Vindiciae Vindiciarum

SECTION I. Of the Church to which Christ committed the power of the Keys.

THe Question between us in this first Section, was concerning the meaning of those words, The Kingdom of heaven, in Mat. 16.19. and consequently, What Church it was to which the Keys were by Christ committed. For the finding out whereof I proceeded by a distinction, It the Kingdom of heaven did there signify the Church; it must either be taken 1. Of the Invisible Church of true believers, opposed to Reprobates. 2. The Catholic visible Church opposed to Heathens; or (as you in answering the first question pag. 2. of Keys) to the World. 3. Or a particular Congregation. Give me leave I pray to be now little more exact in stating the question, by enquiring what is the sense of those words, and the terms of the question.

1. What is meant by the Kingdom of heaven, whereof the Keys are here given to Peter. The Kingdom of heaven in Scripture usage, signifies, either 1. The Kingdom of glory (as frequently) or 2. The Kingdom of grace, as in some places, grace being the beginning of or first step into that Kingdom of glory, Or 3. It signifies both the Kingdom of grace and glory. And we are both agreed, that in this text it signifies both: My first words in Vind. Clav. grant it, and you affirm it;

And you give a very good reason for it; Let this be remembered against anon.

2. The Kingdom of heaven, signifying the Church (and that both in heaven and earth (both triumphant and militant) for what he calls in the 19. verse The Kingdom of heaven, he calls in the 18, verse, his Church. ) We must inquire what Church, or what part of his Church it is to which the Keys are given: This Question (I confess) is needless, in respect to the Text itself; For it says nothing at all of giving the Keys to the Church, but of giving to Peter the Keys of the Church, called by the name of the Kingdom of heaven, which is worth your observation. For it is your importunity rather that hath caused this question, who have arrogated the Keys out of the hands of Peter, to whom Christ in this text gave them, and given them to the Church, that is (incongruously) to the Kingdom of heaven: but of his more anon: We shall therefore follow you (rather then the Text) and consider, what is meant here by the Church: It is taken in the Ecclesiastical use (for I pass by the civil) in many senses: briefly thus.

1. For the whole Church, called commonly by the name of the Catholic Church, and that in a double notion:

1. The Invisible Catholic Church, the whole number of the Elect, in heaven and earth, in all places and times: so it is commonly understood, Eph. 5.23, 25, 26, 27, 32. Col. 1.18. &c.

2. The Catholic visible Church containing the whole multitude of professors of Religion, elect or hypocrites, in this world, as opposed to the Church of the Jews, or to the men of the world: So it is taken Act. 5.11. and 8.3. at least as contra-distinguished to a particular Congregation.

2. For some parts of the Church, to whom is attributed the name of the whole, from their Assembling together in different combinations: And then it is taken,

1. For a particular Congregation, or particular Saints, assembled together; and this again is by some distinguished into

1. Political or Organicall, consisting of Officers and Members, as the Integrall parts thereof; and those Congregations being members of the Catholic visible Church, as Integrall parts thereof. The texts are obvious where it is so taken.

2. Entitive (as they call it) or Essentiall, consisting only of a company of Saints combined by consent, without any Officers: So the Reverend M. Hooker and others use to speak. But (that I may note it by the way) to me, This Entitive Church (so called) seems rather to be a notion, never existing, but in men's fancy, in the Resolution or Analysis of a Church into its materials, or else it is very improperly called a Church: To my observation and understanding hitherto, there is not in Scripture such an Entitive Church to be found, gathered, and existing without any Officers. That place Act. 15.4.22. produced by the learned and judicious M. Hudson, in his vind. pag. 3. where he says

doth not hold out a Church Entitive, without any Officers (for that had Officers) but only distinguisheth the Integrall parts of that Church, into Officers and members: The sense is no more but this, either it means, The Apostles and Elders, with the rest of the Church members; or (if the Church was then distinguished into divers Congregations) it takes in all the Congregations as the whole Church: for so the words are expressed verse. 22. the whole Church: And yourself call that which we call the Catholic visible Church, by the name of the whole Church; when you say here pag. 5. However it appears not, that then there was any Entitive Church, existing without Officers. That other Text, Act. 14.23. seems rather to imply it as if there had been Churches gathered and existing without any Officers. But the sense of the place may be this, when they had gathered and settled Churches, of Elders and members, both at once; So soon as there were members enough to make a Church, they ordained them Elders, and made them a political Church: If not so, yet the Apostles Paul and Barnabas, were Officers to them, before; Catholic Officers to them as yet members only of the Catholic Church; and now they being to depart ordained them Elders in their stead, and made them particular political Churches. If those members were not confederate by consent (whereof the Scripture says nothing) they themselves say, they were not a Church, but only Materials of a Church, and so members of the Catholic Church only, or of none. I shall say something more to this in another place; I prescribe not to any man's judgment, but submit it to consideration, and proceed.

2. As a Congregation is called a Church, as afore; so sometimes the Officers not only distinguished, but as separated into a Court, are called the Church: Our Savior alluding to that custom amongst the Jews; and not relating to a Congregational Church not yet known, nor yet in being: And now the question returns upon us, To what Church of all these, the keys were committed. Some say one thing, some another: you say, to the particular Congregation, which we shall consider, when we have added that,

3. It is to be considered in this question, when the Keys are said to be given to the Church (which is never said expressly in Scripture) how they are understood to be given to the Church. Whether 1. Objective, that the Church is the object of the exercise of the Keys, that is, they are given for the good and benefit of the Church: Or 2. Subjective, that the Church is the Subject Recipient, to employ and exercise the Keys: and this, either immediately by herself, in whole, or in part, without Officers: or mediately by her Officers: that is, whether the Church be the next and first subject of the Keys, to convey them, or any part of them to her Officers; Or that she is said to be the remote subject, as including the Officers, to whom primarily and immediately Christ hath committed the Keys for the good of the Church; as sight is immediately entrusted with the eyes, for the good and benefit of the whole body. And if it should happen that any power of the Keys should appear to be given to the Church as distinct from her Officers; whether it belong first to the Catholic visible Church, or to a particular Congregation. The Question then is clearly this

And now we shall consider what you resolve, upon this question; Thus you assert.

To which I answered (not as an Avenger, there is not the least color of that, but as an Assertor, giving also my reasons) Of all the rest, this is the most improbable sense of our Savior's words, if by the Kingdom of Heaven, on earth, he meaneth that Church of which he spake in verse. 18. But that was either the Catholic visible Church; or rather the Invisible mystical Church, &c. That one, or both of these (for by my word rather, I do not exclude the other) is meant, and that primarily, is to me still most probable; upon these reasons.

1. This being the first time, that the Church ( my Church, the evangelical Church is named, it is not probable, that our Savior, would intend it only of a particular Congregation, but of the Catholic Church; for that is primarily Christ's Church, and that is properly built upon the rock; and against that the gates of hell shall never prevail; whereas, (as I say afterwards) particular Churches may fail, and have failed. There is far more color for a particular Church to be meant. Matth. 18.17. Tell the Church: because excommunication is executed in a particular Church first, and consequently in the Catholic Church: but there is not any shadow for it in the text in hand. Did Christ mean, I will build my Church, that is, a particular Church only, upon this rock, and not rather the Catholic Church, and the particular secondarily, as a member thereof? It may be a question between the Invisible, and Visible Catholic Church, which is meant there, (as after,) but none, till of late, so much as made the question, betwixt the Catholic and particular Church.

2. Peter, was an Apostle, and had given to him the Keys of the Catholic Church, not of any particular Church; for he (and so his fellow-Apostles) were never Pastors of any particular Church: therefore, it seems more reasonable, that the Catholic Church is there meant. They had habitually the Keys of particular Churches, in the Catholic; as Pastors have habitually the Keys of the Catholic Church, in a particular: They were actually Elders of the whole Church; as Pastors are actually Elders of a particular Church.

3. The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, that is, the Church, are given to Peter, as distinguished from the Church, therefore they are not there given to the Church. As if a Lord should say to him whom he constitutes his Steward, I give to thee the Keys of the Family, to open and shut the doors of the House; could the servants, or children, or any for them, conclude from this grant, the Keys were given to the Family? was Peter the Church to whom the Keys of the Church were given? And therefore, as distrusting this sense of this Scripture, you say, (as you had said of the other Apostles and Elders)

Not here for certain; whether elsewhere or no, shall be tried hereafter. It is not a reasonable construction of this text, to say, I give to thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, that is, of the Church: and to mean, I give to the Church, the Keys of the Church. I said therefore, (and I think truly,) that of all the rest this is the most improbable sense of our Savior's words; that it is a particular Church, to which the Keys were given, Matth. 26.19. It must then be taken of the Catholic Church, either Invisible, or Visible, or none.

But you are pleased to take away the subject of this question, denying any Catholic visible Church:

It is supposed by very Judicious Divines, that you may read of it often in Scripture, and in this place for one. It cannot be denied, but the Church, is often put for the whole multitude of believers, whether in truth, or in show only: Acts 8.3. Saul made havoc of the Church: and Acts 12.1. &c. It was not any particular Church, but any of any Churches, any of that way, Acts 9.2. which must needs signify the Church indefinetely as opposed to the world, not any particular Church: Nor was it the Catholic Invisible Church that they persecuted, as such; for they could not know them to be such: Therefore it must be the Catholic Visible Church. Besides, yourself unawares confess it, in the following words; Is not this to confess a Catholic visible Church? But (say you) I hope you do not imagine, that any is so simple, to think that the whole Church can be seen at once; D. A. said well, Ecclesia non est tota simul visibles: The Church (he means the Catholic Church ) is not all visible at once or at one view: then it were more then visibles, even visa: not visible so much as seen; I know you observe the difference: :But if the whole Church be visible in her members, whether in the particular persons, or particular Congregations, is not the whole visible, though not visa, seen at once? No more is the whole world visible, but in its parts, yet the world is visible: No more is a Congregation of many persons visible, that is, seen at once; yet you will not say but the whole is visible. True, but then none of those particular Congregations are Catholic. But 1. If there be a Catholic Church, (which you suppose here in these words.) 2. If that Church be visible in its parts, the singular members, which you also grant. 3. If the particular Congregations, as parts, be also visible, as Churches. 4. If the whole Church be made up of chose particular Churches which are visible: must not the whole, or (which is all one) the Catholic Church be visible? and then the whole Church that is visible, in its parts, is also Catholic: and the Catholic Church is visible in its parts: And is it not then true, that there is a Catholic visible Church? It might be added, that a particular Church, is not visible as a Church; but as a company of men assembled; for the form of the Church (which you say is the Covenant) is not visible. And once more you seem to yield the Catholic visible Church, when you say, Only you add, I should indeed be loath to say so; for I do not yet believe, that our Savior in that Text did give the power of the Keys to the Church at all, whether particular or Catholic, but to Peter, to the Officers for the Church. To thee (Peter) I give the Keys of the Church. &c.

Yet the question upon that Text is not resolved; whether by Church is meant the Catholic visible or invisible Church ] seeing it is not to be taken for a particular Church ] And to this you say, That I

But 1. By my word [rather] I did not exclude the Catholic visible Church: though I was swayed by the reason annexed, to incline to that sense; Because that Church only is built on the rock, and against that, the gates of hell shall never prevail, whereas particular Churches may fail. And I am not alone in this Exposition. 2. Visible and invisible, do not specifically difference Churches, but are (as yourself say, somewhere) but adjuncts of the same Church: whereupon it may be true of both, that, by the Kingdom of heaven, that is, the Church, ver. 18. may be meant both these, as included in the same Church: the invisible in the visible: But of which our Savior understood it, is worth enquiry: Upon second thoughts (not excluding the invisible ) I incline now to think he meant is of the Catholic visible Church. The Reverend M. Hooker confesses himself inclined that way, by some passages of M. Rutherford, to take it of the visible Church; (though he deny a Catholic visible Church, as well as you) by the force and conviction of this Argument. I must ingeniously confess, I am not convinced by this argument. For the Invisible Church is also built upon that rock by a visible profession, such as Peters was: The invisible Church is the same Church, or the same members, with the visible; and are all built upon the same rock by the same profession of faith; True believers and false make the same profession of faith, and the Elect are visible members of the Church, though as they are elect they are invisible: visible and invisible are in themselves opposite, but not in several respects, they may predicated of the same subject; That which I observe from him is this, he acknowledgeth and argues, that the visible Church is here meant: the question is whether the Catholic or particular visible Church is there intended: For the Catholic visible much hath been said already; and now I add from his confession; what? only a particular Church, and not rather the whole Church? yea, rather the latter; for the reason objected against the particular Church; because against the visible Church particular the gates of hell have prevailed: he answers, If now it be taken in the latter sense in this place, for the Church universal, existing in the particulars, then it is meant of the Catholic visible Church, not of a particular visible Church. See more in M. Hookers Survey p. 217. If I may now declare my judgment, take it thus: Upon this rock, that is, myself thus confessed, or this confession of myself, will I build my (Evangellicall) Church: The Church before Christ's coming was built upon the same foundation, with this difference, They professed the Messiah to come, The seed of the woman to break the serpents head, was the foundation of their faith from the beginning, till Abraham's time: After that, this was laid as the foundation But the Christian or Evangelical Church is built upon this Gospel-foundation or Truth Truth So the woman of Samaria, Joh. 4.29. Is not this the Christ? and verse. 42. In like manner the Eunuch, Act. 8.37. And upon this rock, or Jesus Christ, so confessed, was every particular member converted, built, and consequently the Church: What Church? a particular Congregation? yes, secondarily, as a part of the whole visible Church, but primarily, the whole Church of the New Testament, and that I take to be especially the sense of the word Church, in this Text, though (as I said) not excluding the Invisible Church.

And herein yourself seem to agree with me, when you say,

But then, the invisible Church cannot be excluded from one part of the meaning of the kingdom of heaven, whereof Peter received the Keys: and consequently the Church to which the Lord Jesus committed the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven, Mat. 16.19. is not only caetus fidelium, commonly called a particular Church (if at all) which was your assertion. And once more, it may be said, that the visible Catholic Church cannot be excluded from one part of the meaning of the Kingdom of heaven, in that Text, for the reason which you give also; Because there is a power of the Keys to open a door to professed believers, into the Catholic visible Church, as well as into a particular visible Church. But be it meant of the invisible or visible Catholic Church, or of a particular visible Church, it's manifest, that in this Text the Keys are not given to the Church; but the Keys of the Church are given to Peter, contra-distinguished, as an Officer, from the Church.

But you object,

I pray Sir, should not your conclusion be from those premises which yet you have asserted, to be part of the meaning:And did you not from the beginning say, that by was meant the Kingdom of grace and glory: And doth not the Text say, that Peter hath keys given him, as well to shut out the Kingdom of heavens, as open the door thereof? If so; then your proposition is not true, That a believer received into the Invisible Church, can never be sent again out of that Church: Your self say, a little below, pag. 8. of this second part. and is not that, as much as to be shut out of the Invisible Church? You cannot but know, that the judgment of Divines is, that if a true believer, be excommunicated, for some crime, he is for a time suspended from the Kingdom of Heaven, and so in a sense put out of the Invisible Church; and if it were possible for him to die unrepenting, he might perish; and the text itself seems to justify it, when it says,

And now shall consider what you say to the reasons for my [Obj. 1] Assertion; The first was, because that Church, there meant, was built upon the rock, &c. To which you answer;

Before I answer, I must distinguish of those words [built upon a rock;] which not observed, cause confusion in this present business: Two things are here enquirable: 1. What is meant by the Rock? It may be taken 1. For Christ himself, the tried and sure foundation, (as he is elsewhere called,) and so it may be understood, Matth. 7.24. [built his house upon a rock,] opposed there to the sand. 2. For Christ confessed to be the Son of God, and the Messiah; as he was by Peter professed to be; [upon myself so confessed, will I build my Church ] as Mr. Hooker expoundeth it above. 2. What it is to be built upon the rock? It is, either by internal union, with Christ, as the rock and foundation; or by external profession; as yourself insinuate to me the distinction, pag. 7. when you say, And now, I shall ingeniously acknowledge myself not distinct enough, when I said, and do confess myself beholden to Mr. Ruth. and Mr. Hooker, for this light; and now see, that the visible Church also, is built upon the rock. Only I differ from Mr. Hooker in this, that be by visible Church, means only, a particular Church, but I, the Catholic visible Church, as was discoursed above. But now, upon the former distinctions. I answer, That if you take the Rock for Christ himself, and the building on him, for Internal union with him; then the Invisible Church only, is built upon the rock, and against that the gates of hell shall never prevail. But if you understand the Rock, to be that confession of Peter, or rather Christ, so confessed, as he was by Peter; and the building on that foundation, for an external profession, or (in your words) in an outward form: Then I say, the visible Church is so founded upon the rock: But then I add, that it must not be restrained to a particular Church (against which the gates of hell have prevailed, which contradicts our Savior's promise) but declared to the Catholic visible Church (existing in the particulars, as M. Hooker said) against which the gates of hell (what ever they be) shall never prevail. And now I consider what you say, But then Sir, I pray, how will you (without a distinction) answer the Text, which says, the gates of hell shall never prevail against that Church which is built on the rock? You say But I suppose you do but elude and not answer here: Is it all one to be built upon the rock, and upon divine institution? Then particular Churches should not fail: for those that are built upon a rock shall never fail: Particular Churches are built upon a rock also; True, so far as they are true believers: Others of them are expressly said to be built upon the sand; yet are they built upon Christ's institution: Suppose a particular Church, consisting of all hypocrites, (it's possible to be so) having all external Ordinances; will you say, those are built upon the rock Christ? or will you say, they are no Churches of Christ, because they are not built upon Christ as a rock or foundation? Neither of these can you say, not the latter, for they are built upon the Institution of Christ not the former, for hypocrites have not Christ for their foundation, but are built upon the sand. Hear your own words, pag. 40. But say I again, such are not founded upon the rock Christ, though they be upon his Institution: Therefore Institution and rock, are not both one. But you confute yourself, when you say Now (say I) Christ is not the head of hypocrites, therefore not the foundation, nor the rock for (as you add) Christ is not a sandy foundation: yet are they built upon the Institution of Christ; and may and do fail, which they could not if they were built upon Christ a rock: But say you Did Christ mean in regard of bodily subsistence, that the gates of hell should not prevail against the Church? Do not some particular Churches fail in regard of the truth itself, and the gates of hell prevail against the souls of all their members? yet Christ says, they shall not prevail against the Church built upon the rock. Or rather did he not mean it of the Catholic visible Church, in this sense; that he will ever have a Church in one place or other? yes, say you That is, say I, God will have ever a Catholic visible Church, existing in the particulars: and so (says M. Hooker ) visible Church doth nor fail. Yet you go on to say, But (I assume) those Churches that were founded upon his Institution, fell away and failed, therefore they were not built upon the rock. You add again True, say I, yet they as well as their predecessors were built upon Christ's Institution. Therefore to be built upon divine Institution merely, is not the same, as to be built on a rock: And so you have eluded, not answered the argument.

I have but one thing more to say to your Testimonies from M ^r . Whit. Junius, and D. Ames: You say,

But 1. The Church Catholic of I which those Divines speak, against Papists, is not the same with ours in this Dispute: They intend it of the Church of the Elect, of all ages and times, which is the Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed, as the object of our faith, not of our sense: but we take it in the second sense delivered in the beginning, for the whole multitude of believers, or professors of the Gospel in all places of the world at once; And the parts of this Church whether particular members or particular Congregations being visible, the whole (or which is all one, the Catholic Church) must needs be visible. And D. Ames by name, having defined this Church to be Caetus hominum vocatorum, fidelium, vel caetus eorum qui sunt in Christo, &c, Of this same Church (which cannot be only the particular Church, he says, it is visibles in suis partibus: and in the former chapter, Sect. last, Ecclesia nunquam plane desinit esse visibles: The Church Catholic (of that he spake) never wholly ceaseth to be visible. 2. The Catholic Church which they dispute against, is in the Romish sense, a Catholic Roman Church, animated by the Pope as an head, and by Catholic Officers actually, in a subordination, as a Political body: But this we deny as well as they. We take it only for the whole multitude of believers, distinguished into several Congregations, which all make up one body, whereof Christ alone is the Head. We shall take it in M. Hookers words, which visible kingdom of Christ, is the whole Church, or (which is all one) the Catholic Church, visible in her members.

And now I come to my second Reason, or (as you call it) [Obj. 2] Objection, The kingdom of glory (one part of the meaning of the Kingdom of heaven, Mat. 16.19.) is not contra-distinguished to a particular Congregation, but to the general visible Church on earth. You answer 1.

It may be so, but very improperly, and with respect to the whole Church on earth: But what's this to the Text or Objection? The question is not, what may be elsewhere, but what is the meaning in this Text: It says not, whatever thou shalt bind in a particular Congregation, but in earth, that is, the visible Church on earth, as contra-distinguished to the world here, and the kingdom of glory above: And besides, he that is bound in any particular Church, is bound in all the Churches on earth; and so the distinction of heaven and earth respects the whole Church, rather then any particular Church. 2. And this your second Answer implies, But 1. why may you not say as well ["generally in the whole Catholic Church on earth.] seeing Peter received power to bind and loose, in the whole Church primarily (being an Apostle) and secondarily in particular Congregations? 2. If Peter as an Apostle received such power in the whole Church, what is that to Elders and Believers; to challenge power of the Keys from this Text, in all particular Congregations? Sure, they have not transcendent power indefinitely, much less generally, in every particular Church on earth. 3. How did Peter receive the Keys in every particular Church indefinitely? As an Apostle, or as an Elder, or as a believer? Not as an Apostle or Elder; that you denied in the way? Not as a Believer, for if they have any power in the Keys, it is in the particular Congregation. Whence I conclude, by Kingdom of heaven there, is not meant a particular, but the Catholic visible Church, as contra-distinguished to the Kingdom of glory.

[Obj. 3,] That Church is meant (said I) whereof Peter was one, but Peter was not a member of a particular Congregation; for there was none such then extant. You are pleased to jeer me with your Logic; and tell me

But I pray Sir, where lies the fallacy? The major is your own, the minor cannot be denied; Peter was not a member of a particular Congregation. The proof of this last Proposition is, because there was none extant at that time: This is also true, and partly confessed by yourself, where then lies the fallacy? You instance in a Sophism; fit indeed for young scholars: But nothing parallel to my arguing: And your other Argument from resurrection is far wide: you say But so it is not in my arguing; For Peter was not at any time a member of a particular Congregation, neither then nor afterwards: There was then no fallacy or sophism in my arguing; The weakness was in the proof; For whereas I said, Peter was not a member of a particular Congregation, because there was none extant at that time; I should have said, Peter, being an Apostle, was never a member of a particular Congregation; Therefore the Church there mean could not be a particular Congregation

[Obj. 4] I said Fourthly, That Church whereof Peter received the Keys, was such, whereto an offended brother might tell an offense, and have it censured; but that was never done in a Church of Saints, without Officers, &c.

Make you the Syllogism right as you would have it; you make the minor thus, And this you deny. But I shall prove it thus. 1. From the judgment of your brethren here, who say, Therefore it is to no purpose to tell an offense to a Church of believers without Officers. 2. From yourself, who expressly say: though I confess, you flatly contradict yourself in the way, pag. 101. And now my Syllogism may easily be defended and cleared from a Sophism, by adding the minor more explicitly, thus, This is proved by what I say, That was never done in a Church of Saints, without Officers; that is, no example can be brought from Scripture or History, of such a practice, where a Church of Saints without Officers did censure an offense; Therefore the Church of Corinth (which you instance in) was not such a Church, for it had Officers, who (as I said) might authoritatively censure offenders. Surely, whatever mine was, this is a fallacy and a Sophism, called petitio principij: For you know, we deny, that a Church of Saints without Officers, have power to elect, that is, ordain and make Officers, and you ought not to beg it. And what mean you by power to admit members? Admission of members is either at their first conversion, which is done by baptism, and so yourself say, None but Officers can admit, for none but Officers can baptize; or it is at the removal of a member from one Church to another, to admit into the communion of another Church; but this, either is no part of the power of the Keys, or if it be, it belongs to a Church with Officers. Nay, your argument will recoil upon yourself, It is the same power to open and shut, to admit and exclude; But a Church of Saints without Officers cannot exclude or shut out, therefore nor can they admit or open. The minor is your own a little above, and your brethren's also:

And here I desire you to take notice, That a great g • ound of your mistakes, lies in the misapplication or attribution of the power of the Keys to the brethren, to elect, that is, to make and ordain their own Officers; making election the principal, and ordination but a circumstance or solemnity, not necessary by the Institution of Christ, to belong to the Officers. Indeed, it seems to follow rationally, They that may ordain their own Officers, may de-ordain them, or cast them out; for it is the same power instituere & destituere, as you say: And then if the brethren may ordain and de-ordain their Officers, much more may they admit or exclude members. But me thinks the Antecedent is to be denied, and we prove it thus: They that may ordain Officers to such employments, may in case of necessity at least formally themselves perform them: But you constantly deny, that any but Officers can administer Sacraments: The major is also your own Assertion, in this last book of yours thus you speak

But (I assume) the brethren in a case of Necessity (say you) have a virtual power to ordain their Officers, who can do those Acts, administer Sacraments, &c. therefore in that Necessity, when they have no Officers, they have a formal power to administer Sacraments. Nor can I see any reason why those that may ordain Officers, and administer censures without Officers, may not also administer Sacraments. For to administer Sacraments is one of the lowest acts of a Minister, certainly less then preaching q. d. that was the chiefest part of his errand, says M. Hooker. And Excommunication (and so admission of Officers by Election) is one of the highest acts of Rule, (say you:) But you allow your brethren to preach, and to elect, and cast out Officers; therefore they may as well if not better be allowed to administer Sacraments; which yet you do deny. How Independent indeed is your way? how inconsistent your doctrines? I wish you would at last consider it. [Obj. 5]

I said in the fifth place, The Church to which the Keys are given, are said (by you) 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 administered in a Church of believers without Officers: Therefore. To this you answer thus,

But Sir, 1. Did not you intend it of all Ordinances, that they may and must be administered in a Church of believers? Did you not define a Church to be a company of believers met together to enjoy all Ordinances? 2. I said (all) the Ordinances are not to be found in a Church of believers without Officers, you first take no notice of that, but say, though all may not be administered there: and then confess, Some of them cannot be found and administered there: Surely those that cannot be found there (as some cannot) cannot be administered there: But (say I) in that Church to which the Keys were given, all Ordinances (which are the Keys ) may be found and administered. Therefore that Church and yours are not the same: 3. What are those Some Ordinances which may be found there? But are two or three a Church? You say somewhere 7. are the least number. And may not any two or three believers, not in your Church-order, no members of any particular Church, meet and pray, &c? have they then the power of the Keys? Is not reading of the word also an Ordinance of Christ, and singing of Psalms, &c. Are these also part of the power of the Keys? Let me use your own words to me in this paragraph for you know we deny it. And suppose those were Ordinances, and part of though power of the Keys, yet they are not the Ordinances that I intended, viz. administration of Sacraments and censures; These you have confessed (though you again deny it) are not to be found or administered in a Church without Officers; what need I prove my latter proposition when you confess it? But you have an help for this: ) This discourse is a mere begging, of the question first, and then a varying of it; A begging in that you take for granted, that the Brethren have a power in the Keys, eitheir formally or radically; and that because they have a power to elect their own Officers; If by Election you mean the Creation or making of Officers, we deny then any such power: If you mean a designation or choice of a fit person, to be ordained by other Officers, that is no power of the Keys; which yourself say You also vary the question, by putting in two words; first, ordinarily administered, whenas I spake of all Ordinances ordinary, as those mentioned, or extraordinary, as Synods, which yourself acknowledge an Ordinance of God; and I think will not say it may be administered in a particular Church of believers, without or with Officers. Secondly, You shuffle in another word Administrable amongst them; whereas the question was of Ordinances administered; They are not all to be found, much less administered in such a Church: But all Ordinances, ordinary and extraordinary, are both administrable and administered in the Church, to which the Keys were given; therefore that and yours is not the same; and that and not yours is understood in that Text.

I said further; If the Keys were committed to the Church, [Obj. 6] the particular Congregation, you must mean it either objective for the use of the Church (but that's not to the purpose) or subjective, and then you fall into the extreme of Brownists, &c. To this you answer,

But I reply, and ask, what you mean by Subjective, to itself? and of what Church you intend it, whether Entitive, (as you speak) consisting only of believers without Officers, or political with Officers? If you mean that the Church Entitive of believers without Officers is the subject of the Keys, then they have not only virtually but also formally received the Keys, and may administer all Ordinances without Officers (which yet you deny) for Peter here received them all formally, and you say, as a believer; then (say I) believers not only in a Church jointly, but even singly have received all the power of the Keys formally, and may administer them without any Officers, which is worse then Brownism. But I have distingu • shed above, when the Church is said to receive the Keys subjective it may be meant, either immediately herself, without Officers; or mediately by and in her Officers; and I illustrated it by the body natural; As sight is immediately trusted with the eye, as the next subject of it; but mediately with the body. In the first sense, you cannot say, the Church is the immediate subject of the Keys • for then she might immediately administer them all without Officers (as I said) In the latter sense, it is nothing to your purpose, for then, as fight is entrusted with the eye, first for the good of the body, so the Keys are entrusted with the Officers for the good of the Church: The body is not first entrusted with sight to convey it to the eye, nor are the Keys committed first to the Church, to convey them to the Officers. You say afterwards All this is true, in a sense, The Officers are given to the Church as the immediate recipient subject of them: But is our Question of the Officers, or of the Keys? We say, the Keys are given to the Church both objective for its good, with reference to the brethren; and subjective with reference to the Officers: yea, subjective to the Church as the subject of the Officers, that is, mediately; but not subjective as the immediate subject of the Keys: Your comparison was ill laid; you should have instanced in the sight (that resembles the Keys) not in the Eye itself: The body is the immediate subject of the eye: but the eye, of the sight. So the Church is the immediate subject of the Pastors, &c. but the Pastors are the immediate subject of the Keys. And this (as I have often said) is evident in the Text in hand; For Christ doth not say not the least color here, of giving the Keys to the Church. But I desire you will consider your inconstancy, and the inconsistency of your assertions. You say presently after the last words cited, Then say I, they are not given to the Church as mere adjuncts, nor doth the Church receive them, as the subject of them. And that upon your own reason Integrall parts are not subjects and adjuncts one to another.

But you say

1. Whatever was in your mind, I know not, but the words hold out rather a Congregation of believers without Officers (and so that acute and judicious M. Ruth. understood you, as well as I) For you say there, But can the Officers be committed to the Church with Officers? And do not you commonly distinguish Saints or believers from Officers? When you said, Pastors are given to the Church, and the Church is the recipient subject of them, must not the Church be taken then for a company of Saints without Officers? 2. In your present defense, you understand it all along of a Church without Officers, or I understand you not. 3. When you add For there you say, Mark that, one believer, not one Officer; And elsewhere you say, the were Keys committed to Peter, not as an Apostle or Elder, that is, not as an Officer but as a believer. How these things agree, I see not: Yet you will defend it (granting that sense) Of which we have spoken before, and refer you thither. Only I shall observe your similitude for illustration of your assertion: But I fear your similitudes do deceive you. Do the Brethren immediately give that power to the Officers, which they have not formally in themselves? Did not the Officers receive their power immediately from Christ or his Apostles, who had that power formally in themselves? Have not your Praefacers to the Keys, told us, that yourself lay this fundamental Maxim, But now you make the Officers to depend immediately upon the Church of believers; and to derive their power from them by mediation or delegation, as the branches derive their being and virtue to produce grapes, from the stock of the Vine. Which if it be not to jump with the Brownists, who place all power radically and originally in the Church of believers, and make the Officers derive it as their servants immediatfy from them; I must profess I understand nothing in this controversy: Doth not M. Hooker make the Church of believers the first subject of all Church power? and do not the Brownists just so? whereas you (sometimes at least in the judgment of your brethren here, as afore) make two first subjects of the power of the Keys and each to have it immediately from Christ: I desire you would consider whom M. Hooker meant in those words pag 195. sect. 2. It is strange that all this while you should agree no better.

[Obj. 7] I said lastly, The Church there meant is called the Kingdom of heaven, but a particular Congregation of believers is never called so: being but a member of it, &c. You answer,

I gave the sense and rosolution of that Text afore; The sum is this, it doth not hold a Church of believers, as existing without Officers; for that Church had Officers: but only distinguisheth the Integrall parts (as yourself call them above) of that Church into Officers and members;] that is, the brethren or believers, ver. 23. assembled together, ver. 25. which is no more then if he had said, the whole Church, consisting of Apostles, Elders, and Brethren. But you must remember that you are disputing the power of the Keys to be given to a Church believers without Officers and you bring an instance of a Church that had Officers: Shew (if you can) a Church of believers, existing without Officers, which took upon them the name of a Church, or the tide of the Kingdom of heaven. I yet believe, where ever the Church is called the Kingdom of heaven, in Scripture, it is meant of the whole Church, not of any particular Congregation. Your own Texts produced do hold out as much, Mat. 20.1. It is called a vineyard, which signifies either the state of the Gospel, or the whole visible Church; If he had meant it of particular Churches, he would have rather said, into his vineyards; for all those Officers could not be hired for one particular Church: You say, ["It was into this or that particular Church respectively] true, with respect to the whole visible Church, which is but one. A man that hath a large vineyard, hires servants to work, in several places or parts of that vineyard; but this or that part is not called a vineyard, but with respect to the whole, they are all hired to labor in his vineyard. Or what if that Parable be rather understood of particular persons, then particular Congregations? God calls all Christians into his Church, and sets them to work; Some come in at one hour, some at another; they that come first, think they deserve more, then they that come in late, at the eleventh hour: Christ would intimate, that God is free, and his grace free to do what he will with his own; and there is no merit at all; Many are called but few are chosen: But your Exposition restrains the parable only to Officers, as distinct from the Church of believers. The like my be said of your second Text, Mat. 25.1, 2. It is not meant as an a description of the estate of each particular Church, as you strain, rather then interpret it: but of every particular professing Christian, whereof some have lamps of profession, but no oil of true grace; others have both: And the scope of the parable is intimated in the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or application, ver. 23. Your next of Luk. 17.21. is wider from the mark, [The Kingdom of God "is within you,] that is, either the Messias whom you seek as absent, is now among you, as Beza, or the power of the Gospel is within you or upon you. Those other of Rev. 1.6. and 1 Pet. 2.9. are as much mistaken, if applied to a particular Congregation. All the faithful are Kings and Priests, and all together, are a Kingdom of Priests, both Officers and believers. I suppose you will not apply this either only to the Officers, or only to believers, but to both singly and jointly, and respectively to the whole Church.

To conclude this whole first Section, I added, a particular Congregation is but a member or Corporation of that kingdom: and it were as improper to call a Congregation Christ's kingdom, as to call London the kingdom of England, You answer,

] You said a little above But then if you will speak properly and strictly, you cannot say, that a particular Congregation of Officers and believers is a similar part of a similar body; for it is a d • ssimilar body consisting of dissimilar parts: and so London, and it, agree in state; and that Church can no more properly be called the Kingdom of heaven, then London the kingdom of England. Again, if you will (to help yourself out of this Labyrinth) understand it of a particuar Church without Officers, you fall into another gulf as bad as the former. For if particular Congregations consisting of similar parts (of believers only) may be called Kingdoms, as they are called Churches, then it will fairly follow, that every particular member of that similar body, may be called not only a Church, but a Kingdom too; because every similar part of a similar body (it is your own reason) doth properly partake in the Name and Nature of the whole: So then, as every drop of water is water, so every member of such a Church, is a Church; and of such a Kingdom, is a Kingdom. Your following of metaphors and Parables too far, is guilty of these miscarriages; as I elsewhere often show; where I also show how a particular Church consisting of Officers and believers, may, in a candid sense be said to be a similar body, to which I refer you.

SECT. II. What the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are.

IF in opening what the Keys of the kingdom of heaven be, it was not your intent to enumerate them all distinctly and particularly, (as you here say) Surely you intended not the business you had in hand, when you were purposely engaged to answer this Question. What are the Keys of this Kingdom? would not any Reader expect (from an Expositor, of that text) a full and perfect enumeration of the Keys? what, and how many they are? Had you said only thus

You might afterwards have referred them (as you say) to their several subjects. But when you add Would not any Reader take it for a full distribution of the Keys? And when you add Would not any man think, these were all the Keys necessary, and all-sufficient for those ends on earth and in heaven?

But (say you)

But I pray Sir, are these any part of the Keys themselves? If a Steward be trusted with the Keys of the Family (as Peter with the Keys of the Church:) there must be doors and locks, and servants to be let in, or shut out; but are those any part of the Keys? Mend your distribution of the Keys; and will you say, The Keys are vocation, and some that have power to give such a vocation? We (such is the narrowness of our apprehension) think your distribution afore-given, is full enough; nor can we tell (pardon our dullness) how you can mend it, but you will make it worse. We have been accustomed so long to that ancient distribution of Clavis Scientiae (which you call preaching of the Word) and Clavis potestatis (which you call Administration of Seals and Censures ) that we wonder at your new pick-locks, presented to the world, as Keys of the kingdom of heaven. And I yet think, your new distribution labor under so many Incongruities (as Vind. Clav. hath given you to understand, though you are not pleased to take notice of them, or to vindicate them,] that it is far worse then the old one, so long received in the Churches of Christ. I had thought to have added your own words (appliable enough to your new distribution) in end of Sect. 3. pag. 6. of the Keys, but I forbear.

It seems to me (though you insinuate the contrary) to be of great weight for the expediting of many controversies about the Keys, and your new Way, to know what those Keys be, and what Ordinances they include. Is not one main controversy betwixt you and us, about the nature and extent of the Keys, and who are the Key-bearers? which cannot be decided, unless we know what be those Keys. But let us hear your new definition of the Keys:

Is not this almost the same with that afore, Keys are the Ordinances of Christ to be administered in his Church, for opening and shutting the gates of the Church here, and of heaven hereafter? But what mean you by spiritual powers? you mean I pray Sir, is every spiritual calling, and every spiritual gift fitting for them, a Key intended in the text to be given to Peter? callings and gifts help to dispense the Keys, but they are no Keys: But they are Ordinances? Be it so, is every Ordinance a Key? The Deacons office is an Ordinance (and the Widows too, say you) and spiritual gifts are requisite to fit for that calling; but is a Deacon or his office a Key? and a Key given to Peter in that Text? Prayer and singing are Ordinances, but whoever numbered them among the Keys? Well, what are the Treasures dispensed by those powers or Keys? Before you said the preaching of the word, and Administration of the Seals and Censures, were these Keys: and now you call them the Treasurers to be dispensed by the Keys: What incongruity is here? Now let us hear your Distribution of the Keys, according to this your definition: Is not this an accurate distribution? The spiritual powers are either Keys of power or of Authority? And is not the Key of knowledge a key of order, an Ordinance peculiar to some order or office of men? what confusion is here? In a word, your new definition of the Keys better fits the Key-bearers then the Keys themselves, ver. 9. A Pastor or Teacher is a spiritual power given by Christ to his Church, to dispense the Treasures of his kingdom, &c. And your own Exposition fits it better: By spiritual powers is meant, spiritual callings: such is the calling of a Pastor: and spiritual gifts are requisite for the fitting of them to spiritual Acts: But no man ever said, that a Pastor was a Key, but a Steward to dispense the Keys. New ways must coin new notions and distinctions, to make them as amiable, as strange. But the old way is the good way.

1. And now you come to animadvert upon my animadversions; 1 I said you confuted your scope in the whole book, which is to give the people a share in the government of the Church: This you peremptorily deny to be your scope, and say I mistake your meaning. Let your Praefacers speak first,

which that it amounts to a share in the Ruling power, is demonstrated in my Vind. Clav. in answer to that preface, and in the Tract itself; But you take no notice of it. Next, let your own books speak; wherein you often give the brethren without Officers power to ordain Officers, and to censure them all without Officers; which if they be not the highest acts of Rule, and so the brethren have the greatest share in the government, I shall still profess my Ignorance in this controversy. And upon my observation, you deny them power in nothing, but administration of Sacraments: You allow them power in jurisdiction, by giving them power in admission and ejection of members and Officers: You allow them liberty in preaching the Word, only not ordinarily, nor so authoritatively as to Pastor or Teacher: what can you give them more but administration of Sacraments; and that being less an Act of Rule, then the former, you may go on, and grant them that too, or they will take it, and so they do.

I said, in prosecution of my charge, of your confuting the scope of your book, If the Keys be the Ordinances of Christ, (there by you specified) preaching and administration of Sacraments and Censures, they are given for the Church of believers, objective, but are never in Scripture, or all antiquity said to be given to the Church subjective: You are pleased to deride me, as if I had not read all Antiquity, which I profess I have not (though in this particular controversy it is easy to find what Antiquity hath said) or had forgotten what is recorded by the most ancient Antiquity, for the space of the first three hundred years: But of that you vouchsafe not to give me any account, how pertinent soever to our present business, but refer me to that account you have given M. Bailey; to whom (in way of requital, not of revenge) I shall refer you to wait for your unswer.

But you say

You did allege Scripture, and the Assertor (not Avenger) did in their place answer them (not evaded them, as you phrase it) and expected your reply; but I perceive he may go seek it, for you never come at the place, where it is handled; though you promise here, and once or twice more, you would do it; but either evaded it, or forgot it, of which more anon.

It sounds very ill (I said) at first hearing to say, that the brethren have any power in the Keys, or Ordinances of preaching, or administering Seals or Censures: you answer, (

] &c. But 1. Why do you leave out Censures, which not only I put in, but yourself also, in defining the Keys? Does it not sound ill, at first second, and third hearing, to all reformed Churches (but your own and such like) that the people have any power, yea, the greatest power to exercise censures? For they can censure all their Officers, but all their Officers without them cannot censure them, nor any one of them: It is indeed no unpleasant sound to you, or your people: yea, it would sound very ill and harsh to you, at least to your people, to hear, That they have no power in the Keys mentioned, preaching and administering of Seals and Censures. But if those Keys were given to Peter, they were given to him, either as an Elder, and then the people have nothing to do with them at all, one or other: Or as a Believer, but then they may as well exercise the Ordinances of preaching and administering Seals, as exercise and administer the Ordinance of Censures.

But you go on, by way of Recrimination (I say not by way of Revenge ) with an argument, ad hominem

Truly Sir, this toucheth not me, who have as well thought it to sound ill, at first or second hearing, that Chancellors, &c. no Ministers, should suspend and excommunicate, as I now think it harsh to hear, this power is allowed to, and practiced by the people. Though people may perhaps be the better men, yet not so well authorized, as some Chancellors and Commissaries (for some of them were Ministers) who had more color of Authority to suspend, &c. then your people have, who are quite out of office. But you wonder more that I that could allege all Antiquity, should think it to sound ill I had thought to let you wait for your answer, from M. Bailey; but seeing you are pleased to vouchsafe me the Testimonies, I shall anticipate his answer in the mean time. 1. For Tertullian's, I find you cite him not at all to M. Bailey, as if then you took it to be of no great strength. What saith Tertullian? Quum probi, cum boni coeunt, &c. What is this to power of the people in censures? Unless you beg it hence, that the word Curia signifies a Court? But I pray, what mention is here of Officers at all? Did the people at that time censure alone without their Officers? You will hardly prove that: or are not Officers good and honest men? Or do good men never meet but in a Court to censure? As for Cyprian you leave me in the dark, to go look what he says; or to turn back to what you say to M. Bailey: I shall consider the place, and his Testimonies. In the first, you clearly to my understanding confute your own way of Ordination of Ministers: Thus Cyprian speaks I pray, do you gather all the neighbor Bishops or Pastors of the Province, where a Minister is to be ordained? Do those Pastors impose hands upon him? yet these, Cyprian says, they received from the Apostles. True it is, the Minister was chosen in the presence of the people, and good reason, as to whom his life is best known: But the judgment of his abilities was in the Pastors; as also the Imposition of hands. But the people had their Suffrage; that is nothing, but some rational consent, or some manifestation of their approbation, not any authoritative vote, or ordination. But this is not the new way of Ordination; for you allow the brotherhood, suffrage, consent, judgment and imposition of hands too, upon their Officers. This you never received from the Apostles. Another Testimony is this: But power of election of one Minister, rather then another, and rejection of an unworthy Minister, is not denied the people of God: That Election is but their consent or approbation of such a Minister, as the Pastors in their judgment, think fit and worthy: and Rejection is but withdrawing communion from one unworthy, and judged fit to be excommunicated. But this we say is no part of the power of the keys, we doubt not but pious and godly women should have this liberty or privilege to except against known unworthy persons, and to withdraw communion from them; yet surely, you will not allow them power in the Keys. When Cyprian says And the last place, declares his meaning fully to be for consent, not Authority: And so those times give no express lineaments of Congregational discipline. Shew us in any Antiquity of Scripture or story, that the people had power without Officers to create or ordain Officers, to impose hands upon them, or to censure all their Officers; or you say nothing to the present controversy.

2. When you had said

I inferred, that this clearly excludeth the people, for they have no stewardly or ministerial power over themselves (I might have added, much less over their Officers,) You answer by a question, ["As if the people were not Stewards of the grace of God given to them? &c. ] But truly Sir, this is no better then a fine elusion. To take Stewards in a larger sense then I intended it. Stewards to me are Officers, and can the people be Stewards over their Stewards? Your self say, pag. 28. So say I, it implieth a contradiction, that the Church should be its own Steward; And again, p. 30. Then (say I) you answer equivocally; taking the word in another sense, then it is commonly taken in this controversy Did not the Apostle there mean it only of Officers? Nor will the Apostle Peter help you out: For either he takes Stewards in the strict sense for Officers, with reference to the 11. verse. Or in the large sense, for any Dispensers of any kind of gifts, as the referring it to the 9. verse seems to carry it. Now we take the word in one sense, and you in another, and so you answer nothing, but mislead your Reader, while you evade.

Yet you go on; ["If they have received any gift of grace, they are either Stewards of it, or Lord's.] Apply this to women, yea, to Infidels; If they have received any gift or grace they are either Stewards of it, or Lord's: Lord's they are not; what are they else, Stewards? they are your own words. But we answer, it is not any gift that we are speaking of, but the gift of the Keys; that's your first evasion: And then we say, they are neither Stewards nor Lord's, in our sense of Stewards, but members of the family, in subordination to the Lord's and Stewards; having nothing to do with the Keys at all. But, say you,

Grant Election of Officers to be a public gift, and yield it to the people, yet (say we) it is no part of the gift of the Keys. Lastly, when you say either you make them Officers, or you do prevaricate all along his Paragraph, and that I think you do.

And the like you do in the word (calling) which I said should be taken of some special calling or Office, which would exclude the people from having an office in the Church, or any power of the Keys. You say,

But, Sir, you cannot well understand it otherwise then I do, when you speak of a special calling, in such, as to whom the Keys are given, with a power to open and shut the gates of heaven, that is, the Church. For I suppose every member of the Church particular hath not such a special calling, or such power of the Keys, to open and shut the gates of heaven: as women and children for example: yet have they in your sense a special calling, state, or order in the Church; as was more fully said in Vind. Clav. And surely in this controversy special calling, and office, have ever been taken for the same thing, not for state, or place, or order, at large. Believers not yet members of a particular Church, have a distinct calling, in your sense, from Infidels, a state, place, order, in the visible Catholic Church: yea, if they be men, they have as good a state, order, &c. in a particular Church, as your women and children have, in regard of any power of the Keys.

Yet you say,

Had you not said (His) I would have asked what acts of power women may put forth in their particular Church; yet certainly women may put forth some acts of power in their own Church; or else their calling, state, place, order, is very mean and contemptible. There is no member of the body natural, not the least, but it hath in your notion, a function, action, office, in the body, a power to put forth some acts in its own body, which it cannot do in another body, nor the members of another body in its body. The question is not of some acts of power, but some acts of power of the Keys; which is an office power. But say you still, Truly Sir, this is but a prevarication: Fos 1. By body there, is not meant a particular Church, but the whole Church: Paul puts in himself, and he was no member of the Church of Rome, in your sense, 2. When they render the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , office, they either mean it largely, and not for a special office, as we take it, or strictly, and then it relates to the Officers of the Church only, as the following verses may seem to insinuate, ["whether Prophecy or Ministry, &c. ] where yourself and others, do find all the Officers of the Church: and so taken, it is nothing to your purpose, but rather against you.

When I said, you added that explication

to steal in the interest of the people, in some share of the Keys: you answer, But you must first prove it their own, and that that Text is so to be understood; or else it is as well sacrilege or stealth (taking it from the right owners) if the Lord hath not given them this honor: as it is to deny it, or take it from them, if the Lord hath given it to them.

Lastly, (and so you will have done with me) you conclude,

This is very true: yet you asserted before: Then say I, women and children, for they are members too: yea, we think, except but that of speaking in the Church, 1 Cor. 14.34. 1 Tim. 2.11, 12. expressly forbidden, and we do not find any one thing granted by Christ (in respect of the power of the Keys) to men, the common members of the Church, that women may not be allowed to act; as I often told you, in Vind. Clav. 1. Women (widows at least, who contribute maintenance) may have some power in choosing (that is in your sense) ordaining Officers. 2. To propound just exceptions against such as offer themselves to be admitted. 3. To admonish in case of private scandal. 4. To judge with a judgment of discretion; you sometimes allow the brethren no more, Keys, pag. • 4. They may tell the Church, they may consent and concur with the Elders at least passively. 5. To withdraw from one excommunicate, &c. as was suggested to you elsewhere. And now before I conclude, I shall set before you an observation of your inconstancy, in assigning the first subject of the power of the Keys; The Keys were given, 1. To Peter, as an Apostle, as an Elder, and as a believer. 2. To Peter, not as an Apostle, not as an Elder, but as a believer; and consequently to all believers. 3. Not to believers as believers, but as making public confession of their faith, before the Lord and their brethren: The way cleared, part, 2. pag. 39. and public profession of their obedience of the faith, to the Lord Jesus, in the public Ordinances of his worship, pag. 40. 4. Not to believers as believers, but as believers covenanting, and fitly capable according to Christ's appointment; M. Hooker Surv. par. 1. pag. 203. Or as you here; it is not every place, or order in the Church that giveth power to receive or dispense Ordinances; as not that place or order of children and women, &c. Whereas when first you began, you asserted, The Keys were given to Peter as a believer, and so by your own argument, a quatenus tale, to all believers, as believers; you are forced to make several distinctions, to help it out; That position that needs so many distinctions, gives strong suspicion it is not the truth. And now I shall conclude this second Section with your own words, Happy had it been for the Church of God, if this had been done. I shall but mind you of what I suggested to you in Vind. Clav. pag. 13. in your own words; I pray you seriously consider,

SECT. III.

I now expected, you should have gone on, with Vind. Clav. and have vindicated your book and self, from those other many wickednesses and contradictions, charged (I still think) justly upon you: But you fairly (if you do not rather in way of Revenge,) shake hands with me, or rather slightly shake me off, and never meet again. And this is the more remarkable, because you promise at least three times (with attestation of the name of God twice at least) pag. 15. and pag. 16. and again, pag. 19 a further consideration of them. In the first place thus,

In the second place thus again, To which places you never come near; Is not this to take God's Name in vain? And new in the third Section you promise, though you undertake those two Reverend Antagonists, M. B. and M. Ruth. But reading over the following discourse, I find not that you do so much as take any notice of me, or your threefold engagement; but as if Vindex were some contemptible person, that deserved to be slighted, as his best answer; you neglect all his; I shall only say,

Who both are charged with so many contradictions, which (for your own honor) it concerned you to answer; and also have charged yourself three times to give a further answer. Besides this, there were seven Chapters in Vind. Clav. wherein you were not a little concerned to give (if not me) the world satisfaction: and you are pleased to answer (if you have answered) but to one, and but to two Sections of three in that chapter, which is a slighting and contempt of an adversary, not usually heard of. And now, I leave it to the Judicious Reader to resolve, who deserves best, and most justly, the name and title of Vindex or Avenger. Yet you give some reason of this slighting and neglect: for so you say,

I pray Sir, why do you conceive it loss of time and labor to argue this Question with me? Do you mean, your answers would be so unsatisfying (as the former now will appear to be) as that the time and labor would be ill spent? Your Reader will think so, if you answer no better to that remaining, then to what is gone before, And why do you say this Question? as if there were no more betwixt us then this, But I most of all admire why you should say, my exc • ptions are but collections out of the writings of others: I believe the Reader will find my exceptions are Collections of contradictions, out of your own writings, more then out of others. And I can sincerely profess, I consulted with none, or very few books of this controversy, but comparing your books one with another, my own reason and judgment suggested to me those contradictions in them, that left me altogether unsatisfied in your way, and at this day, I am left so still; if not more confirmed; that the Independent way is not the way of God, that is so inconsistent with the Scriptures, and with itself.

That others have more elaborately disputed this cause, I shall easily yield; but I think I may truly say without vanity, none have more distinctly discovered the weaknesses of your proofs, and your contradictions to yourselves, in holding out your Way, then I have done. Nor am I at all troubled that you choose rather to consider what hath been written by Learned and Reverend M. Rutherford and M. Bailey (though you sere M. Bailey as you do me, never name him more in all your following discourse) had you but made good your promises, to consider also what I had said, to vindicate yourself from your contradictions, and to clear the truth in question. But seeing you are pleased so to neglect me, I hope you will not be troubled if I conceive it loss of time and labor to follow you any further; and consider what Learned and Reverend M. Hooker hath elaborately written in this controversy Only give me leave to present you with a Scheme of your remaining contradictions, or contrarieties at least noted in Vind. Clav. out of your own books: and then leave you to your choice, whether you will reconcile them or confess them.

A Scheme of Contradictions and Contrarieties in the Independent way.

1. THe Keys were given to Peter as an Apostle, as an Elder, and as a believer. So the sense most fill, The Keys, pag. 4. It appears, that Christ gave the Keys to the fraternity with the Presbytery, Ib. See also the Way cleared, par. 2. pag. 22.	1. The power of the Keys is given to Peter not as an Apostle, nor as as Elder, but as a professed believer, The way pag. 27.	1. Peter received no • the Keys merely as a believer, but as a believe publicly professing hi • faith, &c. The Way cleared, par. 2. f. 39. Not believers as believers, but as believers covenanting, and fitly capable according to Christ appointment, M. Hooker Surv. par. 1. p. 203.
2. The Keys are given to the Church of believers The Way, p. 1. that is a combination of faithful men: as M. Hooker.	2. The Key of knowledge belongeth to all, the faithful, whether joined to any particular Church or no. The Keys, pag. 11.	2. The Key of Knowledge is given not only to the Church, but to some before they ente • into the Church, Th • Keys, p. 11.
3. The Key of order is common to all the members of the Church, Keys p. 8. Then (say we) to women and children.	3. It is not every place or order in the Church that giveth power to receive Ordinances, much less to dispense them, as children and women, Way cleared, par. 2. pag. 19.
4. Ordination is a work of Rule, The way, p. 49. Ordination and jurisdiction (both acts of Rule) pertain indifferently to all the Presbysers. Ib. 49.	4. As for election and Ordination of Officers, &c. these things they (the brethren) may do (if need be) without Officers: The way p. 45. 101.	4. Ordination is not an Act of supreme jurisdidiction, but of order rather: in H. Survey part. 2.75.
5. The Key of authority or Rule is committed to the Elders of the Church, and so the Act of Rule, is the proper Act of their Office, The Keys p. 20. The people discerning and approving the justice of the censure, give consent and obedience to the Will and Rule of Christ, The Keys pag. 15. 37. 41. The brethren stand in an order, even an orderly subjection according to the order of the Gospel, p. 11.	5. In case the Officers do err and commit offense, they shall be governed by the whole body of the brethren. The Way, pag. 100. The Church exerciseth several acts of authority over the Elders, The way p. 101. The people have some stock of power and Authority in government of the Church, the Keys, pag. 36. They rule the Church by appointing their own Officers, Ib. p. 16.
6. Excommunication is one of the highest Acts of Rule, and therefore cannot be performed but by some Rulers, the Keys p. 16. The Church cannot excommunicate the whole presbytery, because they have not received from Christ an office of Rule, without their Officers, Ibid. No act of the people's power doth properly bind, unless the authority of the Presbytery join with it, Ibid. 36.	6. If all their Officers were sound culpable, either in heretical doctrine, or scandalous crime, the Church hath lawful Authority to proceed to censure of them all, The Way, p. 45. In case of offense given by an Elder or whole Eldership together, the Church hath authority to require satisfaction, and if they give it not, to proceed to censure, Ibid. p. 101.	6. Excommunication is not an act of power of office, but of judgment: nor an act of highest rule, but of supreme judgment seated in the fraternity, Survey par. 3. p. 45. As a Church of brethren cannot proceed to any public censures without Elders: so nor the Elders without concurrence of the people, &c. Pref. to the Keys, pag. 4.
7. It was a sacrilegious breach of order, that Commissaries and Chancellors, wanting the key of Order (no Ministers) have been invested with jurisdiction, yea, and more then ministerial authority, above those Elders, who labor in the word and doctrine, The Keys, p, 6.	7. There is a Key of power given to the Church (with the Elders) as to open a door of entrance to the Ministers calling, so to shut the door of entrance against them in some cases, &c. The Keys, pag. 9. yea, to censure all their Elders (without Elders) the way p. 45. &c. as afore.
8. We are far from allowing that sacrilegious usurpation of the Ministers office, practiced in some places, that private Christians ordinarily take upon them to preach the Gospel publicly, The Keys, pag. 6.	8. This is ordinarily practiced in old England, and allowed by the Independent brethren. Yea, they being but in the notion of gifted brethren: no Ministers to other Congregations, do it ordinarily themselves.
9. A particular Church of Saints, professing the faith (that is, members without Officers) is the first subject of all the Church Offices, with all their spiritual gifts and power, The Keys, p. 31.	9. As the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven be divers, so are the subjects to whom they are committed divers, The Keys. p. 11. The Apostle were the first subject of Apostolical power, Ib. p. 32. A Synod is the first subject of that power whereby error is convinced and condemned, &c. ib. p. 47.	9. The power of the Keys belongs firstly to a Congregation of Covenanting believers. Surv. part. 1. pag. 219. The power of the Keys is in the Church of believers, as in the first subject, Ib. p. 195. That con •••• is wide, to make one first subject of this power, and yet others to share in this power, not by means of that; for this is to speak daggers and contradictions. Ibid.
10. Pastor and flock are Relates: and so he is a Pastor to none but his own Congregation. This is the common Tenet.	10. The members of any Church we admit to the Lord's Table (if they bring Letters Testimoniall) and their children to Baptism, The Way, p. 68. The Keys 17.	10. Administration of Sacraments is a Ministerial act, and what authority hath a Pastor to do it, or they to receive it from him, to whom he is no Pastor? M. H. Survey part. 2.64, 65. Pastors and Teachers might pray and preach in other Churches beside their own, but not administer Seals and censures, Bartlets model. p. 63.
11. We receive the Sacrament of the Lord's supper (say the same of Baptism) as a Seal of communion, not only with the Lord Jesus in our own Churches but in all Churches of the Saints, The Keys, p. 17. See Def. of 9. pos. p. 133, 134.	11. Baptism, (and so the other Sacrament) seals up the external communion, with a particular Church, &c. M. H. Survey par. 3. pag. 27. and he disputes against it, is to, the Catholic Church.
12. It is an act of the Elders power and authority, to examine, whether Officers or members, before they be received of the Church, The Keys, pag. 21.	12. As for admission, election, ordination of officers, admission, and shutting out of members, these things the brethren may do without Officers, The Way 45. 101.
13. Ordination is then complete, when the people have chosen him, and the Presbytery hath laid their hands on him, The Keys, p. 37.	13. But if the Church want a Presbytery, for want of Elders, they want a warrant to repair to the Presbytery of another Church, to impose hands upon their elect Elders, The Way, pag. 50.
14. Paul and Barnabas were ordained to that office (of Apostleship) by the Imposition of hands of some Officers or members of the Church: The Way, p. 45.	14. In Act. 13.2, 3. There is no Ordination to office at all: for the Apostles had their office before. M. H. Survey part. 2. p. 83. This was not to put a new office upon them, but to confirm their sending to the Gentiles, Ib. p. 60.	14. This was done in a particular Church, The Keys, p. 29. The Officers of one Church did what as done in an ordinary way, Surv. par. 2. 83. Then it follows (by M. C. his doctrine) that the Apostles who were Officers of all Churches, were ordained in a particular Church: or that Officers of one Church may be ordained in another Church, which he said was unwarrantable, The Way, p. 50.
15. What if the whole Presbytery offend? The readiest course is, to bring the matter to a Synod. The Keys, p. 43.	15. There is a readier and nearer way: The brethren may censure them all, The Way, p. 45. If the Congregation be found faithful and willing to remove an offense by due censure, why should the offense be called up to more public judicature? &c. Keys p. 42.
16. It belongs to the civil Magistrate to establish pure Religion, in doctrine, worship, and government: partly by civil punishments upon the willful opposers and disturbers of the same. The Keys p. 50.	16. Yet the Brethren here call for or tolerate toleration of all opinions, and deny the Magistrate power to punish any pretending conscience: Bartlets Model. 128.	16. See M. Bartl. Model p. 25. contra.
17. Visible Saints, though they be hypocrites inwardly, are the matter of a visible Church, M. H. Sur. par. 1. p. 14, 15.	17. You say, Saints in outward profession is the matter of a Congregational Church: We judge that real Saints uttering in discourse the breathings of the holy Spirit, and experiences of conversion, witnessed in a stricter conversation, to be the matter, D. Holmes Ep. to Way cleared, p. 4,	17. M. Bartlet speaks something this language, Can there ba ability for spiritual and holy services, where the spirit is not yet given? Can there be communion between light and darkness? can they edify one another in the faith, that have not yet the work of faith wrought in them? Mod. p. 57. See more p. 103.
18. The form of the visible Church is the Covenant, either explicit or implicit; and the latter is sometimes fully sufficient: M. H. Sur. par. 1. pag. 47, 48. and others.	18. You say an implicit uniting, viz. a walking and communicating with you is a sufficient evidencing of the Form: we say, their solemn confession of their faith, and express open covenanting with the Lord, to walk with such a body of Saints, in all the ways of Christ, &c. to be the manifest form, D. Holm. Ib.	18. It is not general profession will serve the turn, but there must be a peculiar engagement, and appropriation to this or that particular body: M. H. Sur. p. 63. yet he said, an implicit covenant was sufficient.
19. We crave leave of the Reverend Author of the Keys, to declare, that we assent not to all expressions, or all and every assertion in it: As in these particulars. 1. About prophesying by gifted brethren. 2. That the Assembly Act. 15. was a formal Synod. 3. That the Apostles acted in it as ordinary Elders. Praef. to the Keys, p. 6.	19. We do in this Epistle certify our assent unto the way of the Churches in New-England: saving that we do not yet fully close with some expressions, in the book, before some of which (ten at least, belike there are more) we minded to note a star in the Margent. This we could not but say and do (pace tanti Authoris) or we could not assent. Ep. to the Way, p. 2. f.	19. Yet they are angry, we call for a fuller Declaration of themselves, Ep. to the Way, p. 1. and Ep. to Way cleared, p. 2.
20. It is generally asserted by them, that one Church hath not power to censure another.	20. A Synod hath power to determine to withdraw communion from them, if they cannot heal them. The Keys, p. 25.	20. A sentence of Non-communion denounced against whole Churches. Apol. Nar. p. 18, 19. If a sentence denounced, it is a censure.
21. We say, Instituted privileges and ordinances do not immediately flow from spiritual union and relation to Christ and his members, &c. Def. or 9. portions. p. 76. He must come at them in a right order, i. e. the party must be a member pf a particular Congregation Surv. par. 2. p. 65.	21. Then it follows, that Hearing the Word preached, Singing of Psalms and Baptism, belong not to any but to such as are members of a particular Congregation. And yet they say, ordinary hearing is no sign of a Church-member. Sur. par. 1. p. 18.	21. A person hath his first right to a Sacrament (and so to other Ordinances) because he hath an interest in the Covenant of the Gospel, Survey par. 2. 65.