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
no sooner said it but he unsays it again For says he It 's true that those who are for the divine Right of the Supream Jurisdiction of the Pope over the whole Catholick Church visible do hold the divine Right to be but mediate mediante Papa but the Followers of the Councils of Constance and Basil are against the Supream uncontroulable Power of the Pope and for the immediate divine Right of Episcopacy And it 's notorious from the Debates in the Council of Trent that the French Spanish and many other Roman-Catholicks stuck to their immediate Divine Right too and the great reason why opposition was made in the Court of Rome against the immediate divine Right of Bishops was an Opinion that the Supremacy of the Pope could not be secured on the granting it But Dr. Sherlock has found out a Notion which will be of great use to them for the divine Right of a Primacy is a great step to the Supremacy and this the Doctor doth establish consistently enough with the divine Right of Bishops As for my own Notion I have sufficiently vindicated that already from doing any Service to the Pope's Supremacy and see no occasion to add any thing more here But I wonder he should pitch upon this instance of the divine right of Episcopacy to show the Agreement between the two Churches when he himself is forced to acknowledge what fierce Debates there were in the Council of Trent about this matter He says indeed and that very truly that the French and Spanish Bishops in the Council did dispute very vehemently for the divine Institution of Episcopacy and he knows what a prevailing opposition was made against it The Pope sent express Orders to the Legates that whatever they did they should not suffer that to pass Laynez the Jesuit was appointed by the Legates and Papalins to make an elaborate Lecture against it Wherein he asserts that Christ built his Church upon Peter whose Name signifies a Stone in the Hebrew and Syriack and therefore according to the most Catholick exposition Peter himself is that Rock whereon Christ built his Church that the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to Peter only and by consequence Power to bring in and to shut out which is Jurisdiction So that the whole Jurisdiction of the Church is committed to Peter only and his Successors And if the Bishops had received any Jurisdiction from Christ it would be equal in all and no difference between Patriarchs Archbishops and Bishops neither could the Pope meddle with that Authority to diminish or take it all away as he cannot do in the Power of Order which is from God. That to make the Institution of Bishops de jure divino takes away the Hierarchy and introduces an Oligarchy or rather an Anarchy That according to the Order Instituted by Christ the Apostles were ordained Bishops not by Christ but by St Peter receiving Jurisdiction from him only or if they were ordained by Christ Christ only prevented St. Peter's Office for that one time That the Bishops are Ordinaries because by the Pope's Law they are made a Dignity of perpetual Succession in the Church That Councils themselves had no Authority but from the Pope for if every particular Bishop in Council may Err it cannot be denyed that they may all Err together and if the Authority of the Council proceeded from the Authority of Bishops it could never be called General because the number of the Assistants is always incomparably less than that of the Absent With much more to this purpose which is all full and home to the point which as the Bishop of Paris observed in his Censure of it makes but one Bishop Instituted by Christ and the others not to have any Authority but dependant from him which is as much as to say that there is but one Bishop and the others are his Vicars to be removed at his pleasure Whatever Opposition was made against this in the Council of Trent it could never prevail The Popes Supremacy was advanced in that Council to its greatest height and glory but the Divine Institution of Episcopacy was dropt though the whole Council was satisfied that the Divine Right of Supremacy and the Divine Institution of Episcopacy were inconsistent For this Reason the Pope and Legates and Italian Bishops opposed the Divine Institution of the Episcopacy and for the same Reason the other Party so vehemently contended for it and then I will leave any man to judge which of these two Opinions must pass for the Sense of the Council and Church of Rome We wish with all our Hearts the Church of Rome did agree with us in the Divine Institution of Episcopacy which was the Sense of the Primitive Church but unless all Parties in the Council of Trent were very much mistaken the Supremacy of the Pope as it is Taught by that Council does utterly overthrow the Divine Institution of Bishops and make them onely the Pope's Creatures and Dependants 3. As for his third Head of Agreement about the Hierarchy which is made up of Archbishops Bishops Deans Prebends Canons Arch-Deacons Chancellors Officials Priests Deacons c. This is onely an Ecclesiastical Body of human Institution for the good Government and Discipline of such Combined Churches and alterable again as the necessities of the Church requires and yet there is an Essential Difference between such Protestant National Combinations of Churches and the Popish Hierarchy The first is Independent on any Forreign Powers is perfect and entire in it self The second has an Oecumenick Pastor for it's Head and derives its Power and Authority from him and this is enough to be said about our Agreement in the Ministry II. The CEREMONIES OR EXTERNAL WORSHIP THIS is the next instance of Agreement between the Church of England and the Church of Rome and any man who considers the matter must needs be very much surprized at it For if the two Churches were so very well agreed about Ceremonies it is very strange that the Church of England from the beginning of the Reformation to this day has rejected such a vast number of Ceremonies as were then and still are in use in the Church of Rome And for my part it is my desire and prayer that they may always agree so while the Church of Rome maintains and practises such a corrupt Worship To make this out he says Our first Reformers opposed the Ceremonies of the Church of Rome upon the same Principles that our Dissenters now oppose the Ceremonies of the Church of England viz. by this Argument All Uninstituted Worship is False Superstitious and Idolatrous Worship But the Romish Ceremonious Worship is Uninstituted Ergo. And if our Author can shew me any such Argument urged by our first Reformers against Ceremonies that are meerly for Decency and Order and external Solemnity of Worship I will grant they argued very ill and did much worse to retain any such Ceremonies But if he cannot shew this as
vindicate my self I will own my own shame without casting the blame on my dear Mother the Church of England and I suppose it will be sufficient to vindicate my self if I first show him that I have in express words rejected all those Propositions wherein he pretends this Agreement consists Secondly Particularly vindicate those passages he transcribes out of my books and shew his sincerity in quoting and his skill in applying and then his French Popery may shift for it self excepting a word or two of that learned Arch-bishop Petrus de Marca As for the first He himself has collected the Particulars wherein we agree which I shall distinctly examine the Reader may find them p. 15 16. which are these 1. They both make the Catholick Church one visible governed Society Houshold or Kingdom This is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first and fundamental mistake and a wilful one too for I affirm the contrary in express words in the defence of Dr. Stilling fleet 's unreasonableness of Separation p. 565 566 upon occasion of that Dispute about the constitutive Regent Head of a National Church I expresly assert That the Unity both of the National and Universal Church consists in one Communion That Consent is all that is necessary to unite a Body or Socity in one Communion That their Unity consists only in consent not in any superior Governing Ecclesiastical Power on Earth which binds them together So that I absolutely deny That the Catholick Church is one governed Society with one supreme Government over the whole P. 567. I assert That Christ hath instituted no such constitutive Regent Power of one Bishop over another in his Church and therefore the Union of particular Churches into one must be made by consent not by Superiority of Power P. 564. I affirm That tho a National Church and the Reason is stronger for the Universal Church be one Body yet it is not such a political Body as they describe and cannot be according to its original Constitution which differs from Secular forms of Government which have a supreme governing Power by that Ancient Church-Canon of our Saviours own decreeing It shall not be so among you And thus a National Church as governed by consent may be one Body in an Ecclesiastical tho not in a Civil Political Sense that is by one Communion not by one Supreme governing Power The Dean in Answer to Mr. Baxter who asserts a constitutive Regent Head of the National Church necessary to make it a Church and yet allows That there is one Catholick Visible Church and that all particular Churches as headed by their particular Bishops or Pastors are parts of the Universal Church argues thus If this Doctrine be true and withal it be necessary that every Church must have a constitutive Regent Part as essential to it then it unavoidably follows That there must be a Catholick Visible Head to the Catholick Visible Church and so Mr. B's Constitutive Regent Part of the Church hath done the Pope a wonderful kindness and made a very plausible Plea for his Universal Pastorship Where the Dean proves That a Constitutive Regent Head is not essential to the Notion of a National Church for then it must be essential to the Catholick Church too and then there must be a supreme Pastor or some supreme governing Power over the whole Church which I suppose is to deny that the Catholick Church is one visible governed Society This Argument I defended at large and added p. 576. That to deny a Church can be one without a constitutive Regent Head infers one of these two things 1. Either that many particular Churches cannot associate into one for the joynt Exercise of Discipline and Government which overthrows the very Notion of Catholick Unity and Communion Or 2. That there is and must be a power in the Church superior to the Episcopal Power which naturally sets up a Pope above Bishops Thus much for my agreement with them that the Catholick Church is one visible governed Society that is which has a supreme Power over the whole and if our Author by this time does not begin to Colour I will e'en Blush for him But by this the Reader will perceive what a hopeful Cause this Author has undertaken to prove my Agreement with the Church of Rome about the Supremacy either of the Pope or General Council when I absolutely deny that there is or ought to be any such Superior Authority and Jurisdiction over the whole Church But to proceed 2. He says They both pitch upon the Episcopal Government as distributed into the several Subordinations of combined Churches as what is by Divine Institution made the Government of the Church A combination of Diocesan Churches to make up one Provincial whose Bishops are in Subordination to their Metropolitan a combination of Provincial Churches to make up a National and the Metropolitans in Subordination to the Primate a combination of National Churches to make up a Patriarchal and the Primates in Subordination to the Patriarch and a confederacy of Patriarchal to make up one Oecumenical and every Patriarch in Subordination to the Oecumenical Bishop or chief Patriarch This is an Agreement with a Witness and if he can prove this as he says he has done of which more presently we will never dispute more with them about Church-Government let us then consider the several steps and Gradations of Church-Authority which at last centers in an Universal Bishop 1. The Subordination of Parochial Presbyters who are combined and united under the Government of a Diocesan Bishop Thus far we agree with him and acknowledg a direct Superiority of Bishops over their respective Presbyters but we go not one step farther with him 2. A combination of Diocesan Churches to make up one Provincial whose Bishops are in Subordination to their Metropolitan Such a Combination I allow of but the Subordination I deny to be the original Form of Church Associations and this one word Subordination which he has here thrust in discovers the whole Trick and spoils our Agreement quite I assert these Combinations are for Communion not for Government and therefore there is no Subordination required to such an Union he will have these Combinations to be not meerly for Communion but for Government and that indeed requires a Subordination but these two Notions do as vastly differ as a friendly Association for mutual Advice and Counsel and a Subjection to a Superior Authority And that I have not altered my Opinion but that this was always my judgment in the case I shall now show and I need to that purpose only transcribe a Page or Two out of the Defence p 577 c. It is evident from the Testimony of the earliest Ages of the Church that first the Apostles and then the Bishops as their Successors were the Supreme Governours of the Church who had no higher Order or Power over them And therefore Tertullian calls the Bishop Summus Sacerdos or the chief and
highest Priest and Optatus Apices Principes the Tops and Princes of all which was the general Language of those days as any one who pleases may learn from Dr. Barrow's learned Treatise of the Popes Supremacy And as Bishops were the highest Governours of the Church so every Bishop was greatest in his own Diocess no other Bishop nor Synod of Bishops could impose any thing on him without his own Consent they met for Advice and Counsel not for Rule and Empire which Mr. B. tells us so often was Arch-bishop Usher's Judgment and which plainly was the Judgment and Practice of Antiquity as appears from what I have already discoursed about Catholick Communi on It were easie to transcribe several Passages out of St. Cyprian to this purpose especially from his Preface to the Council of Carthage where he tells them That they were met freely to declare their Opinions about this matter the Rebaptization of those who had been Baptized by Hereticks judging no man nor denying Communion to him if he dissent For neither doth any of us constitute himself Bishop of Bishops or by tyrannical terror compel his Colleagues to a necessity of obeying since every Bishop being free and in his own power has his own free choice and can neither be judged by another nor judg another but let us all expect the judgment of our Lord Iesus Christ who alone has power both to advance us to the Government of his Church and judg of our Government and in p. 579. I add Nor does this overthrow that very Ancient Constitution of Patriarchal or Metropolitan Churches for a Patriarch or Metropolitan was not a Superior Order to Bishops nor included any Authority over them as is evident from what St. Cyprian discoursed who was himself a Primate but only some precedency in the same Order and such advantages of Power in the Government of the Church as was given them by the common consent of Bishops for a greater publick good as the power of calling Provincial Synods and presiding in them and a principal Interest in the Ordination of Bishops in his Province and the like which were determined and limited by Ecclesiastical Canons It is true this Patriarchal Power did in time degenerate into Domination and Empire when it fell into the hands of ambitious men but was originally and is so still when wise and good men have the management of it a very prudent constitution to preserve Peace and Order and good Discipline in the Church But that Arch-bishops and Metropolitans had no proper Superiority and Jurisdiction over Bishops is evident from what St. Hierom objects against the Discipline of the Montenists Amongsts us i. e. the Catholicks the Bishops enjoy the place of the Apostles among them the Bishop is but the third for they have the Patriarch of Pepusa in Phrygia for the first those whom they call Cenones for the second thus Bishops are thrust down into the third that is almost the last place And yet in St. Hieroms time the Catholick Church had Archbishops and Metropolitans but yet it seems not such as degraded Bishops or advanced any above them Whether this be true Reasoning or no shall be examined when there is occasion for it all that I am concerned in at present is only to show that I never asserted such an Original Combination of Metropolitical Churches as placed Bishops in subordination to the Metropolitan or gave him a direct Authority or Jurisdiction over them and here our Agreement must for ever break off for if it will not reach to the Jurisdiction of Metropolitans and Primates much less will it extend to Patriarchs and least of all to an Oecumenical Pastor whom I have in express terms rejected and for what reason will appear anon 3. The next instance of Agreement is That we both agree in giving to a General Council direct Authority over their Collegues in matters that concern the Purity of Faith and Manners and the Unity of the Church But here are two considerable Mistakes in this Matter 1. That I give this Authority to a General Council 2. That I give a General Council or any other Combination of Bishops a direct Authority over their Collegues 1. That I give this Authority to General Councils My Dissenting Adversaries began this Charge that I set up a General Council as a Superior Governing Power over the whole Church and consequently over all Bishops and therefore was no better than a Cassandrian or a French Papist and our Author revives this charge without taking any notice that it was ever Objected and Answered before indeed he has Objected nothing in this whole matter but what was before Objected by Dissenters with as much Art and appearance of Truth as he has now given it And I could more easily forgive it in them because it might be an innocent mistake in them till these notions were thoroughly sifted and set in a better light but for our Author to read that very Book The Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet wherein all these Objections were made and Answered and to renew the Charge and repeat the Objections again without taking notice of any Answer that was given to them is such a piece of Ingenuity as an honest Dissenter would be ashamed of In my Defence of the Dean there was not one word which looked towards a General Council excepting the Collegium Episcopale or the Episcopal Colledg which some mistook for a General Council but this mistake I rectified in the Vindication p. 146. I observed that Optatus called the whole body of Bishops Collegium Episcopale and upon the same account St. Cyprian and St. Austin call all Catholick Bishops Collegues and they may as well say That when the Fathers speak of the Unity of the Episcopacy they mean their Union in a General Council as that they mean a General Council by the Colledg of Bishops In St. Cyprians time there never had been a General Council excepting the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem and yet when he wrote to forreign Bishops with whom he never was joined in Council nor ever like to be he calls them his Collegues or those of the same Colledg with him which signifies no more than that they were of the same Power and Authority with him and united in one Communion And what my thoughts are of a General Council whoever pleases may see some Pages after p. 162 163 c. 2. Nor do I give a direct Authority to any Bishops or Council of Bishops over their Collegues This I expresly deny in Forty places as to be sure every man must do who acknowldges that all Bishops have originally an equal power and the Supreme Authority in their respective Diocesses That no Bishops either single or united have any direct Authority or Superiority over each other That the combinations of Churches and the Synods and Councils of Bishops are not for direct acts of Government and Superiority over each other with several other
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
another to believe and practise that which I am not assured to be truth As if no man could be certain of any thing without Infallibility Now all his Arguments proceeding upon this Mistake that we own a Superiority of one Bishop over another that Bishops own Obedience and Subjection to Archbishops and Primates and they to Patriarchs whereas we own no such thing but teach that all Bishops are equal as I have already explained it and that these combinations of Bishops into Archiepiscopal and National Churches are not for direct acts of Government and Superiority over each other but for mutual Advice and Counsel All his Arguments from the Superiour Power of Archbishops Metropolitans and Patriarchs to prove that there must be an Universal Pastor fall with it 3. By an Oecumenic Pastor he means the Universal Visible Ruling Head of the Catholick Organized Church Militant This is easily understood the only difficulty is to prove that the Catholick Church is such an organized body as must have an universal visible ruling Head. And thus I come to his Reasons whereby he proves that the Subordination of Pastors in the Church does necessarily infer the Supremacy of an Oecumenick or Universal Pastor 1. His first Argument is that there is the same Politick Reason for an Universal Pastor that there is for any subordinate Pastor that hath Pastors subjected unto him Now suppose this were true we do not sound the original right of Government of superiority and subjection between the Pastors of the Church upon any politick Reasons but only upon Institution and therefore though the Politick Reasons were the same if the Institution be not the same that makes an essential difference and spoils all the Arguments from a parity of Reason The only Subordination we allow of is the Subordination of Presbyters to their Bishops and that we found on an Apostolick Institution and if we will speak in the Ancient Language this is not the Subordination of one Pastor to another for none were called the Pastors of the Church in St. Cyprian's days but Bishops who are the Apostles Successors to whom Christ intrusted the care of feeding his Sheep For though Presbyters are intrusted with the care of the Flock yet they are not compleat Pastors because they are under the direction and government of their Bishop in the Exercise of their Ministry and according to Ignatius his Rule must do nothing without him but Bishops are the Supream Governours and Pastors of their particular Churches and we allow of no Subordination of Bishops that is of Pastors to each other This our Transcriber was sensible of and therefore here he leaves his Copy The Independent Author gives his first instance in a Diocesan Bishop ruling his Parish Priests or parochial Pastors the chief end of the said Bishop being Iurisdiction determination of Ecclesiastical Causes regulation and ordination of his Clergy unity order uniformity Now our Popish Transcriber was sensible that there was not such a Subordination between Bishops as there is of Presbyters to Bishops and therefore he changes a Diocesan Bishop into a Provincial Pastor ruling his Diocesan Bishops and regulation and ordination of his Clergy into regulating Abuses and Consecration of Bishops So that he was conscious to himself that there is not the same politick reason for the Subordination of Bishops to each other that there is for the Subordination of Presbyters to their Bishops which is the only Subordination we own and thus I might dismiss his first Argument But is there not a Subordination of Bishops to Archbishops allowed and practised in the Church of England and interwoven with the Constitution of it and it this be thought necessary to the unity and good government of a National Church is there not greater need for a principium unitatis regiminis a principle of unity and government in conjoyning many National Churches in one Patriarchal or all in one Oecumenic as for uniting Provincials in one Primateship or for subjecting Diocesans to their respective Provincials This is the whole force of the Argument which I have sufficiently answered already but shall briefly consider it again 1. Then I observe that whatever superiority or jurisdiction Archbishops challenge over Bishops it is but a Humane Institution for all Bishops with respect to the original Institution of Episcopacy are equal and therefore the superiority of Archbishops oven Bishops cannot prove that Christ has appointed a Supream Pastor over the whole Church and all the Bishops of it for Christ has not made an Archbishop superiour to a Bishop much less a Pope superior to them all So that at most if they proceed upon this Argument they must quit all pretence to a Divine Right and confess the Pope to be as very a Humane Creature as an Archbishop is and then we know what to say to them 2. For the being and authority of Archbishops and consequently of such an Oecumenical Bishop is not necessary and essential to the unity of the Church as no Humane Institution can be Christ Instituted his Church which is but one Church without Archbishops and Metropolitans and consequently without an Oecumenical Bishop and therefore they cannot be necessary to the unity of the Church For if Christ instituted this one Church in a parity of Bishops it must be one without such a superiority as is only of Humane institution The Church cannot be one without the essential principle of unity and if an Oecumenical Pastor be this essential principle of unity then either he must be appointed by Christ and so his institution does not result from a parity of reason with the Archiepiscopal and Patriarchal Authority which were not Instituted by Christ and then this Argument is lost or else Christ instituted one Church without the essential principle of unity which is as great an absurdity as to say that there can be one Church without a principle of unity 3. As the Archiepiscopal and Patriarchal Authority is originally of Humane Institution so it is plain that before the Church was incorporated into the State and it may be some time after it did not give a direct Authority and jurisdiction to one Bishop over another For St. Cyprian who was a Primate himself disowns such an authority as makes them Bishops of Bishops and in St. Ieromes time the Bishop was the highest order in the Church and of what place soever they were Bishops they were all Equal which is a contradiction if one had a direct superiority over another and therefore such combinations of Bishops as I have often observed were not essential to the unity of the Church but were a good prudential means to maintain a strict allyance between Neighbour Bishops was very useful for mutual advice and council gave great authority to Church Discipline when every particular Bishop though he had the supreme Authority in his own Church yet did not act meerly upon his own Head but with the consent and advise of the whole Province or
consisting of particular Churches as of integral Parts But now the Apostle makes every particular Church to be such an organized Body consisting of all the integral Parts of a Church a Bishop Presbyters Deacons and faithful People and therefore particular Churches are not properly organized Parts of the Catholick Church as the hands or legs are of a humane Body which is made up of several other members of a different nature but as organized wholes every particular Church being a complete and entire Church not a part of a Church and the Catholick Church is considered as one not so much by uniting all particular Churches considered as particular Churches which is to unite a great many wholes together to make one whole which is perfectly unintelligible but by uniting the several parts of which each particular Church consists into one they being the same in all and this makes one organized Catholick Church of the same nature and constitution the same Officers and Members with every particular organized Church As for instance A particular organized Church as I have now observed consists of a Bishop Presbyters Deacons and faithful People and the whole Catholick Church consists of the same Parts and can have no other and yet there are no Bishops Presbyters Deacons Christian People to make up this Catholick Church but what belong to some particular Churches and yet particular Churches are not Parts of a Church but compleat entire Churches as having all the integral Parts of a perfect Church and therefore particular organiz'd Churches cannot make up a whole Church as the several Parts make a whole Body because they are each of them a whole where then shall we find Bishops Presbyters Deacons People to make up one Catholick Church Now in this case there can be no other Notion of the Catholick Church but the Union of the same Parts of all particular Churches into One and then the Union of all these united Parts into one Body makes the one Catholick Church As to explain this briefly St. Cyprian tells us that there is but one Episcopacy or one Bishoprick as I have already shown and therefore all the Bishops who are now dispersed over all the World and have the Supream Government of their particular Churches must be reckoned but one Bishop for thô their natural Persons are distinct they are but one Ecclesiastical Person their Office Power and Dignity being one and the same not divided into Parts but exercised by all of them in their several Churches with the same fulness and plenitude of Power and thus we have found out one Bishop for the one Catholick Church all the Bishops in the World being but one for thô they are many distinct Persons they are but one Power and exercise the same Office without Division or Multiplication And thus all the Presbyters in the World who are under the Direction and Government of their several Bishops are but one Presbytery of the Catholick Church for if the Episcopacy be but one the Presbytery must be but one also in subordination to this one Episcopacy the like may be said of Deacons and of Christian People that they are but one Body and Communion under one Bishop Where there is but one Bishop there can be but one Church and therefore one Episcopacy unites all Christians into one Body and Communion How this is consistant with the many Schisms and Divisions of the Christian Church shall be accounted for else-where This is a plain intelligible account how all the particular Churches in the World are but one Church because all the Parts and Members which answer to each other in these particular Churches are but one by the Institution of Christ All their Bishops but one Bishop all their Presbyters but one Presbytery all the Christians of particular Churches but one Body and Communion and thus the Catholick Church is an organized Body consisting of the same parts that all particular Churches consist of Just as if Five Thousand Men whose Bodies have all the same Members should by a coalition of corresponding Parts grow up into one Body that all their Heads their Arms their Legs c. should grow into one which would make a kind of Universal organized Body of the same nature with what every single individual Man has And that there can be no other Notion of the Catholick Church as considered in this World Ethink is very plain from this that there is but one Notion of a Church and therefore the Catholick Church and particular Churches must have the very same Nature and integral Parts If a Bishop Presbyters and Christian People make a particular Church there must be the very same parts in the Catholick Church or you must shew us two distinct Notions of a Church and that the Catholick and particular Churches differ in their essential Constitution If the Notion be the same and all particular Churches constitute the Catholick Church then these particular Churches must constitute the Catholick Church just as they are constituted themselves that is of Bishops Presbyters and People and therefore all the Bishops of particular Churches must make but one Catholick Episcopacy all the Presbyters but one Presbytery all the Christian People but one Body and Communion and then the Catholick Church and particular Churches are exactly the same one Body of Bishops Presbyters and People And this utterly destroys all subordination between Bishops for if to the Notion of the Catholick Church all Bishops must be considered as one than every Bishop must be equal for an inferior and superior Bishop cannot be one And if the Notion of the Catholick Church did require one Supream Oecumenical Pastor to whom all particular Bishops are subordinate then the Catholick and particular Churches are not of the same Species for the one has a soveraign the other a subordinate Head and therefore is not a compleat and perfect Church nor of the same kind with the Church which has the soveraign Head. And thus I think I might safely dismiss all our Author's Criticisms about the several kinds of Totums which he has transcribed from the Independent Copy excepting some peculiar Absurdities of his own For the Catholick Church properly speaking is no Totum at all with respect to particular Churches which are not properly Parts of the Catholick Church considered as particular organized Churches but the Catholick Church is one Church by the Union of all the corresponding Parts of particular Churches which we have no example of that I know in Nature nor is it to be expected to find the exemplars of such Mystical Unions in Nature which depend not upon Nature but upon Institution but it may not be amiss briefly to show our Author 's great skill in such matters He takes it for granted that the Church Catholick must be some kind of Totum or whole and therefore undertakes to prove that in all Totums there must be a Subordination of parts and therefore there must be a Supreme Oecumenical Pastor in the Catholick
Church Now he says Totum is most legally I suppose it should be Logically divided into quatenus integrum and quatenus genus such a whole as a Body is which has all its parts or such a whole as a Genus is to a Species and one of these he thinks the Catholick Church must be But then his Author minded him that there was an aggregate whole such a whole as a heap of Corn is but he told him also that this was but a kind of Integrum though if this Integrum signifies such a whole as has integrating Parts the union of which makes the whole such an Aggregate as has neither any parts nor any union is a pretty kind of Integrum but reduction may do great things and therefore I won't dispute that but since he has named this Aggregate whole if any man should be so perverse as to say that the Catholick Church is such an aggregate Body consisting of all particular co-ordinate Churches what would become of his Subordination of Pastors for what Subordination is there in aggregate Bodies in those Grains suppose which make up a heap of Corn which are all alike The Independent Author foresaw this Objection but medles not with it like a wise man who would not conjure up a Devil which he could not lay but this Transcriber is bold and brave and sometimes ventures out of his depth without his Bladders and then he is usually ducked for it He tells us p. 70. That an aggregate whole has integral parts which I believe is a new Notion for I thought it had been a collection of incoherent things which had no union nor relation to each other as parts have to the whole But how much he understands of this matter appears from the example he gives for he takes an Army to be such an aggregated whole if he had said a Rout or a Rabble had been such an Aggregate he had come near the business but I fear the King's Guards will not take it well to be thought a meer aggregate Body But he could find no other Aggregate wherein there is a Subordination of parts and therefore an Army must pass for such an Aggregate But let us consider his Totum integrum which is a Natural or Political whole such as the Body of Man or a Community is which is made up of several parts which are integral and essential to its composition Now according to the right Notion of Subordination the whole is divided into the next but greater parts and they into the next lesser and they into lesser or least of all Well then let us apply this to the Body of Man which are the greater and lesser parts and least of all into which it must be divided Which are the Superiour and which the Subordinate Parts in a Humane Body There are some indeed which are higher and others lower in the scituation of the Body some more noble and more useful than others but there is no Subordination between them that I know of but the Soul governs them all and they have the same care one of another Indeed Subordination relates onely to governed Societies which may be divided as he speaks into greater or less superior or subordinate Parts which is another kind of Integrum such as we call a Community But suppose this be what he means by his Integrum not a Natural but a Political whole how does he prove that in every such Integrum there must be such a Subordination of parts as at last centers in one Supreme Governour For what does he think of Democracies or Aristocracies Who is the Supreme where all are equal And should any man say that all the Bishops of the Catholick Church are equal without any supreme Head over them as Democratical or Aristocratical Princes are how would he be able to confute him from his notion of Integrum And therefore the meer notion of an Integrum will not prove such a Subordination of parts as center in one supreme Head but he must prove that the constitution of the Christian Church is such as is under the Government of one supreme visible Head. His next Totum is Genericum His Author had confessed that this does not belong to the Church and he confesses it after him in the very same words This Notion I 'll not further prosecute because according to the best Logical and Theological Rules the application of a Genius doth not so well suit the nature of the Catholick Church it being more properly an Integrum than a Genus And yet he would not lose this opportunity neither to let us see his great skill in Logick but since they both confess it is nothing to the purpose I shall not trouble my Readers with it 3. He argues from the nature of Subordination it self of any kind which always supposes a Supremum infimum And if there be in the Church a Subordination of Pastors as our Protestant Prelates assert then there must be a supreme as well as the lowest Term viz. A Catholick Pastor for the highest range or round of the Ladder and a Parish Priest or as our Bishops would have it of late a Diocesan for the lowest the continuation being always to a neplus ultra at both ends of the Line Which for ought I see does as well prove an Universal Monarch as an Universal Pastor For he tells us this holds in any kind of Subordination We do grant indeed that there is a Subordination of Pastors in the Church i. e. that Presbyters are Subordinate to Bishops but we say with all Antiquity that a Bishop even a Diocesan Bishop is not the lowest but the highest term for a Bishop is the highest Order in the Church and all Bishops are of equal Power and this without any danger of Independency as I have already shown 4. His next Argument is from the derivation and original of Pastoral Office and Power The Sum of which in short is this that every Pastor must receive his Pastoral Power from some Superior Pastor that as Presbyters are ordained by Bishops so Bishops by their Metropolitans they by their Primate and they by the Oecumenical Bishop from whom they receive the Pastoral Staff. But he forgot all this while from whom this Oecumenical Bishop must receive his Orders and whether those who ordain the Pope are his Superiors Such Talk as this might become the Independant well enough from whom he transcribes it but is pretty Cant for a Romanist for whoever has Authority to confer Orders may certainly confer them whether he be a Superior or Equal and therefore he ought to have proved that none but a Superior can have Authority to confer Orders and then he must find a Superior to the Pope to give him his Oecumenical Power The Catholick Church has always owned the Power of Order to be in Bishops who are the highest Order of the Church and have a plenitude of Ecclesiastical Power which is the reason why Presbyters cannot
ordain without their Bishop because they are not compleat Pastors but act in subordination to and dependance on their Bishops and therefore have not such a fulness of Power in themselves as to communicate it to others 5. In the next place he argues from the chief ends of Subordination of Pastors in the Church viz. That there may be place for Appeals in matters of Controversie in Cases of Male-administration by the subordinate Clergy final Determinations of difficult Ecclesiastical Causes Correction of Heresie and Schism as also establishment of Ceremonies Schism and Ceremonies belong to the next head of Arguments where his Author placed them but this Transcriber has not Judgment enough to write after his Copy but will sometimes venture to alter thô without sense But there are as many choice passages in his pursuit of this Argument as one could wish which would make one suspect that the Independent Author himself was a well-wisher to Popery he disputes so heartily for a last Supream Judge to receive Appeals and for the Infallibility of such a Judge But there is nothing more required to answer this Argument but to give a plain state of this case of Appeals We must distinguish then between Ecclesiastical Causes and consider the original Right of Appeals As for Ecclesiastical Causes nothing is a pure Ecclesiastical Cause but what concerns the Communion of the Church who shall be received into Communion or cast out of it or put under some less Censures which confines this either to Faith or Manners But as for other causes which are called Ecclesiastical because they concern Ecclesiastical Things or Persons such as the repairs of Churches advowsance of Livings Tithes Glebe Oblations c. they are rather of a Civil than Ecclesiastical Cognizance thô Bishops and Ecclesiastical Persons are entrusted by the Civil Powers with the determination of them and in such Matters as these it is fit there should lie Appeals as there do in all other Civil Matters but then it is sit also that these Appeals should be bounded as all other Civil Appeals are within the Kingdom or Territory where the cause arises for to carry such Appeals out of the Kingdom is as great an injury to the Authority of the Prince as to the Liberties of the Subject A Soveraign Prince has all civil Power and Jurisdiction and to suffer Appeals to Foreign Bishops or Princes is to own a Superior in his own Dominions and therefore in such matters as these no Appeal can lie to an Oecumenick Bishop As for causes purely Ecclesiastical the Bishop being Supream in his own Diocess there can be no original Right of Appeal from him for there is no Appeal from the Supreme he has a free power in the Government of his own Diocess and must render an account of his actions to Christ who is the supreme Lord of the Church as St. Cyprian tells us But as notwithstanding this it is very expedient and in some degree necessary that neighbour Bishops should unite into an Ecclesiastical Body for the maintainance of Catholick Communion and the exercise of Discipline as I have already shewn so the very nature of such combinations admits and requires Appeals that if any Presbyter or private Christian be too severely censured by his Bishop or without just cause he may find relief from the Synod or Primate or in whomsoever the power of receiving Appeals is placed for Bishops are men and liable to humane Passions and frailties and it would be impossible to maintain the Authority of Church censures without such Appeals For though there be no original right of Appeals from the Sentence of one Bishop to another yet every Bishop has authority to receive whom he judges fit into the Communion of his own Church and should one Bishop depose a Presbyter or Excommunicate a lay Christian unjustly should they go into another Diocess if the Bishop of it judged them worthy of Communion he might receive them into Communion notwithstanding these censures for he is Judge in his own Church as the other was in his But how contemptible would Ecclesiastical Censures be if they reached no farther than single Diocesses and what dissensions would this create among Bishops should one receive those into Communion whom the other had cast out Which makes it highly expedient that neighbour Bishops should be made not the Judges of their fellow Bishops or their actions as it is in superiour Courts which have a direct Authority over the inferiour but Umpires and Arbitrators of such differences as may happen between the Bishop and his Clergy or People which will preserve the peace and concerd of Bishops and give a more sacred Authority to Ecclesiastical Censures But then these Appeals must be confined to this Ecclesiastical Body and not carried to foreign Churches for by the same reason that these Ecclesiastical Bodies and Communions must be confined within such limits as admit of such combinations of which I have given an account above these Appeals also must be confined to the Ecclesiastical Bodies as St Cyprian expresly affirms that the Cause should be heard there where the Crime was committed Thus we see there is no need of an Oecumenical Pastor to receive Appeals much less of an Infallible Judge for this purpose and thus I might dismiss this Argument were it possible to pass it over without observing some peculiar strains of Reason and Rhetorick in it As for Example That Appeals are to no end if there be not some Supreme Catholic Pastor to arrive at in whose determination we are bound to set down and rest satisfied As if there could be no last Appeal but to a Catholick Pastor or no man were bound to rest satisfied in any other last Appeal But I perceive the satisfaction he means is the satisfaction of having our Cause determined by an Infallible Judge who cannot Err Which it may be is the first time a Roman Catholick for I must except his Independent Original ever made the Pope an Infallible Judge not onely in matters of Faith but of all Causes which are brought before him by Appeals But why may not the last Appeal be made to any one else as well as to the Catholick Pastor No the mind of the whole Catholick Church may be had in the Principium unitatis but no other National Provincial or Diocesan Pastor have the mind of the whole Catholick Church Which I can make nothing more of but that the mind of the Catholick Paston is the mind of the Catholick Church and therefore the Catholick Pastor if he speaks his own mind speaks the mind of the Catholick Church too He is the Head and if we will know a mans mind we must resort to the Head not to the Arms or Legs where you can onely expect a dumb kick or box under the Ear as we have had enough of from our Protestant Prelates A Diocesan Provincial or Primate are but the Churches more surly and less intelligible Organs but Arms
requires every Man 's own Judgment and his personal Assent I deny not but it may be of great Use for Christian Princes and Emperors to summon such Councils as these as Constantine and other succeeding Emperors did for there was no such thing as what we call a General Council till Constantine summoned the first Council at Nice For Christian Princes and Emperors are concerned to encourage and support the true Christian Faith and Worship and they are as much concerned not to be misguided in these Matters which instead of Nursing Fathers may make them Persecutors of the true Church And to prevent this they cannot take a better way when the Church is divided by Schisms and Heresies then to summon such a great Council where the Matters in Dispute may be freey debated but I look upon these rather to be Councils of the Empire than of the Church which have no other Authority but what either the Imperial Sanctions give them or what every Church gives them by receiving their Decrees And it is evident from Ecclesiastical Story that the bear Authority of these Councils never put an end to any one Dispute any farther than they were backed by the Imperial Power which is an Argument that they did not believe in those days such Councils to be Infallible or to be the Supream Tribunal of the Christian Church They were indeed Supream Tribunals when Princes made them so but not by any meer Ecclesiastical Authority and Jurisdiction If then a Council of Bishops be onely for mutual Advice and a Council for Advice requires the personal Presence of all Bishops and though all the Bishops of one Province or one Nation may conveniently enough meet together for Advice yet all the Bishops of the World cannot then I think it is plain that the Consequence from a National to an Oecumenical Council is not good especially 2dly Since there is no need of it to Catholick Communion The Christian Churches maintained a very strict Alliance and Communion with each other for above Three Hundred Years without it Catholick Communion was better preserved then than ever it has been since which is a demonstration that such a Supream governing Power over the whole Church is not necessary to Catholick Communnion for then Catholick Communion could never have been maintained without it and yet thus it was in St. Cyprian's days who was as Zealous an Asserter of Catholick Communion as any before or since In those days the Bishops of Neighbour Churches frequently met together to Advise about the general Concernments of the Church and if any thing hapned which concerned the Discipline of the whole Church as it did in St. Cyprian's days about the case of the lapsed and rebaptizing those who had been baptized by Hereticks they sent their Letters to Forreign Churches and took their Advice about it and by this means did more perfectly understand one anothers Judgments and Reasons and came to a better accord and agreement than they could have done had they met in a General Council consisting onely of some few Representative Bishops I am sure by this means St. Cyprian says their Decrees were confirmed by all the Bishops in the World and Optatus says that this Catholick Communion was maintained all the World over by formed and communicatory Letters It seems they did not think then that one governing Head was necessary to Catholick Communion and therefore though Catholick Communion does require the Union of Neighbour Churches into one Combined Church it does not require such an Union and Combination of all the Churches in the World. Thus I have particularly answered this Author's charge excepting his vain Repetitions of the same Cavils without giving any new force or strength to them and I think any ordinary Reader may see how far I am from setting up the supream Authority either of Pope or General Council over the Universal Church and how impossible it is to graft such consequences upon my Principles with any shew or pretence of Reason And now as for his French Popery let it be what it will I am unconcerned in it since I give no Supream Authority neither to Pope nor General Council and therefore neither agree with the Italian nor Spanish nor French nor any Popery of what denomination soever But I must add a word or two about Petrus de Marca because it seems my Honesty and Credit is very much concerned in this matter so deeply that no man ought ever to believe me more and though I suppose the Reader sees what credit he is to give to this Author yet I must speak at least a good word for my own honesty and to do that I must give a brief account of the occasion of my alleadging the Authority of Petrus de Marca I was charged by my dissenting Adversaries with a Cassandrian design for setting up as they apprehended the Authority of a General Council For there is not one word which this Author has objected against me but what was before objected by the Dissenters and answered in the Vindication Now having shewn them their mistake in this Charge that I had asserted nothing which did infer the Authority of a General Council as the Supream Regent Head of the Catholick Church I over and above shewed them how vain this Charge of Cassandrian or French Popery was though I had given such an Authority to a General Council For meerly to assert the Authority of a General Council does not make any man a Papist of no sort whatsoever unless he assert the Authority of the Pope for though there be some dispute whose Authority is greatest the Popes or the Councils yet no man is a Papist who does not own the Pope to be the Supream and Oecumenical Pastor and therefore I having expresly disowned all Authority of the Pope or Bishop of Rome though I had owned the Authority of a General Council I could be no Papist not so much as a Cassandrian or French Papist So that this is the thing I was to prove that there is no Papist but owns the Pope to be the Supream Head of the Church the Universal and Oecumenical Pastor This I proved Cassander did who asserts That to the Unity of the Catholick Church is required Obedience to One Supream Governour who succeeds Peter in the government of Christ's Church and in the Office of feeding his Sheep and that it is evident from all the Records of the Church that the chief Authority of the Universal Church has always been yielded to the Bishop of Rome as Peter's Successor who sits in his Chair This I proved also of the Councils of Constance and Basil That though they decreed the Council to be above the Pope yet they asserted the Popes Supream Pastorship That all particular men and particular Churches are bound to obey the Pope unless in such matters as are prejudicial to this holy Synod or any other which is lawfully assembled as the Council of Basil expresly teaches And
the whole though made up of organized parts But this we must not say for then we spoil his Argument and yet he knows that every one who denies an Universal Pastor set over the whole Church must and does say it So that the sum of his Argument is this If you will allow the whole Church to be an organized Body that is to be under the Government of an Universal Pastor then you must own an Universal Pastor but if you will not own this he has nothing to say to you but that you ought in civility to own it to make good his Argument If men will be so perverse as to own particular National Churches to be Organized Bodies and to deny the Universal Church to be thus Organized as we all do then they may own a National Primate and deny an Oecumenical Pastor and if men own the Universal Church to be such an Organized Body they must own an Universal Pastor whether they own Archbishops and Primates or not and therefore Archbishops and Primates might have been left out of this Argument because they signifie nothing in it and consequently the whole Argument is nothing to his design to prove that those who own Archbishops and Primates must own an Universal Pastor Well but he undertakes for us that we will not grant that the Universal Church is an unorganized Body because it lays a necessary Foundation for particular Co-ordinate Churches Congregational or Presbyterian If he had said Episcopal he had said right and we know no inconvenience in this to say that all Episcopal Churches are Co-ordinate since all Bishops by an original Right are equal But besides if the Catholick Church be considered in its largest acceptation and extent comprehending the Militant and Triumphant Parts the Scripture tells us it 's an Organized Body being called a Body of which the Lord Iesus Christ is the living Head. This is purely his own for his Author had more Wit than to say it The whole Church Militant and Triumphant or the Church in Earth and Heaven is but one Church and this one Church is united to Christ the Head of the Church and this proves that the Church on Earth cannot have any other Head as the Principle of Unity but only Christ For the Head of the Church must be the Head of the whole Church as the Head is the Head of the whole Body And therefore the Church on Earth being part of the Church not the whole for the Church in Heaven is the largest and best part of the Body it cannot have a visible Head on Earth because such a Head cannot be the Head of the whole Body for those who say the Bishop of Rome is the Head of the visible Militant Church on Earth yet never pretended that he is the Head of the invisible Triumphant Church in Heaven now the Church on Earth can never have a Head which is not the Head of the Church in Heaven unless we will say that part of a Body as the Church on Earth is may have a Head by it self which is not Head to the other part of the Body which is a thing that never was heard of in the World before that a Head should be Head only to part of the Body and not to the whole when the Body is but one But what does he mean when he says that the Church Militant and Triumphant is an Organized Body What Organization is there in the Church Triumphant They are all indeed united to Christ and so are his Body but there are no different organical Parts in this Body no differing Ranks and Offices that we know of in the Church in Heaven no distinction between Clergy and Laity Prophets and Apostles Pastors and Teachers there for these Offices cease with the use of them and therefore they are not united to Christ in one organical Body which has different Members and Offices in Heaven and therefore thô the Church on Earth consists of such organized Bodies yet it is not their Organization which unites them to Christ for then this would be necessary in Heaven as well as in Eartth for the same one Body and every part of it must be united to Christ in the same manner and by the same kind of Union and if the Union of the Church on Earth does not consist in its Organization to be sure there is no necessity that the whole Church on Earth should be one organized Body to make it the Body of Christ. The Organization of particular Churches is for the Edification and good Government of all the Members of it not immediately for their Union to Christ and therefore if the whole Church may be edified and well governed by the Organization of particular Churches the Church being called the Body of Christ cannot prove that the whole Church on Earth is one organical Body But if particular Churches be organized it 's most natural and fit that the Mother Teeming Church should have the most proportionate Adaptation of Parts A Mother that brings forth organized Children is supposed to be organized her self Nihil dat quod non habet Wherefore all other less comprehensive Churches coming out of the Womb of Mother Church and proved to be organized Bodies it 's naturally necessary that she her self should be homogeneous or of same kind otherwise the Mother must be more monstrous than the Daughters Here he forsakes his Guide again and falls into Nonsense Could he find out a Mother Church which is none of the Daughters a Catholick Church which is distinct from all Particulars this would be a notable Argument indeed to prove the Catholick Church to be organized because particular Churches are but if there be no Teeming Mother Church but what is a particular Church it self if no Church brings forth Churches as a Woman brings forth her Daughters nay if Churches are not brought forth but Christians who are afterwards formed into Church-Societies if all this at best be nothing but Metaphor and Allusion and that without any real likeness and similitude too we may safely allow him such kind of Arguments as these for his organized Catholick Church Well but now these particular Churches are transformed from Daughters into integral Parts of the Mother Catholick Church nay are Daughters and integral Parts too which constitute the Mother and then a Body which is made up of Organized Parts is always it self Organized e. g. in all Animals in a Man the head hand legs c. are each organized for the compleating the totality of that part and therefore are becoming Organs to the whole man and hence the man is an Organized Body Now indeed if the whole Church were such a Body as the natural Body of a Man is and did consist of particular Churches which did as much differ in their nature and use and organization as the head and hand and legs do in the natural Body this were a very notable Argument to prove the whole Church to be an organized Body
to it Ceremonies and Acts of Religion as having some relation to religious Actions yet he expresly distinguishes between the Parts of Worship and the external Adjuncts and Instruments of it and therefore does not call our Ceremonies Acts of Worship as that signifies a part of God's immediate Worship but in a more lax sense to include all external Adjuncts and Solemnities of Worship And therefore the Church of England never had any occasion to justifie her Worship by such distinctions as the Church of Rome has invented of Primary and Secondary Essential and Accidental Proper and Improper Worship whereby they endeavour to justifie that Worship they pay to Saints and Angels and Images which we have no use of because we Worship none but God. And our Author is a very pleasant Man who would justifie the Worship of Images under the Notion of Ceremonies surely the Church of England is not agreed with them here too for we know no such Ceremonies as are the Objects of Worship and that an Image is in the Church of Rome we use some indifferent and significant Ceremonies in the Worship of God but we do not worship our Ceremonies III. The AGREEMENT ABOUT IMAGE-WORSHIP THIS will be Answered in a few Words He forms his Argument from a Passage in the Answer to Papists protesting against Protestant Popery and from another in the Discourse against Transubstantiation p. 21. and from the Ceremony of Kneeling at the receiving the Lords Supper The Answerer says that to pay the External Acts of Adoration to or before or in Presence of a Representative Object of Worship as Representing is the very same thing In the Discourse against Transubstantiation it is observed That the Doctrine of the Corporal Presence of Christ was started upon occasion of the Dispute about the Worship of Images in opposition whereto the Synod of Constantinople about the Year of Christ 750. did argue thus That our Lord having left us no other Image of Himself but the Sacrament in which the Substance of the Bread is the Image of his Body we ought to make 〈◊〉 other Image of our Lord. In Answer to this Argument the second Council of Nice in the Year 787. did Declare That the Sacrament after Consecration is not the Image and Antitype of Christs Body and Blood but is properly his Body and Blood. And then the Church of England has enjoyned Bowing or Kneeling at the Reception of the Lords Supper for a Signification of our humble and grateful Acknowledgments of the Benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers and for avoiding such Prophanation and Disorder in the Holy Communion as might otherwise ensue From these Premises our Author thus Argues So that Kneeling is Expressive of the inward Reverence of the Heart to Christ and so is an Act of Religious Adoration the Kneeling then before the Sacramental Signs is the same with Kneeling to them Bowing before them is the same with Bowing to them a Worshipping before them the same with giving a Religious Worship to them Which sufficiently shews that in one great Instance the Church of England retains the same kind of Image Worship with the Roman-Catholicks and so far are we agreed with them In very good time But there is one thing yet remains to be proved which he has conveniently dropt And that is That the Church of England owns the Sacramental Bread to be the Image of Christ and the Representative Object of Worship This he knew he could not prove and therefore says nothing of it for it does not follow that because the Council of Constantinople affirmed that the Sacramental Bread is the Image of Christ's Body therefore the Church of England teaches so I am sure that Author say no such thing and if we should allow it in some Sense to be the Image as that signifies the Sacramental Figure of Christ's Body Does it hence follow that it is the Representative Object of Worship And thus his To and before and in Presence is all lost because the Bread according to the Doctrine of the Church of England is no Representative Object of Worship and therefore we neither Bow To nor before nor in Presence of the Bread as a Representative Object and therefore the Answer that Author gave that we do not Kneel to the Sacrament but receive it Kneeling is a very good Answer still Thus I have considered all his Pretences of Agreement between the Church of England and the Church of Rome which they are as unfortunate at as they are at Representing And methinks it Argues some distrust of their Cause that they dare not down-right defend it but are forced either to represent it away almost into Protestant Heresy or to shelter themselves in their Agreement with a Protestant Church but the better way is to turn Protestants themselves and then we will own our Agreement with them THE END Books lately Printed for Will. Rogers THE Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly Represented in Answer to a Book intituled A Papist Misrepresented and Represented c. Quarto An Answer to a Discourse intituléd Papists protesting against Protestant Popery being a Vindication of Papists not Misrepresented by Protestants And containing a particular Examination of Monsieur de Meaux late Bishop of Condem his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the Articles of Invocation of Saints Worship of Images occasioned by that Discourse Quarto An Answer to the Amicable Accommedation of the Difference between the Representer and the Answerer Quarto A View of the whole Controversie between the Representer and the Answerer with an Answer to the Representer's last Reply in which are laid open some of the Methods by which Protestants are Misrepresented by Papists Quarto The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture Reason and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestane and a Papist the first Part Wherein an Answer is given to the late Proofs of the Antiquity of Transubstantiation in the Books called Consensut Veterum and Nubes Testium c. Quarto The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture Reason and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist the Second Part Wherein the Doctrine of the Trinity is shewed to be agreeable to Scripture and Reason and Transubstantiation repugnant to both Quarto An Answer to the Eighth Chapter of the Representer's Second Part in the first Dialogue between him and his Lay-Friend Of the Authority of Councils and the Rule of Faith. By a Person of Quality With an Answer to the Eight Theses laid down for the Tryal of the English Reformation in a Book that came lately from Oxford Ser Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet p. 281 c. Defence p. 572. Tert. de Bapt. c. 17. Barrow Supremacy p. 189 c. Quarto Hieron ad Marcel Ep. 54. Vindicat. p. 15. 217. Vindic. p. 162. Ibid. p. 157. Agreement Pag. 7. Vind. P. 36. See Vindication of the Defence p. 329 c. Episcopatus unus est cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur Cypr. de unitate See the Defence p. 208. c. Unus Episcopatus Episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus Cypr. ad Antonian Ep. 52. Pam. Quando Ecclesia quae Catholica una est scissa non sit neque divisa sed fit utique connexa cohaerentium sibi invicem Sacerdotum glutino copu lata Cytr Ep. 69. ad Florentium Pupianum Cypr. ad Ste phan Ep. 67. Vindic. p. 124 c. Episcopi nec potestatem habere potest nec honorem qui Episcopatus nec unitatem tenere voluit nec pacem Cypr. ad Anton. Ep. 52. Agreement p. 13. Vindic. p. 195. 196. Vindic. p. 396. Maximè cùm jampridem nobiscum cum omnibus omnino Episcopis in toto mundo constitutis etiam Cornelius Collega noster decreverit Cypr. cp 68. Pam. Cum quo nobis totus orbis commercio formatarum in unâ communionis societate concordat Opt. l. 2. See Vindicat. p. 131. c. Cassand Consult de pontifice Rom. Agreem p. 18. c. Marcae per Archiepiscopum Burdegalensem Regis nomine imperatur ut adversus â—â—nc libellum Optati Galli scribut sed ea mâ—thodo ne libertates Ecclesiae â—â—llicanae quas per latus non occultè petebat Optatus aliquam paterentur injuriam quinimo id sedulo ageret ut omnes intelligerent libertates illas nihil â—etrahere de reverentia quae debetur Romanae sedi quam prâ— cunctis semper nationibus 〈◊〉 constantissimè retinuerunt Baluz vita Petr. de Mar. Agreement p. 33. Offendit tamen quis crederet hic liber Romana ingenia nullam aliam ob causam ut Marca existimabat quà m quòd in fronte operis admoneret hîc agi de libertatibus ecclesiae Gallicanae Unde Romanis quorum aures teneritudine quâ—dam plus trahuntur promptum suit sibi persuadere illum libertati ecclesiasticae adversari qui de libertatibus ecclesiae Gallicanae proh nefas agebat ex professo Baluz in vita Petri de Marca p 9. Agreement p. 61. The Catholick Hierarchy p. 77. Agree p. 62. Hierar p. 77. Agree p. 65. Hierar p. 77. Agreem p. 67. Cath. Hierar p. 79. Agreement p. 61. Cath. Hierar p. 80 81. Agree p. 74. Hierar p. 83. Cypr. Ep. 55. ad Cornelium Agreem p. 77. c. Cath. Hier. p. 85. c. Agreem p. 80. Cath. Hier. p. â—7 Agreem p. 81. Cath. Hier. p. 87. Agreem p. 84. Cath. Hier. p. 89. Vetus trat decrâ—tum Ne 〈◊〉 Deus ab Imperatore consecraretur nisi a Senatâ— probatus Apud vos de humano arbitratu Divinitas peâ—sitatur nisi homini Deus 〈◊〉 Deus nonerit homo jam Deo propitius esse debebit Tert. Apol. p. 6. Paris 1664. Agreem p. 85. Cath. Hier. p. 8â— Agreem p. 87. Cath. Hier. p. 92. Agreem p. 36. Father Paul's History of the Council of Trent B. 7. P. 570 c. Agreem p. 47. Agreem p. 50. Covel's modest Examination c. 6. p. 55. Ibid. p. 56. P. 58. Agreem p. 48. Answer to Papists Prot. p 81.