A Vindication of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, To the reader 2
Animadverſions upon the Brethrens Epiſtle to the Reader.
IT is indeed the great controverſie of the times, [What is the compleat ſubject of Church power, or the power of the Keyes.] Theſe Brethren ſay, (perhaps truly) that the Truth herein hath been long loſt in a double extreme: The one was the tyranny of the Clergy (ſo called) or rather of the Prelacy, who ingroſſed all, or the chiefe part of that power unto themſelves, not only from the people, but alſo from the Paſtors of particular Congregations. The other is, the Anarchy or popularity of the Separatiſts, or Browniſts, (as they after call them) who gave the people a place and claime to the whole power, and made the Elders ſet over them; but their ſervants to exerciſe that power which was properly theirs.
Probable it is, that Truth may lye in the middle, between theſe two extremes; but how to find it out, is not ſo eaſie. Our Brethren goe about it; but, me thinks they doe not hit it: They ſay, [The Saints (in theſe knowing Times) finding that the Key of knowledge hath ſo far opened their hearts, that they ſee with their owne eyes into the ſubſtantials of godlineſſe, &c. They doe begin more than to ſuſpect, that ſome ſhare in the Key of power ſhould likewiſe appertaine unto them] Truly juſt one as much as another: The Brethren ſuppoſe the Saints have a ſhare in the Key of Knowledge; when they ſay, they ſuſpect they have likewiſe a ſhare in the Key of power. But firſt, they have no ſhare in the Key of knowledge, (which is, preaching and adminiſtration of the Seales, as the Authour ſpeaks) except paſsively, as to have their hearts opened by it (as the Brethrens words are:) So, nor have they any ſhare in the Key of power, except it be by a voluntary [conſent, in obedience to the Will and Rule of Chriſt] as the Authour himſelfe ſpeaks, page 15. And divers times elſewhere, as we ſhall heare; [even an orderly ſubjection, according to the Order of the Goſpell, page 11.] Though the truth is, ſome have taken more upon them than to ſuſpect they have a ſhare, even to practiſe the Key of power, and that [through the inſtruction and guidance of their Teachers;] which, how little it comes ſhort of the plea and practiſe of the other extreme, ſhall ere long appeare. For the preſent: Theſe Brethren ſay, they conceive [the diſpoſall of this power may lye in a due allotment into divers hands, according to their ſeverall concernments, rather than in an entire and ſole truſt committed to any one man, or any one ſort, or ranke of men, or Officers.] Herein perhaps we might agree with them: But I am ſure they agree not with their Authour herein, who places all the power in one ſort of men alone; that is,The way, p. 45. the Brethren without Officers, and gives them leave [to elect ordaine Officers, admit members, and paſſe Church cenſures without any Officers, yea, to cenſure all their Officers.] though, we thinke, he contradicts himſelfe in this Tract of the Keyes.
The Brethren tell us, The Authour (to whom they Preface) takes upon him to diſtribute the bounds of this power. And layes downe this as a maxime; [That looke in whoſe hands ſoever it fall, they have it immediately from Chriſt; that is, in regard of delegation or dependance on each other.] And thus farre we doe not diſſent: [He then (ſay they) conſiders the power of a Congregation; which ſuppoſing to have a Preſbytery of its owne, he aſſerteth to be the prime ſubject of entire power within it ſelfe yea, and the ſole native ſubject of the power of Ordination and Excommunication.] But 1. he needed not to have made ſuch a ſuppoſition, that the Congregation hath a Presbytery of its owne:The way, p. 50, 51. For if they have no Presbytery of their owne, he aſſerteth, that they have the power of Ordination and Excommunication, which is the higheſt cenſure within themſelves; and [want a Warrant to repaire to the Preſbytery of another Church for either.] 2. Both he and theſe Brethren know, that this is denyed by many, who make the firſt Subject of all Church-power to be the generall viſible Church, and ſecondarily the Congregation, though having a Presbytery of its owne: As a man is the firſt ſubject of Riſibility, Peter, but at ſecond hand. The Congregation conſiſting of Elders and Brethren; [For as for women and children, there is a ſpeciall exception by a Statute Law of Chriſt, againſt their enjoyment of any part of this publicke power] (ſay the Brethren) which I ſee no reaſon for, in regard of ſome part of this power, (as we ſhall ſee anon) the Authour labours to ſhare the intereſt and power between the Elders and the Brethren. And he manifeſts it (ſay they) by way of a parallell. [As in ſome of our Townes corporate, the power is given to a company of Aldermen the Rulers and a Common Councell, a Body of the people.] But I pray obſerve the diſsimilitude in this ſimilitude: His maine deſigne is, to give the people a ſhare in the Church power of Government: But then the parallell will not run even. For the Company of Aldermen, and the Common-Councell, are both Rulers of the Corporation, though in ſeverall ranks and ſubordination: But I ſuppoſe, neither the Authour, nor the Brethren, can truly ſay, the whole company of the people are Rulers in the Church, as the Common-Councell is in the Corporation. If all the people be Rulers, who are the ruled? In the City there are multitudes of people, ſubject to the Company of Aldermen, and Common-Councell; but here are all Governours, or governed. The parallell were fairely laid thus; The Company of Aldermen, reſemble the Paſtors and Teachers; The Common-Councell, the Ruling-Elders (Officers of another ranke;) The Citizens beſides thoſe, the Brethren out of Office, in the Congregation. Thus all things correſpond well. But they make the Presbytery to be the Aldermen, and the whole Body of the people to be the Common-Councell; which ſure they are not, what ever they ſay; for then the diſtinction of Rulers and ruled is loſt: And this appeares clearly in his application of this ſimilitude. [He gives to the Elders or Preſbytery, a binding power of Rule and Authority; unto the Brethren, a power to concurre with them; and that ſuch affaires ſhould not be tranſacted without a joynt-agreement of both.] What power? ſuch as the Common-Councell hath in the Corporation? thats more than a bare priviledge; thats a power of Rule and Authority, a binding power, concurring with the Aldermen; But they ſhould have ſaid: Not the Common-Councell, but the Common people of a City, have ſuch a power to concurre with the Aldermen, that ſuch affaires be not tranſacted, but with their joynt-agreement. But this they cannot ſay, and then the parallell will not hold, unleſſe they change the Common-people for the Common-Councell, thus. As the people of a City only cannot proceed to any publicke ſentence, unleſſe they have Aldermen over them: ſo, nor have the Aldermen power to ſentence without the concurrence of the people, which is apparently falſe. The parallell muſt be thus: As the Brethren only cannot proceed to any publick cenſure without their Elders: ſo, nor have the Elders power to cenſure without the concurrence of the Brethren; which is as falſe as the former. Indeed theſe are very parallell: As on the one ſide, the Common-Councell cannot doe any valid act, without the Aldermen; nor the Aldermen, without the Common-Councell, (unleſſe there be ſome reſerved caſes) ſo, as the Ruling-Elders cannot cenſure without the Paſtor, ſo nor the Paſtor, without the Ruling-Elders; but applyed to the Brethren, is (as in the City, if ſo it were) to make the Government popular, as thoſe doe, that are in the one extreme, or I underſtand nothing. And then, the laſt clauſe of the Brethren, is to be paralleld thus: As the Common-Councell have not power of cenſuring the whole Court of Aldermen; nor the Aldermen, the whole Common-Councell, though together they have power over any particular perſon or perſons of each: ſo the Presbytery alone, have not power of excommunicating the whole Body of the Brethren; nor the Brethren, the Presbytery, though together they have power over any perſon in each: But then thers one thing wanting; The Aldermen and Common-Councell have power over all the people of the City, as well as over particular perſons amongſt themſelves. But in theſe Brethrens way; There are no other people, over which the Presbytery and Brethren ſhould have power; and ſo the Scene is miſlaid. I only note againe, That the Brethren and the Authour are not both of one mind: They ſay, [The Brethren only could not proceed to any publick cenſures, without they have Elders over them, nor retrò:] But whether he ſay, [The Elders have power to cenſure the Body of the Brethren] or no, we ſhall heare anon; this I am ſure he ſayes:The way, p. 45: [The Brethren have power to cenſure the whole Preſbytery;] as was noted afore.
The next thing which they comment on, is the power of Synods, becauſe Congregations may miſcarry. [Wherein (ſay they) he grants an Aſſociation of Churches, as an Ordinance of Chriſt, with power above that of a Congregation, a Miniſteriall power, to determine and enjoyne things concerning the Congregations.] The words are full and faire, but the ſenſe is flat and empty: For all this power of determining and enjoyning, is but Doctrinall, or declarative, Every Miniſter hath in himſelfe, alone, a Miniſteriall Doctrinall Authority, over the whole Church that is his charge, and every perſon in it, Ep. p. 9.differing nothing in kind from the power of every ſingle Paſtor, but in degree of weight, as a greater Teſtimony; as three cords twiſted together, are ſtronger than each of them ſingle. A power not binding or looſing, but doctrinally only, not armed with power of cenſures, if injunctions be not obeyed. But if this power of the Synod, be not juridicall, what is it? All power in thoſe Paſtors thus aſſembled as an Ordinance of Chriſt, is either a power of Order, or of juriſdiction: The power of determining or decrecing together, is not the power of Order; for then every Paſtor, quâ Paſtor, by vertue of his Order, might decree and impoſe it upon the Congregation: which is denyed by all; Therefore it muſt be a power of juriſdiction; which yet theſe Brethren, and their Authour doe deny. And if it be not armed with power of cenſure, it will come to nothing; as ſhall appeare hereafter. For as for their withdrawing communion, it will be little regarded by an offending obſtinate Congregation.
The Brethren Epiſtolers now begin to applaud themſelves as jumping in judgement with their Authour, though ſo farre remote as New-England (But men agree in errour ſometimes, that never knew one another.) Their middle way, is this very way held forth by this Authour: Yet they ſay afterwards, in ſome things, in his Diſcourſe, Hic Magiſter non tenetur. They ſay, [It is the middle way, between that which is called Browniſme, and the Preſbyteriall Government, as it is practiſed, &c.] But if they remember themſelves well, the two extremes were Prelacy and Browniſme: [Whereof the one doth in effect put the chiefe (if not the whole) of the Rule and Government into the hands of the people, &c. The other taking the principall parts of that Rule (the due of each Congregation) into the juriſdiction of a common Preſbytery of ſeverall Congreg…tions &c.] I appeale their wiſedome, if the latter part doe not better fall upon the Prelacy; who in the other extreme, tooke the principall parts of Rule (due in part to the Paſtors of Congregations) into their owne hands. Then the middle way, may chance fall out to be the Preſbyteriall way, and not theirs. For certainly, that is between thoſe two extremes. And their way, I dare ſay, (and hope to make it appeare) comes nearer to Browniſme, than the Preſbyteriall way, to the Prelaticall. For the preſent, only marke; That the Preſbyteriall way, gives the power of Church Government; neither to the Clergy alone, as the Prelacy, nor to the people alone, or chiefly, as the Browniſts doe, but to both. For the Preſbyteries (Claſſicall as well as Congregationall) conſiſt of Paſtors, and Ruling Elders, who are the Repreſentatives of the people, and choſen by their conſent. But to give the Brethren, the people alone, without Officers, a power, to elect, ordaine, cenſure, &c. (as the Authour doth, whatever theſe Brethren doe) is to put, not only the chiefe (as Browniſts doe) but the whole of the Rule into their hands: which, for ought I know, the Browniſts doe not. Nor doth the Preſbytery ſwallow up the peoples intereſts, (as they affirme) for their intereſt is ſaved, in their Ruling-Elders, choſen by themſelves; as the intereſt of the common people of a Corporation, is ſaved in their Common-Councell, choſen by themſelves. And that the votes of the Elders of that Congregation concerned, ſhould be ſwallowed up in the Claſsis, &c. is no more abſurd, than that the votes of the Burgeſſe of a Corporation, ſhould be ſwallowed up in the Parliament; or that the votes of the Elders ſhould be ſwallowed up in a Synod, confeſſed to be the Ordinance of Chriſt; unleſſe the Brethren thinke, a Synod may not determine or decree any thing without the joynt-conſent of every Elder there aſſembled.
After all this agreement of the Brethren, with this abſent Authour, (to a wonder, if not to a miracle, as they would have us thinke, though we beleeve they were not ſtrangers to the plot of this Authour, either before or ſince his going over) they enter their diſſent, againſt ſome opinions and paſſages of this Authour, in the platforme by him deſcribed. I purpoſe not here to debate, much leſſe to decide the controverſie between them. I only deſire to have it obſerved, That it may rather ſeeme a wonder, that theſe and other Brethren, having ſo long ſtudied and profeſſed this middle way, ſhould not yet be able to walke hand in hand therein. When will they be agreed, that we may ſee their new platforme to be uniforme? One of them muſt needs be beſide the way, and why may not both? But we ſhall obſerve greater differences than theſe hereafter.
They now againe reſume the difference between the peoples intereſt, and the Elders Rule and Authority; and illuſtrate it by the former ſimilitude, [Of a Company of Aldermen, and a Common-Councell, or Body of the people, in ſome Corporations, where the intereſt of the one is diſtinct from the other; ſo as without the concurrence of both, nothing is eſteemed as a City act:] But ſo as in this Company of the Elders, this power is properly Authority, but in the people is a priviledge or power.] Enough hath been ſaid to this already: Only I would know why they call the Common-Councell a Body of the people? Sure they doe not know any Corporations, I thinke, where the whole Corporation meets with the Aldermen, as a Body. The Common-Councell are a diſtinct Body from the common-people; a Body repreſentative only. But then the parallell is ſpoiled; for the Brethren as diſtinct from the Elders, are not a repreſentative Body, for whom ſhould they repreſent? And if all the people of a corporation ſhould meet as the Common-Councell, ſo that nothing may be eſteemed as a City Act, without their concurrence; Surely the Government were Democraticall: The great miſtake in the plot is; That the Presbytery is compared to the Court of Aldermen, and the Brethren to the Common-Councell. But ſo they are not; for the Common-Councell are Governours of the Corporation. It cannot be ſaid, in the Company of Aldermen it is Authority, but in the Common-Councell a priviledge; for it is Authority alſo in the Common-Councell; and if it be ſo in the Brethren (as it muſt, if they be parallell to the Common-Councell) I ſee not but the Independent way, and the way of the Browniſts, one of the extremes forementioned, is one and the ſame. And let the Brethren conſider,The multitude of the Church doth ordinarily execute all diſcipline and cenſures by the Presbyters; & the Presbyters by their conſent. The way, p. 98. whether the Browniſts doe not ſelect two or three, or more perſons, and put them in Office, and betruſt them with an entire intereſt of power for a multitude, to which that multitude ought (by a command from Chriſt) to be ſubject and obedient, as to an Ordinance, to guide them in their conſent; and in whoſe ſentence, the ultimate formall Miniſteriall Act of binding and looſing ſhall conſiſt; and yet place the Rule and Authority, originally and chiefly in the people; And then ſee how little difference there is between themſelves, and them. Its true indeed, that without the concurrence of the Aldermen and Common Councell, in the major part, nothing is eſteemed as a City Act: But without the concurrence of the body of the people it is. So without the concurrence of the Paſtors and Elders, nothing is to be eſteemed as a Church act; but (if the parallell be right) without the Brethren it is. That the Brethren have any power of concurrence with the Elders in their Acts, is begged, not proved. And their owne words confute it: [The multitude (ſay they) ought (by a command from Chriſt) to be ſubject and obedient to the power of the Elders, as to an Ordinance, &c. as Rulers ſet over them:] But if they ought to be ſubject and obedient to the acts of their Elders or Rulers, they have no more concurrence to their acts by way of power, than the common people have to the acts of the Aldermen and Common-Councell; which is a meere paſsive concurrence and conſent.
The next ſimilitude of a Virgin, is nothing parallell to the caſe in hand. [A Virgin (ſay they) hath a power ultimately to diſſent, upon an unſatisfied diſlike, and the match is not valid, without her conſent.] But the common people in a Corporation, have no ſuch power ultimately to diſſent (then againe the Government were Democraticall.) And if they give this power to the Brethren ultimately to diſſent; they give them more than an intereſt, even a power of Authority, to annull all acts and cenſures made by the Elders; which, I take it, is no leſſe than Browniſme; for they can ſay no more.
Againe, they ſuppoſe [a Government tempered of Ariſtocracy and Democracy, in which the people have a ſhare, and their actuall conſent is necceſſary to all Lawes and ſentences; whereas, a few Nobles that are ſet over them, in whom the formall ſanction of all ſhould lye, in theſe it were Rule and Authority, in that multitude, but power or intereſt.] But I pray, is not that Government, where the peoples actuall conſent (and ſo their diſſent) is neceſſary to all Lawes and ſentences, meerely popular, and in ſhew only Ariſtocraticall? The caſe is juſt the Browniſts: Their Church ſeemes to be tempered of Ariſtocracy in their ſelect Officers, choſen and ordained by themſelves (as yours are) and Democracy in the body of the people. But they granting the peoples actuall conſent (and diſſent) neceſſary to all Acts and ſentences, ſwallow up the votes of the Elders, and ſo their Government is wholly or chiefly popular. Give ſuch a power to the people (as you doe) and I will uſe your owne words: [All that is ſaid in the New Teſtament about the Rule of the Elders, and the peoples obedience to them, is to be lookt upon, but as Metaphors, and to hold no proportion with any ſubſtantiall reality of Rule and Government.
The Brethren, to make their way more plauſible, ſhew a reaſon of the difference between the Times of the Old and New Teſtament. [Then the Church was in her Nonage; and therefore the ſole power of all Church-matters, was in their Tutors and Governours: But now the Church is out of her Nonage, and more generally able, being viſible Saints (as they ſhould be) to joyne with their guides, &c.] But they forget themſelves preſently, confeſſing, [the weakneſſe and unskilfulneſſe of the people (for the generality of them) in compariſon of their Officers, gifted for the Government: He hath therefore placed a Rule and Authority in thoſe Officers over them, not directing only, but binding; ſo as not only nothing ſhould be done without them, but not eſteemed validly done, unleſſe done by them.] Now I pray, was it any more in the Government of the Church of the Old Teſtament? were not they to be viſible Saints? were not their Guides gifted for that purpoſe, ſutable to thoſe Times? And I thinke the Browniſts may grant them thus much: Their Officers are but the Churches ſervants, and yet they ſay nothing may (in an ordinary way of Church-Government) be done without them, nor validly done, unleſſe done by them. But I marvell they ſhould call the power of the Elders a binding power, when as they ſaid before; [The Elders had no power to cenſure without the concurrence of the people, as nor the people without the Elders] which is juſt the ſame which Browniſts ſay.
Nor can this ballancing of the power prevent Anarchie (what ever it may doe, Tyranny) for certainly if the peoples conſent and concurrence be neceſſary to every Church-act, its an eaſie thing for them to bring in Anarchy, being alwaies the greater number, and ſo to ſwallow up the votes of the Elders, as Browniſts doe.
That Miniſteriall Doctrinall Authority ſhould be ſevered from the power of excommunication, in ſome parties, we never doubted; becauſe excommunication is an act of juriſdiction, which is common to many; but Doctrinall Authority is an affluxe of Order. But to ſever Rule and Authority from the power of concurrence to excommunication and cenſures, (as they doe in the people) is a meer nullity of Rule and Authority too.
That the power of excommunication ſhould be inſeparably linked to a Congregation; they would faine illuſtrate by a knowne compariſon; As the cuſtome is in our Land, [The ſentencing of a man to death, is not by Lawyers▪ nor by Iudges alone, but by his Peeres, a Iury of men like himſelfe.] Their ſimilitude ſtill halts on the maine legge: For who are the Iudges with them, but the Preſbytery? and who are the Iury, but all the Brethren? But this is not ſo in a Corporation: All the City are not the Delinquents Peeres, but a ſelect dozen of men. Now ſuppoſe a man be accuſed as an offender in a Corporation; ſhall the whole City be his Peeres or Iury, to try him? have they any ſuch intereſt or priviledge? is their conſent or diſſent regarded? So the parallell required. If a brother deſerve cenſure, he ſhall not be judged by the Paſtors alone, or with the Elders, choſen by the people (as his Iury) for the Government of the Congregation; but all the people are to be his Peeres or Iury: This were ſtrange to ſee in a City, and would breed nothing but Anarchy and confuſion. So in the Church:
That Chriſt hath not betruſted a generall Aſſembly of Elders, with that power he hath done the Congregation, is begged, not proved. The reaſon is invalid: [Becauſe (ſay they) they are abſtracted from the people.] But thats not true; for the people are there repreſentatively in their Elders, who are able to repreſent the caſe of the offender, with all the circumſtances, as fully as if all the people were there preſent.
But Chriſt (ſay they) [would have this Tribe of men (the brethren perſonally concurring, not by delegation alone, not to the execution only; but even to the legall ſentence alſo of cutting men off:] This is all begged, and is the queſtion. And it is, as if they ſhould ſay (in the parallell inſtance) God would have all the Corporation perſonally concurring to the legall ſentence, or cutting off a malefactor, not by delegation only (as the Iury doe) nor to the execution only; which were a ſtrange confuſion. So that, as at the Aſsizes, the multitude of the people preſent, have no concurrence to the legall ſentence, &c. but the Iudge and Iury only: ſo the Brethren are to have no concurrence to the legall ſentence of excommunication, (except to yeeld obedience in the execution) but the Elders only: and ſo the parallell is full.
And to conclude, if the diſtance of the Preſbyteries Claſficall, &c. may neceſsitate the cenſure to pertaine to the particular Congregation, becauſe of the circumſtances better knowne to them: By the ſame reaſon, every Towne where a malefactor lives, ſhould have the Seſsions kept amongſt them; becauſe there the perſon and fact is better knowne, and not one man to be abſent from the cenſure: Nay, a man being to be excommunicated out of a particular Church, is excommunicated out of all Churches, therefore all the Churches muſt be preſent at the cenſure.