Of Liturgies Power of the Keys, Chapter 16
CHAP. XVI.
Poſition 7.
That a Miniſter is ſo a Miniſter of a particular Congregation, that if they diſlike him or leave him unjuſtly, hee ceaſeth to be a Miniſter.
Reply. The queſtion is of Miniſters unjuſtly forſaken or driven from the Church, and your anſwer is for moſt part of Miniſters, ſet aſide or deprived by their owne default: wee never purpoſed to ſpeake one word for an unworthy Miniſter, whom Chriſt hath put out of Office, and therefore your labour to prove that ſuch juſtly rejected by the the Church, are no longer Miniſters, might well have beene ſaved.
Anſw. The ground of this Poſition being about the Nature of a Miniſters Office; Whether it conſiſt in his Office, relation to the flocke of a particular Church: the former part of our anſwer was not in vaine, nor the grounds impertinent, and wee accept your grant of it, That a Miniſter juſtly rejected by his Church is no longer a Miniſter: then wee inferre that there is no indelible character in the Office, but that his Miniſtery ſtands in relation to a particular flocke, not to the Catholike Church, for then a particular Church could not diſſolve his Office, and therefore it will follow, that (if hee bee found worthy after) upon repentance to bee called to another Church, hee muſt bee new elected and ordained to his Office, being no Miniſter upon his juſt depoſing.
Reply. But wee will examine your concluſions upon which you build the ſentence which you paſſe againſt them; firſt it is certaine, &c.
Anſw. What is ſaid to the firſt is ſpoken before, and we will not repeat things in vaine.
Reply. Secondly, The power of feeding, which the Miniſter hath, is neither confined to one ſociety onelyonly, nor nextly derived to him from Chriſt by the Church. The Office and authority of a Pastour is immediately from Chriſt, the deputation of the perſon which Chriſt hath deſigned is from the Church miniſterially, but neither vertually nor formally.
Anſw. Theſe things about the call of a Miniſter by the Church were alſo ſpoken to before, when wee ſpake of the power of the Keys, and the firſt ſubject thereof, and therefore the aſſertion being granted, theſe things might well be ſpared, but what we finde here more then in the other place, we ſhall conſider.
The power of the Church in electing her Officers is ſo cleare in the Scripture, and ſo confeſſed a truth by the godly learned, that it cannot bee denyed, yet here ſeeme to be given ſo many reſtrictions in the caſe, that they much abate and weaken this great and precious liberty and power given by the Lord. 1. That the power and Office of a Paſtor is immediately from Chriſt by his inſtitution is granted, but the queſtion is, how this man comes to have this Office applyed to him; if immediately, then hee is in this an Apoſtle, if mediately, it is by the Church, or elſe ſhew by whom 2. That the Church chooſe Miniſterially, and ought to chooſe whom Chriſt hath deſcribed in his word, and fitted with gifts, and ſo farre deſigned by Chriſt wee grant, but what if there bee twenty ſuch? Which of them doth Chriſt deſigne, but whom the Church freely chooſe? and therefore that is no diminution of their power, that they muſt chooſe miniſterially, and whom Chriſt ſo deſignes. The caſe is alike in all other Ordinances diſpenſed, Examination is immediately from Chriſt, by his inſtitution, the perſon to be cenſured is deſigned or deſcribed by▪ Chriſt, a notorious or obſtinate ſinner: the Church paſſe this ſentence onelyonly Miniſterially, and yet puts forth a great power of the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, in applying the ſentence to this or that perſon: and ſo here▪ and therefore it is ſtrange to us, that any ſhould ſay they depute this Officer neither vertually nor formally, when as the act which they put forth, (which is the outward call of the Officer) muſt needs come from a power formally in the Church to doe the ſame, as well as when the Church or Officers cenſure an offender, &c.
Reply. The conſent of the people is requiſite in the election of Paſtors and Teachers, we grant, the direction of the Elders going before, or along with them, Acts 1. Peter declared what an one ſhould be taken, &c. Acts 6. Deacons were choſen by the conſent of the Church, &c. but in this election the people did firſt chooſe, when moſt commonly the Apoſtles inſtructed the people, and went before them in the electon, and they conſented. Act. 14. 23. The Apoſtles by conſent chooſe, &c.
Anſw. This reſtriction of the peoples power to an after conſent, at leaſt ordinarily, will not hold: if the evident light of Acts 6. could not be denyed, and the other places were more obſcure, why ſhould not that place with its light cleare the reſt? but that in Act. 1. is as evident, Peter proves the need of ſuch a choice to be made, ſhews it muſt bee one that had ſo long converſed with Chriſt, to witneſſe ſuch things, and further hee doth not lead them, there might be twenty ſuch, but they chooſe two, as a preparative act to Apoſtleſhip, Verſ. 23. and who were they, but ſuch as they ſpeake unto, viz. the Diſciples, Verſ. 15. whom he cals Men and Brethren, Verſ. 16. ſo Act. 14. 23. lifting up of hands is the ſigne of election, not of an after conſent.
Laſtly, by this Doctrine how ſhall the Church come by Officers, when ſhee hath none to goe before her in chooſing for her? muſt ſhee looſe her right, or take whom others will chooſe for her, and impoſe upon her?
Reply. In the primitive times, after the Apoſtles, one Church might elect a Paſtor for another, &c.
Anſw. 1 If by way of counſell one Church ſhall propound and adviſe another to chooſe ſuch, (leaving them free to take or refuſe) this is lawfull in caſe, but otherwiſe it is a plaine uſurpation and we muſt leave Scripture rules and patterns to juſtifie it.
2 Wee grant in a ſafe ſenſe there may be Communis electio, whereby a fit man is propounded by Churches or Miniſters to be choſen by another people, and thus the Philadelphians might elect a fit Paſtor for the Church at Antioch, (as Ignatius exhots) with ſundry like inſtances in the firſt times after the Apoſtles, and this wee deny not may lawfully bee now. But this is nothing to that electio ſingularis, whereby a people chooſe one to be their Miniſter, of which we ſpeake, for it is evident from the Teſtimony of Cyprian oft alledged, that it is in the power of the people to chooſe worthy Miniſters, and reject the unworthy; and Ambroſe thinkes that he is worthily thought to bee elected divino judicio, whom all the people deſire▪ Ambroſ. lib. 10. Ep. 82.
It is very true, that as the times grew worſe, the elections were oft diſturbed, ſometimes by the Clergy chooſing without the people, (of which Athanaſius complaines) ſometimes by the peoples carrying it tumultuouſly: ſometime the Emperors interpoſing.
But this and like corruptions cannot forfeit the liberty of the Church which Chriſt hath given it, and therefore hee that was no great friend to the peoples liberties, yet ingenuouſly ſaith that although the people is Bellua multorum capitum, and moſt apt to be tumultuous, yet this is not innated to a beleeving people, qui non minus nunc quam olim gravis eſſet in electionibus, ac publicae utilitatis ſtudioſiſſima, Spalta▪ de Rep. Eccleſ. Lib. 3. Cap. 3.
Reply. If here it be queſtioned, whether your election of the people be eſſentiall to the calling of a Miniſter, wee anſwer, Firſt, A thing is eſſentiall two wayes, either as abſolutely neceſſary, ſo as the thing can have no exiſtence without it; or neceſſary to the integrity of a thing, ſo that it is maymed without it. Againe the people be either few in number, and ſimple, unable to judge of the ſufficiency of a Miniſter, or they be more in number, increaſed in wiſedome, ſound in faith, and able to diſcerne of things that differ. In the firſt ſenſe the election of the people is not neceſſary or eſſentiall, in the ſecond, his calling in that reſpect is maymed.
Anſw. It is to bee noted, that here wee diſpute of the outward calling of Church-Officers; now the very eſſence of any outward calling, doth lye in the right and power of them that elect. If all the Countries of England ſhould elect or call a Lord Major for London, bee they never ſo many and wiſe, it is a meere nullity, and why? Becauſe the right of election is not in them, but if the Citizens in whom the right lyes, doe elect (though weakly) hee hath the true eſſence of the call: if others electing a Major the City will receive him, ſubmit to him, and ſo give their conſent, hee may bee ſaid to have the ſubſtance of that call, though not an orderly and lawfull election, and ſo maymed: ſo it is here.
Secondly, if in our election of the people (being the Scripture way of election,) the proper right and power bee ſeated by Chriſt in the Church, unto whom they are to miniſter, then it muſt needs follow, that the very eſſence of a Miniſters call ſtands in their election, or at leaſt in their after conſent and ſubjection to his Miniſtery, in which caſe wee grant though the calling be maymed, yet it hath the ſubſtance of a true calling. But if the people will not receive ſuch as are impoſed upon them, hee hath no call at all, but uſurpes the ſame, and it is a meer nullity. And therefore it concernes Churches the more to conſider, what they doe in receiving and ſubmitting to ſuch unworthy Miniſters, as are oft impoſed upon them; but if the right and power of electing Miniſters bee in any other Perſons, let it be ſhewed from the Scriptures, for we are not much moved in ſuch caſes with the corrupt cuſtomes of after-times.
And this alſo ſhewes what kinde of call ſuch men have that are ordained by Prelates at large without any election at all, if they be Miniſters to the Catholike Church, then the Catholike Church is bound to receive them, and ſubmit to their Office, but no part of the Catholike Church, and therefore not the whole is bound to ſubmit to them, and therefore indeed they have no office nor calling as Paſtors or Teachers, except it can be proved they be Evangeliſts, Apoſtles or Prophets.
Reply. If the people be few and ſimple, they ſtand in more need of guidance from their owne Elders and other Churches; If many and full of wiſdome, their liberty to chooſe is the greater, and the greater wrong to bee deprived of it. The practiſe of the Apoſtles and Primitive Churches ſhew this for many ages, ſometime men were propounded to the Church to be choſen, ſometimes the chiefe left wholly to them.
Anſw. 1 What is all this to the purpoſe, what light or derection a Church need to receive? the eſſence of a Miniſters call lyes not in the propounding or adviſing of any to elect him, but in the Election of ſuch as have the true right ſo to doe, which is ſtill in the Church, though few and weake, if a true Church, and yet you produce not one Scripture example of any Officer propounded by the Apoſtles, or Elders to the Church to be choſen by them, much leſſe limiting the Church to conſent thereto, if they had nothing againſt him.
Reply. In reaſon this is evident, for the Childs conſent is required in marriage, but the more able he is to chooſe for himſelfe, the more liberty may Parents grant, the leſſe able the more watchfull muſt they be.
This ſimilitude utterly faileth in two eſſentiall things, that concerne the caſe for which it is applyed. 1. Becauſe a childe is under the authority of the parents, whoſe right is ſuch that a Childe cannot lawfully chooſe without them. But there is no Church or others have ſuch a right and authority over any Church in their choice of Officers. 2. Whatſoever the power of parents bee, yet the eſſence of the marriage conſiſts in the mutuall conſent and promiſe of the children that marry, and ſo here the eſſence of a Miniſters call muſt lye in the election of the Church and acceptance of the Miniſter which is not avoided but by the ſimilitude confirmed.
Reply. It is a duty of neighbour Churches to lend their helpe to their brethren in election of their Miniſters, when the Scripture willeth us to exhort one another or admon…ſh one another, it is not onelyonly a command to every ſingular perſon towards his fellow, but alſo to any whole company.
Anſw. Wee grant all this, and that it is the duty of a Church, bee it weake or ſtrong, to take all needfull counſell, adviſe or exhortations and admonitions in ſo weighty a worke. But if Churches or others ſhall impoſe upon any Church any Officer without their choice, this is no brotherly helpe, but unjuſt uſurpation. And if you underſtand Junius ſo, as that Charitatis jure & Communione ſanctorum, one Church have power to chooſe for another, other wayes, then by adviſing them to elect ſuch an one for themſelves, wee ſee no reaſon for that, nor doe wee thinke it is his meaning: neither doth Paul, Rom. 12. 12. lay any foundation of ſuch uſurpations, but onelyonly of mutuall brotherly helpfulneſſe by counſell, &c. and the contrary is not Policy, but ſome degree of tyranny.
Reply. It is a blemiſh in the call of a Miniſter, if either the people be not fit to chooſe, or being fit they he ſhut out from the choice, but this maime doth not make a nullity in his calling.
Anſw. If a people or Church bee never ſo weake, which is here called unfitneſſe, yet Chriſt being amongſt them, and they making an orderly and good choice, there can be no blemiſh in the call ſeeing the right is them, and ſuch a free choice will better ſtabliſh the conſcience of any godly Miniſter in his call, then if a Synod of the ableſt Miniſters ſhould impoſe him without their free choice, except it can bee proved that the right of election is in the Synod, which we thinke will not bee done. But bee they able or weake, if the people be ſhut out, it muſt needs make a great maim in his call, and if they doe not conſent nor ſubmit to ſuch a one called by others, it will make it a nullity, as was ſhewed before. What authority hath hee to Miniſter to any Church, if they will refuſe him? or who ſhall cenſure them for refuſing, by any rule of Chriſt?
Reply. The ſaving truth of God and a lawfull Miniſtery are both eſſentiall to a true Church.
Anſw. Anſw. What then becomes of the Church when the Miniſter is dead?
Reply. The true Church hath continued by the bleſſing of God where the election of Miniſters hath beene given away by the people or taken from them.
Anſw. True; but it hath been continued by the after conſent, and ſubjection of the people to their Miniſters choſen by others, elſe they muſt needs have broken a pieces and diſſolved the Church, or taken upon them to chooſe others to themſelves, which ſtill ſhewes that the eſſence of the call is in the people. What is ſaid of the diſorders of Ancient Churches in elections, we paſſe over as nothing to this purpoſe. That the Miniſtery might bee lawfull for ſubſtance, where there were many defects in the manner of the call we grant, the Church at length conſenting to ſubmit thereto, in whom the true right is placed by Chriſt: and therefore we paſſe over what followes to that purpoſe, though wee might object againſt ſome paſſages in the diſcourſe.
Reply. As for the ſecond branch of your anſwer we know not well your meaning; if this be your minde, that a Minister lawfully called and ſet over the Congregation, is to bee eſteemed a Miniſter in the uſuall Church, as the particular Church hath unity with, and is part of the univerſall or Catholique, and as a party baptized is not baptized into that Congregation onelyonly, but into all Churches, and that the Miniſtery is one, cujus a ſingulis in ſolidum pars tenetur, as Cyprian ſpeaketh, and therefore though the Miniſter be unjuſtly caſt eff by one Congregation, yet hee is not to be eſteemed as no Miniſter, wee freely conſent▪ But if your meaning bee, that hee is onelyonly by right a Miniſter of that particular Congregation, becauſe unjuſtly depoſed, as formerly in the execution of his Office, …ee was a Miniſter to them onelyonly, and to no other ſociety whatſoever, or in what reſpect ſoever▪ your opinion is contrary to the opinion of the univerſall, and tends to deſtroy the unity of the Church, and that Communion which the Churches of God ought to have one with another.
Anſw. Firſt, If our meaning be doubtfull, ſeeing theſe expreſſions doe not well ſuite our notion, nor fully enter into our underſtanding, we ſhall give the meaning of our anſwer diſtinctly, and then conſider what is here ſaid.
Firſt, there is a difference betweene the unjuſt leaving or caſting off a Miniſter, without all orderly proceedings againſt him, and the unjuſt depoſing him in an orderly way of Church cenſure: if the queſtion be taken in the firſt ſenſe, he remaines every way and in every reſpect by right a Miniſter as hee was before, except he reject them, and ſo diſſolve the relation that was between them. But if the queſtion ſpeak of an orderly cenſure of depoſition unjuſtly, then we judge of that caſe as we would do in any other, cenſure of a member by excommunication, & therefore we ſay, he is ſtil a Miniſter, in foro interno before Chriſt, for clavis errans non ligat. Secondly, in reſpect of that Church he hath ſtil right truly to miniſter to them, and is their Miniſter though unjuſtly hindered in the execution of his Miniſtery, as a member unjuſtly cenſured hath a true right to the Ordinances, and memberſhip, though unjuſtly hindred from the ſame, though in foro externo, we grant to them or in their account he is no Miniſter, as a perſon excommunicated is to them no member.
Thirdly, in reſpect of other Churches, if it doth appeare unto them that hee is unjuſtly depoſed, they may and ought to eſteeme him ſtill, and receive him and have communion with him, as a true Miniſter of Jeſus Chriſt, in the Church he doth belong to, as they may do with a member unjuſtly caſt out, but til that appeare unto them, they cannot ſo eſteem and honor him, (being orderly depoſed but muſt at leaſt ſuſpend their judgment til the caſe be cleared.
Fourthly we anſwer clearely and plainely to the chiefe ſcope of the queſtion, If a Miniſter bee unjuſtly depoſed or forſaken by his particular Church, and he alſo withall renounce and forſake them, ſo farre as all Office and relation betweene them ceaſe, then is hee no longer an Officer or Paſtour in any Church of God, whatſoever you will call it. And the Reaſon is, becauſe a Miniſters office in the Church i… no indelible Character, but conſiſts in his relation to the flocke: and if a Miniſter once ordained, his relation ceaſing, his Office of a Miniſter, Steward of the myſteries of God ſhall ſtill remaine; why ſhould not a ruling Elder or Deacon remaine an Elder or Deacon in the Church as well? all are Officers Ordained of Chriſt alike given to his Church, Officers choſen and Ordained by laying on of hands alike, but wee ſuppoſe you will not ſay a Deacon in ſuch a caſe ſhould remaine a Deacon in the Catholique Church, therefore not a Miniſter.
Secondly, wee ſhall now conſider what is here ſaid, and firſt this language of a Miniſter in the uſuall Church as a particular Church hath union with and is a part of the univerſall, it is an unuſuall expreſſion to us, and to the Scripture phraſe, and therefore beare with us if wee fall ſhort of your meaning; the uſuall Church in England hath beene either the Arch-Deacons Church in the Deanaries, or Dioceſan in the Biſhoprick, or Provinciall or Nationall, but wee hope that there is no ſuch intended here, yet to all this and the jurisdiction thereof particular Churches have been ſubject as parts there.
But if by uſuall Church you meane a Claſſical, Provinciall or Nationall Church, wee muſt intreat better grounds for any of theſe, and therefore wee muſt confeſſe our minde and meaning is not ſo, that wee looke at a Miniſter of a particular Church in any ſuch relation to the uſuall and intermediate Church betweene it and the Catholique. The ſecond ſenſe therefore we owne and acknowledge as before. But whether this be contrary to the judgement and practiſe of the univerſall Church, wee know not; becauſe it is hard for us know what the univerſall Church judgeth, except we could heare it ſpeake or ſee its practiſe; if the onelyonly head Prophet and Shepherd of the Church Jeſus Chriſt be fit to declare her judgement, we will be tryed thereby, who we know hath ſ…t Elders in every particular Church, Act. 14. 23. to watch over their particular flock, Act. 20. 28. but not over any other Church that wee can finde. Neither doth this deſtroy the unity or Communion of the Catholique Church, nor of particular Churches one with another as is ſaid, for Churches may enjoy brotherly Communion one with another, without ſuch ſtated formes, under the power and authority of one another, as hath been ſhewed before.
Reply. For if he be not a Miniſter to other Churches, then are not the Churches of God one, nor the Communion which they have together on▪ n…r the Miniſters one, nor the …cke which they feed one.
Anſw. In what ſenſe is intended to have the Miniſters one, and flocke one, we doe not ſee. If you meane one by one viſible Government over the Catholique Church, wherein there is a ſubordination of Churches and Miniſters, you muſt at laſt riſe to Oecomenicall Paſtor, or Councell, that muſt be the ſupreme, which can ſcarce ever be had. If you meane an unity by brotherly Communion in offices of love and mutuall helpefulneſſe of Churches and Miniſters, without uſurpation, ſuch an unity and Community is not deſtroyed, and the argument doth not follow▪ Cannot many diſtinct ſocieties ot Townes or Corporations make up one County, except the Major or Conſtable in one Towne be a Major or Conſtable in others alſo? By this Reaſon the Deacon of one Church is the Deacon of all, or elſe the unity is deſtroyed.
Reply. If the Paſtor derive all his authority from the Church, when the Church hath ſet him aſide, what right hath he to adminiſter among that people?
Anſw. True, but we ſay he derives all his authority from Chriſt, by the Church indeed, applying that office to him, to which the authority is annexed by the inſtitution of Chriſt, hence being the Miniſter of Chriſt unto them, if they without Chriſt depoſe him, they hinder the exerciſe of his Office, but his right remaines.
Reply. As they give right to an unworthy man to miniſter amongſt them, if they cal him unjuſtly, ſo they take right from the worthy, if they unjuſtly depoſe him.
Anſw. We grant there is a parity in foro externo, but as in the call, his outward cal conſiſts in the election of the calling, and the acceptation of the called, to compleat his power of adminiſtration. Now this by Chriſt in his Church may be deſtroyed in a juſt cenſure without his conſent, but cannot unjuſtly be wrung from him without his conſent, & therefore he may hold his right, till either hee be juſtly depoſed or willingly relinquiſh the ſame upon their injurious interruption of the uſe of his right.
Reply. And whereas you ſay the Miniſter is for the Miniſtery, and the Office for the execution, and ſo the Paſtor and the flocke are relatives, and therefore, if their election gave him authority among them to feed, their caſting him off hath ſtripped him of the ſame power they gave him.
A…ſu. Wee grant it is ſo, yet the execution may bee unjuſtly hindred, though the right and Office remaine: But we may well retort this argument upon the Miniſter of the uſuall or Catholicke Church. Thus if the Miniſter bee for the Miniſtery, and the Office for the execution, and ſo the Paſtor and flock be relatives, then hee that may juſtly for ever be hindred of all execution of the Miniſtery and hath no power to cenſure his flock, or cannot ſo much as juſtly approve and admoniſh them for the ſame, ſurely hee hath a poore Office and Miniſtery, but ſuch a Miniſter that hath no particular Congregation, that is his flock under his charge, may juſtly be excluded out of all Churches, and cannot cenſure or reprove his Catholique or uſuall Church for the ſame, therefore he is indeed no Miniſter, and and hath no Office in the Church of God.