CONTROVERSIAL DISCOURSES RELATING TO THE CHURCH, BEING AN ANSWER TO Dr. SHERLOCK'S DISCOURSE CONCERNING The NATURE, UNITY, and COMMUNION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.  
By B. D.  
Credidi propter quod locutus sum. psal. 115.  
Printed at DOUAI, M. DC. XCVII.   

THE PREFACE.  
DR. Sherlock's Discourse concerning the Nature, Unity, and Communion of the Catholic Church came forth in the Year 1688. not long before the great Revolution that has happened among us, and through the unsettledness of the times, the watchful care over the press, and the difficulties of sending a Copy of an Answer to be printed beyond sea, he has had ever since all the advantage of a Noncontradiction, which is to be cried up and admired by men of his own persuasion without any check and control. But seeing of late our Adversaries begin again to traduce their inoffensive neighbours in print on the account of their Faith, there can be no fair excuse now for any longer silence since the publication of the Peace and the opening of the seas, and it will be expected, that we say something to Dr. Sherlock in behalf of the Catholic Church, if our Caus can afford us any thing to say against his Principles; it being a thing very natural for men to speak when they are spoken to, to defend themselves when they are attacked, and to return Answers when their silence is like to redound to the prejudice of the Caus which they have espoused. It is for this reason that I have been induced to draw the following Discourses out of the obscurity wherein they have lain for several Years, which if Protestants will but read with the same impartiality as they read Books of a much lesser concern, I make no doubt, but they will find more than sufficient grounds to question the truth of the Drs. Anticatholique Notions, which have nothing else to recommend them to any man's esteem besides their Novelty and singularity, which are the things of all others which ought to be most suspected in matters of Religion.  
The most proper way of answering him would have been by a just and methodical Treatise of the Nature, Unity, and Communion of the Catholic Church as they are settled in our Principles. But by reason our Authors, who have writ very copiously on these subjects, are in every one's hands, I shall make use of no other method than his own, and follow him step by step with as much brevity as is consistent with clearness, by which means I may chance to give the Reader as great a satisfaction as if my thoughts were swelled into a Book of a greater bulk, seeing I shall take notice of every thing which he shall offer of any seeming moment, and omit only those things that have little or no opposition to our Principles.  
The grand Principle whereon he pretends to build his whole Discourse is, that the Church in Heaven and Earth is the one Church, and the one Body of Christ. We are no strangers to this Position, which we are as well acquainted withal as with any Article of our Creed: neither do I remember that any of our Schoolmen, or other Divines who are seldom sparing in starting objections against themselves, have taken notice of any ground for any objectlon that might be taken from thence against our Doctrines; or that any of our Protestant Adversaries have at any time made any use of it to justify their separation from us, as they might very easily and and effectually have done, if the Drs. inferences from thence be necessary. So that the glory of this great action is due to him alone, and the weapons whereby he defends his Church are not only his own but of his own invention too, which I suppose has been the cause of that great satisfaction in his undertaking which he discouvers in the following Citations out of him.  
He tells us in his Preface, that after all that is said on one side and tother he is very sensible, that there will never be an end of these wranglings (between Catholics and Protestants) without settling the true Notion of the Catholic Church, which though a great many good things have been said about it, he thinks was never throughly done yet. And although immediately after this he pretends to leave the censure of what he has written on this subject to others, yet he sufficiently insinuates in these words, that he takes his own performance to be in a singular manner effectual above all others. For in case no Protestant Writer has hitherto attained to the true Notion of the Catholic Church, it is manifest that both he and all of his persuasion may be mistaken herein, if his Notion prove to be wrong. Wherefore he must either pretend to certainty that his Notion is right, whereby he makes all Protestant Writers to be Punies to himself in wit and abilities; or else grant, that for any thing he knows, both he and all those who have writ before him may be mistaken about it, whereby he excludes all pretence of certainty, that the Protestant Churches are not guilty of the Heresy and Schism wherewith we Charge them; because their freeness from these crimes cannot be certainly known without being certain that they perform the necessary Conditions of Communion with the Catholic Church, and this performance cannot be certainly known without being certain what is the true Notion of the Catholic Church. It deserves a very serious remark, that Dr. Sherlock, after the Reformation has been above an Age and an half in the world, starts up at last and tells us, that the first Reformers had not the true Notion of the Catholic Church, from whence it is evidently inferred, that they separated from the Catholic and visible Church of their time, without knowing what necessary obligations they might have of being visibly united to it. Can any prudent Man resolve with himself according to this account that these Reforming Heads were pushed on by the Spirit of God to do what they did?  
He talks again with the same assurance p. 8. The whole Church, says he, both in Heaven and Earth are united to Christ in the same covenant, which makes it his One Mystical Body: and it was necessary to lay the foundation here; for without this, it is inpossible to understand what the Unity of the Church on Earth means, most of the mistakes in this matter being plainly owing to that first and Fundamental imstake about the Notion of Catholic Unity, as that includes the universal Church, part of which is translated into Heaven, and part still Militant on Earth. I suppose he designs in this passage to reflect on the Writers of the Church of England, who will never confess ignorance, that the Church in Heaven and Earth are united to Christ in the same covenant, nor rest satisfied with his cajoling aknowledgment, that they have said a great many good things about the Notion of the Catholic Church, when he tells them, that it is impossible to understand what the Unity of the Church on Earth means without his Principles, and that they have been no less than fundamentally mistaken in all their Discourses about Catholic Unity, whereby the honour of this great discovery belongs to him exclusively to all others.  
He than censures the Presbyterians p. 29. in these words, These who have been aware of this, that the Church in Heaven and Earth is but one Church, have hence concluded, that the Catholic Church is only the number of the Elect; that none but truly good men, who are renewed and sanctified by the H. Spirit, are Members of Christ's My●…al Body, which makes the Church on Earth as invisible to us as the Church in Heaven. Here he owns the Presbyterians whom he grants to be separatists from his Church, to be better skilled in the Principles of Christianity than the most learned Penmen of his own Communion, as not denying, but that they are well acquainted with this unqu●…stionable Principle of the Christian Faith that the Church in Heaven and Earth is but one Church, and laying to their charge only, that they make a wrong use of it, I am much mistaken if it will not appear hereafter, that he has no great reason to value himself above the Presbyterians for making a better use of it than they do. At present I desire it may be taken notice of, that he blames these People for making the Church on Earth as invisible to us as the Church in Heaven, and p. 54. he professes to believe that there always has been, and always will be, a true Visible Church to the end of the World, and yet in the same Page he teaches those who hold that the Church may be sometimes invisible, how they may make this Position good, which is a sign that the Presbyterians err not much in the use they make of it in this particular, if they err any thing at all. For what Divine or Minister of the Gospel will show separatists a way how they may defend such Doctrines as he accounts erroneous?  
In the next place he falls upon Catholics. Others, says he, when they talk of the unity of the Church, never think of the Church in Heaven, and therefore advance such a Notion of Church unity as excludes the Church in Heaven as if the Church on Earth were the whole Church of Christ, or that the Church in Heaven and Earth were not one Church; or that the Notion of Church-unitie must not relate to the whole Church, but only to one part of it. This charge against us shall be considered anon. What I observe now is, that he will have us as well as the Presbyterians to make an ill use of his principle, although in a different manner from them. For if he make us as ignorant of it as his Church-of-England Divines, he cannot but know that this is notoriously false; and I am verily persuaded, if the truth were known, that the first knowledge he had of it was from our Authors, and perhaps from the Author of the Aggreement between the Church of England and the Church of Rome &c. (if he were a Catholic) because he takes notice of it in his Answer to this Book p. 74. For which reason methinks he might have been more civil in his language to him, since he has furnished him with such a Principle as he thinks has put an end to the vain and arrogant pretences of the Church of Rome.  
Lastly, he censures the Independents, who by considering that the Unity of the Church con●…s in the Union of all the parts and members of it to Christ, have no regard at all to the Unity of the Church on Earth as that also is one Body and Communion. We are beholding to him for his civility in ranking us before this People. The last words of this quotation are very remarkeble: and since he holds it for an error to deny the Church on Earth to be one Body and Communion, it will be a strong prejudice against his Notion of Church-unitie, if the unity of the Church on Earth cannot be maintained in his Principles.  
It is plain from all these places, that Dr. Sherlock makes full account that he has done our business for us; but I hope the contrary will appear in the following Discourses, which I shall not submit, as he does, to the judgement of any indifferent Reader, but to that of the learned, who are best able to judge of the conclusivenesse of reasonings that are managed after a speculative and scholastic way, which the frequent occasions I have received from his new and singular Principles, and the manner of proposing his Arguments have unavoidably drove me to in several places.   

AN INDEX OF Several remarkeble Points in the following Discourses.  

CHAPTER I  
N. 6 & seq. It is no Argument, that the Unity of the Church on Earth does not consist in its union to the Pope, because the unity of the Church in Heaven does not consist therein.  
N. 10. & seq. It is no Argument, that the unity of the Church on Earth does not consist in joining together in external and Visible Acts of worship, because the union of the Church in Heaven and the Church on Earth does not consist in joining together in such Acts of worship.  
N. 12. & seq. The unity of the Church consists in joining together in the same Liturgy considered according to its substance, viz the Consecration of the Sacramental Elements, and the Oblation of them.  
N. 15. & seq. Among Revealed Truths there is no distinction of some that are fundamental and others Non-fundamental, that is, of some that are necessary and others that are not cessarie to be believed after they are sufficiently proposed to our belief.  
N. 20. The unity of the Church necessarily consists in the same Sacraments.  
N. 21. & seq. The unity of the Church's Communion is destroyed without a common Right of giving and receiving the Sacraments among the Faithful: which common Right is shown to be inconsistent with Dr. Sherlock's Principles.  
N. 30. & seq. The unity of the Church consists in the same Ceremonies, as they are considered with relation to the Power that has approved, and enjoined them.  
N. 36 & seq. The lawfulness and innocence of our worship of Saints is shown.  
N. 54 & seq. An examination of S. John's Testimony in his Rev. Chap. 19 and Chap. 22. alleged against our worship, and Invocation of Angels.  
N. 58. & seq. An examination of S. Paul's testimony ad Col. 2. 18. alleged against our worship of Angels; where Theodoretus his wordsupon this Text and the 35. Canon of the Council of Laodicea are considered.  
N. 71. & seq. Catholics pay no Divine Honours to Saints when they erect Temples, and Altars that bear their names.  
N. 79. & seq. It is shown that the unity of the Church may, nay de facto does consist in some Articles of Faith as have not always been the explicit faith of the Cath. Church.  
N. 84. & seq. The Notion of the Gospel Covenant settled.  
N. 92. & seq. The Notion of our Mystical union to Christ as our Spous settled.   

CHAPTER II.  
N. 2. & seq. Dr. Sherlock's ●…ssential unity of the Church on Earth considered.  
N. 8. & seq. It makes the Church Invisible.  
N. 15. & seq. A double visibility assigned to the Church, and neither of them aggreeing to the Protestant Church.  
N. 17. & seq. Supposing the Dr. could make out the sensible visibility of the Church, yet it is Invisible in his Principles so as not to be distinguisheble from Heretics and Schismatics.  
N. 31. & seq. Dr. Sherlock knows not where to find the Catholic Church.  
N. 41. & seq. He makes the Notion of the Church on Earth to be essentially distinct from its Essential unity.  
N. 46. He will have Faith to belong to the Notion of the Church in Heaven.  
N. 48 Coetus Fidelium is shown not to be a complete Definition of the catholic Church.  
N. 49. & seq. As the said Definition is managed by him it comprehends Excommunicated Persons, Schismatics and Heretics, and makes the Faith of the Catholic Church contradictory.  
N. 59 S. Cyprian's Definition of a Church delivered, and  
N. 62. & seq. Shown to belong to the Catholic Church.  
N. 64. & seq. S. Cyprian holds that S. Peter's Successors belong to the Definition of the Catholic Church, as having a superior In risdiction over the other Bishops.  
N. 75. & seq. And calls the Catholic Church one Bishoprique because of this Supeririour jurisdiction.  
N. 84. & seq. The true meaning of a Canon related by S. Cyprian, and alleged by Protestants against the superior jurisdiction of S. Peter's Successors over their Brethren the other Bishops.  
N. 89. & seq. In what sense it is that S. Cyprian says that every Bishop holds part of the one Bishoprique of the Catholic Church with full Authority and Power.  
N. 97. & seq. The solution of Objections which are made against the Doctrine which affirms the jurisdiction of Bishops to be de Jure Divino.  
N. 108. & seq. The Clergy belong to the Definitiof a Church in propriety of speech.  
N 122. In what sense it is that we hold Bishops and Pastors to be the Church.  
N. 129. & seq. In what sense it is that we affirm Bishops and Pastors to represent the Catholic Church in a General Council.  
N. 138. & seq. A Right and Power in Bishops to censure and excommunicate those who will not profess to believe as they do, without an infallible assurance that their own Faith is true, is repugnant to natural reason.  
N. 146 & seq. A Divine Institution may be proved by consequences lawfully drawn from Principles of Faith.  
N. 153. An Authority in the Church and the Authority of the Church are one and the same thing.  
N. 157. & seq. The Authority and infallibility of the Catholic Church assembled in general Councils asserted, and shown at large out of the 15. of the Acts.  
N. 199. & seq. The famous passage which Protestants produce out of S. Cyprian's Preface to his Council of Carthage against the Authority of General Councils fully examined.  
N. 204. & seq. It is no Argument against General Conncils, that their Definitions never put an end to Disputes without the assistance of the Temporal Power.  
N. 210. & seq. It is possible to hear the Catholic Church, seeing Christ commands us to hear it under pain of being Heathens.  
N. 223. An examination of a passage out of S. Paul 1. ad Cor. 1. viz I am of Paul, and I of Apollo's, and I of Cephas etc. which is alleged by the Dr. against a Vicarious Head of the Church on Earth.  
N. 232. The Dr. is abundantly satisfied that there always has been from the first planting of Christianity, and that there always will be to the end of the world a true visible Church. And yet §. 50. he does not think that the Church must needs be owned to fail if there should be no visible Organised. Church with whom we could hold Communion.  
N. 233. Which is shown to be a great inconsequence, and a contradiction to his former Assertion.  
N. 240. That Argument is shown to be good which proves from the perpetual visibility of the Roman Church, that it is the Indefectible Church, of which our Saviour promised, that the Gates of hell should not prevail against it.  
N. 241. That Argument maintained to be good, which proves the Church to be infallible because it is Indefectible.  
N. 145 When our Saviour says, that the Gates of hell shall not prevail against his Church, these words infer the infallibility of the Church, whether they are considered as a Promise, or as a Prophecy.    

CHAPTER I. Concerning the Unity of the Catholic Church in Heaven and Earth.  
§. p. 6. HIs Grand Principle, as I have said in the Preface, is this, that the whole Church in Heaven and Earth is the One Church, from whence he concludes, that to place the Unity of the Church in any thing that can concern only one part of the Church, but not the whole, as suppose, that part which is on Earth, not that which is in Heaven, is manifestly absurd, because it does not give an account, how the whole Church is One, and yet the Oneness of the Church properly relates to the whole, not to a part, for a part be it never so much one, can be but One part, not the One Church.  
1. Reply. All this and more that he has said there to this purpose is very true, if by One Church we understand the Church as it is taken in the greater Latitude, that is, as it comprehends the Church in Heaven and the Church on Earth; but it is impertinently alleged by him as a Principle to offend us withal. For what Catholic, or what Man of common sense was there ever yet in the world, who endeavoured to make the Church One as the word Church is taken in the greater Latitude, by such an Unity as can concern only one part of it?  
§. 2. Ib. From hence, says he, we may learn wherein the unity of the Church does not consist, and and wherein it does consist; and he first considers wherein the Unity of the Church does not consist. As first, the unity of the Church does not consist in its being One Organised Politic Body, under the government of One Visible Head upon Earth.  
2. Reply. This is a terrible blow, and although it be aimed at the Pope, yet it neither hurts him, nor any one of his belief. For it is no Doctrine of ours, that the Pope is Head of the Invisible as well as of the Visible Church, that is, that he is Head of the Church taken in the greater Latitude, notwithstanding the frivolous reasons which, he says, are apt to make him suspect it. He knows well enough, that this is none of our Doctrine, nay he says, that he supposes it is not, and therefore he sets down in behalf of us this Reply to his Inference which we willingly admit, viz that when we speak of the unity of the Church, we mean only the unity of the Church on Earth, and that the Pope is the Visible Head of this unity.  
§. 3. p. 7. To which he Answers, that then we must grant, that we speak very improperly, because the Church on Earth is not that One Church which is the one Body of Christ, and therefore the unity of the Church does not consist in the Headship of the Pope, but that we ought to say, that the unity of the Church on Earth consists in its union to the Pope.  
3. Reply. This is mere trifling; for when he had drawn an insignificant Inference against us, and alleged for us a just answer to it, he here tells us that we speak improperly, that seeing our Doctrine cannot justify his Inference, he may show the necessity of it from our improper words and expressions. He would have cone much better and more like a fair disputant, if he had blotted out that Inference, after he had reflected on the false supposition which it proceeded on. But this would have spoiled a pretty compact Paragraph, where the reasoning was strong and all clear, if we had held the same Doctrine which it supposes: and seeing we do not, this Paragraph must be published with the rest, and our improper words must pass for a just occasion for it.  
4. But pray, Sir, why do we speak improperly? We use the same manner of speech as our Forefathers have done before us, which has been so proper and clear till this your new way of putting an end to wranglings, that none of your writers that I know of, have ever found any fault with us for the same. When we dispute with Protestants about the Church we speak li●…e Controvertists, that is, we take the word Church in that sense wherein it is the subject of the differences that are between us. We have no dispute with you about the One Church as it includes the souls in Heaven and the Faithful on Forth, which may engage us to use twenty words when two or three will do the business. And supposing we had any such dispute, yet there would be seldom any occasion for distinguishing terms, when the cause of the dispute hic & nunc would sufficiently determine the sense of these words One Church. We hold that the Church is Infallible in defining matters of Faith, that we are all bound to submit to her Decisions, that she has the power of granting Indulgences etc. Now who is there among you, who will desire us to explain, what we mean by the word Church in the said Propositions, whether we mean the Church in Heaven, or the Church on Earth, or both together? And if it be ridiculous to demand further light, when you are under so great a certainty of our meaning by the word Church in the aforesaid Propositions, it must needs be so too when you tell us, that we speak improperly when we say that the B. of Rome is Head of the Church, and desire to learn from us of what Church we affirm him to be the Head, whether of the Church in Heaven, or of the Church on Earth, or of both together? Sure our Saviour does not speak improperly when he says Dic Ecclesiae, Si autem Ecclesiam non audierit etc. Portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam etc. which places relate to the Church on Earth, whatever their further meaning be. Finally, custom which is a secure Principle to rely on for the sense of words, is a sufficient warrant for us to retain the same terms we use at present, and therefore I shall still make bold as often as I say that the B. of Rome is Head of the Church, to signify thereby, that he is Head of the Church on Earth without fearing your reproaches of speaking improperly.  
§. 4. He 2. Answers our aforesaid Reply, that therefore we must quit all our Arguments for the Pope's Headship, taken from the Church's being One, the One Body of Christ; for the Church on Earth is not this One Body of Christ, and therefore it does not follow, that because Christ has but One Body, therefore the Church on Earth must have One Vifible Head.  
5. Reply. We may easily quit all our Arguments for the Pope's Headship taken from the Church's being One, the One Body of Christ, if by these terms be meant the Church as it includes the B. souls in Heaven, and the Faithful on Earth. For I know of no Arguments we have that are derived barely from thence; neither do we say, that because Christ has but One Mystical Body, therefore the Church on Earth must have One Visible Head, but only that because Christ has but One Mystical Body on Earth whereof he is the Invisible Head, therefore the Church on Earth as it is also a Visible Body and Society must have One Visible Head. The Dr. has no reason to quarrel at the terms of One Mystical Body on Earth, because he grants the Church on Earth to be Mystically One, and on the other side, he cannot be ignorant, that it is called by S. Paul the Body of Christ 1. at Cor. 12. Vos estis Corpus Christi. Neither does it follow, because the Church on Earth is Christ's Body, that therefore he has two Bodies, but only that every part of it has the denomination of the whole, as it happens in the Body of a Man, where if the hand or leg be wounded, we say that his Body is wounded, although his hand or leg is not his whole Body, but only an integral part of it. Thus likewise we say, that the Church as it is taken in the greater Latitude is but One, and yet the Dr. will not deny, but that the Church on Earth is One also, and will not take it well, if any one infer from hence, that Christ has two Churches, because one and one make two.  
§. 5. Ib. He thirdly answers, Nay they must confess, that the formal and essential unity of the Church on Earth does not consist in its union to the Pope, because the Church on Earth is one with the Church in Heaven, they being both but One Church, and therefore must have the same essential unity; for how they should be One by two sorts of unity, that is, be One without the same formal unity, is very mysterious and near akin to a contradiction. And therefore since the unity of the Church in Heaven does not consist in its union to the Pope, no more does the unity of the Church on Earth, the unity being the same in both.  
6. Reply. The Church on Earth may be considered two ways, either as it is a part of the Mystical Body of Christ, or as it is a Visible Society. If it be taken under the former consideration, there can be no difficulty in granting, that it's formal and essential unity does not consist in its union to the Pope for the reason given, viz because seeing the Unity of the Church in Heaven does not consist in its Union to the Pope, so neither does the Unity of the Church on Earth. But if it be taken under the second consideration, nothing can hinder, but that it's formal and essential unity may consist in its union to the Pope. The Dr. himself, if he own One Visible Church, is bound to admit of some Union which is essential to it as it is thus considered, which is distinct from that Unity whereby it is united to the Church in Heaven, let him place this Unity in what he pleases.  
7. It is no strange thing that a Body of men should be capable of different Unions to different extremes, and that these Unions should be all essential to this Body, if it be considered as a Body in different respects. Thus a Body of Vassals which is united, and pays obedience to their immediate Prince who has a Superior Lord over him, is not hindered from paying obedience, and being united to this Superior Lord in all such matters, and services, as are required by the conditions of their immediate Lord's Tenure. Neither does this hinder, but that they may be united to God who is both Lord over their immediate Lord, and the Lord that is Superior over him. And it would be very ridiculous to affirm, that it is near akin to a coutradiction, to say that this Body of Vassals is One by two or three sorts of Unities, which signifies no more, but that they are One two or three sorts of ways.  
8. And as a Body of Vassals may be One two or three sorts of ways, so likewise may a part of it be One by means of an Unity which is not common to the other part; as supposing the Prince has no Superior Lord over him, but depends immediately on God for the power which he has over part of them. In which case the whole Body is One by being under the same Prince's jurisdiction, and and yet is not One if we consider the nature of the Prince's Jurisdiction. For part of them are One by acknowledging a Superior Lord over their Prince and them, and the other part is One by acknowledging no other Superior over them but God and their immediate Prince. Now I hardly think that any Man of sense will endeavour to prove, that one part of this Body of Vassals cannot be united to their Superior Lord, because they are united to the other part which is not united to him. And yet this undoubtedly follows, if the Unity of the Church on Earth cannot consist in its Union to the Pope, because it is united to the Church in Heaven whose Unity does not consist in its Union to the Pope. Wherefore seeing the same Collective Bodies may be One and not One in different respects, nothing can hinder but that the Church on Earth which is Mystically One with the Church in Heaven, may be Visibly One in itself by being united to the Pope, although it be not One, but distinct from the Church in Heaven under this consideration.  
9 When the Dr. writ this answer, he was unmindful of another Doctrine which is inconsistent with it, and which he has laid down p. 38. viz that the Catholic Church is united in One Body to Christ only, who is the only Head of his Church, but that particular Bodies (of Christians ) are under the government of particular Bishops, which makes a particular Church, and is essential to the Definition of it. Which words import, that it is absolutely necessary for particular Bodies to have Bishops over them to whom they are to be united, before they can be Churches; as for example Canterbury or York with the Country's adjacent to them cannot be Churches, unless they have Bishops. This is a very surprising Assertion from one who proves, that the Unity of the Catholic Church on Earth cannot subsist in its Union to the Pope, because it is One with the Church in Heaven whose Unity does not consist in its Union to the Pope. For certainly particular Churches on Earth are as much One with the Church in Heaven as the whole Church on Earth can be, and by consequence if the Unity of the whole Church on Earth does not consist in its Union to the Pope because it is One with the Church in Heaven, the Unity of particular Churches on Earth does not consist in their Union to particular Bishops, because these Churches are likewise One with the Church in Heaven, whose Unity does not consist in its Union to parti●…ular Bishops. And thus the Drs. Discourse against us is re●…crted upon himself, for particular Churches on Earth are One with the Church in Heaven, they being all but One Church, and therefore must have the same essential unity: for how they should be One by two sorts of unity, that is, be One without the same formal unity, is very mysterious, and near akin to a contradiction. And therefore seeing the unity of the Church in Heaven does not consist in its union to particular Bishops on Earth, no more does the union of particular Churches on Earth con●… therein, the unity being the same in both. By which means the Faithful are as little bound to be united to particular Bishops as to the Pope. If the Dr. be desirous to overthrew the Pope's universal Pastorship, he must seek out better reasons against it, than because the Church in Heaven and Earth are One Church.  
§. 6. P. 8. After these Answers to our Reply he proceeds to conclude 2. from his grand Principle, that the unity of the Church does not consist in joining together in the external and visible Acts of Worship, or in maintaining mutual correspondence, and intercourse with one another because the Church in Heaven and Earth are One without them, and so may distant Churches on Earth be without any such visible correspondence.  
10. Reply. What a strange consequence is this, The Church in Heaven has no external and visible Acts of Worship, and yet is one with the Church on Earth. Therefore particular Churches on Earth may be One among themselves without joining together in the external and visible Acts of worship! I see not why the following consequence may not pass muster in like manner. The Church in Heaven has no external and visible Acts of Worship, and yet is One with the Church on Earth. Therefore particular Churches on Earth may be One among themselves, although they have no external and visible Acts of Worship. Nay I see not why any one may not draw the following consequences, viz The Church in Heaven has no Faith, and yet is One with the Church on Earth. Therefore particular Churches on Earth may be One among themselves without Faith; as likewise the Church ●…n Heaven has no Sacraments, and yet is One with the Church on Earth. Therefore particular Churches on Earth may be one among themselves without Sacraments; or thus, The Church in Heaven and Earth are one without any reciprocal and common Right of giving and receiving the Sacraments from each other. Therefore particular Churches on Earth may be One among themselves without any such reciprocal and common Right, which shall be proved false presently. The Drs. thoughts are so fixed upon the invisible Union whereby the Church in Heaven and Earth become the One mystical Body of Christ, that he seems to have wholly forgotten, that the Church on Earth is one Visible Society by our Lord's Institution, and that whenever we break the Conditions of this visible Society which are not such as are common to the Church in Heaven, we at the same time forfeit our Union with the Church in Heaven.  
11. These words external and visible Acts of worship may signify either 1. the Liturgy; or 2. the Sacraments; or 3. Preaching; or 4. mere Ceremon●…es, as Ceremonies do not import Religion, nor the immediate worship of God, but only the garnishing of the dishes that are served up in God's House, that is, the decent, grave, and solemn ways whereby we use to express our Religion and Worship of him. In which sense Ceremonies may be said to be external and visible Acts of worship. I suppose this Author means to say, that the Unity of the Church does not consist in any of these external Acts of worship, since the Caus of the Reformation, which he has all along before his eyes, requires that it should be so. I shall therefore consider them all in their order.  
12. As to the first, if the word Liturgy signify no more than (as Protestants have Christened it) a Common prayer, or public Service made by the Church, wherein she offers up her Supplications to God, and wherein the Minister sometimes takes him●… and distributes the Communion to the People, there can be no dispute, but that the Unity of the Church does not necessarily consist in joining together in it, and the same Doctrine which is delivered below concerning Ceremonies must be applied to it as it is taken in this sense. But if it signify the same thing still, as it did before the pretended Reformation of the Church, viz Mass, or the Unbloudie Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of our Saviour as a Propitiation for the living and the dead, it may be considered either according to its Form, or according to its substance. If it be considered according to its Form, that is, according to the manner of its performance, it's several parts, collects and variations suitable to the seasons and Festivals of the year, the same Doctrine that is delivered below concerning Ceremonies must here likewise be applied to it, at it is taken in this sense. Neither can the Unity of the Church necessarily consist in joining together in it, because the manner of offering this Sacrifice has never been one and the same throughout the Catholic Church, as neither is it at this day, many of the Oriental Christians who communicate with the see Apostolic, making use of the Liturgies of S. James, S. Basil, and S. Chrysostom, which are likewise common to the Schismatics in those parts. And although the present Roman way of offering this Sacrifice has prevailed in most parts of the West ever since the first planting of Christianity among them, yet many Ancient and famous Churches in these Countries have had, and still have some special differences of their own annexed to it. Nay the Bishops of Rome have in several Ages made several additions and alterations in the form of it, according as they judged it to conduce most to the edification of the Faithful.  
13. But if the Liturgy be considered precisely according to its substance, that is, the Consecration of the Sacramental Elements and the Oblation of them, the Unity of the Church necessarily consists either in joining together in it, or in joining together to renounce it. For those who own this Sacrifice, hold it for a Fundamental Article of their Faith, which if it be, all Christians ought to join in it; and if it be not, all Christians ought to renounce it. So that here is a difference in a matter of Faith in the Unity whereof the Unity of the Visible Church principally consists, since Roman Catholics hold an Unbloudie Sacrifice to be a Revealed Truth, and Protestants accounted it for an idolatrous Fiction.  
14. If it be said, that an Unbloudie Sacrifice is a Non-fundamental Point, and that therefore the Unity of the Church on Earth may well subsist without the belief of it, although it should chance to have been Revealed: I answer, that the Church on Earth cannot be One with the Church in Heaven, unless every Revealed Truth be Fundamental and necessary to be believed.  
15. For it is impossible to conceive how the Church on Earth should be one with the Church in Heaven, if the Faith of the Church on Earth does not correspond with the Vision of the Church in Heaven in all such Points as are sufficiently proposed to her belief; for the Church on Earth should believe nothing to be true, which the Church in Heaven does not see to be true, nor believe any thing to be false, which the Church in Heaven does not see to be false; for seeing the translation of souls into Heaven changes their Faith into Vision, the Objects of their Faith are still supposed to be unalterably the same when they are seen, as they were before when they were only believed. Wherefore if the Church in Heaven sees any Object of our Faith to be otherwise than as we believe it to be, she cannot be One with the Church on Earth, neither can the Church on Earth be united to the Lord of Truth to whom the Church of Heaven is united, but has renounced the Gospel-Covenant which was the Medium of their Union together and of both of them to Christ. There is to be only one Faith on Earth, because there is only one Vision among the B. souls in Heaven (I mean only one Vision in relation to such Objects of our Faith as are Revealed in the Gospel.) The Vision of the Church in Heaven shall be the touchstone of our Faith, because it contains the truth of the Gospel. And in this sense we are to understand that saying of our Saviour, 
* joan. 12.  The word which I have spoken shall judge him at the last day. And thus likewise it shall be true what is said of the Apostles, that they shall judge the twelve Tribes of Israel, by convincing them, that every tittle of what they preached on Earth was infallibly true by the ocular experience which they have had thereof in the Divine Essence.  
16. Again. There is no Point which the Church on Earth has a sufficient Light to judge that it is Revealed by God, which does not afford a necessary Object of Happiness to the Church in Heaven, because there is no such Point which does not argue in God some necessary perfection relating either to his Wisdom, Justice, Power, Mercie, Goodness, or some other Attribute in the knowledge and love whereof the Happiness of the Church in Heaven consists. Now nothing can be an unnecessary and Non-fundamental Object of Faith to the Church on Earth, which is a necessary Object of love to the Church in Heaven, because the belief of those Objects which make the Church in Heaven Happy, is ordained by God as a means to lead the Church on Earth to the enjoyment of the same happiness. Does Dr. Sherlock think, that we shall ever enjoy or have a sight of those perfections in God, which he has designed as a reward of our Faith, if we positively disbelieve such Divine Revelations as have a connexion with them? Does he think that God will ever save us, if we reject those means which he has appointed for our salvation, as all do who disbelieve a Revealed Truth when there is sufficient light to know it? If he not conceive this, let him grant, that the Church on Earth cannot be One with the Church in Heaven, unless every Body and Congregation whereof it is composed, concur all alike in the same Points of Faith. And methinks a man of his Principles, if he will but seriously examine the Truth of them, should be well disposed to close with me in this Conclusion. For seeing in his way the Catholic Church upon Earth is composed of many several Bodies of Christians who are at variance among themselves, what Doctrines are Fundamental and what not, and seeing every one of them hopes to be saved by the belief of such Doctrines as they accounted Fundamental, it is impossible, that they should be all of them One with the Church in Heaven, unless the Church in Heaven be said to see Contradictions in God; because all these Bodies if they are taken Collectively believe Contradictions, and all of them but one must necessarily refuse to give their assent to God when he speaks to them with sufficient clearness. For as God has Revealed but one Truth, so he cannot propose any more than one Truth to the belief of men. Which shows the necessity of maintaining, that such Gospel-truths as the Church in Heaven sees in God and which are sufficiently proposed to the belief of the Church on Earth, are to be found all together only in one Congregation of Christians who are of the same denomination, which Protestants universally deny, and which we affirm to be most true of such Christians, as communicate with S. Peter's Chair all the world over.  
17. I said above, that The Faith of the Church on Earth ought to correspond with the Vision of the Church in Heaven in all such Points as are sufficiently proposed to her belief; From whence the Dr. may chance to object, that one and the same Faith is not sufficiently proposed to all the disagreeing Bodies of Christians that compose the Catholic Church; as for example, that the Real Presence and an Unbloudie Sacrifice are not sufficiently proposed to the belief of Protestants. And therefore they may be all One among themselves and with the Church in Heaven, because their Faith corresponds with the Vision of the Church in Heaven in all such matters as are sufficiently proposed to them. And in case the Church in Heaven sees any thing to be true which they believe to be false, or any thing to be false which they believe to be true, this is only in such Doctrines as are not sufficiently Proposed to their belief.  
18. I answer, that the objection would be of verv great force supposing God had made every person the Proposer of his to own Faith himself, and put the Scripture into our hands to be interpreted by us according to our own private humour, and fancy, and reason, without any obligation of conforming our judgements to any external Authority. But our alwise Lawgiver who has ordained that the Faith of his Church shall be but One, has taken other measures to compass this end, than such as avoidable tend to the making of it various and contradictory, as may be seen below in answer to §. 22. Chap. 2. where I have shown the Infallibility of the Church, and in answer to §. 28. ib. Where I have shown its Authority in a General Council or Visible Tribunal. And if the Dr. tell me, that neither the Infallibility nor Authority of the Church are sufficiently proposed to the belief of Protestants; I answer, that their disbelief of these Doctrines is no Argument at all that they are not sufficiently proposed to them, as the Infidelity of the Jews was no Argument, that our Saviour had not given them grounds sufficient to believe in him. No doubt, but the Jews would have believed in him if they had judged those Motives and Reasons whereby he proved his Mission, to have been strong, and convincing. No doubt, but they would never have crucified the Lord of Glory, if they had known him to be the Lord of Glory. But this ignorance could not excuse them from the damnable guilt of their Infidelity, because it was voluntarily brought upon themselves through their spiritual pride and obduracy, which were the occasion, why those Motives and Reasons which our Savour made use of in order to their conversion, wanted the good effect which he designed by them. The Motives were in themselves strong and convincing, but they resolved not be convinced thereby, because they resolved to continue in their pride and obduracy which kept them from a conviction. Others who were of a more humble and docible temper, as the Apostles, the 70. Disciples etc. and the Gentiles in succeeding times, believed him to be the Messia upon the same Motives which could not prevail with the Sanedrim, and Pharisees to give any credit to him, which clearly shows, that his Mission was sufficiently proposed to the belief of them all, although there did not follow the same conviction in all. For what can rationally convince one man, may as rationally convince another of equal parts and endowments, if he be as willing to be convinced. They did not know him to be the Lord of Glory, but they ought to have known him to be the Lord of Glory, and the●… ought to have kept their hands innocent from hi●… blood. And therefore their ignorance became criminally sinful, and their Infidelity which ensued upon it, was a just forfeiture of their Union with the Church in Heaven, which saw Christ to be the Messia and the Holy One of God.  
19 If the Dr. think fit to deny, that the Mission of our Saviour was sufficiently proposed to the unbelieving Jews, let him make out, if he can, how their infidelity was a sin. And if he grant that it was sufficiently proposed to their belief, the consequence is, that the sufficiency of a proposal of a matter of Faith is not always followed with an assent and conviction of mind. And hence it is plain, that he cannot pretend, that the Infallibility and Authority of the Catholic Church are not sufficiently proposed to the belief of Protestants, because they cannot meet with any convincing reasons that are able to persuade them that they are true, which is no more than what the Jews alleged against the Mission of the Son of God. The Motives which persuade the Authority of the Catholic Church are such as have continued the greatest Lights of Christianity in the Communion of it, such as have converted millions of souls to the Faith in past Ages, and such as in the present times wherein we live, extend daily the limits of the Gospel wider and wider, and reduce the empire of Satan to a narrower compass. They seem weak only to those who are blind, and inefficacious only to those who are proud and wilful. Antiquity, Universality, Unity, Sanctity, Miracles etc. are no trifling Arguments, but such as are able to move the most wise, the most wary, and most reflecting minds in the world. They are just and vehement presumptions of Truth, and if men will but act according to their nature, and believe what is Credible, it is impossible but it must be their own fault, if they embrace not those Truths which they attest and point at. It is not enough to invalidate their force, that some things like Arguments may be brought against them. For what Truth was there ever yet so plain, against which there might not be brought some fallacious and captious appearances of reasoning, which would not seem plain to some persons, particularly when they were engaged in an opposition by the instigation of some disorderly passion? The Sanctity of our Saviour was called into question, because of his easy access in conversing with Publicans and sinners; his Temperance was censured for his being sometimes present at weddings and great dinners; and his Miracles were traduced as though they had been done by the help of the Prince of the Devils. What excellent Inducements were these to believe in him, and how unworthily were they rejected on frivolous accounts! A mere colour will serve malice to work upon, because it never acts according to reason. There is no sufficient fence against proud, perverse, and crooked Spirits, who seeing all things by their own light, vilify when they ought to esteem, envy when they ought to admire, and hate when they ought to love. Let Protestants be of an humble and docible disposition, and they will not want reasons to believe the Authority and Infallibility of the Church. Let them lay aside presumption in their own abilities, and then they will easily see the strength of those Motives of credibility which attend the Church in all she proposes. Saints and Holy men without number have been influenced by these Motives, and so may they too, if they will do their parts to dispose themselves for the attaining of Sanctity. Men of the greatest wit and Judgement have yielded to them, and so may they too, if they will forsake fancy, and Passion, and interest, which are bad attendants on wit, and judgement. And if they may be rationally and prudently convinced by them, they are under an obligation of being convinced by them, and their disbelief of those Doctrines which they recommend, will be a forfeiture of their Union with the Church in Heaven, which necessarily sees the truth of all such Doctrines as God has furnished with so many powerful Motives, as are able to extort from men a rational and prudent belief of them.  
20. As to the 2. If he mean when he says, that the unity of the Church does not consist in joining together in the external and visible Acts of Worship, that it does not consist in the same Sacraments, enough has been already said. For if the Unity of the Church must consist, as we have seen, in the same Faith through all its parts, it must needs consist in the same Sacraments which are matters of Faith, and the same Principles which evince, that there is no distinction of Faith into Fundamental and Non-fundamental, will prove likewise, that there is no distinction of Sacraments into Fundamental and Non-fundamental.  
21. But if he mean, that the unity of the Church does not consist in a mutual and indifferent Administration of the Sacraments amongst all the parts of it, so that it may subsist although the several Bodies and Congregations whereof it is composed, refuse the Sacraments to one another; I answer, that this Assertion is very false, how serviceable soever it may be to the Reformation, because it destroys that Right which this Author in his Vindicat. of some Prot. Princ. p. 33. frankly acknowledges that all true Christians have to Communion in all true Christian Churches. I shall first say somewhat of the nature and causes of this Right, and then take his answer into consideration.  
22. The Church is One Society, One Family, and One House, which names do not only import a difference of Offices for Government, but likewise certain common Privileges which every child of the Church has a Right unto, as may be gathered from the nature of Civil Houses and Societies from whence the Analogy is taken. It is One Spiritual Family, Society, and House, because the institution of it by our Saviour is for a Spiritual end viz the obtaining of the Kingdom of Heaven. For which reason the Privileges of those who belong to this Family are to hear the word of God, to be present at the common Liturgy, and supplications that are made him, to receive the Sacraments, and to partake of all other Spiritual favours which were deposited by our Lord in the hands of the Governors of it for the public good of all those, who shall not forfeit their Claim to the same.  
23. There are certain Conditions requisite for the admission and continuance, of the Members of all Societies; and thus it is here also in this Societi●… our Lord has founded. Faith and Obedience are the necessary Conditions of our admission into it, which being accompanied with suitable dispositions of heart give us that Right whereby we pretend to the benefit of Christ's Sacraments. For if I am of the same Faith of the Church, and obedient to the Authority which Christ has placed therein, and not conscious to myself of any mortal sin, or in case I am conscious, if I am contrite for it, I am a pious and dutiful Child of the Church, which is the Right by which I claim the benefit of the Sacraments of the Church. And if I have a Right to receive them, they cannot be denied me in whatsoever part of the world I ā by those who are empowered to administer the same without a great injustice, and a breach of the just Oeconomie of the One House, and Family of Christ Jesus. Seing they are one with me as I am one with them, there can be no reason why they should exclude me from a common good, which was committed to them for no other cause, but that they should dispense it to all those who have a Right to receive it. For the Governors of this House have not an arbitrary and Despotical power over the Members of it, but are to act as Ministers, who depend on the Rules of Government which Christ Jesus left them upon its first establishment. So that the Right we have to partake of the Sacraments is so absolute so long as we observe the aforesaid Conditions, that whatever Kingdom, Province, and Country of the World we are in where there are any Apartments belonging to this One House, we ought to be received therein as frankly and heartily, as though it were in the Church where we were born, and had our usual residence. What is here delivered is no more in substance, than what the Dr. confesses in the Book and place aforecited, unless it be the Point of Obedience, which I have mentioned rather to set our Doctrine down complete, than because I am willing at present to enter into a Cont●…oversie with him about it, which shall be done elsewhere.  
24. Let us now see whether the Unity of the Church can subsist, although the several Bodies and Congregations whereof it is made up, refuse the Sacraments to one another. I am persuaded, that nothing less than the mere force of truth and the great Authority which appears in Scripture, the Fathers of the Church, and Christian Principles could extort from him a concession which is so advantageous to Catholics, as that all true Christians have a Right to Communion in all true Christian Churches. For the Unity of the Church which includes this common Right is only consistent with our principles, who make the Catholic Church to consist of Christians of one denomination, and who are in a perfect harmony among themselves in all matters relating to Faith, by which means all the Faithful throughout the world have the same Right, and are under the same Conditions of receiving the Sacraments. Whereas in the Protestant way, who will have the Catholic Church to result out of several Bodies and Congregations of Christians, who disagree in matters of Faith, that is, in such Points which some of them affirm to have been Revealed by God, and others again maintain to be false and erroneous, it is impossible, but that there should be as many different Rights to give and receive the Sacraments as there are Bodies that disagree in Faith; because the children of each Body are not common to them all, inasmuch as they are under different Conditions of receiving the Sacraments, and are only children of their own Body by professing the Faith of their own Body, from whom alone they have a Right (if they have any Right at all) to ask the benefit of Christ's Sacraments. Neither do their Pastors pretend to any Right and Power to dispense them to any others than such as profess their own Faith, lest they give our Lord's Body to those who will eat it unworthily  
25. I'll give an instance in Catholics and Protestants, and the same may serve for other disagreeing Bodies, as those of the Greek Church, Nestorians, Eutychians etc. if this Author accounted them for Members of the Catholic Church as he does Catholics and Protestants, and by consequence that they are true Christians, and by consequence that they have a Right to Communion in all true Christian Churches. If I who am of the Catholic and Roman Faith, should apply myself to Dr. Sherlock for the Communion, he would bid me abjure the B. of Rome's Universal Headship; if to Dr. Stilling fleet, he would require me to quit my Worship of Saints and Images, and if to the Disciples of Dr. Tillotson, they would catechise me about Transubstantiation, and the veracity of my senses. And as they affirm, that they have no Right, nor Power to give the Communion to one of my Faith, so neither does the Church whereof I am a Member, pretend to any Right or Power to give it to any one of their Congregations. Nay neither I nor any of my persuasion can with a good Conscience ask it at their hands, as they also believe, that they cannot ask it at ours. Each of these Bodies looks on the others Faith, worship, and Sacraments to be so far from appertaining to them so as to join in the participation of them, that they judge it impious and profane to pretend any Right to them. And certainly nothing can be less mine, or more another's, than that which I positively renounce, and which I firmly believe, that I cannot challenge to be mine with a good conscience. If each of these ●…fagreeing Bodies say, that their Altar belongs only to men of their belief, shall we not say, that the Altar is theirs, if we will not be of their belief? And it there be three Bodies who affirm this of their respective Altars, shall we not say, that each body's Altars is it's own exclusively to all others? And if each body's Altar be its own exclusively to all others, shall we not say, that there are three Altars, if there be three Bodies? And if there be three Altars, shall we not say, that there be three Rights to receive the Sacraments, and three Churches, that is, three Societies, Houses, and Families of Christ Jesus.  
26. One Chimaera never comes alone: which observation in Metaphysics we find by experience to be true at present. For as great as this absurdity is, yet it has God himself for its Author, if any credit be to be given to a certain Principle of Dr. Sherlock's, which he had not in view when he granted all true Christians to have a Right to Communion in all true Christian Churches. For he holds, that each Congregation of the pretended Reformed Church, and every individual person among them are the proper and sovereign Judges for themselves, what Doctrines are true, and what false; what are truly Revealed, and what are only said to be Revealed. Now he cannot deny the same Privilege to other disagreeing Bodies, which if he grant, he must acknowledge, that they have as much Right to judge of Faith, and Doctrine, as he himself or any of his Communion. From whence it follows, that seeing the Right of giving and receiving the Sacraments is necessarily annexed to the Faith of the givers and receivers of them, these disagreeing Bodies can only pretend a Right to give and receive the Sacraments to and from those persons whom they know to profess that Faith which they judge to be true, which to be sure will be always the same which they profess themselves. And if they have a Right of judging that their own Faith is true, and this, as Protestants will have it, by God's appointment, they must consequently have by God's appointment a Right to give and receive the Sacraments only to and from those persons whom they hold to profess the true Faith, that is their own. Wherefore supposing these disagreeing Bodies be three in number, there are by God's institution and appointment three distinct Rights to the Sacraments, and the dispensation of them must be said to be so contracted, and limited by three distinct Conditions, viz three distinct Faiths, that the Right of giving and receiving the Sacraments in each Body must terminate within themselves alone, and among the Members of each Body.  
27. These three distinct Rights and Altars necessarily infer three distinct Communions. And then let the Dr. make out the unity of the Church whose whole mystery, he says ubi supra, is no more but this, that the whole Christian Church by the Institution of our Saviour is but One Church, and this One Church is One Communion, that is, One Body and Society whereof all Christians are Members, and wherein they have a Right to communicate in all Christian Privileges, and both a Right and obligation to communicate in all Christian Duties. He must be a very subtle discourser, if he can reconcile this Unity of the Church with several distinct Rights to administer the Sacraments, which are nothing else, but so many Rights whereby the disagreeing Bodies of Christians are empowered to continue in a state of disunion from one another; or show how they can be One Body and Society, where the advantages are not common to all the Members that are said to compose it; or how that can be One Family, House, and Communion in which God has appointed three distinct tables, and the Overseers and Stewards of each Company are to act so independently of the Stewards and Overseers of the other Companies, that they are not so much as obliged to follow their advice and judgement in any thing: and in which each Company is bound under damnation to eat by itself, and rather to fast than to take our Lord's Body with any of the other Companies, so long as they persever in their own Faith, which they are commanded not to forsake whilst they believe it to be true, and not to mistrust whether it be true, whilst they are persuaded that it is so by their private reason.  
28. From what has been said I infer the vanity of the pretence, that many disagreeing Bodies of Christians such as I have mentioned above, may be One in Fundamental Faith. For if this were so, they could not have many distinct Rights to the Sacraments. because the Right of giving and receiving the Sacraments is, as I have said, necessarily annexed to the Faith of the givers and receivers of them, which if it be said to be Fundamentally One among Christians who differ about Faith and Doctrine, it must be said in like manner, that there is one common Right of giving and receiving the Sacraments among them, which we find by manifest experience to be contradicted by the practice of those disagreeing Bodies, who all think it a sin to give the Sacrament to any others than those of their own Communion and belief.  
29. As to the 3. I answer, that seeing preaching is nothing else but the delivery of God's word, and God's word is matter of Faith, as the Unity of the Church necessarily consists in joining together in the same Faith, so it must needs consist in joining together to deliver and hear the same word of God.  
30. As to the 4. If he mean by joining in the external and visible Acts of Worship, that the Unity of the Church does not consist in the same Ceremonies, I answer, that his inference may bear a double meaning, either 1. that the Church would not be One if the same Ceremonies were not observed in all the parts of it; or 2. supposing that there are different Ceremonies allowed by the Church in different parts of it, that whoever obstinately opposes them in the places where they are practised, does not cease to be a Member of the Church although he be excommnnicated for the same. We Catholics do not own Ceremonies to be necessary to the Unity of the Church in the first of these senses, but only in the latter, according to which my Answer proceeds.  
31. I say therefore, that the Unity of the Church does not consist in Ceremonies, if they are considered barely as they are in themselves; for under this consideration they are not Divine, but at most Ecclesiastical things; whereas the Unity of the Church is supernatural, and results from Faith. The Unity of the Church cannot consist in any Institution of her own, because the Church may abrogate what she has established, whenever she has as good reasons for such an abrogation, as she had for the first establishment of it. And yet she cannot destroy her own Unity; for this were to destroy herself, which we are sure she cannot do, because of our Lord's repeated promises to her of teaching, assisting, and preserving her till the consummation of Ages.  
32. But if Ceremonies are considered with relation to the Power that has approved them, and recommended them to our practice and veneration, they are thus become of a superior degree to what they were, and are clothed with such a Dignity, that none may dare to gainsay or slight them, lest he slight the Authority by which they are countenanced, And we know how dangerous a thing this is from that saying of our Saviour He that despises you despises me. This is no more in effect than what is acknowledged by the Church of England in the Chapter of Ceremonies before the Common-prayer Book, where it is likewise said, that neither the appointment nor alteration of Ceremonies belongs to private men (as they will have the choice of Faith to do), but only to those who are authorised thereunto. This new Church was very sensible of the great danger that might accrue to her, if it were lawful for private men to alter public regulations, for which reason she has taken care to secure herself from such factious and innovating spirits, by prefixing in the front of her pretended Liturgy and Offices such a Rule as she had not observed herself, when she relinquished the Customs and Ceremonies which had been appointed by her Catholic Superiors, and received from her Forefathers time out of mind.  
33. I suppose this Author who makes Bishops essential to particular Churches, and to belong to their Definition, will not deny, but that the Members of particular Churches cannot withdraw themselves from obeying, and communicating with their Bishops on the account of such Ceremonies as they allow of as decent, and which are in themselves harmless and innocent. For if a Bishop be essential to a particular Church, whoever renounces his obedience to him on the account of such harmless Ceremonies, renounces his Christianity; for although Christianity do not consist in mere Ceremonies, yet it consists in commanded Ceremonies as such, which signifies as much as if I should say, that it consists in Obedience whereby the Diocesans are united to their Bishops. So that particular Bishops, whom this Author In his Vindie of some Brot. Prino. etc. p. 96. will have to be the proper Judges what Ceremonies are decent, and harmless in their respective Districts, may justly excommunicate all those who shall resist them ●…in, unless they can bring a Demonstration that their Commands are unlawful. I fuppose the Dr. will not say, that those who are thus excommunicated by their Bishop are One with the Church in Heaven, since a separation from Christ's Mystical Body is the proper effect of a just Excommunication. And if they are rightly cut off from Christ's Mystical Body, it follows that the Unity of a particular Church consists in joining together in the same Ceremonies. And if it be a necessary condition of Communion with a particular Church to join together in the same Ceremonies, it must needs be a necessary condition of communion with the Catholic Church to join together in the same Ceremonies of a particular Church. For that which makes us Members of a particular true Church necessarily makes us Members of the Catholic Church, and that which causes a separation from a particular true Church does in like manner cause a separation from the Catholic Church.  
34. There still remains to examine that part of this passage wherein he says, that the Unity of the Church does not consist in a mutual intercourse and correspondence. Which words are of so great a latitude, that I know not how to fix a determinate meaning on them. Perhaps he may signify thereby (in case they do not relate to what has been already considered about the concurrence of the Church in the same Liturgy, Sacraments, Preaching, and Ceremonies) that the Unity of the Church may subsist without those demonstrations of love, esteem, confidence, and concern for one another whether by word or actions, as is usual among such as are engaged in one common Caus. And I am apt to think, that this is his meaning by the exceptions which he makes (alitle out of their order) against our Worshipping our Brethren of the Church in Heaven. For this Worship is a plain correspondence between us and them, and unless he had said something to show the unreasonableness of it, he could never have pretended to infer, that distant Churches on Earth might be One without any mutual correspondence, because the Church in Heaven and Earth are One without it.  
35. If this be his meaning, I answer, that where there are no such reciprocal expressions of Kindness among distant Churches, we may presume that Faith and Charity are wanting to some of them; for Faith is operative and so is Charity too. And where we may presume these virtues to be wanting, we may presume that there is not One Church, as where we feel no heat we presume there is no fire.  
36. As to what he says against our Worship of Saints, whereby he insinuates, that there is no mutual correspondence between the Church in Heaven and the Church on Earth, the nullity of it appears from this, because he forms his Arguments from the equivocation that lies in the word Worship, which he honestly takes in the wrong sense. He cannot be ignorant, and our Authors have put him in mind of it an hundred times over, that the word worship may either signify the supreme Honour which is due to God alone; or else an inferior Honour which may be given to a pure creature. Thus God alone is worshipful as the word worship is taken in the first sense, and Justices of Peace are worshipful as the word worship is taken in the latter sense. the nature of Human acts is measured from their tendency to their respective Objects, and not from their names, which many times are doubtful, and suggest such Notions as are essentially distinct. Thus the H. Ghost says To God alone be Honour and Glory, in which saying the words Honour and Glory must be so understood, as to signify the Honour and Glory which is due to God alone; so that the meaning of the Text be, that we ought to give to God alone that Honour and Glory which are due to him alone. For Honour and Clorie may be given to Kings likewise, and to other great Personages upon Earth 1. Pet. Chap. 2. And as in this case the Dr. must explicate the word Honour and Glory after our way, when he meets with a Quaker who imputes it as a crime to him, and a transgression of the aforesaid Text, that he Honours his Superiors here upon Earth: so I hope he will not take it amiss, if we also explicate the word worship, when we are charged with a breach of the first Commandment by worshipping our betters in Heaven.  
37. Hence the weakness of the Drs. discourse is visible. He says 1. that it is as absurd to Worship the Saints in Heaven, as for one Member of the same Body on Earth to Worship another, because they are the same Body still, and though there is a great difference in honour between the Members of the ●…ame body, yet the relation that is between them will not admit of the Worship of any Member. For it is no Act of Communion in the same Body for one Member to Worship another.  
38. I answer to this, that we may very laudably Worship the Saints in Heaven, if there be no greater absurdity by so doing, than for one Member of the same Body on Earth to worship another. For are we not tied by God's Commands to honour and re●…pect our betters and Superiors on Earth whether Temporal or Spiritual? And if we are bound to honour them, we are bound to worship them in that sense wherein I have said that Honour and worship are the same thing. Neither can it be any inconvenience to this worship of our betters upon Earth, that we are Members of the same Body, seeing, as the Dr. sais, there is a great difference in honour between the Members of the same Body, for which reason the relation that is between them will admit of one Member's Worshipping, that is, honouring another. Nay it is an Act of Communion in the fame Civil Body for one Member to worship, that is, to honour another, and in a sort necessary to human Society, which being knit and compacted together by the subordination of Inferiors to their Superiors and betters, cannot well susist without Inferiors worshipping, that is, honouring their Superiors and betters, which is a means of continuing them in their duty to them, as being an acknowledgement of the distance they ought to keep from them, and of the service they owe unto them.  
39 The Dr. may reply, that the word worship is not in use, when we signify the honour and respect which we show our superiors and betters upon Earth, but only when we give to God the honour which is due to him.  
40. I Answer, that it is in use in the H. Scripture as 1. Chron. Ch. the last, where the whole Congregation is said to have worshipped God and the King. Which words being taken out of the Protestant Translation put the matter beyond dispute. We read it likewise 1. King's Ch. 25. where A bigail is said to have worshippeed David, as likewi●… Gen. Ch. 24. where Joseph's Brethren are said to have worshipped him. Which passages the English Bible renders so as to denote that Abigail and Joseph's Brethren bowed themselves to the ground; which although we should grant to be a true translation in all respects, yet seeing Protestants, whenever we bow ourselves to a Saint before his Image, call this action by the name of worship, there is no reason why Abigail should be denied to have worshipped David, or Ioseph's Brethren to have worshipped him, when they bowed themselves to the ground before them. In Latin the case is plain, for the word colo which answers the English word worship, is indifferently used to express the honour which we give to God, or man. So is likewise the word veneror, which signifies the same thing. Neither are we wholly strangers to it in England, as when we say a worshipful Knight, and give to a justice of Peace the same epithet, which corresponds with the Latin words Colendissimus and venerabilis, And although the use of it be not so common among us as that of honour, respect, or Veneration, yet there is no reason why we should not allow it as great a latitude as it has in Latin, whenever the rareness of its use is turned to our disadvantage, seeing we know in our souls and consciences (which are the Repositories of the Prototypes of words) that we signify thereby no honour which is due to God alone, but such an one as may be paid to a finite Object. If the vulgar language of this Nation were Latin, or the Dr. had writ his Treatise in the same tongue, he must have left out most of what he has written against our worship of the Church in Heaven. For certainly he that owns it to be lawful to colere or to worship men with an inferior honour, would blush to maintain it to be unlawful to colere, or to worship the Church in Heaven with the like honour. Which is an evident Argument, that what he says at present is of no great moment; for what is good reason in one language cannot fail to be so in another.  
41. But the Dr. may inquire, whether I am in good earnest when I say that the word worship signifies no more when we honour the Church in Heaven, than when we honour our superiors and betters upon Earth? I answer, that for what concerns the Controversy that is between Catholics and Protestants about our worship of the Church in Heaven, the signification of that word is exactily the same in both cases. For the question between us and them is, whether we give not to the Church in Heaven some Honour which is due only and proper to God (and in case this be not the question at present, it is ridiculous for Dr. Sherlock to say, that it is absurd to worship our Fellow-members in Heaven with an inferior Honour)? To which question we answer, that our worship of the Church in Heaven supposes them to be Creatures, as much as the honour we give to our superiors and betters upon Earth supposes them to be Creatures. And so the word worship suits exactly with our superiors and betters on Earth and the Church in Heaven, because we believe them to be Creatures both alike, and not to deserve any honour that is due to God alone.  
42. But notwithstanding this, our Divines affirm, that the word worship as it is applied to the Church in Heaven, imports an honour of a higher Nature than when it is applied to our superiors, and betters on Earth (and so it fares likewise with the word colo,) because honour is diversified according to the diversity of excellence in the Object. Wherefore seeing the state of the Church in Heaven by means of its perfect Union with God and fruition of him, is of an incomparably greater excellence than our Superiors and betters upon Earth whether Ecclesiastical or Civil, hence it is they say, that the word worship as it is applied to the Church in Heaven, has a special difference of its own whereby it is distinguished from the worship of our superiors on Earth. Which special Difference can afford the Doctor no advantage against us, because it is occasioned only by the Pre-eminence which the Church in Heaven has over our superiors and betters upon Earth, which he cannot deny. He may in like manner, if he pleases, affirm that the honour which is due to Kings is different from that which is paid to any of their subjects, and give this reason for it, because as the Dignity of a King is incommunicable to any of his subjects, so the honour which attends this Dignity as a shadow follows a Body, aught to be so far his as not to appertain to any of his subjects, no more than the shadow of his body does to theirs. I say if he affirm this I know of no body that can reasonably be angry with him, or judge him to be Heterodox for so doing, whether his opinion be true or false, or the reason whereby he proves it be of great or small moment.  
43. Neither do our Divines only diversify the worship of the Church in Heaven from the worship of our superiors on Earth, but they diversify like- wise the worship of the B. Virgin both from the worship of the rest of the Church in Heaven, and of our Superiors on Earth. For although she be a Creature as much as any Member of the Church in Heaven, and our superiors on Earth, nay as much as a pismire on Earth, and that under this consideration the word worship suits as well with any Member of the Church in Heaven and with our Superiors on Earth as it does to her; yet by reason of her being the Mother of God, and because she is placed immediately after God by means of this Grace, Divines assign her such an honour as is answerable to so great a Dignity, which they express by the name of Hyperdulia, whereas they call the worship of the other Saints by the name of Dulia. And as they assign to the B. Virgin a worship different from the rest of the Saints, so whoever pleases may hold that different worships, or rather different degrees of worship, which are inferior to the supreme Honour which is due to God alone, belong to the several degrees of the Hierarchical Orders of Spirits in Heaven, although there want words whereby to express them.  
44. What is here said concerning the distinctions in our worships of the Church in Heaven is not mentioned, as though the Catholic Church were engaged to make it all good, she having declared herself no further, than that we ought to worship the Church in Heaven, and that it is good and profitable to invoke them, and crave their assistance, and left it to the consideration of learned men, whether the worship of the B. Virgin be specifically distinct from that of the other Saints. We never entertain ourselves which any such thoughts as these when we make our application to them, neither do our Priests when they catechise the ignorant, take care to instruct them in such niceties, which conduce little or nothing to their salvation. Neither is it material to know, whether this worship may be called Religious, or no No doubt, but that it is not properly Religious as neither is it Divine, because Religion has God for its immediate object. But in a loose sense it may be called Religious, because of the near relation which the Saints have to God, and because we direct our prayers to them, that we may the more easily save our souls by the enjoyment of God who is our last end. This worship may be called Religious much after the same manner as Ceremonies are called Acts of worship, because of their relation and dependence on the immediate Acts of God's worship, and because they further and promote the same.  
45. Thus much I have thought fit to say, to remove the odium which Protestants have annexed to the very terms of worship of Saints. What harm is there now in them after this explication? Can any one discover any thing here which may justify the Drs. Assertion, that our Worship of Saints is a contradiction to the belief of One Church? Cannot we worship the Church in Heaven and be One with them, as well as worship our superiors on Earth, and be One with them.  
46. The Dr. may reply, No; because our worship of Saints does not only import an honour which we do them, but includes likewise our Invocation of them.  
47. What if it does? Must we needs break off Union with the Church in Heaven, because we address our prayers to them to pray to God for us? This is all that is meant by our Doctrine of Invocation of Saints, notwithstanding the sly endeavours of some men to persuade the people to the contrary, by calling it formal Invocation, as though there lay an Idolatrical malice under these terms, and an injury to God. It is an unquestionable truth, that Christians upon Earth may recommend themselves to one another's prayers, and daily experience teaches, that Protestants formally Invocate, or pray their Ministers to pray for them, as often as they find themselves under any great affliction of mind or body, as believing their intercessions with God to be more efficacious than their own prayers. Now it seems very strange, that such an application to Ministers should be harmless and laudable in Protestants and yet that our addresses to the Church in Heaven should be so criminally evil in us, as to make us lose our Union with it, when we are certain, that the Saints are free from sin, and in all things conformable to the Divine pleasure, and we may presume, that they want neither power nor will to promote our requests with God, as often as they conduce to his glory.  
48. I am told in answer to this, that the case is very plain, why the practice of Protestants is very good, and ours erroneous, because their Ministers are present with them, and the Church in Heaven are at a great distance from us.  
49. I have often wondered at this common answer to a difficulty so well grounded as that which I have proposed. For what has distance or presen●… to do with the injury to God wherewith we a●… charged by our Invocation of Saints? Or ho●… can they contribute any thing towards the continuance, or forfeiture of our union with the Church in Heaven? The only inconvenience which may be pretended to be drawn with any kind of colour against our Doctrine to our prejudice is, that it is a silly thing to pray to the Saints who are at a great distance from us, which were it true, is not enough to prove it to be a wicked thing. I suppose if any Protestant at London should desire the English Ambassador's Chaplain at the Hague to pray for him, as we desire the Saints to pray for us, he would not be censured by those of his Communion, as though he had forfeited his Union with the Church in Heaven by making such a prayer, but only will pass among them for a mad man, which they cannot affirm of us when we pray to the Saints, as we shall see presently. Wherefore if it be no crime in Protestants to pray their Ministers to pray for them, it can be no crime in us to pray the Church in Heaven to pray for us. For in neither case is there any honour given to a Creature which is due to God alone, it being certain, that we Catholics do no more believe the Saints we pray to from the highest to the lowest to be Gods, or fit objects for Divine honour, than Protestants believe the same of their Ministers. Nay our Doctrine in the very terms supposes there is but one God, and that all the Saints in Heaven are dependant on him, seeing our prayers to them to pray to God for us, supposes the right of granting our petitions to be solely in God, and all the power they have of being beneficial to us to depend on his good pleasure.  
50. Those Protestants who grant with the Catholic Church, that God has appointed Guardian Angels to every one of us in this our Pilgrimage, to be assistant to us and to be the overseers of our lives and actions, should have no difficulty, one would think, to hold it lawful for us to beg their intercessions with God in our behalf. For in this suppofition they are as much present to us, as we are to one another. And what imaginable pretence can there be, that we offer any injury to God by begging the assistance of his Favourits, whom he has deputed to us to take care of our spiritual concerns? 'tis incredible, that we can offend him by holding correspondence with our companions, guides, and Tutors. He speaks to us by their means: why may not we speak to him again sometimes by the same way? why may we not thank them for their good offices, and desire their continuance of them? Can any one think, that God commands, or allows of ingratitude towards Angels, when he forbids it towards men?  
51. We read in the acts of the Apostles Ch. 16. of a Vision which S. Paul had, wherein we may discover a plain correspondence between Angels and the Church on Earth. For there appeared to him v. 9 A man of Macedon who prayed him saying, pass over into Macedonia, and help us. We may reasonably conclude, that the Spirit, who is here called a Man of Macedon was the Guardian Angel of that Country. Help us, said the Angel to S. Paul, that is, help the poor Macedonians by removing their blindness by means of thy preaching; and help me in the discharge of my duty of providing for their good which manner of prayer is in use among us towards the Church in Heaven. For thus we pray to S. Paul, saying, help us, our parents, brethren, and relations, and all that stand in need of thy assistance upon Earth. And as the Angel prayed not to S. Paul to help the Macedonians whilst he was in the world, but only inasmuch as he was an instrument of the Divine Goodness, so neither do we pray to him now he is in Heaven for any other reason. For we hold, that the help which we receive from him by his intercession proceeds no less from God's mercy towards us, than the help which the Macedonians received by his preaching. Thus we see an Angel become a suppliant to a man and praying for help, which is a term which gives so much offence to Protestants when they read it in any of our Devotions to Saints. The Dr. will be hard put to it to give a satisfactory reason, why it would have been a crime in S. Paul to have prayed the Angel to intercede with God for the good success of his preaching, when it was no crime in the Angel to pray him to preach to the Macedonians. If then the worship and Invocation of our Guardian Angels be no forfeiture of our Union with the Church in Heaven, it can be said with as little reason that the Invocation of any other Angel, or Saint in Heaven implies a crime of so heinous a nature.  
52. As to the scruple of Protestants, which way the Saints in Heaven hear, or understand that we pray to them; I answer, that they cannot know that we pray to them, or any thing else that passes in this world by virtue of any natural perfections which they have. Although the lawfulness of their Invocation be a sacred Truth amongst us, yet it is a matter of Dispute, which way they come to know our Prayers, whether they see them in the Divine Essence wherein they mav see all creatures, or whether they are conveyed to them by the Ministry of our Guardian Angels, or other Spirits, God having concealed from our knowledge many things relating to the government of this world by his invifible Agents. It is enough for us, that the Saints may know our prayers either of these ways, without being solicitous which way it is; and the Authority of the Catholic Church which has always believed Invocation of Saints, aught with better reason to persuade us to continue in the profession of this Doctrine, than the uncertainty we lie under about the particular way that the Saints hear us, aught to withdraw us from the practice and belief of it.  
53. We are assured by S. John in his Revelat. Ch. 5. that the four Beasts, and the four and twenty Elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one harps, and golden vials full of odours, which were the Prayers of the Saints, that is, of the Saints on Earth; for the felicity of the Saints in Heaven is complete, and they stand in no need of each others assistance, seeing they all enjoy God in whom the fullness of all good things is. Now our Doctrine is, that the four and twenty Elders at this day fill their vials with the prayers of the Saints after the very same manner as they did when S. John saw them full, and that it is altogether as unreasonable to doubt, whether they hear our prayers when we address them to them, because we cannot positively say, which way they come to hear them, as it is to doubt, whether their vials were full of prayers in S. John's time, because neither he nor any of his Brethren have left upon record, which way they came to be full. You may see in the 8. Chap. another relation how an Angel offered to God the prayers of the Saints.  
54. There are two passages in Scripture which Protestants particularly urge against our worship of Saints. The 1. is out of the same Book of Revelations Ch. 19 and Ch. 22. where we read that S. John who would have worshipped an Angel, was forbidden by him to do so, and ordered to worship God. They stand in great need of Arguments who will make use of this place against us. For it is plain our of the reason which the Angel gave why he refused this worship, that S. John took him to be God, and th●…re it is no wonder, if the Angel a●…pted not that worship from him which was cu●… to God alone. See thou do it not, said the Angel, for I am thy fellow servant, which shows that S. John took him for the Creator and Lord of all things. Otherwise the Angel would never have given such a reason why he should not worship him. For seeing it is very conformable to the Gospel for inferiors to honour their betters, we cannot presume, that the Angel would have given such a reason as destroys this precept of Christianity. For if it be not lawful to worship an Angel, because he is our fellow servant, or fellow creature, it must needs be unlawful to worship or honour men, who are as much our fellow creatures as Angels, nay who by means of the inequality of their natural perfections are at a greater distance from God than Angels are. I do not see how any Protestants who hold it lawful to honour their betters on Earth, can hold it unlawful to fall down, as S. John did, at the feet of an Angel of peace who should appear to them. Nay natural reason assures us, that it would be a sin, and a great irreverence to show him no respect, or do him no kind of worship, considering the Dignity and excellence of his nature and person, and the incomprehensible greatness of God without whose order he could not make them a visit. When we honour our betters we practice humility, which the Angel knew to be a virtue very pleasing to an Incarnate God, and therefore he would never have forbidden the exercise of it in S. John for such a reason, as makes the most visible demonstration of it impracticable among Christians. Quakers need never desire a stronger Argument than this Text to justify their unmannerly behaviour towards their superiors and betters, if it be once granted them, that an Angel refused an inferior worship and honour from S. John, because he was his fellow servant and fellow Creature.  
55. If then the Angel did not forbid S. John to give him an inferior honour and worship, Protestants cannot gather from this passage any thing that may tend to the prejudice of our Doctrine of the worship of Saints; for all the worship we allow them is such an honour as may be given to creatures without any disrespect to the Creator. And if they can prove, that S. John committed Idolatry, we condemn him for it as much as the Angel. But there is no great fear of effecting this any further, than that he committed material Idolatry, that is to say, that if he had known, or could have known, that the p●…rfon with whom he conversed was not God, he would have been a downright Idolater in giving him the honour which was due to God alone, which is a crime we can never suppose the Apostle to have been guilty of. For we may presume, that whilst he was in these Visions, his mind was filled with thoughts relating to the Glory, Power, and Majesty of his beloved Master, and that he had a more clear and perfect knowledge of a God, and of One God by means of those wonderful things that were revealed to him, than all mankind can possibly have by Natural discourse, which being joined together with the Faith which he had in our Lord, can leave no room for a reasonable suspicion, whether he adored something for God, which he knew or could know to be a creature; particularly considering, that during the time of his Visions, he was freed from all sensible distractions and suggestions of the enemy, and his understanding was wholiy taken up with the regaloes of Heaven. His love of God could never grow less fervorous by the more Graces that were heaped on him, nor his Faith less lively by finding experimentally that several particulars of it were true. Which considerations put it out of all doubt, that as long as he was in this state, the liberty of his will was so far abridged, and limited to what was good, that he could not possibly prevaricate so far from his Creator, as to renounce him by preferring a creature before him, or equalling a creature to him.  
56. But letus suppose now, that S. John knew the Spirit with whom he conversed to be an Angel, yet it will not follow from hence, that the reprehension of the Angel imports a sinfulness in the worship which S. John gave him. For why might not the Angel refuse to be worshipped by S. John because of the Dignity of his Apostolic Character, and the honour which human nature had attained to by the Incarnation of the Son of God? And why might not S. john continue to offer it to him as he did the second time, notwithstanding this refusal, because of the excellence of the Angel's nature, and the honour which he had of being a perpetual attendant on the Lamb.  
57 That famous Buffoon the Author of the Reflections upon the Devotions of the Roman Church p. 433. thinks it a sufficient confutation of this reasonable exposition of this Text, to say that it makes the reprehension which the Angel gave S. John to be only a Copy of his countenance, and a great Compliment, as though humility, civility, and aggreablenesse of conversation which are such amiable virtues in this world, aught to pass for imperfections in an Angel. If it was a Compliment, it is not the first time that Angels and Holy persons have made u●…e of them. And I hope the Embassy which Gabriel delivered to the B. Virgin will be never the worse li●…ed, because he called her full of grace; nor the reception which S. Elizabeth gave to the same Virgin, because she said to her, whence is this to me, that the Mother of my Lord is come to me? Nor the reply which S. Paul Acts 26. made to Aggrippa when he said, I wish that all here present were as I am, because he added except these chains. The word Compliment for the most part sounds ill, because these expressions of respect are too often accompanied with flattery, baseness, and vanity; but these is no reason, why the abuse of a good thing amongst us should make us undervalue it when it is done by an Angel, or why we should ridicule it, when we are sure that it is free from any abuse. The reprehension of the Angel was a holy Compliment as having for its motive the most sublime Mystery of grace: and where lies the absurdity for an Angel to Compliment an Apostle upon the favour which Man had received from their common Lord? David Psal. 8. sais of man, that God at first created him a little lower than the Angels: and seeing God took upon him afterwards, as S Paul ad Heb. 2. 16. ponders, not the nature of Angels, but of men, it ought not to seem incredible, that an Angel in consideration of this honour should treat S. John as though he had been his equal, and not his inferior.  
58. The 2. passage is out of S. Paul ad Col. 2. 18. Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary (and affected) humility, and Worship of Angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his steshly mind- not holding the Head etc.  
59 I answer, that before Protestants can allege this Authority of S. Paul against our worship of Angels, they must show wherein that worship and humility consist which are here forbidden, and what is meant by intruding into those things which he has not seen, and being vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind. All which particulars relate to some certain sort of seducers of those times of whom S. Paul advises the Collossians to have a care. There is no reason why we should conclude all sorts of worship of Angels to be here prohibited, because we find that worship condemned which is attended with a damnable curiosity, and pride. If Protestants can produce from among the ancient Monuments of the Church any undeniable grounds to believe, that the Doctrine of these seducers was the very same that we hold about the worship of Angels, I shall confess, that we fall under this prohibition; but if there appear no such evidence, nay if it do not certainly appear who these seducers were, or what were their precise errors, I see not why our Doctrine should pass for theirs, and this Text be alleged as a clear testimony for its condemnation. There is not in the whole Text any word that can be wrested to our prejudice, unless it be the equivocal word worship which has so possessed the mind of the aforesaid Reflecter p. 430. that he thinks this passage plain enough till men begin to play tricks with it, as though we were great cavillers for not suffering the word worship to bear what sense they pleas, and they very fair Disputants in expecting that the Controversy should without any more a do be brought to this issue.  
60. I find in Baronius ad An. 60. such an uncertainty from History, that it is not easy for a man to resolve with himself, what was the error which S. Paul pointed at in this place, nor who were the seducers of whom he warns the Colossians. He there sets down the opinion of S. Hierom. Ep. ad Algasiam who being consulted by this Lady about this passage ponders it very exactly, and yet no where sais, that it forbids all sorts of worship of Angels, but on●…ly the worship of the Stars by the Jews; which he proves to have been an old error of theirs, who possibly might take the Stars for Angels, because the Pharisees, as Epiphanius reports, believed them to be animated.  
61. He afterwards mentions Theodoretus upon this place, who affirms that these seducers drew a great many unwary Christians to their error, and that this Heresy continued in Phrygia and Pisidia for some Ages after, for which he is reprehended by Baronius as guilty of a lapse in History about a Her●…sie, which neither he himself sets down in his Heretical Fables, nor any other Author whatsoe●…er  
62. He lastly ●…ints you with the error of Cherinthus who believed Christ to be nothing else but man, and that the Angels were above him, which inclines him to think that S. Paul reflects upon his followers, which might belike enough, were it not for his saying that it does not appear, that these Heretics were guilty of any superstitious and Idolatrous worship of Angels.  
63. For my part upon a serious consideration of the context of this Epistle till the verse under debate and some verses following, it seems extremely probable to me, that S. Paul reflects not only upon the Jews for endeavouring to draw the Colossians to Judaisme which is evident in this Chapter, but also for endeavouring to persuade them to that Superstitious worship of Angels which is here condemned; not that I think this to have been the general judgement of the Jews of those times, but only of a certain sect of them, who having left the true Tradition of their Forefathers about the worship of Angels, embraced this Novelty through their presumptuous speculations and inquiries into the nature, perfections, and properties of these spirits, and (what is worse) perhaps into the Nature and Attributes of God. Which I hold to be S. Paul's meaning when he says, that these seducers intruded into those things which they had not seen, and were vainly puffed up by their fleshly mind, pride being always the main encourager of those who eagerly desire, that their groundless and airy Notions should pass for truths and demonstrations. I believe likewise, that he points at the same thing when v. 8. he bids the Colossians to have a care of being deceived by Philosophy (by which Theodoret understands probabilem & ad persuadendum aptam Orationem) that is, by captious and surprising Arguments that were made according to the direction of Artificial Logic, and turned against any Article of the Faith which they had received, as for example, against the lawful worship of Angels; which he sufficiently declares by calling this Philosophy or arguments vain fallacies according to the Tradition of men, and the Principles of worldly sciences, but not according to the Principles of Faith which were delivered by jesus Christ.  
64. But I dare not venture to hold with Theodoretus, that these Jews caused a Heresy and division in the Church, seeing Scripture is silent in this case, and Ecclesiastical History and Tradition too, which are the only Principles which we can certainly rely on for the knowledge of any matter of fact of this nature which is said to have happened in passed Ages. However I am contented at present to take no further notice of the exceptions which Baronius makes against the Authority of this Father in this case, nor of what he says to prove, that the Canon of the Council of Laodicea underwritten does not relate to this pretended Heresy, as Th●…tus affirms, to the end I may have an occasion of showing, that these two most famous pieces of antiquity which Protestants allege against our worship of Angels can stand them in no stead at all, although we should allow them all the force of unsuspected History. And by reason I have no Greek Authors by me in the circumstances I am under at present, and cannot easily procure them, I shall relate Theodoret's words out of the Latin Version which are these. Qui legem defendebant eos etiam ad Angelos colendos inducebant, dicentes fuisse legem per eos datam. Mansit autem diu hoc vitium in Phrygia & Pisidia. Quocirca Synodus quoque quae convenit Laodiceae, quae est Phrygiae Metropolis, lege prohibuit ne precarentur Angelos. Et in hodiernum usque diem licet videre apud illos & finitimos Oratoria S. Michaelis. Illiergo hoc consulebant, utique humilitate utentes, dicentes universorum Deum nec cerni, nec comprehendi, nec ad ●…um posse perveniri, & oportere per Angelos divinam sibi benevolentiam conciliare. Those, says he, who stood in defence of the Law induced them also to worship Angels, saying the Law was given by them. This vice has continued for a long time in Phrygia and Pisidia. Wherefore the Synod which assembled at Laodicea, which is the Metropolis of of Phrygia, forbade them by a Law to pray to Angels. And even to this day there are Oratories of S. Michael to be seen among them and their borderers. They therefore advised them to this (to pray to Angels ) making use of the pretence of humility, saying, that the God of the universe is invisible, incomprehens●…ble, and inaccessible, and that therefore they ought to procure his good will by Angels. The law which he says was made to prohibit this superstitious Invocation of Angels is the 35. Canon of the Council of Laodicea which runs thus: Non oportet Chrisiianos derelicta Ecclesia abire, & ad Angelos Idololatriae abominandae congregationes facere: quae omnia interdict a sunt. Quicumque autem inventus fuerit occultae huic Idololatriae vacans anathema sit, quoniam derelinquens Dominum nostrum jesum Christum Filium Dei accessit ad Idola. Chtistians, says the Council, ought not to forsake the Church, and go away, and hold Assemblies of abominable Idolatry towards Angels: which are things forbidden. Whoever therefore is found to be addicted to this secret Idolatry, let him be Anathema, because he has forsaken our Lord jesus Christ the Son of God, and gone over to Idols.  
65. I suppose these two Authorities are plain enough too till men begin to play tricks with them, that is, till we show that they are impertinently urged against us, which is no hard matter to do. For it is evident, that the worship of Angels which the jews advised the Colossians to was inconsistent with the Mediatorship of our Saviour, which they placed in Angels exclusively to him. The Law was given by Angels, say they; and therefore Angels are to be our Mediators with God. God spoke to Mofes by an Angel; and therefore we ought to treat with God by Angels too. God is invisible; and therefore we must pray to Angels, that we may have a sight of him. God is incomprehensible; and therefore it must be by the prayers of Angles, that we come to know what he is. God is inaccessible; and therefore we must have access to him by Angels. All which Inferences from a Jews mouth ought to be taken so as to exclude the Mediation of Christ, whom this perverse generation will not allow to be our Mediator with God on any account or consideration whatsoever. And as they destroy the Mediation of Christ, ●…o they prove it unlawful for Christians to pray to him, seeing he is God as well as man. Which may serve for a main reason, why the Canon sais, that these superstitious Worshippers of Angels forsook our Lord jesus Christ the Son of God. I do not at all wonder, that the Canon calls this worship a secret Idolatry, because it substitutes Angels in the place of Christ, who in consequence of his Incarnation, and as Head of the Church, has it for an incommunicable prerogative to be the supreme Mediator between his Father and the Faithful. And although the pretence of this secret idolatry be humility arising from the consideration of God's Perfections as his being invisible, and incomprehensible, yet in reality it destroys the very foundation of Christianity, (which true humility cannot do), by making God inaccessible even to such souls as are the most pious, most innocent, and most affectionate towards him, for want of Goodness to hear their prayers if they are immediately directed to him. I say for want of Goodness; for if it be an act of boldness and presumption in us to make our immediate addresses to him because of this pretcnded inaccessibilitie, what is become of that Love and Goodness which according to the Gospel inclined him to send his beloved Son into the world to take our nature upon him, and together with our nature all our frailties that were purely natural? which consideration leads me to say, that whoever ascribes to God such an inaccessibilitie as this, must in consequence of this Principle hold that Christ was not God, seeing the same invisibility, incomprehensibility, and inaccessibilitie which in this opinion of the Jews hinder God from conversing and treating immediately with the Faithful, will prove a fortiori, that God could not abase himself so low as to be made Flesh, because by his Incarnation he communicated to human nature the aforesaid Attributes of invisibility, incemprehensibilitie, and inaccessibilitie together with the fullness of the Divinity, as S. Paul says in this Chapter, in ipso inhabitat omnis plenitudo Divinitatis corporaliter, which is certainly a condescension infinitely lower than to receive immediately by himself the prayers and petitions of men.  
66. None of all these horrible blasphemies and absurdities can be charged upon our worship of Angels. For as we acknowledge God to be essentially invisible, and incomprehensible, so we confess him to be essentially Good, which according to the Gospel engages him to treat us immediately by himself, when ever we make our addresses to him in his Son's name, for whose sake alone he bestows his graces and favours on us, being rigorously inaccessible to all such as sue to him by any other means, or ways whatsoever. And although we hold it lawful to pray to Angels as well as to his Son (as the Church has practised in all Ages) yet we make the intercessions of Angels to be no other than Appendices of his Son's Mediation (which we say likewise of our intercessions for one another here upon Earth), in as much as the efficacy of their prayers has a necessary connexion with our cooperation with the Graces which Christ has merited for us by his Passion, and an absolute dependence on the Mediation of Christ, which we never forsake at the very time that we crave the intercession of Angels. Nay when we pray to them, we implicitly beg the Mediation of Christ, because we steadfastly believe, that no petitions will be granted in Heaven, whether they are of Angels, or of Blessed souls, or of holy men upon Earth without the application of Christ's Merits to this purpose, which he as our Redeemer, and Sovereign Mediator can only effectually procure his Eternal Father to accept. Angel's may present our petitions in Heaven, but it must be Christ who takes them, and tenders them to his Father. Angels are no more than Honourable Officers attending in that Court, who according to the measures of God's Providence over his Church are enabled to speak a good word for us, but if their plea be not seconded, and promoted by our Saviour, all they can say signifies nothing with his Father.  
67. This is the worship of Angels which we allow, wherein we neither discover any forsaking of our Lord jesus Christ, or renouncing his Mediation, or the ●…ast sign of Idolatry, which can make a man judge, that it was condemned by the Council of Laodicea and Theodoretus. Nay we have evident grounds to believe, that this Council and this Father practised it no less than we do, because they admit of the worship of the B. souls in Heaven, which is a Doctrine so nearly related to our worship of Angels, that they must either stand, or fall together. The Council in the 34. Canon which immediately goes before that which I have cited, says thus in behalf of Christ's Martyrs. Non oportet omnino Christianum derelict is Martyribus Christi abire ad falsos Martyrs (Martyrs Haereticorum.) Hi enim alienisunt a Deo. Quicumque autem abire voluerint, anathema sint. A Christian ought not to forsake the Martyrs of Christ, and betake himself to false Martyrs (the Martyrs of Heretics.) For they are aliens from God, and whoever will go after them, let them be Anathema; where by forsaking 〈◊〉 Martyrs of Christ, and betaking himself to false Martyrs is meant the giving to false Martyrs that worship, and honour by begging their prayers and the li●…e which is due to the Martyrs of Christ, or to ●…ose who suffered for him in the Communion of his Church. Which interpretation is shown to be true out of the above cited Canon, wherein the superstitious worshippers of Angels are said in like manner to forsake our Lord jesus Christ, and to go over to Idols, because they gave to Angels that Honour of Mediatorship which was due to Christ alone. And it is moreover proved out of the 9 Canon of this Council, which forbids Catholics to frequent the Monuments of Haeretical Martyrs to pray there. Non concedendum in caemeteria, vel quae Martyria Haereticorum di●…ur, Catholicos orationis gratia & petendae curationis intrare. It is not allowed for Catholics to repair to the Church yards, or places where the monuments and shrines are of Heretical Martyrs to pray there, and to beg a cure for their sickness. From whence I infer, that Catholics did, and might repair in those times for such ends as these to the places where the Monuments and Shrines were of Christ's Martyrs, since it is most incredible, and unreasonable to think, that they should believe it lawful to pray to Heretical Martyrs (whose Faith they detested) merely because they were said to die for Christ, and yet that they should believe it unlawful to pray to their own Martyrs whose Faith they professed, and of whom they could have no doubt, but that they died for Christ.  
61. Theodoretus de cur. Graec. Affect. lib. 8. de Mart. prop. fin. Is as positive for this Doctrine as we could expect him to be if he were Archbishop of Compostella at this time. His words are these. Martyrum vero Templa conspicua cernuntur, magnitudineque praestantia, omni praeterea ornatus genere variata, splendoremque quodammodo pulchritudinis suae late fundentia, Neque vero haec per annum semel aut bis, aut quinquies adventamus, sed in eyes saepenumero dies festos peragimus; saepe di●…bus singulis eorum Martyrum Domino laudes hymnosque cantamus. Quique homines prospera sunt valetudine conservari eam sibi a Martyribus perunt, qui vero aegritudinem aliquam patiuntur, sanitatem corporis exposcunt. Insuper & steriles viri & mulieres dari sibi filios petunt, qui vero parentes sunt, integra sibi & propria cus●…diri quae consequti sunt dona. Item qui peregre aliquo prosiciscuntur, petunt Martyres sibi Comites esse in via, vel potius itineris Deuces; qui vero sospites redierunt, gratias agunt acceptum beneficium consitentes. Non qui se ad Deos accedere arbitrentur, sed qui orent Dei Martyres tamquam Divinos Homines Interc●…ssoresque sibi eos apud Deum advocent, ac precentur. Pie vero sideliterque precatos ea maxime consequi quae desiderant, testantur illa quae votorum rei dona persolvunt manifesta nimirum adeptae sanitatis indicia. Nam alii quidem oculorum, alii vero pedum, alii porro manuum simulacra suspendunt ex argento aurove confecta. The Temples of the Martyrs, says he, are renowned, of passing greatness, set out with all sorts of Ornaments, and sending forth as it were the glittering of their beauty afar off. Neither do we assemble therein once, or twice, or five times in a year, but we celebrate many festival days in them; nay we meet here several times in the day to sing praises to the God of the Martyrs. Those who are in good health, pray of the Martyrs, that it may be continued to them, and such as are under any sickness, pray that they may recover. Those who are barren beg children here, and those who have children already, pray that they may enjoy them in safety. Those who are to begin a journey, ask of the Martyrs to be their compapanions or rather their guides, and those who are returned safe, give them thanks, and acknowledge the favour which they have received; not that they judge that they have recourse to them as to Gods, but as to divine (glorified) men, to crave their intercession with God for them. Now that those who ask with devotion and Faith have their petitions granted, is evident from the Gifts which such as have madeVows bring in acknowledgement of their cures. For some hang up eyes, others hands and feet made in gold and silver. If this passage, do not contain the exact Doctrine of the Roman Church at present touching the invocation and worship of Saints, I am yet to seek for a due information of my Faith in this particular. And if it do contain this Doctrine, it is a vain attempt to cite Theodoretus against our worship of Angels, which comes recommended to us by the same Authority of Scripture, the same conveyance of Tradition, and the same congruities of reason as the other, and whatsoever may be said to the prejudice of the one will have the same force against the other Doctrine, as for example, if playing to Angels be a forsaking of Christ and a secret Idolatry, praying to Saints will be so too, and the same course may be taken with all other Arguments, and Objections that are made against either of them.  
69. Now I infer from what has been said, that when Theodoretus affirms of the Council of Laodicea, that it forbid the Colossians to pray to Angels, he did not mean, that they should not pray at all to them, but only that they should not pray to them after a superstitious manner as their only Mediators, which is the overthrow of Christianity, and a forsaking of Christ and cleaving to Idols. And when he says, that in his time there were Oratories to be seen of S. Michael in Phrygia and Pisidia, we are not to understand him, as though he siggnified thereby, that it was a devotion proper to Heretics alone to erect Oratories in honour of S. Michael and other Angels (for he who allows of great and magnificent Temples of Martyrs, can never accounted it an Antichristian practice to build Oratories in honour of Angels, provided this be done according to the Rule of the Catholic Faith, and without any encroachment made upon that Honour which is due to God alone), but only that those Oratories were still remaining in those parts, and frequented by Heretics, which had been erected in former times for the superstitious worship which I have declared. If the Reader pleas to consult Baronius in the place which I have cited above, he will find mention made of a great many Churches which were built in the East by Catholics, as likewise in other parts of the Church in honour of Angels, and in particular that S. Michael was honoured by the Catholics of Colosse with a sumptuous Church, and a solemn annual devotion by reason of some illustrious wonders which he wrought among this People, which we ought to ascribe to the special Providence of God, who was pleased by Miracles to confirm the Catholic Faith about the true worship of Angels in the same place, where this worship was turned into a most detestable and Idolatrous practice by Heretics, in case there ever were any such Heretics, as Theodoretus affirms there were.  
70. He 2. sais, that to pay Divine Honours, to erect Temples and Altars to the greatest Saints advances them above the degree of Fellow-members, and if they be not Fellow-members, than the Church in Heaven and Earth is not one Church.  
71. I answer, that this is a heavy charge; but who are those that pay Divine Honours and erect Temples and Altars to Saints as to the Proprietors of them? Not Catholics. And this Author knows as much, or (what is as bad in a slanderer) he may know as much. The chief and principal end which we propose to ourselves in the erection of Temples and Altars is the glory of God, to whom alone we offer the dreadful Sacrifice of our Lord's Body Neither do we, as the Council of Trent has observed with S. Augustin, say in the Mass, I offer this Sacrifice to thee, Peter, or to thee, Paul, but giving thanks to God for their victories we implore their Patronage, that they whom we commemorate on Earth will vouchsafe to intercede for us in Heaven. We offer Sacrifice only to God in acknowldgment of his supreme Dominion over us and a propitiation for our sins: and seeing it is evident, that we do not make Peter, or Paul, or any other Member of the Church in Heaven to be God or Gods, it is a plain case, that their honour cannot be our ultimate end in the erection of Temples. For we erect Temples principally for the sake of Altars, and seeing the ultimate end of Altars and Sacrifices is the Glory of God, the ultimate end of our Temples must be so too.  
72. 'tis true we erect Temples and Altars to God in honour of the Saints, which is far different from giving them Divine honours. For the honour we do the Saints when we frequent the Temples and Altars which bear their names is to beg their intercession, which, as I have said, supposes them to be Creatures; to 〈◊〉 forth their 〈◊〉, which the justice of God cannot dislike, seeing they are due to their merits; and above all other things, that the more frequent consideration of their virtues may the more easily bring us to an imitation of them, which is the end of our creation. The Temple's 〈◊〉 Altars which are thus dedicated are Monuments of their Victories, and 〈◊〉 we hold not their Victories to have been the effect of their natural strength, but to be the Gifts of God, their Temples are by consequence so many Monuments, of God's power and goodness towards them. They have no other share in the honour of their Victories, than what can result from their free cooperation with the grace whereby they gained them, which although it might be a sufficient reason why a merciful God might crown them, yet it is not looked on by us as a sufficient reason why we should rob God of his honour, and give it to them.  
73. When we erect a Temple or an Altar to God in honour of S. Laurence for example, this signifies that we offer them to God in memory of his great goodness in giving to this Saint such an invincible patience, and constancy as he showed in defence of the Christian Faith. It was an Argument of great power and goodness in God, to fortify the soul of a poor frail, changeable mortal with so great vigour as to be able to lie broiling on a gridiron, and to be turned first on the one side and then on the other, with his senses as quick as those of his tormentors, and his natural desire of preserving his life as strong as theirs, and all this for no other reason, but because he would not renounce his Saviour. Now how is it possible for us to forfeit our Union with the Church in Heaven by erecting a Temple or an Altar to God in memory of this his great power and goodness towards S. Laurence? And if wedo not forfeit the ●…aid Union by so doing, we cannot forfeit the same by erecting a Temple or an Altar to him in honour of S. Laurence. For that which deserves to be honoured in S. Laurence is his patience, and constancy, which being the effects of God's Power and Goodness, when we erect a Temple or an Altar to God in honour of S. Laurence, we erect them to him in honour of his own Attributes, which no Protestant will deny to be lawful. We honour God whenever we honour his Saints, as we honour the Artificer by praising his work. God is wonderful in his Saint's Psalm. 67. And therefore we glorify him in them, because he is wonderful in them.  
74. Although it be a great honour for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that their names are used to make up God's name, when he is called the God of Abraham, Isaac, and jacob, yet this is no Divine honour. Why then should it be a Divine Honour to these Saints to erect a Temple to God under that name? You'll say, that this is no Divine honour to them, and that it is always lawful to erect Temples to God under any name that he himself has chosen: then, say I, it is no Divine honour to Marie, Peter, Paul, Laurence etc. whenever we erect a Temple to the God of Marie, Peter, Paul, Laurence &c because we are to understand all God's Elect under the name of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who are expressed in God's name. And if it be no Divine honour to Marie, Peter, Paul, Laurence etc. to erect a Temple to the God of Marie, Peter, Paul, Laurence etc. all the honour which we give to the Saints by the erection of Temples and Altars which bear their names is allowed for good and lawful. For a Temple which is dedicated to God in Honour of Marie, Peter, Paul, Laurence etc. imports no higher a degree of Honour to these Saints, than if the form of dedication were to the God of Marie, Peter, Paul, Laurence &c. because it is no more than a public acknowledgement of the Sanctity of these Saints, of their consummated Union with God, of their power with him, and of their Predestination to Glory, of all which Privileges and perfections God is held to be the sole Author as much as if the Temple were dedicated to the God of Marie, Peter, Paul, Laurence etc.  
75. Hence it is plain, that we do not advance the Saints above the degree of Fellow-members of the same Body by erecting Temples and Altars to God in their Honour, whereby we signify only, that they are more Honourable Members than any on Earth, which this Author has no reason to except against, seeing he confesses, that there is a great difference in Honour between the Members of the same Body.  
76. He says 3. that those who worship Saints destroy the unity of Christ's Church, by dividing the Church in Heaven, and the Church on Earth, for nothing is more contrary to the sense of mankind, than to worship those of our own Communion.  
77. I Answer, that it is questionless contrary to the sense of mankind to worship those of our ownCommunion, if by worship be understood giving them Divine Honour. But I have sufficiently secured our Doctrine from this calumny, and if I have not, the Drs. Principles will not fail to do it for me. For it is a certain truth amongst Protestants, which is likewise owned by this Author, that the pretended Reformed Churches are not the only Church which Christ has upon Earth, but that the Roman Church and some other sorts of Christians are Members of it as well as they, which they cannot be, if they give Divine Honour to Saints by worshipping them as we Catholics do, as all other Christians in the world do besides Protestants, neither have we any Controversy with them, or they with us on the account of this Doctrine. Where fore if those who worship Saints destroy the unity of Christ's Body by dividing the Church in Heaven, and the Church on Earth, 'tis manifest, that Protestants alone are united to the Church in Heaven, because all other Christians in the world whom they call unreformed, worship Saints. From whence it is likewise evident, that they are the only true Church which Christ has upon Earth, and that the Roman Church and other Churches cannot be Members of it, because they destroy the unity of Christ's Body by their worship of Saints. The great art is to mend one hole so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 two  
78 Having thus run over such Objections as the Dr. b●…ings against our worship and Invocation of Saints, and proved it to be ●…nnocent, I conclude, that seeing there is a mutual intercourse and correspondence between the Church in Heaven and the Church on Earth, there ought in like manner to be an intercourse and correspondence between all the parts of the Church on Earth.  
79. Ib. He 3. proceeds to tell us, that the unity of the Church cannot consist in such Articles of Faith as have not always been the Faith of the Christian Church. For since the whole Church in all Ages is but One, it can have but One Faith .... And therefore it is ridiculous to talk of sucha Power in the Church of every Age as to make, or declare new Articles of Faith, unless there be an Authority to make a new Church too in every Age.  
80. I answer, that it is ridiculous indeed, to say that Christ has left any such Authority in the world as can make a new Church. Which absurdity does not follow from our holding, that he has left in the Church a Power to declare Articles of Faith, that is, that he has given to the Church such an Authority as may oblige the Faithful of one Age to an explicit belief of some Truths, which the Church of the preceding Age believed only with an implicit Faith. Protestant's must needs make use of the terms of explicit and implicit Faith as well as we for all the sport they make with them, unless they will deny the Authority of the Acts of the Apostles Chap. 10. from whence we plainly gather, that S. Peter had not from the time that our Saviour ascended into Heaven till this Vision at Joppe an explicit belief 1. that it was lawful to keep company, or to come in unto a Man of another Nation v. 28. but now, said he, to 〈◊〉 us (to whom he was directed by the Vision) God hath shown me, that I should not call any man common or unclean. Nor 2. that it was lawful to eat such meats as were forbidden by the Law of Moses, as appears from the answer which he returned to the Voice that bid him arise, kill, and eat, viz Far be it from me, Lord, for I have never eaten any thing common or unclean v, 13 14. Nor 3. that it was lawful to preach to the Gentiles, and to take them into the Church, as appears from what he said to Cornelius, I have found for a truth, that God is no respecter of persons, but in every Nation he that feareth him, and doth what is just is accepted of him, v. 34. 35. as likewise from what he said upon the amazement which the Faithful of the Circumcision were in who came along with him, when they saw, that the H. Ghost was poured upon Cornelius and his Family who were Gentiles, as well as upon him, viz Can any one forbid these men to be baptised, who have received the H. Ghost as well as we v. 45. 47. Which reason he gave afterwards also to the Faithful at Jerusalem, when they questioned him for having gone in to men uncircumcised, and eaten with them As I began to speak, said he, the H. Ghost fell on them as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, 〈◊〉 indeed baptised with water, but ye shall be baptised with the H. Ghost, from which Baptism by the H. Ghost he concludes the lawfulness of his baptising the Gentiles by water, and the justification of his whole conduct towards them thus: For as much then as God gave them the same grace as he did unto us who believed in the Lord jesus Christ: what was I that I could with stand God? Whereupon the Faithful when they heard these things held their peace, and glorified God, saying, then hath God also granted unto the Gentiles repentance unto life. Chap. 11. v. 15. 16. 17. 18. Neither 4. had S. Peter an explicit belief, that the observance of Circumcision was not necessary to salvation before this Vision, as well because we cannot reasonably suppose, that he who thought it unlawful to eat any thing that was common and unclean by the Law of Moses, or to keep company and eat with unciroumcised persons, should believe that Circumcision which was a solemn obligation to keep the whole Law, did not continue still in force; as also because in the Council which was held at Jerusalem concerning the difference which arose about this Sacrament, the proved the Non-necessitie of it from the descent of the H. Ghost upon Cornelius and his Family, which was the very Argument from whence he proved it to be lawful to baptise the Gentiles. Thus we see S. Peter's Faith extended to four Doctrines which he had been never taught expressly before, they having been of that number of Truths, of which our Saviour spoke, when he said to his Apostles, I have yet many things to say unto you, but ●…e cannot bear them now. Howbeit when the Spirit of Truth is come, he shall guide you into all Truth. joan Chap. 16. v. 12. 13.  
81. This remarkeble passage of Scripture affords us an exact instance to all that is said at present against the Power which we acknowledge to be in the Church of declaring Articles of Faith. For as the Dr. concludes, that since the Church in all Ages is but One, it can have but One Faith, so he ought to conclude, that since the Church which Christ left in the world was one and the same Church with that which was in being at the time that Peter had his Vision at joppes, and preached to Cornelius, it could have but One Faith. And yet we find that S. Peter and the whole Church after this Vision had an explicit belief of several Doctrines which they believed only implicitly when our Saviour ascended into Heaven. And as he concludes from the Unity and sameness of the Faith in all Ages, that it is ridiculous to tall of such a Power in the Church of every Age as 〈◊〉 make, or declare new Articles of Faith, unless then be an Authority to make a new Church too in every Age, so he ought to conclude, if he will proceed with any consequence to himself, that it is ridiculous to say that our Saviour since his Ascension 〈◊〉 Heaven has made, or declared new Articles of Faith, unless he has made a new Church too. And yet it is very certain, that the Declaration which our Saviour made to S. Peter of the aforesaid Doctrines, and Articles of Faith after his Ascension into Heaven did not make a new Church.  
82. Thus the difficulty which the Dr. has started against us is common to Protestants as well as to us, and to all those who own the Authority of the Acts of the Apostles. Let him come off with it as well as he can. As for our solution, it is very easy and intelligible, and equally shows, that neither S. Peter's Faith after his Vision at Joppe, nor the Faith of the Church in following Ages are to be accounted new, notwithstanding the several Declarations of Faith which have been made since our Saviour's A scension into Heaven. We say there fore, that our Saviour's Declaration of the aforesaid Doctrines to S. Peter did not make new Articles of Faith, or establish a new Church, but only laid a new obligation on the Faithful of believing them in exprese terms, which is that which we mean by explicit Faith, wher●…s before they believed them only in their Principles, which is that which we mean by an implicit Faith. S. Peter before his Vision at Joppe believed the Law of Christ to be a state of liberty, and that God would build again the Tabernacle of David out of the Gentiles; the first of which Principles he made use of in the Council which was held at Jerusalem, to show the uselessness of Circumcision and the Law of Moses among Christians; and the other was managed by S. james to the same purpose. He believed likewise what our Saviour said viz john indeed baptised with water, but ye shall be baptised by the H. Ghost, from which saying he proved after this Vision, that it was lawful to reconcile the Gentiles to Christ, as we have seen above. Therefore he believed implicitly all the aforesaid Doctrines which were included in these Principles; and after our Saviour had proposed them upon his Vision, he believed them explicitly and in express terms So that S. Peter's and the Church's implicit Faith were always the same, because the Principles from whence it was inferred, were revealed and always believed; as supposing our Saviour should propose to my belief the meaning of several obscure passages in S. John's Revelations, in this case my faith would not be different from what it is now. I should only have an explicit Faith of some Truths whereof I have only now an implicit belief. We have here no coining of a new Faith, nor making of a new Church, but only a new Declaration and Proposal of such Doctrines as were delivered in the beginning by the delivery of those Principles from whence they were deduced.  
83. This solution of a difficulty which the Dr. is obliged to remove is a just answer to what at present he urges against us. For although the Definitions and Declarations of the Church are new, yet the matters Defined and Declared were delivered by our Saviour either implicitly in such Principles from whence the truth of them is gathered; or else explicitly and in express Terms. In both which cases the Faith of the Church is the same, and by consequence the Church is One and the same in all Ages. For as to the first, seeing the Church has in all Ages explicitly believed the Principles, it must necessarily have given an implicit assent to such Doctrines as were contained in them. And as to the second, the vindication and declaration of a truth which was delivered in the beginning does no more than restore an Old Truth, and not establish a new one, and by consequence cannot make a new Church.  
§. 7. P. 10. 11. After the Drs. endeavours to show us wherein the Unity of the Church in Heaven and Earth does not consist, he proceeds 2. to tell us wherein it does consist, viz in the Gospel-Covenant by which we are all united in One Body to Christ, the one and only Head of the universal Church ..... The only Medium or Bond of this union between Christ and his Church is the Gospel-covenant: for that is the foundation of our relation to Christ. He is our Head and Husband, our Lord and Saviour, we his subjects, Disciples, Spous, and Body by Covenant.  
84. Reply. 'T is strange, that this Author who lays so great a stress upon the Gospel-covenant, should not take a little pains to give us an account what he means by it, it being not a matter evident of itself, and rarely applied to Controversial uses. I am persuaded, that the Unity of the Church had wanted a Champion, had not the Ambiguity that lies in these terms set him upon the undertaking. Wherefore before I grant it to be the Bond of union between Christ and his Church, it is fit that I establish the Notion of it, and not pass it over, as he does by acknowledging the name, and concealing from the Reader the thing signified by it.  
85. We understand by the Gospel-covenant the Covenant which we find mentioned by the Prophet Jeremy chap. 31. (who is quoted by S. Paul Hebr. chap. 10. v. 16) in these words, Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a New Covenant with the House of Israel and the House of juda ... This shall be the Covenant that I will make ... I will put my Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my People. The Prophet calls it a New Covenant, not because all the Elect from the beginning of the world were not included in it, but because Christ was to preach the Law which was to be written in our hearts, and to appear as a visible Teacher of the world after a great number of Ages, wherein men were either totally ignorant and unmindful of God, or else tied to the 〈◊〉 and burdensome observance of Types and Figures as among the Jews, or of no less ineffectual Sacrifices, as among the Gentiles. All which were to have an end, and to give way to the Law of Love, which Christ would write in our hearts.  
86. The word Covenant imports a mutual Promise and obligation between two or more persons, about something that is to be done by the Promisers to the Honour, or advantage of one another This Notion of a Covenant in general is easily applicable to the new Covenant, or that which passes between God and man relating to the Gospel-For the performance of God's Promise to us redounds to his Honour, and the performance of our Promise to him redounds to our Honour and advantage. What God promises us is, that we shall be the Spous and Body of his Son if we will believe in him; and our Promise to him again is, that we will believe in him in hopes of so great a reward. But it is not sufficient for men to be comprised under the Gospel-covenant, that they promise to believe in the Son of God: they must likewise signify this their Promise to him in such a manner as he himself has enjoined, which has been different in different Ages of the world. For we Christians accept, and lay hold on God's Promise at the time of our Baptism, the receiving of which Sacrament is ordained by God as an expression of our assent to his Proposal to us according to that of our Saviour, He that believes, and is baptised shall be saved. Marc 16. Those who were of the seed of Abraham had Circumcision appointed them for this purpose, whence S. Paul calls this Sacrament the seal of the Righteousness of Faith. Rom. 4. Those who were not of the seed of Abraham from the beginning of the world, who had neither Circumcision, nor Baptism whereby to signify their assent to God's Proposal to them, might make the same known to his Divine Majesty by their Faith in Christ who was to come. For these chosen Vessels having been for many Ages so very extraordinary and few, it may be doubted, whether there were any Sacraments appointed them for this end, since Sacraments are ordained for the exterior Union of many, as well as to significa a sacred thing; especially considering, that as every Divine Revelation that is made us for our spiritual good is a virtual Promise of a reward that is to be given us for our belief of it, so our belief of it is a virtual acceptance of the same reward. But we may with more probability judge, that the Sacrifices which we read to have been offered by Job (and the like may be said of other Holy men of his Class) were commanded by God, and accepted by him as an expression of the belief of the future Incarnation of his Son, and as a Condition of their becoming Members of his Mystical Body. And it is a matter beyond dispute, that the Sacrifices of Melchisedech were instituted for this end, seeing Christ our Lord is a Priest for ever according to his Order. Thus these three states of men who constitute the one 〈◊〉 Spous and Body of Carist, make one and the same Promise to God, although the manner of their expressing it be different.  
87. I have only mentioned Faith as a necessary Condition which we promise to perform in the Gospel-covenant, having followed herein the method of the Church, which demands of those who come to the Sacrament of Baptism, whether they believe? But besides Faith there is another Condition no less necessary, which is Obedience to our Ecclesiastical Superiors, which the Church forbears to mention because it is included in Faith, which being an assent to all that God reveals, it is by consequence an assent to all such things as he has commanded for the validity of his Covenant with us. Now obedience is a matter of this nature, as the Church has believed in all Ages, and as appears out of our Saviour's words to his Apostles, He that hears you, hears me, and he that despises you, despises me. Luc. 10. From whence we gather, that seeing we despise our Superiors as often as we disobey them, we despise Christ, as often as we disobey them; and if we despise Christ, we renounce our covenant with him. And in case this Author will not allow of this Doctrine, which shall be fully proved in the sequel of these Discourses, he must consequently hold, that Christ may have a true Church, and that his Mystical Body may subsist, although all the Christians in the world were absolutely unconnected, disunited, and independent of one another in matters of Government, and Obedience.  
88 Obedience to Ecclesiastical Superiors was no less necessary to the Gospel-covenant under the Law of Moses than it is now, wherein there is this only difference, that those who under the Old Law would not acquiesce with the determination of the Priests, should be put to death, Deut. 17. whereas under the Gospel, those who disobey their Pastors are only excommunicated, whereby they have time given them to 〈◊〉. In both these cases disobedience is a forfeiture of the Gospel-covenant; for those who died for it under the Law died in a state of damnation as outcasts and rebels against the chair of Moses; and those who die excommunicated for the same under the Gospel will far no better unless they are certain of the injustice of their Excommunication, which we cannot reasonably presume of such as are excommunicated for their errors in Faith, seeing the Gospel obliges them in such cases to hear those by whom they are excommunicated as they hear Christ himself. This condition appertained likewise to all those who neither lived under the Law nor the Gospel, and yet were Members of Christ's Mystical Body; for although they had only the actual exercise of Faith, yet seeing their Faith in Christ was an assent to his whole Law, it must needs have been an approbation of that Obedience to our Superiors which was to be commanded by it. Those who pass out of this life into Heaven are freed from the observance of the●…e conditions, because their Faith is turned into 〈◊〉, whereby they are immediately and completely united to their Lord, whom they obeyed in their Pastors whilst they were upon Earth. They still continue in Covenant with him (as this Author 〈◊〉 p. 12.) because their enjoyment of him is the end of the Covenant, and a reward of their Faith; and they cease not to be his Spous, because he has preferred them to a state of Glory, So that the Church in Heaven and Earth are under one and the same Covenant, 〈◊〉 they are not both of them actually under one and the same Conditions of continuing in it.  
89. Now from what I have said we may learn 1. that the Notion of the Gospel-covenant is this, A mutual Aggreement between God and some persons whom he has 〈◊〉 to this favour, whereby God engages on his part, that they shall be the Spous and Body of his Son, if they will believe in him, and obey their Pastors whom he shall set over them, and they again on their part bind themselves by Promise to the performance of these Conditions.  
90. 2. That although the Gospel-covenant be the beginning of our relation to Christ, as a League that is concluded between two Princes is the beginning and foundation of the public advantages that are to accrue to each others People, yet the medium or 〈◊〉 of our Union to him cannot consist precisely 〈◊〉, no more than the advantages of the People can consist merely 〈◊〉 the League that is concluded between their Princes. For we may 〈◊〉 to God in Baptism what is absolutely necessary for the validity of the Gospel-covenant which we will not afterwards perform. In which case we have no such relation to Christ, that he should be our Head and Husband, our Lord, and Saviour, or that we should be his Disciples, subjects, Spous, and Body on this account. For baptised Heretics and Schismatics are thus in Covenant with Christ, and yet they belong not to his One Body any otherwise than as deserters belong to the Army which they have forsaken, which signifies no more but that they ought to be present in it, and that the General has a right to punish them for their desertion whenever they fall within his Power.  
91. 3. That if the Gospel-covenant be taken so as to signify, not only the mutual promises which pass between God and man, but likewise the performance of them, there can be no dispute, but that it is the only Bond or Medium of union between Christ and his Church, not that Faith and Obedience which are the things which we promise to God, are the formal reason of our being the Spous and Body of his Son (as shall further appear below,) but only that they being Necessary Conditions without which we cannot be it, as soon as they are performed by us, God makes us his Son's 〈◊〉 and Spous, whether they are exercised by us in this life, or cease by our translation into Glory. And here enters what S. Paul says 1. ad Cor. 12. By 〈◊〉 spirit we are all baptised into One Body, as likewise ad Eph. 3. That the Nations should be Coheirs, 〈◊〉 of the same Body, and partakers of his 〈◊〉 through the Gospel.  
92. Having thus established the Notion of the Gospel-covenant, wherein shall we place the Noti●… on of the Church's Mystical Union to Christ as his Spous and Body, which is so necessary for the understanding of the Controversy in hand? If we place it in the profession of Faith, and Obedience to Ecclesiastical Superiors, we shall exclude the Church in Heaven from being Members of Christ's Mystical Body, because they are exempt from these obligations. If we say that it consists in the character which we receive in Baptism, we shall make Heretics, Schismatics, and Apostats (supposing they have been baptised) to be Christ's Mystical Members. And if we say, that it consists in habitual or Justifying Grace, it will not be true what the H. Ghost sais, that there are dead Members of Christ's Mystical Body.  
93. D Sherlock gives a broad hint p. 13. and 14. that it is one thing for the Church to be united in One Body to Christ by the Gospel-covenant, and another thing to be united to him as his Spous and Body, which certainly he would never have done, had he considered the double meaning which I lately assigned to the Gospel-covenant. For although, as I have said, the mutual Promises that pass between Christ and his Church, are the Beginning of the Church's relation to him, yet seeing these Promises alone cannot unite her to him any otherwise than as Heretics and Schismatics are united to him, her complete Union to him must be by the performance of the mutual Promises, which they make to each other. And this is the Union which makes her his Spous and Body.  
94. I say he hints at such a distinction very clearly, for having asked the question, how the whole Church (in Heaven and Earth) is but one Body? He answers that he knows of no other way, but that they are all united to Christ in the same Covenant, and all who are thus united to him, Christ accounts for his One Body. After which he says, that it is true indeed, that the Church is called also the Body and Spous of Christ, but it is called so for Mystical reasons, which I willingly grant, but he must know that these Mystical reasons are the mystical Union where- by the Church is united to Christ as to her Spous, and wholly indistinct from the performance of God's Promise in the Covenant, as will appear out of these reasons which I have cited out of him below N. 96. and which being supposed here, I shall leave it to him to 〈◊〉 whether the formation of the church out of Christ's Broken Body be not the thing which God promised her when he entered into the Gospel-Covenant with her. Wherefore if the Church's formation out of his broken Podie be her Mystical Marriage to him, and her Mystical Marriage be for 〈◊〉 Reasons, it follows, that these Mystical Reasons are the Mystical Union whereby she is married, and united to him. And if these Mystical Reasons are the Mystical Union whereby she is married, and united to him, it follows, that she is One Body in Christ not merely because she is united to him by Covenant, that is, by means of the Promises which they have made each other, but because she has received from him the performance of his Promise upon her performance of what she had promised him.  
95. Since the Mystical Union of the Church to Christ is only by way of similitude, the most effectual way to establish its Notion will be to consult the H. Scriptures, where we shall find the similitudes set down, and the grounds of them, which are the best light we can have to know its meaning.  
96. In the first place the Church is called the Spous and Body of Christ as well because of the infinite love wherewith he cherishes, supports, and regales her, as also for certain Mystical Reasons which are delivered by this Author P. 14. 15. 16. 17. and seeing his words are not amiss, I shall make use of them; for to be sure no others will pleas him half so well. To understand, says he, why the Church is called the Spous and Body of Christ we must inquire, why the Wife is called the Body of the Man, Flesh of his Flesh, and Bone of his Bone, and the reason of that is, because the Woman was form cut of the Man ...... Thus the B. jesus out of his great pity and compassion to fallen Man intending to marry us to himself, and thereby to recover us out of a state of sin and misery, 〈◊〉 marries our nature to himself by an Hypostatical union 〈◊〉 Man was created first, and the woman taken out of him ...... But this is not enough, that the Husband and Wife partake of the same Nature, but the Woman must be form out of the Man, which makes her Flesh of his Flesh, and Bone of his Bone. And thus accordingly the Church is form out of the Body of Christ, and is in a Mystical sense his very Flesh and Bones, as S. Paul speaks, We are Members of his Body, of his Flesh, and of his Bones. For the sufferings of Christ in the Flesh gave life, and being to the Church, he purchased a Church to himself by his own Blood, that is, he form 〈◊〉 himself a Church out of his broken Bodies as 〈◊〉 body was broken, and a rib taken out of him to 〈◊〉 the Woman .... And as the Woman was form out of Adam's side, so was the Church out of Christ's side. For when he was pierced by the soldiers spear, 〈◊〉 came out of his side both Water and Blood ... And therefore I doubt not, but the ancient Fathers were 〈◊〉 the right, who tell us, that the Sacraments of the 〈◊〉 Covenant flowed from out of his side which are the formation of this Spiritual Spous his Church.  
97. 2. The Church is likewise said to be the Body of Christ, and he to be its Head from the resemblance there is between it and the 〈◊〉 Body of a man. For as in the Natural Body 〈◊〉 are different Members who act by the virtue, and at the command which they receive from the 〈◊〉 which is the seat of reason and of all the senses, 〈◊〉 in the Mystical Body of Christ there are different states and Conditions of Members, who 〈◊〉 from their Head, in whom the Fullness of the Divinity resides, ability, and directions how to perform their supernatural operations. S. Paul 1. ad Cor. 12. tells us, that God has set in his Church some Apostles, others Prophets, others Teachers, others that work Miracles and cure diseases from above, others that have the gift of Tongues, and others again who are qualified for Government etc. All which are Members of this One Body, and in subjection to their Head, who directs them by his invisible influences to contribute each one their part towards the consummation of the whole Body in Charity, which is their last end. So that as in the Natural Body the Spirit and Virtue of the Head is derived to all the Members through the providential care it has over them, according to the capacity of every one of them in particular and the necessity of the whole, so in the Mystical Body of Christ the 〈◊〉 Spirit of Christ is lodged in all its Members, whether they are in Heaven, or struggling still with temptations on Earth. In the One he dwells by Glory and the Beatifique Vision, and in the other by Faith, and his other sacred Unctions. For these diversities of operations proceed all from the same Spirit of their Head, who lives in them after a more special manner than he does in inanimate beings, which is only on the account of his Immensity and Power; or than he does in Infidels who know not his name, in whom he lives by natural reason; or than he does in Catechumen, who although they know his name, and believe in him, yet having not received Baptism, which is the manner whereby they are enjoined to accept of God's Promises, they can have no right to any 〈◊〉 of the Gospel-covenant, nor by consequence to be Members of our Lord's Body; Or than he does in 〈◊〉 and Excommunicated Persons, who having renounced their Obedience to Ecclesiastical Superiors, he lives not in them although they believe and have received Baptism, so long as they continue in that state, any more than he does Infidels. Whereas he lives in all such as are Members of his Mystical Body as a ready Principle of supernatural operations. If they are in Heaven, he is a Principle of their Happiness; and if they are on Earth, although they are great 〈◊〉, yet in virtue of his 〈◊〉 to them, they are sure of being assisted by him, whenever they heartily repent of their offences, and turn to him. But Catechumen, Schismatics and Excommunicated Persons are under an impossibility of repenting as they ought, till they are incorporated either actually or in voto into Christ's Body, which is the only state to which he has promised his Grace and assistance.  
98. And to carry the Analogy yet further, as in the Natural Body such services as are proper to each part are communicated to every Fellow-member, and there is no good so peculiar to any one of them, which all the rest do not partake of: so it fares likewise in Christ's Mystical Body, where such meritorious actions as are performed by any Member in particular, redound to the benefit of them all, according to that of David Particeps ego sum omnium timentium te. Psalm. 118. By which means we are not only Members of Christ, but as S. Paul sais ad Eph. 4. Members of one another, by contributing towards one another's salvation by such good actions, as are proper to the stations and places which God has assigned to us; as the eye, the ear, the hand, the foot, and the belly contribute towards the mutual good of one another by such operations as are proper to each one in particular. Thus if God has made me a Pastor of souls here in England, and I discharge my office according to his Divine Will; or if he has made me poor and afflicted, and I bear my necessities with patience and resignation, he will in consideration of my Merits have mercy on my Fellow-members who are in far distant Countries, as suppose in Mexico or China. Whereas without such a communication of Merits, whatever good I may do to my Fellow-members here in England by my example or the like, yet those in Mexico or China will be never the better for it. Seeing the Church in Heaven is no longer capable of meriting, their prayers and Intercessions are the only services that they can render to their Brethren on Earth: but this is too general a means for all the Fellow-members to assist one another withal, and makes them all only of one kind, as suppose an eye, an ear, a hand, or a belly, because they contribute all alike towards the common good by one and the same operation. Thus S. Paul's excellent Analogy is fully salved in our Doctrine, but must needs be very imperfect in the Drs. way, who by denying Merit, makes it impossible to explicate, how the Mystical Body of Christ has a complete resemblance with the Natural Body, when the Members of it are only Members of one another by their being all united to Christ, and not by any special assistances which their respective stations enable them to afford to one another. The contrary whereof happens in the Natural Body, where the Members are one among themselves, not only by their common subjection to their Head, but by their subserviency to one another by means of such good offices as are proper to each of them in particular.  
99: 3. Our Saviour is compared Luc. 15. to a Vine, and ad Rom. 10. to an Olive tree, and we are said to be his branches, and to derive our growth and nourishment from him. So that whilst we are not broken off but united to him, we partake of the fatness of his root, and may bring forth fruit.  
100 4. As in the Natural Body, when any Member is stupefied, or seized with the dead palsy, it does not cease for all that from being a member of the Body, although it be an useless one, and afford matter of grief to the other members; neither is it dead, because it is totally forsaken by the soul which is the Principle of life, but by reason the ill dispositions it lies under, hinder its sensations, so that it cannot obey thehead by the exercise of any vital motions. So it fares likewise with too many members of Christ's Mystical Body, who being deprived of Charity are under such ill dispositions, 〈◊〉 they are unable to think, or to act any thing so as to pleas Christ their Head thereby in such a manner as he requires of them; wherein consist the most profitable Motions of a Christian and supernatural life. And neverthe less they cease not to be Members of Christ's Body, notwithstanding this Spiritual Palsy, and insensibility of their greatest concerns, because they still retain the spirit of their Head who dwells in their hearts by Faith, as S. Paul sais ad Eph. 3. as likewise 1. ad Cor, 6. v. 19 and 〈◊〉 ad Cor. 13. v. 5. Their soul has not totally forsaken them, although their obstructions and bad dispositions hinder the communication of its influences; and their Faith (which is the first Principle of a Christian life), if it be improved, and brought to action, may retore them again from their spiritual deadness to health, and make them living Members by partaking of those Blessings and Graces, which abundantly flow from the Head to all the Members through the working of Charity.  
101. I am not ignorant, that S. Paul speaks of the dead Members of Christ's Body as though there were no life at all in them, no more than there is in 〈◊〉 branch of a tree: which terms are 〈◊〉 used by Dr. Sherlock on the present occasion. God forbid that I should disallow of this way of speech, seeing it is countenanced by Truth itself. However I judge; that it may be understood so in relation to Charity, which is the permanent and Haebitual Life which we receive in Baptism; so that who 〈◊〉 is deprived of this Heavenly Gift is as much dead in order to any actions that may deserve a reward from God, as a withered or rotten branch of a tree, or a Body that is forsaken by the soul. But if it be understood with relation to Christ who is the Efficient Caus of Charity, that is, of our Regeneration and Newness of spirit, there can be no inconvenience in saying, that the dead Members of Christ's Body have an Analogy with Paralytiques, because we are sure that they have Christ dwelling in them by Faith, who says of himself that he is Life. So that as we say of a Paralytique, that he is not absolutely dead whilst his soul continues united to his Body, but only that he is dead as to his sensations by reason of the ill dispositions that affect his nerves: so we may say of a dead Member of Christ's Body, that he is not absolutely dead so long as he has the Lord of Life dwelling within him by a special presence, which is not common to those who have Faith and yet are not of his Body, but only that he is dead as to any good and meritorious actions through the want of Charity.  
102. Now from all these Analogies and similitudes we may gather, that to be a Member of Christ's Mystical Body denotes a special Grace and favour, whereby our Lord receives us under his more particular care, whereby he looks after our true and only interest as though we were parts of himself, and with the same concern as every one has for his natural Members. For what signifies his forming us out of his broken Body, but that he has placed us in such a state wherein we may receive the benefit of his death and Passion, which is signified by the Prophet Jeremy above, when God says that he will be our God, and that we shall be his People? And that he has given us a supernatural strength to attain the enjoyment of him, which is an end above our natural abilities? And what signifies his being as it were the soul of his Church, and the root from whence she derives her juce and fatness, but that he is ready prepared to do us good, if we will lay hold on him; that he is our All in All, that he supports our weakness, mollifies our hardness, inflames our lukewarmness, removes our blindness, and that without an Union with him by means of Faith and Obedience to our Pastors, as in the Church Militant, or by means of the Beatifique Vision, as in the Church Triumphant, we are able to do nothing but what is imperfect and impure, and which will not end in death and destruction. Wherefore I conclude from all that has been said, that to be a Member of Christ's Body, or to be Mystically united to him as our Spous imports A special Relation which all those have to Christ as their last end, who have not retracted their acceptance of the Graces and favours which he promised them, through their renouncing the necessary Conditions which he required of them, and which they promised to perform at what time the Gospel-Covenant passed between them.  
103. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is A special Relation which all those have to 〈◊〉 as their last end, because all men whether they are 〈◊〉 or unbelievers have a general Relation to him as to their Creator, Preserver, and future Judge, nay and as to their last 〈◊〉 too, seeing they were all created to enjoy God. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Relation to Christ as denotes a state wherein 〈◊〉 means are to be had which lead unto him, is only proper and peculiar to the Members of his Body. I say who have not retracted their acceptance of the Graces and favours etc. that the Church in Heaven and the Church on Earth may be both comprehended under this Notion. For it is plain, that the Church on Earth has not made any such retractation, seeing she actually professes to believe in Christ, and to obey her Ecclesiastical Superiors, which is the only state wherein Christ dispenses his favours here upon Earth. And as for the Church in Heaven, she still continues the acceptance of such graces and favours as are proper to the state to which she is called, as she did likewise the Necessary Conditions of the Gospel-Covenant, till such time as she was freed by her Spous srom the observance of them. I say the necessary Conditions of the Gospel-Covenant; for God required of us in Baptism when we entered into Covenant with him, that we should likewife renounce the Devil and all his pomps, that is, that we should lead holy and spiritual lives, and we made him a Promise that we would do so, and yet although we fail herein, we do not cease to be Members of his Mystical Body, provided we preserve the true 〈◊〉 and Ecclesiastical unity, as this Author P. 20. proves at large against his dissenting Brethren.  
104. Thus I have run through the Drs. first Chapter wherein he pretends to 〈◊〉 the Unity of the whole Church, as that includes the Church in Heaven and the Church on Earth, and shall leave it to the Reader's consideration, whether he has made his attempt good, without clearing the Notion of the Gospel-Covenant, or that of our Mystical Union to Christ as our Spous, which are the necessary ties that must unite them both together. His discourse towards the latter end is bend for several leaves rather against his dissenting Brethren than against us. What remains yet untouched relating to the differences which Protestants have with us shall be considered in the examination of his second Chapter, which now lies before me.   

CHAPTER II. Concerning the unity of the Catholic Church on Earth.  
§. 1. P. 30.  
HE begins thus. If the whole Church be one, to be sure every part of it must be one with the whole, and therefore one with itself i.e. with that same kind of unity which belongs to the whole.  
1. Reply. What then? I'll help him forward. 〈◊〉 the Church on Earth is a part of the whole Church. Therefore the Church on Earth is one with the whole, and therefore one with itself with the same kind of unity which belongs to the whole. Then thus. But the unity which belongs to the whole is the unity whereby it is Mystically united to Christ as to its Spous. Therefore the Church on Earth is one with the whole, and one with itself by the unity whereby it is Mystically united to Christ as to its Spous and Head. I see nothing oncluded here but what we freely grant, viz that the 〈◊〉 on 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 one with itself, and with the Church in Heaven, by means of the Mystical Union whereby they are both united to Christ as their Spous.  
§. 2. He immediately proceeds. So that the Essential unity of the Church on Earth, that which makes a Church and makes it one, is that all true Churches are Members of the one Mystical Body of Christ, as being all united to him as to their Head by the same Covenant.  
2. Reply. This is the kill Proposition which is to put and end to the vain and arrogant Pretences of the Church of Rome. This is to be the bane of the Infallibility of the Church, of the Pope's Supremacy, and of the Authority of General Councils etc. This is to be she shield of the Reformation, and the defence of the Protestant Caus, which till the publication of this Discourse has been carried on but very unluckily, although he will have many good things to have been said in its behalf. And yet we do not find any one word to make it good, unless it be that which I have examined above in Reply to this 3. Answer, N. 6. although it be not a Principle of so great clearness as to be its own proof. Nay it is nothing else in effect but a Proposition which he advances in opposition to our Doctrine. For we affirm, that the Church on Earth has a Visible Unity Essential to it by Christ's Institution by means of Faith and Obedience to our Pastors, from whence we show by pressing consequences the Infallibility of the Church, the Supremacy of the Pope, and the Authority of General Councils. In answer to which he tells us, that the only Essential unity of the Church on Earth, that which makes a Church, and it one, is that all true Churches are Members of the One Mystical Body of Christ, as being all united to him as to their Head by the same Covenant, that is, that there is no other Unity Essential to the Church, but that whereby it is united to Christ as to its Mystical Head and Spous, from whence he very manfully concludes the falseness of the foregoing Doctrines. Can he think, that we will lay aside our Faith because he tells us that it is not true, or that any prudent man of his party will judge, that he has put an end to wranglings by a bare denial of our Tenets, which all Authors of his Communion who have writ before him, have done no less than himself? Nay they have brought proofs, such as they are, to justify their dissent from us; but he brings none, and yet would have the world think, that he has done more than any of them. He must have a strange confidence in his own abilities, who can presume, that a simple Affirmation or Negation of his own will go further than other men's Syllogisms, as it is certain the Dr. does; for otherwise he would never censure Protestant Writers for the ill management of their Caus against us, when he to 〈◊〉 the matter, produces such a Principle for this purpose as he is sure we will deny, and yet makes no provision at all for its defence. Let his Pupils 〈◊〉 up his Authority as much as they pleas; we will allow him to have none, but where we find he 〈◊〉 reason for what he says, which it is not likely 〈◊〉 should have at present, seeing the only proof of this Proposition is the Authority of his Person.  
3. This Proposition is capable of a good sense as well as of a bad one. For if the meaning of it be, that the Essential Unity of the Church on Earth, as it is Christ's Mystical Body, is that all true Churches are united to him as to their Head by the performance of the Promises that passed between them in the Gospel-covenant, it is undoubtedly true. Neither do I know of any thing else that can make a Mystical Church, and make it Mystically One, because the Relation to Christ which arises from the formation of us out of his broken Body which he promised us, is that which makes us Members of his Mystical Body, in consideration of the performance of the Conditions which he required of 〈◊〉, viz Faith and Obedience to our Ecclesiastical Superiors, wherein we place the Essential Unity of the visible Church as such.  
4. But the immediate connexion which this Proposition has with the last which I took notice of, evinces that he can have no such meaning as this, from whence it is very clear, that he designs to say, that the only Essential Unity of the Church on Earth is the Mystical Union of it to Christ as to its Spous. For he having said in the foregoing Chapter, that the Essential Unity of the whole Church in Heaven and Earth consists in the Union of them both to Christ, and having at present applied this Doctrine to that part of the whole Church which is on Earth whose Unity he pretends to establish, it follows, that he allows of no other Unity as Essential to it; otherwise we might expect an account of it here which is its proper place, seeing the Notion of the Church's Unity must needs be defective without it.  
5. Besides, his inferences throughout the second Chapter suppose, that the Church on Earth has no other Unity Essential to it, but that whereby it is Mystically united to Christ as to its Spous. Which Position has engaged him to maintain, that the Catholic Church is nothing else but the whole Company, or multitude of individual Christians, who are all singly united to Christ, and made one in him. From whence he is enforced to hold, that the Clergy do not belong to the Definition of a Church; that they are not the Church; that the Church has no Authority, nor any visible Tribunal wherein to exercise this Authority; that the Faith of General Councils is not necessarily the Faith of the Church; that the Indefectibilitie of the Catholic Church does not depend upon the Indefectibilitie of Organised Churches; that it is possible for the Catholic Church to be unknown and invisible; that the indefectibilitie of the Church does not prove the Infallibility of any Organised Church. All which Doctrines and a great many more which I have omitted, suppose that our Mystical Union to Christ is the only Essential Unity which the Church has. And to put the matter out of dispute, he says in express terms p. 47. that the Essential Unity of the Catholic Church consists only in the union of all Christians to Christ, which makes them his one Mystical Body; and p. 31. that Christian Churches are One Body by being all united to one Mystical Head, the Lord jesus Christ; not by an external and visible union to each other.  
6. And truly if he hold, that it is Essential to the Church on Earth to be visibly One as well as to be Mystically One, what he says against us p. 7. to prove that the formal and Essential Unity of the Church on Earth does not consist in its union to the Pope, is very silly. For his Argument runs thus. The Church on Earth is One with the Church in Heaven, they being both but One Church, and therefore must have the same Essential unity; for how they should be One by two sorts of unity, that is, be One without the same formal unity, is very mysterious and near akin to a contradiction. And therefore seeing the unity of the Church in Heaven does not consist in its union to the Pope, no more does the unity of the Church in Earth, the unity being the same in both. To which Argument we have a very ready and convincing Answer, if he hold it to be Essential to the Church on Earth tobe Visibly One; for if this be so, why may not its Visible Unity consist in its Union to the Pope, as well as by any other visible means? For it cannot follow, because the Unity of the Church in Heaven does not consist in its Union to the Pope, that therefore the Unity of the Church on Earth does not 〈◊〉 in the same, no more than it follows, because the Unity of the Church in Heaven does not consist in that wherein Dr. Sherlock will have the visible Unity of the Church on Earth to consist, that therefore the Unity of the Church on Earth does not consist in the same. And as in this Hypothesis he will deny; that it is near akin to a contradiction to say that such a visible Unity as he allows, is Essential to the Church on Earth, because he does not pretend, that the Formal and Essential unity of the Church in Heaven and Earth consists in such an Unity as he judges to appertain only to the Church on Earth: so we may in like manner say, that it is far from being a contradiction, to place the visible Unity which we acknowledge for Essential to the Church on Earth in its Union to the Pope, because we do not hold, that the formal and Essential Unity of the whole Church in Heaven and Earth consists therein, but in another kind of Unity which is distinct from it.  
7. Having said thus much concerning the meaning of the aforesaid Proposition, I would now gladly know, how the Dr. can reconcile the visibility of the Church on Earth, which he says p. 18. is plainly taught in Scripture with the truth of it. For seeing the Church is nothing else but many individuals united into One Body, if the Essential Union of them together be Invisible (as our Mystical Union to Christ as our Spous is) the Church must be invisible to. I shall prove our Mystical Union to be Invisible in my Reply to the Answer which he returns to this Objection, which was too notorious to be dissembled by him, and therefore he starts it against himself ubi supra, and takes an occasion to show his dislike of those who are of opinion, that the Church is composed of no others but the Elect.  
8. As I do not blame him for impugning this Opinion, so I must needs declare my dissatisfaction at the Answer which he makes to the aforesaid Objection, which is, that the union of the Church to Christ which he had explained (that is, her Mystical Union to him as to her Spous) is a visible union, for, sais he, we are nnited to Christ by the Gospel-covenant, and the Covenant is visible; the Sacraments of the Covenant Baptism and the Lord's Supper are visible, the profession of Faith and Obedience to Christ made 〈◊〉 these Sacraments are visible also; and therefore the Church which is united to Christ by a visible Covenant, visible Sacraments, and a visible profession is visible also.  
9 I say, that I am not at all satisfied with this Answer; for by his good leave, the union to Christ which he had explained is an invisible Union; for it consists in this, that all those who perform the Conditions of the Gospel-covenant are united to Christ as to their Spous, and this for Mystical Reasons which I have cited out of him above Chap. 1. N. 96. viz because they are form out of Christ's broken Body, as Adam's body was broken, and a rib taken out of him to form the woman. Which Mystical Marriage, Relation, and Formation of us out of his broken Body is a thing which we believe and cannot see. Will Dr. Sherlock pretend to see, that we are Flesh of Christ Flesh and Bone of his Bone? It is plain, that we see it not any other way than by Faith, as we see the B. Trinity. On which account the B. Trinity is as visible to us, as that we are Flesh of Christ's Flesh and Bone of his Bone. No doubt, but that the Faith whereby we believe the Church to be Flesh of Christ's Flesh, and Bone of his Bone is visible by by the visible profession of it; but the Object of this Faith is no more visible than the B. Trinity. Neither can the visibility of this Union be proved from the visibility of the Gospel-covenant etc. there being a great disparity between the visible Marriage of Man and Woman and the Mystical Marriage of the Church to Christ. For the Marriage of Man and Woman becomes visible by the visible expression of the consent of both parties being visibly present, which is a visible delivery of them into each others power so as to unite them into One Flesh. But in the Marriage of the Church to Christ, although the Covenant which God makes his Church be visible, yet it is not visible that it is God's Covenant, which is a truth which we believe only, and cannot see. And although our acceptation of God's Promise and Covenant be visible by our visible profession of Faith, yet seeing it is not visible that the Covenant which we call God's is really his, it cannot be visible, that we are Flesh of Christ's Flesh, and Bone of his Bone. A visible Marriage cannot result from the visible consent of one of the Parties, when the consent of the other party is invisible, nay when it is not visible that the other party is in rerum natura to give any consent, as it happens between the Church and Christ who is invisible to her; neither has she any other means of knowing that he is, or that he is God, than what she has from Faith, which (as I have said) sees not its Objects to be true, but judges them to be so upon the Authority of the Revealer.  
10. And thus the Argument which the Dr. uses against those who hold the Church to be the number of the Elect, is turned against himself; for thus he discourses against them: The internal Grace which makes a Church-member is invisible, and therefore Church-members are invisible too, and then I fear (he may be sure of it) the Church itself must be invisible, if all the Members of it are invisible; for invisible Members cannot make a visible Society. Which Argument will serve as well against him as against them; for the Mystical union which Essentially makes a Church-member is an invisible Grace, whereof S. Paul sais ad Eph. 5. Marriage is a great Sacrament, Sign, or Mystery; and therefore Church-members are invisible too, and then the Church itself must be invisible; for invisible Members cannot make a visible Society.  
11. Notwithstanding what has been here said, it cannot be denied, but that the Church on Earth is united to Christ by Faith in him, by being baptised in his name, by feeding on the Sacrament of his Body and Blood etc. p. 51. Which Union, although it be Mystical, may become visible by the visible profession of Faith, and visible Sacraments, as Faith itself becomes visible by the visible profession of it. But it does not follow from hence, that the Church is visible; for this Union signifies no more than an adhaesion of the Church to Christ by means of Faith, and the Sacraments, as the understanding and will adhere, and are united to their Objects by their respective Acts, much after such a manner and in such a sense, as when we say, Anima est magis ubi amat, quam ubi animat, or that affection makes two souls one. Mahometans may be thus said to be united to God whom they pretend to obey by following Mahomet, and Pagans' to be united to their Idols, which, S. Paul 1. ad Cor. c. 8. says are nothing. Thus likewise the same Apostle 1. ad Cor. c. 6. says that whoever cleaves to a harlot becomes one with her, because of the conjunction of their wills, as well as of their Bodies. This kind of Union is ●…ound among Heretics, and Schismatics 〈◊〉 their unsound Faith and disobedience, as well as in the true Church, although with this difference, that Heretics and Schismatics reap no advantage to their souls thereby, whereas it turns to the merit and salvation of the living Members of Christ's Mystical Body, as it may likewise to the dead Members of it, if they will use their best endeavours for the same. I say this Union is not that Mystical Union which knits the Church in Heaven and Earth together, by which this Author will have the Church on Parth to be Essentially united to Christ as to its Spous, but is distinct and of another nature from it, as is plain; because it does not necessarily suppose, that we have any special relation to Christ as our last end, or that we are in such a state wherein our Lord has appointed us to receive the benefit of his death and Passion, wherein consists the Notion of our Mystical Union to Christ as our Spous. This is the Mystical Union which I deny to be visible by the Gospel-covenant, Profession of Faith and the Sacraments, which besides what has been already said, the following Considerations will make it impossible for him to prove.  
12, For the Union of Christians to Christ by means of the Gospel-covenant, Profession of Faith, and the Sacraments imports no more, but that the Christian Religion may be said to make one among the other Religions that are in the world, as when we say that there are four Religions in the world, the Christian, Jewish, Mahometan, and Pagan; from whence we cannot conclude, that the Church is visible, but only that the men who are said to constitute the Church, are visible, and that their Religion is visible, which is not the same thing as to say that the Church is visible, if the only Essential Unity it has be that whereby it is Mystically united to Christ as to its Spous. And yet we Christians intent to say something more than this by the visible Church, which signifies a visible Body; for we intent, to signify thereby a multitude of men, who are linked and tied together by such an Unity as Christ has made Essential to it, and that this Unity is visible. And in case this Notion be not admitted, we must change our terms, and not say the visible Church but visible Professors of Christianity, or at best many disjoined Congregations and Churches who are become One by a voluntary combination among themselves, which, one would think, this Author should not well like, who p. 29. will have the Church on Earth to be also one Body and Communion, and this, if I mistake him not, by Christ's Institution.  
13. Neither are we visibly united to Christ by the Obedience which we visibly profess to pay him. For seeing it is not visible that Christ is, or that he is God, it cannot be visible that he lays any Commands upon us. And if it be not visible that he lays any Commands upon us, it cannot be visible that we obey him. And if it be not visible that we obey him, it cannot be visible that we are united to him by the Obedience whlch we profess to pay him. Our Faith is all the evidence we have that he is, or that he is God, and therefore our Obedience to him cannot bear a greater evidence than the Act of the Understanding whereby we apprehend him to be, which being obscure, and far from enabling us to see that he is, the Obedience we pay him must by consequence be far from being visible. As we believe him to be, so we believe that we obey him by the performance of those Commands which we believe to be his. And it it impossible that we should have a greater evidence that we obey him, than we have that he is, because every Act of our Obedience supposes only the evidence of our Faith that he is. No doubt, but men visibly perform those Commands which they believe to be Christ's, but if it be not visible that Christ is, it cannot be visible that they are his Commands, and if it be not visible that they are his Commands, it cannot be visible that they obey him by the performance of them.  
14. The Church therefore is invisible, if its visibility must be taken from Obedience to Christ's Commands. And it stands to reason that it should be so, because Christ who is Invisible is a necessary Principle of its visibility. The Visible Church is a Visible Body. And who can comprehend a Visible Body, when the only Power which makes it a Body by commanding over it is Invisible. A visible Power and visible Obedience the things that constitute a Visible Body, and when either of them are wanting, we are to sack for a Visible Body. Will Dr. Sherlock say, that there can be a Visible King whose subjects are Invisible? It is evidently ridiculous; for the man may be Visible, but his Kingship is not so. For as a King in the Notion of it imports one who has Power over many, so a Visible King imports one who has Power over many who are Visible, How then can be say, that the Church is a Visible Body, and a Visible Kingdom, when the subjects are only Visible, and the Commanding Power is Invisible? As a King in the Notion of it 〈◊〉 one who has Power over many, so the subjects of a Kingdom import many who are under one. And as a Visible King imports one who has Power over many who are also Visible, so the Visible subjects of a Kingdom import many who are under the Power of one Visible Man. King and Subjects, Head and 〈◊〉 are Relations, and Relations require the Coexistence of such Considerations as found the Relation that is between their Correlates and them, as is plain; for a Father ceases to be a Visible Father whose Son ceases to be Visible by a translation into a state of invisibility.  
15. No such absurdities as these ensue upon our Doctrine, who do not hold the Church to be Visible by a Visible Union to Christ, whether this be but by a Visible profession of that Faith which she believes to have been taught by Christ, and by a Visible Obedience to such Pastors as she believes he has set over her, by which means she is knit and compacted together, as much as any Civil Body or Society; and we may in all rigour of speech say that she is Visible, because the visible profession of Faith and Obedience to her Pastors makes her in our way to be a Visible Church, and is no less Essential to her during her Pilgrimage on Earth than her Mystical Union to Christ as her Spous. Thus the visibility of the Church is it's own proof, and is so plain that Infidels may see it, because it is the Object of their senses. I say that Infidels see the Church although they do not believe it, because Christ has appointed that it shall essentially be as they see it is, and has truly taught her that Faith which she believes to have received from him, and has truly commanded her to obey those Pastors whom she believes that he has set over her. For which reason Infidels do not see the Church when they see true Christians, if Christ has made their only Essential unity Invisible. Neither do they see the Church when they see Heretics and Schismatics, and are acquainted with their Faith and Obedience, because Christ is not the Author of their Faith, neither has he ordained them any Governors to continue them in their separation from the One Church Matters ch judgement in nature whether of Christians, or Infidels, cannot comprehend how an Union to Christ which is, as we have seen, Invisible, can make the Church a Visible Body; or how a visible Obedience can be paid to an Invisible Commanding Power, of whose existence and Commands those who are said to obey, have no other certainty than by Faith.  
16. Besides this sensible visibility, the Church may be likewise said to have a Rational visibility (if I may have leave to call it so), which arises from the many and supernatural Motives which make her Authority and Doctrines evidently Credible, by means whereof Infidels are induced to approve of what they see, and to unite themselves to the Church by embracing her Faith, and submitting to her Pastors. We cannot say, that Heretics and Schismatics are Visible Churches in this sense neither; for although we see their profession of Faith, and Obedience to their Pastors, yet by reason we do not see that they have any Motives of credibility to recommend their Faith and Obedience to our veneration, we cannot see, that is, we cannot conclude that they are true Christian Churches. Both which senses of the Church's visibility are commonly joined by our Divines into one when they speak of the Visible Church, as they are also in the H. Scriptures. We are easily taught by this way how to distinguish the Visible Church from Heretics and Schismatics, which the Dr. will never be able to effect with all his skill; for how can he pretend to make a Visible distinction between them, when the Church which is to be distinguished is, as we have seen, essentially Invisible?  
17. But let us suppose now, that he has made out the sensible visibility of the Church by what he has said in its defence, yet we shall find, that he is never the nearer distinguishing of it from Heretics and Schismatics by the pretence of Obedience to Christ, if we suppose a great truth, that Obedience to Christ's Commands has a necessary and essential respect to the meaning which Christ will have his Commands to be taken in. For in this Hypothesis, if it be certain (as who can doubt of it?) that the different Bodies of Christians who are now in the world, put different constructions on Christ's Commands in Scripture, it necessarily follows, that they are not all of them Christ's Visible Church, because there is among some of them a notorious Disobedience to him by not performing his Commands in his own way. I suppose Dr. Sherlock will aggree with me thus far, especially if any of these Bodies are said to be Guilty of a Fundamental Disobedience by a Fundamental misconstruction of any of his Commands. Now seeing Christ's Church is to be found among these Bodies, which way are we to come to the knowledge of it? This must be done either by extrinsical Motives which may give to one or more of them a preference before the rest, and found an evident credibility that they are Obedient to Christ; or else by an examination of their Faith and Practices by such intrinsique Arguments as are drawn from the Text by every one's private reason to prove the meaning of Christ's Commands. If the trial be made by 〈◊〉 Motives, the Dr. must own the Church to be Invisible, that is, not to be distinguisheble from Heretics and Schismatics, because he is destitute of any such Motives, for which reason he lays no claim to them. If it be made by an examination of their Faith and Practices by Intrinsique Arguments, he must likewise grant that it is Invisible after the same manner too, because although all those Bodies of Christians who are Obedient to Christ's Commands are Visible, and such Doctrines and Practices of theirs whereby they really obey him are Visible too, yet seeing there can be no certainty in the Protestant way, that they really obey him by such their Doctrines and Practices, they cannot be Christ's Visible Church so as to be 〈◊〉 from Heretics and Schismatics, no more than those who really disobey him by their Faith and Practices. And here enters the common saying De non apparentibus & non 〈◊〉 eadem est ratio.  
18. If any one tell me, that among an hundred Persons there is one who is my special friend, and all the rer knowing who the person is who bears me such a kindness, unless he point him out to me? If any one 〈◊〉 me, that as I walked in the field, 〈◊〉 saw a place where there lay hid a great 〈◊〉 am I ever the like to be the richer for such a 〈◊〉, unless 〈◊〉 lead me to the place, and tell me where I am to dig? I know that my friend is one among the hundred whom I see, and yet I see not my friend, because although I see them all, yet I know not which is he. I am well acquainted with the whole compass of the ground where the treasure lies, and yet I am not acquainted with the place so as to say this is it. The same-happens at 〈◊〉 in the case before us. I am well assured, that Christ Church is to be found among the 〈◊〉 Bodies of Christians that are in the world And yet the Drs. Principles make it impossible to say, that this or that Body is it. For seeing the certainty we have of discovering which is it, must depend upon the certainty we have which Body, or Bodies are obedient to Christ's Commands, we cannot be certain which is Christ's Church, till we are certain which Bodies are Obedient to Christ's Commands. And what Principle has the Dr. to afford this certainty? He must necessarily grant, that these disagreeing Bodies are equally concerned to find out the true meaning of Christ's Commands delivered in Scripture, and that they are equal in their natural capacities, and helps of industry in order to the attaining of it. Which Consideration effectually proves, that no one can be certain in the Protestant way, which Body, or Bodies pay a real Obedience to Christ's Commands. For how can any one be certain, that his judgement is in the right in a matter wherein he is contradicted by an hundred persons as intelligent as himself, who are throughly possessed with his reasons, who are fitly qualified to understand the force of them, who are equally concerned and interessed not to be mistaken in them, and of whom he has all the reason in the world to conclude, that they would most heartily and readily change their sentiments to his, if they could see that he had reason on his side.  
19 I may chance to show the uncertainty of the private interpretations of Scripture more forcibly by the following familiar example, than by the most pressing Metaphysical reasons. Let us suppose, that Dr. Sherlock has a friend of whom he is fully persuaded by his long acquaintance with him, and unquestionable experience, that he has as good eyes as himself to discover an Object of an equal distance from them both. Let us suppose likewise, that this friend of his and he together in the fields perceive a far off an Object, of which there starts a dispute what it is, the Dr. affirming it to be a house, and his friend maintaining it to be a tree. The Dr. gives his friend his reasons why it should be a house which he disallows: and his friend gives him his why it should be a tree, wherewith he remains as little satisfied. It would be a strange presumption, if the Dr. in this Hypothesis should pretend to certainty, that what he sees is a house and not a tree, when he is evidently certain that his friend's judgement in the case is as good as his own. Which consideration alone may well make him apprehensive lest he be mistaken, but if we add to this the distance of the Object from his sight, what he affirms must needs be uncertain in the highest degree, so that no man of sense would venture to lay upon the truth of it any thing that he is unwilling otherwise to part withal.  
20. The case is exactly the same at present (according to the Principles of Protestants) between the several Bodies of Christians, who differ about their interpretations of Scripture. I will put it between the Church of England and the Arians, and the same may serve between the Church of England and any of the other disunited Bodies. These two Bodies have both equal qualifications to attain the true meaning of Scripture, which is a truth so plain and incontestable, that the bare proposal of it is a proof sufficient. They both read in the H. Scripture these words My Father and I are One, and it is acknowledged on both sides that such words are evidently to be seen there; just as the Dr. and his friend aggree in this, that they evidently see a bulky appearance at a distance from them in the fields. But they differ concerning the meaning of these words, whether they signify that our Lord and his Father are One in Nature, or affection? The Church of England affirms the first, and the Arians the latter only, after the same manner as the Dr. and his friend dispute, whether the bulky appearance which they see in the fields be a house, or a tree? For seeing the meaning of those words is to be deduced by a long train of consequences, hence it is, that the Truth wants a sufficient approximation and application to determine their judgements both one way; as the reason why the Dr. and his friend cannot aggree, whether what they discover be a house, or a tree is, because they are at too great a distance to discern evidently those connatural qualities and Accidents of the Object, which being once perfectly seen would quickly remove all occasions of dispute, and make them both aggree in the same sentence. The Church of England gives her reasons why these words My Father and I are One ought to be understood so as to denote their Unity in Nature, as the Dr. gives his friend his reasons, why he judges that which he sees to be a house: and the Arians after a mature consideration of all that she brings to make good this interpretation, return a peremptory Answer to every particular, and contend, that those words signify only an Unity of Assection, as the Drs. friend being dissatisfied with his reason why he judges that which he sees to be a house, gives him an account of his, why he judges it to be a tree.  
21. What grounds for certainty can the Dr. discover in this contest, that the Church of England puts a truer construction on the aforesaid Text than the Arians? It would be mere folly forhim in the dispute which he has with his friend to pretend certainty that what he sees is a house, and not a tree. How then can he pretend to any such thing in behalf of the Church of England against the Arians? That which makes the pretence to certainty unreasonable in the first case is, because his friend is evidently as competent a judge in the debate as himself, which is an indisputable reason why he ought to adjudge a likelihood of truth to his sentence, and by consequence uncertainty to his own. And seeing in the case which I have put between the Church of England and the Arians, both parties must be acknowledged to be equally capable of finding out the true sense of the aforesaid Text, it must needs be no less unreasonable to pretend to certainty, that the Church of England takes them in the right sense, as though it were a matter as plain as that there is such a place as Rome, or that there were no dispute about it amongst any who are called Christians. For seeing experience teaches us, that when ever there occur contradictory reasons to persuade the truth, or falsehood of any matter, the understanding (so long as these reasons continue of equal force) is necessarily reduced to a state of suspense, it must needs be a great levity in any one to pretend certainty, that he does not actually err by adhering to a Doctrine, about which two parties of equal Authority and judgement are at variance.  
22. It is not enough that men can find a solution to such Objections as are brought against their interpretations of Scripture, or that they meet with nothing which causes any doubt or unquietness in their minds, or that in debates about Religion they always judge that they come off Conquerors. All which may be ascribed to their passion, or prejudice, and to the dulness as 〈◊〉 as to the acuteness of their judgement. And the certainty which results from this their seeming 〈◊〉 bears no advantage over the certainty 〈◊〉 Disputants in Philosophy, whom we see every day in the Schools to defend with the greatest 〈◊〉 imaginable their respective Conclusions, without any actual doubt that what they affirm is true nimbly solving, distinguishing, and exposing to public view the insoliditie of any 〈◊〉 that are brought against them. And yet when 〈◊〉 dispute is over, if you ask them whether they 〈◊〉 certain, that their Conclusions are true? They will tell you, No; but only, that they are 〈◊〉 persuaded they are so. They will confess to you that they want an evident Principle to ground 〈◊〉 on, and that seeing their Conclusions 〈◊〉 posed by men of great parts and learning, who aspire after the truth as much as themselves, all that they have said must needs fall short of certainty, and may for this reason be all false. Now the 〈◊〉 which Protestants pretend to in behalf of their Doctrines is exactly of the same nature, they being as destiture of any certain Principle to prove, that their interpretations of Scripture contain the true meaning of the H. Ghost, as any Philosopher is of a Demonstration to sustain a disputable Thesis out of Aristotle. And so seeing every Conclusion becomes disputable for want of evidence to clear its Truth, or to manifest its falseness, after they have strengthened their interpretations of Scripture with all the plausibilities they can device, there will still remain room sufficient for their learned Adversaries to thwart their judgements. And where there is a reasonable ground for dispute, truth is always at the bottom uncertain.  
23. That which induces Protestant's to pretend, that they have attained the true meaning of Scripture by their private reason is certain discourses which look like Probabilities, and likely hoods of truth, which may stand as well on the one side as the other, and which may be sufficient to make their favourers stiff in their defence, but not to put the matter out of doubt. I make no question, but men of very excellent natural parts adhere sometimes so firmly to these Probabilities, that they have no actual doubt of the truth which is recommended by them, to which no more is required, but that they judge such Argumen as they bring in their defence to be incomparably stronger than any that are brought against them: yet the nature of these Probabilities having uncertainty annexed unto it as it's unseparable property, cannot afford their followers so great a Presumption of Truth and certainty as may exclude a possibility of a reasonable doubt. For the controverted Texts will very often bear contrary explications, without any necessity that either side should pass with the other for fools or mad men for defending that explication which they judge to be true. So that neither of them is able to say of their Opinion, I am certain that this is the meaning of the H. Ghost. The utmost they can say upon the matter is, I am verily persuaded, that this is the meaning of the H. Ghost, which does not imply a certainty that it is so (as I could show at large, were it a proper place) but only such a conviction of mind as arises upon the sight of Arguments, which a man cannot solve himself to his satisfaction, and which nevertheless he can not hold for necessary and concluding, if persons as learned and as intelligent as himself are satisfied with such solutions as they give them, and remain as fully persuaded of the truth of their contrary judgements. As certain as these persons pretend to be of their exposition of Scripture, yet there is no wealthy and prudent man among them who would hazard all that he has in the world upon a wager without a greater certainty that he should come off a winner. For what man in his wits would venture a great estate, and all the conveniencies of this life upon the truth of a matter, which his Opponent is as well able to judge of as himself, particularly if his Opponent be well acquainted with the reasons which induce him to lay, and is willing to take him up after a diligent ponderation of them? So blind are men in the affairs of their souls, if they have not God for their enlightner?  
24. This uncertainty of interpreting Scripture by private reason shows the weakness of the grounds whereon Protestants rely for the truth of their Faith, and obliges them to seek out others that are more strong whereon to build their salvation. God be thanked they act in the belief of the B. Trinity, and several other great Articles wherein they aggree with the Catholic Church much better than their Principles can direct them to, which next to the Divine Providence, which mercifully guides their understandings, we may ascribe to education and custom, which having at first received these Doctrines for good, are ever after importunate advocates for their continuance. What they have long believed, they have loved a great while; and what they have loved a great while, they are unwilling to part withal. Any Probability seems of great moment to a mind that is thus resolved and preengaged, the imagination giving evidence, when Argumen●…t afford none, and any thing passing for certainty when certainty is much desired.  
25. Thus we see that Dr. Sherlock is far from being certain, which Bodies of Christians puta right interpretation upon Scripture, and by consequence which Bodies are Obedient to Christ's Commands, and by consequence which Bodies are Christ's Church; and by consequence he must say, that Christ's Church is as Invisible in order to our distinguishing of it from Heretics and Schismatics, as if it were not in being, or that it were not perceptible to our senses, notwithstanding that we see their persons, and know their Doctrines as well as every man does his own. Wherefore if he acknowledge Scripture for the word of God, he must necessarily take other measures than he has hitherto done, to show how the Church on on Earth is Visible. And seeing its visibility cannot be shown from its sensible and Visible Obedience to Christ, nor from any certainty that its interpretations of Christ's Commands are conformable to his meaning, he will do well to entertain a more fa ourable opinion or our Motives of credibility, which efficaciously persuade us which is Christ's Church, and that she teaches nothing but what is Christ's Doctrine and conformable to Scripture, and that as long as we cleave to her, we cannot fail of being Obedient to Christ, if not alter a sensible manner as Obedience is the Object of our senses, yet after a most certain and Rational manner, inasmuch as it is evidently Credible, that the Obedience which we pay the Church in all she teaches is the Command of Christ. If he take this course, he will have as great a certainty, that the Obedience which he pays the Church in all she teaches is an Obedience to Christ, as he pretends to have, that Scripture (for whose Authority Protestant's allege Motives of credibility) is the word of God. Whereas if he go his old road, he may prove the visibility of the Church as long as he pleases, before we think ourselves obliged to give any heed to what he says, seeing its invisibility is in his Principles as plain to our Reason, as any text of Scripture is to our sight.  
§. 3. Ib. It immediately follows, So that whatever makes a Church a true Church, makes it a Member of the One Catholic Church.  
26. Reply. This deceitful Proposition must be understood so as to signify, that Faith and Obedience which make a true Visible Church as such, are not the formal Reason which makes it a member of the One Mystical Body of Christ, but only the Conditions without which this Fellowship cannot be obtained, as has been shown already, and shall further appear hereafter.  
§. 4. Ib. And here comes in what the Apostle makes essential to this One Body, One Lord, One Faith One Baptism ad Eph. 4. which signifies what I said before being united to Christ in the same Covenant.  
27. Reply. This passage comes in here indeed, that is, it belongs to the Visible Church as such; for Faith is not Essential to the One Body of Christ, as that includes the Church in Heaven, and the Church on Earth. So that this Text does not signify formally, that the Church on Earth is Christ's One Mystical Body, but only that it is One Visible Body by the performance of what she promised him in the Gospel-covenant, from whence we infer only by consequence, that she is Christ's Spous and Mystical Body, which was the favour which our Lord promised her in the same Covenant.  
§. 5. Ib. For Christ is the One Lord to whom 〈◊〉 united, the One Faith is the Condition of this Covenant, and the One Baptism is the Faederal 〈◊〉 of it, or the Sacrament of our union to Christ.  
28. Reply. From hence appears the reasonableness of the last Reply; for he grants expressly, that Faith is the Condition of the Gospel-Covenant, and we may presume his meaning to be, that it is no more than a Condition, because he makes a distinction between it and our Union to Christ. It may be observed likewise, that if Baptism be the Sacrament of our union to Christ as we are his Spous and Body, our Union to him must be an Invisible Grace, which cannot be the formal Reason that makes us Members of the Visible Church as such.  
§. 6. Ib. Where this is not there is no Church, and where this is, there is but One Church, how many particular Churches, or distinct Communions soever this Church is divided into.  
29. Reply. There is but One Church where there is One Eaptisme, One Faith, and One and the same Authority derived from the One Lord. But if particular Churches differ in Faith, and claim each of them, or many of them together an Authority to censure, and deprive their neighbours of Christ's Sacraments on the account of their disagreement in matters of Faith, there is not one Faith, nor One and the same Authority derived from the One Lord. For if the Faith were One amongst them all, there would be no disagreement about it; and if there were One and the same Authority derived from the One Lord, it could not excommunicate the opposers of any more than of One Faith. Wherefore these particular Churches cannot make One Church; but are so many absolutely distinct Churches and Communions.  
§. 7. Ib. From hence it is evident, that there never can be more than One Church in the world: for those Nominal Churches which have not the same Baptism are no Churches, and all that have are but One.  
30. Reply. All this is very true, and confirms what I said last.  
§. 8. P. 31. Which makes it a ridiculous Triumpl●… in the Church of Rome, as if we Protestant's did not believe One Catholic Church, or could not tell where to find it, when we profess to believe One Church, and that all true Churches are Members of this One Church.  
31. Reply. It is a much more ridiculous Triumph in you, Sr. to conclude from any thing which you have hithertho said, that you know where to find the Catholic Church. For although I should grant you, that the only Essential Unity of the Church on Earth consists in its Mystical Union to Christ whereby it is likewise united to the Church in Heaven, yet this concession cannot enable you to find it out, or to tell me which is it, unless you can satisfy me, which those Christians and Churches are, who have One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. For seeing the Mystical Union of the Church to Christ is an Invisible Grace, and consequent to the performance of the Conditions of the Gospel-covenant which are signified by One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, you ought to have shown us, which those Christians are who have performed these Conditions before you can prove them to be Christ's Mystical Body, which is a matter that cannot be known otherwise, than by knowing that they have performed the said Conditions. This is a thing which 〈◊〉 ought to have done in the first place, and this was required of you by the nature of the thing, and till this be done, Christ's Mystical Body hangs in the air, and is too far removed out of our sight to say This is it; and as soon as this is done, there is nothing more easy, than to point out the Nations and Churches whereof it is composed. The only Essence of a true Church is to be united to Christ as to its Spous. Suppose this. But how shall we know when a Church is Mystically united to Christ? By the performance of the Conditions of the Gospel-covenant. And how shall we know when a Church has performed the Conditions of the Gospel-covenant? Not one word of this.  
32, But seeing it is such an easy thing to find out the Catholic Church in your way, let us come to a trial of it, and make use of names by descending to a particular consideration of some Bodies of Christians. You say that Roman-Catholiques and Protestants are both of them in Covenant with Christ, and by consequence that they are both of them Members of Christ's Mystical Body; for which reason you conclude, that they are both Members of the Catholic Church upon Earth. I confess that this is a very expedit way to find out the Catholic Church. But how will you prove, that both these Bodies are in Covenant with Christ, and Members of his Mystical Body? You can effect this no otherwise, than by showing that they perform alike the Conditions of the Gospel-covenant, which you will find by experience to be a hard task. For we Catholics believe, that the Lord to whom we are Mystically united, neither has given, nor can give to the Protestant Churches that Power and Authority which they challenge to excommunicate us on the account of any Doctrines which we profess. In like manner you Protestants hold, that the Lord to whom you believe you are Mystically united, neither has given, nor can give to our Church that Power and Authority which she challenges to exclude you from the use of the Sacraments on the account of any Doctrine which you profess. From which contradictory judgements of Catholics and Protestants we may gather 1. either that there are two Lords; or 2. that the One Lord contradicts himself by two inincompatible Authorities, which Catholics and Protestants pretend to have over each other in the aforesaid cases, Or 3. that at least one of these Churches is a 
* 1. ad Cor. cap. 15. v 15.  false witness of the one Lord by fathering an Authority on him which it never received. Say which of these you pleas, it follows, that both these Churches cannot be Mystically One with Christ; and if they are not Mystically One with Christ, they cannot be the Catholic Church, nor parts of it  
33. If you say the first, it is plain, that they cannot be both Mystically One with Christ, because Christ is one Lord. If you say the 2. it is evident, that they are Mystically One and not Mystically One, because Christ the one Lord to whom they believe they are Mystically united is himself One and not One, in as much as he is imperfect by contradicting himself. If you say the 3. it is evident likewise, that they cannot be both Mystically One, because at least that Church which fathers a lie on the one Lord cannot be Mystically united to him as it's Spous and Head, because the one Lord is the Lord of Truth.  
34. As these two Churches are not One by being both united to One and the same Lord, so neither are they One by One and the same Faith, because you condemn many Doctrines for false, which we believe to have been revealed by Christ. And as they are not One by professing One and the same Faith, so neither are they One by One and the same Sacraments, since we acknowledge five more than you receive. Indeed they have both one Baptism which you style the Faederal Rite of the Gospel-covenant, but then the Church of Rome holds, that the others Sacraments which you disown, are Faederal Rites of the Gospel-covenaot as well as Baptism, as often as they are received by the Faithful. We do not deny, but that Baptism is by Institution the first, and most principal, and most universally necessary among these Faederal Rites considered as such, and that the other Sacraments are not so significant to express our Mystical Union to Christ as our Spous as Baptism is both in itself: and in all it's circumstantial Ceremonies, yet they all of them by Institution Represent the Passion of our Lord, which is the Meritorious Caus of that Relation which we have to him as to our Spous, and are all of them so many solemn renewings and repetitions of the Gospel-covenaut which passed between God and man in Baptism, as being so many Protestations of Faith and Obedience to our Ecclesiastical Superiors without which no man can have a right to receive them.  
35. Who now has reason to Triumph, Sr. You who pretend without any ground, that you can tell where to find the Catholic Church, or we who prove that you know nothing of the matter? You say that those are the Catholic Church who are Mystically united to Christ as their Spous. I say so too, but I show withal, that you cannot tell who those are who are thus Mystically One with Christ, of which I have given you an instance in Catholics and Protestants, whom you hold to be both Mystically One with Christ; and yet I have proved, that they are not Mystically One with One another by means of the Gospel-covenant, by which you say they are both Mystically One with Christ. For both these Churches cannot be united to the one Lord. One and the same Faith which you hold for a necessary Condition of the Gospel-covenant, is not common to them both, neither have they One and the same Faederal Rites of the Covenant, from whence it follows, that they are not One by the same Covenant. You see that I have used your own terms of Gospel-covenant, Mystical union, Condition, Faederal Rite &c., and after all you are as far from finding out the Catholic Church as ever.  
36. If you tell me, that notwithstanding what I have here said, you can show, that these Churches are both Mystically united to Christ as their Spous, and with one another, as having one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism; I answer, that when you set yourself upon this undertaking, you will find that you want strength to master all the impossibilities which you will meet withal. But supposing you were able to perform it with some likelihood of truth, yet seeing this cannot be done by any such Principles as you have laid in this Discourse, you must give your Brethren the other Protestant Writers leave to say of you as you have said of them, that although you have said many good things about the Notion of the Catholic Church, yet they are verily persuaded, that there will never be an end of these Wranglings till it be settled, which you have not throughly done yet, because after all you have said, it does not appear from your Principles which is the Catholic Church, and to the end you may make a further discovery of it, you are forced to betake yourself to such Methods as you judge to have proved unsuccesseful in your Fellow-writers.  
§. 9 Ib. For it is plain from this account (that is, if we will admit his obscure and impertinent Principles to pass for evident and to the purpose) that although all the Churches in the world were united into one Ecclesiastical Body, yet this external visible union is not the thing which makes them the one Body of Christ.  
37 Reply. This external visible Union is not the formal Reason which makes them the one Body of Christ, but only a necessary Condition without which they cannot be it.  
§, 10. Ib. They are one Body by being all united to one Mystical Head the Lord jesus Christ, not by an external and visible union to each other.  
38. Reply. They are one Mystical Body by being united to their Mystical Head, and one Visible Body by being united to their visible Superiors.  
§. 11. Ib. This external union is a duty which all Christians and Christian Churches are bound to observe as far as possibly they can.  
39 Reply. Since he owns it for a duty of all Christians to observe this external Union, he acknowledges it to be Christ's Command that they should do so, for which there may be alleged places enough out of Scripture. But where can he show one Text to prove, that they are no longer obliged to this observance, than they think they can do it with a good conscience; which he signifies by saying as long as possibly they can? Or whence will he prove, that every man's conscience ought to be regulated by his own private reason, without any regard to the Authority of the Church, which our Saviour commands us to hear under pain of being Heathens? Such places as these (were there any such to be found) would suit better with the Caus of the Reformation, than the great secret he has produced that the Church in Heaven and Earth are one Church.  
§. 12. Ib. But all true Christians and Christian Churches are the one Body of Christ, whether they be thus visibly united, or not.  
40. Reply. Which way shall we know which are true Christians and Christian Churches? This is a matter above the Drs. reach, who cannot tell us, which is the Catholic Church. It is most certain that all true Christian Churches are the one Body of Christ, and it is as certain that no Christians or Christian Churches can belong to the one Body of Christ, unless they be visibly united to the rest of the Church, as shall appear from the consideration of what he says on the true Notion of the Catholic Church on Earth whose turn comes next, whither he refers us for the proof of his contrary Assertion. If we cannot discover where the Catholic Church is in the discussiof this point, we may for ever despair of coming to the knowledge of it. As for the two orher Points wherein he promises to make his Assertion good, viz What the Nature and unity of a particular Church is, and how every particular Church is a part of that universal Church which is the Body of Christ, and what that unity and Communion is, which all distinct Churches ought to maintain with each other, they are reserved for a second Part, which I suppose he will think better on before he publish, since the principles whereon he must depend for the forming of it, have already found so great on opposition in this Part which has already seen light.  
§. 13. P. 32. Now, says he, it is evident from what I have already discoursed, that the true Notion of a Church is Coetus Fidelium, or the Company of the Faithful, of those who profess the true Faith of Christ, and are united to him by Baptism.  
41. Reply. I wonder from what part of what he has already discoursed we are to gather this Notion of a Church. I have diligently read over all that he has writ from the beginning of his Book till this passage which I am now examining, and cannot find any evident grounds for it. He has told us indeed not long since chap. 2. §. 3. that whatever makes a Church, makes it a Member of the one Catholic Church, or of the one Body of Christ, after which he says immediately, and here comes in what the Apostle makes essential to this one Body, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, which signisies being united to Christ in the same Covenant. Which Assertions are far from affording any evidence of the truth of this Notion in his principles, as appears out of the Replies which I have made to them. Nay throughout his Discourse I find evident grounds to infer the contrary. For seeing he will have the Essential Unity of the Church on Earth to be the Mystical Union whereby the Church in Heaven and Earth are united in One Body to Christ as to their Spous, this Notion of a Church must be said to be essentially distinct from its Essential Unity, which is a mere Chimaera. For the Essential Unity of the Church in Heaven and Earth does not consist in Faith, as I have said over and over, and shall declare further hereafter. So that Faith in the Drs. way does not so much as belong to the Notion of a Church, because it's Essential Unity does not consist therein. The Dr. seems to have forgotten, that the Notion of a thing is a really indistinct from its Essential Unity, which is universally true of all beings as they fall under a Metaphyfical consideration, and without doubt it takes place in Moral Bodies (such as the Church is), which are nothing else but united multitudes. For that which unites them together makes them a Body, and that which makes them a Body is their Notion, therefore that which unites them together is their Notion.  
42. The occasion of this monstrous absurdity is the Drs. not allowing the Church on Earth to be as Essentially a Visible Body as it is Christ's Mystical Body, which being once admitted, there is no fear, that the Notion of a Church will run counter to it's Essential Unity, or that Faith does not belong to the Notion of it. For as has two Unities Essentially distinct, so it has two Notions Essentially distinct. As it is Mystically One, it's Essential Unity consists in the Special Relation, which all those have to Cbrist as their last end, who have not retracted their acceptance of the Graces and favours which he promised them, through their renouncing the necessary Conditions which he required of them, and which they promised to perform at what time the Gospel-covenant passed between them, wherein consists also the Mystical Union of the Church in Heaven to her beloved, and the Notition of them both as they are Christ's Mystical Body, as I have said above Ch. 1. N. 102. & seq. And as it is Visibly One, it's Unity consists in the actual performance of the Conditions which God required from her, when he promised her his Son for Spous in Baptism, wherein it's Notion also consists as it is a Visible Body. So that although the Church in Heaven and the Church on Earth are both Mystically One with Christ, as being both Flesh of his Flesh, and Bone of his Bone, under which consideration they have both the same common Notion: yet seeing the actual performance of the Conditions of the Gospel-covanant is absolutely necessary, to the end the Church on Earth may be Flesh of Christ's Flesh, and Bone of bis Bone, from which Conditions the Church in Heaven is exempted, hence it is, that the Mystical Body of Christ as it abstracts from both these states resembles a Genus, and the actual performance of the aforesaid Conditions is in the nature of a Difference, whereby that part of Christ's Body which is Militant on Earth is distinguished from the other part which is Triumphant in Heaven. This is clear; for if I tell Dr. Sherlock, that Titius is a Member of Christ's Mystical Body, he cannot conclude from these terms, whether Titius be in Heaven, or on Earth. But if I tell him, that Titius is Orthodox in his Faith, and Obedient to his Ecclesiastical Superiors, it is evident that I mean him to be a Member of Christ's Mystical Body upon Earth. If therefore that part of Christ's Mystical Body which is upon Earth have a special Difference, whereby it is distinguished from the other part which is in Heaven, it must by consequence have a special and distinct Notion from it too.  
43. If the Dr. will admit of these two sorts of U●…tie, I shall easily grant him, that Faith belongs to the Notion of a Church on Earth, but if he will persist in his pretence that this follows from what he has already discoursed in this Chapter, or from what he has said in the first Chapter concerning the Essential Unity of the Church in Heaven and Earth, to the end his Doctrine may seem all of a piece, and to hang by the same thread, I must beg his pardon if I descent from him herein for the reason given, notwithstanding that he quote S. Paul for one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism. The Church on Earth is more beholding to those Protestants, whom he accuses of being ignorant that the Church in Heaven and Earth are One Body, than it is to him who values himself upon the discovery of it. For these Gentlemen seem to grant, that the Church on Earth is Essentially One at it is a Visible Body, and persuant to this Principle, they affirm that it's Essential Unity consists in the profession of the same Fundamental Faith; from whence it follows, that Faith belongs to the Notion of it. But this Author is so fond of his New Truth, that he has no regard for the Old one, and whilst he establishes the Essential Unity of the whole Church in Heaven and Earth, he leaves the Church on Earth without a Notion. What my thoughts are concerning this Notion of a Church shall appear below.  
44. Perhaps some Readers (amongst whom the Dr. may chance to be one) will cavil at my saying, that the Mystical Body of Christ resembles a Genus, as though Christ had more Spouses and Bodies than one.  
45. To which I answer, that no such absurdity as this follows from my Doctrine; for I mean only that the states and conditions of the Church Triumphant and the Church Militant, whereof Christ's Mystical Body is composed, are specially and Essentially distinct, which I believe this Author will hardly deny. Neither can there be any greater inconvenience in this manner of speech, than there is in saying, that Man is a Genus in respect of innocent and sinful, rich and poor, happy and miserable persons; from whence it cannot be inferred, that an innocent man is Essentially distinct from a sinner, or a rich man from a poor man, but only that innocence and sinfulness, riches, and poverty, which are extrinsical to the nature of Man, are Essentially distinct. Thus it happens at present; for neither invisibility nor visibility, nor the Vision of God nor Faith belong to the Notion of Christ's Mystical Body as such, as is plain; because that part of it which is in Heaven is Invisible and without Faith, and the other part which is on Earth is Visible and without the Vision of God. The one part is innocent, rich, and happy, and the other part is sinful, poor, and afflicted, but for all this difference in their circumstances, they make no more than One Mystical Spous and Body of Christ. Neither can it follow, because they have distinct Notions as they are thus considered under their different circumstances, that therefore they are not the One Spous of Christ, as it does not follow, that the Nature and Notion of Man is not One, because as Man is considered in relation to his riches and poverty, happiness and misery, he is capable of distinct Notions. This is all that I mean by saying, that Christ's Mystical Body resemble a Genus in respect of the Invisible Church in Heaven, and the Visible Church on Earth whereof it is composed. If I had held the Church on Earth to be Christ's Mystical Body inasmuch as it is Visible, no doubt, but Christ would have had more Spouses and Bodies than One; but I hold, that Faith and Obedience which make it Visible, are not the formal Reason why it is Christ's Mystical Body, but only the necessary Conditions without which she cannot be it. And therefore let Dr. Sherlock, who will have Faith to be the formal Reason which makes the Church on Earth to be Christ's Mystical Body, make out how Christ has not two Spouses and two Bodies in his way, seeing the same formal Reason which makes the Church on Earth Christ's Mystical Body, cannot produce the like effect in the Church in Heaven which wants Faith.  
§. 14. Ib. There can be no other Notion of the universal Church in Heaven and Earth, but the whole Company of the Faithful, who are united to Christ by Covenant, and are his Mystical Body in the sense above explained.  
46. Reply. This Proposition is delivered with such a Magisterial peremptoriness, that (considering the small grounds he has for it) it seems to have been the result of many a tedious and perplexing thought, which he might have well spared, if he had reflected on the aforesaid Special Relation which the Church in Heaven and Earth have to Christ as their last end, which as it 〈◊〉 them both in One Mystical Body, so it is their Notion. This Notion of the Universal Church in Heaven and Earth is so apparently false, that I cannot but wonder, how he came to venture his credit so far as to submit it to the censure of the public. For Faith, as I lately said, does not belong to the Notion of Christ's Mystical Body as such, because the facto the most Illustrious part of it which is in Heaven has no Faith at all, as neither will any of its Members have after end, and conflragration of this world. And certainly nothing can belong to the Notion of a thing without which a thing is and may be. Besides, he has told us more than once, that the Unity of the whole Church in Heaven and Earth ought not to be placed in any thing that can concern only a part of it, and after all he makes Faith which concerns only the Church on Earth to belong to the Notion of the Universal Church in Heaven and Earth. I am much mistaken if this be the way to put an end to wranglings.  
§. 15. Ib. And if the universal Church in Heaven and Earth be the whole Company of the Faithful, the Catholic Church on Earth must be the whole number of the Faithful on Earth.  
47. Reply. The only Difference we find here between the Church in Heaven and the Church on Earth is, that the one is in Heaven and the other on Earth, as though Faith which is said to make them One Church were professed in Heaven, as well as on Earth.  
§. 16. P. 33. The learned Launoy has produced various Texts of Scripture for this Definition of a Church, that it is the Company of the Faithful; and has proved by the Testimony of the Fathers in all Ages, even down to the Council of Trent itself, that this was the received Notion of the Church, tillit was altered by Canisius and Bellarmin. Canisius puts Christ's Vicar intothe Definition; that the Church is the visible Collection of all baptised Believers under one Head Christ in Heaven and his Vicar on Earth, which makes the Church a Monarchy. Bellarmin desines the Church to be a Company of men united together by the same Christian Faith, and the Communion of the same Sacraments under the government of lawful Pastors, but chiefly of the Bishop of Rome as the one Vicar of Christ on Earth, which makes the Church a kind of mixed, and tempered Monarchy; the goment of Bishops, and the Pope as supreme Pastor.  
48. Reply. It would have been much more to the purpose, if he had produced some Testimonies to prove, that the Church in Heaven and Earth are the whole Company of the Faithful, than to cite Authors to show, that this Notion aggrees to the Church on Earth. But because he was not able to prove what he was sure would be disputed, he wisely proves what is willingly granted him. Whoever denied this Notion? We have no exception against its falseness. We know very well that it is every where to be seen in the Fathers of the Church, and we read it in the Catechism of the Council of Trent set out by Pius V. But he must know, that every true Notion of a thing is not a good one, because every true Notion is not a complete one. We often express our Notion of things by something that is Essential to them, and omit other properties that are no less necessary to their being than those we mention. In which case the consequence will not hold either that our Notion is false, or that those properties we omit do not necessarily appertain to the things defined. Thus S. Paul ad Eph. 4. takes the Notion of the Church from its Pastors. He gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Teachers, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministry, for the edifying of the Body of Christ; and ad Philip. 1. from the Pastors and People, To all the Saints which are at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons; and 1. ad Cor. 1. From its Sanctity and universality, unto the Church which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ jesus, called to be Saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours; and ad Eph. 1. from its Sanctity and Faith, Paul an Apostle of jesus Christ by the will of God to the Saints that are at Ephesus, and the Faithful in Christ jesus; and ad Eph. 5. from its Mystical Union to Christ, We are Members of his Body, of his Flesh, and of his Bones; and 1, ad Tim. 3. from its Infallibility, ●…he Church is the ground and Pillar of Truth. Thus likewise the same Apostle takes the Notion of Faith from its inevidence and obscurity, Faith is the evidence of things that do not appear, ad Heb. cap. 11. And the like examples may be produced from several other places of Scripture. All which Notions are true, but not complete, that is, they are not good Notions in a Logical sense, because they do not explain the Nature of the thing according to such considerations as make it aggree with some things, and disagree with all others, or as Logicians say, they do not explain it by Genus proximum & differentiam ultimam.  
49. And this is the defect which we find in the present Notion of the Catholic Church. For Schismatics and Excommunicated persons may be baptised, and have as good Faith as Catholics, and yet there is nothing more certain, than that they are not comprehended under the Notion of the Catholic Church. The reason of which inconvenience is, because Obedience to our Ecclesiastical Superiors in not placed therein which would have distinguished the Church from all those who are cut off from its Communion. There is no Definition will pass muster in the Schools which has such a well grounded exception as this brought against it: And certainly there ought to be greater heed taken about a Notion that immediately regards our H. Religion, where the error will prove of a much more dangerous consequence, than a natural mistake in an unnecessary matter. If you say, that that the Catholic Church as such has no Authority, and that therefore it is not necessary to make Obedience any part of its Definition; I answer, that the contrary shall appear below §. 28.  
50. Neither are Schismatiks only and Excommunicated persons comprehended under this Notion, but Heretics also. For although this Author P. 32. would have us to understand by Faithful no others than such as profess the true Faith in Christ, and are united to him by Baptism, yet what Heretic is there who allows of Baptism and a Catholic Church, that will not admit of this Notion of it? Arians, Sabellians, Nestorians, and the most enormous sects in the world who pretend to believe in Christ judge their own Faith to be true, for which reason they are in Dr. Sherlock's way comprised in the Definition of the Catholic Church. For in his judgement particular Churches, nay individual Christians are the proper and lawful judges for themselves, what Doctrines they ought to receive, and what to reject. See what he says below §. 22. n. 138. So that supposing there be no common and irrefragable Rule of Faith which all Christians ought to conform to in such debates as arise about the meaning of Scripture, that must be held for true Faith which particular Churches and individual Christians hold for such, how opposite and contradictory soever their sentiments are about it. For how dares Dr. Sherlock to censure any one's Faith for false, which is declared to be true by the proper and lawful judge thereof? whence if follows, that the true Faith which is placed in the Notion of the Catholic Church signifies a contradictory Faith, and by consequence when he pretends to define the Catholic Church by the whole number of the Faithful who profess the true Faith of Christ, and are united to him by Baptism, the meaning of it is; that it is the whole number of those who profess the contradictory Faith of Christ, and are united to him by Baptism.  
51. I say this absurdity evidently follows, supposing the Notion he has given be designed to serve for the Catholic Church, as that is said to be One Body resulting from many different Communions, who are at variance about matters of Doctrine, and the Interpretation of the H. Scriptures. For the Faith of the Catholic Church in this way is not One but manifold and contradictory, and by consequence the true Faith which is placed in the Notion of the Catholic Church is contradictory too. For although the Faith of particular Bodies of Christians, and of individual persons who may be said to compose the Catholic Church is not contradictory, yet the Faith of the Catholic Church as such, and as it is One Body (under which consideration this Notion is given to it) must needs be contradictory, because the Faith of all the parts together is contradictory by reason of their contradictory interpretations of the H. Scriptures.  
52. But in case this Notion relates only to One Body of Christians who profess one and the same Faith, and are of one denomination, the aforesaid absurdity does not follow, buth then there follows another which is not less than that, viz that Protestants alone for example are the Catholic Church, as being the whole number of those who profess the true Faith in Christ, and are united to him in Baptism, unless he be so just as to assign us this Prerogative to whom of right it is due, or so good natured as to exclude Protestants by allowing it to some other Body who has no more right to it than they. We may with very good reason ask them, where their Church was before Luther, if there were none before that false Apostle who professed the true Faith of Christ. And if there were any such Professors, it will be a hard task to prove that Protestants are the Catholic Church, or that they are so much as parts of it, unless they associate themselves to such Christians as professed the true Faith before the first Reformers appearance in the world, by which means the true Faith of the Catholic Church will be, as I have said, contradictory.  
53. If the Dr. to salve these Absurdities have recourse to the usual Refuge of Fundamental and Non-fundamental Faith, and say that by true Faith which he has put into the Notion of the Catholic Church, he understands Fundamental Faith wherein every part of the Church necessarily aggrees; I Answer, that this will not serve his turn, unless he make us know, what those Points are which he calls Fundamental Faith; for how can we know what the Church is, without knowing the Fundamental Faith which makes the Church? Neither is it enough for him to tell us, what the Fundamental Faith is, unless every part and Body of the Catholic Church concur with him therein. For the true and Fundamental Faith of the Catholic Church can be on other than that which the Catholic Church will have it to be. And if he abstract and separate from among the Doctrines of the Catholic Church a certain number of them which he reputes for Fundamental Faith, they will be his own Fundamental Faith, and not the Fundamental Faith of the Catholic Church, which holds the other Doctrines which he rejects, to be as much Fundamental Faith as those which he has culled out. Which proves, that the Notion of the Catholic Church must be likewise that which the Catholic Church will have to be it. It is a just prejudice against any Notion of the Catholic Church, if the Catholic Church itself will not receive it (she ought to know best what she is), as it is certain it does not receive this Notion of Dr. Sherlocks, if by the true Faith which he has placed in it; he understands only such Doctrines as the Church of England esteems for Fundamental. Who sees not, that if it be tolerable for Protestants to insert no other Faith into the Notion of the Catholic Church but that which they hold for Fundamental, that it is as lawful for any of the other Bodies, whom they accounted for parts of the Catholic Church, to do the like, by which means there will he as many destinct Notions as there are Fundamental Faiths, and as many distinct Churches and Communions, as there are Notions of the Catholic Church.  
54. Again. Since there is as great a variance among the several Bodies of Christians, what Points are Fundamental and what Non-fundamental, as there is what Faith is true and what is false, this Author is still pressed with the weight of the aforesaid Absurdities, and in the very same form too, as you shall see. For as every particular Body of Christians looks on their own Faith to be true, so they hold it for Fundamental and necessary to be believed. (I say all other Christians do so besides Protestants). And as every particular Body of Christians, nay individual persons are the lawful and proper Judges, what Doctrines they ought to receive, and what to reject, what Faith is true and what is false; so they are likewise in Dr. Sherlock's way no less proper Judges, what Faith is Fundamental and what Non-fundamental. So that supposing there be no common and irrefragable Rule of Fundamental Faith which all Christians ought to follow in such debates as arise concerning the sense of Scripture, that aught to be held for Fundamental Faith, which particular Churches and individual Christians hold for such. For how dares Dr. Sherlock censure any one's Faith for Non-fundamental, which is declared to be Fundamental by the proper and lawful Judge thereof? From whence it follows, that the Fundamental. Faith which is placed in the Notion of the Catholic Church signifies a contradictory Faith, and by consequence when he pretends to define the Catholic Church by the whole Company of those who profess the Fundamental Faith of Christ, and are united to him by Baptism, the meaning is, that the Catholic Church is the whole number of those who profess the contradictory Faith of Christ jesus, and are united to him by Baptism, which is not much different from the Notion which the Heathens had of it in the primitive times.  
55. I say that this absurdity follows as much here as in the other case, and that for the same reason too, because the Fundamental Faith of the Catholic Church in this way is not one but manifold and contradictory, and by consequence the Fundamental Faith which is placed in the Notion of the Catholic Church is contradictory too. For although the Fundamental Faith of particular Bodies and individual persons that may be said to compose the Catholic Church be not contradictory, yet the Fundamental Faith of the Catholic Church as such, and as it is One Body (under which consideration this Notion is given to it) is contradictory, because the Fundamental Faith of all its parts together is contradictory by reason of their contradictory interpretations of the H. Scriptures. And in case this Notion relates only to one Body of Christians who profess the same Fundamental Faith, the same absurdity follows here likewise as above, viz that the Catholic Church consists in a Body of one denomination, as suppose, in Pro●…estants, or in whatever other Body the Dr. is pleased to place it in, which is an inference that does not well suit with his Principles.  
56. Thus we see that we are never the nearer knowing what the Catholic Church is by this Notion, as it is handled by Dr. Sherlock. For seeing he defines it by true and Fundamental Faith, and seeing this true and Fundamental Faith is the belief of Contradictions, what understanding is able to comprehend, what the Catholic Church is? If he had told us expressly, that the Notion of it is the whole number of People who believe Contradictions, we could presently conclude the nature of it, because the belief of Contradictions would be the thing that made the Church. But to tell us, that the belief of these Contradictions is true and Fundamental Faith is the greatest Contradiction that any one can possibly believe. For how can the understanding judge manifest lies, errors, deceits, and Contradictions to be true and necessary to be believed? We expected from him the Notion of a thing that really exists, and he has given us such a Notion of it as makes it a Chimaera.  
57 Before this Author can persuade us to admit of this Notion for a complete one, he must show out of the Fathers from whence it is taken, that they held nothing more requisite towards ou●… being Members of the Catholic Church besides Baptism and true Faith; for their words can do him no service, so long as we may justly 〈◊〉 him for having perverted their meaning. They little dreamt, that this Notion of the Catholic Church would be turned to the overthrow of that Faith which they held to be true. For whoever has made any progress in their writings cannot be ignorant, with what vehemonce they inculcate to us Obedience to our Ecclesiastical Superiors, and the external and visible Unity of the Church as things absolutely necessary towards our being Members of the Mystical Spous of 〈◊〉. To be a schismatic in their judgement was as bad as to be a Heathen, and an obstinate continuance in a state of Excommunication was esteemed by them as a renouncing of Christianity. If they had understood the whole Company of the Faithful in the Drs. way, they would never have drawn such Arguments as they do from the Authority of the Church, and the obligation there is of living in a visible Union with it, when they disputed against Heretics and Schismatics, because those miserable People might have had the same plea against them, as the Dr. has against us, viz that they were baptised, and held the same Fundamental Faith with them, and therefore were as much Members of the Catholic Church as they, seeing the Catholic Church is the whole Company of the Faithful, and as such has no Authority, neither does Obedience belong to the Notion of it.  
58. The word Ecclesia or Church signifies in Greek an Assembly or meeting of men, and is indifferently applied to unbelievers as well as to believers, as appears out of the 25. Psalm. I have hated the Church of the wicked, as likewise Acts 19 where we read, that after the Heathen Officer had quieted the People, he said to them, If ye have any enquiry into other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful Church, that is, in a Church of Ephesians who worshipped Diana. In which places Protestans express the word Church by Congregation and Assembly, although the Greek word be the same as in Latin, but since the propagation of the Gospel the word Church has for its common and principal signification those who believe in Christ.  
59 The Fathers called the Catholic Church the whole Company of the Faithful in Christ jesus, 1. with relation to Christ who is their Mystical Head whilst they are Obedient to their Pastors. 2. Because Faith is the primary Mark of distinction of the Church on Earth from the Church in Heaven, which sees and enjoys those glorious things which we believe, and hope for. 3. Of the Church of Christ from the Church of the jews, who believed in God by Moses and not by Christ. 4. Of the Church of Christ from Pagans', whose Religion was not revealed by God, but established by the professed enemy of God and his Church. Faith is the beginning of our Spiritual life on which all its succeeding Motions depend; it immediately and directly regards God as it's proper Object, which Obedience to Eccle siastical Superiors does not, and therefore it is no wonder, if the Fathers call the Church the whole Company of the Faithful in Christ jesus without mentioning Obedience. They designed this Notion rather to diversify the Church of Christ from all such multitudes as did not believe him to have been sent by God, than from those who were not Members his Mystical Body, although they pretended to believe in him. As for this sort of People, they had another Notion of the Church for them, as is manifest out of S. Cyprian, who says Ep. 69. ad Florent. Pup. that the Church is the People united tot he Priest, and the Flock cleaving to their Pastors; from which Principle this Holy Martyr concludes in several places, that those who are disunited from their Pastors are no Members of Christ's Body. There was no such need of mentioning Ecclesiastical Obedience in the Notion of the Church in respect of those who believed not in Christ: but those who believe, or pretend to believe in him, and yet are not of his Body, aught to be put in mind by such a Notion as particularly regards their condition, of the subjection which they owe to their Pastors whom they have forsaken, and that those whom they follow, are not Pastors but wolves, because they are not sent by Christ, whom they believe to have been sent by God.  
60. Besides, the Fathers proved the Faith of the whole Company of the Faithful by the same Motives of credibility as we do now, viz by Succession of Pastors, Antiquity, Universality, Miracles etc. Which Marks as they made the Faith evidently Credible, so they left no room to doubt, whether Christians were bound to obey their Pastors under the penalty of forfeiting their Mystical Union to Christ, because this Point being believed by the Church became as Credible as any other. So that the Christians of their times had no more reason to question, whether Obedience to their Ecclesiastical Superiors were necessary to Catholic Communion, because the Catholic Church is the whole Company of the Faithful, than Dr. Sherlock has to hold that nothing 〈◊〉 is necessary to salvation besides Faith and Baptism, because he reads in Scripture, that he 〈◊〉 believes, and is baptised shall be saved. For as the Motives of credibility which prove Scripture 〈◊〉 be the word of God, prove an obligation of performing every Command of God which is contained therein, so those Motives of credibility which proved the Faith of the whole Company of the Faithful, proved an obligation of being Obedient to Ecclesiastical Superiors, because the was a Doctrine which was believed by the whole Company of the Faithful. So that this Notion of the Catholic Church cannot be said to exclude, but virtually to include Obedience to Ecclesistical Superiors, because it includes every Point of Faith, which was belived by the whole Company of the Faithful, whereof Obedience to Ecclesistical Superiors was one.  
61. Supposing any one should take the same advantage against the Dr. from S. Cyprian's Definition, as he takes against us from the whole Company of the faithful, and prove that Faith is not necessary to wards being a Member of Christ's Church, because it is not mentioned in S. Cyprian's Definition of a Church, no more than Obedience is expressed in the Definition that lies before us: what answer would he return to this Objection, which has so great a resemblance with that which he has made against us? If he say that Faith is included in Obedience to Ecclesiastical Superiors; I answer, that Obedience is as much included in Faith, and therefore either no advantage can be taken against us from the Church's being defined the whole Company of the Faithful, or else the same advantage may be taken against him from S. Cyprian's Definition.  
62. If he say 2. that S. Cyprian's Definition belongs only to a particular Church, which he seems desirous that we should believe, because P. 34. he has fairly remitted the consideration of it to his second Part wherein he has promised to give us the Notion of a particular Church; I answer, that the true meaning of S. Cyprian's Definition will be best known from the occasion which induced him to deliver it, which was this. One Florentius Pupianus had withdrawn himself from the Communion of the Church, and, as it seems, had betaken himself to the Novatians. He writes to S. Cyprian a great many bitter complaints and accusations against him, and among other things charges him with dispersing the Flock of Christ (scripsisti quoque quod 〈◊〉 nunc propter me portionem sui in disperso habeat). Whereupon the Saint replies, that when the Church lost him and his gang, she lost her chaff only and not her wheat, that none went out from her who ought to remain in her, and that she continued the same Church still notwithstanding their departure, and proceeds thus: Dominus quoque in Evangelio quum eum loquentem Discipuli 〈◊〉 linquerent, conversus ad duodecim dixerit, numquid & vos vultis ire? Respondet ei Petrus, Domine ad quem ibimus? Verba vitae aeternae habes, et nos credimus, & cognoscimus, quoniam tu es Filius Dei vivi. Loquitur illic Petrus super quem aedificatafuerat Ecclesia, Ecclesiae nomine docens & ostendens, quia etsi contumax ac superba obaudire nolentium multitudo discedat, Ecclesia tamen a Christo non recedit; Et illi sunt Ecclesiaplebs Sacerdoti adunata & Pastori suo grex adhaerens. unde scire debes Episcopum in Ecclosia esse, & Ecclesiam in Episcope; & si quis cum Episcopo non sit in Ecclosia non esse, that is in English, Our Lord also in the Gospel, when his Disciples forsook him as he was speaking, turning himself to the twelve said, will ye also go? Peter replied to him, Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of Eternal Life, and we believe and know, that thou art the Son of the living God. There Peter speaks on whom the Church was built, teaching in the name of the Church, and showing, that although a proud and stubborn multitude of People who will not hear do depart, yet the Church does not depart from Christ; and they are the Church, the People united to their Priest, and the Flock cleaving to their Pastor. Whence you are to know, that the Bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the Bishop, and that whoever is not with the Bishop is not in the Church.  
63. Now there can be no dispute, but that the Father designs this Definition of a Church to serve as well for a particular Church as for the Church Catholik, because the words in themselves are very general, and besides his known Doctrine is throughout his works that particular Bishops are essential to particular Churches. But then his defining on the one hand the Universal Flock of Christ by the Power which Bishops have over the People, and the Union which the People ought to have with their Bishops, and on the other side affirming that the Universal Church, that is, the whole multitude of Bishops with their respective People were built upon Peter, and that this Apostle spoke in the name of the universal Church, that is, of the other Apostles and the Faithful when he said, Lord, thou hast the words of Eternal life &c, is a clear Argument, that he meant that the universal Flock of Christ should be united to S. Peter's Successors, as well as particultr Bodies of Christians ought to be united to their respective Bishops who are the Successors of the other Apostles. For as according to him it was necessary in the Apostles time, that particular Christians before they could be a Church, should be either immediately united to the Apostles, or to such Bishops as the Apostles had set over them, and that the Apostles and Bishops with their respective Flocks should be all united to S. Peter on whom the whole Church was built, so it is no less necessary now in S. Cyprian's judgement, that all the Bishops in the World with their Flocks should be united to S. Peter's Successors, who inherit from this first Apostle the Prerogative and Right of having the whole Church of their times built on them, as the Successors of the other Apostles inherit the Right of making their respective Flocks to be particular Churches, or having their Churches built on them. Which is the only reason why particular Bishops belong to the Definition of particu-Churches. And therefore seeing all particular Churches with their Flocks are in S. Cyprian's judgement built on S. Peter and his Successors, the Successors of S. Peter ought in like manner to belong to the Definition of the Catholic Church and Universal Flock of Christ. It is most evident, that the Church for which S. Cyprian designed this Definition in this passage, is the Church which was built on S. Peter consisting of Pastors and their Flocks, and which does not depart from Christ notwithstanding that never so many proud and stubborn multitudes departed from her, which no man of sense will deny to be the Catholic Church. And although he immediately add after the Definition, that the Bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the Bishop, in which Claus he may mean by the word Church a particular Church considering the schismatic against whom he wrote, yet this is only an application of his general Doctrine about the Church to a particular case, and can be no ways prejudicial to what I have said, seeing particular Churches are called the Catholic Church as being parts of it, and, as S. Cyprian says, because they are all built on Peter. Besides, it may be as truly said and as properly in S. Cyprian's way of S. Peter's Successors as of any particular Bishop, that they are in the Church, and that the Church is in them, seeing the whole Church is built upon them, which is that which he means below, when he says, who forsakes the Chair of Peter, upon whom the Church is built, does he hope that he is in the Church?  
64. This appears to be the true meaning of S. Cyprian's Definition in several places of his works, where he makes an Union of all the parts of the Church to S. Peter's Chair to be necessary to the Unity of the whole Church, as in his 40. Ep. to his People where he says, Deus unus est, & Christus unus, & una Ecclesia, & Cathedra una super Petrum Domini voce fundata, There is One God, One Church, and One Chair established on Peter by our Lord's voice. Which words denote a necessity of believing all they import no less than that saying of S. Paul One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, nay they seem only the same thing expressed in other terms. And in his 45. Ep. to Cornelius he calls the Roman Church Ecclesiae Catholicae radicem & matricem, The Root and Matrix of the Catholic Church. And in his 55. Ep. to Cornelius he calls S. Peter's Chair the Principal Church from whence the Priestly and Ecclesiastical unity has its beginning. Navigare 〈◊〉 ad Petri Cathedram & Ecclesiam Principalem unde unitas 〈◊〉 exorta est. And Ep. 73. ad Jubaian. He says of Peter super quem Dominus aedificaverat Ecclesiam, & unde unitatis Originem instituit, On whom our Lord built his Church, and from whom he has appointed the Origin and beginning of unity.  
65 But above all other passages to this purpose, that 〈◊〉 we find in his Book de unit. Eccles. is the most full and Illustrious. The occasion of the writing of which Treatise was the great Schism which was raised at Rome by Novatian who pretended to have been chosen Bishop of that See to the prejudice of S. Cornelius, which this Father throughly considering in all it's mischievous consequences, provided this Antidote for his People to secure them from the like innovations in Faith, and disobedience to the Church. He begins by warning them of the sleights which the devil makes use of to draw men into 〈◊〉 and Heresies, and then proposes to them as a grand expedient against these evils their close Union to S. Peter's Chair in these words.  
66. Hoc eo fit, Fratres dilectissimi, dum ad veritatis Originem non re litur, nec Caput quaeritur, nec Magistri coelestis Doctrina servatur. Quae siquis consideret & examinet, tractatu longo atque argumentis opus non est. Probatio est ad Fidem facilis compendio Veritatis. Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum, Egodico tibi, inquit, quia tu es Petrus & super istam petram 〈◊〉 Ecclesiam meam, & portae inferi non 〈◊〉 eam. Ettibi dabo claves regni coelorum, & quae ligaveris super terram, erunt ligata & in coelis, & quae solveris super terram, erunt soluta & in coelis. Et iterum cidem post Resurrectionem suam dicit Pasce oves meas. Super illum unum aedificat Ecclesiam suam, & illi pascendas mandat oves suas. Et quamvis Apostolis omnibus post Resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat & dicat, sicut misit me Pater, & ego mitto vos, accipite Spiritum Sanctum; si cui remiseritis peccata, remittuntur eyes, si cui tenueritis, tenebuntur: tamen ut unitatem manifestaret, unam Cathedram instituit, & unitatis ejusdem Originem ab uno incipientem sua authoritate disposuit. Hoc utique erant caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praediti & honoris & potestatis, sed exordium ab unitate 〈◊〉. Primatus Petro 〈◊〉, ut Ecclesia una & Cathedra una monstretur. Et Pastorss 〈◊〉 omnes, sed grex unus ostenditur qui ab Apostolis omnibus unanimi consensione pascatur. Quam unam Ecclesiam etiam in Cantico Canticorum Spiritus Sanctus ex persona Domini designat & dicit, una est columba mea, perfecta mea, una est 〈◊〉 suae, electa genetrici suae. Hanc Ecclesiae unitatem qui non tenet, tenere se Fidem credit? Qui Ecclesiae renititur & resistit, qui Cathedram Petri super quam fundata est Ecclesia, deserit, in Ecclesia se esse considit? In English thus, The cause whereof, says he, most beloved Brethren, is because men will not return to the Origin of Truth, nor seek after the Head, nor observe the Doctrine of our Heavenly Master, which whoever will but consider and examine, he will not stand in need of long reasonings and Arguments. The proof of Faith is easy through the compendiousness of truth. Our Lord says to Peter, I say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not overcome it. And will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and what thou bindest upon Earth, shall be bound in Heaven; and what thou losest on Earth. shall be loosed in Heaven. And again he says to him after his Resurrection, feed my sheep. He builds his Church upon him alone, and gives him his sheep to feed; and although he gave equal Power to all the Apostles after his Resurrection, and said, As my Father sent me, so I send you, Receive the H. Ghost, whose sins ye forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins ye retain, they are retained: Nevertheless to the end he might declare unity, he constituted One Chair, and appointed by his Authority that the Origin of the same unity should be from one. What Peter was the other Apostles were also, they being all endowed with an equal participation of Honour and Power; But the beginning proceeds from unity. The Primacy is given to Peter, that there might be shown to be One Church of Christ and One Chair. And they were all Pastors, and but one Flock appears, which was to be fed by the unanimous consent of all the Apostles. Which One Church is deciphered in the Canticle of Canticles by the H. Ghost in the person of our Lord, when he says, My Dove is One, my perfect one, the only one of her Mother, and the choice one of her that brought her forth. Whoever does not hold this unity of the Church, does he believe that he holds the Faith? Who resists and rebels against the Church, who forsakes the Chair of Peter upon which the Church is built, does he hope that he is in the Church?  
67, These passages afford as good a light as any impartial enquirer can desire for understanding the true meaning of S. Cyprian' Definition of a Church. For here we have, that Christ built his Church upon Peter alone (super illum unum), and that he gave him his sheep to feed, that he constituted One Chair and established it on Peter, that this One Chair is the beginning of the Priestly unity, that is, of the Ecclesiastical and visible Unity of the Church, and that the Primacy was given to Peter, to the end Christ's Church might be shown to be One. All which places show a Jurisdiction, and Superiority which this Apostle had over his Brethren, and by consequence a Jurisdiction which his Successors have had over their Brethren the other Bishops in every Age of the Church since him.  
68 For what signifies the building of the Church upon Peter alone, but that he as the Principle and Origin of the Church's Unity was to make it One Visible Body by the Union of subordination; which all his Brethren and their Flocks had to him? The Church was built upon him alone, inasmuch as he was made the beginning of the Priestly unity, for seeing the Priestly unity is essential to the Visible Church as such, the Church was built upon him alone, because it was necessarily to be One with him, and could not subsist without this Union. And seeing the Church cannot be One with Peter, nor be united to his Successors as the beginnings of the Visible and Priestly unity, but by means of Obedience and Communion with them, it follows, that all the Members of the Catholic Church ought to be Obedient to them and in Communion which them. What signifies our Lord's saying to Peter alone, Feed my sheep, but that he gave him a special jurisdiction which was not common to his Brethren? For feeding in the H. Scripture is a word which imports Government, and a Power of correcting, teaching etc. And here by the way methinks Protestants should be more sparing of their witty jests against us for alleging this Text to prove the Primacy of S. Peter, seeing we have so good an Authority as that of S. Cyprian for what we do. What signifies the One Chair of S. Peter, but a Chair of jurisdiction paramount to all other Churches, being called One by way of excellence and Power, as having a superiority over all other Sees without having any See Superior over it? For which reason it is called the root, Matrix, and Origin of the Ecclesiastical and Priestly unity. No doubt, but that there are more Chairs and Sees in the Catholic Church than One, and this S. Cyprian knew well enough (as we shall see presently), but there is only one, and that S. Peter's Chair, which has an Universal superintendence over all the rest, as being the beginning of the Priestly unity. What signifies the Primacy which was given to S. Peter, and this absolutely without any modification, or qualifying words? Let the Dr. be ingenuous and confess with me, that the reason which S. Cyprian gives why a Primacy was granted to him, shows that it was a Primacy of jurisdiction, which as it is the only Primacy which can make the Catholic Church One, so it is the only Primacy which can afford a convincing Argument, or show that it is One, which is the express reason why S. Cyprian says, that the Primacy was given to Peter (ut una Chris●● Ecclesia & Cathedra una mon ●retur). A Primacy of mere Precedence (by which we can understand no more than a Privilege of ta●ing the first place when the Apostles met at dinner, or on any other occasion) is ridiculous. For although an adjudication of such a Precedence to S. Peter might be a means of preventing any pretensions to the same in the Successors of the other Apostles, yet it could not afford any remedy against other Schisms, nor be in any tolerable sense the Beginning of the Priestly unity. Neither could this be so great a favour as might deserve to be called the building of the Church upon Peter, no more more than the Peers of England (under which Notion they are all equal) may be said to be built upon any one in particular among them, who has a Primacy of Precedence over the rest. S. Cyprian's Doctrine is reconcileable to no other Primacy than that of Jurisdiction and Power. Lastly, what reason can there be, why any man may not reasonably hope that he is in the Church, and that he holds the Faith, although he forsake the Chair of Peter, if an Union to this Chair be not necessary to Catholic Communion? And if it be necessary to Catholic Communion, it is evident that S. Peter's Successors are the root, Origin, and Principle of Unity to the whole Catholic Church, and by consequence that they belong to the Definition of it.  
69. Here comes the cavilling Objection of Protestants against S. Peter's Primacy of jurisdiction, because S. Cyprian affirms a Parity amongst the Apostles, when he says, that our Lord gave equal Power to all the Apostles after his Resurrection, and that what Peter was the other Apostles were also, they being all endowed with an equal participation of Honour and Power.  
70. For the clearing of this Point the Dr. may pleas to take notice, that in the Ordination of the Apostles (and the same happens in the Ordination of Bishops and Priests) we may consider two Powers, the one of Order, and the other of jurisidiction. By the Power of Order I mean a spiritual quality, gift, ability, or capacity whereby the person Ordained is enabled to perform all those Functions, which our Lord has annexed to men of this condition. And by the Power of jurisdiction I mean a lawful Power of putting this gift, quality, ability, or capacity in execution. The first Power imports that the Apostle, or Bishop, or Priest by virtue of his ordination is qualified by our Lord for his special service, but does not of its own nature import a call to the actual exercise which he is designed for. The second Power imports not only the aforesaid qualification, but likewise a call to the actual performance of our Lord's work.  
71. The Power of Order is One and the same throughout all the Bishops of the Catholic Church, as the Faith of the Church is the same through all its parts. And as the Faith is not multiplied by the multiplicity of persons who profess it, so the Power of the Episcopal Order is not multiplied by the multiplicity of persons who enjoy it. It is One, because it proceeds from Christ the One Lord. It is One, because it is the Power of preaching the same Faith, and administering the same Sacraments. It is One, because it is directed to the same end viz the edifying of the Body of Christ, and the governing, feeding, and illuminating the souls of the Faithful, who are committed to their care. Lastly, and in one word, it is One, because there is not any one action which S. Peter's Successors can do, which any Bishop in God's Church may not in like manner do vi Ordinis; neither is there any thing which hinders the meanest among them from being P pes, but only the want of the Pope's jurisdiction. The same Unity of the Power of Order is likewise to be seen in the Old Law, wherein all the male descendants from Aaron were Priests alike, their birth making them capable of attending on God's Altar, as Order enables Bishops and Priests to perform their respective Functions in the Church of Christ. The Power of jurisdiction on the other hand is different and unequal, more or jesse, according to the different degrees and steps in the Hierarchy, as in Popes, Patriarches, Primats, and Bishops, who partake all of them in their respective stations so much of the Jurisdiction of Christ's Priesthood, as is requisite for the due government of the portion of his Flock which is committed to their charge. And thus it was likewise in the Jewish Church, where the Jurisdiction of the High Priest was much greater than that of his inferior Brethren, although they were descended from Aaron no less than himself. Whence we find Num. 20. that God upon the death of Aaron commanded Elcazar his Son to put on his Father's garments, by which is signified, that as Aaron's Successor he was to take upon him the fullness of his jurisdiction. These two Powers of Order and jurisdiction are apparently distinct; for Dr. Sherlock knows well enough, that a Bishop who is Canonically suspended, or excommunicated is as much a Bishop aster he is censured as he was before, if we speak of the Power of Order which he received at his Consecration. On which account he is not to be Ordained again upon his reconciliation to the Church, and readmission to his Bishoprique, but only entitled anew to his former jurisdiction, and the lawful exercise of his Functions, which he had lost by incurring the Censures of the Church. Which is a demonstrative Argument to prove the distinction, and separabilitie of these two Powers.  
72. Now this distinction of Powers in the Apostles and Bishops at their Consecration gives an easy solution to the Objection. For when S. Cyprian says, that our Lord gave equal Power to all the Apostles after his Resurrection, and that what Peter was the other Apostles were also, they being all endowed with an equal participation of honour and Power, he means, that our Lord gave them all the same Honour and power of Order, and that Peter was no more an Apostle than his Brethren, nor any beginning of their unity inasmuch as he was an Apostle, which are truths which we acknowledge as well as S. Cyprian. But when he says, that Christ built his Church upon Peter alone, and gave him his sheep to feed, and made him Primate; here we must necessarily say, that although he had given him and his Brethren before the same honour and power of Order, and together with the Power of Order the same Power of jurisdiction, when he said, As my Father sent me, so I send you &c (which was at the first time that he appeared to his Apostles after his Resurrection, (see S. John's Gospel Ch. 20.): yet that he gave to Peter alone a special power of jurisdiction as the first Apostle, when he said Feed my sheep (which was at the third time that he showed himself to his Apostles after his Resurrection (see S. John's Gospel Ch. 21.) and by consequence, that he made him the beginning of the Apostles unity, and by consequence that he gave him a special Honour, if it be an Honour to be a Primate, as it most certainly is. And therefore in S. Cyprian's judgement he gave to all the Apostles the same power, and not the same power; the same power of Order, and not the same power of jurisdiction; the same Honour, and not the same Honour; the same Honour of Order, and not the same Honour of jurisdiction. For whenever God bestows an Honour upon his servants he always grounds it upon some gift which he confers on them at the same time. For which reason we must say, that when S. Cyprian affirms the Primaci●… to have been given to Peter, that he held this Honour to have been accompanied with a special gift which was not common to his Brethren, and which can be nothing else but the power of jurisdiction. So that Protestants are obliged to solve this difficulty as well as Catholics, supposing there be any obscurity in S. Cyprian's words. And from this solution which I have given to them, I shall propose one difficulty more to their consideration, which is this. Either our Lord gave Peter a special Honour when he gave him the Primacy, or he gave him none. If he gave him none, let them show, how God conld give a Spiritual gift and of so great moment as the Primacy was without giving a special Honour. And if he gave him a special Honour when he gave him the Primacy, let them show, how our Lord endowed all the Apostles with an equal participation of Honour, when he gave the Primacy only to Peter,  
73. It is this Superior jurisdiction of S. Peter's Successors which makes the Catholic Church One Bishoprique, as S. Cyprian asserts it to be after the long passage, which I have quoted out of him in these words, Episcopatus unus est, cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur. Which place our Author in his Vindic. of some Protest. princip p. 34. translates thus. There is One Episcopacy, part of which every Bishop holds with full Authority and Power. And he says, that by One Episcopacy S. Cyprian understands One Bishoprik that is, the universal Church, which as it is but One Church, so it is but One Bishoprique also, it being all under the Episcopal government, that is, under a multitude of Bishops who govern their respective parts of it with the whole Episcopal Authority. This is set down by him as a choice Principle against the B. of Rome's Universal Pastorship, although he say that all learned men are a little puzzled at the meaning of it.  
74. Here are two things to be considered; the one, in what sense it is that S. Cyprian affirms the, Catholic Church to be One Bishoprique; the other, in what sense it is that every Bishop holds part of this One Bishoprique with full Authority and power.  
75. The Catholic Church is One Bishoprique, which he shows thus in his Book last cited p. 77, S. Cyprian, says he, tells us that there is but One Bishoprique, and therefore all the Bishops who are 〈◊〉 over all the world, and have the supreme government of their particular Churches, must be reckoned but One Bishop; for though their natural persons are distinct, they are but One Ecclesiastical person, their office, power, and Dignity being one and the same, not divided into parts, but exercised by all of them in their several Churches with the same 〈◊〉 and plenitude of power. And thus we have found out but One Bishop for the One Catholic Church, all the Bishops in the world being but one; for though they are many distinct persons, they are but one Power, and exercise the same Office without division, and multiplication.  
76. I cannot but think, that this Author has proceeded mala fide, and against the light of his conscience in fathering upon S. Cyprian the new models of Ecclesiastical Polity which he has laid in some of his writings. And I can never desire a better Argument to justify this censure, than the instance of this passage which lies under examination, viz that the Catholic Church is One Bishoprique. For he cannot be ignorant, that all the aforesaid quotations out of S. Cyprian, viz that the Church is built upon Peter alone, that the Primacy was given to him, that our Lord established his one Chair, and made it the beginning of the Priestly unity &c, are truly to be found in his works, and he is a man of too good natural parts not to see what a fair appearance they carry of proving the Universal Pastorship of the Successors of S. Peter over the Catholic Church, which makes the Catholic Church one Bishoprique. Which required at least, that he should have endeavoured to put another meaning on them, than that which they suggest to our thoughts as soon as we read them, or hear them spoken, before he had provided the Catholic Church with any other Bishop than S. Peter's Successor: and yet he passes them all over in a deep silence, and only culls out this passage, and two or more which he thinks he can deal well enough withal when he has them alone, and by the help of an odd speculation for which he can produce no grounds out of S. Cyprian, he makes them bear a sense quite contrary to S. Cyprian's, as you shall see.  
77. For that which makes a Church One Bishoprique is One Chair, or One Hereditary Episcopal Jurisdiction. And therefore that which makes the Catholic Church One Bishoprique is One Chair, or One Hereditary Episcopal Jurisdiction. Which One Chair, or One Hereditary Episcopal jurisdiction, S. Cyprian says, was establishedon Peter by our Lord's own voice. And therefore in S. Cyprian's judgement the Catholic Church is one Bishoprique by means of S. Peter's one Chair.  
78. Again. That which makes a Church one Bishoprique is because it is built on One Bishop. And therefore that which makes the Catholic Church one Bishoprique must be, because it is built on One Bishop; which S Cyprian says our Saviour has done upon S. Peter, when he says, that he has built his Church, or the Catholic Church upon him alone. And 〈◊〉 that which makes the Catholic Church one Bishoprique in S. Cyprians judgement is because it is built upon Peter.  
79. Again. That made the Catholic Church 〈◊〉 Bishoprique in S. Cyprian's Judgement which was the Centre, beginning, and root of the Ecclesiastical, and Priestly unity. But the one Chair of S. Peter was in his judgement the Centre, beginning, and root of the Ecclesiastical, and Priestly unity. Therefore the one Chair of S. Peter made the Catholic Church one Bishoprique in S. Cyprian's judgement. If there be any thing amiss in this Syllogism, it shall be cleared in the following paragraph.  
80. These Arguments and several others that may be form out of S. Cyprian strongly persuade any sincere searcher after truth, that he held the Successors of S. Peter to be the Universal Bishops over the Catholic Church. And the only way the Dr. can have to show the contrary, is to prove that the Priestly unity whereof S. Cyprian says that the Chair of S. Peter is the beginning, is not such an Unity from whence we can lawfully infer, that S. Peter's Successors make the Catholic Church one Bishoprique. And to this end he must let us know distinctly, wherein this Unity consists which takes its rise from S. Peter's Chair, as also what that special privilege was which our Saviour gave to S. Peter above his Brethren, for which S. Cyprian says that the Church was built upon him alone, seeing it is evident ad Eph. 2. that the Church was also built upon the other Apostles by means of some Graces and Privileges which were common to them with S. Peter. For my part I have diligently read S. Cyprian, and cannot find any one passage in him after all things are well weighed and considered, which seems of any force to persuade me, that he did not intend in these places, and others of the like nature to acknowledge, that S. Peter and his Successors have a Power of 〈◊〉 as Primats over all the Bishops throughout the world, which unites and cements them all together into one Body and Bishoprique by means of the reciprocal ties of Commands and Obedience, which are the nerves and sinews without which One Church and one Bishoprique can neither subsist, nor be conceived. The Union of many moral parts together (as it is in an Army) supposes a dependence on their beginning of unity to conserve them in a state of Union, and this dependence of the parts supposes a Superiority of influence which their Principle of Unity has over them. And unless these grounds be admitted in the explication of S. Cyprian's word's, it will be impossible to make out, how the Church was built upon Peter alone, and how his Chair is the beginning of the Priestly unity, which is most evidently his Doctrine. This Superior Power of jurisdiction in S. Peter's Successors is not only the beginning of the Priestly unity, but of the Unity of their Flocks too. For seeing in S. Cyprian's judgement a Church is the Flock cleaving to their Pastor, the People must be necessarily One by the same Kind of Unity which joins their Bishops together, which being their Union to One Apostle, or to the One Chair of S. Peter, it follows that the whole Church both Clergy and Laity must be One by the same means. S. Cyprian Loc. cit. de unit. Eccles. describes this Universal dependence and Union which all the Members of the Church have with S. Peter's Chair by several fit similitudes, as by comparing them to many rays of light, which make but One light by means of the sun from whence they all proceed; to many boughs of a tree, which are all united in their root, and to many rivers, which flow from the same head, which are all united in their source. If you go to separate, says he, a ray from the Sun, the unity of light is uncapable of division; if you break a bough from the tree, it will not grow after it is broken off; and if you divide a river from the source, it will dry up after the division is made. Thus the Church of God shining also with light stretches forth her rays throughout the world, and yet the light which is spread every where is but one, neither is there any division made in the unity of the whole; she extends her boughs into all Countries through her abounding fruitfulness, she widely opens her vast rivers, and yet there is but One Head, and One beginning, which is that which makes the Catholic Church to be One Church, and One Bishoprique. And thus we have S. Cyprian's Doctrine pure and unmixed, as being lawfully inferred from his own words and writings, without the help of the Drs. wild speculation, which can only serve to put him in mind, that seeing One Bishop is necessary to make One Bishoprique, he ought not to seek after any other Bishop over it than the Successor of S. Peter, whom S. Cyprian calls the beginning of the Priestly unity. And seeing he has so great a deference for this Father, as to believe the Catholic Church to be One Bishoprique on his Authority, he ought in like manner to admit of S. Peter's Successors for the Bishops over it on the same Authority too.  
81. It ought to be no prejudice at all to S. Peter's Primacy that we do not find in Scripture any evident and indisputable record, that he ever exercised any Superior jurisdiction over the Apostles, because all the Apostles actions are not recounted in Scripture, and it is a very ill consequence to say, that Peter or John never did this or that, because Scripture is silent therein. It is sufficient, that the Scripture affords us good grounds from whence we may lawfully infer this Superior jurisdiction, which by the way was not to be exercised towards the other Apostles in matters of Faith, by reason of the perpetual assistance of the H. Ghost, which was promised them all alike in the discharge of their Functions; nor in matters of Discipline neither, for what relates to their particular persons, because as their eminent Sanctity secured them from falling into any scandalous crimes, so it freed them from any danger of falling under the coercive Power of S. Peter's Censures. The only solemn way then that seems to remain wherein he could exercise his Primacy besides what we find in Scripture, was by ratifying and confirming the regulations that were taken for the public Discipline, and government of the Church, in case that Uniformity of Discipline which appeared throughout the world after the Apostles deceas, were an effect of any common resolutions to this purpose before their separation among the Gentiles, and did not proceed from the same Spirit of Truth, and Prudence, and Government, which guided and directed each single Apostle to take such measures in the Polity of his Province as were to be observed in all places after the same manner. So that considering the uncertain knowledge we have from Scripture of the particular cases wherein he did, or might exercise his Primacy, we must betake ourselves to Tradition, which is the Supplement, and best interpreter of Scripture, to know in what cases our Lord designed that the Primacy he had given him was to be exercised. And we learn from Tradition, that S. Peter's Successors have in his Right put this Authority in practice on several occasions, which is an Argument, that it was inherent in the Person of Peter, although per accidens it could be seldom put in execution by him. But after his deceas, and the deceas of the other Apostles, 〈◊〉 the Church grew up and together with years contracted vices, his Successors found amongst their Colleagues more matter whereon to exercise their Jurisdiction, which being allowed by the Church ought to be considered by us as a sufficient evidence of what he might have done, if he had found as ample a matter for his Jurisdiction, as he had an unquestionable Right to put it in execution whenever it should be offered.  
82. There are two places which are usually alleged out of S. Cyprian to prove, that he did not hold any Superior Jurisdiction in S. Peter's Successors over the other Bishops. The first is taken out of his Preface to his Council of Carthage wherein he says, Quum habeat omnis Episcopus pro licentia libertatis & potestatis suae arbitrium proprium, tanquam judicari ab alio non possit, cum nec ipse possit alterum judicare; sed expectemus universi judicium Domini nostri jesu Christi, qui unus & solus habet potestatem & praeponendi nos in Ecclesiae suae gubernation, & de actu nostro judicandi. In which words he seems to make our Lord Jesus Christ the only Judge, and Primate over Bishops, and that they are accountable to no other Superior for any measures they take in the Government of his Flock. I shall remit the full examination of this passage to Num. 199. & seq. whither I refer the Reader for an en●…re satisfaction, and shall only take notice here, that if this Doctrine be taken as it lies, and without a fovourable explication, it wholly destroys any Power in the Church to Censure Heretical and Schismatical Bishops, which this Author as great a friend as he is to the Episcopal Power is unwilling to deny, as we shall see presently. Neither could 8. Cyprian with any consequence to such a Principle advice S. Stephen B. of Rome (as he does Ep. 67.) to excommunicate, and depose Marcianus B. of Arles for Heresy and Schism, when he writ thus to him, Facere t●… oportet plenissimas literas ad Coepiscopos nostros in Galliis constitutos ne ultra Marcianum ..... Collegio nostro insultare patiantur, that he should write most full and effectual letres to their Fellow-Bishops in France not to suffer Marcian to insult any longer over their College. And afterwards, Dirigantur in Provinciam & ad plebem Arelate consistentem a te literae, in quibus abstento Marciano, alius in locum ejus substituatur; that he should dispatch his letres into the Province (that is, to the Bishops of the Province over which Marcian was Primate) and to the people of Arles, wherein after he had excommunicated Marcianus, another Bishop should be placed in his room. If Dr. Sherlock be willing to grant, that Innocent XII. has the same Power over Archbishops who are in a state of 〈◊〉 and Schism as Marcian was, we shall have very good grounds to believe, that he holds the Primacy of S. Peter's Successors. For here we have a Power of deposing and casting an Heretical and Schismatical Archbishop out of the Church, and of commanding his Diocesans and Provincial Bishops (who had in those time's the Right of Election) to choose another, which is the proper, and one of the most principal exercises of that universal care and Superiority, which the B. B. of Rome have over their Brethren, and which S. Cyprian meant by calling them the beginning of the Priestly unity.  
83. The other passage it out of his 55. Epist. to Cornelius B. of Rome wherein he acquaints him, that the African Churches had resolved in a Provincial Council, ut uniuscujusque causa illic audiatur ubi crimen est admissum, that every one's Caus should be heard in the place where he committed his crime. From whence it seems to follow, that the Churches of Africa did not believe the Chair of S. Peter to have had any Superior jurisdiction over any Churchmen what soever, who were not of the proper Province and District of Rome.  
84. I answer, that this Canon relates only to the Crimes of Immoralitie, and breach of Discipline etc. and not of Infidelity such as Heresy is, as appears from the occasion which S. Cyprian had to cite it, as likewise from what he says afterwards, that the criminals ought to pled their Caus in the place where their accusers are, and those who can bear witness against them, Oportet illic agere causam suam, ubi & accusatores habere, & testes criminis sui possint. For in matters of Doctrine a man carries his accusers and witnesses about him, let him go whither he will to have his Caus tried; and whoever renounces, and denies the error he is charged withal is ipso facto to be accounted innocent, seeing no man can be a heretic without an obstinate resolution to continue in his error, which is to be known by his own confession, and not by interrogating witnesses. And if he declare, that he will persist in his error, he is never the nearer being acquitted, although he produce never so many witnesses who abet his Doctrine, unless he can allege the concurrent testimonies of at least the greatest part of the Bishops of the Catholic Church in his favour, which if he be sure of before hand, there is no reason to fear, either that the Catholic Bishops of the Country where he lives, or S. Peter's Successors will either cite him, or question him as an Heretic for any tenet which he holds on so good an Authority. This was the reason why S. Cyprian advised S. Stephen to do summary justice upon Marcianus, because the Doctrine of Novatian which he publicly professed, was condemned by the Bishops all the world over. Indeed it may happen, that an obstinate Heretic may conceal his sentiments, in which case his Heterodox belief is to be detected by overtacts, and this requires that witnesses be produced to prove them; but this was a thing not likely to happen often in S. Cyprian's days, seeing the reason why men generally conceal their private belief is the discouragement which they find from the secular Magistrate, who seconds the sentence of the Spiritual Judge with temporal punishments; which could not be apprehended in those times from the Roman Princes, who made no distinction between Catholics and Heretics, seeing they passed all alike under the name of Christians. This shows, that the Canon ought to be understood so as to prohibit the hearing of any Crimes, which were against good manners, or the like in any foreign Court. For as for the Superiority which the Chair of S. Peter has over Bishops in cases of 〈◊〉 and Schism, I think it plain enough out of Marcian's case, which could not happen above four or five years after this Canon was signified to Cornelius, unless we say, that S. Cyprian and the Churches of Africa had all changed their sentiments in so short a time, which is a thing incredible without a good attestation from History.  
85. I do not intend to affirm here, that this Canon forbids indifferently the Causes of Bishops as well as of Priests to be tried in any foreign Court, unless it be in cases of Heresy. For no such thing appears in S. Cyprian, whose Authority alone I rely upon at present for the establishment of the Superior Jurisdiction of S. Peter's Successors, what ever grounds there may be alleged for this Opinion in the Age that followed S. Cyprian. Bishops have always had a special consideration allowed them both in their Causes, and in all their other concerns by the Church of God above Priests, and therefore considering S. Cyprian's silence in the matter, I think that no one ought to draw any such 〈◊〉 out of the general words of this Canon, and this the rather, because if we carefully weigh the occasion which the Father had to cite it to S. Cornelius, we shall find that it relates merely to the Causes of Priests, and not of Bishops. And that I may show this the more effectually, I will set down the occasion how it came to be cited, which was thus. There were five Priests, of very scandalous lives and conversations, the overthrowers of the public Discipline of the Church, the introducers of liberty, the Companions of Heretics, and Schismatics, and such kinds of Outlaws, and who had been excommunicated by S. Cyprian in a Provincial Council, by name Fortunatus, Repostus, Felix, Maximus, and Jovinus. This wicked crew procure Fortunatus to be made a Bishop, who being invested with the name of a Dignity, which they thought might gain them some credit abroad in the Church, sends one Felicissimus who was their Ringleader with some others of their gang with letres to S. Cornelius B. of Rome, who having before hand had a Character of him out of Africa, refused to receive his letres, or to communicate with him, and writ an account to S. Cyprian of what he had done. But this confident blade having hereupon given S. Cornelius very ill language, and threatened to read his letres in public before all the Brethren, he writ a second letre into Africa, wherein S. Cyprian discovered some wavering and irresolution in him how he should proceed with this importune and vexatious person. Whereupon he writes this Epistle to S. Cornelius, and in the first place he puts him in mind of the intrepiditie and courage which Bishops ought to embrace as virtues proper, and in a singular manner requisite for the discharge of their duties; and not being well assured, what the contents of the letres were which his Rebels had sent, whether they were accusations against himself, or that they disired to have their Caus tried at Rome, he arms himself against both these Heads; against the first, by laying open the enormous crimes for which they had been excommunicated by him, and many others of as heinous a nature which the Brethren had informed him of, and which as yet had not come to a trial: and against the second, he alleges the aforesaid Canon, saying moreover, jam eorum causa cognita est, jam de eye dict a sententia est, nec censurae congruit Sacerdotum mobilis atque inconstantis animi levitate reprehendi.  
86. We see here, that S. Cyprian considers this Caus as no other than that of simple Priests; for although Fortunatus were a Bishop, yet this Dignity was far from entitling him to the Privilege of Bishops, because it was conferred upon him against the Spirit, Canons, and practice of God's Church by Heretics, and Schismatics who had no lawful Power to do it, and whilst he was under an actual Excommunication by a Provincial Council. S. Cyprian was too zealous a Pastor, and Christian to admit of a man's crime as a competent plea to obtain a favour, and too well versed in the Maxims of natural equity to allow an unjust Intruder the benefit of all the Claims, which belong to a just Possessor. And accordingly we find, that he treats him in this Epistle as a simple Priest, when he says of him, Est unus de quinque Presbyteris jam pridem de Ecclesia profugis; and afterwards jumbles him with his comrades as perfons who lay all alike under his lash, when he says, Opertet eos quibus praesumus non circumcursare. Which manner of proceeding is very good Canon Law at this day in the Court of Rome, which allows no Priledge of Bishops to such as have assumed this Dignity under a state of Excommunication, and rebellion against the Church.  
87. And although it be no good Canon Law 〈◊〉 in this Court at present to maintain as S. Cyprian did with his Council, that Provincial Synods are such Sovereign Tribunals to determine the Causes of simple Priests, that there is no Appeal to be made from them to S. Peter's Chair, yet this Doctrine can afford no argument to prove, that the Churches of Africa denied the Superiority of this Chair, no more than the opposition which the Churches of France make against several branches of the Prerogatives which are challenged by that See, evinces that they denio the superiority of it over all the Churches in the world. Although Catholics acknowledge the Primacy of S. Peter's Successors to be jure Divino, yet they do not hold every Prerogative which is claimed by them as a consequent of their Primacy to be jure Divino. For the Primacy itself we have Scripture and Tradition, but we are to seek for the same degree of evidence for many of its branches. Which is the reason, why in the Histories of most other Christian Countries besides France, we read of contentions that have happened between National Churches and the Chair of S. Peter, and the State engaged in the defence of their Churches, and Bishops, by making Laws against encroachments upon them by the Chair of S. Peter, which only shows, that they disallow of the exercise of the Primacy in certain cases for which they judge there neither stands reason, nor Tradition. And this they may do without renouncing the Primacy of that Chair, which in all such branches as are not evident by Tradition is under the regulation of the Church, either by means of express Canons made in General Councils, or by the Universal acceptation and admittance of them by the Church Diffusive. And whenever both these Conditions are wanting, Kingdoms and National Churches may dispute with S. Peter's Chair, and stand out against any unjustifiable pretences of the same without any danger of separating themselves from this beginning of the Priestly unity.  
88 And this seems to have been the case of S. Cyprian and his Council when they enacted the aforesaid Canon. For we see evidently on the one hand, that he held the Church to have been built upon Peter alone, which contains the substance of the Primacy of the B.B. of Rome; and on the other hand we discover as clearly in the Case of Marcian, that he ascribes to S. Peter's Chair a Superior Power of excommunicating, and deposing Heretical, and Schismatical Bishops, which is the proper exercise of this Primacy. What then can we say else of his refusing Priests, to have their Causes tried in any foreign Courts, but that he did not think that the Cognizance of these Causes appertained to S. Peter's Chair as a Right of its Primacy? And he might possibly have had this ground for this judgement, because there was no Precedent to be found in the African Churches of any Priest's Caus that was ever tried at Rome. And perhaps in those early times of Christianity, when Charity, and humility, and penance were so much in vogue amongst Christians, this practice was so far from being allowed by the Universal acceptation of the Church Diffusive; that there were very few examples of the like nature to be heard of in any other parts of the Church. Which might induce him to believe, that the Primacy of S. Peter's Chair did not extend to the hearing and determining such Causes, and upon this presumption he might procure a Canon to be made to this purpose, that his Clergy might be the more submissive and Obedient under his Government. In which case the Primacy of S. Peter's Chair remains untouched, and there is only a bar put to a doubtful consequent of it, which S. Cyprian would have allowed as well as he did the other Point of excommunicating, and deposing Heretical and Schismatical Bishops, if he had had the like evidence for the one, as he had for the other. I think this Canon to be so far from prejudicing the Primacy of Power in S. Peter's Successors, that it is a strong Argument, that S. Cyprian and his Council believed this Primacy at the same time that thy made this Canon. For we cannot in reason judge, that so grave and wise an Assembly as a Provincial Council of that Church was would make Constitutions and Canons to prevent inconveniences that were no more than purely possible, as that was of Priest's removing their Causes to be tried at Rome, in case there was not a probable ground to apprehend lest this inconvenience should happen, which could be nothing else but the common belief of those Churches, that the B. B. of Rome had a Primacy over the whole world.  
89. 11. Every Bishop holds part of the One Bishoprique of the Catholic Church with full Authority and Power. These words (supposing they are rightly translated) may signify first, either an equality of jurisdidiction in Bishops, which makes them independent of any one or more of their Colleagues in matters of Government, under which Notion are comprised all things relating to Faith, Morality, and Discipline; so that by the Law of Christ, and their Original Institution they are not bound to accept of any Political regulations in any matter contained under any of the aforesaid three Heads, unless they voluntarily, and of their own proper Motion and consent are pleased to ratify, and accept of the same: Or 2. that they all equally and immediately receive from Christ the Authority and Jurisdiction whereby they act in the Government of their Flocks, although their Acts of Jurisdiction be under the regulation of and dependant on One or more of their Colleagues, to whom they are bound to submit their consciences, and private reason, as being the Rule which they ought to follow in the lawful exercise of their Jurisdiction. So that by full Authority and Power be meant an equal relation which they have all to Christ whose Vicars they are, and from whom they immediately receive their Jurisdiction, and not an equality of extent in the matter, and use of their Jurisdiction.  
90. The first of these senses is Dr. Sherlock's in his aforesaid Vindication, but is none of S. Cyprian's. For S. Cyprian holds, that all the Bishops in the Church are One among themselves by being all united to S. Peter's Chair, which is the beginning of their unity; And this Union argues a dependence and subordination in matters of Government, there being no other imaginable reason why they should be tied to an Union with this Chair, but because of the Superiority and Jurisdiction which it has over them, S. Cyprian holds, that the Decrees of S. Peter's Successors, when they are accompanied with the consent of the other Bishops, are to be a standing Rule which Bishops ought to follow in matters of Faith, as appears in his 67. Epist. to Stephen B. of Rome in the case of Marcian of whom he says, sententiam non dicat, sed accipiat etc. Let him not pronounce sentence against us, but receive it from us; nor carry himself so as though he had judged the College of Priests, when he is judged by them all. For we must maintain the glorious Honour of our Predecessors the Blessed Martyrs Cornelius and Lucius; whose memory as we honour, so oughtest thou, most dear Brother, who art in their place, and become their Successor, to honour and support in a more peculiar manner with they gravity and Authority. For they being full of God's Spirit ... judged that the Peace ought to be given to those who had fallen .... which thing we all of us in all parts judged in like manner. S. Cyprian holds, that the Decrees of S. Peter's Successors when they are made with the aforesaid approbation and consent of the College of Bishops, are to be accounted for a Law throughout the Church in matters of Discipline, as is seen in his 68 Epist. to the Clergy and People of Asturica and Emerita in Spain, whom he commends for having chosen other Bishops in the room of Basilides and Martialis, who had sacrificed to Idols in the time of persecution. And after that he with his Provincial Bishops had proved to them by several places of Scripture the lawfulness of what they had done, he put's the matter beyond dispute, when he tells them, Maxim cum jam pridem nobiscum & cum omnibus omnino Episcopis in toto mundo constitutis, etiam Cornelius Collega noster ..... decreverit etc. More especially considering how together with us, and with all the Bishops in the world, Cornelius also our Colleague has some time since Decreed, that such kinds of persons (as Basilides and Martialis) might be admitted to do Penance, but that they should be removed from Ordaining the Clergy, and the Priestly Honour.  
91. These few instances which Providence has left us, show that when S. Cyprian says, that every Bishop holds part of the Catholic Church with full Authority and Power, he does not mean, that there is no superior Authority in the Church over them, and that they are independent as to subjection, as this Author affirms in his Vindicat. p. 38. For if this were so, they might he Heretics, and Schismatics, and Idolaters, and what they pleased besides without any fear of justice, or being controlled in their course of sinfulness. Which makes me wonder, how he who maintains the aforesaid Propositions, can assert in the next page, as he does likewise in several other places of the said Book, that Bishops are not exempt from Censures in case of Heresy, Schism, Idolatry, and such evil practices. Certainly a lawful Power to punish an Offender argues an Authority in the punisher, and a subjection in the person that is punished. O but the Power of censuring Heretical and Schismatical Bishops does not infer a superior Authority of one Bishop over another, but only an Authority in the Church to censure such crimes whoever be guilty of them. Vid. loc. cit. This is a very remarkable Reply. Pray, Sr. is it not the common sense of mankind, that an Authority to censure crimes whoever be guilty of them, is an Authority to censure all those who are guilty of them? Yes, say you. How then comes it to pass, that an Authority in the Church to censure the crimes of Heresy, Idolatry, Schism etc. does not infer an Authority over all those who are guilty of them? So it does, say you. How then comes it to pass, that the Authority which is in the Church (which can be no other than that of Bishops) to censure the aforesaid crimes, does not infer an Authority of one Bishop over another, whenever Bishops are found guilty of them? Here lies the difficulty, if there be any. According to my poor talon it is very clear, that every one who is lawful Judge over a Criminal has Authority over him, and the Criminal is in subjection to him, seeing it is nothing else but Authority which makes one man a lawful Judge over another; and wherever there is Authority, there must of necessity be subjection, because of the relation there is between these two qualifications. And therefore if we suppose Bishops to be lawful Judges over Bishops, we must consequently say, that Bishops have Authority over Bishops, and that this Authority in the one infers a subjection in the other.  
92. He tells me in his aforesaid Vindication p. 35. that this is no act of Authority over Bishops considered as Bishops, but over Heretics and Schismatics.  
93. I answer, that it is sufficient that a Judge be said to have Authority over Criminals considered according to the character, station, and Dignity which they bear in the Church or Commonwealth monwealth, if he have Authority to punish those crimes in them which are proper to men of their station; for example, when a Judge punishes a Viceroy for his ill Government, or a Treasurer for turning the King's cash to his own uses, or a Privy Counsellor for betraying the secrets of State, it is evident, that he punishes the Viceroy considered as a Viceroy, and the Treasurer considered as a Treasurer, and the Privy Counsellor considered as a privy Counsellor. And thus it happens in the trial of Heretical and Schismatical Bishops, who are punished by other Bishops for such crimes as are the most proper violations of their Dignity; and their punishment directtly shows, that their Judges considers them as Bishops when they condemn them, seeing they deprive them of all Spiritual Jurisdiction, and make their Sees vacant for new Incumbents. Besides the Power of censuring Bishops for Heresy and Schism is of its own nature a Power to control them in the management of their Churches, and of compelling them to govern them by such Laws as they in their consciences do not approve. As for example, a Bishop preaches Arianisme in his Diocese, and is commanded to forbear by the other Bishops, and to preach the contrary Doctrine of the Consubstantiality of the Son of God with the Eternal Father, which he accounts for a most dangerous error. Another Bishop refuses to give the Peace to any who have fallen into any damnable sin after Baptism, and is presently ordered by the other Bishops to give the Peace to all whom he shall find truly penitent, which he accounts a great impiety. What can any one think of this procedure among Bishops, but that it infers an Authority over Bishops considered as Bishops? And this Author would be of the same mind too, were it not for the cause of the Reformation which requires, that he say something to free the English Bishops from Heresy, and Schism. Which engages him to exalt the Authority of Bishops to so great a height, as to make them independent of one another as to subjection, and matters of Government. Which Principle has the same property as all false Principles have, which is to prove more than the advancer of it is willing it should prove. For it so well secures the English Bishops from being Heretics, and the Novelties of the Reformation from being Heresies, that it makes it impossible, that there should be any such thing as Heresies and Heretical Bishops, by constituting Bishops for the sanctifiers and unaccountable Judges of what Doctrines they are to preach, as it happened at the Reformation, which was such a notorious violation of all Ecclesiastical Laws, that it can never be defended but by making Bishops considered as Bishops superior to all Laws. From whence it follows that their Acts of Government viz the Faith which they preach, and the Discipline which they establish, are above the censure of other Bishops, and by consequence that they can never be Heretics and Schismatics, which we find him to deny in the present Objection. On the contrary our Doctrine touching the Authority of Bishops is reconcileable to reason, and all Christian Principles. For we hold, that so long as Bishops will order their lives, and conform their Faith, and Discipline according to the prescript of those whom Christ has appointed for their Judges, there is no Power on Earth that can control them in the exercise of their Episcopal Functions. And I think this Author ought to close with me, that they are under this obligation, because the consequence is necessary, that if Christ has left them Judges of their Faith and Discipline as often as they offend in either (as he grants he has), the Faith and Discipline of these Judges ought to be the Rule which they are obliged to follow in their conduct and the government of their Churches, as I will show more at large when I treat of the Authority of General Councils.  
94. A great cause of these puzzling mazes is a strong persuasion that Bishops by their Original Institution were all of equal jurisdiction, which I have shown to be false out of S. Cyprian, who says, that S. Peter was Primate over his Brethren. And although we should suppose it to be true in the Apostles yet I do not see any necessity of granting, that their Successors must have in like manner the same equality of Jurisdiction. For if it be lawful to discourse after this manner, we may as well infer, that the whole world is the subject matter of each Bishop's Jurisdiction, seeing it is certain that the Apostles Jurisdiction was not restrained to any particular Province, but they were empoured by by our Lord to preach his Faith, and administer his Sacraments in what place soever they should come, although it were in some Province, or City where one of their Brethren were before, as we find in S. Peter and S. Paul who were both in Rome at the same time. And yet it is notorious, that since the Apostles time the Bishops their Successors (I except always S. Peter's Successor's) never had any jurisdiction over the whole world, but have held only a part of it, as S. Cyprian says, for the matter of their Jurisdiction. What reason then can there be to affirm, that Bishops inherit from the Apostles an equality of Jurisdiction (supposing the Apostles had it), and yet that they do not inherit from them the whole extent of the subject matter of their Jurisdiction? If their Original Institution be of force to prove the one, why should it not in like manner prove the other?  
95. If you say, that Bishops do not succeed the Apostles in the whole subject matter of their Jurisdiction, because the Apostles had a command from our Lord to assign to each Bishop whom they should ordain, a certain part of the world for the subject matter of their jurisdiction, and that they left an injunction on the Church of succeeding times to follow the same Rule in the Consecration of other Bishops: why may not any one say in like manner, that the Apostles had a Command from our Lord to give to the Bishops whom they should ordain, so much of their Jurisdiction as was sufficient for the discharge of their duty in their respective stations, to some more, to others less, to Primats and Metropolitans more, and to inferior Bishops less? If the Original Institution of Bishops in the Apostles could not tie our Lord's hands, but that he might give them a less matter of jurisdiction than he gave to the Apostles, it could as little tie them from giving them an unequal distribution of jurisdiction among them, which Dr. Sherlock's Principles will strongly dispose any man to believe that he has done. For in his aforesaid Vindicdtion p. 41. he says of Arehiepiscopal and Metropolitical Churches, that they were so very early in the Church, that it is most probable, that they had their beginning in the Apostles days, which being once admitted for a truth (as it most certainly is), the lawful consequence is, that these Churches were established by the Apostles Authority. For it is incredible, that there could be any such solemn Combinations and Associations of National and Provincial Churches settled without the allowance of the Apostles, who were the Sovereign Governors of God's Church, it being a necessary Prerogative of all Sovereign Power's to give life and being to Politic Bodies, without whose Charter and express Erection they are no more than a Company of unconnected individual persons. How can any one think, that such prudent establishments as these could be carried on throughout the world without the orders of the Apostles, who were the sources of Christian Prudence? Or that God provided such visible, such illustrious, and such effectual means for the continuance of his Church by his inspirations to other men, than to the Apostles on whom he had built his Church? And supposing that these Associated Churches were established by the Apostles, it follows, that Archbishops and Metropolitans received from the Apostles all that Authority which we learn from antiquity to have been exercised by men of their eminent rank and station, as to call National and Provincial Synods, to preside in them, to see the execution of their Decrees, and to censure the Bishops of their several Provinces for any enermous crimes etc. All which Prerogatives do not signify a Primacy of mere Order, but of jurisdiction without which there can be neither Faith, nor order, nor Discipline, nor any thing else that is good observed amongst men. Neither is it tolerable to hold, that the Councils which consisted of the Bishops of these Archiepiscopal and Metropolitan Churches (and which our Author loc. cit. says were from the very beginning) were instituted only for mutual advice, it being ridiculous to think, that the Apostles empowred them to consult together about the common concerns of their Churches, and to aggree upon Canons and regulations for their better government, without giving them a coercive Power to punish any one who should be a contravener of their orders, or laying an obligation under Obedience on succeeding Bishops, nay nor so much as on themselves by whom the Canons were signed and enacted, to procure the due and faithful observance of them. A great piece of Apostolical Prudence indeed, to command, and to empower Bishops to assemble in Councils, and to make Canons for the better government of their Churches, and yet not to give them when they are thus assembled, Authority sufficient to bind themselves to the execution of their common resolutions unless they pleas themselves! Those who prudently design an end, make choice of such means as are effectual for the compassing of the same. And therefore it must be granted, that when the Apostles empowred these Councils to frame Canons for the good of the Church, they gave them a direct and superior authority over Bishops for the more exact execution of them in their several districts, this being the only way to compass the end of these Councils, which is the good of the Church. And thus we have a superior Authority of one Bishop over another, although we suppose them by their Original Institution in the Apostles to have been all of equal Jurisdiction.  
96. This discourse shows, that we ought to understand S. Cyprian's words in the second sense which I have given above, viz that when he says, that every Bishop holds part of the One Bishoprique of the Catholic Church with full Authority and Power, he meaus that they receive their jurisdiction alike from Christ, although not all of them in the same equality, of proportion.  
97. It will be objected against this explication of S. Cyprian, that these two Doctrines which I have ascribed to him, viz that the Primacy of S. Peter's One Chair is de jure Divino, and the jurisdiction of each single Bishop is de jure Divino seem irreconciliable, and in Consistent with one another. For first, if Bishops receive their Authority and Power immediately from Christ, how can they have any other Superior but Christ in the performance of their Functions? 2. How comes it to pass, that in their Consecration they take an Oath of Obedience to S. Peter's Successors, and 3 that they are chosen or confirmed by them, and that without their Bulls they have no Jurisdiction to act as Bishops? 4. How can S. Peter's Successors limit, and restrain their Power so much as we see in matters of Appeals, Dispensations, and Reservations of Cases in the Court of Penance, since an immediate Delegation of a Power from Christ act signifies a lawful Power to act immediately without any subjection to any intermediate Director and Controller? 5. All those Directions, Commands, and Decrees which proceed from S. Peter's Successors, and which are many times accompanied with threats of Excommunication, and other Ecclesiastical Censures debar Bishops of their liberty to act, or to cease from acting. Which abridgement of their liberty seems inconsistent with the Doctrine which makes their Authority to be jure Divino. All which great dependences which particular Bishops have on S. Peter's Chair, seem to show, that the Authority and Power whereby they act is not derived immediately from Christ, but from the Successors of S. Peter.  
98. These Objections admit of very easy solutions. As to the first, I answer, that Bishops have no other Superior but Christ, for what relates to the Donation of their Jurisdiction, but they have S. Peter's Successors, and their Colleagues in a General Council for their immediate Superiors for what relates to the regulation of the same, so that they may be the better able to edify the Body of Christ thereby, and proceed all with the greater Uniformity in the government of their Flocks, as becomes the Heads, and Princes of the several portions of the One Bishoprique of the Catholic Church.  
99 As to the 2. I answer, that the Obedience to S. Peter's. Successors which Bishops oblige themselves to by Oath at their Consecration, can no ways prejudice their Claim of receiving their Jurisdiction immediately from Christ. For this Obedience may be reduced to two Heads; the one is, when they are commanded to desist from injuring the Flock of Christ either by their ill example, careless government, or false Doctrine; and the other, when they are commanded to see the execution of such orders as are for the good of the Faithful. In the first of these Cases they loose nothing of their Authority by Obedience, because Christ never gave them any Power to destroy his Church 2. ad Cor. 13. Neither is their Authority weakened in the other case, because the orders of S. Peter's Successors are performed by the Authority which they have immediately received from Christ to edify his Body. For seeing the execution of these orders belongs to them as they are Bishops, and as they are Bishops they derive their Authority immediately from Christ according that of S. Paul Quos Spiritus Sanctus constituit regere Ecclesiam Dei, it follows, that when they execute these orders, they execute the Authority which they have immediately received from Christ. The Authority which they immediately receive from Christ is that of governing, feeding, and illuminating souls as S. Paul says 2. ad Tim. 4. Praedica verbum, insta opportune, importune, argue, obsecra, increpa in omnipatientia & doctrina. And seeing those orders which they receive from S. Peter's Successors are supposed to further them in the exercise of this Power, the consequence is, that the performance of them is by the Power which they have immediately received from Christ.  
100 It belongs to the Superior jurisdiction which S. Peter's Successors have over their venerable Brethren the other Bishops, that they have a Latitude of judgement whereby they are enabled to judge what is expedient for the general good of the Church, and of particular persons too in certain cases and on certain emergencies, which the other Bishops have not out of a General Council; as also a Coercive Power to see the execution of such regulations as they shall make on the like occasions. To give an instance in the first Case, let us suppose, that the Pope takes into consideration, that it will conduce very much towards the better observance of the Lord's day, if the Faithful are under the same obligation of hearing sermons, or assisting at Vespers as they are of hearing Mass on this day. Herupon he order a Decree to this effect, which as soon as it is duly form, duly received, and duly published in all parts of the Church, it ought to be put in execution by the other Bishops in their several Districts. The instance in the second case may be this. Titius is very desirous to marry Caja, but there is an impedimentum derimens between them which jure communi cannot be dispensed withal by the Ordinary. Whereupon he sues for a Dispensation in the Court of Rome, lays open the reasonable Motives he has for a relaxation of the Canons, and having procured it he shows it to his Bishop, who presently gives his consent that he may marry Caja. Now the Bishops acting in either of these cases affords nothing like an Argument, that they act by the Authority which they receive from S. Peter's Successors, but only that their Authority in these cases has a necessary relation to the direction of S. Peter's Successors, which as soon as they have received, they do not receive a new Authority together with it, but only an obligation to exercise the Authority which they have immediately received from Christ. The Authority whereby they act in these cases is from Christ, but the obligation of acting hic & nunc is from the direction of S. Peter's Successors. And here we may discover a great difference between the Polity of the Church, and that of the Civil State; for when a subject receives from his Prince a Command to govern a Province, or a City, the Prince's Command is the Power whereby he is to govern: whereas when S. Peter's Successors send their Commands to Bishops, they do not properly speaking give them Power, but lay an obligation on them to exercise the Power which they have immediately received from Christ on such and such occasions; just as when I command Peter to beaten john, although he beaten him at my Command, yet he does it by his own strength.  
101. As to the 3. I answer, that the election or confirmation of Bishops by the Pope no more proves that they receive their Jurisdiction from him after their admission into their Bishopriques, than it is an Argument that Popes receive their Jurisdiction from the College of Cardinals, because they are chosen by them. In both cases the jurisdiction is received immediately from Christ, although the election of the persons be according to the customs which the Church at present has admitted. For some Centuries after Christ the People had a great part in the election of Bishops, and yet I suppose no body will pretend, that those Bishops received their Episcopal jurisdiction from the People. It is God who gives the Jurisdiction, and those who have the Power of choosing do no more than present to his Divine Majesty such persons on whom he may confer it, as we we read Num. 11. 16. that Moses by God's order chose from among the Tribes 70. men who were to be assistants to him in the government of the People. Which Institution of those Magistrates was properly Divine, and their Jurisdiction was received immediately from God, although their persons were nominated by Moses. And thus it is in the Church of Christ, wherein God has commanded the election of Bishops, but reserved to himself the Prerogative of investing them in their jurisdiction after they are chosen. The custom which there is at present for Bishops to receive their Bulls from Rome before they are admitted into their Bishopriques was introduced into the Church not many Censuries ago. And therefore it cannot afford so good an Argument that Bishops derive their Authority from that See, as the contrary custom which was before can yield, that they derive it immediately from Christ. We are at full liberty to look upon this Custom as a Form, which ought to be considered according to that construction of it which the Fathers of the Church and Tradition lead us to, which is that Bishop's Faculties are immediately received from Christ, and that their Bulls signify no more than that the New-Bishops may govern with the Pope's consent and approbation.  
102. As to the 4. I answer, that the delegation of a Power to act many times ties those who receive it to the observance of certain Conditions, without which the exercise of it cannot be lawful. As for example, a Judge who receives from the Prince a Power to hear Criminal, or Civil Causes cannot pronounce a lawful sentence before he has referred the matter to the consideration of a Jury, and observed the other Forms of Law; nor a Viceroy come to a full resolution in any matter of great moment, without hearing first the judgement and opinion of his privy Counsel, or others who may be presumed to be able to give him a true and exact information of the case. And thus it is at present, for although particular Bishops have received from Christ their power to govern their Churches, yet Christ himself has subjected the lawful and valid exercise of this Power to the superior Wisdom, and Conduct, and Moderation of General Councils and S. Peter's Successors, who may limit it in certain cases, as they find it expedient for the good of the Church, as they have done in those cases mentioned in the Objection; without whose concurrence Bishops may be said to have no Power nor Jurisdiction, in as much as what they do is neither lawful nor valid; and with their concurrence they may be said to have Power, in as much as what they do is both lawful and valid. But from hence it does not follow, that the Power whereby they act after this concurrence is not received from Christ, but only that the Power which they have received from Christ becomes lawful and valid by the observance of those Rules which Christ will have to be observed in the exercise of it? Every thing that is sufficient to make the exercise of a Power lawful and valid is not necessarily the Caus of the Power whose exercise it makes lawful and valid, as is manifest in judges and Viceroys, who receive their Power from the King, and yet the lawfulness, nay the validity of their Acts in many Cases depends upon the concurrence of their Juries, and Privy Counsels.  
103. As to the 5. I answer, that the abridgement of the liberty of Bishops by means of the Decrees and Commands of S. Peter's Successors does not in the least impair their claim of receiving their Authority from Christ, because although God has given them freedom of will to act, or not to act according as he would have them, yet he has given them Authority to act only so as that they may edify the Body of Christ. And seeing such Decrees as are issued forth by S. Peter's successors according to the Canons and Tradition of the Catholic Church, are supposed to edify the Body of Christ, whenever Bishops comply with them, they properly exercise their Authority by exercising the freedom of their wills in such compliances. And seeing a noncompliance with such Decrees as edify the Body of Christ is an interpretative destruction and disedisication of the same, we cannot conclude, that Bishops loose any thing of their Authority, because S. Peter's Successors have a Power to force them to Obedience by the threats of Excommunication, and other Ecclesiastical Censures, because this Power is only the Power of punishing those who 〈◊〉 and destroy the Body of Christ, which certainly must be granted to have been lodged by our Saviour either in one or more Bishops, or else that he was a very imprudent Lawgiver to design the perpetuity of his Church, and yet to provide no fitting means for its preservation. If I who am not S. Peter's Successor, can convince a Bishop of any thing which he ought to do towards the edification of our Lord's Body, he is bound in conscience to follow my counsel, and yet he loses nothing of his Authority by having his will determined to act through my advice. Why then should it be so dangerous an encroachment on his Authority as to be an argument that it is derived from S. Peter's Chair, because his will is determined to act by such orders and Commands as he receives from thence, seeing these orders when they are according to the Practice and Canons of the Church, are supposed to bring a conviction along with them, that their performance will tend to the ●…dification of our Lord's Body, and the threats of Excommunication wherewith they are accompanied, do no more than 〈◊〉 the thoughts of those punishments which private persons may denounce to him, if he omit to act as they advice him, when their advice is evidently good, and he is obliged in conscience to follow it?  
104. It is a vain thing to think, that God has given to every Bishop an absolute and Despotical Power to act in all Cases, so as he shall judge to conduce most towards the edification of our Lord's Body without any obligation to follow the received Customs, Maxims, Principles, and Canons of the Catholic Church; or having any kind of dependence on a Superior Authority in any matters relating to Faith; Morality; or Discipline. For if this were so, there might be as many distinct Communions as there are Bishopriques, because every Bishop has full Authority and Power in this Hypothesis to appoint what terms and Conditions of Communion he thinks fitting. And if there may be as many distinct Communions as there are Bishopriques, it is possible for the Catholic Church to fail, because it is impossible for One Body and Communion to result out of many distinct and independent Communions. Wherefore when we say, that every Bishop has full Authority and Power, we must understand it in such a sense, as will not hinder the Catholic Church from being One Body and Communion, which is a truth as evidently Revealed, and of at least as great importance, as that every Bishop holds part of the Catholic Church with full Authority and Power.  
105. Thus we see that S. Cyprian's Definition of a Church aggrees to the Catholic Church as well as to any particular Church within its Communion, if it be sufficient for this purpose to make S. Peter's Successors essential to it by being Primats over the other Bishops, by being the beginning of their unity, and by being Bishops over the Universal Church. And from hence I infer, that if Dr. Sherlock can lawfully conclude, that Obedience does not belong to the Notion of the Catholic Church, because it is the whole Company of the Faithful, there can be no reason why Faith may not be said not to belong to the Notion of it because it is the People united to the Priest, and the Flock cleaving to their Pastor, which is S. Cyprian's Definition of it.  
106. I do not at all wonder, that Bellarmin has joined both these Notions into One complete Definition, which he might very well do without the introduction of a dangerous Novelty. For seeing Faith and Obedience are equally necessary Conditions of Communion with the Catholic Church, where lies the fault in inserting them both into the Definition of it? He was certainly no flatterer of the Pope by acknowledging a Privilege which the Son of God had given to him, neither had the Pope any reason so much as to thank him for it, unless it were because he had done his duty. When he acknowledged the Pope's Primacy, he confessed Christ before men by confessing his Universal Vicar before Schismatics, as the Learned Launoy would have done himself, had he been to manage the Caus of the Church against this sort of People. For seeing he held the Pope's Primacy to be an Article of Faith, he held the belief of it to be essential to the Church. And if the belief of it be essential to the Church, why may not this Article be particularised in the Notion of it as often as occasions prudently require it, as well as covertly expressed under the general name of Faith, when the Church is said to be the whole Company of the Faithful? In like manner seeing the Authority of General Councils is no less an Article of Faith than the Pope's Primacy, whoever pleases may insert that too into the Notion of it, as often as occasions prudently require it, without any danger of error. One thing the Dr. may assure himself, that if Mons. Launoy had lived to see the advantage, which is pretended to be taken from what he writ to Gatinaeus concerning the Notion of the Church, he would not have failed to let him know, that he held Obedience to the One Chair of S. Peter to be as necessary to Catholic Communion as Bellarmin, or any other who has placed it in the Notion of the Church, and that what he had written on this occasion was far from giving any encouragement to Schismatics, because it was no ways repugnant to the Unity of the Catholic Church. Let this Author show me, if he can, where Monsr. Launoy sais, that obedience does not belong to the Notion of the Catholic Church as such, which being once granted to have been his Opinion, there is no difficulty in showing, that he held the Catholic Church to be the Company of the Faithful in the Protestant sense.  
107. From what has been said we may learn the true meaning of two other Principles drawn out of S. Cyprian, which this Author in his aforesaid Vindication p. 35. makes use of to show, that this Father held no Superiority of one Bishop over another. The first is this, unus Episcopatus Episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus, which he renders thus into English, One Bishoprique is spread over the world by the consenting multitude of many Bishops. Ep. 52. Pam. The other is Ep. 69. Quando Ecclesia quae una est scissa non sit, neque divisa, sed ubique connexa & cohaerentium sihi invicim Sacerdotum glutino copulata, which he translates thus, The Catholic Church is not rend, nor divided, but united and coupled by the Cement of many Bishops who stick close together. From which places he infers I know not what Chimerical unity of the Episcopacy which is distinct from the Essential Unity of the Church, and without any dependence of subordination to the Chair of S. Peter, when it is as clear as noon day, that in S. Cyprians judgement the Concord, unity, and Cement of a multitude of many Bishops do no otherwise make the Catholic Church One Bishoprique, or One Ecclesiastical Body, but inasmuch as they unite them to the One Chair of S. Peter. For how can they be united in an Ecclesiastical sense to one another, who are not united to the Centre and beginning of the Ecclesiastical and Priestly unity? Heretics and Schismatics may be very numerous, and their Bishops may have their Unity, Concord, and Cement too, and yet they make not One Church, because they are not united among themselves by means of one common Union to the beginning of the Priestly unity. So that in S. Cyprian's judgement the Ecclesiastical Unity of a multitude of many Bishops, and by consequence of the Unity of their several Flocks consists in their Union to S. Peter's One Chair, without which they cannot make One Church, One Bishoprique, or one Ecclesiastical Body, although there be never so good an intelligence and correspondence held amongst them.  
§. 7. P. 32. I know of late the Clergy have in a great measure monopolised the name of the Church, whereas in propriety of speesh, they do not belong to the Definition of a Church.  
108. Reply. What is it he means here by the word Church? a Church as it is taken for Christ's Mystical Body, or as it is a Visible Society? If he take it in the first sense, I know of no body that denies the latter part of his Proposition; for Christians are singly and individually united to Christ as to their Head and Spous, and the Clergy of the Catholic Church are so far from monopolising the name of the Church in this sense, that they do not pretend to belong to the Definition of it, but leave this Prerogative to Christ alone.  
109. But if he take the word Church so as to signify a Visible Society, we have already seen that the whole Company of the Faithful is not a complete Definition of it, and therefore for aught yet appears to the contrary, the Clergy may belong to it as much as the People. Nay we have seen, that S. Cyprian places the Clergy as well as the People in the Definition of it, which makes his postponing of S. Cyprian's Definition to be very suspicious, and a vehement presumption, that he was unwilling to submit his Caus to the judgement of this Father. Nay what is more remarkeble yet, he tells us p. 38. in behalf of particular Churches, that the government of Bishops is that which makes them, and is essential to their Definition. If he will stand to this, we need no further proof against him than his own confession. For what is essential to a thing belongs to it in propriety of speech. Wherefore if the government of Bishops (who are the Heads of the Clergy) be essential to the Definition of a particular Church, it follows, that the Clergy belong to the Definition of a Church in propriety of speech.  
110. And from hence it follows, that the Clergy belongs likewise to the Definition of the whole Catholic Church on Earth as it is a Visible Society. For what is essential to the parts must needs be essential to the whole, and by consequence seeing the whole Church is nothing else in his way but the Collection of all particular Churches and Christians who are under the government of Bishops, it cannot have a distinct nature and Definition from particular Churches and Christians, unless he say that men may be Members of the Visible Church without being Members of any Church in particular. So that according to this Doctrine the true and proper Definition of the Catholic Church is the whole Company of persons who are united together by the profession of the same Christian Faith (if he will have Faith to be essential to it,) and Communion of the same Sacraments under the government of lawful Bishops. Which Definition differs from that of Bellarmin, not because it excludes the Clergy, but because it excludes the B. of Rome, whom Bellarmin acknowledges for the root and beginning of the Ecclesiastical and Priestly unity. We make with S. Cyprian and all Antiquity the Pope together with his Venerable Brethren the Bishops to belong to the Definition of the Catholic Church, and this Author (if he persist in affirming Bishops to be essential to particular Churches) excludes the Pope, and admits only lawful Bishops. In both these ways the Clergy belongs to the Definition of the Catholic Church in propriety of speech, although in the Drs. way the Catholic Church be not One Body and Society for want of a root and beginning of unity to knit its parts together, but rather an Aggregation of several incoherent and unconnected Churches and Christians, as a heap of wheat is in respect of the grains whereof it is composed; which does not hinder, but that the Collection or Aggregation of Churches ought to be defined according to that which is essential to every Church in particular, as a heap of wheat necessarily requires, that its Definition be made according to such considerations as are essential to the grains that make it. And in case the government of Bishops be essential to the Definition of the Catholic Church, it follows, that Obedience must be so too. For seeing this obligation of inferiors is annexed to all lawful Governments, the Government of Bishops can neither be conceived, not subsist without it. From whence it is plain, that Obedience is as necessary towards our being Members of the Catholic Church as Faith, and by consequence the whole Company of the Faithful cannot be a Complete Notion of the Catholic Church for want of Obedience, as I said lately.  
111. This discourse gives me an occasion of taking notice of a great inconsequence of this Author in his Vindic. of some Prot. Princ. etc. p. 34. where he says, that in case of necessities, when Bishops caunot be had, a Church may be a truly Catholic Church, and such as we may and aught to communicate with, without Bishops, which, he says, he asserts in vindication of some foreign Reformed Churches who have none; and that therefore he does not make Episcopacy so absolutely necessary to Catholic Communion as to unchurch all Churches which have it not. He must have a very subtle understanding who can reconcile what is here said with what I quoted last out of him, viz that the government of Bishops makes aparticular Church, and is essential to the Definition of it. For if this Doctrine be true, how can there be a truly Catholic Church without Bishops? Or how comes it to pass, that Episcopacy is not so absolutely necessary to Catholic Communion, but that there may be true Churches which have it not? There is no playing with Essences and Definitions. If the government of Bishops makes a particular Church, and be essential to the Definition of it, there is no imaginable 〈◊〉 which can make a Church subsist without it. For how can any thing subsist without its Essence, that is, without being what it is? He had done his foreign Churches much better service, if he had left them to shifted for themselves. 〈◊〉 to take such measures in the 〈◊〉, as 〈◊〉 the world, that their Caus cannot be made good without Contradictions.  
112. I well see, that this Author will resent the advantages which I have taken from his granting the government of Bishops to be essential to a particular Church, which he has expressed in as full and plain terms as possibly can be desired. And yet he will not fail of making use of his talon of evading here as I have observed he has done on other occasions, although I have set myself on purpose to guess at some tolerable Reply which he may make to it, and after all my searches I do not find any thing that can carry so much as the colour of reason. Perhaps he will serve me as he does his Adversary in the aforesaid Treatise p. 23. who having charged him with a Contradiction, he tells him, that the matter was a little out of his reach .... and that if he had not understood it, it had been more modest and ingenuous to have made a Querie upon it, and desired him to have reconciled that seeming contradiction, rather than to charge him with such Principles as he often and expressly rejects. But ingenuity and modesty are not to be expected from such Adversaries etc. This good Gentleman blames his Adversary for want of Ingenuity and Modesty in letting the world know, that he had contradicted himself in a very material Point, as though these virtues could suffer any thing by the publication of a pertinent truth. But I shall have no scruple at all to charge the same defects upon him, in case he do not acquit himself very well of the present inconsequence, seeing it is no less a sign of Ingenuity and Modesty to confess and acknowledge ones own weakness, than it is to acquaint those privately of it whom we find guilty. But why should he expect a Penny-post letre to advertise him of that which he would have thought to be a blunder? Is there any such practice among Controvertists? Why should he think himself hardly used, when he is treated no otherwise than as good, and as able men as himself have been treated before him? Why may not he contradict himself as well as his neighbours, and if he contradict himself in public, why may not he be censured for it in public? Those who write Controversies out of ambitious ends, or to show their wit, may with a false gallantry give their Adversary their hand after they have thrown him, but a severe lover of Truth will keep him down whilst he has him down, because he judges that he holds error down together with him. I am very sensible, that men of the best parts, and the managers of the best Causes may sometimes slip, and commit mistakes, and I think it a piece of rudeness to take a man up, as they say, before he is down; but when we may justly presume, as we may at present, that the inconsistency of two Doctrines is not a mere slip, but the result of a deliberate and fixed judgement, I think it neither wisdom nor prudence for any man who thinks that he defends a good Causnot to press it upon his Adversary, and to make use of all the advantages which will serve to strengthen the Caus which he has undertaken.  
113. To proceed, no one better understands what he belongs to the Essence of a Church than he that made it, and we may securely depend upon the truth of that Definition which our Lord gave to his Apostles. He tells them Luc. 10. He that hears you, hears me. From whence it is plain, that if to hear Christ be to be a Christian, and to hear those whom Christ has sent to teach us be to hear Christ, that Christianity consists in hearing those whom Christ has sent to teach us. And if to hear Christ be to believe what he has revealed, and to obey what he has commanded, it follows also, that by hearing those whom Christ has sent to teach us, is meant that we ought to believe what they preach, and to obey what they command, because we hear Christ by hearing them. So that the Definition of a Church according to the Founder of it is a Company of People which hear those whom Christ has sent to teach them, where we see the Clergy or those whom Christ has sent to teach, and govern his Church to be a part of its Definition. And from hence we may safely conclude, that the Church is not only 〈◊〉 whole Company of the Faithful, and united to Christ as to to their Mystical Head and Spous, but that it is essentially also a Visible Body and Society by being a Company of People who hear those whom Christ has sent to teach them, or as S. Cyprian delivers it in other words, by being united to their Priests and cleaving to their Pastors, that is, by believing what they teach, and obeying what they command.  
114. Our Lord tells his Apostles in like manner Luc. 5. You are the Light of the world, you are the salt of the Earth. Which words clearly show the Apostles, or the Clergy to belong to the Definition of a Church. For the Church was the world which was to be illuminated by them, and the Earth which was to be salted by them. Wherefore if Light belong to the Definition of an illuminated world, and salt to the Definition of a salted Earth, it follows, that the Clergy belong to the Definition of a Church, because they are the Light wherewith it is illuminated, and the salt wherewith it is salted.  
115. The Clergy are the Light of the world, not only because of the Faith which they preach, but likewise by means of the Sacraments which they administer, which are the channels and conveyances whereby the Sun of Justice dispenses his rays to the souls of men. Will this Author say, that the Sacraments do not belong to the Definition of a Church? And yet this necessarily follows, supposing the Clergy do not belong to the Definition of it. For the administration of the Sacraments necessarily requires, that there be a Clergy who are duly authorised to do the same, unless it be said, that there is no other qualification requisite for this performance, besides such natural gifts as may incline the People to Ordain Ministers by their own choice. As for Baptism, although it may be validly conferred by Lay people, men or women, yet this practice is only indulged in cases of great necessity, which cannot vacate the Institution of the Lawgiver, nor the direct Relation which this Sacrament has to those who ex Officio are to represent the person of Christ in the administration of it. It is not absolutely necessary that every individual person be baptised by a Priest, because in danger of death the Lawgiver gives way, that they be baptised without one; but it is absolutely necessary to the whole Church that there be Priests, because where there is no danger of death, the Institution of the Lawgiver ought to take place. We shall deal very ungratefully with our Saviour, if we interpret his gracious Indulgence in one certain case as an abrogation of his Law in all others. But supposing the Clergy be not so necessary to the Church for the administration of Baptism, but that it may be conceived to subsist without them, yet what will this Author say of the Sacrament of our Lord's Body and Blood? May Lay people administer that too? Where does he find any warrant for this either in Scripture, or from the practice and Tradition of former Ages? All Christian Principles oppose him herein, and he has no other defence but his own prejudiced reason, which it is to be feared may at length work him into a total dislike of Christ and Christianity, since it has already disposed him to believe, that Bakers and Midwives may succeed the Apostles in being the Light of the world, as well as those whom he acknowledges to derive their Authority of preaching and giving the Sacraments by an uninterrupted succession of Ordainers from the Apostles down to these times.  
116. The Clergy are the salt of the Earth, inasmuch as they are empowered by our Lord to preserve his Church from putrefaction either in their Faith, or Morality. They are the Physicians which are to cure all our maladies, which flow from the Original defect which we brought into the world along with us. They are our Governors to restrain our Excesses by a saving discipline, and to direct our steps to our Heavenly Country. They bear the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, where none enter but when they open. They are to remove all infected Members from the Communion of the Faithful, and to prevent the contagion from spreading further, Our Author cannot deny, but that they are invested with all these Privileges, and that they have received from Christ our Lord a suitable Grace to perform the same, which makes me wonder, how he can hold, that they are not essential to a Church, nor belong to the Definition of it. The Church is a Visible School; and certainly where there are visible Scholars, there must be Visible Masters. The Church is a Visible Body and Society, which certainly requires Visible Governors. The Church is designed by God for the Kingdom of Heaven, which certainly supposes the assistance and cooperation of those with whom he has entrusted the Keys of it. The Church is a Company of Patients under a cure, which certainly argues that there ought to be Physicians to perform it. This is a plain case according to the present Principles of the Church of England, and I believe that there are few men of sense among them, who had not rather continue in a state of wrangling with us on the old foot it has been hiterto managed, than make use of this new project of putting and end to it, by renouncing so important a piece of Christianity, as the perpetual and indispensible necessity of the Evangelical Priesthood till Christ's second coming.  
117. The reasons why he will not have the Clergy to belong to the Definition of a Church are very remarkeble, not for any strength they have, but for their apparent weakness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first p. 32. that they are Members of the Church, as they are of the number of the Faithful, and they are the Governors of the Church, as they have received Authority from Christ the Supreme Lord and Bishop of the Church, but they are no more the Church than the King is his Kingdom, or the shepherd his Flock.  
118. I answer, if the Clergy are considered barely as they are of the number of the Faithful, they do not belong to the Definition of the Church, because the Church under this consideration is not a Visible Body and Society. But if they are taken as they are the Governors of the Church, they are taken as they are Governors of a Visible Body and Society, and thus they are part of its Definition, as the King belongs to the Definition of a Kingdom as such, and a Shepherd to the Definition of a Flock that is under care. Can any one define a Kingdom without conceiving, or mentioning a King to whom the multitude pays Obedience; or a Flock that is under care without saying any thing of the Shepherd who has the care of it? I know of no one who is so sottish as to contend, that the Clergy are the multitude whom the govern, any more than the King is his Kingdom, or the Shepherd his Flock. I shall declare N. 122. in what sense it is we say, that the Clergy are the Church.  
119. He says 2. p. 34. that the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, which is in subjection to Christ the Head; but the Bishops and Pastors of the Church considered as such, represent the Head, and not the Body ..... And therefore as Christ the Head is distinguished from his Body, so are those who act under the Head, and represent and exercise his Authority in the Church; as private believers, they are Members of the Church, as Church-governors, they are the Vicars of Christ.  
120. I Answer, that we willingly grant the Clergy to be distinguished from the Church they govern, as much as Christ is distinguished from his Body, and he needed not to have quoted Scripture as he does ubi supra for the proof of a matter which is as visible as the light of the sun; but we deny, that it follows from hence, that the Clergy do not belong to the Definition of a Church, as it does not follow, because Christ is distinguished from his Mystical Body, that therefore he does not belong to the Definition of it. This is the thing he should have proved, but for this be pretends to no Authority out of Scripture. And it would be a very strange thing to prove from thence a thing which is so evidently repugnant to natural Reason. For do we not see in Natural Bodies, that the matter and Form are two distinct things? And yet the Union of them both together makes only one Essence and Definition. The same likewise happens in Moral Bodies such as the Church is, where the multitude is the Matter, and the Governing Power is the Form, or that which makes them a Body. So that the distinction of the Clergy from the Church, or People whom they govern, is so far from proving that that they do not belong to the Definition of a Church, that there cannot be a Church or Ecclesiastical Body, if they are not distinguished. Can any one conceive how there can be a governed People without subjection to a Governing Power? If this be impossible, let him confess that Governors belong to the Definition of a governed People. And if he grant this, let him confess that Church-governors belong to the Definition of the Church which they govern. Neither is it at all material what he says, that as Church-governors they are the Vicars of Christ, because Christ who is Invisible cannot make his Church a Visible Body and Society, as I have proved, but gives it this qualification by means of his Vicars to whom he has given the Visible Government of it.  
121. Having thus settled, as he thinks, his Assertion upon good grounds, that the Clergy do not belong to the Definition of a Church, he triumphantly proceeds to sum up the fruits of his labour. Now from hence, says he P. 35. I shall observe some few things, the use of which we shall afterwards better understand.  
§. 18. p. 35. As 1. That Bishops and Pastors are not the Church, but the Governors of the Church: and therefore the Promises made to the Church do not belong to the Bishops of the Church, as that the Gates hell shall not prevail against it: which certainly proves, that the Church shall never totally fail, but does not prove, that the Bishops or any Bishop of the Church shall be Infallible. For the Bishops are not the Church: there are distinct Promises to the Church, and to the Pastors and Ministers of it, and they ought to be kept distinct, which will put an end to a great many controversies between us and the Church of Rome.  
122. Reply, No such inference as this can be drawn from any thing he has hitherto said; for the Church on Earth is not merely the Company of the Faithful, but is moreover a visible Society consisting of Bishops and Pastors who are the Governors and Teachers, and of the Laity who are the subjects and Scholars. We do not say, that Bishops and Pastors are the Church inasmuch as they are of the number of the Faithful, any otherwise than the Laity are the Church; for under this consideration there is no difference between the Clergy and the Laity. Neither do we say, that they are the Church inasmuch as this word imports a visible Society of Governors and subjects, of Teachers and Scholars; for this were to make them the same with those whom they teach and govern. But we say, that the denomination of the Church belongs to them because they are an essential part of the Church, just as when we read in Scripture, that such, or such a King was buried with his Fathers, and that Lazarus was carried into Abraham's bosom, the Body and soul which are the essential parts of a man, are called by the name of man, although they are taken separately from one another. When we say, that Bishops and Pastors are the Church, we mean that they are the governing and teaching Church, for which manner of speech we have no less than the Authority of Christ himself besides the unanimous concurrence of all Antiquity. For who sees not, that when our Saviour Math. 18. remits us to the Church in cases of Controversy, when he says tell the Church, that he means the Bishops and Pastors of it? And when he says in the same place, that whoever will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as a Heathen etc. that he will have us to be obedient to our Bishops and Pastors? Whom are we to believe now, our Saviour, who says that Bishops are the Church, or Dr. Sherlock who says that they are not the Church?  
123. I see no way for him to escape, unless it be by saying, that our Saviour speaks improperly: or else that he understands the Laity as well as the Clergy in those Texts, which instead of putting an end to Controversies with the Church of Rome, increases their number, and affords occasions of new ones. For hitherto the Church of England has never in express terms placed the Laity on the Ecclesiastical Bench, nor given them a joint Commission to act with the Clergy in the Government of souls, which certainly follows, if in such disputes as arise among the Faithful, men are to Tell the Church, that is, to Tell the Laity as well as the Clergy under pain of being Heathens and Publicans. I suppose the Dr. will not charge any one with telling an untruth, who shall say that the Common prayer and the Protestant Canons were compiled by the Church, although it be evident that they were made by no others but their Clergy; nor censure any one for speaking improperly, who shall say that a person who is excommunicated by a Bishop of his Communion, is excommunicated by the Church. In which manner of speeches the word Church signifies the Governing and Teaching Church (who are the Church inadaequatè) as much as it does when our Saviour says Tell the Church.  
124. It is in this sense that we are to understand what our Lord said to his Apostles Matt. 18. Teaching them to observe all things what soever I have commanded: and behold I am with you always to the end of the world. .... And joan. 14. I will ask my Father, and he will give you another comforter, that he may remain with you for ever ...... the Spirit of Truth .... for he dwells in you, and shall abide in you ... But the Comforter the H Spirit whom my Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your memory whatever I shall say unto you. Which promises and several others are made to the Church, although they are only addressed to the Clergy.  
125. Nay those Promises and passages in Scripture which may relate to the Church as it is a Society of Teachers and Scholars, as when it is said, that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it, have a special regard to the Teaching Church, from whom the Indefectibilitie of the Scholar's Faith proceeds, seeing they are to hear the Teaching Church as they hear Christ himself. So that when when our Saviour promises, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against his Church, he promises, that they shall not prevail against the Teaching Church, because the instructed Church is to receive the benefit of Christ's Promise by hearing them. Christ has no where promised the Laity that their Faith shall never fail, but with a dependence on the Church's instruction, whom if they will will not hear, their Faith has already failed, because we are to look on them as Heathens. This is the only necessary means which our Lord has appointed them for the Indefectibilitie of their Faith, and by consequence when our Saviour promises his Church, that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it, he stands engaged in a particular manner to preserve the Clergy from error, because he has grounded the Indefectibilitie of the whole Church upon them, by reason of the gracious Promises which he has made them of his perpetual assistance in the discharge of their Offices.  
126. Thus likewise when S. Paul 1. ad Tim. 3. calls the Church the ground and Pillar of Truth, although the Infallibility of the Church (supposing that be proved by this Text) belongs to the whole Company of the Faithful, yet it belongs to Bishops and Pastors after a different manner than it does to the Laity. For it is rooted in the Clergy as in its proper subject, because our Lord according to his promise remains with them, and the Comforter the H. Ghost teaches them all Truth; whereas the Laity derive it from them, and they are no otherwise infallible, but because of the Objective Infallibility of their Faith, and the Infallibility of their Pastors from whom they receive it. The Bishops and Pastors of the Church, when they are assembled, and proceed according to the custom, practice, and Canons of the Church in holding of and consulting in General Councils, cannot possibly err; but Lay men may err, let them hold never so many solemn Assemblies and Consultations about matters of Faith, because there is no Promise, that the Spirit of Truth shall abide in them, and influence them in such undertake. The Infallibility of the Church is rooted there where the Spirit of Truth more especially abides, and where the Spirit of Truth more especially abides, there is the ground and Pillar of Truth in a more special end eminent manner. The whole Church as it includes both Clergy and Laity is the ground and Pillar of Truth, because it is as impossible for its Faith to be false as for God not to be be true; but it is the Privilege of the Bishops and Pastors alone to define, and declare what the true Faith is, and to make us secure that it is the true Faith.  
127. 1 infer from what has been said, that since Bishops and Pastors are the Teaching Church, that is, since they are the Church in the same sense wherein our Saviour said Tell the Church, their Faith and Decrees when they are assembled in General Councils, aught to pass, and to be esteemed among Christians for the Faith and Decrees of the Catholic Church, and under this venerable Name (p. 36.) they ought to have an indisputable Authority. From whence I conclude, that the Faith of General Councils cannot be false, unless the Faith of the Catholic Church may be so too.  
§. 19 He observes 2. that as Bishops are not the Catholic Church, so neither are they the Representatives of the Catholic Church.  
128. Reply. We have seen that Bishops are the Church, because they are the Governors and Teachers of the Church. And as they are the Governors and Teachers of the Catholic Church, so they are the Catholic Church. And as they are the Catholic Church, so they may be the Representatives of the Catholic Church in that sense which I am about to declare, for any thing of moment that he offers to the contrary, as shall appear.  
§. 20. Ib. The Office of a Bishop is not to Represent, but to govern the Church, and therefore Bishops are not the Church's Representatives by Institution, no more than the King is the Representative of his Kingdom.  
129. Reply. I find this Author in his Vindicat. of some Prot. Prin. p. 50. not unacquainted with our Doctrine about the Church Representative. Had the Representatives of the Catholic Church, says he, a Divine Authority, superior to all particular Churches and Bishops, to oblige them to stand to their Decrees, as the Church of Rome asserts a General Council has, than indeed some few Bishops chose by their National and Provincial Bishops, to go to the Council, and to act as Representatives of such Churches might have a Plenary Authority to debate and determine all matters in dispute relating to Faith, or Worship, or Discipline. And yet at present he delivers his judgement against us in such a manner, as would persuade any one to believe, that he knew nothing of this Authority which we adjuge to the Church Representative. Wherefore it will be convenient to set our entire Doctrine down, to the end the Reader may be the better able to judge of the weakness of the exceptions which he makes against it.  
130. We hold that Bishops are by institution the Governors and Teachers of the Catholic Church, and that it belongs to them ex Officio to regulate any thing that is amiss either in the Faith, or Morality of Christians. But by reason it many times happens, that there is not a perfect evidence of the unsoundness of the contested Doctrine, either because the Universal Tradition of the Church is not easily to be discovered, or because sentence is to be pronounced according to the necessity of consequences which are to be drawn from Principles of Faith, hence we say, that they are obliged ex Officio, and as they are Bishops to repair to a General Assembly or Council of the Catholic Church whenever it is Canonically called, and there to determine authoritatively by common consent the Controversies that are depending amongst Christians. They are each one singly empowered by our Lord to edify his Body according to their knowledge, and the utmost extent of their capacities in their several precincts, but when the good of the whole Church is concerned in the decision of a matter which regards the whole Church, as Faith and Morality do, they are to act jointly with their Colleagues the other Bishops in a General Council (wherein we believe the H. Ghost to preside and govern), that they may be able to edify the Body of Christ the more effectually by such measures as are taken therein, which they could not put in practice by their single Authority either for want of evidence, or otherwise, without endangering and destroying the Flock whereof they are Pastors. They have likewise the Supreme Power of making general orders and regulations in Ceremonies, and the exterior Acts of God's Worship, of hearing the complaints that are brought against Bishops, and examining their Causes, of ending differences between Bishop and Bishop either concerning the Precedence, or Prerogatives of their Churches, or any other matter, and generally to take Cognizance of of all debates, causes, matters, and things that want a redress and remedy among Christians, inasmuch as they are Christians and belong to the Church, but not as they are Members of the civil Commonwealth.  
131. When we say, that Bishops Represent the Catholic Church in General Councils, we do not mean, that they Represent the inferior Clergy of each one's Diocese, nor much less, that they Represent the Laity who have no Ecclesiastical Authority, but are bound to hear the Clergy in all things appertaining to their salvation. For if this were so, the Authority of General Councils would not be immediately from Christ, but derived from the whole Company of the Faithful, who must be said to have the Original Right of determining all differences about Faith, and morality, and Discipline, and Bishops will act only as their Substitutes, as the Members of Parliament act in the name of the People, who have chosen them for their Representatives therein. This is no Doctrine of ours; for we believe the Original Right of determining differences about Faith, Moralite, and Discipline, to be placed in those to whom our Saviour has made a Promise of teaching them all Truth, who having been no others than the Apostles, we hold that it belongs to Bishops who are the Apostles Successors, with a total exclusion of the Laity as to the Power of voting, and that all those of an inferior rank among the Clergy who are called by them, and admitted to sit in Council, enjoy this Privilege by the favour only, and permission of Bishops.  
132. As Bishops are singly considered, they Represent only the Prelates of their own Countries, but as they are taken all together, they Represent the whole Body of Bishops in the Catholic Church. For seeing there is a moral impossibility for all the Bishops in the Church to be present in a General Council, because several of them will be hindered by Age, sickness, and other unavoidable occasions; nay seeing it is necessary towards the edifying of the Body of Christ, that some of each country remain at home to discharge the Functions of the Episcopal Dignity, we say, that those who give their attendance ought to be held for the Catholic Teaching Church, and to have as full Authority as though every individual Bishop of the Church were assembled in the Council. They are all summoned to appear and they are bound in conscience to obey their summons, unless they have a just and reasonable cause to the contrary, and therefore they ought to be esteemed as the Teaching Church, because they are all that can come considering the lawful excuses of those who are absent. Nay supposing there are some Bishops who will not obey their summons, not for any just and reasonable excuses they have, but because of sluggishness, discontent, or other unjustifiable Motives, yet this hinders not, but that the Council which is called, assembled, and held according to the Canons and Practice of the Catholic Church, aught to be esteemed as the whole Teaching Church, notwithstanding the sinful absence of such sluggards and malcontents. So that in every General Council we may conclude, that all the Bishops are there who ought tobe there unless it be such as sin by refusing to come. For which reason we say, that they Represent the whole Body of Bishops in the Catholic Church, and that our Saviour performs his Promise of teaching the Church all Truth in all such Decisions as they make in Relation to Faith, and Morality, in as ample and effectual a manner, as though every Bishop were actually present, which is that which we mean by the Church-Representative.  
133. What has been here said is scarce any thing more than a bare delivery of our Doctrine, which is all that the consideration of the Passage which I have in hand requires of me, there being no need of Proofs and Arguments to ascertain the Authority of the Church-representative (which shall be done below), when the exceptions which he brings against it suppose him to be ignorant of what it is. For according to this account it is plain, that Bishops when they assemble in a General Council, are so far from acting out of their Sphere, and not as Governors, that to Represent the Catholic Church, and to govern it are one and the same thing. Nay their voting and defining in a General Council is one of the most noble and excellent exercises of their Episcopal jurisdiction, as binding the whole Church to an observance of their Decrees, and securing their respective Flocks from any danger of miscarrying by the wholesome provision which they make against error. Wherefore if they are Governors by Institution, they may be the Church's Representatives by Institution too.  
134. Neither does it follow, because a King is not the Representative of his Kingdom, that therefore Bishops cannot be the Representatives of the Church. For although a King and a Bishop are both Governors, yet there is a vast disparity in the nature of each one's Power. For a King is a Governor so as not to acknowledge any Superior but God alone in any case whatsoever that falls under the Verge of Temporal Power. Let his actions be never so unjust and unreasonable, and misbecoming his Greatness and Dignity, yet he is accountable for the same to no other King, or to his own subjects, but only to God from whom he has received his Authority, whose steward he is, and whose person alone he Represents: In what Council, or Assembly should he Represent his Kingdom, who has within his own breast the Supreme Reason wherewith he ought to govern his Kingdom? I say the supreme Reason in this sense, that no one has a Right to control him, or to resist him therein by force. But Bishops, although they receive their Power immediately from Christ no less than Hereditary Kings, yet the exercise of this Power, as often as it does not edify the Body of Christ, is subjected by God himself to the Superior Power of the first Bishop, or to an Assembly of them all in a general Council. They Represent Christ so long as they follow the Practice and Tradition of the Catholic Church, and Right Reason in the discharge of their Offices; but when the same Tradition is gainsaid by opposers, or the nonevidence of it occasions disputes; there is amongst them all only one Power of asserting and declaring the lawfulness of it, so as to oblige all Christians, which is exercised in a General Council by a competent number of them, who Represent their whole Body: The Church is but One although there are many Bishops in it, because they are closely united and connected among themselves by means of their Union with S. Peter's One Chair, which is the root and beginning of the Ecclesiastical and Priestly unity. But Temporal Kingdoms are not One but many, because their Kings have distinct Powers, and an absolute Independence on one another. Wherefore it may well stand, that Bishops may Represent the Church, by which no more is signified, but that some of them may Represent their whole Body; whereas Kings cannot be said to Represent either the whole order of Kings, or their own Kingdoms, or the generality of Kingdoms in the world, because they derive their Authority from God alone, without any intermediate dependence on their own Kingdom, or of any other Kingdom on Earth for the exercise of it.  
§. 21. Ib. How then do they come to he the Church's Representatives? Did all the Christians in the world, who are the Catholic Church, ever intrust them with this Power? Did they ever resign up their Faith into the hands of the Bishops? This never was done, and yet no man has a Representative but by his own consent.  
135. Reply. We have seen that Bishops Represent the Catholic Church by God's appointment, and that the consent of the Clergy, or 〈◊〉 is not necessary for this purpose, And supposing it were necessary, yet it would not follow, that all those whom this Author accounts for true Christians and parts of the Catholic Church, aught to have a Power of giving their Votes for the election of Burgesses to serve in this great Parliament of the Church. For there is only one sort of Christians among those who profess contradictory Faiths, who belong to the Catholic Church, and by consequence there is only one sort of them who can have a Right (if there were any such thing) to elect Deputies for their Representatives. The Dr. will do well to examine which are those Christians, and as soon as he has found them out, he will perceive, that neither their inferior Clergy, nor Laity think themselves injured, because their Bishops assemble in General Councils without receiving their Power of acting from them. And if they are well satisfied, this Author can have no reason to complain, that General Councils meet and act without the 〈◊〉 of those who are divided from the Church. Can Outlaws and Rebels have reason, when they complain that the Commonwealth assembles, and makes Laws without their leave and concurrence?  
136. It is a must intolerable Assertion in a Divine to say, that No man has a Representative but by his own consent. For what does he think of Adam? Did not he Represent us before we were in being to give any consent thereto? Were not our wills included in his, and have not we dearly paid for his transgression ever since from the first moment that our souls were united to our Bodies? He had best argue the case with God, and ask him, how it was possible for him to sin in Adam, seeing No man has a Representative but by his own consent? What does he think of the second Adam? Did not he Represent all the sinful race of the first Man, according to that of S. Paul 2. add Cor. 5. Si unus pro omnibus mortuus est, ergo omnes mortui sunt? And were not all our crimes laid on his blessed shoulders? He may if he pleas renounce this favour, by denying that any man can have a Representative but by his own consent. But all good Christians will acknowledge the greatness of the mercy that is done them, although it transcend the Principles of common discourse. What does he think of the Apostles, when they received the Power of governing, and feeding the Flock of Christ? Did not they Represent the Pastors and Teachers of the Church in all succeeding Ages, who have claimed their Authority to govern, because it was given them by our Saviour in the persons of the Apostles? What does he think of Godfathers and Godmothers in Baptism? Do not they Represent the Infant, who is uncapable of giving, or declaring his assent to the Faith in Christ? From all which instances it is evident, that those who are not in being, or unable to give any consent may have Representatives, and if this be possible, nay if it be an infallible truth that this defacto is, there can be no inconvenience nor any Mystery in saying, that the whole Teaching Church may be Represented by a certain number of Bishops in General Councils, which is a Doctrine much more easy to be conceived than some of those which I have mentioned; for what more easy than to conceive, that Christ who promised to teach his Church all truth, may perform this Promise in a General Council, wherein those Fathers who are present may Represent their whole Body, that is, that Christ may hold and esteem them for their whole Body, for what relates to his Promise of teaching his Church all Truth?  
137. It can only be granted, that no man can have a Representative but by his own consent in such matters wherein he has a Right to give his consent, as suppose the People have a part in the Legislative Power of a Kingdom, they can be Represented by no others, but such as they choose themselves to sit in the General Diet; or supposing I am justly possessed of an estate, no man can Represent me so as to receive my rents without my leave, because in these cases an involuntary Representation will be an encroachment upon the Right of the just Possessor. But it is otherwise when the representation is commanded by a Sovereign Power, and to be Represented is a matter of pure grace and favour, as it was when Adam Represented us, to whom God made many precious Promises on condition that he had persevered in Obedience to him; as also when we were Represented by our Saviour in Order to our Reconciliation to God for the disobedience of Adam, and our other sins that flowed from thence. In which cases our consent was not necessary for the validity of these Representations, because there was no injury designed us by them, but a great deal of good. And besides we had no Right to give our consents, and on the other side God had a Right to be obeyed by us, and to be adored for directing us to our last end by such a conduct of his Providence as pleased him best. He is our Absolute, Supreme, and Sovereign Lord and Master; and and what should hinder him from treating us after that way that suited best with the Maxims of his hidden Wisdom, and Power? And as our consent was not requisite for those Representations, so neither can the consent of every absent Bishop be requisite for their Representations in a General Council. For certainly Christ as the Sovereign Lord and Lawgiver of his Church might appoint the Representations of absent Bishops without any necessity to ask their consents, seeing they can have have no Right to give their consents unless they receive it from him. When Bishops Represent the Catholic Church, they have Christ for their Master and Instructor, which is a matter of the greatest Grace. And what absurdity can there be in saying, that Christ may dispense his favours on such terms as he likes best?  
§. 22. P. 37. As Bishops are the supreme Pastors and Teachers of the Church, they may declare what the Faith is, and aggree what Doctrines shall be taught in their Churches, and consent to censure and excommunicate those will not profess to believe as they do.  
138. Reply All that is here said is the proper and chief employment of General Councils, who are the Supreme Pastors and Teachers of the Church; and if it be ascribed to them, we can find no fault at all with such innocent expressions. But that which follows spoils all, viz that if they make any Decrees contrary to the common Faith of Christians (what General Council ever did so?), no Christian is bound to believe them, nor is ever the worse for their Anathemas and Excommunications; as likewise what he says p. 43. that it is the office of Christian Bishops and Pastors to preach the Gospel, to convince, and persuade gainsayers by reason and Scripture, which obliges all Christians diligently and impartially to attend to their instructions, but yet leaves every man at liberty to judge, whether they preach the Gospel of Christ, or their own inventions. In which expressions we find the People made judges of the Lawfulness of the sentence which is pronounced by their Pastors, who are commissioned by God to govern them, and by consequence that they are bound to obey them no further than they pleas themselves.  
139. For when the Pastors teach, and command such things as the People approves, the People in this Author's way ought to say, that they teach and command just things; and when they teach, and command such things as the People disapproves, they are bound to say, that they teach and command unjust things. So that if the judgement of the People be the measure of the justice, or injustice of the commands of the Bishops and Pastors, it is a plain case, that their judgement must be the measure of the Right and Power which the Pastors have to excommunicate them for their disagreeing Faith. It is not a pin-matter whether the Faith of the Bishops be true, and their Commands and Excommunications just, if the People are not satisfied in these particulars, whose obligation of following the Faith of the Bishops is said not to arise from the Authority which the Bishops have over their belief, but from the conviction of their private reasons. Thus if the Faith of a Council of Bishops and Pastors pleases me, I will make profession of it, but if I judge it to be false after I have diligently and impartially considered of it, I will renounce it ', and defy all their Anathemas and Excommunications. Where lies their Power over me in this case? Or what Right have they to command me, so long as I can but persuade myself, that their judgements are in the wrong? If they have any Power over me, it is evident that the exercise thereof must depend for its validity on my pleasure, which is wholly unintelligible. When I profess to believe as they do, I pleas myself, and not obey them; and when they command me to believe as they do, their commands signify no more, but that I believe as they do, if I have a mind to it. So that my conformity to their belief is not an Act of Obedience, because it does not proceed in virtue of an exterior Command, but is the result of my own voluntary choice. I should believe as they do now, although their judgement were contrary to what it is, and that they commanded me, that mine should be so too. And if a Juncto of Weavers can persuade me that what I believe is false, I'll follow them, and leave the Supreme Pastors and Teachers of the Church.  
140. This pestilent Reasoning shows, that the People are under no obligation of obeying the Bishops of the Church, and if they are under no such obligation, it is manifest, that the Bishops have no Power to command them. For who is able to conceive, how a just and Alwise God can give a Right and Power to an Assembly of Bishops to declare what the Faith is, to command what Doctrines shall be taught, and to excommunicate those who will not profess to believe as they do, and yet at the same time give the People a Right and Power to judge, whether their Declarations of Faith be true, and their Excommunications just? It he has given this Power to Bishops and Pastors, it is questionless because he would have the People to obey them, and to believe as they believe. And if he has given the People a Right to judge of the Faith of the Bishops and Pastors, it is questionless because he leaves it in their Power and choice, whether they will obey them, and believe as they believe or no. Can God command the People to believe as the Bishops believe, and yet leave it to them, whether they will believe so or no? What is this else, but to command and not to command them to do the same thing?  
141. Again. If the People do ill in disliking the Faith of the Pastors, when after an impartial consideration of it, they cannot reconcile it to their consciences, why has he given them this liberty, and commanded them to do so? And in case they do well, why has he given the Pastors of the Church a Power of casting them out of their Communion, if they will not profess to believe as they believe? A just God cannot punish without a crime, nor for any thing of which he himself is the Author. He has commanded us to continue in the visible and external unity of the Church, and has promised many blessings to the observers of it: why then has he invested the Pastors with a Power of depriving us of the same without any demerit of ours, as often as we are conconvinced that they preach a wrong Faith? And why has he made it a necessary and obligatory Act in us to withdraw ourselves from a state wherein he showers his blessings on us? If the Pastors may excommunicate us for not professing to believe as they do, it is supposed that they are sufficiently qualified by God to understand the greatness of our offence in not believing as they believe. And if we may without sin, nay if we may laudably not believe as they do, it is likewise supposed, that we are sufficiently qualified by God to discover the innocence of our consciences herein. How now can these two things be compatible, the judge instructed by God's special grace to discover the heinousness of an action, and the Person accused instructed by God's special grace to discover the innocence of the same? Can the same thing be absolutely good; and absolutely bad? And yet this may happen, if God can represent the same Faith as absolutely bad to the Judge, and as absolutely good to the Criminal. I●… the Bishops and Pastors may excommunicate us for our unsound Faith, they are appointed by God for the Judges of the unsoundness of our Faith. How then is it possible, that we should be never the worse for their Anathemas and Excommunications which they lay on us because of our unsound Faith? How can it enter into the heart of a reasonable creature, that we deserve no punishment from those who are set over us by God as Judges, when they make use of those means which he affords them for the Cognizance of our crimes, and censure and condemn us as often as they find us guilty according to the obligation of their Office and Station?  
142. When we are cast in the Courts of human judicature, it will not pass for a Legal exemption of us from punishment, if we tell the judge, that we are persuaded in our consciences, that he pronounces an unrighteous sentence against us. For if this were so, to be sure the judges would Iways be in the fault, and the King by whom they are empowered to give sentence, would not be the Fountain of Equity, but of injustice. Why then should it be a Legal exemption of Christians from the punishment of Excommunication, if we tell our Ecclesiastical Judges, that we are persuaded, that our Faith for which we are condemned, is sound and holy? It is no less than blasphemy to assert, that God is less prudent and efficacious in doing justice, and maintaining peace in the Christian Commonwealth, than earthly Kings are in their Civil States. And yet who sees not, that the provision of Kings in their Courts of Judicature is much more prudent, and efficacious in order to the preserving of peace and doing justice, than that of God in the Government of his Church (which he will have to be One and Holy) is in the Drs. way, because the Plaintiff and Defendant must both submit to the Civil Judge's decision and conscience: whereas there is such a great Solecism in the Polity of the Church, that Christians are Superior to all Law and above punishment, if they are persuaded that their Judges are men of bad Faith and profligate consciences, although they cannot pretend to a greater certainty that they are in the right, than their judges have to the contrary by whom they are condemned. All Heretics and Schismatics are secure under the shelter of this Principle, and he must be a man of a weak understanding and strong scruples, who being desirous to make new stirs in the Church, and to raise a separate Altar, can be deterred from so doing by such a Power of excommunicating as this Author places in Christian Bishops and Pastors.  
143. There is no other way to defend the Right and Power which the Bishops of the Church are acknowledged to have to excommunicate those, who will not profess to believe as they believe, than by making the validity and lawfulness of the exercise of this Power independent of the People's judgement, so that the Faith of the Bishops be the Rule which the People ought to follow, and their deviation from this Rule be esteemed as a crime sufficient to warrant the justice and legality of their punishment by Excommunication. Such a Power as this is clear and intelligible, and free from all those horrible absurdities which attend the other way of giving the Bishops a Power to excommunicate those who reject their true Declarations of Faith, and then submitting the truth of their Declarations to the judgement of every particular person. For according to this account, seeing our private reason is not the Rule and measure whereby we ought to direct our consciences in matters of Faith, our Faith is an effect of our Obedience to our Pastors when we believe as they believe, and our dissent from them is a most criminal Disobedience. We are forbidden to break the visible Unity of the Church, without the liberty of doing the same. We are commanded to consider our Ecclesiastical Judges as sufficiently qualified to judge of our errors in Faith, without the Privilege of censuring their judgements as false. We are to esteem their Excommunications as just punishments, because we are to esteem them under the Notion of judges as men of a Supernatural knowledge, probity, and Authority. Here are no inconsistencies in the Rules of Government, no interfering and clashing of Rights, nothing that misbecomes an Alwise Lawgiver, but all things are ordered after such a manner as is agreeable to Nature, and the reason of mankind.  
144. The Dr. may say, that he cannot admit of such a Right and Power of excommunicating for errors in Faith, without granting the Pastors and Teachers of the Church to be Infallible, whereof there appears no Institution. And he is resolved in his Vindicat. of some Prot. Princip. etc. p. 62. to allow of no consequences to prove an Institution.  
145. I answer first, that this Author (if there be any heed to be taken to his words) ascribes at present as great an Infallibility to the Supreme Pastors and Teachers of the Church, as we Catholics do to General Councils. For if he had said, that the Bishops may excommunicate those who publicly contradict they Faith which they declare to be true, we could not infer any thing more from thence, than that in his judgement God has given them a Right of being obeyed in the Noncontradiction of their Faith, whereby there would be liberty left for every one in private to believe what he judged best. But he says, that they may excommunicate those who will not profess to believe as they believe; from whence I infer, that then God has given them a Right of being obeyed by their Flocks in the interior assent of their minds to the Faith which they declare to be true; unless he say, that God requires of the People, that they profess to believe as the Bishops believe, and yet leaves it in their choice, whether they will interiorly believe so or no; which is an Assertion evidently false, because of the Essential opposition which the Nature of God has to deceitfulness, and dissimulation. And if he does not only require of the People, that they profess to believe as the Bishops believe, but likewise that they give an interior assent to their Faith, he allows of as great an obligation in the People to believe the Pastors of the Church as we Catholics do, and by consequence as great an Infallibility in them as we assign to General Councils.  
146. I Answer 2. that if we pretended to prove the Infallibility of the Supreme Pastors and Teachers of the Church from pure natural reason only, I could not blame any one, who would not 〈◊〉 an answer to any of our Discourses and consequences about it, because such consequences can have no connexion with the Supernatural Providence of God, nor infer the existence of a thing which depends wholly upon the Divine will and pleasure. But our proceedings are quite contrary; for although we make use of Arguments drawn from natural reason in the explication of Divine Truths, yet we do not say, that God has done all that seems conformable to natural reason; (for how can natural reason say, that this or that is fitting for him to do without a perfect comprehension of his ends?). Neither do we allow of this consequence, It is suitable to the Greatness, Wisdom, or Power of God to do so, or so: Therefore God has done so or so. However we hold, that God cannot do any thing that is repugnant to natural reason, because he cannot act against the Light of his own Countenance which he has imprinted on us, Psalm. 4. On which account we hold this for a very good consequence, It is contrary to the Greatness, Wisdom, Goodness, or Power of God to do so or so. Therefore God has not done so, or so. This is the way which I have taken at present; for I prove, that God could not give to the Bishops of the Church a Power of Excommunicating Dissenters in Faith, and yet subject the lawfulness and validity of the exercise of this Power to the judgement of the Dissenters themselves, because such a Power as this misbecomes the Wisdom of God, and is repugnant to natural reason. And from hence I conclude, that if God has left such a Power in the Bishops (as no body denies), the lawfulness and validity of the exercise thereof must be taken from the judgement of the Bishops as it's proper Rule and measure which necessarily argues their Infallibility (I mean always when they define in a General Council, or when they teach the known Faith of the Church Diffusive, or the Definitions of former General Councils). In which inferences it is to be observed, that the reason whereby I prove the judgement of Bishops to be the Rule and measure of the Lawfulness and validity of their Excommunications for errors in Faith, is not natural, because it is deduced from a Principle of Faith, viz that Christ has left in his Church a Power to excommunicate those who err in Faith. And the like obfervation we may make in some of our modern Authors, when they prove the necessity of an Universal Head of the Church, whom Protestants traduce, as though they endeavour to make it out by pure natural Reason, and not from the connexion it has with Scripture, or Christian Principles.  
147. If then we prove the Infallibility of the Supreme Pastors and Teachers of the Church from a Principle of Faith, we prove this Truth from a Divine Revelation, and if we prove it from a Divine Revelation, I hope he will not deny, but that we lawfully prove an Institution. But do we not prove the connexion of this Institution with the aforesaid Principle of Faith by consequences? I Answer, yes; And what harm is there in so doing? Does not the Church of England prove the Institution of Infant Baptism, and the Superiority of Bishops over Presbyters by consequences drawn from Scripture: and will they think it reasonable; if the Dissenters tell them, that they will allow of no consequences to prove the●…e Institutions? What other way can we have to prove a matter that is controverted among Christians than by lawful consequences drawn from Principles of Faith, when all parties are unwilling to stand to the determination of the Church? If it were acknowledged on all sides; that the principles stood clearly either for the Affirmative, or Negative of the matter in dispute; there would be no dispute at all about it. And if they 〈◊〉 clear to one side, and not clear to the other, either both sides must 〈◊〉 with their respective Doctrines, and give over disputing against one another; or if they will endeavour to gain Proselyts, they must promote the credit of their Caus by consequences, seeing there is no other way imaginable for them to compass their design. If our consequences are not lawful, he has some colour to ni●…our Institution, but if they are lawful, it is a madness to deny the Institution merely because it is proved by consequences.  
148. This is the course we take against Protestants in all the Controversies that are between us and them. And thus, as we have seen, we prove the Church to be Infallible by Institution, as we do likewise first, from the Motives of credibility wherewith she is accompanied, and which are so many Marks of God's special Grace and favour towards her. From whence we argue, that it is impossible for her to to err in what she teaches, because it is impossible for an Essential veracity to countenance error, or a possibility of error so far as to make it evidently Credible. For if God makes those who deceive us, or who may deceive us to be evidently Credible, he acts against his own Attributes, and we may justly lay our destruction to his charge, because he has given us such natures, as cannot choose but believe what he has made evidently Credible. 2. We prove it from several places of H. Scripture, as first from our Saviour's Promises to remain with his Church to the end of the world, and to send the Comforting Spirit, the Spirit of Truth to assist her, and to teach her all Truth. From whence we infer, that if the Church teaches us what the Spirit of Truth teaches her, it is as impossible for us to err so long as we follow the Church, as for the Spirit of Truth to be the Spirit of falsehood. And we may safely conclude, that the Church shall always teach us as she is taught by the Spirit of Truth, because she is taught by him, to the end she may teach us. 3. From the obligation we have to hear those whom Christ sends to preach to us as th●… we heard Christ himself, and to hear the Church under pain of being Heathens and Publicans From whence we argue, that those whom we are to hear as though we heard Christ, must necessarily be preserved from error by him; otherwise we are under the same obligation of hearing liars and such as may deceive us, as we are to hear Truth itself. We say likewise, that if we are bound to hear the Church under pain of being Heathens, the Church cannot deceive us in what she proposes to our belief, unless God can command us to hear those who may lead us into error under pain of being damned. And the like inferences we may draw from several other places of Scripture to evince the same Truth, which shall be proved more fully when we discourse of the Authority of the Church in a General Council.  
§. 23. P. 37. He observes 3. that the whole Catholic Church on Earth is not One Organised Body; for it is only the whole Company of the Faithful, and no Ecclesiastical Ministers or Pastors belong to the Definition of it; and yet unless some Ecumenical Pastor be essential to the Notion and Definition of the Catholic Church, it cannot be One Organised Body.  
149. Reply. We need not be much concerned at this Observation, because we have seen, that the whole Company of the Faithful is not a complete Definition of the Catholic Church, and that in S. Cyprian's judgement the one Chair of S. Peter belongs to the Notion of it, because it is the beginning of the Priestly unity. He would have done his Caus better service, if he had shown us, how the Catholic Church can be one Visible Society and Body without an Ecumenical Pastor, than to prove from such sorry Principles that it is no Organised Body, from whence it clearly follows, that it is not One Visible Body and Society.  
§. 24. P. 38. He draws two Conclusions from this wise Observation. 1. That no Organised Church can be the Catholic Church, nor the Bishop of it an Ecumenical Pastor, because the Catholic Church is not Organised, but every Organised Church is a particular Church, 2. That there neither is, nor can be any Visible Tribunal of the Catholic Church, which shall be the Centre of Catholic Communion, and have Authority over all particular Churches in matters of Faith, and Worship, and Government. For the. Catholic Church being no Organised Body, it has no Authority, and can have no Tribunal.  
150. Reply. The weakness of these Conclusions appears from what I have said in my last Reply, and shall further appear from what I shall say §. 28. concerning the Visible Tribunal of the Catholic Church.  
§. 25. Ibid. He proves that the Catholic Church has no Authority, because the whole Company of the Faithful, which is the true Notion of it, are the Body of Christ ..... that it is made up of particular and individual Christians, who are all immediately united to Christ their Head ...... that Bishops as they are Members of the Catholic Church (as it is Christ Mystical Body) are not considered as Bishops, but as private Christians; for it is not their Authority in the Church, but their union to Christ which makes them Members of his Body .... that if the Catholic Church be only a company of private and particular Christians united immediately to Christ, and made one in him, it has is no more Authority than particular Christians, which is none at all.  
151. Reply. We willingly grant, that the Catholic Church as it is Christ's Mystical Body has no Authority. But what then? This does not prove, that is has no Authority as it is a Visible Body and Society. Here lies the difficulty between me and the Dr. which cannot be cleared without the Notion of the Catholic Church as it is a Visible Body and Society, which we are to expect in his Second part, for at present we can gather no such thing.  
§. 26. The Catholic Church is united to Christ by a belief of his Gospel, obedience to his Laws, and a participation of his Spirit, which is a state of perfect and absolute subjection to him, and therefore can have no Authority to alter the Faith, to make a new Creed, or a new Gospel, which would be to have Power over Christ, and not to be subject to him.  
152. Reply. To what end is all this talk of altering the Faith, and making a new Creed, or a new Gospel? as though we ascribed any such Authority as this to the Catholic Church. If he had first made this out, he would have had reason to provide Arguments against so scandalous an assertion, but knowing in his conscience that we disown this Doctrine no less than himself, as he confesses in effect p. 43. when he says, that no body pretends to an Authority of making new Articles of Faith, we cannot put any other construction on his frequent Arguments of this nature throughout his Discourse, than that they are so many evidences of his insincerity, or perhaps an effect of his unwillingness to omit any occasion though never so frivolous, and unhandsome of showing his talon in spinning of consequences.  
§. 27. p. 40. Christ indeed has placed an Authority in his Church for the instruction and government of it; but an Authority in the Church and an Authority of the Church are two different things. The first signifies the Authority of Christ who is the Head; the second is the Authority of the Body, which is the Church; the Head has Authority over his Church, and may appoint what Ministers he pleases to exercise this Authority, but the Church has no Authority at all, no more than the Body which is subject to the Head  
153. Reply. He says that this may be thought a very nice distinction between the Authority in the Church and the Authority of the Church, but I think it rather obscure than nice, how useful soever it may be to a Caus that cannot be maintained without tricking. For what means he by the word Church, when he says that Christ has placed an Authority in his Church? If he take it as it signifies Christ's Mystical Body, it is evident, that he has placed no Authority therein which is distinct from his own, because he immediately sanctifies, governs, and directs it by his invisible Motions and Graces in order to its last end. But if he take it as it imports a Visible Society, it is plain, that an Authority in the Church, and an Authority of the Church are one and the same thing. For the Authority of Ecclesiastical Ministers is all the Authority which is in the Church as it is thus considered, and there is no other Authority of the Church. For our Lord has delegated his power of governing to Bishops and Pastors who are the teaching Church, and not to the People whose duty it is to hear their Pastors and to obey them as though they heard Christ himself. So that by the Authority of the Church we are to understand the Authority of those whom S. Paul ad Hebr. cap. 13. bid us to obey, for that they watch over us, and are to give an account of our souls.  
154. It is not denied, but that the Authority which Christ has placed in the Church is the Authority of Christ, but from hence it does not follow, that it cannot be the Authority of the Church, that is, of the Bishops and Pastors; or that the Authority which Christ has committed to them is so far Christ's, that it cannot be truly said to be theirs too. For this is to contradict the common sense of mankind, which allows to every one a Right to that which is given him. For which reason we say, that the Authority of Kings and Princes is the Authority of God, and yet we cannot deny, but that is theirs too by gift and participation; and we might as well deny them to have any Authority, as deny that Bishops and Pastors have any, because the Authority of Kings and Pastors is equally derived from Christ. As to what he says, that the Authority of the Church signifies the Authority of the Body, it is very false, as we have seen, if by Body we are to understand the whole Company of the Faithful; for we hold no less than he that the whole Company of the Faithful as such has no Authority at all, but is under an immediate subjection to Christ their Mystical and invisible Head.  
155. The usefulness of this pretended Distinction appears in the discourse which he makes upon it. Those, says he, who would impose upon the Faith of of Christions talk of nothing less than the Authority of the Catholic Church, which sounds very big, and frights People into a submission. Whilst Bishops pretend only the Authority of Christ's Ministers, private Christians make bold to examine their commission, and how far their Authority reaches, and whether they do not prevaricate in the exercise of it, as it is possible Ministers may do; but the name of the Catholic Church strikes all dead, for who dares oppose the Decrees of the Catholic Church? Which is to condemn the whole Church of error and Heresy; who dares separate from the Catholic Church? Which must be an unpardonable Schism, and a state of damnation, since it is universally agreed, that there is no salvation to be had out of the Catholic Church ..... but now all these amusements vanish, when we remember, that the Catholic Church has no Authority.  
156. How pleasing is this libertin lesson to flesh and blood! How he triumphs with the conceit that he has destroyed the Authority of the Church, which we are bound to hear under pain of being Heathens! One would think by his confidence, that he had done this great feat by Scripture, Fathers, and Tradition: and yet he has not form so much as one Argument from any of these Heads, but instead thereof tells us, that the Catholic Church is nothing else but the whole Company of the Faithful, and that Bishops and Pastors do not belong to the Definition of it, from which piddling and false Principles he concludes, that it has no Authority. The next Reply will give a further account what little reason he has to rejoice on this occasion.  
§. 28. P. 43. He 2. proves, that the Catholic Church has no Authority, because it has no no Visible Tribunal wherein to exercise this Authority; and he proves, that it has no Visible Tribunal, because it is nothing else but the whole Companic of the Faithful.  
157. Reply. I have shown over and over, that Bishops and Pastors belong to the Notion and Definition of the Catholic Church, from whence it follows, that if they have Authority, the Catholic Church must have it too. And if the Catholic Church have Authority, it may have a Visible Tribunal wherein to exercise this Authority. For what should hinder, but that the Teaching Church, that is, the bishop and Pastors may assemble in General Councils (which is that, I suppose, which he means by a Visible Tribunal) as often as occasions require, to determine Controversies relating to Faith, Morality, or Discipline? Our Author does not deny, but that they have received Authority, and Power for the government of their respective Churches, the question is, whether when they are assembled in General Councils in the manner above mentioned chap. 2. § 20. they have Power to oblige the whole Company of the Faithful to an observance of their common Decrees.  
158. Those who have been Members of the Visible Church in all Ages have acknowledged such a Power in them, and have held all such for Heretics and Schismatics, who have not bended their judgements to their Declarations of Faith, and paid Obedience to all other regulations that have been made by them, of which no one can make any question, who is never so little acquainted with Ecclesiastical History, where we learn that General Councils have been always considered as the supreme Tribunals whither Christians repaired for the redress of their Spiritual grievances. And I challenge this Author to show, that any one sort of Christians who have dissented in any Age from the Definitions of any Council of Bishops which the Visible Church of their times held for General, were esteemed by the Visible Church as their Fellow-members of Christ's Mystical Body. Which unanimous concurrence of the Members of Christ's Church in the same judgement touching the Authority of General Councils, is a matter of infinitely greater moment to move us to an acknowledgement of a Visible Tribunal in the Catholic Church, than any thing which this Author has produced can persuade us to the contrary. For if we may safely follow a Doctrine which has been practised, and believed in the purest times of the Catholic Church, because there is a just and vehement Presumption that it descended by Tradition from Christ and his Apostles, there can be no reason, why we should disown the Authority of General Conncils, which we find to have been exercised on the first great occasion that was presented in the case of Arius at the Council of Nice under Constantin the first Christian Emperor, in whose time Christians made a public profession of their Faith, and declared by their practice what their belief had been under the persecution of unbelieving Princes.  
159. Neither is the use of General Councils recommended to us only by Tradition, but it is moreover countenanced and proved to be lawful by the practice of the Apostles themselves, who held one at Jerusalem, as we read in their Acts chap. 15. And by reason the assembling of this Council was very remarkeble in all its Circumstances, I shall handle it the more at large for the clearer discussion of the Point which lies before me. There was a great Dispute raised at Antioch between the converted Gentiles and certain Faithful Jews, by whom the Gentiles were taught, that unless they were circumcised after the Law of Moses, they could not be saved v. 1. This Doctrine was vehemently opposed by Paul and Barnabas, but all they could say was not sufficient to gain credit: wherefore it was resolved, that Paul and Barnabas with some others from among them should go up to Jerusalem, to consult with the Apostles and Elders about this question (v. 2.) who accordingly set forwards, and when they were come thither, they found there likewise certain believing Pharisees, who judged it necessary, that the Gentiles should observe the Law of Moses (v. 5.) wherupon the Apostles and Elders assembled to consider of the matter (v. 6.) and it was examined by them with a great deal of care and diligence, as we may learn from those words Cum autem magna conquisitio fieret. v. 7.  
160. There is no dispute, but that S. Paul and S. Barnabas and every single Apostle had sufficient Authority to end all Controversies that arose among their Converts, because of their perpetual assistance by the H. Ghost in the exercise of their Functions, and that this Authority being made evidently Credible by the many Miracles which they wrought among them, there lay an obligation on their hearers to give an entire assent to all they preached without any more ado. For which reason we must say, that these believing Jews and Antiochian Christians sinned in not resting satisfied with what S. Paul and S. Barnabas had said against the Doctrine which caused so great a disturbance, as may be gathered from v. 24. where the Council sais, that these Jews had subverted the souls of the Antiochians, not only by the unquietness of mind which they raised in them by such things as they had not been commanded to teach, but likewise by the unsettledness and depravation of their Faith, as we may learn from v. 32. where jude and Silas are said to have used many discourses to strengthen and confirm them in it. And besides the assistance of the H. Ghost which was common to all the Apostles in the discharge of their duties, these unsettled Christians found a special Motive in S. Paul, why they ought to have laid aside all their scruples, because the Non-necessitie of Circumcision had been revealed by our Lord to him in express terms, which had not been done to the other Apostles, as may be seen above chap. 1. N. 80. & seq. whither I refer the reader for a more full information of the matter in hand. And questionless S. Paul did not forbear to acquaint them, as he did the Galatians afterwards (cap. 1. v. 12) on the same occasion, that he had not received his Gospel from man, nor learned it but by Revelation from jesus Christ. But notwithstanding that the Authority of each single Apostle was thus secured, and in particular that of S. Paul, yet seeing it met with an opposition about a Doctrine whereof their whole College could not pretend an immediate delivery from our Saviour in express terms, it was judged by them more fitting to be exercised in a General Assembly of them together with the Elders, since it was desired, that the Unity of the Faith might suffer no prejudice by the difference there was in the ways whereby the Apostles came to the knowledge of it. Nay it was judged more fitting to be thus exercised by the H. Ghost himself, because S. Paul ad Gal. 2. sais, that he went up to Herusalem with Barnabas in persuance of a Revelation which he had to this purpose. Which passage is held by many Fathers to relate to the journey which he made to Jerusalem about the question of Circumcision.  
161. The Jews were very fond of their Law which had God for its Author, and which had been recommended to them by many great and Supernatural wonders. They had had of old times many repeated assurances of God's care over them, as long as they were observant of it. They had a tender veneration for Abraham their Illustrious Progenitor, from whom they had received the Command of Circumcision, as likewise for Moses the great Favourite of God, who delivered them their Law. They saw that Circumcision was called by God Gen. 16. an everlasting Covenant, and knew that all the Holy Prophets and Saints from the times of Abraham and Moses lived in the profession of this Practice, and that our Lord himself was circumcised and observed to the last the Law of Moses; nay they knew our Lord's Declaration in the Gospel Mat. 5. that he come not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it.  
162. All which Arguments were of strange force with these Converts, who were not as yet weaned from their devotion to the Letre, and might seem to conclude as strongly the necessity of Circumcision after the Messia, as any consequences could prove the contrary which were drawn by the Apostles from the Doctrine of the Messia. It was therefore requisite, that there should be some condescension to their weakness, as well as to the desires of the Gentiles, and that they should be heard, and their Plea throughly considered. And this course seems to have been the rather taken, because the satisfaction of the Jews in this Point, and after such a manner (which was the most solemn and greatest they could possibly desire as Christians) would render the conversion of the Gentiles more easy, and their Faith more secure, seeing a misunderstanding of the Jewish Converts with the Apostles, or Apostolic Missioners, would either cause scandal among the Gentiles, and so hinder their embracing the Faith of Christ; or else corrupt their Faith, in case they did believe, as it happened to the Syrians, Sicilians etc. v. 23. For so many plausible Arguments as the Jews might frame in favour of Circumcision out of the Old Testament whereof they had been the keepers and preservers; together with the example and the aforesaid Declaration of our Saviour, were likely to work strongly on new beginners, who having attained to the knowledge of the true God, would be apt to believe all he said in a literal sense, for fear they should disbelieve him in any thing, or omit any thing that was necessarily required for the enjoyment of him, unless the nullity and unconclusivenesse of those Arguments were shown in such a manner as was able to master a Jewish obstinacy. Wherefore seeing the Gentiles desired that those Arguments might be examined in a General Council, a General Council was accordingly granted them; whereby both Jews and Gentiles might rest satisfied.  
163. When we read of the great enquiry that was made, we ought not to judge, that there were any of the Apostles who favoured the Jews, and opposed their Brethren in their behalf, but that the dissatisfied Jews and Pharisees themselves were allowed to dispute, and to manage their Arguments in their own persons. For of the five Apostles who are known to have been present in the Council, the judgement of those four who are mentioned by S. Luke in the Acts are clearly against the necessity of Circumcision; and we may safely conclude; that S. John who is mentioned by S. Paul loc. cit. and the other Apostles, if any more of them were present, were of the same mind too. For after the Vision which S. Peter had at Joppe wherein he first learned it to be lawful to preach to the Gentiles, and the descent of the H. Ghost upon Cornelius the Gentil and his family, the other Apostles had convincing grounds to believe that Circumcision was not necessary to salvation (as we shall see below); and we may presume that their Spirit, after they had heard an account of this Vision, bore witness to the Spirit which spoke by S. Peter, this having been an occasion wherein S. Peter confirmed his Brethren. S. Peter learned likewise in that Vision, that the believing Jews might freely converse with the Gentiles, and that they were not tied to that choice of meats which was prescribed by the Law of Moses, from whence the Apostles had no less evident grounds to gather the abrogation of Circumcision, supposing we will allow them to have been acquainted with that truth which S. Paul delivers to the Galatians cap. 〈◊〉 viz that he that circumcises himself is obliged to the observance of the whole Law, which is that which S. Peter means; when he calls Circumcision a yoke which neither the jews nor their Forefathers were able to bear. For it is a plain case, that if Circumcision was an obligation to observe the whole Law, that the nature of it was changed, and its necessity taken away, when God had forbidden the observance of the whole Law.  
164. And we have all the reason in the world to conclude, that not only the Apostles, but the Elders also were possessed with the same Truth after the aforesaid Vision, as well because of the conformity which they ought to have to the Apostles Faith, as also because when they were assembled together with them in council, they all unanimously declared to the Antiochians that they had not commanded the Jews to teach the necessity of Circumcision. Which were's aught to be carefully weighed. For they must be understood so, as to signify that none of the Council, whether they were Apostles, or Elders had at any time taught by themselves, or commanded any others to teach the necessity of this Doctrine. For the Antiochians knew well enough, that the Council as such could not command any one to preach this Doctrine to them, before it was assembled. It was 18. years after our Saviour's Ascension into Heaven, and 7: years after the separation of the Apostles for the Conversion of Nations before the convening of this Council, in which time there had been many great conversions wrought among the Gentiles, whom if we should suppose to have been circumcised by the Apostles, or Elders as a necessary duty of their Religion, or to have been taught the necessity of this Sacrament, the Council could neither truly nor sincerely have written to the Antiochians, that they had never commanded the preaching of this Doctrine to them; because those who are in Authority do in a moral sense command the performance of those things, which they practice as a necessary part of their duty and obligation, when their subjects are bound in conscience to follow their example, as the Faithful were to follow the Apostles and Elders in all things that were practised by them as a necessary means of salvation. And if neither the Apostles, nor Elders had before this Council practised this Doctrine as a part of Christianity, or commanded it to be taught, what other construction can we put upon this manner of procedure, but that they did not believe Circumcision to be necessary to salvation?  
165. I hold it for certain, that the Clergy in general after S. Peter's Vision at Joppe believed the abrogation of this Sacrament, and that they never administered it to any Gentiles whom they had converted as a necessary part of their Religion; nay that they possessed them with the contrary truth, as often as there was an occasion for it as they did also such Jews whom they found to be well disposed for the receiving of it, as appears from the Scripture's saying, that certain of the believing Pharisees judged it necessary, that the Gentiles should be circumcised, which is an argument that all of them were not of the same judgement. But yet I do not think that they ever preached this Doctrine as freely and universally among the jews, as they did the other parts of the Christian Faith till after the calling of this Council, because of their weakness and obduracy. Neither did they do it then neither till after some years, that they were grown stronger in spirit, as appears from S. Paul's circumcising of Timothy 
* Chap. 16.  because of the jews in those parts who all knew that his Father was a Gentil; as likewise from the advice which S. James gave to S. Paul with the concurrence of all the the Elders at Jerusalem who were assembled on this occasion viz that he should 
* Chap. 21.  purify himself in the Temple according to the prescript of the Law, for that there were many thousands of believing jews who continued zealous for the Law, and were offended that he had ordered the jews who dwelled among the Gentiles not to circumcise their children, and that by this means they would all know, that what they had heard of him was all false, and that he himself kept the Law. Which shows, that there was a connivance towards the Jews, or rather that there was an indulgent condescension to their weakness, and a Dispensation (for such we ought to esteem the advice of S. James) to continue in the practice of the Law, which of itself was not evil but of God's own Institution, but not that there was any Dispensation not to believe the inutility of Circumcision and other Legal performances, which having been at first revealed to S. Peter, and afterwards defined, and declared in a General Council of Apostles and Elders, reached every Member of the Church whether Jew or Gentil, as soon as it was duly proposed to their belief by their Ecclesiastical Superiors, which was not as yet done generally sowards the Jews but only towards the Gentiles. Neither did the Council declare the Jews, or all the Faithful to be free from the observance of the Law, but only the Gentiles about whose Cause they were assembled, although it was very easy for every one who was well instructed in the Faith, to gather a General exemption of all Christians from the observance of the Law from those discourses which the Council held against Circumcision, and the Declaration which they made in favour of the Gentiles.  
166. S. Paul's purifing himself in the Temple was an evident proof for the Jews, that they might without sin practise the Law of Moses, but it was no warrant for them to believe, that the practice of the Law was necessary to salvation, this being a Doctrine which they were to learn by word of mouth and preaching, and not by actions. For how could they be certain, that an action which might be done for different motives, supposed any one motive in particular, unless the doer of it discovered to them which it was? They might lawfully conclude thus: Paul purifies himself: Therefore he holds it lawful to follow the Law of Moses; but their discourse failed, if they argued thus: Paul purifies himself: therefore he acknowledges an obligation in conscience to follow the Law of Moses, which was a Doctrine only tolerated among the Jews, and permitted by the Apostles, since it could not be remedied without the danger of their total defection from Christ. And this was the reason, why S. James found out an occasion whereby they might deceive themselves about S. Paul's judgement, till such time as they were better disposed to embrace it when it should be made known to them, as judging it much better for them to con-continue in their ignorance of a truth, which in all likelihood they would not have accepted at that time, although it had been as formally proposed to their belief as it had been to the Gentiles.  
167. Seeing the Apostles called this Council by an inspiration of the H. Ghost, the number of the Fathers who assembled therein, was likewise approved by the H. Ghost for a sufficient Court and Tribunal. The Church was yet in its infancy, and the number of Pastors but few in respect of what they are now, and the presence of many of those few was necessary among their Flocks, and therefore we ought not to expect any great confluence of them to the Council. However considering this infancy of the Church we may confidently affirm of this Council, that it was as General as any that has been held from that time to this, because of the presence of sieve Apostles therein who were the principal Teachers of the Church, and the glorious Patriarches from whom descend the multitude of Governors who are in the Church at present. We have no pressing grounds from Antiquity to believe, that there were any more than five of them present, viz Peter, Paul, james, Barnaby, and john, as we find ad Gal. Cap. 2. v. 9 and there can be given a good account how they came to be there. As for James, he was in the City where he was Bishop; Peter came thither because of his banishment out of Rome by Claudius together with all others of his Country; Paul and Barnabas were preaching the Faith to the Antiochians, and were brought thither by the dispute which arose in that City about Circumcision; and Ephesus where John was Bishop, lay not so far off but that he might be sent for from thence upon a much shorter warning than the other Apostles who are not mentioned, and of whom it is certain, that they were departed for their respective Provinces some years before the assembling of this Council. We may add to these five Apostles a good appearance of Elders, of whom we have evident grounds to believe, that they exceeded by far the number of the Apostles. For S. Paul, as we find ad Gal. 2. brought Titus along with him from Antioch together with some others as it is said in this Chap. v. 2. and we read v. 22. that judas and Silas carried the Acts of the Council to Antioch. Here we have at least five already, and it is a hard case if among our Lord's 70. Disciples, and others who after his Ascension had been ordained, and qualified by the Apostles call to fit in Council there remained not at Hieru salem (which was the seat of an Apostle, and the chief City among the Jews) enough to make their number more than five thrice told, especially considering that when S. James advised S. Paul to purify himself, it is said that all the Elders assembled on this occasion, which denotes a considerable number of them, and this at a time when there was no Council held. judas and Silas are likewise called Principal men among the Brethren v. 22. that is, among the Elders, which shows, that there were a great many Elders at Jerusalem whom they excelled in Gifts. Besides, the Apostles were always attended by some one or more of the Elders to be witnesses of their actions, and Associates in their labours. So that if we allow but one Elder for each Apostle their number will be equal; and since it is incredible, that there were not at Jerusalem before the coming of Peter, Paul, john, and Barnaby many more Elders than the Associates of S. James, their number must have been much greater than that of the Apostles. Neither is it at all likely, that the jews and Antiochians would have appealed from the Apostles to a lesser number of Elders than there were Apostles.  
168. S. Peter as the first Apostle declared his judgement first in the matter after there had been a great enquiry made, and disputed against the necessity of Circumcision from two Heads. The first was v. 8. and 9 because God had given the H. Ghost to the Gentiles even as he had done to the jews, and made no distinction between them, purifying their hearts by Faith. The giving of the H. Ghost is the greatest perfection of a Christian during this pilgrimage on Earth. He is the Comforter who supports the Church under all he pressures she lies under, and the principal spirit which is to secure and confirm to her all other Blessings which she has received from our Lord. He is the seal of her Redemption, and the Pledge of her salvation. He discovered his presence in the Faithful in the first beginnings of Christanitie by many visible effects which were above nature, as by Prophecy, the Gift of Tongues, and working of Miracles, as also by a notorious and evident change of life and manners, as by humility, patience, fervour of Spirit, contempt of all sensible delights, and a vehement desire of promoting the glory of their beloved jesus, notwithstanding all the impediments they met withal through the opposition of the world, and the devil. From all which Marks and Signs which S. Peter observed in the converted Gentiles, he concluded, that they were as perfect Christians as those of the Circumcision who professed the Faith, and if they were perfect Christians, that they stood in no need of Circumcision. If he had preached Moses to them, and the H. Ghost had descended on them upon their belief of his Law, they would have stood in need of Circumcision: but seeing he preached Christ unto them, and the H. Ghost had descended on them upon their belief of his Gospel, and purified their hearts by means thereof, he inferred, that they stood in no need of Circumcision, but of Baptism which was part of the Gospel which they believed.  
169. His 2. Head was from the Liberty of Spirit which Christ had given to his followers. Why tempt ye God, says he 〈◊〉. 10. to put a yoke upon the necks of the Disciples, which neither we nor our Forefatherswere able to bear? It is a state of freedom to serve Christ, seeing his Worship is nothing else but the profession of Love. His Sacraments cause Love, because they cause Grace; and if they cause Love, they cause Liberty. The Love of God is the contempt of all earthly things; and no man is a slave to the things of this world, who knows how to contemn them. The Love of God is an adhaesion to an infinite Goodness; and no man can be a slave under such a state, because it is a state of the greatest Happiness. The Law of Moses on the contrary was a state of ●…laverie, because it subjected the minds of men to the observance of Creatures as of days, and months, and Ceremonies whose whole Essence consisted in the signification of Blessings which they could not give. The Sacraments which it enjoined with the greatest rigour did not cause Love, because they did not cause Grace; and as they did not cause Love, so they did not cause Happiness by weaning the affections of men from the painful and hurtful pursuit of the goods of this life. And what is a state of unhappiness, but a state of Bondage? The observance of such things as do not cause, nor suppose the Love of him by whom they are commanded, lays on us an obligation to obey without any reward to our Obedience, which is mere slavery. And this was the case of the Jews as to the Precept of Circumcision, which neither 〈◊〉 in them Justice and the Love of God, nor by consequence supposed any such Love in God towards them, as inclined him to reward the observance of it with the joys of Heaven, but at most to make them a recompense here in this world by Temporal Blessings. For seeing the Justice which was wrought in Circumcision was not effected by this Sacrament, but by the Faith of the receivers or givers of it, it was in itself a 〈◊〉 Element without any immediate influence on their salvation; whereas the contrary happens in Baptism, which causes that Justice which it signifies, and as it causes Justice, so it causes Liberty, happiness, and glory. Prom these Considerations S. Peter concluded, that seeing the profession of Christ's Law was a state of Liberty, as no one doubted but it was; and seeing the observance of Circumcision and the Law of Moses was incompatible with this Liberty, it followed that Circumcision could not be necessary to salvation.  
170. Next after Peter followed the judgement of Paul and Barnabas, who form their discourse from the many Miracles and wonders which God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. When God works Miracles in defence of a Doctrine, he solemnly engages his veracity for the truth of the same. Miracles have their signification as well as words; 〈◊〉 seeing no Power but that of God can do things above nature, it is only God who speaks that language which is conveyed into our hearts by their means. These Blessed men instructed the Gentiles, and reconciled them to Christ without Circumcision, nay they taught them that Circumcision was not necessary to salvation, and yet God assisted them all along, and gained them credit by the Miracles which he wrought by them: from whence they concluded, that Circumcision was not necessary to salvation; otherwise God would never have declared the Non-necessitie of it by so many Miracles, when they preached this Doctrine together with the other parts of the Christian Faith.  
171. In the last place which is upon record there comes the Judgement of James, who proves the Non-necessitie of Circumcision first from Simeon, who hath declared, that God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a People for his name. 2. from Amos chap. 9 where it is said, that God would build again the Tabernacle of David ... that the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon whom his name is called Since the debate of the Council was not whether the Faith should be preached to the Gentiles, but whether they ought to be circumcised, the Apostle must be said to understand by the word Gentiles in these passages all those who professed not the Jewish Religion. For in case it signified all those who were not of the seed of Abraham, these passages were as capable of proving the necessity of Circumcision as the Non-necessitie of it, and it would have been as easy to prove, that God would build again the Tabernacle of David out of those who were not of the seed of Abraham, but who professed his Faith and followed his Law, as it was to prove, that he would build it out of those who did not follow his Law. S. James concludes from these passages, that if God would take out of the Gentiles a People for his name, and that his name should be called upon them, and they should seek after him, that Circumcision could not be necessary to their salvation. For if it were, it would be necessary for them to profess the Jewish Religion, and it would not be true, that God would take out of them a People for his name, and that his name should be called upon them, and that they should seek after him, because they would not be Gentiles, but Jews as professing to follow the Law of Moses.  
172. Thus the Fathers of the Council gave in their reasons why they judged Circumcision unnecessary to the salvation of the Gentiles, which as soon as they had all done, they proceeded to one common resolution in the matter, which was conceived in these terms v. 28. It seems good to the H. Ghost, and to us to lay upon the Gentiles no greater burden than these necessary things, that they abstain from meats offered to Idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication, from which if they keep themselves, they shall do well. In which sentence we may observe the divine Prudence of these Fathers, who seeing they could not gratify the Jews in obliging the Gentiles to observe Circumcision, yet they complied so far with them, as to command the Gentiles under mortal sin to abstain from eating such things as gave them the greatest scandal, till they were advanced in Spirit, although this were a matter innocent in itself, and agreeable to the Liberty of Christians. Which example shows the great Authority which General Councils have in matters of Discipline, since God himself declared to S. Peter at joppes, that the avoiding of these Mosaical uncleannesses was not by his Institution a necessary obligation in the Law of Grace, when he said to him, Do not thou call that common (or unclean) which God has made clean.  
173. It deserves to be taken notice of, that these discourses of the Apostles were such as might have suited with any of the Elders for any special Authority which they seem to carry in outward appearance. The reason whereof is, because they waved for that time to influence and engage the Elders judgements by putting them in mind of our Lord's Promises of teaching them all Truth by means of the Comforting Spirit, and that they had already received from him a decision of the matter that lay before them, to the end the common resolution which should be taken therein, might come forth with the greater evidence of freedom, seeing the Elders were not solicited to side with them out of respect to the Apostolic Dignity, but from the merits of the Caus, which should appear in the conviction that arose in them from such Arguments whose strength consisted not in an extrinsical Authority. A particular Revelation of the H. Ghost to the Apostles was without dispute the very thing whereof the Antiochians doubted, and that which made them desire a common decision of the Apostles and Elders: for which reason the Apostles forbore to press their special visitations by the H. Ghost, as not judging it expedient to move the Council with such Arguments, as could not prevail with the Antiochians to rest satisfied without a Council. Indeed S. Peter says, why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the Disciples etc. Which words import a reprehension, but this reprehension was not directed to the Elders in Council, who could not sin by obeying the Apostles orders in being present and consulting therein, but to the unbelieving jews, and Pharisees, and Antiochians, who whould not lay aside their scruples without the Council's Definition. (And here by the way we may gather, that S. Peter makes this Council as such to be the Organ of the H. Ghost, seeing he says, that the Jews and Antiochians tempted God by desiring the assembling of it and their wranglings in it, that is, they provoked him by their obstinacy and obduracy to continue the painful yoke of circumcision upon the necks of the Disciples by a countermand in Council, which he had been pleased to free them from by the commands which he had been graciously pleased to signify to the Apostles.) He likewise hints at the Vision which he had at joppes, when he told the Fathers that they knew, that is, that he had formerly acquainted them, how God a good while ago had pitched upon him, that the Gentiles by his mouth should hear the word of the Gospel. Which words (since there was no dispute in the Council about the lawfulness of preaching to the Gentiles) are mentioned only to introduce the Argument, which he framed from the descent of the H. Ghost upon Cornelius the Gentil, and his Family. The Vision was particular to him, and therefore he did no more than mention it, but the operations of the H. Ghost upon the Gentiles were notoriously known to many others besides himself; for which reason he might judge it as a proper evidence to be produced against the jews, and Antiochians. S. Paul's proceeding was just after the same manner too. For he might have told the Fathers, that he had not learned that Gospel from men, but by Revelation from jesus Christ which he had preached to the Antiochians, as he writ to the Galatians on the same occasion Cap. 1. v. 12. And if he had done so, he would have found as many believers as there were persons in the Council. He might have declared his sentiments in such vehement terms as we find in the aforesaid Epistle; and if he had done so, no one could have blamed him for the same. But the satisfaction of the jews and Antiochians engaged him and his Brethren in the milder way, and made them deliver their judgements in such a plain manner, that no one can perceive by their speech, that they had any Superiority and Jurisdiction over the Elders.  
174. Having thus shown upon what occasion the Gentiles required the assembling of this Council, as likewise the Motives which prevailed with the Apostles to grant it, together with the manner of their discoursing and reasoning therein, I shall now prove this Council to have been the Church Representative, or the Visible Tribunal of the Catholic Church of that time in the same sense, as we affirm it of the General Councils which have been held in the following Ages of the Church.  
175. I know of nothing of moment that may be pretended against this Assertion, unless it be that the Infallibility of this Council ought to be ascribed to the presence of the Apostles therein, who were preserved from error by a special assistance of the H. Ghost, and that seeing the same assistance of the H. Ghost does not attend the Bishops who succeed them in the government of the Church, no Council of Bishops can be the Visible Tribunal of the Church so as to oblige all the Faithful to an observance of their Decrees. The vanity of which pretence shall appear in the following Considerations.  
176. 1. Since the Antiochians appealed for the resolution of their doubt from the Apostles alone to a Council of Apostles and Elders together, it is a plain case that they appealed from one Authority with which they would not acquiesce to another Authority from which they were willing to receive satisfaction. And seeing S. Paul with the other Apostles consented to the calling of this Council, it is plain likewise, that they acknowledged that this Council had Authority to give them the satisfaction which they desired. The question is, whether we are to place this Authority in the Apostles only whose judgements in Council the Elders were obliged to follow; or else in the Elders also, who must be said to have been as lawful Judges in the Controversy as the Apostles themselves? If the first be said, the Infallible Authority of this Council seems to afford no efficacious Argument to prove the Infallibility of General Councils since the Apostles times, because the Infallibility of this Council being no other than that of the Apostles it seemsto follow, that the Infallibility of all General Councils died together with the Apostles. But if the second be said, than the Infallibility of this Council is not taken merely from the Infallibility of the Apostles, but from the assistance of the H. Ghost which was given to the Elders as well as to the Apostles. From whence this Council will be a good Precedent for the Infallibility of all General Councils which have succeeded in the Church since, who are held for the Visible Tribunal of all debates arising among Christians concerning Faith, Morality, or Discipline, because of the assistance which they receive from the H. Ghost to frame their Conclusions. And in case the H. Ghost had not instituted, nor the Apostles owned such an Authority as this in the Council, I see not how it could serve the use for which is was designed, or how it could be called without rashness, and presumption in the Apostles.  
177. It could not serve the use for which it was designed. For the Antiochians who appealed from the Apostles to a Council of Apostles and Elders together, could not receive any other grounds to believe the Non-necessitie of Circumcision than what they had before, if the Authority of the Council was the Authority of the Apostles assembled in Council, and not the Authority of the Elders who were assembled together with them. For a common Declaration of the Apostles in Council signified no more in order to their satisfaction in this matter, than their judgements out of Council, which S. Paul would not fail to acquaint them with among the many Arguments which he used to convince them. And in case they would have been contented therewith, they needed only to have demanded it without the concurrence of the Elders. But this was not the thing which they desired, but a common Consult of the Apostles and Elders together, whereby they understood, that the Elders should be joint Judges as well as joint Consultors; for if the Apostles were only to be Judges, they knew before hand what would be the end of the Consultation. They did not only desire, that the Apostles should hear what the Elders could say in case, but likewise that the Elders should hear what the Apostles could say about it. For when many consult about a matter, the natural meaning of it is, that they hear one another's reasons for or against it. Neither can we put any other construction on what is said v. 6. that the Apostles and Elders assembled to consider of this matter. And in case they desired no more, than that the Apostles should hear what the Elders could say for or against the Necessity of Circumcision, that they might be the better able to give their judgements about it, yet it suited not with the Apostolical Character to grant this request, as we shall see.  
178. The Council could not be called without rashness and presumption, unless the Elders were to be Judges therein, and assisted by the H. Ghost as well as the Apostles. For these latter having been constituted by our Saviour for the Sovereign and Universal Governors, Pastors, and Teachers of his Church, and being secured by the H. Ghost from any possibility of erring in the discharge of their Functions, the Elders at Jerusalem and every where else were as much obliged to give credit to what they preached as the Antiochians or any others. How then could they suffer any thing to be questioned which they had learned of the H. Ghost? Or how could they submit the H. Ghost, who spoke by their mouths, to the judgement and discourses of their fallible Brethren? They could receive no such Power and Authority as this from that Spirit of Truth. They had an unquestionable and Divine Assurance, that Circumcision was not necessary to salvation, and this Assurance ought to have been the Motive of the Church's Faith about this Doctrine, and not the approbation and recommendation of it by a company of fallible Elders. S. Paul says, that he learned it not from men, but by Revelation from jesus Christ; S. Peter gathered it (as we have seen) from his Vision at joppes; S. Barnaby preached it, and we may confidently say, that the other Apostles did the same; and God attested the truth of it by many great and stupendous Miracles. Wherefore if this Doctrine was not sufficiently proposed to the belief of the Antiochians, what better grounds could they have to believe any other parts of Christianity? And if the Apostles had not not an infallible Assurance of the Truth, when as Teachers they actually performed the Functions of the Apostolic Dignity, when is the time that we shall say, that they were infallibly assisted by the H. Ghost? How then could they, or durst they at the request of the Antiochians consent to have this matter sifted by the Elders in Council, if the whole Body of them were fallible therein? Could a Doctrine want the approbation of their fallible judgements which men sinned by disbelieving before their judgements were made known in Council,  
179. For these reasons we may boldly say, that when S. Paul, and the other Apostles admitted of the Antiochians Appeal from them to a General Council of them together with the Elders, they admitted of their Appeal from the H. Ghost who spoke by them to the same H. Ghost, who would likewise speak by the Elders, as well as by them in a General Council. And this they questionless did by God's special Providence, who would have the Apostles themselves to Authorise by this memorable example the Power of General Councils, which was to be received by the Church after their deceas as an effectual remedy against Innovations in Faith. We have here no base compliance, nor faithless condescension, no rash subjection of the H. Ghost to the approbation of fallible men, no confirmation of the Truth by any other than Divine means, nor any thing that misbecame the Apostolic Dignity, since it was God's pleasure that their 
* 1. ad Cor. Cap. 14.  Spirits should be subject to the Spirits of their Brethren the Elders, who were Prophets as well as themselves in a General Council, and that the Infallibility of the Faith should be made manifest by the same way that it became Infallible. This was not to call the Faith into question, nor to show the least doubt of its truth, but to implore H. Ghost, that he would pleas to remove the incredulity of the Syrians by making known the second time that Doctrine, which they had firmly believed upon his first Revelation.  
180. 2. the Letre which the Council directed to the Antiochians, and wherein they sent them the Decision of their doubt, bore the name of the Elders as well as of the Apostles, which we ought not to understand as though the Elders name was inserted therein only by way of salutation, or as witnesses and approvers of the Apostles Act, as we find S. timothy's and S. Sylvanus' names placed together with S. Paul's in some of his Epistles, and as the names of the Lay Jews and Antiochians are inserted in this Letre of the Council, in case they are inserted herein (I say in case they are inserted herein, because in the Vulgat edition it is said Apostoli & seniores Fratres without the Copulative & between seniores and Fratres, where Fratres is to be put by Apposition to Seniores, by which means the said Brethren are excluded); but that it was their proper Act, and by consequence that they had as Judges a Decisive and definitive Vote in making the Decree that was sent therein, as is evident out of the Letre itself. We the Apostles and Elders, says the Letre, being assembled with one accord send you Paul and Barnabas Apostles, and judas and Silas Elders (two of each rank of the Judges who have made up the Council, which you have desired) to inform you how we have taken Cognizance of your affair, and how It seems good to the H. Ghost and to us etc. It seems good to us, that is, we judge through the diligent inquiries which we have made into this matter, and through the weight of the Arguments and discourses which have been held thereupon, after having heard with patience all that the Opponents have been able to produce in defence of their Opinions. It does not seem good only to us Apostles, but to us Apostles and Elders who are assembled together with one accord. It seems good to the H. Ghost, that is, the H. Ghost (whom our Saviour has promised to teach us all Truth) approves and ratifies the truth of our judgements by the cooperation of his Grace with our endeavours. It does not seem good to the H. Ghost to approve only, and to ratify the truth of our judgements who are Apostles, but likewise to ratify the truth of the Elders judgements through the cooperation of his grace with our common endeavours. The Apostles and Elders when they were assembled with one accord made only one Body, and seeing that seemed good to the H. Ghost which seemed good to this Body, that seemed good to the H. Ghost which was decreed by this Body, as it was composed of Elders, no less than as it was composed of Apostles. And if these words of the Councils Letre it seems good to the H. Ghost and to us etc. signify an Authoritative Decree, as no body doubts but they do, we ought to derive the Authority of it from the Elders as well as from the Apostles, and to ascribe the Infallibility of it as well to the one as to the other.  
181. 3. When S. Paul is recorded Ch. 16. v 4 to have gone through the Cities and Churches, commanding them to observe the Doctrines which were decreed by the Apostles and Elders who were assembled at Jerusalem, shall we say, that he commanded them to observe the Decrees of those who had no Power to command them? Or that he made use of the Elders name to reinforce the Authority of the Apostles? This would have been a great error in such a wise Governor as S. Paul was. For what understanding Magistrate will ever pretend to put an end to a rebellion, by commanding the rebels in the name, and by the Authority of their fellow subjects to lay down the arms which they have taken up against him? And besides a failure in prudence it would have been moreover a means of endangering the Faith, if those Decrees were only the Apostles Act, by giving the Faithful an occasion to believe, that the Legislative Power was lodged in the Elders in Council, as well as in the Apostles. There can be no reasonable grounds to put any other construction on this proceeding of S. Paul, but that he gave the Cities, and Churches through which he passed a new Motive of continuing in the right Faith, which they had never had before, inasmuch as these Decrees were not issued forth by the Apostles, who were the standing Governors of the Church, but by the joint and united Power of them together with the Elders. Which Power was extraordinary, and peculiar to them as they were Members of the Council; for the Apostles out of Council had a Power independent of the Elders, and the Elders by themselves had no Power to oblige the whole Church to an observance of their Decrees. I make no doubt, but that such Doctrines as we find delivered in Scripture relating to the Authority of the Church, as Tell the Church, Whoever will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as an Heathen etc. The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church, and S. Paul's Doctrine that the Church is the ground and Pillar of truth gave to the Antiochians an unwarrantable occasion of appealing from the Apostles. For how great soever the Authority of any single Apostle, or of their whole College might seem to them, yet the united Authority of the Apostles and Elders in a Council was held by them as greater and more venerable, as being the Representatives of the whole Church, to whom the Promises of our Saviour's perpetual assistance to the end of the world were made, and from whom there was no Appeal. Which consideration prevailed with these new beginners to demand a Council, which they ought not to have done, because it was a great indignity offered to his Divine Majesty, to require him to declare a second time, what he had sufficiently proposed to their belief before by the Apostles.  
182. Thus the Apostles themselves have left us a precedent for General Councils, and to the end the Dr. may have full satisfaction herein, I shall strengthen all that I have hitherto said on this subject with a very forcible consideration, which is this, that seeing we find the Promises which our Saviour made to the whole Catholic Church to have been performed in this Council, we ought to say, that this Council was the whole Catholic Teaching Church, or the whole Body of Church-governors', which cannot be said because every individual Governor of the Church was there present, but only because this Council Represented all those who were absent. And truly in case this be not admitted we must say, that our Saviour promised particular Churches, (such as Provincial Councils are) to teach them all truth to the end of the world, because we find that he has made this Promise good to a particular Body of Church-governors. For if this Council was not the whole Church Representative, it was only a part of the Catholic Teaching Church and by consequence if our Saviour performed his promise of teaching the Governors and Teachers of his Church all truth by the assistance which he gave to this Council, he made not this Promise to the whole Catholic Teaching Church, but to a part of it. Wherefore I shall leave it to the Drs, choice to take which of these two extremes he pleases, either to grant that our Saviour taught the whole Catholic Teaching Church when he taught this Council, whereby he must confess a Church Representative; or else that he taught only a part of the Teaching Church, whereby his Promises must be held to have been made to a part of the Catholic Church, and not to the whole Body.  
183. He may say to this, that the assistance which our Saviour gave to this Council was the performance of the Promises which he specially made to the Apostles, who were the Church virtual, as being appointed by him for the Rule of Faith which all Christians ought to follow.  
184. I Answer, that our Saviour performed the personal Promises which he made to the Apostles of teaching them all truth, before the assembling of this Council, as is manifest in S. Peter, and S. Paul, and S. Barnaby, who had an Infallible assurance of the Non-necessitie of Circumcision before this Council was held. And besides this the very Acts of the Council (as we have seen) clearly confute this pretence, because the Definitive Decree that was made therein, was an effect of the assistance which our Saviour gave to the Elders as well as to the Apostles, seeing it was said by them all alike It seems good to the H. Ghost and to us etc. The Apostles out of Council were the Church Virtual in consequence of a Promise which was particularly made to them, and all persons were obliged to acquiesce with their judgements without seeking after any other security of their belief of any Doctrine which they preached, than their Authority. But when they were assembled together with the Elders in Council, there was a suspension of the exercise of this Prerogative so far, that although the Elders were not permitted to mistrust the Apostles Faith, yet they might sift and examine it with as much niceness as though they did mistrust it, before they gave it a public approbation by a common Decree in in its favour. Which custom has continued in the Church ever since the Apostles times, when upon the appearance of Heresies in opposition to the known Faith of the Church, as it happened in the case of Arianism, the Fathers who have assembled in General Councils to take Cognizance of the Doctrine in Controversy, have examined, and enquired into it with the utmost rigour, although at the same time that they made these inquiries, the evidence of Tradition and the Universal practice of the Catholic Church have recommended it so firmly to their belief, that they judged it to be a sin of infidelity to doubt of the truth of it. The Apostles acted not in the Council as Superior Governors who were Infallible in virtue of their Apostleship, but jointly as Brethren and Colleagues with the Elders, who were to receive a confirmation of the controverted Doctrine from the H. Ghost through their own endeavours, and not from the Apostles alone. Nay the Apostles heard the discourses which the Elders made to the Point, no less than the Elders harkened to them; neither was the Faith of the Apostles ratified without more ado because it was theirs, but was subjected to the trial of Arguments drawn from Scripture, Christian Principles, and reason, and to the evidence of a new declaration, and this new declaration was proposed by the concurring votes of the Apostles and Elders together.  
185. Although the Apostles might have insisted on their Authority, yet they could not lay any commands on the Elders to confirm their Faith without making an enquiry into the grounds of it, because this would have been inconsistent with that liberty of discourse which is necessarily required among those who are assembled to consult together, and to consider of any matter that is laid before them. And in case the Elders had declared against the necessity of Circumcision on no other account than because of the Authority of the Apostles, and this too at their command, their Declaration would have amounted to no more than a bare profession of their Faith, and not to an Authoritative Decree which would have contented the Jews and Antiochians; neither could they have said, It seems good to the H. Ghost and to us etc. but only It seems good to us it seems good to the H. Ghost, and to the Apostles, which any Layman might have said as well as the Elders in Council. Such a judgement as is form by man's own industry and endeavours through the assistance of the H. Ghost (as when the connexion which the controverted Doctrine has with Scripture, or Christian Principles, is gathered and concluded on) is necessary to qualify the freedom and Authority of a Council. For which reason the Authority of the Apostles writings is a sufficient ground for any General Council to proceed upon since the Apostles times in the condemnation of an error, because the meaning of the Scripture is proved by the sifting of Tradition, by comparing one place with another, and by the connexion it has with other revealed Truths. All which is performed by endeavours and industry, as by consequences, conferences, study, meditation, reading and the like. So that when they are come to a final aggreement in the matter, they may truly say, It seems good to the H Ghost and to us etc. which the Elders in this Council could not have said, if at the command of the Apostles, or out of pure respect to them, they had approved and confirmed their Faith, and not acted as Judges of it by such a conviction as arose in them from Arguments, which did not depend merely on the Apostles Authority and Character.  
186. The Church Virtual and the Church Representative differ in this, that individual persons may be the Church Virtual as the Apostles were, but the Church Representative is necessarily a Council. The Privilege which the Apostles had of being the Church Virtual was personal, and not to descend on any of their Successors at least in the whole Latitude wherein they enjoyed it. And therefore the Promises which were made them under this Character were to last no longer than their lives: whereas the Privilege of being the Princes, Governors, and Representers of the Church was to be continued on to their Successors. And therefore the Promises that were made them under these considerations might be communicated by them during their life time, as they were to the Elders, and to be in force as long as the world endures. Our Lord might, if he had pleased, have made the Apostles the only Representatives of the Catholic Church for term of life, but then their regulations and orders ought to have proceeded always from the common consent of them all being assembled together, which we do not find to have been their practice. And it was morally impossible for them to take this course after their departure from Jerusalem towards the Conversion of Countries far distant from one another, without a great hindrance to their undertake. And yet we may reasonably conclude, that there wanted not manic occasions of consulting together, as they did in this Council about Circumcision. Which is a convincing Argument, that each single Apostle was the Church Virtual, or a General Council in equivalence, as being sufficiently assisted by our Lord in the performance of their duty for the resolution of all doubts, that might arise among their Converts concerning any Doctrine that had not been expressly delivered to them, but to be deduced from Principles which they had expressly received. And as that Argument proves them to have been the Church Virtual, so their holding of this Council together with the Elders shows, that they alone were not necessarily the Church Representative.  
187. These Observations upon the Council at Jerusalem undermine a great part of the Drs. Discourse, and afford us a ready answer to all the Objections which he makes against General Councils. If he say, that the whole Church is nothing else but the whole multitude of individual Christians, the H. Ghost assures us v. 22. that this Council of Pastors was the whole Church, from whence I infer, that Bishops and Pastors belong to the Notion and Definition of the Church. If he say, that General Councils are not the Representatives of the Church, the contrary appears from this Council wherein five Apostles and a competent nnmber of Elders Represented the whole Catholic Church in the Apostles time. If he tell us, that the Power which particular Bishops have over their respective Flocks ought not to be controlled by any Superior Authority such as we ascribe to General Councils, we find at present, that every particular Bishop in the Apostle's time was obliged to follow the Decrees of this Council, not only in virtue of the obedience which they owed to the Apostles, but likewise in virtue of the Obedience which they owed to the Elders, and not only in matters of Faith, but in matters of Discipline too. If he tell us, that the Governors and Teachers of the Church whether they are taken singly, or all together, are fallible in the proposal of matters of Faith; we see here, that a Council wherein the mayor part of the Members had no Promise of Infallibility made them any more than any Pastors of the Church of these days, became Infallible by a particular assistance of the H. Ghost. If he say, that our Saviour's Promises to the Church do not principally, and in a special manner belong to the Governors and Pastors of the same, but to the whole Company of the Faithful; the contrary is evident out of this Council wherein the Promises of our Lord's assistance were immediately performed to the Pastors of the Church, by whom the fruit and benefit of them was to be imparted to all the Faithful throughout the world. Lastly, if he say, that the Catholic Church has no Authority, nor Visible Tribunal; the H. Ghost gives him the lie, from whom we learn that the Council at Jerusalem had Authority, and was a Visible Tribunal of the Catholic Church of those times. And if the Catholic Church at that time had a Visible Tribunal, what grounds can there be to imagine, that the Catholic Church of succeeding times has had none? We are not bound to believe this upon any Protestant Writer's bare word and surmise; for what proof can there be against a truth so well defended by Scripture, and Tradition? God is as Faithful to his Church now as he was in the Apostle's time, because he is the same God now as he was then. And if the Promises which he made to his Church, that the Gates of hell should not prevail against it, and that he would teach it all Truth were performed then in a General Council why are they not to be performed so now? And if the performance of these Promises made the Council at Jerusalem Infallible in their Decrees, why should not the performance of the same Promises make other General Councils Infallible in like manner? And if the Faithful of those days were bound under damnation to lay aside all scruples, and to submit to the Decrees of the Church which was Represented by that Council, why should it be lawful for the Christians of these days or of any times since the Apostles to set at naught the Definitions of the Church, which has been Represented by other General Councils since?  
188. If Dr. Sherlock grant, that the Promises of our Saviour to his Church are as much in force now as they were in the Apostles days, we ought in all reason to expect, that our Lord should afford her the same Infallible assistance now as he did then, and not only that he should give her the same Infallible assistance, but that he should give it to her after the same way too, that is, in General Councils and Assemblies of the Church, as often as occasions require. And if he will not allow of this inference, let him demonstrate, that our Saviour's Promises to his Church ought to be understood in a different sense now from what they were taken in in the Apostles days; and then let him demonstrate, what this different sense is which they ought to be taken in. I say, that till he can produce these demonstrations, the performance of our Saviour's Promises (of which we have an unquestionable evidence) sufficiently declare their meaning to us, and this consequence ought to pass for an undeniable Truth, Our Saviour has performed the Promises which he made his Church of preserving her from error, by the Infallible ass●…stance which he gave to the Pastors of it being assembled in a General Council. Therefore be will perform the same Promises after the same manner till the end of the world.  
189. It is a vain thing to think, that our Saviour performs his Promise of teaching his Church all truth by means of each one's private reason; for if this were so, seeing the Catholic Church in the Protestant way is composed of several sorts of Christians who differ in Faith and Doctrine, they must consequently hold, that when our Saviour teaches her all Truth, he teaches her dowright contradictions by means of each one's private reason whereby they persuade themselves, that their respective Faiths and Doctrines are true, and the very same that he taught his Apostles. See the grounds of this Discourse more fully handled above, N. 49. & seq. Chap. 2.  
190. It may be objected 1. against this Discourse upon the Council at Jerusalem, that the Elders were no more than Priests, which shows this Council not to have been a Visible Tribunal of the Catholic Church in our sense, because we maintain Bishops alone to have the Right of giving a Definitive and Decisive Vote in matters of Faith. From whence it follows, that the Infallible Authority of this Council must be derived from the Apostles exclusively to the Elders, which can afford no efficacious Argument to prove the Infallibility of any General Council since the Apostles deceas.  
191. I answer, that although it be our Doctrine, that Bishops alone have the Right of giving a Definitive vote in matters of Faith according to the evident and perpetual Tradition of the Catholic Church, which has always adjudged it to them as the Successors of the Apostles exclusively to Priests: yet it is no Doctrine of ours, that this Right and power cannot be communicated by them to other Churchmen who are not Bishops, as they find a reasonable occasion for it, as is manifest out of the Florentine, Lateran, and Tridentin Councils, wherein Cardinals, Abbots, and the Generals of Religious Orders had Definitive Votes, although they were not Bishops. Which practice receives a very good defence from this Precedent of the Elders, and whatever further Arguments can be brought to make it good, will equally prove the lawfulness, and validity of it as well in the one case as the other. To judge Definitively in matters of Faith is an Act of the Episcopal Jurisdiction, which may be committed in sundry cases to the management of those who are not of the Episcopal Order, and whenever we find it thus conferred by an unquestionable Authority, we ought to say that the persons to whom it is given, are Bishops as far as the extent of it will go as much as if they enjoyed the Episcopal Order. For which reason we must hold, that the Cardinals, Abbots, and General Superiors of Religious Orders after their admittance by the Bishops to vote Decisively in the aforesaid General Councils, were as much Bishops for what relates to the lawfulness, and validity of this Power of voting as those from whom they received it. Now we may discourse after the same manner in the case of the Elders, who without dispute were for the greatest part of them no more than Priests, if we speak of their Orders; and nevertheless seeing the necessity of the Church, and the fewness of Bishops in those early times had obliged the Apostles to give them a Power to act and vote in the Council as as though they were Bishops, we ought to consider them as raised to a higher degree than that of mere Priests, because of this branch of the Episcopal Jurisdiction, which is the thing that does all in General Councils, and not the Power of the Episcopal Order. By which means the Promises which our Saviour made to the Bishops of preserving them from error in their common deliberations about matters of Faith, appertained to the Elders as well as to the Apostles. And by consequence the Council of Jerusalem was a Visible Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the same sense that we affirm it of the General Councils which have been held since the Apostles time, seeing the Infallibility of it is not derived purely from the Infallibility of the Apostles, but likewise from the special assistance which the H. Ghost gave to the Elders as well as to them, as I have shown at large.  
192. It may be objected 2. against General Councils out of S. Cyprian (as he is quoted, and translated by this Author in his Vindic. of some Prot. Princ. p. 19) in his Preface to his Council of Carthage, where we find him speaking thus to the Fathers, that they were met freely to declare their Opinions about the matter (the rebaptising of those who had been baptised by Heretics), judging no man, nor denying Communion to any man, if he descent; for neither d●…th any of us constitute himself Bishop of Bishops, or by tyrannical terror ●…ompel his Colleagues to a necessity of obeying, since every Bishop being free, and in his own power, has his ownfree choice, and can neither be judged by another, nor judge another; but let us all expect the judgement of our Lord jesus Christ, who alone has power both to advance us to the Government of the Church, and to judge of our government.  
193. I answer, that if these words are to be taken as they lie, they afford very good grounds to reject the Authority of General Councils. But there is no necessity for us to take them in this rigour; for if S. Cyprian had held it absolutely true, that no Bishop can be judged by another, how could he advice S. Stephen B. of Rome to excommunicate, and depose Marcianus Archbishop of Arles for being a Novatian? Was not he a Bishop, and was not he sentenced, and judged at his instance? Can any one think, that S. Cyprian took himself for a Tyrant, when he procured this wolf to be driven from among the Flock of Christ? Or that he thought himself to do an injust thing in being an instrument of compelling him to a necessity of obeying? Or that he thought it an encroachment upon the prerogative of Christ for S. Stephen to judge of his Government? How easily might Marcianus have told him, that he was free, and in his own power, and had his free choice, and that he would expect the judgement of jesus Christ, who alone had power to advance him to the government of the Church, and to judge of his government? And in case he had made this Plea, I do not see how S. Cyprian could have refused to accept it for good, seeing it was nothing else but his own Doctrine, if he held it to be absolutely true, that no Bishop can judge another, and that Christ alone has power to judge of their government.  
194. This proceeding of S. Cyprian towards Marcianus evidently shows, that the aforesaid Passage ought not to be understood in all the rigour as the words sound. And therefore nothing can be inferred from thence which makes against General Councils, because the power of excommunicating Heretics and Schismatics infers all the Authority which we ascribe to General Councils, inasmuch as the power of excommunicating and judging Schismatics supposes, that there is in the Bishops and Pastors of the Church an irresistible power of commanding in all things appertaining to the edification of our Lord's Body; and the power of excommunicating and judging Heretics supposes an Infallible power of declaring what the true Faith is. For the better understanding of which truth the Reader may turn over to §. 22. N. 138. & seq. chap. 2. where I have shown at large, that Bishops and Pastors can receive no power from Christ to excommunicate any person for matters of Faith, if they are not infallibly certain that their own Faith is true, by which I do not mean, that every Bishop is personally infallible in all he teaches, but only that they are infallible as long as they follow the Definitions of General Councils in such matters as are defined, or the indubitable and known Faith of the Church Diffusive in such things as are not defined, by which latter means it was that S. Cyprian was infallibly certain, that the Doctrine for which he procured Marcianus to be deposed, was contrary to the Christian Faith. If the Dr. think fit to maintain, that Bishops have power to excommunicate and judge their Colleagues in cases of Heresy and Schism, he is obliged as much as we to explicate this passage of S. Cyprian, which as soon as he has done, he'll not think it worth his while to allege it against General Councils. For the power of excommunicating and judging Heretical and Schismatical Bishops is obnoxious to the main exceptions which are brought against General Councils, because it imports a power of imposing Laws and Rules on Bishops without their consent, which he says ubi supra p. 25. is an usurpation upon the Episcopal Authority, and moreover excludes them from any power of judging and voting in their own Caus, which is urged as an unanswerable exception against the Council of Trent, because Protestants were not permitted to sit as judges therein of the Heresies whereof they were accused.  
195. If the Dr. tell me 1. that Marcianus was a notorious Heretic and Schismatique, and that he grants in his aforesaid Vindicat. p. 26. that such Bishops may be cast out of the Church and deposed; I answer, that although Bishops are never so notorious Heretics and Schismatics, yet seeing they are to be censured by Bishops for their Heresy and Schism, they must necessarily have Bishops for their judges. And then let him show, how this Negative Proposition of S. Cyprian can be absolutely true, that no Bishop can be judged by another, nor judge another. But by the way what is it he means here by a notorious Heretic? For as much as I have been able to learn out of him, he means one who contradicts some plain and acknowledged Article of the Christian Faith (see his Vindicat p. 30.) which is such a Notion of a notorious Heretic, as no one can desire a better to prove Protestants to be all notorious Heretics, seeing they profess to follow those Doctrines which the first Reformers broached against the known Faith of the Visible Church of the time wherein they lived. Why should the Doctrine of Marcianus be a notorious Heresy, because it contradicted the acknowledged Faith of the Church of his time, and the singularities of Protestants and the first Reformers be no notorious Heresies, although they contradicted the acknowledged Faith of the Church of their time? Either let both of them be said to be notorious Heretics or neither, seeing they are both of them cast and sentenced as such by the Church of their respective times. If he will never grant any to be notorious Heretics whilst there is a dispute whether they be Heretics or no, nor any thing to be a notorious Heresy whilst there is any Controversy whether it be an Heresy or no, he will make it impossible that there ever should be any notorious Heretics, or notorious Heresies; for to be sure all Heretics and their followers will dispute hard to prove the Doctrine which they deny to be no plain Article of the Christian Faith, and their Novelties to be no Heresies (and so questionless Marcianus did with his Novatians), whose Controversies and brawls ought to be reckoned of no moment to invalidate the unanimous judgement of the Visible Church by whom they are condemned, whose Authority alone makes them notorious Heretics, and their singularities notorious Heresies. Indeed if the Visible Church dispute, and be not resolved whether a Doctrine be Heresy or no, I know of no body who says that any such controverted Point is a notorious Heresy, or a notorious truth. But if the dispute be between the Visible Church and those who have departed from her (as it happened in the case of Marcian and the first Reformers,) it is evident that such controverted Points as are held in opposition to the known Faith of the Church, are to be accounted notorious Heresies, unless we destroy the present supposition, which is that the denial of some plain and acknowledged Article of the Christian Faith is a notorious Heresy. Let this Author give a good reason if he can, why the denial of any Doctrine which was held by the Church in Marcian's time should be the denial of a plain and acknowledged Article of the Christian Faith, and yet that the denial of so many Doctrines as the first Reformers rejected of the Church of their times, should be no denial of so many plain and acknowledged Articles of the Christian Faith.  
196. If he tell me 2. out of his Vindicat. p. 26 that the Power which Bishops have of deposing Heretical Bishops does not proceed from a Superior jurisdiction which they have over each other, but from the obligation which all Bishops have as far as they can, to see that no part of the Christian Church be corrupted with Heresies; I answer, that our Saviour cannot lay an obligation on one man to punish another man's crimes without giving him a Superior jurisdiction over him, because this obligation essentially supposes a Command, and a Command from our Saviour to punish another's crimes is most formally the giving of a Superior jurisdiction to this purpose. Which general Doctrine as it proves that Bishops have a Superior jurisdiction over all Heretics whom they are obliged by our Saviour's Command to censure, so it shows that they have a special Superior jurisdiction over Bishops considered as Bishops, because of the special punishment of Deposition which they are obliged to inflict upon them, which being the deprivation of an Office and Jurisdiction which they have immediately received from Christ, necessarily supposes a special Command from him to take it from them, (for who else can give them this Power?) And this Command is most formally a special Superior jurisdiction which they have over them considered as Bishops in cases of Heresy. And thus the obligation which all Bishops have to see that the Church be not corrupted with Heresy is so far from impairing the Superior jurisdiction of one Bishop over another, that it evidently infers it, which is no ill step towards the Authority of General Councils. But after all let the Power of Bishops to depose Bishops proceed from what cause this Author pleases, yet seeing he grants that Bishops have Power to depose one another in certain cases, it follows that they have Power to judge one another in certain cases, and then, as I said above, let him show how this Negative Doctrine of S. Cyprian can be absolutely true, that no Bishop can be judged by another, nor judge another.  
197. The True occasion and meaning of S. Cyprian's words is as follows. He was unhappily engaged with his African Bishops in the defence of the Doctrine of rebaptising those who had been baptised by Heretics, which seemed to him very clear for such reasons as are to be found in his Epistles to Januarius, Quintus, Pompeius, and Jubaianus; and he entertained the better opinion of it, because Aggrippinus one of his Predecessors in the See of Carthage had embraced it, and confirmed it in a Council. And besides this, Firmilian Bishop of Caesarea together with a great many others of Cappadocia, Cilicia, Galatia, and other Eastern Countries were as zealous for it as himself. However by reason he found a great opposition from his Colleagues in other parts, and particularly from the Church of Rome under Stephen, and generally from the whole Church of Italy, he was unwilling on the one side to confided so much in his own judgement as to think that he could not possibly be mistaken, and on the other side he was too great a lover of truth not to take all necessary Precautions for the security of a Doctrine which he held for such. He therefore as Metropolitan called a Council of the Bishops of his Province to consult freely upon the Matter, that in case he were abetted by the concurrence of their Votes, the Doctrine which he esteemed true might receive the public recommendation of their whole Province. But he took special care herein, that their Declaration in its favour should not be accompanied with any Ecclesiastical Censures on the Contraveners of it, or that any one should be denied Communion if he dissented, or the worse looked upon, or esteemed to do an ill thing by the rest of his Colleagues for any such dissent, or that the contrary Doctrine should be pronounced Heretical or erroneous in Faith (all which is signified when he says judging no man), as holding it unreasonable that a Provincial Council, which is no more than a part of the Catholic Teaching Church, should prescribe Laws to be observed by their whole Body. He took himself with his African Bishops to have Authority enough to pass what judgement they thought best in a matter that was not undoubtedly known to be either true or false, as he held this Doctrine of Rebaptization was not; and seeing he could not deny, but that the other Bishops of the Church had the same power to give in their judgements concerning it, he thought it no less than Tyranny to go about to compel them to a necessity of obeying, and therefore he left both the truth of his and his Council's judgement together with the judgement of those who stood in opposition to them, to the Sovereign Cognizance of Christ jesus who alone had the power to judge which party was in the right; till such time as the difference should be determined in a General Assembly of the Fathers of the whole Church, as it afterwards was in the Council of Nice. It was this consideration which made him say to the Fathers for neither doth any of us constitute himself Bishop of Bishops, by which he meant, that none of them pretended to take from their Colleagues throughout the world that Right which he owned they had of choosing which side they pleased about the Doctrine in debate, and that they confessed themselves to have no power over them in this case, but that it was vested in a General Council of the Bishops of the whole Church, who were by Christ's Institution in all matters relating to the Faith Bishops of Bishops and Teachers of Teachers.  
198. This explication of S. Cyprian's words is nothing else in effect, but what S. Augustin delivers in his Book de Baptis. contr. Donatist. He there tells us first, lib. 2. cap. 8. how much S. Cyprian depended on the strength of his own Arguments, and how he came not to be moved with the contrary Custom that was alleged against him, viz because it was not mado out to him (nondum asserta), by which we are not to understand, that he held it lawful to prefer our own private reasons before the undoubted Tradition of the Church, but only that he was not satisfied of the Universality of this Custom, by reason Firmilian had informed him (with what truth I know not), that they had a contrary Custom in their parts of the East. And besides the point in dispute being a matter of a mixed nature partly Doctrinal, and partly of Discipline and that Negative too, he might have been induced to believe that the Custom was a culpable Omission, because the belief of its lawfulness seemed to want an Universal approbation, inasmuch as the great opposition which so many famous Bishops who were zealous for the Catholic Unity, made against it, might persuade him, that it was no Apostolical Tradition. Quiae tunc non extiterant, sais S. Augustin, nisi qui ei consuetudinem opponerent, defensiones autem ipsius consuetudinis non tales afferrent quibus illa talis anima moveretur, noluit vir gravissimus rationes suas etsi non veras, quod eum latebat, sed tamen non victas veraciquidem, sed tamen nondum assertae consuetudini cedere. 2. He tells us lib. 3. cap. 3. the extent of that liberty and freedom of judgement which S. Cyprian gives to Bishops, viz that they may judge as they see cause, and come to what resolution they shall see fitting in all such Questions as have not been throughly sifted and cleared, as this Point of Rebaptisation which had caused so many disputes in the Church, never had been, to the end the truth may the more easily appear by this means. In Quaestionibus, sais he, quae nondum eliquatissima perspectione discussae sunt. Nover at enim quantam Sacramenti profunditatem tunc omnis Ecclesia variâ disputatione versab at, liberumque faciebat quaerendi arbitrium, ut examinata veritas panderetur. And Lib. 6. cap. 7. he says that this liberty was referred by S. Cyprian himself to the time wherein there was a search made into the truth of obscure Doctrines, in quo quae ab illis tractata sunt nondum declarata sine ambagim hauriebantur, sed adhuc clausa magno molimine quaerebantur. 3. He tells us Lib. 2. cap 4. that 〈◊〉 perfect sifting and clearing of a Point is effected in a General Council, whose Declaration had prevailed with him to descent from S. Cyprian about Rebaptising those who had been baptised by Heretics, and he makes no doubt, but that it would have prevailed with S. Cyprian too to have altered his judgement in this matter, if it had happened in his time. Nos ipsi, sais he, non auderemus hoc contra Cyprianum asserere, nisi universae Ecclesiae concordissima authoritate firmati, cui & ipse sine dubio cederet, si jam illo tempore quaestionis hujus veritas eliquata & declarata per Concilium Plenarium solidaretur. 4. He tells us Lib. 7. Cap. 53. that the sifting and clearing of controverted Doctrines is begun in Provincial Councils (such as this Council of Carthage was), and that it is perfected in General Councils (such as the Council of Nice was), In Regionali Concilio inchoatur rerum eliquatio, terminatur autem in Plenario; and he speaks to the same effect Lib. 2 cap. 9 He 〈◊〉. tells us lib. 1. cap. 7. of the great obscurity of the Question about Rebaptisation, and how it came at length to have a final determination in a General Council, Quoniam, sais he, quaestionis bujus obscuritas prioribus Ecclesiae temporibus ante Schismae Donati magnos Viros & magnâ charitate praeditos, Patres Episcopos inter se compulit saluâ pace disceptare atque fluctuare; ut diu Conciliorum in suis quibusque regionibus adversa statuta nutaverint, donec Plenario totius Orbis Concilio quod saluberrime fentiebatur etiam remotis dubitationibus firmaretur-And ib. cap. 18. In qua tamen (Ecclesia Catholica) si aliud alii & aliud alii adhuc de ista quaestione salua pace sentirent, donec universali Concilio unum aliquid eliquatum sincerumque placuisset. And a little lower, Nam illis temporibus antequam Concilii plenarii sententia quid in hac re sequendum esset, totius Ecclesiae consensio confirmasset, visum est ei cum ferme octoginta Episcopis Affricanarum Ecclesiarum, omnem hominem qui extra Ecclesiae Catholicae unitatem baptizatus fuisset oportere ad Ecclesiae unitatem venientem denuò baptizari. And lib. 6. cap. 39 when he recounts the Opinions of the Fathers of S. Cyprian's Council, he sets down this of Eugenius ab Ammedera, Ego autem hoc idem dico, censeo haereticos baptizandos esse, to which he returns this answer, sed non hoc censet Ecclesia cui Deus jam plenario etiam Concilio revelavit, quod tunc aliter sapiebatis, sed quia in vobis charitas salva erat in unitate permanebatis. And ib. cap. 13. whereas Januarius a Lambese said, secundum sanctarum Scripturarum Authoritatem decerno omnes Haereticos baptizandos, & sic in Sanctam Ecclesiam admittendos, he answers, secundum Scripturarum Sanctarum authoritatem decrevit Concilium Catholicum orbis terrarum etiam in Haereticis inventum Christi baptismum non esse improbandum.  
199. Whoever diligently weighs these quotations will find the explication which I have given of S. Cyprian's words to be exactly according to S. Augustin's mind, and therefore there is no fear that they can make any thing against the Authority of General Councils; seeing besides their consent with the Church in S. Augustin's time, they may be as easily reconciled to the language of the Catholic Church of these times wherein we live. For we hold with S. Cyprian, that Bishops have a Right to choose that Opinion which they shall think most probable about any Doctrine that is controverted, and disputed between Catholic and Catholic, and that they have no power to judge one another in such cases, or to deny one another the Communion if he descent, or to compel one another to a necessity of obeying, but that each one's conscience after a due examination of the matter is his own supreme Guide under Christ, who alone has the power of judging their proceedings herein. And if any of them out of a General Council go about to make their private consciences in such cases 〈◊〉 necessary Rule which their other Colleagues ought to follow, and interiorly assent to under forfeiture of their mystical union with Christ and his Church, they properly make themselves tyrannical Bishops of Bishops in such matters wherein no man has a Right to play the Bishop. We hold likewise, that they may assemble in Provincial Councils, and take such disputes into consideration according as they find just and reasonable motives to do so, and that they may establish therein such a Declaration concerning the debated points as in their judgements may seem to draw nearest to the truth; but we hold likewise, that when the agreeing Authority of the universal Church has declared in a Plenary and Catholic Council of the whole world what the Faithful aught to believe in such points, bishop then loose their liberty of judgement, and must submit their consciences and judgements to such Declarations, as S. Augustin says that S. Cyprian himself would have done, had he seen his Opinion about Rebaptisation disapproved by a Plenary and General Council.  
200. If any one will contend here, that the meaning of S. Cyprian's words was not the same 〈◊〉 S. Augustin represents it to be; I answer, that if it was not the same, it ought to have been the same, and that it will be a strange attempt in any one who pretends to be of S. Augustin's Faith to quote S. Cyprian in such a sense as he has suppressed as unsafe, or erroneous. For my part I am fully satisfied, that S. Augustin spoke as he thought in his interpretation of S. Cyprian; for the words will naturally bear his meaning, and on the other side without such limitations as he has given them, bishop necessarily lose their power of judging their Colleagues when they fall into Heresy and Schism, as we have seen. I could have produced out of S. Cyprian himself the grounds of this interpretation, were it not that I feared the swelling of the matter in hand, which is already grown to a greater bulk than I designed at first. And if S. Augustin spoke as he thought, we cannot desire a better Authority than his, who was a man most unquestionably holy and learned, and throughly versed in the affairs of the African Churches, and particularly in S. Cyprian's case. What I have here said shall suffice for the examination of this passage, which I have the rather undertaken, because I find it to be the groundwork of Dr. Sherlock's whole Treatise of his Vindication of some Prot. Princ. etc.  
201. It may be objected 3. against General Councils out of his aforesaid Vindication p. 51●… that their bare authority never put an end to any Dispute any further than they were backed by the Imperial Power; which is an Argument that they did not believe in those days such Councils to be Infallible, or to be the supreme Tribunals of the Catholic Church.  
202. I answer, that if this discourse be good in Dr. Sherlock against the Authority of General Councils, it cannot be unsuccesseful in us when we turn it against the H. Scripture's being the only Judge of Controversies, for the bare Authority of these sacred Books never put an end to any Dispute, any further than they were backed by the temporal Power, which is an Argument, that they did not believe in those days the H. Scriptures to be the only judge of Controversies. Thus his erroneous zeal against General Councils has transported him so far as to destroy the Authority of the H. Scriptures, which he has substituted in their place to determine disputes in Religion.  
203. I say therefore, that the Anathemas which the Catholic Fathers annexed to their Decrees are a better Argument to prove, that they believed General Councils to be Infallible, than the perverse disobedience of Heretics is to show that there was no such belief in the Church. For with what conscience could they 
* 1. ad Cor. cap. 5.  deliver up to Satan all those who would not believe as they did, unless they had an Infallible assurance that their own belief was true? This is a Power which they could not receive from Christ, as I have shown above. Besides, true Christians ought to learn what they are to believe about General Councils from Catholics who submitted to them, and not from Heretics who made no account of them. And therefore he ought to have proved, that in former Ages men were members of the Visible Church although they refused to acquiesce with the Decrees of General Councils, before he can weaken their Authority. And when he has made this out, I will confess that he has said something to the purpose against General Councils, and not till then. Where lies the force of this con●…equence, The Arians, for example, did not give over their contention after they were condemned by the Council of Nice. Therefore Catholics did not believe the Council of Nice to be infallible? I say where lies the force of this consequence? And yet this is the only thing that can stand the Doctor in any stead. For we have nothing to do with the Arians belief of the Authority of the Council of Nice; neither can any one esteem them for fit examples to follow, who holds them for Heretics, and aliens from God. It is an easy thing to imagine, that those who departed against all reason from the known and peaceble profession of the Faith of the Church, might he carried by the like passion to deny the Authority of the same. For one sin seldom comes alone, and one Abyss calls on another. Psalm. 41.  
204. Besides, if the discourse be of the Arians, it was possible for them to admit of the Authority of General Councils at the same time that they rejected the Council of Nice, because they might think this Council not to be a truly General one for want of some conditions which they judged necessary, as perhaps because they held matters not to have been carried therein freely, and that their cause had been discussed with too much precipitation, as the Greek Church at this day which acknowledges the Infallibility of General Councils no less than Catholics, does however refuse to acquiesce with the Council of Florence, although they were present at it and confirmed its Decrees, because of some frivolous exceptions which their pride and faction have suggested to them against it since that time. A small colour will serve the turn when men are obstinately bend to act unreasonably. It is apparent from the restless endeavours which the Arians used to procure a Council that might speak their sense, that they attributed a greater power to Councils than Protestants will allow them to have, or at least that they thought by this means to work the whole Church to an admission of their belief, which is an Argument that the Church of those times held the Authority of Councils for sacred. Neither is it material that their Heresy never ceased till it was suppressed by the Imperial Power, from whence we can only conclude, that they were brought to a confession of the truth more through fear of punishment than the love of God, as most men are to an amendment of their lives. Our Lord instituted General Councils as a means of putting an end to Disputes, but so as to leave to Heretics the free use of their wills. The Definitions that are made therein are a sufficient ground for Peace, if they will accept it; but if they will rather choose to continue in their singularities, the fault is not in the Authority of the Council, but in their own depraved minds. After their cause is heard and judged there is no room left for a reasonable Dispute, and if they will dispute against reason, it is because they have the power of doing good or evil, and not because God would not have them do only what is good by obeying the Council If this Objection prove any thing against the Infallibility of General Councils, it will prove in like manner that the Council of Apostles and Elders which assembled at Jerusalem was not Infallible, because their Authority did not put a total end to the Dispute about the necessity of Circumcision, as it ought to have done, and there remained many obstinate persons who persisted in their error, as though there never had been any Declaration against it by the Apostles and Elders. Those who were predestined to glory harkened to this Council, which end has been likewise obtained by God in all the General Councils that have been held since, and if Reprobates grow never the better by their Declarations, we ought not to impute their ruin to the want of Authority in the Councils, but to their not cooperating with that Grace which God affords them by Councils.  
§. 29. P. 44. But cannot the Catholic Church meet and act by its Representatives, as Kingdoms and Commonwealths do?  
205. Reply. If the Catholic Church signify the Catholic Teaching Church, it may meet and act by its Representatives as Kingdoms and Commonwealths do so far, as that their Acts are to pass for the Acts of their whole Body. But if it signify the whole multitude of the Faithful, he might have spared his discourse on this occasion, for he knows that this is none of our Doctrine.  
§. 30. P. 45. The Dispute between the Church of Rome and some Protestant Divines, which is managed with so much warmth and zeal about the perpetual visibility of the Church, proceeds in this Controversy about a visible Tribunal of the Catholic Church; for nothing else will do the Protestant 〈◊〉 any hurt, or the Popish Caus any good.  
206. Reply. It is not worth while to guess who were the managers of this Dispute, which he here points at. Only I observe, that no Dispute can pass without his Censure. When we say that the Church has been always visible, our meaning is, that there has been a succession of Pastors and People visibly continued in all Age●… since Christ, whose Faith has been accompanied with many Marks and vehement Presumptions of truth, which are no where else to he found amongst Christians, and whereby it has been always distinguished from Heretical and Schismatical Congregations. We affirm likewise, that whatever Church is thus qualified is the very Church which our Saviour and his Apostles established in the beginning. Now supposing we make out this perpetual visibility in behalf of the Roman Church, as we pretend to do, the Protestant Caus must necessarily suffer very much, although our Lord had instituted no Visible Tribunal for the manifestation of Heresies. For seeing Protestants do not pretend, that their Religion as such, and as it is Reform was professed for several hundred years before the Reformation, we may reasonably infer, that it never was preached by our Saviour and his Apostles, because the Church of Rome which is supposed to have been visible in all Ages, holds a contrary belief to many of their tenets. The very opposition of that Church in this Hypothesis ought to pass for a just prejudice against any Doctrine, and the belief of it for a sufficient Proposal of any matter of Faith, as the Non-necessitie of Circumcision which S. Paul confirmed with many Miracles, was sufficiently proposed to the Antiochians before the Visible Tribunal of the Church assembled at Jerusalem.  
§. 31. P. 46. While there are any men who visibly profess Christianity, there will be a visible Church.  
207. Reply. The perpetual visibility of the Church of Rome is too great an advantage to be absolutely granted, and too evident to be absolutely denied. The way therefore must be to mince the visibility of the Church into a visible profession of Christianity, by which means this incommunicable property of the true Church becomes common to Heretics, who all profess to worship Christ, which if they do so as to be difcovered and known they must pass for Members of the Visible Church.  
§, 32. Ib. Having said that while there are any men who visibly profess Christianity, there will be a visible Church, he immediately subjoins, and what then? What then? Why then you must hear the Church; than you must submit to the Authority of the Church, than you must believe as the Church believes, and receive your Faith from the Decrees and Definitions of the Church. But pray why so? Has every visible Church this Authority? No; but the Catholic Church has. Suppose that; but how shall I speak with the Catholic Church which is dispersed over all the world, and is nothing else but the whole number of Christians all the world over? Now it seems impossible for me to speak with all the Christians in the world, and to know what their belief is in all matters of Controversy; and though the Catholic Church is visible, and part of it be in England, and part in Holland, and part in France etc. yet no man can see it all together, nor speak with all the Christians in the world together; and therefore though the Catholic Church be visible, it cannot determine any one Controversy, unless there be some visible. Tribunal from which we must receive the Faith of the whole Church.  
208. Reply. This is the only place throughout his Discourse wherein he takes notice of that dreadful saying of our Saviour He that will not ●…ean the Church, let him be to thee as an Heathen and a Publican, although he has not wanted many occasions that have called upon him to take it into consideration. And one would think by his way of reasoning, that he would have passed it over in silence here too, had he not thought himself cocksure of catching our Saviour tripping in his veracity. Our Saviour commands us to hear the Visible Church by which the Dr. gives us leave to suppose the Catholic Church, and having supposed thus much he very manfully undertakes to prove the impossibility of hearing it. For in the first place he tells us, that the Catholic Church is nothing else but the whole number of Christians all the worldover, from whence he concludes, that no man can hear it by itself, because no one can see it all together, nor speak with all the Christians in the world together. And in the second place, he says, as we have seen, and continues to affirm at present p 47. that the Catholic Church neither has nor can have any visible Tribunal by whom it may be Represented, and which may declare its judgement about any controverted Doctrine. So that seeing the Catholic Church according to his Notion of it cannot be heard immediately by itself, nor by means of a Tribunal that may Represent it, and seeing he knows of no other way whereby it is to be heard, it necessarily follows, that we cannot heart it at all; And then let him make out, how an Infinite veracity and Justice can command us under pain of damnation to hear that which it is impossible for us to hear.  
209. He would show himself a much better Christian than he does at present, if he would discourse upon the Text in the following manner. Christ commands us in very plain terms to hear the Church, by which I am willing to suppose that he means the Visible and Catholic Church; from whence I gather, that the Church may be heard, otherwise our Lord commands us under damnation to do that which is impossible. Now I cannot possibly conceive, how we can perform this Command, unless the Church may he heard either by itself, or by a Visible Tribunal that may Represent it, both which ways seem to me impracticable. For I am of the opinion, that the Catholic Church is nothing else but the whole number of Christians all the world over, which evidently shows an impossibility for it to be heard by itself, because we cannot see it all together, nor speak with all the Christians in the world together. I am likewise of the opinion, that the Catholic Church can have no visible Tribunal, because it is the whole multitude of Christians considered as a multitude; and a multitude as a multitude can never be Represented by any thing but itself, there can be formal, nor virtual multitude, but the whole entire number; from whence it follows with no less evidence, that the Catholic Church cannot be heard by a Representative. What course am I to take now in this straight? Christ commands me to hear the Catholic Church, and my Principles make it impossible to be heard. If I stick to my Principles, great advantages will accrue to me and to the Protestant Caus by this means. For I shall get great credit by my Notion of the Catholic Church, which will particularise by name amongst the numerou●… swarms of discoursers and pretenders to learning, as it has fared with Dr. Stilling fleet by his Argument against the Roman Worship of Images, and with Dr. Tillotson by his new weapon against Transubstantiation; and the Protestant Caus will be freed from many vexatious Objections which puzzle our best Writers. As for example, when the Papists charge us with Schism for renouncing the Authority of their Hierarchy, we can easily answer, that Schism is a departure from the Church, which Protestants have not done by departing from the Obedience of Church-governors, who are not the Church, nor belong to its Definition. If they charge us with Heresy for disbelieving many Doctrines which have been declared by the Visible Tribunal of the Church, we as easily answer, that the Church has no Visible Tribunal by whom it may be Represented. And after this manner we have a ready answer always at hand to most of their accusations against us relating to the Church. All which are mighty advantages, if they could be made good without the forfeiture of Christianity, which I do not see how it can be done. For seeing Christ commands us in express terms to hear the Church under pain of being Heathens, what does he else in effect but tell us that the Church may be heard? And if it may be heard, what advantage can it be to the Protestant Caus to clear them of Heresy and Schism, which the Papists brand them withal, by such a Notion of the Catholic Church as makes it impossible to be heard? Is not this a falsification of our Saviour's words? And what can a falsification of his words be but a renouncing of Christianity? These things considered it will be much safer for my soul, and less prejudicial to the Caus I defend, to give over the pretence of this Notion of the Church, which is apparently singular as it is handled by me, and for which I cannot produce any one Text of Scripture to recommend it to the belief of a reflecting man with any tolerable degree of certainty, nor much less any Text that favours it half so plainly as this Command of our Saviour favours the possibility of hearing the Church. Wherefore let Wranglings continue as they have hitherto done, and let Protestants defend themselves as well as they can against the Pretences of the Church of Rome. It will be much better for them to be thus employed, and to bear with patience the exulting Echoes of the Romanists, than to sing 10 Pean by denying one tittle of God's Word. If the Dr. I say, will proceed after this manner, he will show himself to be a man of some conscience, but the way which he takes, makes Scripture and Christianity become contemptible; neither can a Heathen desire a greater advantage against Christ, than that he most rigorously commands impossibilities, which must be an Argument either of his ignorance, or injustice, which are qualities repugnant to the nature and goodness of God.  
210. But how are we to hear the Church during the intervals of General Councils, when any disputes arise about Religion?  
211. I answer, that in this case the Faithful are to have recourse to their Spiritual Guides, and Pastors, and especially to the Bishops of the Diocese where they live, from whom they are to learn what they are to believe, as well those things that have been declared, as those things that have never been declared in General Councils. And whoever hears them hears the Church, because they are essential to the Church, and are the Catholic Church inadaequate as being parts of the Catholic Teaching Church by whose direction and spirit they proceed in the government of souls. If the Disputes that arise be about a Point which is favoured by the Universal Tradition and belief of the Church, and their Pastors tell them so much, they are obliged to abquiesce and to lay aside their scruples, and if notwithstanding this admonition they will break off Communion, and herd together in separate Conventicles, they become formal Schismatics, and rebels after their Bishops have thundered out an Excommunication against them, and are to be accounted no better than Heathens as long as they continue in that state. And if the Disputes be about such Doctrines as are neither clear in Scripture, nor Tradition, nor the Definitions of any General Council, if they stand in contempt of their Bishop's Authority and Censures after they have taken Cognizance of the case, and commanded them to keep the Peace and Unity of the Church, they ought to be held for Heathens here too, not because they are bound to follow the judgement of their Bishops in obscure matters supposing they have made it known, seeing they have no power to obtrude it to their belief; but because they Schismatically rend, and tear the Body of Christ in defence of their singularities, and will not hear their Pastors who command and exhort them to the contrary. Such doubting consciences as these would stand in no need of General councils for their satisfaction, if they had more humility; for than they would consider this persistance in their doubts as the proper effect of spiritual pride, and that it is the office of the Pastors to take care that nothing be imposed uponthem but what is sound Doctrine, inasmuch as they are to give an account of their souls. Neither is any man in danger of damnation, because his Faith is not extended to as many Objects as he can raise doubts from Scripture, or Christian truths, but from the opposition which his Faith has with any one Point that is sufficiently proposed to his belief, as all matters are not which are neither clear in Scripture, nor Tradition, nor declared and defined in General Councils.  
§. 33. P. 47. The Church of Rome is a Visible Church, and so is the Church of England; and if mere visibility give this Authority to a Church, the Church of England has as good Authority as the Church of Rome, because it is as Visible a Church.  
212. Reply. The Reader may turn over to N. 25. and 16. chap. 2. where he will see that I have assigned to the true Church a double visibility which can aggree only to Roman-Catholiques.  
§. 24. Ib. He observes 4. that the essential unity of the Catholic Church is not an external and visible union of an Organised Body, because the Catholic Church itself is not an organised Body.  
213. Reply. This Observation has been proved false from what has been said above in answer to §. 16. ch. 2.  
§. 35. P. 48. In the next place he pretends to prove, that there can be no Ecumenical Pastor and Head of unity to the Catholic Church from several Considerations, the first whereof is, because the Catholic Church is the whole Company of Christians: and to whom can the whole Company of Christians be united, but only to Christ?  
214. Reply. The whole Company of Christians is united to Christ as to their Mystical Head, and to the B. of Rome as to their Visible Head. See the examination of this Notion of the Church ubi supra.  
§. 36. P. 49. The second Consideration is, because it is our union to Christ alone which makes the Church.  
215. Reply. Our Union to Christ makes us his Mystical Body, and our Union to the B. of Rome makes us a visible Society.  
§. 37. Ib. And therefore though our Saviour had appointed an universal Pastor, as the Bishop of Rome pretends to be, yet he could not have been the Head of unity to the Catholic Church.  
216. Reply. In this case he would have made the Catholic Church, and belonged to its Definition, as he affirms P. 38. that particular Bishops make particular hurches, and belong to their Definition, and would have been the Head of visible Unity to the Church, which is all that is meant by saying, that the B. of Rome is Head of the Church.  
§. 38. P. 50. There is a vast difference between the essential unity of the Church, and the external exercise of it in a visible Communion.  
217. Reply. The external union of all true Christians in a visible Communion is as necessary to the Church on Earth as such, as her Mystical Union is to Christ as her Spouse, as I have often said; and therefore seeing he grants at present, that if Christ had appointed an universal Pastor; communion with, and subjection to this universal Pastor would have been necessary to the external unity of Church-communion, he grants that in this supposition the Church on Earth would have been essentially one by the same kind of Unity whereby de facto we hold it to be essentially one, vi●… by the Communion with, and subjection of all true Christians to S. Peter's Successors.  
§. 39 Ib. The not distinguishing of which has occasioned great mistakes in this matter.  
218. Reply. Here is another lash for Protestant Controvertists. But I affirm, that his not discerning the necessity of a visible Union of Church-members among themselves, as well as of the Mystical Union of them all to Christ, has occasioned most of his great mistakes in this Discourse.  
§. 40. Ib. The 3. Consideration is, because there is a wide difference between being a Supreme Pastor, and a Vicarious Head of the Church, a title which is given to the B. of Rome, not without great injury to Christ our Head.  
219. Reply. There is no difference at all which we ought to know best, who are best acquainted with our own Faith. We acknowledge the B. of Rome to be Christ's Vicarious Head of the Church on no other account than because we acknowledge him for the Supreme Pastor of it. He is the Vicarious Head of the Church inasmuch as he is the universal Governor of it under Christ, and he is the Supreme Pastor of it for no other reason. The Dr. tells us p. 50. that Christ is not merely a Head of Government, but of union. Suppose we admit of this distinction; Then, I hope, as he is a Head of Government, he may have a Vicar; for we do not pretend that he has any as he is Head of Mystical union. We do not own the Pope for Christ's Vicarious Mystical Head, or say, that he is our spiritual Husband and Spous as we affirm it of Christ, which Privilege is essentitially annexed to Christ's person, and is incommunicable to any other, as may be gathered from what I have said above concerning the Notion of our Mystical Union to him, whereof our Obedience to the B. of Rome is only a Condition. Neither can our Doctrine afford him any grounds to fasten this scandal on us, unless the Doctrine which he delivers p. 35. about particular Bishops and Pastors being Christ's Vicars, or Vicarious Heads over particular Churches may give us the like advantage against him. For if this title may be given to particular Bishops without any injury to Christ, which way can it be a great injury to Christ to affirm the same of the B. of Rome over the whole Church? Every particular Church is Christ's Mystical Body as much as the whole Church, and if the nature of Christ Mystical Body be not repugnant to a Vicar over a particular Church, it may as amicably subsist with a Vicar over the whole Church. If the Dr. could infe●… from the Pope's Vicarship, that we made the Church to be Flesh of the Pope's Flesh and Bone of his Bone for the same Mystical Reasons whereby we affirm this of Christ our Head, this would be an injury to Christ with a witness; but this absurdity follows no more from the Vicarship of the Pope, than from the Vicarship of particular Bishops.  
220. I have here an occasion offered of considering a Text out of Scripture which the Doctor alleges p. 11. against the Pope's Vicarious Headship over the Church. The place is out of S. Paul 1. ad Cor. 1. Now I say this that every one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollo's, and 〈◊〉 of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptised in the name of Paul? Out of which words he discourses thus. If Christ had made Peter the Vicarious Head of unity, as the Romanists pretend, S. paul●… Argument against these sidings and factions, that one said he was of Paul, another of Apollo's, a third of Cephas or Peter, had not been good; for at least those who were united to Peter were in the right: but S. Paul knew of no other Head of unity but only Christ, because the Gospel-covenant unites us to no other Head; and therefore those who said they were of Peter, which is the case of the Church of Rome at this day, were as great Schismatics as those who said they were of Paul.  
221. I answer, that whatever was the true reason of this Schism, nothing can be concluded from hence to our prejudice. For if we be so foolish as to suppose, that their Dispute was about the Head of the Church, we must say that this happened, either because some of them would have had Christ to be the Mystical Head of the Church, and others would have Paul, Apollo's, or Cephas to be it; or else because they could not aggree who was Head of the Church as it was a Visible Body. If the Dispute were about the Mystical Head of the Church, those only were in the right who said that they were of Christ, and we blame the others who said that Paul, Apollo's, or Cephas were it as much as S. Paul himself does. But if the Dispute were about the Head of the Church as it is a Visible Body, none of them all were in the right, no not those who said that Christ, or Peter were it. For, as we have seen, Christ who is invisible cannot make his Church visibly One; and although Peter were visible, yet he could not make the Church visibly One neither in such a way as Christ ordained it should be One, if the Faithful were to be united to him without any obligation of being united to any other Pastors. For seeing our immediate Pastors govern us by the Authority which they have received from Christ, we cannot cast off our Obedience and Union with them under pretence of being united to S. Peter's Successors, because this is to divide Christ by separating ourselves from the Authority which he has set over us: neither can we refuse Communion with any Pastors of God's Church, because he has established no more than One Communion. It is in this sense that we ought to understand S. Paul when he says on the present occasion 1. ad Cor. 3. I have planted, Apollo's watered; now he that planteth and he that watereth are one. Whoever departs from his immediate Pastors, or refuses to communicate with such as are not his immediate Pastors, but who are however Members of Christ's Body, divides Christ by breaking asunder those ligaments and bonds of Unity which Christ has appointed, although he pretend to be never so much in Union with S. Peter's Successors. And this was the case of the Corinthians, (in the present Hypothesis) who did well in saying they were of Peter, but ill in saying they were not of Paul, nor of Apollo's; and they were as much in the wrong who said they were of Peter, and not of Paul nor Apollo's, as those who said they were of Paul and Apollo's, and not of Peter; because if Christ be divided, and a separation made in his Body, it is not material whether this separation be made by breaking with Peter, and cleaving to Paul, or by breaking with Paul and cleaving to Peter, seeing the mischief lies in dividing Christ by dividing his Body, which way soever this happens, or whence soever it has its beginning.  
§. 41. p. 52. No Christian can separate from the Catholic Church (in this sense of it, as it signifies the whole Company or Family of Christians (which is the true Notion of the Catholic Church) while he continues a Christian; for it is a contradiction to be a Christian, and not to belong to the whole number of Christians.  
222. Reply. Were a Latitudinarian to dispute with this Author, he could never desire a better advantage than he has from this concession.  
§. 42. Ib. Nothing can separate us from the Catholic Church, but what forfeits our Christianity, either a final Apostasy, or such Heresies as are equivalent to Apostasy.  
223. Reply. A Latitudinarian need not be concerned at this Restriction; for seeing in Dr. Sherlock's way every individual Christian must be said to be the lawful judge for himself, what Doctrines are Heresies, and what not, it follows, that every individual Christian must be the lawful judge for himself, what Heresies are equivalent to Apostasy, and what not. From whence it follows, that no man can separate from the Catholic Church, let, him profess what heresies he will, provided he judge that they are not equivalent to Apostasy, as to be sure all Heretics judge of their errors, which is all that a Latitudinarian can desire.  
§. 43. Ib. Which shows how vainly the Church of Rome charges us with Schism, and separation from the Catholic Church, because we disown the Authority of the Pope.  
224. Reply, The Church of Rome does indeed vainly charge Protestant's with Schism, and separation from the Catholic Church on the aforesaid account, if every man has a right to judge for himself of the lawfulness and sufficiency of the causes of separating and departing from a received Authority. But who sees not that this Maxim undermines the Authority of all Ecclesiastical Governors, and makes it precarious? The Dr. might as well have said that Schism is no sin, as lay such Principles to wipe it off from Protestants, as sanctify the most outrageous rebellions that have been in the Church in any Age.  
§. 44. Ib. Schism and separation is a breach of the external and visible Communion of the Church, not of the essential unity of it; the Church is one Church still, whatever breaches and Schisms there are in its external Communion.  
225. Reply. We have seen above that Obedience (wherein consists the visible Unity of the Church no less than in the profession of the same Faith) is a necessary Condition of our Mystical Union to Christ, wherein this Author places the essential Unity of the Catholic Church.  
§. 45. p. 53. The Indefectibilitie of the Church does not depend upon the Indefectibilitie of any Organised Churches.  
226. Reply. The Catholic Church itself is an Organised Church as being subject to the One Chair of S. Peter, and to its Representatives in a General Council.  
§. 46. Ib. It immediately follows, for the Catholic Church does not consist of Organised Churches as Organised, but it is made up of particular Christians.  
227. Reply The Catholic Church as it is a visible Society consists of Christians who are in subjection to their Bishops, and as they are in subjection to their Bishops. For seeing this Author will have Bishops to make particular Churches, and to be essential to their Definition, it follows, that subjection to Bishops makes particular Christians, and is essential to their Definition. Wherefore if the Catholic Church be the whole multitude of true Christians, it is the whole multitude of Christians who are in subjection to their Bishops. And therefore if the Catholic Church be made up of true Christians, and as they are true Christians, it must consist of Christians who are in subjection to their Bishops, and as they are in subjection to their Bishops. And if it consists of Christians who are in subjection to 〈◊〉 Bishops, and as they are in subjection to their Bishops, it necessarily consists of Organised Churches as Organised, if by Organised Churches nothing more be meant than a multitude of Christians who are under the Episcopal Authority, which is the Notion I have gathered of these terms out of his writings.  
writings. 47. Ib. It immediately follow, And therefore while the whole race of Christians does not fail in the world, the Catholic Church cannot fail.  
228. Reply. If subjection to Bishops be essential to true Christians, there must be always Bishops in the world, and whenever these fail the Catholic Church must fail too.  
§. 48. Ib. There is no promise that I know of to any particular Church that it shall not fail, and all Organised Churches are particular.  
229. Reply. ti's strange that he who holds such Principles from whence it is lawfully inferred, that subjection to Bishops in essential to the Definition of true Christians, should know of no promise at least in general, that all particular Churches shall not fail. For when our Saviour promises, that there shall be true Christians to the end of the world, what does he else but promise, that there shall be Bishops too to govern them? True Christians according to the Drs Notion of them, have an essential respect to Bishops, and can no more subsist without them than actual sons can subsist without actual Fathers.  
§. 49. P. 54. I am abundantly satisfied, that there always has been since the first planting of Christianity in the world, and I believe always will be to the end of the world, a true visible Church.  
230. Reply. God grant him perseverance in the confession of this great truth. He has no reason to take it in ill part, if I suppose, that the ground which induces him to believe that the Church will be visible to the end of the world, is not because he judges, that it has sufficient strength from pure nature to preserve itself in the state of its Original visibility. For this is downright Pelagranisme, seeing the Catholic Church has always held with S. Paul, that the beginning of all good actions, and the final perseverance in them proceeds from the Grace of God, and by consequence the continuance of the Church in its Original visibility must do so too. For this state imports many great and supernatural virtues as Faith, Hope, the fear of future punishments, Obedience to Ecclesiastical Superiors together with a contempt of death, and a generous preference of our Lord before all the advantages af●…eas, wealth, and honour under times of adversity and perfecution. All which are God's free Gifts, wherein we have no other share, but our voluntary acceptance of them when they are offered; neither is it possible for us to have them, unless he look upon us with eyes of mercy. Our natures are the same with those of Infidels, and the only difference between us is, because God has given to us a value for his Son, which he has not given to them. So long as we are strengthened by God, we judge Christianity to be Wisdom, but when through our offences he withdraws his assistance from us, we as easily believe it to be Folly as they. It is not in the natural power of Christians to resist all such remptations as may solicit them to forsake their Faith, nor to bear up against the most violent persecutions that may discourage them from the visible profession of it. If the Church after its first establishment had not been preserved by God in a state of visibility, it would most certainly have fallen from it long before now, considering the many furious assaults it has sustained from the world, the flesh, and the devil; and seeing these enemies, at least the two last of them (and Scripture assures us, that the world will be so too before the end of time) are as restless now as they have been in former Ages, we ought to conclude, that the continuance of the Church till the end of the world in that state must be by the same means that have supported it to this day. And seeing the bestowing of these means supposes a Decree in God to this purpose, we ought to conclude, that the preservation of the Church in a erpetual state of visibility is an effect of this Decree, as it's Indefectibilitie is an effect of God's ●…upernatural Providence over it. For all such means of salvation as are intrinsically good, as the visibility of the Church is, cannot be said to happen by chance, or merely by God's permissive will, but in virtue of his Positive, Absolute, and Praedestinative Decree. Wherefore it the Dr. be abundantly satisfied, that there has been always since the first planting of Christianity in the world, and believes that there will always be to the end of the world a true Visible Church, he must acknowledge that this belief supposes a Divine Decree, without which he cannot reasonably believe that the Church will be always Visible, any more than he can that it will be always in being. If the Drs. Faith in this particular be built on these grounds, it is very Orthodox, but the next passage shows what we are to trust to.  
§. 50. P. 54. But yet I do not think, that the Indefectibilitie of the Church necessarily requires a perpetual visibility; that the Church must needs be owned to fail, if there should be no Visible Organised Church with whom we could hold Communion.  
231. Reply. If God has annexed a perpetual 〈◊〉 to the Indefectibilitie of the Church, we must consequently say, that the Indefectibilitie of the Church necessarily requires, that there be always a Visible Organised Church with whom we may hold Communion, because the sensible visibility of the Church consists in its Visible Organization. Now that God has annexed a 〈◊〉 visibility to the Church's Indefectibilitie, is manifest from what I have lately said, because the Church cannot be always Visible to the end of the world, unless it receive this Gift from God, neither can it receive this Gift from God without a Decree to this purpose. And if the perpetual visibility of the Church be decreed by God, to what end does the Dr. say, that the Indefectibilitie of the Church does not necessarily require a perpetual visibility? Certainly the Indefectibilitie of the Church necessarily requires whatever God has decreed, and annexed to it as an inseparable adjunct. There is no other reason, why the Nature of the Church requires to be Indefectible but because God has decreed that it should be so, and seeing he has decreed that it shall be always ways Visible as well as Indefectible, the Nature of its Indefectibilitie must be owned to require a perpetual visibility, as much as the Nature of the Church requires Indefectibilitie. And it is as great a contradiction to say, that the Church shall be always Visible in virtue of God's Decree, and to allow it a possibility of becoming Invisible, as it is to say, that God's Decrees have an infallible connexion with their Objects, and yet that it is possible for them to be frustrated. The Dr. says, that he is abundantly satisfied, and believes that there always has been, and always will be a true Visible Church to the end of the world. Then say I, he is abundantly satisfied and believes, that God has decreed the perpetual visibility of the Church. And if he be abundantly satisfied and believes, that God has decreed this perpetual visibility, it is a contradiction to affirm, that the Indefectibilitie of the Church does not necessarily require a 〈◊〉 visibility; because it is a contradiction to believe, that the Church ever can be without being Visible, when the perpetual visibility thereof is believed to be decreed by God.  
232. The main proof whereon he depends for his Assertion is, because it is certain that the Catholic Church subsists in single and individual Christians, which Notion I have often proved to be false, if it be applied to the Catholic Church as it is a visible Society. It is very strange, that he who confesses so clear a conviction, that there always has been, and always will be a true Visible Church to the end of the world, should admit of a possibility of its becoming Invisible on such slender grounds as this. This is the mischief of bad Principles, which as long as men cleave to, they are enforced to make good all absurdities that flow from thence, let them be never so 〈◊〉. He has forgot what he answered 〈◊〉. to an Objection against the essential Unity of the Church which he had established, viz that according to this Notion of it, there can be no Visible Church on Earth, which he admits for a great inconvenience; when he says that it is a mighty prejudice against any Notion, if it destroy the visibility of the Church which is so plainly taught in Scripture, and does, for aught he knows, unchurch the greatest Member of Visible Church-members; and disputes against the opinion of those who confine the Church to the number of the Elect because it makes the Church Invisible, saying, that he has often wondered that some learned Protestant; and that of late too (since Protestants are generally so much improved in knowledge) or rather since they are generally convinced of the strength of our Arguments whereby we prove the Church's visibility) have so much insisted on this Notion which gives manifest advantages to their adversaries.  
233. One would think by this that the Dr. wer●… very steady in his judgement concerning the Church's visibility. And yet when his beloved Notion of the Catholic Church lies at stake, from whence is inferred a possibility of the Church's becoming Invisible, he never considers that the visibility of the Church is plainly taught in Scripture, but boldly affirms, that he does not think that the Indefectibilitie of it necessarily requires a perpetual visibility. If his principles cannot be maintained without contradicting Scripture, the word of God must rather lie under a suspicion of being false, than they suffer any thing by an opposition from thence. I see not why it should not be as mighty a prejudice against any Notion of the Catholic Church, if it destroys the visibility of the Church, which is so plainly taught in Scripture, as well as it is a mighty prejudice against any Notion of its essential 〈◊〉, if it destroys the visibility of the Church, because it is plainly taught in Scripture; or why those who confine the Church to the number of the Elect should give their adversaries a manifest advantage, because their opinion makes the Church Invisible; and yet that this Author should not give us the like advantage, seeing his Notion of the Catholic Church is also pernicious to its visibility by grounding a possibility that it may become Invisible. The faultiness of their Doctrine is derived from the opposition which it has to Scripture, and seeing this Author's Notion is (as we shall see) contrary to Scripture as well as the other, why should we not esteem them both for alike faulty and false?  
234. I say that the Drs. Notion of the Catholic Church is contrary to Scripture, because it grounds a possibility that it may become Invisible. For all those Texts of Scripture which I have quoted, and those Arguments which I have proposed above N. 108. & seq. to prove that Bishops and Pastors belong to the Definition of the Church, as likewise those which I have alleged N. 122. & seq. to evince that the Clegie are the Church, prove in like manner the visibility of the same, which consists no less in the Obedience which which Christianspay their Pastors, than it does in their profession of Faith. And therefore all those Texts alsowhich prove the Indefectibilitie of the Church prove in like manner it's perpetual visibility; because if the Church is to continue to the end of the world, there must be Bishops who are to their to govern, and People who shall be subject to them to the end of the world, which is the same thing as to say that the Church shall be Visible to the end of the world. I think the grounds of this Discourse sufficiently well laid in those places which I have cited, and shall therefore add only the following Dilemma to it. Either the visibility of the Church which, he says, is plainly taught in Scripture is according to Scripture to continue to the end of the world; or else it is to cease in some Age, or Ages before the end of the world. If he say the first, with what conscience can he hold, that the Indefectibilitie of the Church does not necessarily require a perpetual visibility? And if he say the second, he must not only allow a possibility of the Church's becoming Invisible, but must positively affirm, that it will be so before the end of the world, because he cannot otherwise free the Scripture from falsehood. And then let him show, how his believing that there always has been, and always will be a true Visible Church to the end of the world is not point blanc against Scripture. Which makes me wonder at his ●…iting 1. Kings. Ch. 19 whereby he attempts to show, that the Church, of God was Invisible in the time of Elias, when this Prophet thought himself alone, but was informed by the Lord: that 〈◊〉 had 〈◊〉 thousand left in Israel who had 〈◊〉 s●…rved Baal.  
235. To which Authority we have a readio Answer; inasmuch as the Church of Israel, whereof the Prophet spoke, was only a part of the jewish Church, whose invisibility cannot afford an Argument for the Invisibility of the Catholic Church, but at most for the Invisibitie of some particular Churches, or Christians, which we do not deny. God's Church was Visible in the Kingdom of Juda (which was the principal seat, and centre of Religion) at the same time that it was i●…visible in the Kingdom of Israel, from whence we may rather infer the perpetual visibility of the Catholic Church notwithstanding the 〈◊〉 and defection of some numbers of particular Christians, than prove that it may become Invisible from the invisibility of a particular Church among the jews. Besides, the Christian Church is built upon better promises than the Church of the Jews; and it is an Argument of a weak Faith, and of a dull apprehension of the 〈◊〉 of a Christian, to measure the blessings of the New Law, according to the proportion of those which were conferred on the Observers of the Law of Moses.  
§. 51. P. 55. The the Visible state of the Church be Antichristian, there may be an Invisible number of Christians among them, who may preserve themselves from the Corruptions, Superstitions, Heresies, and Idolatries of the Visible Church, and in thes●… men the Catholic Church is preserved from a total failure.  
236. Reply. Must these Christians be said to to be Invisible, because they exteriorly conform to their Corruptions of the Visible Church, or because their non-conformity is not discovered by the Visible Church? If you say the first, the consequence is, that the H. Catholic Church, the Spous and Body of Christ, his undefiled one; and beloved consists in a pack of diabolical dissemblers, who act contrary to their judgements in the great concerns of their souls, by renouncing Christ before men for the sake of worldly conveniencies, or for fear of punishment, which is a crime of so black a nature, that the Catholic Church in all Ages has looked upon it as a forfeiture of Catholic Communion. If you say the second, pray inform me, whether these Nonconforming Christians are the Church mentioned in the Gospel which Christians are bound to hear under pain of being Heathens and Publicans. If you say that they are this Church, it is certain that they are not Invisible, because they may be heard. And if you say, that they are not this Church, it is as certain that there is no such Church in the world whom Christians will be bound to hear under pain of being Heathens and Publicans, that is, under pain of damnation for not Hearing of her.  
§. 52. P. 56. While there is a Visible Society professing the Christian Faith, and administering the Christian Sacraments, the Catholic Church may subsist in an Invisible and unorganized number of Christians, who profess the true Faith without such corrupt and Antichristian mixtures.  
237. Reply, I must desire this Author to reconcile with this Doctin the following words of our Saviour to his Apostles Mat. 28 viz Teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and behold I am with you always even to the end of the world. From whence it is evident, that those whom our Lord will assist to the end of the world, shall be such Bodies and Societies of Christians as are under the government and direction of Bishops and Pastors. How then dares he say in defiance of these sacred words, and of this gracious Promise of our Saviour, that the Catholic Church may subsist in an unorganized number of Christians? If the Catholic Church will Infallibly be to the end of the world in that state, and after that manner, as our Saviour has promised it shall be, there can be no dispute, but that it will consist in Organised Churches, that i●…, in numbers of Christians who are under the Government of Bishops. And if it be possible for it to be otherwise than as our Saviour has promised it shall be, we may boldly say, that it is possible for it to be, and not to be at the same time.  
§. 53. Ib. Now, says he, this shows the weakness and ●…allaice of several Arguments used by the Church of Rome. As 1. that the perpetual visibility of the Roman Church proves it to be the Indefectible Church, of which our Saviour Promised, that the Gates of hell should not prevail against it ....... for if the Indefectible ●…hurch may be sometimes Invisible, than the Visible Church may not always be Indefectible.  
238. Reply. Supposing he will stand to what he has said, that there always has been, and always will be a true Visible Church to end of the world, it follows, that the Indefectible Church will be always Visible; and seeing visibility is one Markof of the Indefectible Church, we may justly pretend, that the Roman Church carries an evident presumption of its being the Indefectible Church which the Reformed Churches have not, because it has been always Visible, whereas we can point out the time when the others made their first appearance in the world, which was accompanied with too many odious circumstances to be easily forgotten. And if we take the visibility of the Roman Church, so as to include all its Motives of credibility whereby it is distinguished from Heretics and Schismatics, and all others who are not of its Communion, and yet pass under the denomination of Christians, it does not only afford an evident presumption of its being the Indefectible Church above the Reformed Churches, but likewise above all other Christians in the world, amongst whom perhaps there may be some Sees which can make out a succession of Pastors from the Apostles time as well as the Roman Church. But if he will contend, that the Indefectible Church may be sometimes invisible, notwithstanding the incoherence of this Doctrine with the aforesaid concession, he must seek after some better Principle whereon to build this Assertion, than because the Catholic Church subsists only in single and individual Christians.  
§. 54. p. 57 2. He undertakes to show the weakness of that Argument, which proves the Church to be Infallible, because it is Indefectible. And the reason why he disallows of this Argument is, because the Indefectibilitie of the Church, as we have already heard, does not necessarily prove, that there shall be any one Visible Organised Church which shall not fail; for the Church does not fail while there are any true Christians in the world ..... and therefore if Indefectibilitie proves Infallibility, it proves only that there shall be some private Infallible Christians, not that there is any Visible Infallible Church; From whence the consequence is clear, that since we deny, that the Infallibility of the Church subsists in private Christians, we ought to deny that the Church is Infallible.  
239. Reply. Whether the Church be said to subsist in private Christians, or in a Visible Organised Body, or Bodies of Christians, we ought to say, that it is Infallible by the same means whereby it is Indefectible. And feing it is Indefectible, because of God's Decree that it shall never cease to be a Church, we ought to say, that it is Infallible in virtue of the same Decree too. For if it shall never cease to be a Church, it shall never err so grievously as to cease to be a Church, and if you grant that it shall never err so grievously as to cease to be a Church, you grant the substance of all the In fallibility which we teach.  
240. No, say you, Catholics signify by the Infallibility of the Church an impossibility for it to err so grievously as to cease to be a Church, which is a different thing from saying, that it never shall err so grievously as to cease to be a Church.  
241. I answer, that when we say that the Church can never err so grievously as to cease to be a Church, we mean that God has essicaciously decreed, that it shall never err after this manner. And I suppose that the Doctor will think better on it before he blame us for saying, that there is an impossibility for God's Decrees to be frustrated. What does he mean else, when he says that the Church shall never fail nor cease, but that God has decreed, that it shall never fail nor cease? And if God has decreed, that it shall never fail nor cease, sure he will never dare to say, that there is a possibility for it to fail, which evidently follows, if there be a possibility for it to err so grievously as to cease to be a Church.  
242. Now as to the Reason why he disallows of this Argument, I answer, that hitherto we have heard nothing that can make it good besides his false Notion of the Catholic Church which I have often rejected. For seeing the abundant satisfaction he has that there always has been, and always will be a true Visible Church to the end of the world necessarily supposes a Divine Decree to this purpose, it follows, that the Church in virtue of this Decree is to be Visible as long as it continues, and if it is to be Visible as long as it continues, it is to be Organised as long as it continues. And since, as we have seen, the Indefectibilitie of the Church proves its Infallibility, if the Indefectible Church shall be always Visible and Organised, it follows, that there shall be always a Visible, Organised, and Infallible Church to the end of the world.  
§. 55. P. 58. When our Saviour says that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against his Church, we may consider it either as a Promise, or a Prophecy, or both, that there shall be always some sound and Orthodox believers in the world .... Now I hope Christ can make good such a Promise (it we consider it as a Promise) without bestowing Infallibility upon any Christians, for men may be Orthodox without being Infallible. And if we consider it as a Prophecy, I hope Christ can foretell things which have no necessary Causes, and then he can foretell, that there shall never want true believers, though it is possible there might be none; that all Christians shall not err though they are all fallible and therefore may err.  
243. Reply. There is no special difficulty at present which is not common to all those, who hold the compatibilitie of the Divine Prescience and Grace with Free Will, as is manifest in the Apostles, who were in the judgement of all Christians as Infallible as we believe the Church to be, and therefore the Dr. must provide a solution for his own Argument, which will make him not to require one from us,  
244. However, to the end he may not think himself slighted, I say that the aforesaid words of our Saviour are both a Promise, and a Prophecy. They are a Promise, because they are a declaration of the efficacious assistance, which he will give to his Church towards its continuance to the end of the world; and they are a Prophecy, because they signify, that the Church shall and will make use of the assistance which he promised to give it. Now Christ cannot make this Promise good to his Church without making it Infallible, because it is impossible for the Church to e●…re so long as it is efficaciously assisted by him. Neither can we have any other Notion of the Infallibi●…tie of the Apostles, than an impossibility for them to err, because they were to be always efficaciously assisted by our Lord. This Promise which was made in time supposed his Eternal Decree to the same purpose, and seeing it is absolutely impossible for God to fail of any thing which he has decreed, it must needs be impossible for the Church to err in Faith, because the continuance of it in the right Faith was the thing which God decreed, and which he declared by this Promise. And from hence it is plain, that if the aforesaid words are considered as a Prophecy, they foretell the same Infallibility of the Church which was caused by them as they they were a Promise, because they foretell the efficaciousness of the assistance which was decreed to be given to it in all Ages for its preservation from any damnable error. They suppose the Decree of preserving the Church from avy damnable error, and therefore as the Infallibility of the Church is lawfully inferred from that Decree, so likewise is it inferred from these words as they are a Prophecy.  
245. You'll say, that the Faith of the Church is a voluntary Act, and therefore it is possible for the Church to fall from it notwithstanding this Promise, and Prophecy of our Saviour.  
246. I answer, that the Faith of the Apostles was a voluntary Act. But what then? Will the Dr. say, that it was possible for them to fall from the true Faith, notwithstanding that we suppose the Promises, and Prophecies of our Saviour to the contrary? This would be a very ready way to introduce infidelity into the world: for what should hinder a possibility of a reasonable doubt concerning the truth of Christianity, if it be owned for a certain Principle, that those by whom it was first preached might possibly be deceived in the truth of it, even supposing the Promise and Prophecy of our Saviour that they should not be deceived? We must say therefore, that although the Faith of the Church has no necessary Causes, yet when we suppose that the perpetual truth of it is foretold by our Saviour, it is necessary that it should be, as Christ has foreseen and foretold that it shall be; from whence we cannot infer, that the Church has no freedom of will, but only that it is necessary, that the free exercise of its Will in cooperating with the Divine Grace and assistance, should be performed in time in the same manner as it was foreseen from all Eternity. Which necessity signifies the necessity of certainty in the Divine Prescience, and not an ●…antecedent necessity of acting on the Church's part. So that supposing Christ foresees, and has decreed, that there never shall want true believers, it is impossible that there should be none; and supposing he foresees, and has decreed, that all Christians shall not err, it is impossible that all Christians can err. And if there shall be some Christians who cannot err, it follows, that there shall be some Christians who shall be Infallible. And if there shall be some Christians who shall be Infallible through the assistances which they shall receive from our Lord to preserve them from error, this Author can have no reason to quarrel with our Doctrine about the Infallibility of the Catholic Church, the true notion whereof is An impossibility of erring in matters of Faith by means of such assistances as our Lord has decreed his Church, and which he foresees, and has decreed that she will and shall make good use of.  
247. But do we say, that all those are Infallible, whom God foresees, and has decreed that they will and shall believe aright?  
248. I answer, that every individual Christian is Infallible, so long as he cooperates with that Grace which God has decreed him towards his believing aright, and by consequence that men cannot be Orthodox without being Infallible.  
249. You'll say, that if this be so, it follows that every individual Christian is as Infallible as the Apostles.  
250. I answer, that if the comparison fall upon the certainty of Faith, it is very true that every individual Christian is as Infallible in his Faith as the Apostles were; but if it fall upon the Proposal of Faith, and its Indefectibilitie, there is a great deal of difference between the Infallibility of the one and the other. For the Infallibility of the Apostles was derived to them from the H. Ghost who was the immediate Proposer of their Faith, and whose perpetual assistance was promised to them during life, not only for refreshing their memories as to those truths which they had heard of our Saviour in express terms, but also for enlightening their understandings, that they might not err about other Doctrines which they had not expressly received, when they were to be deduced from Principles that were of Faith. Whereas the Infallibility of individual Christians is only on supposition than they hear the Church, which derives its Infallibility in declaring matters of Faith immediately from the H. Ghost as the Apostles did, and has the like promises of his perpetual assistance as they had. Tradition is her Memory whereby she calls to mind what our Saviour said in the beginning, and General Councils are the School wherein our Lord teaches her all such truths as had never been expressly delivered to her before. We find no such Promise as this made to individual Christians, that they shall be Infallible in their judgements when a Doctrine is drawn from Principles of Faith, or that they shall not totally fall from the Faith, as many large Provinces have done: but the Apostles had such a Promise made them, and so has the Church too. The Authori●…ie of the Church is the necessary external Grace which God has decreed to individual Ch●…istians towards their believing aright; and therefore if they are Infallible only so long as they cooperate with those graces, they are Infallible only so long as they hear the Church. We may say in like manner, that every particular Convert of the Apostles was Infallible so long as they heard the Apostles, because this was a necessary Grace which was decreed them towards their believing aright.  
§. 56. Ib. This is all that Protestants can mean, when they say that the Catholic Church cannot err in Fundamentals, not that there is any Visible Society of Christians which is infallible in its Definitions of Fundamental Doctrines, but that the Catholic Church, or the whole number of Christians shall never err fundamentally, that is, that there shall be always some true and Orthodox believers in the Church.  
251. Reply. The Dr. is sensible of the inconvenience which accrues to his Caus by so ample an acknowledgement as the Church's being Infallible in Fundamental Doctrines, and therefore he thinks it expedient to dwindle it into this expression, that there shall be always some true and Orthodox believers in the Church. But this will not do his business. For seeing he cannot deny, but that Christ has promised his Apostles to be with them to the end of the world, I hope he will grant, that he will efficaciously assist their Successors in the discharge of their duties to the end of the world. And if he grant this, he must needs grant that the Church is to consist of a Governing and a Governed part. And if he grant this, he must needs grant that there will be always an Organised Church in the world, which signifies something more than that there shall be always some true and Orthodox Believers, who are concealed, as he says p. 57 and unknown to one another. And if he grant this, he must needs grant that this Indefectible Organised Church will be Visible, since the visibility of the Church (which consists in its Organization) is plainly taught in Scripture, by which, as I said lately we are to understand its perpetual visibility. And if he grant that this Visible Organised Church shall never err Fundamentally, he must needs grant that this will happen through the efficacy of the grace which God has decreed her to this purpose. And if he grant this, he must needs grant, that this Visible Organised Church shall be Infallible, because it is impossible for it to err in Faith, if God has decreed it an efficacious Grace to preserve it from error. So that his some true and Orthodox believers amount to an Infallible, Visible, Organised Church, which if he grant to be accompanied with Motives of credibility, it will look so extremely like the Catholic Church whereof S. Peter's Successor is the Visible Head, that we may safely conclude it will be the same.  
§. 57 Ib. 3. He undertakes to show the nullity of our Argument whereby we prove any Church (for example, the Reformed Church) to be a new upstart ●…hurch which after some time of concealment is said to reassume its visibility, and to appear openly in the world. And the reason hereof is, because during the degeneracy of that Church (the Roman) the Church might subsist in those private Christians, who preserved themselves 〈◊〉 a great measure from the Corruptions of that Church.  
252. Reply. We want here to know by what name these private Christians were called, where they lived, what Doctrines they held, whether they were concealed and unknown to one another; and if they were unknown to one another, how they came to be known to the Dr.? We must have a satisfactory answer given to these and a great many other Queries of this nature, before we can withdraw our charge of a new and upstart Church wherewith we brand Protestants. For a mere possibility of such private Christians (although it could be made out) is not sufficient to remove the Absurdity, which does not proceed because it is impossible there should be any such Christians, but because it is highly unreasonable to judge that there were any such. But enough has been said about the vi●…ibilitie of the Church to refute this threadbare pretence of Puritans without giving it a further consideration.  
§. 58. p. 59 There are Evidences enough that there never wanted some in all Ages, who have condemned their Innovations.  
253. Reply. If he can show that our Faith has been opposed in all Ages by such persons as were held for sound and Orthodox Christians by the Visible Church of their times, he will effectuaily prove it to have been cintrarie to the Fait 〈◊〉 of the Visible Church in all Ages, which he dares not say; but in case the opposition of those who have condemned our Faith has been censured by the Visible Church of their times (as it most certainly has been) it is an Argument, that we ought to esteem their opposition for an Innovation, and not such Doctrines as they rejected. I see not why Luther's Reformation should receive any advantage by his not being the first Heretic who has condemned some Doctrines of the Church of Rome, and yet that the Reformation of Socinus and other Heretics (whom this Author seems to condemn at present with the Catholic Church) should not receive the like benefit from the opposition which the Arians and other such like revolters made against the Divinity of the Son of God, and other unquestionable Articles of the Christian Faith. For it was no more lawful for those ancient Separatists who favoured Luther, to renounce the known Faith of the Church of their times than it was for Arius; and if Arius was wicked for so doing, so were those Separatists who favoured Luther. And what he says in behalf of the Protestant Reformation, that there were some private Christians who preserved themselves in a great measure from the corruptions of the Roman Church, and were the seeds of the Reformation, may as well he applied by the Socinians in behalf of their Reformation, who may likewise reply, in case we call them a new and upstart Church as we do Protestants, that there was no failure of the Church though it were obscured and concealed before the time of Socinus, and that we may as well say, that it is a new Sun that rises every morning, not that which sets at night, as make a new Church of old and Primitive Christianity (Arianisme etc.) the profession of which was never lost, although the Professors of it were not so visible. Similitudes may pass for good Arguments among those who are destitute of good reasons, but methinks he might have given us other similitudes, than such as make the Protestant Caus as odious as that of Arians and Socinians.  
254. Having thus taken a particular view of all the most remarkable passages in the Drs. Discourse which may give offence to Christian ears, I shall conclude my considerations thereon, by submitting them to the Censure of the same Catholic and Roman Church which I have defended, and of every Bishop and Pastor within its Communion, and in particular to the judgement of my more immediate Superiors with whose consent I have at last sent them abroad into the world.  
The End.   

I Must desire the Reader to correct the following Errata, which are the most considerable amongst those that have escaped the press.  
In the last page of the Index lin. 14. for §. 50. Read p. 54. in the same page for n. 145. r. n. 243 p. 11. l. 17. for tn. r. in. p. 18. l. 24. for his to own Faith himself r. his own Faith to himself p. 44. l. 19 for which. r. with. After p. 48. for p. 46. r. p, 49. p. 67 for n. 61. r. 68 p. 105. l. 12. for she. r. the. p. 106. l. 1. for it one r. makes it one. p. 139. l. 28. for: after itself set, and l. 29. after Ceremonies for, set: p. 143. l. 24. for discussi. r. discussion. p. 145. l. 14. for is a really. r. is really. p. 148. l. 27. for specially. r. specifically. p. 152. l. 17. for go-. r. gover-. p. 154. l. 21. for in. r. is. p. 158. l. 12. for on other. r no other. p. 164. l. 26. for Members his Mystical Body. r. Members of his Mystical Body. p. 169 l. 19 for particultr. r. particular p. 199. l. 25. for Priledge. r. Privilege. p. 219. l. 6. for derimen r. dirimens. After p. 219. for p. 202. r. p. 220. p. 236. l. 6. for what he belongs. r. what belongs. p. 240. l. 20. for and end. r. an end. p. 241 l. 23. for the govern. r. they govern. p. 272. l. 7. for inferences. r. inference. p. 311. l. 27. for implore H. Ghost. r. implore the H. Ghost. p. 353. l. 29. for there can be formal. r. there can be no formal. p. 354. l. 10. for by name. r. my name. p. 368. l. 21. for in. r. is. p. 371. l. 7. for it. r. if. p. 376. l. 6. blot out to their. p. 378. l. 9 for to their. r. to the.