and inspection suffer by the Heresy or evil practices of their Collegues Here is a good long Quotation if any body knew to what purpose it served I own the Words and know not how I could say the same thing better if I were to say it again I am still of the same mind that such Combinations of Bishops for mutuāl Advice and Counsel is of great benefit and use for the good Government of the Church but if he would insinuate as that if any thing must be his design that these Combinations of Bishops are for the exercise of Authority over their Collegues this I absolutely deny They are to advise and consult with each other not as with superior Governors who are to determine them and give Laws to them but as with Friends and Collegues of the same Body and Communion as I expresly affirm Vindicat. p. 127. May not Bishops meet together for common Advice without erecting a Soveraign Tribunal to determine all Controversies and make Ecclesiastical Laws and impose them upon their Collegues without their own consent When though the least yet it may be the best and wisest part of the Council are of another Mind Is there no difference between advising with our Equals and making them our Superiors May it not be a very great fault and very near the guilt of Schism for a Bishop without any cause but meer humour and wilfulness to reject such Rules and Orders of Discipline and Government which are agreed by the unanimous consent of neighbour Bishops unless we give a Superior Authority to such Synods over their Collegues 6. His next charge is that the Collegue of Bishops may grant unto some one Bishop a Primacy for the preservation of Catholick Unity and Communion who by a general consent may be intrusted with a Superior Power of calling Synods receiving Appeals and exercising some peculiar Acts of Discipline under the Regulation of Ecclesiastical Canons This Sentence he has made up of two places in my Book above fifty Pages distant p. 127 and 184 for he durst not quote either of them entire and therefore I shall be at the pains to transcribe them both that the indifferent Reader may judge of them Vind. p. 127. There are these words This makes it highly reasonable for Neighbour Bishops at as great a distance as the thing is practicable with ease and convenience as the Bishops of the same Province or of the same Nation to live together in a strict Association and Confederacy to meet in Synods and Provincial or National Councils to order all the Affairs of their several Churches by mutual Advice and to oblige themselves to the same Rules of Discipline and Worship This has been the practice of the Church from the very beginning and seems to be the true Original of Archi-episcopal and Metropolitical Churches which were so early that it is most probable they had their beginning in the Apostles Days For though all Bishops have originally equal Right and Power in Church affairs yet there may be a Primacy of Order granted to some Bishops and their Chairs by a general consent and under the Regulation of Ecclesiastical Canons for the preservation of Catholick Unity and Communion without any Antichristian encroachments or usurpation on the Episcopal Authority For as I proceed This Combination of Churches and Bishops does not and ought not to introduce a direct Superiority of one Bishop or Church over another or of such Synods and Councils over particular Bishops Every Bishop is the proper Governour of his own Diocess still and cannot be regularly imposed on against his consent If a Bishop differ from his Collegues assembled in Synods or Provincial Councils or one National or Provincial Council differ from another in Matters of Prudence and Rules of Discipline without either corrupting the Faith or dividing the Church if we believe St. Cyprian in his Preface to the Council of Carthage they ought not to deny him Communion upon such accounts nor to offer any force to him in such matters In p. 184 I discoursed much to the same purpose That for the preservation of Peace and Order in this united Body or Confederation of Neighbour Churches one or more Bishops may by a general consent be intrusted with a Superior Power of calling Synods receiving Appeals and exercising some peculiar Acts of Discipline under the Regulation of Ecclesiastical Canons which is the Power now ascrib'd to Archbishops and Metropolitans But yet there cannot be one constitutive Ecclesiastical Regent Head in a National much less in the Universal Church not Monarchical because no one Bishop has an original Right to Govern the rest in any Nation and therefore whatever Power may be granted him by consent yet it is not essential to the Being or Unity of the Church which is one not by being united under one superior governing Power but by living in one Communion Not Aristocratical because every Bishop being Supream in his own Diocess and accountable to Christ for his Government cannot and ought not so wholly to divest himself of this Power as to be in all Cases necessarily determin'd and over-ruled by the Major Vote contrary to his own Judgment and Conscience All the Bishops in a Nation much less all the Bishops in the World cannot unite into such a Collegue as shall by a Supream Authority govern all Bishops and Churches by a Major Vote which is the form of Aristocratical Government and for the same Reason a National Church considered as a Church cannot be under the Government of a Democratical Head for if the College of Bishops have not this Power much less has a mixt College of Bishops and People Thus careful was I to secure the Episcopal Authority from such Encroachments and Usurpations as it now groans under in the Church of Rome from placing the Unity of the Church in such a superior governing Head whether Primate or Synod and now let him make the best he can of this Primacy which he should have called a Primacy of Order as I did and not absolutely a Primacy which may signifie a Primacy of Power and Authority which I positively deny he has over any of his Collegues In a body of Equals though there is no Superiority there must be Order and therefore some One must have Authority to Convene the Assembly and to preside in it and if the Synod see fit may in some Cases be intrusted with a Superior Power of executing their Decrees which involves no direct Superiority over any of his Collegues All that I intended in these Discourses was to shew what Power a National or Provincial Synod Archbishops and Metropolitans might have upon St. Cyprian's Principles without encroaching upon the Original and Essential Rights of the Episcopacy and those who will allow St. Cyprian's Principles I believe will confess that I have truly and fairly stated the Bounds of pure Ecclesiastical Authority If Archbishops and Metropolitans have a greater Power than this by the Constitutions and Laws of
Patriarchate which confirmed the Authority of every Bishop when those who were duely censured by their Bishop saw it in vain to complain to other Bishops who all observed the same rules of Discipline and an Archbishop or Primate was very necessary in such combinations not for unity and government but for order as it is in all other Bodies and Societies of men at least not for any acts of Government over their fellow Bishops but such as did belong in common to them all as ordaining Bishops for vacant Sees or composing such differences as the single Authority of the Bishop could not compose in his own Diocess 4. I readily grant that since the Church is Incorporated into the State Archbishops and Metropolitans have a greater and more direct Authority over their Collegues as far as the Canons of the Church confirmed by the Supreme National Authority extend but whatever is more than I have now explained is not a pure Ecclesiastical Authority but a mixt Authority derived from the Civil Powers and this may be greater or less as the Civil Powers please All compulsory jurisdiction must be derived from the Civil Powers because the Church has none of her own and when the Church is incorporated into the State as it is very fitting that the Ecclesiastical Authority should be enforced by the Civil Authority so those who have the exercise of this Ecclesiastical Authority seem the fittest persons to be entrusted with such a Civil Jurisdiction as is thought convenient to give force to it which is the true original of that mixt Authority which the Bishops and Archbishops now exercise by the Canons of the Church and the Laws of the Land. But though this justifies the Archiepiscopal or Metropolitical Authority over a National Church yet it is a demonstration that there can be no such Oecumenical Pastor as there is a National Archbishop unless we could find an Universal Monarch too as well as a King of England of France or Spain for otherwise whence should this Universal Pastor derive his Oecumenic Authority unless there be an Universal Prince Meerly considered as a Bishop he has no Superiority or Jurisdiction over any of his Collegues or fellow Bishops and he can never have such a Jurisdiction over the Universal Church as a Metropolitan has over a National Church unless there be an Universal King to give this Universal Authority to him as there is the King of England of France or Spain to give such a National Authority to their Patriarchs and Primates Whereas the Pope of Rome is so far from deriving his Authority from Secular Princes that he challenges a Superiour Authority over them and their Subjects in their own Dominions Which shews how senseless it is to infer the Authority of an Universal Bishop or Pastor from the Authority of a National Primate because they cannot derive their Authority the same way there being no Universal Monarch to give him such Authority and the Bishop of Rome who alone challenges this Universal Pastorship is so far from owning such a Title to it that he assumes an Authority over Soveraign Princes And therefore though it may be pardonable in an Independent to use such an Argument for the Pope's Authority I know not how our Popish Plagiary will come off with it for it effectually overthrows all pretences to a Papal Supremacy to derive it from no higher Principle than what gives being to a National Primacy which is not the Institution of Christ but the Authority of Soveraign Princes and Civil Powers which the Pope cannot have and if he could would think scorn to receive his Power from them For that would spoil his claim as Christ's Vicar and St. Peter's Successor and they who give can take away too 5. But setting aside all this there is not a parity of reason for an Oecumenic Pastor and a National Primate neither of them are necessary to the Unity of the Church which is preserved by the concord and agreement of Bishops not by such a governing Authority and superiour Power of one Bishop over another As for Advice and Counsel such a National combination of Bishops under a Metropolitan may be of great use because all the Bishops in a Nation may without any inconvenience meet together but there is not the same reason for an Universal Bishop because all the Bishops in the World cannot meet together in Council with him as I have already discoursed And as for some peculiar acts of Authority and Jurisdiction especially where there is a mixture of the Ecclesiastical and Civil Authority this may very prudently be intrusted with a National Primate But it is both an intolerable grievance which has been complained of by Roman Catholick Princes and People that Appeals should lie to Rome and the Bishops and People of all Nations in the World be forced to have their Causes heard there and it is a derogation from the Authority of Soveraign Princes to have a Foreign Bishop exercise a superiour Jurisdiction in their own Kingdoms This I think is sufficient if men be reasonable to answer his first Politick Reason for an Universal Pastor 2. His next Argument is very Comical the whole of which he has borrowed also from his Independent Author though sometimes he ventures upon new Phrases and new Illustrations which make it more comical still He proves that they that maintain the Government of the Church by Bishops Archbishops Primates c. must also own and acknowledge an Universal Visible Pastor from the nature of an Universal Visible Church This may be true for ought I know for who can tell but his c. which is all he has added to the Original may include an Universal Pastor But his Argument is fallaciously put which I confess is none of his fault but his Author 's whom he has honestly Copied it should have been this those who assert the Government of the Church by Bishops Archbishops Primates though he should have left out Bishops as he did in his former Argument because their Authority is of a distinct consideration from Archbishops and Primates from the nature of an Universal Visible Church must also own an Universal Visible Pastor from the nature of an Universal Visible Church For if we do not derive the Authority of Archbishops and Primates from the nature and essential Constitution of the Catholick Church as it is evident we do not how can the nature of the Universal Visible Church force us to own an Universal Pastor when it does not force us to own a National Primate If there be such a connexion between them that the consequence holds from one to the other we must own them both for the same reason for there is no proportion nor no consequence between things which have different natures and causes But let us hear how he proves this This Church he says must be an organized or unorganized Body made up of partes Similares onely Right the Universal Church is unorganized as to
his own Diocess who cannot be compelled by other Bishops to govern his Church by such Rules and Laws as he himself does not assent to and therefore that such Combinations and Councils of Bishops are not originally for direct acts of Government and superiority over each other but only for mutual Counsel and Advice For these are two very different things To have Authority to compel a Bishop to govern his Church by such Laws as he himself in his own conscience does not approve and to have Authority to fling a notorious Heretical or Schismatical Bishop out of their Communion and to command and exhort his Presbyters and People not to own him St. Cyprian I am sure thought these two cases very different for the first he utterly rejects as an usurpation on the Episcopal Authority that it was to make themselves Bishops of Bishops which he thought a great impiety the other he practised himself in the case of Basilides and Martialis For the first is a direct Authority over Bishops in the exercise of their Episcopal Function the second is only an Authority to censure Heresie and Schism and to preserve the Communion of the Church pure and to defend the Flock from such Wolves in Sheeps Clothing But it may be it will be Objected That this comes much to one for the Authority of deposing Heretical and Schismatical Bishops infers an Authority of declaring Heresie and Schism and that of making or declaring Articles of Faith and Laws of Catholick Communion for how can they depose Hereticks or Schismaticks without an Authority of declaring what Heresie and Schism is And this is as much Authority as the Council of Trent it self would have desired and therefore it seems very absurd and contradictious to deny a Council Authority to oblige their Collegues by their Decrees of Faith or Manners or Catholick Unity and to give Authority to neighbour Bishops to depose or censure any Heretical or Schismatical Bishop To this purpose our Author argues p. 32. 33. According to their Doctrine the Bishops of Spain France Italy and Germany being Bishops of the Catholick Church tho' ordinarily their Power is confined to their particular Churches yet having an Original right with relation to the whole Catholick Church are bound by the Laws of Communion to re-assume their Original right and assemble and summon before them the Bishops of the Church of England who in their opinion are fallen into a great Schism and Heresy in which matters these Bishops have a direct Authority over the Bishops of the Church of England and may proceed against them and depose them and ordain others in their room and oblige the People to withdraw from the communion of the deposed Bishops in which case the foreign Bishops being the governing part have as much authority over the English Bishops as the English Bishops have over the Dissenters in England He should have said as the English Bishops have over the Popish bishops of France Spain or Italy and then he had come pretty near the matter He adds The larger combination of Bishops the greater is their Power and Authority And therefore if the English Bishops have a direct Authority over the Dissenters in England so has this greater combination of Bishops over the dissenting English Bishops that is if Bishops have Authority over their own Flocks then the Bishops of France and Spain have Authority over English Bishops if Bishops must govern their own Churches other Bishops may govern them an inference which I believe our Author is the first man that ever made And as the English Bishops insist on their Authority in decision of Controversies and the Dissenter must submit so may this greater College of Bishops urge their Authority and the Dissenting English Bishops must submit and may not be admitted to exercise their own judgment or pretend Conscience there no more than the English Protestant Dissenter may do it here It must be carefully observed that by these Gentlemen the Power is lodged with the College of Catholic Bishops and so long as the Church of England acknowledges the Bishops of these Countries to be Catholick Bishops as now they do just as we acknowledg the Church of Rome to be part of the Catholick Church but a very corrupt and schismatical part of it they cannot question their power that they must acknowledg And by the Laws of Catholick Communion must obey a College of them and appear before them when Summoned The greatest thing that they can with any pretence insist on is the justness of their cause of which they are no more competent judges before this College than the Dissenters are when before these Bishops here What happy days would the Church of Rome see were things brought to this pass but how impertinent all his talk of the College of Bishops is has been already shown and will be more in what follows All that I observe at present is how he turns the power of deposing and censuring heretical and schismatical Bishops into a power of declaring Heresy and judging whether they be Hereticks or not by such a final and uncontroulable power as Hereticks themselves are bound to submit to And which is more ridiculous than that if one Church agrees to accuse another Church of Heresy the accusers alone must be judges and the accused are very incompetent Judges of it because forsooth they are accused But this matter may be stated without setting up such a Soveraign Tribunal for judging of Heresies For 1. That Heretical Bishops may be deposed I think all agree in 2. And there is as little question but that Orthodox and Catholick Bishops who have the care of the Church committed to them have this power of deposing That is of casting such a Bishop out of their Communion and exhorting his People to withdraw Communion from him and to accept of a Catholick Bishop in his stead which is all that the Ecclesiastical power of deposing signifies 3. There is no question neither but that all Bishops will call that Heresy which they themselves think to be so and will judg those to be Hereticks who profess such Doctrines as they call Heresy 4. But it does not hence follow that any Bishops or any number of Bishops however assembled have such an Authority to define Articles of Faith or to declare Heresy as shall oblige all men to believe that to be Heresy which they decree to be so 5. And therefore the effects of these Censures must of necessity depend upon that Opinion which People have of them Those who believe the Censure just will withdraw themselves from the Communion of such a Bishop those who do not believe it just will still communicate with him For who ever pronounces the Sentence excepting the interposing of Secular power the People must execute it and if they will still adhere to their Bishop he may defic his Deposers and all their power As the English Bishops and People do all the Anathemaes of the Church of Rome 6.
one Episcopacy part of which every Bishop holds with full Authority and Power that all these Bishops are but one body who are bound to live in Communion with each other and to govern their respective Churches where need requires and where it can be had by mutual Advice and Consent and therefore that no Bishops are absolutely Independant but are obliged to preserve the Unity of the Episcopacy or Episcopal College as Optatus calls it which words our Author leaves out as being afraid of naming the Authority of any Father in the case whereon the Unity and Communion of the Catholick Church depends Thus far our Author recites my words and here breaks off but I shall beg leave to go on For it is impossible the Catholick Church should be one Body or Society or one Communion if it be divided into as many Independent Churches as there are absolute and independent Bishops For those Churches must be independent which have an independent Power and Government as all those must have which have independent Governors and Bishops and independent Churches can never make one Body and one Catholick Communion because they are not Members of each other and thus the Unity of the Catholick Church must be destroyed unless we assert One Episcopocy as well as One Church One Evangelical Priesthood as well as One Altar all the world over Here I must stop a little for here he seems to lay his Foundation whereon to erect his Papal Monarchy or his Soveraign Power of General Councils that I assert That Bishops are not absolutely independent and therefore he supposes That they must be subordinate too to some higher Power and Jurisdiction How far I am from asserting any such Supreme Power over the whole Church I have already shown and now I must vindicate this Principle That Bishops are not absolutely Independent from any such consequence which is no very difficult task if men will consider what I mean by the independency of Bishops and for what reason I asserted That Bishops are not absolutely independent For the independency I deny is such an independency as is opposed to the unity of the Episcopacy and to their obligation to live in Communion with each other for because there is but one Episcopacy because all Bishops are but one body therefore I assert they are not absolutely independent but are obliged to preserve the unity of the Episcopacy or Episcopal College for absolute Independency excludes all necessary obligations to Unity and Communion as well as to Subjection An absolute independent Soveraign Prince is no more bound by the Laws of Soveraignty to live in Unity than to own subjection to neighbour Princes now Bishops indeed as to subjection are independent for there is no superior Authority in the Church over them as I have always asserted but they are not independent as to Unity and Communion for the fundamental Laws of one Episcopacy oblige them to Unity and Communion and that obliges them to govern their Churches by mutual advice without which this Unity cannot be preserved I am sure St. Cyprian lays so much stress on this that he expresly asserts That He cannot have the Power nor the Honour of a Bishop who will not maintain the Unity and the Peace of the Episcopacy Now I cannot think such Bishops absolutely independent tho they are subject to no superior Authority who depend upon preserving the Unity and Peace of the Episcopacy for the very Power and Dignity of Bishops I deny such an independency of Bishops as makes their Churches independent which destroys Catholick Communion as I showed in those words which our Author suppressed That Unity of the Catholick Church depends upon the Unity of the Episcopacy For it is impossible the Catholick Church should be one Body or Society or one Communion if it be divided into as many independent Churches as there are absolute and independent Bishops for those Churches must be Independent which have an Independent power and government as all those must have who have Independent Governours or Bishops and Independent Churches can never make one Body and one Catholick Communion because they are not Members of each other Now this Independency of Churches which I condemn is not opposed to a superior Jurisdiction for so Churches as well as Bishops are originally Independent but it is opposed to their being such distinct and separate Bodies as are not Members of each other which destroys Catholick Communion or makes it Arbitrary And this is the Independency of Bishops which I deny such an Independency as overthrows the unity of the Episcopacy and consequently the unity of the Church Nay I further deny the Independency of Bishops as that signifies an exemption from all censures in case of Heresie and Schism and Idolatry and such like evil practises which does not infer a superior authority of one Bishop over another but only an authority in the Church to censure such crimes whoever be guilty of them as I have already explained it at large So that my Notion of the Independency of Bishops will do no service at all to the Pope or General Council 5. He proceeds in his charge The power of every Bishop in his own Diocess is not so absolute and independent but that he is bound to preserve the unity of the Episcopacy and to live in Communion with his Collegues and fellow Bishops for this is the foundation of Catholick Communion without which there can be no Catholick Church This has been accounted for already and whoever observes that the reason of all is laid upon the preservation of Catholick Communion will easily guess how little this makes for an Universal Power and Empire over the Church He proceeds The whole authority of a Bishop or Council over other Bishops is founded on the Laws of Catholick Communion which is the great end it serves and therefore it does not prove a Supreme governing Head over the Church and therefore they have no proper authority but only in such matters as concern the Unity of the Episcopacy or the peace and Communion of the Catholick Church This also has been sufficiently explained before Again this unity of the Episcopacy is the foundation of these larger combinations and confederacies of Neighbour Churches which make Archiepiscopal or National Churches For since there is but one Episcopacy it is highly reasonable and necessary so far as it is practicable they should all act and govern their respective Churches as one Bishop with one consent which is the most effectual way to secure the peace and unity of the Episcopal Colledg and to promote the edification and good government of the Church Nay this unity of the Episcopacy is the foundation of that authority which Neighbour Bishops have over their Collegues in case of Heresy and Schism or any other notorious wickedness for they being Bishops of the Universal Church have an Original right and power to take care that no part of the Church which is within their reach
this was all I undertook to prove of the French Church That whatever Liberties they pretended still they owned the Pope to be the Supream Pastor and Head of the Universal Church for which I appealed to Petrus de Marca Let us then consider what is my Fault Our Author gives us an account that the French Church teaches as the Council of Basil did That though the Pope be greater than particular Churches and Bishops yet he is not greater than the whole Universal Church and that the Authority that is granted him in the Interval of Councils doth not in the least suppose him to have any Superiority or Preheminence above the Universal Church whence it is that whenever from the Ecclesiastical Courts in France any References Suggestions or Consultations were made to the Pope if the Popes Rescripts were contrary to the old Canons the French always looked on it as abusive and made an Appeal from the Pope called Appellatio ab Abusu provoking him to the old Canons Now he says Dr. Sherlock is bold enough to deny all and to bring no less person than the learned Petrus de Marca for his Voucher But where do I deny one word of this or alledge Petrus de Marca's authority to prove it I had no occasion to deny this for all that I was to prove was that the French Church did own the Pope to be the Supream Head and Governour of the Church and that they did so I proved from Petrus de Marca Does not then Petrus de Marca say what I charge him with Yes that he owns What is my fault then Why truly only that I say that Petrus de Marca wrote in defence of the Liberties of the Gallican Church and is not this the Title of his Book De Concordia Sacerdotii Imperii seu de Libertatibus Ecclesioe Gallicanae Of the Agreement of the Priesthood and the Empire or of the Liberties of the Gallican Church Yes this he grants but the Archbishop was perswaded to add this Title by the Bookseller to make it sell the better and I ought to have known for all this if I had looked any farther than Titles and Margins that he wrote against the Liberties of the Gallican Church and will he say that I ought to have said so too That had been a great piece of modesty indeed as great as it is in this Author whoever he be I am sure very inconsiderable in comparison of this great man to charge him with down-right Knavery For my part I am of that mind still that the Archbishop who was as great a man as that Age bred did firmly believe that he had truly stated the Liberties of the Gallican Church though he differed from some who had stretched those Liberties very much to the prejudice of the Roman See which the King himself expressed his sense of when he imposed that task on him of writing this Book for he charged him to take care that the Gallican Liberties might suffer no Injury and that he should let all men see that these Liberties did not diminish that Reverence which the French have most constantly maintained for the Roman See above all other Nations from whence also we may observe that the Subject he was to write on by the Kings Command were the Gallican Liberties which was therefore a proper Title for his Book though he was unwilling to have given it that Title for fear of offending the Court of Rome as it accordingly hapned and he was to take care so to assert the Gallican Liberties as not to detract from that Reverence which the French Church as the King affirms has always paid to the Roman See. This Province he undertook and discharged to the abundant satisfaction of that King who employed him who was jealous enough of the Gallican Liberties as far as they were consistent with the Reverence of the Apostolick See but this work was not so well relished at Rome for as the King rewarded him with a Bishoprick for it so the Court of Rome kept him out of it for several Years and one would guess by this Usage he met with at Rome that they had a very jealous eye on these Gallican Liberties even as De Marca had stated them But our Author observes that Baluzius who wrote De Marca's Life positively affirms that none amongst the French no nor amongst the Spanish and Italian did more eloquently and with greater Authority of the Ancients exalt the Roman Chair to a greater height than De Marca did This Baluzius does not say so absolutely as our Author reports but adds a Qualification which he out of his great Exactness in quoting thought fit to leave out viz. qui modo intra limites oequi constiterit that no man who kept within the bounds of Equity and Moderation ever exalted the Authority of the Roman Bishop more which argues that De Marca did not fly so high as some Flatterers of the Roman Greatness have done but yet gave him as great Power as any man could honestly give him and this I hope he might do without betraying the Gallican Liberties Tho'as Baluzius observes the Romans whose Ears are very tender in such matters could not bear the Title of his Book of the Liberties of the Gallican Church for they suspected that he must be an Enemy to the Ecclesiastical Liberties who wrote professedly for the Liberties of the Gallican Church which he brands with a proh nefas as a thing ridiculous and absurd In the same place Baluzius falls severely upon Faget who also wrote the Life of De Marca for making him a Deserter and betrayer of the Gallican Liberties He gives an Account of the Roman Arts to perswade him to condemn some parts of his Book and to insinuate that the mistakes of that Book of Concord were not owing to his own Will and Choice but to the importunate Commands and Ambition of others this Condition he absolutely refused though it was proposed by Cardinal Barberini as the easiest Expedient to obtain a dispatch of his Affairs at Rome This he was frequently solicited to and as constantly refused firmly resolving while he was in health rather to renounce all Right and Claim to his Bishoprick than remit any of the Priviledges of the Gallican Church till at last they taking advantage of a great fit of Sickness when his mind might be supposed as weak as his Body he subscribed a Paper wherein he recanted every thing in his Book which was contrary to the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Immunity as it was taught by the Church of Rome an account of which Baluz gives us in his Life p. 16. 17. From whence it appears that though De Marca did not so much depress the Pope nor extend the Gallican Liberties as some French Lawyers had done yet he honestly and sincerely maintained with constancy and resolution excepting this subscription in his sickness against all the Arts and Solicitations of the Church of Rome what he
like expressions before quoted But do I not say That General Councils can have no direct Authority over any Bishops who refuse to consent unless it be in such matters as concern the purity of Faith and manners and Catholick Unity and does not this infer that they have a direct Authority over them in such matters This possibly might lie a little out of our Author's reach I not having occasion then given me to difcourse it more at large but if he had not understood this it had been more modest and ingenuous to have thought it an unwary saying or to have made a Query upon it and desired me to have reconciled this seeming contradiction rather than to charge me with such Principles as I so often expresly and positively reject But ingenuity and modesty are Virtues not to be expected from such Adversaries and therefore I shall briefly state this matter also by 1. Showing what I meant by matters which concern the purity of Faith and Manners and Catholick Unity 2. What Authority I give to bishops or a Council of Bishops over their Collegues in such cases and how this is to be reconciled with my affirming that the combinations of Churches and the Synods and Councils of Bishops are not for direct acts of Government and Superiority over each other but only for mutual advice and counsel 1. As for the first when I say That Neighbour Bishops or a Council of Bishops has Authority over their Collegues in matters which concern the purity of Faith and Manners and Catholick Unity it is plain that my meaning was not and could not be That such a Council of Bishops had Authority to make what Decrees they pleased in matters of Faith or Manners or Catholick Unity and impose them upon their Collegues by a direct and superior Authority without their own consent for this is the very thing I disputed against and yet this is the sense he would put upon my words and indeed no other sense of them can do the Church of Rome any service but let any indifferent Reader consider the whole Paragraph and freely judg whether this Author be not a very Candid Interpreter I was discoursing about General Councils That it is not likely there should ever be a Convention of Bishops from all parts of the Christian World nor if it were possible that there should be some few Bishops dispatched from all Christian Churches all the world over can I see any reason why this should be called a General Council when it may be there are Ten times as many Bishops who did not come to the Council as those who did and why should the less number of Bishops assembled in Council judg for all the rest who so far exceed them in numbers and it may be are not inferior to them in Piety and Wisdom especially considering that every Bishop has the Supreme Government of his own Church and his liberty and power to choose for himself as St. Cyprian tells us and must not be compelled to obedience by any of his Collegues which overthrows the proper Jurisdiction of General Councils which can have no direct Authority over any Bishops who refuse to consent unless it be in such matters as concern the Purity of Faith and Manners and Catholick Unity Now if Faith and Manners and Catholick Unity were considered as the Subject of Conciliary Decrees what greater Authority could the Council of Trent it self desire than this to have Authority to make Decrees about Faith and Manners and Catholick Unity which shall oblige all the Bishops in the World For I know not any thing else for a Council of Christian Bishops to make Decrees about And therefore these matters which concern Faith and Manners only relate to the Faith and Manners of the Bishop as I elsewhere expresly teach That a Bishop cannot be imposed on against his own consent by any Bishop or Council of Bishops nor can justly be deposed upon such accounts while he neither corrupts the Faith nor schismatically divides the Church So that this Authority refers not to the Decrees of Councils about Faith or Manners but is only an Authority of censuring Heretical and Schismatical Bishops 2. But that we may better understand the true state of this matter let us consider what kind of Authority this is And 1. I observe this is no act of Authority over Bishops considered a Bishops but over Hereticks and Schismaticks and no man that I know of ever denied the Churches Power to censure Heresie or Schism or to correct the Lives and Manners of Men and if Hereticks and Schismaticks wicked and profligate Persons may be flung out of the Church if any Bishops be such there is no reason their Character should excuse them for that does not lessen but aggravate their Crime 2. And therefore this is no usurpation upon the Episcopal Power and Government it is not imposing Laws or Rules on a Bishop for the Government of his Church without his consent which is an Usurpation upon the Episcopal Authority but it is only judging him unworthy to be a Bishop and committing the care of his Flock to some more fit person 3. This Authority does not result from that superior Jurisdiction which one Bishop or all the Bishops in the World have over any one single Bishop but from that obligation which every Bishop has as far as he can to take care of the whole flock of Christ as I explain it in the Vindication p. 156. That the Unity of the Episcopacy is the foundation of that Authority which neighbour Bishops have over their Collegues in case of Heresie or Schism or any notorious wickedness for they being Bishops of the Universal Church have an original Right and Power not to govern their Collegues but to take care that no part of the Church which is within their reach and inspection suffer by the heresie or evil practices of their Collegues which as I observed in the Defence p. 215 is the reason St. Cyprian gives why there are so many Bishops in the Christian Church whom he calls a copious body of Bishops coupled by the cement of concord and bond of Unity That if any of our colledg i. e. any Bishopâ— should endeavour to broach any new Heresie or tear and spoil the Flock of Christ the rest may come in to their help and like good and merciful Pastors gather again the Sheep of Christ into the fold So that this is not properly an Authority over Bishops who have originally no superior Jurisdiction over each other but an obligation on all Bishops as far as they can to see that no part of the Christian Church be corrupted with Heresie or divided by Schisms the discharge of which may impower them to remove Heretical Bishops without any direct Authority to govern Bishops So that this power of deposing Heretical and Wicked Bishops does not contradict what I before asserted That by original right all Bishops are equal and every Bishop supreme in
Princes since the Church is incorporated into the State that I meddle not with for it is not a pure Ecclesiastical Authority but must be accounted for upon other Principles Well! but I assert that Catholick Communion is a Divine Institution and then the Combination of Churches for Catholick Communion is Divine also and thus National Churches Archbishops Metropolitans Primates are of Divine Institution but had our Author transcribed the whole Sentence every Reader would easily have seen how little it is to his purpose The words are these The Patriarchal or Metropolitical Church-Form is an Ecclesiastical Constitution and therefore certainly not an immediate Divine Institution though not therefore accidental according to the Phrase of my Dissenting Adversary but Catholick Communion is a Divine Institution and therefore the Combinations of Churches for Catholick Communion is Divine also though the particular Forms of such Combinations may be regulated and determined by Ecclesiastical Prudence which differs somewhat from what we call meer Humane Prudence because it is not the result of meer Natural Reason but founded on and accommodated to a Divine Institution So that here is no Archbishop no Primate no particular Forms of Combinations of Churches of Divine Institution they are Ecclesiastical Constitutions which may be regulated and altered by Ecclesiastical Prudence but Catholick Communion is a Divine Institution and therefore that Bishops and Churches should unite for the preservation of Catholick Communion is Divine though the particular Forms of such Combinations may be determined by Ecclesiastical Prudence which is somewhat more Sacred than Humane Prudence because it is founded on and accommodated to a Divine Institution I suppose the Reader is by this time very well satisfied about our Author's Justice in his Quotations as the Prefacer speaks 7. He observes that I teach that a compliance with the Order Government Discipline and Worship as well as the Doctrine of the Catholick Church is necessary to Catholick Communion For all Christians and Christian Churches are but One body and are thereby obliged to all Duties Offices and Acts of Christian Communion which are consequent upon such a Relation The Catholick Church is one Body and Society wherein all the Members there of have equal Right and Obligation to Christian Communion This he puts all together as One entire Reasoning though the parts of it are above three hundred Pages distant as he owns in the Margin and belong to very different things which is a very honest way of Quoting by which means we may make any Author speak what we please as the History of the Gospel has been described in Virgil's Verse The latter part of these words concern the Obligation of all Christians to Catholick Communion which what it is I have already explained In the former part he would insinuate that I make it necessary to Catholick Communion that all Churches should observe the same particular Orders Forms of Government Rites and Modes of Discipline and Worship and makes me give a very senseless Reason for it because all Christians and Christian Churches are but one Body and are thereby obliged to all Duties Offices and Acts of Christian Communion which are consequent upon such a Relation As if Christian Churches could maintain no Communion with each other unless they used the same Liturgy the same Rites and Ceremonies and were all governed by the same Ecclesiastical Canons whereas we know that all Churches in all Ages have had peculiar Liturgies peculiar Rites and Ceremonies peculiar Fasts and Feasts peculiar Canons and Rules of Discipline of their own as there are in many Cases to this day in the Church of Rome especially among their Religious Orders In the place from which he quotes these words I was Vindicating the Terms of Communion in the Church of England to be truly Catholick P. 392. There are these words For the Terms of our Communion are as Catholick as our Church is Diocesan Episcopacy Liturgies and Ceremonies have been received in all Churches for many hundred Years and are the setled Constitution of most Churches to this Day and this is the Constitution of the Church of England and the Terms of our Communion and must be acknowledged to be Catholick Terms if by Catholick Terms he means what has actually been received by the Catholick Church After much more of this Argument I add the words he quotes That though it be hard to determine what is in its own Nature absolutely necessary to Catholick Communion yet I can tell him de facto what is viz a Compliance with the Order Government Discipline and Worship as well as the Doctrine of the Catholick Church He who will not do this must separate from the Catholick Church and try it at the last day who was in the right I am content our Dissenters should talk on of unscriptural Terms of Communion so they will but grant that the Church of England is no more guilty of imposing unscriptural Terms than the Catholick Church it self has always been and when they have confidence enough to deny this I will prove it and shall desire no better Vindication of the Church of England than the practise of the Catholick Church This is so plain that I need say nothing more to explain it that if we will live in Catholick Communion we must own Episcopacy Liturgies Ceremonies which has been the ancient Government Worship Discipline of the Church and those who upon pretence of unscriptutural Terms separate from the Church of England for the sake of such Catholick Practices by the same reason must have renounced the Communion of the best and purest and most Catholick Churches since the Apostles Days But how far I ever was from thinking that the particular Rites and Modes of Worship must be the same in all Churches and that there can be no Communion without this any man may satisfie himself who will be pleased to read some few Pages in the Vindication beginning at p. 372 where I shew how impossible it is to maintain Catholick Communion between distinct Churches without allowing of such diversity of Rites which are and always were practised in different Churches Thus I have done with our Authour's Quotations and what Agreement there is between us the Reader must judge And now he pretends to draw up my Argument against the Dissenters which he says proceeds upon Roman-Catholick Principles But I shall not trouble my self to examine whether my Arguments against the Dissenters were good or no for I have no Dispute with them now and will have none but if they ever were good they are not Roman-Catholick Principles which make them so for I have no Roman-Catholick Principle in all my Book As for what he so often triumphs in the late King's Paper I tell him once for all I will have no Dispute with Kings but if he have any thing to say let him fetch his Arguments whence he will without alledging the King's Authority to make them good and he shall have an