Works, Book 1 · Discourse 5
DISCOURSE V.
1 COR. 4. 1.
Let a man so account of us as of the Ministers (foreign) of Christ, and Stewards of the Mysteries of God.
A Man would think at first sight, that this Scripture did exceedingly warrant our use of the word Minister in stead of that of Priest, and leave no plea for them who had rather speak otherwise. Howsoever I intend at this time to shew the contrary, and (even out of this Text,) that we have very much swerved herein from the Apostles language, and abuse that word to such a sense as they never intended, nor is any where found in Scripture. I favour neither superstition nor superstitious men; yet truth is truth, and needful to be known; especially when ignorance thereof breedeth errour and uncharitableness. My Discourse therefore shall be of the use of the words Priest and Minister; wherein shall appear how truly we are all Ministers in our Apostle's sense, and yet how abusively and improperly so called in the ordinary and prevailing use of that word.
I will begin thus. All Ecclesiastical persons or Clergy-men may be considered in a Threefold relation: First, to God; secondly, to the People; thirdly, one toward another. In respect to God, all are Ministers of what degree soever they be; because they do what they do by commission from him, either more or less immediate: for a Minister is he qui operam suam alicui, ut superiori aut domino, praebet, who serves another as his Superior or Master. In respect of the People all are Bishops, that is, Inspectores or Overseers, as having charge to look unto them. But lastly, compared one to another,1 Cor. 4. 1. he whom we usually call Bishop is only Overseer of the rest, Inspector totius Cleri. Deacons are only Ministers to the rest, Ministri Presbyterorum & Episcoporum: and in that respect have their name foreign.
There are properly but two Orders Ecclesiastical, Presbyteri & Diaconi: the one the Masters, Priests; the other the Ministers, Deacons. The rest are but diverse degrees of these Two. As Bishops are a degree of Presbyters of divine ordinance, to be as Heads, Chiefs, and Presidents of their Brethren: So Sub…deacons, Lectors, and indeed any other kind of Ecclesiastical Ministers, whether in Ecclesia or Foro Ecclesiastico (I mean whether they attend divine Duties in the Church, or Iurisdiction in Ecclesiastical Courts) are all a kind of Deacons, being to the Presbyters, either single or Episcopal, as the Levites were to the Sacerdotes, in the Old Testament, namely, to minister unto or for them. Thus when we say, Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons, we name but two Orders, yet three Degrees.
These grounds being forelaid and understood.
I affirm, first, That Presbyters are by us unnaturally and improperly called Ministers either of the Church, or of such or such a Parish: we should call them, as my Text doth, Ministers of God, or Ministers of Christ, not Ministers of men.
First, Because they are only God's Ministers, who sends them; but the People's Magistri, to teach, instruct and oversee them. Were it not absurd to call the Shepherd the Sheeps Minister? If he be their Minister, they surely are his Masters. And so indeed the People by occasion of this misappellation think they are ours, and use us accordingly. Indeed we are called Ministers, but never their Ministers; but, as you see here. God's Ministers, Christ's Ministers, who imployeth us to dispense his Mysteries unto his Church.
There are Three words in the New Testament translated Minister, foreign …the first is most frequent; but not one of them is given to the Apostles, in the whole Scripture, with relation to the Church or People: you shall never find them called foreign, or foreign, Ministers of the Church, which is so frequent with us, but Ministers of God, 2 Cor. 6. 4. 1 Thess. 3. 2. Ministers of Christ, as in my Text, and 2 Cor. 11. 23. Col. 1. 7. Ministers of Iesus Christ, 1 Tim. 4. 6. or Ministers of that which they minister, as Ministers of the New Testament, 2 Cor. 3. 6. Ministers of the Gospel, Ephes. 3. 7. Coloss. 1. 23. But not Ministers of them to whose behoof they minister. Yet might this speech, Minister of the Church, if rightly construed, be admitted; namely, if it be spoken by an Ellipsis, for Minister of God for and over the Church: so the Apostle Coloss. 1. 7. A faithful Minister of Christ for you, that is, Christ's Minister, not theirs; yet not for Christ, but for them. But those who use this speech commonly mean otherwise.
Secondly,Hebr. 1. Angels are called ministring spirits, but not our Ministers, but God's Ministers to us-ward, or for our behalf: So Ministers of the Gospel, not the People's or Congregation's Ministers, but God's Ministers for their behoof.
Thirdly, This speech [Minister of the Church, or, of this or that Church] is so much the more incommodious, because it hath begotten (as incommodious and unapt speeches do] an erroneous conceit, not only among the vulgar, but some of better understanding; namely, That a Minister is not lawfully called, unless he be chosen by the People, because he is their Minister, and so to be deputed by them. And indeed if he be their Minister in proper relation, they are his Masters, and so it is good reason they should appoint him, as Masters do those who are to serve them: But if in proper relation they are God's Ministers, and not theirs, (though for them) then God is to appoint them, or such as he hath put in place to do it. It is an erroneous conceit that some maintain, That the power of Sacred Order and of the Keys is given by God immediately to the Body of the Congregation; and that they depute him who is their Minister, to execute the power which is originally in them: That power is conferred by God immediately to those who are Bishops and Pastors, and by and through them belongs to the whole Body, and no otherwise. Sed tantum potuit incommodi sermonis usus.
Some perhaps will object against my whole Assertion that of S. Paul, 2 Cor. 4. 5. We preach not our selves, but Christ Iesus *Viz. esse Deminum.the Lord, and our selves your servants for Iesus sake: If the Apostles were the Churches Servants, why not their Ministers? I answer, the Apostle says not they were the Corinthians servants, but that he had made himself so, in his Preaching to them. So he says expresly, 1 Cor. 9. 19. For though I be free from all men, yet I have made my self a servant to all, that I might gain the more. Yet he confesses the Corinthians began to vilifie him for this condescent, 2 Cor. 11. 7. Have I committed an offence in abasing my self that you might be exalted, because I have preached unto you the Gospel of God freely? This was that wherein he carried himself toward the Corinthians as a Servant, but to other Churches he did not so. It would be a strange assertion to say the Apostle were the Corinthians Servant in a proper relation: we know he says, Gal. 1. 10. If I pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ; and Rom. 6. 16. Know ye not that to whom ye yield your selves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey?
I come now to a second Assertion, which is, That howsoever any Ecclesiastical person may be rightly called a Minister, (so it be in a proper relation to Godward,) yet the word Minister is again most unfitly used by us for a name of distinction of one Ecclesiastical Order from another: as when we call those which are Presbyters, Ministers, by way of distinction from Deacons; for so we speak Ministers and Deacons, in stead of Priests and Deacons.
The reason we thus speak is to avoid the name Priest, which we conceive to signifie Sacerdos, that is, one that sacrificeth, such as were those in the Law: But our Curates of holy things in the Gospel are not to offer Sacrifice, and therefore ought not to be called Sacerdotes, and consequently not Priests. This is the reason. But if it be well examined, Priest is the English of Presbyter, and not of Sacerdos; there being in our Tongue no word in use for Sacerdos: Priest, which we use for both, being improperly used for a Sacrificer; but naturally expressing a Presbyter, the name whereby the Apostles call both themselves and those which succeed them in their charge. For who can deny that our word Priest is corrupted of Presbyter? Our Ancestors the Saxons first used Preoster, whence by a farther contraction came Preste and Priest. The high and low Dutch have Priester, the French Prestre, the Italian Prete; but the Spaniard only speaks full Presbytero.
But, to come more near the point, our men in using the word [Minister] for a distinctive name in stead of Priest, incur four Solecisms; I mean, when we use the word Minister (not at large, but) for a distinction from the Order of Deacons, saying Ministers and Deacons.
First, We run into that we sought to avoid. For we would avoid to call the Presbyters of the Gospel by the name of the Sacrificers of the Law; and yet run into it in such sort, that we style those of the Gospel by the Legal name, and those of the Law by the Evangelical name. The Hebrew calls them of the Law Cohanim, of foreign, which properly signifies to minister, and thence comes the Greek word foreign, and foreign: but we call those of the Gospel Cohanim, when we style them Ministers. On the contrary, the Apostles style those of the Gospel, Presbyteri; but we transfer that name to those of the Law, when we call them Priests. This is counterchange;
Incidit in Scyllam qui vult vitare Charybdim.
Secondly, It is a confusion or Tautology, to say Ministers and Deacons, that is, Ministers and Ministers; for Deacon [foreign] is, in Greek, a Minister; the one is Minister in Latin, the other in Greek: as if one should say, Homo and foreign, or Dil…vium and Cataclysmus, and think so to distinguish things of several natures or conditions.
Thirdly, We impose upon that Order a name of a direct contrary notion to what the Apostles gave them: The Apostles gave them a name of Eldership and Superiority in calling them Presbyteri; we of Inferiority and Subordination in calling them Ministri. The Iews had no name more honourable than that of Elders, foreign, for so they called their Magistrates: so we read of Elders of the people, and Elders of the Priests and Levites, meaning the chief in both sorts. This honourable name the Apostles gave as a name of distinction to the Evangelical Pastors; whereby they dignified them above those of the Law, whose name in the Hebrew (as I said before) is but a denomination of Ministry: And we have rejected the name of Dignity, of Fathership, of Eldership; and assumed in stead thereof a name of under-service, of subjection, of Ministery, to distinguish our Order by: I say, to distinguish our Order; for in a general sense and with reference to God, we are all his Ministers; and it is an honour unto us so to be, more than to be other mens Masters, as our Apostle in my Text intimates.
Fourthly, In the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas there is a worse Solecism by reason of this misapplied speech. They have a kind of Officers who are the Pastors assistants in Discipline, much like to our Church-wardens; these they call Elders, we style them Lay-Elders: These are but a kind of Deacons at the most, and of a new erection too; and yet these are dignified by the name of Elders and Presbyters, who are indeed but Deacons or Ministers; and the Pastor himself is called a Minister, who in the Apostles style is the only Presbyter or Elder. For so they speak, The Minister and his Presbyters or Elders.
To conclude, it had been to be wished that those whom the term of Priest displeased, as that which gave occasion by the long abuse thereof to fancy a Sacrifice, had rather restored the Apostolical name of Presbyter in the full sound, which would have been as soon and as easily learned and understood as Minister, and was no way subject to that supposed inconvenience. But the mis-application of the word [Presbyter] in some Churches to an Order the Apostles called not by that name, deprived those thereof to whom it was properly due. Howsoever when they call us Ministers, let them account of us as the Ministers of Christ, and not of men: not as deputed by the Congregation to execute a power originally in them, but as Stewards of the Mysteries of God.