A Vindication of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, Chapter 3
CHAP. III. Of the Subject of the Key of Knowledge and Order.
YOu firſt tell us in generall; [That as the Keyes be divers, ſo are the Subjects to whom they are committed divers.] But this is very doubtfull and diſputable; becauſe at firſt, all the Keyes were given to Peter at once, and therefore one ſubject may poſſeſſe them all: And ſure they all meet in Paſtors, every one of them hath all the Keyes; of knowledge and of power; of Order and juriſdiction, according to the old diſtribution, and perhaps in yours alſo. As the Apoſtles had all the Keyes by your confeſſion; [They might exhort as Paſtors, The Keyes, p. 32.teach as Teachers, rule as Rulers, receive and diſtribute the oblations of the Church as Deacons:] So, I ſee no reaſon, but every Miniſter of the Goſpell hath virtually in him all the ſame power and Offices: And if they be ſince divided into more hands, for caſe and Order, yet the ſubject is primarily but one; and for the diverſity of ſubjects of the Keyes, it concernes them who plead it, to make it good by Scripture. VponUpon this reaſon, there are ſome, who as they queſtion the Office of a ruling Elder, having 1. no direct or expreſſe inſtituted for it in the Scripture. 2. No inſtance of any ſuch, that ruled, and were not alſo Paſtors. 3. Nor doe you ſay, That Peter received the Keyes as a ruling-Elder, but as a Paſtor: ſo they would not yeeld the Office of the Deacon, but that they finde expreſſe inſtituted of it afterwards by the Apoſtles. But I will not multiply controverſies, but come to your particulars.
1 [The Key of knowledge (or which is all one, the Key of faith) belongeth to all the faithfull, whether joyned to any particular Church or no.] But 1. Then one of the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven belongs to women, yea to Infidels; When God gives them Faith, [he gives them a Key to receive Chriſt, and to find an open doore to enter into the fellowſhip of the Church.] But ſure the Apoſtle Peter did not repreſent Infidels when the Keyes were committed to him. 2. The Keyes (you ſaid) were given to the Church; but now you ſay, they are given to ſome before they enter into the Church. But I pray, Sir, is not he entred into the Church, who hath received Chriſt, and makes profeſſion of his faith? Yes, you may ſay, into the myſticall Church, but not into a particular church-fellowſhip. I anſwer, he is entred alſo into the generall viſible Church, by profeſſion of his faith; to which Church, we thinke, the Keyes were firſt given, and after, to the particular Church. But you have ſo long dreamed of a particular Church, to be the firſt and only inſtituted Church, that you ſeeme to forget the viſible generall Church, The way, p. 10and indeed, to call it a Chimara. This, we thinke, you learned from your Couſins, if not your Brethren, the Browniſts. Heretofore, in Scripture language, ſo ſoone as men beleeved, and profeſſed their faith, they were ſaid, to be added to the Church, not to a particular Congregation (for ſo ſome were never added, for ought we know, as the Eunuch, and ſome others) but to the generall viſible Church. And I pray, what Key was it that opened the doore to enter them into the Church? Was it the key of their owne particular knowledge or Faith? or the key of preaching, viz. the key of knowledge in the Miniſters of the Goſpell, and not in themſelves? You ſay here (which is the truth) that [they find an open doore to enter into the fellowſhip of the Church:] which is paſsively, to be capable to be admitted into the Church, and not actively, to open the doore to themſelves.
2. [The Key of Order, belongeth to all ſuch as are in Church order, whether Elders or Brethren.] But this is doubtfully ſpoken in a double reſpect: 1. What you meane by Order as afore. If Order and Office be all one (as you ſeemed to yeeld) then the key of Order belongs not to the Brethren at all, but to the Elders, who are in office. If Order be taken for orderly carriage, or, (as you your ſelfe ſpeak in this very Paragraph) For [orderly ſubjection, according to the order of the Goſpell] it is juſt nothing to the power of the Keyes: For keyes imply an active power, orderly ſubjection is morally paſſive. 2. It is alſo doubtfull, what is meant by Church in this place: If it be taken for the generall viſible Church, that hath nothing to doe with the power of the keyes, which are committed (ſay you) to the particular Church: If for the particular Congregation, it is then doubtfull ſtill. For it may be asked, what power have the Brethren in Church Order, in the keyes of Order, more than one not yet in Church Order? Your ſelfe ſpeake confuſedly here, in my judgement, when you ſay; [Every faithfull ſoule that hath received a key of knowledge (you ſhould rather ſay, knowledge, by the key of preaching) is bound to watch over his Neighbours ſoule, as his owne, &c. non ratione ordinis ſed in tuitu charitatis; Not by vertue of a ſtate or order which he is in (till in Church-fellowſhip) but as of common Chriſtian love and charity; one in Church-Order, is bound to doe it in both reſpects, &c.] But 1. A Chriſtian of no particular Church as yet, is in a Church-Order, with reſpect to the generall viſible Church, (or elſe what differs he from an Infidell?) and ſo is bound to watch over his Neighbour, not only by vertue of common charity, but of that Chriſtian-Order, wherein he ſtands. 2. Nay, an Infidell is bound, in tuitu charitatis, by vertue of common naturall love and charity, to watch over, and admoniſh his brother: and is a Chriſtian (not yet in Church-Order, as you call it) bound no more than he, to watch over his brother? If he be, (as he is, by a nearer relation unto the myſticall body, and viſible Church of Chriſt) then he is to doe it, by vertue of his Order, or ſtate of Chriſtianity: If he be not, what differs he from an Infidell? It was a morall Law, Lev. 19.18. [Thou ſhalt not hate thy brother, but rebuke him, &c.] Which Cain deſpiſed, when he ſaid;, [Am I my brothers keeper?] Surely it is want of naturall charity, not to watch over a brother, that is not in Church-Order as you meane it. And it is not becomming a Chriſtian to ſay: [A Chriſtian in Church-Order is not to watch over a brother not in Church-Order, ratione ordinis, but only in tuitu charitatis:] He is bound to doe ſo for an Infidell, and is he bound no more to a Chriſtian? Suppoſe one in your Church-Order, ſee a Chriſtian not in Church-Order, walke unorderly; is he not bound to admoniſh him, by that royall Law of Church-Order, Mat. 18.1. And if he will not heare him, to take two or three more; and if he will not heare them, to tell it to the Church; and afterwards, to walke towards him, as God directs the Church to order it? Hath Chriſt ordained no better remedy to reclaime a Chriſtian, not in Church-Order, than to reclaime an Infidell? But further: An Officer, or one in a ſuperiour Order, by reaſon of his office, is bound to watch over his brothers ſoule, not only in tuitu charitatis, but alſo ratione ordinis. Is a brother bound as much as he? or he no more then a brother out of office? Againe, a Deacon is in a ſuperiour Order, by reaſon of his office (as you ſpeake here of Elders) in what different reſpect is he bound to watch over his brother? no otherwiſe then a brother out of office? Truly then it is all one in your way, to be in an office, and out of office. And this is the way to baniſh, if not Chriſtian, yet naturall charity out of the Church: And it is obſervable, that ſince this new Church-fellowſhip, and Church covenant hath been ſet up, charity is growne very cold, and ſome of them have been heard to profeſſe [they had nothing to doe with an offendor, not of their owne particular Church-communion:] And doe indeed account all not of their way, little better than Infidels, or as they ſpeake without; and in a manner ſay with Cain, Am I my brothers keeper? Never was there ſo little charity, ſo much ſcorne and contempt of all not in their owne way, as is found in them that profeſſe themſelves the only people, that have found the way of Chriſt, though in ſeverall Sections.