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
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
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
Church Now he says Totum is most legally I suppose it should be Logically divided into quatenus integrum and quatenus genus such a whole as a Body is which has all its parts or such a whole as a Genus is to a Species and one of these he thinks the Catholick Church must be But then his Author minded him that there was an aggregate whole such a whole as a heap of Corn is but he told him also that this was but a kind of Integrum though if this Integrum signifies such a whole as has integrating Parts the union of which makes the whole such an Aggregate as has neither any parts nor any union is a pretty kind of Integrum but reduction may do great things and therefore I won't dispute that but since he has named this Aggregate whole if any man should be so perverse as to say that the Catholick Church is such an aggregate Body consisting of all particular co-ordinate Churches what would become of his Subordination of Pastors for what Subordination is there in aggregate Bodies in those Grains suppose which make up a heap of Corn which are all alike The Independent Author foresaw this Objection but medles not with it like a wise man who would not conjure up a Devil which he could not lay but this Transcriber is bold and brave and sometimes ventures out of his depth without his Bladders and then he is usually ducked for it He tells us p. 70. That an aggregate whole has integral parts which I believe is a new Notion for I thought it had been a collection of incoherent things which had no union nor relation to each other as parts have to the whole But how much he understands of this matter appears from the example he gives for he takes an Army to be such an aggregated whole if he had said a Rout or a Rabble had been such an Aggregate he had come near the business but I fear the King's Guards will not take it well to be thought a meer aggregate Body But he could find no other Aggregate wherein there is a Subordination of parts and therefore an Army must pass for such an Aggregate But let us consider his Totum integrum which is a Natural or Political whole such as the Body of Man or a Community is which is made up of several parts which are integral and essential to its composition Now according to the right Notion of Subordination the whole is divided into the next but greater parts and they into the next lesser and they into lesser or least of all Well then let us apply this to the Body of Man which are the greater and lesser parts and least of all into which it must be divided Which are the Superiour and which the Subordinate Parts in a Humane Body There are some indeed which are higher and others lower in the scituation of the Body some more noble and more useful than others but there is no Subordination between them that I know of but the Soul governs them all and they have the same care one of another Indeed Subordination relates onely to governed Societies which may be divided as he speaks into greater or less superior or subordinate Parts which is another kind of Integrum such as we call a Community But suppose this be what he means by his Integrum not a Natural but a Political whole how does he prove that in every such Integrum there must be such a Subordination of parts as at last centers in one Supreme Governour For what does he think of Democracies or Aristocracies Who is the Supreme where all are equal And should any man say that all the Bishops of the Catholick Church are equal without any supreme Head over them as Democratical or Aristocratical Princes are how would he be able to confute him from his notion of Integrum And therefore the meer notion of an Integrum will not prove such a Subordination of parts as center in one supreme Head but he must prove that the constitution of the Christian Church is such as is under the Government of one supreme visible Head. His next Totum is Genericum His Author had confessed that this does not belong to the Church and he confesses it after him in the very same words This Notion I 'll not further prosecute because according to the best Logical and Theological Rules the application of a Genius doth not so well suit the nature of the Catholick Church it being more properly an Integrum than a Genus And yet he would not lose this opportunity neither to let us see his great skill in Logick but since they both confess it is nothing to the purpose I shall not trouble my Readers with it 3. He argues from the nature of Subordination it self of any kind which always supposes a Supremum infimum And if there be in the Church a Subordination of Pastors as our Protestant Prelates assert then there must be a supreme as well as the lowest Term viz. A Catholick Pastor for the highest range or round of the Ladder and a Parish Priest or as our Bishops would have it of late a Diocesan for the lowest the continuation being always to a neplus ultra at both ends of the Line Which for ought I see does as well prove an Universal Monarch as an Universal Pastor For he tells us this holds in any kind of Subordination We do grant indeed that there is a Subordination of Pastors in the Church i. e. that Presbyters are Subordinate to Bishops but we say with all Antiquity that a Bishop even a Diocesan Bishop is not the lowest but the highest term for a Bishop is the highest Order in the Church and all Bishops are of equal Power and this without any danger of Independency as I have already shown 4. His next Argument is from the derivation and original of Pastoral Office and Power The Sum of which in short is this that every Pastor must receive his Pastoral Power from some Superior Pastor that as Presbyters are ordained by Bishops so Bishops by their Metropolitans they by their Primate and they by the Oecumenical Bishop from whom they receive the Pastoral Staff. But he forgot all this while from whom this Oecumenical Bishop must receive his Orders and whether those who ordain the Pope are his Superiors Such Talk as this might become the Independant well enough from whom he transcribes it but is pretty Cant for a Romanist for whoever has Authority to confer Orders may certainly confer them whether he be a Superior or Equal and therefore he ought to have proved that none but a Superior can have Authority to confer Orders and then he must find a Superior to the Pope to give him his Oecumenical Power The Catholick Church has always owned the Power of Order to be in Bishops who are the highest Order of the Church and have a plenitude of Ecclesiastical Power which is the reason why Presbyters 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
highest Priest and Optatus Apices Principes the Tops and Princes of all which was the general Language of those days as any one who pleases may learn from Dr. Barrow's learned Treatise of the Popes Supremacy And as Bishops were the highest Governours of the Church so every Bishop was greatest in his own Diocess no other Bishop nor Synod of Bishops could impose any thing on him without his own Consent they met for Advice and Counsel not for Rule and Empire which Mr. B. tells us so often was Arch-bishop Usher's Judgment and which plainly was the Judgment and Practice of Antiquity as appears from what I have already discoursed about Catholick Communi on It were easie to transcribe several Passages out of St. Cyprian to this purpose especially from his Preface to the Council of Carthage where he tells them That they were met freely to declare their Opinions about this matter the Rebaptization of those who had been Baptized by Hereticks judging no man nor denying Communion to him if he dissent For neither doth any of us constitute himself Bishop of Bishops or by tyrannical terror compel his Colleagues to a necessity of obeying since every Bishop being free and in his own power has his own free choice and can neither be judged by another nor judg another but let us all expect the judgment of our Lord Iesus Christ who alone has power both to advance us to the Government of his Church and judg of our Government and in p. 579. I add Nor does this overthrow that very Ancient Constitution of Patriarchal or Metropolitan Churches for a Patriarch or Metropolitan was not a Superior Order to Bishops nor included any Authority over them as is evident from what St. Cyprian discoursed who was himself a Primate but only some precedency in the same Order and such advantages of Power in the Government of the Church as was given them by the common consent of Bishops for a greater publick good as the power of calling Provincial Synods and presiding in them and a principal Interest in the Ordination of Bishops in his Province and the like which were determined and limited by Ecclesiastical Canons It is true this Patriarchal Power did in time degenerate into Domination and Empire when it fell into the hands of ambitious men but was originally and is so still when wise and good men have the management of it a very prudent constitution to preserve Peace and Order and good Discipline in the Church But that Arch-bishops and Metropolitans had no proper Superiority and Jurisdiction over Bishops is evident from what St. Hierom objects against the Discipline of the Montenists Amongsts us i. e. the Catholicks the Bishops enjoy the place of the Apostles among them the Bishop is but the third for they have the Patriarch of Pepusa in Phrygia for the first those whom they call Cenones for the second thus Bishops are thrust down into the third that is almost the last place And yet in St. Hieroms time the Catholick Church had Archbishops and Metropolitans but yet it seems not such as degraded Bishops or advanced any above them Whether this be true Reasoning or no shall be examined when there is occasion for it all that I am concerned in at present is only to show that I never asserted such an Original Combination of Metropolitical Churches as placed Bishops in subordination to the Metropolitan or gave him a direct Authority or Jurisdiction over them and here our Agreement must for ever break off for if it will not reach to the Jurisdiction of Metropolitans and Primates much less will it extend to Patriarchs and least of all to an Oecumenical Pastor whom I have in express terms rejected and for what reason will appear anon 3. The next instance of Agreement is That we both agree in giving to a General Council direct Authority over their Collegues in matters that concern the Purity of Faith and Manners and the Unity of the Church But here are two considerable Mistakes in this Matter 1. That I give this Authority to a General Council 2. That I give a General Council or any other Combination of Bishops a direct Authority over their Collegues 1. That I give this Authority to General Councils My Dissenting Adversaries began this Charge that I set up a General Council as a Superior Governing Power over the whole Church and consequently over all Bishops and therefore was no better than a Cassandrian or a French Papist and our Author revives this charge without taking any notice that it was ever Objected and Answered before indeed he has Objected nothing in this whole matter but what was before Objected by Dissenters with as much Art and appearance of Truth as he has now given it And I could more easily forgive it in them because it might be an innocent mistake in them till these notions were thoroughly sifted and set in a better light but for our Author to read that very Book The Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet wherein all these Objections were made and Answered and to renew the Charge and repeat the Objections again without taking notice of any Answer that was given to them is such a piece of Ingenuity as an honest Dissenter would be ashamed of In my Defence of the Dean there was not one word which looked towards a General Council excepting the Collegium Episcopale or the Episcopal Colledg which some mistook for a General Council but this mistake I rectified in the Vindication p. 146. I observed that Optatus called the whole body of Bishops Collegium Episcopale and upon the same account St. Cyprian and St. Austin call all Catholick Bishops Collegues and they may as well say That when the Fathers speak of the Unity of the Episcopacy they mean their Union in a General Council as that they mean a General Council by the Colledg of Bishops In St. Cyprians time there never had been a General Council excepting the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem and yet when he wrote to forreign Bishops with whom he never was joined in Council nor ever like to be he calls them his Collegues or those of the same Colledg with him which signifies no more than that they were of the same Power and Authority with him and united in one Communion And what my thoughts are of a General Council whoever pleases may see some Pages after p. 162 163 c. 2. Nor do I give a direct Authority to any Bishops or Council of Bishops over their Collegues This I expresly deny in Forty places as to be sure every man must do who acknowldges that all Bishops have originally an equal power and the Supreme Authority in their respective Diocesses That no Bishops either single or united have any direct Authority or Superiority over each other That the combinations of Churches and the Synods and Councils of Bishops are not for direct acts of Government and Superiority over each other with several other
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
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
no sooner said it but he unsays it again For says he It 's true that those who are for the divine Right of the Supream Jurisdiction of the Pope over the whole Catholick Church visible do hold the divine Right to be but mediate mediante Papa but the Followers of the Councils of Constance and Basil are against the Supream uncontroulable Power of the Pope and for the immediate divine Right of Episcopacy And it 's notorious from the Debates in the Council of Trent that the French Spanish and many other Roman-Catholicks stuck to their immediate Divine Right too and the great reason why opposition was made in the Court of Rome against the immediate divine Right of Bishops was an Opinion that the Supremacy of the Pope could not be secured on the granting it But Dr. Sherlock has found out a Notion which will be of great use to them for the divine Right of a Primacy is a great step to the Supremacy and this the Doctor doth establish consistently enough with the divine Right of Bishops As for my own Notion I have sufficiently vindicated that already from doing any Service to the Pope's Supremacy and see no occasion to add any thing more here But I wonder he should pitch upon this instance of the divine right of Episcopacy to show the Agreement between the two Churches when he himself is forced to acknowledge what fierce Debates there were in the Council of Trent about this matter He says indeed and that very truly that the French and Spanish Bishops in the Council did dispute very vehemently for the divine Institution of Episcopacy and he knows what a prevailing opposition was made against it The Pope sent express Orders to the Legates that whatever they did they should not suffer that to pass Laynez the Jesuit was appointed by the Legates and Papalins to make an elaborate Lecture against it Wherein he asserts that Christ built his Church upon Peter whose Name signifies a Stone in the Hebrew and Syriack and therefore according to the most Catholick exposition Peter himself is that Rock whereon Christ built his Church that the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to Peter only and by consequence Power to bring in and to shut out which is Jurisdiction So that the whole Jurisdiction of the Church is committed to Peter only and his Successors And if the Bishops had received any Jurisdiction from Christ it would be equal in all and no difference between Patriarchs Archbishops and Bishops neither could the Pope meddle with that Authority to diminish or take it all away as he cannot do in the Power of Order which is from God. That to make the Institution of Bishops de jure divino takes away the Hierarchy and introduces an Oligarchy or rather an Anarchy That according to the Order Instituted by Christ the Apostles were ordained Bishops not by Christ but by St Peter receiving Jurisdiction from him only or if they were ordained by Christ Christ only prevented St. Peter's Office for that one time That the Bishops are Ordinaries because by the Pope's Law they are made a Dignity of perpetual Succession in the Church That Councils themselves had no Authority but from the Pope for if every particular Bishop in Council may Err it cannot be denyed that they may all Err together and if the Authority of the Council proceeded from the Authority of Bishops it could never be called General because the number of the Assistants is always incomparably less than that of the Absent With much more to this purpose which is all full and home to the point which as the Bishop of Paris observed in his Censure of it makes but one Bishop Instituted by Christ and the others not to have any Authority but dependant from him which is as much as to say that there is but one Bishop and the others are his Vicars to be removed at his pleasure Whatever Opposition was made against this in the Council of Trent it could never prevail The Popes Supremacy was advanced in that Council to its greatest height and glory but the Divine Institution of Episcopacy was dropt though the whole Council was satisfied that the Divine Right of Supremacy and the Divine Institution of Episcopacy were inconsistent For this Reason the Pope and Legates and Italian Bishops opposed the Divine Institution of the Episcopacy and for the same Reason the other Party so vehemently contended for it and then I will leave any man to judge which of these two Opinions must pass for the Sense of the Council and Church of Rome We wish with all our Hearts the Church of Rome did agree with us in the Divine Institution of Episcopacy which was the Sense of the Primitive Church but unless all Parties in the Council of Trent were very much mistaken the Supremacy of the Pope as it is Taught by that Council does utterly overthrow the Divine Institution of Bishops and make them onely the Pope's Creatures and Dependants 3. As for his third Head of Agreement about the Hierarchy which is made up of Archbishops Bishops Deans Prebends Canons Arch-Deacons Chancellors Officials Priests Deacons c. This is onely an Ecclesiastical Body of human Institution for the good Government and Discipline of such Combined Churches and alterable again as the necessities of the Church requires and yet there is an Essential Difference between such Protestant National Combinations of Churches and the Popish Hierarchy The first is Independent on any Forreign Powers is perfect and entire in it self The second has an Oecumenick Pastor for it's Head and derives its Power and Authority from him and this is enough to be said about our Agreement in the Ministry II. The CEREMONIES OR EXTERNAL WORSHIP THIS is the next instance of Agreement between the Church of England and the Church of Rome and any man who considers the matter must needs be very much surprized at it For if the two Churches were so very well agreed about Ceremonies it is very strange that the Church of England from the beginning of the Reformation to this day has rejected such a vast number of Ceremonies as were then and still are in use in the Church of Rome And for my part it is my desire and prayer that they may always agree so while the Church of Rome maintains and practises such a corrupt Worship To make this out he says Our first Reformers opposed the Ceremonies of the Church of Rome upon the same Principles that our Dissenters now oppose the Ceremonies of the Church of England viz. by this Argument All Uninstituted Worship is False Superstitious and Idolatrous Worship But the Romish Ceremonious Worship is Uninstituted Ergo. And if our Author can shew me any such Argument urged by our first Reformers against Ceremonies that are meerly for Decency and Order and external Solemnity of Worship I will grant they argued very ill and did much worse to retain any such Ceremonies But if he cannot shew this as