members both at once So soon as there were members enough to make a Church they ordained them Elders and made them a politicall Church If not so yet the Apostles Paul and Barnabas were Officers to them before Catholick Officers to them as yet members only of the Catholick Church and now they being to depart ordained them Elders in their stead and made them particular politicall Churches If those members were not confederate by consent whereof the Scripture saies nothing they themselves say they were not a Church but only Materials of a Church and so members of the Catholike Church only or of none I shall say something more to this in another place I prescribe not to any mans judgement but submit it to consideration and proceed 2. The Officers of the Church 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 Saviour alluding to that custome amongst the Jews and not relating to a Congregationall 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. How the Keys are given to the Church whether 3. It is to be considered in this question when the Keys are said to be given to the Church which is never said expresly in Scripture how they are understood to be given to the Church Whether 1. Objectivè 1. Objectivè 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. Subjectivè 2. Subjectivè that the Church is the Subject Recipient to imploy and exercise the Keys and this either immediatly by her self in whole or in part without Officers or mediatly 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 immediatly Christ hath committed the Keys for the good of the Church as sight is immediatly intrusted 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 Catholike visible Church or to a particular Congregation The Question then is clearly this Whether the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven be given subjectivè to the Church-Catholike in her Officers on the particular Congregation without or with her Officers And now we shall consider what you resolve upon this question Thus you assert The Church to which the Lord Jesus committed the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven Matth. 16.29 is caetus Fidelium commonly called a particular visible Church c. To which I answered not as an Avenger there is not the least colour of that but as an Assertor giving also my reasons 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 in vers 18. But that was either the Catholike visible Church or rather the Invisible mysticall 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 Saviour would intend it onely of a particular Congregation but of the Catholike Church for that is primarily Christs 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 farre more colour 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 Catholike 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 onely upon this rock and not rather the Catholike Church and the particular secondarily as a member thereof It may be a question between the Invisible and Visible Catholike Church which is meant there as after but none till of late so much as made the question betwixt the Catholike and particular Church 2. Peter was an Apostle and had given to him the Keyes of the Catholike Church not of any particular Church for he and so his fellow-fellow-Apostles were never Pastors of any particular Church therefore it seems more reasonable that the Catholike Church is there meant They had habitually the Keyes of particular Churches in the Catholike as Pastors have habitually the Keyes of the Catholike Church in a particular They were actually Elders of the whole Church as Pastors are actually Elders of a particular Church 3. The Keyes 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 Keyes 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 Keyes were given to the Family was Peter the Church to whom the Keyes 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 The Church or Congregation of professed believers received that portion also of Church-power The Keys pag. 5. which belonged unto them if not there that is in this text in hand yet elsewhere 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 Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven that is of the Church and to mean I give to the Church the Keyes of the Church I said therefore and I think truly that of all the rest this is the most improbable sense of our Saviours words that it is a particular Church to which the Keyes were given Matth. 26.19 It must then be taken of the Catholike Church either Invisible or Visible or none But you are pleased to take away the subject of this question denying any Catholike visible Church For say you I do not read that the Scripture any where acknowledges a Catholike visible Church at all 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
The Church before Christs 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 Abrahams time After that this was laid as the foundation In thy seed shall all the nations be blessed c. But the Christian or Evangelical Church is built upon this Gospel-foundation or Truth Truth That this particular person Jesus Christ is the Sonne of God and that Messiah which was to come So the woman of Samaria Joh. 4.29 Is not this the Christ and vers 42. We know that this is indeed the Christ the Saviour of the world In like manner the Eunuch Act. 8.37 If thou beleevest thou mayst And he answered and said I beleeve that Jesus Christ is the Son of God And upon this rock or Jesus Christ so confessed was every particular * Women also as well as men 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 your self seem to agree with me when you say Indeed true it is that Peter and other Preachers of the Gospel have received such a power of the Keys to open to beleevers a door into the invisible Church c 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 Catholike 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 profest beleevers into the Catholike visible Church as well as into a particular visible Church But be it meant of the invisible or visible Catholike 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 Certain it is that when by the power of the Keys a beleever is received into the invisible Church he can never be shut again out of that Church but the Keys here given to Peter have power to shut out of the Kingdom of heaven even the same persons And therefore the the Kingdom of heaven is not meant only of the invisible Church I pray Sir should not your conclusion be from those premises Therefore the Kingdom of heaven is not meant at all of the invisible Church 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 Whatsoever thou shalt binde on earth shall be bound in heaven If so then your proposition is not true That a beleever 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 It may truly be said whosoever is bound or loosed in any one particular Church is also bound in the Kingdom of glory 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 beleever be excommunicated for some crime he is for a time suspended from the Kingdom of Heaven See M. Hookers Survey part 1. p. 204. Sâ—ct Visible Saints 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 it self seems to justifie it when it sayes whatsoever is bound on earth shall be bound in heaven 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 It is not true that the Invisible Church onely built upon 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 c. Before I answer I must distinguish of those words built upon a rock which not observed cause confusion in this present businesse 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 elswhere 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 Sonne of God and the Messiah as he was by Peter professed to be upon my self so confessed will I build my Church as Mr. Hooker expoundeth it above 2. What it is to be built upon the rock Vide D. Ames Medul lib. 1. c. 5. â— s 11. It is either by internall union with Christ as the rock and foundation or by externall profession as your self insinuate to me the distinction pag. 7. when you say if they degenerate they were never founded upon Christ but in an outward form And now I shall ingeniously acknowledge my self not distinct enough when I said It is the Invisible Church which is built upon the rock c. and do confesse my self beholden to Mr. Ruth and Mr. Hooker for this light and now see that the visible Church also is built upon the rock Onely I differ from Mr. Hooker in this that be by visible Church means only a particular Church but I the Catholike 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 See part 2. pa 24. your own words It is readily c. for Internall union with him then the Invisible Church onely 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 adde that it must not be restrained to a particular Church against which the gates of hell have prevailed which contradicts our Saviours promise but declared to the Catholike visible Church existing in
distinction of heaven and earth respects the whole Church rather then any particular Church 2. And this your second Answer implies You did not mean it in any one single Congregation on earth but generally and indefinitely in every particular Church on earth for every Apostle had transcendent power in every particular Church on earth But 1. why may you not say as well generally in the whole Catholike Church on earth seeing Peter received power to binde 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 Beleevers to challenge power of the Keys from this Text in all particular Congregations Sure they have not transcendent power indefinitely much lesse 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 beleever Not as an Apostle or Elder that you denied in the way Not as a Beleever 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 Catholike visible Church as contra-distinguished to the Kingdome 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 Logick and tell me there is a fallacy in such arguing to be left to Sophisters or used when I will refresh my wit with young scholars 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 your self where then lies the fallacy The Copula doth connotate Time which it ought not to do c. 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 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 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 weaknesse 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 offence and have it censured but that was never done in a Church of Saints without Officers c. This say you is another passage of Sophistry Here are quatuor termini in this Syllogism might tell an offence and did tell an offence make two different Mediums Make you the Syllogism right as you would have it you make the minor thus But the Church of Saints without Officers was not such to whom an offended brother might tell an offence and have it censured And this you deny But I shall prove it thus 1. From the judgement of your brethren here who say The brethren cannot proceed to any publike censures without Officers Therefore it is to no purpose to tell an offence to a Church of beleevers without Officers 2. From your self who expresly say Excommunication is one of the highest Acts of Rule and therefore cannot be performed but by some Rulers The Keys pag. 16. though I confesse you flatly contradict your self 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 But a Church of Saints without Officers is not such a Church 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 offence 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 What of that say you if a Church of Saints without Officers have power from Christ to elect Officers then also to admit members And if to admit without Officers then to exclude them without Officers 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 your self say None but Officers can admit for none but Officers can baptize or it is at the removall 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 your self 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 brethrens also Excommunication being an Act of Rule cannot be performed but by some Rulers And here I desire you to take notice That a great gâ—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 principall 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 The Way pag. 44. and then par 2. p. 3. Par. 2. pag. 33. that any but Officers can administer Sacraments The major is also your own Assertion in this last book of yours thus you speak I confesse I do not well understand how a man in case of necessity
it immediatly from Christ I desire you would consider whom M. Hooker meant in those words That conceit is more wide from the mark c. 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 beleevers is never called so being but a member of it c. You answer It is not materiall whether it be called so or no it is enough it is called a Church yea as distinguished from Church-Officers Acts 25.22 Suprà pag. 7. 23. c. I gave the sense and rosolution of that Text afore The sum is this it doth not hold a Church of beleevers as existing without Officers for that Church had Officers but only distinguisheth the Integrall parts as your self call them above of that Church into Officers and members The Apostles Elders and whole Church ver 22. that is the brethren or beleevers 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 Keyes to be given to a Church beleevers without Officers and you bring an instance of a Church that had Officers Shew if you can a Church of beleevers existing without Officers which took upon them the name of a Church or the tide of the Kingdom of heaven I yet beleeve whereever 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 labour in his vineyard Or what if that Parable be rather understood of particular persons then particular Congregations God cals 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 beleevers 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 oyl of true grace others have both And the scope of the parable is intimated in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or application ver 23. Watch ye therefore every one of you for you know not the day nor hour when the Son of man cometh 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 faithfull are Kings and Priests and all together are a Kingdom of Priests both Officers and beleevers I suppose you will not apply this either only to the Officers or only to beleevers 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 Christs kingdom as to call London the kingdom of England You answer 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 c. and such a part of such a body is a particular visible Church But such is not the state of London c. You said a little above It was not in your minde to understand any other particular Congregation but one furnished with Officers But then if you will speak properly and strictly you cannot say that a particular Congregation of Officers and beleevers is a similar part of a similar body for it is a dâ—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 your self 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 beleevers 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 shew where I also shew how a particular Church consisting of Officers and beleevers may in a candid sense be said to be a similar body to which I referre 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 businesse you had in hand when you were purposely engaged to answer this Question What are the Keyes 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 The Keys are the Ordinances which Christ hath instituted to be administred in his Church You might afterwards have referred them as you say to their severall subjects But when you adde As the preaching of the Word as also the administration of the Seals and Censures Would not any Reader take it for a full distribution of the Keys And when you adde By the opening and applying of these both