Bishop Now the Church of England hath presumed to alter this Title and Institution making it a Festival to St. Michael and all Angels which hath these gross Absurdities in it 1. That St. Michael is greatly detracted from in that all other Angels are introduced as sharers in the Solemnity of the day and all Angels may be understood of Bad as well as Good so that the Devils hereby become Canonized Saints Now whereas it may be alledged that there be some Saints-days not of Catholick Observation but only National as St. Denis for France St. George for England St. Taffy or Wales and St. Patrick for Ireland it bears no weight against us for the Canonization is Catholick and questionless the Observation ought to be so also though there is a more peculiar and more proper Remembrance and Honour due from those Nations to which the Saints are appropriate which peculiar Homage is enjoyn'd by the Church catholick Moreover it is meet that so solemn a matter should be ratified by Catholick Authority as the canonizing a Saint and instituting a Festival day to be sacred to his Remembrance because the Catholick Church as she will be most impartial and wise in such appointments so her Authority will make deeper impressions on the minds of men to oblige them to the consciencious observance whereas particular Nations are liable to Errour and Partiality each one being apt to be byassed by proper Interests and to prefer the products of their own Soyl. Besides the gross Schism that it causeth in the Catholick Church dividing the Churches in their Prayers at the same time when one Nation shall observe that day to one Saint and another to another and a third to none at all Whereas nothing is more honourable and necessary than Vniformity in this kinde That as all say the same Prayers they should do it at the same Hours canonically appointed use the same Ceremonies observe the same Holidays and such as are Anniversary should at least be of Catholick Appointment And though some Saint-days are more appropriate to one Nation than to another by reason of the relation of this or that Saint to this or that Nation in particular by Nativity by Heroick Actions or Meritorious Sufferings therein yet is it not meet that all Churches should rejoyce and keep Holy-day with one that rejoyceth If the Rule of rejoycing with them that rejoyce reach particular Christians then much more Churches And how can an Englishman but be mightily ravished with an holy Sympathy to see a Welshman zealously affected with the honour of St. Taffy strutting up and down with a green feather in his Cap can he forbear the plucking up all the Leeks in his Garden and calling all the Fidlers in the Town about him And is it not fit that St. Thomas à Becket's day should be honourably observed by all other Churches as well as England who engaged in and suffered for the common Catholick Cause opposed in this Church If the Devoted day be peculiar to a Nation as an Anniversary Memorial of some great Deliverance supposed it 's fit it should have its Sanction from the Catholick Church otherwise National Churches may run into absurd and Schismatical Observation of days under such pretences to the great Scandal and Injury of the Catholick Church as for instance the Fifth of November a day Annually observed by a National Church to the great Scandal and Blemish of the Catholick Church and Oecumenical Pastor in the sence of the Romanists § 16. But some I hear will be ready to say in order to these necessary establishments there will be no need of a Catholick Pastor they may be done well enough by Oecumenical Councils To which I reply That then the Church acteth not as a Body Politick subordinately knit together but as totum aggregatum or as an Assembly of Independent Pastors by way of Association whence many Absurdities will follow 1. That all the convened Pastors of what Order or Degree soever are co-ordinate at least in the power pleaded for and a Primate or Patriarch's Vote is no more than a Diocesan's 2. That the Church in the utmost resolution of its power is but Aristocratical which undermines Episcopal Principles 3. If because matters of greatest concern in the Catholick Church are managed by an Oecumenical Council therefore there needs no Oecumenical Pastor then by the same reason all matters of the greatest concern in a National Church being handled in a National Synod there should be no need or use of a Primate and sic deinceps to Provinces and Diocesses and so all Church-power would consequently become co-ordinate in the hands of particular Pastors 4. What course could be taken in the Intervals of Councils for the Churches Government in its Catholick state 5. Divisions and Schisms have and will follow hereupon in the Church for suppose the Council be equally divided in their voting about Scripture Interpretation Tradition Ceremonies or Decencies who shall determine in such case 6. Suppose the lesser part divide from and declare against the greater and its proceedings What Supreme Power is there Authoritatively to conclude them Ecclesiastically to admonish and reduce the Erring part 7. Oecumenical Councils cannot easily and presently be convened in case of emergent Church-difficulties as in the sudden Defection of a National Church or Pastor to Schism or Heresie in the starting up of new Sects Canonization of new Saints c. An Errour may spread itself soon over a whole Nation before such a Council can be called and any remedy applied 8. It is needful every Church do exercise its power in an unity and not in a multiplicity therefore there are National Provincial and Diocesan Pastors Therefore there should be a Catholick Pastor to the Church catholick for the avoiding the like Rocks and Precipices that other Churches would split upon if they had not their particular Heads and Pastors § 17. Sixthly We argue from the Necessity of calling and convening of Ecclesiastical Councils In whose power is it to call an Oecumenical Council if there be no Oecumenical Pastor in the Church For first the Assemblies of every Church are to be convened only by the Pastor of the said Church as in a Diocess Who can authoritatively convene the Clergy but the Bishop of the Diocess In a Province Who can convene the Diocesan Bishops but the Archbishop In a Nation Who hath power Ecclesiastically to convene a National Synod besides the Metropolitan or Patriarch so in the Catholick Church who hath power Ecclesiastically to convene an Oecumenicul Council but the Oecumenical Pastor It being a Pastoral charge to convene or dismiss Church-Assemblies and it is done by an Office-power Object Supreme Magistrates may call Oecumenical Councils Answ They cannot by any Ecclesiastical Right for considered as such they cannot exercise any Pastoral Office And an Oecumenical Council being the most eminent Church-Assembly it is not to be convened in a more irregular or exotick way than the inferiour Assemblies of
Subordinate Churches 2. It is not in the capacity of any one or few Supreme Magistrates to convene an Oecumenical Council because no Magistrate can by any civil Authority much less by any Ecclesiastical of which he hath none call forth the Bishops of another Nation to such a Council Whereas an Oecumenical Pastor whose Authority reaches equally to all National Churches and to Magistrates as Members thereof may Authoritatively command the presence of any Reverend Father whatsoever and demand the consent of the Magistrate thereto under the pain of Church-censures and to permit his Bishops to assemble in or out of his Dominions whereas there is no one or more Supreme Magistrate hath any universal tye Ecclesiastical or Civil of other States and Dominions to his Jurisdiction so that they are necessitated under any Law to submit thereunto unless such which they have reduced unto Homage and Vassalage by dint of Sword or such as by voluntary Subjection have yielded themselves 3. Magistrates have not then a Power to call an Oecumenical Council when they please or if there were such an Emperour there never was or will be that could in respect of his civil power do so yet they have no Ecclesiastical power to do it authoritatively but onely by concurrence or consent whereas all Church-Assemblies are authoritatively to be called by the Officers of the said Church or else they cannot act so when called by Assembled unless we reduce Church-government unto a Democracy § 18. Obj. It may be also said that an Oecumenical Council may be convened by the consent of Patriarchs and Bishops among themselves Answ 1. This is no Authoritative way of assembling such as Bishops will always contend for but onely precarious 2. If they assemble this way either it must be no Council till all be agreed which may be long enough first or any few agreeing to assemble and give notice of such resolutions to others who are averse to such Proposals may gather together and call themselves an Oecumenical Council undertake to make Decrees determine matters of consequence and impose on the dissenting Churches And what dangerous consequence would this be of in the Church especially where Heretical Pastors abound as in the times of the Arrian Macedonian and Nestorian Heresies 3. If National Pastors may convene by consent to constitute an Oecumenical Council why may not Bishops and Archbishops convene by consent to make up a National Synod without the Authoritative Call of the Primate which will by no means be allowed 2ly and lastly By whose authority shall a Catholick Assembly have its Sanction if not by the Catholick Pastor for it 's not every Council that calls it self Oecumenical that can or may be allowed to be such neither ever was there or ever will be any so General that all the Pastors were assembled But it is in this as in all other Church-Assemblies if they be called by the Pastor and publick notice given to all the Members of the time and place the absence of some alters not the nature of it Ergo there should be an Oecumenical Pastor for these ends and purposes CHAP. XV. Of the Magistrates Power in matters of Religion § 1. THe power of Magistrates in matters of Religion hath been very much controverted and variously determined by men of Learning and Conscience I shall not fill up these sheets with transcribing other mens Sentiments I shall onely propound what seems to me to be agreeable to Scripture and Reason with as much perspicuity and brevity as I can There are three things for enquiry that will principally lie before us 1. Whether the Civil Magistrate may exercise a Legislative power in matters Evangelically indifferent 2. Whether in the execution of Ecclesiastical Justice the sword of the Magistrate may be used 3. What are the true bounds and limits of the Magistrates power in matters of Religion The first Question is thus to be understood Whether the Civil Magistrate may or can change things religiously indifferent into necessities by a competent Law i.e. by a Law binding Conscience primarily or secundarily by Christ's authority for we have shewed that no authority can reach Conscience so as to binde it or loose it but Christ's alone that being no competent Law that answers not the true nature of the obedience required which is always expected here to be conscientious All Christ's Laws flowing from his peculiar Legislative prerogative over his Church have an immediate influence on Conscience and do primarily binde as such All just humane Laws do secundarily binde Conscience i. e. not quatenus humane but they so far binde Conscience as men have derived such authority from the Lord Christ for the composing and enacting the said Laws Now if the Magistrate cannot make a Law in one of these kinds to binde Christians in matters indifferent he cannot do it by a competent Law § 2. Having thus explained the true meaning of our Enquiry we determine in the Negative and that for these following reasons Arg. 1. It 's Christs peculiar prerogative to be the Lawgiver to his Church i. e. to make such Laws as immediately concerns it He never gave this power to any or commissionated any to exercise a humane authority in this kind as hath been abundantly shewn He onely can do it 1. He is the onely Spiritual King there is no other mediate Spiritual King between him and his Church 2. He knows onely what is fit to be the matter of such a Law He knows onely which way he will be worshipped and no way can be acceptable to him but that which is of his immediate appointment it 's high presumption in any other to prescribe 3. It 's his Glory to reserve this to himself and he gives to Magistrates that power which they have it 's but reasonable he should reserve to himself what he pleaseth 4. If Magistrates can exercise any such power it must be by deputation from Christ If there be any such let them produce their Commission which cannot be pretended to in the New Testament and what is said of Magistrates power from the Old Testaments authority will easily be refuted if the particular cases be duely considered which I shall not now stay upon 5. If Christ hath given such a power to a Christian Magistrate it belongs to him as a Magistrate or as a Christian it doth not belong to him as a Civil Magistrate for then 1. As many sorts of Magistrates as the Church doth militate under so many sorts of Lawgivers in Spiritual things she should be subject to whether Christian Heretical Prophane or Heathenish and as the government of State alters in the Supream Magistracy so the Laws of the Church must according to the several interests and corrupt designes of the sons of men 2. The number and certainty of Ecclesiastical Laws could never be known for as he may make Laws he may repeal Laws where they are of the same kind So that there would be no certain standing Rule for the
of a Gospel-nature cannot be alter'd from their nature by any subsequent Law of man thus appears To change religious Indifferencies into Necessities is to make a Law for Christs Worship that Christ never made nor gave any man power to make but none may make a Law for the Worship of Christ which he never made nor impowred any to make Ergo the Major is without doubt if the indifferency confessed be in the worship of God then when it 's by any Law made necessary it 's still in the worship of God and being appointed so by a Law becomes instituted Worship by a Law which Christ never made The Minor appears in that none may do so i. e. institute Worship or circumstances of Worship by a Law that is not Christ's 1. It 's his Prerogative to exercise a Legislative power in his Church 2. Christ knows onely how he will be worshipped and it must be founded on his revealed will which is our Law 3. None might adde to his Laws under the Old Testament Deut. 4.1 2. much less under the New where there is less of Ceremony and Circumstances Rev. CHAP. XIII Of the power of the Church in matters indifferent § 1. WHen we come to discuss the power of the Church it 's very requisite to unfold the meaning of the word Church there being no word under which lieth more Amphibology Many understand a Church a material building or place of meeting for the worship of God being consecrated and set apart for that use and for the Propriety and Antiquity of this usage and acceptation of Ecclesia learned Mr. Mead very much contends We shall not stay upon this sence because none that will oppose us in the present controversie will insist upon this sence so far as to say that the Legislative Power is to be found here A Church is also in other sences spoken of Some say every Nation where Christian Religion is owned by ruling Authority and by the generality of the people professed is a Church Some call a Province a Church a Diocess a Church a Parish a Church so that it 's more or less extended and comprehensive and it 's usually the sence of Protestants that assert a Churches Legislative Authority in matters indifferent Others say there is no national Churches under the Gospel though there be Churches in every Nation and that properly there are no particular Churches but such who freely and voluntarily combine together in bonds of Society for the worshipping of God according to his revealed will and walk accordingly Various are the Sentiments and Disputes about a Church and the nature of it the consideration of which will not be so much our concern at this time But there is another way of the usage of Church wherein there is greater ambiguity which is very much to the matter in hand that we rightly understand it viz the emphatical use of the word The Church so many mens Writings and Argumentations being filled and confounded with it now a days that who can tell what they mean by The Church The Romanists say the Church hath determined this or that and when we enquire what that Church is they say the Catholick Church which being rightly understood is the true meaning of the Church according to that rule Aequivocum per se positum stat pro famosiori significato the Emphasis putting the word upon the highest and largest signification but when we come to a farther disquision of their meaning they tell us the Church of Rome is the Church and all others that dissent or separate from the Church of Rome are not the Church or of the true Catholick Church Many Protestants also that speak of the Church do not understand the Church of Rome or the Catholick Church but some particular National Church viz. of France England Spain c. but when we enquire what this Church is they will tell us it 's the body of the Clergy met together in a Convocation by a few Representatives to make Laws and Canons and Ecclesiastical Constitutions the executive power whereof is in the Bishops and their Courts so that when these few men have made Laws or exercise Ecclesiastical power compose Forms of Prayer or establish Ceremonies at their pleasure they say the Church did it These two sorts of men make use of this great commanding Word the Church and by this equivocal term sounding so loud of an uncontroulable Prerogative they suggest unto poor well-meaning people on the one side that all that the Pope and the Church of Rome doth on the other hand that all that the Bishops and their Courts do is done by the Church as if it were the whole Vniversal visible Church It is not my present task here to enquire what is the true meaning of the Church according to the Scripture-acceptation or the most true Logical notion thereof whether it be a Genus or an Integrum or totum Aggregativum I shall onely in the ensuing Discourse apply my self to the most rectified sence of those that do defend the Legislative Authority of the Church and if they will not start from all right Reason and Rules of Logick their sence must be That the Catholick Militant Church is The Church whether it may be Organical according to Scripture-constitution we argue not now constituted of Subordinate parts first National or if you please Patriarchal before that of National made up of Provincial Provincial of Diocesan Diocesan of Parochial and this ought to be the sincere meaning of The Church without prevarication in the sence of those beforementioned § 2. Now the main thing in Debate between the Assertors of the Churches Authority and the Dissentors from it is Whether the Church may exercise such a Power as may change Indifferencies in the Worship of God into Necessities Which we hold in the Negative and say That Christ hath never granted such Power unto the Church he hath granted an Executive Power unto his Church but never a Legislative Power for all lawful power that any Church hath it must have it from the Lord Jesus Christ who hath all power given unto him in Heaven and Earth and is the peculiar King of his Church and hath taken care for the right Ordering and Governance of it in all things necessary as to Salvation so to Order and Discipline And therefore what is not derived from the Lord Jesus Christ cannot be allowed to be lawfully exercised 'T is true if it could be shewed where Christ ever granted it by his Charter to his Church that in some particular concerns she might exert a Legislative Power the dispute would soon be ended but no such Charter could ever be shewn § 3. If any such Power be granted by Christ it must be granted to the Catholick Church Militant or to particular subordinate Churches but 't is not granted to either of them Ergo. Not to the Vniversal Church because it is not organized with Officers capable of a Catholick Rule unless we
or over the Catholick Church as the Pope and if there be no such Monarchical Substitute of Jesus Christ here on Earth it will appear that all the rest will fall to the ground Therefore as to them I shall not actum agere my principal part will be with the Protestants that do assert such Officers in the Church and yet deny the Popes Supremacy To whom I say in the second place and anon shall prove that there cannot be any such Officers as above-mentioned in the Church without a Supreme Pastor those Pastors being Subordinate Pastors of Subordinate Churches And that this Question may be cleared to every rational Protestant that is not fanatically blinded with Pride Ignorance and Interest I shall crave leave of my Reader in a short Digression to handle this Question Whether a Subordination of Pastors in the Church doth not necessarily infer a Supreme Pastor CHAP. XIV A Digression concerning the Subordination of Pastors § 1. AMong the many Difficulties and inevitable Rocks that the Protestant Prelacy is necessitated upon by casting off the Headship of the Oecumenical Pastor not only in asserting but exerting their Episcopal Jurisdiction or Pastoral Power in the Legislation and Execution Ecclesiastical pretended unto I thought it not amiss to debate one main Question wherein some part of the greatest stress of difficulty in that kinde doth consist and that is this Whether the asserting the Subordination of Pastors in the Church doth not by all good consequence infer the Supremacy of an Oecumenical or Vniversal Pastor We understand the word Church here as before explained i. e. when we say The Church by way of eminency we understand not or should not at least any Individual Parochial Diocesan Provincial National Congregational or Classical Church but the Vniversal Church comprehensive of all these and enfolding them as the outmost skin of an Onion involves all the other subordinately one within another By an Oecumenical Pastor is meant a Pastor of the highest degree here on Earth related in his Pastoral charge to the whole visible Church by whatsoever Names Titles or Dignities he is known and is a Bishop in the highest preheminence of Ecclesiastical Rule and Jurisdiction here on Earth from whom there can be no Appeal to any Earthly Bishop or Governour and this is the Militant Pastor of the Church-Catholick Militant to which according to their supposition of Subordinated Pastors all the other Degrees and Orders must be subjected By Subordination is meant the substituting or subjecting one under another the terms of which is the Supreme Highest and most Vniversal on one side and the most particular Priest or Pastor on the other The Question being stated and the Terms explained the Truth will by necessary Consequence appear on the Affirmative part that Subordination of Pastors in the Church doth necessarily infer◠the Supremacy of an Oecumenical Pastor or Bishop And I prove it thus § 2. There is the same Political Reason for an Vniversal Pastor or Supreme Head on Earth over all other Pastors and Churches that there is for any Subordinate Pastor that hath other Pastors subjected unto him Instance in a Diocesan Bishop ruling his Parish-priests or Parochial Pastors if they may be allowed any higher title than the Bishops Curates the chief end of the said Bishop being Jurisdiction Determination of Ecclesiastical Causes Regulation and Ordination of his Clergy Unity Order Uniformity c. By the same political Reason though in a higher Sphere of Government is an Archbishop or Provincial Pastor required for regulation of Bishops of Diocesses committed to his charge maintaining the Unity of the Provincial Church Order and Vniformity therein that every weak giddy-headed Bishop may not govern after the Fancies of his own brain but that every one should be notwithstanding all their Lord-like Grandeur accountable to the Archbishop for any male-administration of Government or neglect of charge committed to their care The reason holds good in like sort for a National Pastor the Metropolitan Primate or Patriarch that the whole National Church consisting of Provinces divided into Diocesses and they into Parishes be maintained Vniform in Worship and Vnited under one National Ecclesiastical Head and Governour to whom the supreme Administration of Pastoral Function in the Church National should belong as to oversee nextly and more immediately the Provincial Pastors and Churches and more remotely all other Pastors and Churches in the Nation that there be no Divisions Schisms Heresies Contempts disorderly Conversation irregular proceedings among Pastors and People but an harmonious concatenation from the highest to the lowest to whom and his Commission-courts all Appeals from Inferiour Provincials and Diocesans may be made The Subordination of Pastors thus far allowed and granted an Universal Pastor must be inferred by unavoidable consequence For as yet there is the like necessity of uniting National Churches in one Universal Church under one Catholick Pastor as was for uniting Provincial Churches in a Nation and subjecting them to a National Pastor or Primate or subjecting Diocesses and their respective Bishops to an Archbishop or Provincial Pastor sic deineeps For by how much the more universal the Church is by so much the more universal the Pastoral Charge and Jurisdiction must be And as the National is to the Vniversal Visible Church so the National Pastor to the Catholick Pastor by a Mathematical Proportion And the like ground of relation as is betwixt a National Pastor and a National Church consisting nextly of Provinces is also betwixt an Oecumenical Pastor and an Oecumenical Church consisting nextly of Nations And if Unity Uniformity and regular Administration of Church-Government be indispensably necessary in a National Church and the care of these things to be committed primarily and principally to a National Pastor how much more is it necessary in the Catholick Church constituted and made up of National Churches nextly the care of which to be committed to an Oecumenical Pastor And if the Schisme of a Province or Diocess be of so dangerous consequence to a National Church of how much more dangerous will the Schisme of a National from the Catholick Church be § 3. Secondly I prove that they that maintain the Government of the Church by Bishops Archbishops and Primates must also own an Universal Visible Pastor from the nature of the Catholick Visible Church 1. It must be either an organized or unorganized Body and made up of partes similares only the latter will not be owned by such Assertors by reason of the gross Absurdities tending to Separation and Phanaticisme that must necessarily be inferred on such a concession If they say it is an Organized Body which is most suitable to the Grandeur and Splendour of Mother Church that she should be made up of the most curious texture and the most proportionate adaptation of parts it is by no means to be supposed that a visible Body eminent in all other parts should be Corpus vivum animatum and yet want a Visible
Head an Invisible Headship to a visible organized living Body cannot be in this sence allowed nor a Secular Headship to this Spiritual Body But more of this anon Again The Catholick Church must be such either quatenus Integrum or quatnus Genus it cannot have any other due Logical consideration though to adapt words to some novel apprehensions we speak of totum aggregatum totum comprehensivum both of which are reducible to the other Terms I shall prove that both these acceptations of a Catholick Church do of necessity enforce an Universal Visible Pastor 1. As Catholicum integrum and quatenus tale is to be considered as divisible or divided into parts and according to that Nation of Subordination the greater parts into the next lesser and them into lesser or least of all wherefore the Catholick Visible Church is divided into National Churches as the next and greatest constituting parts National into Provincials Provincial into Diocesan and they into Parochial if there be a Subordination of Pastors in the Church it 's according to the fubordination of the integral parts of the said Church For in Division and Subdivision of parts there must be a continuance till we come to minimum quod sic on the descending part and maximum quod sic in the ascending part But there can be no such Subordination of Pastors according to the Subordination of Membra totius without an Vniversal Pastor Ergo. For as there is the same Reason of the Catholick to the National Church respectu saltem integrationis which is of the National to the Provincial and thence downward So there is the same reason for an Oecumenical Pastor to the National as of the National to the Provincial or that to the Diocesan Pastor As the National is the totum in respect of the Provinces and as such hath a Pastor so it 's but an Integral part in respect of the Catholick Church which by the same reason is to have a Pastor else this concatenation by Subordination will be headless and visibly deficient in the polity of its Vniform Constitution for pretended establishment of Uniformity Now if they plead that the Catholick Church is but totum aggregatum Ergo National Churches are coordinate hence individual thenceforward for their defence they must plead for Independency and it will be coincident with the notion of Congregational Churches But how inconsistent these Principles are to deny a Subordination of National Churches and Pastors to a Catholick Church and Pastor when they allow and maintain a Subordination of Churches and Pastors within the National and utterly disown an Independency of Pastors of particular Congregations on superiour Pastors and Churches If the Catholick Church be understood to be Genus Generalissimum divisible into Species the same Inference will accrue for the Subordination stands thus the National is subalternum Genus the Provincial subalterna Species the Diocesan Species specialissima according to some Logick but Species specialior according to others and Parochial Churches Species specialissima after this consideration the Argument stands thus If a Pastor is to be set over a Church subalterni Generis because it comprehends Churches under it as Species by the same reason a Pastor is to be set over the Catholick comprehending also its Species viz. National Churches For though the National Church be related to the provincial as Genus it is related to the Catholick as Species But because according to the best Logical and Theological Notions the application of Genus doth not well suit to the nature of the Catholick Church it being more properly a totum Integrale I stay not on this part of the Argument § 4. Argum. 3. I Argue from the nature of Subordination which always supposeth a Supremum and Infimum a Supreme higher than which is none and a Lowest lower than which is none otherwise it would be unlimited And if in the Church there be a Subordination of Pastors then as there is a Lowest viz. a Parish-Priest so there must be also a Supreme Pastor for the highest Round of the Ladder viz. an Oecumenical Pastor For as every Subordination is to be continued to a nè plus ultra so Subordination of Pastors must be continued to the largest acceptation of a Church on Earth for the maintaining Unity and Uniformity of the National Churches which are next in constitution to the Catholick If it be said that Christ is the onely Pastor of the universal Church It will be granted that he is Pastor of the Church in the most Catholick acceptation as it comprehends the Church visible and invisible but for the visible Church he leaves it perfect as to parts with a visible Head as well as other parts visible for it must be ejusdem naturae cum caeteris membris and how can visible Vniformity be attained in the Catholick Church but by a government of a visible Pastor who visibly rules all Churches and in whom they are all politically knit together as in a Central or rather Circumferential Knot Besides if a National Pastor be Supream among Pastors next under Christ then it follows that this Subordination terminates at least in a co-ordination of Pastors and if so it 's because there is a co-ordination of Churches and if one sort of Churches and Pastors of particular Churches are co-ordinate next under Christ the Head why are not all And why may not a Schismatical Provincial or Diocesan use the like plea to throw off the jurisdiction of the National or why may not particular Parochial Assemblies and their Pastors argue on the same grounds their Co-ordination and freedom from Subordination to any Pastor besides Christ alone So that this National Co-ordination of Pastors in the highest Ecclesiastical Supremacy is the making a hundred Popes instead of one and laying the foundation of Independency unavoidably to all judicious understandings The sum of this whole Argument is That there can be no plausible reason given why the Subordination of visible Pastors should not extend as far as visible Churches and if Christ hath set Orb within Orb Church within Church every one its Planet to rule it for the maintaining Order Uniformity c. why should the Supream Planetary Orb be without a Planet § 5. Arg. 4. The necessity of this inference is further proved from the derivation or original of Pastoral power every Pastor receives his Pastoral power from Christ mediately or immediately If Subordinate Pastors they receive their power mediately then mediante populo vel Superiori quodam The Assertors of Prelacy will never grant a derivation of power from Christ mediante populo for that were to fall into the Congregational way If they say they receive their power through the hands of some Superiour it must be by some Ecclesiastical or Civil Officers if by some Ecclesiastical then thorow some Pastor or Pastors and they either co-ordinate or of some superiour Rank and Dignity They will not say they receive their power from co-ordinate Pastors
Catholick unless it be in the visible universal Head and if it be said that a National Church may positively determine in this kind then why not a Provincial as well the one being a subordinate Church as well as the other But if the Decree be onely National as many various interpretations and sences may be put on a place of Scripture as there are Nations which will lay an ample foundation for variety of Sects Schisms Heresies c. Whereas if all National Churches were bound to one Catholick determination there must needs therehence ensue the admirable effect of Uniformity in Doctrine and Practice all Churches believing as the Vniversal Church believes and that as the Head doth Besides if it be of such dangerous consequence for Christians as private persons to put their interpretation on Scripture in laying the foundation of variety of Sects Schisms Heresies c. how much more dangerous for particular Churches because the determination of a Church reacheth further and is more attended unto and more become seduced and leavened with errour thereby if it be erroneous Hence to believe as the Catholick Church believes hath more concern in it than those imagine that endeavour to blast it with the ridicle of the Colliers Faith for it 's not as the National Church believes but as the Catholick Church believes Neither is it an implicit Faith in any things but controversal and dubious matters above ordinary scrutiny and vulgar capacity and therein we had better rest satisfied in Catholick Authority than run the risk of adhering to the Opinion of private persons and Churches which must be done also by an implicite Faith and who is likely to have the most unerring Spirit a Church or particular Person and if a Church the most Catholick is the most unerring § 13. Thirdly From the Necessity of a Catholick determination of Decency and Order That is decent which by the Universality is reputed and judged so for one Countrey doth usually call that decent which others repute undecent And there are no Protestant Prelates but have do and will say That Christ hath left it to the Church to determine all matters of Decency and Order and 't is absurd to say that this or that Church may do it when no such is the Church eminently When 't is said the Church determines Decencies What Church is that Is it a Parish-Church Nay then Parish-Churches should rule Diocesan by a Law Again if Diocesan Churches should have power to determine their Decencies either Provincials must be subject to some one Diocesan which might regulate all the rest or else Diocesan Churches would differ so much in their decencies that there would be no Uniformity in the Provincial Church And if Provincials might determine each one its Decencies and Order it must needs break Vniformity in National Churches But I know where the Protestant Prelate will be he will say presently it 's the National Church that he means when he speaks of the Churches determination of Decency and Order To which I reply that he may with as good ground say that he means a Parish-Church and that by giving this power to a National Church he gives a greater advantage to Schism and lays a greater bar against Vniformity For the more comprehensive the Church is in which the Schism is the greater it is and the more uniform the Schismatical Church is of the more dangerous consequence it is to the Catholick Church In vain do men plead for Vniformity in the Church who in asserting the principles of Vniformity in a National Church do thereby extirpate Vniformity in the Catholick for National Vniformity unless it be Catholick is but Vniformity in a Schism For if every National Church may determine of Decency and Order there will be as great a diversity if not contrariety in several Churches affairs as in the affairs of several States one Nation determining that Ceremony to be decent which another determines to be undecent absurd and disorderly and so Churches will be as divers in their Fashions as English Dutch Spaniard c. And there will be no end of Ceremonies and new-fangled Garbs in the Church if a Nation may of themselves and when they will constitute ordain and appoint them at their pleasure alter and null old Ceremonies and invent new and shall have as great difficulty intricacy and multiplicity of Church-Laws as State-Laws if at every Convocation Decency and Order may be determined § 14. From the necessity of a Catholick composure of Church-Prayers the more private and singular the conception of Church-prayers are the more Schismatical And divers Liturgies in one and the same National Church may not be allowed neither that every Province and Diocess compose their own Liturgy as being a matter of dangerous consequence to the National Church How then comes it to pass that our National Church may compose its own Liturgy distinct from another Is not this of as dangerous consequence to the Catholick Church And is' t not more conducing to the Peace Beauty Uniformity and Honour of the Church to have a Catholick Liturgy Whereas otherwise every Nation will be setting up the price of their own prayers above others whence ariseth heart-burning Divisions and Schisms National in the Catholick Church were it not much better that all Nations should bring their Liturgies and lay them down at the feet of Mother-Church and submit them to her Judgment in the Supreme Head from whose blessed hands she may receive one of such Catholick composure that might produce a perfect Harmony in the affections and petitions of all the Churches in the world in good assurance of a Catholick Amen attending the conclusion of all Besides if a National prayer be more available than a Provincial or Diocesan Why should not a Catholick Church-prayer be most of all available § 15. Fifthly The necessity of a Catholick Canonization of Saints For supposing the Necessity of the Observation of Saints days as the Protestant Prelates zealously assert it is requisite to enquire who or what Church Canonized the Saints which are already honoured with Saintship Titular and Days devoted to their remembrance and who dedicated and consecrated Churches on the same account was it not the Catholick Church by her Catholick Pastors If every Church suppose National should have the like liberty to canonize Saints at their pleasure all the days in the Year yea in an Age would be little enough for All Hollan-tide And if the observation must be Anniversary there would be a necessity of robbing Peter to pay Paul which would be doing evil that good may come of it it being as great a sin to rob Peter of his fishing-nets as to rob Paul of his cloak and parchments Besides this Absurdity would fall in that one Nation would canonize that for a Saint which another would anathematize to the Devil As for Example Michaelmas-day is devoted to St. Michael the Archangel which Feast was instituted by Felix the Third the 48th Oecumenical
worship of God all being alterable in Addition or Substraction by the will and pleasure of man He may alter the Modes and Dresses of the Church in all matter of Ceremony at least that the Church will be liable to as many new fashions as an English man as one Magistrate may change his own Laws so many will change one anothers one it may be being Popish another Episcopal a third a Presbyterian So that if the Magistrates Laws must binde the Church Ecclesiastically it may be bound and unbound a hundred times in a few years and put on as many Shapes as Proteus for still as there is new Lords so new Laws But where there is a permanency and unchangeableness of Lords and Lawgivers there will be a certainty and stability of Laws as always under Christs immediate Legislation 3. If this power be allowed to a Magistrate as such then to a Heathen Magistrate and he may make Laws according to his Religion viz. that Christians should eat Meat sacrificed to Idols which eating in it self is an indifferency 1 Cor. 10. But I would fain know whether any of the strenuous Protestant-contenders for the Magistrates power in this kind would not think it a great sin both for the Magistrate to make such a Law and for any Subject knowing of it to obey him in it Again a Jewish Magistrate may make a Law that all should be circumcised because Paul determined it to be but an Indifferency after the abolition of the Jewish Law a man might cut off his Foreskin or let it alone Circumcision was nothing and Vncircumcision nothing it was but the taking away or keeping a little fleshie skin But I would ask whether if any Magistrate should make such a Law that all the Males in his dominion should be circumcised whether every conscientious Christian would not then suffer much before he would be circumcised saying as Paul That if they were circumcised by virtue of such an Imposition Christ would profit them nothing And this is the Doctrine preached by him to the Galatians § 3. Christ hath not granted any such power to a Christian Magistrate as a Christian merely if so it will follow 1. That one Christian may institute a way or mode of Worship for another 2. That a strong Christian being a Magistrate may force the weak to use all those things that he calls indifferent though the other call them and reputes them unlawful and sinful 3. If the Scales of Providence turn and the weak Christian be made the Magistrate he may pay home the strong and make a Law for him to punish him if he use that as an Indifferency which he esteemed so and so binde him up in many things from walking by the Rules of Expediency 4. Every Magistrate that calls himself a Christian must be allowed the Christian's power though never so prophane erroneous or heretical for who dare controul him so far as to say he is no Christian or to wrest the Ecclesiastical Sword in this kind out of his hands if it belong to him quâ Christian Or how dare any to say he is not a Christian so and so qualified and therefore hath not such a power Neither is it fit any exception should be taken in this manner for we know nothing lies more open to censure than Magistrates Religion and if every Subjects humour must be a Standard to the Magistrates Religion all things would fall as certainly to confusion on that side If you allow such a power to him as Christian so he professeth himself and so he takes it and it 's too late to dispute with him about his Sincerity and Qualifications under that denomination he took the Sword by your allowance and hath now more wit than to part with it upon every humoursome exception made against the strictness or modality of his Christianity 5. If as a Christian then such a power is a proper adjunct of a Christian and every Christian should have it but nothing is more false and absurd than this § 4. Arg. 2. That which destroys Vniformity in the Church ought not to be allowed but for the Magistrate to exercise such a Legislative power destroys Uniformity in the Church Ergo not to be allowed The Major will be granted by our Contenders for Vniformity in Ceremonies The Minor is evinced thus it certainly hinders and destroys Vniformity in the Catholick Church and that which destroys Uniformity in a Vniversality is the most universal enemy to it for if every Supream Legislator in each Nation may dress up the National Church in a suit of Ceremonies shred out of Indifferencies according to the imaginations of his own brain in which Ceremonies the great Uniformity contended for doth consist there can never be an universal concord of all Nations of the English Greeks Romanists c. to perfect and compleat the most beautiful and necessary Vniformity All other ceremonial Uniformity which men undertake to plead for is but Vniformity in Independency Disunion Disagreement if not Schism it self for though it be National yet if it be not Vniversal it 's but a particular Church in a way of separation from other Churches as an Independent Congregation in a Parish that is Uniform within it self in judgment and practice but disunited and separated from the Parish and all other sorts of Churches whatsoever Now if the stress of Vniformity lie here as these men plead it cannot stand upon this basis of the magistrates power for there will never be the sameness of Ceremonies in all places Rulers being so adverse to each other that they glory rather in a contrariety of Laws and Customs than are ambitious of having the same And let it be considered whether the giving this power to him doth not cut the very Throat of Vniformity in the Catholick Church and lay the very Seed-plot of Schism and Division Hence those Principles that lay the undoubted ground of Uniformity in a universal Head Ecclesiastical do go upon far surer grounds of Reason for the effecting it than those that pretend and designe to effect it by the Magistrates power as we have shewed before § 5. Arg. 3. He that may not assume to himself the Executive power of Ecclesiastical Laws cannot enact Laws of the same kind But the Civil Magistrate may not assume to himself an Executive power c. Ergo The Major is evident because he that maketh Laws may undertake also the Executive part or dispose of it by deputation And the Argument of the Major is from the less to the greater for the Executive power is primitively in the Law-maker and cannot become anothers but by derivation from him Minor but the Civil Magistrate hath no such power conveyed to him c. I mean Judicial Ecclesiastical Execution according to the true intent of the Law for Christ's instituted Worship It is true so far as Civility and Morality is to be maintained in Religion and in the Churches as well as Families and other Societies therein they
few words more § 13. First If it be lawful for the Church to annex new decencies and order to the decencies and order appointed by Christ then these must be necessary or unnecessary but it 's not lawful Ergo. 1. It 's not lawful to annex unnecessary for this were to trifle and would infer the greatest absurdities imaginary therefore none will insist upon that 2. Not to annex any thing necessary for they must then judge something necessary which Christ hath not declared so as something belonging to the esse or bene esse of the Church and this were a high affront to Christ and impeachment of his wisdom as not perfect and compleat in his House as likewise it 's implicitely to condemn Christ's Worship and Ordinances as left by him for undecent and disorderly and so naked and unfit to come to publick view till they be anew dressed up and trimed by the Church in her Poppet-play Robes and Attire § 14. Secondly And then she might re-establish any old absolete Jewish decencies so she use them Evangelically upon as good or better ground than she hath brought in Heathenish practices into use in the Church Thirdly Decency and Order in the Church is no Indifferency but necessary in its kind as hath been shewed because commanded and enjoyned by Christ and Ergo if the Church hath power to enact Laws in matters of Indifferency it follows not that she hath power to do the like in matters of Decency and Order because they are not indifferent things but necessary if we understand either Moral or Evangelical decency and order § 15. It is fallacious and false to assert that the Church prescribes onely decencies in the Worship of God for they are the smallest part of her Ceremonies for what are Holy-days Cross in Baptism Musick in Divine Service And besides most or all her Ceremonies respect other Objects and are for other significancy and ends than for decency some being chiefly gratiâ divinâ as all reverential Gestures and Postures viz. bowing at the Name of Jesus bowing to the Altar kneeling at the Sacrament standing up at the Gospel These are signes of divine honour and Latrical and can be no otherwise understood than respecting a Divinity and therefore there can be no pretence to call it civil Worship because in all civil Worship man is the Object and were the same or like actions which for the matter are neither civil or divine but indifferent as to both but a peculiar Adaptation to a singular end or object they receive their distinct denomination therefrom Some are chiefly gratiâ humanâ in order to the due preparing and qualifying us for Spiritual Services Surplices to make us appear more pure an Emblem of Purity and mind us of it Musick to raise the Spirits and others more mixt in their intention tà m gratiâ divinâ quà m humanâ as Saints days wherein God is blessed for Saints whereby God is honoured and the Saint too the Cross in Baptism and the Ring in Matrimony which are Seals of obligation religiously made use of therefore more than significant signes and can be no less than Sacraments There are also divers Responses and Salutations betwixt Ministers and People in all which it 's easie to perceive that there is some weightier matters respected than meer civil decencies and order whatever pretences are made to the contrary § 16. We have before hinted what we apprehend true canonical obedience to be viz. that it 's not a submission to a certain body of Laws made by any Church challenging a Legislative power neither to those feigned Canons of the Apostles but it is obedience to the Canons or Rules of Gospel-communion laid down in the Scriptures those that are acquainted with the true Churches of Christ know no other Canons nor no other canonical Obedience they are obliged unto Now those that call for canonical obedience under that term they tell us that it is obedience to the Laws Rules and Constitutions of the Church but I could never rightly understand any reason for their plea from the Church viz. of the authority pleaded for for if it be a National Church that requires the said obedience we say 1. That that Church cannot pretend to challenge obedience that is not capacitated to make or execute any Law but the National is not Ergo. The Minor appears in that there is no such thing as a National organized Church constituted by Christ under the Gospel for if there were there must be National Officers and Ordinances by the same appointment but Christ hath constituted no National Officers i. e. whose Office-power in the Church is of such extent nor no National Ordinances i. e. such Ordinances that the whole Nation may partake of in one Assembly for communion The same Argument will hold against Diocesan Churches 2. How is any one National Church the Church more than another that hath such a Ruling power if all hath it alike how various will Church-canons be and how little Uniformity in canonical obedience 3. If this obedience belongs to any Church it seems most consonant to right reason that it should belong to the Catholick Church for 1. That may be as organical as a National can be by virtue of any institution of Christ 2. That 's most comprehensive therefore challengeth the preheminence of all others in respect of extent and by way of eminency may most properly be stiled the Church 3. This is the likeliest way to attain a Vniformity for it 's pleaded as the great reason why Christ gives a Legislative Compulsive power to a National Church viz. Vniformitatis gratiâ Now it 's but a partial Uniformity obtained thereby of an Independent nature but if true Uniformity be reached it must be that which is Catholick which can be no otherwise than by Catholick canonical obedience CHAP. XXII Of the Imposition of Ceremonies § 1. NExt to the consideration of decencies and order it may be meet to enquire a little into the lawfulness of imposition 1. of Ceremonies 2. of a form of Prayer Whether a Ceremony uncommanded by God may be used in the Worship of God is not our present Undertaking to discuss for in some cases it may be lawful so it be such as is duely qualified and be used as indifferent and occasionally by the Rules of discretion but our present Enquiry shall be Whether the Church is liable to the imposition of such Ceremonies as Christ hath not made necessary by any Law of his Many Arguments before urged against the Churches Legislative power might be here of equal force I shall onely adde something proper upon this state of the Question to prove that such an imposition is not in the Churches power § 2. Arg. 1. Because the Church by such imposition doth subjugate herself in her Members to a yoke of bondage which Christ hath freed her and them from That Christians are freed from such yokes see Gal. 4.31 ch 5.1 and the Church is not to return to