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
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
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.
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