A Vindication of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, Chapter 7

A Vindication of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven · Chapter 7

p. 61CHAP. VII. The firſt Subject of all this Power; and of Independency.

LEtting paſſe what is ſaid of Chriſt, the ſoveraigne Subject of all power, as out of all queſtion, we conſider only what you ſay of Miniſteriall power.

1. Propoſ. [A particular Church, or Congregation of Saints, is the firſt ſubject of all the Church-offices, with all their ſpirituall gifts and power,] 1 Cor. 3.22, &c. But, under favour, all the Texts produced to prove the Propoſition, are miſtaken, or miſapplyed. The firſt, 1 Cor. 3.22. is not ſpoken to the Church of Corinth, or any other particular Church, as a peculiar priviledge unto them; but either, of all Saints in the world, or of thoſe in the Church of Corinth, as Saints, not promiſcuouſly of the whole Church, as a Church, conſiſting of good and bad: For, was Paul and Apollos; was life and death, were things preſent, and things to come, given to wicked men and hypocrites in that Church? was Paul an Apoſtle, and Cephas another, given as a peculiar priviledge to the Church of Corinth only? Yea, is not this meant of the inviſible myſticall Church, and not of any particular Church? For the ſecond, 1 Cor. 14.23. you ſay, [Theirs was ſuch a Church, of whom it is ſaid; They came altogether p. 62into one place.] But we have told you, at the beginning, this was not ſuch a Church as you deſcribed, [A Congregation of Saints profeſsing the faith] without their Officers: which I thinke you meane here alſo; (for theſe things are taken out of, The way, p. 1.) This was a Church that had many Officers. The third Text, 1 Cor. 12.28. is not meant of a particular Church. For I pray, were the Apoſtles ſet in the Church of Corinth only, as a particular Church? Were not they Miniſters of all, and given to all Churches? Your labour about foreign, ſome, to referre it to the Apoſtles, is but a meere criticiſme; for let it be ſome, or which, it matters not. For thoſe Apoſtles or Prophets were not ſet in the Church of Corinth, as the firſt ſubject thereof, but in the generall viſible Church: ſo the paralell place, Eph. 4.12. is neceſſarily meant of the Church of Saints, or the body of Chriſt generally, or indefinitely, not of this or that particular Church. What weake proofes are theſe, for a propoſition of ſo great concernment, as being the very foundation of the Independent Government?

But you read of no Nationall Church, nor Nationall Officers given to them by Chriſt: Yet (ſay we) we reade of Officers more than Nationall, given to the Churches, even univerſall, as Apoſtles and Prophets: And ſome thinke we reade of Nationall Officers, ſuch was Titus for Crete; as an Evangeliſt, though we take theſe to be extraordinary. 2. We read of Nationall Churches, living under one common government, as the Churches of Galatia; yet but one Church; and the Church of Ieruſalem, had many Congregations, yet but one Church: And if many Congregations may be called one Church in a City; why all the Congregations in a Nation, may not be called one Nationall Church, I ſee no great reaſon? Not indeed in a typicall ſenſe, as the Church p. 63of the Jewes was, a Nationall Church. 3. You grant, that the Officers of particular Churches of a Province, or Nation, may meet, as a Synod, by an Ordinance of Chriſt; Iohn ſpeaks of the dimenſions, of many particular Iewiſh Churches combining together in ſome cauſes, even to the communion of a thouſand Churches, and all of them will have ſuch mutuall care, and yeeld ſuch mutuall help and communion one to another, as if they were all but one Body. The Keyes, p. 56.and there determine, and enjoyne things for all their Churches; and this Synod you call, a Church of Churches: Now, are not thoſe Officers, Officers to all thoſe Churches, and may not they be called Nationall Officers, in a candid ſenſe? It is therefore a meere Logomachy, to diſpute, whether there be a Nationall Church, or Nationall Officers, or no: But [the Officers themſelves (ſay you) and the Synods themſelves, and all their power, are primarily given to the ſeverall Churches of particular Congregations, either as the firſt ſubject in whom they are reſident, or as the firſt object, about whom they are converſant, &c.] Let me firſt tell you, you plainly vary the queſtion, which is, of the firſt ſubject, not of the firſt object.

2. The firſt object of all the Church Officers, is not the particular Churches; certainly the firſt object of the Apoſtles and Prophets was the generall viſible Church, not any particular Church: Nay, every Paſtor is firſt given to the whole Church, ſecondarily to this or that particular Church as the object; as I thinke, I have proved above, at leaſt, you doe not ſufficiently diſprove it: But 3. that the power which a Synod puts forth, [is ſubjectively firſt in the Synod; The Keyes. p. 47.] is your owne aſſertion in your 4. propoſition; you did therefore much forget your ſelfe here, to aſſert the contrary; and thinke to evade, by altering the ſtate of the queſtion, putting the firſt object, for the firſt ſubject, or joyning them together, when the queſtion is of the firſt ſubject only. Surely, if the power of a Synod be any thing more than the power of a particular Congregation; the particular Congregation cannot be the firſt ſubject, in whom the power of the Synod p. 64is reſident. But when I conſider your firſt propoſition better, I begin to thinke your meaning is, that the Church particular, even without Officers, is the firſt Subject of all Church-power; becauſe 1. ſuch a Church you define in, The Way, to be the only inſtituted Church; and ſecondly, you give them power to derive their power upon their Officers, in chuſing and ordaining them, and then ſending them to a Synod; and ſo indeed, they are the firſt Subject, even of the power put forth in the Synod: But if this be not downright Browniſme, I confeſſe, I know not what is. Let me but make uſe of your owne characters of the firſt Subject of all power: [The firſt ſubject of any power hath it reciprocally:] But a particular Congregation of Saints, hath not all Church-offices, and all ſpirituall power reciprocally: For it may be without all Officers: ſo cannot fire, the firſt Subject of heate, be without heate. Againe, take the ſecond character: [It firſt putteth forth the exerciſe of that power.] But ſay I, a particular Congregation without Officers, doth not firſt put forth the power of an Officer, or of a Synod; ergo, If you ſay, yet the third will fit it rightly: [It firſt communicateth that power to others.] becauſe the Church firſt makes her owne Officers, and then imployes them in the Church or Synod. I aske, whether this be not that extreme which the Brethren ſpeake of; giving [the chiefe, if not the whole of the power into the hands of the people (without their Officers) as if Chriſt had radically and originally eſtated it in the people, Epiſt. p. 2.]

2. Propoſ. [The Apoſtles were the firſt ſubject of Apoſtolicall power.] But then 1. why doe you not ſay, proportionably, that the Paſtors are the firſt Subject of Paſtorall power; and the Ruling-Elders of Ruling power, &c? 2. If the firſt Subject of all the Church-offices, with all their p. 65ſpirituall gifts and power, be a particular Congregation, how can you ſay now, that the Apoſtles were the firſt ſubject of Apoſtolicall power? Nay rather, in your way, the particular Congregation, is the firſt ſubject, even of Apoſtolicall power; and the Apoſtles had it by derivation from them; and ſo make the Church the Queene, that beſtoweth all theſe Offices upon her Officers; and ſo ſay the Browniſts. But to the contrary, its certaine, there were Apoſtles, who had this Apoſtolicall power, before there was any particular Congregation; As ſhall appeare in the particulars.

1. You ſay, their power ſtood in this; [That each Apoſtle had in him all miniſteriall power of all the officers of the Church, Paſtors, Teachers, Rulers, Deacons.] But this is a flat contradiction to your firſt propoſition, That a particular Congregation was the firſt ſubject of all the Church-offices and power: There cannot be two firſt ſubjects, much leſſe three firſt ſubjects of one Adjunct; and yet here you joyne Evangeliſts with Apoſtles, and ſay, that [one Apoſtle or Evangeliſt, carried about with him the liberty and power of the whole Church; and ergo, might alone baptize and cenſure.] If you ſhould ſay, they received this power from the Church, you ſay, that which jumps with the Browniſts opinion, and that which is apparantly falſe. Take all your 3. characters of a firſt ſubject: 1. It firſt receiveth that power. 2. It firſt puts forth the exerciſe of that power. 3. It firſt communicateth that power to others: They all fall upon the Apoſtles, before there was any particular Congregation; They firſt received power from Chriſt; They firſt exerciſed that power; They firſt communicated that power, by making Paſtors, Elders, Deacons: Beſides, in your other Tract you ſay, expreſſely as much, or more.The way, p. 83. [One Apoſtle received both p. 66the gifts and power of all the Officers of the Church, and might exerciſe them all alone, without the Church.] Though your Brethren that publiſhed that Tract, doe affixe their Starre againſt it, which (according to their intimation in their Epiſtle) ſignifies as much as, Magiſter non tenetur. And no marvell, for you are not conſtant to your ſelfe: Your firſt and ſecond propoſitions doe directly contradict one another.

2. [Apoſtolicall power (ſay you) extended it ſelfe to all Churches, as much as to any one; and ſo they were the firſt and laſt ſubject of Apoſtolicall power.] This ſtill makes the contradiction greater: For how then, could you truly ſay; [The particular congregation was the firſt ſubject of all Church-power:] when the power of a particular Congregation extends it ſelfe no further then its owne bounds, and Apoſtolicall power extends to all Churches? 2. How can you ſay they were the laſt ſubject of all power; when you ſaid afore, The particular congregation is the firſt ſubject of all power? And when you ſay here, [That ample and univerſall latitude of power, which was conjoyned in them, is now divided even by themſelves, amongſt all the Churches, and all the Officers reſpectively.] Then it followes 1. That the Church is not the firſt ſubject of all power; for it is divided by the Apoſtles, amongſt all the Churches. 2. That the Apoſtles were not the laſt ſubject of all Apoſtolicall power; for it is left with the Churches and Officers: But ſtill the queſtion is, whom the Apoſtles did betruſt firſt, with the ordinary power of Paſtors, Teachers, Elders, Deacons? The Churches (ſay you) and the Officers reſpectively: But what doe you meane? that one part of that power was given firſt to the Churches; another part, firſt to the Officers? This is not conſentaneous to your firſt propoſition: where you ſay, [The Church is the firſt ſubject of all Church offices, p. 67and all Church power:] Or doe you meane (as you ſhould, if you ſpeake congruouſly) that the Church receives all power firſt, and then diſtributes it among the Officers reſpectively? Then (ſay I) your middle way, fals out to be the extreme of Browniſts; who make the people the firſt ſubject of all power. But I thinke the truth is; That the Apoſtles betruſted the power of the Officers, not firſt with the Churches, but with the Officers themſelves: They, and Evangeliſts, ordained Elders in every City, not the Churches: Paul gives Timothy a charge, [to commit that which he had received of him, to faithfull men, that might be able to teach others alſo, 2 Tim. 2.2.] To conclude this: You ſaid above, That the Keyes were diſtributed into ſeverall hands; the Key of Liberty unto the Brethren; the Key of Authority unto the Officers; and is not this a contradiction to what your firſt propoſition doth aſſert; That the particular Church of Brethren, is the firſt ſubject of all Church-offices, and of all Church-power, and ſo of the Authority of the Officers? conſider it.

3. Propoſ. [When the Church of a particular congregation, walketh together in the truth and peace, the Brethren are the firſt ſubject of Church liberty, and the Elders thereof, of Church-authority; and both, of all Church-power, needfull to be exerciſed amongſt themſelves.] This is very cautelouſly delivered, yet not enough to cover your contradiction. Either this propoſition is the ſame with the firſt, or elſe it contradicts it. There you ſaid, that the particular congregation of Saints, was the firſt ſubject of all the Church-offices, with all their ſpirituall gifts and power: Now you divide this power, between them and the Elders; giving the one Church-liberty, the other, Authority. 2. There is a limitation for this too; it is but when they walke in truth and p. 68Peace: But if they walke not ſo, what is the firſt ſubject of all that power? Have not the Brethren their Liberty, and the Elders their Authority, as the firſt Subjects, when they differ? If ſo; then your caution is idle, [when they walke in truth and peace: If not, then neither of them ſingle, nor both together, are the firſt ſubject of all power needfull to be exerciſed amongſt themſelves: And we ſhall heare anon, a Synod is the firſt ſubject of all power needfull to be exerciſed amongſt themſelves; When there are diviſions and factions among them, page 47. Yet againe, in your other Tract, you give the particular Congregation of Brethren, the whole power, of chuſing, ordaining Officers, and cenſures of their Officers, if they be hereticall.

1. That the Brethren are the firſt ſubject of Church-liberty, you labour to prove thus: [By removall of any former ſubject, whence they might derive it: Not from their Elders; for they had power to chuſe their owne Elders: Not from other Churches, for all Churches are equall: Not from a Synod; they of Antioch borrowed none of their Liberties from Ieruſalem.] I anſwer; the enumeration is not ſufficient: For though they received it from none of thoſe, yet they might derive it from ſome others; namely, from the Elders of other Churches, by whom they were firſt converted to the Faith: For the Liberties or priviledges that a Congregation hath, as diſtinct from Elders, comes to them by vertue of their intereſt, either in the Body myſticall, or Catholicke viſible Church; which is in Order, before their memberſhip of a particular Congregation: They muſt be viſible Saints, before they can gather into a congregation of viſible Saints; and every one ſingle hath a liberty or priviledge to aſſociate, before they can all be aſſociated: Now thence it followes, that thoſe Elders that firſt converted them did p. 69virtually derive that liberty or priviledge to them; Faith comes by hearing: How ſhall they heare without a Preacher? Remember your owne words:The Keyes, p. 10. [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; which argueth, that the key of knowledge is given not only to the Church, but to ſome before they enter into the Church.] Now who gave them this key of Faith, inſtrumentally, but [the Miniſters by whom they beleeved?] Therefore, the Church of a particular Congregation, are not the firſt ſubject of Church-liberty; but every particular Beleever hath it firſt, and that derived from ſome Elders. And certainly, in the firſt plantation of Churches, the Officers, Elders I meane, were before the Churches themſelves: The Planters were before the plantation. The Apoſtles being firſt converted and ordained by Chriſt himſelfe, were ſent abroad, and converted people, many times ſingle; afterwards, when they were increaſed, they united into Churches. Now, you ſuppoſe the Church to be before the Elders; becauſe they chuſe their owne Elders, which is not generally true. Though it may be ſo in Churches planted, yet not in the firſt plantation of Churches. Indeed, in your way, the Churches are before their Elders, and doe chuſe and ordaine their Elders; but from the beginning it was not ſo: And beſides, Elders now, in order of nature, if not in time, are before the Churches, in all Reformed Churches; being ordained for the moſt part to be Elders, before they be Elders to this or that particular Church: And though your Churches doe chuſe their Elders, yet I hope they doe not make or ordaine them Elders: but after they are ordained, chuſe them to be theirs.The Keyes, p 55. You ſpeake ſometimes of [tranſlation of an Elder from one Church to another;] which, in my apprehenſion, implyes him an p. 70Elder before he be tranſlated to another Church: Though I know you are not conſtant to your ſelfe herein; holding it as a principle; [Elder and flocke are relates:] and giving the Brethren, without any Officers, power not only to chuſe, but to ordaine their Elders; and ſo your Churches are before their Elders, and give them their power, by election and ordination; and Browniſts doe no more. I would gladly know a reaſon why, if the Churches had power to chuſe and ordaine their owne Officers, the Apoſtle ſhould trouble himſelfe, and them, to ſend Timothy and Titus, to ordaine Elders in every City; had it not been eaſier to have written to the Churches to doe it themſelves?

2. That the Elders are the firſt ſubject of Rule and Authority, you endeavour to prove: 1. [Becauſe the charge of Rule over the Church, is committed to them immediately from Chriſt.] But this firſt, is contradictory to your firſt propoſition, which made the particular congregation, the firſt ſubject of all Church-officers, and all Church-power; and the Church communicates and derives that power to the Officers, chuſing and ordaining them. 2. If the charge of Rule be immediately committed to them from Chriſt, how can the Church be the firſt ſubject of all power? The Apoſtles indeed had all their power immediately from Chriſt; but other Officers had it immediately from them, and from others intruſted by them, with that power: When you ſay, [The Office it ſelfe is ordained by Chriſt, though the Elders be choſen to their Office by the Church of Brethren] You vary the queſtion: For the queſtion is not, who ordaines the Office; but who ordaines the Officers: Thoſe that the Apoſtles ordained, had their Office immediately from Chriſt, but had not their Ordination immediately from Chriſt; that was the priviledge of the Apoſtles. Now from p. 71whomſoever the Officers derive their Ordination immediately, from them immediately they doe derive their Authority. But (ſay you) the Officers doe immediately derive their Ordination from the Church of Brethren; ergo, they derive immediately their Authority from the Church of Brethren: And conſequently, the Church of Brethren is the firſt ſubject of authority, as well as of Liberty, and not the Elders. Certainly, all your 3 characters of a firſt ſubject, fall upon the Apoſtles, and their Succeſſors. 1. They firſt received their power from Chriſt. 2. They firſt put forth the exerciſe of that power. 3. They firſt communicated that power to others. You ſay here; [God hath not given a ſpirit of Rule and Government ordinarily to the greater part of the body of the Brethren; and ergo, neither hath he given them the firſt receit of the Key of Authority, to whom he hath not given the gift to imploy it.] But you give the body of the Brethren alone, the firſt receit (and exerciſe too) of the Key of Authority, when you give them power to chuſe and ordaine their Officers (which Ordination is confeſſed by your ſelfe, to be an Act of Rule and authority) ergo, The way, p. 48.you doe directly contradict your ſelfe; without any poſſibility of reconciliation, that I can imagine.

Obj. 1. How can the Brethren inveſt an Elder with Rule, if they had not power of Rule in themſelves? Sol. [Partly by chuſing him to that Office, which God hath inveſted with Rule; partly, by ſubjecting themſelves unto him.] Reply 1. Your firſt reaſon is of no validity; chuſing to an Office, doth not inveſt with the Rule of that Office. Election gives not an Office, but only nominates or deſignes a perſon fit for that Office: It is Ordination that gives the Office, and the Rule or authority of that Office. The ſeven Deacons choſen by the people, were not Officers, till the Apoſtles had ordained p. 72them: If they were not, then election gives no Office, and conſequently, no authority belonging to that Office: If they were, then Ordination is a meere empty Ceremony; and the Brethren doe properly give them authority, which themſelves have not to give: Beſides, election to this or that place, preſuppoſes (at leaſt ſometimes) the party inveſted with authority before (as in the caſe of tranſlation of an Elder from one Church to another) and only admits him to the exerciſe of it; pro hic & nunc, as they ſpeake. 2. Your ſecond reaſon is as weake as the former; [Becauſe they profeſſe their ſubjection to him:] This cannot inveſt him with the Rule, ſuch as we ſpeake of. Suppoſe a company of Brethren chuſe a gifted Brother to propheſie to them, and profeſſe their ſubjection to him in the Lord; doth this inveſt him with authority of an Elder, to rule over them? If it doe; then Ordination is a thing not neceſſary, either by the Brethren or Elders; (yet by and by we ſhall heare you require Ordination of Elders, to make a compleat Elder:) If it doe not, then you have not ſatisfied the objection.

Obj. 2. The Church is Chriſts Spouſe, Wife, Queene; ergo, ſhe hath the Keyes of Rule at her girdle. Sol. [There is a great difference between Queens and poore mens Wives: The firſt have their Officers for every buſineſſe, and ſervice; and ſo no Key left in their hands of any Office, but of Liberty, to call for what they want, according to the Kings Royall allowance: But poore mens wives, that have no Officers, may carry the keyes at their owne girdles.] Reply. This anſwer overthroweth it ſelfe: For 1. the liberty which you grant this Queene, the Church, is part of the power of the Keyes, and a great part too (if not the whole) viz. to chuſe and ordaine her owne Officers, and to cenſure them offending; which no Queene is allowed to doe; ergo, the Church hath the Keyes at her girdle, p. 73which a Queen hath not. 2. You ſay, and that truly, [The Queene hath only a liberty to call for what ſhe wants;] but hath no power to make her owne Officers. The King doth that by ſome Officers deputed by himſelfe for that purpoſe, to ſet them apart, to give them their commiſsion or oath, &c. Juſt ſo it is in the Church: All the Officers are given to the Church, objectivè, for the good and benefit of the Church; but they have no power to make and ordaine their owne Officers, but only to call upon them for that allowance which the King of the Church hath granted them. 3. If poore mens wives may carry the Keyes of any Office at their owne girdles, when their husbands have no Officers; you ſeeme to give a greater honour and liberty to them, then to Queenes or Ladyes; and withall, you give us leave to inferre, That Churches that have no Officers of their owne, are in better caſe than thoſe that have: They that have Officers, have put the Keyes in their Officers hands: They that have none, may and doe weare them at their owne girdles; which if you affirme (as you often doe) I dare affirme it to be flat Browniſme, and not the middle way, you pretend.

Obj. 3. The whole body naturall, is the firſt ſubject of all the naturall power; as ſight is firſt in the body, before in the eye. Soil. [It is not in the myſticall, as with the naturall body; there the faculties are inexiſtent, not ſo here.] Reply 1. This againe contradicts your firſt propoſition; where you ſay, a particular Church is the firſt ſubject of all Church-offices and power: And here you ſay, they are not actually inexiſtent, how then is it the firſt Subject, ſeeing accidentis eſſe, eſt ineſſe? 2. If the Church chuſe out of themſelves, Officers gifted, are not they then inexiſtent? 3. You confeſſe they are in ſome caſes: [unleſſe (ſay you) ſome of them have all p. 74the gifts of all the Officers, which often they have not.] True, but oftentimes they have, either Preſbyters, or men fit to be Preſbyters; And then you anſwer not the objection: And if they have Preſbyters, before they chuſe them to be theirs, (as your words ſeeme to import they may) then they doe not inveſt them with power of Elders, by chuſing them, as formerly you ſeemed to aſſert. Laſtly, you ſay; [If the power of the Preſbytery were given to a particular Church of Brethren, as ſuch, primò & per ſe, then it would be found in every particular Church of Brethren.] But ſay I, you aſſert both the Antecedent in the firſt propoſition; [Every particular Congregation is the firſt ſubject of all Church power;] and the conſequence, when you ſay; [Every particular Church hath power to chuſe, ordaine, and cenſure;] ergo,

Obj. 4. The Government is mixt of Monarchy, Ariſtocracy, and Democracy; ergo, the people have ſome power in Government. Sol. Your firſt anſwer ſeemes to yeeld the thing: [In a large ſenſe, Authority may be acknowledged in the people: As 1. when a man acteth by counſell, he is then Lord of his owne action.] But thats nothing to the objection. The people of the Aſsizes act by counſell, in approving the ſentence: If you grant the Brethren no more, you mocke them, and grant them nothing. 2. But you grant them far more; [Election of Officers, concurrence in cenſures, determination of Synodall acts, &c. (you might have added, Ordination, and then you had given them full Authority) by theſe they have a great ſtroke or power in ordering Church affaires.] A great ſtroke indeed; as full Authority as you give the Elders: And this you grant, when you give your reaſon to the contrary, and would allow them only liberty: [For (ſay you) no act of the peoples power or liberty is binding, unleſſe the authority of the Preſbytery concurre with it.] No more doth any p. 75act of the Preſbytery bind, unleſſe the power of the people joyne with it. So ſay your Prefacers, Epiſt. p. 4. So ſay your ſelf; when you allow them ſuch a power, as the want thereof retards the ſentence. But why doe you darken your owne meaning, by ſuch ambiguous anſwers? when you grant the Government to be democraticall, The way, 100but not [meerely democraticall;] yea, (if I underſtand any thing) you make it as meerely democraticall, as Browniſts themſelves, when you give them power, without any Officers, to chuſe, ordaine, cenſure, even Officers themſelves, as we have often told you. I pray Sir, when the Brethren ordaine, or cenſure Officers, without a Preſbytery, doth not that act of theirs properly bind? It muſt, or it is meere vanity, having no Preſbytery to joyne with them: And if ſo, is not this properly Authority without more adoe?

But you would prove Elders to be the firſt Subject of Authority, from removall of other Subjects: [They have is not from the Elders of other Churches; or from a Synod: All Churches and all Elders are equall.] But 1. This is apparently falſe in the Scrip…ure way: For the Elders of the firſt Churches were ordained by the Apoſtles and Evangeliſts, who were Elders of all Churches; and as Elders, not as Apoſtles, ordained Elders, and ſo gave them their Authority immediately from Chriſt. 2. Your reaſon, becauſe they are all equall, will hurt your ſelfe: For if that be a good reaſon why they cannot derive it from Elders of the other Churches, becauſe they are equall, it is much more ſtrong againſt you; they cannot derive it from the people, who are their inferiours: Beſides, by this rule, Elders of their own Church cannot ordaine any Elders to that Church, when they want; for they are all …qu…ll: But by your favour, he that is to receive the Office, and with it, the Authority of an Elder, is p. 76inferiour to thoſe Elders who are to ordaine him; for the leſſer is bleſſed of the greater: though when he is once ordained, he be their equall: And though the Elders of a Synod be equall, ſingly conſidered; yet joyntly, they are ſuperiour to any one ſingle, and have more Authority than he hath; or elſe, all you ſpeake of Synods is but vanity: But if they have not their Authority derived from Elders of other Churches, nor from Synods; nor from the Elders of their owne Church, becauſe they are all equall; either they muſt derive it from the people, or they have none of all; and ſo the people have as much Authority as any Elder of them all; yea, in your way more.

3. The third branch of the third Propoſ. [Both Elders and Brethren together, are the firſt ſubject of all power, needfull amongſt themſelves] You prove it by inſtance, 1. [In point of Ordination: which is compleat, when the people have choſen him, and the Preſbytery of the Church have laid their hands upon him.] But 1. I obſerve, that here you make Ordination an Act of Authority, and place it in the Elders; ergo, either the Brethren cannot ordaine Elders, which yet you ſay they may; or elſe, they have Authority, which yet you ſeeme to deny. 2. Some of your Brethren here, hold Ordination to be nothing but a ceremoniall ſolemnity, the ſubſtance of a Miniſters calling, is (ſay they) in the peoples election; ergo, either Authority is in the people, who give the ſubſtance; and liberty only in the Elders, who give but the ceremony: or the calling of a Miniſter is compleat without Ordination; and yet you require Ordination to the integrity of it: But if the Brethren may ordaine without their Officers, then they alone are the firſt Subject not of Liberty only, but of Authority alſo: And ſo this Propoſition is needleſſe.

p. 77A ſecond Argument, is taken from [their independent and indiſpenſable power in Church cenſures, which are ratified in Heaven,] The ſame anſwer will ſerve to this alſo: For firſt, the Brethren alone without Elders (ſay you) may cenſure, and if rightly done, it is indiſpenſable, not to be reverſed by any power on Earth, becauſe ratified in Heaven; ergo, they are the firſt ſubject of all Church-power needfull within themſelves. 2. And that the rather, if they can ordaine Elders too; for then the Elders derive their power from them. 3. But ſuppoſe, (which is poſſible enough) the Brethren and Elders erre in their cenſure of a member, is not the cenſure then reverſible? I aske, by whom? if all power needfull for themſelves be within themſelves, what ſhall the wronged party doe? Is he remedileſly miſerable? If it be diſpenſable, and reverſible, it muſt be by ſome other Church or Cl…ſsis, &c. But then, a Congregation of Brethren and Elders, are not the firſt ſubject of all power needfull amongſt themſelves. If you ſay, you meane, when they walke in truth and peace; you ſhould yet have told us what the party muſt doe, when they walke not in truth and peace; And if they have not a power to right a wronged party, they have not all power needfull to be exerciſed among themſelves.

The Objections by you brought and anſwered, rather concerne the Epiſcopall, than the Preſbyteriall way, at leaſt, ſome of them, only 2 or 3 may be vindicated.

Obj 1. To tell the Church, is to tell the Presbytery of the Church. Sol. [We deny not, the offence is to be told to the Preſbytery; yet not to them, as the Church, but as the guides of the Church.] Reply. This is partly to yeeld the cauſe: For you grant that the buſineſſe is to be told firſt to the Presbytery; [who if upon hearing the cauſe, and examining the witneſſes, they find it ripe for publicke cenſure, they are then to p. 78propound it to the Church, &c. And you grant the people no more, but [conſent to the judgement and ſentence of the Elders.] The Presbytery alſo are to admoniſh the party authoritatively; and if he will not heare them, to paſſe the ſentence upon him; ergo, the Preſbytery is the Church there meant, and not the people, who neither admoniſh, nor cenſure authoritatively, but only diſcerne the nature of the offence, and conſent unto the ſentence: The Church there meant, is that part of the Church, which the party refuſes to heare; but he refuſes to heare the Presbytery, who doe ſpeake to him, not the people, who doe not authoritatively ſpeake to him; ergo, to tell the Church, is to tell the Presbytery. Sol. 2. [The Church is never put for the Preſbytery alone in the New Teſtament.] Reply 1. This is to beg the queſtion: we ſay, it muſt ſo be underſtood in this place, and you doe not diſprove it. Nay 2. you rather confirme it by your anſwer to the firſt objection; Our Saviour alludes to the Church-cenſure in the Iewiſh Church: But there the Church cenſuring, was the Synagogue, a Court of the Conſiſtory; ergo, as ſhall further appeare in the next.

Obj. 2. In the old Teſtament, the Congregation is often put for the Elders and Rulers of the Church. Sol. [Not alone, but ſitting in the preſence of the Congregation.] Reply: That is enough for our purpoſe: For we doe not deny, but the people might be preſent, to heare things then, and ſo they may now: But if the Elders be called the Church, as diſtinct from the people, when they ſate in preſence of the people, much more may they be called the Church, when they ſit alone. And to that cuſtome of the Jewes (your ſelfe acknowledge in anſwer to the firſt objection doth our Saviour allude; when he ſayes, [Tell the Church] But the cuſtome of the Jewes, was to tell the Elders and Rulers, not p. 79the people. And whereas you ſay: [If a ſentence illegall was paſſed by them, the people did ſometimes proteſt againſt it, ſometime refuſe to execute it, and the ſame they might and ought to doe, at any time, in like caſes.] Though this may be true, when things are done in an illegall way, and evidently illegall (as the inſtances are) yet it is a dangerous aſſertion to Government; for under that pretence, people will take liberty to make void any ſentence, if they conceive it but illegall.

Obj. 3. By Church, he meant a Synod, or Claſsis of Presbyters of many Churches. [Sol. 1. We find not any where that a Church is put for a Synod of Presbyteries.] Reply: The queſtion is of this place, and you muſt not beg, that it is not here meant of a Synod of Presbyteries. If it be meant but of the Congregationall Presbytery, it quite deſtroyes the power of the people: But we doe not ſay, it is directly meant of a Synod of Presbyteries, but by a juſt conſequence: If a Congregationall Preſbytery be here meant (as we thinke it is) to reclaime a particular offending party in a Congregation: Then by proportion, here is meant a Synod of Presbyteries, when a whole Church erres, or is hereticall; or elſe, Chriſt hath not provided ſo well for a whole Church, as for a particular perſon. And thirdly, we cannot ſee a reaſon, why a Church may not be taken for a Synod of Presbyteries, as well as a Synod may be called [A Church of Churches,] as it is by your ſelfe, page 49. [A Congregation of Churches, a Church of Churches; for what is a Synod, but a Church of Churches?] ſo you.

Sol. 2. [As a Congregation cannot reach the removall of all offences: ſo it may be ſaid, that it were not fit to trouble Synode with every offence; and when they doe meet, they may erre alſo, and ſo may a generall Councell, and ſo no remedy for them.]

p. 80Reply 1. We doe not ſay that Synods are to be troubled with every ſmall offence, or to take the buſineſſe of a Congregation out of their hands; but only with greater matters, and when the Congregationall Preſbytery cannot end them, or is ſo bad it will not. 2. Synods and Councels may erre, but not ſo eaſily as a particular Congregation: And alicubi ſiſtendum, there muſt be an end of purſuit, and referre the buſineſſe to the judgement of Jeſus Chriſt, the King of the Church. As in caſe of Parliaments, the higheſt Tribunall that we have, they may erre; and if they doe, private perſons muſt ſit downe, or appeale to the next. But that is a ſtrange aſſertion, [That it was not the purpoſe of Chriſt to preſcribe a rule for the removall of all offences out of the Church; but only ſuch private and leſſe hainous, as grow notorious by obſtinacy: For if they be publicke, the Apoſtle gives another rule, to caſt ſuch a perſon out of all communion, without that admonition, &c.] Reply: The Apoſtle did not meane abſolutely, that they ſhould caſt out the inceſtuous perſon; but ſuppoſing his impenitency, and obſtinacy, to give ſatisfaction: For I cannot imagine, that the Apoſtle would have an humbled, penitent offender caſt out of all communion; And you know, it is ſuppoſed by many learned Divines, the man was not excommunicated, but upon the charge, reproofe, and admonition, yeelded and eſcaped the cenſure: Of which, more by and by.

But (ſay you) What if the whole Preſbytery offend? or ſuch a party as will draw a faction in the Church? The readieſt courſe is to bring the matter to a Synod] But you have preſcribed two other remedies elſewhere: 1. The Brethren may withdraw; or 2. they may proceed to cenſure their whole Preſbytery, that is, (I thinke) to excommunicate them; why then ſhould they trouble themſelves with a Synod, which is hardly p. 81procured? If the Congregation be found faithfull and willing to remove an offence, by due cenſure, why ſhould the offence be called up to more publick Iudicature, and the plaiſter made broader than the ſore?] They are your owne words, page 42. I forbeare the other objections.

Arg. 3. From the practiſe and example of the Church of Corinth.] Obj. This was the act of Paul, no act of judiciall authority in the Church, but rather of ſubjection to his ſentence, &c. Sol. [The judgement of Paul, was not a judiciall ſentence, delivering him to Satan; but a judicious doctrine, and inſtruction, teaching them what to doe in that caſe.] Reply: Thus you may evade that other Text, where yet you grant, that Paul alone did excommunicate Alexander, and juſtifie his doing of it, as [having in him the power of the whole Church; and when abſent from the Church, or party, he might uſe it.] Are not the places paralell? I have delivered him to Satan; and I have judged already, that ſuch an one be delivered to Satan: Elſe it might be ſaid, Paul did not deliver Alexander to Satan, but only judged it doctrinally, that the Church ought to excommunicate him; And that the Church did, by a juridicall ſentence, deliver the inceſtuous perſon to Satan, is not evident (as I ſaid afore) but rather, that hearing of the Apoſtles ſentence decreed againſt him, he repented, and ſo the execution was ſtayed. Sufficient unto the man is the rebuke of many, 2 Cor. 2.6] As for their forgiveneſſe of him, it might be only brotherly, by way of charity, as offended by him, not juridicall by way of authority: For the brethren (by your owne confeſſion) had only Liberty, not Authority, and ergo, could not authoritatively forgive him, as nor authoritatively bind him: The ſame power binds and looſes: But the Elders only did or could authoritatively bind; ergo,

p. 82Obj. 2. Some in the Church of Corinth did it; viz. the Presbytery. Sol. [It is apparent by the Text, that the Brethren concurred, and that with ſome act of power; viz. ſuch power as the want of putting it forth, retarded the ſentence and the putting it forth, was requ…ſite to the adminiſtration of the ſentence.] Reply: This is not evident in the Text; yea, if ſuch power be in the Brethren, ſurely it is more than liberty, it is direct authority; viz. a negative vote, to retard the ſentence, which is as much as the Elders have: If you meane only a judgement of diſcretion, and a withdrawing, to execute the ſentence, it is true, that liberty they have, a rationall conſent, or diſſent; but that is rather a paſsive, than an active concurrence to the ſentence. But the queſtion is, whether the ſentence be null, if they will not concurre to it: If ſo, then the Apoſtles own ſentence might have been nullified, when he delivered this party, or Alexander to Satan; and he could not ſay, I have delivered him unto Satan: For it was in the peoples power (and a liberty, you ſay, purchaſed for them by Chriſt) to retard or ſpeed the ſentence. Not one of your reaſons prove, that the Brethren concurred actively to the ſentence: For 1. the whole Church might (and were) reproved, for not mourning, and for not withdrawing, for their parts; not for not ſentencing of him. 2. The Commandement was directed to the Church, when gathered together, yet not to all alike; the preſence of the Brethren, the ſentence of the Elders: Many things are ſo directed to a whole Church, which yet muſt reſpectively be executed. As if the Apoſtle ſhould ſay, when you are all gathered together, I will that there be preaching and adminiſtration of Sacraments; doth this command concerne actively the Brethren? 3. The Apoſtles words doe not declare this act of theirs to be a judiciall act: when he ſayes, [Doe not …ou p. 83judge them that are within?] Even this firſt may be referred to the Officers; and ſecondly, it is by your ſelfe underſtood of a judgement of diſcretion, not of authority (of which we ſpeake.) A judgement of diſcretion, is allowed all the people at an Aſsizes; but this hath no power at all in it, properly ſo called: And truly, if the Apoſtles words carry any colour of judgement in the Brethren, it may ſeeme to import a judgement of authority, rather than of diſcretion; ſo he gives them more than you dare plead for; though not more than, I feare, they will ere long uſurpe. 4. It is granted, the Brethren may and muſt forgive him, as well as the Elders, but not with one and the ſame kind of forgiveneſſe. The people at an Aſſizes, doe in their judgement of diſcretion, acquit the party whom the Iudge and Iury doe acquit, with the judgement of Authority. What poore and weak proofes are theſe, for a matter of ſuch moment? as eaſily denyed, as affirmed.

Obj. 3. Corinth was a Presbyteriall Church. Sol. [No ſuch thing appeares.] Reply: It more than probably appeares, it being a Mother-City, where God had much people, and they had many Elders and Teachers, with excellent gifts (as you gran…) it is not likely therefore they had but one Congregation: And if there were many, it may as probably be ſaid, that this command was directed to the Elders of ſeverall Congregations, met together, as the contrary can by you be proved.

Arg 4. [From the guilt of offence which lyeth upon every Church, when any offence committed by their members, lyeth uncenſured as on Pergamus, Thyatira, &c.] Sol. It doth not appeare that thoſe Churches were each, but one ſingle Congregation; but of ſome of them the contrary; as Epheſus, which had many Elders, and much people converted, p. 82duplicate page p. 83duplicate page p. 84&c. And beſides, I deſire you would call to mind, your owne expoſition of ſome of thoſe Texts; when it is ſaid, [To the Angell of ſuch a Church;] that is, ſay the Prelaticall party, To the Biſhop: you anſwer; Angell is put for Angels, The way, p. 49.a company of Elders; [Not a ſingle perſon, but the whole company of the Miniſters of the Church, (the whole Preſbytery of perſons, more than one), as is evident, by his ſpeech unto them as unto many; unto you, and ſome of you, &c.] whence theſe 3. things may be collected: 1. That the guilt is not imputed to the whole Church, but to the Angell of ſuch a Church; that is, (ſay you) the Miniſters; which quite deſtroyes your Argument. 2. That theſe Miniſters were a whole Preſbytery; the whole company of the Miniſters of the Church; therefore its very probable, there were more Congregations than one, in each of thoſe Churches, and ſo we find Preſbyteriall, not Independent Churches. 3. That the Church is ſometime taken for the Presbytery of the Church, which afore you have denyed: However, I pray conſider, that the Brethren are never called the Angels of the Church; nor yet are the Ruling-Elders any where called Angels, but the Miniſters only, as you call theſe Angels: which makes it more than probable, that it is ſpoken to a Presbyteriall Church, the Miniſters of ſeverall Congregations, even according to your owne expoſition; at leaſt, to the Presbytery of each Congregation, which confutes your aſſertion, that the Brethren have any intereſt in the power of the Keyes.

4. Propoſ. [In caſe a particular Church be diſturbed with error, or ſcandall, and the ſame maintained by a faction amongſt them. Now a Synod of Churches, or of their Meſſengers, is the firſt ſubject of that power and authority, whereby errour is judicially convinced and condemned, the truth ſearched p. 85out, and determined, and the way of truth and peace declared, and impoſed upon the Churches.

This Propoſition you undertake to make good by two Arguments: Firſt, [From the want of power in ſuch a Church, to paſſe a binding ſentence; becauſe the promiſe of binding and looſing is made to a Church: 1. not erring; 2. agreeing truth, 18.17, &c.

In anſwer hereunto, I will not ſay, That this Argument proves not the propoſition; for it proves indeed, that a particular Church is not the firſt Subject of this power and authority, but it doth not prove that a Synod is: But this I ſay, that by this way of arguing, a Church can ſeldome or never have power to bind or looſe, when there is not an univerſall agreement, which how rarely it happens, experience tels us now, and will doe more hereafter, in your owne Churches: Few Churches there are, that ſo walke together in peace and truth, that there is no diſagreeing party amongſt them; therefore that power is ſeldome in their hands, but upon every difference or faction amongſt them, their power reverts to a Synod; and ſo a Synod muſt be called (which is not eaſily done) and troubled with every difference of a Congregation; which you impute (unjuſtly) as a fault, upon the Preſbyteriall way. 2. You have otherwiſe determined in the way. Suppoſe the whole Presbytery be in an errour or ſcandall (as they may) ſhall the faction now deveſt the Brethren of their power and authority, to cenſure and caſt them out? which you have fully given them there, and here doe ſeem to take away. 3. You mitigate the buſineſſe much; when you ſay, [A Synod of Churches is the firſt ſubject of that power, whereby errour is convinced, &c. and the way of …ruth and peace declared and impoſed on the Church.] For all this is only a doctrinall declaration, and impoſition, p. 86not authoritatively, by way of juriſdiction. The cenſure you reſerve to the Congregation, where you had placed it before. But what if the Synod of Churches erre or diſagree, & there be a faction alſo amongſt them? you will know your owne words: [An erring, or diſagreeing Church binds not.] So all will come to nothing: The cenſure of the Synod binds not; for they can but declare what is truth: The cenſure of the particular Church binds not; for they are in a faction: ſo you give the Brethren a power, and preſently take it away againe. If then a conſiderable party fall into errour or faction, by variance, they preſently loſe (like the Bee her ſting) their power of binding and looſing; and if this be but once knowne (as it cannot be hid) how eaſie is it for any Delinquent to make a party, or faction, and ſo eſcape all binding cenſure; ſeeing neither the Church erring, or at variance, nor a Synod hath any binding power?

Your ſecond Argument, is, [From the patterne, Acts 15.1. &c. When there grew errour and faction in the Church of Antioch, they determine not the caſe, but referred it to the Apoſtles and Elders.] But firſt, the Church of Ieruſalem did only doctrinally declare the truth; they did not cenſure the erring Brethren (ſo you pleaded above) but referred that to the Church of Antioch. 2. If declaration had been ſufficient, the Church of Antioch needed not to have ſent ſo farre as Ieruſalem; Paul and Barnabas were able enough to declare the truth at home; and ſo, that particular Church, though erring and at variance, was the firſt ſubject of that power, here given to a Synod. 3. You miſlay the compariſon; when you ſay, As in the caſe of an offence of a faithfull brother, perſiſted in, the matter is at laſt judged in a church, which is a Congregation of the faithfull: ſo in the offence of a Church, the matter is at laſt judged in a congregation of Churches, p. 87&c.] For the judgement is not of the ſame kind, but you doe meerely aequivocate with us. The judgement of the Church upon a Brother, is juridicall, even by way of cenſure, of excommunication: But the judgement of a Synod is only doctrinall and declarative. If you grant any more, you and we are agreed.

Before I conclude this propoſition, I only animadvert theſe few things: 1. That you grant the Aſſembly of the Apoſtles and Elders at Ieruſalem, Acts 15.1. to have been a formall Synod, wherein your Diſciples here doe diſcent from you, as appeares in their Epiſtle; and call it only a Conſultation, by way of Arbitration: To which Arbitration, it ſeemes the Church of Antioch was not bound to ſtand; for they did not (for ought appeares) promiſe or bind themſelves to ſtand to their arbitrement; nor might they ſo bind themſelves (by your doctrine, and theirs too) for that were [to give away their priviledge purchaſed by the bloud of Chriſt.] 2. You yeeld alſo,The Keyes, p. 57. that the Apoſtles did not act herein as Apoſtles, and determine the matter by Apoſtolicall Authority; but as Elders, in an ordinary way, as the whole proceeding in the buſineſſe proves, as you well obſerve: Yet your Schollers here, ſubmit not to your doctrine, as they profeſſe in their Epiſtle; though they neither ſhew any reaſon for it, nor confute yours. 3. You call a Synod a Congregation of Churches (for what is a Synod but a Church of Churches) and yet deny, that a Preſbytery of Churches is ever called a Church. 4. You ſay: The Elders there (at Jeruſalem) were not a few, the Beleevers in Jeruſalem being many thouſands.] Therefore, ſay wee, they were more than could meet together in one place, and yet called but one Church: whence we may inferre, There was not an Independent p. 88Church of one, but a Preſbyteriall Church, of many Congregations. Laſtly, you ſay; [This patterne plainly ſheweth to whom the Key of Authority is committed, when there groweth offence and difference in a Church.] But the Key of Authority (if you remember what you ſaid above) hath this power in it, as to adminiſter the Seales, ſo to bind an obſtinate offender under excommunication; and to releaſe and forgive him upon repentance. Grant but your Synod of Churches, ſuch a Key of Authority, to bind an offending party, or Church, and to releaſe them upon repentance, and the matter is at an end. But if you grant no more, but a doctrinall declarative power, you grant but what every Paſtor ſingle hath. And whether this be the Key of Authority, given by our Saviour to the Church, let every indifferent Reader judge.

And now you come to your Corollaries, concerning the Independency of Churches, to ſhew how they are, or are not Independent: Wherein, I purpoſe not to follow you; and that for this reaſon; becauſe, for the moſt part, you doe but repeate what you have ſaid before: You ſay, your ſelfe, [You take the firſt Subject, and the Independent Subject to be all one.] Therefore, ſay I, if the Church of a particular Congregation be not the firſt Subject of all Church-power, as is evinced above, neither is it the Independent Subject of that power. I have only ſome things to obſerve in your ſecond Corollarie, and then I ſhall conclude: You ſay, [The eſtabliſhment of pure Religion, and the Reformation of corruptions in Religion, doe much concerne the civill peace: If Religion be corrupted; there will be warre in the gates, Judges 5.8. and no peace to him that commeth in, or goeth out, 2 Chron. p. 8915.3, 5, 6. But where Religion rejoyceth, the civill State flouriſheth.] And this you truly refer to the Civill Magiſtrate; [partly by commanding, and by ſtirring up the Churches and Miniſters thereof, to goe about it, in their ſpirituall way: partly alſo, by civill puniſhments upon the wilfull oppoſers and diſturbers of the ſame.] Whereupon I deſire to know, 1. By what Authority our Brethren here in Old-England, having not only Chriſtian Magiſtrates, covenanting to reforme; but alſo, calling and commanding an Aſſembly of Divines, to reforme according to the Word, doe take upon them to ſet up, and eſtabliſh a forme of Church-Government of their owne, before they have demonſtrated it to be the way of God; to the great diſturbance of the peace, both of Church and State? 2. I doe demand alſo, why many of your diſciples here, plead for a Toleration of all Religions (which you will not tollerate in New-England) which they call Liberty of conſcience, and the proſecution of ſuch diſturbers, they call perſecution: When as they may heare you ſay, [It belongs to the Magiſtrate to puniſh the wilfull oppoſers and diſturbers of Reformation:] And more then that, you tell them; [Of the Times of the New Teſtament it is propheſied, that in ſome caſes, capitall puniſhment ſhall proceed againſt falſe Prophets, and that by procurement of their neareſt kindred, Zach. 13.3. And the execution thereof, is deſcribed, Rev. 16.4. to 7. Where the rivers and fountaines of waters (that is, the Prieſts and Ieſuits, that conveigh the Religion of the Sea of Rome, throughout the Countries) are turned to bloud, that is, have bloud given them to drinke by the civill Magiſtrate.] Does p. 90this hold true only againſt Prieſts and Jeſuits: and are all other erroneous, ſchiſmaticall, blaſphemous Sectaries to be tolerated? I leave them to conſider it, and you and them to reconcile this and other your many differences and contradictions amongſt your ſelves: And when you are well agreed in the way, we ſhall conſider how farre you agree with the Truth.

FINIS.

Errata.

Page 7. l. 22. reade offender, (and often, after) p. 23. l. laſt r. inſtitution. p. 24. l. 4. r. inſtitution. p. 25. l. 16. r. for. p. 26. l. 26. for. 1. r. 15. p. 30. …. 23. r. except. p. 32. l. 15. r. whom. p. 34. l. laſt but one, r. Counſell. p. 35. l. 8. r. Presbyters. p. 45. l. 17. put out the ſecond (in) p. 53. l. laſt, for And, r. from. p. 55. l. 2. for feare, r. heare. p. 76. l. 10. for of, r. at.

End of the text · Daniel Cawdry, A Vindication of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (1645)