A Second True Defense of the Nonconformists, Treatise · Chapter 9

A Second True Defense of the Nonconformists · Treatise · Chapter 9

p. 126CHAP. IX. Of the Peoples Conſent to the Paſtoral and Church-Relation.

§. 1. PAge 307. Saith the Dean, [The next thing to be conſidered is the intereſt and power of the People as to the choice of their Paſtors, for want of which great complaints are made,—Mr. Baxter is very tragical on this Argument, and keepeth not within tolerable bounds of diſcretion in pleading the Peoples Cauſe againſt Magiſtrates and Patrons and Laws.]

Anſw. 1. That is tolerable to ſome men, which others cannot bear; Silken ears muſt have ſoft words; The Land cannot bear all his words, was an old Complaint: And [Speak pleaſing things, Prophecy deceit] was an old Mandate. It's no wonder if that ſort of men, that muſt judg whether our Preaching, and Worſhipping God be tolerable, and muſt write us down the words which we muſt ſay to God in Prayer, or not be tolerated, do alſo think themſelves the meet judges, whether our indiſcretion be intollerable.

2. But let us try whether he ſtate this Controverſie any more Logically or truly than the reſt, and whether he intimate not hurtful though tollerable untruth.

1. It's a crooked inſinuation, to put the word [Power] inſtead of [Right and Liberty,] as if [Power] of Conſenting in the People, and [Power of Rulers] were univocal and not equivocal terms: But this is tolerable: For experience hath convinced me, how little Logical ſtrictneſs is from this Doctor to be expected: I doubt leſt next, as ſome men inſtead of Learning maintain their reputation by deriding it, we may expect ſome ſuch defence of the Doctor… Logick, to prove that he is none of the Diſputers of this World, who deceive men by vain Philoſophy.

2. And the word [choice] inſtead of [conſent] is ſomewhat more crooked: For [choice] uſually includeth the firſt nominating Vote; And he knoweth that I pleaded for the neceſſity of no more, than the Churches conſent, though it were ſubſequent to the choice of Magiſtrates or Patrons.

3. But the next is worſe, that [I plead the Peoples Cauſe againſt Magiſtrates, Patrons and Laws,] when I do but deſire their Conjunction.

§. 2. His repetitions call me tediouſly to repeat the ſtate of the Controverſie (a buſineſs quite below him.)

I. I Have oft ſaid, that God hath not made either Magiſtrates or People the Judges who is fit to be, and ſhall be a Miniſter of Chriſt in general; but the ORDAINERS and the PERSON himſelf conjunct. This is evident, 1. From Scripture Inſtances of all that were Ordained: 2. From the nature of the thing.

1. Who is ſuppoſed ſo fit to judge as men and Seniors of the ſame Office? Who but Phyſicians are fit to judge who is meet to be a Licenſed Phyſician? And who but Philoſophers judge of Graduates and Profeſſours in Philoſophy?

2. And no man can make me a Miniſter againſt my will, nor know me to be fit, if I know my ſelf to be unfit.

§. 3. II. I have oft ſaid that the Supreme Civil Governour is the Judge, whom he muſt countenance, maintain and tolerate. The proof is eaſie, 1. Becauſe to do it is his work; and every man muſt be a diſcerning judge of his own work. 2. Becauſe it is a publick act of Government, and he is the chief publick Judge therein.

§. 4. III. I have oft ſaid that the Diſpoſal of the Tythes and Temples is in the power of the Prince, and Patron by his grant. But with theſe bounds.

1. His power is not Abſolute, but Under Chriſt and limited by him, and therefore he hath no power againſt him, nor to croſs his Laws or to contradict his ends.

2. If the Tythes and Temples were given only for publick Teachers of Catechumens, or for meer Lecturers, the Magiſtrate muſt diſpoſe of them to ſuch as are capable of that Office.

3. If the Tythes and Temples were given for the Paſtors of the Churches, the Magiſtrate is bound to give them to ſuch as are lawfully called to be ſuch Paſtors, and not by the advantage of his Truſt, overthrow the way of entrance inſtituted by Chriſt.

p. 1274. However if they were devoted to God, it is God who is the proprietor, and it's ſacrilege to alienate them. And an intolerable ill diſpoſal is alienation.

§. 5. IV. I have oft ſaid, that it being ſuppoſed that their Anceſtors gift of Tythes or Glebe and Temples is the reaſon of our common Patronage and preſenting power, the will of the dead Donors is to be obſerved, and their gifts given to none but on the termes by them determined: But their gifts are ſuppoſed to be for the Churches good and not againſt it: Nor had they any power on pretenſe of beneficence, to deſtroy, or to take away more than they give: But the Truſting of our Souls Conduct is a matter of more weight than Tythes and Temples. If Tythes be proved not to be of Divine Right, all that can be expected is, that if the flock cannot truſt him whom the Patron chuſeth, they let him give his Tythes and Temple to whom he pleaſe, and they will truſt their ſouls with ſuch as they dare, and ſafely may. But if he will chuſe and offer them one whom they can ſafely and comfortably accept, ſo as Tythes and Temples ſhall preponderate in caſe of ſmall difference in the men, prudence obligeth them to accept of the advantage. The ſame I ſay of the Magiſtrates countenance and approbation. But if the difference be very great, it's better ſtretch our purſes to build new Temples and pay our Paſtors than truſt our ſouls on the Paſtoral Conduct of ignorant, malignant, unfaithful or heretical men.

§. 6. V. I have oft ſaid, that mutual conſent is neceſſary to the being of the relation of Paſtor and Flock. And though ſometimes the Rulers impoſition, and the Patrons choice, may make it the Peoples duty in prudence to conſent, when the good preponderates the hurt, (not elſe) yet till they conſent, the Relation is not exiſtent. As if Children were bound to take Wives and Husbands by the Command and fore choice of Parents, yet it's no Marriage till they conſent.

§. 7. The common objection is from the inconvenience, if the ſeveral parties agree not: To which I anſwer.

1. The miſchief of the contrary way, is worſe than that inconvenience.

2. There is nothing in this World without inconveniences where all things and perſons and actions are imperfect.

3. If Parents and Children agree not about their Marriage, it hath great inconveniences; And yet neither Parents Government, nor Childrens conſenting Liberty muſt be denyed.

4. In ſo weighty a Caſe, divers Locks and Keys keep the Churches treaſure ſafe. Prince, Patron, People and Ordainers, will not ſo often agree on a vile perſon, as any one of them alone may do.

§. 8. And now judge how Logically, how honeſtly the Doctor hath ſtated the Caſe, and made me Intolerably indiſcreet and tragical againſt Magiſtrates, Patrons and Laws. And try if you can underſtand what it is inſtead of this, that he would have: I tell him again, that if he deny the neceſſity of the flocks conſent to the mutual relation, he notoriouſly oppoſeth the judgment and practice of Antiquity and the Univerſal Church, of Princes, Patriarchs, Prelates, Councils and People, and fights againſt the full ſtream of Hiſtorical evidence, for a new crooked way, that would make as many modes of Religion as there are different Princes.

And here he wonders what he ſaid, that occaſioned ſuch undecent paſſion. It ſeems he felt ſome paſſion in reading it, and thought he muſt have the like that wrote it. And ſo let any man obtrude any pernicious thing on the Church, and he can eaſily prove the detector to have undecent paſſion, for giving a bad Cauſe its proper name.

§. 9. But he cannot find out the reaſon of my inference, that then Princes may impoſe what Religion they pleaſe.]

Anſw. Not underſtanding, with ſome men, goes for confuting: To put [Religion] for the mode of Religion is too little a ſlip of his to be inſiſted on. But is not my inference neceſſary? I urged him to tell me, in what Countries, and under what ſort of Princes the Rule holds, that the People muſt not judge whether the offered Paſtors be Hereticks, nor refuſe them, if Prince and Patron preſent them? He will not be entreated to tell me. I tell him, that if the Rule be univerſal, when a Papiſt, Socinian, Anabaptiſt, Antiepiſcopal, &c. Prince and Patron preſent men of their own mind, and they are inſtituted, the People muſt take and truſt them as their Paſtors: And is not this to ſet up in all the Churches what modiſh Religion Prince and Patron pleaſe? Is this hard to be underſtood? p. 128Yet he calls this Railing on him for ſuppoſitions of my own making. And here he ſteps over to another man.

§. 10. Before I come to his undertakings, I will repeat anothers railing and undecent paſſion againſt his Cauſe; And I deſire the Reader to note how well the Doctors of the Church of England agree; and to learn which of them it is that we muſt believe, both as to Hiſtory and Right. It is Mr. Herbert Thorndike in his Treatiſe of Forbearance of Penal. [It is to no purpoſe to talk of Reformation in the Church, to regular Government, without reſtoring the Liberty of chuſing Biſhops and the priviledge of enjoying them, to the Synods, Clergy and People of each Dioceſs. So evident is the right of Synods, Clergy and People in the making of thoſe of whom they conſiſt, and by whom they are to be Governed, that I need make no other reaſon of the neglect of Epiſcopacy, than the neglect of it.]

Yet theſe two are Doctors of one Church, but we are no Members of it.

§. 11. I again ſay that either the Reader hath read the Church Hiſtory and Canons, or not? If not, how can he tell who to believe that report them? the Doctor or me? But if he have, I will no more diſpute this Caſe with him, than I would do whether Engliſh Parliaments uſed to make Laws. He is paſt my conviction if he be not convinced.

§. 12. And I will again ſay, that I will yet ſuppoſe the Doctor ſo humble as to acknowledge himſelf much inferiour to Paulus ſarpi ſervita venerunt, in point of Church Hiſtory: At leaſt I ſay to the Reader, peruſe what he hath ſaid of this Controverſie and of the alteration of Church Government in his Hiſtory of the Council of Trent, and his Book of Church Benefices, lately tranſlated by Dr. Denton, and doubt if you can.

§. 13. And in general I add: I. I ſuppoſe no man of ſuch reading maketh any doubt of the firſt 300 years, whether any Biſhops were made over any Church without the free Election or Conſent of the Flocks and the whole Clergy, and the approbation of the Ordainers. I will not for ſhame ſtay to prove this, having ſaid ſo much of it in my firſt Plea for Peace, and Epiſcopal Church Hiſtory, which are unanſwered.

II. And ſince the firſt 300 years, it's ſo notorious in Hiſtory that it's a ſhame to need proof of it, that the Chriſtian Emperours confirmed the Churches in this right and uſe, and for many hundred years after, permitted and ordered, that Biſhops ſhould be choſen by the People, Clergy and Synods, and when the Peoples Election was infringed, the neceſſity of their conſent long continued: And it was only in the choice of the five Patriarchs that the Emperours uſed to meddle, and that not always, nor at all chuſing them alone, but commending ſome one to the People and Clergy to chuſe, or confirming ſome one that they had nominated. And this held on till Popery ſprung up.

III. And even then the Popes long continued it: But, 1. They ſtrove (ſpecially in Hildebrand's days and after) againſt the Emperours negative voice in the confirmation of Popes, 2. And his negative in Inveſting Biſhops: But even in this ſtrife, the Election was confeſt to be in the Clergy, the People chuſing or freely conſenting, and no man to be made their Biſhop againſt their will; and it was but the Inveſtiture per b…culum & annulum, as a confirmation which the Emperours claimed.

§. 14. I have formerly named elder Teſtimonies not denied: I will now recite but ſome Canons of Councils.

1. The 9th and 10th Canons of the firſt great Nicene Council nullifieth the very Ordination of ſcandalous uncapable men: And in the Arab. Can. 4. Si populo placebit, is made a condition of the Epiſcopal relation. And c. 5. in caſe of the Peoples diſagreement, the ſaid People muſt take the moſt blameleſs.

2. The Roman Council ſaid to be under Silveſter of 275 Biſhops ſaith, [No Biſhop ſhall Ordain any Clerke, niſi cum omni adunatâ Eccleſia, but with all the Church united. If this Council be not certain, the very forgers ſhew the Antiquity of the Churches right and cuſtom.

3. I before named a Council at Capua that decreed that the two Biſhops at Antioch choſen by their two Churches, ſhould live in Love and Peace.

4. Chryſoſtom's Church of Joannites would rather ſeparate than forſake their choſen Biſhop or his honour, though Emperour, Council and p. 129Patriarch was againſt him: and though Cyril Alex. wrote that their breach of Canons was intolerable, and to tolerate them (a few ſtubborn Nonconformiſts) would but diſcourage the obedient.

5. Even the famous Pope Caeleſtine who helpt Auſtin againſt the Pelagians Decreed [Let no man be given a Biſhop to the unwilling: Let the ſenſe and deſire of the Clergy, the Laity, and Magiſtracy (ordinis) be required (or neceſſary.)]

6. How the people depoſed Theodoſius Biſhop of Synada and choſe another and the change approved, I have elſewhere ſhewed.

7. After Atticus death the Clergy at Conſtantinople were for Philip or Proclus, but the people choſe Siſinnius and prevailed.

8. Siſinnius ſent Proclus to be Biſhop at Cyzicum, but the people refuſed him and choſe another.

9. The Orleance Council, an. 540. Can. 3. decreeth about Ordaining Biſhops, Qui praeponendus eſt omnibus ab omnibus eligatur: as of old, viz. Let him be choſen by all, who is to be ſet over all.

10. An. 541. The Concil. Avern. decree c. 2. That none ſeek the ſacred Office of a Biſhop by Votes but by merit, nor ſeem to get a Divine Office, rebus ſed moribus: and that he aſcend to the top of that eminent dignity by the election of all, and not by the favour of a few: and that in chuſing Prieſts there be the greateſt care, becauſe, &c.

Therefore another Council at Orleance decreed that a Biſhop muſt be ordained in his own Church which he muſt overſee.

11. Another Orleance Council decree, c. 10 That none get a Biſhoprick by gifts or ſeeking, but with the will of the King, by the election of the Clergy and the Lay-people. And Can. 11. And as the ancient Canons have decreed, Let none be made Biſhop to an unwilling People (or without the Peoples conſent) Nor let the People or the Clergy be inclined to conſent, by the oppreſſion of perſons in power (a thing not lawful to be ſpoken.) But if it be otherwiſe done, let the Biſhop be for ever depoſed, &c.

12. I have formerly cited Pope Gregory I. his expreſs Decrees herein.

13. Clodov…us his Council at Cabilone renewed the old Decree, That all Ordination of Biſhops be null, which was otherwiſe made than by the election of the Com-Provincials, the Clergy and the Citizens.

14. The General Council called Quinoſextum, an. 692. decreed Can. 22. That Biſhops and Prieſts Ordained with Money, and not by Examination and Election, be depoſed: Though the ſame Council by humane wiſdom decreed, Can. 38. That whatſoever alteration the Imperial power maketh on any City, the Eccleſiaſtical Order alſo follow it. The way by duplicate page p. 130duplicate page p. 131p. 130which Humane Order overthrew Divine Order and Inſtitutions.

15. And by the way you may conjecture of the Chuſers by the Council of Toletane, an. 693. under King Egica, where the King Preaching to the Biſhops (as was then needful) decreeth, That every Pariſh that hath twelve Families have their proper Governour. But if it have leſs than twelve, it ſhall be part of another's charge.

16. K. Pepin (who advanced the Pope to advance himſelf, and added the Sword to Excommunication by miſchievous decree, yet) altered not the common way of Election, and decreeth that every City (like our Corporations) have a Biſhop, and none meddle in another's Dioceſs without his conſent.

17. The choice of Pope Conſtantine, the humiliation of Stephen, and many ſuch inſtances ſhew that even at Rome ſtill the People had the greateſt hand in chuſing the Pope; and that to Communicate with a Biſhop irregularly choſen, was taken for a great ſin. And when Charles Mag. was gratified as to the Papal Chair, it was but by making him a neceſſary Confirmer.

18. The French Conſtitutions, l. 1. c. 84. objected about this by Baronius and Binius, ſay, Not being ignorant of the ſacred Canons, we conſented to the Eccleſiaſtick Orders, to wit, that Biſhops be choſen by the Election of the Clergy and People, according to the Statutes of the Canons, out of their own Dioceſs, without reſpect of perſons or rewards, for the merit of their life, and their gift of wiſdom, that by example and word they may every way profit thoſe that are under them.

19. The old Canons gathered by Pope Adrian and ſent to Charles Magn. recorded by Caniſius, depoſe a Biſhop, Presbyter or Deacon, guilty of Theft, Fornication or Perjury. And Can. 28. A Biſhop who obtaineth a Church by the ſecular power, ſhall be depoſed. And Can. 33. That no one pray with Hereticks or Schiſmaticks: Ex conc. Sard. Can. 2. A Biſhop that by ambition changeth his ſeat, ſhall not have ſo much as Lay Communion at his end: That no Biſhop be above three weeks in another City, nor above two weeks from his own Church. Can. 17. A Biſhop contradicted (by oppoſers) ſhall not after be ordained or purged by only three Biſhops, but by many.

And Can. 94. The people converted from Hereſie by another Biſhop, may be of his flock, without removing their Pariſh dwelling where another is Biſhop.

Amongſt the other 80 Canons againſt oppreſſion, as one is, That no Biſhop judge any Prieſt without the preſence of his Clergy, it being void if not ſo confirmed; So another is againſt all foreign Judgment, becauſe p. 131men muſt be judged by thoſe that are choſen by themſelves and not by ſtrangers. And none of the Clergy muſt be condemned till lawful Accuſers be preſent, and the Accuſed anſwer the Charge.

20. The ſecond General Council at Nice, though by ſervility they were for Images, held to the old Church-Canons for Elections, ſaying Can. 3. Every Election of a Biſhop, Prieſt or Deacon, which is made by Magiſtrates, ſhall remain void, by the Canon which ſaith, If any Biſhop uſe the ſecular Magiſtrates, to obtain by them a Church, let him be depoſed and ſeparated, and all that Communicate with him.

How much more ſay theſe than my [intolerable indiſcretion?] I fear ſome will think that all this binds them to more ſeparation than I am for.

The 15 Can. forbids them to have two Churches.

Can. 4. condemneth thoſe to Lex talionis, as unſufferably mad, that faultily drive any from the Miniſtry, and ſegregate them from the Clergy, or ſhut up the Temples, forbidding God's worſhip.

21. By the way, a Council at Chalons under Charles Magn. finding ſome Prelates ſetting on foot an Oath of Obedience to them, thus condemn it:

It is reported of ſome Brethren (Biſhops) that they force them that they are about to Ordain, to ſwear that they are worthy, and will not do contrary to the Canons, and will be obedient to the Biſhop that Ordaineth them, and to the Church in which they are Ordained; which Oath, becauſe it is very dangerous, we all ordain ſhall be forbidden;] which other Councils after repeat, (yet our Biſhops reſt much on ſuch an Oath of obedience to them.)

22. What the Electing Churches were may be partly conjectured from the Concil. Regiaticin. in Caniſius, Can. 6. That the Arch▪Presbyters examine every Maſter of a Family particularly, and take account of their Families and lives, &c.

A Council at Soiſons about 852. (a Presbyter by the King's Command being Ordained to the Church of Rhemes irregularly) Decree, That they that are made Presbyters without examination by ignorance, or by diſſimulation of the Ordainers, when they are known ſhall be depoſed, becauſe the Catholick Church defendeth that which is irreprehenſible, &c.

23. An. 855. under Lotharius Rennigius Lugd. and others, at a Council decreed, (becauſe that bad King had by impoſing corrupted the Clergy) That becauſe Biſhops were ſet over the Cities that were untryed, and almoſt ignorant of Letters, and unlike the Apoſtolick preſcript, p. 132ſcript, by which means the Eccleſiaſtical vigor is loſt, they will petition the King that when a Biſhop was wanting, the Canonical Election by the Clergy and the People may be permitted, that men of tryed knowledg and life, and not illiterate men, blinded by covetouſneſs, may be ſet Biſhops over the Flocks.

24. An. 857. Pope Nic. 1. is choſen by the Emperour Ludovicus conſent, and by All the People. And he ſo far maketh the People ſelfſeparating judges, as to decree, Tit. 11. c. 1. That none hear the Maſs of a Prieſt whom he knoweth undoubtedly to have a Concubine or ſub-introduced Woman. And Can. 2. That by the Canons he cannot have the honour of Prieſthood, that is faln into Fornication.

25. An. 1050, (or thereabout) one of the worſt of Popes at a Council at Rhemes, was conſtrained to confirm the old Canon; That no man be promoted to Church Government but with the election of the Clerks and the People, &c.

26. An. 1059. Again a Roman Council forbidding all men to joyn with a fornicating Prieſt, maketh them ſo far ſeparating judges.

27. About An. 1077. A Council at Rome reneweth the Canon, nulling all Ordinations made, aus pretio, precibus aut obſequio, or that are not made by the common conſent of Clergy and People; for ſuch enter not by Chriſt, &c.

28. From hence the Popes grew to uſurp moſt of the power in chuſing Biſhops to themſelves by degrees, till they got Councils to judg it Hereſie for Emperours to claim ſo much as a confirming inveſtiture. Whence bloody Wars roſe. And it's greatly to be noted that yet theſe Emperours ſuppoſed the Biſhops elected by the Clergy and People, and claimed but the ſaid inveſtiture, as is ſeen in the formula of Pope Paſchals Grant of inveſtitures to them.

29. When they made Princes Inveſtiture Sacrilege (and entring by them) they ſo far made the People judges of Prieſts and Communion, as in a Council at Benevent. an. 1087. ſub Vict. to decree, That if no Catholick Prieſt be there, it's righter to perſiſt without viſible Communion, and to Communicate inviſibly with the Lord, than by taking it from an Heretick to be ſeparated from God. For what concord hath Chriſt and Belial? And Simoniacks are Infidels.

30. But were good and bad Biſhops in all Ages thus minded, or was it only Popes? I next add that it was one of the Articles charged againſt Wickliffe the Reformer (as before againſt Wecelo, who contemned their Excommunications) That they that give over Preaching or p. 133hearing Gods word, for mens Excommunications, are Excommunicate, and in the day of judgment ſhall be judged traitors to Chriſt. Art. 13. in Conc. Conſt.

Reader, are we not in a hard ſtrait between Wickliffe and Dr. Stillingflect?

31. The ſame is one of the Articles againſt John Hus, That men muſt not for Excommunications give over preaching. We grant that they mean unjuſt ones.

32. This became one of the great Controverſies with the Bohemians, againſt whom one of the four long Orations were made at Conc. Baſil. They would never yield that their choſen Miniſters ſhould obey the Silencers.

33. Laſtly, the Romans themſelves oft deereed, That a ſimoniacal election even of the Pope is plainly null, and conferreth no right or authority to the elected (though this certainly overthroweth the uninterruptedneſs of their own Succeſſion.) And how Popes were elected till the device of Cardinals, is well known.

§. 15. If all this be not enough to prove the conſtant conſent of the Chriſtian Churches down from the Apoſtles for the neceſſity of the Flocks conſent to the relation of the Biſhop and Paſtors to them, Let him that would have more read all that Blondel hath produced, de jure plebis in regim. Eccleſ.

§. 16. I ſhall next prove the ſaid neceſſity from the nature of the thing, the work and benefit, and the common nature, intereſt and reaſon of mankind, if more light will not put out the eyes of ſome unwilling men, that are loth to know what they cannot eaſily be ignorant of.

And 1. Propriety is in order of nature antecedent to Regiment, which ſuppoſeth it, and is to order the uſe of it for common ſafety and good.

2. As a mans propriety in his Members, Children, acquiſitions, is antecedent to Regiment, ſo much more in his ſoul which is himſelf.

3. Nature obligeth all to care for their lives, but yet thoſe muſt ſometime be hazarded for publick good. But the obligation to pleaſe God and obtain Salvation and eſcape Sin and Hell, is ſo great, that no man is to pretend publick good or the will of man againſt it.

4. Self-government (as to power and obligation) is antecedent to humane publick Government in order of Nature: And publick Government doth not deſtroy it, but regulate it: And therefore is not for deſtruction but for edification.

p. 1345. The end of Self-government is ſo much to pleaſe God and ſave our Souls, that no man on pretence of publick Government can diſoblige us from this.

6. God hath in the fifth Commandment, which ſetleth humane Government and obedience, choſen the name of Parents rather than Princes, becauſe Parents Government is antecedent to Princes, and Princes cannot take it from them, nor diſoblige their Children. But Selfgovernment is more natural than Parents, and Parents and Princes muſt help it, but not deſtroy it.

7. When perſons want natural capacity for Self-government (as Infants and Ideots and mad-men) they are to be governed by force as bruits, being not capable of more.

8. Family Government being in order next to perſonal, Princes or Biſhops have no right to overthrow it, (at leaſt except in part on ſlaves of whoſe lives they have abſolute power:) If the King impoſe Wives, Servants, and Diet on all his Subjects, they may lawfully chuſe fitter for themſelves if they can; and at leaſt may refuſe unmeet Wives and Servants, and mortal or hurtful Meats and Drinks.

9. Much more if Princes and Patrons will impoſe on all men, the Biſhops and Paſtors, to whoſe charge, care and Paſtoral conduct they muſt commit their Souls, the people having the neareſt right of choice, and ſtrongeſt obligation, muſt refuſe (as diſcerning Self-governing judges) ſuch whoſe hereſie, negligence, ignorance, malignity, or treachery, is like either apparently to hazard them, or to deprive them of that Paſtoral help which they find needful for them, and they have right to as well as other men.

10. The gain or loſs is more the Patients than the Impoſers: It is their own Souls that are like to be profited and ſaved by needful helps, or loſt for want of them: And therefore it moſt concerns themſelves, to know what helps they chuſe.

11. If all the Kings on earth command men to truſt their lives to a Phyſician who they have juſt cauſe to believe, is like to kill them, by ignorance, errour, or treachery, or to a Pilot or Boat-man that is like to drown them, they are not bound to obey ſuch mandates. Yea if they know an able faithful Phyſician that is moſt like to cure them, they may chuſe him before an unknown man, though the King be againſt their choice.

12. Scripture and experience tell us, that God worketh uſually according to the aptitude of means and inſtruments: and learned experienced Phyſicians cure more than the ignorant, raſh, and ſlothful; p. 135and good Scholars make their Pupils more learned than the ignorant do. And skilful, able, experienced holy Paſtors, convert and edifie much more than ignorant and vicious men: And means muſt accordingly be choſen.

13. If the Paſtoral work skilfully and faithfully done, be needful, it muſt not be neglected whoever forbid it: If it be not needful, what is the Church of England good for, more than Infidels, or at leaſt than Moſcovites? And for what are they maintained by Tythes, Glebe, and all the dignities, honours and wealth they have? And for what do men ſo much contend for them?

14. It is natural to generate the like; and for men to do and chuſe as they are, and as their intereſt leadeth them. Chriſt tells us how hard it is for a rich man to be ſaved, and how few ſuch prove good. And the Clergy themſelves do not ſay that all the Patrons in England are wiſe and pious: Many Parliaments have by our Church-men been deeply accuſed: And moſt Parliament men, I think, are Patrons: Others ſay, that moſt Patrons not choſen to Parliaments are worſe. Some Preachers complain of Great men for fornication, drunkenneſs, exceſs, idleneſs, yea, Atheiſm or infidelity: If many or any be ſuch, are they like to chuſe ſuch Paſtors as all godly men may truſt in ſo great a Caſe? Or would not ſuch Princes chuſe ſuch Biſhops?

15. Men are as able and as much obliged now to take heed to whoſe conduct they truſt their Souls, as they were in all former Ages of the Church, forecited.

16. The Laws and Biſhops of England allow all men liberty to chuſe what Church and Paſtor, that Conformeth, they pleaſe; ſo they will but remove their dwellings into the Pariſh which they affect. And in London thouſands live as Lodgers, and may eaſily go under whom they will chuſe; And if they like him not, may ſhift as oft as they pleaſe.

17. Pariſh bounds are of much uſe for Order: But Order is for the thing ordered, and not againſt it: And Pariſh bounds being of humane make, cannot juſtly be preferr'd before the needful edification and ſafety of mens Souls, though ſuch humane Laws bind, where there are no greater obligations againſt them.

18. The Law of keeping to Pariſh-Churches where we dwell, and the Law that giveth Patrons the choice of all the Paſtors, and Princes of Biſhops, are of the ſame efficient power and ſtrength.

19. Caſuiſts uſually ſay (even Papiſts that are too much for Papal power) that humane Laws bind not when they are againſt the end, p. 136the common good, eſpecially againſt mens ſalvation. And a Toletan Council decreeth, that none of their Canons ſhall be interpreted to bind ad culpam, but ad poenam, leſt they cauſe mens damnation. And many Caſuiſts ſay, that Penal Laws bind only to do or ſuffer, and bearing the penalty ſatisfieth them, ſave as to ſcandal.

20. Yet we ſtill acknowledge all the right in Princes and Patrons before-mentioned, and that Princes are bound to promote Learning and piety, and ſo to ſee that due places, countenance and maintenance encourage faithful Miniſters, and that all the Subjects have meet Teachers, and ſubmit to hear and learn; And that they ſhould reſtrain Hereticks and Soul-betrayers, from the ſacred Office-work; and judg who are to be maintained, and who to be tolerated.

21. But this power is not abſolute but bounded: And if on the pretence of it, they would betray the Church and ſtarve Souls (like the Engliſh Canon that binds all from going to an able Paſtor at the next Pariſh, from an ignorant unpreaching vicious Reader,) men are not bound to obey it, but to provide better for themſelves (unleſs materially, not formally for ſome time, when not obeying would do more hurt than good;) or as a man muſt forbear publick aſſemblies in a common Plague-time.

And ſo much to open the true reaſon of the caſe in hand. And Paul's words to Timothy, 1 Tim. 4. 16. tell me, this care is not unneceſſary, Take heed to thy ſelf and to the doctrine, and continue in them; for in doing this thou ſhalt both ſave thy ſelf and them that hear thee.

§. 17. ▪ come now to the Doctor's words, who p. 312. undertakes to prove, 1. That the main ground of the peoples Intereſt was founded on the Apoſtles Canon [A Biſhop muſt be blameleſs.]

Anſ. The word [main] may do him ſervice, but no hurt to my cauſe. [Main] ſignifieth not [Only:] who doubts but the People were to diſcern the Lives of choſen perſons? But (without coming to the Ballance, among many cauſes which is the main) I have proved that there were more; And among others, that Chriſt and his Apoſtles bid them take heed how they hear: beware of falſe Prophets, and their leaven: beware of the conciſion. A man that is an Heretick avoid.—Bid them not good ſpeed: Let no man deceive you,—Thoſe that cauſe diviſions and offences contrary to the doctrine ye have learned, avoid,—from ſuch turn away.—Is here no more than judging their lives?

§. 18. Here he cometh to prove this even by Cyprian's Epiſtle againſt Martial and Baſilides: I muſt not name his dealing with it, leſt he ſay Irail. But I may note, 1. that he ſaith, [the force of what p. 137Cyprian ſaith comes at laſt only to this giving Teſtimony.]

Anſw. Only here is more than Main before. And though it was a matter of ſcandal that was before them, and therefore it is no wonder if nothing elſe be particularly ſpoken of; yet ſure theſe words ſignifie more than Teſtimony. [By publick judgment and Teſtimony be approved worthy and meet.] And to be ſound in the faith, and apt to teach is ſome part of meetneſs. And [becauſe they chiefly have power either to chuſe Prieſts that are worthy, or refuſe the unworthy.] A chief chuſing power of the worthy is more than a meer teſtimony of fact. Again, [that by the ſuffrage of the whole fraternity the Epiſcopacy be delivered to him.] Suffrage is more than teſtimony of fact. And [All they do ſin who are defiled by the ſacrifice of a prophane and unjuſt Prieſt] ſignifieth a diſſenting power, or elſe ſeparation were no duty.

But he ſaith, This is the ſtrongeſt teſtimony in antiquity for the peoples power.

Anſw. A ſtrange ſaying of ſo good an Hiſtorian, who may eaſily know that the concurrent judgment of all the Churches, their practice, and their Canons, making the Peoples conſent (and uſually Election) neceſſary, was a far ſtronger teſtimony than one Epiſtle. But to weaken this he ſaith,

1. It was in a caſe where a Biſhop had voluntarily reſigned.

Anſw. 1. What's that to the general rule here aſſerted? 2. Was it voluntarily which they were adjudged to do? But I find no mention of Martial's voluntary reſigning, but only Baſilides.

2. He ſaith [Another Biſhop was put in his place, not by the power of the people, &c.]

Anſw. 1. This was before ſaid [that the people might give them power? No.] As if he would have the Reader think that we hold the people give the power, which I have ſo oft diſproved. But it's his advantage to talk to many men at once, that he may ſay, ſome of you ſaid it.

But if diſtinction were not a crime, I would diſtinguiſh between giving the power, and concurring with other Cauſes to give a Receptivity to the perſon that muſt have it: The peoples conſent is a cauſa partialis, of capacity and receptivity.

2. But what ſignifie theſe words [The Ordination of our Collegue Sabinus by the ſuffrage of the whole fraternity, and by the judgment of the Biſhops, &c.] Is not this as much power as we plead for?

3. Are not you the Author of the Defence of B. Laud, and ſay, That Chriſt gave the Keys to Peter as the repreſentative of the whole Church? And have you now ſaid more againſt me or your ſelf? I am not of that mind.

3. He ſaith, They had the judgment of a whole Council for deſerting him.

p. 138Anſw. Yes, for deſerting them both? And that Council told them God had fore-determined in his word what men muſt or muſt not be Biſhops, and it was God rather than they that judged it and bound them to obey; and that the power was chiefly in the people to chuſe and refuſe &c.] Did you think you had helpt your cauſe by ſaying, It was a whole Council that was for what we ſay?

4. He ſaith, It was for Idolatry and blaſphemy by his own confeſſion.

Anſw. Which mean you by [his] when they were two? neither of them were otherwiſe Idolaters than as Libellaticks (who to ſave their lives ſuffered other men to ſubſcribe their names, thinking it was not their own deed; like ſome that I have heard of, that thought Conformity Perjury, &c. but let a Friend bribe an Officer to ſubſcribe their names and give them a Certificate.) And Baſlides blaſphemy was in his ſickneſs in terrour of Conſcience and perhaps phrenſie.

5. He ſaith all St. Cyprian's proof is, that the people were moſt concerned to give teſtimony of life, &c. This is anſwered already.

§. 10. His next is, The people on this aſſuming the power of Elections, cauſed great diſturbance and diſorders in the Church; where he goeth over ſome few of the many inſtances, which I have at large recited, at Antioch, Rome, Alexandria, &c.

Anſw. 1. And yet for all theſe diſorders, the Church deprived not the People of their priviledge.

2. But how fallaciouſly is this urged? I have fully elſewhere opened to the Reader, how the aſpiring Prelates ſeeking Patriarchates and Biſhopricks became as ſo many Captains at War, and gathered Monks, Clergy and People to ſtrive and fight for them; And now he layeth this on the People? As if the common Souldiers and not the Generals were the cauſe of the War? But of this I have ſaid enough.

§. 20. He ſaith, To prevent this many Biſhops were made without the choice of the People, and Canons made to regulate Elections.

Anſw. Craſtily ſaid! He ſaith not [without the conſent of the People,] but [the Election.] And he ſaith not that the Canons took away either conſenting or electing ſuffrages, but that they regulated them: Yes, they over and over confirmed them.

§. 21. He ſaith, A… Alexandria the Election belonged to the twelve Presbyters.

Anſw. They are hard put to it when they are put to fly to that teſtimony which maketh Presbyters the makers of Biſhops.

Hierome and Eutychius Alexand. tell you that the Presbyters choſe and made the Biſhops as the Army doth a General: which made Arch-Biſhop p. 139Uſher tell King Charles the Firſt, That the Presbyters at Alexandria did more than Ordain Presbyters, for they made Biſhops (as he told me himſelf.) But 1. We never denied that the Com-provincial Biſhops ordinarily afterwards Ordained them, 2. Nor that the Presbyters choſe them. Did the Doctor think this was to the purpoſe? But 1. Doth he think that the Presbyters choice excludeth the Peoples when it is a known thing that the Canons and Cuſtom conſtantly conjoyned them?

2. Will he conclude that when ever Hiſtory nameth not the Peoples choice, they are left out?

3. Will he perſwade us when the People are not the chuſers, that they are not neceſſarily the conſenters or refuſers?

I will add one more proof to all before-mentioned. It is impoſſible, ex naturâ rei, that the Paſtoral Office ſhould be exerciſed on diſſenters: Therefore their conſent is neceſſary.

A Patient may be drencht like a Horſe, and cram'd like fatted Fowl, and ſo may have a Phyſician againſt his will. But a Soul cannot uſe Paſtoral help unwillingly. 1. He cannot unwillingly be baptized: 2. Nor unwillingly joyn in publick prayer and praiſe with the Church. 3. Nor unwillingly confeſs ſin. 4. Nor unwillingly crave or receive Miniſterial counſel. 5. Nor unwillingly receive the Lords Supper. 6. Nor unwillingly deſire the Paſtors viſitation and prayers in his ſickneſs. 7. Nor unwillingly ſeek and receive abſolution, &c. I mean, he can do none of this that doth not conſent. And is he a Paſtor to ſuch men that refuſe all this? It's a ſhame to think that learned men ſhould bend their wits to prove that the Sun is not light.

Did the Church at Alexandria ever after chuſe their Biſhops, and not before? All the Alexandrian Church-Hiſtory tells us that the people there indeed exerciſed too great power, after this, no place on earth more tumultuous and unruly: And yet no place where the Biſhops were more ſecular, and more aſſumed the power of the Sword: But the people choſe them.

4. And if it had been true that the choice lay only and abſolutely on the Presbyters, how came they to have ſo long two Biſhops and two Churches, beſides the Arians?

5. And he wiſely overlooketh the Queſtion, who choſe thoſe Preſ byters that were the chuſers of the Biſhop?

§. 22. He next inſtanceth, ex Euſeb. l. 6. c. 10. in Germanion and Gordius Ordained by the Biſhops in Narciſſus place at Hieruſalem.

Anſw. 1. His argument, if any, muſt be this: Euſebius ſaith, the p. 140Biſhops Ordained them, not mentioning the peoples conſent or choice: Ergo, their conſent or choice was not uſed. How eaſily might he have known that we would deny the conſequence? Doth any of us deny that the Biſhops were the Ordainers of Biſhops? 2. And even the words of Euſebius confute him, ſaying, That when Narciſſus ſhewed himſelf again, the brethren (no doubt the Laity) intreated him to enjoy his Biſhoprick again.

§. 23. His next inſtance is, [Severus Biſhop of Milevis, in his life time appointed his ſucceſſour, acquainting only the Clergy with it: And Auguſtine prevented the peoples diſturbance and got them to receive him.]

Anſw. Thus it is ſome mens work to confute themſelves. It's a known thing that the peoples right was ſo univerſally and unqueſtionably acknowledged, that the Canons forbad any Biſhop to nominate and chuſe his Succeſſour, leſt it ſhould foreſtall them and prejudice their choice. And why elſe was the peoples reſiſtance feared? And what did Auſtin but perſwade them to conſent? And why doth he mention that the People conſented and received him, if they had no conſenting Vote, or right on juſt cauſe to diſſent? It would be an odd argument to prove, that a woman had no power of choice in Marriage, becauſe one was put to perſwade her to conſent? which proveth the neceſſity of her conſenting.

§. 24. He next tells us of Auſtin's own nomination of his Succeſſour Eradius.

Anſw. More and more againſt himſelf. All that men do is in danger of miſcarrying by their faultineſs: Wiſe men would do their beſt to prevent this, and the peoples conſent being of neceſſity, they ſometimes will pre-engage them; ſo Auſtin's predeceſſour thought it the craftieſt way in his life-time, to take in Auſtin for his Coadjutor or fellow Biſhop (two in a City) leſt the people ſhould miſs of ſo excellent a man: But this being againſt the Canons, Auſtin confeſſeth that he did it ignorantly, and diſowneth it. Yet leſt the people (who grew more and more faulty) ſhould miſchuſe, he in his life time commendeth to them Eradius, that their love to him might procure their acceptance. Doth not this prove that their choice or conſent was neceſſary? Reader, if the Doctor can perſwade thee that the Country have not the choice of Parliament men, becauſe ſome are commended or named to them, thy yielding is too eaſie.

§. 25. The next is the ſtory of Paul the Novatian out of Socrat. l. 8. (who hath but ſeven) Paulus was adviſing his Clergy to chuſe his Succeſſour; They told him their fear of their own diſagreement, and to p. 141prevent it, intreated him to nominate one. He made them promiſe to ſtand to it, and named Mercianus in a ſealed paper. Doth not this inſtance prove, that the Biſhop had not power to chuſe one of himſelf? And was not his fear of the diſagreement of the Clergy? And doth any of this diſprove the peoples conſenting right? And would the Doctor perſwade us that even the Novatians excluded them.

§. 26. He tells us, that the Greek Canoniſts think that the Council of Nice took away all the power of election of Biſhops from the people, and gave it to the Biſhops of the Province.]

Anſw. 1. In all reaſon he ſhould have cited thoſe Canoniſts; for it's ſtrange that yet their following Cuſtoms and Canons ſhould ſay the contrary. 2. There is not a word in the Canon cited about election, but only ordination [that all the Biſhops in the Province ſhould Ordain a Biſhop; But when that cannot be, there ſhall be at leaſt three preſent, and three more conſenting by writing.] And what's this to the Caſe the Peoples election or conſent?

§. 27. Yet he bringeth more againſt himſelf, viz. Can. 18. Concil. Antioch. which is, That if one be Ordained Biſhop and go not to the Pariſh, becauſe the people refuſe him, he ſhall have the honour and Office of a Biſhop, not troubling the peace of the Church;] which plainly ſaith what I have oft ſaid, That the people have no power to hinder any from being Miniſters or Biſhops indefinitely in the Church Univerſal, but only to judge whether he ſhall be theirs: whereas the Ordainers have power in both caſes; and uſually were the firſt chuſers, though the people had a refuſing or accepting power, as there appeared cauſe.

§. 28. Next he addeth more for what I plead, that Baſil Ordaining one firſt, perſwades the Senate and People to accept him: Adding [Their way then was, if the people did agree on a perſon to be Biſhop, to petition the Metropolitan and Synod, who had the full power to allow or refuſe him.]

Anſw. Is not this a ſtrong proof that the people had no ſuch agreeing or chuſing power, becauſe the Metropolitan and Synod alſo had their vote? what need Baſil perſwade them to accept him, when they had no power to refuſe? Did Baſil or any Synod ſay, all people are bound to accept thoſe whom we chuſe, be they what they will, and not to try them and judge themſelves.

§. 29. And here I deſire the Reader to remember, 1. That we take the chief truſt to be by Chriſt committed to the Ordainers for taking in fit men, and keeping out the unfit: They being the only Judges (with the perſon himſelf) who ſhall be a Miniſter of Chriſt in the p. 142Church Univerſal; And neither Magiſtrate or People have a power to chuſe or refuſe them.

2. That the Univerſal Church being one body of Chriſt, though Miniſters have not ſuch a charge of each others flocks as the particular Biſhops of them have, yet are they bound to give them all the help they can (as neighbour families to help each other:) And therefore to offer to vacant Churches the beſt they know, and perſwade them to accept them, when they are at a loſs or need advice.

3. The people are bound to reverence the judgment of neighbour Paſtors herein, and not cauſleſly to oppoſe.

4. When the People have choſen (or they and the Clergy,) if the perſon were not before Ordained, the Ordainers ſtill are judges for their own act.

5. It was not uſual to Ordain ſine titulo, and the Ordainers did two things at once, 1. Judge abſolutely who ſhall be a Miniſter of Chriſt? 2. Judge with the Church to which he was Ordained (Elders and People) who was fit for that Church, and ſhould be theirs: And a threefold lock was ſafe.

6. By all this it appears that all the Doctors talk againſt the peoples unfitneſs to diſcern who are ſound or Heretick, fit or unfit, is to no purpoſe: And that if unmeet men are Miniſters or Biſhops, the fault is ten times more in the Ordainers than in the People: ſeeing it is not the People but the Ordainers that are truſted to take into the Miniſtry indefinitely, but only among many to judg who ſhall be theirs, ſuppoſing them either before Miniſters, or next to be made ſuch by the Ordainers. And doth the Doctor think that the judgment of all parties is not as ſure as of one alone? or that my refuſing a Phyſician is any wrong to his Licenſers or him?

§. 30. The Laodicean Canon cited by him ſpeaketh for me as the reſt: (Did he think I wanted his help to cite more for my ſelf?) Who doubteth that the People being not the ſole judges, if they took in an un-Ordained or un-approved man without the Synods conſent, it was void? (By the way, do either Synods or People (the old chuſers) chuſe our Biſhops or Prieſts?)

§. 31. Yet more for me, he citeth the Chalced. Council, turning out Baſſianus and Stephanus from Epheſus, two men that ſtrove and ſought for the Biſhoprick unto blood in the Church, and both pleaded they were lawfully called by Clergy, and People, (And yet had the People no right?) But they were both proved to be violent Intruders, and another choſen. And who doubts but a great General Council had the greateſt power then?

p. 143§. 32. Next he tells us of a Law of Juſtinian, that made the Clergy and better ſort of Citizens chuſers. (And indeed Nazianzene once wiſht the more religious ſort were chuſers:) but doth not this prove ſtill the peoples power, though ſo long after by an Emperour the poorer were ſo reſtrained? I will not ſtay to ſearch the Book, but take it as he citeth it.

§. 33. But his next ſeemeth to be downright againſt us, Can. 13. Conc. Laodic. But it is not ſo: Crab hath two tranſlations: The firſt ſaith, Quod non ſit permittendum turbis electiones eorum facere qui ſunt ad ſacerdotium provehendi: It is not ſufferable to chuſe by tumults: ergo, not for the people to chuſe at all, no nor diſſent. I deny the conſequence. To forbid diſorder is not to forbid choice or free conſent.

§. 34. His next proof is Nic. Conc. 2. c. 3. which he ſaith, reſtrained the election only to Biſhops.

Anſw. Such dealing tells us that Proteſtant Doctors are not to be taken for infallible no more than Papiſts; I cited the Canon before: The doubt is whether it drive us not to more ſeparation than we are willing of, by nullifying our Biſhops and Prieſts calling. It is [every election of a Biſhop, Prieſt or Deacon, which is made by Magiſtrates, ſhall remain void, by the Canon which ſaith, If any Biſhop uſe the ſecular Magiſtrates to obtain by them a Church, let him be depoſed and ſeparated, and all that communicate with him.] Doth not the Doctor unhappily chuſe his teſtimonies? Had it not been better to have paſt over this Council? Where now is all the Church of England by this Canon, if Biſhops coming in by the King, and Parſons by the Patrons be all void and null, and the people ſeparated that communicate with them? Such events are the fate of an ill cauſe. And the next Canon doth not amend their matter, which calleth it madneſs for gain or any affection of his own, to drive any from the Miniſtry, or ſegregate one of his Clergy, he ſhall have Lextalionis, and his work ſhall fall on his own head.

§. 35. He adds, [Which was confirmed by following Councils in the Greek Church, as Can. 28. Conſt. againſt Photius, and the people are there excluded with an Anathema, ſo far were popular elections grown out of requeſt in the Eaſtern Empire.]

Anſw. 1. Had this been true, it would not much move me, that theſe two Councils that ſet up Image-worſhip, and ſhewed much wickedneſs, ſhould contradict the Apoſtolical and Catholick conſtitutions and practice. But, 1. I thank the Biſhops, I am not able to buy the French Volumes of the Councils, and therefore what is there I know not: and my own Library is ruined to avoid their Agents diſtraining p. 144it for my Preaching: And Doctor James and others have taught me to prefer the oldeſt Editions of the Councils, and to take heed how I truſt the later and the Jeſuits pretended Manuſcripts. I have now none but Crab (who medleth not with this) and Binnius; And in Binnius there are but 14 Canons in the laſt Action, and 27 in the antecedent Fragmenta: and no ſuch thing as a 28th Canon to be found: Nor is there in the 27th any ſuch thing as the Doctor citeth.

2. But if there were, if it were but the confirmation of the 2. Nicene Canon, it were much againſt the Doctor's cauſe, and nothing for him.

3. But unhappily here alſo he ſends us to find out much againſt him. For beſides that the 8th Can. in Fragm. condemneth requiring ſubſcriptions to ſtick to the Patriarch (though they were not yet oaths of obedience) the 12th Canon is indeed the ſame with thoſe forecited, viz. That the Apoſtolical and Synodical Canons flatly forbidding promotions and conſecrations of Biſhops, by the power and command of Princes, we concordantly define, and ſentence, that if any Biſhop receive the conſecration of ſuch a dignity, by the craft and tyranny of Princes, he ſhall be altogether depoſed, as one that deſired and conſented to have the gift of God by the will of carnal ſenſe, and from men and by men.

I ſuppoſe this is the Doctor's Canon which depoſeth all the Engliſh Biſhops, unhappily cited. And the Can. 14. requiring Princes to honour Biſhops, and condemning the Biſhops that debaſe themſelves to go far from their Church to meet a Prince, and that will alight to them from their Horſes, and that will baſely kneel to them, or will come to their tables, unleſs with purpoſe freely to reprove them] expoundeth both theſe Biſhops hearts and words. And ſo doth Can. 17. which condemneth ſuch as come not to Synods becauſe the Prince forbiddeth them, and ſaith, That Princes have no right ſo much as to be ſpectators of the matters which at Synods fall out among Prieſts. And here indeed an Anathema is pronounced againſt the obſtinately diſobedient Biſhops, that will not obey their Patriarch before the forbidding Prince.] And doth this meddle with the peoples Recipient power? which is only levelled againſt Princes and Lay Patrons Impoſitions, and depoſeth the Engliſh Clergy and Church?

The ſame is repeated, Can. 25. (which it's likely is that which he meant) viz. That according to the old Canons the promotions and conſecrations of Biſhops be made by the choice and decree of p. 145the College, and that no Lay Princes or men in power (potentu…) do mix themſelves in the election or promotion of Patriarchs, Metropolitans, or any Biſhop; leſt hence there be inordinate confuſion or contention, ſpecially ſeeing that it is not convenient that any Potentates or other Lay men have power in ſuch matters, but rather attend with ſilence.—And if any ſecular Prince or Potentate (men in power) or Lay men of other dignity, ſtrive againſt the common and conſonant and Canonical Election of the Eccleſiaſtical Order, let him be anathema, till he conſent and obey in this, which the Church ſhall ſhew its will in, in the Election and Ordination of its Proper Biſhops.

Here, 1. The Churches will is made the determiner of the Election and Ordination of their proper Biſhop. 2. The Canonical Order is eſtabliſhed (which ever required the Clergies and Peoples conſent.) 3. Nothing of the Laity but acts of Princes power and dignity is excluded: 4. And hereby our Engliſh Clergy depoſed. The Doctor had been better to have let alone his Hiſtory and Antiquities.

§. 36. His 4th note is, Chriſtian Magiſtrates did interpoſe in this matter as they judged expedient.

Anſw. Hitherto he hath produced the Teſtimonies of Councils and Biſhops againſt Magiſtrates choice or medlings (miſtakingly thinking it had been againſt the Flocks Receptive power) And now he will prove that Magiſtrates interpoſed, as you ſhall hear.

§. 37. And firſt [So Conſtantine did in the Church of Antioch. Soz. l. 2. c. 19.

Anſw. What did he? He motioned a Biſhop to end the difference; And who oppoſeth that?

§. 38. Next [Conſtantius put by two that the people ſtrove about, and ſet up Euſeb. Nicom.

Anſw. An unhappy teſtimony: Socrates whom he citeth thus relateth it, [Alexander dying commended Paulus to the chuſers as the fitteſt; but if they would have a man of proweſs to chuſe Macedonius:] The people were divided in the choice, and made a greater ſtir than formerly▪ But the Orthodox carried it for Paulus againſt the Hereticks that were for Macedonius. Conſtantius being the firſt perſecuting Arian Emperour, was offended, and got a Council to depoſe Paulus, and he got in his great favourite Euſebius Nicomed. the head of all the Arians. Doth not this ſhew, 1. That the people were chuſers, 2. That the Emperour depoſed him not, but by a pack… Council of Biſhops p. 146(which we know had a depoſing power?) 3. That this is Recorded as an Act of two Hereticks, a Prince and Prelate, wronging the Church.

§. 39. Saith he, [When Euſebius was dead, the Orthodox party again choſe Paulus, and Conſtantius ſends Hermogenes to drive him out by force.

Anſw. 1. I doubt he will next cite Valens, Genſericus, Hunnericus, &c. for murdering and perſecuting the Biſhops. Was an Arians Tyranny, a note of right?

2. The ſtory (in Socrates cited by him) is this: Euſeb. the Arian being dead, the People again went to the choice, and choſe as before: But ſome were kill'd in the tumult. The Arian Emperour ſends Hermogenes to force out Paulus the choſen Biſhop: The people tumultuouſly fight for their Biſhop and priviledge, and ſet Hermogenes Lodgings on fire and kill him. The Emperour comes from Antioch, amerceth the City, and puts Paul out, and yet is angry that Macedonius was choſen by the other part without his advice; but conſenteth to him.

1. Doth not this ſhew that the people were the chuſers? 2. And even their murderous tumult moved neither an Heretick Prince nor the Biſhops to deny their right of choice. 3. Murder and ſuch violence was a fair colour for more ſeverity. 4. Yet all this was by a Heretick noted as an act againſt the Church. 5. And all this was but about a Patriarch, and not an ordinary Biſhop, and that at his Imperial ſeat, where it concerned the Emperours to have moſt regard. 6. And I told you that Princes are the Judges whom they ſhould tolerate, whoever have the choice.

§. 40. He adds, When Athanaſius was reſtored, Conſtantius declared it was by the decree of the Synod and by his conſent.

Anſw. 1. If he meant here to intimate the excluſion of the peoples conſent or choice, he could ſcarce have named in Hiſtory an inſtance more againſt himſelf, than that of Athanaſius, who thereby was brought in, upheld and oft reſtored. 2. This Hiſtory tells you the Arian Emperour was forced to this conſent, to avoid a threatned War from his brother. 3. This was not to make him Biſhop, but to call him to his flock from his baniſhment. 4. And doth not all this confirm what I plead for, as to the Peoples, Synods and Princes ſeveral parts?

§. 41. Nectarius caſe is next, about whom Hiſtorians diſagree, but the moſt credible ſay, that the Council named Nectarius with ſome p. 147others in a paper, and in honour to an excellent Emperour, bid him take which he would: But all this excluded not the peoples part (who would not have left Gregory but by his own requeſt) and were glad to accept one from ſuch a Council and Prince.

§. 42. Next he ſaith out of Sozomen, That the People and Clergy choſe Chryſoſtome, and Arcadius conſented; and then he affro…teth Sozomen with Palladius.

Anſw. 1. Palladius denyeth nothing that I plead for, but only tells us of the Emperours premotion and endeavours, (in his Royal City about a Patriarch) to prevent the diviſion of the people: Nor is Palladius credit to be equalled to Sozomen's herein, much leſs preferred. 2. Socrates the moſt credible of all in this, ſaith, l. 6. c. 2. [It ſeemed good to them to ſend for John Chryſ.—Wherefore not long after, Arcadius with the general conſent both of Prieſts and People ſent for him.] And did not the Doctor think I needed help by ſuch Citations?

§. 43. The choice of Neſtorius was juſt ſuch another▪ The people had no reaſon to deny conſent to one out of Chryſoſtom's Monaſtery, nominated by ſo good an Emperour; who was judge whom to tolerate in his Royal City: But both he and they after repented of the choice.

§. 44. His laſt inſtance is Theodoſius getting in Proclus before Maximianus was buried.

Anſw. Reader, 1. All this is a good Emperours care about one Patriarch of his own City to avoid diviſion, and nothing to the common choice of Biſhops.

2. The true caſe Socrates (cited) thus deſcribeth: The people were the chuſers: They were for Proclus; but ſome adverſaries objected a Canon, that a Biſhop might not be removed from one Church to another, and he being a Biſhop already they could not have him: Socrates pleadeth for the diſpenſableneſs of this Canon; but the people were fain to take Maximianus. The Emperour being for diſpenſing with that Canon, and gratifying the people that had before declared themſelves for Proclus, did not himſelf bring him in, but got Celeſtine Biſhop of Rome to write to Cyril of Alexand. John Biſhop of Antioch and Rufus Biſhop of Theſſalonica to ſatisfie them to do it; and ſo got Proclus in. What is this againſt the peoples right? Theſe be all the Doctor's inſtances on this point.

§. 45. His 5th note is, [On the alteration of the Government of Chriſtendom there was greater reaſon for the Magiſtrates interpoſing than before: p. 148Becauſe of Princes endowing Churches, the Royal aſſent was fit,—though a Biſhop was choſen by the Clergy and People.]

Anſw. Who would ſtrive againſt ſo friendly a diſputer, that goeth on to ſay the ſame as I? when I doubt his party will ſay that he Prevaricateth.

§. 46. But he ſaith, The Royal power overthrowing the Papal, reſerved the power of nomination of Biſhops as part of the Prerogative: which being allowed in frequent Parliaments, the conſent of the people is ſwallowed up therein, ſince their Acts oblige the whole Nation.

Anſw. 1. I ſee we yet underſtand not how much of the Irenicon is retracted, and whether he yet hold not that no Form of Church-Government is of Divine Inſtitution; or we be not bound to be for that which King and Parliament are for. But we undertake to prove the contrary, and have done it.

2. What if Parliaments gave the King power to chuſe all Folks Wives and Husbands, Phyſicians, Tutors, Diet, Trade, &c. our Right were not ſwallowed up by this, though it were called the King's Prerogative. Much leſs where Gods Inſtitution and the very Law of Nature have foreſtalled them, and neither God nor Man gave them that ſwallowing power.

3. I oft anſwered, that Tythes and Temples may be more in the Magiſtrates power, than Paſtoral relation and power of the Keys.

§. 47. He ſaith, p. 326. That the inferiour right of Patronage is juſtly thought to bear equal date with the ſettlement of Chriſtianity in peace and quietneſs.

Anſw. 1. It was ſcarce ever ſetled in peace and quietneſs to this day: Much leſs during the Saxons Heptarchy. 2. I have proved that the Univerſal Church was far from making Lay Patrons the chuſers. 3. It is leſs lawful to ſell our Souls into ſlavery than our bodies: And if our Anceſtors had ſaid to ſome rich men, You ſhall all chuſe our Paſtors and we will ſtand to your choice, if you will build us Temples and give them Lands; it would no more bind us to ſtand to their bargain, than if they had ſaid, Give us Houſe and Land, and you ſhall chuſe our Diet, Wives, Phyſicians, &c. we ſay if your kindneſs be turned to our hurt, take your houſe and land, or give it to whom you will: we will not ſell our ſouls and Church-rights at ſuch a price.

§. 48. His 6th concluſion is, That things being thus ſetled—there is no ground for the people to reſume the liberty of Elections.

Anſw. 1. I need not over and over repeat the anſwer to his reaſons. 2. If the liberty of Election be not reſumed (which was not p. 149that which I pleaded for, as he would all along inſinuate) yet the liberty o▪ free conſent or refuſal may be neceſſary.

§. 49. Reader, again, the true caſe is like this following: Parents have a ruling power to chuſe Wives and Husbands for their Children: Guardians have much power over Orphans in it. ☜Magiſtrates may make Laws to reſtrain unlawful Marriages. Children are bound in theſe caſes to obey Parents, unleſs they chuſe to their apparent hurt or danger; and to obey Guardians and Magiſtrates in their proper Laws. But 1: It is for all this no Marriage till both parties conſent. 2. And all the ſaid power over them is limited, and but directive and not deſtructive to their own conſenting power.

Even ſo in our caſe; 1. The Ordainers are the firſt Judges, and have a power like Parents, and none ſhould be received againſt their wills, unleſs they would betray the Church. 2. The Magiſtrates may make ordering reſtraining Laws, that no unworthy perſon ſhall be tolerated: 3. A limited power of nomination may be left to Patrons, as Guardians, who have power to help the Churches, but none to hurt; much leſs to ruine them▪ 4. But it is not a Church related as Paſtor and Flock, till both conſent. Theſe things are evident truth, though ſome would bury it in a heap of words.

§. 50. I would alſo if I could have drawn the Doctor to reſolve me this doubt; Whether the power of Parents and Husbands, or of Patrons, yea or Princes be greater, in the choice of Food, Phyſick, and ſo of a Tutor, a Paſtor or a particular Church Communion. And if a Parent or Huſband ſay, I command you to hear and Communicate with ſuch a Paſtor and Congregation, and the Patron ſay the contrary, yea, or the Prince or Law, which is to be obeyed? And to whom this Family Government moſt belongeth? And why Father and Mother rather than Prince and Prieſts are named in the Fifth Commandment?

§. 51. p. 329. He reciteth my reaſons, why Parliaments cannot take away our free Receptive conſent, and he again feigneth that I ſay all this for the peoples chuſing power, yet confeſſeth I deny not the Magiſtrates or Patrons power of their own Gift. (The Caſe of Sacrilege I leave to their Conſciences.)

§. 52. p. 330. But ſaith he, Anabaptiſts, Quakers, and all may pretend a care of their Souls, and ſo leave the Miniſter only the Temple and Tythes.

Anſw. 1. And Anabaptiſts and Quakers will have a care of their Souls, when you have ſaid and done all you can againſt it: A priſon will not overcome it.

p. 1502. So Turks, Socinians, Papiſts, (or Anabaptiſts if you will) when they get into power, may pretend that they are fitter to be truſted with mens Souls, than men with their own: And ſo Prelates may ſay: But is nothing true that men can abuſe and miſapply?

And to me it is ſomething, though it ſhould be nothing to you, 1. That nature obligeth and diſpoſeth every man more to care for his own ſoul, than it doth the Patron to care for others. 2. That many hundred or thouſand men are not all ſo like to miſtake and miſcarry about their own Souls, as one Patron is that is far from their hearts. 3. That it is a matter more dangerous to truſt▪ thouſands in one hand than in many (as it would be in a ſtorm to put all into one boat.) If that man miſcarry he endangereth multitudes: If another man miſcarry it is but for one.

3. To have a ſelf-ſaving power, and to have a ſelf-deſtroying power, differ (with men that hate not diſtinction.) So little can a man know what we ſay by this Doctors Anſwers, that a ſtranger would think by him that we were quite of another mind. I never ſaid Quakers or any others may have whom they will: If they chuſe men uncapable, the neighbour Biſhops or the Clergy may admoniſh them, and renounce his Communion; And the Magiſtrate may reſtrain him and refuſe to tolerate an intolerable man: And yet the people ought not to accept an uncapable man offered by Biſhops or Patrons; no nor a man next to uncapable when they need and may have much better. Many Negatives are ſafe.

§. 53. He ſaith, The prophane have right to their own ſouls, and to the care of them, and therefore are equally concerned with others (to chuſe.)

Anſw. It is ſad with the Church when they need to be ſaved from ſuch reaſonings of their great Teachers.

1. A Right to care for their Souls giveth no man right to chuſe men for others Souls, to do that which they will not have done for their own. The queſtion is, whether that man will Communicate with the Church on Chriſts terms? He refuſeth and will not (elſe he ought not to be refuſed.) And ſhall he that refuſeth Communion chuſe one to give it others, becauſe he hath a Soul himſelf? Had the neighbour Heathens and Hereticks of old power to chuſe Biſhops for the Church, while they refuſed to be of the Church themſelves? Shall he that will not be of the Society chuſe for the Society?

2. We diſtinguiſh between what a man may be forced to, and what not. He may not be forced to the great gift of Sacramental Remiſſion p. 151and Communion, becauſe no unwilling perſon hath right to it: But an ignorant perſon may be forced as a Catechumen or hearer, to hear what can be ſaid for his conviction: For truth may conquer the unwilling. But none on this pretenſe can hinder the Church from hearing its own Paſtors, nor force men to be the ordinary Auditors of Mahometans, Hereticks or Heathens.

§. 54. p. 331. He again tragically exclaims of me, on the old falſe ſuppoſition, that I make the people the ſole chuſers, and not only plead for their free Negative Vote (though chuſing alſo, but not alone, was the old way;) And here tells us of the tumults that would follow.

Anſw. 1. So they would if the people choſe in France, Spain, Italy: And yet I would they did. No humane actions are free from inconveniencies; which are not to be cured with a miſchief.

2. Let him name me ten places that have ſuffered ſo deeply by the peoples choice, as I can tell him of ten thouſand that have done by the choice of Prelates, Patrons and Princes, and I will confeſs my errour. It was not by the peoples choice that all preaching was put down in Moſcovy: It is not the people that have this many hundred years choſen all the Popiſh Biſhops, Maſs-prieſts, &c. in Italy, and moſt of the Roman Church, even in Spain, France, Bavaria, &c.

3. I told him, but had no anſwer, that not only the Innes of Court, but alſo Black fryars, Aldermanbury, and ſuch other places as have choſen their own Teachers, have (peaceably) had as happy a ſucceſſion of Learned, Godly, able Paſtors, as any place in London or in England.

4. It's known by experience that Learning and great worth doth as Light ſo reveal it ſelf to humane nature, that uſually moſt of thoſe that are loth to be holy themſelves, would have a Saint and an able man.

5. Doth he think in his Conſcience that all the Patrons in England are liker to be judicious, and free from ſolicitations, favour and reſpect of perſons, than the majority of the Communicants of ſuch Churches?

6. If the Parſons firſt admit great numbers of profane, and wicked men to be Communicants, and then tell us how unfit theſe men are to chuſe: they do but condemn themſelves.

§. 55. p. 333. He tells us we do but ſay, We judge, we think, &c. the things unlawful, but for particular arguments to prove them unlawful, he finds none.

p. 152Anſw. If this be true, then they that never found our arguments never anſwered them. (If it be not true, it is not well.) Then you here, and Mr. Falkener, Fulwood, Durel, &c. have not yet anſwered any of our arguments. Remember this.

2. Though I did not argue, but name the things in my firſt Plea, you and others took it for arguing; and we ever craved leave to do it.

3. Is it true indeed, that there are no arguments, in our Writings, 1660. and 1661. with the Biſhops, nor any in my Book of Concord, or Treatiſe of Epiſcopacy, nor in my old Diſputations of Church-Government, nor in any other mens Books theſe eighteen years? I doubt the angry Biſhops will think that in my Treatiſe of Epiſcopacy there is ſome ſort of Argument; and that my Book againſt Sacril. Deſertion of the Miniſtry hath ſome: and that an Apology for our preaching (now in the Preſs) hath ſome. But if there be none, accuſe us of none.