no sooner said it but he unsays it again For says he It 's true that those who are for the divine Right of the Supream Jurisdiction of the Pope over the whole Catholick Church visible do hold the divine Right to be but mediate mediante Papa but the Followers of the Councils of Constance and Basil are against the Supream uncontroulable Power of the Pope and for the immediate divine Right of Episcopacy And it 's notorious from the Debates in the Council of Trent that the French Spanish and many other Roman-Catholicks stuck to their immediate Divine Right too and the great reason why opposition was made in the Court of Rome against the immediate divine Right of Bishops was an Opinion that the Supremacy of the Pope could not be secured on the granting it But Dr. Sherlock has found out a Notion which will be of great use to them for the divine Right of a Primacy is a great step to the Supremacy and this the Doctor doth establish consistently enough with the divine Right of Bishops As for my own Notion I have sufficiently vindicated that already from doing any Service to the Pope's Supremacy and see no occasion to add any thing more here But I wonder he should pitch upon this instance of the divine right of Episcopacy to show the Agreement between the two Churches when he himself is forced to acknowledge what fierce Debates there were in the Council of Trent about this matter He says indeed and that very truly that the French and Spanish Bishops in the Council did dispute very vehemently for the divine Institution of Episcopacy and he knows what a prevailing opposition was made against it The Pope sent express Orders to the Legates that whatever they did they should not suffer that to pass Laynez the Jesuit was appointed by the Legates and Papalins to make an elaborate Lecture against it Wherein he asserts that Christ built his Church upon Peter whose Name signifies a Stone in the Hebrew and Syriack and therefore according to the most Catholick exposition Peter himself is that Rock whereon Christ built his Church that the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to Peter only and by consequence Power to bring in and to shut out which is Jurisdiction So that the whole Jurisdiction of the Church is committed to Peter only and his Successors And if the Bishops had received any Jurisdiction from Christ it would be equal in all and no difference between Patriarchs Archbishops and Bishops neither could the Pope meddle with that Authority to diminish or take it all away as he cannot do in the Power of Order which is from God. That to make the Institution of Bishops de jure divino takes away the Hierarchy and introduces an Oligarchy or rather an Anarchy That according to the Order Instituted by Christ the Apostles were ordained Bishops not by Christ but by St Peter receiving Jurisdiction from him only or if they were ordained by Christ Christ only prevented St. Peter's Office for that one time That the Bishops are Ordinaries because by the Pope's Law they are made a Dignity of perpetual Succession in the Church That Councils themselves had no Authority but from the Pope for if every particular Bishop in Council may Err it cannot be denyed that they may all Err together and if the Authority of the Council proceeded from the Authority of Bishops it could never be called General because the number of the Assistants is always incomparably less than that of the Absent With much more to this purpose which is all full and home to the point which as the Bishop of Paris observed in his Censure of it makes but one Bishop Instituted by Christ and the others not to have any Authority but dependant from him which is as much as to say that there is but one Bishop and the others are his Vicars to be removed at his pleasure Whatever Opposition was made against this in the Council of Trent it could never prevail The Popes Supremacy was advanced in that Council to its greatest height and glory but the Divine Institution of Episcopacy was dropt though the whole Council was satisfied that the Divine Right of Supremacy and the Divine Institution of Episcopacy were inconsistent For this Reason the Pope and Legates and Italian Bishops opposed the Divine Institution of the Episcopacy and for the same Reason the other Party so vehemently contended for it and then I will leave any man to judge which of these two Opinions must pass for the Sense of the Council and Church of Rome We wish with all our Hearts the Church of Rome did agree with us in the Divine Institution of Episcopacy which was the Sense of the Primitive Church but unless all Parties in the Council of Trent were very much mistaken the Supremacy of the Pope as it is Taught by that Council does utterly overthrow the Divine Institution of Bishops and make them onely the Pope's Creatures and Dependants 3. As for his third Head of Agreement about the Hierarchy which is made up of Archbishops Bishops Deans Prebends Canons Arch-Deacons Chancellors Officials Priests Deacons c. This is onely an Ecclesiastical Body of human Institution for the good Government and Discipline of such Combined Churches and alterable again as the necessities of the Church requires and yet there is an Essential Difference between such Protestant National Combinations of Churches and the Popish Hierarchy The first is Independent on any Forreign Powers is perfect and entire in it self The second has an Oecumenick Pastor for it's Head and derives its Power and Authority from him and this is enough to be said about our Agreement in the Ministry II. The CEREMONIES OR EXTERNAL WORSHIP THIS is the next instance of Agreement between the Church of England and the Church of Rome and any man who considers the matter must needs be very much surprized at it For if the two Churches were so very well agreed about Ceremonies it is very strange that the Church of England from the beginning of the Reformation to this day has rejected such a vast number of Ceremonies as were then and still are in use in the Church of Rome And for my part it is my desire and prayer that they may always agree so while the Church of Rome maintains and practises such a corrupt Worship To make this out he says Our first Reformers opposed the Ceremonies of the Church of Rome upon the same Principles that our Dissenters now oppose the Ceremonies of the Church of England viz. by this Argument All Uninstituted Worship is False Superstitious and Idolatrous Worship But the Romish Ceremonious Worship is Uninstituted Ergo. And if our Author can shew me any such Argument urged by our first Reformers against Ceremonies that are meerly for Decency and Order and external Solemnity of Worship I will grant they argued very ill and did much worse to retain any such Ceremonies But if he cannot shew this as
vindicate my self I will own my own shame without casting the blame on my dear Mother the Church of England and I suppose it will be sufficient to vindicate my self if I first show him that I have in express words rejected all those Propositions wherein he pretends this Agreement consists Secondly Particularly vindicate those passages he transcribes out of my books and shew his sincerity in quoting and his skill in applying and then his French Popery may shift for it self excepting a word or two of that learned Arch-bishop Petrus de Marca As for the first He himself has collected the Particulars wherein we agree which I shall distinctly examine the Reader may find them p. 15 16. which are these 1. They both make the Catholick Church one visible governed Society Houshold or Kingdom This is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first and fundamental mistake and a wilful one too for I affirm the contrary in express words in the defence of Dr. Stilling fleet 's unreasonableness of Separation p. 565 566 upon occasion of that Dispute about the constitutive Regent Head of a National Church I expresly assert That the Unity both of the National and Universal Church consists in one Communion That Consent is all that is necessary to unite a Body or Socity in one Communion That their Unity consists only in consent not in any superior Governing Ecclesiastical Power on Earth which binds them together So that I absolutely deny That the Catholick Church is one governed Society with one supreme Government over the whole P. 567. I assert That Christ hath instituted no such constitutive Regent Power of one Bishop over another in his Church and therefore the Union of particular Churches into one must be made by consent not by Superiority of Power P. 564. I affirm That tho a National Church and the Reason is stronger for the Universal Church be one Body yet it is not such a political Body as they describe and cannot be according to its original Constitution which differs from Secular forms of Government which have a supreme governing Power by that Ancient Church-Canon of our Saviours own decreeing It shall not be so among you And thus a National Church as governed by consent may be one Body in an Ecclesiastical tho not in a Civil Political Sense that is by one Communion not by one Supreme governing Power The Dean in Answer to Mr. Baxter who asserts a constitutive Regent Head of the National Church necessary to make it a Church and yet allows That there is one Catholick Visible Church and that all particular Churches as headed by their particular Bishops or Pastors are parts of the Universal Church argues thus If this Doctrine be true and withal it be necessary that every Church must have a constitutive Regent Part as essential to it then it unavoidably follows That there must be a Catholick Visible Head to the Catholick Visible Church and so Mr. B's Constitutive Regent Part of the Church hath done the Pope a wonderful kindness and made a very plausible Plea for his Universal Pastorship Where the Dean proves That a Constitutive Regent Head is not essential to the Notion of a National Church for then it must be essential to the Catholick Church too and then there must be a supreme Pastor or some supreme governing Power over the whole Church which I suppose is to deny that the Catholick Church is one visible governed Society This Argument I defended at large and added p. 576. That to deny a Church can be one without a constitutive Regent Head infers one of these two things 1. Either that many particular Churches cannot associate into one for the joynt Exercise of Discipline and Government which overthrows the very Notion of Catholick Unity and Communion Or 2. That there is and must be a power in the Church superior to the Episcopal Power which naturally sets up a Pope above Bishops Thus much for my agreement with them that the Catholick Church is one visible governed Society that is which has a supreme Power over the whole and if our Author by this time does not begin to Colour I will e'en Blush for him But by this the Reader will perceive what a hopeful Cause this Author has undertaken to prove my Agreement with the Church of Rome about the Supremacy either of the Pope or General Council when I absolutely deny that there is or ought to be any such Superior Authority and Jurisdiction over the whole Church But to proceed 2. He says They both pitch upon the Episcopal Government as distributed into the several Subordinations of combined Churches as what is by Divine Institution made the Government of the Church A combination of Diocesan Churches to make up one Provincial whose Bishops are in Subordination to their Metropolitan a combination of Provincial Churches to make up a National and the Metropolitans in Subordination to the Primate a combination of National Churches to make up a Patriarchal and the Primates in Subordination to the Patriarch and a confederacy of Patriarchal to make up one Oecumenical and every Patriarch in Subordination to the Oecumenical Bishop or chief Patriarch This is an Agreement with a Witness and if he can prove this as he says he has done of which more presently we will never dispute more with them about Church-Government let us then consider the several steps and Gradations of Church-Authority which at last centers in an Universal Bishop 1. The Subordination of Parochial Presbyters who are combined and united under the Government of a Diocesan Bishop Thus far we agree with him and acknowledg a direct Superiority of Bishops over their respective Presbyters but we go not one step farther with him 2. A combination of Diocesan Churches to make up one Provincial whose Bishops are in Subordination to their Metropolitan Such a Combination I allow of but the Subordination I deny to be the original Form of Church Associations and this one word Subordination which he has here thrust in discovers the whole Trick and spoils our Agreement quite I assert these Combinations are for Communion not for Government and therefore there is no Subordination required to such an Union he will have these Combinations to be not meerly for Communion but for Government and that indeed requires a Subordination but these two Notions do as vastly differ as a friendly Association for mutual Advice and Counsel and a Subjection to a Superior Authority And that I have not altered my Opinion but that this was always my judgment in the case I shall now show and I need to that purpose only transcribe a Page or Two out of the Defence p 577 c. It is evident from the Testimony of the earliest Ages of the Church that first the Apostles and then the Bishops as their Successors were the Supreme Governours of the Church who had no higher Order or Power over them And therefore Tertullian calls the Bishop Summus Sacerdos or the chief and
like expressions before quoted But do I not say That General Councils can have no direct Authority over any Bishops who refuse to consent unless it be in such matters as concern the purity of Faith and manners and Catholick Unity and does not this infer that they have a direct Authority over them in such matters This possibly might lie a little out of our Author's reach I not having occasion then given me to difcourse it more at large but if he had not understood this it had been more modest and ingenuous to have thought it an unwary saying or to have made a Query upon it and desired me to have reconciled this seeming contradiction rather than to charge me with such Principles as I so often expresly and positively reject But ingenuity and modesty are Virtues not to be expected from such Adversaries and therefore I shall briefly state this matter also by 1. Showing what I meant by matters which concern the purity of Faith and Manners and Catholick Unity 2. What Authority I give to bishops or a Council of Bishops over their Collegues in such cases and how this is to be reconciled with my affirming that the combinations of Churches and the Synods and Councils of Bishops are not for direct acts of Government and Superiority over each other but only for mutual advice and counsel 1. As for the first when I say That Neighbour Bishops or a Council of Bishops has Authority over their Collegues in matters which concern the purity of Faith and Manners and Catholick Unity it is plain that my meaning was not and could not be That such a Council of Bishops had Authority to make what Decrees they pleased in matters of Faith or Manners or Catholick Unity and impose them upon their Collegues by a direct and superior Authority without their own consent for this is the very thing I disputed against and yet this is the sense he would put upon my words and indeed no other sense of them can do the Church of Rome any service but let any indifferent Reader consider the whole Paragraph and freely judg whether this Author be not a very Candid Interpreter I was discoursing about General Councils That it is not likely there should ever be a Convention of Bishops from all parts of the Christian World nor if it were possible that there should be some few Bishops dispatched from all Christian Churches all the world over can I see any reason why this should be called a General Council when it may be there are Ten times as many Bishops who did not come to the Council as those who did and why should the less number of Bishops assembled in Council judg for all the rest who so far exceed them in numbers and it may be are not inferior to them in Piety and Wisdom especially considering that every Bishop has the Supreme Government of his own Church and his liberty and power to choose for himself as St. Cyprian tells us and must not be compelled to obedience by any of his Collegues which overthrows the proper Jurisdiction of General Councils which can have no direct Authority over any Bishops who refuse to consent unless it be in such matters as concern the Purity of Faith and Manners and Catholick Unity Now if Faith and Manners and Catholick Unity were considered as the Subject of Conciliary Decrees what greater Authority could the Council of Trent it self desire than this to have Authority to make Decrees about Faith and Manners and Catholick Unity which shall oblige all the Bishops in the World For I know not any thing else for a Council of Christian Bishops to make Decrees about And therefore these matters which concern Faith and Manners only relate to the Faith and Manners of the Bishop as I elsewhere expresly teach That a Bishop cannot be imposed on against his own consent by any Bishop or Council of Bishops nor can justly be deposed upon such accounts while he neither corrupts the Faith nor schismatically divides the Church So that this Authority refers not to the Decrees of Councils about Faith or Manners but is only an Authority of censuring Heretical and Schismatical Bishops 2. But that we may better understand the true state of this matter let us consider what kind of Authority this is And 1. I observe this is no act of Authority over Bishops considered a Bishops but over Hereticks and Schismaticks and no man that I know of ever denied the Churches Power to censure Heresie or Schism or to correct the Lives and Manners of Men and if Hereticks and Schismaticks wicked and profligate Persons may be flung out of the Church if any Bishops be such there is no reason their Character should excuse them for that does not lessen but aggravate their Crime 2. And therefore this is no usurpation upon the Episcopal Power and Government it is not imposing Laws or Rules on a Bishop for the Government of his Church without his consent which is an Usurpation upon the Episcopal Authority but it is only judging him unworthy to be a Bishop and committing the care of his Flock to some more fit person 3. This Authority does not result from that superior Jurisdiction which one Bishop or all the Bishops in the World have over any one single Bishop but from that obligation which every Bishop has as far as he can to take care of the whole flock of Christ as I explain it in the Vindication p. 156. That the Unity of the Episcopacy is the foundation of that Authority which neighbour Bishops have over their Collegues in case of Heresie or Schism or any notorious wickedness for they being Bishops of the Universal Church have an original Right and Power not to govern their Collegues but to take care that no part of the Church which is within their reach and inspection suffer by the heresie or evil practices of their Collegues which as I observed in the Defence p. 215 is the reason St. Cyprian gives why there are so many Bishops in the Christian Church whom he calls a copious body of Bishops coupled by the cement of concord and bond of Unity That if any of our colledg i. e. any Bishopâ— should endeavour to broach any new Heresie or tear and spoil the Flock of Christ the rest may come in to their help and like good and merciful Pastors gather again the Sheep of Christ into the fold So that this is not properly an Authority over Bishops who have originally no superior Jurisdiction over each other but an obligation on all Bishops as far as they can to see that no part of the Christian Church be corrupted with Heresie or divided by Schisms the discharge of which may impower them to remove Heretical Bishops without any direct Authority to govern Bishops So that this power of deposing Heretical and Wicked Bishops does not contradict what I before asserted That by original right all Bishops are equal and every Bishop supreme in
his own Diocess who cannot be compelled by other Bishops to govern his Church by such Rules and Laws as he himself does not assent to and therefore that such Combinations and Councils of Bishops are not originally for direct acts of Government and superiority over each other but only for mutual Counsel and Advice For these are two very different things To have Authority to compel a Bishop to govern his Church by such Laws as he himself in his own conscience does not approve and to have Authority to fling a notorious Heretical or Schismatical Bishop out of their Communion and to command and exhort his Presbyters and People not to own him St. Cyprian I am sure thought these two cases very different for the first he utterly rejects as an usurpation on the Episcopal Authority that it was to make themselves Bishops of Bishops which he thought a great impiety the other he practised himself in the case of Basilides and Martialis For the first is a direct Authority over Bishops in the exercise of their Episcopal Function the second is only an Authority to censure Heresie and Schism and to preserve the Communion of the Church pure and to defend the Flock from such Wolves in Sheeps Clothing But it may be it will be Objected That this comes much to one for the Authority of deposing Heretical and Schismatical Bishops infers an Authority of declaring Heresie and Schism and that of making or declaring Articles of Faith and Laws of Catholick Communion for how can they depose Hereticks or Schismaticks without an Authority of declaring what Heresie and Schism is And this is as much Authority as the Council of Trent it self would have desired and therefore it seems very absurd and contradictious to deny a Council Authority to oblige their Collegues by their Decrees of Faith or Manners or Catholick Unity and to give Authority to neighbour Bishops to depose or censure any Heretical or Schismatical Bishop To this purpose our Author argues p. 32. 33. According to their Doctrine the Bishops of Spain France Italy and Germany being Bishops of the Catholick Church tho' ordinarily their Power is confined to their particular Churches yet having an Original right with relation to the whole Catholick Church are bound by the Laws of Communion to re-assume their Original right and assemble and summon before them the Bishops of the Church of England who in their opinion are fallen into a great Schism and Heresy in which matters these Bishops have a direct Authority over the Bishops of the Church of England and may proceed against them and depose them and ordain others in their room and oblige the People to withdraw from the communion of the deposed Bishops in which case the foreign Bishops being the governing part have as much authority over the English Bishops as the English Bishops have over the Dissenters in England He should have said as the English Bishops have over the Popish bishops of France Spain or Italy and then he had come pretty near the matter He adds The larger combination of Bishops the greater is their Power and Authority And therefore if the English Bishops have a direct Authority over the Dissenters in England so has this greater combination of Bishops over the dissenting English Bishops that is if Bishops have Authority over their own Flocks then the Bishops of France and Spain have Authority over English Bishops if Bishops must govern their own Churches other Bishops may govern them an inference which I believe our Author is the first man that ever made And as the English Bishops insist on their Authority in decision of Controversies and the Dissenter must submit so may this greater College of Bishops urge their Authority and the Dissenting English Bishops must submit and may not be admitted to exercise their own judgment or pretend Conscience there no more than the English Protestant Dissenter may do it here It must be carefully observed that by these Gentlemen the Power is lodged with the College of Catholic Bishops and so long as the Church of England acknowledges the Bishops of these Countries to be Catholick Bishops as now they do just as we acknowledg the Church of Rome to be part of the Catholick Church but a very corrupt and schismatical part of it they cannot question their power that they must acknowledg And by the Laws of Catholick Communion must obey a College of them and appear before them when Summoned The greatest thing that they can with any pretence insist on is the justness of their cause of which they are no more competent judges before this College than the Dissenters are when before these Bishops here What happy days would the Church of Rome see were things brought to this pass but how impertinent all his talk of the College of Bishops is has been already shown and will be more in what follows All that I observe at present is how he turns the power of deposing and censuring heretical and schismatical Bishops into a power of declaring Heresy and judging whether they be Hereticks or not by such a final and uncontroulable power as Hereticks themselves are bound to submit to And which is more ridiculous than that if one Church agrees to accuse another Church of Heresy the accusers alone must be judges and the accused are very incompetent Judges of it because forsooth they are accused But this matter may be stated without setting up such a Soveraign Tribunal for judging of Heresies For 1. That Heretical Bishops may be deposed I think all agree in 2. And there is as little question but that Orthodox and Catholick Bishops who have the care of the Church committed to them have this power of deposing That is of casting such a Bishop out of their Communion and exhorting his People to withdraw Communion from him and to accept of a Catholick Bishop in his stead which is all that the Ecclesiastical power of deposing signifies 3. There is no question neither but that all Bishops will call that Heresy which they themselves think to be so and will judg those to be Hereticks who profess such Doctrines as they call Heresy 4. But it does not hence follow that any Bishops or any number of Bishops however assembled have such an Authority to define Articles of Faith or to declare Heresy as shall oblige all men to believe that to be Heresy which they decree to be so 5. And therefore the effects of these Censures must of necessity depend upon that Opinion which People have of them Those who believe the Censure just will withdraw themselves from the Communion of such a Bishop those who do not believe it just will still communicate with him For who ever pronounces the Sentence excepting the interposing of Secular power the People must execute it and if they will still adhere to their Bishop he may defic his Deposers and all their power As the English Bishops and People do all the Anathemaes of the Church of Rome 6.
Head on Earth for with respect to Christ who is the true and only Head of his Church we will allow it to be one Kingdom and Family in this sense I say let any man judge of this who understands Consequences If our Author did not see this the Reader may judg of his understanding if he did he may judg of his honesty And thus his foundation is gone and then all the superstructure is but a Castle in the Air For if the Universal Church be not one Organized politick body as according to my Principles it is not then it cannot be subjected to one governing Head neither to the Pope nor a General Council His third charge is that I make somewhat more necessary to Catholick Communion than an Agreement in the same Faith the same Rules of Worship and right Administration of the Sacraments that is Catholick Communion is our union in one body and communicating in this one body is the exercise of Catholick Communion which those who do not if there be not a just and necessary cause for it are Schismaticks for all that whatever their Faith and Worship be and Schism is a damning sin But how does this make any thing more necessary to Catholick Communion than the same Faith the same Worship the same Sacraments These are all the Catholick terms of Catholick Communion but if these do not unite us into one body we are not united for all that Not that any thing else is wanting to make this union but because through the lusts and vices and passions of men an union does not follow upon it but he was sensible that Catholick Communion alone would not do his business would not prove the necessity of one Supreme governing-head whether the Pope or a General Council over the whole Church and therefore he insinuates that I make something else the necessary terms of Catholick Communion besides the true Christian Faith Worship and Sacraments and what should that be do you think but subjection to one Supreme Head which you shall see how learnedly he proves For he adds 4. That what is further necessary to Catholik Communion is a Catholick Government namely the Episcopal Now all these words I have used upon one occasion or other but there is no such proposition as this in all my Book I do allow Episcopacy to be an Apostolical Institution and the truly Ancient and Catholick Government of the Church of which more hereafter but yet in this very book I prove industriously and at large that in case of necessity when Bishops cannot be had a Church may be a truly Catholick Church and such as we may and ought to communicate with without Bishops in vindication of some foreign reformed Churches who have none and therefore I do not make Episcopacy so absolutely necessary to Catholick Communion as to unchurch all Churches which have it not But the Remainder of his quotations referring to the Unity of the Episcopacy I must briefly explain what my Notion is about it and truly I have proceeded all along upon St. Cyprian's Principles and he must answer for it if he have misled me S. Cyprian taught me that there is one Episcopacy part of which every Bishop holds with full authority and power where by one Episcopacy St. Cyprian understands one Bishoprick that is the Universal Church which as it is but one Church is but one Bishoprick also it being all under the Government of the Episcopal power But then this Bishoprick is divided into parts into particular Diocesses and every Bishop has a part of this Universal Bishoprick which he has in solidum that is he has his part to govern with the fulness and plenitude of the Episcopal power without any Superior authority or jurisdiction over him This I take to be the plainest and easiest interpretation of St. Cyprian's words for though all learned men have agreed in the same sense yet the Phrase has a little puzled them for if by one Episcopacy we understand one Episcopal office and power tho' the sense will be the same yet the expression is very obscure for how can every Bishop have but part of the Episcopal office in Solidum that is part of the office and the whole power But if by one Episcopacy we understand one Bishoprick and the universal Church may as properly be called one Bishoprick as one Church and one Sheepfold then it is all plain that there is but one Bishoprick of which every Bishop has part in which he exercises the whole Episcopal authority and power Another Principle of St. Cyprian's is that this one Episcopacy or one Bishoprick is preserved one by the concord and agreement of Bishops for if the Bishops disagree who have the Supreme government of their own Churches this must of necessity divide the Bishoprick and the Church but this one Bishoprick is spread over the World by the consenting multitude of many Bishops which as I observed he calls the Unity and Peace of the Episcopacy And for the same reason Optatus calls it the Episcopal College and Bishops are called Collegues And St. Cyprian tells us The-Catholick Church is not rent nor divided but united and coupled by the cement of Bishops who stick close together Another Principle is That no Bishop nor Colledg of Bishops have a direct authority or jurisdiction over their Collegues to compel them to submit to their decrees and definitions against their own Judgment and Conscience That none of them pretended to be Bishops of Bishops which he abhors as a Tyrannical Usurpation as we see in his Preface to the Council of Carthage Another Principle is That since there is but one Episcopacy or Bishoprick every Bishop besides the Supreme Government of his own particular Diocess has such a relation to the whole Church that he is to take care as much as in him lies to see that no part of the Church suffer by the Heresies or Schisms of their Bishops which is the reason as I observed before St. Cyprian gives Why there are so many Bishops in the Christian Church That if any of our Colledg i. e. any Bishop should endeavour to broach any new Heresie or to tear and spoil thâ— Flock of Christ the rest may come in to their help and like good and merciful Pastors gather again the Sheep of Christ into their Fold These are the Principles I learnt from St. Cyprian and if our Author can find a supreme Head of the Universal Church whether Pope or General Council in this Scheme I am sure St. Cyprian could not who disowns any such superior Authority to Bishops Let us then now return to our Author who observes that I assert That all the Bishops of the Church are but one also which a little differs from one Bishops being all invested with the same Power and Authority to govern the Church for which I quoted St. Cyprian tho he thinks fit to leave him out That as St. Cyprian tells us there is but
requires every Man 's own Judgment and his personal Assent I deny not but it may be of great Use for Christian Princes and Emperors to summon such Councils as these as Constantine and other succeeding Emperors did for there was no such thing as what we call a General Council till Constantine summoned the first Council at Nice For Christian Princes and Emperors are concerned to encourage and support the true Christian Faith and Worship and they are as much concerned not to be misguided in these Matters which instead of Nursing Fathers may make them Persecutors of the true Church And to prevent this they cannot take a better way when the Church is divided by Schisms and Heresies then to summon such a great Council where the Matters in Dispute may be freey debated but I look upon these rather to be Councils of the Empire than of the Church which have no other Authority but what either the Imperial Sanctions give them or what every Church gives them by receiving their Decrees And it is evident from Ecclesiastical Story that the bear Authority of these Councils never put an end to any one Dispute any farther than they were backed by the Imperial Power which is an Argument that they did not believe in those days such Councils to be Infallible or to be the Supream Tribunal of the Christian Church They were indeed Supream Tribunals when Princes made them so but not by any meer Ecclesiastical Authority and Jurisdiction If then a Council of Bishops be onely for mutual Advice and a Council for Advice requires the personal Presence of all Bishops and though all the Bishops of one Province or one Nation may conveniently enough meet together for Advice yet all the Bishops of the World cannot then I think it is plain that the Consequence from a National to an Oecumenical Council is not good especially 2dly Since there is no need of it to Catholick Communion The Christian Churches maintained a very strict Alliance and Communion with each other for above Three Hundred Years without it Catholick Communion was better preserved then than ever it has been since which is a demonstration that such a Supream governing Power over the whole Church is not necessary to Catholick Communnion for then Catholick Communion could never have been maintained without it and yet thus it was in St. Cyprian's days who was as Zealous an Asserter of Catholick Communion as any before or since In those days the Bishops of Neighbour Churches frequently met together to Advise about the general Concernments of the Church and if any thing hapned which concerned the Discipline of the whole Church as it did in St. Cyprian's days about the case of the lapsed and rebaptizing those who had been baptized by Hereticks they sent their Letters to Forreign Churches and took their Advice about it and by this means did more perfectly understand one anothers Judgments and Reasons and came to a better accord and agreement than they could have done had they met in a General Council consisting onely of some few Representative Bishops I am sure by this means St. Cyprian says their Decrees were confirmed by all the Bishops in the World and Optatus says that this Catholick Communion was maintained all the World over by formed and communicatory Letters It seems they did not think then that one governing Head was necessary to Catholick Communion and therefore though Catholick Communion does require the Union of Neighbour Churches into one Combined Church it does not require such an Union and Combination of all the Churches in the World. Thus I have particularly answered this Author's charge excepting his vain Repetitions of the same Cavils without giving any new force or strength to them and I think any ordinary Reader may see how far I am from setting up the supream Authority either of Pope or General Council over the Universal Church and how impossible it is to graft such consequences upon my Principles with any shew or pretence of Reason And now as for his French Popery let it be what it will I am unconcerned in it since I give no Supream Authority neither to Pope nor General Council and therefore neither agree with the Italian nor Spanish nor French nor any Popery of what denomination soever But I must add a word or two about Petrus de Marca because it seems my Honesty and Credit is very much concerned in this matter so deeply that no man ought ever to believe me more and though I suppose the Reader sees what credit he is to give to this Author yet I must speak at least a good word for my own honesty and to do that I must give a brief account of the occasion of my alleadging the Authority of Petrus de Marca I was charged by my dissenting Adversaries with a Cassandrian design for setting up as they apprehended the Authority of a General Council For there is not one word which this Author has objected against me but what was before objected by the Dissenters and answered in the Vindication Now having shewn them their mistake in this Charge that I had asserted nothing which did infer the Authority of a General Council as the Supream Regent Head of the Catholick Church I over and above shewed them how vain this Charge of Cassandrian or French Popery was though I had given such an Authority to a General Council For meerly to assert the Authority of a General Council does not make any man a Papist of no sort whatsoever unless he assert the Authority of the Pope for though there be some dispute whose Authority is greatest the Popes or the Councils yet no man is a Papist who does not own the Pope to be the Supream and Oecumenical Pastor and therefore I having expresly disowned all Authority of the Pope or Bishop of Rome though I had owned the Authority of a General Council I could be no Papist not so much as a Cassandrian or French Papist So that this is the thing I was to prove that there is no Papist but owns the Pope to be the Supream Head of the Church the Universal and Oecumenical Pastor This I proved Cassander did who asserts That to the Unity of the Catholick Church is required Obedience to One Supream Governour who succeeds Peter in the government of Christ's Church and in the Office of feeding his Sheep and that it is evident from all the Records of the Church that the chief Authority of the Universal Church has always been yielded to the Bishop of Rome as Peter's Successor who sits in his Chair This I proved also of the Councils of Constance and Basil That though they decreed the Council to be above the Pope yet they asserted the Popes Supream Pastorship That all particular men and particular Churches are bound to obey the Pope unless in such matters as are prejudicial to this holy Synod or any other which is lawfully assembled as the Council of Basil expresly teaches And
this was all I undertook to prove of the French Church That whatever Liberties they pretended still they owned the Pope to be the Supream Pastor and Head of the Universal Church for which I appealed to Petrus de Marca Let us then consider what is my Fault Our Author gives us an account that the French Church teaches as the Council of Basil did That though the Pope be greater than particular Churches and Bishops yet he is not greater than the whole Universal Church and that the Authority that is granted him in the Interval of Councils doth not in the least suppose him to have any Superiority or Preheminence above the Universal Church whence it is that whenever from the Ecclesiastical Courts in France any References Suggestions or Consultations were made to the Pope if the Popes Rescripts were contrary to the old Canons the French always looked on it as abusive and made an Appeal from the Pope called Appellatio ab Abusu provoking him to the old Canons Now he says Dr. Sherlock is bold enough to deny all and to bring no less person than the learned Petrus de Marca for his Voucher But where do I deny one word of this or alledge Petrus de Marca's authority to prove it I had no occasion to deny this for all that I was to prove was that the French Church did own the Pope to be the Supream Head and Governour of the Church and that they did so I proved from Petrus de Marca Does not then Petrus de Marca say what I charge him with Yes that he owns What is my fault then Why truly only that I say that Petrus de Marca wrote in defence of the Liberties of the Gallican Church and is not this the Title of his Book De Concordia Sacerdotii Imperii seu de Libertatibus Ecclesioe Gallicanae Of the Agreement of the Priesthood and the Empire or of the Liberties of the Gallican Church Yes this he grants but the Archbishop was perswaded to add this Title by the Bookseller to make it sell the better and I ought to have known for all this if I had looked any farther than Titles and Margins that he wrote against the Liberties of the Gallican Church and will he say that I ought to have said so too That had been a great piece of modesty indeed as great as it is in this Author whoever he be I am sure very inconsiderable in comparison of this great man to charge him with down-right Knavery For my part I am of that mind still that the Archbishop who was as great a man as that Age bred did firmly believe that he had truly stated the Liberties of the Gallican Church though he differed from some who had stretched those Liberties very much to the prejudice of the Roman See which the King himself expressed his sense of when he imposed that task on him of writing this Book for he charged him to take care that the Gallican Liberties might suffer no Injury and that he should let all men see that these Liberties did not diminish that Reverence which the French have most constantly maintained for the Roman See above all other Nations from whence also we may observe that the Subject he was to write on by the Kings Command were the Gallican Liberties which was therefore a proper Title for his Book though he was unwilling to have given it that Title for fear of offending the Court of Rome as it accordingly hapned and he was to take care so to assert the Gallican Liberties as not to detract from that Reverence which the French Church as the King affirms has always paid to the Roman See. This Province he undertook and discharged to the abundant satisfaction of that King who employed him who was jealous enough of the Gallican Liberties as far as they were consistent with the Reverence of the Apostolick See but this work was not so well relished at Rome for as the King rewarded him with a Bishoprick for it so the Court of Rome kept him out of it for several Years and one would guess by this Usage he met with at Rome that they had a very jealous eye on these Gallican Liberties even as De Marca had stated them But our Author observes that Baluzius who wrote De Marca's Life positively affirms that none amongst the French no nor amongst the Spanish and Italian did more eloquently and with greater Authority of the Ancients exalt the Roman Chair to a greater height than De Marca did This Baluzius does not say so absolutely as our Author reports but adds a Qualification which he out of his great Exactness in quoting thought fit to leave out viz. qui modo intra limites oequi constiterit that no man who kept within the bounds of Equity and Moderation ever exalted the Authority of the Roman Bishop more which argues that De Marca did not fly so high as some Flatterers of the Roman Greatness have done but yet gave him as great Power as any man could honestly give him and this I hope he might do without betraying the Gallican Liberties Tho'as Baluzius observes the Romans whose Ears are very tender in such matters could not bear the Title of his Book of the Liberties of the Gallican Church for they suspected that he must be an Enemy to the Ecclesiastical Liberties who wrote professedly for the Liberties of the Gallican Church which he brands with a proh nefas as a thing ridiculous and absurd In the same place Baluzius falls severely upon Faget who also wrote the Life of De Marca for making him a Deserter and betrayer of the Gallican Liberties He gives an Account of the Roman Arts to perswade him to condemn some parts of his Book and to insinuate that the mistakes of that Book of Concord were not owing to his own Will and Choice but to the importunate Commands and Ambition of others this Condition he absolutely refused though it was proposed by Cardinal Barberini as the easiest Expedient to obtain a dispatch of his Affairs at Rome This he was frequently solicited to and as constantly refused firmly resolving while he was in health rather to renounce all Right and Claim to his Bishoprick than remit any of the Priviledges of the Gallican Church till at last they taking advantage of a great fit of Sickness when his mind might be supposed as weak as his Body he subscribed a Paper wherein he recanted every thing in his Book which was contrary to the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Immunity as it was taught by the Church of Rome an account of which Baluz gives us in his Life p. 16. 17. From whence it appears that though De Marca did not so much depress the Pope nor extend the Gallican Liberties as some French Lawyers had done yet he honestly and sincerely maintained with constancy and resolution excepting this subscription in his sickness against all the Arts and Solicitations of the Church of Rome what he
among us are better known by the name of Arminian Controversies now suppose they thought fit to give a latitude of Sense in their defining these Controversies have they positively defined nothing Has not the Church of Rome in express terms decreed the Doctrine of Transubstantiation of worship of Saints and images of the Adoration of the Host of Seven Sacraments of Purgatory c. And has not the Church of England as positively determined against them And where is the agreement then between the Two Churches The truth is there cannot be a worse thing said of any Church than what this Author charges both upon the Church of England and the Church of Rome that they purposely penn'd their Decrees in such loose terms that men of different Opinions might expound them to their own sense Which is to make a show of deciding a Controveesy with an intention all the while to leave it undecided which is such a juggle as unbecomes the Sincerity of a Christian Church There may be a great many nice Philosophical disputes which a wise Church may think necessary to leave undecided but there never can be any good reason instead of determining Controversies to lay the foundation of endless disputes between the Members of the same Communion by doubtful and ambiguous expressions And therefore I absolutely deny that the Church of England has done this or ever intended to do it She has indeed used that temper and moderation in those Articles which relate to the Five points as only to determine what is substantial in them and necessary to be believed by all Christians without deciding those Niceties whereon the Controversie between the Calvinist and the Arminian turns and therefore both of them may subscribe these Articles because the Controversies between them are determined on neither side and the appeasing such heats as may be occasioned by those Disputes is left to the prudence of Governours which was thought a better way than a positive decision of them This I think I could make appear were it a proper place for it and therefore have always thought that the Church of England was wronged on both sides while both the Calvinist and Arminian have forced her to speak their own sense when she intended to speak neither And no man can blame this conduct who remembers that this is only a reviving that old Philosophical dispute about Necessity and Fate which always has been a dispute and is likely to continue so and though these different Opinions have very different effects on our minds and form very different apprehensions in us of Almighty God which may be a just reason to prefer one before the other yet they are both consistent with the belief of all the fundamental Doctrines of Christianity as I have shewed at large in that Book to which this Author so often refers But now the Church of Rome has truly used this art which this Author charges her with such a latitude of expression and ambiguous terms as might satisfie their differing Divines that the cause was determined on their side when there was no other way to end their disputes and allay their heats and that in many concerning points too as any one may see who reads Father Paul's History of the Council of Trent and if this be intolerable in a fallible Church it is much more intolerable in a Council which pretends to Infallibility Certainly they distrusted their own Authority either did not believe themselves to be Infallible or knew that their Divines did not think them so for otherwise the Authority of the Council might have over-ruled their Disputes and there had been no need of cheating them into an assent But what expectation is there that the decrees of those men should be Infallible who so often intended to decree nothing This is a Mystery which I suppose our Author would not so freely have confessed at another time but it was necessary to allow this latitude of sense in the Decrees of the Trent Council now to bring off Mr. De Meaux and the Representer who do indeed expound the Decrees of the Council to a great latitude of sense But it is not a little matter will help them out the latitude of one side of the Line will not do but it must reach from Pole to Pole. There is another ingenious confession of this Author which is worth the noting That among the Romanists about the great Doctrine of Predetermination there are the Durandists Dominicans Jansenists Molinists and Scotists that very much differ in Opinion and yet are still of the same Church and yet these are the men that quarrel at the reformation because there are differing Opinions among them when there are the same Disputes among themselves managed with as great heat and contention These are the men who tell us that we must have an infallible Judg to end our disputes when an infallible Pope and infallible Councils dare not undertake to end theirs but as for what he adds that there are in the Church of England Calvinists Arminians Socinians and Antinomians who subscribe the same Articles of Religion as terms of Unity and Peace As for Calvinists and Arminians I will grant they may both subscribe our Articles whether any Socinians do I know not no more than they know when a secret Iew or one who does not believe Transubstantiation is receiv'd into holy Orders by them but I am sure an honest Socinian cannot subscribe our Articles unless he can subscribe the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds but this was only designed to propagate that groundless calumny That the Divines of the Church of England are infected with Socinianism Having thus as well as he could delivered himself from ingaging in that Dispute about our agreement in doctrinal Points which he knew he could make nothing of he says He will confine himself to the agreement there is between both Churches about Government and Worship and threatens to show how we have disputed against Dissenters upon Roman-Catholick Principles both in proving their Obligation to Communion with us and in vindicating the terms of our Communion from being sinful This is what he undertakes to prove and we are bound to hear him Answer to SECT 1. Concerning the Church of Englands Closure with a Roman Catholick Principle about the Government of the Church in proving the Dissenter to lie under an Obligation of holding Communion with her AND now we are come to the main seat of the Controversy about Catholick communion which our Author has very dexterously improved into Catholick Power and Empire I need give him no hard words to expose his manifest and wilful prevarications in this matter will be thought hard enough if he be capable of blushing Now to make this as visible as the light I shall 1. Shew wherein he pretends the Agreement between the Two Churches consists that is between my principles of Communion and the Church of Rome for I am the only person here concerned and if I cannot
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
one Episcopacy part of which every Bishop holds with full Authority and Power that all these Bishops are but one body who are bound to live in Communion with each other and to govern their respective Churches where need requires and where it can be had by mutual Advice and Consent and therefore that no Bishops are absolutely Independant but are obliged to preserve the Unity of the Episcopacy or Episcopal College as Optatus calls it which words our Author leaves out as being afraid of naming the Authority of any Father in the case whereon the Unity and Communion of the Catholick Church depends Thus far our Author recites my words and here breaks off but I shall beg leave to go on For it is impossible the Catholick Church should be one Body or Society or one Communion if it be divided into as many Independent Churches as there are absolute and independent Bishops For those Churches must be independent which have an independent Power and Government as all those must have which have independent Governors and Bishops and independent Churches can never make one Body and one Catholick Communion because they are not Members of each other and thus the Unity of the Catholick Church must be destroyed unless we assert One Episcopocy as well as One Church One Evangelical Priesthood as well as One Altar all the world over Here I must stop a little for here he seems to lay his Foundation whereon to erect his Papal Monarchy or his Soveraign Power of General Councils that I assert That Bishops are not absolutely independent and therefore he supposes That they must be subordinate too to some higher Power and Jurisdiction How far I am from asserting any such Supreme Power over the whole Church I have already shown and now I must vindicate this Principle That Bishops are not absolutely Independent from any such consequence which is no very difficult task if men will consider what I mean by the independency of Bishops and for what reason I asserted That Bishops are not absolutely independent For the independency I deny is such an independency as is opposed to the unity of the Episcopacy and to their obligation to live in Communion with each other for because there is but one Episcopacy because all Bishops are but one body therefore I assert they are not absolutely independent but are obliged to preserve the unity of the Episcopacy or Episcopal College for absolute Independency excludes all necessary obligations to Unity and Communion as well as to Subjection An absolute independent Soveraign Prince is no more bound by the Laws of Soveraignty to live in Unity than to own subjection to neighbour Princes now Bishops indeed as to subjection are independent for there is no superior Authority in the Church over them as I have always asserted but they are not independent as to Unity and Communion for the fundamental Laws of one Episcopacy oblige them to Unity and Communion and that obliges them to govern their Churches by mutual advice without which this Unity cannot be preserved I am sure St. Cyprian lays so much stress on this that he expresly asserts That He cannot have the Power nor the Honour of a Bishop who will not maintain the Unity and the Peace of the Episcopacy Now I cannot think such Bishops absolutely independent tho they are subject to no superior Authority who depend upon preserving the Unity and Peace of the Episcopacy for the very Power and Dignity of Bishops I deny such an independency of Bishops as makes their Churches independent which destroys Catholick Communion as I showed in those words which our Author suppressed That Unity of the Catholick Church depends upon the Unity of the Episcopacy For it is impossible the Catholick Church should be one Body or Society or one Communion if it be divided into as many independent Churches as there are absolute and independent Bishops for those Churches must be Independent which have an Independent power and government as all those must have who have Independent Governours or Bishops and Independent Churches can never make one Body and one Catholick Communion because they are not Members of each other Now this Independency of Churches which I condemn is not opposed to a superior Jurisdiction for so Churches as well as Bishops are originally Independent but it is opposed to their being such distinct and separate Bodies as are not Members of each other which destroys Catholick Communion or makes it Arbitrary And this is the Independency of Bishops which I deny such an Independency as overthrows the unity of the Episcopacy and consequently the unity of the Church Nay I further deny the Independency of Bishops as that signifies an exemption from all censures in case of Heresie and Schism and Idolatry and such like evil practises which does not infer a superior authority of one Bishop over another but only an authority in the Church to censure such crimes whoever be guilty of them as I have already explained it at large So that my Notion of the Independency of Bishops will do no service at all to the Pope or General Council 5. He proceeds in his charge The power of every Bishop in his own Diocess is not so absolute and independent but that he is bound to preserve the unity of the Episcopacy and to live in Communion with his Collegues and fellow Bishops for this is the foundation of Catholick Communion without which there can be no Catholick Church This has been accounted for already and whoever observes that the reason of all is laid upon the preservation of Catholick Communion will easily guess how little this makes for an Universal Power and Empire over the Church He proceeds The whole authority of a Bishop or Council over other Bishops is founded on the Laws of Catholick Communion which is the great end it serves and therefore it does not prove a Supreme governing Head over the Church and therefore they have no proper authority but only in such matters as concern the Unity of the Episcopacy or the peace and Communion of the Catholick Church This also has been sufficiently explained before Again this unity of the Episcopacy is the foundation of these larger combinations and confederacies of Neighbour Churches which make Archiepiscopal or National Churches For since there is but one Episcopacy it is highly reasonable and necessary so far as it is practicable they should all act and govern their respective Churches as one Bishop with one consent which is the most effectual way to secure the peace and unity of the Episcopal Colledg and to promote the edification and good government of the Church Nay this unity of the Episcopacy is the foundation of that authority which Neighbour Bishops have over their Collegues in case of Heresy and Schism or any other notorious wickedness for they being Bishops of the Universal Church have an Original right and power to take care that no part of the Church which is within their reach
Answer And now from quoting our Author falls to disputing me into an Agreement which methinks argues that we are not agreed or at least that I do not know we are for what need of disputing if as the Title of his Book says we are agreed already but however the Dispute is like to be but short and therefore we will patiently bear it Now to trace us to St. Peters Chair he thus begins For by their making the Catholick Church one Body one Houshold one Kingdom or governed Society that has a governing and governed Part they must necessarily be for a Catholick Hierarchy as what alone is a fit Government for so great a Body Politick that is if the whole Church be one Body Politick over which there must be one Supream governing Head then we must acknowledge the Authority of the Pope or general Council over the whole Church which is a demonstration But if we do not make the whole Church one such Organiz'd Politick Body but only one Communion as it has appeared we do not then there is no necessity of one Supream Government over the whole Church but it is sufficient if the Church be governed by Parts by Bishops who have all equal Authority but agree in the same Communion and govern their particular Churches by common Advice and in this case there is a governing and a governed Part but no one Supream Head. And thus all his reasoning is at an end for destroy this one Principle that the whole Catholick Church is one Politick Organiz'd Body with one Supream Power over the whole and there is an end of the Authority both of Popes and general Councils But he will not give up the Cause thus for says he Let us therefore a little more clearly observe what these Church of England Clergy-men affirm and we shall find their Notion about Church Government exactly formed according to the Roman Model Well Sir watch us as narrowly as you can and see the end of it For says he they say there can be no one Catholick Communion without one Catholick Government But what does he mean by one Catholick Government One superior Power over the whole Catholick Church And who ever said this and where We say that the Unity of the Episcopacy or the Communion and good correspondency of Bishops is necessary to preserve Catholick Communion among their several Churches but we never said that one Catholick Government or superior Power over the whole Church is necessary to this end He proceeds And that Catholick Unity and Communion may be the more securely preserved the Combination of Churches considered as pure Ecclesiastical Societies into Archiepiscopal and National Churches is necessary Not absolutely necessary but highly expedient but then our Authour must remember withal that these Combinations of Churches are not for a superior Authority and Government over Bishops but only for mutual counsel and advice and then let him make his best of it And so he will make what he can of it for he adds So that the great end of the Combination of Diocesan into Provincial and National Churches is the preserving Catholick Communion Right remember that that it is for Communion not for Government and all is well Which cannot be but by raising the Combination higher and extending it much farther even unto Patriarchial and at last into one occumenical combined Church for this alone is commensurate to Catholick Communion Well! suppose then that all the Bishops in the World could meet together for counsel and advice as the Bishops of a Province or Nation can and had just such an Oecumenical as there are national Primates what service would this do the Church of Rome For here is no Supream Power all this while over the Universal Church neither Pope nor general Council Here is no Oecumenical Pastor no Supream Tribunal which all the World is bound to obey For as I have already shown we do not make a Primate or National Synod the constitutive Regent Head of a National Church but only a great Council for mutual Advice and therefore were there such an Oecumenical Primate and Oecumenical Council yet it would as vastly differ from the Roman Model as a Council for Advice and a Council for Government as an Oecumenical Head and Pastor and the President of an Oecumenical Council and the Church of Rome is at a very low ebb if it can be contented with such a Primate and such a Council as this which essentially differ from what the Councils of Constance and Basil themselves attribute to Popes and Councils But besides this if such an Oecumenical combination of Bishops and Churches cannot be and there be no need of it to Catholick Communion then I suppose our Authour will grant that the Argument from a National combination of Churches and a National Primate to an Oecumenical Combination of Churches and an Oecumenical Primate is not good 1. Then this cannot be and that for this plain Reason because all the Bishops of the Christian Church cannot meet together from all parts of the World and if they could they ought not to forsake their Churches for so long a time as such a Journey and such a Consultation requires But you 'l say every Nation may spare some Bishops to send with full Authority to the Council as the Representatives of all the rest This I take to be next to a Moral Impossibility I am sure it was never yet done there never was such a Council as had some Bishops in it from all parts of the Christian World. But suppose this could be done these Bishops who meet in Council could represent No-body but themselves and therefore can make no such Decrees as by their own Authority shall oblige all the other Bishops who were not present For a Bishop is not a representable Person He is the Supream Governour in his own Diocess and cannot and ought not to be imposed on without his own consent his Trust and Office and Power is Personal and so is his account and therefore he can no more be represented in a Council than he can at the Day of Judgment every Man's Conscience and Soul must be in his own keeping and therefore can be represented by no Man. Had the Representatives of the Catholick Church a Divine Authority superior to all particular Churches and Bishops to oblige them to stand to their Decrees as the Church of Rome asserts a general Council has then indeed some few Bishops chose by their National and Provincial Bishops to go to the Council and to Act as the Representatives of such Churches might have a plenary Authority to debate and determine all Matters in Dispute whether relating to Faith or Worship or Discipline But such an Authority as this he knows we absolutely deny and assert that Councils are only for mutual Advice and can oblige no Bishops without their personal assent and this makes it ridiculous to talk of Representatives in giving and taking Advice which is a personal Act and
another to believe and practise that which I am not assured to be truth As if no man could be certain of any thing without Infallibility Now all his Arguments proceeding upon this Mistake that we own a Superiority of one Bishop over another that Bishops own Obedience and Subjection to Archbishops and Primates and they to Patriarchs whereas we own no such thing but teach that all Bishops are equal as I have already explained it and that these combinations of Bishops into Archiepiscopal and National Churches are not for direct acts of Government and Superiority over each other but for mutual Advice and Counsel All his Arguments from the Superiour Power of Archbishops Metropolitans and Patriarchs to prove that there must be an Universal Pastor fall with it 3. By an Oecumenic Pastor he means the Universal Visible Ruling Head of the Catholick Organized Church Militant This is easily understood the only difficulty is to prove that the Catholick Church is such an organized body as must have an universal visible ruling Head. And thus I come to his Reasons whereby he proves that the Subordination of Pastors in the Church does necessarily infer the Supremacy of an Oecumenick or Universal Pastor 1. His first Argument is that there is the same Politick Reason for an Universal Pastor that there is for any subordinate Pastor that hath Pastors subjected unto him Now suppose this were true we do not sound the original right of Government of superiority and subjection between the Pastors of the Church upon any politick Reasons but only upon Institution and therefore though the Politick Reasons were the same if the Institution be not the same that makes an essential difference and spoils all the Arguments from a parity of Reason The only Subordination we allow of is the Subordination of Presbyters to their Bishops and that we found on an Apostolick Institution and if we will speak in the Ancient Language this is not the Subordination of one Pastor to another for none were called the Pastors of the Church in St. Cyprian's days but Bishops who are the Apostles Successors to whom Christ intrusted the care of feeding his Sheep For though Presbyters are intrusted with the care of the Flock yet they are not compleat Pastors because they are under the direction and government of their Bishop in the Exercise of their Ministry and according to Ignatius his Rule must do nothing without him but Bishops are the Supream Governours and Pastors of their particular Churches and we allow of no Subordination of Bishops that is of Pastors to each other This our Transcriber was sensible of and therefore here he leaves his Copy The Independent Author gives his first instance in a Diocesan Bishop ruling his Parish Priests or parochial Pastors the chief end of the said Bishop being Iurisdiction determination of Ecclesiastical Causes regulation and ordination of his Clergy unity order uniformity Now our Popish Transcriber was sensible that there was not such a Subordination between Bishops as there is of Presbyters to Bishops and therefore he changes a Diocesan Bishop into a Provincial Pastor ruling his Diocesan Bishops and regulation and ordination of his Clergy into regulating Abuses and Consecration of Bishops So that he was conscious to himself that there is not the same politick reason for the Subordination of Bishops to each other that there is for the Subordination of Presbyters to their Bishops which is the only Subordination we own and thus I might dismiss his first Argument But is there not a Subordination of Bishops to Archbishops allowed and practised in the Church of England and interwoven with the Constitution of it and it this be thought necessary to the unity and good government of a National Church is there not greater need for a principium unitatis regiminis a principle of unity and government in conjoyning many National Churches in one Patriarchal or all in one Oecumenic as for uniting Provincials in one Primateship or for subjecting Diocesans to their respective Provincials This is the whole force of the Argument which I have sufficiently answered already but shall briefly consider it again 1. Then I observe that whatever superiority or jurisdiction Archbishops challenge over Bishops it is but a Humane Institution for all Bishops with respect to the original Institution of Episcopacy are equal and therefore the superiority of Archbishops oven Bishops cannot prove that Christ has appointed a Supream Pastor over the whole Church and all the Bishops of it for Christ has not made an Archbishop superiour to a Bishop much less a Pope superior to them all So that at most if they proceed upon this Argument they must quit all pretence to a Divine Right and confess the Pope to be as very a Humane Creature as an Archbishop is and then we know what to say to them 2. For the being and authority of Archbishops and consequently of such an Oecumenical Bishop is not necessary and essential to the unity of the Church as no Humane Institution can be Christ Instituted his Church which is but one Church without Archbishops and Metropolitans and consequently without an Oecumenical Bishop and therefore they cannot be necessary to the unity of the Church For if Christ instituted this one Church in a parity of Bishops it must be one without such a superiority as is only of Humane institution The Church cannot be one without the essential principle of unity and if an Oecumenical Pastor be this essential principle of unity then either he must be appointed by Christ and so his institution does not result from a parity of reason with the Archiepiscopal and Patriarchal Authority which were not Instituted by Christ and then this Argument is lost or else Christ instituted one Church without the essential principle of unity which is as great an absurdity as to say that there can be one Church without a principle of unity 3. As the Archiepiscopal and Patriarchal Authority is originally of Humane Institution so it is plain that before the Church was incorporated into the State and it may be some time after it did not give a direct Authority and jurisdiction to one Bishop over another For St. Cyprian who was a Primate himself disowns such an authority as makes them Bishops of Bishops and in St. Ieromes time the Bishop was the highest order in the Church and of what place soever they were Bishops they were all Equal which is a contradiction if one had a direct superiority over another and therefore such combinations of Bishops as I have often observed were not essential to the unity of the Church but were a good prudential means to maintain a strict allyance between Neighbour Bishops was very useful for mutual advice and council gave great authority to Church Discipline when every particular Bishop though he had the supreme Authority in his own Church yet did not act meerly upon his own Head but with the consent and advise of the whole Province or
Patriarchate which confirmed the Authority of every Bishop when those who were duely censured by their Bishop saw it in vain to complain to other Bishops who all observed the same rules of Discipline and an Archbishop or Primate was very necessary in such combinations not for unity and government but for order as it is in all other Bodies and Societies of men at least not for any acts of Government over their fellow Bishops but such as did belong in common to them all as ordaining Bishops for vacant Sees or composing such differences as the single Authority of the Bishop could not compose in his own Diocess 4. I readily grant that since the Church is Incorporated into the State Archbishops and Metropolitans have a greater and more direct Authority over their Collegues as far as the Canons of the Church confirmed by the Supreme National Authority extend but whatever is more than I have now explained is not a pure Ecclesiastical Authority but a mixt Authority derived from the Civil Powers and this may be greater or less as the Civil Powers please All compulsory jurisdiction must be derived from the Civil Powers because the Church has none of her own and when the Church is incorporated into the State as it is very fitting that the Ecclesiastical Authority should be enforced by the Civil Authority so those who have the exercise of this Ecclesiastical Authority seem the fittest persons to be entrusted with such a Civil Jurisdiction as is thought convenient to give force to it which is the true original of that mixt Authority which the Bishops and Archbishops now exercise by the Canons of the Church and the Laws of the Land. But though this justifies the Archiepiscopal or Metropolitical Authority over a National Church yet it is a demonstration that there can be no such Oecumenical Pastor as there is a National Archbishop unless we could find an Universal Monarch too as well as a King of England of France or Spain for otherwise whence should this Universal Pastor derive his Oecumenic Authority unless there be an Universal Prince Meerly considered as a Bishop he has no Superiority or Jurisdiction over any of his Collegues or fellow Bishops and he can never have such a Jurisdiction over the Universal Church as a Metropolitan has over a National Church unless there be an Universal King to give this Universal Authority to him as there is the King of England of France or Spain to give such a National Authority to their Patriarchs and Primates Whereas the Pope of Rome is so far from deriving his Authority from Secular Princes that he challenges a Superiour Authority over them and their Subjects in their own Dominions Which shews how senseless it is to infer the Authority of an Universal Bishop or Pastor from the Authority of a National Primate because they cannot derive their Authority the same way there being no Universal Monarch to give him such Authority and the Bishop of Rome who alone challenges this Universal Pastorship is so far from owning such a Title to it that he assumes an Authority over Soveraign Princes And therefore though it may be pardonable in an Independent to use such an Argument for the Pope's Authority I know not how our Popish Plagiary will come off with it for it effectually overthrows all pretences to a Papal Supremacy to derive it from no higher Principle than what gives being to a National Primacy which is not the Institution of Christ but the Authority of Soveraign Princes and Civil Powers which the Pope cannot have and if he could would think scorn to receive his Power from them For that would spoil his claim as Christ's Vicar and St. Peter's Successor and they who give can take away too 5. But setting aside all this there is not a parity of reason for an Oecumenic Pastor and a National Primate neither of them are necessary to the Unity of the Church which is preserved by the concord and agreement of Bishops not by such a governing Authority and superiour Power of one Bishop over another As for Advice and Counsel such a National combination of Bishops under a Metropolitan may be of great use because all the Bishops in a Nation may without any inconvenience meet together but there is not the same reason for an Universal Bishop because all the Bishops in the World cannot meet together in Council with him as I have already discoursed And as for some peculiar acts of Authority and Jurisdiction especially where there is a mixture of the Ecclesiastical and Civil Authority this may very prudently be intrusted with a National Primate But it is both an intolerable grievance which has been complained of by Roman Catholick Princes and People that Appeals should lie to Rome and the Bishops and People of all Nations in the World be forced to have their Causes heard there and it is a derogation from the Authority of Soveraign Princes to have a Foreign Bishop exercise a superiour Jurisdiction in their own Kingdoms This I think is sufficient if men be reasonable to answer his first Politick Reason for an Universal Pastor 2. His next Argument is very Comical the whole of which he has borrowed also from his Independent Author though sometimes he ventures upon new Phrases and new Illustrations which make it more comical still He proves that they that maintain the Government of the Church by Bishops Archbishops Primates c. must also own and acknowledge an Universal Visible Pastor from the nature of an Universal Visible Church This may be true for ought I know for who can tell but his c. which is all he has added to the Original may include an Universal Pastor But his Argument is fallaciously put which I confess is none of his fault but his Author 's whom he has honestly Copied it should have been this those who assert the Government of the Church by Bishops Archbishops Primates though he should have left out Bishops as he did in his former Argument because their Authority is of a distinct consideration from Archbishops and Primates from the nature of an Universal Visible Church must also own an Universal Visible Pastor from the nature of an Universal Visible Church For if we do not derive the Authority of Archbishops and Primates from the nature and essential Constitution of the Catholick Church as it is evident we do not how can the nature of the Universal Visible Church force us to own an Universal Pastor when it does not force us to own a National Primate If there be such a connexion between them that the consequence holds from one to the other we must own them both for the same reason for there is no proportion nor no consequence between things which have different natures and causes But let us hear how he proves this This Church he says must be an organized or unorganized Body made up of partes Similares onely Right the Universal Church is unorganized as to
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
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