A treatise of liturgies, power of the keyes, and of matter of the visible church. In answer to the reverend servant of Christ, Mr. John Ball. By Thomas Shephard, sometimes fellow of Emanuel-Colledge in Cambridge, and late pastour of Cambridge in New-England.

CHAP. XVI. (Book 16)

Position 7.

That a Minister is so a Minister of a particular Congregation, that if they dislike him or leave him unjustly, hee ceaseth to be a Minister.

Reply. The question is of Ministers unjustly forsaken or driven from the Church, and your answer is for most part of Ministers, set aside or deprived by their owne default: wee never purposed to speake one word for an unworthy Minister, whom Christ hath put out of Office, and therefore your labour to prove that such justly rejected by the the Church, are no longer Ministers, might well have beene saved.

Answ. The ground of this Position being about the Nature of a Ministers Office; Whether it consist in his Office, relation to the flocke of a particular Church: the former part of our an∣swer was not in vaine, nor the grounds impertinent, and wee ac∣cept your grant of it, That a Minister justly rejected by his Church is no longer a Minister: then wee inferre that there is no indelible character in the Office, but that his Ministery stands in relation to a particular flocke, not to the Catholike Church, for then a particular Church could not dissolve his Office, and therefore it will follow, that (if hee bee found worthy after) upon repentance to bee called to another Church, hee must bee

new elected and ordained to his Office, being no Minister upon his just deposing.

Reply. But wee will examine your conclusions upon which you build the sen∣tence which you passe against them; first it is certaine, &c.

Answ. What is said to the first is spoken before, and we will not repeat things in vaine.

Reply. Secondly, The power of feeding, which the Minister hath, is nei∣ther confined to one society onely, nor nextly derived to him from Christ by the Church. The Office and authority of a Pastour is immedi∣ately from Christ, the deputation of the person which Christ hath designed is from the Church ministerially, but neither vertually nor formally.

Answ. These things about the call of a Minister by the Church were also spoken to before, when wee spake of the power of the Keys, and the first subject thereof, and therefore the assertion being gran∣ted, these things might well be spared, but what we finde here more then in the other place, we shall consider.

The power of the Church in electing her Officers is so cleare in the Scripture, and so confessed a truth by the godly learned, that it cannot bee denyed, yet here seeme to be given so many restrictions in the case, that they much abate and weaken this great and precious liberty and power given by the Lord. 1. That the pow∣er and Office of a Pastor is immediately from Christ by his insti∣tution is granted, but the question is, how this man comes to have this Office applyed to him; if immediately, then hee is in this an Apostle, if mediately, it is by the Church, or else shew by whom 2. That the Church choose Ministerially, and ought to choose whom Christ hath described in his word, and fitted with gifts, and so farre designed by Christ wee grant, but what if there bee twenty such? Which of them doth Christ designe, but whom the Church freely choose? and therefore that is no diminution of their power, that they must choose ministerially, and whom Christ so designes. The case is alike in all other Or∣dinances dispensed, Examination is immediately from Christ, by his institution, the person to be censured is designed or described by▪ Christ, a notorious or obstinate sinner: the Church passe this sentence onely Ministerially, and yet puts forth a great power of the Lord Jesus Christ, in applying the sentence to this or that per∣son: and so here▪ and therefore it is strange to us, that any should say they depute this Officer neither vertually nor formally, when

as the act which they put forth, (which is the outward call of the Officer) must needs come from a power formally in the Church to doe the same, as well as when the Church or Officers censure an offender, &c.

Reply. The consent of the people is requisite in the election of Pastors and Teach∣ers, we grant, the direction of the Elders going before, or along with them, Acts 1. Peter declared what an one should be taken, &c. Acts 6. Deacons were chosen by the consent of the Church, &c. but in this election the people did first choose, when most commonly the Apostles instructed the people, and went before them in the electon, and they consented. Act. 14. 23. The Apostles by consent choose, &c.

Answ. This restriction of the peoples power to an after consent, at least ordinarily, will not hold: if the evident light of Acts 6. could not be denyed, and the other places were more obscure, why should not that place with its light cleare the rest? but that in Act. 1. is as evident, Peter proves the need of such a choice to be made, shews it must bee one that had so long conversed with Christ, to witnesse such things, and further hee doth not lead them, there might be twenty such, but they choose two, as a preparative act to Apostleship, Vers. 23. and who were they, but such as they speake unto, viz. the Disciples, Vers. 15. whom he cals Men and Brethren, Vers. 16. so Act. 14. 23. lifting up of hands is the signe of election, not of an after consent.

Lastly, by this Doctrine how shall the Church come by Officers, when shee hath none to goe before her in choosing for her? must shee loose her right, or take whom others will choose for her, and impose upon her?

Reply. In the primitive times, after the Apostles, one Church might elect a Pastor for another, &c.

Answ. 1 If by way of counsell one Church shall propound and ad∣vise another to choose such, (leaving them free to take or re∣fuse) this is lawfull in case, but otherwise it is a plaine usurpa∣tion and we must leave Scripture rules and patterns to justifie it.

2 Wee grant in a safe sense there may be Communis electio, where∣by a fit man is propounded by Churches or Ministers to be cho∣sen by another people, and thus the Philadelphians might elect a fit Pastor for the Church at Antioch, (as Ignatius exhots) with sundry like instances in the first times after the Apostles, and this wee deny not may lawfully bee now. But this is nothing to that electio singularis, whereby a people choose one to be their

Minister, of which we speake, for it is evident from the Testimo∣ny of Cyprian oft alledged, that it is in the power of the people to choose worthy Ministers, and reject the unworthy; and Ambrose thinkes that he is worthily thought to bee elected divino judicio, whom all the people desire▪ Ambros. lib. 10. Ep. 82.

It is very true, that as the times grew worse, the elections were oft disturbed, sometimes by the Clergy choosing without the people, (of which Athanasius complaines) sometimes by the peoples carrying it tumultuously: sometime the Emperors in∣terposing.

But this and like corruptions cannot forfeit the liberty of the Church which Christ hath given it, and therefore hee that was no great friend to the peoples liberties, yet ingenuously saith that although the people is Bellua multorum capitum, and most apt to be tumultuous, yet this is not innated to a beleeving people, qui non minus nunc quam olim gravis esset in electioni∣bus, ac publicae utilitatis studiosissima, Spalta▪ de Rep. Eccles. Lib. 3. Cap. 3.

Reply. If here it be questioned, whether your election of the people be essentiall to the calling of a Minister, wee answer, First, A thing is essentiall two wayes, either as absolutely necessary, so as the thing can have no existence without it; or necessary to the integrity of a thing, so that it is maymed without it. Againe the people be either few in number, and simple, unable to judge of the sufficiency of a Minister, or they be more in number, increased in wisedome, sound in faith, and able to discerne of things that differ. In the first sense the election of the people is not necessary or essentiall, in the second, his calling in that respect is maymed.

Answ. It is to bee noted, that here wee dispute of the outward calling of Church-Officers; now the very essence of any outward cal∣ling, doth lye in the right and power of them that elect. If all the Countries of England should elect or call a Lord Major for London, bee they never so many and wise, it is a meere nullity, and why? Because the right of election is not in them, but if the Citizens in whom the right lyes, doe elect (though weakly) hee hath the true essence of the call: if others electing a Major the City will receive him, submit to him, and so give their con∣sent, hee may bee said to have the substance of that call, though not an orderly and lawfull election, and so maymed: so it is here.

Secondly, if in our election of the people (being the Scrip∣ture

way of election,) the proper right and power bee seated by Christ in the Church, unto whom they are to minister, then it must needs follow, that the very essence of a Ministers call stands in their election, or at least in their after consent and subjection to his Ministery, in which case wee grant though the calling be maymed, yet it hath the substance of a true calling. But if the people will not receive such as are imposed upon them, hee hath no call at all, but usurpes the same, and it is a meer nulli∣ty. And therefore it concernes Churches the more to consider, what they doe in receiving and submitting to such unworthy Ministers, as are oft imposed upon them; but if the right and power of electing Ministers bee in any other Persons, let it be shewed from the Scriptures, for we are not much moved in such cases with the corrupt customes of after-times.

And this also shewes what kinde of call such men have that are ordained by Prelates at large without any election at all, if they be Ministers to the Catholike Church, then the Catho∣like Church is bound to receive them, and submit to their Office, but no part of the Catholike Church, and therefore not the whole is bound to submit to them, and therefore indeed they have no of∣fice nor calling as Pastors or Teachers, except it can be proved they be Evangelists, Apostles or Prophets.

Reply. If the people be few and simple, they stand in more need of guidance from their owne Elders and other Churches; If many and full of wisdome, their liberty to choose is the greater, and the greater wrong to bee de∣prived of it. The practise of the Apostles and Primitive Churches shew this for many ages, sometime men were propounded to the Church to be chosen, sometimes the chiefe left wholly to them.

Answ. 1 What is all this to the purpose, what light or derection a Church need to receive? the essence of a Ministers call lyes not in the propounding or advising of any to elect him, but in the E∣lection of such as have the true right so to doe, which is still in the Church, though few and weake, if a true Church, and yet you produce not one Scripture example of any Officer propounded by the Apostles, or Elders to the Church to be chosen by them, much lesse limiting the Church to consent thereto, if they had nothing against him.

Reply. In reason this is evident, for the Childs consent is required in marriage, but the more able he is to choose for himselfe, the more liberty may Parents grant, the lesse able the more watchfull must they be.

This similitude utterly faileth in two essentiall things, that concerne the case for which it is applyed. 1. Because a childe is under the authority of the parents, whose right is such that a Childe cannot lawfully choose without them. But there is no Church or others have such a right and authority over any Church in their choice of Officers. 2. Whatsoever the power of parents bee, yet the essence of the marriage consists in the mutuall consent and promise of the children that marry, and so here the essence of a Ministers call must lye in the election of the Church and acceptance of the Minister which is not avoided but by the similitude confirmed.

Reply. It is a duty of neighbour Churches to lend their helpe to their bre∣thren in election of their Ministers, when the Scripture willeth us to ex∣hort one another or admon••sh one another, it is not onely a command to every singular person towards his fellow, but also to any whole company.

Answ. Wee grant all this, and that it is the duty of a Church, bee it weake or strong, to take all needfull counsell, advise or exhortati∣ons and admonitions in so weighty a worke. But if Churches or others shall impose upon any Church any Officer without their choice, this is no brotherly helpe, but unjust usurpation. And if you understand Junius so, as that Charitatis jure & Communione sanctorum, one Church have power to choose for another, other wayes, then by advising them to elect such an one for themselves, wee see no reason for that, nor doe wee thinke it is his mean∣ing: neither doth Paul, Rom. 12. 12. lay any foundation of such usurpations, but onely of mutuall brotherly helpfulnesse by counsell, &c. and the contrary is not Policy, but some degree of tyranny.

Reply. It is a blemish in the call of a Minister, if either the people be not fit to choose, or being fit they he shut out from the choice, but this maime doth not make a nullity in his calling.

Answ. If a people or Church bee never so weake, which is here called unfitnesse, yet Christ being amongst them, and they making an orderly and good choice, there can be no blemish in the call seeing the right is them, and such a free choice will better stablish the conscience of any godly Minister in his call, then if a Synod of the ablest Ministers should impose him without their free choice, ex∣cept it can bee proved that the right of election is in the Synod, which we thinke will not bee done. But bee they able or weake, if the people be shut out, it must needs make a great maim in his call,

and if they doe not consent nor submit to such a one called by others, it will make it a nullity, as was shewed before. What authority hath hee to Minister to any Church, if they will re∣fuse him? or who shall censure them for refusing, by any rule of Christ?

Reply. The saving truth of God and a lawfull Ministery are both essen∣tiall to a true Church.

Answ. Answ. What then becomes of the Church when the Minister is dead?

Reply. The true Church hath continued by the blessing of God where the e∣lection of Ministers hath beene given away by the people or taken from them.

Answ. True; but it hath been continued by the after consent, and subjection of the people to their Ministers chosen by others, else they must needs have broken a pieces and dissolved the Church, or taken upon them to choose others to themselves, which still shewes that the essence of the call is in the people. What is said of the disorders of Ancient Churches in elections, we passe over as nothing to this purpose. That the Ministery might bee lawfull for substance, where there were many defects in the manner of the call we grant, the Church at length consenting to submit thereto, in whom the true right is placed by Christ: and therefore we passe over what followes to that purpose, though wee might object a∣gainst some passages in the discourse.

Reply. As for the second branch of your answer we know not well your mean∣ing; if this be your minde, that a Minister lawfully called and set over the Congregation, is to bee esteemed a Minister in the usuall Church, as the particular Church hath unity with, and is part of the universall or Catholique, and as a party baptized is not baptized into that Congregation onely, but into all Churches, and that the Ministery is one, cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur, as Cyprian speaketh, and there∣fore though the Minister be unjustly cast eff by one Congregation, yet hee is not to be esteemed as no Minister, wee freely consent▪ But if your mean∣ing bee, that hee is onely by right a Minister of that particular Congrega∣tion, because unjustly deposed, as formerly in the execution of his Office, ••ee was a Minister to them onely, and to no other society whatsoever, or in what respect soever▪ your opinion is contrary to the opinion of the universall, and tends to destroy the unity of the Church, and that Communion which the Churches of God ought to have one with ano∣ther.

Answ. First, If our meaning be doubtfull, seeing these expressions doe not well suite our notion, nor fully enter into our understanding, we shall give the meaning of our answer distinctly, and then con∣sider what is here said.

First, there is a difference betweene the unjust leaving or casting off a Minister, without all orderly proceedings against him, and the unjust deposing him in an orderly way of Church censure: if the question be taken in the first sense, he remaines every way and in every respect by right a Minister as hee was before, except he re∣ject them, and so dissolve the relation that was between them. But if the question speak of an orderly censure of deposition unjustly, then we judge of that case as we would do in any other, censure of a member by excommunication, & therefore we say, he is stil a Mi∣nister, in foro interno before Christ, for clavis errans non ligat. Second∣ly, in respect of that Church he hath stil right truly to minister to them, and is their Minister though unjustly hindered in the execu∣tion of his Ministery, as a member unjustly censured hath a true right to the Ordinances, and membership, though unjustly hindred from the same, though in foro externo, we grant to them or in their account he is no Minister, as a person excommunicated is to them no member.

Thirdly, in respect of other Churches, if it doth appeare unto them that hee is unjustly deposed, they may and ought to esteeme him still, and receive him and have communion with him, as a true Minister of Jesus Christ, in the Church he doth belong to, as they may do with a member unjustly cast out, but til that appeare unto them, they cannot so esteem and honor him, (being orderly depo∣sed but must at least suspend their judgment til the case be cleared.

Fourthly we answer clearely and plainely to the chiefe scope of the question, If a Minister bee unjustly deposed or forsaken by his particular Church, and he also withall renounce and forsake them, so farre as all Office and relation betweene them cease, then is hee no longer an Officer or Pastour in any Church of God, whatsoever you will call it. And the Reason is, because a Mini∣sters office in the Church i•• no indelible Character, but consists in his relation to the flocke: and if a Minister once ordained, his relation ceasing, his Office of a Minister, Steward of the myste∣ries of God shall still remaine; why should not a ruling Elder or Deacon remaine an Elder or Deacon in the Church as well? all are Officers Ordained of Christ alike given to his Church, Of∣ficers

chosen and Ordained by laying on of hands alike, but wee suppose you will not say a Deacon in such a case should re∣maine a Deacon in the Catholique Church, therefore not a Mi∣nister.

Secondly, wee shall now consider what is here said, and first this language of a Minister in the usuall Church as a particular Church hath union with and is a part of the universall, it is an unusuall expression to us, and to the Scripture phrase, and there∣fore beare with us if wee fall short of your meaning; the usuall Church in England hath beene either the Arch-Deacons Church in the Deanaries, or Diocesan in the Bishoprick, or Provinciall or Nationall, but wee hope that there is no such intended here, yet to all this and the jurisdiction thereof particular Churches have been subject as parts there.

But if by usuall Church you meane a Classical, Provinciall or Nationall Church, wee must intreat better grounds for any of these, and therefore wee must confesse our minde and meaning is not so, that wee looke at a Minister of a particular Church in any such relation to the usuall and intermediate Church betweene it and the Catholique. The second sense therefore we owne and ac∣knowledge as before. But whether this be contrary to the judge∣ment and practise of the universall Church, wee know not; be∣cause it is hard for us know what the universall Church judgeth, except we could heare it speake or see its practise; if the onely head Prophet and Shepherd of the Church Jesus Christ be fit to declare her judgement, we will be tryed thereby, who we know hath s••t Elders in every particular Church, Act. 14. 23. to watch over their particular flock, Act. 20. 28. but not over any other Church that wee can finde. Neither doth this destroy the unity or Communi∣on of the Catholique Church, nor of particular Churches one with another as is said, for Churches may enjoy brotherly Communion one with another, without such stated formes, un∣der the power and authority of one another, as hath been shewed before.

Reply. For if he be not a Minister to other Churches, then are not the Churches of God one, nor the Communion which they have together on▪ n••r the Mi∣nisters one, nor the ••••••cke which they feed one.

Answ. In what sense is intended to have the Ministers one, and flocke one, we doe not see. If you meane one by one visible Government over the Catholique Church, wherein there is a subordination of Churches and Ministers, you must at last rise to Oecomenicall

Pastor, or Councell, that must be the supreme, which can scarce ever be had. If you meane an unity by brotherly Communion in offices of love and mutuall helpefulnesse of Churches and Ministers, without usurpation, such an unity and Community is not de∣stroyed, and the argument doth not follow▪ Cannot many distinct societies ot Townes or Corporations make up one County, ex∣cept the Major or Constable in one Towne be a Major or Consta∣ble in others also? By this Reason the Deacon of one Church is the Deacon of all, or else the unity is destroyed.

Reply. If the Pastor derive all his authority from the Church, when the Church hath set him aside, what right hath he to administer among that people?

Answ. True, but we say he derives all his authority from Christ, by the Church indeed, applying that office to him, to which the authori∣ty is annexed by the institution of Christ, hence being the Minister of Christ unto them, if they without Christ depose him, they hin∣der the exercise of his Office, but his right remaines.

Reply. As they give right to an unworthy man to minister amongst them, if they cal him unjustly, so they take right from the worthy, if they unjustly depose him.

Answ. We grant there is a parity in foro externo, but as in the call, his outward cal consists in the election of the calling, and the accepta∣tion of the called, to compleat his power of administration. Now this by Christ in his Church may be destroyed in a just censure without his consent, but cannot unjustly be wrung from him without his consent, & therefore he may hold his right, till either hee be justly deposed or willingly relinquish the same upon their injurious interruption of the use of his right.

Reply. And whereas you say the Minister is for the Ministery, and the Office for the execution, and so the Pastor and the flocke are relatives, and therefore, if their election gave him authority among them to feed, their casting him off hath stripped him of the same power they gave him.

A••su. Wee grant it is so, yet the execution may bee unjustly hindred, though the right and Office remaine: But we may well retort this argument upon the Minister of the usuall or Catholicke Church. Thus if the Minister bee for the Ministery, and the Office for the execution, and so the Pastor and flock be relatives, then hee that may justly for ever be hindred of all execution of the Ministery and hath no power to censure his flock, or cannot so much as just∣ly approve and admonish them for the same, surely hee hath a poore Office and Ministery, but such a Minister that hath no parti∣cular Congregation, that is his flock under his charge, may just∣ly

be excluded out of all Churches, and cannot censure or reprove his Catholique or usuall Church for the same, therefore he is in∣deed no Minister, and and hath no Office in the Church of God.