A Vindication of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, Chapter 4
CHAP. IV. Of the Subject of Church-Liberty.
THis Key is given to the Brethen of the Church; for ſo faith the Apoſtle, Gal. 5.23. Brethren you are called unto liberty] Concerning the vindication of that Text enough hath been ſaid above. Before you come to the particulars of their liberties, you Rhetoricate a little, to make it more paſſable. [As in the commonwealth, the welfare of it ſtands in the due ballancing of the liberties or priviledges of the people, and the authority of the Magiſtrate: ſo in the Church, the ſafety of it is in the right ordering of the priviledges of the Brethren, and the miniſteriall authority of the Elders.] All this is granted: But the right ballancing of either, lyes not in the multitude of the people, as having any immediate influence into the government of Church or State: For then the government of both were Democraticall. But as in our State, the ballancing of the priviledges of the people, and the authority of the Magiſtrate ſupreme, lyes in the authority of the Parliament; where there are Knights and Burgeſſes repreſenting the people: ſo, I thinke it is in the Church; the ballancing of the Brethrens priviledges, and the Miniſters authority, ſeemes to lye in the Ruling-Elders, who are the repreſentatives of the people. But take away this ballaſt or poiſe of the government, and it will be either abſolutely Monarchicall, and ſo eaſily Tyrannicall, or elſe Democraticall, and ſo lyable to Anarchy and confuſion, as experience ſhewes us, in the Papall and Epiſcopall tyranny, and the Separatiſts Anarchy; the two extremes before obſerved. But let us take a view of the particulars. Their Liberties are;
1. [To chuſe their owne Officers: ſo Acts 1. and 6. and 14.] In generall I anſwer thus: The election of the people, was no more but a deſignation, or propounding the perſons, and preſenting them to the Apoſtles, not by way of vote or ſuffrage, but by way of deſire, if they were found fit, to have one or ſome of them ordained. But this is little or nothing to the power of the Keyes. That place Acts 1. was an extraordinary caſe, wherein the people had little or no hand: For 1. they were confined to ſome ſort of men, hat had converſed with our Saviour. 2. They propounded two, it was not in their power ſo much as to nominate the particular man. 3. The Lord himſelfe determined it, and not the Apoſtles, much leſſe the people; As for that word, foreign, ſtood upon, it cannot be properly taken, as if they by their votes or ſuffrages, had conſtituted or ordained Mathias to be an Apoſtle, but barely thus: Seeing God had choſen and ordained him, they accepted him by an orderly ſubjection to the revealed will of Chriſt. For the ſecond, Acts 6. It was expedient, that the people ſhould at leaſt have the nomination of their Deacons, becauſe better knowne to them, and ſo better to be truſted with their owne ſtocke. But they did but nominate or preſent the men, they did not ordaine ſo much as a Deacon; [Looke you out ſeven men, whom we (marke it) may appoint, or ordaine to this buſineſſe.] It is never found in all the New Teſtament, that ever the people ordained or impoſed hands upon any Officer; which makes me wonder at the liberty taken by Separatiſts, and allowed and practiſed by your ſelf;The way, p. 41. [That the Church or Brethren without Officers, may not only elect, but ordaine and impoſe hands upon their higheſt Officers.] As for the third place, Acts 14.23. The word cannot be well rendred: [They ordained them Elders, choſen by lifting up of hands:] For it is not to be referred to the people, but to Paul and Barnabas: who ſurely did not ordaine Elders by lifting up, but by laying on of hands. And ſo taken, it excludes the people; for the Subſtantive to foreign, is Paul and Barnabas: If they choſe the Elders by lifting up of hands, then the people are excepted, not only from ordination of their Officers, but from election too, by this Text. But further: ſome of your Brethren hold, that election is the chiefeſt peece of a Miniſters calling, and ordination, but a complement to the ſolemnity of it: And if ſo, the people doe ordaine them as well as elect, and thats more then a liberty, even as full authority as the Browniſts give to the people: Your ſelfe doe acknowledge ſome where,The way, p. 48. that [Ordination is a worke of Rule,] And yet you ſay alſo,Ibid. 45. [That the Brethren may ordaine their Officers;] Therefore the people have more than a key of liberty, The Keyes, p. 8. and often. Ordination & juriſdiction pertaine indifferently to all the Preſbyters. The way, p. 49they have a key of rule and authority; which yet againe you doe reſerve as proper to the Elders. Conſider how you can reconcile the contradictions. That the people have a liberty, juſtly to except, or rationally, to approve of their Officers, is granted; but this is (I ſtill ſay) nothing to the power of the Keyes, which conſiſts in Ordination of Officers choſen, not in the election of Officers to be ordained.
2. The ſecond liberty of the people is, [To ſend out meſſengers for the publicke ſervice of the Church, Phil. 2.25.] This may be granted a liberty, but nothing to the power of the keyes: People may aſſent to, or approve of the reaſonable choice of meſſengers to be ſent forth, juſt as poore Cottiers in the Countrey, that have no votes in the election of their Knights and Burgeſſes, have yet a conſent and approbation to ſend them to the Parliament.
3. A third Liberty▪ [To accept againſt ſuch as offer themſelves to communion, or unto the ſeales of it, Acts 9.26.] This is nothing more to the power of the keyes, than the former. Any woman may in a ſcandall, except againſt any that offers to partake of the Sacrament, by way of information to the Officers; yet hath no intereſt in the keyes.
4. A fourth: [To joyne with the Elders, in inquiring, hearing, judging of publick ſcandals, ſo as to bind notorious offendors under cenſures, and to forgive the penitens.] If this be not aequivocaly ſpoken, it is certainly more then a liberty. That they may enquire for their own ſatisfaction, and heare by way of preſence, is a liberty not to be denyed. But if you meane any more, it is more then a liberty, an act of rule and authority. Heare your owne words, ſpoken with reſpect to Biſhops, but will better fit our purpoſe:The way, p. 48. [If the Holy-Ghoſt had appointed the people to any ſhare in the keyes, he would have appointed them alſo ſome eminent worke. But what ſhall that be? Shall it be Ordination? Why that is a work of Rule: Or ſhall it be hearing accuſations againſt Elders, and cenſuring them accordingly? Why that is a worke of Rule alſo.] Let me adde, ſhall it be judging of publick ſcandals, ſo as to bind notorious offendors under cenſure? Why, that is a worke of Rule alſo. And conſider now, whether they have not a key of authority, as full as the Elders themſelves. If you meane a judgement of diſcretion only, which all the multitude have at an Aſſizes, it is juſt nothing to the purpoſe; a ſtranger, none of the Congregation, a woman, an heathen may doe as much. But you ſay, [The Apoſtle alloweth to all the Brethren a power to judge them that are within, 1 Cor. 5.22.] But either this is fallacious; There was a power in the Church of Corinth, to judge thoſe within; ergo, this power was in the people, or elſe it is falſe, if meant of authoritative judgement; or if only a judgement of diſcretion, it is quite beſides the queſtion. But you fearing an objection, prevent it, to judge is an act of Rule, which is proper to the Elders: you anſwer, [There is a judgement of diſcretion; As in the Iury it is an act of their popular liberty, in the Iudge an act of judiciall authority.] To this I have many things to ſay: 1. A judgement of diſcretion will not ſerve your turne; for that (as I ſaid) is common to all the people at an Aſſizes; and that is common to women, and heathens, if preſent, at your Conſiſtories; and if this be all, what difference is there between the judgement of a woman, an heathen, and of one of your Church-members. 2. The judgement of the Iury is indeed an act of popular liberty; but not of their liberty, more than of thoſe that are not of the Iury. For I aske, why are not all the reſt of the people, whom it concernes as much as thoſe twelve men of the Iury, admitted to the ſame judgement with them? Are not they wronged in point of popular liberty? would not you ſay, [The Brethren not admitted to the hearing and judging of an offender, were wronged, if only twelve of the Congregation were deſigned to heare and judge him.] In our native Countrey, the Iudge diſpenſes no ſentence, but according to the verdict of the Iury, &c. The way, p. 102.] 3. The judgement of the Iury, is more than of diſcretion (ſo all by-ſtanders judge) even of authority, in ſome degree and kind, though not compleat: For they condemne, or acquit the party, which all the reſt together cannot doe. 4. The Iudge, I take it, may not condemne who they acquit, nor acquit whom they condemne, (except by a ſpeciall indulgence) and thats farre more than a judgement of diſcretion in the Iury. If it be ſo with the Brethren here (as the Epiſtolers ſay it is) certainly they have more than a judgement of diſcretion: But your ſelfe ſay as much; you give the Brethren, not only joyned with their Elders, but without any Officers at all, full power to cenſure offenders: Remember your owne words;The way, p. 45, 101. [As for mutuall inſtruction, and admiſſion, election, and ordination of officers, opening the doores of the Church, by admiſsion of members, and ſhutting the ſame by Church-cenſures: Theſe things they may doe (if need be) without Officers: yea, and if all their Officers were found culpable, either in hereticall doctrine, or ſcandalous crime, yet the Church hath lawfull authority to proceed to the cenſure of them all.] If this be not as full or more authority than the Elders have over all the Brethren, I profeſſe, I underſtand nothing in this controverſie: yet this I underſtand, that you ſpeake cleare otherwiſe ſometimes; denying the Brethren any rule or authority, reſerving it only to the Elders: As if you meant no more, but that the people did but yeeld conſent to the judgement of their Elders, by obedience to the will of Chriſt, and many ſuch like words. 5. But to the point in hand: The Iury then doth not repreſent the Brethren, but the Ruling Elders; which ruling Elders ſtand in ſtead of all the Brethren, as the Iury doth in ſtead of all the people; and ſo the priviledge of the people is ſaved. Otherwiſe, all the people ſhould be of the Iury, as all the Congregation are allowed by you, and others, to be Iudges of the offender. And the truth is, it is a liberty or priviledge to the party that is arraigned, that he may be judged by his Peeres; It is not a liberty of the Iury: So it is a priviledge for any accuſed brother, that he ſhall be tryed and judged by his Peeres, the ruling-Elders: It is no priviledge of the reſt of the Brethren to be his Iudges; as it is no priviledge of all the people at the Aſſizes, that they may claime a place in the Iury. 6. That which you adde, that there is great difference between the Iudge and Iury: [For (ſay you) though the Iury have given up their verdict, yet the malefactor is not thereupon legally condemned, much leſſe executed, but upon the ſentence of the Iudge.] This being rightly paralelld, will make againſt you: ſo, though the ruling-Elders (repreſenting the people,) give up their votes and judgement; yet the party is not excommunicated, but upon the ſentence of the Paſtor. And indeed, the Iury rather ſeeme to acquit or condemne, than the Iudge; he doth but pronounce the ſentence, as they have adjudged it: ſo the ruling-Elders, being more in number, by votes determine the cauſe, which is pronounced by the Paſtor, and ſo the paralell is faire and full. But that all the people at the Aſsizes ſhould give up their verdict, as well as the Iury, is not in practiſe in the Common-wealth; and ſo ſpoiles the paralell of the votes of all the Brethren in the Church. And yet you perſiſt to ſay: [The whole Church may be ſaid to bind and looſe, in that they conſent and concurre with the Elders, both in diſcerning it to be juſt, and in declaring their judgement, by lifting up of hands, or by ſilence, and after, by rejecting the party, &c.] Iuſt as all the people at an Aſſizes, may be ſaid to condemne or acquit, becauſe they conſent with the Iudge and Iury, both by diſcerning it to be juſt, and in declaring their judgement, by lifting up their hands, or by ſilence, and after, by rejecting the party. But what if the people doe not conſent (as diſcerning it not to be juſt) nor will reject the party? Is he then acquitted? Thus it muſt be, or it holds not proportion with the caſe in hand: For if the Brethren doe no more but approve and execute the ſentence of the Presbytery, this is juſt nothing to the power of the keyes, intended to be given them, and is a meere paſsive priviledge. And that you may ſee your owne inconſtancy, conſider what you ſay elſewhere, page 11. [The Brethren ſtand in an Order, even in an orderly ſubjection, according to the order of the Goſpell page 15. They give conſent, in obedience to the will of Chriſt, page 37. They (the people) diſcerning the light and truth, readily yeeld obedience to their overſeers, page 41. That they may conſent to the judgement and ſentence of the Elders.] Had you kept your ſelfe conſtant to theſe expreſſions, you had both preſerved the truth of the Goſpell, and the peace of the Church.
And now for a concluſion of this Section; Let me urge you with an argument of your owne, againſt Epiſcopacy. page 39. [Hierome ſayes, the Churches were governed by the Common-councell of the Presbyters]*That nothing was done without their counſell, implyeth, that nothing was done without their authority. The way, page 31. The Prelates evaſion is, [By their counſell asked, not followed:] You anſwer: This would imply a contradiction to Hieromes words: For in asking their counſell, and not following it, the Biſhop ſhould govern the church againſt their Councel, which is a contradiction.] So ſay I: The Church (ſay you) is governed by the conſent of the Brethren: I aske, whether you meane their counſell and conſent asked only, or followed alſo. If the later, then the Brethren have as full authority with the Elders, as the Preſbyter, had with the Biſhop: If the former, it is a contradiction, to ſay, The Church is governed by the conſent of the Brethren, and yet is governed againſt their conſent; ſo that the queſtion clearly ſtated is this: [Whether the Brethren have ſuch concurrence and conſent, as that they have a negative vote, or caſting voice:] If they have, its that popular Anarchy, of you know whom: If not, its nothing to the power of the Keyes. Only, let me but remember you what elſewhere you ſay, concerning the peoples power in government of the Church:The way, p. 100. [In caſe the Officers doe erre, and commit offence, they ſhall be governed by the whole body of the Brethren; though otherwiſe, the Brethren are bound to obey and ſubmit to them in the Lord.] How you can reconcile theſe things I know not.
But now you propound a ſad queſtion: [Whether the Church hath power of proceeding to the utmoſt cenſure of their whole Preſbytery.] Before I take your anſwer, I obſerve 1. That you might have made the queſtion alſo, whether the Preſbytery hath power to proceed to the utmoſt cenſure of the Church, and the Brethren the Epiſtolers, reſolve both negatively, Epiſt. p. 4. 2. That you ſuppoſe here, that the Church may proceed to ſome, though not to the utmoſt cenſure of their Preſbytery; and that (as you would ſeeme to deny it in your anſwer, ſo) is more than liberty, it is a great degree of Authority, not only over one of your members, but over your Overſeers: And now I ſhall view your anſwer.
1. Anſw. [It cannot (ſay you) be well conceived, that the whole Preſbytery ſhould be proceeded againſt, becauſe ſome, a ſtrong party perhaps, will ſide with them, and then the Church ought not to proceed, without conſulting with the Synod.] Reply. But 1. this is beſides the queſtion, which ſuppoſes the whole Preſbytery, and the whole Church oppoſed; and ſo your anſwer may ſeeme to intimate, that if none did ſide with them, the Church might proceed againſt them, and that to the utmoſt cenſure; but only in a diſsenſion of the Church, they may not. 2. If in any caſe, they ought not to proceed, doth not this deſtroy their independency, if they muſt fly to a Synod? No (ſay you) they ought only to conſult the Synod. But if the Synod have no power to determine, and cenſure, they are ſtill but where they were. What if the Presbytery or Church will not ſubmit to their determination, or Declaration? (for it is no more) what remedy hath the Church againſt their erring, hereticall, ſcandalous Preſbytery? If the Synod have a power of cenſure, then againe you deſtroy your Independency: No; [The Church may withdraw from them:] So they might before they conſulted the Synod; nay, they were bound to doe it in your way, without conſulting the Synod. But you may call to mind your former thoughts. In your other Tract, you give them full power [to cenſure their Officers without any Officers;] as hath more then once been ſaid above.
And thus your ſecond anſwer is alſo anſwered already. You ſay, [Excommunication is one of the higheſt acts of Rule, The way, p. 101.and ergo, cannot be performed but by ſome Rulers;] Yet you contradict this f…ly, in your other Tract, when you ſay; [In caſe of offence given by an Elder, or by the whole Elderſhip together, the Church hath Authority, (marke that, Authority, which in this Booke you oft deny) to require ſatisfaction of them; and if they doe not give due ſatiſfaction, to proceed to cenſure according to the quality of the offence.] And yet (which is ſtrange, me thinks) here you reſolve the cleane contrary: [The Church cannot excommunicate the whole Preſbytery, becauſe they have not received from Chriſt an office of Rule, without their Officers.] But now if this reaſon be good, then on the other ſide it might ſeeme reaſonable; That the Presbytery might excommunicate the whole Church Apoſtate, becauſe they have received from Chriſt an office of Rule, without the Church: No, ſay you, [They muſt tell the Church, and joyne with the Church in that cenſure.] But this is to ſay and unſay: For if the Church muſt joyne with them, then the Church hath received ſome peece of an Office of Rule, which was before denyed: If you ſay, they have not received any Office of Rule, without their Officers; This may imply, that with their Officers they have received an Office of Rule, which all this while you have ſeemed to deny, allowing them a Liberty, but no Rule or Authority. And whereas you ſay; [They muſt tell the Church, but that cannot be, when the Church is Apoſtate:] I rejoyne, this makes it reaſonable to me, That there is another Church, to which they muſt tell the offence, by way of appeale; or elſe, both an erring Presbytery, or an Apoſtate Church, have no remedy to recover them, inſtituted by Chriſt; and ſo the Church, a multitude, or a Presbytery, is not ſo well provided for, as one particular member.
But you have found a remedy; [The Church wants not liberty to withdraw from them.] Is not this even tantamount with excommunication? Is it not the execution of that ſentence, to withdraw, eſpecially in your way. Excommunication is the contrary to communion. Now how doth the Church communicate their Elders? Take your owne words: [As they ſet up the Preſbytery, The Keyes, p 17.by profeſsing their ſubjection to them in the Lord: ſo they avoid them (that is, in ſenſe, excommunicate them) by profeſsed withdrawing their ſubjection from them, according to God] And this is as much as any people doe, or need to doe, to perſons excommunicate; unleſſe you grant them a power to the very Act and decree of excommunication; which as you have clearly done in your other Tract, ſo you doe here, giving them a power more than Miniſteriall, even a Kingly, and more than a Kingly power, when you ſay; [They rule the Church, by appointing their owne Officers, and likewiſe in cenſuring offenders, not only by their Officers (which is as much as Kings are wont to doe) but alſo by their owne Royall aſſent, which Kings are not wont to doe, but only in the execution of Nobles.] Satis pro imperio.
5. The laſt Liberty of the Church, is Liberty of communion with other Churches, which is ſeven wayes exerciſed, &c.] To this I ſay in generall: This is rather communion of Saints, than communion of Churches; becauſe in your way, every Church is independent, and hath no Church-ſtate, in relation to any, but its owne members. We ſuppoſe this communion is the liberty or priviledge of every Chriſtian, by vertue of his intereſt in the generall viſible Church, and not by any peculiar intereſt in a particular Congregation. He that is a profeſſed Chriſtian, and baptized, hath a right to all the Ordinances of God, where ever he find them; As of old, he that was a Citizen of Rome, or ſo borne, was a freeman, through all the Romane Empire, and enjoyed the priviledges of a Roman. A Chriſtian is a free Deacon in any part of the Chriſtian world; [A Citizen with the Saints, and of the houſhold of God, Eph. 2.19.] And this to me ſeemes reaſonable upon theſe grounds: 1. Becauſe every Chriſtian, not yet in a particular Church, or Congregation, is at liberty to joyne himſelfe to any Church, tyed by no obligation to one more than another. 2. Becauſe it is lawfull for any member of a particular Church, upon juſt reaſons to leave that Church, and to joyne himſelfe to another, and nothing can hinder his removall or communion with another Church, except he be ſcandalous, &c. 3. It was the cuſtome of the firſt times, before Congregations were fixed, to adde them to the viſible Church, were their number leſſer or greater, and give them communion in all the Ordinances of Chriſt. 4. Becauſe the whole viſible Church is but one City, one Kingdome, though for orders ſake, divided into ſeverall Corporations. It is not ſo in civill reſpects; A Citizen of one Corporation, cannot goe and ſet up trade in another, becauſe they have their ſeverall Charters: But in the City of God, the Kingdome of Chriſt, there is but one Charter for all; and no more is required to admit a man a member of any Congregation, but that he profeſſe himſelfe a Chriſtian, and live accordingly. Your New Covenant to tye men to your particular Church, that he may not remove, without a generall leave, will, I feare, prove a ſnare and a tyranny, worſe than yet we can imagine.
1. But come we to your particulars: [Firſt, by way of participation of the Lords Supper, the members of one Church comming to another Church, &c.] But 1. Why doe you inſtance in this Ordinance only? Have not their children occaſionally borne there, a liberty alſo of Baptiſme? Where neither of the parents can claim right to the Lords Supper; there their Infants cannot claime right to Baptiſme. The way, p. 81. Nor the childe of an excommunicate perſon, p. 85.The rather, becauſe Baptiſme is not adminiſtred with reſpect to this or that Church, but to the generall viſible Church: Unleſſe you hold, that a man or childe is baptized to no Church, but that particular, and an Infidell to all the reſt. Yet ſome of your brethren will hardly baptize a childe of any, but a member of their owne Church, which is next doore to Anabaptiſme. 2. I aske by what power of the keyes, doe your Paſtors admit a member of another Church, to partake of the Lords Supper, in yours? Or in what relation doth your Paſtor ſtand to that member of another Church? You ſay, Paſtor and Church are relates, and he is a Paſtor to none but of his owne Church: Either then, to adminiſter the Lords Supper to a member of another Church, is no Paſtorall act, but may be done by a gifted brother: Or elſe, a Paſtor and his Church are not ſo relates, but that he is a Paſtor beyond the limits of his owne Congregation, which yet you doe deny. 3. You are alſo very ſparing in granting this liberty: For you adde; [In caſe, neither himſelfe, nor the Church from whence he comes, doe lye under any publicke offence.] But what if that party be free from the guilt of that offence? Shall the innocent ſuffer for the nocent? what charity, what juſtice is in this? 4. But your reaſon I like very well: [For we receive the Lords Supper, not only as a Seale of our Communion with the Lord Ieſus, and with his members in our owne Church, but alſo in all the Churches of the Saints:] Whence I inferre, then it is not any favour diſpenſed by you, to a member of another Church, but a dignity or priviledge, common to every member of that body, by vertue of that memberſhip, and not with reſpect to his particular Church memberſhip. And I pray, is not Baptiſme alſo a Seale of our Communion, with all the members of Chriſts body? Why then may you not admit the children of the members of any Church, to be baptized by your Paſtors, upon juſt occaſion, as well as to admit the parents to the Lords Supper? Nay further: If the Sacraments be Seales of our communion with all the members of Chriſt, why doe you not admit any true Chriſtian, and his children, to the communion of the Sacraments, though they be not as yet admitted members of any particular Congregation? How dare you deny any member of that Body, communion with its fellow-members, when it hath union and communion with the Head? Conſider it.
2. A ſecond way of your communion of Churches, is, [By way of recommendation as Paul in the behalfe of Phoebe, &c.] But this is ſo farre from being any part of the power of the Keyes, that it is a duty, which a Church or party owe to any Chriſtian that is godly, not by vertue of any particular Church-memberſhip, but by the common intereſt of Chriſtianity; yea, by the common right of humanity, even to an honeſt Heathen, according to the ninth Commandement, which requires us, to beare true witneſſe to our brother, if we be thereto required. The letters are only declarative, of the good behaviour of the party, occaſioned to remove to ſuch a place. Was this (thinke you) a part of the power of the Keyes, delivered to Peter, and the reſt of the Apoſtles? Beſides, if there be any vertue in theſe letters, to admit a member into communion, is there not a like vertue in them, to excommunicate one ungodly? And if theſe letters dimiſſory have power to admit a member of one Church, to be a member of another, without any new covenanting, have they not the like power to admit the Paſtor of one Church, to be a Paſtor of another Church, without any new Ordination? which yet, I beleeve, you doe not practiſe.
3. [By way of Conſultation; and 4 by Congregation into a Synod.] But what is all this to the power of the Keyes? If upon Congregation, and conſultation of other Church-Officers, there be not a binding power, it is rather a latch of a doore, which may be opened and ſhut at any bodies pleaſure, than a Key to let in, or locke out with any Authority. But of the power of Synods more hereafter.
4. A fifth way is: [The liberty of giving and receiving mutuall ſupplyes one from another; gifted men, or benevolences, &c.] I conceive firſt, theſe are rather duties of common charity, than of Church liberty, or any power of the Keyes: And I deſire to know what thoſe gifted men were, that the Church of Antioch ſent to other Countries? Were they not Apoſtles, or Prophets, or Teachers in Office? Then they were Paſtors or Teachers by Office, before they were ſent, before they were elected or ordained by the Churches to which they were ſent. Thereupon it followes, that a Paſtor or Teacher (becauſe you may ſay a Paſtor relates to his owne flocke) a Teacher (ſo was Barnabas, Acts 13.1.) is a Teacher to the generall viſible Church, not to the particular Church only, as you hold. And then againe, a Teacher, quâ Teacher, may preach to another Church, and convert Heathens; and not as a gifted brother only, as you ſometimes ſpeake.
A ſixth way is, [By way of mutuall admonition, when a publicke offence is found amongſt them: One Church may ſend to admoniſh another, and if that Church will not heare, take two or three other Churches; and if not heare them, then withdraw, &c.] This admonition is a duty of every brother, at leaſt of every Chriſtian, as a Chriſtian, and no power of the Keyes at all: And let it be conſidered, that the place, Matth. 18.15, 16.Thoſe two or three are not conſidered as a Church-body, but as a ſufficient number of witneſſes, to joyne with a brother offended, &c. agreeing in a duty of brotherly love, &c. The way, p. 53. doth not make the admonition of one or more brethren, any power of the Keyes, but a duty only concerning every man, in order to the cenſure of the Church: But if one or more Churches may proceed with a Church-offending, as private perſons with an offending brother; why may they not take the third ſtep, as the laſt remedy, to excommunicate her, being obſtinate, as the Church doth an obſtinate b…o her? No; [Becauſe the Churches are all of equall authority:] But ſo are all the members of a Congregation of equall authority, yet the whole may excommunicate him: And if there be as much Church-communion between Churches, as there is between members of a particular Congregation; I ſee no reaſon, why many Churches aſſembled in a Synod, may not as well excommunicate an obſtinate Church, as a Congregation, a particular member. If you deny excommunication of a Church, others will (and doe) deny excommunication of a member, and ſay, non-communion, or withdrawing is as much as can be done. And if you ſay, the Churches may withdraw communion; I demand, firſt, what is that in effect, but excommunication, wanting only a Synodicall Decree; yet page 25. you ſay, [A Synod hath power to determine, to withdraw communion from an offending Church:] And is it any more in the excommunic…tion of an offending brother? They doe but determine all ſhall withdraw communion from him. This is therefore but a meere Logom…chie.
6. The laſt way of Communion of Churches, is, [by way of prop…gation, or multiplication of Churches:] But 1. This is rather a diviſion of Churches, than either propagation, or multiplication: For theſe very Churches were before all one Church, now only divided into two The Apoſtles and the firſt Planters, did not thus propagate Churches; but went into places, where no Churches were, no Chriſtians, and there gathered and multiplyed Churches. We have enough of this diviſion of Churches, (ſince your way ſet up) but little of the propagation or multiplication. Primitive and Apoſtolicall. For I pray Sir, tell us, next time you write over, how many Churches have you multiplyed amongſt the Indians in New-England? Not one, that I ever heard of: You have d vided Churches indeed, from old England, but propagated none. And our Brethren at home, how many Churches have they divided and d…ſtracted ſince their returne, but have multiplyed none? If ſome new Teachers ſhould ariſe in New England, and gather (or rather ſteale) ſome members out of every of your Congregations, would you call this multiplication of Churches, or rather diviſion? Had you gone into New England, and ſent out your Paſtors, (who are by calling, ſpirituall Fathers) to convert Indians, (as was pretended) or our Brethren here gone and ſent into Wales, and other parts, little better than heathens, and converted them, and had gathered them into Churches, this had been a propagation of Churches indeed. But this they doe not, nor will doe, nor well can doe: For their opinion is, (and yours too in New England) that no Paſtor is a Paſtor to any, but his particular Congregation: ſo their Paſtors are only Nurſes to give ſucke, not ſpirituall Fathers, to propagate and beget children to God and his Church. That they leave to every gifted brother, to raiſe up ſeed to their Brethren, and not to themſelves. For if once the children be borne, and a little growne up, then theſe (Fathers in Law) take them up, or rather ſteale them from them, who have ſpent their ſtrength in begetting, and breeding them, travelling in paine, till Chriſt was formed in them. But if a Paſtor and flocke be relates, is a Teacher ſo too? They may doe well then to ſend Teachers to beget children for their Paſtors; leſt it be ſaid: [No man in Office hath any ſkill, or will, or power, to propagate but only to divide Churches.]
Againe, why doe you call this a power of the Keyes; for a Church to ſend out a Congregation (as an Hive doth a ſwarm) when they are too full? This is their liberty, not yours. They have power without you, to gather themſelves together, and to enter into a Church-way, and to chuſe their Officers, and doe all, as well as you had.
Laſtly, if Paſtors, quâ Paſtors, or Teachers, quâ Teachers, are tyed to a particular Congregation, then cannot they propigate Churches; only gifted Brethren can doe that: And ſo gifted Brethren, not Paſtors and Teachers, are the Succeſſors of the Apoſtles: We thinke Paſtors and Teachers are Officers to the whole Church as the Apoſtles were; You will ſay, then they are Apoſtles: Firſt, will you ſay your gifted Brethren are Apoſtles, becauſe they goe abroad to convert and propagate Churches? Secondly, it followes not; That which made the Apoſtles differ from the Paſtors, is delivered by your ſelfe, to ſtand in two things: 1.The Keyes, p. 32. [That an Apoſtle had in him in all miniſteriall power of all the Officers of the Church. 2. That Apoſtolicall power extended to all Churches as much as to any one.] But withall you ſay, [That this power conjoyned in them, is now divided by them, amongſt all the Churches, and all the Officers of the Churches reſpectively.] I aske then, what Officer of the Church hath power to plant and propagate Churches? Your gifted Brethren are no Officers of the Church: I hope, Ruling Elders and Deacons are tyed as well to their particular Churches, as the Paſtors and Teachers; ergo, it muſt fall upon the Paſtors and Teachers, or there is no ſuch thing now, as propagation of Churches. But take once more your owne grant in this Paragraph, where now we are: [Though the Apoſtles be dead, whoſe Office it was to plant and gather Churches; yet the worke is not dead, but the ſame power of the Keyes is left with the Churches in common, &c.] Marke, firſt, you call it a power of the keyes, to plant and gather Churches, and an Office of the Apoſtles: But this power of the Keyes, this Office is not bequeathed to gifted Brethren, nor to Ruling-Elders, or Deacons; ergo, it is left to the Paſtors or Teachers. Next, you ſay, the ſame power of the Keyes is left with the Churches in common: You ſhould ſay, with the Paſtors or Teachers of the Church, or with the Churches indeed, but in the hands of her Officers: Otherwiſe, you make not only the brethren, but ſiſters too (according to their meaſure, as you ſpeake) Fathers and Mothers [To propagate and inlarge the Kingdome of Chriſt, throughout all generations, as God ſhall give opportunity.] But were it ſo, yet then much more would it concerne the Paſtors and Teachers (the Succeſſors of the Apoſtles, if they have any at all) to propagate and inlarge the Kingdome of Chriſt, as God ſhall give opportunity.