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
be intrusted with the Episcopal Insignia and ordinary Iurisdiction yet it s the avowed Doctrine of the Church of England that the giving the Power of Conferring Orders to a Presbyter is so contrary to the Divine Law that its ipso facto null and void and in pursuance of this Doctrine she Re-ordains all those who have had onely a Presbyter's Ordination even whilst she is against a Re-ordination And thus he has himself confuted his first Point The Agreement of the two Churches about the Ministry for a disagreement about the Power of Orders is so concerning a Point in the Ministry that there can be little agreement after it This determines the Dispute that Bishops do not differ in Order but onely in Degree from Presbyters for if Bishops by a Divine or Apostolical Institution were a distinct and superior Order Presbyters could never be intrusted with the ordinary Power and Jurisdiction of a Bishop such as the Power of conferring Orders is much less that a Presbyter should have Power to Consecrate Bishops and Bishops should be subject to Presbyters as he affirms of the Abbot of Hy This overthrows the Essential Constitution of the Ministry if Bishops are by Institution a Superior Order to Presbyters that Presbyters should have Authority to Consecrate and Govern Bishops and overthrows one of the principal Arguments for an Oecumenic Pastor as it is urged by our other Author from the power of conferring Orders which he says cannot be done but by a superiour Pastor and surely Presbyters though soveraign Abbots are not superiour Pastors to Bishops nor to Presbyters neither And yet the Church of England does not deny but that in case of necessity the Ordinations of Presbyters may be valid and upon this Principle justifies the Presbyterian Orders of Foreign Churches while such unavoidable necessity lasts as I have also done at large in the Vindication to which this Author so often refers But the case of Schism is a different thing and I believe our Author himself though he grants a Power to the Pope to entrust Presbyters with the power of conferring Orders will not say that Schismatical Presbyters may take this Power or that their Ordinations are valid if they do And this is the case between us and our Dissenters they ordain in a Schism and though necessity may make an irregular Act valid yet Schism will not And I would desire to know what reason it is for which they Null the Protestant Reformed Ministry which he says is so much less severe than the Principles of the Church of England The artifice of all this is visible enough to heighten and inflame the difference at this time between the Church of England and Dissenters but in vain is the Snare laid in the sight of any Bird. But that the Reader may better understand the Mystery of all this I shall briefly shew why the Church of Rome is so favorable to that Opinion that Bishops and Presbyters are of the same Order and differ onely in degree why they allow the Ordinations of Abbots Soveraign who are but Presbyters to be both valid and regugular that they are exempted from the Iurisdiction of the Diocesan and have in themselves Episcopal Authority whereby they can Ordain Correct Suspend Excommunicate and Absolve nay exercise this Jurisdiction over Bishops themselves as this Author tells us of the Abbot o Hy Which will shew how far we are from agreeing with the Church of Rome about Episcopal Power The plain Account of which in short is this That they distinguish their Orders in the Church of Rome with relation to the Sacrament of the Eucharist and since the Doctrine of Transubstantiation prevailed which is such a wonderful Mystery for a Priest to Transubstantiate the Elements into the Natural Flesh and Blood of Christ this is looked upon as the highest act of Power in the Christian Church and therefore that must be the highest Order which has the highest Power and since a meer Priest has this power of Consecration which is as high an Act as any Bishop can do therefore they conclude that Episcopacy is not an higher Order than the Priesthood but differs onely in Degrees with respect to the power of Jurisdiction And the competition between Popes and Bishops to serve their several Interests did mightily incline them to favour this Opinion The Papal Monarchy could never arrive at its utmost greatness without depressing and lessening the Authority of Bishops and therefore aspiring Popes granted Exemptions Dispensations and Delegations to Presbyters that there was no part of the Episcopal Office but what a Presbyter might do by Papal Delegations which made Presbyters equal to Bishops but advanced the Pope vastly above them When by these Arts which were often complained of the Pope's Power grew boundless and infinite and it was thought necessary to bring it lower it could not be done without calling in the assistance of Presbyters and allowing them to Vote in the Council For the majority of Bishops were engaged by Interest and Dependance to maintain the Papal Greatness and therefore if these matters must have been determined by the major Votes of Bishops there could be no remedy against the Papal Usurpations For which reason in the Council of Basil those Bishops who were devoted to the Interest of the Pope and knew they were able to secure the Cause if none but Bishops might Vote insisted on this That according to the Presidents of former Councils all matters might be determined onely by the Votes of Bishops and now the equality of Order between Bishops and Presbyters was trumpt up to serve another turn to prove their right to Vote in Councils to assist those Bishops who groaned under Papal Usurpations in some measure to cast off that Yoke and vindicate their own Liberties To this original the equality of Order between a Bishop and Presbyter is chiefly owing in the Church of Rome from this Authority the Abbots Soveraign derive their Power which is a subversion of the Supream Authority of Bishops has no president and would never have been allowed in the Primitive Church and therefore as for the Dispute about the Abbot of Hy what the matter of fact is which those learned men whom he assaults I doubt not are able to defend were there a just occasion for it is nothing to our purpose If it were as he says it is an intolerable encroachment upon the Episcopal Authority and void in it self We who deny Transubstantiation and disown any such Authority in the Pope to delegate the Episcopal Power to meer Presbyters do not I suppose very exactly agree with the Church of Rome in this matter 2. Much at the same rate we agree in asserting the difference between a Bishop and Presbyter to be of an immediate divine Right This indeed we do constantly affirm that the Institution of Episcopacy is by immediate divine Right but is this the currant Doctrine in the Church of Rome That he knew was false and therefore had
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.
and inspection suffer by the Heresy or evil practices of their Collegues Here is a good long Quotation if any body knew to what purpose it served I own the Words and know not how I could say the same thing better if I were to say it again I am still of the same mind that such Combinations of Bishops for mutuāl Advice and Counsel is of great benefit and use for the good Government of the Church but if he would insinuate as that if any thing must be his design that these Combinations of Bishops are for the exercise of Authority over their Collegues this I absolutely deny They are to advise and consult with each other not as with superior Governors who are to determine them and give Laws to them but as with Friends and Collegues of the same Body and Communion as I expresly affirm Vindicat. p. 127. May not Bishops meet together for common Advice without erecting a Soveraign Tribunal to determine all Controversies and make Ecclesiastical Laws and impose them upon their Collegues without their own consent When though the least yet it may be the best and wisest part of the Council are of another Mind Is there no difference between advising with our Equals and making them our Superiors May it not be a very great fault and very near the guilt of Schism for a Bishop without any cause but meer humour and wilfulness to reject such Rules and Orders of Discipline and Government which are agreed by the unanimous consent of neighbour Bishops unless we give a Superior Authority to such Synods over their Collegues 6. His next charge is that the Collegue of Bishops may grant unto some one Bishop a Primacy for the preservation of Catholick Unity and Communion who by a general consent may be intrusted with a Superior Power of calling Synods receiving Appeals and exercising some peculiar Acts of Discipline under the Regulation of Ecclesiastical Canons This Sentence he has made up of two places in my Book above fifty Pages distant p. 127 and 184 for he durst not quote either of them entire and therefore I shall be at the pains to transcribe them both that the indifferent Reader may judge of them Vind. p. 127. There are these words This makes it highly reasonable for Neighbour Bishops at as great a distance as the thing is practicable with ease and convenience as the Bishops of the same Province or of the same Nation to live together in a strict Association and Confederacy to meet in Synods and Provincial or National Councils to order all the Affairs of their several Churches by mutual Advice and to oblige themselves to the same Rules of Discipline and Worship This has been the practice of the Church from the very beginning and seems to be the true Original of Archi-episcopal and Metropolitical Churches which were so early that it is most probable they had their beginning in the Apostles Days For though all Bishops have originally equal Right and Power in Church affairs yet there may be a Primacy of Order granted to some Bishops and their Chairs by a general consent and under the Regulation of Ecclesiastical Canons for the preservation of Catholick Unity and Communion without any Antichristian encroachments or usurpation on the Episcopal Authority For as I proceed This Combination of Churches and Bishops does not and ought not to introduce a direct Superiority of one Bishop or Church over another or of such Synods and Councils over particular Bishops Every Bishop is the proper Governour of his own Diocess still and cannot be regularly imposed on against his consent If a Bishop differ from his Collegues assembled in Synods or Provincial Councils or one National or Provincial Council differ from another in Matters of Prudence and Rules of Discipline without either corrupting the Faith or dividing the Church if we believe St. Cyprian in his Preface to the Council of Carthage they ought not to deny him Communion upon such accounts nor to offer any force to him in such matters In p. 184 I discoursed much to the same purpose That for the preservation of Peace and Order in this united Body or Confederation of Neighbour Churches one or more Bishops may by a general consent be intrusted with a Superior Power of calling Synods receiving Appeals and exercising some peculiar Acts of Discipline under the Regulation of Ecclesiastical Canons which is the Power now ascrib'd to Archbishops and Metropolitans But yet there cannot be one constitutive Ecclesiastical Regent Head in a National much less in the Universal Church not Monarchical because no one Bishop has an original Right to Govern the rest in any Nation and therefore whatever Power may be granted him by consent yet it is not essential to the Being or Unity of the Church which is one not by being united under one superior governing Power but by living in one Communion Not Aristocratical because every Bishop being Supream in his own Diocess and accountable to Christ for his Government cannot and ought not so wholly to divest himself of this Power as to be in all Cases necessarily determin'd and over-ruled by the Major Vote contrary to his own Judgment and Conscience All the Bishops in a Nation much less all the Bishops in the World cannot unite into such a Collegue as shall by a Supream Authority govern all Bishops and Churches by a Major Vote which is the form of Aristocratical Government and for the same Reason a National Church considered as a Church cannot be under the Government of a Democratical Head for if the College of Bishops have not this Power much less has a mixt College of Bishops and People Thus careful was I to secure the Episcopal Authority from such Encroachments and Usurpations as it now groans under in the Church of Rome from placing the Unity of the Church in such a superior governing Head whether Primate or Synod and now let him make the best he can of this Primacy which he should have called a Primacy of Order as I did and not absolutely a Primacy which may signifie a Primacy of Power and Authority which I positively deny he has over any of his Collegues In a body of Equals though there is no Superiority there must be Order and therefore some One must have Authority to Convene the Assembly and to preside in it and if the Synod see fit may in some Cases be intrusted with a Superior Power of executing their Decrees which involves no direct Superiority over any of his Collegues All that I intended in these Discourses was to shew what Power a National or Provincial Synod Archbishops and Metropolitans might have upon St. Cyprian's Principles without encroaching upon the Original and Essential Rights of the Episcopacy and those who will allow St. Cyprian's Principles I believe will confess that I have truly and fairly stated the Bounds of pure Ecclesiastical Authority If Archbishops and Metropolitans have a greater Power than this by the Constitutions and Laws of
another to believe and practise that which I am not assured to be truth As if no man could be certain of any thing without Infallibility Now all his Arguments proceeding upon this Mistake that we own a Superiority of one Bishop over another that Bishops own Obedience and Subjection to Archbishops and Primates and they to Patriarchs whereas we own no such thing but teach that all Bishops are equal as I have already explained it and that these combinations of Bishops into Archiepiscopal and National Churches are not for direct acts of Government and Superiority over each other but for mutual Advice and Counsel All his Arguments from the Superiour Power of Archbishops Metropolitans and Patriarchs to prove that there must be an Universal Pastor fall with it 3. By an Oecumenic Pastor he means the Universal Visible Ruling Head of the Catholick Organized Church Militant This is easily understood the only difficulty is to prove that the Catholick Church is such an organized body as must have an universal visible ruling Head. And thus I come to his Reasons whereby he proves that the Subordination of Pastors in the Church does necessarily infer the Supremacy of an Oecumenick or Universal Pastor 1. His first Argument is that there is the same Politick Reason for an Universal Pastor that there is for any subordinate Pastor that hath Pastors subjected unto him Now suppose this were true we do not sound the original right of Government of superiority and subjection between the Pastors of the Church upon any politick Reasons but only upon Institution and therefore though the Politick Reasons were the same if the Institution be not the same that makes an essential difference and spoils all the Arguments from a parity of Reason The only Subordination we allow of is the Subordination of Presbyters to their Bishops and that we found on an Apostolick Institution and if we will speak in the Ancient Language this is not the Subordination of one Pastor to another for none were called the Pastors of the Church in St. Cyprian's days but Bishops who are the Apostles Successors to whom Christ intrusted the care of feeding his Sheep For though Presbyters are intrusted with the care of the Flock yet they are not compleat Pastors because they are under the direction and government of their Bishop in the Exercise of their Ministry and according to Ignatius his Rule must do nothing without him but Bishops are the Supream Governours and Pastors of their particular Churches and we allow of no Subordination of Bishops that is of Pastors to each other This our Transcriber was sensible of and therefore here he leaves his Copy The Independent Author gives his first instance in a Diocesan Bishop ruling his Parish Priests or parochial Pastors the chief end of the said Bishop being Iurisdiction determination of Ecclesiastical Causes regulation and ordination of his Clergy unity order uniformity Now our Popish Transcriber was sensible that there was not such a Subordination between Bishops as there is of Presbyters to Bishops and therefore he changes a Diocesan Bishop into a Provincial Pastor ruling his Diocesan Bishops and regulation and ordination of his Clergy into regulating Abuses and Consecration of Bishops So that he was conscious to himself that there is not the same politick reason for the Subordination of Bishops to each other that there is for the Subordination of Presbyters to their Bishops which is the only Subordination we own and thus I might dismiss his first Argument But is there not a Subordination of Bishops to Archbishops allowed and practised in the Church of England and interwoven with the Constitution of it and it this be thought necessary to the unity and good government of a National Church is there not greater need for a principium unitatis regiminis a principle of unity and government in conjoyning many National Churches in one Patriarchal or all in one Oecumenic as for uniting Provincials in one Primateship or for subjecting Diocesans to their respective Provincials This is the whole force of the Argument which I have sufficiently answered already but shall briefly consider it again 1. Then I observe that whatever superiority or jurisdiction Archbishops challenge over Bishops it is but a Humane Institution for all Bishops with respect to the original Institution of Episcopacy are equal and therefore the superiority of Archbishops oven Bishops cannot prove that Christ has appointed a Supream Pastor over the whole Church and all the Bishops of it for Christ has not made an Archbishop superiour to a Bishop much less a Pope superior to them all So that at most if they proceed upon this Argument they must quit all pretence to a Divine Right and confess the Pope to be as very a Humane Creature as an Archbishop is and then we know what to say to them 2. For the being and authority of Archbishops and consequently of such an Oecumenical Bishop is not necessary and essential to the unity of the Church as no Humane Institution can be Christ Instituted his Church which is but one Church without Archbishops and Metropolitans and consequently without an Oecumenical Bishop and therefore they cannot be necessary to the unity of the Church For if Christ instituted this one Church in a parity of Bishops it must be one without such a superiority as is only of Humane institution The Church cannot be one without the essential principle of unity and if an Oecumenical Pastor be this essential principle of unity then either he must be appointed by Christ and so his institution does not result from a parity of reason with the Archiepiscopal and Patriarchal Authority which were not Instituted by Christ and then this Argument is lost or else Christ instituted one Church without the essential principle of unity which is as great an absurdity as to say that there can be one Church without a principle of unity 3. As the Archiepiscopal and Patriarchal Authority is originally of Humane Institution so it is plain that before the Church was incorporated into the State and it may be some time after it did not give a direct Authority and jurisdiction to one Bishop over another For St. Cyprian who was a Primate himself disowns such an authority as makes them Bishops of Bishops and in St. Ieromes time the Bishop was the highest order in the Church and of what place soever they were Bishops they were all Equal which is a contradiction if one had a direct superiority over another and therefore such combinations of Bishops as I have often observed were not essential to the unity of the Church but were a good prudential means to maintain a strict allyance between Neighbour Bishops was very useful for mutual advice and council gave great authority to Church Discipline when every particular Bishop though he had the supreme Authority in his own Church yet did not act meerly upon his own Head but with the consent and advise of the whole Province or
Patriarchate which confirmed the Authority of every Bishop when those who were duely censured by their Bishop saw it in vain to complain to other Bishops who all observed the same rules of Discipline and an Archbishop or Primate was very necessary in such combinations not for unity and government but for order as it is in all other Bodies and Societies of men at least not for any acts of Government over their fellow Bishops but such as did belong in common to them all as ordaining Bishops for vacant Sees or composing such differences as the single Authority of the Bishop could not compose in his own Diocess 4. I readily grant that since the Church is Incorporated into the State Archbishops and Metropolitans have a greater and more direct Authority over their Collegues as far as the Canons of the Church confirmed by the Supreme National Authority extend but whatever is more than I have now explained is not a pure Ecclesiastical Authority but a mixt Authority derived from the Civil Powers and this may be greater or less as the Civil Powers please All compulsory jurisdiction must be derived from the Civil Powers because the Church has none of her own and when the Church is incorporated into the State as it is very fitting that the Ecclesiastical Authority should be enforced by the Civil Authority so those who have the exercise of this Ecclesiastical Authority seem the fittest persons to be entrusted with such a Civil Jurisdiction as is thought convenient to give force to it which is the true original of that mixt Authority which the Bishops and Archbishops now exercise by the Canons of the Church and the Laws of the Land. But though this justifies the Archiepiscopal or Metropolitical Authority over a National Church yet it is a demonstration that there can be no such Oecumenical Pastor as there is a National Archbishop unless we could find an Universal Monarch too as well as a King of England of France or Spain for otherwise whence should this Universal Pastor derive his Oecumenic Authority unless there be an Universal Prince Meerly considered as a Bishop he has no Superiority or Jurisdiction over any of his Collegues or fellow Bishops and he can never have such a Jurisdiction over the Universal Church as a Metropolitan has over a National Church unless there be an Universal King to give this Universal Authority to him as there is the King of England of France or Spain to give such a National Authority to their Patriarchs and Primates Whereas the Pope of Rome is so far from deriving his Authority from Secular Princes that he challenges a Superiour Authority over them and their Subjects in their own Dominions Which shews how senseless it is to infer the Authority of an Universal Bishop or Pastor from the Authority of a National Primate because they cannot derive their Authority the same way there being no Universal Monarch to give him such Authority and the Bishop of Rome who alone challenges this Universal Pastorship is so far from owning such a Title to it that he assumes an Authority over Soveraign Princes And therefore though it may be pardonable in an Independent to use such an Argument for the Pope's Authority I know not how our Popish Plagiary will come off with it for it effectually overthrows all pretences to a Papal Supremacy to derive it from no higher Principle than what gives being to a National Primacy which is not the Institution of Christ but the Authority of Soveraign Princes and Civil Powers which the Pope cannot have and if he could would think scorn to receive his Power from them For that would spoil his claim as Christ's Vicar and St. Peter's Successor and they who give can take away too 5. But setting aside all this there is not a parity of reason for an Oecumenic Pastor and a National Primate neither of them are necessary to the Unity of the Church which is preserved by the concord and agreement of Bishops not by such a governing Authority and superiour Power of one Bishop over another As for Advice and Counsel such a National combination of Bishops under a Metropolitan may be of great use because all the Bishops in a Nation may without any inconvenience meet together but there is not the same reason for an Universal Bishop because all the Bishops in the World cannot meet together in Council with him as I have already discoursed And as for some peculiar acts of Authority and Jurisdiction especially where there is a mixture of the Ecclesiastical and Civil Authority this may very prudently be intrusted with a National Primate But it is both an intolerable grievance which has been complained of by Roman Catholick Princes and People that Appeals should lie to Rome and the Bishops and People of all Nations in the World be forced to have their Causes heard there and it is a derogation from the Authority of Soveraign Princes to have a Foreign Bishop exercise a superiour Jurisdiction in their own Kingdoms This I think is sufficient if men be reasonable to answer his first Politick Reason for an Universal Pastor 2. His next Argument is very Comical the whole of which he has borrowed also from his Independent Author though sometimes he ventures upon new Phrases and new Illustrations which make it more comical still He proves that they that maintain the Government of the Church by Bishops Archbishops Primates c. must also own and acknowledge an Universal Visible Pastor from the nature of an Universal Visible Church This may be true for ought I know for who can tell but his c. which is all he has added to the Original may include an Universal Pastor But his Argument is fallaciously put which I confess is none of his fault but his Author 's whom he has honestly Copied it should have been this those who assert the Government of the Church by Bishops Archbishops Primates though he should have left out Bishops as he did in his former Argument because their Authority is of a distinct consideration from Archbishops and Primates from the nature of an Universal Visible Church must also own an Universal Visible Pastor from the nature of an Universal Visible Church For if we do not derive the Authority of Archbishops and Primates from the nature and essential Constitution of the Catholick Church as it is evident we do not how can the nature of the Universal Visible Church force us to own an Universal Pastor when it does not force us to own a National Primate If there be such a connexion between them that the consequence holds from one to the other we must own them both for the same reason for there is no proportion nor no consequence between things which have different natures and causes But let us hear how he proves this This Church he says must be an organized or unorganized Body made up of partes Similares onely Right the Universal Church is unorganized as to
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
World acknowledge to be so without the Popes Canonization and the use she makes of Saints needs no Canonization which is only to bless God for them and to excite our selves to an imitation of their Vertues not to build Temples and Altars to them or to Worship them with religious Honours as our Mediators and Advocates This Canonization of Saints was a strange kind of Argument from a pretended Independent and it is such an Argument as I thought at this time of day a Romanist himself would have been ashamed of For pray what Authority has the Church to Canonize Saints and who gave her this Authority Such Consecrations and Canonizations indeed were in practice in Pagan Rome and Tertullian sufficiently scorns them for it He tells us that there was an ancient Decree that the Emperor should not Consecrate any God without the approbation of the Senate for the Emperor in those days was the Pontifex Maximus or the Oecumenick Priest. This the Father says was to make Divinity depend upon human Votes and unless the God pleases Men he shall not be a God how applicable this is to the Canonization of Saints let our Author judge and tell me whether there were any such practice known in the Christian Church in Tertullian's days To Canonize a Saint to be sure is to Vote him into Heaven and if the Oecumenick Pastor has this Authority he is somewhat more than the Head of the visible Church on Earth for his Power extends to the invisible Church too 5ly The necessity of a Catholick composure of Church Prayers i. e. That the same Liturgie should be used in all Christian Churches which never was practised in former Ages and no need it should be We prefer a Liturgie before private and extempore Prayers we think it most Uniform that a National Church should use the same Liturgie but if every Bishop who is the Supream Governour of his own Church should have a Liturgie of his own I see no hurt in it if it be a true Christian Liturgie and neither corrupt the Christian Faith nor Worship When he can give me one wise reason why the whole Christian World must use the same Liturgie and that there must of necessity be an Oecumenick Pastor to compose this Liturgie I will consider it farther His harangue about our charging Dissenters with Schism does not relate to this matter For setting aside the Civil Authority whereby our Liturgie is confirmed their Schism does not consist in using another Liturgie for they use none but in separating from the Communion of their Bishop who has Authority to appoint what Liturgie shall be used in his Church For the Liturgie being agreed on in Convocation makes it an Act of the Church confirmed by the Authority and Consent of all the Bishops besides the concurrent Votes and Suffrages of the inferior Clergy And if every particular Bishop have Authority to appoint what Form of Prayer shall be used in his Church all the Bishops of England may agree in the same Liturgie and those who deny obedience to their Bishops and separate from them upon such accounts are guilty of Schism But where there is no such subjection and obedience owing as there is none between particular Bishops and distinct National Churches they may make Liturgies and Forms of Prayer for themselves and are accountable to no Body else for it 6thly His last necessity for an Oecumenick Pastor is for calling convening and dissolving Oecumenical Councils Now if there be no such absolute necessity of Oecumenical Councils if they may and have been called by Emperors if they may meet together of themselves by Mutual Agreement then there is no necessity of an Oecumenical Pastor for this purpose But such an Assembly he says must be a Church Assembly or else it can claim no Power in the Church and all Church Assemblies are of right convened by the Pastor of the said Church in which it is as in a Diocess the Clergy is convened by the Authoritative Call of the Bishop This is the force of his whole Argument wherein there are two things supposed which we desire him to prove 1. That an Oecumenical Council is not for Mutual Advice but for direct Acts of Authority and Government 2. That a Council receives its Authority from an Authoritative Call when he has proved these two Propositions his Argument may deserve a new Consideration AN ANSWER To SECTION II. CONCERNING The Agreement between the Two Churches about some of their Imposed Terms of Communion their Ministry Ceremonies and Image-Worship 1. The MINISTRY HAving answered all their Pretences of Agreement between the Church of England and the Church of Rome concerning one Supream Oecumenical Pastor what remains will give me no great trouble and I shall give my self and my Readers no more than needs must 1. The first Agreement is about the Ministry unto which all are required to submit which is the same with that of Roman-Catholicks and maintained by the same Arguments that is concerning the Divine Institution of Bishops and subject Presbyters Now this charge we own that we do acknowledge the Divine Right of Episcopacy and that Presbyters by the Institution of their Office are subject to Bishops and if the Roman-Catholicks own this we agree with them in it and so we will in any thing else that is true and think it no injury to our cause for we do not think our selves bound to renounce what is true only that we may differ from Roman-Catholicks and yet the mischief is that in despight of his Title and design he will not suffer us to agree with them here but endeavour to prove that we do not agree with them Thus he tells us 1. Touching the difference there is between a Bishop and a Presbyter as amongst the Papists some held that they were of the same order differing only in degree and others that they were of distinct Orders so among our Clergy I perceive our Author has a mind to be a Protestant at last by his crying our Clergy there were some who in King James the First days asserted that Bishops and Presbyters were of the same Order but now it is carried for their being of two distinct Orders but what is this to the Agreement of the two Churches that there are Divines in each Church which differ about this Point If neither Church have determined this then they agree onely in not determining it but if it were the Currant Doctrine in the Council of Basil that Bishops and Priests are of the same Order and it be the avowed Doctrine of the Church of England that Bishops are a distinct and superior Order then I think the two Churches do not agree about this Point And our Author himself takes care to prove that we are not agreed For the Romanists he says do not so much stick to the Divine Right of the Episcopal Order as to hold that without a Violation of the Divine Law a Presbyter cannot