The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 3 · Section 24
Sect. 24. The next thing to be considered, is, the interest and Power of the People as to the choice of their Pastours; for want of which great complaints are made by my Adversaries, as a thing injurious to them, and prejudicial to the Church, and that we therein go contrary to all Antiquity. Vindication, &c. p. 3….Dr. O. puts the depriving the People of their liberty of choosing their Pastours among the Causes of Separation. Mr. Baxter is very Tragical upon this argument; and keeps not within tolerable bounds of discretion, in pleading the People's Cause, Answ. p. 15, 16.against Magistrates and Patrons and Laws: and he tells me, I go against all the ancient Fathers and Churches for many hundred years, and am so far a Separatist from more than one Parish Priest; and therefore my charge of them is schismatical and unjust, and recoileth on my self; who instead of God's Rule, accuse them that walk not by our novel crooked Rules, which may make as many modish Religions as there are Princes. When I first read such passages as these, I wonder'd what I had said, that might give occasion to so much undecent Passion, as every where almost discovers it self in his Answer: and the more I consider'd the more I wonder'd; but at last I resolved as Mr. A. doth about the Assembly, that Mr. B. is but a man, as other men are; and for all that I see, of equal passions, and that upon little or no provocation. For I had not said one word upon this Argument. What then? would Mr. B. seek a Cause to express his anger against me? as if I had allowed Princes to set up what Religions they please. Surely, he thought himself writing against Hobbs and Spinosa then. No: but thus he artificially draws me into this snare. I spake much against Separation. How then? They would never have separated, if they had not been silenced; therefore my being against their separation, shews I am for their silencing. As though these necessarily followed each other. What is this to Princes imposing what Religion they please? Thus▪ Then Magistrates by their Laws may put out Nonconformists and put in Conformists. But have we not the same Religion still? But, saith Mr. Baxter, these must be my supposed Grounds; that Magistrates may appoint what Religion they please, and those are Separatists who do not obey them. Is not this admirable ingenuity, to rail upon a man, for suppositions of his own making? However Mr. Baxter will have it so, let me say what I will. The People's part he will take, and let me take that of the Magistrates and Laws, if I think good; and since they are fallen to my lot, I will defend them as well as I can, as to this matter. Mr. B. appearing very warm in this business, what doth Mr. A. coming after him, but make it the very first and fundamental Ground of their Separation? viz.Mischief of …, Preface. That every particular Church upon a due ballance of all circumstances, has an inherent right to choose its own Pastour, and every particular Christian the same Power to chuse his own Church. Nay then, I thought, we were in a very fair way of settlement; when the Anabaptists in Germany never broached a looser principle than this; nor more contrary to the very possibility of having an established Church: for it leads to all manner of Schisms and Factions in spight of all Laws and Authority in Church or State. The Authour of the Letter goes upon the same principle too,Letter out of the Country, p. 25. and saith, The Guides of the Church are to be chosen by the People, according to Scripture and Primitive practice. This I perceive is a popular argument, and a fine device to draw in the common People to the dissenting Party; whatever becomes of Laws, and mens just and legal Rights of Patronage, all must yield to the antecedent Right of the People. But to bring this matter to a strict debate, we must consider these three things. 1. What Original, or inherent Right and Power the People had. 2. How they came to be devested of it. 3. Whether there be sufficient ground to resume it. And from thence we shall understand, whether some of the People's consenting to hear the Nonconformists preach, notwithstanding the Laws, can excuse them from Separation? for this lies at the bottom of all.
1. As to the Original, inherent Right and Power of the People. Dr. O. supposeth all Church-Power to be originally in the People; for to manifest how favourable wise men have been to the Congregational way, he quotes a saying of F. Paul; Vindicat. p. 37.out of a Book of his, lately translated into English, that in the beginning, the Government of the Church had altogether a Democratical Form; which is an opinion so absurd and unreasonable, that I could not easily believe such a saying to have come from so learned and judicious a Person. For was there not a Church to be formed in the beginning? Did not Christ appoint Apostles and give them Commission and Authority for that end? Where was the Church power then lodged? Was it not in the Apostles? Did not they in all places, as they planted Churches, appoint Officers to teach and govern them? And did they not give them Authority to doe what they had appointed? Were not then the several Pastours and Teachers invested with a Power superiour to that of the People and independent upon them? And if they had such Power and Authority over the People, how came their Power to be derived from them, as it must be, if the Church Government then were Democratical? Besides, Is it reasonable to suppose the People should assemble to choose their Officers, and convey the Power of the Keys to them; which never were in their hands? And how could they make choice of men for their fitness and abilities, when their abilities depended so much on the Apostles laying on of their hands? For then the Holy Ghost was given unto them. But in all the Churches planted by the Apostles, in all the directions given about the choice of Bishops and Deacons, no more is required, as to the People, than barely their Testimony; therefore it is said they must be blameless, 1 Tim. 3. 2, 7, 10.and men of good report. But, where is it said or intimated that the Congregation being the first subject of the Power of the Keys, must meet together, and choose their Pastour, and then convey the Ministerial Power over themselves, to them? If it were true that the Church Government at first was Democratical, the Apostles have done the People a mighty injury; for they have said no more of their Power in the Church, than they have done of the Pope's. It is true the Brethren were present at the nomination of a new Apostle: Act. l. 14.but were not the Women so too? And is the Power of the Keys in their hands too? Suppose not, doth this prove that the Churches Power was then Democratical? then the People made an Apostle and gave him his Power; which I do not think any man would say, much less F. Paul. As to the election of Deacons; it was no properly Church Power which they had; but they were Stewards of the common Stock; and was there not then, all the reason in the world, the Community should be satisfied in the choice of the men?Act. 6. 3, 5. When Saint Peter received Cornelius to the Faith, he gave an account of it to all the Church. And what then? Must he therefore derive his power from it? Do not Princes and Governours give an account of their proceedings for the satisfaction of their Subjects minds? But here is not all the Church mentioned;Act. 11. 3. onelyonly those of the Circumcision at Ierusalem had a mind to understand the reason of his receiving a Gentile Convert. And what is this to the power of the Church? But in the Council of Jerusalem the People did intervene, and the Letters were written in the names of all the three Orders, Apostles, Priests and faithfull Brethren. I grant it; but is it not expresly said, that the Question was sent up from the Churches, to the Apostles and Presbyters? Act. 15. 2.Is it not said, that the Apostles and Presbyters met to debate it; and that the multitude was silent? 6. 12.Is it not said, that the Decrees were passed by the Apostles and Presbyters, without any mention of the People? 16. 4.And here was the proper occasion to have declared their Power; but in the other place, it signifies no more than their general consent to the Decrees that were then made. In success of time, it is added, when the Church increased in number, the faithfull retiring themselves to the affairs of their Families, and having left those of the Congregation, the Government was retained onelyonly in the Ministers, and so became Aristocratical, saving the election which was Popular. Which account is neither agreeable to Reason, nor to Antiquity. For, was not the Government of the Church Aristocratical in the Apostles times? How came it to be changed, from that to a Democratical Form? Did not the Apostles appoint Rulers in the several Churches, and charged the People to obey them? And was this an argument the Power was then in the People? It was not then the People's withdrawing (of which there can be no evidence, if there be so much evidence still left for the People's Power, in Antiquity) but the Constitution of the Church was Aristocratical by the appointment of the Apostles.