no necessity for those who acknowledge a subordination of Pastors to acknowledge an Oecumenical Pastor And before I consider his reasons in particular I shall make short work with them and confute them altogether The querie he proposes to discuss which he has transcribed verbatim from his Independent Author is this Whether the asserting of the Subordination of Pastors in the Church doth not by all good consequence necessarily infer the Supremacy of an Oecumenic or Universal Pastor Now my exception against this and consequently against all his Arguments whereby he proves this is that I will allow of no consequences to prove an Institution No man can have the Authority of an Universal Pastor unless Christ has given it him and therefore unless Christ have appointed such an Universal Pastor there can be none and to prove by consequence that Christ has appointed one when no such Institution appears is ridiculous Suppose then there were as much reason for the Supremacy of an Oecumenical Bishop over all the Bishops in the World as there is for the Superiority of Bishops over Presbyters which is all the Subordination of Pastors that we allow of which more presently yet at most this can onely prove that there ought to be an Oecumenical Bishop and that Christ ought to have appointed one but it don't prove that there is one And therefore he who believes that the Superiority of Bishops over Presbyters is an Apostolical Institution but can find no such Institution of an Universal Bishop can never be forced by any reason or consequence to own such an Universal Bishop We own the Subordination of Presbyters to Bishops not from Reason but Institution and does it then hence follow that we must own the Supremacy of an Universal Bishop for some pretended Reasons without an Institution What is matter of Institution depends wholly upon the Divine Will and Pleasure and though all men will grant that God and Christ have always great reason for their Institutions yet it is not the Reason but the Authority which makes the Institution Though we do not understand the reasons of the Institution if we see the Command we must obey and though we could fancy a great many reasons why there should be such an Institution if no such Institution appears we are free and ought not to believe there is such an Institution because we think there are reasons to be assigned why it should be And thus in our case though we should not shew why Christ should institute the Apostolical Office and Power to which ordinary power Bishops succeed superiour to Presbyters and not institute an Oecumenical Pastor superiour to all Bishops though we should fancy that there is as much reason for the one as there is for t'other yet if there appear to be an Institution of the Superiority of Bishops over Presbyters and no Institution of an Oecumenical Pastor we may safely own what is instituted and deny what is not instituted what ever parity of reason there is between them And this I think plainly shews that the Church of England may own the Superiority of Bishops over Presbyters and yet deny any such Officer as an Oecumenical Pastor because there is an Institution of one and not of the other But that our Author if we may call a notorious Plagiary so may not complain that we will not hear him I shall briefly examin what he says He begins with explaining what is meant by Church by Subordination of Pastors and by an Oecumenical Pastor 1. As for the first he distinguishes between a Church and the Church A Church is any particular Church The Church belongs to the Catholick Church onely Why so is not a Church though it be a particular Church the Church of England the Church of France the Church of Spain The Church of England is not the Universal Church no more than the Church of Rome but it is the Church of England But what he would make of this I cannot well guess He says Men are frighted into Conformity to the impositions of any particular Church upon supposition that they are the Laws of the Church i. e. the Catholick Church as the People do for the most part believe But I perceive he thinks that our People in England are as silly as they are in some other places but we tell them and every body of common sense understands without telling that when we in England exhort them to obey the Laws of the Church we mean onely the Laws of the Church of England and he ought first to have proved that every National Church has not power to give Laws to her own Members before he had represented this as such a meer Scare-crow for his distinction between A and The Church does not prove that a Church or every particular National or Diooesan Church if he pleases has not Authority over her own Members This he himself dares not deny and therefore distinguishes between obeying a Church as the Church and as a Church but though we do grant a difference between the Universal and a Particular Church yet before he had run down the Authority of particular Churches he ought to have proved such a Superior Authority in the Universal Church to which all particular Churches must be Subordinate But here his Author failed him and therefore he must of necessity fail his Readers 2. By Subordination of Pastors he understands the standing of several men in distinct Orders or Degrees of Office one above another or under another in Subordinate Ranks This he applies to Patriarchates National Provincial Diocesan Churches the Romanists he says never stop till they arrive at the most Catholick Visible Church and Pastor in the World i. e. an Oecumenical Pastor The Protestant Prelates and Doctors who go not Dr Sherlock's way do say that there are no degrees of Subordination in the ascending part above a National Church and Pastor I have already defended my way which this Author I find knows nothing of no more than he does what is the sense of Protestant Prelates in this matter and therefore I must tell him that though we do own a Subordination of Presbyters to Bishops yet we own no Subordination of one Bishop to another but do assert with St Cyprian That all Bishops have originally the same Authority and Power what the meaning is of Metropolitical and National Combinations of Churches and how far we are from setting up a National Supream Pastor with a kind of a National Infallibility as he insinuates I have already shewn at large Though I think there never was a more senseless Suggestion that no Church can exercise any Authority and Jurisdiction nor punish the Disobedient without pretending to Infallibility which would overthrow all Government in the World unless Princes and Parents and Masters be Infallible too And the reason he gives of it is as absurd to the full that its the most unjust and unreasonable thing in the World for me to pretend to force
like expressions before quoted But do I not say That General Councils can have no direct Authority over any Bishops who refuse to consent unless it be in such matters as concern the purity of Faith and manners and Catholick Unity and does not this infer that they have a direct Authority over them in such matters This possibly might lie a little out of our Author's reach I not having occasion then given me to difcourse it more at large but if he had not understood this it had been more modest and ingenuous to have thought it an unwary saying or to have made a Query upon it and desired me to have reconciled this seeming contradiction rather than to charge me with such Principles as I so often expresly and positively reject But ingenuity and modesty are Virtues not to be expected from such Adversaries and therefore I shall briefly state this matter also by 1. Showing what I meant by matters which concern the purity of Faith and Manners and Catholick Unity 2. What Authority I give to bishops or a Council of Bishops over their Collegues in such cases and how this is to be reconciled with my affirming that the combinations of Churches and the Synods and Councils of Bishops are not for direct acts of Government and Superiority over each other but only for mutual advice and counsel 1. As for the first when I say That Neighbour Bishops or a Council of Bishops has Authority over their Collegues in matters which concern the purity of Faith and Manners and Catholick Unity it is plain that my meaning was not and could not be That such a Council of Bishops had Authority to make what Decrees they pleased in matters of Faith or Manners or Catholick Unity and impose them upon their Collegues by a direct and superior Authority without their own consent for this is the very thing I disputed against and yet this is the sense he would put upon my words and indeed no other sense of them can do the Church of Rome any service but let any indifferent Reader consider the whole Paragraph and freely judg whether this Author be not a very Candid Interpreter I was discoursing about General Councils That it is not likely there should ever be a Convention of Bishops from all parts of the Christian World nor if it were possible that there should be some few Bishops dispatched from all Christian Churches all the world over can I see any reason why this should be called a General Council when it may be there are Ten times as many Bishops who did not come to the Council as those who did and why should the less number of Bishops assembled in Council judg for all the rest who so far exceed them in numbers and it may be are not inferior to them in Piety and Wisdom especially considering that every Bishop has the Supreme Government of his own Church and his liberty and power to choose for himself as St. Cyprian tells us and must not be compelled to obedience by any of his Collegues which overthrows the proper Jurisdiction of General Councils which can have no direct Authority over any Bishops who refuse to consent unless it be in such matters as concern the Purity of Faith and Manners and Catholick Unity Now if Faith and Manners and Catholick Unity were considered as the Subject of Conciliary Decrees what greater Authority could the Council of Trent it self desire than this to have Authority to make Decrees about Faith and Manners and Catholick Unity which shall oblige all the Bishops in the World For I know not any thing else for a Council of Christian Bishops to make Decrees about And therefore these matters which concern Faith and Manners only relate to the Faith and Manners of the Bishop as I elsewhere expresly teach That a Bishop cannot be imposed on against his own consent by any Bishop or Council of Bishops nor can justly be deposed upon such accounts while he neither corrupts the Faith nor schismatically divides the Church So that this Authority refers not to the Decrees of Councils about Faith or Manners but is only an Authority of censuring Heretical and Schismatical Bishops 2. But that we may better understand the true state of this matter let us consider what kind of Authority this is And 1. I observe this is no act of Authority over Bishops considered a Bishops but over Hereticks and Schismaticks and no man that I know of ever denied the Churches Power to censure Heresie or Schism or to correct the Lives and Manners of Men and if Hereticks and Schismaticks wicked and profligate Persons may be flung out of the Church if any Bishops be such there is no reason their Character should excuse them for that does not lessen but aggravate their Crime 2. And therefore this is no usurpation upon the Episcopal Power and Government it is not imposing Laws or Rules on a Bishop for the Government of his Church without his consent which is an Usurpation upon the Episcopal Authority but it is only judging him unworthy to be a Bishop and committing the care of his Flock to some more fit person 3. This Authority does not result from that superior Jurisdiction which one Bishop or all the Bishops in the World have over any one single Bishop but from that obligation which every Bishop has as far as he can to take care of the whole flock of Christ as I explain it in the Vindication p. 156. That the Unity of the Episcopacy is the foundation of that Authority which neighbour Bishops have over their Collegues in case of Heresie or Schism or any notorious wickedness for they being Bishops of the Universal Church have an original Right and Power not to govern their Collegues but to take care that no part of the Church which is within their reach and inspection suffer by the heresie or evil practices of their Collegues which as I observed in the Defence p. 215 is the reason St. Cyprian gives why there are so many Bishops in the Christian Church whom he calls a copious body of Bishops coupled by the cement of concord and bond of Unity That if any of our colledg i. e. any Bishopâ— should endeavour to broach any new Heresie or tear and spoil the Flock of Christ the rest may come in to their help and like good and merciful Pastors gather again the Sheep of Christ into the fold So that this is not properly an Authority over Bishops who have originally no superior Jurisdiction over each other but an obligation on all Bishops as far as they can to see that no part of the Christian Church be corrupted with Heresie or divided by Schisms the discharge of which may impower them to remove Heretical Bishops without any direct Authority to govern Bishops So that this power of deposing Heretical and Wicked Bishops does not contradict what I before asserted That by original right all Bishops are equal and every Bishop supreme in
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
Answer And now from quoting our Author falls to disputing me into an Agreement which methinks argues that we are not agreed or at least that I do not know we are for what need of disputing if as the Title of his Book says we are agreed already but however the Dispute is like to be but short and therefore we will patiently bear it Now to trace us to St. Peters Chair he thus begins For by their making the Catholick Church one Body one Houshold one Kingdom or governed Society that has a governing and governed Part they must necessarily be for a Catholick Hierarchy as what alone is a fit Government for so great a Body Politick that is if the whole Church be one Body Politick over which there must be one Supream governing Head then we must acknowledge the Authority of the Pope or general Council over the whole Church which is a demonstration But if we do not make the whole Church one such Organiz'd Politick Body but only one Communion as it has appeared we do not then there is no necessity of one Supream Government over the whole Church but it is sufficient if the Church be governed by Parts by Bishops who have all equal Authority but agree in the same Communion and govern their particular Churches by common Advice and in this case there is a governing and a governed Part but no one Supream Head. And thus all his reasoning is at an end for destroy this one Principle that the whole Catholick Church is one Politick Organiz'd Body with one Supream Power over the whole and there is an end of the Authority both of Popes and general Councils But he will not give up the Cause thus for says he Let us therefore a little more clearly observe what these Church of England Clergy-men affirm and we shall find their Notion about Church Government exactly formed according to the Roman Model Well Sir watch us as narrowly as you can and see the end of it For says he they say there can be no one Catholick Communion without one Catholick Government But what does he mean by one Catholick Government One superior Power over the whole Catholick Church And who ever said this and where We say that the Unity of the Episcopacy or the Communion and good correspondency of Bishops is necessary to preserve Catholick Communion among their several Churches but we never said that one Catholick Government or superior Power over the whole Church is necessary to this end He proceeds And that Catholick Unity and Communion may be the more securely preserved the Combination of Churches considered as pure Ecclesiastical Societies into Archiepiscopal and National Churches is necessary Not absolutely necessary but highly expedient but then our Authour must remember withal that these Combinations of Churches are not for a superior Authority and Government over Bishops but only for mutual counsel and advice and then let him make his best of it And so he will make what he can of it for he adds So that the great end of the Combination of Diocesan into Provincial and National Churches is the preserving Catholick Communion Right remember that that it is for Communion not for Government and all is well Which cannot be but by raising the Combination higher and extending it much farther even unto Patriarchial and at last into one occumenical combined Church for this alone is commensurate to Catholick Communion Well! suppose then that all the Bishops in the World could meet together for counsel and advice as the Bishops of a Province or Nation can and had just such an Oecumenical as there are national Primates what service would this do the Church of Rome For here is no Supream Power all this while over the Universal Church neither Pope nor general Council Here is no Oecumenical Pastor no Supream Tribunal which all the World is bound to obey For as I have already shown we do not make a Primate or National Synod the constitutive Regent Head of a National Church but only a great Council for mutual Advice and therefore were there such an Oecumenical Primate and Oecumenical Council yet it would as vastly differ from the Roman Model as a Council for Advice and a Council for Government as an Oecumenical Head and Pastor and the President of an Oecumenical Council and the Church of Rome is at a very low ebb if it can be contented with such a Primate and such a Council as this which essentially differ from what the Councils of Constance and Basil themselves attribute to Popes and Councils But besides this if such an Oecumenical combination of Bishops and Churches cannot be and there be no need of it to Catholick Communion then I suppose our Authour will grant that the Argument from a National combination of Churches and a National Primate to an Oecumenical Combination of Churches and an Oecumenical Primate is not good 1. Then this cannot be and that for this plain Reason because all the Bishops of the Christian Church cannot meet together from all parts of the World and if they could they ought not to forsake their Churches for so long a time as such a Journey and such a Consultation requires But you 'l say every Nation may spare some Bishops to send with full Authority to the Council as the Representatives of all the rest This I take to be next to a Moral Impossibility I am sure it was never yet done there never was such a Council as had some Bishops in it from all parts of the Christian World. But suppose this could be done these Bishops who meet in Council could represent No-body but themselves and therefore can make no such Decrees as by their own Authority shall oblige all the other Bishops who were not present For a Bishop is not a representable Person He is the Supream Governour in his own Diocess and cannot and ought not to be imposed on without his own consent his Trust and Office and Power is Personal and so is his account and therefore he can no more be represented in a Council than he can at the Day of Judgment every Man's Conscience and Soul must be in his own keeping and therefore can be represented by no Man. Had the Representatives of the Catholick Church a Divine Authority superior to all particular Churches and Bishops to oblige them to stand to their Decrees as the Church of Rome asserts a general Council has then indeed some few Bishops chose by their National and Provincial Bishops to go to the Council and to Act as the Representatives of such Churches might have a plenary Authority to debate and determine all Matters in Dispute whether relating to Faith or Worship or Discipline But such an Authority as this he knows we absolutely deny and assert that Councils are only for mutual Advice and can oblige no Bishops without their personal assent and this makes it ridiculous to talk of Representatives in giving and taking Advice which is a personal Act and
requires every Man 's own Judgment and his personal Assent I deny not but it may be of great Use for Christian Princes and Emperors to summon such Councils as these as Constantine and other succeeding Emperors did for there was no such thing as what we call a General Council till Constantine summoned the first Council at Nice For Christian Princes and Emperors are concerned to encourage and support the true Christian Faith and Worship and they are as much concerned not to be misguided in these Matters which instead of Nursing Fathers may make them Persecutors of the true Church And to prevent this they cannot take a better way when the Church is divided by Schisms and Heresies then to summon such a great Council where the Matters in Dispute may be freey debated but I look upon these rather to be Councils of the Empire than of the Church which have no other Authority but what either the Imperial Sanctions give them or what every Church gives them by receiving their Decrees And it is evident from Ecclesiastical Story that the bear Authority of these Councils never put an end to any one Dispute any farther than they were backed by the Imperial Power which is an Argument that they did not believe in those days such Councils to be Infallible or to be the Supream Tribunal of the Christian Church They were indeed Supream Tribunals when Princes made them so but not by any meer Ecclesiastical Authority and Jurisdiction If then a Council of Bishops be onely for mutual Advice and a Council for Advice requires the personal Presence of all Bishops and though all the Bishops of one Province or one Nation may conveniently enough meet together for Advice yet all the Bishops of the World cannot then I think it is plain that the Consequence from a National to an Oecumenical Council is not good especially 2dly Since there is no need of it to Catholick Communion The Christian Churches maintained a very strict Alliance and Communion with each other for above Three Hundred Years without it Catholick Communion was better preserved then than ever it has been since which is a demonstration that such a Supream governing Power over the whole Church is not necessary to Catholick Communnion for then Catholick Communion could never have been maintained without it and yet thus it was in St. Cyprian's days who was as Zealous an Asserter of Catholick Communion as any before or since In those days the Bishops of Neighbour Churches frequently met together to Advise about the general Concernments of the Church and if any thing hapned which concerned the Discipline of the whole Church as it did in St. Cyprian's days about the case of the lapsed and rebaptizing those who had been baptized by Hereticks they sent their Letters to Forreign Churches and took their Advice about it and by this means did more perfectly understand one anothers Judgments and Reasons and came to a better accord and agreement than they could have done had they met in a General Council consisting onely of some few Representative Bishops I am sure by this means St. Cyprian says their Decrees were confirmed by all the Bishops in the World and Optatus says that this Catholick Communion was maintained all the World over by formed and communicatory Letters It seems they did not think then that one governing Head was necessary to Catholick Communion and therefore though Catholick Communion does require the Union of Neighbour Churches into one Combined Church it does not require such an Union and Combination of all the Churches in the World. Thus I have particularly answered this Author's charge excepting his vain Repetitions of the same Cavils without giving any new force or strength to them and I think any ordinary Reader may see how far I am from setting up the supream Authority either of Pope or General Council over the Universal Church and how impossible it is to graft such consequences upon my Principles with any shew or pretence of Reason And now as for his French Popery let it be what it will I am unconcerned in it since I give no Supream Authority neither to Pope nor General Council and therefore neither agree with the Italian nor Spanish nor French nor any Popery of what denomination soever But I must add a word or two about Petrus de Marca because it seems my Honesty and Credit is very much concerned in this matter so deeply that no man ought ever to believe me more and though I suppose the Reader sees what credit he is to give to this Author yet I must speak at least a good word for my own honesty and to do that I must give a brief account of the occasion of my alleadging the Authority of Petrus de Marca I was charged by my dissenting Adversaries with a Cassandrian design for setting up as they apprehended the Authority of a General Council For there is not one word which this Author has objected against me but what was before objected by the Dissenters and answered in the Vindication Now having shewn them their mistake in this Charge that I had asserted nothing which did infer the Authority of a General Council as the Supream Regent Head of the Catholick Church I over and above shewed them how vain this Charge of Cassandrian or French Popery was though I had given such an Authority to a General Council For meerly to assert the Authority of a General Council does not make any man a Papist of no sort whatsoever unless he assert the Authority of the Pope for though there be some dispute whose Authority is greatest the Popes or the Councils yet no man is a Papist who does not own the Pope to be the Supream and Oecumenical Pastor and therefore I having expresly disowned all Authority of the Pope or Bishop of Rome though I had owned the Authority of a General Council I could be no Papist not so much as a Cassandrian or French Papist So that this is the thing I was to prove that there is no Papist but owns the Pope to be the Supream Head of the Church the Universal and Oecumenical Pastor This I proved Cassander did who asserts That to the Unity of the Catholick Church is required Obedience to One Supream Governour who succeeds Peter in the government of Christ's Church and in the Office of feeding his Sheep and that it is evident from all the Records of the Church that the chief Authority of the Universal Church has always been yielded to the Bishop of Rome as Peter's Successor who sits in his Chair This I proved also of the Councils of Constance and Basil That though they decreed the Council to be above the Pope yet they asserted the Popes Supream Pastorship That all particular men and particular Churches are bound to obey the Pope unless in such matters as are prejudicial to this holy Synod or any other which is lawfully assembled as the Council of Basil expresly teaches And
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
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
ordain without their Bishop because they are not compleat Pastors but act in subordination to and dependance on their Bishops and therefore have not such a fulness of Power in themselves as to communicate it to others 5. In the next place he argues from the chief ends of Subordination of Pastors in the Church viz. That there may be place for Appeals in matters of Controversie in Cases of Male-administration by the subordinate Clergy final Determinations of difficult Ecclesiastical Causes Correction of Heresie and Schism as also establishment of Ceremonies Schism and Ceremonies belong to the next head of Arguments where his Author placed them but this Transcriber has not Judgment enough to write after his Copy but will sometimes venture to alter thô without sense But there are as many choice passages in his pursuit of this Argument as one could wish which would make one suspect that the Independent Author himself was a well-wisher to Popery he disputes so heartily for a last Supream Judge to receive Appeals and for the Infallibility of such a Judge But there is nothing more required to answer this Argument but to give a plain state of this case of Appeals We must distinguish then between Ecclesiastical Causes and consider the original Right of Appeals As for Ecclesiastical Causes nothing is a pure Ecclesiastical Cause but what concerns the Communion of the Church who shall be received into Communion or cast out of it or put under some less Censures which confines this either to Faith or Manners But as for other causes which are called Ecclesiastical because they concern Ecclesiastical Things or Persons such as the repairs of Churches advowsance of Livings Tithes Glebe Oblations c. they are rather of a Civil than Ecclesiastical Cognizance thô Bishops and Ecclesiastical Persons are entrusted by the Civil Powers with the determination of them and in such Matters as these it is fit there should lie Appeals as there do in all other Civil Matters but then it is sit also that these Appeals should be bounded as all other Civil Appeals are within the Kingdom or Territory where the cause arises for to carry such Appeals out of the Kingdom is as great an injury to the Authority of the Prince as to the Liberties of the Subject A Soveraign Prince has all civil Power and Jurisdiction and to suffer Appeals to Foreign Bishops or Princes is to own a Superior in his own Dominions and therefore in such matters as these no Appeal can lie to an Oecumenick Bishop As for causes purely Ecclesiastical the Bishop being Supream in his own Diocess there can be no original Right of Appeal from him for there is no Appeal from the Supreme he has a free power in the Government of his own Diocess and must render an account of his actions to Christ who is the supreme Lord of the Church as St. Cyprian tells us But as notwithstanding this it is very expedient and in some degree necessary that neighbour Bishops should unite into an Ecclesiastical Body for the maintainance of Catholick Communion and the exercise of Discipline as I have already shewn so the very nature of such combinations admits and requires Appeals that if any Presbyter or private Christian be too severely censured by his Bishop or without just cause he may find relief from the Synod or Primate or in whomsoever the power of receiving Appeals is placed for Bishops are men and liable to humane Passions and frailties and it would be impossible to maintain the Authority of Church censures without such Appeals For though there be no original right of Appeals from the Sentence of one Bishop to another yet every Bishop has authority to receive whom he judges fit into the Communion of his own Church and should one Bishop depose a Presbyter or Excommunicate a lay Christian unjustly should they go into another Diocess if the Bishop of it judged them worthy of Communion he might receive them into Communion notwithstanding these censures for he is Judge in his own Church as the other was in his But how contemptible would Ecclesiastical Censures be if they reached no farther than single Diocesses and what dissensions would this create among Bishops should one receive those into Communion whom the other had cast out Which makes it highly expedient that neighbour Bishops should be made not the Judges of their fellow Bishops or their actions as it is in superiour Courts which have a direct Authority over the inferiour but Umpires and Arbitrators of such differences as may happen between the Bishop and his Clergy or People which will preserve the peace and concerd of Bishops and give a more sacred Authority to Ecclesiastical Censures But then these Appeals must be confined to this Ecclesiastical Body and not carried to foreign Churches for by the same reason that these Ecclesiastical Bodies and Communions must be confined within such limits as admit of such combinations of which I have given an account above these Appeals also must be confined to the Ecclesiastical Bodies as St Cyprian expresly affirms that the Cause should be heard there where the Crime was committed Thus we see there is no need of an Oecumenical Pastor to receive Appeals much less of an Infallible Judge for this purpose and thus I might dismiss this Argument were it possible to pass it over without observing some peculiar strains of Reason and Rhetorick in it As for Example That Appeals are to no end if there be not some Supreme Catholic Pastor to arrive at in whose determination we are bound to set down and rest satisfied As if there could be no last Appeal but to a Catholick Pastor or no man were bound to rest satisfied in any other last Appeal But I perceive the satisfaction he means is the satisfaction of having our Cause determined by an Infallible Judge who cannot Err Which it may be is the first time a Roman Catholick for I must except his Independent Original ever made the Pope an Infallible Judge not onely in matters of Faith but of all Causes which are brought before him by Appeals But why may not the last Appeal be made to any one else as well as to the Catholick Pastor No the mind of the whole Catholick Church may be had in the Principium unitatis but no other National Provincial or Diocesan Pastor have the mind of the whole Catholick Church Which I can make nothing more of but that the mind of the Catholick Paston is the mind of the Catholick Church and therefore the Catholick Pastor if he speaks his own mind speaks the mind of the Catholick Church too He is the Head and if we will know a mans mind we must resort to the Head not to the Arms or Legs where you can onely expect a dumb kick or box under the Ear as we have had enough of from our Protestant Prelates A Diocesan Provincial or Primate are but the Churches more surly and less intelligible Organs but Arms
or Legs which give dumb kicks or boxes on the Ear but if you will understand the sense of the Church you must resort to the Body speaking in the Head not to the kicking Heels This is all demonstration besides the advantages of apt figures and the elegancies of expression to set it of Well the last Appeals then must lie to the Catholick Pastor because he knows the mind of the whole Church and is its speaking Head whereas Metropolitans and Primates are but dumb surly less intelligible Organs whose mind you can onely understand by kicks or boxes under the Ear which yet I think is a very intelligible way though I believe few People love to understand that way For this reason then we must go to the Head that we may understand the mind of the whole Church for then we cannot Err. But is this Head then Infallible Yes most certainly for the pretensions made by the Catholick Pastor to Infallibility are founded on the Principles of the Episcopal Constitution For an Episcopal Church setled by Subordination of Pastors within it self without a Catholick Head is an Animal without a Head Which is a pretty strange sort of Creature In all our Appeals from Pastor to Pastor from Church to Church in any Causes or Controversies if we do not still come to a less Fallible Church and at last arrive at the most Infallible comprehensive of our selves as Members Cui bono hic labor hoc opus That is to what purpose do we Appeal from one Fallible Church to another unless we can at last lodge our final Appeal in an Infallible Church So that the reason why we must Appeal to the Catholick Pastor is that our Cause may be determined by an Infallible Judge who has the mind of the whole Church and the proof of the Infallibility of this Catholick Pastor is that to him must be made the last Appeals which were to no purpose if he were not the most Infallible Thus Infallibility proves the necessity of Appeals and Appeals prove the necessity of Infallibility for one good turn requires another But still me-thinks there is a little difficulty why there should be any Appeals at all to a Fallible Judge Why should not all Causes in the first instance be brought before the Infallible Judge Why must we take such a round by Bishops Provincials Metropolitans Primates before we come to the Catholick Pastor when there can be no satisfaction till we come to the Infallible Judge and have the mind of the whole Church from him And as our Author observes Cui bono do men Appeal from one Fallible Creature to another If the right of Appeals be grounded on Infallibility why must we Appeal to those who are Fallible To salve this which is a real difficulty our Author would insinuate for he is afraid down right to own such an Absurdity that there are Degrees of Infallibility which if admitted we must arise to the highest but why not go to the highest at first but rise by Degrees If it be granted that a Bishop is less fallible than a Parish Priest and an Archbishop less fallible than a Bishop and a Primate than he upon the same ground we may expect the Catholick Pastor to be less fallible than all the rest But what a lamentable ground is this for Infallibility and what a lamentable Infallibility is that which is only being less fallible than some other fallible Creatures But the pleasantest conceit is that mens Infallibility encreases with their several Orders and Degrees in the Church that a Bishop is less fallible and therefore more infallible than a Priest and an Archbishop than a Bishop c. Now I suppose he will grant that Infallibility does not result from mens personal Abilities but is a supernatural Gift and that Christ never gives any thing less in such a supernatural way than absolute Infallibility And therefore whatever Infallibility men can challenge by vertue of a Promise must be absolute and absolute Infallibility has no degrees If then the Infallibility of the Catholick Pastor be founded on a divine Promise it has no relation at all to the several degrees of Fallibility in other Church Officers unless he can show where Christ has promised several degrees of Infallibility to the several Orders and Degrees of Ecclesiastical Ministers and then indeed we may conclude that he has bestowed the most perfect Infallibility upon the Catholick Pastor if it be first proved that he has instituted such a Catholick Pastor But it is evident that to be more or less fallible depends upon mens personal Abilities Learning Wisdom Honesty and therefore it is a ridiculous thing to say that every Bishop must be less fallible than a Presbyter and an Archbishop less fallible than a Bishop and a Primate than he unless you can prove that all Bishops must be wiser honester and more learned men then Presbyters and Archbishops than Bishops and Popes than Archbishops and Primates Which I believe is a pretty hard Task and yet our wise Author at last resolves the Popes Infallibility into this belief for it is not to be supposed that the Catholick Church would commit the greatest Charge to a Person of the least Iudgment and Understanding So that it seems Infallibility at last is dwindled away into Mens personal Judgment and Understanding and thô it may be the Catholick Church might be careful in such a choice yet we can easily suppose that Cardinals who may not be Men of the best Judgments themselves and may be divided by Interests and Factions or brib'd with Mony or over-awed by Power or influenced by Friendships may not always choose the wisest Man in the World and if they did yet he could be no more infallible this way than the wisest Man in the World is who after all is a fallible Creature as all Men are and I dare appeal to all sober and considering Roman-Catholicks whether our Author has not utterly overthrown the Infallibity of the Pope and all Appeals to him by what he adds To what purpose is it for us to betake our selves for further light to those whom the Church has entrusted with higher Power and larger trust if we have no reason to judge them not only to be holyer wiser and juster men than those we appeal from but less fallible in judgment and errable in practice For I am confident few Roman-Catholicks think their Popes to be the wisest and best Men in the World and therefore if their inerrability depends upon their Wisdom and Honesty they cannot think them Infallible neither and I suspect our Author has no great claim to Infallibility himself who at this time of day when the Stories of Popes are so well known should found Infallibility upon the Wisdom Holiness and Justice of Popes By this one would guess that he makes no great matter of the Popes Infallibility that he has found out such a fallible Foundation for it He says that the Oecumenic Pastor in his
the next and I know of no other Catholick Iudgment of Schism 2. From the necessity of a Catholick Resolution of difficult and dubious places of Scripture For the Scripture is not of private Interpretation and there are great inconveniences in leaving Scripture to the Interpretation of private men or particular though National Churches But let the inconveniences be what they will the same Argument returns again that if there be such an Infallible Interpreter of Scripture he ought to be known and that there are such disputes about the Interpretation of Scripture proves that the Christian World do not own such a Catholick Interpreter and therefore that they know nothing of him And there is another Argument that there is no such Catholick Interpreter of Scripture because we have no such Catholick Interpretation And what is the Christian World the better for a Catholick Interpreter if he does not Interpret And yet in the Church of Rome it self we have no Expositions of Scripture but from private and fallible men The truth is the Pope and his Councils have Expounded plain Scriptures to a dubious difficult unintelligible sence but never that I know of made any Text easie and intelligible which was difficult before To expound Scripture is to make us understand it not to impose upon our Faith without understanding and therefore this is not so much an act of Authority as of skill and judgment any man who can so explain Scripture to me as to make me understand it shall gain my assent but no Authority is sufficient to make me assent without understanding And yet such a Catholick Expositor our Author would set up whose Authority shall make me grant that to be the sence of Scripture which his Reasons and Arguments cannot perswade me of But all reasonable Creatures must understand for themselves and Christ no where commands us to believe that to be the sence of Scripture which we cannot understand to be so I know no necessity that all Christians should agree in the Interpretation of all difficult Texts of Scripture there is enough in Scripture plain to carry men to Heaven and as for more difficult and obscure Texts they are for the improvement of those who can understand them and need no such Catholick Expositor because it is not necessary that all men should understand them Most of the Controversies of Religion especially between us and the Church of Rome are about Texts of Scripture easie enough to be understood and an honest teachable mind would sooner end our Controversies than his Catholick Expositor 3. Another necessity for an Oecumenic Pastor is A necessity of a Catholick Determination of Decency and Order i. e. That the same Rites and Ceremonies for decency and order should be observed in all Christian Churches all the World over Now I know no necessity of this and that which is not necessary it self cannot make an Oecumenic Pastor necessary De facto there have been diversity of Rites in the Christian Church in all Ages thus it was in St. Augustine's time as appears from his Epistle to Ianuarius 118 and then either there was no Catholick Pastor or he did not think such a Catholick Uniformity of Rites necessary None of the Fathers ever condemn such a diversity as this but exhort all Christians to conform to the innocent Customs and Ceremonies of the Church where they came though different from the Customs of their own Church which St. Austine tells us in that Epistle was the Advice of St. Ambrose And when Pope Victor Excommunicated the Asian Churches for their different Custom in observing Easter Irenoeus and other Bishops did vehemently oppose him in it and therefore either did not believe him to be the Catholick Pastor or did not think that the Catholick Pastor ought to impose an Uniformity of Rites upon all Churches The Decency of Worship is nothing else but to perform the external acts of Worship in such a manner as may express our Reverence and Devotion for God And therefore since there are no Catholick signs of Decency there can be no Catholick Uniformity in these matters The decency of Garments Postures Gestures differ in several Countries and so do the Expressions of Honour and Reverence And therefore such external Rites being onely for external Decency and having no Sacredness by Institution may vary with the different Customs and Usages of Countries We must Worship God in a decent manner this all Christian Churches are bound to and this they do when they Worship God in such a manner as among them signifies Reverence and Honour But says our Author then one Church will esteem this or that thing decent in the Worship of God which another reckons absurd Then say I they are as absurd as Country People are who gaze at Foreigners and laugh at their exotick Habits and think every thing ridiculous which differs from their own Customs But this Uniformity is lost in the Catholick Church where it 's most necessary to be had An Uniformity in external Rites is not necessary in the Catholick Church and it may be cannot be had But why is it necessary there should be uniformity then in particular National or Diocesan Churches Ans. Because it is fit and decent that those who Worship God in the same Assemblies should Worship him in the same manner and to do otherwise would contradict the publick decency of the Worship Every Bishop as being the Supreme Governour of his own Church and Diocess has Authority to appoint the decent Rites of Worship in it and when all the Bishops of a Nation are united into one National Body they may consent in some common Rites of Worship for the National Church since the Usages and Customs of the same Nation the Rules of Decency and the expressions of Honour and Reverence are the same which gives an account what Churches have this Power to determine the Decencies and Order in Ceremonies every Bishop has an original Right to do this for his own Church but as a National Combination of Bishops to govern their several Churches by a mutual Consent is of great use so when they are united into a National Body it is much more decent that they should agree upon an Uniformity of Rites for the National Church but there is not the same reason that this should extend to Foreign Churches much less to the whole World both because these Combinations of Bishops are limited to National Churches and the Customs of different Countries change and vary 4ly The necessity of a Catholick Canonization of Saints for supposing a necessity of a due Observation of Saints Days which the Church of England hath always insisted on and pleaded for it is to be enquired who or what Church Canonized the Saints c. The Church of England indeed does observe some Festivals in commemoration of the Saints but she needs no Oecumenick Pastor to Canonize them She observes the Festivals of no Saints but such as the Christian