The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 3 · Section 25

The Unreasonableness of Separation · Part 3 · Section 25

p. 312Sect. 25. We therefore come now to consider the Popular Elections, as to which there is so fair a pretence from Antiquity; but yet not such, as to fix any inherent, or unalterable Right in the People. As I shall make appear, by these following observations.

1. That the main ground of the People's Interest was founded upon the Apostles Canon,1 Tim. 3. 2, 7.1 Tim 3:21 Tim 3:7 That a Bishop must be blameless and of good report.

2. That the People upon this assuming the Power of Elections, caused great disturbances and disorders in the Church.

3. That to prevent these, many Bishops were appointed without their choice, and Canons made for the better regulating of them.

p. 3134. That when there were Christian Magistrates, they did interpose as they thought fit, notwithstanding the popular claim; in a matter of so great consequence to the Peace of Church and State.

5. That upon the alteration of the Government of Christendom the Interest of the People was secured by their consent in Parlaments, and that by such consent the Nomination of Bishops was reserved to Princes, and the Patronage of Livings to particular Persons.

6. That things being thus settled by established Laws, there is no reasonable Ground for the Peoples resuming the Power of electing their own Bishops and Ministers in opposition to these Laws.

If I can make good these Observations, I shall give a full answer to all the Questions propounded, concerning the Right and Power of the People, which my Adversaries build so much upon.

(1.) That the main ground of the Peoples interest was founded upon the Apostles Canon, that a Bishop must be blameless, and of good report. For so the Greek Scholiast argues from that place in Timothy, If a Bishop ought to have a good report of them that are without, foreign, How much rather of the Brethren, foreign, saith Theophylact. And both have it from Saint Chrysostom. So it is said concerning Timothy himself, foreign, Who had a good Testimony from the Brethren in Lystra and Iconium. Act. 1…. 2.Acts 1:2And this is mentioned before Saint Paul's p. 314taking him into the Office of an Evangelist. So in the choice of the Deacons, the Apostles bid them find out, foreign,Act. 6. 3.Acts 6:3 men of good reputation among them. And there is a very considerable Testimony in the Epistle of Clemens to this purpose;Clement. Epist. p. 54, 55, 56, 57. where he gives an account, how the Apostles preaching through Cities and Countries, did appoint their First-fruits, having made a spiritual trial of them, to be Bishops and Deacons of those who were to believe. Here it is plain, that they were of the Apostles appointment, and not of the Peoples choice; and that their Authority could not be from them, whom they were appointed first to convert and then to govern; and although their number was but small at first, yet as they increased, though into many Congregations, they were still to be under the Government of those, whom the Apostles appointed over them. And then he shews how those who had received this Power from God came to appoint others: and he brings the Instance of Moses, when there was an emulation among the Tribes, what method he took for putting an end to it, by the blossoming of Aarons Rod; which, saith he, Moses did on purpose to prevent confusion in Israel, and thereby to bring Glory to God; now, saith he, the Apostles foresaw the contentions that would be about the name of Episcopacy (foreign) i. e. about the choice of men into that Office of Ruling the Church; which the sense shews to be his meaning: therefore, foreseeing these things perfectly, they appointed the persons before mentioned, and left the distribution of their Offices, with this instruction, that as some died, other approved men should be chosen into their Office. Those therefore who were appointed by them, or other eminent Men, the whole Church being therewith p. 315well-pleased, discharging their Office with humility, quietness, readiness, and unblameableness, being men of a long time of good report, we think such men cannot justly be cast out of their Office. It seems, some of the Church of Corinth were at that time factious against some Officers in their Church, and endeavoured to throw them out for the sake of one or two more, and made such a disturbance thereby as had brought a great scandal, not onelyonly on themselves, but the Christian Church; which made Clemens write this Epistle to them; wherein he adviseth those busie men rather to leave the Church themselves, than to continue making such a disturbance in it; and if they were good Christians they would do so; and bring more glory to God by it, than by all their heat and contentions. Now by this discourse of Clemens it is plain, (1.) That these Officers of the Church were not chosen by the People, but appointed by the Apostles, or other great Men, according to their Order? (2.) That they took this course on purpose to prevent the contentions that might happen in the Church, about those who should bear Office in it. (3.) That all that the People had to doe, was to give Testimony, or to express their approbation of those, who were so appointed. For he could not allow their power of choosing, since he saith, the Apostles appointed Officers on purpose to prevent the contentions that might happen about it. And it seems very probable to me, that this was one great reason of the faction among them; viz. that those few Popular men in that Church, who caused all the disturbance, represented this, as a great grievance to them; that their Pastours and Officers were appointed by others, and not chosen by themselves. For they had no objection against the Presbyters p. 316themselves, being allowed to be men of unblameable lives; yet a contention there was, and that about casting them out; and such a contention, as the Apostles designed to prevent by appointing a succession from such whom themselves ordain…d; and therefore it is very …ikely, they challenged this power to themselves to cast out those whom they had not chosen. But it seems, the Apostles knowing what contentions would follow in the Church, took … them, leaving to the People their Testimony concerning those whom they ordained. And this is plain, even from Saint Cyprian where he discourseth of this matter,Answ. p. 27. in that very Epistle concerning Basilides and Martialis, to which Mr. Baxter refers me. For, the force of what Saint Cyprian saith comes at last onelyonly to this giving Testimony; Cypr. Epist. 68.therefore, saith he, God appointed the Priest to be appointed before all the People, thereby shewing that Ordinations in the Christian Church ought to be, sub Populi Assistentis Conscientiâ, in the Presence of the People: for what reason? that they might give them Power? no; that was never done under the Law; nor then imagined, when S. Cyprian wrote; but he gives the account of it himself; that by their presence, either their faults might be published, or their good acts commended; that so it may appear to be a just and lawfull Ordination, which hath been examined by the suffrage and judgment of all. The People here had a share in the Election, but it was in matter of Testimony concerning the good or ill behaviour of the Person. And therefore, he saith, it was almost a general Custom among them, and he thinks came down from Divine Tradition and Apostolical Practice, that when any People wanted a Bishop, the neighbour Bishops met together in that place, and p. 317the new Bishop was chosen, plebe praesente, the People being present, (not by the Votes of the People) quae singulorum vitam plenissimè novit, which best understands every mans Conversation: and this, he saith, was observed in the Consecration of their Fellow-bishop Sabinus, who was put into the place of Basilides. Where he doth express the Consent of the People, but he requires the Iudgment of the Bishops; which being thus performed, he incourages the People to withdraw from Basilides and to adhere to Sabinus. For, Basilides having fallen foully into Idolatry, and joyned blasphemy with it, had of his own accord laid down his Bishoprick, and desired onelyonly to be received to Lay-Communion, upon this Sabinus was consecrated Bishop in his room; after which Basilides goes to Rome and there engages the Bishop to interpose in his behalf, that he might be restored; Sabinus finding this, makes his application to Saint Cyprian and the African Bishops, who write this Epistle to the People to withdraw from Basilides, saying that it belonged chiefly to them to choose the good and to refuse the bad. Which is the strongest Testimony in Antiquity for the Peoples Power; and yet here we are to consider (1.) It was in a case where a Bishop had voluntarily resigned. (2.) Another Bishop was put into his room, not by the Power of the People, but by the judgment and Ordination of the neighbour Bishops. (3.) They had the judgment of a whole Council of African Bishops for their deserting him. (4.) For a notorious matter of fact, viz. Idolatry and Blasphemy by his own confession. (5.) All the proof which Saint Cyprian brings for this, doth amount to no more, than that the People were most concerned to give Testimony, as to the good or bad lives of their Bishops. p. 318This further appears by the words in Lampridius concerning Alexander Severus, who proposed the names of his civil Officers to the People, to hear what they had to object against them, and said it was a hard case, when the Christians and Iews did so about their Priests, the same should not be done about Governours of Provinces, who had mens lives and fortunes in their hands. But no man could ever from hence imagin, that the People had the Power to make or unmake the Governours of Roman Provinces. Orig. hom 6. in Levit.Origen saith, The Peoples presence was necessary at the Consecration of a Bishop, that they might all know the worth of him who was made their Bishop; it must be astante Populo, the People standing by; and this is that Saint Paul meant, when he said, A Bishop ought to have a good Testimony from those that are without.

(2.) That the People upon this assuming the Power of Elections caused great disturbances and disorders in the Church. Euseb. de Vit. Const. l. 3. c. 59.Eusebius represents the disorders of Antioch to have been so great in the City upon the choice of a new Bishop, by the Divisions of the People, that they were like to have shaken the Emperour's Kindness to the Christians. For, such a flame was kindled by it, that he saith, it was near destroying both the Church and the City: and they had certainly drawn Swords, if the Providence of God, and fear of the Emperour had not restrained them. Who was forced to send Officers and Messages to keep them quiet: and after much trouble to the Emperour and many meetings of Bishops, Greg. Naz. Orat. 19.at last Eustathius was chosen. Greg. Nazianzen sets forth the mighty unruliness of the People of Caesarea in the choice of their Bishop, saying it came to a dangerous sedition, and not easy to be suppressed: p. 319and he saith, the City was very prone to it, on such occasions. And although there was one Person of incomparable worth above the rest, yet through the Parties and Factions that were made, it was a hard matter to carry it for him. He complains so much of the inconveniencies of popular Elections, that he wishes them alter'd; and the Elections brought to the Clergy; and he thinks no Common-wealth so disorderly as this method of Election was. Evagr. l. 2. c. 5.Evagrius saith, the sedition at Alexandria was intolerable, upon the division of the People between Dioscorus and Proterius; the People rising against the Magistrates and Souldiers who endeavoured to keep them in order: and at last they murthered Proterius. Such dangerous Seditions are described at Constantinople, upon the Election of Paulus and Macedonius, by Sozomen; and in the same place after the death of Eudoxius, Socr. l. 4. c. 14.and after the death of Atticus by Socrates; Soz. l. 3. c. 5.and after the deprivation of Nestorius. Socr. l. 7. c. 26, 35.And again at Antioch upon the removal of Eudoxius; and about the Election of Flavianus; at Ephesus by Saint Chrysostom, at Verselles by Saint Ambrose; Ambros. Ep. 82.at Milan by Socrates, and many other places.Socr. l. 4. c. 30. I shall onelyonly adde a remarkable one at Rome on the choice of Damasus: which came to bloodshed for several days; Soz. l. 4. c. 28.and is particularly related by Ammianus Marcellinus; Socr. l. 5. c. 9. l. 6. c. 11.and the Preface to Faustinus his Libellus Precum. Mr. Baxter grants there are inconveniencies in the Peoples consenting Power, Amm. Marc. l. 27.and so there are in all humane affairs. Answ. p. 15.But are these tolerable inconveniencies? Is this Power still to be pleaded for, in opposition to Laws, as though Religion lay at stake; and onelyonly Magistrates were bad men, and the People always good and wise and vertuous? A man must have great spite against p. 320Men in Power, and unreasonable fondness of the Common People that can represent great Men as wicked, debauched, and enemies to Piety, and at the same time dissemble, and take no notice of the Vices of the Common People; besides their Ignorance and incapacity of judging in such matters, and their great proneness to fall into sidings and parties and unreasonable contentions on such occasions.De Sacerd. l. 3. But Saint Chrysostom complains much of the unfitness of the People to judge in such cases. Hieron. adversus Iovin. in Ezek. c. 33.Ezek 33Saint Hierom saith, they are apt to choose men like themselves: and saith elsewhere, they are much to be feared whom the People choose. Orig in Num. hom. 22.Origen saith, the People are often moved either for favour or reward.

(3.) That to prevent these inconveniencies many Bishops were appointed without the choice of the People, and Canons were made for the regulation of Elections.Hieron. Epist. ad Evagr. In the Church of Alexandria the Election of the Bishop belonged to the 12 Presbyters; as Saint Ierom and others shew. For by the Constitution of that Church, before the alteration made by Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria was not onelyonly to be chosen out of the 12 Presbyters, but by them. So Severus in the life of the Alexandrian Patriarchs,Ecc…ellens. de Orig. Eccl. Alex. c. 6. saith, that after the death of their Patriarch, the Presbyters met together and prayed, and proceeded to election; and the first Presbyter declared it belonged to them to choose their Bishop, and to the other Bishops to consecrate him. To which the Bishops assented, onelyonly saying, if he were worthy they would consecrate whom they chose, but not otherwise. Elmacinus makes this a Constitution of Saint Mark in the first foundation of that Church; and saith it continued to the time of the p. 321Nicene Council:Ambros. Comment. in 4 Eph. and then as Hilarius the Deacon saith, the custom was alter'd, by a Council among themselves, which determin'd that they might choose the most deserving person, whether of that Body or not. And there could be no room for popular elections, whereever that Custom obtained, which the Counterfeit Ambrose speaks of, ut recedente uno sequens ei succederet; speaking of the Bishop dying and the next in course succeeding. But if this be onelyonly a particular conceit of that Authour, yet we find the Bishops consecrating others in several Churches without any mention of choice made by the People. So, when Narcissus retired from Ierusalem,Euseb. l. 6. c. 10. Eusebius saith, the neighbour Bishops assembled, and consecrated one Dius in his room;c. 11. and after him followed Germanio and then Gordius, in whose time Narcissus returned: but being grown very old, Alexander was brought in to assist him, by Revelation, and a Voice from Heaven to some of the Brethren. Severus Bishop of Milevis in his life-time appointed his Successour, and acquainted the Clergy with it, but not the People; great disturbance was feared hereupon; the Clergy sent to Saint Augustin to come among them, Aug. ep. 110.and to settle their new Bishop; who went, and the People received the Bishop so appointed very quietly. S. Augustin himself declares, the sad effects he had often seen of the Churches Election of Bishops, through the ambition of some, and the contention of others, and therefore he desired to prevent any such disturbance in his City, when he was dead. And for that reason, he acquainted the People that he designed Eradius, or as some Copies have it, Eraclius for his Successour. So Paulus the Novation Bishop at Constantinople,Socr. l. 8. c. 46. appointed his Successour Marcianus to prevent the contentions that might p. 322happen after his death; and got his Presbyters to consent to it.

The Greek Canonists are of opinion, that the Council of Nice took away all power of election of Bishops from the People, Concil. N…cen. c. 4.and gave it to the Bishops of the Province. And it is apparent from the Council of Antioch, Concil. Antioch. c. 18.that Bishops were sometimes consecrated in the East, without the consent of the People; for it doth suppose a Bishop after consecration may not be received by his People, which were a vain supposition if their election necessarily went before it. And withall, it puts the case of a Bishop that refused to go to his People after consecration; c. 17.which shews, that the consecration was not then performed in his own Church. Gregory subscribed at Antioch as Bishop of Alexandria, Socr. l. 2. c. 10.before ever he went thither. So Saint Basil mentions his consecration of Euphronius to be Bishop of Nicopolis, without any consent of the People before; it being then performed by the Metropolitan in his own See;Basil. Ep. 194. but he perswades the Senate and People to accept of him. If the People did agree upon a Person to be Bishop, their way then was, to petition the Metropolitan and his Synod, who had the full Power either to allow or to refuse him. And it is evident from the twelfth Canon of the Council of Laodicea, that although all the People chose a Bishop, if he intruded himself into the possession of his See without the consent of a Provincial Synod, he was to be turned out or rejected by them. Which shews how much the business of elections was brought into the Bishops Power in the Eastern parts. And by virtue of this Canon, Bassianus and Stephanus were rejected in the Council of Chalcedon. Concil. Chalced. Act. 11.Acts 11By the Law of Iustinian, the common p. 323People were excluded from elections of Bishops; Novell. Justin. 123, 137.and the Clergy and better sort of Citizens were to nominate three to the Metropolitan; out of which he was to choose one.C. de Episc. lex. 42. By the Canon of Laodicea▪ the common People were excluded from the Power of choosing any into the Clergy: Can. Laod. c. 13.For they were wont to raise tumults upon such occasions;Aug. Ep. 225. such as Saint Augustin describes in the case of Pinianus; but some of the Greek and Latin Canonists inlarge the sense of the Laodicean Canon to the election of Bishops too. The second Council of Nice restrained the election onelyonly to Bishop; Conc. Nic. 2. c. 3.which was confirmed by following Councils in the Greek Church; Concil. 8. c. 28.as Can. 28. Concil. Constantinopol. against Photius; and the People are there excluded with an Anathema. So far were popular Elections grown out of request in the Eastern Church.

(4.) That when there were Christian Magistrates, they did interpose in this matter as they judged expedient.Soz. l. 2. c. 19. So Constantine did in the Church of Antioch, when there was great dissension there, upon the deposition of Eustathius, he recommended to the Synod Euphronius of Cappadocia, and Georgius of Arethusa, or whom they should judge fit, without taking any notice of the interest of the People: and they accordingly consecrated Euphronius. After the death of Alexander Bishop of Constantinople, Socr. l. 2. c. 6, 7.the People fell into Parties, some were for Paulus, and others for Macedonius; the Emperour Constantius coming thither puts them both by, and appoints Eusebius of Nicomedia to be Bishop there.c. 13. Eusebius being dead, the Orthodox Party again choose Paulus, Constantius sends Hermogenes to drive him out by force:c. 16. and was very angry with Macedonius for being made Bishop without p. 324his leave; although afterwards he placed him in his throne.c. 23. When Athanasius was restored, Constantius declared, it was by the decree of the Synod, and by his consent. And he by his Authority restored likewise Paulus and Marcellus, Asclepas and Lucius to their several Sees. Soz. l. 7. c. 7.When Gregory Nazianzen resigned the Bishoprick of Constantinople, Theodosius commended to the Bishops the care of finding out a Person, who recommending many to him, the Emperour himself pitched upon Nectarius, l. 8. c. 2.and would have him made Bishop, though many of the Bishops opposed it. When Chrysostom was chosen at Constantinople, Socr. l. 7. c. 29.the royal assent was given by Arcadius, the election being made, saith Sozomen, by the People and Clergy; but Palladius gives a more particular account of it,Pallad. Vit. Chrys. p. 42. viz. That upon the death of Nectarius many Competitours appeared, some making their application to the Court, and othes to the People; in so much that the People began to be tumultuous, (foreign, saith Palladius) upon which they importuned the Emperour to provide a fit man for them. Eutropius being then chief Minister of State, recommended Chrysostom to the Emperour, and immediately an express was sent to the Comes Orientis, that he should with all privacy, for fear of a tumult at Antioch, send him away to Constantinople: whither being brought, he was soon after consecrated Bishop. So that here was no antecedent election of the People, as Sozomen saith, but whatever there was, was subsequent to the Emperour's determination. After the death of Sisinnius, the Emperour declared, That to prevent disturbance they would have none of the Clergy of Constantinople chosen Bishop there; So…r. l. 7. c. 40.and so Nestorius was brought from Antioch. Maximianus being dead he gave order that p. 325Proclus should be made Bishop, before the others body was buried. These instances are sufficient to shew, that Christian Princes did from the first think fit, when just occasion was given, to make use of their Authority in this matter.

(5.) Upon the alteration of the Government of Christendom there was greater reason for the Magistrates interposing than before. For upon the endowment of Churches by the great liberality of the Northern Princes, it was thought at first very reasonable, that the Royal assent should be obtained, though a Bishop was chosen by the Clergy and People: which at first depended onelyonly on tacit consent; but after the solemn Assemblies of the People came to be much used, these privileges of Princes came not onelyonly to be confirmed by the Consent of the People, Concil. Aurelian. A. D. 549.but to be inlarged.V. Concil. Tarracon. For, the Princes obtained by degrees not onelyonly the confirmation of the elected, but the liberty of nomination; A. D. 599. Can. 3.with a shadow of election by the Clergy and others of the Court; Concil. Tolet. 12. c. 6. & ibi Loaisam.as appears by the Formulae of Marculphus. This way was not always observed in France where frequently according to the Edict of Clotharius, Grati. Dist. 63.the Clergy and People chose, the Metropolitan consecrated, and the Prince gave his Royal assent: Concil. Vernense Can. 2.but in doubtfull or difficult cases, he made use of his Prerogative, and nominated the Person,Sirmond. Append. ad To. 2. Concil. Gall. and appointed the Consecration. Afterwards, there arose great contests between the Papal and Royal Power; which continued for several Ages; and at last among us,Lup. Ferrariens. the royal Power overthrowing the other,Ep. 81, 98, 99. reserved the Power of Nomination of Bishops, V. Grotii Piet. p. 91.as part of the Prerogative; which being allowed in frequent Parlaments, the Consent of the People p. 326is swallowed up therein: since their Acts do oblige the whole Nation. For not onelyonly the Statute of 1 Edw. 6. declares, The Right of appointing Bishops to be in the King; but 25 Edw. 3. it is likewise declared, That the Right of disposing Bishopricks was in the King by Right of Patronage, derived from his Ancestours before the freedom of elections was granted. Which shews not onelyonly the great Antiquity of this Right, but the consent of the whole Nation to it. And the same is fully related in the Epistle of Edw. 3. to Clement 5. where it is said,Walsingh. in Edw. 3. p. 161. That the King did dispose of them, jure suo Regio, by his Royal Prerogative; as his Ancestours had done from the first founding of a Christian Church here. This is likewise owned in the famous Statute of Carlisle 25 Edw. 1. so that there is no Kingdom where this Right hath been more fully acknowledged by the general consent of the People, than here in England; and that from the Original planting of a Christian Church here. As to the inferiour Right of Patronage; it is justly thought to bear equal date with the first settlements of Christianity in peace and quietness. For when it began to spread into remoter Villages and places distant from the Cathedral Churches, where the Bishop resided with his Presbyters, as in a College together; a necessity was soon apprehended of having Presbyters fixed among them. For the Council of Neocaesarea mentions the foreign, the Country Presbyters, c. 13. whom the Greek Canonists interpret to be such as then were fixed in Country-Cures, and this Council was held ten years before the Council of Nice. In the time of the first Council of Orange, A. D. 441. express mention is made of the Right of Patronage reserved to the first Founders of Churches, c. 10. viz. p. 327If a Bishop built a Church on his own Land in another Bishop's Diocese, yet the right of presenting the Clerk was reserved to him. And this was confirmed by the second Council of Arles, c. 36. A. D. 452. By the Constitution of the Emperour Zeno. C. si quis 15. Cod de Sacros. Eccles.A. D. 479. the Rights of Patronage are established, upon the agreements at first made in the endowments of Churches. This Constitution was confirmed by Iustinian, Nov. 57.A. D. 541. and he allows the nomination and presentation of a fit Clerk: Nov. 123. c. 18.And the same were settled in the Western Church; as appears by the ninth Council of Toledo, about A. D. 650. and many Canons were made in several Councils about regulating the Rights of Patronage, and the endowments of Churches, till at last it obtained by general consent that the Patron might transmit the right of presentation to his heirs, and the Bishops were to approve of the Persons presented,Matt. Paris ad A. 1239. and to give institution to the Benefice. The Barons of England in the Epistle to Gregory IX. plead, That their Ancestours had the Right of Patronage, from the first planting of Christianity here. For those upon whose Lands the Churches were built, and at whose cost and charges they were erected, and by whom the Parochial Churches were endowed, thought they had great Reason to reserve the Nomination of the Clerks to themselves.Joh. Saris…. Ep. 6. & 119. And this Ioh. Sarisburiensis saith, was received by a general custom of this whole Kingdom. So that the Right of Patronage was at first built upon a very reasonable consideration; and hath been ever since received by as universal a Consent as any Law or Custom among us. And the onelyonly Questions now remaining are, whether such a Consent can be made void by the Dissent of some few Persons, who plead it to be their inherent Right to choose their p. 328own Pastours? and supposing, that it might be done, whether it be reasonable so to doe? And I conclude, that,

6. Things being thus settled by general consent and established Laws there is no ground for the People to resume the liberty of Elections: (1.) because it was no unalterable Right, but might be passed away; and hath been by consent of the People upon good considerations, and (2.) because no such inconveniencies can be alleged against the settled way of disposal of Livings, but may be remedied by Laws; far easier, than those which will follow upon the Peoples taking this Power to themselves, which cannot be done in a divided Nation, without throwing all into remediless confusion. (3.) Because other Reformed Churches have thought this an unreasonable pretence. Beza declaims against it,Epist. 83. as a thing without any ground in Scripture, or any right in Antiquity, and subject to infinite disorders. In Sweden the Archbishop and Bishops are appointed by the King: and so are the Bishops in Denmark; In other Lutheran Churches, the Superintendents are appointed by the several Princes and Magistrates: Rittershus. ad Novell. p. 1. c. 7. n. 36, 37.and in these the Patrons present before Ordination. The Synod of Dort hath a Salvo for the Right of Patronage, Can. Eccles. 5. In France the Ministers are chosen by Ministers; at Geneva by the Council of State, which hath Power to depose them. And it would be very strange, if this inherent and unalterable right of the People should onelyonly be discovered here; where it is as unfit to be practised, as in any part of the Christian world.

p. 329But Mr. B. is unsatisfied with any Laws that are made in this matter; Treatise of Episcop. p. 2. p 123.for when the objection is put by him, That the People chose the Parlament who make the Laws which give the Patrons Power, and therefore they now consent; he saith, this seemeth a Iest; for, he saith, 1. It cannot be proved that all the Churches or People gave the Patrons that Power. 2. They never consented that Parlaments should do what they list, and dispose of their Souls, or what is necessary to the saving of their Souls. 3. They may as well say, that they consent to be baptized and to receive the Sacraments because the Parlament consented to it. 4. Their forefathers had no power to represent them by such consenting. 5. The obligation on the People was Personal, and they have not God's consent for the transmutation.

So that one would think by Mr. B.'s Doctrine, all Laws about Patronage are void in themselves; and all Rights of Advowson in the King, or Noblemen and Gentlemen, or Vniversities are meer Vsurpations, and things utterly unlawfull among Christians, since he makes such a personal obligation to choose their own Pastours to lie on the People, that they cannot transfer it by their own Act. But upon second thoughts I suppose he will not deny, that the freedom of Publick Churches and the endowments of them, do lie within the Magistrates Power, and so binding Laws may be made about them; unless he can prove that the Magistrates Power doth not extend to those things which the Magistrate gives. And if these may be justly settled by Laws, then the Rights of Patronage are as just and legal Rights as men have to their Estates; and consequently every Minister duly presented p. 330hath a legal Title to the Temple and Tithes, as Mr. B. calls them. But this doth not, saith he, make a Minister for their Souls, and the Parlament cannot dispose of their Souls. The meaning of all which is, if the People be humorsome and factious, they may run after whom they please, and set up what Minister they please, in opposition to Laws. And so for instance, suppose a Parish be divided in their Opinions about Religion, (as we know too many are at this day) all these several parties, viz. Anabaptists, Quakers, yea and Papists too, as well as others, will put in for an equal share in what concerns the care of their Souls, and consequently, may choose a several Pastour to themselves, and leave the Incumbent the bare possession of the Temple and Tithes. But if there be no other objection, this may be thought sufficient, that he was none of their choosing, being imposed upon them by others, who could not dispose of their Souls. By which means, this pretence of taking care for their Souls, will be made use of, to justifie the greatest disorder and confusion, which can happen in a Church. For, let the Person be never so worthy in himself, the People are still to have their liberty of choosing for themselves. And who are these People? Must all have equal Votes? then according to Mr. B.'s opinion of our Churches, the worst will be soonest chosen; for why should we not think the worst People will choose their like as well as the worst Patrons, and the worst Bishops? But if the Profane must be excluded, by what Law? Is it because they have no right to the Ordinances? But have they no right to their own Souls and to the care of them? therefore they are equally concerned with others. Yet let us suppose all these excluded, as p. 331no competent Iudges; shall all the rest be excluded too, who are incompetent Iudges? then I am afraid, there will not be many left. And whatever they pretend, the People wher… they do choose, do trust other mens Judgments, as well as where the Patrons present; and to prevent popular tumults, such elections are generally brought by a kind of devolution to a few Persons who are entrusted to choose for the rest. But if all the People were left to choose their own Pastours, it is not to be imagined, what parties and factions, what mutual hatreds, and perpetual animosities, they would naturally fall into on such occasions. Do we not daily see such things to be the fruits of popular elections, where men are concerned for the strength and reputation of their Party? What envying and strife, what evil speaking and backbiting, what tumults and disorders, what unchristian behaviour in general, of men to each other, do commonly accompany such elections? Which being the natural effects of mens passions stirred up by such occasions, and there being so much experience of it in all Ages of the Christian Church, where such things have been; I am as certain, that Christ never gave the People such an unalterable Right of choosing their own Ministers, as I am, that he designed to have the peace and unity of the Church preserved. And of all Persons, I do the most wonder at him, who pretends to discover the OnelyOnly way of unity and concord among Christians, that he should so much, so frequently, so earnestly insist upon this; which if it be not the onelyonly, is one of the most effectual ways to perpetuate disorder and confusion in a broken and divided Church. And so much for the Plea for Separation, taken from the Peoples Rights to choose their own Ministers.