OF THE ELECTION OF PASTORS WITH THE CONGREGATION'S CONSENT
by
George Gillespie, Scottish Commissioner
To the
Assembly of Divines At Westminster.
The question is not whether the power
of ecclesiastical government or jurisdiction belong to the people or body of
the church (for the tenets of Brownists and Anabaptists, concerning popular
government, we utterly abhor): nor whether the whole collective body of the
church ought to be assembled, and their voices severally asked in elections,
for all may consent when none vote in elections but the representative body of
the church: nor whether the consent of the people to the admission of a pastor
is to be sought and wished for, it being generally acknowledged by all, and
denied by none, that it is better to enter with the people's consent than
against it: nor whether liberty ought to be granted to the whole congregation,
or any member thereof, to object against the man's life or doctrine, or against
his qualifications for such a particular charge; for it is certain that not
only the congregation but others who know any just impediment against his
admission, have place to object the same: nor whether the church's liberty of
consent be inconsistent with, or destructive unto, the presbytery's power of
examination and ordination, for these may stand together: but the question is
whether it be necessarily required to the right vocation of a pastor, that he
be freely elected by the votes of the eldership, and with the consent (tacit or
expressed) of the major or better part of the congregation, so that he be not
obtruded, renitente et contradicente ecclesia.
he affirmative part of this
question is proved from Scripture, from antiquity, from Protestant writers,
yea, churches, and from sound reason, and from the confessions of opposites.
To begin with Scripture and with the primitive pattern: The apostles
themselves would not so much as make deacons till all the seven were chosen,
and presented unto them by the church, Acts 6.2,3,5,6. The author of the
History of Episcopacy, part 2, p. 359, to cut off our argument from Acts 6.,
saith that the seven were to be the stewards of the people in disposing of
their goods, "good reason that the election should be made by them, whose goods
and fortunes were to be disposed of." This answer was made by Bellarmine before
him; but Wal?us, tom. 2, p. 52, reasoneth otherwise: The feeders of the
people's souls must be no less (if not more) beloved and acceptable than the
feeders of their bodies; therefore these must be chosen with their own consent
as well as those. Secondly, Elders (both ruling and preaching) were chosen by
most voices of the church, the suffrages being signified per ceirotonian, that
is, by lifting up or stretching out of the hand, Acts 14.23. Where the Syriac
version doth insinuate that the word ceirotonhsanteV is not to be understood of
the apostles' ordination of elders, but of the church's election of elders;
thus, "Moreover they made to themselves," that is, the disciples mentioned in
the former verse, made to themselves; for they who were made were not elders or
ministers to Paul and Barnabas (but to the multitude of the disciples) in every
church elders, "while they were fasting with them, and praying, and commending
them," &c. Now how could this election be but after the Grecian form, by
the church's lifting up or stretching out of hands? But because some do still
stick at this place, it may be further cleared thus: CeirotonhsanteV may be
understood three ways, and all these ways it saveth the people's right. It may
be either the action of the church only, as the Syriac maketh it, or a joint
action both of the churches and of Paul and Barnabas, as Junius maketh it, or
an action of Paul and Barnabas in this sense, that they did constitute elders
to the churches, by the churches' own voices. However, the word relateth to
election by stretching out or lifting up of hands, not to ordination by laying
on of hands, which is the sense followed by the Italian version, and Diodati
authorizing and ordaining such an one only to be an elder as was ceirotonhtoV,
which I prove,
1. From the native signification of the word. Where Julius
Pollux hath ceirotonia lib.2, c.4, Gualther and Seberus render it manuum
extensio, and ceirotonein manus levare, and anticeirotoneinmanibus refragari;
Bud?us interpreteth ceirotonia to be plebiscitum, suffragium; H. Stephanus,
ceirotonew manum protendo; et attollo manum porrigo; and because, saith he, in
giving votes, they did ceirotonein, thence came the word to be used for scisco,
decerno, creo, but properly ceirotonew is (saith he) as it were, thnceirateinw,
id est, anateinw; Justin Martyr, Quest. et Resp. ad Orthod. Resp. ad Qu?st. 14,
doth expressly distinguish ceirotonia and ceiroqesia, as words of a most
different signification. Where Cedrenus, anno 526, saith euphranius
ceirotoneitai, Philander, the interpreter, rendereth episcopatui, communibus
suffragiis deligitur. Scapula, and Arias Montanus also, in his lexicon, tells
us, that ceirotonein is manus porrigere, or elevare, eligere, or creare
magistratum per suffragia; for ceirotonein is most different from laying on of
hands, which is not a stretching out or lifting up, but a leaning or laying
down of the hands on something. Wherefore the Hebrews note laying on of hands
by samak, inniti. Chrysostom saith, the Roman senate did ceirotonein touVJeouV,
which Potter himself turneth, did make gods by most voices, Char. Mistak., p.
145.
2. The use of the word in this sense, and in no other sense, either in
Scripture, 2 Cor. 8.19, or Greek authors that wrote before the New Testament;
so that Luke could not be understood if he had used it in another sense, but he
wrote so that he might be understood. If he had meant ordination, he would have
used the word kaqistanai, as Acts 6.3; Tit. 1.5; or Epeqhkan taVceiraV, as Acts
6.6.
3. The mode of election among the Grecians testified by Demosthenes,
Cicero, and others, clears the meaning of the word. They had a phrase,
Ceirotonia kratei, omnium suffragiis obtinet, and OudeiV anteceirotonhsen, no
man giveth a contrary vote. When the Grecians chose their magistrates at their
comitia held solemnly for that end, he that was nominated was brought into the
theatre before the people; so many as approved of him, held forth, or stretched
forth, or lifted up their hands. If the major part did thus ceirotonein,he
partly was then said to be ceirotonhtoV, a magistrate created by suffrages. So
Elias, Cretensis in Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 3. I find also in ?schines, Orat.
cont. Cetesipont, some decrees cited, which mention three sorts of magistrates,
and among the rest 'Those that were made by the people's suffrage'. In the
argument of Demosthenes' oration (Advers. Androtion), these magistrates are
called 'Magistrates made by the people's suffrage'. Fronto Ducus, in his notes
upon the fifth tom. of Chrysostom, p. 3, confesseth, that, with heathen
writers, ceirotonein is per suffragia creare, and therefore the word is
rendered in the Tigurine version, and by Calvin, Bullinger, Beza; so doth
Erasmus upon the place understand the word: Ut intelligamus (saith he)
suffragiis delectos.
4. CeiroonhsanteV, joined with autoiV doth not at all
make against that which I say, as some have conceived it doth, but rather for
it; for autoiV here is to be rendered ipsis, not illis, and so Pasor, in the
word ceirotoneiw, rendereth Acts 14.23, quumque ipsis per suffragia creassent
presbyteros. So that autoiV here is used for eautoiV,that the Grecians
sometimes use the one for the other. So H. Stephanus, Thes. Ling. Gr., in the
word eautou,where he referreth us to Bud?us for examples to prove it; see the
like, Matt. 12.57; John 4.2. Thus, therefore, the text may be conceived,
CeirotonhsanteVdeautoiV presbuterouVkatekklhsian, proseuxamenoi, metanhseiaV,
pareqentoautouV, twkuriweiV onpepisteukeisan, that is, and when they (the
disciples of Lystra, Iconium and Antioch) had by votes made to themselves
elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them (to
wit, Paul and Barnabas) to the Lord, in whom they believed. It needeth not seem
strange that here, in one verse, I make autoiV to be ipsis, and autouV to be
illos, and meant of different persons; for the like will frequently occur in
Scripture, Mark 2.15, "As Jesus sat at meat in his (autou, that is, Levi's)
house," &c. "And they watched him," (and they followed him, autw,that is,
Jesus, Mark 3.) "whether he would heal him." Here is auton for Jesus, and auton
for the man which had the withered hand. Gal. 1.16, "To reveal his Son in me,
that I might preach him;" here is autou, ipsius, for God the Father, and auton,
illum, for Christ. So, then, the churches of Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch,
after choosing of elders, who were also solemnly set apart with prayer and
fasting, were willing to let Paul and Barnabas go from them to the planting and
watering of other churches, and commended them unto God, that he would open
unto them a wide and effectual door, and prosper the work of Christ in their
hands, Eph. 6.18,19; or they commended them unto God for their safety and
preservation, as men are said to commend their own spirits to God, Luke 23.46;
1 Pet. 4.19. This sense and interpretation, which I have only offered to be
considered, doth not bring any harshness, and much less offer any violence,
either to the text or context in the Greek. But if another sense be liked
better, whether to understand by autouV the elders ordained, or the churches
commended to God by Paul and Barnabas; or to understand all the particulars
mentioned in that 23d verse to be common and joint acts done by Paul, Barnabas,
and the churches, that is, that they all concurred in making them elders by
suffrage, in prayer and fasting, and in commending themselves to the Lord, I
shall not contend, so long as the proper and native signification of
ceirotonhsanteV is retained; yea, although we should understand by this word an
act of Paul and Barnabas alone, distinct from the church's suffrage and
consent, even in that sense we lose not the argument: for it cannot be supposed
that the business was put to the lifting or stretching out hand sin signum
suffragii, between Paul and Barnabas, as if it had been put to the question
between them two alone, whether such a man should be an elder in such a church.
But how, then, can it be an act of Paul and Barnabas? Thus if you will: Those
two did ceirotonein, creare suffragiis, vel per suffragia, i.e., they ordained
such men to be elders as were chosen by the church. These two made or created
the elders, but the people declared by lifted-up hands whom they would have to
be elders. So Calvin, Justit., lib. 4, cap. 53, sect 15; even as, saith tie,
the Roman historians often tell us, that the consul who held the court did
create new magistrates, i.e., did receive the votes and preside in the
elections.
5. Luke doth usually mention the church's suffrage in making
church officers, or in designing men to sacred employments, as Acts 1.23,26;
13.3; 15.22 So doth Paul, 1 Cor. 16.3; 2 Cor. 8.19; 1 Tim. 3.7. So that it is
not likely there should be no mention of the church's election here where
professedly and intentionally mention is made of planting elders. The prayer
and fasting, as Acts 13.2,3, so likewise Acts 14.23, was common to the church:
they prayed and fasted cum discipulis, jejunantibus, saith the Gloss. All being
one work, why was not the ceirotonia common to the churches also?
6.
Protestant writers draw from ceirotonhsanteV, the church's suffrage;
Magdeburgians, cent. 1, lib. 2, cap. 6; Zanchius, in 4 Pr?c.; Beza, Cartwright,
and others, on the place; Bullinger, Decad. 5, ser. 4; Junius, Contro. 5, lib.
1, cap. 7; and others, against Bellarmine, De Cler., cap. 7; Gerhard, tom. 6,
p. 95; Brochmand, Systhem., tom. 2, p. 886; Dan?us, in 1 Tim. 5.; Wal?us, in
his treatise Quibusnam Competat Vocatio Pastorum, and Loce, p. 474. Of Papists
also, Salmeron expoundeth this place by Acts 6.; and saith the apostles gave
the election to the churches, here of elders, as there of deacons. Bellarmine,
de Cler., cap. 7, and Esthius, in 2 Cor. 8.19, confess that, if we look either
to the etymology of the word, or the use of Greek authors, it is to choose by
votes. If it be objected to me, that ceirotonhsanteV being referred to the
people, will invest them with a judicial power, and a forensical or juridical
suffrage; and where is, then, the authority of the eldership?
Answer. 1. It
is like enough (though I confess not certain) that no elderships were yet
erected in those churches, Acts 14.23. But put the case they had elderships;
yet ceirotonhsanteV might well be referred to the people, to signify their good
liking and consent; for in Athens itself; the people did ceirotonein when they
did but like well the persons nominated, as when a treasurer offered some to be
surety, ouV anodhmoVceirotonhsh , whom the people shall approve; Demosthenes
advers. Timocr. In which oration it is also to be noted, that ekklhsia, the
assembly, and dikashrion,the judicial court or assembly of judges, are plainly
distinguished, so far that they might not be both upon one day; and that,
though the people did ceirotonein, yet not they, but the hliastai,or judges,
did kaqistanai archn,ordain or appoint a magistrate; see ibid. Jus Jurandum
Heliastarum. As for the objection from Acts 10.41, proceirotonia is not the
same with ceirotonia, but as it were the preventing of ceirotonia by a prior
designation.
2. It is there attribute to God, that in the counsel of God
the apostles were in a manner elected by voices of the Trinity, Gen. 1.26, and
hindereth no more the proper signification of the word, applied to men, than
metamelia,ascribed to God, can prove that there is no change in men when they
repent, because there is none in God. As for that objection made by a learned
man, that even the Septuagints, Isa. 58.9, have ceirotonia,not for extensio or
elevatio manuum, but for that which is in the Hebrew immissio, or innixus
digiti, or manus:
Answer. (1.) It is not put for innixus digiti, but for
extensio digiti; for so is the text. (2.) Sanctius, following Cyril, tells us,
that the sense of the LXX. turning the text so, was this: Nempe hic intelligi
suffragia quibus magistratus creantur, a quibus raro solet abesse munerum
largitio et corruptio juris; so that his argument may be retorted. I do not say
that this is the Prophet's meaning, but that it is the LXX.'s sense of the text
in using that word; for the most interpreters understand by putting forth the
finger there, derision and disdain. (3.) The LXX. certainly did not intend the
putting on, but the putting out of the finger; so the Chaldee hath annuere
digito; Jerome, extendere digitum; which well agreeth with the Hebrew shekach,
digitum extendere, i.e., malum opus perlongare, saith Hugo Cardinalis. It is,
saith Emanuel Sa, minando, aut convitiando (which seemeth the true sense). The
Jesuits of Doway read, and cease to stretch out the finger. Gualther readeth,
emissionem digiti, and expoundeth thus, medii digiti, ostensio erat contemptus
indicium, digitis item minitamur, suppose none of all these signify the laying
on of the hands or finger; but suppose that it is not laid on, and so much
shall suffice concerning these scriptures, Acts 6.2-6; 14.23.
3. A third
argument from Scripture shall be this: If the extraordinary office-bearers in
these primitive times were not chosen, nor put into their functions without the
church's consent, far less ought there now to be any intrusion of ordinary
ministers without the consent of the church. Judas and Silas were chosen with
consent of the whole church unto an extraordinary embassage, Acts 15.22. So
were Paul's company chosen by the church, 2 Cor. 8.19. The commissioners of the
church of Corinth were approved by the church, 1 Cor. 16.3. Yea, Matthias,
though an apostle, ugkateyhfiqh, that is, was together chosen by suffrage,
namely, of the hundred and twenty disciples, Simul suffragiis electus est, as
Arias Montanus rightly turneth the word, Acts 1.23,26; Bellarmine, De Cler.,
cap. 7, acknowledgeth, yhfizesqaiest dare suffragium, et yhfisma est ipsum
suffragium; Paul and Barnabas were extraordinary and immediately called of God;
yet, when they were to be sent to the Gentiles, God would have the consent and
approbation of the church declared, Acts 13.3. I conclude this argument from
Scripture with the Magdeburgians, cent. 1, lib. 2, cap. 6, Neque apostolis,
neque alios ecclesi? ministros sibi solis, sumpsisse potestatem eligendi et
ordinandi presbyteros et diaconos, sed ecclesi? totius suffragia et consensum
adhibuisse ; tum ex, 1 Cor. 3.21,22, patet, tum exemplis probatur, Acts 1.23;
6.6; 14.23.
The next argument is taken from antiquity. Cyprian, lib. 1,
epist. 4, is very full and plain for the church's right and liberty in
elections. D. Field, lib. 5, cap. 54, citeth and Englisheth the words at large.
Leo, epist. 87, cap. 1, requireth, in the election of bishops, Vota civium,
testimonia populorum, epistola synodalis concilii. Car., bar. Sussitani apud
Augustinum; Enar., in Psalm 36, saith, Necesse nos fuerat Primiani causam, quem
plebs sancta Carthaginensis ecclesi? episcopum fuerat in ovile dei sortita,
seniorum litteris ejusdem ecclesi? postulantibus audire atque discutere. The
Fourth Council of Carthage, can. 22, requireth to the admission of every
clergyman civium assensum, et testimonium et convenientiam. Socrates, lib. 4,
cap. 25, recordeth, that Ambrose was chosen bishop of Milan with the uniform
voice of the church; and, lib. 6, cap. 2, he recordeth the like concerning the
election of Chrysostom to be bishop of Constantinople. Moreover, I find in the
pretended apostolical, but really ancient constitutions, collected by one under
the name of Clemens, lib. 8, cap. 4, it is appointed to ordain a bishop thus
qualified, enpasinamemptonapistindhnupopantoV toulaoueklelegmenon, in all
things unblameable, one of the best, and chosen by all the people, unto whom
let the people, being assembled together on the Lord's day, with the
presbytery, and the bishops then present, give their consent. Then immediately
one of the bishops asks the eldership and people presbuterionkaitonlaon if they
desire that man to be set over them; which, if they consent unto, he next
asketh them (as a distinct question) whether they all give him a good testimony
for his life, &c. Greg. Nazianzen, orat. 31, commendeth Athanasius'
calling, as being after the apostolical example, because he was chosen
yhfwtoulaou pantoV, by the suffrage of all the people. The Council of Nice, in
their epistle to them of Alexandria, appoint some to succeed into the vacant
places mononeiaxioifainointo, kaio laosairoito, so that they appear worthy, and
the people choose them. Greg, Mag., Epist., lib. 9, cap. 74: Clerum et populum
singularum civitatum hortari festina, ut inter se dissentire non debeant, sed
uno sibi consensu, unaqu?que civitas consecrandum eligat sacerdotem. He that
would have greater store of antiquity for this, may read Blondel, Apol., p.
379-473. Gerhard citeth, for the people's right, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Origen,
Isidore, yea, twelve popes, and divers ancient examples, as the election of
Sabinianus, of Athanasius, Peter the successor of Athanasius, of Eradius the
successor of Augustine, of Nectarius, of Ilavianus, and others, chosen with the
consent of the whole church; Gerhard, Loc. Com., tom. 6, sect. 95-97. What need
we to say any more of this, Bilson himself confesseth it, de Gubern. Eccles.,
cap. 15, p. 417; he saith the ancient form was, totam ecclesiam nominationi et
probationi pastoris sui prius consensisse, quam pro electo haberetur; and he
observeth (which another of his mind saith with him, Hist. of Episcopacy, part
2, p. 360), that the people did more willingly receive, more diligently hear,
and more heartily love those in whose election their desires were satisfied.
Bellarmine, de Cler., cap. 9, confesseth that, in the time of Chrysostom,
Ambrose, Augustine, Leo, and Gregory, the received form of elections was, that
both the clergy and the people should choose. Ancient testimonies for the
people's election, see also Smectymnus, p. 34.
Thirdly, We argue from the
judgment of sound Protestant churches and writers. The Helvetic Confession
tells us that the right choosing of ministers is by the consent of the church.
The Belgic Confession saith, "We believe that the ministers, seniors, and
deacons, ought to be called to these their functions, and, by the lawful
election of the church, to be advanced into these rooms." See both in the
Harmony of Confessions, sect. 11. The French discipline we shall see
afterwards. The tenet of Protestants which Bellarmine, de Cler., cap. 2,
undertaketh to confute, is this: Ut sine populi consensu et suffragio, nemo
legitime electus aut vocatus ad episcopatum habeatur. And although our writers
disclaim many things which he imputeth unto them, yet I find not this
disclaimed by any of them who write against him. It is plainly maintained by
Luther, lib. de Potest. Pap?; Calvin, in Acts 6.3; Beza, Confess., cap. 5, art.
35; Musculus, in Loc. Com.; Zanchius, in 4 Pr?cept.; Junius, Animad. in Bell.,
Contro. 5, lib. 1, cap. 7; Cartwright, on Acts 14.23; Osiander, Hist. Eccles.,
cent. 4, lib. 3, cap. 38; Gualther, on Acts 6.; Stutonius Fazius, in 1 Tim.
5.22; Morney, de Eccles., cap. 11; Balduine, de Instit. Ministrorum, cap. 6;
Brochmand, System, tom. 2, p. 885,886; Wal?us, de Vocatione Pastorum, and in
Loc. Com., p. 474; Bullinger, Decad. 5, ser. 3, p. 300; Smectymnus, p. 33,34;
Whittaker, in his manuscript, de Clericis, which was never printed, ascribeth
election to the people; so Festus Homius, Specimen. Controv. Belgic., art. 31,
and many others, whose testimonies we can produce if need be.
Let five only
speak for the rest:?Calvin, in one of his epistles, though writing against the
itching ears and groundless conceits of some people, yet asserteth this for a
certain truth: Sane oportet ministrum a populo approbatum esse, antequam in
ministerii possessionem mittatur, quod si quis seipsum intrudit alia via, ubi
in ecclesia ordo jam constitutus est, legitima vocatione destituitur; see the
Book of Epistles, p. 482, Edit. Genev., 1617. Gerhard, tom. 6, p. 95, Ut
Ecclesia consentiente pastores vocentur, neve quis invit? ecclesi? obtrudatur;
habet expressa in Scripturis testimonia, et perpetua ecclesies primitiv? praxi
comprobatum est. Zanchius, in 4 Pr?c., col. 81, saith, Est igitur manifestum
nunquam apostolos quempiam ad ministerium elegisse et ordinasse sua tantum
authoritate, sed semper id solites facere consentiente et approbante ecclesia;
and col. 782: Servatur h?c eadem consuetudo etiamnum in multis ecclesiis
reformatis; and col. 783: Eligere pastores sine plebis consensu, primum non est
apostolicum, neque legitimum, eoque talis minister: legitimus non fuerit
minister, deinde pugnat cum libertate ecclesi?, eoque adimitur ei quod Christus
donavit, quantum autem est hoc crimen? Tertio non conducit pastori, quia
nunquam bona conscientia poterit suo fungi officio, neque etiam conducit
ecclesi?, qua libenter non audiet, neque etiam, amabit eum, qui sibi non
consentienti obtrusus est. Dan?us, in 1 Tim. 5.22: Quemadmodum totius ecclesi?
pastor est futurus, ita ab omnibus debet approbari, ne quisquam gregi invito
pastor obtrudatur. And after he hath cleared the whole matter at length, he
concludeth, Ex his autem omnibus apparet, quam nulla sit vel non legitima eorum
Dei ministrorum, vel ecclesi? pastorum vocatio, qui solius regis vel regin?,
vel patroni, vel episcopi, archi-episcopi authoritate, diplomate, bullis,
jussu, et judicio fiunt vel eliguntur, id quod dolendum est adhuc fieri in iis
ecclesiis, qu? tamen purum Dei verbum habent, et sequuntur, veluti in media
Anglia. The Professors of Leyden, in Synops. Pur. Theol., disp. 42, thes. 32,
Jus pastores eligendi, est penes ecclesiam, ac proinde plebi commune, cum
presbyteris; jus eos ordinandi soli presbyterio est proprium. I must not forget
to mention the order of the church of Scotland. The First Book of Discipline,
in the fourth head, saith, "This liberty, with all care, must be reserved to
every several kirk, to have their votes and suffrages in election of their
ministers." The Second Book of Discipline, cap. 3, saith, "In the order of
election, it is to be eschewed that any person be intruded in any offices of
the kirk contrary to the will of the congregation to which they are appointed,
or without the voice of the eldership. The General Assembly at Edinburgh, Dec.
1562, sess. 3, made this act, "that inhibition shall be made to all and sundry
persons, now serving in the ministry, that have not been presented by the
people, or apart thereof, to the superintendent." The General Assembly at
Edinburgh, May 1586, sess. 5, requireth the consent of the whole parish to a
minister's election. The words are these: "Anent the doubt moved, if it be
lawful to any town or city where there is an university, and a part of the
parish of the same town lying to landward, without their consent and votes to
elect a minister to the whole parish and university, pretending the privilege
of an old use and custom, the kirk hath voted thereto negative, that it is not
lawful to do so." The General Assembly at Perth, in March 1596, sess. 6, doth
forbid the choosing of ministers without the consent of their own flocks. The
General Assembly at Glasgow, sess. 23, art. 20, doth revive the ancient order
thus: "Anent the presenting either of pastors, or elders and schoolmasters, to
particular congregations, that there be a respect had to the congregation, and
that no person be intruded in any office of the kirk contrary to the will of
the congregation to which they are appointed." In the Treatise called The Order
and Government of the Church of Scotland (published anno 1641, for information
of the English, and for removing and preventing all prejudices which the best
affected amongst them had, or might conceive, against our church government),
we have these words, p. 8: "So that no man is here intruded upon the people
against their open or tacit consent and approbation, or without the voices of
the particular eldership with whom he is to serve in the ministry." And now,
if, in any congregation of Scotland, the practice should be contrary to the
profession and rule established (which God forbid, and I hope it never shall)
it were a double fault and scandal. Finally, the order of the church of
Scotland is strengthened by the civil law of the kingdom. For the second
parliament of king Charles, act 7, did ordain presbyteries to plant vacant
kirks with consent of the parishes; and act 8, anent the presbyteries providing
and admitting ministers to the kirks which belonged to bishoprics, it is always
provided, that this be without prejudice of the interest of the parishes,
according to the acts and practice of the kirk since the Reformation. In the
9th act of the last session of the same parliament, presbyteries are appointed
to plant vacant churches upon the suit and calling of the congregation.
In
the fourth place, the point is confirmed from sound reason. For, (1.) It is
very expedient, for the credit and better success of the ministry, that a
bishop have a good name and testimony even among them that are without, as the
Apostle teacheth, 1 Tim. 3.7. It is much more necessary that he be well liked
and approved of them that are within the church. (2.) It is a common maxim
among the fathers, schoolmen, and summists, Quod ad omnes pertinet omnium
consensu fieri debet. (3.) As the free consent of people, in the election, is a
great obligation and engagement, both to them to subject themselves in
Christian and willing obedience to him whom they have willingly chosen to be
over them in the Lord, and to the person elected to love them and to offer up
himself gladly upon the service and sacrifice of their faith; so where this
obligation or mutual union of the hearts of pastor and people is wanting,
mutual duties are not done gnhsiwV, but as it were by constraint and necessity,
they in the meantime drawing back from the yoke, and he at the best watching
over them, not with joy, but with grief and sorrow of heart. (4.) Instead of
peace and harmony, there shall be contention and contradiction. Gerhard, tom.
6, p. 105, Ministros vocari cum consensu et suffragiis ecclesi? cui
pr?ficiuntur, alit mutuam concordiam inter auditores et pastores, summe
necessariam, amovet etiam dissidia ex neglectu hujus ordinis metuenda. (5.) It
breedeth great peace and confidence when one is thus called. Whittaker, de
Ecclesia, quest. 5, cap. 6, defendeth the calling of Luther, Zuinglius,
Oecolampadius, &c., upon this ground, Quia sunt a populis et gregibus
vocati. (6.) Experience hath made men to know the comfortable fruits of free
election, and the unhappy success of violent intrusion. Constantius, the son of
Constantine, did put orthodox bishops from their places, and substitute Arians
in their room, with the contradiction and reluctation of the churches. The like
did Papists in the Palatinate, and other places, where their Dagon was set up
again. So did the authors and urgers of the Interim in Germany. So did the
prelates in Scotland, England, Ireland. Upon all which intrusions many
unspeakable evils did follow. If we, after a second reformation, should now
permit violent intrusions, this might well be a prologue to much confusion and
disorder.
Lastly, I argue from the confessions of adversaries themselves.
We have cited before the confession of Bilson, and of the author of The History
of Episcopacy, and of Salmeron: I will add Peresius, de Traditionibus, who
undertaketh to confute the Protestant tenet, that it belongeth to the people to
elect or reject their ministers. He argueth from antiquity, and yet in that
same argumentation he is constrained to speak for us; for speaking of the three
bishops which, by the ancient canons, might ordain a bishop, he saith, Verum
tamen est quod episcopi isti qui ad electionem congregabantur, consensum
expectabant cleri et populi ut in concilio Carthaginensi quarto refertur, qui
consensus magis erat testificatio vit? ejus qui erat ordinandus, et signum
quoddam expressivum ejus desiderii, quod volebat Paulus quando bonum
testimonium populi dicebat expectandum ante ordinationem. Et infra. Hoc enim
modo magis pretiosus esset illis pr?latus, magisque amabilis, ne cogerentur
inviti inutiles homines, et interdum perniciosos suis sudoribus alere. And,
answering to the passage of Cyprian, lib. 2, epist. 5, he saith, That though he
hath not read of it, yet forte erat mos tempore ejus in ecclesis Hispaniarum
(for they were two Spanish bishops of whom Cyprian writes in that epistle) ut
aliqui ex populo vocem haberent, electivam. Quod vero dicit populum posse
recusare indignos, etiam fassi sumus, quantum ad electionem si indignitas
ordinandi sit nota et populo perniciosa. But what saith the canon law itself?
Decr., part 1, dest. 62, Electio clericorum est petitio plebis. He was a popish
archbishop who condescended that the city of Magdeburg should have jus vocandi
et constituendi ecclesi? ministros; neither would the city admit of peace
without this condition, Thuan. Hist., lib. 83, p. 85. I had almost forgot Dr
Field, Of the Church, lib. 5, cap. 54, confessing plainly that each people and
church "stand free by God's law to admit, maintain, and obey no man as their
pastor without their liking; and that the people's election, by themselves or
their rulers, dependeth on the first principles of human fellowships and
assemblies; for which cause the bishops, by God's law, have power to examine
and ordain before any man be placed to take charge of souls, yet have they no
power to impose a pastor upon any church against their wills." He citeth divers
testimonies of antiquity to show that the ancient elections were by the church,
or the greater part thereof.
It remaineth to answer some objections. And,
first, it is objected that this is a tenet of Anabaptists, Independents, and
Separatists. Answer. But shall we condemn these truths which either they, or
Papists, or Arians do hold? Quid est, saith Cyprian, quia hoc facit Novatianus
ut nos non putemus esse faciendum? We may go one mile with the Scriptures,
though we go not two miles with the Independents, or three miles with the
Anabaptists or Separatists. (2.) Neither, in this same point of elections, do
we homologate with them who give to the collective body of the church (women
and children under age only excepted) the power of decisive vote and suffrage
in elections, we give the vote only to the eldership or church representative,
so that they carry along with them the consent of the major or better part of
the congregation. Gamach?us, in Primam Secund?, quest. 15, tells us out of
Thomas this difference betwixt consent and election, that though every choosing
be a consenting, yet every consenting is not a choosing. The liberty of consent
is one thing; counsel or deliberation another thing; the power of a decisive
voice in court or judicatory a third thing. I speak of a constituted church
(for where there is not yet an eldership there can be no such distinction; yet,
however, be there an eldership, or be there none, the church's consent must be
had). The first of these we ascribe to the whole church, without whose
knowledge and consent ministers may not be intruded; the second to the ablest
and wisest men of the congregation, especially to magistrates, with whose
special advice, privity, and deliberation, the matter ought to be managed; the
third, which is the formal and consistorial determination of the case of
election, consisteth in the votes of the eldership. Their way is much different
from this, who would have the matter prepared by the conference and
deliberation of the eldership (as we use to do in committees), but determined
and decided by the votes of the whole congregation. (3.) Let them speak for us
who have particularly written against the Separatists and Independents. Laget,
in his Defence of Church Government, part 1, cap. 1, in the stating of the
question about popular government, declareth that the question is not whether,
in matters of greater importance and more public concernment (as admissions,
excommunications, and absolutions of members, elections, and depositions of
officers), the case ought to be made known unto, and determined with the free
consent of the people (for all this he willingly granteth), but whether every
cause to be determined ought to be brought to the multitude or body of the
congregation, and they to give their voices therein together with the officers
of the church.
Mr. Herle, the reverend and learned prolocutor of the
Assembly of divines at Westminster, in his treatise entitled, The Independency
on Scriptures, of the Independency of the Churches, p. 3, while he stateth the
question, saith, "We acknowledge that the pastors and other officers were
anciently, and it is to be wished they still were, chosen, at least consented
to, by the members of each respective congregation, but that they are to be
ordained, deposed, or excommunicated by the presbytery," &c. Moreover, they
of the separation, and if not all, yet, sure, some Independents, place the
whole essentiality of a calling in election, accounting ordination to be no
more but the solemnization of the calling. We say, exousia, or the missio
potestativa, or the power and commission given to a man, by which he is made of
no minister to be a minister, is not from the church's electing him, but from
the lawful ordaining him; and that election doth but design such a person to
the ministry of such a church. For as Gamach?us saith, in tertiam partem Thom?
de Sacr. Ordin., cap. 7, the people cannot give spiritual authority which
themselves have not. Et quamvis fateamur, saith he, laicos s?pissime vocatos ad
electionem ministrorum ecclesi?, tamen longe est aliud loqui de ordinatione,
quam de electione, &c.
Obj. 2. This liberty granted to congregations
prejudgeth the right of patrons. Answer. 1. If it were so, yet the argument is
not pungent in divinity, for why should not human right give place to divine
right? Nec episcopale nec patronatus jus ecclesiasticis canonibus introductum
pr?judicare potest potestati jure divino toti ecclesi? in ministrorum electione
competenti, saith Gerhard, tom. 6, sect. 114. The states of Zealand did abolish
patronages, and give to each congregation the free election of their own
minister, which I take to be one cause why religion flourisheth better there
than in any other of the united provinces.
Obj. 3. The church's liberty of
consenting or not consenting, asserted by the arguments above mentioned, must
ever be understood to be rational, so that the church may not disassent without
objecting somewhat against the doctrine or life of the person presented.
Answer. 1. The author of The History of Episcopacy, part 6, p. 362, 364, tells
us out of the book of ordination, that the people are free to except against
those that are to be ordained, and are required, if they know any crime for
which they ought not to be received into the ministry, to declare the same. He
saith further, that presbyters are elected by the patrons, for, and in the name
of, the rest of the people, p. 365; so Peresius, de Tradit., part 3, p. 200,
confesseth that people should be required to object what they can against the
fitness of the man to be ordained. Now, then, if this be all, that people may
object, it is no more than prelates, yea, Papists, have yielded. Answer. 2.
This objection cannot strike against the election of a pastor by the judgment
and votes of the particular eldership of that church where he is to serve; for
it is evident by the scriptures, testimonies, and reasons above specified, not
only that the church hath liberty of disassenting upon grounds and causes
objected, but that the eldership hath power and liberty positive to elect (by
voices) their ministers. Now men vote in elderships (as in all courts and
consistories) freely, according to the judgment of their conscience, and are
not called to an account for a reason of their votes. (3.) As the vote of the
eldership is a free vote, so is the congregation's consent a free consent, and
the objection holdeth no more against the latter than against the former; for
they are both jointly required by the church of Scotland, as appeareth by the
citations foresaid. (4.) Any man (though not a member of the congregation) hath
place to object against the admission of him that is presented, if he know such
an impediment as may make him incapable either at all of the ministry, or the
ministry of that church to which he is presented; so that unless the
congregation have somewhat more than liberty of objecting, they shall have no
privilege or liberty but that which is common to strangers as well as to them.
In this fourth answer I am confirmed by Blondel, a man entrusted and set apart
by the national synod of the reformed churches of France, for writing and
handling of controversies. In his Apologia pro Sententia Hieronym, p. 383,
replying to Bellarmine, who would enervate Cyprian's testimonies (for the
people's right to choose their ministers) by this evasion which I now speak to,
saith, Nec putidum in gravi Scriptore commentum ferendum, populum habere
potestatem eligendi et suffragium ferendi, quia potest dicere siquid noverit
boni vel mali de ordinando, et sic testimonio sue efficere ut non eligatur:
quasi vero is eligendi et suffragium ferendi potestate pr?ditus eaque usus dici
debeat, qui id tantum prestat, quod omni electionis et suffragii jure absolute
carens pr?stare (quando cunque libet) potest, aut oris quisquam adeo duri
reperiatur ut infidelium pessimos quicquid boni vel mali de ordinando noverint
dicere, et sic testimonio sue ut non eligatur efficere posse negare audeat,
habebunt scilicet ex adversarii hypothesi, ?quo cum fidelibus jure, eligendi et
suffragium ferendi potestatem. (5.) Though nothing be objected against the
man's doctrine or life, yet if the people desire another better, or as well
qualified, by whom they find themselves more edified than by the other, that is
a reason sufficient (if a reason must be given at all), and it is allowed by
Dan?us in 1 Tim. 5.22, and by the First Book of Discipline, in the fourth head.
(6.) It being condescended upon in the parliament of Scotland, that his
Majesty, with consent and advice the estates, should nominate the officers of
estate, the estates of parliament were pressed to give a reason of their
disassenting from his Majesty's nomination, but they refused; and, I am sure,
consenting or not consenting, in a matter ecclesiastical, ought to be as free,
if not more free, than in a matter civil.
Obj. 4. This course may prove
very dangerous for an apostatizing congregation; for a people inclining to
heresy or schism will not consent to the admission of an orthodox and sound
minister. Answer. (1.) The intrusion of ministers against the congregation's
will, doth more generally and universally draw after it great evils and
inconveniences. (2.) The corruptions of many patrons, and, peradventure, also
some presbyters, may be more powerful to intrude insufficient or unsound
ministers than the unsoundness or error of this or that particular
congregation, can be to hinder the admission of them that are sound. (3.) We
shall heartily accord that an heretical or a schismatical church hath not just
right to the liberty and privilege of a sound church. (4.) Zanchius, in 4
Pr?c., col. 784, would have a congregation, infected with heresy or
superstition, before there be a ministry settled among them, to be first
convinced of their error by some other pastor sent unto them by the Christian
magistrate for a time, and, extraordinarily, as a kind of evangelist. At vero,
saith he, cum constitut? sunt et format? ver? ecclesi?, cur tunc saltem, non
relinquitur illis libertas eligendi suos pastores?
Obj. 5. People do often
err in their choice, and cannot judge of the qualifications and abilities of
pastors, but follow blindly the humours of their lords or leaders. Answer. (1.)
We must believe what Christ saith, John 10.4,5, that his sheep know his voice,
and a stranger they will not follow, but will flee from him. (2.) There are
also in presbyteries, and in all judicatories, some leading men whose judgment
is much respected and hearkened unto. (3.) He that followeth another is not
ever blind: a people may follow leading men, and yet see with their own eyes
too. (4.) When Bellarmine objecteth that a people cannot judge whether a man be
fit for the ministry, Junius, Animad., contr. 5, lib. 1, cap. 7, not. 24,
answereth, that the congregation judgeth not simply and absolutely whether one
be fit for the ministry, but whether he be fit to serve in the ministry among
them; which two are so different, that of two men offered to a congregation, he
that is absolutely and simply the best qualified for the ministry is not to be
for that cause admitted hic et nunc, but he who is fittest for that
congregation. Now, a rude and ignorant people can judge which of the two
speaketh best to their capacity and edification. (5.) When any congregation
makes choice of an unfit or dangerous person, against whom there is just
exception to be made, they must not, therefore, be robbed of their right, but
called upon to make a better choice. This right people had from a pope. Greg.,
Mag. Epist., lib. 6, epist. 38:
Habitatores Lucensis civitaris queudam ad
nos presbyterum adduxerunt, qui eis debuisset episcopus ordinari, sed quia
minime dignus inventus est nec diu sine proprio possunt consistere sacerdote; a
nobis admoniti in scrinio promisserunt alium studiose ? qu?rere, &c.
Obj. 6. Seldom or never shall a congregation be found all of one mind, and
because this might be answered in the words of Gregorius, de Valentia in Iam
Secund?, disput. 7, qu?st. 5, punct. 5, Nam moraliter loquendo illud tota
communitas facere censetur quod facit major ipsius pars; therefore, to make the
objection stronger, it may be further added, that oftentimes the greater part
shall overcome the better part, because, in every corporation, there are more
bad than good, more foolish than wise. This inconveniency is objected by
Bellarmine, de Clericis, cap. 7, who tells us further, that popular elections
are subject to tumults and seditions. We answer with Junius, ubi supra, not.
23, 27, (1.) Inconveniences do also follow upon elections made by presbyteries
and patrons without the people's consent. (2.) De incommodis prudenter
curandis, non de re sancta mutanda temere, sapientes videre oportuit. (3.) For
avoiding inconvenience of this kind, it is to be remembered, that the
congregation ought to be kept in unity and order (so far as may be) by the
directions and precedence of their elders, and by the assistance of brethren
chosen out of other churches, when need so requireth. (4.) Zanchius, ubi supra,
col. 783, answereth out of Calvin, President
plebi in electione alii
pastores, et cum illis etiam magistratus conjungatur, qui compescat
tumultuantes et seditiosos; wherein there is great need of caution, lest, under
pretence of suppressing tumults, the church's liberty of consenting or not
consenting be taken away; as, upon the other part, the election is not to be
wholly and solely permitted to the multitude or body of the church; which is
the meaning of the 13th canon of the council of Laodicea, as it is expounded by
Osiander, Gerhard, Junius, and others. (5.) When a congregation is rent
asunder, and cannot agree among themselves, this evil may be helped in
subordinate, though not in independent churches; for the higher consistories,
the presbyteries and assemblies of the church, can end the controversy and
determine the case, after hearing of both sides.
Obj. 7. As for that which
may reflect on ministers that have not the people's consent. Answer. (1.) It is
ordination that maketh men ministers; and the want of the church's suffrage
cannot hinder their being ministers, it concludeth only that they do not rite
and ordinate enter into their ministry hic et nunc in such a church. (2.) This
is also helped by a posterior approbation of the church, as a woman marrying a
man unwillingly, yet after loving him as her husband, removeth that impediment.
I conclude with a passage out of the Ecclesiastical Discipline of the
Reformed Churches in France, cap. 1, "The silence of the people, none
contradicting, shall be taken for an express consent; but in case there arise
any contention, and he that is named should be liked by the consistory, and
disliked by the people, or by most part of them, his reception is then to be
delayed, and report of all to be made unto the conference or provincial synod,
to consider as well the justification of him that is named, as of his
rejection. And although he that is named should there be justified, yet he is
not to be made or given as a pastor to the people against their will, nor to
the dislike, displeasure, and discontent of most of them." Nay, the popish
French church hath no less zealously stood for their liberty in this point, in
so much, that the intrusion of men into ecclesiastical charges by the Pope
himself hath been openly opposed, as shall most fully appear to any who shall
read the book entitled, Pro libertate