The Catholic Hierarchy, Chapter 14
CHAP. XIV. A Digreſſion concerning the Subordination of Paſtors.
§ 1. AMong the many Difficulties and inevitable Rocks that the Proteſtant Prelacy is neceſſitated upon, (by caſting off the Headſhip of the Oecumenical Paſtor) not only in aſſerting, but exerting their Epiſcopal Juriſdiction, or Paſtoral Power, in the Legiſlation and Execution Eccleſiaſtical pretended unto; I thought it not amiſs to debate one main Queſtion, wherein ſome part of the greateſt ſtreſs of difficulty in that kinde doth conſiſt, and that is this;
Whether the aſſerting the Subordination of Paſtors in the Church, doth not by all good conſequence infer the Supremacy of an Oecumenical, or Ʋniverſal Paſtor? We underſtand the word, Church, here, as before explained, i. e. when we ſay (The Church) by way of eminency, we underſtand not (or ſhould not at leaſt) any Individual, Parochial, Dioceſan, Provincial, National, Congregational, or Claſſical Church, but the Ʋniverſal Church comprehenſive of all theſe, and enfolding them, as the outmoſt skin of an Onion involves all the other ſubordinately one within another. By an Oecumenical Paſtor is meant a Paſtor of the higheſt degree here on Earth, related in his Paſtoral charge to the whole viſible Church, by whatſoever Names, Titles, or Dignities he is known, and is a Biſhop in the higheſt preheminence of Eccleſiaſtical Rule and Juriſdiction here on Earth, from whom there can be no Appeal to any Earthly Biſhop or Governour; and this is the Militant Paſtor of the Church-Catholick Militant, to which (according to their ſuppoſition of Subordinated Paſtors, all the other Degrees and Orders muſt be ſubjected. By [Subordination] is meant the ſubſtituting or ſubjecting one under another; the terms of which is the Supreme, Higheſt, and moſt Ʋniverſal on one ſide, and the moſt particular Prieſt or Paſtor on the other. The Queſtion being ſtated, and the Terms explained, the Truth will by neceſſary Conſequence appear on the Affirmative part, that Subordination of Paſtors in the Church, doth neceſſarily infer… the Supremacy of an Oecumenical Paſtor or Biſhop. And I prove it thus:
§ 2. There is the ſame Political Reaſon for an Ʋniverſal Paſtor, or Supreme Head on Earth over all other Paſtors and Churches, that there is for any Subordinate Paſtor that hath other Paſtors ſubjected unto him. Inſtance in a Dioceſan Biſhop, ruling his Pariſh-prieſts, or Parochial Paſtors (if they may be allowed any higher title than the Biſhops Curates) the chief end of the ſaid Biſhop being Juriſdiction, Determination of Eccleſiaſtical Cauſes, Regulation and Ordination of his Clergy, Unity, Order, Uniformity, &c. By the ſame political Reaſon, though in a higher Sphere of Government, is an Archbiſhop, or Provincial Paſtor, required for regulation of Biſhops of Dioceſſes committed to his charge, maintaining the Unity of the Provincial Church, Order and Ʋniformity therein, that every weak giddy-headed Biſhop may not govern after the Fancies of his own brain; but that every one ſhould be (notwithſtanding all their Lordlike Grandeur) accountable to the Archbiſhop, for any male-adminiſtration of Government, or neglect of charge committed to their care. The reaſon holds good in like ſort for a National Paſtor, the Metropolitan, Primate, or Patriarch; that the whole National Church conſiſting of Provinces, divided into Dioceſſes, and they into Pariſhes, be maintained Ʋniform in Worſhip, and Ʋnited under one National Eccleſiaſtical Head and Governour, to whom the ſupreme Adminiſtration of Paſtoral Function in the Church National ſhould belong, as to overſee nextly and more immediately the Provincial Paſtors and Churches; and more remotely, all other Paſtors and Churches in the Nation, that there be no Diviſions, Schiſms, Hereſies, Contempts, diſorderly Converſation, irregular proceedings among Paſtors and People, but an harmonious concatenation from the higheſt to the loweſt, to whom and his Commiſſion-courts all Appeals from Inferiour Provincials and Dioceſans may be made. The Subordination of Paſtors thus far allowed and granted, an Univerſal Paſtor muſt be inferred by unavoidable conſequence. For as yet there is the like neceſſity of uniting National Churches, in one Univerſal Church under one Catholick Paſtor, as was for uniting Provincial Churches in a Nation, and ſubjecting them to a National Paſtor or Primate, or ſubjecting Dioceſſes and their reſpective Biſhops to an Archbiſhop, or Provincial Paſtor, & ſic deineeps. For by how much the more univerſal the Church is, by ſo much the more univerſal the Paſtoral Charge and Juriſdiction muſt be: And as the National is to the Ʋniverſal Viſible Church, ſo the National Paſtor to the Catholick Paſtor, by a Mathematical Proportion. And the like ground of relation as is betwixt a National Paſtor and a National Church, conſiſting nextly of Provinces, is alſo betwixt an Oecumenical Paſtor and an Oecumenical Church conſiſting nextly of Nations. And if Unity, Uniformity, and regular Adminiſtration of Church-Government be indiſpenſably neceſſary in a National Church, and the care of theſe things to be committed primarily and principally to a National Paſtor; how much more is it neceſſary in the Catholick Church, conſtituted and made up of National Churches nextly, the care of which to be committed to an Oecumenical Paſtor? And if the Schiſme of a Province or Dioceſs be of ſo dangerous conſequence, to a National Church; of how much more dangerous will the Schiſme of a National from the Catholick Church be?
§ 3. Secondly, I prove that they that maintain the Government of the Church by Biſhops, Archbiſhops and Primates, muſt alſo own an Univerſal Viſible Paſtor, from the nature of the Catholick Viſible Church. 1. It muſt be either an organized or unorganized Body, and made up of partes ſimilares only; the latter will not be owned by ſuch Aſſertors, by reaſon of the groſs Abſurdities, tending to Separation and Phanaticiſme, that muſt neceſſarily be inferred on ſuch a conceſſion. If they ſay, it is an Organized Body, which is moſt ſuitable to the Grandeur and Splendour of Mother Church, that ſhe ſhould be made up of the moſt curious texture, and the moſt proportionate adaptation of parts; it is by no means to be ſuppoſed, that a viſible Body, eminent in all other parts, ſhould be Corpus vivum animatum, and yet want a Viſible Head; an Inviſible Headſhip to a viſible, organized, living Body, cannot be in this ſence allowed, nor a Secular Headſhip to this Spiritual Body. But more of this anon. Again, The Catholick Church muſt be ſuch, either quatenus Integrum, or quatnus Genus: it cannot have any other due Logical conſideration, though to adapt words to ſome novel apprehenſions, we ſpeak of totum aggregatum, & totum comprehenſivum, both of which are reducible to the other Terms. I ſhall prove that both theſe acceptations of a Catholick Church do of neceſſity enforce an Univerſal Viſible Paſtor. 1. As Catholicum integrum, and quatenus tale, is to be conſidered as diviſible, or divided into parts, and according to that Nation of Subordination, the greater parts into the next leſſer, and them into leſſer or leaſt of all; wherefore the Catholick Viſible Church is divided into National Churches, as the next and greateſt conſtituting parts, National into Provincials, Provincial into Dioceſan, and they into Parochial; if there be a Subordination of Paſtors in the Church, it's according to the fubordination of the integral parts of the ſaid Church. For in Diviſion and Subdiviſion of parts, there muſt be a continuance till we come to minimum quod ſic on the deſcending part, and maximum quod ſic in the aſcending part. But there can be no ſuch Subordination of Paſtors, according to the Subordination of Membra totius, without an Ʋniverſal Paſtor; Ergo. For as there is the ſame Reaſon of the Catholick to the National Church, (reſpectu ſaltem integrationis) which is of the National to the Provincial, and thence downward: So there is the ſame reaſon for an Oecumenical Paſtor to the National, as of the National to the Provincial, or that to the Dioceſan Paſtor. As the National is the totum in reſpect of the Provinces, and as ſuch hath a Paſtor; ſo it's but an Integral part in reſpect of the Catholick Church, which by the ſame reaſon is to have a Paſtor, elſe this concatenation by Subordination will be headleſs, and viſibly deficient in the polity of its Ʋniform Conſtitution, for pretended eſtabliſhment of Uniformity. Now if they plead that the Catholick Church is but totum aggregatum; Ergo National Churches are coordinate, hence individual, thenceforward for their defence they muſt plead for Independency, and it will be coincident with the notion of Congregational Churches. But how inconſiſtent theſe Principles are, to deny a Subordination of National Churches and Paſtors to a Catholick Church and Paſtor, when they allow and maintain a Subordination of Churches and Paſtors within the National, and utterly diſown an Independency of Paſtors of particular Congregations on ſuperiour Paſtors and Churches.
If the Catholick Church be underſtood to be Genus Generaliſſimum diviſible into Species, the ſame Inference will accrue; for the Subordination ſtands thus: the National is ſubalternum Genus, the Provincial ſubalterna Species, the Dioceſan Species ſpecialiſſima (according to ſome Logick) but Species ſpecialior (according to others,) and Parochial Churches Species ſpecialiſſima; after this conſideration the Argument ſtands thus: If a Paſtor is to be ſet over a Church ſubalterni Generis, becauſe it comprehends Churches under it as Species, by the ſame reaſon a Paſtor is to be ſet over the Catholick comprehending alſo its Species, viz. National Churches. For though the National Church be related to the provincial as Genus, it is related to the Catholick as Species. But becauſe according to the beſt Logical and Theological Notions, the application of Genus doth not well ſuit to the nature of the Catholick Church, it being more properly a totum Integrale, I ſtay not on this part of the Argument.
§ 4. Argum. 3. I Argue from the nature of Subordination, which always ſuppoſeth a Supremum and Infimum; a Supreme higher than which is none, and a Loweſt lower than which is none; otherwiſe it would be unlimited. And if in the Church there be a Subordination of Paſtors, then as there is a Loweſt, viz. a Pariſh-Prieſt, ſo there muſt be alſo a Supreme Paſtor for the higheſt Round of the Ladder, viz. an Oecumenical Paſtor: For as every Subordination is to be continued to a nè plus ultra, ſo Subordination of Paſtors muſt be continued to the largeſt acceptation of a Church on Earth, for the maintaining Unity and Uniformity of the National Churches, which are next in conſtitution to the Catholick. If it be ſaid, that Chriſt is the onelyonly Paſtor of the univerſal Church; It will be granted that he is Paſtor of the Church in the moſt Catholick acceptation, as it comprehends the Church viſible and inviſible; but for the viſible Church, he leaves it perfect, as to parts, with a viſible Head, as well as other parts viſible: for it muſt be ejuſdem naturae cum caeteris membris, and how can viſible Ʋniformity be attained in the Catholick Church, but by a government of a viſible Paſtor, who viſibly rules all Churches, and in whom they are all politically knit together, as in a Central or rather Circumferential Knot? Beſides, if a National Paſtor be Supream among Paſtors, next under Chriſt, then it follows that this Subordination terminates at leaſt in a co-ordination of Paſtors; and if ſo, it's becauſe there is a co-ordination of Churches: and if one ſort of Churches, and Paſtors of particular Churches, are coordinate next under Chriſt the Head, why are not all? And why may not a Schiſmatical Provincial or Dioceſan uſe the like plea to throw off the juriſdiction of the National; or why may not particular Parochial Aſſemblies and their Paſtors, argue on the ſame grounds their Co-ordination and freedom from Subordination to any Paſtor beſides Chriſt alone? So that this National Co-ordination of Paſtors, in the higheſt Eccleſiaſtical Supremacy, is the making a hundred Popes inſtead of one, and laying the foundation of Independency unavoidably to all judicious underſtandings. The ſum of this whole Argument is, That there can be no plauſible reaſon given why the Subordination of viſible Paſtors ſhould not extend as far as viſible Churches; and if Chriſt hath ſet Orb within Orb, Church within Church, & every one its Planet to rule it for the maintaining Order, Uniformity, &c. why ſhould the Supream Planetary Orb be without a Planet?
§ 5. Arg. 4. The neceſſity of this inference is further proved from the derivation or original of Paſtoral power: every Paſtor receives his Paſtoral power from Chriſt, mediately or immediately. If Subordinate Paſtors, they receive their power mediately; then mediante populo vel Superiori quodam. The Aſſertors of Prelacy will never grant a derivation of power from Chriſt mediante populo; for that were to fall into the Congregational way. If they ſay they receive their power through the hands of ſome Superiour, it muſt be by ſome Eccleſiaſtical or Civil Officers; if by ſome Eccleſiaſtical, then thorow ſome Paſtor or Paſtors, and they either co-ordinate, or of ſome ſuperiour Rank and Dignity. They will not ſay they receive their power from co-ordinate Paſtors; for that were to fall on the Rock of Presbytery: therefore they muſt ſay, and do ſay, That every ordinary Proteſtant Prieſt receives his power from Chriſt, thorough the hands of ſome ſuperiour Paſtor not co-ordinate; and then we muſt needs finde out the derivation of that ſuperiour power from one above him in Order and Dignity, and at laſt muſt needs arrive at Peter's Chair and his Succeſſors, who firſt received this power from Chriſt; and ſo it's handed down through his reſpective ſubordinate Officers, to thoſe of the loweſt rank and degree. For if the Pariſh-Prieſt receive his Office from the Dioceſan, then he from the Provincial, and he from the Primate, and he from the Oecumenical. If they the Primates receive their power mediately by the hands of ſome others beſides the Oecumenical Paſtor, it muſt be from the co-ordinate power of ſome National Paſtor or Paſtors; and conſequently it will infer a Presbytery of Primates, which may prove of as ill and more dangerous Aſpect on the Church Catholick, than the Presbyterian Aſſembly on the Church National; or it muſt be that he receive his Dignity from the Suffrage of his inferiour Clergy. Then it follows, that a Metropolitan is inveſted with power in a meaner and more deſpicable way than a Dioceſan or Pariſh-Prieſt.
§ 6. To avoid ſplitting on the Romiſh Church, they finde another way of deriving their power from Chriſt; and that is, by the Civil Magiſtrate, without the Church, as it is practically at leaſt granted. To which I ſay, That although he is or may be a Member of the Church, yet quatenus a Magiſtrate he is a Member of another State, and therefore in an Office extrinſecal to the Church; and hence cannot extend Eccleſiaſtical Juriſdiction to the Church, nor inveſt an Officer in the Church (which is Chriſt's dominion) with Office, Power Legiſlative or Executive; the Civil and Eccleſiaſtical States being diſtinct from each other as they are ſuch. Moreover, for an Officer in Chriſt's ſtate to derive his power from Earthly Potentates, is to ſubject the Kingdom of Chriſt, as ſuch, to the Kingdoms of men, and make it ſubordinate thereto in thoſe things which Chriſt hath reſerved to himſelf, as his Prerogative. Again, if Church-Officers, as ſuch, muſt be inveſted with power from Secular Princes, the Church muſt ſtand or fall, as to its right and orderly manner of Government, at the will and diſpoſition of Princes: Whence Chriſts Oeconomy will ſeem not compleat in it ſelf, but lame, deficient, and headleſs, in that it muſt be beholding to an Exotick Power for its principal Officers and Rulers; and Chriſt was wanting in not providing for the due governance of his Church under heatheniſh or heretical Magiſtrates; yea, ſuch Magiſtrates would undoubtedly eſtabliſh Church-Officers ejuſdem farinae with themſelves: And beſides, it would follow, that the Primitive Churches, after our Saviour's aſcention, could have no due derivation of Church-power unto it for ſome Ages, for want of Chriſtian Magiſtrates, the grand Mediums of Conveyance. There is alſo as much reaſon that Civil Officers ſhould be at the diſpoſition of the Church, as that Church-Officers ſhould be at the diſpoſition of the State: And the Oecumenical Biſhop may upon as good grounds claim a power of enthroning Emperors, as the other claim an Eccleſiaſtical power of ſetting a Head over the Church, Chriſt having made Church and State Co-ordinate. Laſtly, if Eccleſiaſtical Officers derive their power from Civil Authority, as their viſible Church-head, ſure the Vitals and the whole Animation muſt needs be Secular; much like the Beaſt ſpoken of, Rev. 13.4.
§ 7. Arg. 5. I argue from the chief ends of Subordination of Paſtors in the Church. It's to redreſs Hereſie, or male Adminiſtration of diſcipline, that there may be place for Appeals, in caſe of Injuſtice, determination of Controverſies, &c. Now what end would there be of Appeals, if there ſhould not be ſome Paſtor ſupream to all the reſt, from whom there could be no Appeal? And it's neceſſary there be ſtill room for Appeal, till a man comes to the Church in its greateſt Ʋnity and Superiority; and there is Mother-Church in her Grandeur, Eccleſia in Cathedrâ: if the reſort be made for Appeal, or reſolution of difficult caſes to the Church in her Paſtoral multiplicity, there will be ſuch variety of Judgments and Intereſts, that there will be no final determination, but ye may hear the Catholick body ſpeaking one thing in its Catholick Paſtor and Head: for if you will know a mans minde and determination of any thing, you will go to the Head, not to the Arms or Legs; and what you have by Signes from them, you know is by the influence of the Head. So if we will know the minde of the Church in its ultimate Reſults and Determination, you muſt not go to a Dioceſan, Primate, &c. of France, &c. England, &c. where you will have but a partial or weak reſolution, not having a Catholick Intereſt, Intilligence, Influence, and Concernment; but we muſt go to the Body, ſpeaking in the Head, who hath a common Concern and Fellow-feeling with the leaſt Finger or Toe complaining or appealing to it.
§ 8. Hence ſee the reaſon why the attribute of Infallibility is aſcribed to the Church, thus ſpeaking in its Head or Supream Paſtor. 1. Becauſe of his univerſal Relation and Intereſt; and therefore ſpeaks infallibly the ſenſe of the whole, or of any particular part; as the Head feels and cannot be deceived in declaring the pain of the Toe, and can moſt infallibly, of all the members, preſcribe a Remedy. 2. It's moſt probable that he that hath his authority by immediate conveyance from Jeſus Chriſt, ſhould have alſo the moſt immediate diſcovery of his Minde and Will: ſo that the infallibility of an Oecumenical Paſtor is founded on the Principles of Epiſcopal government, viz. ſubordination of Paſtors in the Church; for if in all our Appeals from Paſtor to Paſtor, from Church to Church, for determination in matters of controverſie, and reſolution in points of weight and difficulty, we do at laſt arrive at as fallible a Church and Paſtor as at firſt, to what purpoſe is all our Appeals? And 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 an Archbiſhop, then upon this account onelyonly it muſt be that he hath a greater ſhare by his place in the common intereſt of the Body, by the comprehenſiveneſs of his power and relation, and being farther removed by his dignity from particular ſmall intereſts and private paſſions; and therefore more likely to be more impartial, univerſal, and leſs fallible in his judgment, than other his inferiour and more limited Paſtors: And Ergo, upon the ſame reaſon it will follow, that an Oecumenical Biſhop is leaſt of all fallible; not but that St. Peter and his Succeſſors may err, and have, but that as Supream Head in the moſt Catholick capacity, he is (comparatively to all other Paſtors ſubordinate) infallible. And it is the greateſt reaſon, that he that hath the greateſt Charge, ſhould have the beſt underſtanding to know how to manage it: And to what purpoſe is it for us to ſeek after further light by going to thoſe that the Church hath further entruſted, if they be not holier, wiſer, and juſter men than our ſelves; yea, than all their inferiour Officers? And what is it we aim at moſt in ſuch Enquiries? is it Fallibility, or Infallibility? Would any one in his beſt wits be deceived? and would the Church deceive any, but uſe the beſt ways and means for enlightning mens Underſtandings, and reducing them from darkneſs and errour?
§ 9. Arg. 6. I argue from the nature of the Church, in which this Subordination is required. That Church muſt be underſtood to be the univerſal viſible Church, and not any particular Church. 1. From the uſual acceptation of Church in the like ſence, when we ſay, The Church, with an Emphaſis. 2. There is no more reaſon the Church ſhould be underſtood of one kind of particular Church more than another; a Provincial Church or Dioceſan may be called the Church, by way of eminency, as well as the National: and if there be more reaſon becauſe the National is comprehenſive of them, then much more that the Catholick ſhould be underſtood by it, becauſe it comprehends Nationals, and is moſt comprehenſive of all Churches on Earth. So that it will unavoidably follow, that if there be a Subordination of Paſtors in the Church, it is in the Catholick Church; and the more large the Church is, the more extenſive is the power of the Paſtor: and the moſt comprehenſive Church hath a ſupream Paſtor to the Paſtors of all other Churches ſubordinate to it.
Obj. But the univerſal Church Viſible, is not Organical; and therefore not capable of an Oecumenical Paſtor. Anſw. It is Organical; for it's made up (according to our preſent Phainomena of a Church) of viſible, organized or organical parts comprehending each other; and therefore muſt needs have a viſible organical Head, principium ſenſus & motus, animating all the parts in their reſpective Subordinations and Relations. It's abſurd to ſay, that the hand organized with fingers and joynts, the feet with toes and all its parts, and ſo of the other members, that theſe united in one body make not up an organized body, and have not one Head common to the totum, to communicate reſpective vigor to each of theſe members. So to ſay that in the Church there is National Churches organized, &c. ſo Provincial, &c. Dioceſan organized, and not that the univerſal Church viſible is organized with, and influenced by a viſible Head, is moſt abſurd. Again, there is the ſame and greater reaſon upon the forementioned grounds, for the Organization of the Catholick Church, than for the organizing of a National, Provincial, or of any of the inferiour Subordinate Churches: for if Order, and Uniformity, and due adminiſtration of Government cannot be maintained in one▪ but by Organization, how can they by any other means be obtained in the other? And if Order, Uniformity, &c. be not onelyonly comely and beautiful, but moſt neceſſary to the well-being of a National Church, and that the more, becauſe it is ſo comprehenſive of other Churches ſubordinated to it, how much more requiſite is it to the well-being of the Catholick Church, which comprehends National and all others?
§ 10. Arg. 7. That this Catholick Headſhip is inſeparable from a co-ordination of Paſtors in the Church, may be evinced from theſe following Neceſſities. 1. A neceſſity of a Catholick judgment of Schiſm. 2. Of a Catholick interpretation of Scripture, it being not of private interpretation. 3. Of a Catholick determination of Decencies and Order. 4. A Catholick compoſure of the Prayers of the Church. 5. A Catholick Canonization of Saints. 6. A Catholick convention or call of Oecumenical Councils.
§ 11. The firſt Neceſſity is for a Catholick judgment of Schiſm: for if it be not determined by a Catholick judgment, theſe abſurdities will follow: 1. National Churches may be Schiſmatical, and no competent judge of them, it being not fit that one National Church ſhould judge another, they being co-ordinate, equally concerned, of equal authority, latitude, and fallibility: Neither may a Provincial be judge of National Schiſm, they being ſubordinate to the National, and included in it; for they are bound up in the determination of the National, and is accountable to it: and if it declares againſt the National, as guilty of Schiſm, and upon that account ſeparates from it, ſhe ſhall be judged as Schiſmatical from the National; and ſo Schiſm will be committed on Schiſm, and none healed. 2. If there be no Catholick determination of Schiſm, there can be no Catholick puniſhment of Schiſm from the Catholick Church; for the puniſhment muſt be preceded by a Law-determination. And hence, if a National Church be Schiſmatical from the Catholick, it cannot receive any Catholick puniſhment; and it will follow, that ſuch a ſin may be committed in the Church, on which ſhe is not capable to inflict a puniſhment in any meaſure proportionate to it. 3. If a National Church hath power to judge of the Schiſm of a Provincial Church, and a Provincial Church of the Schiſm of a Dioceſan, and a Dioceſan of the Schiſm of a Parochial, then by the ſame reaſon may the Catholick Church judge of the Schiſm of a National Church; otherwiſe Schiſms will be equally multiplied with National Churches, and no redreſs to be made of them. 4. If there be not a Catholick determination of Schiſm, all Churches will not be agreed about Schiſm: ſo that whilſt there is a perpetual controverſie in the Church what Schiſm is, and what is not, Schiſm perpetually remains, and falſe judgment ſtill paſſed upon ſome Churches: theſe calling that a Schiſmatical Church, which is not ſo; others owning another Church as not Schiſmatical, which is really ſo. All which tends to a neceſſary and unavoidable confuſion, for want of a Catholick determination; whereas if it may determine by its viſible Head, all thoſe Controverſies would be ended: for if the members of the Body complain one of another, the whole Body muſt determine the matter by the Head, where there is a concurrence of all parts for the good of the whole.
§ 12. Secondly. From the neceſſity of a Catholick determination of dubious places of Scripture. This can be done by none but the Church Catholick on Earth: (for no Scripture being of private interpretation, where ſhall ſuch an interpretation be found that is not private,) but in ſuch as is of the Catholick Church, where the concurrent judgment and faith of all Churches may be heard? 2 Pet. 1.20. the word is foreign, of private Solution, i. e. not of particular perſons, or Churches private Solution, but ſuch as is univerſal and commonly received by all Churches and Chriſtians, according to the analogy of faith. Now where can this be found and reſted in as Catholick, unleſs it be in the viſible univerſal Head? and if it be ſaid that a National Church may poſitively determine in this kind, then why not a Provincial as well, the one being a ſubordinate Church as well as the other? But if the Decree be onelyonly National, as many various interpretations and ſences may be put on a place of Scripture, as there are Nations; which will lay an ample foundation for variety of Sects, Schiſms, Hereſies, &c. Whereas if all National Churches were bound to one Catholick determination, there muſt needs therehence enſue the admirable effect of Uniformity in Doctrine and Practice; all Churches believing as the Ʋniverſal Church believes, and that as the Head doth. Beſides, if it be of ſuch dangerous conſequence for Chriſtians, as private perſons, to put their interpretation on Scripture, in laying the foundation of variety of Sects, Schiſms, Hereſies, &c. how much more dangerous for particular Churches, becauſe the determination of a Church reacheth further, and is more attended unto, and more become ſeduced and leavened with errour thereby, if it be erroneous? Hence, to believe as the Catholick Church believes, hath more concern in it than thoſe imagine, that endeavour to blaſt it with the ridicle of the Colliers Faith; for it's not as the National Church believes, but as the Catholick Church believes: Neither is it an implicit Faith in any things but controverſal and dubious matters, above ordinary ſcrutiny and vulgar capacity; and therein we had better reſt ſatisfied in Catholick Authority, than run the risk of adhering to the Opinion of private perſons and Churches; which muſt be done alſo by an implicite Faith: and who is likely to have the moſt unerring Spirit, a Church or particular Perſon? and if a Church, the moſt Catholick is the moſt unerring.
§ 13. Thirdly. From the Neceſſity of a Catholick determination of Decency and Order. That is decent, which by the Univerſality is reputed and judged ſo; for one Countrey doth uſually call that decent, which others repute undecent. And there are no Proteſtant Prelates but have, do, and will ſay, That Chriſt hath left it to the Church to determine all matters of Decency and Order; and 'tis abſurd to ſay, that this or that Church may do it, when no ſuch is the Church eminently. When 'tis ſaid, the Church determines Decencies, What Church is that? Is it a Pariſh-Church? Nay then Pariſh-Churches ſhould rule Dioceſan by a Law. Again, if Dioceſan Churches ſhould have power to determine their Decencies, either Provincials muſt be ſubject to ſome one Dioceſan, which might regulate all the reſt, or elſe Dioceſan Churches would differ ſo much in their decencies, that there would be no Uniformity in the Provincial Church. And if Provincials might determine each one its Decencies and Order, it muſt needs break Ʋniformity in National Churches. But I know where the Proteſtant Prelate will be; he will ſay preſently, it's the National Church that he means, when he ſpeaks of the Churches determination of Decency and Order. To which I reply, that he may with as good ground ſay, that he means a Pariſh-Church; and that by giving this power to a National Church, he gives a greater advantage to Schiſm, and lays a greater bar againſt Ʋniformity: For the more comprehenſive the Church is, in which the Schiſm is, the greater it is; and the more uniform the Schiſmatical Church is, of the more dangerous conſequence it is to the Catholick Church. In vain do men plead for Ʋniformity in the Church, who in aſſerting the principles of Ʋniformity in a National Church, do thereby extirpate Ʋniformity in the Catholick; for National Ʋniformity unleſs it be Catholick, is but Ʋniformity in a Schiſm. For if every National Church may determine of Decency and Order, there will be as great a diverſity, if not contrariety, in ſeveral Churches affairs, as in the affairs of ſeveral States, one Nation determining that Ceremony to be decent, which another determines to be undecent, abſurd, and diſorderly; and ſo Churches will be as divers in their Faſhions, as Engliſh, Dutch, Spaniard, &c. And there will be no end of Ceremonies and new-fangled Garbs in the Church, if a Nation may of themſelves, and when they will, conſtitute, ordain, and appoint them at their pleaſure, alter and null old Ceremonies, and invent new; and ſhall have as great difficulty, intricacy, and multiplicity of Church-Laws, as State-Laws, if at every Convocation Decency, and Order may be determined.
§ 14. From the neceſſity of a Catholick compoſure of Church-Prayers: the more private and ſingular the conception of Church-prayers are, the more Schiſmatical: And divers Liturgies in one and the ſame National Church may not be allowed, neither that every Province and Dioceſs compoſe their own Liturgy, as being a matter of dangerous conſequence to the National Church. How then comes it to paſs, that our National Church may compoſe its own Liturgy diſtinct from another; Is not this of as dangerous conſequence to the Catholick Church? And is't not more conducing to the Peace, Beauty, Uniformity and Honour of the Church, to have a Catholick Liturgy? Whereas otherwiſe every Nation will be ſetting up the price of their own prayers above others; whence ariſeth heart-burning, Diviſions, and Schiſms National, in the Catholick Church: were it not much better that all Nations ſhould bring their Liturgies, and lay them down at the feet of Mother-Church, and ſubmit them to her Judgment in the Supreme Head, from whoſe bleſſed hands ſhe may receive one of ſuch Catholick compoſure, that might produce a perfect Harmony in the affections and petitions of all the Churches in the world, in good aſſurance of a Catholick Amen attending the concluſion of all? Beſides, if a National prayer be more available than a Provincial or Dioceſan, Why ſhould not a Catholick Churchprayer be moſt of all available?
§ 15. Fifthly. The neceſſity of a Catholick Canonization of Saints. For ſuppoſing the Neceſſity of the Obſervation of Saints days, (as the Proteſtant Prelates zealouſly aſſert) it is requiſite to enquire, who or what Church Canonized the Saints which are already honoured with Saintſhip Titular, and Days devoted to their remembrance; and who dedicated and conſecrated Churches on the ſame account, was it not the Catholick Church, by her Catholick Paſtors? If every Church (ſuppoſe National) ſhould have the like liberty to canonize Saints at their pleaſure, all the days in the Year, yea in an Age, would be little enough for All Hollan-tide; And if the obſervation muſt be Anniverſary, there would be a neceſſity of robbing Peter to pay Paul, which would be doing evil, that good may come of it; it being as great a ſin to rob Peter of his fiſhing-nets, as to rob Paul of his cloak and parchments. Beſides, this Abſurdity would fall in, that one Nation would canonize that for a Saint, which another would anathematize to the Devil; As for Example, Michaelmas-day is devoted to St. Michael the Archangel, which Feaſt was inſtituted by Felix the Third, the 48th Oecumenical Biſhop. Now the Church of England hath preſumed to alter this Title and Inſtitution, making it a Feſtival to St. Michael and all Angels; which hath theſe groſs Abſurdities in it. 1. That St. Michael is greatly detracted from, in that all other Angels are introduced as ſharers in the Solemnity of the day; and all Angels may be underſtood of Bad, as well as Good, ſo that the Devils hereby become Canonized Saints. Now whereas it may be alledged, that there be ſome Saints-days not of Catholick Obſervation, but only National, as St. Denis for France, St. George for England, St. Taffy or Wales, and St. Patrick for Ireland, it bears no weight againſt us; for the Canonization is Catholick, and queſtionleſs the Obſervation ought to be ſo alſo: though there is a more peculiar and more proper Remembrance and Honour due from thoſe Nations, to which the Saints are appropriate; which peculiar Homage is enjoyn'd by the Church catholick. Moreover, it is meet that ſo ſolemn a matter ſhould be ratified by Catholick Authority, as the canonizing a Saint, and inſtituting a Feſtival day to be ſacred to his Remembrance; becauſe the Catholick Church, as ſhe will be moſt impartial and wiſe in ſuch appointments, ſo her Authority will make deeper impreſſions on the minds of men, to oblige them to the conſciencious obſervance: whereas particular Nations are liable to Errour and Partiality, each one being apt to be byaſſed by proper Intereſts, and to prefer the products of their own Soyl. Beſides the groſs Schiſm that it cauſeth in the Catholick Church, dividing the Churches in their Prayers at the ſame time, when one Nation ſhall obſerve that day to one Saint, and another to another, and a third to none at all. Whereas nothing is more honourable and neceſſary than Ʋniformity in this kinde, That as all ſay the ſame Prayers, they ſhould do it at the ſame Hours canonically appointed, uſe the ſame Ceremonies, obſerve the ſame Holidays; and ſuch as are Anniverſary ſhould at leaſt be of, Catholick Appointment: And though ſome Saint-days are more appropriate to one Nation than to another, by reaſon of the relation of this or that Saint to this or that Nation in particular, by Nativity, by Heroick Actions, or Meritorious Sufferings therein, yet is it not meet that all Churches ſhould rejoyce and keep Holy-day with one that rejoyceth? If the Rule of rejoycing with them that rejoyce reach particular Chriſtians, then much more Churches. And how can an Engliſhman but be mightily raviſhed with an holy Sympathy, to ſee a Welſhman (zealouſly affected with the honour of St. Taffy) ſtrutting up and down with a green feather in his Cap? can he forbear the plucking up all the Leeks in his Garden, and calling all the Fidlers in the Town about him? And is it not fit, that St. Thomas à Becket's day ſhould be honourably obſerved by all other Churches, as well as England, who engaged in and ſuffered for the common Catholick Cauſe oppoſed in this Church? If the Devoted day be peculiar to a Nation, as an Anniverſary Memorial of ſome great Deliverance ſuppoſed, it's fit it ſhould have its Sanction from the Catholick Church; otherwiſe National Churches may run into abſurd and Schiſmatical Obſervation of days, under ſuch pretences, to the great Scandal and Injury of the Catholick Church; as for inſtance, the Fifth of November, a day Annually obſerved by a National Church, to the great Scandal and Blemiſh of the Catholick Church and Oecumenical Paſtor, in the ſence of the Romaniſts.
§ 16. But ſome I hear will be ready to ſay, in order to theſe neceſſary eſtabliſhments, there will be no need of a Catholick Paſtor, they may be done well enough by Oecumenical Councils. To which I reply, That then the Church acteth not as a Body Politick ſubordinately knit together, but as totum aggregatum, or as an Aſſembly of Independent Paſtors by way of Aſſociation; whence many Abſurdities will follow. 1. That all the convened Paſtors, of what Order or Degree ſoever, are co-ordinate at leaſt in the power pleaded for, and a Primate or Patriarch's Vote is no more than a Dioceſan's. 2. That the Church, in the utmoſt reſolution of its power, is but Ariſtocratical, which undermines Epiſcopal Principles. 3. If becauſe matters of greateſt concern in the Catholick Church are managed by an Oecumenical Council, therefore there needs no Oecumenical Paſtor; then by the ſame reaſon, all matters of the greateſt concern in a National Church, being handled in a National Synod, there ſhould be no need or uſe of a Primate; and ſic deinceps to Provinces and Dioceſſes, and ſo all Church-power would conſequently become co-ordinate in the hands of particular Paſtors. 4. What courſe could be taken in the Intervals of Councils for the Churches Government in its Catholick ſtate? 5. Diviſions and Schiſms have and will follow hereupon in the Church; for ſuppoſe the Council be equally divided in their voting about Scripture-Interpretation, Tradition, Ceremonies, or Decencies, who ſhall determine in ſuch caſe? 6. Suppoſe the leſſer part divide from and declare againſt the greater and its proceedings, What Supreme Power is there Authoritatively to conclude them, Eccleſiaſtically to admoniſh and reduce the Erring part? 7. Oecumenical Councils cannot eaſily and preſently be convened, in caſe of emergent Church-difficulties, as in the ſudden Defection of a National Church or Paſtor to Schiſm or Hereſie, in the ſtarting up of new Sects, Canonization of new Saints, &c. An Errour may ſpread itſelf ſoon over a whole Nation, before ſuch a Council can be called, and any remedy applied. 8. It is needful every Church do exerciſe its power in an unity, and not in a multiplicity; therefore there are National, Provincial, and Dioceſan Paſtors. Therefore there ſhould be a Catholick Paſtor to the Church catholick, for the avoiding the like Rocks and Precipices that other Churches would ſplit upon, if they had not their particular Heads and Paſtors.
§ 17. Sixthly. We argue from the Neceſſity of calling and convening of Eccleſiaſtical Councils. In whoſe power is it to call an Oecumenical Council, if there be no Oecumenical Paſtor in the Church? For firſt, the Aſſemblies of every Church are to be convened only by the Paſtor of the ſaid Church; as in a Dioceſs, Who can authoritatively convene the Clergy, but the Biſhop of the Dioceſs? In a Province, Who can convene the Dioceſan Biſhops, but the Archbiſhop? In a Nation, Who hath power Eccleſiaſtically to convene a National Synod, beſides the Metropolitan or Patriarch? ſo in the Catholick Church, who hath power Eccleſiaſtically to convene an Oecumenicul Council, but the Oecumenical Paſtor? It being a Paſtoral charge to convene or diſmiſs Church-Aſſemblies, and it is done by an Office-power. Object. Supreme Magiſtrates may call Oecumenical Councils. Anſw. They cannot by any Eccleſiaſtical Right; for conſidered as ſuch, they cannot exerciſe any Paſtoral Office. And an Oecumenical Council being the moſt eminent Church-Aſſembly, it is not to be convened in a more irregular or exotick way, than the inferiour Aſſemblies of Subordinate Churches. 2. It is not in the capacity of any one, or few Supreme Magiſtrates, to convene an Oecumenical Council; becauſe no Magiſtrate can by any civil Authority, much leſs by any Eccleſiaſtical, (of which he hath none) call forth the Biſhops of another Nation to ſuch a Council: Whereas an Oecumenical Paſtor, whoſe Authority reaches equally to all National Churches, and to Magiſtrates as Members thereof, may Authoritatively command the preſence of any Reverend Father whatſoever, and demand the conſent of the Magiſtrate thereto, under the pain of Church-cenſures; and to permit his Biſhops to aſſemble in or out of his Dominions; whereas there is no one or more Supreme Magiſtrate hath any univerſal tye Eccleſiaſtical or Civil of other States and Dominions to his Juriſdiction; ſo that they are neceſſitated under any Law to ſubmit thereunto, unleſs ſuch which they have reduced unto Homage and Vaſſalage by dint of Sword, or ſuch as by voluntary Subjection have yielded themſelves. 3. Magiſtrates have not then a Power to call an Oecumenical Council when they pleaſe; or if there were ſuch an Emperour (there never was or will be) that could in reſpect of his civil power do ſo, yet they have no Eccleſiaſtical power to do it authoritatively, but onelyonly by concurrence or conſent; whereas all Church-Aſſemblies are authoritatively to be called by the Officers of the ſaid Church, or elſe they cannot act ſo when called by Aſſembled, unleſs we reduce Church-government unto a Democracy.
§ 18. Obj. It may be alſo ſaid, that an Oecumenical Council may be convened by the conſent of Patriarchs and Biſhops among themſelves. Anſw. 1. This is no Authoritative way of aſſembling, (ſuch as Biſhops will always contend for) but onelyonly precarious. 2. If they aſſemble this way, either it muſt be no Council till all be agreed, which may be long enough firſt; or any few agreeing to aſſemble, and give notice of ſuch reſolutions to others, (who are averſe to ſuch Propoſals) may gather together and call themſelves an Oecumenical Council; undertake to make Decrees, determine matters of conſequence, and impoſe on the diſſenting Churches. And what dangerous conſequence would this be of in the Church, eſpecially where Heretical Paſtors abound; as in the times of the Arrian, Macedonian, and Neſtorian Hereſies? 3. If National Paſtors may convene by conſent to conſtitute an Oecumenical Council, why may not Biſhops and Archbiſhops convene by conſent to make up a National Synod without the Authoritative Call of the Primate? which will by no means be allowed.
2ly. and laſtly, By whoſe authority ſhall a Catholick Aſſembly have its Sanction, if not by the Catholick Paſtor? for it's not every Council that calls it ſelf Oecumenical, that can or may be allowed to be ſuch; neither ever was there, or ever will be any ſo General, that all the Paſtors were aſſembled: But it is in this as in all other Church-Aſſemblies, if they be called by the Paſtor, and publick notice given to all the Members of the time and place, the abſence of ſome alters not the nature of it; Ergo, there ſhould be an Oecumenical Paſtor for theſe ends and purpoſes.