the whole though made up of organized parts But this we must not say for then we spoil his Argument and yet he knows that every one who denies an Universal Pastor set over the whole Church must and does say it So that the sum of his Argument is this If you will allow the whole Church to be an organized Body that is to be under the Government of an Universal Pastor then you must own an Universal Pastor but if you will not own this he has nothing to say to you but that you ought in civility to own it to make good his Argument If men will be so perverse as to own particular National Churches to be Organized Bodies and to deny the Universal Church to be thus Organized as we all do then they may own a National Primate and deny an Oecumenical Pastor and if men own the Universal Church to be such an Organized Body they must own an Universal Pastor whether they own Archbishops and Primates or not and therefore Archbishops and Primates might have been left out of this Argument because they signifie nothing in it and consequently the whole Argument is nothing to his design to prove that those who own Archbishops and Primates must own an Universal Pastor Well but he undertakes for us that we will not grant that the Universal Church is an unorganized Body because it lays a necessary Foundation for particular Co-ordinate Churches Congregational or Presbyterian If he had said Episcopal he had said right and we know no inconvenience in this to say that all Episcopal Churches are Co-ordinate since all Bishops by an original Right are equal But besides if the Catholick Church be considered in its largest acceptation and extent comprehending the Militant and Triumphant Parts the Scripture tells us it 's an Organized Body being called a Body of which the Lord Iesus Christ is the living Head. This is purely his own for his Author had more Wit than to say it The whole Church Militant and Triumphant or the Church in Earth and Heaven is but one Church and this one Church is united to Christ the Head of the Church and this proves that the Church on Earth cannot have any other Head as the Principle of Unity but only Christ For the Head of the Church must be the Head of the whole Church as the Head is the Head of the whole Body And therefore the Church on Earth being part of the Church not the whole for the Church in Heaven is the largest and best part of the Body it cannot have a visible Head on Earth because such a Head cannot be the Head of the whole Body for those who say the Bishop of Rome is the Head of the visible Militant Church on Earth yet never pretended that he is the Head of the invisible Triumphant Church in Heaven now the Church on Earth can never have a Head which is not the Head of the Church in Heaven unless we will say that part of a Body as the Church on Earth is may have a Head by it self which is not Head to the other part of the Body which is a thing that never was heard of in the World before that a Head should be Head only to part of the Body and not to the whole when the Body is but one But what does he mean when he says that the Church Militant and Triumphant is an Organized Body What Organization is there in the Church Triumphant They are all indeed united to Christ and so are his Body but there are no different organical Parts in this Body no differing Ranks and Offices that we know of in the Church in Heaven no distinction between Clergy and Laity Prophets and Apostles Pastors and Teachers there for these Offices cease with the use of them and therefore they are not united to Christ in one organical Body which has different Members and Offices in Heaven and therefore thô the Church on Earth consists of such organized Bodies yet it is not their Organization which unites them to Christ for then this would be necessary in Heaven as well as in Eartth for the same one Body and every part of it must be united to Christ in the same manner and by the same kind of Union and if the Union of the Church on Earth does not consist in its Organization to be sure there is no necessity that the whole Church on Earth should be one organized Body to make it the Body of Christ. The Organization of particular Churches is for the Edification and good Government of all the Members of it not immediately for their Union to Christ and therefore if the whole Church may be edified and well governed by the Organization of particular Churches the Church being called the Body of Christ cannot prove that the whole Church on Earth is one organical Body But if particular Churches be organized it 's most natural and fit that the Mother Teeming Church should have the most proportionate Adaptation of Parts A Mother that brings forth organized Children is supposed to be organized her self Nihil dat quod non habet Wherefore all other less comprehensive Churches coming out of the Womb of Mother Church and proved to be organized Bodies it 's naturally necessary that she her self should be homogeneous or of same kind otherwise the Mother must be more monstrous than the Daughters Here he forsakes his Guide again and falls into Nonsense Could he find out a Mother Church which is none of the Daughters a Catholick Church which is distinct from all Particulars this would be a notable Argument indeed to prove the Catholick Church to be organized because particular Churches are but if there be no Teeming Mother Church but what is a particular Church it self if no Church brings forth Churches as a Woman brings forth her Daughters nay if Churches are not brought forth but Christians who are afterwards formed into Church-Societies if all this at best be nothing but Metaphor and Allusion and that without any real likeness and similitude too we may safely allow him such kind of Arguments as these for his organized Catholick Church Well but now these particular Churches are transformed from Daughters into integral Parts of the Mother Catholick Church nay are Daughters and integral Parts too which constitute the Mother and then a Body which is made up of Organized Parts is always it self Organized e. g. in all Animals in a Man the head hand legs c. are each organized for the compleating the totality of that part and therefore are becoming Organs to the whole man and hence the man is an Organized Body Now indeed if the whole Church were such a Body as the natural Body of a Man is and did consist of particular Churches which did as much differ in their nature and use and organization as the head and hand and legs do in the natural Body this were a very notable Argument to prove the whole Church to be an organized Body
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
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
Head on Earth for with respect to Christ who is the true and only Head of his Church we will allow it to be one Kingdom and Family in this sense I say let any man judge of this who understands Consequences If our Author did not see this the Reader may judg of his understanding if he did he may judg of his honesty And thus his foundation is gone and then all the superstructure is but a Castle in the Air For if the Universal Church be not one Organized politick body as according to my Principles it is not then it cannot be subjected to one governing Head neither to the Pope nor a General Council His third charge is that I make somewhat more necessary to Catholick Communion than an Agreement in the same Faith the same Rules of Worship and right Administration of the Sacraments that is Catholick Communion is our union in one body and communicating in this one body is the exercise of Catholick Communion which those who do not if there be not a just and necessary cause for it are Schismaticks for all that whatever their Faith and Worship be and Schism is a damning sin But how does this make any thing more necessary to Catholick Communion than the same Faith the same Worship the same Sacraments These are all the Catholick terms of Catholick Communion but if these do not unite us into one body we are not united for all that Not that any thing else is wanting to make this union but because through the lusts and vices and passions of men an union does not follow upon it but he was sensible that Catholick Communion alone would not do his business would not prove the necessity of one Supreme governing-head whether the Pope or a General Council over the whole Church and therefore he insinuates that I make something else the necessary terms of Catholick Communion besides the true Christian Faith Worship and Sacraments and what should that be do you think but subjection to one Supreme Head which you shall see how learnedly he proves For he adds 4. That what is further necessary to Catholik Communion is a Catholick Government namely the Episcopal Now all these words I have used upon one occasion or other but there is no such proposition as this in all my Book I do allow Episcopacy to be an Apostolical Institution and the truly Ancient and Catholick Government of the Church of which more hereafter but yet in this very book I prove industriously and at large that in case of necessity when Bishops cannot be had a Church may be a truly Catholick Church and such as we may and ought to communicate with without Bishops in vindication of some foreign reformed Churches who have none and therefore I do not make Episcopacy so absolutely necessary to Catholick Communion as to unchurch all Churches which have it not But the Remainder of his quotations referring to the Unity of the Episcopacy I must briefly explain what my Notion is about it and truly I have proceeded all along upon St. Cyprian's Principles and he must answer for it if he have misled me S. Cyprian taught me that there is one Episcopacy part of which every Bishop holds with full authority and power where by one Episcopacy St. Cyprian understands one Bishoprick that is the Universal Church which as it is but one Church is but one Bishoprick also it being all under the Government of the Episcopal power But then this Bishoprick is divided into parts into particular Diocesses and every Bishop has a part of this Universal Bishoprick which he has in solidum that is he has his part to govern with the fulness and plenitude of the Episcopal power without any Superior authority or jurisdiction over him This I take to be the plainest and easiest interpretation of St. Cyprian's words for though all learned men have agreed in the same sense yet the Phrase has a little puzled them for if by one Episcopacy we understand one Episcopal office and power tho' the sense will be the same yet the expression is very obscure for how can every Bishop have but part of the Episcopal office in Solidum that is part of the office and the whole power But if by one Episcopacy we understand one Bishoprick and the universal Church may as properly be called one Bishoprick as one Church and one Sheepfold then it is all plain that there is but one Bishoprick of which every Bishop has part in which he exercises the whole Episcopal authority and power Another Principle of St. Cyprian's is that this one Episcopacy or one Bishoprick is preserved one by the concord and agreement of Bishops for if the Bishops disagree who have the Supreme government of their own Churches this must of necessity divide the Bishoprick and the Church but this one Bishoprick is spread over the World by the consenting multitude of many Bishops which as I observed he calls the Unity and Peace of the Episcopacy And for the same reason Optatus calls it the Episcopal College and Bishops are called Collegues And St. Cyprian tells us The-Catholick Church is not rent nor divided but united and coupled by the cement of Bishops who stick close together Another Principle is That no Bishop nor Colledg of Bishops have a direct authority or jurisdiction over their Collegues to compel them to submit to their decrees and definitions against their own Judgment and Conscience That none of them pretended to be Bishops of Bishops which he abhors as a Tyrannical Usurpation as we see in his Preface to the Council of Carthage Another Principle is That since there is but one Episcopacy or Bishoprick every Bishop besides the Supreme Government of his own particular Diocess has such a relation to the whole Church that he is to take care as much as in him lies to see that no part of the Church suffer by the Heresies or Schisms of their Bishops which is the reason as I observed before St. Cyprian gives Why there are so many Bishops in the Christian Church That if any of our Colledg i. e. any Bishop should endeavour to broach any new Heresie or to tear and spoil thâ— Flock of Christ the rest may come in to their help and like good and merciful Pastors gather again the Sheep of Christ into their Fold These are the Principles I learnt from St. Cyprian and if our Author can find a supreme Head of the Universal Church whether Pope or General Council in this Scheme I am sure St. Cyprian could not who disowns any such superior Authority to Bishops Let us then now return to our Author who observes that I assert That all the Bishops of the Church are but one also which a little differs from one Bishops being all invested with the same Power and Authority to govern the Church for which I quoted St. Cyprian tho he thinks fit to leave him out That as St. Cyprian tells us there is but
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