Church of England detected His notion about the Government of the Catholick Church the same with that of the French Papist THAT our Author entertains notions about the nature of the Visible Church and of the Schismatical very different from what the old Queen Elizabeth Protestants did will appear with the greatest conviction to such as will but consult the famous Mr. Hooker and Dr. Field who do most expresly contradict what is asserted in the Dean's Defence The Dean's Defender doth extremely insist on the Unity of the Universal Church as what doth consist in more than in the Unity of the Faith though in combination of those other graces of Love and Charity and Peace to wit in an external communion Take his own words in answer to a supposed objection P. 183. But though Faith alone is not sufficient to Christian Unity yet Faith in combination with those other graces of Love and Charity and Peace make a firm and lasting union This I readily grant saith he but yet must add this one thing That Christian love and charity and peace in the language of the New Testament and of the ancient Fathers when they signifie Christian Unity signifie also one communion that is the unity of a Body and Society which is external and visible and doth not only signifie the union of souls and affections but the union of an external and visible communion P. 184. By the union of an external and visible communion he means the living in Christian communion and fellowship with each other that is a worshipping God together after one and the same external and visible manner P. 248. Moreover he adds That such as separate themselves from the external communion of any particular Church that is part of the Universal do separate themselves from the Universal visible Church All Schismaticks in his opinion cut themselves off from the visible Catholick Church even as all such as are excommunicated are cut off This is the notion of the Deans Substitute which is as agreeable to the sense of the Papist as 't is in it self grosly absurd and different from the doctrine of sound Church of England Protestants That 't is agreeable to the sense of the Papists you 'l find in a Conference between Dr. Peter Gunning and Dr. Pierson with two Disputants of the Romish Profession All Schismaticks say the Romish Disputants are out of the Church and quite separate from it as a part cut off is separate from the body Schismatick is a term contradistinct to Catholick No Schismaticks can be true members of the Catholick church for Schism as they define it is a voluntary separation of one part from the whole true visible church of Christ The correspondency that there is between the Author of the Deans Defence and those Papists about the formal reason of Schism is as much as if the Defender had fetcht his Definitition of Schism out of their Writings which notion as embrac'd by one that professes himself a Protestant is as grosly absurd as 't is contrary unto Protestant principles I say such a notion entertain'd by a professed Protestant is grosly absurd for it exposeth him to the triumph of the Roman-catholicks it being impossible that the Papists notwithstanding their Schismatical Impositions should be esteemed Schismatical by our Author For all such as are Schismatical are saith he cut off from the visible Catholick Church of which the Church of Rome is acknowledged to be a true part although from it these men as they are Protestants separate and so cut themselves off from the Catholick visible Church for such as separate from any true part of the Catholick church according unto him do cut themselves off from the Catholick church and are Schismaticks Take a view then of the admirable abilities of our Auther who must be considered to assert either that the Church of Rome is Schismatical or not If not Schismatical the church of England must be so or otherwise there may be a separation from the external communion of a particular Church that is a part of the Universal without being guilty of Schism or of separating from the Catholick church But if the Church of Rome be Schismatical 't is either cut off from the visible Catholick church or not if not then Schism consists not in a separating from the visible Catholick church that is a man may be a Schismatick and yet a member of the catholick church a thing that our Author denies But if the church of Rome be cut off from the visible Catholick church then the distressed Papist is in as sad a condition as the Dissenter he is cut off from the church of Christ and must be either damn'd or saved by another Name than that of Jesus Christ If the latter then farewell Christian Religion If the former Where shall we find any part of the Universal Church beside the Church of England All the Protestants beyond the Sea are in the same state with the Dissenter at home The Church of Rome and all such as are in Subjection to that See are cut off from the Visible Catholick Church and it may be all the Eastern Churches in the World too that is the Catholick Visible Church is confin'd within the Pale of the Church of England Pure Prelatical Donatism with a witness Where will not Considence when the attendant of Ignorance lead men Moreover This Notion as 't is grosly absurd in like manner 't is most contrary to the old Protestant Principles Consult Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity lib. 3. and you 'll find nothing more fully asserted than That the Visible Church of Jesus Christ is therefore One in outward Profession of those things which supernaturally appertain to the very essence of Christianity and are necessarily required in every particular Christian man But we speak now of the Visible Church whose Children are signed with this mark One Lord one Faith one Baptifm In whomsoever these things are the Church doth acknowledg them for her Children So far Hooker But you will it may be object That such as are Schismatical or Excommunicate may acknowledge One Lord hold One Faith and receive One Baptism And shall such be consider'd as Members of the Visible Church Take Mr. Hooker's own words for an Answer If by external Profession they be Christians then are they of the Visible Church of Christ and Christians by external Profession are they all whose mark of Recognizance hath in it those things which we have mentioned yea although they be impious Idolaters wicked Hereticks Persons Excommunicable yea and cast out for notorious Improbity Thus 't is evident that Mr. Hooker entertain'd apprehensions quite contrary to those of our Author yea and Mr. Hooker doth consider the very Notion asserted by our Author to be Popish which he doth as such most excellently expose As for the Act of Excommunication saith he it neither shuts out from the Mystical nor clean from the Visible but only from the Fellowship with the Visible in holy Duties
Comment on the former entituled The English Pope Printed at London in the same Year 1643 and he will tell us That after Con had undertook the managing of the Affairs matters began to grow to some Agreement The King Required saith he such a Dispensation from the then Pope as that his Catholique Subjects might resort to the Protestant Churches and to take the Oaths of Supremacy and Fidelity and that the Pope's Jurisdiction here should be declared to be but of Humane Right And so far had the Pope consented that whatever did concern the King therein should have been really performed so far as other Catholick Princes usually enjoy and expect as their due And so far as the Bishops were to be Independent both from King and Pope there was no fear of breach on the Pope's part So that upon the point the Pope was to content himself amongst us in England with a Priority instead of a Superiority over other Bishops and with a Primacy instead of a Supremacy in these Parts of Christendom which I conceive no man of Learning and Sobriety would have grudged to grant him It was also condescended to in the name of the Pope that Marriage might be permitted to Priests that the Communion might be administred sub utraque specie and that the Liturgy might be officiated in the English Tongue And though the Author adds not long after that it was to be suspected That so far as the Inferiour Clergy and the People were concerned the after performance was to be left to the Popes discretion yet this was but his own Suspicion without ground at all And to obtain a Reconciliation upon these advantages the Archbishop had all the reason in the world to do as he did in ordering the Lords-Table to be placed where the Altar stood and making the accustomed Reverence in all approaches towards it and accesses to it In beautifying and adorning Churches and celebrating the Divine Service with all due Selemnities in taking care that all offensive and exasperating passages should be expunged out of such Books as were brought to the Press and for reducing the extravagancy of some Opinions to an evener temper His Majesty had the like Reason also for Tolerating lawful Recreations on Sundays and Holydays But the Doctor goes on If you would know how far they had proceeded towards this happy Reconciliation the Popes Nuncio will assure us thus That the Universities Bishops and Divines of this Realm did daily embrace Catholick Opinions though they professed not so much with Pen or Mouth for fear of the Puritans For example They hold that the Church of Rome is a true Church That the Pope is Superiour to all Bishops That to him it appertains to call General Councils That 't is lawful to pray for the Souls of the departed That Altars ought to be erected of Stone In sum That they believe all that is taught by the Church but not by the Court of Rome Another of their Authors tells us as was elsewhere noted That those amongst us of greatest Worth Learning and Authority began to love Temper and Moderation That their Doctrines began to be altered in many things for which their Progenitors forsook the Visible Church of Christ As for example The Pope not Antichrist Prayers for the Dead Limbus Patrum Pictures That the Church hath Authority in determining Controversies of Faith and to interpret Scriptures about Free-will Predestination Universal Grace That all our Works are not Sins Merit of good Works Inherent Justice Faith alone doth justifie Charity to be preferr'd before Knowledg the Authority of Traditions Commandments possible to be kept That in Exposition of the Scripture they are by Canon bound to follow the Fathers And that the once fearful names of Priests and Altars are used willingly in their Talk and Writings In which compliances so far forth as they speak the Truth saies Heylin for in some points through the Ignorance of the One and the Malice of the Other they are much mistaken there is scarce any thing which may not very well consist with the established though for a time discontinued Doctrine of the Church of England The Articles whereof as the same Jesuit hath observed seem patient or ambitious rather of some sense wherein they may seem Catholick And such a sense is put upon them by him that calls himself Franciscus â Sancta Clara as before was said So far Heylir Thus to carry on this Recenciling Design all the care imaginable must be taken to humour the Papist not only by prosecuting the Puritan with the greatest severity but the Pope must not any longer be stigmatized with the name of Antichrist all exasperating passages in any Book brought to the Press must be expung'd not one word of the Gunpowder-Treason for said Baker the Bishop of London's chaplain We are not now so angry with the Papists as we were twenty years ago and that there was no need to exasperate them and therefore the Book concerning the Gunpowder-Treason must by no means be reprinted the Divine Service must be in some respects altered that whereas the Reformers in Queen Elizabeth's time had a greater kindness for the Pope than those in H. 8. and Ed. 6. manifested by expunging a clause against the Pope viz. From the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormities Good Lord deliver us Even so in imitation Archbishop Land changes some phrases in the Book of Prayers for the fifth of November So far a Church of England Dr. To which I might add several other instances but I wish there had not been the woful occasion of insisting on so much By this time the Reader may see cause to suspect at least the Deans Substitute who in the Defence of the Dr. gives us the scheme of the old Grotian model so much esteemed by the Archbishop Laud who in his walking towards Rome kept most exactly thereunto But notwithstanding this caution must be had that we reproach not all the Church of England as if they had been such as this Author for I do verily believe there are very few this day in England among the Conforming Clergy who will approve of this mans notion but probably may judg themselves as much concerned to oppose it as any among the Dissenters I 'm sure Abbot Archbishop of Canterbury and Usher Primate of Ireland were persons of quite another principle and temper And not only Abbot and Usher but if we may judg of a Queen Elizabeth Protestant by the Writings of the famous Hooker and Dr. Field we may be sure that this man to say nothing of the Dean hath notwithstanding the great talk of the glory of the first Reformation forsaken the notion the old church of England had of the church and of such as are judged Schismatical falling in with the French Papacy about Church-Government as I will evince in the next Section SECT II. The Deans Substitutes agreement with the Papists about Schism even when he differs from the
Prayer or the present Liturgy Ceremonies and Administration of Religious Offices 't is his own Comment and he is not obliged to confute it Yet thus much I will say on his behalf that upon my knowledg he is in his judgment for a Form of Prayer in Publique-Offices and Administrations and hath a very hearty esteem for that of our Church but I cannot say so of the Ceremonies I think he might be easily perswaded to part with them and if some exceptionable passages in the Liturgy and Rubricks were altered I believe he would make no opposition to it But he charges this admirable Conformist as he is pleased to call him with giving away at once the Episcopal Office and instead of it sets up a Bishop in every Parish and either an Antichristian Bishop of Bishops or an Ecclesiastical Minister of State to govern them How little there is of truth in this charge may be collected from what I have said already The Conformist sets up no more Bishops than the necessities of the Church and the duty and work of the Episcopal-Office requires and I understand not that this is giving away the Episcopal Office And if this Author can free Metropolitan Bishops from Antichristianism which he says some do derive from the very days of the Apostles and that not without some good appearance of Reason I hope the Conformist will defend the Episcopi Episcoporum from that appellation As to what he says of an Ecclesiastical Minister of State the Conformist hath no more to reply than this He hopes this Gentleman will not plead an Exemption for the Clergy from under the Civil Magistrates Power and Government and if this be granted I know not what can be matter of Controversie between him and this Author For he supposes him to exercise no Power over the Bishops but what is inherent in the King and in this Minister of State by Delegation that is in few words to see that they do their own Duty carefully reprove their Negligence and Male-administrations and preserve peace among them And what is there in this Doctrine that our Author should take such offence at I am yet to seek He addes And alters the whole frame of our Worship leaves every man to do as he lists and all this without injury to our present Constitution In these Lines to speak plainly there is not one word of truth as any man may easily collect from what I have said already And this Gentleman himself confesses in the next page That the Conformist will not indeed allow of universal Toleration How this can be reconciled with Leaving all men to do as they list I am not able to tell That the Conformist said That those that hinder the Union of Presbyterians with the Church of England by continuing the Impositions are Factors for the Pope I do easily acknowledg and I believe he is still of the same minde and as I remember he gave some Reasons for it too which this Gentleman takes no notice of When he confutes them perhaps he may hear of a Vindication if there be just reason for it Pag. the 8th he proceeds thus He i.e. the Conform pleads for the Indulgence of others particularly the Independents who he says will be content with their own Congregations and is mightily taken with Mr. Humfreys Project That the tolerated Churches such as Independents be declared parts of the National Church whereof the King to be the Head The Countrey-Conformist is so great a Lover of Peace that I do easily suppose he might be pleased with Mr. H's Project as he calls it and I do assure him that I my self am much more pleased with it since I read his Book than I was before though I had always a value for it For I think the Design of uniting the Dissenting Protestants in this Nation is into one National Church whereof the King to be the Head more laudable than the design of uniting Protestants in a General Council or in a Pope Primate or Metropolitan which seems to be the design of our Author though he hath not Courage or Instruction enough as yet to speak it out For he affirms 1. That the Episcopal Office and Power is but one and not resident in the Bishops of the Universal Church p. 212. 2. That the Independency of Bishops is inconsistent with Ecclesiastical Unity p. 115. And 3. that although equals have no Authority over one the other yet a Collegue hath Authority over any one of his Collegues p. 213. 4. That the Bonds and Combinations of Churches are of Divine Right though the ordering and determination of them be of Humane Prudence p. 258. 5. That the Unity of the Church is as much of Divine Right as any Form of Government in it and that the whole Church may be divided into greater or lesser parts as may best serve the ends of Peace and Unity And that it seems strange to him that a National or Patriarchal Church should not be thought as much a Divine Institution as any particular Church p. 259. And further he adds When Christ and his Apostles have instituted one Form of Government for all particular Churches and commanded them all to live in Unity Peace Communion and amicable Correspondency with each other the Union and Combination of Churches into one according to this Institution to serve the ends of Catholick Communion must be thought as much a Divine Institution as the bounds of particular Churches For if we will not allow those Churches to be of Divine Institution which have Officers of Divine Appointment and are formed according to the general Directions of Christ and his Apostles so as may serve the ends of Church-Government I know not where to find a Church of Divine Institution in the world pag. 259 260. These are the words of our Author from whence we may collect many things for our Information 1. That the Bishops of the Catholique Church are the regent part thereof in the same sense that the Bishops of any National Church are the regent part of that Church For although there be no Superiority among Bishops their Power and Office being the same yet Independency among them being inconsistent with Ecclesiastical Unity both in the National and in the Universal Church they are bound to unite for the Government of both and this by Divine Command Authority and Obligation 2. That whatsoever is determined by the Bishops of the Catholick Church doth oblige all particular Bishops and all Christians all the world over provided they determine nothing contrary to the Word of God 3. That whatever Bishop shall refuse their Canons and Determinations and govern his particular Church by other Laws than they shall appoint is a Schismatick and they may Depose and Excommunicate him yea if a whole combination of Bishops do refuse to govern their National Church by their Laws Appointments and Constitutions they are all Schismaticks and if the Nation refuse to forsake such Bishops they are all Schismaticks
out a Constitutive Head and an Ecclesiastical Constitutive Head by Christs Institution and to say that all this is true without one is to me a perfect contradiction When he goes on then p. 566. to prove that this is all that is or can be required to make a National Church One by two Arguments I answer If there be so much as this indeed required his two Arguments must prove it not onely to be One but one Political proper Church with an Ecclesiastical Constitutive Regent part to it The Bishops he says have equal power by Christs appointment and rule not by Superiority but by Consent that is not by Superiority over one another but they do rule by a Superiority I hope over the people and that is an Aristocratical Government and when the People do consent to Unite in Communion with them this makes them Members he says of that Political body And these are his two reasons p. 566 and 567. which need no other Animadversion but this notice of them The great questions onely are whether this indeed be the will of Christ that the Catholick and so every National Church as he states the matter should be ruled by these Bishops as Colleagues that is by a Government as he calls it by consent and if it be how it should come to pass that we have not in England such a Government where there is for certain no such Rule by consent of the Colledg without a Superiority but by a Superiority or a Supremacy of the King who is the Head of these Bishops themselves as well as the Nation This I make not my Province P. 568. He hath four things for the strengthning the Government of his Mintage and then concludes that if Mr. Baxter can give him one reason why this may not be called one Church or Ecclesiastical Body Politick without a Constitutive Regent part he will think farther of it To which I answer and tell him presently why this cannot be called one Church or Ecclesiastical Body Politick without a Constitutive Regent part the reason is because it is a Body Politick Ecclesiastical with a Constitutive Regent part and so he need think no farther of it And this Answer being of another nature then that which he fancies like to be made him in the next page p. 569. I need say nothing to that nor the next p. 570. but come on to p. 571. for now he hath prepared the way as he says to justify the Doctor Well where there is a Political Church says Mr. Baxter there must be a Constitutive Head The Doctor answers there may be the true notion of a Church without one I Reply This is a coming off but the question indeed at the bottome is whether it be the true notion of the Church of England The Doctor argues If 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 Church Catholick Visible This Argument the Deans Defender thinks unanswerable But we reply the Argument is such as needs no Answer and it may easily be Answered In the first place it needs no Answer because the thing it would prove is but what we can grant him that is a Visible Head to the Catholick Church Christ is that Head we say and he is Visible When he was on earth he gave Laws for his Church and Commissionated Officers which are Rights of a Head He after appeared to Paul and Commissionated him and is now Visible in Heaven This is plain proof in Reason Sense and Scripture and not to be jeered off and therefore in the first place the Doctors Argument needs no Answer In the next place we say farther it is easily Answered for we deny the Argument If it be necessary for a Church to have a Constitutive Head it follows that the Catholick Church must have a Constitutive one but it follows not that it must have a Catholick Visible Head or that that Constitutive Head must be Visible This in truth is introducing four Terms into the Argument which we know is false Arguing When there is put more into the thing Asserted in the Consequence then there is to prove it in the Antecedent in an Hypothetical Syllogisme it is all one as to argue with four terms in a Syllogism that is Categorical But the Doctor says he puts more strength in it The question is about the Catholick Church whereof particular Churches are parts and they being Visible do require the Constitutive Regent part to be Visible I Answer though here be more words here is no more strength put into the Argument I still deny the Consequence For though the Catholick Church consists of Particular Churches which are Visible it consists also of that society in heaven which is not Visible Christs Body is but one Body whereof part is in Heaven and part on Earth and while the Head is in Heaven it follows not that because part of the Body is Visible therefore the Head must be Visible It is all one as if he should argue thus Particular Churches are on Earth and if Christ be Head of the Catholick Church whereof they are parts he must not be in Heaven And when indeed this is one and the same Argument and we know it to be false we do justly deny the Doctors Argument Suppose a man so high as that his head reached above the clouds will you argue that this person hath no head because his head is not visible I deny the Argument There is really nothing hard in the Doctors Argument but to understand why his Defender whom I value for his Parts should come to think it unanswerable It may be the Doctors confident word at first it undenyably follows drew on this apprehension and he hath fetcht the Argument over so long till he hath put enough in it to make himself believe it We are far says he from asserting that the Universal Head must be Visible if the Subordinate be so he should be as far from asserting the Head to be Visible because Particular Churches or the Members are so but this we assert that if no Church can be a true Visible Church without a Subordinate Visible Head then the Universal Church cannot be a Visible Church without a Subordinate Catholick Visible Head p. 574 575 576. This he takes to be the Doctors Argument and he will make the consequence hold before he has done with it But against whom does the Doctor and this man argue Is it not against Mr. Bexter and did Mr. Baxter ever say this that there can be no true Church without a Subordinate Head under Christ Is not Mr. Baxter a Protestant as well as the Doctor and do they not both maintain the Catholick Church to have one onely Supreme Head and no Subordinate one in Earth If his Defender hath found out one who is not the Pope but the Colledge of Bishops I desire Doctor Stillingfleet
known that they are Sons of the Church of England whose Loyalty to their Prince and Firmness to the Protestant Religion doth equalize the greatness of their Honour Methinks Sir 't is now high time to consider That as all Protestants whether Episcopal Presbyterian or Congregational c. are all in one bottom even so the One cannot be ruin'd with the preservation of the Other Ought we not then to entertain better thoughts of each other What shall we now quarrel with one another even when unless we joyn in putting our hand to the Pump the Ship sinks and we all must perish together But I must not enlarge on this subject lest I be thought too Immodest and Unpeaceable A Second Instance of Immodesty now succeeds 'T was modestly done saith the Author to charge the Dean with a Design of gratifying the Roman Faction c. And at the same time to laugh at the Jesuits and Coleman as great Fools for designing to bring in Popery by the Tolerating Fanaticks Rep. How is this that our Author treats the Dean so unmannerly as to joyn him thus with the Jesuits and Coleman Methinks a desending the Dean should be a distinct work from a vindicating the reputation of Jesuits and the Traitor Coleman And why Sir may I not laugh at the Counsels of some Jesuits without being immodest to the Doctor Have you such venerable thoughts of these men that a laughing at their Devices is a Crime that must not pass without Rebuke But the Dean is represented as a Reviler of Dissenters and that 's immodest Rep. What I suggested as to this was not without great reason as may appear from what I insisted on in the Enquiry but he goes on very pleasantly as if by Reviling Dissenters I meant Confuting Dissenters Really Sir if by Reviling Dissenters I meant a Confuting of them I fear I should have wronged the Doctor and the Truth also if I had but said there was any one Reviling passage in the whole Treatise but the fixing this sense on the words to the end you may give us an account of your admirable Faculty of Talking very little to the purpose is an excellency wherein you seem to delight for I 'm sure you are so modest as to fasten your own which is a foreign sense on my words and then run on triumphantly c. but after so easie a manner that it deserves not an Answer and therefore I 'll consider the great thing The Doctor is brought in you say as one designing to Gratifie the Roman Faction Rep. That I might prevent any just offence here I was express in distinguishing between the Deans own intent and tendency of his Treatise Take my words in the Enquiry I will propose the Design of the Dr's History i. e. of that account he had given of Dissenters c. being charitably dispos'd to distinguish between the Finis Operis and Operantis For though the End of the work it self cannot but in its tendency prove pernicious to the Protestant Religion yet I hope the Dr. design'd it not as such But though I thought my self oblig'd to be thus civil in my thoughts of the Reverend Dean I do not find any Reason to pass the same favourable Censure on you The Dr. I knew wrote against the Papists but whether you have not in some Treatises formerly done as much in some respects for 'em is best known to your self Whatever you have done either for or against the Papist formerly by what I find in your Defence of the Dean I do very much suspect you 'T is very evident you have in your Notions about the Nature of an Universal Church the Notion of Schism c. faln in with those that were not ashamed to own that they were for a going towards Rome in order to an accommodating the Differences between the Church of England and the Papist That this may appear to be so I will faithfully set down your notion of these things and then compare it with the Design of Archb. Laud and Archb. Bramhall and leave it to the judgment of the Candid and Impartial Reader whether you are not of those who ran the Cassandrian way You say § 1. That the Catholique Church consists of such Particular Churches as have all the Essentials of a Church as to Faith Government and Discipline It consists of all these as Similar parts which have the same Nature and make up one Body by a common Union This p. 139 140. § 2. That the Catholique Church though it consists of all Particular Churches contained in it yet 't is not a meer arbitrary combination and confederacy of particular Churches but is the Root and Fountain of Unity and in order of nature antecedent to particular Churches as the Sun is before its Beams and the Root before its Branches So that all Particular Churches received their denomination of Catholique Church from the Catholique Church p. 144 c. Here you assert That the Universal Church is in order of nature antecedent to Particular Churches as the Sun is before its Beams and the Root before its Branches c. But your Allusion is not ad rem for you should have given us some instance of some one Universal that was in order of nature antecedent to its Particulars which is impossible it being in the sense of most evident That Universale is unum in multis that is in many particulars which Universal hath no real Existence but in Particulars for abstracted from all Particulars 't is only an Ens raticnis having its being in the Eutopian Commonwealth whence we distinguish between the consideration of an Universal as Formal and as Fundamental Fundamentally and 't is quid singulare but Formally and so 't is abstracted from all Singulars the Particulars being the foundation of the Universal the Root from which the Universal doth proceed Now if it be the Particulars that are the foundation of the Universal How can the Universal be the Root of the Particulars This is the more remarkable in our Author because he falls in with an old exploded part of Independency viz. That what person soever is not a Member of a Particular Church is not so of the Universal Church Which being so I would fain know Where this Universal Church should be when Antecedent to any Particular Church If he had said That by a Particular Church he meant only such as were Organiz'd and faln into some compleat order and that there were many who not having arriv'd to that degree of being compleat Church-members of any Particular Church who yet were Members of the Church Universal he would have had ground for his Assertion for there must be Particular Christians before Particular Churches but to adhere to his Hypothesis which seems to be but a step to the asserting Diocesan Churches to be in order of nature antecedent to particular Congregations is ridiculous especially seeing he asserts That the Universal Church is an Organiz'd or Political Body the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉