to appear above board and to let us know whether he will set up also for that notion and defend his Defender Mr. Baxter is a man who understood Politicks and stated what he understood but the Doctor was at the present raw and put into his arguing he did not know well what that is the truth on 't and forasmuch as this man hath undertaken to interpose between shame and the Doctor I will tell them both plainly the Doctor may be ashamed to put in a fourth Term into his Argument and this man truly takes the shame on him by bringing in a fifth also That which Mr. Baxter said was this That every proper Political Church must have a Constitutive Head and the Doctor both leaves out the words Proper Political and brings in the term Visible Therefore the Catholick Church says he must have a Constitutive Visible Head The Interposer now to take off this shame from the Doctor hath taken the right course I say for he comes and does worse and that is puts in a fifth term also into the Argument If every Church when he should say every Proper Political Church only if he speaks to Mr. Baxter must have a Visible Subordinate Constitutive Head then must the Catholick Church have such a one But that having no such a one a National Church as well as the Catholick may be without a Constitutive Head This is the Reasoning in the summ I say in the sum for it is no matter for more of his words that puts me and Mr. Baxter as he says at such a loss as is irrecoverable And does he not indeed take off the shame from the Doctor by taking it thus upon himself Suppose another should put a sixth term into the Argument and argue If no Church can be a true Visible Church without a Visible Subordinate Monarchical Constitutive Head then cannot the Catholick Church visible be a true Church without a Visible Subordinate Monarchical Constitutive Head Who could doubt now any longer but Mr. Baxter must yield to a plain Confutation or bring in the Pope presently without remedy But did Mr. Baxter I pray lay down the Proposition from which this Consequence by this means is indeed made unavoidable No you will say this were to wrong Mr. Baxter to put in the term Monarchical and would spoil this mans Goverment by Consent quite I say likewise that this Author wrongs him to put in this term Subordinate and the Doctor by putting in the term Visible Mr. Baxter hath neither of these terms in his Assertion and if you cannot argue from what he hath said that the Pope is Head of the Catholick Church Visible you cnanot argue from him that it hath any Subordinate Head or Visible but a Constitutive Head only whether Visible or Invisible It is nothing else but the Fallacy whereby the Opponent puts in more into the Argument then is granted by the Respondent which I think we called at the University Fallacia plurium interrogationum vel dictionum for whether the diverse things are interrogated or argued the Paralogism is the same that hath made all this pother as this man phrases it which seeing it is on their side I will give over any farther persuit of this Chapter There is one thing only and that is the main thing not to be omitted The Dean in his Determination of this point does hold that Consent is sufficient to the making a National Church understanding by that Consent a Consent to be of it The Deans Defender holds the Church to be a Government by Consent meaning by it the Consent of the Bishops These are two contrary things the one making the Church not Political and the other makes it an Aristocracy and yet intends to justifie the former But neither of them are in the right The Church of England is not a Church by Consent onely without a Head nor a Government by Consent by the Colledge of Bishops but it is a Political Church with a Constitutive Regent part which is the King according to my Papers That the King is the Head of it appears by the Statute that declares him Head of the Church as it is called the Church of England It appears by other Acts that give him the same Supremacy the Pope usurped It appears by the First Fruits and Tenths of all Benefices given him as the Supream Head of the Church It appears by Cromwell who was made Henry the Eigths Vicar General and Vicegerent and sate in the Convocation as Personating the Head of it It appears by this Reason of my Book Where the Rights of Majesty are there must the Headship be placed Legislation and the Last appeal belong to him It is the King gives Authority to the Canons in so much as when a Law cannot pass without a Parliament the Canons becomes valid by the Kings own Ratification And there can be no Appeal in any Ecclesiastical cause from the King Again it appears most unanimously by the Ministers Prayers every Sunday giving him the Title of Supream Head and by the Oaths of Supremacy and Alleigance If the King be not the Head accordingly then must the Clergy generally be both Lyars and Perjured Persons From this truth then which is beyond opposition it follows that a National Church is of Humane appointment and not of Divine right that is indispensible It follows that it belongs not to the Essence of the Church of Christ to be National but that this is a consideration accidental to it It follows that such a Church may receive its Constitution at first and a new form or mould at any time as is most convenient to the State and most conducive to the glory of God in the good of the People It follows that a Reformation of the Government of our Church by the introducing some such new form into it as shall be more conducive to the ends of Holiness and Peace than the present Form does were a most desireable thing and fit to be tendred to the Wisdom of Parliament It follows finally that seeing the model that is hammering by this Author is proposed as strictly of Divine Right which is therefore the most direfull Schismatical Scheme that can be proposed in regard to Dissenters excluding them thereby out of the body of Christ and consequently from salvation besides dangerous to the Supremacy of the Magistrate and unanswerably faulty in many respects so that it cannot be received or indured it is fit that a model more agreeable to the power which is proper to Kings and less exceptionable in regard to the Conscience of the Subject were exhibited in the room of it and if it be such as would make the Prelates onely the Kings Officers to execute under him such Government of the Church as belongeth to Kings as this Author so well expresses it p. 275. so as the Nonconformist and Conformist may share I shall not for the dislike of any one or two men or party who are designing an Antipodes
within their allotted Precincts discharge their Duty not only in leading Godly Lives but in Preaching the word administring the Sacraments and exercising Discipline according to the Rule of the Gospel We are far from pulling down such Bishops for we rather wish that whereas there is now one there might be five nor are we for the alienating Church Land any more than we are for the taking from his Majesties other Civil Officers those Pensions are allowed them for their great services A thing we esteem as necessary and highly expedient as what doth not only conduce very much to the Encouragement of all sorts of Learning the equal Administration of Justice but as what advanceth the Honour and Grandeur of the State But 3. This doth no way Embase his Majesties Prerogative in matters Ecclesiastical It doth rather make it the more Grand and August His Majesty is hereby acknowledged to be the Supream Head of the Church All Officers Circa Sacra depend as much on his Majesties Pleasure for their Places as any other Civil Officers 'T is in the Kings Name they must act by vertue of a Commission received from him whereby the King is Recognized as the sole Governour of the Kingdom and hath no Competitors with him nor is he in danger of Forreign Usurpations To summe up all Let all such Particular Congregational or Parochial Churches that are of Divine Institution according to the sense of the Old and most true Church of England be by Act of Patliament declar'd to be so and taken under the Protection of the Laws and the Dissenters are satisfied The which as hath been prov'd may be done without any wrong to the consciences of the Conformist This is the utmost I shall propose leaving it to the Wisdom of the Nation to Regulate and Order the Constitution so far as it is National and of Humane Make as they Judge most Expedient The States-men know best how to alter correct or amend any thing in the present Frame for which reason Modesty doth best become Divines whonever succeed in any undertakements beyond their Sphere If no encroachments be made on what is of Divine Institution no wrong can be done us I desire the Dean and his Substitute to consider this Proposal which is but a Revival of what was on our first leaving Rome strenuously asserted as the Onely way to break all the Designs of the Papists about Church Discipline From the corruptions of which did proceed all the Popes Tyranous Usurpations Certainly the Establishing this Notion cannot but be of extraordinary use as it Erects a Partition Wall between the Reformation and the Corruptions of the Roman Church as it is adjusted for the silencing all Differences among our selves the healing our Breaches and the fixing a firm and lasting Union among all sound Protestants whether Episcopal Presbyterian Congregational or meer Anabaptist I humbly apprehend this to be enough to evince That the Dissenters are not such Enemies to Union as some have Asserted nor are they for the destroying a National Church Government They are onely against Unaccountable Innovations even such as tend to the Ruine of the Old Protestant National Church which as such is but of Humane Institution and in all ages must be of such a Peculiar Form as is best suited to those great Ends viz. Gods Glory in the Flourishing of particular Parochial or Congregational Churches and the Peace of the State The Dissenters do know that as One Particular Church is not to depend on another as to be Accountable thereunto when at any time she may abuse her Power yet All are accountable unto the Magistrate of that Land in which they Live and that such is the state of things with us that what person soever is griev'd either by a Presbyter or Bishop or by any Inferiour Officer Circa Sacra he may make his Appeal to the Supream Magistrate with whom all Appeals on Earth are finally Lodg'd Whatever the Deans Substitute may assert 't is most undoubtedly true that no Appeal can be justly made from our King unto the Pope or any Colledge of Catholick Bishops whatsoever That herein as our Author dissents from the Church of England we do heartily agree with her That the sound Protestant Party among the Sons of the Church of England do accord with the Dissenters about this great Point is not only evident from what a Conformist hath written in the following Treatise but from what is asserted by the Judicious Dr. Burnet in the History of the Reformation The which I do the more chearfully insist on that the world may see How the Dissenters have been misrepresented and How clear they are from any Seditious or Factious Principles concerning Church Discipline In Dr. Burnets Preface to the History of the Reformation p. 1. for which the whole Kingdom have given the Dr. thanks 't is asserted That in Henry the 8ths time 't was an Establish'd Principle That every National Church is a compleat Body within it self so that the Church of England with the Authority and Concurrence of their Head and King might examine or Reform all Errors or Corruptions whether in Doctrine or Worship Moreover in the Preamble of that Act by which this Principle was fix'd 't is declared That the Crown of England was Imperial and that the Nation was a Compleat Body within it self with a full Power to give Justice in all Cases Spiritual as well as Temporal And that in the Spiritualty as there had been at all times so there were then men of that Sufficiency and Integrity that they might Declare and Determine all Doubts within the Kingdom And that several Kings as Ed. 1. Edw. 3. Ric. 2. and Hen. 4. had by several Laws Preserv'd the Liberties of the Realm both Spiritual and Temporal from the Annoyance of the See of Rome and other Forreign Potentates Hist Ref. p. 1. p. 127. Furthermore the same Judicious Author by an Extract out of the Necessary Erudition and out of the Kings Book de Differentia Regiae Ecclesiasticae Potestatis out of Gardiners de vera Obedientia and Bonners Prefix'd Epistle and out of a Letter written by Stokesly Bishop of London and Tonstall Bishop of Duresm hath made it evident that the Church in Henry 8. did not only assert the Kings Supremacy but as a Truth in Conjunction therewith held That in the Primitive Church the Bishops in their Councels made Rules for Ordering their Diocesses which they only called CANONS or RULES nor had they any Compulsive Authority but what was deriv'd from the Civil Sanction A sufficient evincement that they did not believe General Councils to be by Jesus Christ made the Regent part of the Catholick Church neither did they believe their Determinations or Decrees to lay any Obligation on the Conscience unless Sanction'd by the Magistrates command To this Dr. Burnet speaks excellently well in his Preface to the Second Part of the Hist Refor The Jurisdiction of Synods or Councils is founded either on the Rules
included within the confines of a particular Church who in the management of their discourses concerning it give too great an advantage unto the Papacy 2. The Episcopal and Presbyterian differ from some of the Congregational concerning the nature of Discipline the Congregational being esteemed as espousers of a Democracy or Populacy the other against it 3. The Episcopal differs from the Presbyterian in that the Episcopal are for a Monarchy the Presbyterian for an Aristocracy § 8. All Protestants generally agree in asserting the Independency of particular Churches 'T is notorious that the Church of England established by Law is a particular National Church independent on any Foreign Power whatsoever Such is the constitution of our Church that what Bishop soever is found an abuser of his Power he is not accountable to any Colledg of Bishops but such as are conven'd by his Majesties Authority and that what apprehensions soever he may have of his being griev'd through any undue procedure he cannot make any Appeal to any Foreign Power from the King 'T is the King who is the Supreme Head of the Church of England there is no Power on earth equal unto or above his in Ecclesiastical Affairs To appeal unto any Foreign Power whether unto one Bishop singly or unto many by consent assembled 't is to do what tends to the subverting the present Constitution yea 't is to subvert the very foundation of our Government as 't is opposite unto a French or an Italian Papacy Whoever consults the many Laws made in Henry the 8th's time Edward the 6th's and Queen Elizabeths cannot but be fully satisfied that the Appeal of any Bishop or any other person from the King unto any other Foreign Power is contrary unto the ancient Laws of this Realm and that such as shall venture the doing so run themselves into a Praemunire For 't is most apparent that our National Church of England is a particular Independent Church That neither the Pope of Rome nor the Bishop of Paris nor any other Foreign Bishops have any Original Right or Power in relation to England and that therefore their assuming any such power is a sinful Usurpation All this is undoubtedly true Yet § 9. The Deans Substitute exposeth the Independency of Episcopal particular Churches as what is inconsistent with Catholick Union and asserts That if any Bishops abuse their Power they are accountable unto a General Council that is unto a Foreign Power whereby he doth his utmost to tare up the Church of England by the Roots to subvert his Majesties Supremacy as if all the Laws of the Land concerning it had not been of any force All this by Dr. Stilling fleet 's Defender That this is so I 'le evince from our Authors own words which are as follow And now I cannot but wonder saith he to find some Learned men very zealous assertors of the Independency of Bishops and to alledg St. Cyprians Authority for it for what ever difficulty there may be in giving an account of every particular saying in St. Cyprian certainly he would never be of this opinion who asserts but One Chair One Apostolical Office and Power which now resides in the Bishops of the Universal Church for when the same Power is in ten thousand hands it can be but One only by Unity of consent in the exercise of it and 't is very wild to imagine that any one of these persons who abuse this Power shall not be accountable to the rest for it i. e. to the Colledg of Bishops for saith he soon after if we consider the practise of the ancient Church we shall find that they never thought every Bishop to be Independent but as liable to the censure of their Colleagues as Presbyters and Deacons were to the censure of their Bishops P. 212. So far our Author who doth as it were expresly assert That the Archbishop of Canterbury though Metropolitan and Primate of England if he abuses his Power is accountable unto the General Council when by consent assembled that is the Archbishop who is not in power above any other Bishops as is by the Deans Substitute asserted abusing his Power is accountable to some Court above any in this Realm to a General Council a Colledg of Bishops § 10. Although the Papists generally assert That the Universal Church is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of all Church-Government as hath been already intimated yet there 's a difference between the French and Italian Papist about the kind of the Government the one insisting on an Aristocracy the other on a Monarchy i. e. the French holds That the pars Regens of the Universal Church is a General Council the Italian That it is one single person viz. the Bishop of Rome There hath been in the Church of Rome for some hundred years a great contest concerning the Supreme Regent part of the Universal Church Whether it be a General Council or the Pope Whether a General Council be above the Pope or the Pope above a General Council About which the Church of Rome is fallen into three parts as Bellarmine asserts 1. That the Pâ—pe is the Supreme Head of the Church and so much above a General Council that he cannot subject himself thereunto The Government of the Universal Church though mixt being composed of a Democracy Aristocracy and Monarchy yet principally 't is Monarchical The Supreme Power being immediately lodg'd in the Monarch who is the Bishop of Râ—me Christs Vicar and Peter's Successor he is above a General Council and not accountable to any on earth for any abuse he may be guilty of Of this opinion saith Bellarmine are all the Schoolmen generally especially Sanctus Antonius Jeannes de Turrecremata Alvarus Pelagius Dominicus Jacobatius Cajetan Pighius Ferrariensis Augustinus de Aneena Petrus de Monte c. Yea this is the sense of the Jesuits generally and of all such as are engag'd to support the Court of Rome as are the Italian Bishops for which reason I call it Italian Popery 2. There are some among the Canonists who assert That the Pope is above a General Council but yet may subject himself hereunto 3. There are others who assert That a General Council is above the Pope that the Supreme Governing-power over the whole Catholick Church is given them immediately that the Pope as every other Bishop is accountable to the General Council This is what hath been asserted by the Council at Constance Anno 1315. and by that of Basil Anno 1431. and by many Learned Divines in the Church of Rome viz. Cardinal Cameracensis Jeannes Gerson Jacobus Almain Nicolas Cusanus Panormitanus and his Master Cardinal Florentinus as also by Abulensis Gerson being a Chancellor at Paris had many followers among the French who at this very day assert That the Supreme Regent part of the Universal Church is a General Council for which reason I conclude that such as assert That a General Council is the Political Head or Regent part of the
Universal Church are in the number of French Papists Thus Cassander yea and Grotius as to Church-Government were for a French Papacy Whether the Dean's Substitute be or be not I 'le leave to the impartial censure of the judicious Râ—â—der who is desired to consider his notion as compared with that of the Parisians 1. The Dean's Substitute doth suggest That the Universal Church is the first Seat of Government 't is a political organiz'd Body in which there is a Pars Imperans Subdita the Bishops in their Colledg being the Governours or Pars Imperans and all others of the Universal Church the subdite part It may be our Author to gratifie the Dean will deny the Universal Church to be a political organiz'd body as indeed he doth but 't is even when he 's resolv'd to assert That the Universal church is the Seat of Government and Discipline as if there could be any Government in any Society without a governing and governed parts But so it is as a National even so the Universal church with him is not a political body that is 't is not such a body unto whose constitution a pars Imperans and subdita is necessary even when its constitution is such that it cannot be but there must be in it some Governours and other Governed Therâ— is not a Regent part in the Catholick Church but there is a Governing part that is there are Governours viz. the Catholick Bishops in their Colledg who are the Governours of the Catholick church Thus our Learned Gentleman in one place endeavouring to fetch the Dean off from that difficulty Mr. Humphreys had driven him unto concerning the constitutive Regent part of the church of England as National doth say The Dean answers in my poor opinion with great judgment and consideration We deny any necessity of such a constitutive Regent part For though a National church be one body yet it is not such a political body as Mr. B. describes i. e. there is no such Government as cannot be without a Pars Regens Subdita p. 562. And yet he grants That Church-Governours united and governing by consent are the pars Imperans and christian peoplo in obedience to the Laws of our Saviour submitting to such government are the pars subdita p. 565. All which is true saith he without a Constitutive Regent Head i. e. There is a Governing part or a pars Regens or to speak English a Constitutive Regent part or Head without a Constitutive Regent Head The like is asserted of the Universal Church namely That it is a Church governed by the Colledge of Bishops which Colledge of Bishops are the Pars Imperans though not the constitutive Regent part For we must allow him to wallow in his contradictions But a Governing part there is in the Universal Church which Governing part is compos'd of Bishops II. The Governours of the Universal Church are Catholick Bishops in Council who though they are equals and as such have no Superiority over one another p. 213. yet the Colledge or these Bishops assembled have Authority and command over any of its collegues that is every single Bishop is under the Authority and command of this Foreign Council III. The Catholick Church is One when it is not rent and divided but united and coupled by the cement of Bishops who stick câ—ose together p. 596. The result of all is That the Catholick Church of Christ being one Visible Political Body it is a compleatly Organiz'd body on Earth hath its Governing and Governed parts The Visible Governing part being a Terrestrial Numerical Head though collective viz. A Colledge of Bishops a General Council A Notion that doth not only subvert the present constitution of the Church of England that thinks not it self accountable to any such Forreign Power but moreover in it self as grosly absurd as 't is suited to the French the Cassandrian or the Grotian Model leading us all to Unite with all the other parts of the Catholick Church by rendring an unwarrantable Obedience unto such a Governing Power as is seldom in being and when so as dangerous and of as destructive a tendency to the Government of Jesus Christ as that of the Italian Papacy But whether our Author had a clear prospect of this Intreague when at first he was put on it I 'll not venture to determine it being sufficient that I have fully proved That the New-Modell'd Episcopacy of this Gentleman is the same with that of the French which is as inconsistent with the old-establish'd Episcopacy of our Church as is the Italian Papacy For if our Author may safely exceed the bounds of those Laws that do with the greatest Severity forbid our Appeal to any Forreign Power by addressing himself unto a Forreign Colledge Why may not another presume to make his Appeal to the Court of Rome What Reason can be given for the One which will not prove cogent for the Other especially to such who living where they have constant experiences of the excellency of a Monarchical Government in the State may be easily induced to conclude Monarchy as admirable in the Church and then farewel Impossibilities viz. General Councils a Roman Monarch in the Church being much more desirable Having thus given a true state of the Controversie whereby we find our Author to agree exactly with the French Papist about Gâ—vernment asserting the Universal Church as such to be a Governed Body in which there is a Governour and the Governed 't will be requisite that as I have shewn what are some of the Absurdities which flow from it that I do moreover evince it to be in it self unsound and false That this may the more clearly and with the greater conviction be performed I will be so just as to do our Author all the right imaginable by taking notice what he seems to assert and what he 's resolv'd to deny and accordingly proceed to the strictest disquisition after the Truth Our Author asserts That the Universal Church as such is the Seat of Government 't is a Body under Government as much as if it had been said There must be in it a Governing and a Governed part It being impossible that Government should be without Order which Order is secundum sub Supra Wherever there is Government there must be a Superiour part Governing and an Inferiour Governed There must be Dominus Subditus This our Author seems to grant when he doth to this Assertion of the Government of the Universal Church add his thoughts about the Governours thereof which he saies are the Universal Bishops assembled in Council But alrhough this is what our Author doth assert he doth notwithstanding resolutely deny the Universal Church to be a Political Body what he saith of a National that he asserts of the Universal Church both which are Govern'd Societies but neither a Political Body p. 564 565. All which is to fetch off the Dean from Mr. Humphrey's and Mr. B's unanswerable Queries
Church which he himself takes to be such a Union But he cannot tell he says p. 561. why it is Accidental to the Church of Christ to be National any more then to be Universal or Patriarchal and Metropolitical any more then Universal but when I tell him that the Body of Christ which is his Church may subsist though there were never a Patriarch or Metropolitan in the Earth I hope he can see if he will how the consideration of the Church as Patriarchal or Metropolitical and so National must be Accidental to it And as for Christs command of planting Churches p. 16. in the whole world and so in Nations and Cities and Towns requiring Unity and Communion every where among Christians it may warrant the Combinations of Patriarchal Metropolitical National Diocesan and Parochial Churches to this end if he please provided only that these forms be held Accidental forms according to humane prudence and not the Essential form of the Church of Christ according to divine institution To the question whether a National Church be Political he offers something p. 562. and says the Dean in his Opinion hath answered with great Judgment in his denying any necessity of a Constitutive Regent part to be Essential to a National Church But I will make it appear that either the Dean or his Defender do speak here with little Judgment It is the Notion this Author hath proposed to publick consideration that the Bishops in every Nation are to Govern the Church by consent that is as Colleagues per litteras formatas when they convene not and when they do by their Canons in a Convocation This he makes throughout his Book to be of Christs appointment holding Episcopacy to be Jure Divino with others of his party If this then be true this Author hath found out a Constitutive Regent part yea an Ecclesiastical Constitutive Regent part of the Church in every Nation where there are Christians and Bishops And when he hath found out a Head for the Doctor how can he thus applaud the Doctors answer that denies the Church to have one or sayes there is no necessity of any When he does prove it to be a Church Political and the Doctors answer includes a denyal of it to be so how comes this man to be so full of reverence here with these words in his mouth To this the Dean answers in my poor Opinion with great Judgment and Consideration It is with great Judgment indeed is it not that the Dean hath given up the Cause of the Bishops And with great Judgment is it not that this man hath assumed the Prerogative of the King to their Colledge Let him take heed least he bring himself into question Many Churches Associated for mutual help and concord are a Church only in a loose sense but those that are constituted of one Regent and subdite part are Churches in a Political proper sense It is no body Political without one common Governour Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical Thus says Mr. Baxter p. 563. Unto which says this Author Herein does his strength p. 564. consist Answ I acknowledge it does and what hath he to weaken it I will Transcribe what he says If we deny this that though a National Church be one body yet it is not such a Political body as he describes which differs from secular forms of Government by that ancient Canon of our Saviour It shall not be so among you the controversie may be at an end and a National Church may be one body in an Ecclesiastical though not in a Civil Political sense This is the help the Dean must expect from his Defender and if the Doctor be not ashamed of his own answer for this desense sake I know not what should put any man to shame This man tells me in his Preface he will interpose between the Dean and shame in this Controversie Upon this account therefore I will take leave to tell him that he does here manifestly betray a raw ignorance which ought to shame him He understands the term Political to be Commensurate with Civil as if a Government Ecclesiastical could not be Political as well as a Government Civil that is as if a Church could not be Political as well as other Societies He does yet discover the same more then by words for he hath found out a Head for the Church which is Aristocratical and yet thinks the Church cannot be Political unless it have some Head that is Personal or as if a Head Collective were not One Head as vvell as one that is Monarchical This man vvho hath interposed betvveen shame and the Doctor must take shame upon him seeing he calls upon me to do my part honestly in the same place I say this man hath found an Ecclesiastical Constitutive Head of the Church and that of Christs own Institution if he understands what he drives at and yet he and the Doctor will not allow the Church of England to be Political I will advise him to consult with Bishop Gunning and the excellently learned and yet humble Mr. Dodwell who are living seeing he hath not taken his Notions from Bramhal or any other who are dead as I conjecture that he may be instructed better before we hear any more from him Mr. Baxter indeed understands himself throughly and tells us Association of Churches for Concord gratia Unitatis are no proper Churches But an United Colledg of Bishops for government gratia Regiminis is a formal Ecclesiastical Head about which was the Original Question And this this bold and herein but half informed Author who will interpose between shame and the Doctor doth not understand neither and as soon as he hath read this will he own the shame he hath taken upon him Above all is there any man unless so forward a one would ever have produced that saying of our Saviour If shall not be so among you for the proving a National Church to have no Head or that the Churches of Christ must not therefore be Political I shall not be blamed I hope therefore if I say now again what I said to the Doctor That if this man be not ashamed for himself and the Doctor I must be ashamed for them both If we deny this says he the Controversie were at an end Well but when it cannot be denyed we must look farther P. 565. We grant says he a National Church is a Political Society for Government by consent without Superiority is Government I grant too Church Governours united and governing by consent are the Pars Imperans and the people submitting to such Government in obedience to the Commands of our Saviour are the Pars Subdita and all this is true without a constitutive Kegent Head I Answer if he grants or rather asserts thus much a Government by consent understanding by it the Episcopal Colledg or Cyprians One Episcopacy as the Governing part and the People by the Law of Christ subdite to it then hath he found
out a Constitutive Head and an Ecclesiastical Constitutive Head by Christs Institution and to say that all this is true without one is to me a perfect contradiction When he goes on then p. 566. to prove that this is all that is or can be required to make a National Church One by two Arguments I answer If there be so much as this indeed required his two Arguments must prove it not onely to be One but one Political proper Church with an Ecclesiastical Constitutive Regent part to it The Bishops he says have equal power by Christs appointment and rule not by Superiority but by Consent that is not by Superiority over one another but they do rule by a Superiority I hope over the people and that is an Aristocratical Government and when the People do consent to Unite in Communion with them this makes them Members he says of that Political body And these are his two reasons p. 566 and 567. which need no other Animadversion but this notice of them The great questions onely are whether this indeed be the will of Christ that the Catholick and so every National Church as he states the matter should be ruled by these Bishops as Colleagues that is by a Government as he calls it by consent and if it be how it should come to pass that we have not in England such a Government where there is for certain no such Rule by consent of the Colledg without a Superiority but by a Superiority or a Supremacy of the King who is the Head of these Bishops themselves as well as the Nation This I make not my Province P. 568. He hath four things for the strengthning the Government of his Mintage and then concludes that if Mr. Baxter can give him one reason why this may not be called one Church or Ecclesiastical Body Politick without a Constitutive Regent part he will think farther of it To which I answer and tell him presently why this cannot be called one Church or Ecclesiastical Body Politick without a Constitutive Regent part the reason is because it is a Body Politick Ecclesiastical with a Constitutive Regent part and so he need think no farther of it And this Answer being of another nature then that which he fancies like to be made him in the next page p. 569. I need say nothing to that nor the next p. 570. but come on to p. 571. for now he hath prepared the way as he says to justify the Doctor Well where there is a Political Church says Mr. Baxter there must be a Constitutive Head The Doctor answers there may be the true notion of a Church without one I Reply This is a coming off but the question indeed at the bottome is whether it be the true notion of the Church of England The Doctor argues If 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 Church Catholick Visible This Argument the Deans Defender thinks unanswerable But we reply the Argument is such as needs no Answer and it may easily be Answered In the first place it needs no Answer because the thing it would prove is but what we can grant him that is a Visible Head to the Catholick Church Christ is that Head we say and he is Visible When he was on earth he gave Laws for his Church and Commissionated Officers which are Rights of a Head He after appeared to Paul and Commissionated him and is now Visible in Heaven This is plain proof in Reason Sense and Scripture and not to be jeered off and therefore in the first place the Doctors Argument needs no Answer In the next place we say farther it is easily Answered for we deny the Argument If it be necessary for a Church to have a Constitutive Head it follows that the Catholick Church must have a Constitutive one but it follows not that it must have a Catholick Visible Head or that that Constitutive Head must be Visible This in truth is introducing four Terms into the Argument which we know is false Arguing When there is put more into the thing Asserted in the Consequence then there is to prove it in the Antecedent in an Hypothetical Syllogisme it is all one as to argue with four terms in a Syllogism that is Categorical But the Doctor says he puts more strength in it The question is about the Catholick Church whereof particular Churches are parts and they being Visible do require the Constitutive Regent part to be Visible I Answer though here be more words here is no more strength put into the Argument I still deny the Consequence For though the Catholick Church consists of Particular Churches which are Visible it consists also of that society in heaven which is not Visible Christs Body is but one Body whereof part is in Heaven and part on Earth and while the Head is in Heaven it follows not that because part of the Body is Visible therefore the Head must be Visible It is all one as if he should argue thus Particular Churches are on Earth and if Christ be Head of the Catholick Church whereof they are parts he must not be in Heaven And when indeed this is one and the same Argument and we know it to be false we do justly deny the Doctors Argument Suppose a man so high as that his head reached above the clouds will you argue that this person hath no head because his head is not visible I deny the Argument There is really nothing hard in the Doctors Argument but to understand why his Defender whom I value for his Parts should come to think it unanswerable It may be the Doctors confident word at first it undenyably follows drew on this apprehension and he hath fetcht the Argument over so long till he hath put enough in it to make himself believe it We are far says he from asserting that the Universal Head must be Visible if the Subordinate be so he should be as far from asserting the Head to be Visible because Particular Churches or the Members are so but this we assert that if no Church can be a true Visible Church without a Subordinate Visible Head then the Universal Church cannot be a Visible Church without a Subordinate Catholick Visible Head p. 574 575 576. This he takes to be the Doctors Argument and he will make the consequence hold before he has done with it But against whom does the Doctor and this man argue Is it not against Mr. Bexter and did Mr. Baxter ever say this that there can be no true Church without a Subordinate Head under Christ Is not Mr. Baxter a Protestant as well as the Doctor and do they not both maintain the Catholick Church to have one onely Supreme Head and no Subordinate one in Earth If his Defender hath found out one who is not the Pope but the Colledge of Bishops I desire Doctor Stillingfleet