority in all; both in preaching, and adminiſtring Sacraments, and pronouncing cenſures; and well they may by your owne grants, as we ſhall heare anon.
3. A third defect you obſerve; [In dividing the Key of Order, from the Key of juriſdiction, of purpoſe to make way for the power of Chancellors, &c.] But 1. That might be the errour of the diſtributors, not of the diſtribution. For the diſtribution, gives both the keyes to the ſame men. For the ſame men that had the key of knowledge, had alſo the key of order and juriſdiction, in the intention of the firſt ſounders of that diſtribution, which after ages divided in practiſe. And yet, their Chancellors, and Commiſſaries, &c. ſome of them at leaſt were Deacons, who were reputed of the Clergy (as they ſpeake) and might preach if they would; and ſo had both keyes in one perſon, though limited in ſome particular acts of them. But if our late Deacons were (as ſome of our brethren have ſaid they were) virtually Preſbyters, and needed no new Ordination; then certainly they had the power of juriſdiction, with the power of Order, though limited, by the corruption of the diſtributors. 2. This defect may chance to fall upon your owne diſtribution. Doe not you divide the key of Order from the key of juriſdiction in your owne Deacons: You ſay expreſly in theſe words: [The Order of Deacons, The Keyes, page 6.whereof our Lord ſpake nothing touching juriſdiction] I hope you will not ſay, the Office of a Deacon, fals not under the key of Order; yet, for ought I perceive, you make little account of him in your diſtribution. 3. You ſay [Thoſe Chancellors, &c. were inveſted with juriſdiction, and more than miniſteriall authority, even above thoſe Elders, who labour in Word and Doctrine.] But doe not you inveſt the people with as much power and juriſdiction more than miniſteriall, even above thoſe Elders, who labour in the word and doctrine, both to open and ſhut the doores of the Church againſt them, page 9. beſides what you ſay elſewhere. 4. I would gladly be reſolved, whether you doe not divide the key of Order, into a key of power or liberty, and a key of authority, on purpoſe to make way for the power of the people, as they of old did, for the power of the Chancellors, &c. Laſtly, I pray you ſeriouſly to conſider, whether by this [ſacrilegious breach of Order, inveſting the people with a key of power, even above thoſe Elders that labour in the Word and Doctrine, to open and ſhut the doores againſt them, page 9. (which is the breaking as it were of the files and rankes in an Army; they are your owne words) Satan is not like againe to rout and ruine a great part of the liberty and power of Church officers, and the purity of the Churches, and of all the Ordinances of Chriſt in them.]
4. A fourth defect is, [That Order is appropriated to the Officers of the Church only: We put a difference between Office and Order.] We ſhall ſpeake more fully to this hereafter. All we ſay for the preſent is but this: That Office and Order in the ſtrict and Eccleſiaſticall ſenſe of the word (Order) have hitherto been taken for the ſame. And your ſelfe grant, page 7. [They may be admitted as aquivalent] in a right ſenſe.
Let us now conſider your owne Diſtribution: [There is (ſay you) a key of Faith, and a key of Order,] and you have a Text of Scripture for it, Col. 2.5, 6.
But by Faith and Order there, the Apoſtle meanes not the keyes of the kingdome of Heaven, as they are underſtood in this controverſie; but (as I take it) their Faith manifeſted in their orderly walking, as becomes Chriſtians profeſſing the Goſpell. So that by Order there is meant their morall orderly walking, as in other duties according to the Rule: ſo in their ſubmiſſion to the order of government, or exerciſe of the keyes, in the hands of their Officers. I beleeve no Interpreter (but your ſelfe and ſome others of late) ever tooke thoſe words in an Eccleſiaſticall ſenſe, for the keyes delivered unto Peter. But we goe on.
[The key of Faith (ſay you) is the ſ…me with the key of knowledge, Luke 11.52. which the Lawyers had taken aw y.] But 1. by your favour, the key of Faith and knowledge are not both one, if you underſtand it of juſtifying Faith: A man may have much knowledge and no Faith: Knowledge may in a ſenſe be ſaid to be the key of Faith, as being the inlet or Antecedent of Faith; but ſo Faith and knowledge are not the ſame. 2. The key of knowledge is one thing, and knowledge is another: The key of knowledge is the great Ordinance of preaching (you ſaid) the keyes of the kingdome of Heaven were the Ordinances of Chriſt, as the preaching of the Word (the opening and applying of it, p. 2) &c. But this key of knowledge here you ſpeake of, is (you ſay) common to all Beleevers; but a little before this, you complaine that private Chriſtians had uſurped this key, to preach the Goſpell, &c. page 6, Whereas this key of knowledge is peculiar to the Miniſters of the Goſpell: [The Prieſts lips keep the key of knowledge, &c. and Faith comes by the Word preached.] This was the key of knowledge which the Lawyers had taken away, either by not interpreting, or miſinterpreting the Scripture: They could not take away the peoples knowledge, much leſſe their Faith. They might take away the key, both of knowledge and Faith, that is, preaching, as the Papiſts doe, by locking up the Word in a ſtrange language; and ours lately did, by crying and putting downe preaching. 2. Whereas you ſay: [They that had the key of knowledge, had power to enter into the kingdome of Heaven, and it may be, to open the doore to others to enter alſo.] I anſwer: The key s given to Peter, Matth. 16. were not to open the Kingdome of Heaven to himſelfe (for that key, if a key it was, he had before) but to open it to others, by opening and applying the Word (as you ſaid above) our Saviour ſpeaks of binding and looſing others: Whoſe ſins ye bind on earth, &c. and of opening for, and ſhutting out others, not himſelfe. Keyes are given to Stewards, not properly to let in, or ſhut out themſelves; but by way of Office, to let in, or locke out others. Beſides,A priviledge to find an open doore to enter into the fellowſhip of the Church, p. 11. which is paſſive, and in plaine ſenſe, one fit to be admitted into the Church. So the Epiſtolers, p. 2. The key of knowledge hath opened their hearts; that is, I think, preaching. the key of knowledge and Faith which you deſcribe here, is common to all Beleevers, even women; but I beleeve you will not give them a key to open and ſhut heaven to others, that is the key of preaching. Then againe, why doe you diſlike the former diſtribution; when you alſo make one key to be the key of knowledge, and ſo leave one of the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven without power, contra-diſtinguiſhing the key of Faith or knowledge (for with you they are both one) from the key of power, which fals under your key of Order? Laſtly, whereas you ſay a faithfull ſoule by this key entreth into a ſtate of grace, and into the fellowſhip of the Church, &c. You may remember, that by the Kingdome of Heaven, which is the Church on Earth, you underſtand a particular Congregation. But a man may have this key of Faith or knowledge, and never enter into your particular Church, and ſo this key is given to a man out of the Church; and yet you ſay, the keyes are given to the Church, I leave you to conſider it. Theſe things hang not well together.
In the next place you come to the key of Order; of which you thus write: [The key of Order, is the power whereby every member of the Church walketh orderly himſelfe, according to his place in the Church, and helpeth his brethren to walke orderly alſo.] But this is a ſtrange expreſſion of the key of Order, never heard of before, too generally and aequivocally ſpoken: For Order may be taken either morally, or Eccleſiaſtically; Paſſively, or Actively. Morally, ſo it is taken paſſively, for a conformity in carriage, to the rules of the word, in Doctrine, as well as diſcipline: But Eccleſiaſtically, it is an Active power, acting upon others. The very name of a key, imports a power, intruſted for others good, and not their owne properly. Every one is to keep Order, but every one hath not the key of Order. Order and Office in this Eccleſiaſticall ſenſe are both one. None hath the key of Order, but one in Office. But your key of Order is common to every member of the Church:The Keyes, p ge 21. And that it is no more than morall or paſſive Order, your ſelfe doe ſeeme to grant, when you ſay, [The brethren ſtand in an Order, even in an orderly ſubjection, according to the order of the Goſpell.] Every ſervant in a Family, and every man, woman and childe in a corporation ſtand in ſuch an order, and muſt walke orderly themſelves, and help others to walke orderly alſo; but will any man ſay, therefore theſe have intereſt in the keyes of the Family or Corporation? If every member of a Congregation have this key of Order, how and why are women and children excepted? or are they no members of the Church? or may they walke diſorderly? The inſtance of Saint Pauls walking orderly, according to the orders of the Iewiſh Church, manifeſts the morall ſenſe of the word: For certainly, the Fraternity of the Iewes had no power of the Keyes. The meaning was, that Saint Paul by his conformity to ſome Iewiſh Ceremonies, ſhould manifeſt, that he did not abſolutely oppoſe the Rites of the Iewiſh Church, not that he had any power of the Keyes of the government of that Church. Surely the Iewes were bound all of them to withdraw from every brother that walked diſorderly; yet did not beleeve that that was any part of the exerciſe of the key of Order. No more was it in thoſe of Theſſalonica; when they did warne the unruly, or withdraw from him that walked diſorderly: And this Key of Order, if a Key it were, was common not only to Elders and Brethren, as you ſay, but even to women and children, as I ſaid afore.
[Of Order (you ſay) there be 2. Keyes; one of power or intereſt, another of Authority or Rule; The firſt of theſe is called in Scripture, Liberty, &c.]
Before I examine the particulars, I ſhall note ſome few things: 1. How modeſt errour is at firſt: Here it is firſt called power, mollified by intereſt, and then by liberty, after by priviledge; all which are rather paſsive than active; but afterwards it is called foreign, power, which though it ſometimes ſignifies a priviledge, honour, or dignity, Iohn 1.12. in a paſsive conſtruction, as given and received; yet when it relates to Government, or a power of the Keyes, civilly, it then is taken actively, and ſignifies Authority, Romanes 13.1. But page 36. it is called, foreign, which properly, (though you ſay otherwiſe, ſignifies Authority; [Authority, after a ſort, may be acknowledged in the people.] And the acts there (and elſewhere) given to the people, ſome of them at leaſt; as [joyning in Cenſures, and in determination of Synodall acts, &c.] called, [a great ſtroke or power in ordering Church affaires;] amounts almoſt to as full authority, as the Elders have any. 2. Another thing I note is, that this power, intereſt, priviledge of the people, &c. was never called a Key, till ſome new Lock ſmiths made this new pick-locke of the power of Church-Officers. For what is all that is given them, if no more than is their due) to the government of the Church? In a Family, in a Corporation (I ſay it againe) the ſervants and Citizens have ſome priviledges and intereſts, who yet have no ſtroke in ordering of the Keyes, either of Family, or City. 3. I deſire to know, under which of the parts of this diſtribution doth the Deacon fall. There be 2. Keyes of Order; of power or intereſt; of Authority or Rule. Now a Deacon, qua Deacon, fals under neither of theſe: Not the firſt, for ſo he is conſidered only as a Beleever: Not the ſecond, for ſo he is denyed juriſdiction, as we heard afore. If you ſay he fals under the Key of Order, as an Officer; yet then you divide the Key of Order from the Key of juriſdiction, (which you blamed in the other diſtribution) and levell the Deacon an Officer, with people no Officers. We ſhould now come to the particulars of the power, or intereſt of the Brethren: They have a liberty (ſay you) in many things; but they are more fully laid downe in Chapter 4. there we ſhall conſider them: Only now we ſhall conſider the proofe of this power of the people, out of the Scripture: Your Text is, Gal. 5.13. Brethren, you have been called unto Liberty, &c.] This Text (under favour) is miſerably miſtaken; and that not in mine only, but in the judgement of all Interpreters; which you knowing, had rather appeale to the Context, than to the Commentators. I ſhall follow you at your owne weapon; Your ſtrength lyes in the word Liberty. [They have a power and liberty, to wit, to joyne with the ſounder part of the Preſbytery in caſting them out, &c.] But I ſhall appeale the Apoſtle himſelfe to be Iudge between us: In the firſt verſe of this Chapter he uſes the ſame word, [Stand faſt in the Liberty, &c.] where it is without all controverſie, underſtood of their liberty, or freedome from the Ceremoniall Law; called there, the yoke of bond…ge, which ſome falſe teachers would impoſe upon their necks. Now that the Apoſtle ſpeaking ſtill of the ſame matter, ſhould uſe the ſame word in ſo different a ſenſe, is no wayes probable. Nay ſecondly, in the 11. verſe, the Apoſtle ſayes: [If I yet preach circumciſion, why doe I yet ſuffer perſecution, &c.] And then ver. 13. comes in againe with this: [Brethren you are called unto Liberty, &c.] viz. from that Law of Circumciſion, and the like, not to the liberty by you pretended; [To chuſe Officers, or to joyne in Cenſures, &c.] though, theſe were granted to them, yet not in this place: And your gloſſe is very far fetcht and improbable. [I would they were cut off that trouble you; where (ſay you) he declares what cenſure he wiſhes againſt thoſe that troubled them, viz. cut off, to wit, by excommunication. Obj. But what power have we to cut them off? The Apoſtle anſwers: They have a power and liberty, to wit, to joyne with the ſounder part of the Preſbytery, in caſting them out: For (ſaith he) you are called unto Liberty.] There is not one word of this gloſſe in the Text. And if there were any ſuch power, the people have full power given themſelves to cut them off; for here is not one word of joyning with a Preſbytery. See againe, v. 16. where the Apoſtle reſumes his exhortation, ver. 13. [Vſe not your liberty as an occaſion unto the fleſh; ſaying, I ſay then, walke in the ſpirit, and you ſhall not fulfill the luſts of the fleſh:] Which makes it evident, that the Apoſtle chiefly exhorts ad bonos mores, though he touch other things by the bye, but diſcipline is leaſt of all intended. And leſt they ſhould uſe their liberty from thoſe legall and ceremoniall yokes, to contention or licentiouſneſſe, he cautions againſt it, v. 13, 16. [Carnall contention is indeed (as you ſay) an uſuall diſeaſe of popular liberty;] which I feare, you and your partners too much foment, by giving the people this power and liberty, which you ſo much talke of; and by gingling theſe Keyes in the eares of the people, have almoſt made them wilde; not only one againſt another, but againſt their Elders or Governours alſo. And no marvell, when you grant them ſo much power [As to open a doore of entrance to the Miniſters Calling: ſo to ſhut the doore of entrance againſt them in ſome caſes, page. 9.] much more than which the Browniſts doe not grant then. And ſo much of the pick-locke of Order.
The Key of Authority is a morall power, in a ſuperiour order or ſtate, binding or releaſing an inferiour in point of ſubjection.] To this I ſay; 1. To call Authority a morall power, is very improper: For every ſingle Paſtor, (yea, perhaps brother,) hath a morall power to bind and releaſe, not only an inferiour, but a ſuperiour alſo, in point of ſubjection, by propounding the commands of God. You might rather have called it, a juridicall, or Eccleſiaſticall power, and that without any danger, ſeeing you reſerve this power to the Officers or ſuperiours in Order. But 2. you ſpeake too confuſedly: For the people have a power to joyne with the Officers in the cenſures, that is, in binding and releaſing, as you ſay, page 14. [The whole Church may be ſaid to binde and looſe;] Nay, to open and ſhut the doores againſt their Miniſters, who are their ſuperiors; and ſo Authority is a morall power in inferiours alſo. And page 12. you ſay the people have a power, [To prevent the tyranny, and Oligarchy, and exorbitance of the Elders.] Surely this muſt be by a negative voice, and thats more than liberty, even full authority; and being by inferiours, is flatly againſt your owne definition. Furthermore, as you ſay [the Brethren with the Elders have power to open and ſhut, &c.] So you ſay, [the Elders with the Brethren doe bind and releaſe,] page 10. So it ſeemes, as the Brethren can doe nothing without the Elders: ſo the Elders can doe nothing without the Brethren, as the Epiſtolers ſay expreſſely, page 4. And who would not now conclude, that the liberty is equall in both; or rather, the authority is the ſame in both, and what ſay the Browniſts more?
And now I thinke you cannot truly ſay, you have received this diſtribution of the Keyes from the Scripture, nor yet from antiquity; though you would faine have us beleeve, you would not ſticke upon the former diſtribution, if the words be rightly explained. As how? 1. [Let them (ſay you) allow ſome ſpirituall power to the Key of knowledge, though not a church power.] But have you not all this while been ſpeaking of the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven, that is, the Church; and now is the power of the Key of knowledge, no Church power? Againe, have not you your ſelfe taken away from the Key of knowledge, not only Church power, but all power whatever, by contradiſtinguiſhing it to the Key of power? 3. Is that Key, whereby he that hath it, [not on…y enters himſelfe into the Kingdome of Heaven, but alſo opens the doore for others to enter, no Church power?]
You adde ſecondly, [Let them put in a Key of liberty, as well as of authority into Church power.] But both theſe are but one Key, or nothing, as we have ſaid; Nothing indeed to purpoſe, if both theſe muſt conſent, or nothing is done, as you and the Brethren aſſert. 3. [Let them not (ſay you) divide from the Key of Order or Office, the Key of juriſdiction; for Chriſt hath given no juriſdiction, but to whom he hath given Office.] But 1. Chriſt (it ſeemes) hath divided the Key of Office, from the Key of juriſdiction; for hee hath given no juriſdiction to Deacons. 2. You ſhould have ſaid, and your ſcope required it, Chriſt hath given to none the Key of Order or Office, but to whom he hath given the Key of juriſdiction, but that had contradicted your ſelfe in the inſtance of Deacons: [Concerning whom (ſay you) our Lord ſpake nothing of juriſdiction, page 6.] Now is it not as ſtrange, that there ſhould be an Office in the Church, without ſome juriſdiction; As that there ſhould among the Prelates, bee juriſdiction without an Office, at leaſt, inſtituted by Chriſt? as it was in Chancellors, Commiſſaries, &c. Nay, is it not as ſtrange that there ſhould be Authority, that is, juriſdiction, to binde and looſe, in thoſe that have no Office at all; as there is in the people in your way; as that there ſhould be an Office without juriſdiction? And now I leave you to conſider, whether of theſe Diſtributions is moſt conſentaneous to the truth.