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
ordain without their Bishop because they are not compleat Pastors but act in subordination to and dependance on their Bishops and therefore have not such a fulness of Power in themselves as to communicate it to others 5. In the next place he argues from the chief ends of Subordination of Pastors in the Church viz. That there may be place for Appeals in matters of Controversie in Cases of Male-administration by the subordinate Clergy final Determinations of difficult Ecclesiastical Causes Correction of Heresie and Schism as also establishment of Ceremonies Schism and Ceremonies belong to the next head of Arguments where his Author placed them but this Transcriber has not Judgment enough to write after his Copy but will sometimes venture to alter thô without sense But there are as many choice passages in his pursuit of this Argument as one could wish which would make one suspect that the Independent Author himself was a well-wisher to Popery he disputes so heartily for a last Supream Judge to receive Appeals and for the Infallibility of such a Judge But there is nothing more required to answer this Argument but to give a plain state of this case of Appeals We must distinguish then between Ecclesiastical Causes and consider the original Right of Appeals As for Ecclesiastical Causes nothing is a pure Ecclesiastical Cause but what concerns the Communion of the Church who shall be received into Communion or cast out of it or put under some less Censures which confines this either to Faith or Manners But as for other causes which are called Ecclesiastical because they concern Ecclesiastical Things or Persons such as the repairs of Churches advowsance of Livings Tithes Glebe Oblations c. they are rather of a Civil than Ecclesiastical Cognizance thô Bishops and Ecclesiastical Persons are entrusted by the Civil Powers with the determination of them and in such Matters as these it is fit there should lie Appeals as there do in all other Civil Matters but then it is sit also that these Appeals should be bounded as all other Civil Appeals are within the Kingdom or Territory where the cause arises for to carry such Appeals out of the Kingdom is as great an injury to the Authority of the Prince as to the Liberties of the Subject A Soveraign Prince has all civil Power and Jurisdiction and to suffer Appeals to Foreign Bishops or Princes is to own a Superior in his own Dominions and therefore in such matters as these no Appeal can lie to an Oecumenick Bishop As for causes purely Ecclesiastical the Bishop being Supream in his own Diocess there can be no original Right of Appeal from him for there is no Appeal from the Supreme he has a free power in the Government of his own Diocess and must render an account of his actions to Christ who is the supreme Lord of the Church as St. Cyprian tells us But as notwithstanding this it is very expedient and in some degree necessary that neighbour Bishops should unite into an Ecclesiastical Body for the maintainance of Catholick Communion and the exercise of Discipline as I have already shewn so the very nature of such combinations admits and requires Appeals that if any Presbyter or private Christian be too severely censured by his Bishop or without just cause he may find relief from the Synod or Primate or in whomsoever the power of receiving Appeals is placed for Bishops are men and liable to humane Passions and frailties and it would be impossible to maintain the Authority of Church censures without such Appeals For though there be no original right of Appeals from the Sentence of one Bishop to another yet every Bishop has authority to receive whom he judges fit into the Communion of his own Church and should one Bishop depose a Presbyter or Excommunicate a lay Christian unjustly should they go into another Diocess if the Bishop of it judged them worthy of Communion he might receive them into Communion notwithstanding these censures for he is Judge in his own Church as the other was in his But how contemptible would Ecclesiastical Censures be if they reached no farther than single Diocesses and what dissensions would this create among Bishops should one receive those into Communion whom the other had cast out Which makes it highly expedient that neighbour Bishops should be made not the Judges of their fellow Bishops or their actions as it is in superiour Courts which have a direct Authority over the inferiour but Umpires and Arbitrators of such differences as may happen between the Bishop and his Clergy or People which will preserve the peace and concerd of Bishops and give a more sacred Authority to Ecclesiastical Censures But then these Appeals must be confined to this Ecclesiastical Body and not carried to foreign Churches for by the same reason that these Ecclesiastical Bodies and Communions must be confined within such limits as admit of such combinations of which I have given an account above these Appeals also must be confined to the Ecclesiastical Bodies as St Cyprian expresly affirms that the Cause should be heard there where the Crime was committed Thus we see there is no need of an Oecumenical Pastor to receive Appeals much less of an Infallible Judge for this purpose and thus I might dismiss this Argument were it possible to pass it over without observing some peculiar strains of Reason and Rhetorick in it As for Example That Appeals are to no end if there be not some Supreme Catholic Pastor to arrive at in whose determination we are bound to set down and rest satisfied As if there could be no last Appeal but to a Catholick Pastor or no man were bound to rest satisfied in any other last Appeal But I perceive the satisfaction he means is the satisfaction of having our Cause determined by an Infallible Judge who cannot Err Which it may be is the first time a Roman Catholick for I must except his Independent Original ever made the Pope an Infallible Judge not onely in matters of Faith but of all Causes which are brought before him by Appeals But why may not the last Appeal be made to any one else as well as to the Catholick Pastor No the mind of the whole Catholick Church may be had in the Principium unitatis but no other National Provincial or Diocesan Pastor have the mind of the whole Catholick Church Which I can make nothing more of but that the mind of the Catholick Paston is the mind of the Catholick Church and therefore the Catholick Pastor if he speaks his own mind speaks the mind of the Catholick Church too He is the Head and if we will know a mans mind we must resort to the Head not to the Arms or Legs where you can onely expect a dumb kick or box under the Ear as we have had enough of from our Protestant Prelates A Diocesan Provincial or Primate are but the Churches more surly and less intelligible Organs but Arms
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.
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
or Legs which give dumb kicks or boxes on the Ear but if you will understand the sense of the Church you must resort to the Body speaking in the Head not to the kicking Heels This is all demonstration besides the advantages of apt figures and the elegancies of expression to set it of Well the last Appeals then must lie to the Catholick Pastor because he knows the mind of the whole Church and is its speaking Head whereas Metropolitans and Primates are but dumb surly less intelligible Organs whose mind you can onely understand by kicks or boxes under the Ear which yet I think is a very intelligible way though I believe few People love to understand that way For this reason then we must go to the Head that we may understand the mind of the whole Church for then we cannot Err. But is this Head then Infallible Yes most certainly for the pretensions made by the Catholick Pastor to Infallibility are founded on the Principles of the Episcopal Constitution For an Episcopal Church setled by Subordination of Pastors within it self without a Catholick Head is an Animal without a Head Which is a pretty strange sort of Creature In all our Appeals from Pastor to Pastor from Church to Church in any Causes or Controversies if we do not still come to a less Fallible Church and at last arrive at the most Infallible comprehensive of our selves as Members Cui bono hic labor hoc opus That is to what purpose do we Appeal from one Fallible Church to another unless we can at last lodge our final Appeal in an Infallible Church So that the reason why we must Appeal to the Catholick Pastor is that our Cause may be determined by an Infallible Judge who has the mind of the whole Church and the proof of the Infallibility of this Catholick Pastor is that to him must be made the last Appeals which were to no purpose if he were not the most Infallible Thus Infallibility proves the necessity of Appeals and Appeals prove the necessity of Infallibility for one good turn requires another But still me-thinks there is a little difficulty why there should be any Appeals at all to a Fallible Judge Why should not all Causes in the first instance be brought before the Infallible Judge Why must we take such a round by Bishops Provincials Metropolitans Primates before we come to the Catholick Pastor when there can be no satisfaction till we come to the Infallible Judge and have the mind of the whole Church from him And as our Author observes Cui bono do men Appeal from one Fallible Creature to another If the right of Appeals be grounded on Infallibility why must we Appeal to those who are Fallible To salve this which is a real difficulty our Author would insinuate for he is afraid down right to own such an Absurdity that there are Degrees of Infallibility which if admitted we must arise to the highest but why not go to the highest at first but rise by Degrees If it be granted that a Bishop is less fallible than a Parish Priest and an Archbishop less fallible than a Bishop and a Primate than he upon the same ground we may expect the Catholick Pastor to be less fallible than all the rest But what a lamentable ground is this for Infallibility and what a lamentable Infallibility is that which is only being less fallible than some other fallible Creatures But the pleasantest conceit is that mens Infallibility encreases with their several Orders and Degrees in the Church that a Bishop is less fallible and therefore more infallible than a Priest and an Archbishop than a Bishop c. Now I suppose he will grant that Infallibility does not result from mens personal Abilities but is a supernatural Gift and that Christ never gives any thing less in such a supernatural way than absolute Infallibility And therefore whatever Infallibility men can challenge by vertue of a Promise must be absolute and absolute Infallibility has no degrees If then the Infallibility of the Catholick Pastor be founded on a divine Promise it has no relation at all to the several degrees of Fallibility in other Church Officers unless he can show where Christ has promised several degrees of Infallibility to the several Orders and Degrees of Ecclesiastical Ministers and then indeed we may conclude that he has bestowed the most perfect Infallibility upon the Catholick Pastor if it be first proved that he has instituted such a Catholick Pastor But it is evident that to be more or less fallible depends upon mens personal Abilities Learning Wisdom Honesty and therefore it is a ridiculous thing to say that every Bishop must be less fallible than a Presbyter and an Archbishop less fallible than a Bishop and a Primate than he unless you can prove that all Bishops must be wiser honester and more learned men then Presbyters and Archbishops than Bishops and Popes than Archbishops and Primates Which I believe is a pretty hard Task and yet our wise Author at last resolves the Popes Infallibility into this belief for it is not to be supposed that the Catholick Church would commit the greatest Charge to a Person of the least Iudgment and Understanding So that it seems Infallibility at last is dwindled away into Mens personal Judgment and Understanding and thô it may be the Catholick Church might be careful in such a choice yet we can easily suppose that Cardinals who may not be Men of the best Judgments themselves and may be divided by Interests and Factions or brib'd with Mony or over-awed by Power or influenced by Friendships may not always choose the wisest Man in the World and if they did yet he could be no more infallible this way than the wisest Man in the World is who after all is a fallible Creature as all Men are and I dare appeal to all sober and considering Roman-Catholicks whether our Author has not utterly overthrown the Infallibity of the Pope and all Appeals to him by what he adds To what purpose is it for us to betake our selves for further light to those whom the Church has entrusted with higher Power and larger trust if we have no reason to judge them not only to be holyer wiser and juster men than those we appeal from but less fallible in judgment and errable in practice For I am confident few Roman-Catholicks think their Popes to be the wisest and best Men in the World and therefore if their inerrability depends upon their Wisdom and Honesty they cannot think them Infallible neither and I suspect our Author has no great claim to Infallibility himself who at this time of day when the Stories of Popes are so well known should found Infallibility upon the Wisdom Holiness and Justice of Popes By this one would guess that he makes no great matter of the Popes Infallibility that he has found out such a fallible Foundation for it He says that the Oecumenic Pastor in his
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
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
human Capacity may mistake and Err and so did St Peter but not fundamentally yet as Supream Head in his Catholick Capacity quatenus in Cathedra Catholica comparative to all inferior subordinate Pastors he hath a kind of Infallibility which is a Power intrusted in him by the Catholick Church to pass a final Iudgment of Determination in all Causes and Controversies to be a Ne plus ultra to all Appeals and Litigations in the Church So that in the first place he is not infallible in his human Capacity and yet he founds his Infallibility on his Wisdom Holiness and Justice which are human and personal Perfections In his publick Capacity he would have him Infallible in the Chair but yet it is but a comparative Infallibility which is none at all Then his Infallibility is not an Infallibility in judging but a Power to make a final Determination whether it be right or wrong and any Man might have this Power as well as the Pope especially since he is not entrusted with this Power by Christ but by the Catholick Church that is too only by the Church of Rome for no other Church entrusts him with it and thus he quits all Divine Claims to Infallibility and the Pope is no more Infallible than the Church can make him by entrusting him with a final decision of Controversies at all Adventures And therefore he adds We are not bound to believe his Iudgment is infallibly true but are to subscribe to it as the last because we can have no further and higher Appeal on Earth That is we must subscribe to it whether we believe it true or not which is an admirable sort of Infallibility Thus he says the English Clergy Subscribe the 39 Articles not that they believe them as they commonly say to be true and Orthodox but because they be the last Resolutions of the Church of England in those Points they sit down satisfied to subscribe them as Instrumenta pacis unitatis but indeed Maxime emcolumenti by which what he means cannot guess but am very much of his Mind that upon the same ground were there no other reason of Subscriptions they may subscribe to the Council of Trent But this is a Scandal on the Clergy of the Church of England we subscribe to the Truth of the Doctrines and for my part I would not subscribe did I not think them true and this is false with reference to the Church of Rome which Anathematizes all Persons who do not own and acknowledge and believe all the Articles of the Council of Trent However Infallibility is at a low ebb in the Church of Rome when they can exact Submissions and Subscriptions onely upon Protestant Principles who pretend to no Infallibility at all I have examined this Argument a little more at large to make him sensible how dangerous a thing it is to write after an Independent Copy for had any man intended to have burlesqued Infallibility as possibly his Author from whom he Transcribes did he could not have done it more effectually than by such Principles as these 6. His sixth Argument in Catholick Hierarchy the seventh for he has dropt one from the Nature of the Church which he made an Introduction of and there it has been considered is that this Catholick Headship is inseparable from an Ecclesiastical Body made up of subordinate Pastors and Churches may be abundantly evidenced from these following enumerated Church necessities The necessity 1. Of a Catholick judgment of Schism 2. Of a Catholick interpretation of Scriptures 3. Of a Catholick determination of Ceremonies for order and decency 4. For a Catholick composure of Forms of Prayer 5. For a Catholick Canonization of Saints 6. A Catholick Call and Convention of Councils Oecumenic Which are Word for Word the Argument of the Independent Author I shall briefly consider them all 1. The necessity of a Catholick judgment of Schism i. e. that there should be some Judges who are Schismaticks for otherwise 1. Patriarchal or National Churches may be Schismatical and no competent remedy found for the said Schism 2. There can be no determination of a Schism from the Catholick Church nor any proportionate punishment of it For a Patriarch or National Primate cannot be judicially proceeded against but by an Oecumenic Pastor which I think is the same with the first for a National Schism must be a Schism from the Catholick Church or none since National Churches among us depend on no foreign Patriarchs 3. Because superiour Churches are to judge the inferiour no particular Church has an absolute definitive Power in it self but there lies an Appeal against it to the Catholick Church and Pastor Which instead of proving that there is such a Catholick Pastor supposes that there is one for else there can lie no Appeal to him 4. That particular Churches will never agree about Schism but the very disputes about Schism will make Schisms without end Now suppose a man should turn the Tables and prove by this Argument that there is no Catholick Pastor nor Catholick Judge of Schism because there are and always have been Schisms in the Christian Church which it is impossible there should be did the Church know of such a Catholic Judge For how could there be any such dispute about Schism if there were such a Judge If you say that it is the not owning such a Judge which makes the Schisms That may be true but it is true also that it is a sign the Christian World does not know of any such Judge for if they did they would own him and put an end to their Schisms If it be necessary there should be such a Catholick Judge of Schism I am sure it is necessary he should be known or else as Experience testifies the disputes about such a Judge will make more Schisms than such an unknown and disputable Judge can ever end Now since there either is no such Catholick Judge of Schism or he is not sufficiently know to all Christians methinks it proves that there is no need of such a Catholick Judge of Schism for there is as much need â—e should be known in order to put an end to Schisms as that there should be such a Judge and if the necessity of ending Schisms proves that there should be such a Judge I am sure the continuance of Schisms proves as plainly that he is not known because he cannot end them It is ridiculous to imagine that there should be any such thing as Schism were there a known Oecumenical Pastor and Judge and it is as ridiculous to prove that there is such a Judge from the necessity of such a Judge to end Schisms when it is demonstrable from the continuance of these Schisms that the Christian World knows of no such Judge And it is very strange that Christ should appoint such a Judge and not take care that he should be known Good Arguments must convince Schismaticks in this World and Christ will judge them in
to it Ceremonies and Acts of Religion as having some relation to religious Actions yet he expresly distinguishes between the Parts of Worship and the external Adjuncts and Instruments of it and therefore does not call our Ceremonies Acts of Worship as that signifies a part of God's immediate Worship but in a more lax sense to include all external Adjuncts and Solemnities of Worship And therefore the Church of England never had any occasion to justifie her Worship by such distinctions as the Church of Rome has invented of Primary and Secondary Essential and Accidental Proper and Improper Worship whereby they endeavour to justifie that Worship they pay to Saints and Angels and Images which we have no use of because we Worship none but God. And our Author is a very pleasant Man who would justifie the Worship of Images under the Notion of Ceremonies surely the Church of England is not agreed with them here too for we know no such Ceremonies as are the Objects of Worship and that an Image is in the Church of Rome we use some indifferent and significant Ceremonies in the Worship of God but we do not worship our Ceremonies III. The AGREEMENT ABOUT IMAGE-WORSHIP THIS will be Answered in a few Words He forms his Argument from a Passage in the Answer to Papists protesting against Protestant Popery and from another in the Discourse against Transubstantiation p. 21. and from the Ceremony of Kneeling at the receiving the Lords Supper The Answerer says that to pay the External Acts of Adoration to or before or in Presence of a Representative Object of Worship as Representing is the very same thing In the Discourse against Transubstantiation it is observed That the Doctrine of the Corporal Presence of Christ was started upon occasion of the Dispute about the Worship of Images in opposition whereto the Synod of Constantinople about the Year of Christ 750. did argue thus That our Lord having left us no other Image of Himself but the Sacrament in which the Substance of the Bread is the Image of his Body we ought to make 〈◊〉 other Image of our Lord. In Answer to this Argument the second Council of Nice in the Year 787. did Declare That the Sacrament after Consecration is not the Image and Antitype of Christs Body and Blood but is properly his Body and Blood. And then the Church of England has enjoyned Bowing or Kneeling at the Reception of the Lords Supper for a Signification of our humble and grateful Acknowledgments of the Benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers and for avoiding such Prophanation and Disorder in the Holy Communion as might otherwise ensue From these Premises our Author thus Argues So that Kneeling is Expressive of the inward Reverence of the Heart to Christ and so is an Act of Religious Adoration the Kneeling then before the Sacramental Signs is the same with Kneeling to them Bowing before them is the same with Bowing to them a Worshipping before them the same with giving a Religious Worship to them Which sufficiently shews that in one great Instance the Church of England retains the same kind of Image Worship with the Roman-Catholicks and so far are we agreed with them In very good time But there is one thing yet remains to be proved which he has conveniently dropt And that is That the Church of England owns the Sacramental Bread to be the Image of Christ and the Representative Object of Worship This he knew he could not prove and therefore says nothing of it for it does not follow that because the Council of Constantinople affirmed that the Sacramental Bread is the Image of Christ's Body therefore the Church of England teaches so I am sure that Author say no such thing and if we should allow it in some Sense to be the Image as that signifies the Sacramental Figure of Christ's Body Does it hence follow that it is the Representative Object of Worship And thus his To and before and in Presence is all lost because the Bread according to the Doctrine of the Church of England is no Representative Object of Worship and therefore we neither Bow To nor before nor in Presence of the Bread as a Representative Object and therefore the Answer that Author gave that we do not Kneel to the Sacrament but receive it Kneeling is a very good Answer still Thus I have considered all his Pretences of Agreement between the Church of England and the Church of Rome which they are as unfortunate at as they are at Representing And methinks it Argues some distrust of their Cause that they dare not down-right defend it but are forced either to represent it away almost into Protestant Heresy or to shelter themselves in their Agreement with a Protestant Church but the better way is to turn Protestants themselves and then we will own our Agreement with them THE END Books lately Printed for Will. Rogers THE Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly Represented in Answer to a Book intituled A Papist Misrepresented and Represented c. Quarto An Answer to a Discourse intituléd Papists protesting against Protestant Popery being a Vindication of Papists not Misrepresented by Protestants And containing a particular Examination of Monsieur de Meaux late Bishop of Condem his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the Articles of Invocation of Saints Worship of Images occasioned by that Discourse Quarto An Answer to the Amicable Accommedation of the Difference between the Representer and the Answerer Quarto A View of the whole Controversie between the Representer and the Answerer with an Answer to the Representer's last Reply in which are laid open some of the Methods by which Protestants are Misrepresented by Papists Quarto The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture Reason and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestane and a Papist the first Part Wherein an Answer is given to the late Proofs of the Antiquity of Transubstantiation in the Books called Consensut Veterum and Nubes Testium c. Quarto The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture Reason and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist the Second Part Wherein the Doctrine of the Trinity is shewed to be agreeable to Scripture and Reason and Transubstantiation repugnant to both Quarto An Answer to the Eighth Chapter of the Representer's Second Part in the first Dialogue between him and his Lay-Friend Of the Authority of Councils and the Rule of Faith. By a Person of Quality With an Answer to the Eight Theses laid down for the Tryal of the English Reformation in a Book that came lately from Oxford Ser Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet p. 281 c. Defence p. 572. Tert. de Bapt. c. 17. Barrow Supremacy p. 189 c. Quarto Hieron ad Marcel Ep. 54. Vindicat. p. 15. 217. Vindic. p. 162. Ibid. p. 157. Agreement Pag. 7. Vind. P. 36. See Vindication of the Defence p. 329 c. Episcopatus unus est cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur Cypr. de unitate See the Defence p. 208. c. Unus Episcopatus Episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus Cypr. ad Antonian Ep. 52. Pam. Quando Ecclesia quae Catholica una est scissa non sit neque divisa sed fit utique connexa cohaerentium sibi invicem Sacerdotum glutino copu lata Cytr Ep. 69. ad Florentium Pupianum Cypr. ad Ste phan Ep. 67. Vindic. p. 124 c. Episcopi nec potestatem habere potest nec honorem qui Episcopatus nec unitatem tenere voluit nec pacem Cypr. ad Anton. Ep. 52. Agreement p. 13. Vindic. p. 195. 196. Vindic. p. 396. Maximè cùm jampridem nobiscum cum omnibus omnino Episcopis in toto mundo constitutis etiam Cornelius Collega noster decreverit Cypr. cp 68. Pam. Cum quo nobis totus orbis commercio formatarum in unâ communionis societate concordat Opt. l. 2. See Vindicat. p. 131. c. Cassand Consult de pontifice Rom. Agreem p. 18. c. Marcae per Archiepiscopum Burdegalensem Regis nomine imperatur ut adversus â—â—nc libellum Optati Galli scribut sed ea mâ—thodo ne libertates Ecclesiae â—â—llicanae quas per latus non occultè petebat Optatus aliquam paterentur injuriam quinimo id sedulo ageret ut omnes intelligerent libertates illas nihil â—etrahere de reverentia quae debetur Romanae sedi quam prâ— cunctis semper nationibus 〈◊〉 constantissimè retinuerunt Baluz vita Petr. de Mar. Agreement p. 33. Offendit tamen quis crederet hic liber Romana ingenia nullam aliam ob causam ut Marca existimabat quà m quòd in fronte operis admoneret hîc agi de libertatibus ecclesiae Gallicanae Unde Romanis quorum aures teneritudine quâ—dam plus trahuntur promptum suit sibi persuadere illum libertati ecclesiasticae adversari qui de libertatibus ecclesiae Gallicanae proh nefas agebat ex professo Baluz in vita Petri de Marca p 9. Agreement p. 61. The Catholick Hierarchy p. 77. Agree p. 62. Hierar p. 77. Agree p. 65. Hierar p. 77. Agreem p. 67. Cath. Hierar p. 79. Agreement p. 61. Cath. Hierar p. 80 81. Agree p. 74. Hierar p. 83. Cypr. Ep. 55. ad Cornelium Agreem p. 77. c. Cath. Hier. p. 85. c. Agreem p. 80. Cath. Hier. p. â—7 Agreem p. 81. Cath. Hier. p. 87. Agreem p. 84. Cath. Hier. p. 89. Vetus trat decrâ—tum Ne 〈◊〉 Deus ab Imperatore consecraretur nisi a Senatâ— probatus Apud vos de humano arbitratu Divinitas peâ—sitatur nisi homini Deus 〈◊〉 Deus nonerit homo jam Deo propitius esse debebit Tert. Apol. p. 6. Paris 1664. Agreem p. 85. Cath. Hier. p. 8â— Agreem p. 87. Cath. Hier. p. 92. Agreem p. 36. Father Paul's History of the Council of Trent B. 7. P. 570 c. Agreem p. 47. Agreem p. 50. Covel's modest Examination c. 6. p. 55. Ibid. p. 56. P. 58. Agreem p. 48. Answer to Papists Prot. p 81.