Reply to a Book, Reply · Part 4
The fourth Section examined.
BEfore I proceed to a particular examination of this Section, I will lay doune ſome grounds for declaring the peoples right, in chooſing theyr owne officers, eſpecially Paſtors. Which I will breifely expreſſe in this poſition.
The power of chooſing theyre miniſter is in the wholl Church.The power of freely chooſing worthy Paſtors, and refuſing unworthy ones, is, by Gods ordinance, in the wholl Church.
For the more full declaring thereof, I muſt explicate the termes, and ſhew what I meane, 1 by the wholl Church. 2 by the power of freely chooſing.
Firſt, The word Church, I take, not in a figurative ſenſe, either, Metonomycally, for a Church repreſentative, or Synechdochically, for ſome part of the Church, but, properly, for the wholl body of the Church, ſtanding of people to be taught, and governed, & of teachers, and governours.
Secondly, By the power of freely chooſing, I meane, that no power can limit and determine them, either, in way of reſtraint, to hinder theyr injoyment of one that is fitt for them, when they have, by conſent, choſen him, or, in way of compulſion, to conſtraine them to wave ſuch a choyſe, being made by them, for the putting of ſome other upon them, whom they doe not deſire, or affect.
In boath:Cipry. lib. 1 Epiſt. 68. I intend no other thing then the Affrican Synod intended, in Cyprian, when they ſaid. Plebs maximè habet poteſtatem, vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes, vel indignos recuſandi: quod & ipſum videmus de divinâ authoritate deſcendere, &c. The wholl Church principally hath power, either to chooſe worthy miniſters, or to refuſe thoſe that are unworthy: which very thing we ſee to deſcend upon them by Gods ordinance. To which purpoſe alſo the Profeſſours of Leyden, diſtinguiſhing betweene Election and Ordination,Synopſ. pur. Theol Diſput. 24 Sect. 32. 33. conclude, that jus paſtores eligendi eſt penes Eccleſiam, ac proinde plebi commune cum preſbyteris. Ius eos ordinandi, ſolis preſbyteris eſt proprium, &c. The right of chuſing their paſtors is in the Church, and therefore common to the people with the Elders. The right of ordayning them is proper to the Elders.
Now, that this Aſſertion may be vindicated from the reproach and ſuſpition of Novelty or Singularity,Proved 3. wayes. 1. Text of Scripture. 1. Act. 1.5. v. 23. I will reduce the proofes of it to three heads. 1 Texts of Scripture. 2 Conſent of times. 3 Evidence of Reaſon.
The firſt text is in Act: 1 where, at a meeting of about 120 perſons, the choyſe of one to ſucceed in the place of Iudas being propounded by Peter, the multitude pitched upon two men, Ioſeph ſurnamed luſtus, and Matthias, whom they eſteemed meeteſt for that worke,v. 24.25. in reference to the deſcription which Peter had before given of the man, that might be judged fitt for that miniſtry: having conſidered and concluded of two men, whom they knew, and judged to be ſuch as beſt anſwered that deſcription, they commended them to God in prayer, and, becauſe Apoſtles muſt be immediately called of God, they gave forth lotts, which fell upon Matthias, whom thereupon they numbred with the eleven Apoſtles.v. 26.
Here are three Actors, the Apoſtles calling upon the people to chuſe, and directing them therein, according to the mind of Chriſt; the people freely nominating thoſe whom they judged fitteſt, according to that direction, and leaving that to the Lord which was peculiar and proper to him, in ſuch an extraordinary caſe, to declare immediatly which of thoſe two, whom they had nominated, it pleaſed him to ſett apart to the Apoſtleſhip. Hence I argue, that.
The Apoſtles did not chuſe Ioſeph and Matthias alone, but the wholl Church choſe them, by conſent.
Therefore the choyſe of the Miniſter belongeth, not to ſome few, how learned ſoever, but to the wholl Church.
Ob. 1 What can be excepted againſt this Argument? That the people did not chuſe them, Anſ. but deſired God that he would chuſe one? But 1. ſo much as, in that caſe, could be left to the people, the Lord left to them, viz, the nomination of two, which was an inchoat choyſe, ſeing the full choyſe muſt be made of God immediately, the nature of that office ſo requiring. 2. He ſubſtituted no other power, under himſelfe, above the Church, no, not the Apoſtles themſelves, in that caſe. What then? Ob. 2 That this is an extraordinary caſe, and toucheth not the calling of ordinary Paſtors?Anſ. But, though the choyſe by God immediately ſignified in the uſe of lots is extraordinary, yet the ſuffrage of the people is ordinary. Which ſeing God would not ſuffer to be neglected, in ſuch an extraordinary caſe, much leſſe will he diſpenſe with the rejecting of it ordinarily.
2. Act. 6.1.The ſecond Text is Acts 6 where the multitude (the number of Diſciples being, by this time, increaſed and multiplyed) are called together about the choyſe of a Deacon. In this buiſenes the Apoſtles only directed them,Verſ. 3. according to the mind of Chriſt, what manner of one they ſhould chuſe, leaving them to theyr liberty of chuſing him, whom they judged to be fitteſt for that ſervice,Verſ. 6. whom having choſen, they preſented him to the Apoſtles, and they, without gayn-ſaying, having prayed, layd theyr hands upon them. Hence I argue, in the words of the Affrican Synod, in Cyprian, thus.
Cypr. Epi. 68.If the Apoſtles would not chuſe, even Deacons, without the conſent of the people, much leſſe would they obtrude Paſtors upon them, without their conſent. For there are more & greater cauſes that require the Churches conſent, in the choyſe of Paſtors, then of Deacons.
The third Text is Act. 14, where it is ſayd of Paul,3. Act. 14.23. foreign and Barnabas, that, when they had, by the ſuffrage of the people, choſen Elders in every Church &c. In which place ſome tranſlatours, (in ſtead of choſen by conſent) read ordained, 1. contrary to the uſe of the ſame word, in another Scripture, where themſelves tranſlate the ſame word, in the paſſive particle choſen of the Churches. 2. contrary to the conſent of expoſitours upon that place,2. Cor. 8.19. foreign. as Calvin, Beza, Bullinger, Muſculus, Brentius, Arias Montanus, Eraſmus, &c. 3. contrary to the civill cuſtom, whence that word & practiſe was brought into the Church: it being taken from the cuſtom of the Athenians, in choyſe of their Magiſtrates, which they performed two wayes. 1. By lots, whence they were called foreign 2. By holding up of hands, whence they were called foreign 4. contrary to the nature of the thing:Voet. deſp. cauſ. pap. lib. 2. Sect. 2. cap. 12. 1. Tim. 4.14. Cap. 5.22 for, there election is ſpoken of, which was done with foreign the holding up of hands, not ordination, which was afterwards done with foreign laying on of hands, as if election and ordination were one and the ſame thing, whereas there is as much difference betweene them, as is betweene the Election and Coronation of a King, or the choyſe & inſtallment of a Magiſtrate in his office. This being granted, that the people choſe their Elders by conſent, hence I argue.
In the time of the Apoſtles, the power of chuſing was in the people, without whoſe conſent and preceding choyſe, the Apoſtles obtruded none upon them, by theyre owne Authority, Therefore it ought to be ſo now.
This Argument when the authors of the admonition propounded; D. Whitgift excepted againſt it, ſaying, that, howſoever, in the Apoſtles time, this uſe was of having the conſent of the Church in the choyſe of their Paſtor,Cartw. Reply. par. p. 32. yet now it were pernicious and hurtfull. To whom Mr. Cartwright replyeth breifely, and fitly. See how unaduiſedly you condemne the Churches of Geneva, of all France, and certaine of the German Churches which keepe this order,Idem ibid. p. 33.34.35.36. who alſo in the ſame place fully anſwereth the Archbiſhops five pretended differences betweene thoſe times and theſe, whereunto, for brevityes ſake, I refer the Reader.
So much for the texts of Scripture.
2. Conſent of times.The ſecond proofe of the peoples right to chooſe their Paſtor, is from the conſent of times.
Firſt, For the firſt three hundred yeares, after Chriſt, to Conſtantines time, Eccleſiaſticall hyſtoryes are cleare for it, without contradiction. The Ancients, in the Affrican Synod, in Cyprians time, are expreſſe & full in this point, & they in the Councell of Nice conſent with them herein,Cypr. li. 1. Ep. 4. & 68. Theod: lib: 1. cap. 9. Euſeb: de vit. Const. lib. 3. as appeareth in an Epiſtle written by them to the Church of Alexandria, which determination, for the peoples free choyſe of theyre Paſtor, Conſtantine the Emperour approved in an Epiſtle which he wrote ad Antiochenos.
Secondly, After Conſtantines time, the ſame liberty continued in the Churches, till the time of Charles the Great & Lodovicus his ſonne, about the yeare 840, as Azorius the Ieſuit confeſſeth.Azo. part 2. li. 3. cap. 28. & lib. 6. cap. 14. Some thinck that the Councell of Laodicea gave ſome check to this power of the people in the yeare 338, or thereabouts, where, they ſay, it was decreed that the election ſhould not be permitted to the people, but Calvin expoundeth that Canon as meaning that they ſhould make no election,Calv. on Act. 16. without having ſome miniſters, or men of judgement to direct them in election, and to gather their voyces, & to provide that nothing be done tumultuouſly, even as Paul and Barnabas where cheife in the election of the Churches. Which may very well ſtand with the liberty of the people in elections. But thoſe that wright the Centuryes ſuſpect this Canon, and doubt that it is a baſtard, conſidering the practiſe of the Church. And well it may be ſuſpected. For the Councell of Conſtantinople, under Theodoſius,Hiſt. tri…art. lib. 9. cap. 14. Concil. Carth. 4. …an. 1.22. towards the end of the third Century, in an Epiſtle to Damaſus and Ambroſe, declare that both Nectarius and Flavian were choſen by decree and appoyntment of the people. Alſo, about the yeare 420, in the Councell of Carthage, the conſent of the people is required, to the choyſe of their Paſtor. Alſo the Councell of Baſill, in Cardinal Cuſanus,De cōcord. Cath. lib. 2 cap. 18. & 34. concludeth to the ſame purpoſe. Rectores eccleſiae per conſenſum, jure divino et humano, conſtitui debent. The Governours of the Church aught, by Gods law & mans, to be choſen by the conſent of the Church. And, about the end of the ſixt Century, Gregory ſurnamed the Great was choſē Biſhop of Rome by the vote of the people. Yea, above a thouſand yeares were expired, before Pope Nicholas the ſecond had prevayld to ſettle a decree that the power of chuſing the Pope ſhould be taken from the Emperour & the people (who were boath deprived of their right at once) and be only in the Cardinalls, contrary to Gods word, the example of the Apoſtles, the Canons of the Fathers, & the uſe of the Primitive Church, ſayth Banoſius truely. When election was taken from the people, after the eleventh Century:Banoſ. de pol. civit: Dei & Hier. Rom: cap. 7. the fourth Toletan Councell ſayth, Let founders of Churches offer to the Biſhop thoſe who are to be ordained. Hence, it ſeemeth, patronages came in, & with them unlawfull ſeeking of Church livings by freinds, gifts, ſervice to patrons, marriages, flattery, baſe & unwarrantable contracts, which, whoſoever readeth the Councells & Centuriatours, ſhall find condemned to the pit of hell, from whence they came, & to be judged as Apoſtaſy, Symony, worſe then haereſy, like the ſinne of Gehazi & Iudas, that almes may not be given out of what is gotten that way: Pope Leo the fourth calleth it a deteſtable wickednes: the Canon ſayth,Cauſ. 2 q. 3. they are not to be accounted among the Biſhops. Here I might ſhew how many wayes Sathan wraught in thoſe times, againſt this ordinance of Chriſt, & the greatnes of their ſinne▪ who, in theſe dayes, obtrude themſelves, or are obtruded by others, upon Churches, without their conſent, or approbation. Of whom the Lord may ſay, I have not ſent theſe prophets: yet they run. Ier: 23.31And therefore may juſtly execute upon them that threatning. Therefore they ſhall not proffit thi… … ple at all.v: 32.
When things were brought to this ſad condition, in thoſe darke times of popery, the Churches being thus robbed, & ſpoyled of their right, God rayſed up the Waldenſes about the yeare 1161, who, diſcovering the hypocriſy & tyranny & idolatry of the popiſh Prelats, ſeperated from them & choſe Paſtors to thē ſelves, & as the light & reformation increaſed, in after times, the right of the people was more pleaded, by learned men in all countryes, as in Germany by Zwinglius &c. in England, by M. Bucer & P. Martyr, in France, by ſundry worthy lights, in Geneva, by Viret & Calvin, in the Palatinat, by Urſinus, & others: in theſe countryes, among others, by famous Iunius, whoſe words I tranſlate thus.Iun: Eccleſiaſtus. 3.1 It is manifeſt that the moſt ſimple & approved way of chuſing, & calling a miniſter, by the teſtimony of holy Scriptures, is that, which the Apoſtles of old held in the Churches, & the ancient Church, imitating them, obſerved. The wholl Church did chuſe, that is, the body conſtituted of the preſbytery & cōmon people or multitude with aequal & common ſuffrages. This is the juſt manner of Election. This (ſayth he) the old Church did obſerve ſometime, untill (as, through mens corruption, it comes to paſſe) things begā to grow worſe, & to fall backward, &c. & a litle after he ſayth. Afterwards popery ſo farr prevayled to uſurpe & tyrāniſe over the Church, that now there was no ſpeech of the people (viz in the election of miniſters) whom Chriſt hath purchaſed with his blood, that they might be his Church. Hence came, ſayth he, that barbarous ignorance, that heape of all ſinnes, that ſinck of deceit, & ſelling the ſoules of men. In the concluſion, he anſwereth ſome objections; At neſcit populus, dixerit quiſpiam. But ſome will ſay, the people is ignorant of their duety and right therein? Let them be taught, & they will underſtand it. But they know not how to uſe this their right? They will never know it, if they never uſe it. But they are factious often, and are devided into parts? Let them be reduced to peace, by holeſom counſail, & let them be ruled by authority of the word, and indeavours of good men, that, their mindes being united and compoſed, they may doe that which by right belongeth to them to doe.
At laſt, the reformed Churches did, in their publick confeſſions, plead the peoples right in this particular, and in their Canons. A particular inſtance of the Synod, at Middleborough in the yeare 1581, ſhall conclude this diſcourſe of times, where it is thus concluded. Electio ſit penes Eccleſiam, & fiat per ſuffragium, in Templo publicè, let the choyſe be in the Church, and be made by voyces publickly in the Church. We will gather up this diſcourſe of the conſent of times into an Argument, thus.
The choyſe of Miniſters, by the free conſent of the people,3. Arg. hath bene conſtantly practiſed by all Churches, in the beſt times ſince the Apoſtles dayes. Therefore it ſhould be ſo now. In Cyprians time it was obſerved per provincias univerſas, as he ſayth, in all provinces. Azorius affirmeth the ſame thing and ſheweth that it was obſerved in Affrica, Graecia, Spaine, France, & ubique, ſayth he, and every where, 3 Evidence of Reaſon.and ſo continued to the time of Charles the great, and afterward.
Thirdly. The evidence of Reaſon.
Reaſ. 1 The Keyes of the Kingdom of heaven are, in ſome ſort, given to the wholl Church. Therefore the power of chuſing thoſe, whoſe office it ſhall be to uſe them for the Church, is in the wholl Church.
The Antecedent is cleare out of Matth. 16:19. where the Church ſpoken of is the company of beleivers,Mat. 16.19. whoſe perſon Peter ſuſtained, at that time, as appeareth by his anſwer, which was concerning the fayth common to the wholl Church, not concerning any buiſenes proper to Miniſters. And, under the Keyes, all the meanes of aedification are granted unto the Church to be diſpenſed by ſuch, as, being choſen by the Church,Eccleſ. pol: lib: 3. cap. 2.3. ſhould receive power from the Church thereunto, as Mr. Parker hath abundantly proved, and by many witneſſes.
The Argument is undeniable. For it is in them to chuſe the perſon, whom they will intruſt with ſuch weighty matters, to whom the things themſelves doe primarily belong. Nor is it a ſufficient foundation of that phraſe, that they are given to the Church for her proffit and benefit, unleſſe the Church be able to provide that they be handled by thoſe, by whoſe miniſtry ſhe may be moſt proffited and benefited.
Reaſ. 2 The people of God are commanded to heare the true teachers, and avoyd the falſe ones. Therefore they have power to chuſe good ones and reject bad ones.
The Antecedent is cleare in Iohn. 10.
The Argument is without juſt exception. If not; let ſomewhat materiall be objected againſt it. Will they ſay? The people is rude, and cannot judge; Thus the Phariſes ſayd of old:Ioh: 7.49. but did our Saviour Chriſt judge of them ſo?Iohn. 7.17 I trow not. And, if it were ſo, it is not neceſſary to the electiō of the Paſtor, that all amongſt the people ſhould be able to judge, without the helps of thoſe that are more ſkillfull, much leſſe that they ſhould doe it perfectly: but they muſt have ſo much knowledge as to ſhun falſe teachers. Will they ſay, the people are forbidden to heare falſe teachers, but not allowed to depoſe thē, & ſubſtitute others? Let ſuch know,Bellar. enerv. tom: 2. cap. 2. that when they are forbiddē to heare them, they are commanded not to be ſubject to their Miniſtry, and ſo in effect warranted to depoſe them, as Dr. Ames anſwereth Bellarmine.
Reaſ. 3 Paſtors are not lords, but ſervants of the wholl Church. Therefore the wholl Church have power to chuſe theyr Paſtors.
1. Cor. 3.9. Ch. 4 1. 1. Pet. 5.3.The Antecedēt is cleare. For all the workes of Paſtors are Miniſteriall, viz, whether they declare Chriſts will to the Church; they command the Church in his name and words, not in theyr owne, or whether they execute the will of the Church upon particular members; they doe it, not in theyr owne, but in Chriſts and the Churches name.
The Argument is good: for ſuch a Miniſtry agreeth very well with this power of the people in chuſing theyr Paſtor.
Reaſ. 4 The Church hath full right to preſerve the truth, as its rightfull poſſeſſion. Therefore the wholl Church have right to chuſe theyr Paſtor.
The Antecedent is undeniable. For therefore it is called the pillar, 1. Tim. 3.5and ground of truth. for elſe it were but the harbour, not the manſion of truth.
The Argument is as cleare. For they who have power to preſerve truth, have power alſo to preſerve, in their owne right, thoſe functions which are neceſſary for the preſerving of it: which they cannot doe, unleſſe they have power of chuſing their owne Miniſters.
Reaſ. 5 The paſtorall relation concernes the wholl Church: therefore the choyſe of the Paſtor is in the wholl Church.
The Antecedent is cleare, in theſe texts and ſuch like Acts. 2.28. 1. Pet. 5.1.2.
The Argument is founded upon an axiom of the law, proceeding from good reaſon. Quod omnium intereſt ab omnibus approbari debet. That which concerneth all, ought to be approved of all. Which courſe we ſee obſerved in civill matters, as in the choyſe of worthy men to ſtand for ſeverall Countyes in Parliament. Alſo th… choyſe of officers in Corporations is done by common vote, the major part of voyces carrying the election.
Biſhop Bilſon, well weighing the importance of theſe reaſons,Perp. govern: cap. 15. p. 339. yeelded to the aequity of them, ſaying. Well may the peoples intereſt ſtand upon the grounds of reaſon, and nature, and be derived from the rules of aequity, and chriſtian ſociety, that each Church and people ſtand free, by Gods law, to admit, maintaine, or obey no mā as their Paſtor, without their liking-vnleſſe,P. 360 by law, cuſtom, or conſent they have reſtrained themſelves. And a litle after he ſayth, that the people had as much right to chuſe their Paſtor, as the Cleargy, that had more ſkill to judge, and he telleth papalls,P. 359. having related the curſing and fighting of the Biſhop of Rome, till excluding boath prince and people, he had reduced the election wholly to the Cleargy, that, by their leave,Aſſert. p. 212. it was not ſo from the beginning▪ whence the Aſſertour for true and chriſtian policy argueth thus.
Whatſoever is derived from chriſtian aequity and ſociety: what ſoever was from the beginning and was left by the Apoſtles to the Church, the ſame aught ſtill to remaine, and muſt be kept inviolable in the Church.
But the peoples intereſt to chuſe their Paſtor is right, is lawfull, is free, by the law of God, ſtandeth upon the grounds of reaſon and nature, is derived from Chriſtian aequity and ſociety, was from the beginning, &c.
To his exception [unleſſe by ſome law cuſtom or conſent the people have reſtrayned themſelves &c. or by theyr default, or abuſe, the Canons, Councills, ſuperiour powers, or publick lawes have abridged, altered, or abrogated the ſame] he anſwereth, that our Saviour reproved the abuſe of the law in the Scribes and Phariſes, but tooke not away the leaſt title of it. We grant, in like manner, that Cuſtom, conſent, Councills, ſuperiours, lawes may reprove, reſtraine and reforme the diſordered unrulines, and contentions of the people, in, and about theyr election, and that they may alter, abridge, or enlarge the manner of elections: but that any ſuperiour powers may take this right into their owne hands (as he ſaith) from the people, or that the people, by any law, cuſtom, or conſent &c. may tranſfer their right, freedom, and intereſt given & deduced unto them by theſe rules and grounds, I doe not yet perceive any good ground or reaſon for the ſame. For, hath the wiſdom of God and his providence made us free men? and can we, without contempt of his grace, become bondmen? And, albeit in ſome caſes that may be well ſayd, quod volenti non fit injuria, and that, quilibet poteſt recedere a ſuo jure; yet the caſes muſt be ſuch, as wherein a man is not tyed to mainetaine his liberty with ſo ſtrong a bond, as the bond of reaſon & nature, of the rules of Chriſtian aequity, and of the freedom of the law of God. It is free for a man not to eate or drinck this, or that, but not to eate or drinck at all, and ſo to ſtarve himſelfe, it is not free: and in this caſe, volenti fit injuria. Huſbands, parents, and maſters have, by the very inſtinct of nature, and aequity of Chriſts law, freedom to provide for thoſe that depend upon them, and ſo muſt carefully uſe this theire freedom, & may not wholly put from themſelves the care of their proviſion, education &c. nor give theire conſent to the making of any law, or to the bringing in of any cuſtom, whereby theyr freedom ſhould be reſtrained, or annihilated, in this point. Thus farr he.
Now, to prevent all miſtakes, it will be convenient to anſwer a queſtion or two, that may be propounded, upon this occaſion.
Queſt. 1 What if a Miniſter be put in by a patron, without the choyſe of the people going before? may ſuch a miniſter be thought to have a lawfull calling?
Anſ. Though that act of the patron be not ſufficient to make him a lawfull Paſtor to that people, yet the after conſent of the people,Dr. Ames …n 2. Manduct. by acceptance and ſubmiſſion, may make it good. As in wedlock, the after conſent of parents or partyes doth often make that a lawfull ſtate of marriage, which before, & without that, was none: and in government, acceptance and ſubmiſſion doth make him a King, which before was an Uſurper: though, in their order, theſe actions be rather conſequents, then cauſes of that calling. So it is betweene miniſter and people.
Queſt. 2 What if the Church neglect to call a Miniſter, or deſire, and conſent upon one that is unmeet, either for doctrine or manners?
In ſuch caſes,Anſ. Mr. Cartwr. 1. Reply. p. 35. the miniſters and Elders of other Churches round about ſhould advertiſe first, and afterwards, as occaſion ſhould ſerve, ſharpely and ſeverely charge them, that they neglect not this care of electing a fitt one, and that they forbeare ſuch election of one unfitt, or, if it be made, that they confirme it not, by ſuffering him to excerciſe any miniſtry. And, if, either the Churches round about doe fayle of this duety, or the Church which is admoniſhed, reſt not in their admonition, then to bring it to the next Synod, and, if it reſt not therein, then the Prince or Magiſtrate, which must ſee that notbing, in the Churches, be diſorderly and wickedly done, aught to drive that Church from that election, to another which is convenient. Thus Mr. Cartwright. So that, in his judgement, other Churches have no power of hindring a faulty election, but by admonition, which power every Chriſtian hath in another, for his good. Nor can the Magiſtrate forbid the choyſe, which the Church hath made or would make, unleſſe the man, upon whom they pitch, be ſo unfitt, either for doctrine or manners, that the making of ſuch a choyſe will be wickedly and diſorderly done.
Having thus declared what we hold, de jure populi, concerning the Churches right, in the choyſe of their Miniſters. Now we come to enquire, de facto, whether their complaint be juſt, concerning the injury, wherewith they charge the Anſwerer, in this particular, taking the riſe of enſuing paſſages from thoſe words wherein he mentioneth my name, after a provoking manner, in this Section.
I leave it to their conſciences to conſider, Anſ. pag. 19.3:whether now alſo they would not have kept ſilence, if they could have brought in Mr. D. even according to this corrupt order uſed by us, as they complaine of it.
To prove that the Anſwerer doth not behave himſelfe as becommeth a Paſtor in governement, their firſt evidence is, Reply. that he depriveth the Church of that liberty and power, which Chriſt hath given it, in the free choyſe of their Paſtor. Now a Church is as well deprived of their liberty in chuſing, when the men,…ply. whom they deſire, are, without ſufficient cauſe ſhewen to the Church, kept out, as when men are, without their approbation, obtruded upon them. They complaine of both theſe injuries: of the firſt, in this and the following Section: of the ſecond, in the ſixth Section. That in this Section they complaine of the firſt of theſe injuries, appeareth by the inſtances which they produce, for proofe of it, in the fifth Section. So then their complaint, in this, and the next Section, is, that, they are deprived of the liberty and power of the free choyſe of their Paſtor, which Chriſt hath given them, in that they are deprived of worthy men, whom they have generally deſired, but have bene hindered, that, either they could not chuſe them, or, having choſen, could not injoy them, and this hath bene done againſt them, without ſufficient cauſe alleadged againſt the men, whom they have deſired. And the perſon, whom they particularly charge with this unjury, is the Anſwerer. Let us now conſider how he doth defend himſelfe. And this he endeavoureth to doe diverſe wayes.
Pag. 18. Anſ. 1.Firſt, by putting the blame from himſelfe, upon the Claſſis, and not upon their perſons ſo much as upon the very government eſtabliſhed in theſe Churches. 1. Reply.1. Here it muſt be remembred that the Complainants produce the holy records of the ancient charter of priviledges which of old was granted unto particular Churches, in this caſe,Pag. 19. Anſ. 4 which alſo the Anſwerer himſelfe cōfeſſeth ſo clearely to warrant their claime, and to juſtifye this plea, that he hath, as he ſayth, both publickly taught, in the expoſition of thoſe 2 places. Acts. 6.3. and 14.23, and doth ſtill acknowledge, that the free conſent of the people is required to the lawfull calling of a Miniſter. and afterwards he ſayth,Pag. 22. Anſ. 8. that to deprive the Church of that liberty & power &c. muſt be an heynous crime, and no leſſe then Sacriledge. This crime, how great ſoever it is, the Reader will find that he chargeth upon the Claſſis, how juſtly, let him ſee: nor will he be able to cleare himſelfe of ſlandring the very government and order of diſcipline eſtabliſhed in theſe Churches, unleſſe he can ſhew, out of the Nationall Synods, that it was eſtabliſhed, for an order in theſe Countryes, that the Claſſes ſhould have power to deprive the Churches, of the Miniſters whom they deſire, or have choſen, without ſhewing ſufficient cauſe for the Churches ſatiſfaction: which is the greivance complained of by theſe ſub…ibers.
2. If it be not true of them; the more heynous the accuſation is, the more greivous the ſlander is, and ſo much the more greivous in him, who is many wayes obliged to them, and whoſe teſtimony againſt them, will be more eaſily received, and firmely beleived, becauſe he is acquainted fully with all their wayes, being one of them, and ordinarily in counſail with them.
3. But, if it be true, that the Claſſis hath ſuch a practiſe,Cyp. Epiſt. l. 1. Epi. 8. Adulterum eſt, impium eſt, ſacrilegum, est, quicquid humano furore inſtituitur, ut diſpoſitio divina violetur. Anſ. 2. Reply. and that the government hath eſtabliſhed ſuch an order (which he will never be able to prove) yet that will not free him from guilt, ſeeing, by his owne confeſſion, ſuch a Cuſtom or Canon is contrary to Chriſt his ordinance, which I will expreſſe in Cyprians words. It is adulterous, it is wicked, it is Sacrilegious what ſoever by humaine fury is inſtituted, to the violation of a Divine ordinance. His ſecond anſwer, or evaſion rather, followeth.
Secondly, By involving the Elders with him in the ſame guilt and blame, and retorting an accuſation of partiality, in that they lay the fault upon him only. But who ſeeth not the inſufficiency of this defenſe, that, either conſidereth the reply to the former anſwer, or knoweth his power in the Conſiſtory? But what before was ſayd by me, in defenſe of the Claſſis, may be a ſufficient Apology alſo for the Elders and Deacons.
Thirdly, By queſtioning the reaſon of their not complaining, after this manner, hitherto. But who ſeeth not,Anſ. 3. Reply. that this is a mere evaſion? For, what though they exhibited not a bill of greivances, til now? It may be, they wayted, in hope of reformation, or, it may be, theſe laſt paſſages hauehave ripened the ſore, and filled up the meaſure, and cauſed it to run over. What conſequent is there in theſe Arguments? They complained not thus before: therefore they were not injured. The ſore did not runne before: therefore it was not an ulcer. This meaſure did not runne over before: therefore it was empty. Nor is there more weight in his concluſion of that 3 anſwer, when he appealeth to their conſciences, whether now alſo they would not hauehave kept ſilence, if they could hauehave brought in Mr. D. even according to this corrupt order uſed by us, as they complaine of it: 1. Let the Reader judge, whether any others are mentioned in the complaint either, Elders, Reply, Claſſis, or government, but only the Anſwerer. Why then doeth he ſpeake in the plurall number, ſaying this corrupt order uſed by us? 2. Is there not a manifeſt contradiction, in this part of the anſwer? For, if they could have brought in Mr. D. by their free choyſe (which himſelfe acknowledgeth to be the ordinance of Chriſt) how could they then have brought him in, according to this corrupt order, whereof they complaine? ſo that, why ſhould they not keep ſilence, if the cauſe of complaint had bene removed, as, in this caſe, it had bene?
Anſw. 4 Let his fourth anſwer be conſidered, wherein he granteth, that the free conſent of the people is required unto the lawfull calling of a Miniſter, and that by vertue of thoſe texts, Act. 6.3. and 14.23.
Reply. 1 Firſt, If, upon that ground, this power of the people be eſtabliſhed, then, 1 It is their duety to plead for, and to ſtand faſt in their liberty, in this particular, and that, not as a matter arbitrary, but neceſſary, ſeing it is Chriſt his ordinance. 2 That perſon ſinneth againſt God and the Church, who any way depriveth them of it, and is bound to give ſatiſfaction, if but any one member, much more if 22 conſiderable members, complaine of it. And this injury is the greater, becauſe it reflecteth 1 not upon a ſingular perſon, but upon a Society, 2 not in civill, but ſpirituall immunityes and priviledges, 3, Such as are not devolved upon them by the favour of earthly princes, but purchaſed for them by the blood of Chriſt. The aequity of this complaint may be proved, out of the Anſwerers conceſſion, thus.
They, who, without juſt and ſufficient warrant, hinder that the Church cannot injoy theſe Miniſters whom they, with one conſent, deſire, doe deprive the Church of that liberty and power which Chriſt hath given it, in the free choyſe of their Paſtor.
But the perſon complained of by theſe 22 ſubſcribers doeth, without, juſt and ſufficient cauſe, hinder the Church from injoying thoſe whom they, with one conſent, deſired.
Therefore the perſon complained of doth deprive the Church of that liberty and power which Chriſt hath given it, in the free choyſe of their Paſtor.
The Propoſition himſelfe granteth to be true, as hath bene noated.
The aſſumption they prove in the following Section by inſtances, as we ſhall ſee, in due time. The Anſwerer hath ſayd nothing hitherto that may ſerve to weaken the trueth of it. In the words following alſo, he rather evadeth it then maketh a direct anſwer. And his evaſions are, by way of diverſion. For.
1. He diverteth his Reader from the particular ſubject of the complaint,Pag. 19. Anſ. 4. Reply. telling him of the order of theſe Churches about this matter; whereas, for ought I have heard from themſelves at any time, or now have read in their wrightings, that good correſpondency with the Chriſtian Magiſtrate, and foreknowledge, or adviſe of the Claſſis, which the Synods of theſe Churches deſcribe, as the order to be obſerved in the calling of Miniſters, are not contrary to that liberty and power in the free choyſe of their Paſtor, which they clayme, and the Anſwerer acknowledgeth to be due to the Church, by vertue of Chriſts ordinance. But, I ſuppoſe, it will be granted, on all ſides, that the Synods doe not acknowledge any power to be due to the Magiſtrates, or Claſſis, to deprive the Church of any power which Chriſt hath givē it, which is the greivance they now complained of, and wherein the Anſwerer is accuſed, not for obſerving the order of the Synods, but for doing contrary to the intent of the Synods, in their orders,
2. He diverteth his reader, from the queſtion in hand,Pag. 20. Anſ. 5. Reply. by propounding another queſtion to be examined, which he pretendeth that ſome object out of Acts 6.3. viz. whether the people ought not to goe before in ſeeking out officers for themſelves? That this is a mere diverſion, will appeare to the indifferent Reader, if he examine their wrighting, in which he ſhall not find any word tending that way; but rather they complaine that the Elders are too much neglected by the Anſwerer, as will appeare in its place, So that the 20. p. is a laborious proving of that which is not in queſtion.
3. The pretended abſurdityes, in his ſixth anſwer,Pag. 21. Anſ. 6. Reply. Pag. 21. Anſ. 7. Reply are to the ſame purpoſe with his fifth Anſwer, and ſerve only to countenance a girde at ſome neighbour Miniſter: Cui-bono, he beſt knoweth.
His ſeventh anſwer is no more to the purpoſe then the fifth, and ſixth. For, what if theſe Complainants ſhould not agree one with another touching the due order of Elections, and touching the ground thereof, from thoſe places, Acts 6. and 14? which (if he hath diverſe times taught them (as he ſayth) the neceſſity of the free conſent of the people, unto the lawfull calling of a Miniſter, out of thoſe texts) may be queſtionable. Yet: will it thence follow, that therefore they may be deprived of men, whom they have choſen, or deſire to chooſe, without juſt, and ſufficient cauſe? J ſuppoſe, not.
Pag. 22. Anſ. 8. Reply.His eighth and laſt anſwer is already examined, and replyed upon, and declared to be contradictory to himſelfe, in my reply to the third anſwer, concerning their ſuppoſed ſilence, if they could have brought me in, according to this order: thither I referr the Reader. So much ſhall ſerve for the fourth Section.