vindicate my self I will own my own shame without casting the blame on my dear Mother the Church of England and I suppose it will be sufficient to vindicate my self if I first show him that I have in express words rejected all those Propositions wherein he pretends this Agreement consists Secondly Particularly vindicate those passages he transcribes out of my books and shew his sincerity in quoting and his skill in applying and then his French Popery may shift for it self excepting a word or two of that learned Arch-bishop Petrus de Marca As for the first He himself has collected the Particulars wherein we agree which I shall distinctly examine the Reader may find them p. 15 16. which are these 1. They both make the Catholick Church one visible governed Society Houshold or Kingdom This is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first and fundamental mistake and a wilful one too for I affirm the contrary in express words in the defence of Dr. Stilling fleet 's unreasonableness of Separation p. 565 566 upon occasion of that Dispute about the constitutive Regent Head of a National Church I expresly assert That the Unity both of the National and Universal Church consists in one Communion That Consent is all that is necessary to unite a Body or Socity in one Communion That their Unity consists only in consent not in any superior Governing Ecclesiastical Power on Earth which binds them together So that I absolutely deny That the Catholick Church is one governed Society with one supreme Government over the whole P. 567. I assert That Christ hath instituted no such constitutive Regent Power of one Bishop over another in his Church and therefore the Union of particular Churches into one must be made by consent not by Superiority of Power P. 564. I affirm That tho a National Church and the Reason is stronger for the Universal Church be one Body yet it is not such a political Body as they describe and cannot be according to its original Constitution which differs from Secular forms of Government which have a supreme governing Power by that Ancient Church-Canon of our Saviours own decreeing It shall not be so among you And thus a National Church as governed by consent may be one Body in an Ecclesiastical tho not in a Civil Political Sense that is by one Communion not by one Supreme governing Power The Dean in Answer to Mr. Baxter who asserts a constitutive Regent Head of the National Church necessary to make it a Church and yet allows That there is one Catholick Visible Church and that all particular Churches as headed by their particular Bishops or Pastors are parts of the Universal Church argues thus If this Doctrine be true and withal it be necessary that every Church must have a constitutive Regent Part as essential to it then it unavoidably follows That there must be a Catholick Visible Head to the Catholick Visible Church and so Mr. B's Constitutive Regent Part of the Church hath done the Pope a wonderful kindness and made a very plausible Plea for his Universal Pastorship Where the Dean proves That a Constitutive Regent Head is not essential to the Notion of a National Church for then it must be essential to the Catholick Church too and then there must be a supreme Pastor or some supreme governing Power over the whole Church which I suppose is to deny that the Catholick Church is one visible governed Society This Argument I defended at large and added p. 576. That to deny a Church can be one without a constitutive Regent Head infers one of these two things 1. Either that many particular Churches cannot associate into one for the joynt Exercise of Discipline and Government which overthrows the very Notion of Catholick Unity and Communion Or 2. That there is and must be a power in the Church superior to the Episcopal Power which naturally sets up a Pope above Bishops Thus much for my agreement with them that the Catholick Church is one visible governed Society that is which has a supreme Power over the whole and if our Author by this time does not begin to Colour I will e'en Blush for him But by this the Reader will perceive what a hopeful Cause this Author has undertaken to prove my Agreement with the Church of Rome about the Supremacy either of the Pope or General Council when I absolutely deny that there is or ought to be any such Superior Authority and Jurisdiction over the whole Church But to proceed 2. He says They both pitch upon the Episcopal Government as distributed into the several Subordinations of combined Churches as what is by Divine Institution made the Government of the Church A combination of Diocesan Churches to make up one Provincial whose Bishops are in Subordination to their Metropolitan a combination of Provincial Churches to make up a National and the Metropolitans in Subordination to the Primate a combination of National Churches to make up a Patriarchal and the Primates in Subordination to the Patriarch and a confederacy of Patriarchal to make up one Oecumenical and every Patriarch in Subordination to the Oecumenical Bishop or chief Patriarch This is an Agreement with a Witness and if he can prove this as he says he has done of which more presently we will never dispute more with them about Church-Government let us then consider the several steps and Gradations of Church-Authority which at last centers in an Universal Bishop 1. The Subordination of Parochial Presbyters who are combined and united under the Government of a Diocesan Bishop Thus far we agree with him and acknowledg a direct Superiority of Bishops over their respective Presbyters but we go not one step farther with him 2. A combination of Diocesan Churches to make up one Provincial whose Bishops are in Subordination to their Metropolitan Such a Combination I allow of but the Subordination I deny to be the original Form of Church Associations and this one word Subordination which he has here thrust in discovers the whole Trick and spoils our Agreement quite I assert these Combinations are for Communion not for Government and therefore there is no Subordination required to such an Union he will have these Combinations to be not meerly for Communion but for Government and that indeed requires a Subordination but these two Notions do as vastly differ as a friendly Association for mutual Advice and Counsel and a Subjection to a Superior Authority And that I have not altered my Opinion but that this was always my judgment in the case I shall now show and I need to that purpose only transcribe a Page or Two out of the Defence p 577 c. It is evident from the Testimony of the earliest Ages of the Church that first the Apostles and then the Bishops as their Successors were the Supreme Governours of the Church who had no higher Order or Power over them And therefore Tertullian calls the Bishop Summus Sacerdos or the chief and
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
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
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
I am sure he can't then the Reader knows what to judge of him and his Argument too As for the Controversie between the Church of England and Dissenters about the use of Ceremonies in Religion it is nothing to our present Dispute and though our Author has a mind to revive these Disputes among us he shall not draw me into it It is sufficient we dispute against them and against the Church of Rome upon very different Principles Against them we defend the lawful use of indifferent Rites and Ceremonies in Religious Worship though there be no express command for it in the Word of God if they serve the ends of Order and Decency which are expresly commanded Against the Romanists we never object that their Ceremonies have no Divine Institution that they are not commanded but either that they are forbid or that they are so numerous that they are very burdensom or that they are abused to superstitious purposes or that the signification of them is so dark and obscure that they are of no use in Religion Which is best expressed in the words of our Church Concerning Ceremonies why some be abolished and some retained Of such Ceremonies as be used in the Church and have had their beginning by the Institution of man and therefore our Church from the beginning never quarrel'd with Ceremonies because they had not a Divine Institution Some at first were of godly intent and purpose devised and yet at length turned to vanity and superstition some entred into the Church by undiscreet devotion and such a zeal as was without knowledge and for because they were winked at in the beginning they grew daily to more and more abuses which not onely for their unprofitableness but because they have much blinded the People and obscured the glory of God are worthy to be cut away and clean rejected other there be which although they have been devised by man yet it is thought good to reserve them still as well for a decent Order in the Church for the which they were first devised as because they pertain to Edification whereunto all things done in the Church as the Apostle teacheth ought to be referred With a great deal more to the same purpose which every body may see who will turn to the beginning of his Common-Prayer-Book And yet I deny not but our first Reformers might as we do at this day condemn all Uninstituted Worship and condemn several practices of the Church of Rome under that Notion such as Invocation of Saints and Worship of Images c. but she never took her Ceremonies to be any acts or parts of Worship but only some Adjuncts and external Circumstances for the decent and orderly performanee of Religious Worship And to say as this Author does that the Dissenters did at last prove to the conviction of the Church of England Clergy that the controverted Ceremonies were parts of external Worship and that we were forced to fall in with the Roman Catholick in denying that Uninstituted Worship is False Superstitious and Idolatrous to speak softly is not true The Dissenters themselves never thought that external Circumstances were parts of Worship but endeavoured to prove that our Ceremonies were not meet Circumstances of Worship but Sacraments but I never heard of any Divine of the Church of England that allowed them to be so or that thought they had proved it What the sense of the present Clergy is may be learned as from a great many other excellent Books so especially from The Case of indifferent Things and The Church of England's Symbolizing with the Church of Rome Which are in the Collection of Cases lately Written for the satisfaction of Dissenters when the Government thought fit for other reasons to require a vigorous execution of those Laws against them which had lain Dormant for some time To show the World at that time what persecuting Spirits they were of they used their utmost diligence both by private Conferences and publick Writings managed with all the softness and tenderness that any Dispute is capable of to satisfie their Scruples and thereby to prevent their Sufferings which could be prevented no other way and let our Author try his skill if he pleases to find out in those Cases such an Agreement as he pretends between the Church of England and the Church of Rome which I believe he may as soon do as find out that persecuting Spirit in them he so much talks of unless good Arguments and soft Words may pass for a Persecution But Dr. Covel he says calls Ceremonies the external Act of Religion I grant he does so and I think it a very loose definition of a Ceremony But then we must consider that he plainly enough tells us what kind of Acts of Religion our Ceremonies are that they are only to make the Act of Devotion to be more Solemn and that Solemnity is in some measure a necessary adjunct to all publick Service And if Solemnity be but an Adjunct and Ceremonies but for Solemnity they cannot be in a strict Notion Acts of Religion but Adjuncts of publick Worship And as he calls them The Hedges of Devotion and thô not the principal Points yet as some of the Fathers call them the Second intention of the Law intermediate means not to be despised of a better and more religious Service Which plainly enough shows what distinction he made between Ceremonies strictly so called and Acts of Worship And therefore he tells us that there are Three Acts of Religion 1. The Internal which is the willing desire to give unto God his due Worship and Honour 2. The External Answering to this which is no otherwise good or commendable than that it vertuously serveth to this end 3. The commanded Act that is the Act of every Vertue ordained by Religion to God's Honour The Second which is the external Act and includes the whole external Worship he calls Ceremonies not as Ceremony now signifies among us the external Decencies and Solemnities of Worship but as it was anciently used to signifie all external Worship And therefore he afterwards distinguishes between these Ceremonies That 1. Some were for Iustification such as the Law commanded in place whereof afterwards sacceeded those that were for Ornament and to signifie such Vertues as were requisite in those Parties that rightly used them These are those Ceremonies which before he told us were only external Solemnities and in some measure necessary Adjuncts of Worship which are the only Ceremonies in dispute among us and the Dissenters which he calls Adjuncts and Solemnities as we do He adds 3. Some are parts of the immediate Worship as Sacrifice Prayer Adoration and such like some only dispose as Fasting austere Living some are only Instruments as Churches Altars Chalices and all those which religiously being separated serve only to make the Worship more Solemn and that Solemnity more Holy. So that thô he calls the whole external Worship and every thing that belongs
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