The Way of Congregational Churches Cleared, Part 2

The Way of Congregational Churches Cleared · Part 2

p. 1The ſecond Part (being Doctrinal, and Controverſal) Concerning Congregational Churches and their Government.

The PRAEFACE.

THe Author of the Book intituled Vindiciae Clavium, thought good to conceal his own Name, though in matters of Accuſation (whereof the Book is full.) It was the manner of the Romans (and that Roman manner was but juſt and equal) to have the Accuſer ſhew himſelf face to face. Acts. 25.16. And indeed the equity and equality of Brotherly love would have required him either to have declared his owne Name, or to have concealed mine as well as his owne. A little love amongſt Brethren would ſooner heal the diſſentions of Brethren, then great ſtore of Books, breathing luſt to contention. It is neither Presbyterians, nor thoſe of the Congregational way (whom they call Independents) that do hinder either Reformation or Peace: but onelyonly the want of foreign, the want of following and holding forth the Truth (or that which we believe to be the Truth) in love, on both ſides: It is love that edifieth both ſouls and States.

But ſince the Author of Vindiciae is pleaſed to conceal his Name▪ I therefore think it not amiſs (for brevities ſake, and to prevent a long Periphraſis of the Author of Vindiciae Clavium) when I am occaſioned to name him (which is very often) onelyonly to take leave to call him Vindex, or (in Engliſh) ſometime the Aſſertor, ſometime the Avenger; which both the Title and Purport of his Book, do hold him forth to be, as acting the part of both.

The ſcope of his Book (ſo far as it concerneth me) is chiefly to ſhew forth my weakneſſes and contradictions, as his Title manifeſteth. But if Chriſt may have any glory by that, I ſhall willingly acknowledge (without his accuſation, and much more without his conviction) that I am made up of weakneſſes and contradictions. The beſt good in me is but weak at the beſt: and that which is corrupt, is weaknes it ſelf. If there be Old and New man in me (as by the grace of Chriſt I ſee what I am) verily I cannot but finde a bundle, not onelyonly of contradictions, but of contrafactions p. 2in my ſelf. I believe, I doubt: I allow, I condemn: I hope, I fear: I love, I hate: I rejoyce, I grieve: I would, I would not: I do, I undo: the ſame ſelf, the ſame thing, at the ſame time.

Nevertheles all this will not argue that which the Avenger ſaith; He hath heard, that I have often altered my Judgement ſince I went to New-England: Nor that the Author of the Keys does contradict the Author of the Way, which is himſelf.

I have not had liberty to peruſe the Way, ſince it was publiſhed: but I ſee by the firſt words of it, that the Publiſhers had not the Copie which was taken hence from me, but an imperfect Tranſcript. But I do believe what the Publiſhers do report; That ſ… ing aſide ſome difference in Logical Termes, there is no material difference between the Keyes and the Way, either in Doctrine ofDivinity, or in Church-practiſe.

Yes, (ſaith the Avenger) I finde, He doth (in theſe) as flatly contradict himſelf, as ever any man did. Inſtance in one place, (and leave the reſt to the following diſcourſe.) In the Keyes, (Pag. 4.) he ſaith; The Keys were delivered to Peter as an Apoſtle, as an Elder, and as a Believer. The ſenſe of the words (of Chriſt to Peter) will be moſt full, if all the ſeveral conſiderations be taken joyntly together. But in the Way, (Pag. 27.) He ſaith, The Power of the Keys is given to the Church, to Peter not as an Apoſtle, not as an Elder, but as a profeſt Believer: Is not this a flat contradiction?

Anſw. 1. The words are not mine, but the Aſſertors, which he reporteth me to ſay in the Keys; The Keys were delivered to Peter, as an Apoſtle, as an Elder, and as a Believer. I would be loth to be found to ſpeak ſo il-Logically, as to ſay, Socrates hath a power of motion given to him, as a living Creature, as a Man, as a Philoſopher. It is a trivial rudiment in Schools, Whatſoever is attributed to any as ſuch, is given to all ſuch univerſally, and to ſuch reciprocally, and onelyonly. If the Keys were delivered to Peter as an Apoſtle, then to all the Apoſtles, and onelyonly to the Apoſtles. My words expreſſed by me are plain enough, and (I thank God) not deſtitute of reaſon. It hath proved a buſie queſtion, how Peter is to be conſidered in receiving this Power of the Keys, whether as an Apoſtle, or as an Elder (for an Elder alſo he was) or as a Believer, profeſſing his Faith before the Lord Jeſus, and his fellow Brethren.

p. 3I added indeed, the ſenſe of the words of Chriſt to Peter, (To thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven) will be moſt full, if all the ſeveral conſiderations be taken joyntly together.

Wherein as I expound mine owne meaning in the words following (in that Treatiſe of the Keys) So the Publiſhers of the Keys, do fitly expreſs the ſame in their Epiſtle [The Diſpoſal (ſay they) "of this Power, may lie in a due allotment into divers hands according to their ſeveral concernments; rather then in an entire and ſole Truſt committed to any one man, or any ſort or rank of Men, or Officers.] What ſaith the Avenger to this? Herein (ſaith he) Perhaps we might agree with them, but then not with the Author, who places all the power in one ſort of men alone, that is, the Brethren without Officers, in the Way, pag. 45. But the Aſſertor taketh too much liberty, to affirm, I ſay that in that place, which in the ſame paſſage I do expreſly deny; My words are expreſs, They, (that is the Brethren) may not adminiſter Sacraments in defect of all Officers, becauſe by the appointment of Chriſt, that pertaineth onelyonly to ſuch as are called by Office to preach the Goſpel. Matth. 28.19.20.

But (ſaith the Avenger) in the Way (page 27.) He ſaith The Power of the Keys is given to the Church, to Peter, not as an Apoſtle, nor as an Elder, but as a profeſt Believer, in the name of Believers. Is not this a flat contradiction? No verily, the Solution is very eaſie and obvious, even to the Avenger himſelf, if he would but have caſt his eye upon the very next words in the Keys, whence this foreign is fetched. The words run thus, The ſenſe of the words will be moſt full, if all the ſeveral conſiderations be taken joyntly together. Take Peter conſidered not onelyonly as an Apoſtle, but withal an Elder alſo, and a Believer too, profeſſing his Faith, all may well ſtand together. For there is a different power given to all theſe, to an Apoſtle, to an Elder, to a Believer: and Peter was all theſe, and received all the Power which was given by Chriſt to any of theſe, or to all of theſe together.— So that Auguſtine did not miſtake, when he ſaid, Peter Received the Keyes in the Name of the Church.

I cannot conceive what ſhould move the Avenger ſo confidently to charge a flat contradiction in theſe two paſſages, and that as flatly as ever man did contradict himſelf: unles it were partly through tmiſ-report of my words in the one place: whereof before) partly, hrough miſ-apprehenſion what the force in Logick is, of a quatenus p. 4tale: For he that knoweth that, he is not ignorant, that if Peter had received the Power of the Keys, quatenus Apoſtolus, or quatenus Preſbyter, as an Apoſtle, or as an Elder; then onelyonly Apoſtles, or onelyonly Elders had received all Church power, which all judicious Divines, and (I doubt not) himſelf amongſt them will utterly deny. But he that ſaith Peter received the power of the Keys, as ſtanding in the room of all ſorts of Officers and Members of the Church, and ſo in the name of the whole Church, He affirmeth that Peter received all Church power, which is found in all profeſt Believers, whether Officers, or private Brethren: and of Officers, whether Ordinary, as Elders; or Extraordinary, as Apoſtles, and Evangeliſts. And is there any paſſage in the Keys which croſſeth or contradicteth this? and that flatly, and ſo flatly, as never any man more?

Let this ſerve for my firſt Anſwer to this Contradiction: let me alſo add another.

Anſw. 2. If there had been ſome difference between the Way and the Keyes in ſome expreſſions: yet (as the Praefacers related from a Letter of mine to a friend of theirs:) it lay rather in Logical Termes, then in Doctrine of Divinity, or Church-Practiſe: And ſuch, amongſt others, is this very point in hand. If there ſeem to be any difference in the expreſſion of the one Treatiſe, or of the other, about this point, it is in the firſt Subject of the Power of the Keys (which is a Logical Notion:) but the point is the ſame, both in Doctrine of Divinity, and in Church-practiſe.

As for the imputation of Inconſtancy, which the Avenger is pleaſed to put upon me, He hath heard that I have often altered my Judgement ſince I went to New-England: I ſhould thank him if he would tell me either wherein I have altered my Judgement, or from whom he ſo heard: Mean while, he may do well to remember, That a Citizen of Zion (a pure member of a pure Church) taketh not up a Reproach againſt his Neighbour. Pſal. 15.3. John Baptiſt was ſurmiſed by ſome to be a Reed ſhaken with the wind; but it was a windy Fancy.

3. And for a third Anſwer, It were no juſt matter of calumny if in ſome latter Tractate I ſhould retract, or expreſs more commodiouſly, what I wrote in a former leſs ſafely. Auguſtine (as much above me, as the Moon to a little Star,) loſt no whit of his Reputation in the Church, by writing two whole Books of Retractations of his own Opinions and Expreſſions.

p. 5§ CHAP. I. Of the CHURCH, to which Chriſt committed the Power of the Keyes.

Section I.

VIndex doth here firſt enquire what I mean by this Church: …hereof, though he might fully have informed himſelf from the fifth point of the firſt Chapter of the Keys (which himſelf had in hand:) yet in hope of ſome advantage, He choſe rather to fetch it from another Tract of mine, touching our Church-Way: Which though he ſay, it went up and down in the dark; yet its dark walking was no intent of mine, but that it ſhould find either timely impreſſion, or (by advice of friends) utter ſuppreſſion. Now in that Tract I ſaid, The Church to which the Lord Jeſus committed the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, (Mat. 16.19.) is Coetus Fidelium, commonly called a particular viſible Church, meeting together with common and joynt conſent into one Congregation, for publike worſhip, and mutual edification.

But (ſaith the Avenger) of all the reſt this is the moſt improbable… ſenſe of our Saviours words, If by the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, he meaneth that Church of which he ſpake before in verſ. 18. But that was either the Catholick Viſible Church: or rather the Inviſible Myſtical Church; for that only is built upon the Rock, and againſt that the gates of Hell ſhall never prevail: Whereas Particular Churches may fail.

Anſw. 1. It is not a more improbable ſenſe of our Saviours words, to underſtand the Kingdom of Heaven (Matth. 16.19.) of a Particular Viſible Church, rather then of the Catholick Viſible Church. For I do not read that the Scripture doth any where acknowledge a Catholick Viſible Church at all. The Catholick Church is not Viſible as a Church: and the Church that is Viſible, is not Catholick. Doctor Ames his Judgement ſeems to me more Orthodoxal, Eccleſia non eſt tota ſimul Viſibilis. Medull. l. 1. c. 32. num. 1. For though the whole Church (or which is all one, the Catholick Church) may be Viſible in her ſingular Members; yet ſo they are not a Church. Or though it p. 6may be Viſible in the ſeveral Particular Congregations, yet none of them is Catholick. Or though all of them together may be called a Catholick Church, or General Aſſembly, if they were met together; Yet I ſuppoſe, Vindex would be loth to ſay, That Chriſt giveth the Power of the Keyes (all Eccleſiaſtical Power) into their hands. Such general Aſſemblies are rare and extraordinary; and extraordinary Aſſemblies are not fit Judicatories to hear and cenſure ordinary offences, or to adminiſter the ordinary Acts of Church-Power.

Anſw. 2. He therefore diſtruſting (as it ſeemeth) that to be the meaning of our Saviours words (to underſtand the Kingdom of Heaven of the Catholick Viſible Church) He expoundeth it rather to be meant of the Inviſible Myſtical Church. And indeed, true it is, that Peter and other Preachers of the Goſpel have received ſuch a Power of the Keys, as by the Miniſtery of the Word, to beget Faith in their Hearers, and ſo to open to them a dore into the Inviſible Church: as alſo to convince unbelievers of their damnable Eſtate, and ſo Miniſterially to declare them ſhut out from the fellowſhip of the Inviſible Church. But there is alſo a Power of the Keyes, to open a dore unto profeſt Believers into the Viſible Church: and again to ſhut them out of the Viſible Church, when they grow ſcandalous. And therefore the Viſible Church cannot be excluded from one part of the meaning of the Kingdom of Heaven, whereof Peter received the Keyes.

Beſides, certain it is, that when by the power of the Keyes, a Believer is received into the Inviſible Church, he can never be ſhut again out of that Church. But the Keyes here given to Peter, have a Power to ſhut out of the Kingdom of heaven, even the ſame Perſons, unto whom they have opened the dore before. And therefore the Kingdom of Heaven (whereof Peter received the Keyes) is not meant onelyonly of the Inviſible Church, but of the Viſible Church alſo,

Anſw. 3. The reaſons which Vindex objecteth to the contrary, will not prevail againſt this Truth, no more then the gates of hell againſt the Church.

Object. 1. It is the Inviſible Church onelyonly which is built upon the Rock, and againſt that, the gates of Hell ſhall never prevail: whereas Particular Churches may fail.

Anſw. It is not true, that the Inviſible Church onelyonly is built p. 7upon a Rock; for Particular Churches are built upon a Rock alſo. Built they are upon Divine Inſtitution, and Chriſt is laid for the foundation of them; or elſe they are not Churches of Chriſt, which are deſcribed to be in God our Father, and in our Lord Jeſus Chriſt. 1 Theſ. 1.1. The Apoſtle Paul laid Chriſt for the foundation of the Viſible Church of Corinth; 1 Cor. 3.10, 11. Chriſt is not the head of that Church whereof he is not the foundation: and where he is the foundation, he is alſo the Rock, on which they are built; for he is not a ſandy foundation.

"Yea, but Particular Churches may fail.

What then? So may the true Diſciples of Chriſt fail (in reſpect of bodily ſubſiſtence) and yet the gates of Hell never prevail againſt them; For they will be received into everlaſting habitations. Luke 16.9.

Yea, but Particular Churches may fail and fall away from the Faith; all the Churches of Aſia are fallen from Chriſt to Mahomet: and ſundry in Europe, from Christ to Anti-Chriſt.

Yet thoſe Churches that were founded upon Chriſt, and builded upon that Rock, they neither failed, nor fell away. It was their Succeſſors, and not they, that failed, and fell in that ſort. If the Poſterity of an holy Particular Church do degenerate, they were never founded upon Chriſt, but in an outward form. God may remove the Candleſtick (that is) his particular Church) out of that place (ſay out of Corinth or Epheſus, Rev. 2.5.) yet he will ever have ſome or other Particular Churches viſible in one place or other; and ſo againſt that Church ſtate, the gates of hell ſhall never prevail. Dr Whitakers declareth the Judgement of Orthodox Proteſtants in this point; Nos dicimus, aliquam ſemper fore in mundo Eccleſiam, quae Chriſto pareat, eamque viſibilem, De Eccleſia, Queſt. 3. Cap. 2. Junius in his Animadververſions in Bellarm. Controv. 4. de Concil. & Eccleſ. Cap. 13. Art. 1. Concludimus inquit, ne viſibilem quidem Eccleſiam, poſſe Deſicere, atque interire, adeo ut in ſe ipſa ſit inviſibilis, &c. And Doctor Ames beareth the like witnes. Eccleſia nunquam plane deſinit eſſe viſibilis. Medull. l. 1 cap. 31. And this they intend of ſome Particular Viſible Church or other. For a Catholick Viſible Church they diſpute againſt, but maintain the Catholick Church to be inviſible. Whitakers de Eccleſia Q. 2_a. 1_o, Dicimus Eccleſiam Catholicam inviſibilem eſſe, etiam tum cum Particularis quae que Eccleſia vel maxime floret.

p. 8Object. 2. The Kingdom of Glory is one part of the meaning of the Kingdom of Heaven, and it is not contradiſtinguiſhed to a Particular Congregation, but to the General Viſible Church on Earth.

Anſw. There is not any Particular Congregation on earth, but may be, upon juſt occaſion, contradiſtinguiſhed from the Kingdom of Glory. It may truly be ſaid, whoſoever is duly bound or looſed in any one Particular Church, is alſo bound and looſed in the Kingdom of Glory. There is no ſemblance of difficulty herein.

Nevertheles, when (in the Keyes page 2.) I ſpake of the Power of the Keyes given to Peter to bind on earth, I did not mean it in any one ſingle Particular Church on earth alone, but generally and indefinitely, in every Particular Church on earth. For every Apoſtle had tranſcendent power in every Particular Church on earth: And every Particular Church on earth (being all of one common Nature militant here on Earth, and different from the Tryumphant Church in Heaven) may juſtly be contradiſtinguiſhed from the Kingdom of Glory. But yet I never dreamed of a General Viſible Church on earth (as Vindex expoundeth me:) unles he mean it, as Viſible in Particular Congregations. And if he ſo mean, it will better expreſs the Truth, and my meaning, to ſay, That Peter received the Keyes to bind and looſe (as in the inviſible Church in ſome ſort, ſo) in the Particular Viſible Church indefinitely; that is, in every Particular Viſible Church on earth. For a Particular Viſible Church is of a common and general nature, and comprehendeth in it every ſingular Particular Viſible Church, as that of Corinth, Epheſus, Philippi, and the reſt.

Object. 3. That Church is meant (in Matth. 16.19.)whereof Peter was one (VVay, Page 1.) But Peter was not a Member of ſuch a Particular Congregation: for there was none ſuch extant, when Chriſt ſpake theſe words to Peter.

Anſw. I preſume Vindex is not ignorant, that in rational diſcourſes, and propoſitions of Art, The Copulae doth not Connotare Tempus, but onelyonly Connectere the Subject, and the Praedicate: elſe he will open a way to inſoluble fallacies

As in that Sophiſme,

Nullus Infans fuit Juvenis:

Omnis Senex fuit Infans:

Ergo, Nullus Senex fuit Juvenis.

p. 9This Connotation of time in the Copula, breedeth the Fallacy; Let Vindex therefore be pleaſed to leave ſuch arguings to Sophiſters, or make uſe of them when he will refreſh his wit in Argument with young Scholars. But amongſt Brethren, what if I ſhould ſay, Reſurrection to glory is given to the Bodies of the faithful, whereof Elect Infants are a part? Though the reſurrection be not yet come, nor Elect Infants yet come to be faithful? yet the Propoſition is true, becauſe the Subject and Praedicate have true Connexion in the nature of the thing, though not in the preſent order of time. VVhen Chriſt directed his Diſciples, and amongſt them, Peter, in caſe of private offence, and obſtinacy therein, at length, to tell the Church, whether by Church be meant the Particular Congregation, or the Presbyterie; neither of them both were then extant, when Chriſt ſpake theſe words to Peter. But will that be a good Argument to prove, That Chriſt did not direct the offended Brother either to tell the Particular Church, or to tell the Presbyterie, becauſe neither of them were then extant?

Object. 4. That Church whereof Peter received the Keyes, was ſuch, whereto Peter or any offended Brother might tell an offence, and have it cenſured. But that was never done in a Church of Saints, Believers without Officers; nor was the Church of Corinth ſuch a Church, but had Officers, who might authoritatively cenſure the inceſtuous Perſon, &c.

Anſw. This is another paſſage of Sophiſtry, but ſomwhat more open.— For if the Objection be caſt into a true Syllogiſme, it will run thus: The Church of which Peter received the Keyes, was ſuch to which Peter, and any offended Brother might tell an offence, and have it cenſured. But the Church of Saints and Believers without Officers, was not ſuch to whom Peter, or any offended Brother might tell an offence, and have it cenſured.

Thus the minor is juſtly denied: and therefore Vindex chuſeth rather to put his minor in other termes;

The Church of Saints and Believers without Officers, was not ſuch a Church, to whom Peter or any offended Brother did tell an offence.

But now there is Quatuor Termini in his Syllogiſme: Might tell an offence, and Did tell an offence, make two different Mediums. VVhat if the Church of Corinth when they cenſured the Inceſtuous Perſon, were not ſuch a Church without Officers? p. 10Or, what if no Church wanted Presbyters in the Apoſtles times? If it were ſo, it was the greater bounty of Chriſt to them in thoſe Primitive times, when the gifts of the Spirit were poured out in more abundance. But yet if a Church of Saints, or Believers without Officers, have power from Chriſt to elect Officers, then have they power alſo much more to admit Members. And if they have power to admit them without Officers, they have like power upon juſt offence to exclude them out of their holy Communion without Officers. For it is the ſame power to open and to ſhut, Inſtituere, & deſtituere.

Object. 5. The Church to which the Keyes are given, are ſaid to be ſuch as do all of them meet in one place for the adminiſtration of the Ordinances of Chriſt:

But the Ordinances of Chriſt are not to be found, much leſs administred in a Church of Believers without Officers.

Anſw. This latter Propoſition is left naked and unguarded without proof. And I confeſs, Ipſe dixit may go for a warrant in Pythagorean Philoſophy: and teſte me ipſo may go for a warrant in Royal Grants of Favour: but not in matters of Faith, nor of Juſtice between King and Subject, much leſs in matters of controverſie amongſt Brethren. The truth is, Though the Ordinances of Chriſt may not all of them be adminiſtred in a Church of Believers without Officers, and authoritative diſpenſing of the VVord and Cenſures, and Miniſtration of Sacraments: yet ſome Ordinances of Chriſt may be found and adminiſtred in a Church of Believers without Officers. As it is an Ordinance of Chriſt, two or three of them (much more all of them) to meet and pray together, and admoniſh one another in Chriſts Name, Matth. 18.20. It is an Ordinance of Chriſt, to elect Officers, (Deacons and Elders:) for this is the power and priviledge of the Church of Brethren. Though Titus was leſt in Crete to ordain Elders in every Citie (Tit. 1.5.) yet not to elect them: As Cyprian argueth from ſundry paſſages of the Acts of the Apoſtles, and other Scriptures; and thereupon inferreth, Plebs Dominicis Praeceptis obſequens, & Deum metuens—ipſa maxime poteſtatem habet, vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes, vel indignos recuſandi. Cyprian. Epiſtolarum. l. 1. Epiſtola. 4.

And if a Church of Believers may thus ſupply themſelves with Officers when they want them, and if Officers and Brethren have all ordinary Church power, (and ſo all Ordinances of Chriſt, p. 11which are ordinarily adminiſtred, found amongſt them) then what hindreth, but that a Church of Believers hath in it, as ſome Ordinances formally, ſo all radically and virtually, and the ſame adminiſtred, and adminiſtrable amongſt them?

Object. 6. When it is ſaid (in the VVay, pag. 1.) Chriſt committed the Keyes to the Church, that is, to a Particular Congregation, it muſt be meant either Subjectivè, or Objectivè; If it be meant in this latter ſenſe, That the Keyes are committed to the Church, as the Object of the exerciſe of the Keyes, that is, for the good and uſe of the Church, it is truly ſaid, but nothing to the purpoſe. In this ſenſe, the Keyes are given firſt and more immediately to the Inviſible Myſtical Church (all are yours, whether Paul, &c.) then to the General Viſible Church for their ſakes; then to the Particular Congregation, as a part and Member of that General Viſible Church.

But if it be meant in the former ſenſe (as it muſt be ſo meant, or elſe the Author of the VVay doth equivocate with us from the beginning throughout the whole Book) then he falleth into the extreme of the Browniſts, which he ſo laboureth to avoid. For to take the Church (in Matth. 16.) For a particular Congregation of Believers without Officers, is a new, ſtrange, and falſe Gloſs, maintained by none but Browniſts, and ſuch like Separatiſts.

Anſw. VVhen I ſaid Chriſt committed the Keyes to the Church, that is, to a Particular Congregation, I meant it indeed Subjective, though not excluding Objective. For I do not make the Particular Viſible Church a differ…nt Church from the Inviſible. The diſtribution of the Church into Viſible and Inviſible, is not into divers kinds of Churches, nor into divers kindes of Members of the ſame Church, but into divers Adjuncts of the ſame Members of the ſame Church: who in reſpect of their Spiritual and Internal Eſtate (to wit, their Faith) are Inviſible: but in reſpect of their External condition (to wit, the Profeſſion of Faith) are Viſible. The Particular Church (I ſpeak of it indefinitely) receiveth the power of the Keyes both Subjective to it ſelf, and Objective for it ſelf, though the ſaving benefit thereof redound onelyonly to the Elect amongſt them, who are alſo of them. Neither is this to fall into the extreme of (thoſe whom you call) Browniſts, to take the Church for a Particular Congregation without Officers.

For firſt, VVhen I wrote that Propoſition (in the firſt words p. 12of the Way) it was not then in my mind to underſtand any other Particular Congregation to which Chriſt had committed all ordinary Church Power, and the adminiſtration thereof, but to a Congregation of Believers furniſhed with Officers. For I ſpake of ſuch a Church whereof Peter was one; and he was an Officer. Though I perceive M. Rutterford underſtood me otherwiſe, (as you alſo do:) and ſo from thence raiſeth his firſt controverſie: Whether the Church of Believers deſtitute of the Elderſhip, have the power of the Keyes?

VVhichWhich (to avoid miſconſtruction) I expreſſed more diſtinctly in the Tract of the Keyes. But yet, take it as he doth, for a Church of Believers without Officers; They have received ſome part of the Power of the Keyes formally, as the election of Officers, &c. and the whole ordinary Power of the Keyes, radically and virtually. The ſtock of the Vine (which groweth in the bulk from the root) hath not immediate power to bring forth Grapes; but yet it hath power to produce branches, which do bring forth Grapes: So the Body of the Church of Believers, though they have not immediate power of rule authoritatively to diſpenſe the VVord, or to adminiſter Sacraments at all: yet they have power to produce ſuch Officers as may perform the ſame.

Again ſecondly, Dr Whitakers was none of them whom you call Browniſts, yet he ſpeaking of this Text (which you quote in this Paragraph, to prove that Miniſters are given to the Church objective, for their good, not ſubjective, ſo as the Church to have power over them. 1 Cor. 3.22.23. He beareth witnes againſt your gloſs: Apoſtolus ſaith he, non tantum ait Miniſtros inſtitutos eſſe propter utilitatem, Eccleſiae: ſed ſic illos eſſe Eccleſiae, ut Eccleſia eſt Chriſti. At Eccleſia Chriſto ſubjicitur non propter Chriſti utilitatem inſtituta eſt. Et Apoſtolus Eccleſiam eſſe Dei Templum, affirmat: Miniſtri in Templo, non ſupra Templum. Whitak Controv. 4. Quaeſt. 1. Num. 11. in fine. Neither was Parker one of thoſe whom you call Browniſts, or ſuch like Separatiſts, but wrote againſt them. But yet he underſtandeth the Church (Matth. 16.) of a particular Congregation of Believers, as diſtinct from Officers: yea and proveth it at large. Parker de Eccleſiaſtica Politia, l. 3. cap. 1, 2, 3.

Object. 7. To conclude, the Church of which our Saviour ſpeaketh, is called here the Kingdom of Heaven (on Earth:) But p. 13a Particular Congregation of Believers is never called the Kingdom of Heaven; being but a Member or Corporation of that Kingdom. It were as imp…oper to call a Congregation, Chriſts Kingdom, as to call London the Kingdom of England.

Anſw. 1. It is not material whether a Particular Congregation of Believers be ever expreſly called the Kingdom of Heaven or no; It is enough it is called a Church, yea as it is diſtinguiſhed from Church Officers. Thoſe whom he calleth the whole Church diſtinguiſhed from the Apoſtles and Elders (Acts 15.22.) the ſame he calleth the Brethren, verſ. 23. And if the Brethren may be called the Church, they may juſtly alſo be called the Kingdom of Heaven, ſeing the ſtyle of the Kingdom of Heaven is uſually given to the Church. You may more truly obſerve, that the Presbyterie is never called in Scripture the Kingdom of Heaven: no, nor are they called the Church, unles it be in that one place Matth. 18.17.) which yet may ſooner be preſumed, then proved to be underſtood of the Presbyterie; I mean, a Conſiſtory of Presbyters, diſtinct from the Congregation of Believers.

Anſw. 2. I dare not ſay that the Particular Viſible Church is never called the Kingdom of Heaven. For when Chriſt went out to hire labourers into his Vineyard, it was into this or that Particular Church, reſpectively. And this Vineyard thus deſtitute of Labourers or Officers, and diſtinguiſhed from them, is called the Kingdom of Heaven, Matth. 20.1.

Again, when the Kingdom of Heaven is compared to ten Virgins, five wiſe, and five fooliſh, (Matth. 25.1, 2.) this is a deſcription of the eſtate of each Particular Church, reſpectively; without reſpect to their Officers. Beſides, when the Kingdom of God is ſaid to be within us, (Luke 17.21. And all the faithful are ſaid to be made Kings and Prieſts unto God (Rev. 1.6.) Even a Kingdom of Prieſts (1 Pet. 2.9.) can it then be termed an improper ſpeech to call a Particular Church of Believers, the Kingdom of Heaven?

Yes, they are but a Member, or Corporation of the Kingdom: and it were improper to call London the Kingdom of England.

But every ſimilar part of a ſimilar Body doth properly partake both in the Name and Nature of the whole. Every part of water is water, and is both cold and moiſt, as the whole water is. And ſuch a part of ſuch a Body, is a Particular Viſible Church. p. 14The Church of Corinth is ſaid to be the Body of Chriſt, and the members thereof, members in particular. And Chriſt hath given unto them all his Officers, as well as unto other Churches, 1 Cor. 11.27, 28. But ſuch is not the State of London. London is not a ſimilar, but a diſſimilar part of England, and different from all the Corporations of England, different in power, different in priviledges: How then can a compariſon of unequals, be drawn to parallel a ſtate of equalls.

¶ VVhat the KEYES of the Kingdom of HEAVEN be. Section II.

IN opening what the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven be, it was not my intent to enumerate them all diſtinctly and particularly in that firſt Chapter of the deſcription of the Keys, which was but a Preface and Introduction to the whole Tractate. I thought it enough to give an inſtance onelyonly in general, there, in two or three examples; reſerving a more exact diſtribution of them to the chapters following: and referring each ſort of them to their ſeveral Subjects in their proper place, leſt I might clogg my ſelf and the Reader with needles repetitions. I therefore contented my ſelf to ſay in general, The Keyes are the Ordinances of Chriſt, which he hath inſtituted to be adminiſtred in his Church, as the preaching of the Word, as alſo the adminiſtring of the Seals and Cenſures.

I inſtanced in theſe, as moſt obvious, and of eaſieſt apprehenſion to any vulgar Reader. But in inſtancing theſe, I ſuppoſed no man would be of ſo narrow apprehenſion, as not to conceive thoſe things to be included, without which, theſe cannot duly be performed. As, the word cannot be preached, nor the Sacraments diſpenſed, without a vocation unto ſuch ſpiritual Adminiſtrations. Nor can it be doubted, that if there muſt be a vocation to adminiſter theſe, there muſt be alſo ſome, who have power from Chriſt to give ſuch a vocation.

Albeit, If it had been of any weight for the expediting of any controverſie about the Keyes (which I know none:) I might eaſily have given ſome definition of the Keyes; as to ſay, The Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven are ſpiritual Powers given by p. 15Chriſt to his Church to diſpenſe the Treaſures of his Kingdom, for the opening and ſhuting, binding and looſing the ſpiritual Eſtates of men in the Church. By ſpiritual Powers, I mean ſpiritual callings, and ſpiritual gifts fitting for them, enabling to ſome ſpiritual Acts: By the treaſures of the Kingdom I mean the Word, Seals, and Cenſures, and the ſpiritual bleſſings laid up in them. But Callings, Gifts, and Treaſures, are all of them Ordinances. The other parts of the Definition, what be the Acts, and Ends, Objects, and Subjects of this power, I opened formerly in the third, fourth, and fifth Paragraphs of the firſt chapter of the Keyes.

But upon what I expreſſed in this Paragraph, Vindex is pleaſed to animadvert ſome things.

1. In this Paragraph (ſaith he) as you do cleerly lay down the ſtate of the Queſtion: ſo do you ſtrongly confute the ſcope of your whole Boook, which is to give the People a ſhare in the Government of the Church.

Anſw. Vindex doth cleerly miſtake my ſcope and meaning, to think I did lay down the ſtate of the Queſtion in this Paragraph. For I think it is no Queſtion at all, That the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven, are the Ordinances of Chriſt, which he hath inſtituted to be adminiſtred in his Church. Neither is it the ſcope of my whole Book, to give the people a ſhare in the Government of the Church: Nay, it is not the ſcope of the greater part of the Book: Nay further, there be that blame the Book for the other Extreme, That it placeth the Government of the Church not at all in the hands of the People, but of the Presbyterie. So various are the apprehenſions of Books by variety of Readers, and by their ſomtime judicious, ſomtime curſory reading.

Leaſt of all is there any colour for this apprehenſion, that I do in this Paragraph ſtrongly confute the ſcope of my whole Book. Yes (ſaith he) For if the Keyes be the Ordinances of Chriſt, they are given indeed for the Church of Believers, that is, for their good and benefit, objectivè; but are never in all the Scripture, nor in all Antiquity ſaid to be given to the Church Subjectivè.

Anſw. What Power I acknowledge given to the Church of Believers Subjective, either in admiſſion of Members, or election of Officers, or cenſure of Offendors, I do alledge Scriptures for it; which when Vindex taketh in hand to evade them, I ſhall return him (God willing) further anſwer, which in this place were an unſeaſonable prevention: But when he affirmeth that ſuch power p. 16as I acknowledge given to the Church, is not to be read of in all Antiquity; it maketh me to ſuſpect, that either he hath not read All Antiquity, (which yet is no crime, onelyonly he ſhould not then have denied them all, to own this Power; for it is not ſafe to avouch more then we know:) or if he have read them all, he …ath forgotten what is recorded by the moſt ancient Antiquity for the ſpace of the firſt three hundred years, during all the time of the Primitive perſecutions. Of which I have given account to Mr Baily in anſwer to the Hiſtorical part of his Diſſwaſive, (chap. 4. Sect. 1, 2, 3.) whereto I refer him.

But ſaith Vindex, it ſoundeth ill at firſt hearing, to ſay, that the People hauehave any power to exerciſe Ordinances, of Preaching, or adminiſtring the Seals or Cenſures. The power of Preaching or adminiſtring Sacraments by the People, as none but Separatiſts do uſurp; ſo your ſelf complain of it, Page 6. And why you ſhould allow them power in cenſures, there is very little reaſon.

Anſw. If Preaching the Word, or Adminiſtring the Seals, were all the Ordinances which Chriſt hath inſtituted, and no more but they, Vindex ſaith true, it would ſound ill at firſt hearing (and if he will, at ſecond and third hearing too) to ſay, The People have any power to exerciſe theſe Ordinances; unleſs that kind of Preaching be underſtood, which D. Ames approveth, l. 4. de Caſibus Conſcientiae, cap. 25. in reſponſ. 3. ad Quaeſt. 1.

But to allow the people a power in Cenſures, I marvel it ſhould ſound ſo ill at firſt hearing, of ſuch whoſe ears have been long wonted to hear of Suſpenſions, and Excommunications; not onelyonly of private Chriſtians, but even of many Miniſters, by Chancellors and Commiſſaries, who generally are no Miniſters, and it were to be wiſhed, that the moſt of them, (yea, or the beſt of them) were as good as Brethren. But yet I ſomwhat wonder, that he that in this Paragraph could alledge all Antiquity, ſhould think it to ſound ill at firſt hearing, That the Brethren of the Church ſhould have any hand in Church Cenſures; who knoweth what reverend Teſtimony Ancient Tertullian giveth of them (Apologetici Capite 39.) Quum Probi, Cum Boni Coeunt, Cum Pii, Cum Caſti Congregantur, non Factio dicenda eſt, ſed Curia. And what an hand Cyprian giveth to the People in Church cenſures, none that have read him can be ignorant. VVhat reaſon there is for their Power in Church-cenſures (whether little, or much) we ſhall further conſider (God willing) in its place: for here you p. 17neither give reaſons againſt it, nor refute our reaſons for it.

2. A ſecond thing which Vindex animadverts in the former Paragraph is,

that I call the Keyes, Ordinances, which Chriſt hath inſtituted to be adminiſtred in his Church, the Church of Believers, a Particular Congregation.

But mark it (ſaith he) not by a Church without Officers: but by the Officers inſtituted in the Church.

Anſw. He need not have bid me to mark that, which if himſelf had marked, He could not but ſee, That I never acknowledged it to be in the power of the people to adminiſter all Ordinances, but to adminiſter ſome Ordinances themſelves, and to elect and call ſuch to them, as might adminiſter all the reſt.

3. His third Animadverſion is, That I ſay, the Keys are neither Sword nor Scepter: for they convey not Soveraign power; but Stewardly and Miniſterial: which cleerly (ſaith he) excludeth the People; for they have no Stewardly or Miniſterial Power over themſelves.

Anſw. As if the People were not Stewards of the Grace of God given to them! The Apoſtle Peter maketh account, That as every man hath received the gift, ſo he ſhould miniſter the ſame, as good Stewards of the manifold Grace of God. 1 Pet. 4.10. If the people have received any gift of Grace, they are either Stewards of it, or Lords: Lords they are not, who muſt give account to the Lord for the employment and improvement of their gifts: what are they elſe then but Stewards? Yea, (you will ſay) but private men may beſtow their Gifts privately. But election of Officers is a publike Gift, whatſoever elſe beſide; and that muſt be diſpenſed publikely; and that not as Lords, to elect whom they liſt, but as Stewards and Miniſters to Chriſt, to elect whom the Lord hath choſen.

I ſaid indeed (in that Paragraph) That Chriſt in giving the Keyes, inveſteth thoſe to whom he giveth them, with a power to, open and ſhut the Gates both of the Church and Heaven; and that this power lieth partly in their ſpiritual calling (whether it be their Office, or their Place, and Order in the Church) and partly in the concourſe and co-operation of Chriſt, accompanying the right diſpenſation of thoſe Keyes or Ordinances.

But (ſaith Vindex) I ſuppoſe the word Calling, ſhould be taken here of ſome ſpecial Calling or Office: which again would exclude the people, as having no Office in the Church.

p. 18Anſw. There is no reaſon why you ſhould ſuppoſe, That Calling here ſhould be taken of ſome ſpecial Calling or Office; if ſpecial denotate a ſpecification of a Calling diſtinct from other Members of the Church: But if it onelyonly ſpecifie a diſtinct calling, or ſtate, or order different from ſuch as are not members of the Church: ſo it is true indeed, every Member of the Body hath a ſpecial Calling diſtinct from ſuch Believers or others, as are not yet received into Member like communion with this or that particular Church; Yea, and every Member of this or that particular Church, hath a calling to put forth ſome Acts of Power in his own Church, which Members of another particular Church have not power to put forth there, though they may put forth the ſame each one in his owne Church, reſpectively: Every Member of the Body of a Particular Church hath ſome Function, or Act…on, (or as the New Tranſlation termeth it) ſome office in the Body. For that which is expreſſed in the Protaſis of the Apoſtles compariſon, is implyed in the reddition; Rom. 12.4, 5. As we have many Members in one Body, and all Members have not the ſame office: ſo we being many, are one Body in Chriſt, &c. If all the Members of the Body have not the ſame office, it implyeth, they have all of them ſome office or function, or action, though not the ſame. But cuſtom hath obtained, that they onelyonly are accounted to have a ſpecial calling or office in the Church, who are ſet apart for the eminent adminiſtrations in the Church; as the Paſtors, Teachers, Elders, Deacons. And ſuch a ſpecial calling, it is not requiſite that the common Brethren of the Church ſhould have, to diſpenſe that power of the Keyes which is committed to them. For Chriſt hath neither called them to it, nor given them gifts ſuitable for it.

But (ſaith Vindex) when you ſay the Power of the Keyes lieth in their spiritual calling (whether it be their Office or Place, and Order in the Church:) you add this explication on purpoſe to ſteal in the intereſt of the People in ſome ſhare of the Keys.

Anſw. It is not ſtealth, but Juſtice to give every man his own: Liberty, to whom liberty; power, to whom power; honour, to whom honour belongeth. The Pſalmiſt foretold it in a new ſong (all which new ſongs have ſpecial accompliſhment in the new Teſtament) That this honour have all his Saints, to wit, in the Congregation of Saints to execute the ſpiritual cenſures (or Judgments) written, Pſal. 149.9. And if the Lord have given them this honour, it is rather ſtealth (yea ſacriledge) to take it from them, then to allow it to them.

p. 19But (ſaith Vindex) if place, or Order in the Church, do give the People out of Office, any Power in the Keyes; that is, in the Ordinances; then may Women and Children claim an Interest in thoſe Keys, for they have a Place and Order in the Church as well as men.

Anſw. It is not every place or order in the Church, that giveth power to receive the ordinances adminiſtred by others, much leſs power, themſelves to diſpenſe ordinances. Children have not power to receive the Lords Supper, much leſs to adminiſtes it. And for Women, God hath expreſly forbidden them all place of ſpeech and power in the Church: 1 Cor. 14.34. 1 Tim. 2.11, 12. unleſs it be to joyn with the reſt of the Church, in ſinging forth the publike praiſes of the Lord. Let every ſoul enjoy ſuch priviledges and liberties, as the Lord hath given him in his place and order: and neither affect nor attempt more. The Female Sex, and Non-age, fall ſhort of ſome power, which Chriſt hath given to the Brotherhood.

¶ Of the Subject to whom the Power of the KEYES is given. Section III.

I Conceive it would be ſome loſs of time and labour, to argue this Queſtion with Vindex alone: whoſe exceptions ſo far as they concern the point in controverſie, are but collections out of the writings of others, who have more diſtinctly and elabourately diſputed the cauſe. And therefore it will be requiſite, in this, and the like points in controverſie, rather to conſider what hath been written by learned and reverend M. Rutterford, and M. Baily, and yet by the way, not to neglect what perſonal exceptions Vindex hath taken at my ſelf.

In the Way of the Churches of New-England, chap. 1. ſect. 1. it was laid down for the firſt Propoſition: That the Church which Christ in the Gospel hath inſtituted, and to which he hath committed the Keyes of his Kingdom, The power of binding and looſing, the Tables and Seals of the Covenant, the Officers and Cenſures of his Church, the adminiſtration of all his publike Worſhip and Ordinances, is C…etus Fidelium, a company of Believers, m…ting in one place e…y Lords day, for the adminiſtration p. 20of the holy Ordinances of God to publike edification.

VponUpon this Propoſition M. Rutterford (as he excelleth in acutenes and Scholaſtical Argumentativenes) hath raiſed four Queſtions, though ſome of them more then I did intend to point at in the Propoſition. Let us conſider of them in their order, not with a ſpirit of contention (which himſelf in his Epiſtle to the Reader, candidly profeſſeth againſt) but with a ſpirit ſtudious of Truth and Peace.

The firſt Queſtion he raiſeth from that Propoſition, is this: Whether a company of Believers and Saints, builded by Faith upon the Rock Christ, and united in a Church-Covenant, be the onelyonly inſtituted Viſible Church of the New-Teſtament, to the which Christ hath given the Keys?

Himſelf underſtandeth the Propoſition, as if it held forth the Affirmative. But in very Truth, as the word [onelyonly] is not in the Propoſition: ſo it was far from my intendment, to exclude an Organical Church (a Church furniſhed with all her officers) from being an inſtituted Viſible Church of the New Teſtament, as well as Coetus Fidelium, a company of Chriſtians without Officers. When the Propoſition ſpeaketh of Officers as given to the Church, it intendeth them not as meer adjuncts given to a Subject, but as Integral parts given to the whole Body of the Church, for completing the integrity and perfection of it. And ſo much the very words of the Propoſition do imply; for it ſpeaketh of ſuch a Church, to whom Chriſt hath given the adminiſtration of all his publike Worſhip and Ordinances: which is not a power given to a Church of private Believers, deſtitute of Officers. Howſoever they may be capable (more or leſs) of ſome ſpiritual Adminiſtrations: yet doubtles they are not capable of all: and for inſtance, not of the adminiſtration of Sacraments, without Officers.

Neither was it my intendment in that Propoſition, to exclude lawful Synods (gathered, and proceeding according to the pattern, Acts 15.) from all participation in ſome part of the power of the Keyes. For they have a power to decide controverſies from the Word, and to appoint a courſe for the preventing and healing of offences, and for agreement in the Truth according to the Word. But theſe Synods are not the ordinary ſtanding Judicatories of the Church: neither do they convene, nor exerciſe their directive Power, but when the particular Churches lie under variance or offence; or are not yet ſetled in a way of Truth and p. 21Peace. But my intendment ſimply was, That each particular Church when it is organized with all his Officers, and walketh in a way of Truth and Peace; There is no part of the power of the Keyes, but a particular Church hath received it within it ſelf, and may adminiſter the ſame to the edification of the whole body.

Neither let it be thought (in that firſt Propoſition) That I intended to inveſt a Church of Believers (without officers) with all the power of the Keyes, becauſe I ſpeak of the Election and ordination of officers afterwards. For ſo I ſpeak alſo of the gathering and admiſſion of Members: and yet it may not be inferred, that I ſhould intend a Church inveſted with all power, which yet is deſtitute both of Members, and Officers. But it is a well known rule of Method, to define or deſcribe at firſt, Totum Integrale, with the proper Adjuncts (or Paſſions) of it, and then to deſcend to ſet forth the ſeverall Members, and integrall parts thereof, with their ſeverall operations in due place.

So that this firſt queſtion raiſed from this firſt Propoſition is no queſtion at all; and therefore it will not be needfull to examine the diſtinctions, or concluſions raiſed up againſt it. For they do not contradict the true meaning of the Propoſition, unleſſe it be ſome parts of the ſecond concluſion, which come in their place to be conſidered of in the ſequele.

¶ Touching the power of the Keyes in the Church of Believers without Officers. Sect. IIII.

THe ſecond queſtion, which M. Rutterford raiſed out of the firſt Propoſition formerly mentioned, is

Whether or not, Chriſt hath committed the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven to the Church of Believers, which as yet wanteth all Officers, Paſtors, Teachers, &c.

But this queſtion, ſo far as it c…ncerneth my Propoſition, (to ſpeak with leave and due Reverence) is as ungrounded as the former. For the Propoſition ſpeaketh not of a Church that wanteth all Officers, but of a Church that having received Officers from Chriſt, hath power to Adminiſter all the Publick worſhip, and Ordinances of Chriſt. This point and my plain meaning therein, is more fully and diſtinctly opened in the ſmall treatiſe of the Keyes. p. 22But for the preſent ſtating of the queſtion, our judgement is expreſſed in two Concluſions; which ſo far as they are controverted, are to be cleared.

Firſt that the Church of Believers deſtitute of Officers, hath received ſome part of the Power of the Keyes: as Power to receive Members, to elect Officers, and to do ſuch other Church Acts, as do not require Office-Rule, or Office-Power.

Secondly, that the Church of Believers, though for the preſent deſtitute of Officers, hath in it a Radical or Virtual Power, whereby it may call forth ſuch Officers, as may Adminiſter all thoſe Acts of office Rule, or Power, which of it ſelf without them, it could not exerciſe.

Againſt theſe two Aſſertions, I do not find any thing in his diſtinctions or concluſions, or Arguments which doth prevail with me to depart from them, as indeed he doth not directly ſo much diſpute againſt theſe concluſions which we hold, as againſt that queſtion (which himſelf by miſtake gathered from the Propoſition) which we hold not.

Though I ſaid the Keyes were given to a Church of Believers, whereof Peter was one, yet that was onelyonly to ſhew, that Peter in his loweſt ſpirituall relation in the Church (as a Profeſt Believer) had his ſhare in the power of the Keyes: but not that he had his ſhare in the whole power of the Keyes, as a Profeſt Believer: but that he had other parts of the power of the Keyes, as an Elder, and as an Apoſtle immediately given Him by the Lord Jeſus.

In his ſecond Diſtinction (pag. 7.) I do not underſtand the ſafety of that ſpeech; That Paſtors and Teachers are Gifts, of which the Church is not capable, as a Subject. For the Apoſtle ſaith, Chriſt hath given (amongſt other Officers) Paſtors, and Teachers to his Church. Epheſ. 4.8.11. And if He have given them to the Church, the Church is the recipient Subject of them. As if the Eye be given to the Body, the Body is the recipient Subject of it. And though the Church cannot exerciſe the Paſtors, and Teachers place by themſelves; yet they may by their Paſtors and Teachers. As the Body though it cannot ſ…e by it ſelf, yet it may by the eye, which is given to it of God for that end: Neither is it a ſafe ſpeech (as I conceive) to ſay, That the Church is capable of theſe Gifts (Paſtors and Teachers) as the object and end, becauſe the fruit and effect of theſe Gifts re…ou…deth to the good of the Church; if that be meant as the onelyonly reſpect, in regard of which they are ſaid to p. 23be given to the Church. For Paſtors and Teachers are given to the Church, as Integral parts of the Church, as the Church is Totum Integrale. Now Integrall parts are in…inſecall and eſſentiall to a Totum Integrale, and not extrinſecall, as the object, and end be to a thing.

The Teſtimony which he alledgeth from Reverend Parker, and Baynes, and the Pariſian School, doth indeed argue, that the fruit and effect of the gifts of Paſtor and Teacher doth redound to the good of the Church (which no man denieth:) but M. Rutterford well knoweth, that Parker, and the Pariſian School, do grant further (even more then I argue for) that the Church is not onelyonly the object and end, but the firſt ſubject alſo of all Church-Power: which though M. Baynes wave (in the place alledged by him:) and diſpute thereupon both againſt M. Parker and the Pariſian School (under the name of Sorboniſts;) yet he clearly cloſeth with M. Parker and us, in the concluſi…n; That the viſible Church inſtituted by Chriſt and his Apoſtles, to which the Keyes are given, is not a Dioceſan, or Provinciall, or Nationall Aſſembly, but a particular Congregation: Dioceſans triall, Q. 1. But if M. Rutterford intend no more but this, That the Church is not capable of exerciſe of the Paſtors and Doctors place, and therefore is not the firſt ſubject of their Office-power; I for my part readily cloſe with him therein, reſerving due reſpect to others of different judgement.

In his third Diſtinction, which he putteth between a formal ordinary power, and a virtual or extraordinary power, I do not wel reach his meaning: For when He cometh to apply this diſtinction in his ſecond Concluſion, He granteth a virtual Power, not Formall, in the Church of Believers to ordain Paſtors, or to do ſome ſuch Act, as may ſupply the defect of ordination: As in a Church in an Iſland, where the Paſtors are all dead, or taken away otherwayes; and yet he maketh not this an official, or an authoritative Power properly, but a virtual, and extraordinary Power, not ordinary: like that which David had to eat the ſhew Bread. And in like caſe of extreme neceſſitie, he alloweth a private man endued with gifts and zeal to teach publikely. But I confeſſe, I do not well underſtand, how a man in caſe of neceſſity hath any virtual power to do this or that Act, but he hath alſo a formall power to do ſuch an Act in that caſe of neceſſitie. Such an Act I ſay, either the ſame in kind, or the ſame in Analogy. VVhen David did eat the ſhew-Bread, he had a lawfull not only virtuall, but formall p. 24power, as an Iſraelite in neceſſity (to whom morall duties were to be preferred before Ceremoniall) to eat for the ſuſtentation of life. VVhen a free People chuſe a King, and Crown him, though they be not endued with a formall, but a virtuall Soveraign Power, to give Kingly authoritie which they have not; yet they have formally a Power to yield up themſelves unto ſubjection to ſuch a Perſon as they have choſen; and that doth virtually and analogically ſet up him in the Throne. For He that hath formall Power to make one Relative, He hath an Analogicall Power, to ſet up his Correlative. They that can make themſelves Subjects, can make another to be their Soveraign.

But this I willingly admit which he ſaith; That the ordination of Paſtors by the Church of Believers, is not an official, nor properly an Authoritative Act of Power. For the election of a Paſtor by the Brethren of the Church, is an higher Act of power then their ordination is: As the Election of a King is an Act of higher Power, then his Coronation. And yet the Election of a Paſtor, is not an Act of official, or Authoritative power: no more then the Election of a King by a free People is an Act of official, or Authoritative Soveraingtie.

As for the publik… Teaching of a private man indued with gifts and zeal, I know not why it may not be allowed, not only in caſe of extreme neceſſitie, but in ſome caſes of expediency, as when his gifts are to be proved, before he be called into office.

In the third concluſion, M. Rutterford telleth us, That as a Reaſonable man is the firſt, immediate, and principal ſubject of Aptitude to laugh, and the mediate and ſecondary ſubjects are Peter and John, and ſuch particular men: So it is the order of Nature to give Church properties, and powers, firſt to the Species and common Nature of the Church, and not to this or that particular Church.

But this concluſion of his croſſeth nothing in that firſt Propoſition of mine, nor any other Tenent of ours. For that Propoſition doth not make this or that particular Church (which is indeed a ſingular Church) the firſt ſubject of Church Power: But a particular viſible Church, which holdeth forth the Species or common nature of each particular, or ſingular Church.

It is readily admitted what he ſaith, That to be builded on a Rock, victory over hell, and ſuch like, are given principally and immediately to the Catholick, and Inviſible Church, as to the firſt and principal Subject.

p. 25But we cannot ſo eaſily admit that which he ſubjoyneth, that the Keyes are given to the Catholick Inviſible Church, as the firſt and principal Subject (though we grant they are given for their end and uſe:) But we rather believe they are given to the particular Viſible Church, wherein the power of the Keyes is only exerciſed and uſed. The Inviſible Catholick Church doth never convene for the Adminiſtration of Church-power: And it were in vain to give power to ſuch a ſubject, which never is called to bring it forth into act.

In his Arguments, M. Rutterford doth chiefly aime at this concluſion; To prove that the Keyes are not given to a Church of profeſſed Believers, d…ſtitute of Paſtors and Teachers, &c. A concluſion which he is pleaſed to fram… unto himſelf, but had not occaſion to collect it from any words in my Propoſition; which onelyonly affirmeth, that the Keye… were given to ſuch a particular Viſible Church, whereof Peter was one, and to whom Peter in caſe of offence might complain, even to the Congregation. I might therefore omit this Queſtion wholy, but that he ſo handleth it, as if there were no Church-power at all, but onelyonly that which he calleth official, and Authorita…ive power: and ſo he maketh all the Acts of the Brethren of the Church (who are no officers) as no Acts of power at all, and conſequently, no part left to the People in the power of the Keyes: which puteth upon me a neceſſity of clearing ſome expreſſions in his Arguments.

1. His firſt Argument (pag. 9.) is,

The Church to which the Keyes were given, is builded upon a Rock, is the Houſe of Wiſdom, the houſe of God.

But ſuch is not a company of Profeſſing Believers, united by Church-Covenant, and deſtitute of Pastors and Teachers. &c.

Anſw. This latter Propoſition is juſtly denied.

For M. Rutterford himſelf acknowledgeth a Church in an Iſland, where the Paſtors are taken away by death, or otherwiſe, pag. 8. And if ſuch be a Church, then truly it is built upon a Rock, the Rock of Divine Inſtitution, and the Rock of Chriſt believed on, and profeſſed. Such a Church is alſo an Houſe of Wiſdom, and an Houſe of God: or elſe the Wiſdom, and preſence, and grace of God given to the Church (yea to two or three of the Church) dieth and periſheth with their Church-Officers.

p. 26Object. The Church of Believers gathered without Pastors and Teachers, though united in a Church-Covenant, yet not being builded by Pastors and Teachers (who are given to gather and to edifie the Body) they are onelyonly the materialls of the Houſe, But not the Houſe.

Anſw. 1. The Church is truly ſaid to be builded by Paſtors and Teachers, upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apoſtles, when by their Doctrine they were firſt brought on to believe, and by the ſame Doctrine taught to aſſemble into Church-Fellowſhip. It is true, the faith which they received by the edifying Miniſtery of Paſtors and Teachers, doth not make them Members of the Viſible Church, but of the Inviſible; and ſo fit materialls onelyonly of the Viſible Church. But yet they being alſo taught to make profeſſion of their faith before the Lord, and his people, in covenanting or profeſſing ſubjection to the Lord, and one to another in the uſe of his Ordinances (ſo far as they are or ſhall be committed to them) they thereby receive the form of a Viſible Church upon them. For as faith is the eſſential form of the Catholick Inviſible Church: So is the profeſſion of faith, and the obedience of faith to Chriſt in his Ordinances amongſt themſelves, the eſſential forme of a Particular Viſible Church, amongſt themſelves I ſay. For profeſſion of faith, and of the obedience of faith at large, without re…pect of ſubjection to Ordinances in this or that Church, maketh a man no more a member of the Church at York, then of the Church at Edinburgh. But when ſuch a Society of Believers is combined together by profeſſion of faith, and obedience of faith to the Ordinances adminiſtred, or adminiſtrable amongſt themſelves; they are now not onelyonly the materialls of a Viſible Church, but have the true forme of Church-Eſtate, notwithſtanding their want of Paſtors and Teachers. Otherwiſe Paſtors themſelves ſhould be the form of the Church, by which it is, and without which it cannot be a Church. As if the Body of a man could not be an Human body, without eyes or armes: Or had onelyonly the matter of a Man, (or ſome part of the matter) but not the form.

What though ſuch … ſociety of Believers be not a miniſterial Church, without Paſtors and Teachers? yet it is not Paſtors and Teachers, that giveth them the form of a Church, no not of a Miniſterial or Organical Church, much leſs of an Homogeneal. For Miniſters (Paſtors, or Teachers) themſelves are onelyonly materialls p. 27(parts, and members) of a miniſterial Church, not the forme of it. The forme of ſuch a Church, is the mutual profeſſion (or ſtipulation) or (that which amounteth thereto) the Agreement and conſent between miniſters and people to adminiſter and ſubmit unto, the holy ordinances of Chriſt amongſt themſelves, according to the rule of the Goſpel. Say not, a Church of Believers without Miniſters, wanteth the power of edifying the body of Chriſt, which is required in a Viſible Church, Eph. 4.11.

For every member of the Church hath an edifying power, received from the head Chriſt Jeſus, to the effectual working of the increaſe of the body, unto the edifying of it ſelf in love. Epheſ. 4.16.

And though neither all, nor moſt of the Brethren of a Church have ordinarily received a gift of publike Prophecying, or Preaching: yet in defect of publike miniſters, it is not an unheard of novelty; That God ſhould enlarge private men with publike gifts, and that they that have received ſuch gifts, ſhould take liberty to diſpenſe them unto edification. For we read that when the Church at Jeruſalem were all of them ſcattered abroad, except the Apoſtles; yet they that were ſcattered went every where preaching the Word. Acts 8.5. & 11.19, 20, 21.

Neither let it be ſaid, That ſuch a Church (or Society) of Believers is not Wiſdoms houſe, becauſe it is not builded by Pastors and Teachers, who are given to edifie, and gather the Body. For though in a material houſe of wood or ſtone, the builders do not onelyonly prepare the materialls, but do alſo introduce the form: yet in a ſpiritual houſe (ſuch as a Church of Believers is) the form is induced not by any formal Act of the Miniſtry of Paſtors and Teachers (though they may be inſtrumental, in giving a word of Direction:) but by the voluntary ſtipulation or profeſſion of ſubjection of this ſociety of Believers to the Lord Jeſus in the uſe of his ordinances. The Church as it is the houſe of God; ſo it is alſo the Spouſe of Chriſt: Miniſters are the friends of the Bridegroom, and of the Bride. The miniſters have done their work in preparing the Bride for the Bridegroom; as alſo in miniſtring to her when ſhe is marryed. But in Betrothing her to Chriſt, the Bride in that work, muſt her ſelf profeſs her own acceptance of the Lord Jeſus, and ſubjection to him: which ſhe may do effectually, whether miniſters be preſent and Aſſiſtant or no. It is true, miniſters p. 28are ordinarily preſent and directive in this Work, and in that reſpect are ſomtimes ſaid to eſpouſe them to Chriſt; 2 Cor. 11.2. but the formal bond of their Spouſage lieth not in the preſence or aſſiſtance of miniſters, but in their own profeſſed yeilding up of themſelves unto the Lord in his Covenant. As in the c nſummation of marriage between man and wife; the bond of the Eſpouſage lieth not in the preſence, or aſſiſtance of miniſters or magiſtrates, but in the Husbands open profeſſion of his acceptance of her, and in her open profeſſion of her acceptance of him, and ſubjection to him in the duties of marriage.

His ſecond Argument is taken from the Stewardſhip of them to whom the Keyes are committed.

To them (ſaith he) are the Keys promiſed, who are the Stewards of the myſteries of God. 1 Cor. 4.1. and ſervants of the houſe by Office, 2 Cor. 4.5. and by office to open the dores, and behave themſelves aright in Gods houſe, 1 Tim. 3.16. and to divide to thoſe of the houſe their portion of meat in due ſeaſon, Mat. 24.45. and to cut out the Word. 2 Tim, 2.15.

But a Company of Profeſſing Believers, joyned together in Church Covenant, and deſtitute of Officers, are not ſtewards by office, nor ſervants over the houſe. &c.

The Aſſumption Mr Rutterford taketh for granted, and ſo he well may; unleſs office be taken in a large ſenſe (as it i… in Tully's Offices) for a duty, which we owe to every one in his place reſpectively; and as he ſaith (ad Terent.) In Familia bene inſtituta, dicimus omnes in officio eſſe opportere. In which ſenſe alſo the Tranſlators take it in Rom. 12.5. where they ſpeak of all the members of the Body (whether Natural Body or Eccleſiaſtical) as having all of them received an office, though not all of them the ſame office, Rom. 12.4. And in the ſame ſenſe, the Apoſtle Peter exhorteth all the Saints of God to adminiſter the good gifts they have received, as good Stewards of the manifold grace of Chriſt. 1 Pet. 4.10, 11. In this ſenſe …very member of the Church may be ſaid to have an office, and a ſtewardly office in the Church.

But take office properly, for a calling inveſted with Power to perform ſpecial Acts of publike ſervice to the Church; ſo indeed it implyeth a contradiction, That the Church ſhould be its owne officer. For the very terme of officer implyeth ſubordination: and Mr Rutterford ſpeaketh properly; That they are ſervants of the Houſe by Office, whom he putteth for the Officers of the p. 29Houſe. Now the Church cannot be her owne ſervant.

But yet this giveth the more juſt ground of denying the Major Propoſition. That to them only are the Keyes promiſed, who are the ſtewards and ſervants of the Houſe by Office. The Mater familias in the Houſe, hath Keyes of power over her children, and ſervants, and yet is neither ſteward nor ſervant of the Houſe.

It is true, the Keyes are a ſymbole of power. And power is either Supreme, and Soveraigne; or Subordinate, and Subſervient. Soveraign power in the Church belongeth to the Lord Jeſus, who is therefore ſaid to have the Key of David, to open and none to ſhut; to ſhut, and none to open. Rev. 3.7.

And yet in proper ſpeech, Chriſt, is no Church Officer, no officer in the Church, (unleſs it be to God the Father) no more then the King can be ſaid to be an Officer in the Common-wealth. Officers are of an inferiour rank, Deut. 16.18. But ſubordinate power is two-fold: 1. foreign, Officiaria Poteſtas, ſtewardly Miniſterial Office-Power. And ſecondly, Honoraria Poteſtas, an honourable Power: ſuch as a King going into a far Countrey may leave to his Queen; whom though He leave her ſubject to the Laws and Officers of his Court and Kingdom; yet he betruſteth her with this power, that in defect of officers, ſhe …all have power to chuſe new, according to the Law: and together with the officers, joynt power, either to admit ſervants into her family, or upon juſt cauſe to remove any of them out of her Family. And that Chriſt (the King, and Husband of his Church) being gone himſelf in bodily preſence into a far Country, hath left this honourable p…wer to his Church, as to chuſe their own officers, to joyn in admiſſion of Members, and cenſure of Offendors; I preſume Mr Rutterford will not gainſay. To give a touch of each; Plain it is, that when Deacons were to be choſen into office, the Apoſtles referred the choiſe of them to the multitude of Brethren, and they performed it. Acts 6.1, 2, 3.5. When Saul eſſayed to joyn himſelf to the Church at Jeruſalem, he was not received till the Brethrens fear of his carnal eſtate was removed, and themſelves ſatisfied, that he was a Diſciple; Acts. 9.26. Let no man except, Paul did not eſſay to joyn himſelf as a a member to the Church at Jeruſalem: for he was (as being an Apoſtle) an Officer, (and therefore a member) in all Churches: For his call to the Apoſtleſhip was at firſt unknown to them: and p. 30the Argument holdeth ſo much the ſtronger, that if the Brethren muſt be ſatisfied in the Diſcipleſhip of an Apoſtle, before he can be admitted to joyn with them; much more may they require probable ground of the Diſcipleſhip of a Brother, before he be admitted to joyn with them in Church-Communion. And when the Inceſtuous Corinthian was to be caſt out of the Family of the Church; Paul referreth the Adminiſtration of that power to the joynt proceeding of the Elders and Brethren of that Church, leaving to either ſort their concourſe of ſeveral power reſpectively.

Now then to apply this diſtinction of power to the Argument. All the places alledged by Mr Rutterford, do indeed prove That the Keyes were promiſed and given to the Stewards and Officers, and Servants in the Houſe of God: which we willingly acknowledge. We acknowledge alſo that which he affirmeth, That a company of profeſſing Believers joyned together in Church Covenant, and deſtitute of Officers, are not ſtewards by Office, nor ſervants in the Houſe of God. But this we deny, that all the Keyes, all kind of Power in the Church, is promiſed and given to the officers of the Church, ſolely and ſolidly. All Office-power indeed, is given to the Officers: Nor do we permit the Church of Brethren to uſurp any part of office-power unto themſelves. But we ſee the Scripture acknowledgeth other Power in the Church, beſides office-power.

I ſhall not need to enlarge further anſwer to this ſecond Argument. The Teſtimonies which he alledgeth to prove his Propoſition; they prove, that the Keyes ſignifie Power, and Authority, and that Stewardly, or Office-Power, is given to the Officers of the Church. But none of them prove, that all power is Office-Power, or that the Keyes hold forth no other power but office-power: or that the Church of Believers hath received no power at all. The Text in Iſa. 22.2…. ſpeaketh not of a ſpiritual or Eccleſiaſtical Power, but of a Civil Power. The Text in Iſa. 9.6. and Rev. 3.7. ſpeaks not of a Miniſterial, or Office-Power, but of a Soveraign Power in Chriſt Jeſus.

What Schindler ſpeak…th of foreign as it croſſeth not us: ſo it concerneth not the Keyes ſpoken of in Mat. 16. where the word in the Syriack is not, foreign but foreign a word (as it ſeemeth) taken up from the Greek.

What thoſe many other Authors ſay of the Keyes in the places alledged by him, do not at all weaken our defence: which maketh p. 31me (I confeſs) the more to wonder, that he ſhould conclude that Troup of witneſſes with this Period: That he thinks while of late, never any Interpreter dreamed, that in this Text, Matt. 16. That the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven are given to all Believers, but onelyonly to the ſtewards of the Houſe.

M. Rutterford knoweth well, that Bucer expounding Mat. 16. ſaith expreſly De Potestate clavium, Haec Potestas penes Eccleſiam omnem eſt; Authoritas modo Miniſterii penes Presbyteros & Epiſcopos, ut Romae olim Poteſtas populi fuit, Authoritas Senatus, Ferus: (not later then Bucer) upon Mat. 16. affirmeth; Claves datas Eccleſiae, ut Dominae, & Sponſae: Petro, ut Miniſtro. Reverend Baines, though in the firſt ſubject of the power of the Keyes he do ſomewhat diſſent from us: yet he confeſſeth in that third concluſion of his, upon Queſtion 3. page 83. of his Dioceſans Trial: That he ſetteth down that Concluſion againſt the Divines of Conſcience againſt our prime Divines, as Luther and Melancton, and againſt the Sorboniſts. But though all theſe might be ſaid to be of late, ſurely Auguſtine is not of late, whom I think beſt to quote, as his Teſtimonies are at large alledged by Doctor Whitakers againſt Bellarmine; the rather, that ſo we may take in the judicious Doctors Notes upon them, Auguſtine, tractat. 50. in Johannem, Si in Petro, inquit, non eſſet, Eccleſiae Sacramentum, non ei diceret Dominus, Tibi dabo claves Regni Coelorum. Si hoc Petro tantum dictum eſt, non facit hoc Eccleſia: Si autem hoc in Eccleſia ſit; Petrus quando claves accepit, Eccleſiam ſanctam ſignificavit.

Again, De Agon. Chriſt. c. 30. He ſaith, Petrum inter omnes Apoſtolas, Eccleſiae Perſonam ſuſtinuiſſe: & claves datas eſſe Eccleſiae, cum Petro datae ſunt.

On which, and ſome ſuch like paſſages in Augustine, Doctor Whitaker giveth this Expoſition: This is not ſaith he, That the Church ſhould receive the Keyes ſuo quodam modo, after a certain ſort, but that in Peter they did receive them properly, truely, and more principally, then Peter himſelf.

Let no man except, that by the Church he underſtood not the Brethren of the Church, but onelyonly the Apoſtles, and their ſu… ceſſours the Presbyters.

For though it be true, that Office-power was given to them only, yet it is clear; he acknowledgeth (as others do) a power likewiſe of the people in the government of the Church. In ſtateing p. 32Church-Government, He giveth it thus for a Concluſion. Si velimus Christum ipſum respicere, fuit ſemper Eccleſiae Regimen Monarchicum: ſi Eccleſiae Presbyteros, qui in Doctrina & Diſciplina ſuas partes agebant, Ariſtocraticum: ſi totum Corpus. Eccleſiae, quatenus in Electione Epiſcoporum & Presbyterorum, Suffragia ſerebat, Democraticum. Sic partim Ariſtocraticum, partim Democraticum, partim etiam Monarchicum, eſt, ſemperque fuit Eccleſiae Regimen. Whitaker. Controv. 4. Q. 1. c. 1. Num. 2.

Nor let any put off Whitakers or Auguſtine, with this evaſion, that Peter is ſaid to have receiv…d the Keyes in the Perſon of the Church, not becauſe the Church is any ſubject of that power, but becauſe it is the end of that power: all the power of the Keyes being given to Peter, not for himſelf, but for the good, and utility of the Church.

Such an evaſion Chamier rejecteth with indignation, Hoccine vero (inquit) eſt candide agere? hoccine Auguſtinum interpretari? Atqui Auguſtinus non quaerit, quem in finem datae ſint claves, ſed quaerit cui. Hae vero Quaeſtiones quanto ſeparentur intervallo, quis non videt? Sed & exemplo facile docetur. Vnicuique datur declaratio Spiritus ad utilitatem, inquit Paulus, 1 Cor. 12. id eſt, in Bonum Eccleſiae, ut totus ſermo oſtendit. An dicat aliquis, eum cui datur Declaratio Spiritus, Figuram geſtare Eccleſiae, quum eam accipit? minime vero: eſt enim non publicum ſed privatum donum: publicum quidem ipſa utilitate, ſed privatum donatione, poſſeſſioneque. Cum igitur quaerit Auguſtinus, cui ſint datae claves, Petro ſoli, an toti Eccleſiae, importune inculcatur, datas eſſe in Bonum Eccleſiae qui… nihil obſtaret, quo minus & datae eſſent in incommune Bonum Eccleſiae, & tamen ſoli Petro. At Auguſtinus haec opponit, datae ſunt ſoli Petro, & datae ſunt Eccleſiae, ut ſi ſoli Petro, non Eccleſiae: & ſi Eccleſiae, non ſoli Petro. Si Petro inquit hoc tantum dictum eſt, non facit hoc Eccleſia.

I forbear (for brevitie ſake) to recite what he further diſputeth againſt Horantius to the ſame purpoſe in the words following, De Oecumen. Pontifice. l. 11. cap. 10.

3 I come to conſider of M. Rutterfords third Argument, which he propoundeth thus:

To thoſe (in Matth. 16.) Doth Chriſt give the Keyes, to whom he giveth warrant for the actual exerciſe of the Keyes? p. 33But this warrant is official Authority of binding and looſing, Chriſt giveth to Peter onelyonly, as repreſenting Apoſtles, Teachers, and Elders: and not to a Church of Believers converted covenant-wiſe, and deſtitute of Officers, Ergo, &c.

Anſw. The propoſition is not alwayes univerſally ſafe, if it be underſtood of the Actuall exerciſe of the Keyes, (by them who receive them) in their own perſon. For Chriſt himſelf, who received from the Father the power of all Church Adminiſtrations: yet in the Dayes of his fleſh, He in his own perſon baptized no man: John 4.2. And after his Aſcenſion, though the Soveraign power of the Keyes do ſtill remain with him, yet he performeth all the Externall exerciſe of Church-power by his Miniſters.

If it be ſaid, that though Chriſt did not exerciſe all Church-power in his own perſon, yet he had warrant ſo to do: It may juſtly be replied, Chriſt beſt underſtood his own warrant, and he that did not exerciſe this or that Act of the Church-power in his own perſon, ſurely he did not think it expedient to exerciſe it in his own Perſon. And quicquid non expedit, quatenus non expedit, non licet: That which is not expedient, ſo far forth as it is not expedient, is not warrantable.

Beſides it is a diſputable caſe amongſt Civil, and Canon-Lawyers, and by Covarruvias judged for the Affirmative, that in ſome Caſes, the Wife after her Husbands death hath a juſt Intereſt in ſome ſuch Offices as ſhe cannot warrantably exerciſe in his own Perſon.

And he inſtanceth in Officio Decurionatus. Covarr. Tom. 2. lib. 3. cap. 19. Num. 4.

Queen Elizabeth whileſt ſhe lived, had lawfull power to puniſh her enemies by ſlaughter in War; Her criminall Subjects by hanging: other offendors by ſcourging: but it were an hard ſaying to affirm, that ſhe had Warrant to exerciſe all theſe Acts of Power in her own Perſon.

Anſw. 2. I willingly grant that Peter (in Matth. 16.) Received the Promiſe of all Office-power, as repreſenting the Officers of the Church, Apoſtles, Teachers, and Elders: and with that Power, a Warrant of Officiall Exerciſe of that Power.

But this I ſay withall, That Peter in receiving the Keyes (or the Promiſe of them) He received from Chriſt both ſorts of ſubordinate Church-Power, not only Officiariam, but Honorariam Poteſtatem. And in receiving this latter, He repreſented the Perſon p. 34of all profeſſing Believers. For it were not reaſonable to think, that Peter receiving the Keyes as a reward of the Profeſſion of his Faith, ſhould receive no power at all to profeſſing Believers as ſuch, but all Power only to profeſſing Officers.

Ob. But if profeſſing Believers, as ſuch, had received any part of the Power of the Keyes, they had then received the Power of binding and looſing, which they have not: For binding and looſing are the Acts of the Official-Power of the Keyes: Ergo, The Church of Believers being deſtitute of Officers, and Governours hath not received any part of the Power of the Keyes.

Anſw. The proof of the aſſumption of this Argument will not hold, unleſſe binding and looſing were the Adequate Acts of the Official-Power of the Keyes. But though binding and looſing, or (which is all one) opening and ſhutting, be indeed the Adequate Acts of the Power of the Keyes; yet not ſo of their official-Power. The Lord Jeſus hath the Key of David, He bindeth and none looſeth, He looſeth and none bindeth: (Rev. 3.7.) and yet this his binding and looſing are not the Acts of the Official, but of the Soveraign power of the Keyes. The Brethren of the Church at Jeruſalem, who were ſcattered upon the perſecution that aroſe about Stephen: they preached the Word of Chriſt to Jews and Grecians about Antioch, and by the good hand of the Lord upon them, a great number believed, and turned to the Lord; Acts 11.19, 20, 21. Theſe Brethren in opening the Door of Faith to their Hearers, though they wanted Office, yet they wanted not the Power of the Keyes, to open the Kingdome of Heaven unto them.

The Brethren of the Church of Corinth concurred with their Officers, in delivering the inceſtuous perſon to Satan, and afterwards in the publike pardon of him, and releaſe of his cenſure. In both which they put forth the Spirituall Power of the Lord Jeſus, which is, the Power of the Keyes, 1 Cor. 5.4, 5. with 2 Cor. 2.7. to 11. And yet they neither had the official-power of the Keyes, nor did they exerciſe it. It was alſo an Act of Church Power, which the Church of Brethren at Jeruſalem did put forth in joyning in the Definitive ſentence of the Synod, and in ſending forth Letters and Meſſengers to the Churches of Antioch. Syria, and Cilicia, for the publiſhing and promulgating of the Sentence. And yet the Brethren themſelves neither had office-power in themſelves, nor did they exerciſe it.

p. 35Ob. But theſe Brethren in Corinth, and Jeruſalem, though they had not office-power in themſelves, yet they had it amongſt themſelves in the Apoſtles, and in the Elders then Aſſembled; And ſo with them they might joyn in ſome Act of Church-power, which without them, they might not have been put forth at all: or if they had, It had been of no power.

Anſw. This were indeed to make the Church-Power in Brethren a mere Cipher, yea leſſe then a Cipher. For a Cipher though it be of no number or account, unleſſe ſome Figure of the Decad be joyned before it; yet if it be joyned before it, the Cipher will increaſe the number and account, and make it at leaſt tenfold more then it was before. But all the Brethren of the Church without officers, are not onelyonly made as ſo many Ciphers, as thoſe who of themſelves can do no Act of number or account at all: But alſo though an Officer, or a whole Presbyterie joyn with them, and go before them, yet the Act of the whole Church of Brethren, maketh the Act of no more account, no more value or validity, then it was before; which ſeemeth to me an unworthy thing and unreaſonable. For ſeeing that the profeſſion of the Faith in Chriſt was the original ground, (or at leaſt the occaſion) of the grant of all Church Power unto Peter in the name of the Church, how can it ſtand either with Faith or Reaſon, That a Church of Believers profeſſing the ſame Faith with Peter, ſhall receive no part of Church-Power at all, in reſpect of their profeſſion of the Faith, but only in reſpect of their Officers that preach the Faith? whereas Peter then ſpake not as a Preacher only, but as a Profeſſor of the Faith. Faith when it ſeeth a Promiſe made to another in reſpect of this or that Qualification or Duty, It is apt (by the help of the Spirit of Grace) to apply the ſame bleſſing, or ſome part of it at leaſt, unto it ſelf in the ſame caſe.

Again, if it were ſo, that a Church of Believers deſtitute of officers, ſhould have received from Chriſt no part of the power of the Keyes, then in caſe the whole Presbyt…ry of a Church ſhould be removed by Death, or Crime, o… otherwiſe, the Church ſhould ceaſe to be a Church. For the Power of the Keyes comprehendeth the Latitude of all Church-power. And ut ſe res habet in eſſe, ſic in operari. Take away all power of Action, and operation from a Church, and you take away the Church it ſelf. And ſo you will make Miniſters to be not only the Integral parts of a Church, but the Eſſential parts alſo. Yea by this means, The eſtate of the p. 36Church is in worſe condition, then is the eſtate of any civil Common-wealth. For take away all the Magiſtrates, and Governors of th Common-wealth, yet ſtill the Common-wealth ſubſiſteth in it ſelf; It ceaſeth not to be a Common-wealth, nor is it left deſtitute of all Actions of a Common-wealth. The Body of the People may ſolemnly aſſemble together, and chuſe out of themſelves new Magiſtrates: or if they want g…od choice among themſelves, they may ſupply themſelvs from their confederates. But the Church of Chriſt (which of all Societies is the moſt Honourable, and moſt completely ſupplied with Power to attain its own end, and is built upon the moſt ſure Foundation) If it be once deprived of her Officers and Rulers, it ſtraightway becometh Null, both in Eſſence and Action. Time was, when David ſpeaking to the Church ſaid, Glorious things are ſpoken of thee, thou City of God, Pſal. 87.3. And one of thoſe glorious things were, That her Foundations are in the Holy Mountains, v. 1. And the Lord loveth the Gates of Zion, more then all the dwellings of Jacob, v. 2. But ſurely, if the Churches Being, did ſo eaſily vaniſh with the loſſe of their Officers, This would turn their glory into ſhame, above all other ſocieties.

4. Procced we now to the fourth and laſt Argument, whereby M. Rutterford goeth about to prove, that the Church of Believers deſtitute of an Elderſhip, hath no power of the Keyes.

If the power of the Keyes lay in competition between a Church of Believers deſtitute of its own Elderſhip, and a Church of Believers furniſhed with it (as the queſtion might ſeem to import) I ſhould eaſily grant more ample power to a Church with its Elderſhip, then to a Church without it; or if the competition of the power of the Keyes lay, whether in the Church without the Elderſhip, or in the Elderſhip without the Church, (eſpecially when the greater part of the Elderſhip conſiſteth of the Elders of other Churches) though we give not much power to a Church without an Elderſhip: yet we ſhould give leſſe to an Elderſhip without the Church.

But the true ſtate of the queſtion is, whether a Congregational Church of Believers furniſhed with Officers, and walking in the Truth and Peace of the Goſpel, have not received the power of Keyes (the power of binding and looſing) within themſelves? or, whether this power be firſt given to a Claſſical, or Provincial, or National Aſſembly of the Church Officers, or Presbyters: and from them be derived to a Congregational Church of Believers with their Officers?

p. 37But it may be alſo a ſecond queſtion touching a Congregational Church of Believers, whether no power of the Keyes (that is, no part of the power of the Keyes) be given to them without an Elderſhip.

This hath M. Rutterford put for the queſtion, and maketh it the Title of every leaf of Chap. 1. Sect. 2. The Church of Believers deſtitute of an Elderſhip have No Power of the Keyes.

Three of his Arguments in this queſtion we have already peruſed: come we now to his fourth.

His fourth Argument then is this: If Chriſt do not ſay in this place (Mat. 16.) nor in Mat. 18. That the Keyes and the Acts of the Keyes (to wit, binding and looſing) are given to a Church of Believers without their Officers, then neither of the places prove, that the Keyes are given to ſuch a Church.

"But Chriſt doth not ſay it: Ergo, The Text cannot bear it.

Anſw. 1. If this Text in Matth. 16. Do prove that the Keyes are given to a Church of Believers with their Officers, It is as much as I infer from it.

Anſw. 2. Yet two things there be in the words of the Text, which do infer, that ſome part of the Power of the Keyes is given to a Church of Believers without their officers.

The firſt may be collected thus; If the Key…s be the power of edifying the Church, and the C…urch be edified of Believers by the Publike profeſſion of their Faith, Then Believers publikely profeſſing the Faith, have ſome part of the power of the Keyes given to them.

But the Keyes are the power of edifying the Church, and the Church is edified of Believers, by the Publike Profeſſion of their Faith.

Therefore Believers Publikely profeſſing the Faith, have ſome part of the power of the Keyes given to them.

What may here juſtly be denied, I ſee not. The major Propoſition is evident of it ſelf. For no man can do any Act of ſpiritual efficacy, but he hath received from Chriſt ſome ſpiritual Power to do it.

And habenti dabitur, to him that edifieth the Church by any power received, to him ſhall the more abundant power be given to do the ſame.

The minor Propoſition is as clear: For the Keyes are nothing elſe, but the Inſtruments of edifying the Church. Though their immediate p. 38and proper work be to open and ſhut (and Metaphorically, to bind and looſe:) yet both theſe are nothing elſe but Acts of edifying the Church. And that the Church is edified or builded of Believers, Publikely profeſſing their Faith: the Lord himſelf doth acknowledge in the words of the Text: when he ſaith, Ʋpon this Rock, (that is, upon this Publike Profeſſion of Faith in me) I will build my Church. Peter by this publike profeſſion of his Faith, did edifie himſelf, and his fellow-Diſciples: and thereby obtained both a reward of his Profeſſion, to become the foundation of the Church: and a reward to himſelf, of receiving the Keyes; that is, a power both by gift, and office to edifie the Church in a more ſetled manner, and abundant meaſure, not onelyonly as a Believer, but as a chief Elder, and Apoſtle.

The ſecond thing in the Text, that may infer ſome part of the power of the Keyes to be given to a Church of Believers even without officers, may thus be taken up.

If Peter had the Keyes given him as a reward, not for doing an Act or Duty of his office, but for doing an Act or Duty common to him with other Believers; then Believers making the ſame publike conf…ſſion of Faith with him: As they do partake with him in the Duty, ſo do they partake alſo (in ſome meaſure) in the reward.

But Peter had the Keyes given him as a reward, not for doing any Act or Duty of his Office, but for doing an Act or Duty common to him with other ordinary Believers.

Therefore other ordinary Believers making the ſame publike confeſſion of Faith with him, they do partake with him in the Duty; ſo do they alſo partake in ſome meaſure in the promiſed reward of the power of the Keyes.

The former Propoſition is not onelyonly the collection of many Divines both ancient and modern, but it dependeth upon a principal ground of the work of our miniſtry. For our Miniſtry taketh it for a ſure ground of the Application of Scriptures; That what promiſe we find given to any upon occaſion of this or that qualification or condition, the ſame is intended by God, and eaſily applyed by us to all others, in whom the like condition or qualification is found according to their meaſure.

The latter Propoſition is ſo clear, as needs no proof, unleſſe we ſhall make the publike confeſſion of Faith in Chriſt, not to be the duty of ordinary Believers, and Church-members, but onelyonly of p. 39Church-officers: or unleſſe we could find ſome other occaſion, upon which Chriſt made this Gracious promiſe of the Keyes to Peter, beſide the publike confeſſion of his Faith in Chriſt befor- the Lord, and his Brethren.

Ob. 1. When Chriſt gave the Promiſe of the Keyes, he ſpeaketh not to the Church, but turneth his ſpeech to Peter, v. 19. ſaying, I will give to thee (Peter, not to the Church) the Keyes of the kingdome of Heaven. Surely none needeth to teach our Lord to ſpeak: This change of the Perſons to whom the Keyes are promiſed, wanteth not a reaſon, &c.

Anſw. As we need not, ſo we do not go about, to teach the Lord to ſpeak. Here is no changing of Perſons, nor turning of ſpeech, in giving the promiſe of the Keyes. Chriſt began his ſpeech to Peter, and he continueth his ſpeech to Peter, from v. 17. to 19. All upon occaſion of Peters confeſſion. In v. 17. Chriſt giveth to Peter a promiſe of bleſſedneſſe from the cauſe of his confeſſion. In v. 18 He giveth a promiſe of reward to his confeſſion; That upon it, as upon a rocky foundation, He will build his Church in impregnable ſtability. In v. 19. He giveth a promiſe of reward unto himſelf upon occaſ…n of his gracious publike confeſſion, even a pr…miſe of the Keyes of the Church. And the promiſe is more fitly given to Peter in the Name of the Church, then to the Church by Name; becauſe it was not the Church by Name that made that confeſſion, but Peter in the Name of the Church.

Ob. 2. If the Promiſe were given to Peter in the Name of Believers, how will that ſtand with the judgement of the way, who will not allow every company of Believers, becauſe they are Believers to be an Inſtituted viſible Church; (to whom the Keyes are given) but they muſt be a company of Believers profeſſing Covenant-wiſe, Faith in Chriſt and Church-Communion. But then the Keyes are not given to Believers becauſe they are Believers, and the Spouſe of Chriſt, but becauſe they are ſuch Profeſsors, and ſo combined in Church-Covenant.

Anſw. The Authour of the Way doth no where ſay, That the Keyes are given to a company of Believers, only becauſe they are Believers; but becauſe they are Believers making publike confeſſion of their faith before the Lord, and their Brethren. For Peter himſelf received not the Keyes meerly as a Believer, but as a Believer publikely profeſſing his Faith before Chriſt, and his fellow Diſciples in Chriſts School. If other Writers ſpeak otherwiſe, (that p. 40the Keyes were given to Peter a Believer in the name of Believers) they muſt be underſtood to ſpeak of Believers, not as keeping their Faith to themſelves, but as making profeſſion of their Faith publikly; ſo as they come to be received into the ſociety of the viſible Church. Faith giveth a man fellowſhip in the Inviſible Church, and in all the inward ſpirituall bleſſings of the Church. But it is profeſſion of Faith, that giveth a man fellowſhip in the viſible Church. It is not a ſociety of Believers, as ſuch, that maketh them a Church: for a ſociety of Chriſtian Merchants may meet together in a ſhip to tranſport themſelves to Hamburrough, or Lubeck but they are not thereby a Church, nor have received Church-power. But if they do publikely profeſſe their Faith, and their obedience of Faith to the Lord Jeſus in the publike ordinances of his worſhip, which he hath committed to his Church, and they are capable of; then indeed they are a profeſſed viſible Church of Chriſt, and a Body united to him, and one to another by ſuch profeſſion, and do alſo partake in the power of the Keyes according to their meaſure.

Ob. 3. I aske, whether true or falſe profeſſion be the neereſt intervening cauſe of theſe, to whom the Keyes are given?

Anſw. True or falſe profeſſion may be attended, either in reſpect of the Doctrine of Faith in Chriſt profeſſed, or in reſpect of the Grace of Faith profeſſing it. If the profeſſion of the Doctrine of Faith be true, though the Grace of Faith in the Profeſſor of it be uncertain, and it may be hypocritical (and ſo falſe:) yet we dare not deny the nature and power of a Church to ſuch. As the Church judgeth not of hidden crimes, ſo neither do the Faithfull judge of the Churches by their hidden hypocriſie, but by their open ſcandals in Doctrine, or life. God would have his people live without anxious perplexity, (as in point of marriage, 1 Cor. 7.32. ſo) in every ſociety. It were an inextricable perplexity, to ſuſpend the Eſſence or validity of Churches or Church Adminiſtrations, upon the hidden ſincerity of Churches, and of Church-Officers, or Members. It is true, that Church-eſtate and Church-priviledges, and Church-power are given to Believers, making publike profeſſion of their holy Faith: to them are the Keyes given, and for them. And yet for their ſakes God doth vouchſafe both the Name, and Stile, and Power of a Church to ſuch as make the like profeſſion of the Faith with them, though not with the like ſincerity. The Church of Sardis had a name to live, yet was dead, Rev. 3.2. Nevertheleſſe, the Lord reckoneth it amongſt the golden Candleſticks, and walketh p. 41amongſt them, Rev. 2.1. It appeareth there were a few Names amongſt them, that were ſincere: Rev. 3.4. And Dr Ames maketh it moſt probable, That there is no Particular Church, wherein the profeſſion of the true faith doth take place, but that in the ſame are found ſome true Believers. Medull. Theolog. l. 1. c. 32. num. 10.

Object. 1. If a falſe Profeſſion be ſufficient to make Perſons a true Viſible Church; then 1. The Keyes are not given to Believevers, becauſe they are Believers, and united to Christ as his Body and Spouſe.

Anſw. The Keyes are given to Believers, becauſe they are Believers, making publike confeſſion of their faith. To hypocrites they are given, not for their hypocriſie, but for the truth of that faith which they do profeſs in common with ſincere Believers: and for the ſake of thoſe true Believers who do communicate with them, and for whoſe ſake the whole Body is united to Chriſt, and his Spouſe, though adulterous in heart.

Object. 2. Then the Author of the Way ſaith amiſs, That the Church inſtituted by Christ, is a company of Believers, faithful and godly men; for a company of hypocrites are not ſuch.

Anſw. The Author of the Way ſpeaketh of the Church as it ought to be, and as it is in outward viſible profeſſion. Hypocrites in outward profeſſion and appearance, go for faithful and godly, and ſuch in truth they ought to be, as well as in appearance.

Object. 3. Our Brethren prove the Keys to be a part of the liberty of redeemed Ones; but counterfet Profeſſors are not redeemed Ones: nor have they that liberty purchaſed to them in Chriſt.

Anſw. It is true, the Keys are a part of the liberty of redeemed ones. For the Keys hold forth an Eccleſiaſtical power, and all power in heaven and earth was given to Chriſt upon his reſurrection from the dead, Mat. 28.18. And though counterfet profeſſors be not the redeemed ones of Chriſt (prope…ly ſo called:) yet for the ſake of the redeemed ones, counterfet Profeſſors have that liberty purchaſed to them by Chriſt, as to partake in the power of the Keys. Otherwiſe what can be ſaid of hypocritical elders, of whom M. Rutterford doubt…th not, they have received the power of the Keys: and yet though their perſons be not the redeemed ones of Chriſt, yet they have this liberty, or ſervice rather purchaſed to them by Chriſt, as to be ſerviceable t… the Church in the adminiſtration of the power of the Keys. The ſpiritual gifts (though common) whereby Apoſtates are ſaid to be ſanctified, were purchaſed to them by the bloud of Chriſt. Heb. 10.29. And yet the power whereby hypocrites or Apoſtates p. 42lord it over the r…deemed ones of God, is but a ſervice. Rom. 9.12.

Object. 4. It ſhall follow, that our Brethren widely miſtake a ſuppoſed difference, which they deviſe betwixt the Jewiſh and Chriſtian Church; to wit, that to make men members of the Jewiſh Ehurch, external holines was ſufficient, as to be born Jews, to be circumciſed, &c. but that the Viſible Church of the Gentiles after Chriſt, muſt be the Bride of Chriſt, and by true faith united to him. Whereas the members of a Viſible Chriſtian Church, are and may be hypocrites, though not known to be ſuch, as were the members of the Jewiſh Church.

Anſw. Who it is that M. Rutterford meaneth, to have put this difference between the members of the Jewiſh and Chriſtian Church, I do not know: but thus far I own it, 1. That the Church of the Jews was National in their ſolemn aſſemblies, as well as Congregational in their Synagogues: and that accordingly they had National Congregations in Jeruſalem, national ſacrifices, and National high Prieſts, beſides national government: but the viſible inſtituted Churches of Chriſt in the new Teſtament, are Congregational: 1 Cor. 14.23. 2. That we do not read of the children of Iſrael, who were circumciſed in their infancy, to have been afterwards debarred from the Paſſeover upon point of moral prophaneſſe: they having many ſacrifices to expiate foreign ceremonially, which Chriſtian Churches have not, but onelyonly poenitential acknowledgment after cenſure. In which reſpect, I ſuppoſe (under correction) there was more toleration of ſundry moral crimes in the Church-fellowſhip of the Jews, then ought to be born in Chriſtian Churches. But otherwiſe I eaſily acknowledge, that in Chriſtian Churches, as well as in Jewiſh, many hypocrites creep in, and are long tolerated therein (it may be all their daies) and yet without impeachment of the truth and eſſence of the eſtate of Churches whereof they are members, and without infringement of the power of their Church adminiſtrations (when diſpenſed otherwiſe according to rule) notwithſtanding the hypocriſie of ſundry members, yea, and of officers alſo.

To this place it belongeth (I mean to the cleering of this Text, Mat. 16.) to conſider of the reaſons whereby M. Rutterford goeth about to prove, That Chriſt ſpake to Peter, as to one ropreſenting the Apoſtles, and not as to one repreſenting all Believers.

I ſuppoſe he underſtandeth Apoſtles in a large ſenſe, for all meſſeng…rs ſent of Chriſt for the miniſtry of the Goſpel in the Church. Otherwiſe, if he ſhould mean, Chriſt ſpake to Peter, as to one repreſenting p. 43the Apoſtles properly ſo called (the 12. Apoſtles) then the Elders of Churches could claim no intereſt in the power of the Keys from Chriſts words to Peter.

Nor do I maintain from this place, that Chriſt ſpake to Peter as repreſenting all Believers; but as r…preſenting Believers making publike profeſſion of the Name of Chriſt before the Lord and their Brethren. Againſt this his Arguments be.

Arg. 1. Binding and looſing are denyed of our Boethren to belong to many that make Peters confeſſion [Thou art the Son of the living God] as to believing Women and Children.

Anſw. 1. Women and children, though they being Believers, may make Peters confeſſion, yet they make not publike confeſſion before the Lord and his people, as Peter did. Now it is to Believers making publike confeſſion of their faith in Chriſt, to whom the promiſe of the Keys is made.

Anſw. 2. Women are expreſly forbidden publike ſpeech in the Church (and therefore publike profeſſion.) 1 Cor. 14.34. And children are not able to make publike profeſſion; And therefore both of them are juſtly exempted from the power of the Keys.

If it be obj…cted, that it is a new and uncouth expoſition of the Text, to interpr…t Petere confeſſion, of the confeſſion which members make of their faith, when they enter into the fellowſhip of the Church: n…r were Chriſt and his Apoſtles at that time in hand with any ſuch work.

I anſwer, Though Peters confeſſion of his faith at that time was not made for ſuch an end, for his admiſſion into the houſhold or Church of Chriſt: yet it is enough, That Chriſt rewardeth that confeſſion of his, with ſuch a promiſe of all Believers into his Church by ſuch a dore. It is true, the ſame confeſſion may be made upon other occaſions: but yet this appeareth to be one occaſion and uſe of this confeſſion, to receive profeſt Believers into the fellowſhip of the Church, and the ordinances thereof; ſeeing we r…ad that Philip made it a neceſſary praecedential act unto the Eunuch to make the like conf…ſſion before he would receive him unto Baptiſme, which was the ſeal of his admiſſion, as into Chriſt, ſo into the fellowſhip of his Church. And accordingly it hath been anciently obſerved in the Primitive Churches, not to receive Competentes, or Catechumen… into the fellowſhip of the Church, and unto Baptiſme, before they had made publike confeſſion of their faith before the Lord and his Church: Which is a thing I doubt not, well known to M. Rutterford, to no man more; that I might ſeem to do him wrong to alledge teſtimonies for it.

p. 44Arg. 2. If Chriſt had ſpoken to Peter here of building a miniſterial Church upon his confeſſion, and gifting it with the Power of the Keys, then the Viſible Church ſhould be made as ſtable and firm from defection, as the Church of elect Believers, againſt whom the gates of Hell cannot prevail. Now this is moſt untrue, ſince Viſible Churches do fall away (as the ſeven Churches in Aſia, the Church of Corinth, Epheſ…, &c.) and likewiſe this would warrant the Papiſts to make uſe of this place, as they do, to prove the Invincible ſtability of the Church and their impoſſibility of Apoſtacy, &c.

Anſw. 1. Though this or that Viſible Church do fall away, yet Chriſt hath ever had ſome or other Viſible Church upon the face of the earth, in one Country or other. Elſe the gates of hell had more prevailed againſt the Viſible Chriſtian Church, then ever this could do againſt the Viſible Jewiſh Synagogue.

Anſw. 2. This or that Viſible Church that did fall away, was not a ſociety of ſuch profeſt believers as were built upon a rock; but rather the ſinful generation that roſe up after them, who did degenerate from their Parents faith and Profeſſion, and ſo fell into the gulf of Apoſtacie, whether Turkiſh or Antichriſtian.

Anſw. 3. Though the gates of hell have ſomtimes prevailed againſt this or that particular Viſible Church, holding faſt the profeſſion of their faith without wavering: yet they have not prevailed to their deſtruction, but to their diſperſion onelyonly; which tendeth to the multiplication and enlargement of Particular Churches. The perſecution raiſed by the gates of hell againſt the Primitive Church at Jeruſalem about Stephen, it prevailed indeed to the diſperſion of the whole Church (ſave the Apoſtles) Acts 8.1. but that diſperſion was as ſeed ſcattered out of the garner into the field, which bringeth forth a more plentiful harveſt. And ſo did their diſperſion propagate Churches both in Samaria and Antioch.

Anſw. 4. Nor will this ſtability of Viſible Churches promiſed by Chriſt, ſtrengthen the Popiſh plea of the ſtability of their Church at Rome. For it is neither that promiſe of Chriſt, Mat. 16. nor any other that doth promiſe ſtability to any one particular Church in this Citie or Town: nor doth any expoſition of ours, reach forth ſuch a thing. The woman may be in the wildernes, and fed by witneſſes, (the Church may be in obſcure places, and fed by faithful witneſſes) when yet neither her ſelf, nor her witneſſes dwell in Babylon.

FINIS

End of the text · John Cotton, The Way of Congregational Churches Cleared (1648)