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
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
be intrusted with the Episcopal Insignia and ordinary Iurisdiction yet it s the avowed Doctrine of the Church of England that the giving the Power of Conferring Orders to a Presbyter is so contrary to the Divine Law that its ipso facto null and void and in pursuance of this Doctrine she Re-ordains all those who have had onely a Presbyter's Ordination even whilst she is against a Re-ordination And thus he has himself confuted his first Point The Agreement of the two Churches about the Ministry for a disagreement about the Power of Orders is so concerning a Point in the Ministry that there can be little agreement after it This determines the Dispute that Bishops do not differ in Order but onely in Degree from Presbyters for if Bishops by a Divine or Apostolical Institution were a distinct and superior Order Presbyters could never be intrusted with the ordinary Power and Jurisdiction of a Bishop such as the Power of conferring Orders is much less that a Presbyter should have Power to Consecrate Bishops and Bishops should be subject to Presbyters as he affirms of the Abbot of Hy This overthrows the Essential Constitution of the Ministry if Bishops are by Institution a Superior Order to Presbyters that Presbyters should have Authority to Consecrate and Govern Bishops and overthrows one of the principal Arguments for an Oecumenic Pastor as it is urged by our other Author from the power of conferring Orders which he says cannot be done but by a superiour Pastor and surely Presbyters though soveraign Abbots are not superiour Pastors to Bishops nor to Presbyters neither And yet the Church of England does not deny but that in case of necessity the Ordinations of Presbyters may be valid and upon this Principle justifies the Presbyterian Orders of Foreign Churches while such unavoidable necessity lasts as I have also done at large in the Vindication to which this Author so often refers But the case of Schism is a different thing and I believe our Author himself though he grants a Power to the Pope to entrust Presbyters with the power of conferring Orders will not say that Schismatical Presbyters may take this Power or that their Ordinations are valid if they do And this is the case between us and our Dissenters they ordain in a Schism and though necessity may make an irregular Act valid yet Schism will not And I would desire to know what reason it is for which they Null the Protestant Reformed Ministry which he says is so much less severe than the Principles of the Church of England The artifice of all this is visible enough to heighten and inflame the difference at this time between the Church of England and Dissenters but in vain is the Snare laid in the sight of any Bird. But that the Reader may better understand the Mystery of all this I shall briefly shew why the Church of Rome is so favorable to that Opinion that Bishops and Presbyters are of the same Order and differ onely in degree why they allow the Ordinations of Abbots Soveraign who are but Presbyters to be both valid and regugular that they are exempted from the Iurisdiction of the Diocesan and have in themselves Episcopal Authority whereby they can Ordain Correct Suspend Excommunicate and Absolve nay exercise this Jurisdiction over Bishops themselves as this Author tells us of the Abbot o Hy Which will shew how far we are from agreeing with the Church of Rome about Episcopal Power The plain Account of which in short is this That they distinguish their Orders in the Church of Rome with relation to the Sacrament of the Eucharist and since the Doctrine of Transubstantiation prevailed which is such a wonderful Mystery for a Priest to Transubstantiate the Elements into the Natural Flesh and Blood of Christ this is looked upon as the highest act of Power in the Christian Church and therefore that must be the highest Order which has the highest Power and since a meer Priest has this power of Consecration which is as high an Act as any Bishop can do therefore they conclude that Episcopacy is not an higher Order than the Priesthood but differs onely in Degrees with respect to the power of Jurisdiction And the competition between Popes and Bishops to serve their several Interests did mightily incline them to favour this Opinion The Papal Monarchy could never arrive at its utmost greatness without depressing and lessening the Authority of Bishops and therefore aspiring Popes granted Exemptions Dispensations and Delegations to Presbyters that there was no part of the Episcopal Office but what a Presbyter might do by Papal Delegations which made Presbyters equal to Bishops but advanced the Pope vastly above them When by these Arts which were often complained of the Pope's Power grew boundless and infinite and it was thought necessary to bring it lower it could not be done without calling in the assistance of Presbyters and allowing them to Vote in the Council For the majority of Bishops were engaged by Interest and Dependance to maintain the Papal Greatness and therefore if these matters must have been determined by the major Votes of Bishops there could be no remedy against the Papal Usurpations For which reason in the Council of Basil those Bishops who were devoted to the Interest of the Pope and knew they were able to secure the Cause if none but Bishops might Vote insisted on this That according to the Presidents of former Councils all matters might be determined onely by the Votes of Bishops and now the equality of Order between Bishops and Presbyters was trumpt up to serve another turn to prove their right to Vote in Councils to assist those Bishops who groaned under Papal Usurpations in some measure to cast off that Yoke and vindicate their own Liberties To this original the equality of Order between a Bishop and Presbyter is chiefly owing in the Church of Rome from this Authority the Abbots Soveraign derive their Power which is a subversion of the Supream Authority of Bishops has no president and would never have been allowed in the Primitive Church and therefore as for the Dispute about the Abbot of Hy what the matter of fact is which those learned men whom he assaults I doubt not are able to defend were there a just occasion for it is nothing to our purpose If it were as he says it is an intolerable encroachment upon the Episcopal Authority and void in it self We who deny Transubstantiation and disown any such Authority in the Pope to delegate the Episcopal Power to meer Presbyters do not I suppose very exactly agree with the Church of Rome in this matter 2. Much at the same rate we agree in asserting the difference between a Bishop and Presbyter to be of an immediate divine Right This indeed we do constantly affirm that the Institution of Episcopacy is by immediate divine Right but is this the currant Doctrine in the Church of Rome That he knew was false and therefore had
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
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
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
thought to be the true Liberties of the Gallican Church and this surely was reason enough for me to say as he himself says in the Title of his Book and as the French King and the Court of Rome thought he did that he wrote for the Liberties of the Gallican Church how our Author will defend himself for saying that he wrote against them with any modesty and reverence for the Honesty Learning and Judgment of that great man he had best consider I cannot pretend to understand the Gallican Liberties so well as to say who is in the Right but I would still prefer the Judgment of De Marca who was both a great Lawyer and a great Divine before any of his Adversaries And yet I was not concerned to judge of this matter whether De Marca or the Pragmaticks were in the right where they differ from each other all that I alleadged his Authority for as I observed before was to prove that the Gallican Liberties did not exclude the Authority of the Pope as Christ's Vicar and St. Peter's Successor in the Government of the Church This is what the Council of Basil it self owns and to deny it would be an Ecclesiastical Liberty with a witness but not a Popish but a Protestant Liberty This is my Crime which he says Ought to be a caution to all Readers how they take up any thing upon trust from me and though I have done nothing to forfeit my Credit yet I do not desire any Readers should trust me but see with their own Eyes and if they would serve us all so I know what would become of such Writers as this Author And he wishes it may be a means to engage me to more modesty and an abatement of my contemptuous way of writing if I write any more for the time to come I perceive he thought this discovery would have broke my heart for ever but I have ventured to write once more and may do so again and very modestly too when I meet with modest Adversaries I thank God I contemn no man living but it is a little in my nature to contemn Knavery and Nonsence and therefore if our Author tasts a little of it still I must beg his pardon for I cannot help it As for what follows I have nothing to say to it it is all a Dispute against the Popes Supremacy which I like very well only I wonder if he be in good earnest why the Oath of Supremacy should stick in his teeth I have only one Request to him to tell me which was the Infallible Council that of Basil or Trent for the first subjects the Pope to a Council the last makes him superior to it and it were very strange if Contradictions should be Infallible AN ANSWER TO THE Necessity of AGREEMENT Between the Church of England AND THE CHURCH of ROME c. BEfore I proceed to Answer his second Section of the Agreement between the two Churches about some of their imposed Terms of Communion I shall in a few words rid my hands of that terrible Appendix which the Prefacer ascribes to another Author to prove the Necessity of an Agreement between the Church of England and the Church of Rome evidenced from the Nature and Constitution of a National Church Episcopally Established Thus first they prove that we are agreed and then they prove that there is a necessity we should agree But what need to prove that we must agree did they believe that we were already agreed So that this Appendix is indeed a confutation of the Book which he Entitles An Agreement between the Church of England and Church of Rome Whereas this proves that of necessity we ought to agree if we will be true to our Principles which supposes that whatever our Principles are we are not yet agreed How well he has proved our Agreement I have already shewn and now shall briefly examine how he proves our Necessity of Agreement But I must observe by the way that though the Prefacer does ascribe this learned Piece to another Author yet he has concealed the true Father His other Author is a good Roman Catholick who disputes in good earnest from the Subordination of Pastors in the Church to prove the Supremacy of an Oecumenic or Universal Pastor but the true Author was an Independent Protestant from whom this honest Romanist borrows every Argument and almost every word excepting such little variations as a Papist must of necessity make in an Independent's Writing without ever confessing his Benefactor or owning from whence he had it The Title of the Book is The Catholick Hierarchie or the Divine Right of a Sacred Dominion in Church and Conscience truly Stated Asserted and Pleaded Printed for Sam. Crouch at the Princes Arms in Pope's Head-Alley in Cornhil and Tho. Fox at the Angel in Westminster-hall 1681. In the 14 Chap. of which Book p. 76. being a Digression concerning the Subordination of Pastors whoever has the curiosity may find this entire Treatise of the Necessity of Agreement between the Church of England and the Church of Rome onely with this difference that the Independent disputes against the Subordination of Pastors by this very Argument That the Asserting the Subordination of Pastors in the Church doth by all good consequence infer the Supremacy of an Oecumenical or Universal Pastor This Popish Plagiary takes his Book and makes a quite contrary use of it to prove from the subordination of Pastors which is and ought to be in the Church as the Church of England owns the necessity of owning an Oecumenical Pastor they both indeed dispute against the Church of England but the first Author disputes for Independency the Plagiary for Popery Now why might not the Independent had he not had more Wit than his Transcriber have entitled his Chapter The Necessity of Agreement between the Church of England and Independents because they both agree in rejecting an Oecumenical Pastor and therefore ought to agree in rejecting the subordination of Pastors which infers an Oecumenical Pastor as well as this Author calls it A Necessity of Agreement between the Church of England and Church of Rome because they both agree in the subordination of Pastors and therefore as he thinks ought to agree in an Oecumenical Pastor Nay he had but served his Independent Authour right had he stiled it The Necessity of Agreement between the Independents and the Church of Rome because they both agree in this Principle that if there be a subordination of Pastors there ought to be an Oecumenical Pastor which is the nearest Popery of any Principle I know for there is nothing to be done in order to this Agreement but to prove a subordination of Pastors which is a thousand times easier than to make good that Consequence from a subordination of Pastors to an Oecumenical Pastor But let this Authour make the best he can of his Independent Arguments and call his Book what he pleases my business is only to show that there is
no necessity for those who acknowledge a subordination of Pastors to acknowledge an Oecumenical Pastor And before I consider his reasons in particular I shall make short work with them and confute them altogether The querie he proposes to discuss which he has transcribed verbatim from his Independent Author is this Whether the asserting of the Subordination of Pastors in the Church doth not by all good consequence necessarily infer the Supremacy of an Oecumenic or Universal Pastor Now my exception against this and consequently against all his Arguments whereby he proves this is that I will allow of no consequences to prove an Institution No man can have the Authority of an Universal Pastor unless Christ has given it him and therefore unless Christ have appointed such an Universal Pastor there can be none and to prove by consequence that Christ has appointed one when no such Institution appears is ridiculous Suppose then there were as much reason for the Supremacy of an Oecumenical Bishop over all the Bishops in the World as there is for the Superiority of Bishops over Presbyters which is all the Subordination of Pastors that we allow of which more presently yet at most this can onely prove that there ought to be an Oecumenical Bishop and that Christ ought to have appointed one but it don't prove that there is one And therefore he who believes that the Superiority of Bishops over Presbyters is an Apostolical Institution but can find no such Institution of an Universal Bishop can never be forced by any reason or consequence to own such an Universal Bishop We own the Subordination of Presbyters to Bishops not from Reason but Institution and does it then hence follow that we must own the Supremacy of an Universal Bishop for some pretended Reasons without an Institution What is matter of Institution depends wholly upon the Divine Will and Pleasure and though all men will grant that God and Christ have always great reason for their Institutions yet it is not the Reason but the Authority which makes the Institution Though we do not understand the reasons of the Institution if we see the Command we must obey and though we could fancy a great many reasons why there should be such an Institution if no such Institution appears we are free and ought not to believe there is such an Institution because we think there are reasons to be assigned why it should be And thus in our case though we should not shew why Christ should institute the Apostolical Office and Power to which ordinary power Bishops succeed superiour to Presbyters and not institute an Oecumenical Pastor superiour to all Bishops though we should fancy that there is as much reason for the one as there is for t'other yet if there appear to be an Institution of the Superiority of Bishops over Presbyters and no Institution of an Oecumenical Pastor we may safely own what is instituted and deny what is not instituted what ever parity of reason there is between them And this I think plainly shews that the Church of England may own the Superiority of Bishops over Presbyters and yet deny any such Officer as an Oecumenical Pastor because there is an Institution of one and not of the other But that our Author if we may call a notorious Plagiary so may not complain that we will not hear him I shall briefly examin what he says He begins with explaining what is meant by Church by Subordination of Pastors and by an Oecumenical Pastor 1. As for the first he distinguishes between a Church and the Church A Church is any particular Church The Church belongs to the Catholick Church onely Why so is not a Church though it be a particular Church the Church of England the Church of France the Church of Spain The Church of England is not the Universal Church no more than the Church of Rome but it is the Church of England But what he would make of this I cannot well guess He says Men are frighted into Conformity to the impositions of any particular Church upon supposition that they are the Laws of the Church i. e. the Catholick Church as the People do for the most part believe But I perceive he thinks that our People in England are as silly as they are in some other places but we tell them and every body of common sense understands without telling that when we in England exhort them to obey the Laws of the Church we mean onely the Laws of the Church of England and he ought first to have proved that every National Church has not power to give Laws to her own Members before he had represented this as such a meer Scare-crow for his distinction between A and The Church does not prove that a Church or every particular National or Diooesan Church if he pleases has not Authority over her own Members This he himself dares not deny and therefore distinguishes between obeying a Church as the Church and as a Church but though we do grant a difference between the Universal and a Particular Church yet before he had run down the Authority of particular Churches he ought to have proved such a Superior Authority in the Universal Church to which all particular Churches must be Subordinate But here his Author failed him and therefore he must of necessity fail his Readers 2. By Subordination of Pastors he understands the standing of several men in distinct Orders or Degrees of Office one above another or under another in Subordinate Ranks This he applies to Patriarchates National Provincial Diocesan Churches the Romanists he says never stop till they arrive at the most Catholick Visible Church and Pastor in the World i. e. an Oecumenical Pastor The Protestant Prelates and Doctors who go not Dr Sherlock's way do say that there are no degrees of Subordination in the ascending part above a National Church and Pastor I have already defended my way which this Author I find knows nothing of no more than he does what is the sense of Protestant Prelates in this matter and therefore I must tell him that though we do own a Subordination of Presbyters to Bishops yet we own no Subordination of one Bishop to another but do assert with St Cyprian That all Bishops have originally the same Authority and Power what the meaning is of Metropolitical and National Combinations of Churches and how far we are from setting up a National Supream Pastor with a kind of a National Infallibility as he insinuates I have already shewn at large Though I think there never was a more senseless Suggestion that no Church can exercise any Authority and Jurisdiction nor punish the Disobedient without pretending to Infallibility which would overthrow all Government in the World unless Princes and Parents and Masters be Infallible too And the reason he gives of it is as absurd to the full that its the most unjust and unreasonable thing in the World for me to pretend to force
or Legs which give dumb kicks or boxes on the Ear but if you will understand the sense of the Church you must resort to the Body speaking in the Head not to the kicking Heels This is all demonstration besides the advantages of apt figures and the elegancies of expression to set it of Well the last Appeals then must lie to the Catholick Pastor because he knows the mind of the whole Church and is its speaking Head whereas Metropolitans and Primates are but dumb surly less intelligible Organs whose mind you can onely understand by kicks or boxes under the Ear which yet I think is a very intelligible way though I believe few People love to understand that way For this reason then we must go to the Head that we may understand the mind of the whole Church for then we cannot Err. But is this Head then Infallible Yes most certainly for the pretensions made by the Catholick Pastor to Infallibility are founded on the Principles of the Episcopal Constitution For an Episcopal Church setled by Subordination of Pastors within it self without a Catholick Head is an Animal without a Head Which is a pretty strange sort of Creature In all our Appeals from Pastor to Pastor from Church to Church in any Causes or Controversies if we do not still come to a less Fallible Church and at last arrive at the most Infallible comprehensive of our selves as Members Cui bono hic labor hoc opus That is to what purpose do we Appeal from one Fallible Church to another unless we can at last lodge our final Appeal in an Infallible Church So that the reason why we must Appeal to the Catholick Pastor is that our Cause may be determined by an Infallible Judge who has the mind of the whole Church and the proof of the Infallibility of this Catholick Pastor is that to him must be made the last Appeals which were to no purpose if he were not the most Infallible Thus Infallibility proves the necessity of Appeals and Appeals prove the necessity of Infallibility for one good turn requires another But still me-thinks there is a little difficulty why there should be any Appeals at all to a Fallible Judge Why should not all Causes in the first instance be brought before the Infallible Judge Why must we take such a round by Bishops Provincials Metropolitans Primates before we come to the Catholick Pastor when there can be no satisfaction till we come to the Infallible Judge and have the mind of the whole Church from him And as our Author observes Cui bono do men Appeal from one Fallible Creature to another If the right of Appeals be grounded on Infallibility why must we Appeal to those who are Fallible To salve this which is a real difficulty our Author would insinuate for he is afraid down right to own such an Absurdity that there are Degrees of Infallibility which if admitted we must arise to the highest but why not go to the highest at first but rise by Degrees If it be granted that a Bishop is less fallible than a Parish Priest and an Archbishop less fallible than a Bishop and a Primate than he upon the same ground we may expect the Catholick Pastor to be less fallible than all the rest But what a lamentable ground is this for Infallibility and what a lamentable Infallibility is that which is only being less fallible than some other fallible Creatures But the pleasantest conceit is that mens Infallibility encreases with their several Orders and Degrees in the Church that a Bishop is less fallible and therefore more infallible than a Priest and an Archbishop than a Bishop c. Now I suppose he will grant that Infallibility does not result from mens personal Abilities but is a supernatural Gift and that Christ never gives any thing less in such a supernatural way than absolute Infallibility And therefore whatever Infallibility men can challenge by vertue of a Promise must be absolute and absolute Infallibility has no degrees If then the Infallibility of the Catholick Pastor be founded on a divine Promise it has no relation at all to the several degrees of Fallibility in other Church Officers unless he can show where Christ has promised several degrees of Infallibility to the several Orders and Degrees of Ecclesiastical Ministers and then indeed we may conclude that he has bestowed the most perfect Infallibility upon the Catholick Pastor if it be first proved that he has instituted such a Catholick Pastor But it is evident that to be more or less fallible depends upon mens personal Abilities Learning Wisdom Honesty and therefore it is a ridiculous thing to say that every Bishop must be less fallible than a Presbyter and an Archbishop less fallible than a Bishop and a Primate than he unless you can prove that all Bishops must be wiser honester and more learned men then Presbyters and Archbishops than Bishops and Popes than Archbishops and Primates Which I believe is a pretty hard Task and yet our wise Author at last resolves the Popes Infallibility into this belief for it is not to be supposed that the Catholick Church would commit the greatest Charge to a Person of the least Iudgment and Understanding So that it seems Infallibility at last is dwindled away into Mens personal Judgment and Understanding and thô it may be the Catholick Church might be careful in such a choice yet we can easily suppose that Cardinals who may not be Men of the best Judgments themselves and may be divided by Interests and Factions or brib'd with Mony or over-awed by Power or influenced by Friendships may not always choose the wisest Man in the World and if they did yet he could be no more infallible this way than the wisest Man in the World is who after all is a fallible Creature as all Men are and I dare appeal to all sober and considering Roman-Catholicks whether our Author has not utterly overthrown the Infallibity of the Pope and all Appeals to him by what he adds To what purpose is it for us to betake our selves for further light to those whom the Church has entrusted with higher Power and larger trust if we have no reason to judge them not only to be holyer wiser and juster men than those we appeal from but less fallible in judgment and errable in practice For I am confident few Roman-Catholicks think their Popes to be the wisest and best Men in the World and therefore if their inerrability depends upon their Wisdom and Honesty they cannot think them Infallible neither and I suspect our Author has no great claim to Infallibility himself who at this time of day when the Stories of Popes are so well known should found Infallibility upon the Wisdom Holiness and Justice of Popes By this one would guess that he makes no great matter of the Popes Infallibility that he has found out such a fallible Foundation for it He says that the Oecumenic Pastor in his
human Capacity may mistake and Err and so did St Peter but not fundamentally yet as Supream Head in his Catholick Capacity quatenus in Cathedra Catholica comparative to all inferior subordinate Pastors he hath a kind of Infallibility which is a Power intrusted in him by the Catholick Church to pass a final Iudgment of Determination in all Causes and Controversies to be a Ne plus ultra to all Appeals and Litigations in the Church So that in the first place he is not infallible in his human Capacity and yet he founds his Infallibility on his Wisdom Holiness and Justice which are human and personal Perfections In his publick Capacity he would have him Infallible in the Chair but yet it is but a comparative Infallibility which is none at all Then his Infallibility is not an Infallibility in judging but a Power to make a final Determination whether it be right or wrong and any Man might have this Power as well as the Pope especially since he is not entrusted with this Power by Christ but by the Catholick Church that is too only by the Church of Rome for no other Church entrusts him with it and thus he quits all Divine Claims to Infallibility and the Pope is no more Infallible than the Church can make him by entrusting him with a final decision of Controversies at all Adventures And therefore he adds We are not bound to believe his Iudgment is infallibly true but are to subscribe to it as the last because we can have no further and higher Appeal on Earth That is we must subscribe to it whether we believe it true or not which is an admirable sort of Infallibility Thus he says the English Clergy Subscribe the 39 Articles not that they believe them as they commonly say to be true and Orthodox but because they be the last Resolutions of the Church of England in those Points they sit down satisfied to subscribe them as Instrumenta pacis unitatis but indeed Maxime emcolumenti by which what he means cannot guess but am very much of his Mind that upon the same ground were there no other reason of Subscriptions they may subscribe to the Council of Trent But this is a Scandal on the Clergy of the Church of England we subscribe to the Truth of the Doctrines and for my part I would not subscribe did I not think them true and this is false with reference to the Church of Rome which Anathematizes all Persons who do not own and acknowledge and believe all the Articles of the Council of Trent However Infallibility is at a low ebb in the Church of Rome when they can exact Submissions and Subscriptions onely upon Protestant Principles who pretend to no Infallibility at all I have examined this Argument a little more at large to make him sensible how dangerous a thing it is to write after an Independent Copy for had any man intended to have burlesqued Infallibility as possibly his Author from whom he Transcribes did he could not have done it more effectually than by such Principles as these 6. His sixth Argument in Catholick Hierarchy the seventh for he has dropt one from the Nature of the Church which he made an Introduction of and there it has been considered is that this Catholick Headship is inseparable from an Ecclesiastical Body made up of subordinate Pastors and Churches may be abundantly evidenced from these following enumerated Church necessities The necessity 1. Of a Catholick judgment of Schism 2. Of a Catholick interpretation of Scriptures 3. Of a Catholick determination of Ceremonies for order and decency 4. For a Catholick composure of Forms of Prayer 5. For a Catholick Canonization of Saints 6. A Catholick Call and Convention of Councils Oecumenic Which are Word for Word the Argument of the Independent Author I shall briefly consider them all 1. The necessity of a Catholick judgment of Schism i. e. that there should be some Judges who are Schismaticks for otherwise 1. Patriarchal or National Churches may be Schismatical and no competent remedy found for the said Schism 2. There can be no determination of a Schism from the Catholick Church nor any proportionate punishment of it For a Patriarch or National Primate cannot be judicially proceeded against but by an Oecumenic Pastor which I think is the same with the first for a National Schism must be a Schism from the Catholick Church or none since National Churches among us depend on no foreign Patriarchs 3. Because superiour Churches are to judge the inferiour no particular Church has an absolute definitive Power in it self but there lies an Appeal against it to the Catholick Church and Pastor Which instead of proving that there is such a Catholick Pastor supposes that there is one for else there can lie no Appeal to him 4. That particular Churches will never agree about Schism but the very disputes about Schism will make Schisms without end Now suppose a man should turn the Tables and prove by this Argument that there is no Catholick Pastor nor Catholick Judge of Schism because there are and always have been Schisms in the Christian Church which it is impossible there should be did the Church know of such a Catholic Judge For how could there be any such dispute about Schism if there were such a Judge If you say that it is the not owning such a Judge which makes the Schisms That may be true but it is true also that it is a sign the Christian World does not know of any such Judge for if they did they would own him and put an end to their Schisms If it be necessary there should be such a Catholick Judge of Schism I am sure it is necessary he should be known or else as Experience testifies the disputes about such a Judge will make more Schisms than such an unknown and disputable Judge can ever end Now since there either is no such Catholick Judge of Schism or he is not sufficiently know to all Christians methinks it proves that there is no need of such a Catholick Judge of Schism for there is as much need â—e should be known in order to put an end to Schisms as that there should be such a Judge and if the necessity of ending Schisms proves that there should be such a Judge I am sure the continuance of Schisms proves as plainly that he is not known because he cannot end them It is ridiculous to imagine that there should be any such thing as Schism were there a known Oecumenical Pastor and Judge and it is as ridiculous to prove that there is such a Judge from the necessity of such a Judge to end Schisms when it is demonstrable from the continuance of these Schisms that the Christian World knows of no such Judge And it is very strange that Christ should appoint such a Judge and not take care that he should be known Good Arguments must convince Schismaticks in this World and Christ will judge them in
the next and I know of no other Catholick Iudgment of Schism 2. From the necessity of a Catholick Resolution of difficult and dubious places of Scripture For the Scripture is not of private Interpretation and there are great inconveniences in leaving Scripture to the Interpretation of private men or particular though National Churches But let the inconveniences be what they will the same Argument returns again that if there be such an Infallible Interpreter of Scripture he ought to be known and that there are such disputes about the Interpretation of Scripture proves that the Christian World do not own such a Catholick Interpreter and therefore that they know nothing of him And there is another Argument that there is no such Catholick Interpreter of Scripture because we have no such Catholick Interpretation And what is the Christian World the better for a Catholick Interpreter if he does not Interpret And yet in the Church of Rome it self we have no Expositions of Scripture but from private and fallible men The truth is the Pope and his Councils have Expounded plain Scriptures to a dubious difficult unintelligible sence but never that I know of made any Text easie and intelligible which was difficult before To expound Scripture is to make us understand it not to impose upon our Faith without understanding and therefore this is not so much an act of Authority as of skill and judgment any man who can so explain Scripture to me as to make me understand it shall gain my assent but no Authority is sufficient to make me assent without understanding And yet such a Catholick Expositor our Author would set up whose Authority shall make me grant that to be the sence of Scripture which his Reasons and Arguments cannot perswade me of But all reasonable Creatures must understand for themselves and Christ no where commands us to believe that to be the sence of Scripture which we cannot understand to be so I know no necessity that all Christians should agree in the Interpretation of all difficult Texts of Scripture there is enough in Scripture plain to carry men to Heaven and as for more difficult and obscure Texts they are for the improvement of those who can understand them and need no such Catholick Expositor because it is not necessary that all men should understand them Most of the Controversies of Religion especially between us and the Church of Rome are about Texts of Scripture easie enough to be understood and an honest teachable mind would sooner end our Controversies than his Catholick Expositor 3. Another necessity for an Oecumenic Pastor is A necessity of a Catholick Determination of Decency and Order i. e. That the same Rites and Ceremonies for decency and order should be observed in all Christian Churches all the World over Now I know no necessity of this and that which is not necessary it self cannot make an Oecumenic Pastor necessary De facto there have been diversity of Rites in the Christian Church in all Ages thus it was in St. Augustine's time as appears from his Epistle to Ianuarius 118 and then either there was no Catholick Pastor or he did not think such a Catholick Uniformity of Rites necessary None of the Fathers ever condemn such a diversity as this but exhort all Christians to conform to the innocent Customs and Ceremonies of the Church where they came though different from the Customs of their own Church which St. Austine tells us in that Epistle was the Advice of St. Ambrose And when Pope Victor Excommunicated the Asian Churches for their different Custom in observing Easter Irenoeus and other Bishops did vehemently oppose him in it and therefore either did not believe him to be the Catholick Pastor or did not think that the Catholick Pastor ought to impose an Uniformity of Rites upon all Churches The Decency of Worship is nothing else but to perform the external acts of Worship in such a manner as may express our Reverence and Devotion for God And therefore since there are no Catholick signs of Decency there can be no Catholick Uniformity in these matters The decency of Garments Postures Gestures differ in several Countries and so do the Expressions of Honour and Reverence And therefore such external Rites being onely for external Decency and having no Sacredness by Institution may vary with the different Customs and Usages of Countries We must Worship God in a decent manner this all Christian Churches are bound to and this they do when they Worship God in such a manner as among them signifies Reverence and Honour But says our Author then one Church will esteem this or that thing decent in the Worship of God which another reckons absurd Then say I they are as absurd as Country People are who gaze at Foreigners and laugh at their exotick Habits and think every thing ridiculous which differs from their own Customs But this Uniformity is lost in the Catholick Church where it 's most necessary to be had An Uniformity in external Rites is not necessary in the Catholick Church and it may be cannot be had But why is it necessary there should be uniformity then in particular National or Diocesan Churches Ans. Because it is fit and decent that those who Worship God in the same Assemblies should Worship him in the same manner and to do otherwise would contradict the publick decency of the Worship Every Bishop as being the Supreme Governour of his own Church and Diocess has Authority to appoint the decent Rites of Worship in it and when all the Bishops of a Nation are united into one National Body they may consent in some common Rites of Worship for the National Church since the Usages and Customs of the same Nation the Rules of Decency and the expressions of Honour and Reverence are the same which gives an account what Churches have this Power to determine the Decencies and Order in Ceremonies every Bishop has an original Right to do this for his own Church but as a National Combination of Bishops to govern their several Churches by a mutual Consent is of great use so when they are united into a National Body it is much more decent that they should agree upon an Uniformity of Rites for the National Church but there is not the same reason that this should extend to Foreign Churches much less to the whole World both because these Combinations of Bishops are limited to National Churches and the Customs of different Countries change and vary 4ly The necessity of a Catholick Canonization of Saints for supposing a necessity of a due Observation of Saints Days which the Church of England hath always insisted on and pleaded for it is to be enquired who or what Church Canonized the Saints c. The Church of England indeed does observe some Festivals in commemoration of the Saints but she needs no Oecumenick Pastor to Canonize them She observes the Festivals of no Saints but such as the Christian
World acknowledge to be so without the Popes Canonization and the use she makes of Saints needs no Canonization which is only to bless God for them and to excite our selves to an imitation of their Vertues not to build Temples and Altars to them or to Worship them with religious Honours as our Mediators and Advocates This Canonization of Saints was a strange kind of Argument from a pretended Independent and it is such an Argument as I thought at this time of day a Romanist himself would have been ashamed of For pray what Authority has the Church to Canonize Saints and who gave her this Authority Such Consecrations and Canonizations indeed were in practice in Pagan Rome and Tertullian sufficiently scorns them for it He tells us that there was an ancient Decree that the Emperor should not Consecrate any God without the approbation of the Senate for the Emperor in those days was the Pontifex Maximus or the Oecumenick Priest. This the Father says was to make Divinity depend upon human Votes and unless the God pleases Men he shall not be a God how applicable this is to the Canonization of Saints let our Author judge and tell me whether there were any such practice known in the Christian Church in Tertullian's days To Canonize a Saint to be sure is to Vote him into Heaven and if the Oecumenick Pastor has this Authority he is somewhat more than the Head of the visible Church on Earth for his Power extends to the invisible Church too 5ly The necessity of a Catholick composure of Church Prayers i. e. That the same Liturgie should be used in all Christian Churches which never was practised in former Ages and no need it should be We prefer a Liturgie before private and extempore Prayers we think it most Uniform that a National Church should use the same Liturgie but if every Bishop who is the Supream Governour of his own Church should have a Liturgie of his own I see no hurt in it if it be a true Christian Liturgie and neither corrupt the Christian Faith nor Worship When he can give me one wise reason why the whole Christian World must use the same Liturgie and that there must of necessity be an Oecumenick Pastor to compose this Liturgie I will consider it farther His harangue about our charging Dissenters with Schism does not relate to this matter For setting aside the Civil Authority whereby our Liturgie is confirmed their Schism does not consist in using another Liturgie for they use none but in separating from the Communion of their Bishop who has Authority to appoint what Liturgie shall be used in his Church For the Liturgie being agreed on in Convocation makes it an Act of the Church confirmed by the Authority and Consent of all the Bishops besides the concurrent Votes and Suffrages of the inferior Clergy And if every particular Bishop have Authority to appoint what Form of Prayer shall be used in his Church all the Bishops of England may agree in the same Liturgie and those who deny obedience to their Bishops and separate from them upon such accounts are guilty of Schism But where there is no such subjection and obedience owing as there is none between particular Bishops and distinct National Churches they may make Liturgies and Forms of Prayer for themselves and are accountable to no Body else for it 6thly His last necessity for an Oecumenick Pastor is for calling convening and dissolving Oecumenical Councils Now if there be no such absolute necessity of Oecumenical Councils if they may and have been called by Emperors if they may meet together of themselves by Mutual Agreement then there is no necessity of an Oecumenical Pastor for this purpose But such an Assembly he says must be a Church Assembly or else it can claim no Power in the Church and all Church Assemblies are of right convened by the Pastor of the said Church in which it is as in a Diocess the Clergy is convened by the Authoritative Call of the Bishop This is the force of his whole Argument wherein there are two things supposed which we desire him to prove 1. That an Oecumenical Council is not for Mutual Advice but for direct Acts of Authority and Government 2. That a Council receives its Authority from an Authoritative Call when he has proved these two Propositions his Argument may deserve a new Consideration AN ANSWER To SECTION II. CONCERNING The Agreement between the Two Churches about some of their Imposed Terms of Communion their Ministry Ceremonies and Image-Worship 1. The MINISTRY HAving answered all their Pretences of Agreement between the Church of England and the Church of Rome concerning one Supream Oecumenical Pastor what remains will give me no great trouble and I shall give my self and my Readers no more than needs must 1. The first Agreement is about the Ministry unto which all are required to submit which is the same with that of Roman-Catholicks and maintained by the same Arguments that is concerning the Divine Institution of Bishops and subject Presbyters Now this charge we own that we do acknowledge the Divine Right of Episcopacy and that Presbyters by the Institution of their Office are subject to Bishops and if the Roman-Catholicks own this we agree with them in it and so we will in any thing else that is true and think it no injury to our cause for we do not think our selves bound to renounce what is true only that we may differ from Roman-Catholicks and yet the mischief is that in despight of his Title and design he will not suffer us to agree with them here but endeavour to prove that we do not agree with them Thus he tells us 1. Touching the difference there is between a Bishop and a Presbyter as amongst the Papists some held that they were of the same order differing only in degree and others that they were of distinct Orders so among our Clergy I perceive our Author has a mind to be a Protestant at last by his crying our Clergy there were some who in King James the First days asserted that Bishops and Presbyters were of the same Order but now it is carried for their being of two distinct Orders but what is this to the Agreement of the two Churches that there are Divines in each Church which differ about this Point If neither Church have determined this then they agree onely in not determining it but if it were the Currant Doctrine in the Council of Basil that Bishops and Priests are of the same Order and it be the avowed Doctrine of the Church of England that Bishops are a distinct and superior Order then I think the two Churches do not agree about this Point And our Author himself takes care to prove that we are not agreed For the Romanists he says do not so much stick to the Divine Right of the Episcopal Order as to hold that without a Violation of the Divine Law a Presbyter cannot
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
I am sure he can't then the Reader knows what to judge of him and his Argument too As for the Controversie between the Church of England and Dissenters about the use of Ceremonies in Religion it is nothing to our present Dispute and though our Author has a mind to revive these Disputes among us he shall not draw me into it It is sufficient we dispute against them and against the Church of Rome upon very different Principles Against them we defend the lawful use of indifferent Rites and Ceremonies in Religious Worship though there be no express command for it in the Word of God if they serve the ends of Order and Decency which are expresly commanded Against the Romanists we never object that their Ceremonies have no Divine Institution that they are not commanded but either that they are forbid or that they are so numerous that they are very burdensom or that they are abused to superstitious purposes or that the signification of them is so dark and obscure that they are of no use in Religion Which is best expressed in the words of our Church Concerning Ceremonies why some be abolished and some retained Of such Ceremonies as be used in the Church and have had their beginning by the Institution of man and therefore our Church from the beginning never quarrel'd with Ceremonies because they had not a Divine Institution Some at first were of godly intent and purpose devised and yet at length turned to vanity and superstition some entred into the Church by undiscreet devotion and such a zeal as was without knowledge and for because they were winked at in the beginning they grew daily to more and more abuses which not onely for their unprofitableness but because they have much blinded the People and obscured the glory of God are worthy to be cut away and clean rejected other there be which although they have been devised by man yet it is thought good to reserve them still as well for a decent Order in the Church for the which they were first devised as because they pertain to Edification whereunto all things done in the Church as the Apostle teacheth ought to be referred With a great deal more to the same purpose which every body may see who will turn to the beginning of his Common-Prayer-Book And yet I deny not but our first Reformers might as we do at this day condemn all Uninstituted Worship and condemn several practices of the Church of Rome under that Notion such as Invocation of Saints and Worship of Images c. but she never took her Ceremonies to be any acts or parts of Worship but only some Adjuncts and external Circumstances for the decent and orderly performanee of Religious Worship And to say as this Author does that the Dissenters did at last prove to the conviction of the Church of England Clergy that the controverted Ceremonies were parts of external Worship and that we were forced to fall in with the Roman Catholick in denying that Uninstituted Worship is False Superstitious and Idolatrous to speak softly is not true The Dissenters themselves never thought that external Circumstances were parts of Worship but endeavoured to prove that our Ceremonies were not meet Circumstances of Worship but Sacraments but I never heard of any Divine of the Church of England that allowed them to be so or that thought they had proved it What the sense of the present Clergy is may be learned as from a great many other excellent Books so especially from The Case of indifferent Things and The Church of England's Symbolizing with the Church of Rome Which are in the Collection of Cases lately Written for the satisfaction of Dissenters when the Government thought fit for other reasons to require a vigorous execution of those Laws against them which had lain Dormant for some time To show the World at that time what persecuting Spirits they were of they used their utmost diligence both by private Conferences and publick Writings managed with all the softness and tenderness that any Dispute is capable of to satisfie their Scruples and thereby to prevent their Sufferings which could be prevented no other way and let our Author try his skill if he pleases to find out in those Cases such an Agreement as he pretends between the Church of England and the Church of Rome which I believe he may as soon do as find out that persecuting Spirit in them he so much talks of unless good Arguments and soft Words may pass for a Persecution But Dr. Covel he says calls Ceremonies the external Act of Religion I grant he does so and I think it a very loose definition of a Ceremony But then we must consider that he plainly enough tells us what kind of Acts of Religion our Ceremonies are that they are only to make the Act of Devotion to be more Solemn and that Solemnity is in some measure a necessary adjunct to all publick Service And if Solemnity be but an Adjunct and Ceremonies but for Solemnity they cannot be in a strict Notion Acts of Religion but Adjuncts of publick Worship And as he calls them The Hedges of Devotion and thô not the principal Points yet as some of the Fathers call them the Second intention of the Law intermediate means not to be despised of a better and more religious Service Which plainly enough shows what distinction he made between Ceremonies strictly so called and Acts of Worship And therefore he tells us that there are Three Acts of Religion 1. The Internal which is the willing desire to give unto God his due Worship and Honour 2. The External Answering to this which is no otherwise good or commendable than that it vertuously serveth to this end 3. The commanded Act that is the Act of every Vertue ordained by Religion to God's Honour The Second which is the external Act and includes the whole external Worship he calls Ceremonies not as Ceremony now signifies among us the external Decencies and Solemnities of Worship but as it was anciently used to signifie all external Worship And therefore he afterwards distinguishes between these Ceremonies That 1. Some were for Iustification such as the Law commanded in place whereof afterwards sacceeded those that were for Ornament and to signifie such Vertues as were requisite in those Parties that rightly used them These are those Ceremonies which before he told us were only external Solemnities and in some measure necessary Adjuncts of Worship which are the only Ceremonies in dispute among us and the Dissenters which he calls Adjuncts and Solemnities as we do He adds 3. Some are parts of the immediate Worship as Sacrifice Prayer Adoration and such like some only dispose as Fasting austere Living some are only Instruments as Churches Altars Chalices and all those which religiously being separated serve only to make the Worship more Solemn and that Solemnity more Holy. So that thô he calls the whole external Worship and every thing that belongs