purgation of religion; for wheresoever religion is to be purged in a
corrupted church, all men know that purgation standeth in putting
something away, not in keeping it still; in voiding somewhat, nor in
retaining it; so that a church is not purged, but left unpurged, when the
unnecessary monuments of bypast superstition are still preserved and kept
in the same. And as for the church of Scotland, least of all could there
be any purgation of it intended by the resuming of those ceremonies; for
such was the most glorious and ever memorable reformation of Scotland,
that it was far better purged than any other neighbour church. And of Mr
Hooker’s jest we may make good earnest; for, in very deed, as the
reformation of Geneva did pass the reformation of Germany, so the
reformation of Scotland did pass that of Geneva.
_Sect._ 34. Now hitherto we have discoursed of the power of princes, in
making of laws about things which concern the worship of God; for this
power it is which our opposites allege for warrant, of the controverted
ceremonies, wherefore to have spoken of it is sufficient for our present
purpose. Nevertheless, because there are also other sorts of
ecclesiastical things beside the making of laws, such as the vocation of
men of ecclesiastical order, the convocation and moderation of councils,
the judging and deciding of controversies about faith, and the use of the
keys, in all which princes have some place and power of intermeddling, and
a mistaking in one may possibly breed a mistaking in all; therefore I
thought good here to digress, and of these also to add somewhat, so far as
princes have power and interest in the same.
DIGRESSION I.
OF THE VOCATION OF MEN OF ECCLESIASTICAL ORDER.
In the vocation and calling of ecclesiastical persons, a prince ought to
carry himself _ad modum procurantis speciem, non designantis individuum_.
Which shall be more plainly and particularly understood in these
propositions which follow.
_Propos._ 1. Princes may and ought to provide and take care that men of
those ecclesiastical orders, and those only which are instituted in the
New Testament by divine authority, have vocation and office in the church.
Now, beside the apostles, prophets, and evangelists, which were not
ordained to be ordinary and perpetual offices in the church, there are but
two ecclesiastical orders or degrees instituted by Christ in the New
Testament,(993) viz., elders and deacons. _Excellenter canones duos tantum
sacros ordines appellari censet, diaconatus scilicet et presbyteratus,
quia hos solos primitiva ecclesia legitur habuisse, et de his solis
preceptum apostoli habemus_, saith the Master of sentences.(994) As for
the order and decree of bishops superior to that of elders, that there is
no divine ordinance nor institution for it, it is not only holden by
Calvin, Beza, Bucer, Martyr, Sadeel, Luther, Chemnitius, Gerhard,
Balduine, the Magdeburgians, Musculus, Piscator, Hemmingius, Zanchius,
Polanus, Junius, Pareus, Fennerus, Danaeus, Morney, Whittakers, Willets,
Perkins, Cartwright, the Professors of Leyden, and the far greatest part
of writers in reformed churches, but also by Jerome, who, upon Tit. i.,
and in his epistle to Evagrius, speaketh so plainly, that the Archbishop
of Spalato is driven to say,(995) _Deserimus in hac parte Hieronymum,
neque ei in his dictis assentimus_; also by Ambrose on 1 Tim. iii.;
Augustine in his Book of Questions out of both Testaments, quest. 101;
Chrysostom on 1 Tim. iii.; Isidore, dist. 21, cap. 1; the Canon Law, dist.
93, cap. 24, and dist. 95, cap. 5; Lombard., lib. 4, dist. 24. And after
him, by many schoolmen, such as Aquinas, Alensis, Albertus, Bonaventura,
Richardus, and Dominicus Soto, all mentioned by the Archbishop of Spalato,
lib. 2, cap. 4, num. 25. Gerhard(996) citeth for the same judgment,
Anselmus, Sedulius, Primasius, Theophylactus, Oecumenius, the Council of
Basil, Arelatensis, J. Parisiensis, Erasmus, Medina, and Cassander, all
which authors have grounded that which they say upon Scripture; for beside
that Scripture maketh no difference of order and degree betwixt bishops
and elders, it showeth also that they are one and the same order. For in
Ephesus and Crete, they who were made elders were likewise made bishops,
Acts xx. 17, 28; Tit. i. 5, 7. And the Apostle, Phil. i. 1, divideth the
whole ministry in the church of Philippi into two orders, bishops and
deacons. Moreover, 1 Tim. iii., he giveth order only for bishops and
deacons, but saith nothing of a third order. Wherefore it is manifest,
that beside those two orders of elders and deacons, there is no other
ecclesiastical order which hath any divine institution, or necessary use
in the church; and princes should do well to apply their power and
authority to the extirpation and rooting out of popes, cardinals,
patriarchs, primates, archbishops, bishops, suffragans, abbots, deans,
vice-deans, priors, archdeacons, subdeacons, abbots, chancellors,
chantors, subchantors, exorcists, monks, eremites, acoloths, and all the
rabble of popish orders, which undo the church, and work more mischief in
the earth than can be either soon seen or shortly told.
But, contrariwise, princes ought to establish and maintain in the church,
elders and deacons, according to the apostolical institution. Now elders
are either such as labour in the word and doctrine, or else such as are
appointed for discipline only. They who labour in the word and doctrine
are either such as do only teach, and are ordained for conserving, in
schools and seminaries of learning, the purity of Christian doctrine, and
the true interpretation of Scripture, and for detecting and confuting the
contrary heresies and errors, whom the Apostle calleth doctors or
teachers; or else they are such as do not only teach, but also have a more
particular charge to watch over the flock, to seek that which is lost, to
bring home that which wandereth, to heal that which is diseased, to bind
up that which is broken, to visit every family, to warn every person, to
rebuke, to comfort, &c., whom the Apostle called sometimes pastors, and
sometimes bishops or overseers. The other sort of elders are ordained only
for discipline and church government, and for assisting of the pastors in
ruling the people, overseeing their manners, and censuring their faults.
That this sort of elders is instituted by the Apostle, it is put out of
doubt, not alone by Calvin, Beza, and the divines of Geneva, but also by
Chemnitius (_Exam._ part 2, p. 218), Gerhard (_Loc. Theol._, tom. 6, p.
363, 364), Zanchius (in 4 _Proec._, col. 727), Martyr (in 1 Cor. xii. 28),
Bullinger (in 1 Tim. v. 17), Junius (_Animad. in Bell._, contr. 5, lib. 1,
cap. 2), Polanus (_Synt._, lib. 7, cap. 11), Pareus (in Rom. xii. 8; 1
Cor. xii. 28), Cartwright (on 1 Tim. v. 17), the Professors of Leyden
(_Syn. Pur. Theol._ disp. 42, thes. 20), and many more of our divines, who
teach that the Apostle, 1 Tim. v. 17, directly implieth that there were
some elders who ruled well, and yet laboured not in the word and doctrine;
and those elders he meaneth by them that rule, Rom. xii. 8; and by
_governments_, 1 Cor. xii. 28, where the Apostle saith not, _helps in
governments_, as our new English translation corruptly readeth, but
_helps, governments_, &c. plainly putting governments for a different
order from helps or deacons. Of these elders(997) speaketh Ambrose,(998)
as Dr Fulk also understandeth him,(999) showing that with all nations
eldership is honourable; wherefore the synagogue also, and afterwards the
church, hath had some elders of the congregation, without whose council
and advice nothing was done in the church; and that he knew not by what
negligence this had grown out of use, except it had been by the
sluggishness of the teachers, or rather their pride, whilst they seemed to
themselves to be something, and so did arrogate the doing of all by
themselves.
Deacons were instituted by the apostles(1000) for collecting, receiving,
keeping, and distributing ecclesiastical goods, which were given and
dedicated for the maintenance of ministers, churches, schools, and for the
help and relief of the poor, the stranger, the sick, and the weak; also
for furnishing such things as are necessary to the ministration of the
sacrament.(1001) Besides which employments, the Scripture hath assigned
neither preaching, nor baptising, nor any other ecclesiastical function to
ordinary deacons.
_Propos._ 2. Princes, in their dominions, ought to procure and effect,
that there be never wanting men qualified and fit for those ecclesiastical
functions and charges which Christ hath ordained, and that such men only
be called, chosen, and set apart for the same.
There are two things contained in this proposition. 1. That princes ought
to procure that the church never want men qualified and gifted for the
work and service of the holy ministry, for which end and purpose they
ought to provide and maintain schools and colleges, entrusted and
committed to the rule and oversight of orthodox, learned, godly, faithful,
and diligent masters, that so qualified and able men may be still
furnished and sent to take care that the ministers of the church neither
want due reverence, 1 Tim. v. 17; Heb. xiii. 17, nor sufficient
maintenance, 1 Cor. ix., that so men be not scarred from the service of
the ministry, but rather encouraged unto the same, 2 Chron. xxxi. 4.
2. That princes ought also to take order and course, that well-qualified
men, and no others, be advanced and called to bear charge and office in
the church, for which purpose they should cause not one disdainful
prelate, but a whole presbytery or company of elders, to take trial of him
who is to be taken into the number of preaching elders, and to examine
well the piety of his life, the verity of his doctrine, and his fitness to
teach. And further, that due trial may be continually had of the growth or
decay of the graces and utterance of every pastor, it is the part of
princes to enjoin the visitation of particular churches, and the keeping
of other presbyterial meetings, likewise the assembling of provincial, and
national synods, for putting order to such things as have not been helped
in the particular presbyteries. And as for the other sort of elders,
together with deacons, we judge the ancient order of this church to have
been most convenient for providing of well-qualified men for those
functions and offices; for the eighth head of the First Book of
Discipline, touching the election of elders and deacons, ordaineth that
only men of best knowledge and cleanest life be nominate to be in
election, and that their names be publicly read to the whole church by the
minister, giving them advertisement that from among them must be chosen
elders and deacons, that if any of these nominate be noted with public
infamy, he ought to be repelled; and that if any man know others of better
qualities within the church than those that be nominate, they shall be put
in election, that the church may have the choice.
If these courses, whereof we have spoken, be followed by Christian
princes, they shall, by the blessing of God, procure that the church shall
be served with able and fit ministers; but though thus they may _procurare
speciem_, yet they may not _designare individuum_, which now I am to
demonstrate.
_Propos._ 3. Nevertheless,(1002) princes may not design nor appoint such
or such particular men to the charge of such or such particular churches,
or to the exercise of such or such ecclesiastical functions, but ought to
provide that such an order and form be kept in the election and ordination
of the ministers of the church, as is warranted by the example of the
apostles and primitive church.
The vocation of a minister in the church is either inward or outward. The
inward calling which one must have in finding himself, by the grace of
God, made both able and willing to serve God and his church faithfully in
the holy ministry, lieth not open to the view of men, and is only manifest
to him from whom nothing can be hid; the outward calling is made up of
election and ordination: that signified in Scripture by _cheirotonia_ this
by _cheirothesia_ concerning which things we say with Zanchius,(1003)
_Magistratus_, &c.: “It pertaineth to a Christian magistrate and prince to
see for ministers unto his churches. But how? Not out of his own
arbitrement, but as God’s word teacheth; therefore let the Acts of the
Apostles and the epistles of Paul be read, how ministers were elected and
ordained, and let them follow that form.”
The right of election pertaineth to the whole church, which as it is
maintained by foreign divines who write of the controversies with Papists,
and as it was the order which this church prescribed in the Books of
Discipline, so it is commended unto us by the example of the apostles, and
of the churches planted by them. Joseph and Matthias were chosen and
offered to Christ by the whole church, being about 120 persons, Acts i.
15, 23; the apostles required the whole church and multitude of disciples,
to choose out from among them seven men to be deacons, Acts vi. 2, 3; the
Holy Ghost said to the whole church at Antioch, being assembled together
to minister unto the Lord, “Separate me Barnabas and Saul,” Acts xiii. 1,
2; the whole church chose Judas and Silas to be sent to Antioch, Acts xv.
22; the brethren who travelled in the church’s affairs were chosen by the
church, and are called the church’s messengers, 2 Cor. viii. 19, 23; such
men only were ordained elders by Paul and Barnabas who were chosen and
approved by the whole church, their suffrages being signified by the
lifting up of their hands, Acts xiv. 23. Albeit, Chrysostom and other
ecclesiastical writers use the word _cheirotonia_ for ordination and
imposition of hands, yet when they take it in this sense, they speak it
figuratively and synecdochically, as Junius showeth.(1004) For these two,
election by most voices, and ordination by laying on of hands, were joined
together, did cohere, as an antecedent and a consequent, whence the use
obtained, that the whole action should be signified by one word, _per
modum intellectus_, collecting the antecedent from the consequent, and the
consequent from the antecedent. Nevertheless, according to the proper and
native signification of the word, it noteth the signifying of a suffrage
or election by the lifting up of the hand, for _cheimotonehin_ is no other
thing nor _chehiras tehinein_ or _hanatehineiu_ to lift or hold up the
hands in sign of a suffrage; and so Chrysostom himself useth the word when
he speaketh properly, for he saith that the senate of Rome took upon him
_cheirosoiehin theohne_; that is (as D. Potter turneth his words(1005)),
to make gods by most voices.
Bellarmine(1006) reckoneth out three significations of the word
_cheirosoiehin_: 1. To choose by suffrages; 2. Simply to choose which way
soever it be; 3. To ordain by imposition of hands. Junius answereth
him,(1007) that the first is the proper signification; the second is
metaphorical; the third synecdochical.
Our English translators, 2 Cor. i. 19, have followed the metaphorical
signification, and in this place, Acts xiv. 23, the synecdochical. But
what had they to do either with a metaphor or a synecdoche when the text
may bear the proper sense? Now that Luke, in this place, useth the word in
the proper sense, and not in the synecdochical, Gerhard(1008) proveth from
the words which he subjoineth, to signify the ordaining of those elders by
the laying on of hands; for he saith that they prayed, and fasted, and
commended them to the Lord, in which words he implieth the laying on of
hands upon them, as may be learned from Acts vi. 6, “When they had prayed,
they laid their hands on them;” Acts xiii. 3, “When they had fasted, and
prayed, and laid their hands on them;” so Acts viii. 15, 17, prayer and
laying on of hands went together. Wherefore by _cheirotouhêsagtes_ Luke
pointeth at the election of those elders by voices, being, in the
following words, to make mention of their ordination by imposition of
hands.
Cartwright(1009) hath for the same point other weighty reasons: “It is
absurd (saith he) to imagine that the Holy Ghost, by Luke, speaking with
the tongues of men, that is to say, to their understanding, should use a
word in that signification in which it was never used before his time by
any writer, holy or profane, for how could he then be understood, if using
the note and name they used, he should have fled from the signification
whereunto they used it, unless therefore his purpose was to write that
which none could read? It must needs be that as he wrote so he meant the
election by voices. And if Demosthenes, for knowledge in the tongue, would
have been ashamed to have noted the laying down of hands by a word that
signifieth the lifting of them up, they do the Holy Ghost (which taught
Demosthenes to speak) great injury in using this impropriety and
strangeness of speech unto himself, which is yet more absurd, considering
that there were both proper words to utter the laying on of hands by, and
the same also was used in the translation of the LXX, which Luke, for the
Gentiles’ sake, did, as it may seem (where he conveniently could), most
follow. And yet it is most of all absurd that Luke, which straiteneth
himself to keep the words of the seventy interpreters, when as he could
have otherwise uttered things in better terms than they did, should here
forsake the phrase wherewith they noted the laying on of hands, being most
proper and natural to signify the same. The Greek Scholiast also, and the
Greek Ignatius, do plainly refer this word to the choice of the church by
voices.”
But it is objected, that Luke saith not of the whole church, but only of
Paul and Barnabas, that they made them by voices elders in every city.
_Ans._ But how can one imagine that betwixt them two alone the matter went
to suffrages? Election by most voices, or the lifting up of the hand in
taking of a suffrage, had place only among a multitude assembled together.
Wherefore we say with Junius,(1010) that τὸ χειροτονεὶν is both a common
and a particular action whereby a man chooseth, by his own suffrage in
particular, and likewise with others in common, so that in one and the
same action we cannot divide those things which are so joined together.
From that which hath been said, it plainly appeareth that the election of
ministers, according to the apostolic institution, pertaineth to the whole
body of that church where they are to serve; and that this was the
apostolic and primitive practice, it is acknowledged even by some of the
Papists, such as Lorinus, Salmeron, and Gaspar Sanctius, all upon Acts
xiv. 23. The canon law(1011) itself commendeth this form and saith,
_Electio clericorum est petitio plebis_. And was he not a popish
archbishop(1012) who condescended that the city of Magedeburg should have
_jus vocandi ac constituendi ecclesiae ministros_? Neither would the city
accept of peace without this condition.
That in the ancient church, for a long time, the election of ministers
remained in the power of the whole church or congregation, it is evident
from Cypr., lib. 1, epist. 4, 68; August., epist. 106; Leo I., epist. 95;
Socrat., lib. 4, cap. 30; and lib. 6, cap. 2; Possidon, _in Vita Aug._,
cap. 4. The testimonies and examples themselves, for brevity’s cause, I
omit. As for the thirteenth canon of the Council of Laodicea, which
forbiddeth to permit to the people the election of such as were to
minister at the altar, we say with Osiander,(1013) that this canon cannot
be approved, except only in this respect, that howbeit the people’s
election and consent be necessary, yet the election is not wholly and
solely to be committed to them, excluding the judgment and voice of the
clergy. And that this is all which the Council meant, we judge with
Calvin(1014) and Gerhard.(1015) That this is the true interpretation of
the canon, Junius(1016) proveth both by the words ὄχλοις ἐπιτρέπειν,
_permittere turbis_, for ἐπιτρέπειν signifieth to quit and leave the whole
matter to the fidelity and will of others; and, likewise, by the common
end and purpose of that Council which was to repress certain faults of the
people which had prevailed through custom. Indeed, if the whole matter
were altogether left to the people, contentions and confusions might be
feared; but whilst we plead for the election of the people, we add,
1. Let the clergy of the adjacent bounds, in their presbyterial assembly,
try and judge who are fit for the ministry; thereafter let a certain
number of those who are by them approven as fit, be offered and propounded
to the vacant church, that a free election may be made of some one of that
number, providing always that if the church or congregation have any real
reason for refusing the persons nominate and offered unto them, and for
choosing of others, their lawful desires be herein yielded unto.
2. Even when it comes to the election,(1017) yet _populus non solus
judicat, sed proeunte et moderante actionem clero et presbyterio_, let the
elders of the congregation, together with some of the clergy concurring
with them, moderate the action, and go before the body of the people.
Would to God that these things were observed by all who desire the worthy
office of a pastor; for neither the patron’s presentation, nor the
clergy’s nomination, examination and recommendation, nor the bishop’s
laying on of hands and giving of institution, nor all these put together,
can make up to a man’s calling to be a pastor to such or such a particular
flock, without their own free election. Even, as in those places where
princes are elected, the election gives them _jus ad rem_ (as they speak),
without which the inauguration can never give them _jus in re_; so a man
hath, from his election, power to be a pastor so far as concerneth _jus ad
rem_, and ordination only applieth him to the actual exercising of his
pastoral office, which ordination ought to be given unto him only who is
elected, and that because he is elected. And of him who is obtruded and
thrust upon a people, without their own election, it is well said by
Zanchius, that he can neither with a good conscience exercise his
ministry, nor yet be profitable to the people, because they will not
willingly hear him, nor submit themselves unto him.
Furthermore, because patronages and presentation to benefices do often
prejudge the free and lawful election which God’s word craveth, therefore
the Second Book of Discipline, chap. 12, albeit it permitteth and alloweth
the ancient patrons of prebendaries, and such benefices as have not _curam
animarum_, to reserve their patronages, and to dispone thereupon to
benefices that have _curam animarum_, may have no place in this light of
reformation. Not that we think a man presented to a benefice that hath
_curam animarum_ cannot be lawfully elected, but because of the often and
ordinary abuse of this unnecessary custom, we could wish it abolished by
princes.
It followeth to speak of ordination, wherein, with Calvin,(1018)
Junius,(1019) Gersom Burer,(1020) and other learned men, we distinguish
betwixt the act of it and the rite of it. The act of ordination standeth
in the mission to the deputation of a man to an ecclesiastical function,
with power and authority to perform the same; and thus are pastors
ordained when they are sent to a people with power to preach the word,
minister the sacraments, and exercise ecclesiastical discipline among
them. For “How shall they preach except they be sent?” Rom. x. 15. Unto
which mission or ordination neither prayer nor imposition of hands, nor
any other of the church’s rites, is essential and necessary, as the
Archbishop of Spalato showeth,(1021) who placeth the essential act of
ordination in _missione potestativa_, or a simple deputation and
application of a minister to his ministerial function with power to
perform it. This may be done, saith he, by word alone, without any other
ceremony, in such sort that the fact should hold, and the ordination thus
given should be valid enough. When a man is elected by the suffrages of
the church, then his ordination is _quasi solennis missio in possessionem
honoris illius, ex decreto_, saith Junius.(1022) Chemnitius noteth,(1023)
that when Christ, after he had chosen his twelve apostles, ordained them
to preach the gospel, to cast out devils, and to heal diseases, we read of
no ceremony used in this ordination, but only that Christ gave them power
to preach, to heal, and to cast out devils, and so sent them away to the
work. And howsoever the church hath for order and decency used some rite
in ordination, yet there is no such rite to be used with opinion of
necessity, or as appointed by Christ or his apostles. When our writers
prove against Papists that order is no sacrament, this is one of their
arguments, that there is no rite instituted in the New Testament to be
used in the giving of orders. Yet because imposition of hands was used in
ordination not only by the apostles, who had power to give extraordinarily
the gifts of the Holy Ghost, but likewise by the presbytery or company of
elders; and Timothy did not only receive the gift that was in him, by the
laying on of Paul’s hands. 2 Tim. i. 16, as the mean, but also with the
laying on of the hands of the presbytery, 1 Tim. iv. 14, as the rite and
sign of his ordination; therefore the church, in the after ages, hath
still kept and used the same rite in ordination, which rite shall, with
our leave, be yet retained in the church, providing, 1. It be not used
with opinion of necessity; for that the church hath full liberty either to
use any other decent rite (not being determined by the word to any one),
or else to use no rite at all, beside a public declaration that the person
there presented is called and appointed to serve the church in the
pastoral office, together with exhortation to the said person, and the
commending of him to the grace of God, the church not being tied by the
word to use any rite at all in the giving of ordination. 2. That it be not
used as a sacred significant ceremony to represent and signify either the
delivering to the person ordained authority to preach and to minister the
sacraments, or the consecration and mancipation of him to the holy
ministry; or, lastly, God’s bestowing of the gifts of his Spirit upon him,
together with his powerful protection and gracious preservation in the
performing of the works of his calling, but only as a moral sign, solemnly
to assign and point out the person ordained; which, also, was one of the
ends and uses whereunto this rite of laying on of hands was applied by the
apostles themselves, as Chemnitius showeth.(1024) And so Joshua was
designed and known to the people of Israel as the man appointed to be the
successor of Moses, by that very sign, that Moses laid his hands on him,
Deut. xxxiv.
As a sacred significant ceremony we may not use it, 1. Because it hath
been proved,(1025) that men may never, at their pleasure, ascribe to any
rite whatsoever, a holy signification of some mystery of faith or duty of
piety. The apostles, indeed, by laying on of their hands, did signify
their giving of the gift of the Holy Ghost; but, now, as the miracle, so
the mystery hath ceased, and the church not having such power to make the
signification answer to the sign, if now a sacred or mystical
signification be placed in the rite, it is but an empty and void sign, and
rather minical than mystical. 2. All such sacred rites as have been
notoriously abused to superstition, if they have no necessary use, ought
to be abolished, as we have also proven;(1026) therefore, if imposition of
hands in ordination be accounted and used as a sacred rite, and as having
a sacred signification (the use of it not being necessary), it becometh
unlawful, by reason of the bygone and present superstitious abuse of the
same in Popery.
Now the right and power of giving ordination to the ministers of the
church belongeth primarily and wholly to Christ, who communicateth the
same with his bride the church. Both the bridegroom for his part, and the
bride for her part, have delivered this power of ordination to the
presbytery _jure_ DIVINO. Afterward the presbytery conferred, _jure
humano_, this power upon them, who were specially called bishops, whence
the tyrannical usurpation of bishops hath in process followed, claiming
the proper right and ordinary position of that which at first they had
only by free concession; and thus that great divine, Franciscus
Junius,(1027) deriveth the power of ordination. All which, that it may be
plain unto us, let us observe four several passages.
1. The whole church(1028) hath the power of ordination communicated to her
from Christ, to whom it wholly pertaineth; for, 1. It is most certain (and
among our writers agreed upon) that, to the whole church collectively
taken, Christ hath delivered the keys of the kingdom of heaven with power
to use the same, promising that whosoever the church bindeth on earth,
shall be bound in heaven, and whosoever she looseth on earth, shall be
loosed in heaven, Matt. xviii. 18; therefore he hath also delivered unto
the whole church power to call and ordain ministers for using the keys,
otherwise the promise might be made void, because the ministers which she
now hath may fail. 2. Christ hath appointed a certain and an ordinary way
how the church may provide herself of ministers, and so may have ever in
herself the means of grace and comfort sufficient to herself, according to
that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. iii. 21, 22, “All things are yours, whether
Paul or Apollos,” &c. But if she had not the power of ordaining ministers
unto herself when she needeth, then might she sometimes be deprived of
such an ordinary and certain way of providing herself. 3. When the
ministry of the church faileth or is wanting, Christian people have power
to exercise that act of ordination which is necessary to the making of a
minister. Dr Fulk(1029) showeth out of Ruffinus and Theodoret, that
Ædesius and Frumentius, being but private men, by preaching of the gospel,
converted a great nation of the Indians; and that the nation of the
Iberians being converted by a captive woman, the king and the queen became
teachers of the gospel to the people. And might not, then, the church in
those places both elect and ordain ministers?
2. The church hath, by divine institution, delivered the power of
ordaining ordinary ministers to the presbytery, whereof the church
consisteth _repræsentative_. And so saith Pareus,(1030) that the power of
mission (which is _ordination_) belongeth to the presbytery. _Scriptura_,
saith Balduine,(1031) _ordinationem tribuit toti presbyterio, non seorsim
episcopo_. With whom say the Professors of Leyden in like manner.(1032)
Now when the divines of Germany and Belgia speak of a presbytery, they
understand such a company as hath in it both those two sorts of elders
which we speak of, viz., some who labour in the word and doctrine, whom
the Apostle calleth bishops, and others who labour only in discipline. The
apostolic and primitive times knew neither parishional nor diocesan
churches. Christians lived then in cities only, not in villages, because
of the persecution; and it is to be remembered, that in Rome, Corinth,
Ephesus, Colosse, Philippi, Thessalonica, and such other cities inhabited
by Christians, there were more pastors than one. The Apostle called unto
him the elders (not elder) of the church of Ephesus, Acts xx. 17; he
writeth to the bishops (not bishop) of the church at Philippi, Phil. i. 1;
he biddeth the Thessalonians know them (not him) which laboured among
them, 2 Thess. v. 12. Now that number of pastors or bishops which was in
one city, did in common govern all the churches within the city, and there
was not any one pastor who, by himself, governed a certain part of the
city particularly assigned to his charge, to which purpose the Apostle
exhorteth the elders of the church at Ephesus, to take heed to all the
flock, παντι τῳ ποιμιῳ, Acts xx. 28. And to the same purpose it is said by
Jerome,(1033) that before schemes and divisions were, by the devil’s
instigation, made in religion, _communi presbyterorum consilio ecclesiæ
gubernabantur_.
This number of preaching elders in one city, together with those elders
which, in the same city, laboured for discipline only, made up that
company which the Apostle,(1034) 1 Tim. iv. 14, calleth a presbytery, and
which gave ordination to the ministers of the church. To the whole
presbytery, made up of those two sorts of elders, belonged the act of
ordination, which is mission, howbeit the right,(1035) which was
imposition of hands, belonged to those elders alone which laboured in the
word and doctrine. And so we are to understand that which the Apostle
there saith of the presbytery’s laying on of hands upon Timothy. As for Dr
Downame’s(1036) two glosses upon that place, which he borroweth from
Bellarmine, and whereby he thinketh to elude our argument, we thank Dr
Forbesse(1037) for confuting them. _Quod autem_, &c.: “But whereas (saith
he) some have expounded the presbytery in this place to be a company of
bishops, except by bishops thou would understand presbyteries, it is a
violent interpretation, and an insolent meaning, and whereas others have
understood the degree itself of eldership, this cannot stand, for the
degree hath not hands, but hands are men’s.” Wherefore the Doctor himself,
by the presbytery whereof the Apostle speaketh, understandeth (as we do)
_confessus presbyterorum_.
But since we cannot find, in the apostles’ times, any other presbytery or
assembly of elders beside that which hath been spoken of, how cometh it,
nay, some say that the church of Scotland, and other reformed churches,
did appoint two sorts of presbyterial assemblies, one (which here we call
sessions) wherein the pastor of the parish, together with those elders
within the same, whom the Apostle calleth governments and presidents, put
order to the government of that congregation, another (which here we
presbyteries) wherein the pastors of sundry churches, lying near together,
do assemble themselves? Which difficulty yet more increaseth, if it be
objected that neither of these two doth in all points answer or conform
itself unto that primitive form of presbytery whereof we speak. _Ans._ The
division and multiplication of parishes, and the appointment of particular
pastors to the peculiar oversight of particular flocks, together with the
plantation of churches in villages as well as in cities, hath made it
impossible for us to be served with that only one form of presbytery which
was constitute in the apostles’ times. But this difference of the times
being (as it ought to be) admitted, for an inevitable cause of the
differences of the former, both those two forms of presbyterial meetings
appointed by the church of Scotland do not only necessarily result from
that one apostolic form, but likewise (the actions of them both being laid
together) do accomplish all these ordinary ecclesiastical functions which
were by it performed.
And first, Sessions have a necessary use, because the pastors and those
elders who assist them in the governing of their flocks must, as well
conjunctly as severally, as well publicly as privately, govern, admonish,
rebuke, censure, &c. As for presbyteries, because the parishes being
divided in most places, there is but one pastor in a parish, except there
should be a meeting of a number of pastors out of divers parishes, neither
could trial be well had of the growth or decay of the gifts, graces, and
utterance of every pastor, for which purpose the ninth head of the First
book of Discipline appointed the ministers of adjacent churches to meet
together at convenient times, in towns and public places, for the exercise
of prophecying and interpreting of Scripture, according to that form
commended to the church at Corinth, 1 Cor. xiv. 29-32. For yet could the
churches be governed by the common council and advice of presbyteries,
which being necessary by apostolic institution, and being the foundation
and ground of our presbyteries, it maketh them necessary too.
3. After the golden age of the apostles was spent and away, presbyteries,
finding themselves disturbed with emulations, contentions, and factions,
for unity’s sake, chose one of their number to preside among them, and to
confer, in name of the rest, the rite and sign of initiation (which was
imposition of hands) on them whom they ordained ministers. This honour did
the presbyters yield to him who was specially and peculiarly called
bishop, _jure humano_; yet the act of ordination they still reserved in
their own power. And wheresoever the act doth thus remain in the power of
the whole presbytery, the conferring of the outward sign or rite by one in
the name of the rest, none of us condemneth, as may be seen in Beza,
Didoclavius, and Gersom Bucer. Neither is there any more meant by
Jerome(1038) when he saith, “What doth a bishop (ordination being
excepted) which a presbyter may not do?” For, 1. He speaketh not of the
act of ordination, which remained in the power of the presbytery, but of
the outward sign or rite, which synedochically he calls ordination.(1039)
2. He speaketh only of the custom of that time, and not of any divine
institution; for that the imposition of hands pertained to the bishop
alone, not by divine institution, but only by ecclesiastical custom,
Junius proveth(1040) out of Tertullian, Jerome and Ambrose.
4. Afterward bishops began to appropriate to themselves that power which
pertained unto them _jure devoluto_, as if it had been their own _jure
proprio_. Yet so that some vestiges of the ancient order have still
remained; for both Augustine and Ambrose (whose words, most plain to this
purpose, are cited by Dr Forbesse(1041)) testify that, in their time, in
Alexandria and all Egypt, the presbyters gave ordination when a bishop was
not present. The canon law(1042) ordaineth that, in giving of ordination,
presbyters lay on their hands, together with the bishop’s hands. And it is
holden by many Papists (of whom Dr Forbesse(1043) allegeth some for the
same point) that any simple presbyter (whom they call a priest) may, with
the Pope’s commandment or concession, give valid ordination. That which
maketh them grant so much is, because they dare not deny that presbyters
have the power of ordination _jure divino_. Yet saith Panormitanus,(1044)
_Olim presbytery in communi regebant ecclesiam, et ordinabant sacradotes._
The Doctor himself holdeth, that one simple presbyter howsoever having, by
virtue of his presbyterial order, power to give ordination, _quod ad actum
primum sive aptitudinem_, yet _quo ad exercitium_ cannot validly give
ordination without a commission from the bishop or from the presbytery, if
either there be no bishop, or else he be a heretic or wolf. But I would
learn why may not the presbytery validly ordain, either by themselves, or
by any one presbyter with commission and power from them, even where there
is a bishop (and he no heretic) who consenteth not thereto; for the
Doctor(1045) acknowledgeth, that not only _quo ad aptitudinem_, but even
_quo ad plenariam ordinationis executionem_, the same power pertaineth to
the presbytery _collegialiter_, which he allegeth (but proveth not) that
the apostles gave to bishops _personaliter_.
Now from all these things princes may learn how to reform their own and
the prelates’ usurpation, and how to reduce the orders and vocation of
ecclesiastical persons unto conformity with the apostolic and primitive
pattern, from which if they go on either to enjoin or to permit a
departing, we leave them to be judged by the King of terrors.
DIGRESSION II.
OF THE CONVOCATION AND MODERATION OF SYNODS.
Touching the convocation of synods, we resolve with the Professors of
Leyden,(1046) that if a prince do so much as tolerate the order and
regiment of the church to be public, his consent and authority should be
craved, and he may also design the time, place, and other circumstances;
but much more,(1047) if he be a Christian and orthodox prince, should his
consent, authority, help, protection, and safeguard be sought and granted.
And that according to the example, both of godly kings in the Old
Testament, and of Christian emperors and kings in the New.(1048) Chiefly,
then, and justly(1049) the magistrate may and ought to urge and require
synods, when they of the ecclesiastical order cease from doing their duty.
_Veruntamen si contra_,(1050) &c. “Nevertheless (say they), if,
contrariwise, the magistrate be an enemy and persecutor of the church and
of true religion, or cease to do his duty; that is, to wit, in a manifest
danger of the church, the church notwithstanding ought not to be wanting
to herself, but ought to use the right and authority of convocation, which
first and foremost remaineth with the rulers of the church, as may be
seen, Acts xv.”
But that this be not thought a tenet of anti-episcopal writers alone, let
us hear what is said by one of our greatest opposites:(1051) _Neque
defendimus ita_, &c.: “Neither do we so defend that the right of
convocating councils pertaineth to princes, as that the ecclesiastical
prelates may no way either assemble themselves together by mutual consent,
or be convocated by the authority of the metropolitan, primate, or
patriarch. For the apostles did celebrate councils without any convocation
of princes. So many councils that were celebrate before the first Nicea,
were, without all doubt, gathered together by the means alone of
ecclesiastical persons; for to whom directly the church is fully
committed, they ought to bear the care of the church. Yet princes in some
respect indirectly, for help and aid, chiefly then when the prelates
neglect to convocate councils, or are destitute of power for doing of the
same, of duty may, and use to convocate them.” Where we see his judgment
to be, that the power of convocating councils pertaineth directly to
ecclesiastical persons, and to princes only indirectly, for that they
ought to give help and aid to the convocation of the same, especially when
churchmen either will not or cannot assemble themselves together. His
reasons whereupon he groundeth his judgment are two, and those strong
ones.
1. The apostolical councils, Acts vi. 2; iv. 16, and so many as were
assembled before the first council of Nice, were not convocated by
princes, but by ecclesiastical persons without the leave of princes;
therefore, in the like cases, the church ought to use the like liberty,
that is, when there is need of synods, either for preventing or reforming
some corruptions in the doctrine or policy of the church; and for avoiding
such inconveniences as may impede the course of the gospel (princes in the
meantime being hostile opposites to the truth of God and to the purity of
religion), then to convocate the same without their authority and leave.
2. The church is fully committed (and that directly) to the ministers whom
Christ hath set to rule over the same; therefore they ought to take care
and to provide for all her necessities as those who must give account, and
be answerable to God for any hurt which she receiveth in things spiritual
or ecclesiastical, for which (when they might) they did not provide a
remedy, which being so, it followeth, that when princes will neither
convocate synods, nor consent to the convocating of them, yet if the
convocating of a synod be a necessary mean for healing of the church’s
hurt, and ecclesiastical persons be able (through the happy occasion of a
fit opportunity) synodically to assemble themselves, in that case they
ought by themselves to come together, unless one would say that princes
alone, and not pastors, must give account to God how it hath gone with the
church in matters spiritual and ecclesiastical.
If it be objected that our divines maintain against Papists, that the
right and power of convocating synods pertaineth to princes: _Ans._, And
so say I; but for making the purpose more plain I add three directions: 1.
In ordinary cases, and when princes are not enemies to the truth and
purity of the gospel, ecclesiastical persons should not do well to
assemble themselves together in a synod, except they be convocate with the
authority or consent of princes. Yet, as Junius showeth,(1052) in
extraordinary cases, and when the magistrate will not concur nor join with
the church, the church may well assemble and come together beside his
knowledge, and without his consent, for that extraordinary evils must have
extraordinary remedies. 2. Ecclesiastical persons may convocate councils
simply, and by a spiritual power and jurisdiction; but to convocate them
by a temporal and coactive power, pertaineth to princes only.
“Ecclesiastical power (saith the Archbishop of Spalato(1053)) may appoint
and convocate councils; but yet the ecclesiastical power itself cannot,
with any effect or working, compel bishops, especially if the bishops of
another province, or kingdom, or patriarchship, be to be convocated. For
because the church can work by her censures, and deprive them who refuse
of her communion, if they come not, yet they shall not therefore come to
the council if they contemn the censure; therefore that no man may be able
to resist, it is necessary that they be called by a coactive authority,
which can constrain them who gainstand, both with banishments and bodily
punishments, and compel the bishops, not only of one province, but also of
the whole kingdom or empire, to convene.” 3. In the main and substantial
respects, the convocations of councils pertaineth to the ministers of the
church, that is, as councils are ecclesiastical meetings, for putting
order to ecclesiastical matters, they ought to be assembled by the
spiritual power of the ministers, whose part it is to espy and note all
the misorders and abuses in the church, which must be righted; but because
councils are such meetings as must have a certain place designed for them
in the dominions and territories of princes, needing further, for their
safe assembling, a certification of their princely protection; and,
finally, it being expedient for the better success of councils, that
Christian princes be present therein, either personal or by their
commissioners, that they may understand the councils, conclusions, and
decrees, and assenting unto the same, ratify and establish them by their
regal and royal authority, because of these circumstances it is, that the
consent and authority of Christian princes is, and ought to be, sought and
expected for the assembling of synods.
As for the right of presidency and moderation, we distinguish, with
Junius,(1054) two sorts of it, both which have place in councils, viz.,
the moderation of the ecclesiastical action, and the moderation of the
human order; and with him we say, that in councils, the whole
ecclesiastical action ought to be moderated by such a president as is
elected for the purpose; even as Hosius, bishop of Corduba, was chosen to
preside in the first council of Nice: which office agreeth not with
princes; for in the point of propounding rightly the state of questions
and things to be handled, and of containing the disputation in good order,
_certe præsidere debet persona ecclesiastica, in sacris literis erudita_,
saith the Archbishop of Spalato.(1055) The presiding and moderating in the
human order, that is, by a coactive power to compass the turbulent, to
avoid all confusion and contention, and to cause a peaceable proceeding
and free deliberation, pertaineth indeed to princes, and so did
Constantine preside in the same council of Nice.
DIGRESSION III.
OF THE JUDGING OF CONTROVERSIES AND QUESTIONS OF FAITH.
There is a twofold judgment which discerneth and judgeth of faith. The one
absolute, whereby the Most High God, whose supreme authority alone bindeth
us to believe whatsoever he propoundeth to be believed by us, hath in his
written word pronounced, declared, and established, what he would have us
to believe concerning himself or his worship; the other limited and
subordinate, which is either public or private. That which is public is
either ordinary or extraordinary. The ministerial or subordinate public
judgment, which I call ordinary, is the judgment of every pastor or
doctor, who, by reason of his public vocation and office, ought by his
public ministry to direct and instruct the judgments of other men in
matters of faith, which judgment of pastors and doctors is limited and
restricted to the plain warrants and testimonies of Holy Scripture, they
themselves being only the ambassadors(1056) of the Judge to preach and
publish the sentence which he hath established, so that a pastor is not
properly _judex_ but _index_. The subordinate public judgment, which is
extraordinary, is the judgment of a council assembled for the more public
and effectual establishment and declaration of one or more points of faith
and heads of Christian doctrine, and that in opposition to all contrary
heresy or error, which is broached and set a-foot in the church. From
which council,(1057) no Christian man who is learned in the Scriptures may
be excluded, but ought to be admitted to utter his judgment in the same;
for in the indagation or searching out of a matter of faith, they are not
the persons of men which give authority to their sayings, but the reasons
and documents which every one bringeth for his judgment. The subordinate
judgment, which I call private, is the judgment of discretion whereby
every Christian,(1058) for the certain information of his own mind, and
the satisfaction of his own conscience, may and ought to try and examine,
as well the decrees of councils as the doctrines of particular pastors,
and in so far to receive and believe the same, as he understandeth them to
agree with the Scriptures.
Besides these, there is no other kind of judgment which God hath allowed
to men in matters of faith, which being first observed, we say next,
concerning the part of princes, that when questions and controversies of
faith are tossed in the church, that which pertaineth to them is, to
convocate a council for the decision of the matter, civilly to moderate
the same, by causing such an orderly and peaceable proceeding as is alike
necessary in every grave assembly, whether of the church or of the
commonwealth; and, finally, by their coactive temporal power to urge and
procure that the decrees of the council be received, and the faith therein
contained professed, by their subjects.
But neither may they, by their own authority and without a council, decide
any controverted matter of faith, nor yet having convocated a council, may
they take upon them to command, rule, order, and dispose the disputes and
deliberations according to their arbitrement; nor, lastly, may they, by
virtue of their regal dignity, claim any power to examine the decrees
concluded in the council, otherwise than by the judgment of private
discretion which is common to every Christian.
First, I say, they may not by themselves presume, publicly and judicially,
to decide and define any matter of faith, which is questioned in the
church; but this definition they ought to remit unto a lawful and free
council. Ambrose would not come to the court to be questioned and judged
by the emperor Valentinian in a matter of faith, whenever he heard that
emperors judged bishops in matters of faith, seeing, if that were granted,
it would follow that laymen should dispute and debate matters, and bishops
hear, yea, that bishops should learn of laymen.
The true ground of which refusal (clear enough in itself) is darkened by
Dr Field,(1059) who allegeth, 1. That the thing which Valentinian took on
him was, to judge of a thing already resolved in a general council called
by Constantine, as if it had been free, and not yet judged of at all. 2.
That Valentinian was known to be partial; that he was but a novice; and
the other judges which he meant to associate himself suspected; but
howsoever these circumstances might serve the more to justify Ambrose’s
not compearing to be judged in a matter of faith by Valentinian, yet the
Doctor toucheth not that which is most considerable, namely, the reason
which he alleged for his not compearing, because it hath been at no time
heard of that emperors judged bishops in matters of faith, and if that
were granted, it would follow that bishops should learn of laymen; which
reason holdeth ever good, even though the thing hath not been formerly
judged by a council.
And, furthermore, if those (which the Doctor mentioneth) were the true
reasons of his refusing to be judged by Valentinian, then why did he
pretend another reason (whereof we have heard), and not rather defend
himself with the real and true reason? Wherefore we gather, that the
reason which made Ambrose refuse to be judged by him was no other than
this, because he considered that princes, neither by themselves, nor by
any whom they please to choose, may, without a lawfully assembled and free
council, usurp a public judgment and decisive sentence in controversies of
faith, which, if they arrogate to themselves, they far exceed the bounds
of their vocation; for it is not said of princes, but of priests, that
their lips should preserve knowledge, and that they should seek the law
from their mouths, Mal. ii. 7. And the priests did Jehoshaphat set in
“Jerusalem, for the judgment of the Lord, and for controversies,” 2 Chron.
xix. 8, 10, and for judging betwixt law and commandment, statutes and
judgments.
In the meanwhile we deny not but that in extraordinary cases, when lawful
councils cannot be had, and when the clergy is universally corrupted
through gross ignorance, perverse affections, and incorrigible negligence,
in such a case the prince, notwithstanding the defect of the ordinary and
regular judges, may yet, by the power of the civil sword, repress and
punish so many as publish and spread such doctrines as both he and other
Christians, by the judgment of discretion, plainly understand from
Scripture to be heretical.
Next, I say, that the prince, having assembled a council, may not take so
much upon him as imperiously to command what he thinketh good in the
disputes and deliberations, and to have everything ordered, disposed, and
handled according to his mind. “To debate and define theological
controversies, and to teach what is orthodoxal, what heretical, is the
office of divines, yet, by a coactive authority, to judge this orthodox
faith to be received by all, and heretical pravity to be rejected, is the
office of kings, or the supreme magistrates, in every commonwealth,” saith
the Bishop of Salisbury.(1060) And, again,(1061) “In searching, directing,
teaching, divines ordinarily, and by reason of their calling, ought to go
before kings themselves; but in commanding, establishing, compelling,
kings do far excel:” where he showeth how, in defining of the
controversies of religion, in one respect ecclesiastical persons, and in
another respect kings, have the first place.
In the debating of a question of faith, kings have not, by virtue of their
princely vocation, any precedency or chief place, the action being merely
ecclesiastical. For howbeit kings may convocate a council, preside also
and govern the same as concerning the human and political order, yet,
saith Junius,(1062) _Actiones, deliberationes, et definitiones, ad
substantiam rei ecclesiasticae pertinentes, a sacerdotio sunt, a caetu
servoram Dei, quibus rei suoe administrationem mandavit Deus._ And, with
him, the Archbishop of Spalato saith, in like manner,(1063) that howbeit
Christian princes have convocated councils, and civilly governed the same,
yet they had no power nor authority in the very discussing, handling and
deciding of matters of faith.
What then? In the handling of controversies of faith, have princes no
place nor power at all beside that of political government only? Surely,
by virtue of their princely authority, they have no other place in the
handling of these matters. Yet, what if they be men of singular learning
and understanding in the Scriptures? Then let them propound their own
suffrage, with the grounds and reasons of it, even as other learned men in
the council do. But neither as princes, nor as men singularly learned, may
they require that others in the council shall dispute and debate matters,
and that they themselves shall sit as judges having judicial power of a
negative voice; for in a council no man’s voice hath any greater strength
than his reasons and probation have. _Non enim admitto_, &c: “For I admit
not in a council (saith the same prelate(1064)) some as judges, others as
disputators, for I have showed that a conciliary judgment consisteth in
the approbation of that sentence which, above others, hath been showed to
have most weight, and to which no man could enough oppose. Wherefore no
man in the council ought to have a judiciary voice, unless he be withal a
disputator, and assigns a reason wherefore he assigns to that judgment and
repels another, and that reason such a one as is drawn from the Scripture
only, and from antiquity.”
Lastly, I hold, that, after the definition and decision of a council,
princes may not take upon them, by any judicial power or public vocation,
to examine the same, as if they had authority to pronounce yet another
decisive sentence, either ratifying or reversing what the council hath
decreed. Most certain it is, that, before princes give their royal assent
unto the decrees of any council whatsoever, and compel men to receive and
acknowledge the same, they ought, first of all, carefully to try and
examine them whether they agree with the Scriptures or not; and, if they
find them not to agree with the Scriptures, then to deny their assent and
authority thereto. But all the princes do not by any judicial power or
public authority, but only by the judgment of private discretion, which
they have as Christians, and which, together with them, is common also to
their subjects; for neither may a master of a family commend to his
children and servants the profession of that faith which is published by
the decrees of a council, except, in like manner, he examine the same by
the Scriptures.
DIGRESSION IV.
OF THE POWER OF THE KEYS, AND ECCLESIASTICAL CENSURES.
Ecclesiastical censures and punishments, wherewith delinquents are bound,
and from which, when they turn penitents, they are loosed, are of two
sorts: either such as are common, and agree unto all, as excommunication
and absolution; or such as are peculiar, and agree only to men of
ecclesiastical order, as suspension, deprivation, &c.
As touching the power of the keys, to bind and loose, excommunicate and
absolve; first of all, princes are to remember, that neither they may, by
themselves, exercise this power (for _regum est corporalem irrogare
paenam; sacerdotum spiritualem inferre vindictam_(1065)), nor yet by their
deputies or commissioners in their name, and with authority from them;
because, as they have not themselves the power of the keys, so neither can
they communicate the same unto others. Secondly, Forasmuch as princes are
the wardens, defenders, and revengers of both the Tables, they ought,
therefore, to provide and take course that neither laymen be permitted to
have and exercise, the power of excommunication, nor yet that the prelates
themselves be suffered, in their particular dioceses, to appropriate this
power and external jurisdiction, as peculiar to themselves; but that it
remain in their hands to whom it pertaineth by divine institution. What a
woeful abuse is it, that, in our neighbour churches of England and
Ireland, the bishop’s vicar-general, or official, or commissary, being
oftentimes such a one as hath never entered into any holy orders, shall
sit in his courts to use (I should have said abuse) the power of
excommunication and absolution? And what though some silly presbyter be
present in the court? Doth not the bishop’s substitute, being a layman,
examine and judge the whole matter, decree, and give sentence what is to
be done? Hath he not the presbyter’s tongue tied to his belt? And what
doth the presbyter more but only pronounce the sentence according to that
which he who sitteth judge in the court hath decreed and decerned? As
touching the prelates themselves, I pray, by what warrant have they
appropriated to themselves the whole external jurisdiction of binding and
loosing, excommunicating and absolving? But that we may a little scan this
their usurpation, and discover the iniquity thereof to the view of the
princes, whose part it is to cause the same to be reformed, let us
consider to whom Christ himself, who hath the key of David (Rev. iii. 7),
who openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth and no man openeth, hath
committed this power of the keys to be used on earth. And, first, Let us
distinguish betwixt the power itself, and the execution of it.
The power and authority of binding and loosing Christ hath delivered to
the whole church, that is, to every particular church collectively taken.
“The authority of excommunication pertaineth to the whole church,” saith
Dr Fulk.(1066) _Jus excommunicandi_, saith Balduine,(1067) _non est penes
quamvis privatum, sive ex ordine sit ecclesiastico, sive politico_, &c.
_Sed hoc jus pertiner ad totam ecclesiam._ So say Zanchius (in 4 Praec.,
col. 756), Polanus (_Synt._, lib. 7, cap. 18), Pareus (in 1 Cor. v., _De
Excom._), Cartwright (on 1 Cor. v. 4), Perkins (on Jude 3): and,
generally, all our sound writers. The Magdeburgians(1068) cite, for the
same judgment, Augustine and Primatius. Gerhard(1069) citeth also some
popish writers assenting hereunto. The reasons which we give for
confirmation hereof are these:—
1. It pertaineth to the whole church, collectively taken, to deny her
Christian communion to such wicked persons as add contumacy to their
disobedience: therefore, it pertaineth to the whole church to
excommunicate them. Again, it pertaineth to the whole church to admit and
receive one into her communion and familiar fellowship: therefore, to the
whole church it likewise pertaineth to cast one out of her communion.
Sure, the sentence of excommunication is pronounced in vain, except the
whole church cut off the person thus judged from all communion with her:
and the sentence of absolution is to as little purpose pronounced, except
the whole church admit one again to have communion with her. Shortly, the
whole church hath the power of punishing a man, by denying her communion
unto him: therefore, the whole church hath the power of judging that he
ought to be so punished. The whole church hath the power of remitting this
punishment again: therefore, the whole church hath the power of judging
that it ought to be remitted.
2. The Apostle, in 1 Cor. v., showeth that the Israelites’ purging away of
leaven out of their dwellings in the time of the passover, was a figure of
excommunication, whereby disobedient and obstinate sinners, who are as
leaven to infect other men, are to be avoided and thrust out of the
church. Now, as the purging away of the leaven did not peculiarly belong
unto any one, or some few, among the Israelites, but unto the whole
congregation of Israel; so the Apostle, writing to the whole church of
Corinth, even to as many as should take care to have the whole lump kept
unleavened, saith to them all, “Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth
the whole lump? Purge out, therefore, the old leaven. Put away from among
yourselves that wicked person,” 1 Cor. v. 6, 7, 13.
3. Christ hath delivered the power of binding and loosing to every
particular church or congregation, collectively taken, which thus we
demonstrate:—If our brother who trespasseth against us will neither be
reclaimed by private admonition, nor yet by a rebuke given him before some
more witnesses, then, saith Christ, “Tell it unto the church; but if he
neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a
publican. Verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall
be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed
in heaven,” Matt. xviii. 17, 18: where he showeth, that, in the Christian
church (which he was to plant by the ministry of the apostles),
excommunication was to be used as the last remedy for curing of the most
deadly and desperate evils; which excommunication he setteth forth by
allusion unto the order and custom of the Jews in his time, among whom
they who were cast out, and excommunicate from the synagogue, were
accounted as heathens and publicans. And so when he saith, “Let him be
unto thee as an heathen man and a publican,” he presupposeth that the
church hath excommunicated him for his contumacy, which he hath added to
his disobedience. For, as Pareus saith,(1070) “If by me, and thee, and
every one, he is to be accounted for such a man, it must needs be that the
judgment of the church be, by public declaration, made known to me, and
thee, and every one. And this meaning is thoroughly drawn out of the
following verse—‘For whatsoever ye shall bind on earth,’ &c.; therefore,
the church ought first to bind him before he ought to be accounted by me
or thee for one bound, that is, excommunicate.” Now, what meaneth Christ
by the church, to which he giveth the power of binding and loosing? Not
the church universal, sure; for I cannot tell the church universal
(whether it be understood _collective_ or _representative_) whensoever my
brother trespasseth against me, and will not be reformed. He meaneth,
therefore, the particular church, whereof, for the time, it shall happen
one to be a member. “The power of the keys (saith Perkins(1071)) is given
to all ministers, churches, and congregations.” Neither could there,
otherwise, an ordinary, perpetual, and ready course be had, for the
correcting of all public contumacy and scandal, by the means of
ecclesiastical discipline. But it will be said, when he biddeth us tell
that particular church whereof we are members, he meaneth not that we
should tell the whole body of that church _collective_, but that we should
tell the governors of the church, who are the church _representative_.
How, then, is this place alleged to prove that the whole church
_collective_ hath power and authority to bind and loose?
_Ans._ Christ meaneth, indeed, that we should tell those governors who
represent the church; but whilst he calleth them by the name of the
church, and sendeth us to them as to those who represent the church, he
plainly insinuateth that they exercise the power of the keys (as in his
name, so) in the name of the church, and that this power and authority
pertaineth to the whole church, even as when one man representeth another
man’s person, whatsoever power he exerciseth _eo nomine_, doth first of
all agree to the man who is represented.
4. The Apostle, in his own proper person, writing to the whole church at
Corinth, 1 Cor. v. 4, 5, will have them (being gathered together) to
deliver that incestuous person to Satan; therefore, every particular
church or congregation hath power to excommunicate such a contumacious
sinner as that incestuous person was. It is the common answer of Papists,
that albeit the Apostle commanded the act should be done in face of the
church, yet the judgment and authority of giving sentence was in himself
alone, and not in the church of Corinth, whereupon they would make it to
follow, that the power of excommunication pertaineth to the bishop alone,
and not the church. And the same answer doth Saravia return to Beza;(1072)
but, howsoever, the Apostle saith, that he had already judged concerning
the incestuous person, yet he did not hereby seclude the church of Corinth
from the authority of excommunicating him. “It is to be observed (saith
Calvin(1073)) that Paul, albeit he was an apostle, doth not for his own
will excommunicate alone, but communicateth his council with the church,
that the thing may be done by common authority. Himself, indeed, goeth
before and showeth the way, but whilst he adjoineth to himself other
partakers, he signifieth sufficiently that it is not the private power of
one man.” Nay, let us farther observe with Junius,(1074) that the apostles
hath a twofold power: one common to them with other presbyters, 1 Pet. v.
1; another, singular, proper, and extraordinary, which they had as
apostles. By this singular power Paul saith, “What will ye? shall I come
unto you with a rod?” 1 Cor. iv. 21; but by the common power it was that
he said, “When ye are gathered together, and my spirit,” &c., 1 Cor. v. 4.
By no other power than that which was common to him with the rest of the
presbyters or bishops in Corinth did he judge the incestuous person to be
excommunicated; and thus, as though he had been present in body among the
other presbyters of that church, and assembled together with them in their
ordinary council or consistory (in which _fuerunt liberi apostoli, alii
vero presbyteri ex vocatione propria, et necessitate officii_(1075)), so
he both pronounceth(1076) his own judgment, and likewise goeth before, by
pronouncing that judgment which was to be in common by them pronounced.
Furthermore, that the Apostle would not have that incestuous man to be
excommunicate by his own authority alone, but by the authority of the
church of Corinth, thus it appeareth:
1. The Apostle challengeth and condemneth the Corinthians, 1 Cor. v. 2, 6,
9, because they had not excommunicate him before his writing unto them,
which he would never have done if that church had not had power and
authority of excommunication.
2. Howbeit the Apostle gave his judgment, that he should be excommunicate,
because he ought not to have been tolerated in the church, yet, for all
that, he should not have been indeed excommunicate and thrust out of the
church of Corinth, except the ministers and elders of that church had, in
name of the whole body of the same, judicially cast him forth and
delivered him to Satan, which plainly argueth that he should not have been
excommunicate by the Apostle’s authority alone, but by the authority of
the church of Corinth.
3. The Apostle only showeth that he should be excommunicate, but referreth
the giving of sentence and judgment upon him to the Corinthians; for he
saith not that the Corinthians, being gathered together, should declare or
witness that such an one was delivered to Satan by Paul’s own power and
authority, but that they themselves should deliver him to Satan, ver. 4,
5. And again, “Purge out, therefore, the old leaven; put away from among
yourselves that wicked person,” ver. 7, 13. But, saith Saravia,(1077)
_partes apostoli in illa actione fuerunt authoritatis, ecclesiae vero
Corinthiacae, obedientiae. Ans._ That the action was done by the authority
of the church of Corinth, it is manifest both from that which hath been
said, and likewise if further we consider that the Apostle ascribeth to
the Corinthians as much authority in this action as he assumeth to
himself. For he saith of himself, that he had judged concerning him that
had done this deed, ver. 3; and so he saith of them, “Do not ye judge them
that are within?” ver. 12. Where he speaketh not of the judgment of
private discretion (for so they might have judged them that were without
also), but even of the external and authoritative judgment of
ecclesiastical discipline. The Apostle, indeed, saith, 2 Cor. ii. 9, that
he wrote to the Corinthians to excommunicate that person, that he might
know them, whether they were obedient in all things; but this proveth not
that the authority of the excommunication was not theirs; for their part
in this action proceeded both from authority and from obedience: from
authority, absolutely; from obedience in, in some respect. _De jure_ they
had no liberty nor power not to excommunicate him, but were bound to do
that which Paul pointed out to be their duty, and in that respect he
calleth them obedient; yet absolutely and _de facto_ it was free to them
(notwithstanding of Paul’s writing to them) either to excommunicate him or
not to excommunicate him, and if they had not by their authority
excommunicate him, he had not been at all excommunicate by any virtue of
Paul’s adjudging of him.
4. When the Corinthians proceeded to excommunicate him, the Apostle
calleth this a censure which was inflicted of many, ver. 6, which could
not be said if he was to be excommunicate by the Apostle’s authority
alone.
5. The Apostle, ver. 7, writeth again to the Corinthians, to forgive the
incestuous man, to receive him into their communion, and to remit the
punishment of his excommunication, because he was won to repentance. And
he addeth, ver. 10, “To whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also.” Now,
who can remit the punishment and save one from underlying the censure,
except such as have the power and authority of judgment?
Hitherto we have proven that the power of binding and loosing pertaineth
to every particular church collectively taken; but the execution and
judicial exercising of this power pertaineth to that company and assembly
of elders in every church which the Apostle, 1 Tim. iv. 14, calleth a
presbytery. In Scotland we call it a session; in France it is called a
consistory; in Germany and Belgia, according to the Scripture phrase, it
is termed a presbytery. It is made up of the pastor or pastors of every
congregation, together with those governing elders which labour there (not
in doctrine, but) in discipline only, of which things we have spoken
before.(1078) That unto this company or consistory of elders pertaineth
the power of binding and loosing, it is averred by the best divines:
Calvin (on Matt. viii. 17, 18, _et Lib. Epist._, col. 168, 169), Beza
(_Contra Saraviam de Divers. Minist. Grad._), Zanchius (in 4 _Praec._,
col. 756), Junius (_Animad. in Bell._, cont. 5, lib. 1, cap. 14, nota 28),
Polanus (_Synt._, lib. 7, cap. 18), Tilen (_Synt._, part 2, disp. 28), the
Professors of Leyden (_Syn. Pur. Theol._, disp. 48), Gerhard (_Loc.
Theol._, tom. 6, p. 137, 138), Balduine (_de Cas. Cons._, lib. 4, cap. 11,
cas. 11), Pareus (in Matt, xviii. 17, 18; and in 1 Cor. v.), Cartwright
(in Matt. xviii., sect. 7), Fennerus (_Theol._, lib. 7, cap. 7, p. 152,
153), Alstedius (_Theol. Casuum_, cap. 27), Danæus (_Pol. Christ._, lib.
6, p. 452, 464), Hemmingius (_Enchirid._, class. 3, cap. 11, p. 388),
Martyr (in 1 Cor. v.), and sundry others. Bullinger recordeth(1079) that
this was the manner of the particular churches in Helvetia, to choose unto
themselves a certain senate of elders, or company of the best men in the
church, which might, according to the canon of holy Scripture, exercise
the discipline of excommunication, which form is well warranted by the
Scriptures; for when Christ committeth the authority of binding and
loosing unto the church, Matt. viii. 17, 18, however the power and
authority itself pertain to any particular church collectively taken, as
hath been said, yet the execution of the same is committed to the
consistory or senate of elders which representeth that church, and which
Paul calleth a presbytery. Zanchius saith that Chrysostom,(1080)
Bullinger, and all good interpreters, understand the presbytery to be
there meant by Christ when he saith, “Tell the church.” Chrysostom saith
προίδροις καὶ προεστῶσι, that is, saith Junius,(1081) the ecclesiastical
sanhedrim made up of pastors and elders. Thus Camero likewise expoundeth
the place.(1082) _Ecclesiæ nomine_, saith he, _videtur Christus
significasse collegium presbyterorum qui ecelesiæ Christianæ erant
præfuturi, cujus presbyterii mentio fit_, 1 Tim. iv. Now if Christ hath
committed the power of excommunication unto the church, what have bishops
to say for themselves who appropriate this power unto themselves, each one
in his diocese? For when we cannot give the name of the church unto a
bishop,(1083) because he is but one man, and the church is a company of
many men; nay, nor yet can we give the name of the church unto a company
of bishops, for if they might be called the church, it should be for this
respect alone, because they represent the church: but _soli episcopi_,
&c., “Bishops alone (saith Gerhard(1084)), or they who teach, cannot
represent the church, since hearers also pertain to the definition
thereof, but the presbytery can represent the church, whereunto not only
they pertain who labour in the word, but also elders or governors put in
authority for expeding of ecclesiastical matters in name of the whole
church:” we grant, then, that by the church, Christ meaneth that company
of church governors whereby a certain particular church is
represented;(1085) but forasmuch as the church consisteth of two integrant
parts, viz., pastors and sheep, teachers and hearers, we therefore deny
that the representative church whereof Christ speaketh, can be any other
than that ecclesiastical consistory whereof we have spoken.
Moreover, albeit the Apostle wrote to the whole church of Corinth to
deliver the incestuous man to Satan, because the matter could not be
otherwise done, but only in the name and with the consent of that whole
church; yet he never meant that the common promiscuous multitude should,
by their suffrages and voices, examine and judge that cause. But, saith
Calvin,(1086) “Because the multitude, unless it be governed by council,
never doth anything moderately nor gravely, there was ordained in the
ancient church (meaning the apostolic church) a presbytery; that is, a
company of elders which, by the consent of all, had the first judgment and
examination of things; from it the matter was carried to the people, but
being already determined before.” Again, when the Apostle writeth to them
in his second epistle that they should forgive him, because he hath
repented, thus he reasoneth: “Sufficient to such a man is this censure
which was inflicted of many,” 2 Cor. ii. 6. Which words, that we may the
better understand, it is worthy of observation (which not Calvin
only,(1087) but Saravia also noteth(1088)), that it appeareth from this
place, he was not to excommunicate, but, by sharp rebukes, timeously win
to repentance, whereby the Apostle showeth it to be needless, yea, most
inconvenient, to proceed against him to the extremity of discipline. The
word ἐπιτιμία, there used by the Apostle, signifieth rebuke, reprehension,
or chiding, saith Dr Fulk;(1089) and so Scapula taketh it to be the same
with ἐπιτίμησις and to signify another thing than ἐπιτίμιον or ἐπιτιμημα.
Beza and Tremellius turn ἐπιπμία by _increpatio_; Ar. Montanus readeth
_objurgatio_. This chiding or threatening of the man proceeded not from
the whole church of Corinth, but only from many therein, as is plain from
the text, and as Saravia also granteth.(1090) And who were the πλέιοιες,
those _many_ of whom the Apostle speaketh? Not such as, from Christian and
brotherly charity, did privately chide and rebuke him, for the matter was
not then depending in private rebukes, but by the Apostle’s direction it
was brought to the church’s part and to public discipline, the scandal
itself being so public and notoriously manifest; they were, therefore,
such as had public office and authority to chide him. And who were those
but the consistory of pastors and elders which represented the whole
church, and were set in authority for judging and managing of things
pertaining to ecclesiastical discipline? They (no doubt) being met
together, called the man before them, and did most sharply rebuke him and
chide with him, and threatened that they would not only debar him from the
Lord’s table (which is called lesser excommunication, but more properly a
step or degree tending next to excommunication), but also wholly cast him
out of the church and deliver him to Satan. Whereupon the man being made
to see the grievousness of his sin, and the terrible punishment which was
to follow upon it, becometh most sorrowful, humble, and penitent. And this
moved the Apostle to say, “Sufficient to such a man,” &c., as if he would
say, What needeth him now to be excommunicate, and so to be corrected and
put to shame by you all, when every one of you shall deny to him your
Christian communion, as one wholly cast out of the church? Is it not
enough that many among you, even your whole presbytery, hath put him to
such public shame by their sharp reprehensions, and to so great fear by
their dreadful threatenings? And since, through the blessing of God upon
these means, he is already win to repentance, why would you have him yet
more publicly corrected and rejected by all and every one.
And further, the Apostle addeth, that now they should not only forgive and
comfort him, ver. 7, but also confirm (κυρῶσαι) their love towards him,
ver. 8. Now κύροω signifieth to confirm or ratify by authority; and so
Chemnitius,(1091) Bullinger,(1092) and Cartwright,(1093) expoundeth it in
this place. It cometh from κῦρος, _authority_, whence cometh also κύριος,
a _lord_, or one having authority. As, therefore, the presbytery, or
company of pastors and elders, had, by their authority, established that
he was to be excommunicate, and determined to proceed to the execution of
extreme discipline against him, so now the Apostle would have them, by the
same authority, to ratify and establish the remission of this punishment
unto him, and to decree that the church should not deny her communion unto
him. For this authority of binding and loosing, though it pertained to the
whole church, _in actu primo sive in esse_, yet it pertained to the
presbytery alone, _in actu secundo sive in operara_; and even as the act
of speaking pertaineth to a man, as _principium quod_, but to the tongue
alone, as _principium quo_; so albeit the power of the keys doth primarily
and principally belong to the church, collectively taken, yet the actual
execution of this power belongeth only to the presbytery which
representeth the church, and unto which the church hath committed her
authority to bind and loose. Wherefore, since the Apostle writeth to the
whole church of Corinth to confirm, by their authority, their love to the
penitent man; and since this authority, in the actual execution of it
(which the Apostle craveth) did not agree to that whole church,
collectively taken, we must needs understand his meaning to be, that their
love towards that man, and their forgiving of him, should be ratified and
confirmed by the authority of those church governors, _qui ecclesiae nomen
ad coetum repraesentant, totius nimirum presbyterii authoritate atque
consensu_.
Thus have we showed that the actual use of the keys, or the execution of
the authority of binding and loosing, pertaineth to that ecclesiastical
senate in every particular church, which the Apostle calleth a presbytery.
For further illustration of the truth whereof, I add these four
observations:—
1. We must distinguish(1094) a twofold power of the keys: the one is
executed in doctrine; the other in discipline: the one _concionalis_; the
other _judicialis_. Touching the former, we grant it is proper for pastors
alone, whose office and vocation it is, by the preaching and publishing of
God’s word, to shut the kingdom of heaven against impenitent and
disobedient men, and to open it unto penitent sinners; to bind God’s heavy
wrath upon the former, and (by application of the promises of mercy) to
loose the latter from the sentence and fear of condemnation. When we
ascribe the power of binding and loosing to that whole consistory, wherein
governing elders are joined together with pastors, we mean only of the
keys of external discipline, which are used in ecclesiastical courts and
judicatories.
2. When we teach that the pastor or pastors of every particular church and
congregation, with the elders of the same, being met together, have power
to bind and loose, we understand this only of such places wherein a
competent number of understanding and qualified men may be had to make up
an eldership; otherwise let there be one eldership made up of two or three
of the next adjacent parishes, according as was ordained by the Church of
Scotland, in the 7th chapter of the Second Book of Discipline. _Sine
totius_ &c.: “Without the consent of some whole church (saith
Zanchius(1095)) no man ought to be excommunicate. Yea, I add, if it be a
small church, and not consisting of many learned and skilful men,
excommunication ought not to be done, except the neighbour churches be
asked counsel of.” And, as touching the pastor’s part, Calvin saith well,
_Nunquam_, &c.:(1096) “I never thought it expedient the liberty of
excommunicating should be permitted to every pastor.” The fear of great
inconveniences, which he thought likely to follow upon such a custom, if
once it were permitted, makes him confess, in that epistle, that he durst
not advise Liserus to excommunicate any man without taking counsel of
other pastors. Now, I much marvel what butt Dr Forbesse(1097) shot at when
he entitleth one of his chapters _De Potestate Excommunicandi_, and then,
in the body of the chapter, doth no more at all but only quote those two
testimonies of Zanchius and Calvin; both of which do utterly condemn the
usurpation of bishops who appropriate to themselves the power of
excommunication, and ascribe this power to the consistory of pastors and
elders in every particular church; and, in the forequoted places, do only
(for preventing of abuses) set some bounds to the execution of their
power; which bounds we also think good to be kept, viz., that if a church
be so small that it hath not so many well-qualified men as may be
sufficient to assist the pastor in the government thereof, then let one
common eldership be made up out of it and some other neighbour churches:
by which means it shall moreover come to pass (which is the other caution
to be given), that not every pastor (no not with the elders of his
congregation) shall be permitted to have full liberty of binding and
loosing, but shall, in those matters, receive counsel and advice from
other pastors. Howbeit, for this latter purpose, the church of Scotland
hath profitably provided another remedy also, namely, that, in certain
chief places, all the pastors in the adjacent bounds shall, at set and
ordinary times, assemble themselves (which assemblies, in this nation, we
call presbyteries), that so the churches may be governed _communi
presbyterorum consilio_, as Jerome speaketh of the primitive times of the
church.
3. Though the execution of the discipline of excommunication and
absolution pertain to the consistory of the pastor and elders in every
church, yet this discipline is to be by them executed in name of the whole
church.(1098) Saravia is bold to affirm,(1099) that he who receiveth a
sinner, or casteth him out of the church, doeth this in the name and
authority of God alone. We have proven, by strong arguments, that the
authority of excommunication pertaineth to the whole church; which, though
he contradicteth, yet, in one place,(1100) forgetting himself, he
acknowledges that the authority of the church of Corinth was to intervene
in the excommunication of the incestuous man. Wherefore, as in the name of
God, so in the name and authority of the whole church, must one be cast
out or received.
4. To the right execution of this discipline the manifest consent of the
whole church is also necessary:(1101) the truth whereof, beside that it
appeareth from that which hath been said concerning the church’s
authority, it is further confirmed, if we consider either the importance
of the thing, or the good of the person. Touching the importance of the
thing, _Gravissima_, &c.: “Most weighty matters in the church,” saith
Gerhard,(1102) and the same saith Zanchius also,(1103) “ought not to be
undertaken without the consent of the whole ecclesiastical body;” and, as
Pope Leo writeth, “Such things as pertain unto all ought to be done with
the consent of all. But what can be more weighty, and what doth more
pertain to the body of the church, than to cut off some member from the
body?” And, touching the good of the person, Augustine showeth(1104) that
then only a sinner is both stricken with fear and healed with shame, when,
seeing himself anathematised by the whole church, he cannot find a fellow
multitude together wherewith he may rejoice in his sin and insult upon
good men. And that otherwise, if the tares grow so rank that they cannot
be pulled up, and if the same evil disease take hold of so very many that
the consent of the church cannot be had to the excommunication of a wicked
person, then good men must grieve and groan, and endure what they cannot
help. Therefore that excommunication may fruitfully succeed, the consent
of the people is necessary: _Frustra enim ejicitur ex ecclesia, et
consortio fidelium privatur, quem populus, abigere, et a quo abstinere
recuset._(1105) Howbeit, even in such cases, when the consent of the
church cannot be had to the execution of this discipline, faithful pastors
and professors must, every one for his own part, take heed that he have no
fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but even reprove them;
yea, they ought, _in. sensu negativo_, excommunicate those who should be
(but are not) excommunicate positively, which negative excommunication is
not an ecclesiastical censure, but either a bare punishment, or a cautel
and animadversion; and so saith the Archbishop of Spalato,(1106) not only
one brother may refuse to communicate with another, but a people, also,
may refuse to communicate with their pastor, which he confirmeth by
certain examples. But the public censure of positive excommunication
should not be inflicted without the church’s consent, for the reasons
foresaid. Cyprian writeth to Cornelius, bishop of Rome, that he had much
laboured with the people that peace might be given to them who had fallen;
that is, that they might be again received into the communion of the
church; which, if he might have done by himself, why did he labour and
deal so much with the people in that business? And as they were not
received into the church’s communion without the people’s consent, so
neither were they without their consent excommunicate. Chrysostom
showeth,(1107) concerning his time, that when one was to be excommunicate,
the whole church was humbled in prayer to God for him; and, when he was
again released, they did all kindly salute him, and wish him peace.
Tertullian also writeth,(1108) that he who was to be excommunicate in the
public assembly of the church, was, by the common consent of all, stricken
with judgment, and that all the approven and well-liked elders had the
precedence or direction of the rest of the church in these matters.
Now, from all this which hath been said of the power and authority to
excommunicate and absolve, it is manifest how unjustly usurping prelates
do arrogate and appropriate to themselves this power, which Christ hath
committed to every particular church or congregation, and ordained to be
execute by the ecclesiastical consistory within the same. Which episcopal
usurpation, as it hath been showed to be most contrary to divine
institution, so doth it also depart from the manner of the ancient church:
for it may be seen, in Cyprian,(1109) that the authority of reconciling
and receiving into the church such as had fallen, was not proper to the
bishop, but, with him, common to his clergy and presbytery, and that _jus
communicationis_ was given them by the clergy as well as by the bishop. We
have heard, out of Jerome,(1110) that a bishop did nothing which a
presbyter did not also, except only that he gave rite or sign of
ordination, that is, imposition of hands. Whereby we understand that as
all other things, beside ordination, so the power of excommunication,
among the rest, was alike common to bishops and presbyters. Whence it is,
that the same Jerome, writing to Demetriades, calleth excommunication
_Episcoporum et Presbyterorum censura_. And elsewhere, _Alligat vel solvit
Episcopus et Presbyter._(1111) Justinian (_Novel_. 123, cap. 11) saith,
_Omnibus autem Episcopis et Presbyteris interdicimus segregare aliquem a
sacra communione, antequam causa monstretur_, &c., certifying them, if
they do otherwise, that he whom they excommunicate should be loosed from
excommunication _a majore sacerdota_. Whence we see, that presbyters also
were wont to excommunicate, and that this power was common to them with
the bishops. The First Council of Carthage, can. 23, decreeth that a
bishop hear no man’s cause without the presence of his clergy; and that
otherwise his sentence shall be void, except it be confirmed by the
presence of his clergy. The canon law itself hath some vestiges of the
ancient order: it ordaineth,(1112) that when a bishop either
excommunicateth or absolveth any man, twelve of the clergy be present, and
concur with him. Dr Forbesse now also acknowledgeth,(1113) that it is not
lawful for a bishop to exercise the power of public jurisdiction by
himself, and without the presbytery; and, under this power of
jurisdiction, whereof he speaketh,(1114) he comprehendeth the visitation
of churches, ordination, suspension, and deposition of ministers, the
excommunicating of contumacious persons, and the reconciling of them when
they become penitent, the calling of the fellow-presbyters to a synod, the
making of ecclesiastical canons, &c.; which power of jurisdiction, saith
he,(1115) remaineth one and the same, whole and entire, both in the
bishop, and in the presbytery: in him personally; in it collegially. His
confession of the presbytery’s power and authority, we catch and lay hold
on; but whereas he would have this power any way proper and personal to
bishops, he is confuted by our former arguments.
And thus far have we demonstrated to princes, who be they to whom Christ
hath committed the power of excommunication, that with them they may cause
it to remain, and correct the usurpation of prelates, who bereave them of
it. Let us next consider what princes may, or should do, after that the
sentence of any man’s excommunication or reconciliation is given forth by
them to whom the power of this discipline pertaineth. The Archbishop of
Spalato is of opinion,(1116) that not only it is free to princes to
communicate with excommunicate persons, but also, that if they shall
happen to communicate with them, the church (for the reverence she oweth
to princes) should straight absolve them, and that her sentence of
excommunication should no longer have any strength. What! Shall the church
draw and put up again the spiritual sword at the pleasure of princes? Or
because princes will perhaps cast holy things to dogs, must others do so
likewise? O prodigious licentiousness, and hellish misorder, worthy to be
drowned in the lake of Lethe! But what, then, is the part of the prince,
after that the church hath given judgment? Surely, whensoever need is, he
ought, by the private judgment of Christian discretion, to try and examine
whether this discipline be rightly executed or not. If he find the
execution thereof to be unreprovable, and that yet the sinner goeth on in
his contumacy, then, by his civil power,(1117) he ought further to punish
him in his person or worldly estate, that he may either reform or repress
such an one as hath not been terrified by the church’s censures. But if,
after trial, he understand that the sentence given forth is unjust and
erroneous, either through the ignorance or the malice of the
ecclesiastical and regular judges, then he ought to interpone his
authority, and cause a due proceeding; for, in such extraordinary cases of
the failing of ecclesiastical persons, princes may do much in things
spiritual, which, ordinarily, they cannot.
It remaineth to show who have the power of those censures and punishments
which are proper to ecclesiastical persons. Where, first, we are to
consider, that there are two sorts of faults which make ecclesiastical men
worthy to be punished, viz., either such as violate sacred, or such as
violate civil and human duties: the one is to be judged by ecclesiastical
judges alone, and that according to the laws of God and the church; the
other by civil judges alone, and that according to the civil and municipal
laws of the commonwealth. This latter form, again, is twofold; for either
the fault is such, that, though a man be condignly punished for it by the
civil magistrate, yet he doth not, therefore, fall from his ecclesiastical
office or dignity; of which sort experience showeth many; or else such as
being punished according to their quality and demerit, a man, by necessary
consequence, falleth from the ecclesiastical function and dignity which
before he had: this was Abiathar’s case, and the case of so many as, being
justly punished by proscription, incarceration, or banishment, are
_secundario et ex consequenti_ shut from their bearing office in the
church. “If Abiathar had sinned in a sacred matter, the cognition thereof
(saith Junius(1118)) had pertained to the priests; but because he sinned
against the commonwealth and the king’s majesty, it was necessary to deal
with him civilly, and not ecclesiastically. What! Are no ecclesiastical
men in this time also thought to be lawfully judged by the civil
magistrate, if, at any time, they be found guilty of appaired majesty?” As
for the other sorts of faults, whereby (as we have said) sacred and
ecclesiastical duties are violate, such as the teaching of false and
heretical doctrine, neglecting of discipline, unbeseeming and scandalous
conversation, &c. which things (if they be not mended) they who have the
execution of ecclesiastical jurisdiction committed to them ought to punish
by suspension, deposition, &c. Now, as when one is called to the work of
the ministry, his fitness and qualification for that work should be tried
and judged by the clergy of the adjacent bounds assembled in their
classical presbytery, to whom it also appertaineth (after that he is by
them tried and approved, and after that he is elected by the church where
he is to serve) to send him out from them with power to exercise the
office of a pastor; so when there is just cause of suspending and
depriving him, it belongeth to the same presbytery to consider and judge
hereof; and, according to his offence, to give judgment against him. For
who should recal him but they that sent him? Or who should discharge him
his ministerial function, except they who ordained him to exercise the
same? And who may take the power from him but they who gave the power unto
him? That ordination pertaineth to the whole presbytery, and not to the
bishop alone, we have showed before, and now, by the same reason, we say
suspension and deposition pertaineth to the presbytery also, and are not
in the power of the bishop. And that, in the ancient church, as bishops
gave not ordination, so neither did they suspend nor depose any man
without the common counsel, advice, and concurrence of the presbytery,
yea, and sometimes of a synod, it is clear from Cypr. (lib. 1, epist. 9;
lib. 3, epist. 2, 10), Council Carthag. 3 (can. 8), Council Carthag. 4
(can. 22, 23), Council African. (can. 20), Council Hispan. 2 (can. 6),
Justin. (_Novel_. 42, cap. 1), Jerome (_Comment. ad Isa_ 3), Siricius
(_Epist ad Ambros. inter Ambr. Epist._) So, touching the suspension and
deposition of ministers, the Assembly at Glasgow, anno 1610, ordained that
the bishop should associate to himself the ministry of those bounds where
the delinquent served, that is, the presbytery whereof he hath been a
member, and, together with them, there take trial of the fact, and, upon
just cause found, to deprive or suspend: which Act was ratified in the
12th parliament of king James, anno 1612. Nevertheless, if any man think
the sentence of the bishop and the presbytery, given forth against him, to
be unjust, he ought to have liberty of recourse to the synod, and there to
be heard, according as it was decreed by the Fourth Council of Carthage,
can. 66. But oftimes the matter is of such difficulty or importance that
the bishop and the presbytery may not give out any peremptory sentence of
suspension or deprivation till the matter be brought to the synod of the
province,(1119) where, according to the ancient order, the matter is to be
handled,(1120) not “by the censure of one bishop, but by the judgment of
the whole clergy gathered together.”
Princes, therefore, may not suffer bishops to usurp the power of
suspending and depriving at their pleasure, and whensoever they commit any
such tyranny in smiting of their fellow-servants, it is the part of
princes to cause these things to be redressed, and for this end graciously
to receive the grievances of oppressed ministers. The Arians of old, being
assembled in a council at Antioch, decreed, that if any ecclesiastical
person should, without the advice and the letters of the bishops(1121) of
the province, and chiefly of the metropolitan, go to the emperor to put up
any grievance unto him, he should be cast out, not only from the holy
communion, but from his proper dignity which he had in the church.
Whereupon Osiander hath this observation:(1122) “This canon also was
composed against holy Athanasius; for Athanasius being expelled by the
Arians, had fled to the emperor Constantine the younger, and had from him
obtained a return to his own church. Now this canon is very unjust, which
forbids that a bishop, or any other minister of the church, being unjustly
oppressed, flee to his godly civil magistrate; since it was lawful to the
apostle Paul to appeal to the Roman emperor wicked Nero, as the Acts of
the Apostles witness. But it may be seen in this place, that bishops were
very soon seeking dominion, yea, tyranny over the church, and over their
colleges.” Besides all this, there is yet another thing which ought to
have a very principal consideration in the deposition of a minister, and
that is, the consent of the church and congregation where he hath served.
Let the magistrate know, saith Gerhard,(1123) “that as the vocation of
ministers pertaineth to the whole church, so to the same also pertaineth
the removing of ministers; therefore, as a minister ought not to be
obtruded upon an unwilling church, so the hearers, being unwilling and
striving against it, a fit minister ought not to be plucked away from
them.” The deposing of a minister, whom the church loves and willingly
hears, Balduine accounteth to be high sacrilege,(1124) and holdeth that,
as the calling, so the dismissing of ministers pertaineth to the whole
church; and so teacheth Junius.(1125) Shortly, as a man is rightly called
to the ministerial office and dignity when he is elected by the church and
ordained by the presbytery, so is he rightly deposed and put from the same
when he is rejected by the church and discharged by the presbytery.
How there was brought forth in Scotland, anno 1610, a certain amphibian
brood, sprung out of the stem of Neronian tyranny, and in manners like to
his nearest kinsman, the Spanish Inquisition. It is armed with a
transcendant power, and called by the dreadful name of the _High
Commission_. Among other things, it arrogateth to itself the power of
deposing ministers; but how unjustly, thus it appeareth:
1. If those commissioners have any power at all to depose ministers, they
have it from the king, whose commissioners they are: but from him they
have it not; therefore they have none at all. The proposition is most
certain; for they sit not in that commission to judge in their own name,
nor by their own authority, (_quum nihil exerceat delegatus nomine
proprio_, as Panormitan saith,(1126)) but by virtue only of the commission
and delegation which they have of the king. Yea, bishops themselves
exercise not any jurisdiction in the High Commission as bishops, but only
as the king’s commissioners, as Dr Downame acknowledgeth.(1127) The
assumption is grounded upon this reason: The king hath not power to depose
ministers; therefore he cannot give this power to others. For _nemo potest
plus juris transferre in alium quam sibi competere dignoscatur_,(1128) the
king may sometimes inflict such a civil punishment upon ministers,
whereupon, secondarily and accidentally, will follow their falling away
from their ecclesiastical office and function (in which sense it is said
that Solomon deposed Abiathar, as we heard before), but to depose them
directly and formally (which the High Commission usurped to do) he hath no
power, and that because this deposition is an act of ecclesiastical
jurisdiction; whereas the power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction doth no
more agree to the king than the power of ecclesiastical order: his power
is civil and temporal, not spiritual and ecclesiastical. Dr Field also
confesseth,(1129) that none may judicially degrade, or put any one,
lawfully admitted, from his degree and order, but the spiritual guides of
the church alone.
2. The deposing of ministers pertaineth to classical presbyteries, or (if
the matter be doubtful and difficult) to synods, as hath been showed. And
who, then, can give the High Commission such authority as to take this
power from them and assume it unto itself. These commissioners profess
that they have authority to discharge other ecclesiastical judicatories
within the kingdom from meddling with the judging of anything which they
shall think impertinent for them, and which they shall think good to judge
and decide by themselves in their commission: which, if it be so, then,
when it pleaseth them, they may make other ecclesiastical judicatories to
be altogether useless and of no effect in the church.
3. In this commission ecclesiastical and temporal men are joined together,
and both armed with the same power; therefore it is not right nor regular,
nor in any ways allowable. For even, as when a minister hath offended in a
civil matter, his fault is to be judged by civil judges according to the
civil laws, and by no other; so, when he offendeth in an ecclesiastical
matter, his fault is to be judged only by ecclesiastical persons according
to ecclesiastical laws; and, in such case, Justinian forbiddeth(1130)
civil men to be joined with ecclesiastical men in judgment. They are
ecclesiastical things or causes which are handled and examined by the High
Commission in the process of deposing ministers; and a shame it is to
ecclesiastical men, if they cannot, without the help and joining of
temporal men, judge and decide things of this quality.
4. As in the matters to be judged, so in the censures and punishments to
be inflicted, ecclesiastical and civil men have, in this commission, alike
power and authority; for ecclesiastical men therein have power of fining,
confining, warding, &c., common to them with the temporal men; and, again,
the temporal men have power of excommunication, suspension, deprivation,
&c., common to them with the ecclesiastical men. For they all sit there as
the king’s commissioners, and _eo nomine_, they exercise this
jurisdiction; which commission being alike discharged by them all, it is
manifest that both temporal men take hold of the keys and ecclesiastical
men take hold of the civil sword. And this monstrous confusion and mixture
giveth sufficient demonstration that such a form of judgment is not from
the God of order.
Of the abuses and irregularities of the High Commission we may not now
speak at greater length, but are hasted to make forward.