Vindiciæ clavium: or, A vindication of the keyes of the kingdome of Heaven, into the hands of the right owners. Being some animadversions upon a tract of Mr. I.C. called, The keyes of the kingdome of Heaven. As also upon another tract of his, called, The way of the churches of Nevv-England. Manifesting; 1. The weaknesse of his proofes. 2. The contradictions to himselfe, and others. 3. The middle-way (so called) of Independents, to be the extreme, or by-way of the Brownists. / By an earnest well-wisher to the truth.

CHAP. IV. Of the Subject of Church-Liberty.

THis Key is given to the Brethen of the Church; for so faith the Apostle, Gal. 5.23. Brethren you are called unto liberty] Concerning the vindication of that Text enough hath been said above. Be∣fore

you come to the particulars of their liberties, you Rhe∣toricate a little, to make it more passable. [As in the common∣wealth, the welfare of it stands in the due ballancing of the li∣berties or priviledges of the people, and the authority of the Ma∣gistrate: so in the Church, the safety of it is in the right or∣dering of the priviledges of the Brethren, and the ministe∣riall authority of the Elders.] All this is granted: But the right ballancing of either, lyes not in the multitude of the people, as having any immediate influence into the govern∣ment of Church or State: For then the government of both were Democraticall. But as in our State, the ballancing of the priviledges of the people, and the authority of the Magi∣strate supreme, lyes in the authority of the Parliament; where there are Knights and Burgesses representing the peo∣ple: so, I thinke it is in the Church; the ballancing of the Brethrens priviledges, and the Ministers authority, seemes to lye in the Ruling-Elders, who are the representatives of the people. But take away this ballast or poise of the govern∣ment, and it will be either absolutely Monarchicall, and so easily Tyrannicall, or else Democraticall, and so lyable to Anarchy and confusion, as experience shewes us, in the Papall and Episcopall tyranny, and the Separatists Anarchy; the two extremes before observed. But let us take a view of the par∣ticulars. Their Liberties are;

1. [To chuse their owne Officers: so Acts 1. and 6. and 14.] In generall I answer thus: The election of the people, was no more but a designation, or propounding the persons, and presenting them to the Apostles, not by way of vote or suf∣frage, but by way of desire, if they were found fit, to have one or some of them ordained. But this is little or nothing to the power of the Keyes. That place Acts 1. was an extra∣ordinary case, wherein the people had little or no hand:

For 1. they were confined to some sort of men, hat had con∣versed with our Saviour. 2. They propounded two, it was not in their power so much as to nominate the particular man. 3. The Lord himselfe determined it, and not the Apostles, much lesse the people; As for that word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, stood upon, it cannot be properly taken, as if they by their votes or suffrages, had constituted or ordai∣ned Mathias to be an Apostle, but barely thus: Seeing God had chosen and ordained him, they accepted him by an or∣derly subjection to the revealed will of Christ. For the se∣cond, Acts 6. It was expedient, that the people should at least have the nomination of their Deacons, because better knowne to them, and so better to be trusted with their owne stocke. But they did but nominate or present the men, they did not ordaine so much as a Deacon; [Looke you out seven men, whom we (marke it) may appoint, or ordaine to this bu∣sinesse.] It is never found in all the New Testament, that ever the people ordained or imposed hands upon any Officer; which makes me wonder at the liberty taken by Separatists, and allowed and practised by your self;* 1.1 [That the Church or Brethren without Officers, may not only elect, but ordaine and impose hands upon their highest Officers.] As for the third place, Acts 14.23. The word cannot be well rendred: [They ordained them Elders, chosen by lifting up of hands:] For it is not to be referred to the people, but to Paul and Barnabas: who surely did not ordaine Elders by lifting up, but by lay∣ing on of hands. And so taken, it excludes the people; for the Substantive to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is Paul and Barnabas: If they chose the Elders by lifting up of hands, then the people are excepted, not only from ordination of their Officers, but from election too, by this Text. But further: some of your Brethren hold, that election is the chiefest peece of a Mini∣sters

calling, and ordination, but a complement to the solem∣nity of it: And if so, the people doe ordaine them as well as elect, and thats more then a liberty, even as full authority as the Brownists give to the people: Your selfe doe ac∣knowledge some where,* 1.2 that [Ordination is a worke of Rule,] And yet you say also,* 1.3 [That the Brethren may ordaine their Officers;] Therefore the people have more than a key of liberty,* 1.4 they have a key of rule and authority; which yet againe you doe reserve as proper to the Elders. Consider how you can reconcile the contradictions. That the people have a liberty, justly to except, or rationally, to approve of their Officers, is granted; but this is (I still say) nothing to the power of the Keyes, which consists in Ordination of Officers chosen, not in the election of Officers to be ordained.

2. The second liberty of the people is, [To send out mes∣sengers for the publicke service of the Church, Phil. 2.25.] This may be granted a liberty, but nothing to the power of the keyes: People may assent to, or approve of the reasonable choice of messengers to be sent forth, just as poore Cottiers in the Countrey, that have no votes in the election of their Knights and Burgesses, have yet a consent and approbation to send them to the Parliament.

3. A third Liberty▪ [To accept against such as offer them∣selves to communion, or unto the seales of it, Acts 9.26.] This is nothing more to the power of the keyes, than the former. Any woman may in a scandall, except against any that offers to partake of the Sacrament, by way of infor∣mation to the Officers; yet hath no interest in the keyes.

4. A fourth: [To joyne with the Elders, in inquiring, hearing, judging of publick scandals, so as to bind notorious offendors under censures, and to forgive the penitens.] If this be not aequivocaly spoken, it is certainly more then a liberty.

That they may enquire for their own satisfaction, and heare by way of presence, is a liberty not to be denyed. But if you meane any more, it is more then a liberty, an act of rule and authority. Heare your owne words, spoken with respect to Bishops, but will better fit our purpose:* 1.5 [If the Holy-Ghost had appointed the people to any share in the keyes, he would have appointed them also some eminent worke. But what shall that be? Shall it be Ordination? Why that is a work of Rule: Or shall it be hearing accusations against Elders, and censuring them accordingly? Why that is a worke of Rule also.] Let me adde, shall it be judging of publick scandals, so as to bind notorious offendors under censure? Why, that is a worke of Rule also. And consider now, whether they have not a key of authority, as full as the Elders themselves. If you meane a judgement of discretion only, which all the multitude have at an Assizes, it is just nothing to the purpose; a stranger, none of the Congregation, a woman, an heathen may doe as much. But you say, [The Apostle alloweth to all the Bre∣thren a power to judge them that are within, 1 Cor. 5.22.] But either this is fallacious; There was a power in the Church of Corinth, to judge those within; ergo, this power was in the people, or else it is false, if meant of authoritative judgement; or if only a judgement of discretion, it is quite besides the question. But you fearing an objection, prevent it, to judge is an act of Rule, which is proper to the El∣ders: you answer, [There is a judgement of discretion; As in the Iury it is an act of their popular liberty, in the Iudge an act of judiciall authority.] To this I have many things to say: 1. A judgement of discretion will not serve your turne; for that (as I said) is common to all the people at an Assizes; and that is common to women, and heathens, if present, at your Consistories; and if this be all, what difference is there

between the judgement of a woman, an heathen, and of one of your Church-members. 2. The judgement of the Iury is in∣deed an act of popular liberty; but not of their liberty, more than of those that are not of the Iury. For I aske, why are not all the rest of the people, whom it concernes as much as those twelve men of the Iury, admitted to the same judge∣ment with them? Are not they wronged in point of popular liberty? would not you say, [The Brethren not admitted to the hearing and judging of an offender, were wronged, if only twelve of the Congregation were designed to heare and judge him.]* 1.6] 3. The judgement of the Iury, is more than of dis∣cretion (so all by-standers judge) even of authority, in some degree and kind, though not compleat: For they condemne, or acquit the party, which all the rest together cannot doe. 4. The Iudge, I take it, may not condemne who they acquit, nor acquit whom they condemne, (except by a speciall in∣dulgence) and thats farre more than a judgement of discre∣tion in the Iury. If it be so with the Brethren here (as the Epistolers say it is) certainly they have more than a judgement of discretion: But your selfe say as much; you give the Brethren, not only joyned with their Elders, but without any Officers at all, full power to censure offenders: Remember your owne words;* 1.7 [As for mutuall instruction, and admis∣sion, election, and ordination of officers, opening the doores of the Church, by admission of members, and shutting the same by Church-censures: These things they may doe (if need be) without Officers: yea, and if all their Officers were found cul∣pable, either in hereticall doctrine, or scandalous crime, yet the Church hath lawfull authority to proceed to the censure of them all.] If this be not as full or more authority than the Elders have over all the Brethren, I professe, I understand nothing in this controversie: yet this I understand, that you

speake cleare otherwise sometimes; denying the Brethren any rule or authority, reserving it only to the Elders: As if you meant no more, but that the people did but yeeld con∣sent to the judgement of their Elders, by obedience to the will of Christ, and many such like words. 5. But to the point in hand: The Iury then doth not represent the Brethren, but the Ruling Elders; which ruling Elders stand in stead of all the Brethren, as the Iury doth in stead of all the people; and so the priviledge of the people is saved. Otherwise, all the people should be of the Iury, as all the Congregation are al∣lowed by you, and others, to be Iudges of the offender. And the truth is, it is a liberty or priviledge to the party that is arraigned, that he may be judged by his Peeres; It is not a liberty of the Iury: So it is a priviledge for any accused brother, that he shall be tryed and judged by his Peeres, the ruling-Elders: It is no priviledge of the rest of the Brethren to be his Iudges; as it is no priviledge of all the people at the Assizes, that they may claime a place in the Iury. 6. That which you adde, that there is great difference between the Iudge and Iury: [For (say you) though the Iury have given up their verdict, yet the malefactor is not thereupon legally condemned, much lesse executed, but upon the sentence of the Iudge.] This being rightly paralelld, will make against you: so, though the ruling-Elders (representing the people,) give up their votes and judgement; yet the party is not excom∣municated, but upon the sentence of the Pastor. And indeed, the Iury rather seeme to acquit or condemne, than the Iudge; he doth but pronounce the sentence, as they have adjudged it: so the ruling-Elders, being more in number, by votes de∣termine the cause, which is pronounced by the Pastor, and so the paralell is faire and full. But that all the people at the Assizes should give up their verdict, as well as the Iury, is not

in practise in the Common-wealth; and so spoiles the pa∣ralell of the votes of all the Brethren in the Church. And yet you persist to say: [The whole Church may be said to bind and loose, in that they consent and concurre with the Elders, both in discerning it to be just, and in declaring their judgement, by lifting up of hands, or by silence, and after, by rejecting the party, &c.] Iust as all the people at an Assizes, may be said to condemne or acquit, because they consent with the Iudge and Iury, both by discerning it to be just, and in declaring their judgement, by lifting up their hands, or by silence, and after, by rejecting the party. But what if the people doe not consent (as discerning it not to be just) nor will reject the party? Is he then acquitted? Thus it must be, or it holds not proportion with the case in hand: For if the Brethren doe no more but approve and execute the sentence of the Presbytery, this is just nothing to the power of the keyes, intended to be given them, and is a meere passive priviledge. And that you may see your owne inconstancy, consider what you say elsewhere, page 11. [The Brethren stand in an Order, even in an orderly subjection, according to the order of the Gospell page 15. They give consent, in obedience to the will of Christ, page 37. They (the people) discerning the light and truth, readily yeeld obedience to their overseers, page 41. That they may consent to the judgement and sentence of the Elders.] Had you kept your selfe constant to these expressions, you had both preserved the truth of the Gospell, and the peace of the Church.

And now for a conclusion of this Section; Let me urge you with an argument of your owne, against Episcopacy. page 39. [Hierome sayes, the Churches were governed by the Common-councell of the Presbyters]* 1.8 The Prelates evasion is, [By their counsell asked, not followed:] You answer:

This would imply a contradiction to Hieromes words: For in asking their counsell, and not following it, the Bishop should go∣vern the church against their Councel, which is a contradiction.] So say I: The Church (say you) is governed by the con∣sent of the Brethren: I aske, whether you meane their coun∣sell and consent asked only, or followed also. If the later, then the Brethren have as full authority with the Elders, as the Presbyter, had with the Bishop: If the former, it is a contradiction, to say, The Church is governed by the con∣sent of the Brethren, and yet is governed against their con∣sent; so that the question clearly stated is this: [Whether the Brethren have such concurrence and consent, as that they have a negative vote, or casting voice:] If they have, its that popular Anarchy, of you know whom: If not, its nothing to the power of the Keyes. Only, let me but remember you what elsewhere you say, concerning the peoples power in government of the Church:* 1.9 [In case the Officers doe erre, and commit offence, they shall be governed by the whole body of the Brethren; though otherwise, the Brethren are bound to obey and submit to them in the Lord.] How you can recon∣cile these things I know not.

But now you propound a sad question: [Whether the Church hath power of proceeding to the utmost censure of their whole Presbytery.] Before I take your answer, I observe 1. That you might have made the question also, whether the Presbytery hath power to proceed to the utmost censure of the Church, and the Brethren the Epistolers, resolve both negatively, Epist. p. 4. 2. That you suppose here, that the Church may proceed to some, though not to the utmost censure of their Presbytery; and that (as you would seeme to deny it in your answer, so) is more than liberty, it is a great degree of Authority, not only over one of your members,

but over your Overseers: And now I shall view your an∣swer.

1. Answ. [It cannot (say you) be well conceived, that the whole Presbytery should be proceeded against, because some, a strong party perhaps, will side with them, and then the Church ought not to proceed, without consulting with the Synod.] Reply. But 1. this is besides the question, which supposes the whole Presbytery, and the whole Church opposed; and so your answer may seeme to intimate, that if none did side with them, the Church might proceed against them, and that to the utmost censure; but only in a dissension of the Church, they may not. 2. If in any case, they ought not to proceed, doth not this destroy their independency, if they must fly to a Synod? No (say you) they ought only to con∣sult the Synod. But if the Synod have no power to deter∣mine, and censure, they are still but where they were. What if the Presbytery or Church will not submit to their deter∣mination, or Declaration? (for it is no more) what remedy hath the Church against their erring, hereticall, scandalous Presbytery? If the Synod have a power of censure, then againe you destroy your Independency: No; [The Church may withdraw from them:] So they might before they con∣sulted the Synod; nay, they were bound to doe it in your way, without consulting the Synod. But you may call to mind your former thoughts. In your other Tract, you give them full power [to censure their Officers without any Officers;] as hath more then once been said above.

And thus your second answer is also answered alrea∣dy. You say, [Excommunication is one of the highest acts of Rule,* 1.10 and ergo, cannot be performed but by some Ru∣lers;] Yet you contradict this f••••••ly, in your other Tract, when you say; [In case of offence given by an Elder,

or by the whole Eldership together, the Church hath Authority, (marke that, Authority, which in this Booke you oft deny) to require satisfaction of them; and if they doe not give due satisfaction, to proceed to censure according to the quality of the offence.] And yet (which is strange, me thinks) here you resolve the cleane contrary: [The Church cannot excommu∣nicate the whole Presbytery, because they have not received from Christ an office of Rule, without their Officers.] But now if this reason be good, then on the other side it might seeme reasonable; That the Presbytery might excommunicate the whole Church Apostate, because they have received from Christ an office of Rule, without the Church: No, say you, [They must tell the Church, and joyne with the Church in that censure.] But this is to say and unsay: For if the Church must joyne with them, then the Church hath received some peece of an Office of Rule, which was before denyed: If you say, they have not received any Office of Rule, without their Officers; This may imply, that with their Officers they have received an Office of Rule, which all this while you have seemed to deny, allowing them a Liberty, but no Rule or Authority. And whereas you say; [They must tell the Church, but that cannot be, when the Church is Apostate:] I rejoyne, this makes it reasonable to me, That there is ano∣ther Church, to which they must tell the offence, by way of appeale; or else, both an erring Presbytery, or an Apostate Church, have no remedy to recover them, instituted by Christ; and so the Church, a multitude, or a Presby∣tery, is not so well provided for, as one particular mem∣ber.

But you have found a remedy; [The Church wants not li∣berty to withdraw from them.] Is not this even tantamount with excommunication? Is it not the execution of that

sentence, to withdraw, especially in your way. Excommuni∣cation is the contrary to communion. Now how doth the Church communicate their Elders? Take your owne words: [As they set up the Presbytery,* 1.11 by professing their subjection to them in the Lord: so they avoid them (that is, in sense, excommunicate them) by professed withdrawing their subje∣ction from them, according to God] And this is as much as any people doe, or need to doe, to persons excommunicate; unlesse you grant them a power to the very Act and decree of excommunication; which as you have clearly done in your other Tract, so you doe here, giving them a power more than Ministeriall, even a Kingly, and more than a King∣ly power, when you say; [They rule the Church, by appoin∣ting their owne Officers, and likewise in censuring offenders, not only by their Officers (which is as much as Kings are wont to doe) but also by their owne Royall assent, which Kings are not wont to doe, but only in the execution of Nobles.] Satis pro imperio.

5. The last Liberty of the Church, is Liberty of communion with other Churches, which is seven wayes exercised, &c.] To this I say in generall: This is rather communion of Saints, than communion of Churches; because in your way, every Church is independent, and hath no Church-state, in relation to any, but its owne members. We suppose this communion is the liberty or priviledge of every Christian, by vertue of his interest in the generall visible Church, and not by any peculiar interest in a particular Congregation. He that is a professed Christian, and baptized, hath a right to all the Or∣dinances of God, where ever he find them; As of old, he that was a Citizen of Rome, or so borne, was a freeman, through all the Romane Empire, and enjoyed the privi∣ledges of a Roman. A Christian is a free Deacon in any

part of the Christian world; [A Citizen with the Saints, and of the houshold of God, Eph. 2.19.] And this to me seemes reasonable upon these grounds: 1. Because every Christian, not yet in a particular Church, or Congregation, is at liberty to joyne himselfe to any Church, tyed by no obligation to one more than another. 2. Because it is lawfull for any member of a particular Church, upon just reasons to leave that Church, and to joyne himselfe to another, and nothing can hinder his removall or communion with another Church, except he be scandalous, &c. 3. It was the cu∣stome of the first times, before Congregations were fixed, to adde them to the visible Church, were their number les∣ser or greater, and give them communion in all the Ordi∣nances of Christ. 4. Because the whole visible Church is but one City, one Kingdome, though for orders sake, divi∣ded into severall Corporations. It is not so in civill respects; A Citizen of one Corporation, cannot goe and set up trade in another, because they have their severall Charters: But in the City of God, the Kingdome of Christ, there is but one Charter for all; and no more is required to admit a man a member of any Congregation, but that he professe him∣selfe a Christian, and live accordingly. Your New Cove∣nant to tye men to your particular Church, that he may not remove, without a generall leave, will, I feare, prove a snare and a tyranny, worse than yet we can imagine.

1. But come we to your particulars: [First, by way of par∣ticipation of the Lords Supper, the members of one Church comming to another Church, &c.] But 1. Why doe you in∣stance in this Ordinance only? Have not their children oc∣casionally borne there, a liberty also of Baptisme?* 1.12 The ra∣ther, because Baptisme is not administred with respect to this or that Church, but to the generall visible Church:

Unlesse you hold, that a man or childe is baptized to no Church, but that particular, and an Infidell to all the rest. Yet some of your brethren will hardly baptize a childe of any, but a member of their owne Church, which is next doore to Anabaptisme. 2. I aske by what power of the keyes, doe your Pastors admit a member of another Church, to par∣take of the Lords Supper, in yours? Or in what relation doth your Pastor stand to that member of another Church? You say, Pastor and Church are relates, and he is a Pastor to none but of his owne Church: Either then, to administer the Lords Supper to a member of another Church, is no Pastorall act, but may be done by a gifted brother: Or else, a Pastor and his Church are not so relates, but that he is a Pastor be∣yond the limits of his owne Congregation, which yet you doe deny. 3. You are also very sparing in granting this li∣berty: For you adde; [In case, neither himselfe, nor the Church from whence he comes, doe lye under any publicke of∣fence.] But what if that party be free from the guilt of that offence? Shall the innocent suffer for the nocent? what charity, what justice is in this? 4. But your reason I like very well: [For we receive the Lords Supper, not only as a Seale of our Communion with the Lord Iesus, and with his members in our owne Church, but also in all the Churches of the Saints:] Whence I inferre, then it is not any favour dispensed by you, to a member of another Church, but a dignity or privi∣ledge, common to every member of that body, by vertue of that membership, and not with respect to his particular Church membership. And I pray, is not Baptisme also a Seale of our Communion, with all the members of Christs body? Why then may you not admit the children of the members of any Church, to be baptized by your Pastors, upon just occasion, as well as to admit the parents to the

Lords Supper? Nay further: If the Sacraments be Seales of our communion with all the members of Christ, why doe you not admit any true Christian, and his children, to the communion of the Sacraments, though they be not as yet admitted members of any particular Congregation? How dare you deny any member of that Body, communion with its fellow-members, when it hath union and communion with the Head? Consider it.

2. A second way of your communion of Churches, is, [By way of recommendation as Paul in the behalfe of Phoebe, &c.] But this is so farre from being any part of the power of the Keyes, that it is a duty, which a Church or party owe to any Christian that is godly, not by vertue of any parti∣cular Church-membership, but by the common interest of Christianity; yea, by the common right of humanity, even to an honest Heathen, according to the ninth Commande∣ment, which requires us, to beare true witnesse to our brother, if we be thereto required. The letters are only declarative, of the good behaviour of the party, occasioned to remove to such a place. Was this (thinke you) a part of the power of the Keyes, delivered to Peter, and the rest of the Apostles? Besides, if there be any vertue in these letters, to admit a member into communion, is there not a like vertue in them, to excommunicate one ungodly? And if these letters di∣missory have power to admit a member of one Church, to be a member of another, without any new covenanting, have they not the like power to admit the Pastor of one Church, to be a Pastor of another Church, without any new Ordina∣tion? which yet, I beleeve, you doe not practise.

3. [By way of Consultation; and 4 by Congregation into a Synod.] But what is all this to the power of the Keyes? If upon Congregation, and consultation of other Church-Officers,

there be not a binding power, it is rather a latch of a doore, which may be opened and shut at any bodies pleasure, than a Key to let in, or locke out with any Au∣thority. But of the power of Synods more hereafter.

4. A fifth way is: [The liberty of giving and receiving mutuall supplyes one from another; gifted men, or benevolen∣ces, &c.] I conceive first, these are rather duties of common charity, than of Church liberty, or any power of the Keyes: And I desire to know what those gifted men were, that the Church of Antioch sent to other Countries? Were they not Apostles, or Prophets, or Teachers in Office? Then they were Pastors or Teachers by Office, before they were sent, before they were elected or ordained by the Churches to which they were sent. Thereupon it followes, that a Pastor or Teacher (because you may say a Pastor relates to his owne flocke) a Teacher (so was Barnabas, Acts 13.1.) is a Teacher to the generall visible Church, not to the particular Church only, as you hold. And then againe, a Teacher, quâ Tea∣cher, may preach to another Church, and convert Hea∣thens; and not as a gifted brother only, as you sometimes speake.

A sixth way is, [By way of mutuall admonition, when a publicke offence is found amongst them: One Church may send to admonish another, and if that Church will not heare, take two or three other Churches; and if not heare them, then withdraw, &c.] This admonition is a duty of every brother, at least of every Christian, as a Christian, and no power of the Keyes at all: And let it be considered, that the place, Matth. 18.15, 16.* 1.13 doth not make the admonition of one or more brethren, any power of the Keyes, but a duty only con∣cerning every man, in order to the censure of the Church: But if one or more Churches may proceed with a Church-offending,

as private persons with an offending brother; why may they not take the third step, as the last remedy, to ex∣communicate her, being obstinate, as the Church doth an ob∣stinate b••o her? No; [Because the Churches are all of equall authority:] But so are all the members of a Congregation of equall authority, yet the whole may excommunicate him: And if there be as much Church-communion between Chur∣ches, as there is between members of a particular Congre∣gation; I see no reason, why many Churches assembled in a Synod, may not as well excommunicate an obstinate Church, as a Congregation, a particular member. If you deny excommunication of a Church, others will (and doe) deny excommunication of a member, and say, non-commu∣nion, or withdrawing is as much as can be done. And if you say, the Churches may withdraw communion; I demand, first, what is that in effect, but excommunication, wanting only a Synodicall Decree; yet page 25. you say, [A Synod hath power to determine, to withdraw communion from an offen∣ding Church:] And is it any more in the excommunic••tion of an offending brother? They doe but determine all shall withdraw communion from him. This is therefore but a meere Logom••chie.

6. The last way of Communion of Churches, is, [by way of prop••gation, or multiplication of Churches:] But 1. This is rather a division of Churches, than either propaga∣tion, or multiplication: For these very Churches were be∣fore all one Church, now only divided into two The Apo∣stles and the first Planters, did not thus propagate Churches; but went into places, where no Churches were, no Christi∣ans, and there gathered and multiplyed Churches. We have enough of this division of Churches, (since your way set up) but little of the propagation or multiplication. Primi∣tive

and Apostolicall. For I pray Sir, tell us, next time you write over, how many Churches have you multiplyed a∣mongst the Indians in New-England? Not one, that I ever heard of: You have d vided Churches indeed, from old Eng∣land, but propagated none. And our Brethren at home, how many Churches have they divided and d••stracted since their returne, but have multiplyed none? If some new Teachers should arise in New England, and gather (or rather steale) some members out of every of your Congregations, would you call this multiplication of Churches, or rather division? Had you gone into New England, and sent out your Pastors, (who are by calling, spirituall Fathers) to convert Indians, (as was pretended) or our Brethren here gone and sent into Wales, and other parts, little better than heathens, and con∣verted them, and had gathered them into Churches, this had been a propagation of Churches indeed. But this they doe not, nor will doe, nor well can doe: For their opinion is, (and yours too in New England) that no Pastor is a Pastor to any, but his particular Congregation: so their Pastors are only Nurses to give sucke, not spirituall Fathers, to propa∣gate and beget children to God and his Church. That they leave to every gifted brother, to raise up seed to their Bre∣thren, and not to themselves. For if once the children be borne, and a little growne up, then these (Fathers in Law) take them up, or rather steale them from them, who have spent their strength in begetting, and breeding them, travel∣ling in paine, till Christ was formed in them. But if a Pa∣stor and flocke be relates, is a Teacher so too? They may doe well then to send Teachers to beget children for their Pastors; lest it be said: [No man in Office hath any skill, or will, or power, to propagate but only to divide Churches.]

Againe, why doe you call this a power of the Keyes; for a

Church to send out a Congregation (as an Hive doth a swarm) when they are too full? This is their liberty, not yours. They have power without you, to gather themselves to∣gether, and to enter into a Church-way, and to chuse their Officers, and doe all, as well as you had.

Lastly, if Pastors, quâ Pastors, or Teachers, quâ Teachers, are tyed to a particular Congregation, then cannot they pro∣pigate Churches; only gifted Brethren can doe that: And so gifted Brethren, not Pastors and Teachers, are the Succes∣sors of the Apostles: We thinke Pastors and Teachers are Officers to the whole Church as the Apostles were; You will say, then they are Apostles: First, will you say your gifted Brethren are Apostles, because they goe abroad to convert and propagate Churches? Secondly, it followes not; That which made the Apostles differ from the Pa∣stors, is delivered by your selfe, to stand in two things: 1.* 1.14 [That an Apostle had in him in all ministeriall power of all the Officers of the Church. 2. That Apostolicall power exten∣ded to all Churches as much as to any one.] But withall you say, [That this power conjoyned in them, is now divided by them, amongst all the Churches, and all the Officers of the Churches respectively.] I aske then, what Officer of the Church hath power to plant and propagate Churches? Your gifted Brethren are no Officers of the Church: I hope, Ruling Elders and Deacons are tyed as well to their particular Churches, as the Pastors and Teachers; ergo, it must fall upon the Pastors and Teachers, or there is no such thing now, as propagation of Churches. But take once more your owne grant in this Paragraph, where now we are: [Though the Apostles be dead, whose Office it was to plant and gather Churches; yet the worke is not dead, but the same power of the Keyes is left with the Churches in common, &c.] Marke, first,

you call it a power of the keyes, to plant and gather Churches, and an Office of the Apostles: But this power of the Keyes, this Office is not bequeathed to gifted Brethren, nor to Ruling-Elders, or Deacons; ergo, it is left to the Pastors or Teachers. Next, you say, the same power of the Keyes is left with the Churches in common: You should say, with the Pastors or Teachers of the Church, or with the Chur∣ches indeed, but in the hands of her Officers: Otherwise, you make not only the brethren, but sisters too (according to their measure, as you speake) Fathers and Mothers [To propagate and inlarge the Kingdome of Christ, throughout all generations, as God shall give opportunity.] But were it so, yet then much more would it concerne the Pastors and Teachers (the Successors of the Apostles, if they have any at all) to propagate and inlarge the Kingdome of Christ, as God shall give opportunity.

Notes

• * 1.1

  The way, p. 41.
• * 1.2

  The way, p. 48.
• * 1.3

  Ibid. 45.
• * 1.4

  The Keyes, p. 8. and often. Ordination & jurisdiction pertaine indif∣ferently to all the Presbyters. The way, p. 49
• * 1.5

  The way, p. 48.
• * 1.6

  In our native Countrey, the Iudge dispen∣ses no sen∣tence, but ac∣cording to the verdict of the Iury, &c. The way, p. 102.
• * 1.7

  The way, p. 45, 101.
• * 1.8

  That nothing was done without their counsell, im∣plyeth, that no∣thing was done without their authori∣ty. The way, page 31.
• * 1.9

  The way, p. 100.
• * 1.10

  The way, p. 101.
• * 1.11

  The Keyes, p 17.
• * 1.12

  Where neither of the parents can claim right to the Lords Supper; there their Infants cannot claime right to Bap∣tisme. The way, p. 81. Nor the childe of an excommu∣nicate person, p. 85.
• * 1.13

  Those two or three are not considered as a Church-body, but as a sufficient num∣ber of witnes∣ses, to joyne with a bro∣ther offended, &c. agreeing in a duty of brotherly love, &c. The way, p. 53.
• * 1.14

  The Keyes, p. 32.