A second true defence of the meer nonconformists against the untrue accusations, reasonings, and history of Dr. Edward Stillingfleet ... clearly proving that it is (not sin but) duty 1. not wilfully to commit the many sins of conformity, 2. not sacrilegiously to forsake the preaching of the Gospel, 3. not to cease publick worshipping of God, 4. to use needful pastoral helps for salvation ... / written by Richard Baxter ... ; with some notes on Mr. Joseph Glanviles Zealous and impartial Protestant, and Dr. L. Moulins character.

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

§. 1. PAge 307. Saith the Dean, [

The next thing to be con∣sidered 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 plead∣ing 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, Pro∣phecy 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 Lo∣gically or truly than the rest, and whether he intimate not hurt∣ful 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 Lo∣gical 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 Con∣junction.

§. 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 con∣junct. 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 Teach∣ers of Catechumens, or for meer Lecturers, the Magistrate must dis∣pose of them to such as are capable of that Office.

3. If the Tythes and Temples were given for the Pastors of the Chur∣ches, the Magistrate is bound to give them to such as are lawfully cal∣led to be such Pastors, and not by the advantage of his Trust, over∣throw the way of entrance instituted by Christ.

4. However if they were devoted to God, it is God who is the pro∣prietor, 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 An∣cestors gift of Tythes or Glebe and Temples is the reason of our common Patronage and presenting power, the will of the dead Do∣nors 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 pow∣er on pretense of beneficence, to destroy, or to take away more than they give: But the Trusting of our Souls Conduct is a mat∣ter of more weight than Tythes and Temples. If Tythes be pro∣ved 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 comfor∣tably 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 se∣veral parties agree not: To which I answer.

1. The mischief of the contrary way, is worse than that incon∣venience.

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 Chur∣ches 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 a∣gainst Magistrates, Patrons and Laws. And try if you can under∣stand what it is instead of this, that he would have: I tell him a∣gain, that if he deny the necessity of the flocks consent to the mutual re∣lation, he notoriously opposeth the judgment and practice of Anti∣quity and the Universal Church, of Princes, Patriarchs, Prelates, Councils and People, and fights against the full stream of Histori∣cal 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 pro∣per 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 offer∣ed Pastors be Hereticks, nor refuse them, if Prince and Patron pre∣sent them? He will not be entreated to tell me. I tell him, that if the Rule be universal, when a Papist, Socinian, Anabaptist, Anti∣episcopal, &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?

Yet 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 Rea∣der 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 Reforma∣tion 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 Mem∣bers 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 be∣lieve 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 Eng∣lish 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 sar∣pi 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 read∣ing 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 con∣firmed 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 Empe∣rours negative voice in the confirmation of Popes, 2. And his ne∣gative in Investing Bishops: But even in this strife, the Election was confest to be in the Clergy, the People chusing or freely con∣senting, 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 nul∣lifieth the very Ordination of scandalous uncapable men: And in the Arab. Can. 4. Si populo placebit, is made a condition of the E∣piscopal 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 Ec∣clesia, but with all the Church united. If this Council be not cer∣tain, 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 for∣sake their chosen Bishop or his honour, though Emperour, Council and

Patriarch was against him: and though Cyril Alex. wrote that their breach of Canons was intolerable, and to tolerate them (a few stub∣born 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 Ordain∣ing 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 de∣creed, Let none be made Bishop to an unwilling People (or without the Peo∣ples 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 e∣lection 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 Exami∣nation and Election, be deposed: Though the same Council by humane wisdom decreed, Can. 38. That whatsoever alteration the Imperial pow∣er maketh on any City, the Ecclesiastical Order also follow it. The way by 〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

which Humane Order overthrew Divine Order and Institutions.

15. And by the way you may conjecture of the Chusers by the Coun∣cil 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 add∣ed the Sword to Excommunication by mischievous decree, yet) al∣tered 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 Ba∣ronius 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

men 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, say∣ing 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 con∣demn 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 Bi∣shop that Ordaineth them, and to the Church in which they are Or∣dained; 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 Com∣mand 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, be∣cause the Catholick Church defendeth that which is irreprehensible, &c.

23. An. 855. under Lotharius Rennigius Lugd. and others, at a Coun∣cil decreed, (because that bad King had by imposing corrupted the Clergy)

That because Bishops were set over the Cities that were un∣tryed, and almost ignorant of Letters, and unlike the Apostolick pre∣script,

script, by which means the Ecclesiastical vigor is lost, they will pe∣tition the King that when a Bishop was wanting, the Canonical Electi∣on by the Clergy and the People may be permitted, that men of try∣ed knowledg and life, and not illiterate men, blinded by covetous∣ness, 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 self∣separating judges, as to decree, Tit. 11. c. 1.

That none hear the Mass of a Priest whom he knoweth undoubtedly to have a Concu∣bine or sub-introduced Woman. And Can. 2. That by the Canons he cannot have the honour of Priesthood, that is faln into Forni∣cation.

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 chu∣sing 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 Peo∣ple, 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 Communi∣on, 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 con∣cord 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 charg∣ed against Wickliffe the Reformer (as before against Wecelo, who con∣temned their Excommunications) That they that give over Preaching or

hearing 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. Stil∣lingflect?

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 e∣lection even of the Pope is plainly null, and conferreth no right or authority to the elected (though this certainly overthroweth the uninterrupted∣ness 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 ig∣norant 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 Go∣vernment doth not destroy it, but regulate it: And therefore is not for destruction but for edification.

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

6. God hath in the fifth Commandment, which setleth humane Go∣vernment and obedience, chosen the name of Parents rather than Prin∣ces, because Parents Government is antecedent to Princes, and Prin∣ces cannot take it from them, nor disoblige their Children. But Self∣government 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 ac∣cording to the aptitude of means and instruments: and learned ex∣perienced Physicians cure more than the ignorant, rash, and slothful;

and 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 accord∣ingly 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: O∣thers say, that most Patrons not chosen to Parliaments are worse. Some Preachers complain of Great men for fornication, drunkenness, ex∣cess, 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,

the 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 Ca∣suists 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 Tea∣chers, 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 materi∣ally, 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 unne∣cessary, 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 Apo∣stles 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 a∣gainst 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

Cyprian 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 won∣der 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 defi∣led 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 pra∣ctice, and their Canons, making the Peoples consent (and usually E∣lection) 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 advan∣tage 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 gi∣ving the power, and concurring with other Causes to give a Recep∣tivity to the person that must have it: The peoples consent is a cau∣sa partialis, of capacity and receptivity.

2. But what signifie these words [The Ordination of our Collegue Sabi∣nus by the suffrage of the whole fraternity, and by the judgment of the Bi∣shops, &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.

Answ. 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 Con∣formity 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 con∣cerned 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 open∣ed 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 Peo∣ple,] 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 te∣stimony 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

Usher tell King Charles the First, That the Presbyters at Alexan∣dria did more than Ordain Presbyters, for they made Bishops (as he told me himself.) But 1. We never denied that the Com-provincial Bi∣shops ordinarily afterwards Ordained them, 2. Nor that the Presby∣ters 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 impos∣sible, ex naturâ rei, that the Pastoral Office should be exercised on dis∣senters: 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 sick∣ness. 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 peo∣ple there indeed exercised too great power, after this, no place on earth more tumultuous and unruly: And yet no place where the Bi∣shops 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

Bishops 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 Eu∣sebius 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 unquesti∣onably acknowledged, that the Canons forbad any Bishop to nomi∣nate and chuse his Successour, lest it should forestall them and preju∣dice 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 dan∣ger of miscarrying by their faultiness: Wise men would do their best to prevent this, and the peoples consent being of necessity, they some∣times 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 ex∣cellent 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 com∣mendeth 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 Suc∣cessour; They told him their fear of their own disagreement, and to

prevent 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 him∣self? 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 electi∣on, 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 Pa∣rish, 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 Ordain∣ing 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 pe∣tition the Metropolitan and Synod, who had the full power to allow or re∣fuse him.]

Answ. Is not this a strong proof that the people had no such a∣greeing 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

Church 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 particu∣lar Bishops of them have, yet are they bound to give them all the help they can (as neighbour families to help each other:) And there∣fore 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 peo∣ples 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 Phy∣sician 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 plead∣ed 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?

§. 32. Next he tells us of a Law of Justinian, that made the Cler∣gy 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, restrain∣ed 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 Ma∣gistrates 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 e∣vents are the fate of an ill cause. And the next Canon doth not a∣mend their matter, which calleth it madness for gain or any affecti∣on of his own, to drive any from the Ministry, or segregate one of his Cler∣gy, 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 wick∣edness, 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 di∣straining

it 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 ci∣teth.

2. But if there were, if it were but the confirmation of the 2. Ni∣cene 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 ho∣nour 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 dis∣obedient Bishops, that will not obey their Patriarch before the forbid∣ding Prince.] And doth this meddle with the peoples Recipient pow∣er? which is only levelled against Princes and Lay Patrons Impositi∣ons, 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

the College, and that no Lay Princes or men in power (potentu••) do mix themselves in the election or promotion of Patriarchs, Me∣tropolitans, or any Bishop; lest hence there be inordinate confu∣sion 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 Ele∣ction 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 dig∣nity is excluded: 4. And hereby our English Clergy deposed. The Doctor had been better to have let alone his History and Anti∣quities.

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

Answ. Hitherto he hath produced the Testimonies of Councils and Bishops against Magistrates choice or medlings (mistakingly think∣ing 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 rela∣teth 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 A∣rians. Doth not this shew, 1. That the people were chusers, 2. That the Emperour deposed him not, but by a pack•• Council of Bishops

(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 Her∣mogenes to force out Paulus the chosen Bishop: The people tumultu∣ously fight for their Bishop and priviledge, and set Hermogenes Lodg∣ings on fire and kill him. The Emperour comes from Antioch, a∣merceth the City, and puts Paul out, and yet is angry that Macedo∣nius 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 vio∣lence 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 re∣gard. 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 decla∣red 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

others 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 Pal∣ladius credit to be equalled to Sozomen's herein, much less prefer∣red. 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 Ci∣tations?

§. 43. The choice of Nestorius was just such another▪ The people had no reason to deny consent to one out of Chrysostom's Monaste∣ry, 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 Maxi∣mianus 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 com∣mon choice of Bishops.

2. The true case Socrates (cited) thus describeth: The people were the chusers: They were for Proclus; but some adversaries ob∣jected 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 dis∣pensing 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 Chri∣stendom there was greater reason for the Magistrates interposing than be∣fore:

Because 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 go∣eth 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, reser∣ved the power of nomination of Bishops as part of the Prerogative: which being allowed in frequent Parliaments, the consent of the people is swallow∣ed 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-Go∣vernment 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 rea∣sons. 2. If the liberty of Election be not resumed (which was not

that which I pleaded for, as he would all along insinuate) yet the li∣berty 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. * 1.1 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 Ma∣gistrates 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 li∣mited, and but directive and not destructive to their own consent∣ing 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 to∣lerated: 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 Tu∣tor, a Pastor or a particular Church Communion. And if a Parent or Hus∣band say, I command you to hear and Communicate with such a Pa∣stor 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 pre∣tend 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.

2. 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 miscar∣ry 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 mis∣carry 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 re∣strain 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 Remis∣sion

and 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 Maho∣metans, 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, I∣taly: 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 succes∣sion 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 wick∣ed 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.

Answ. 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 Wri∣tings, 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 A∣pology for our preaching (now in the Press) hath some. But if there be none, accuse us of none.

Notes

• * 1.1

  ☜