justified all the Sects which have or shall separate from their Church Prefa p. 7. which N.O. speaks not of their justifying these Sects universally in whatever they hold or do or what being practised in the Church of England they take offence at but only of justifying the liberty they take in disceding in their Opinions as they see fit from the Doctrines and Principles of this Church so limited by N.O. both in the precedent and following words whilst these Late men also tell them that they may safely follow their own judgment at least as to all necessaries for their salvation wherein they cannot erre if using a sincere endeavour to understand the Holy Scripture which is in all such points clear In answer to this this Author from p. 180. c. to p. 186. undertakes to shew That there is a different case of the separation of Dissenters from the Church of England and of Her separation from the Church of Rome shewing several Reasons or Motives of the Church of Englands departing from the Roman Church which the sects being of the same opinion in them have not of departing from her But this thing is willingly granted him before-hand that differences herein he may shew many that no way concern N. O's discourse who chargeth him and others only with this that from their teaching that none do owe a submission of judgment to that of their Ecclesiastical Superiors every one may rightly collect that he may follow his own Or that if You may depart from your Superiours Persons or Councils upon a just cause of which cause you say it is all reason that you not your Superiours judge then so may They from you upon any cause also they think just Or that if there be no decisive Judge for differences between you and your Superiours to whose sentence you can be obliged so neither is there for differences between them and you and that as you appeal from your Ecclesiastical Superiours to Evidence of Scripture so seeming to you in your cause so may they from you in their's For I suppose here the Dr will both acknowledge 1 Some Councils to be superiour to a National one and some Ecclesiastical Persons to a Primate And 2 that these Ecclesiastical Superiours fallible when proceeding against Evidence of Scriptures may be therein relinquished And This is the thing wherein N.O. affirms you to countenance and warrant the proceedings of all these Sects § 88 1. Frist then to shew these Differences he saith p. 181. Here lies a very considerable difference that we appeal and are ready to stand to the judgment of the Primitive Church for interpreting the letter of Scripture in any difference between us and the Church of Rome but those who separate from our Church will allow nothing to be lawful but what hath an express command in Scripture To which I say That this difference supposed or granted here of which see more in the Annotations ‖ On p. 181. notwithstanding he will be found still to justify the Sectarists in their departure from the present Church of England as she did the present Church that was before Luther which as the Dr maintains she might do upon a just cause that is appearing so to Her from the evidence of the Scripture so say the Sectarists they may and do from her upon a just cause but I need not say the same Cause And as he holdeth that this Church owed no submission of judgment to the definitions of that Church's former Councils being fallible so neither say the Sects do they to the National Synods of this But if the judgment of such matters be removed from these latter to the Primitive times to Antiquity This as taken ad libitum in a several latitude is a Precedent all Parties pretend to and is a Judge the sense of whose sentence all parties may cispute as they do that of Scripture without matters coming hereby to any strict Decision Neither will the Presbyterians I believe abandon this Hold to the Dr and his Irenicum perhaps will help them to maintain it And for some such reason it may be that he here in comparing the Church of England and the Sects declines the direct Antithesis of their deserting or renouncing contrary to Her Owning or adhering to these Primitive Times As the ingenuous Reader may observe § 89 2ly P. 182. He saith The Guides of our Church never challenged any infallibility to themselves which those of the Church of Rome do He should have said Which the Catholick Church in her lawful General Councils doth Now from this may well be gathered that the Dissenters from the Church of England depart in their judgment from a pretended not infallible but fallible Church And I ask What advantage hence for confuting what is said by N. O Doth not this fallibility of the Church of England in her Doctrines confessed secure any to depart from them and her as they shall think fit without being justly for this called to an account by her And are not all Sects hereby justified in following the perswasion of their own judgment against hers as she also following hers against her Superiours because fallible He saith also there That the Church of England declares in her Articles that all the proof of things to be believed is to be taken from Holy Scripture She may declare so yet the Sectarists not therefore admit that all that Holy Scriptures are alledged-for by the Church of England is to be believed since these differ in the sense of several places of Scripture from this Church and so as to these may depart from her Judgment § 90 3ly He saith P. 183. That the Church of Rome makes the belief of her doctrines necessary to salvation But nothing of this nature can be objected against the Church of England by dissenters that excludes none from a possibility of salvation meerly because not in her Communion To this I say as I did to the last The lesson cessary the Church of England makes the belief of her Doctrines the more liberty still the Sects will think they have of dissenting from them But changing here the Dr's Roman of which N. O. said nothing into the Catholick Church headed by her General Councils she freely tells those who dare depart from her that there is no Salvation to those out of her Communion and that their Conscience mis-perswaded doth oblige indeed but not therefore excuse them And this causeth those who are careful of their salvation and believe her in this to secure themselves in her Communion § 91 4ly P. 184. He saith The Guides of the Roman Church pretend to an immediate authority of obliging the consciences of men i. e as I understand him affirm that their Subjects are obliged in conscience to yield an assent and submission of judgment to their definitions and decrees which is true changing Roman into Catholick But saith he ours challenge no more than Teaching men to do what Christ
That for the universality of Time it must be centiously understood not so as to signify it a prejudice to any doctrine if in some one or more ages it had not been universally received for then there could be no heretick as any time in the would So must it be observed also for Universality of Place and of Consenters in that these also must be cautiously understood not so as to signify it a prâ—judice to any doctrine if in some one or more places or by some persons or also Churches dissenting it hath not been universally received for else there could be so also no Hereticks at any time in the world This of the just qualifying of Vincentius his Rule N. 2 But here on the other side will our Author submit to that which is but reasonably proposed submit his judgment to the Doctrine and Practice of the truly Catholick Church in present being since that of former ages after the Apostles is no more infallible than the present or that of any one age than of another and since as to not failing in Necessaries the promises of our Lord are made to all Ages alike and General Councils in all ages have equal power one as another of making Definitions in matters of faith and inserting them also in the Creeds if they see fit And again in any differences that may be in this present Catholick Church will he allow a much major part hereof to give the law to and conclude the whole so as it did in the first four General Councils and as it is used in all Courts consisting of many and which thing unless allowed no Heresy or Schisme in the Catholick Church can be suppressed by Its Judgment because all Heresy or Schisme hath a party and the chief and most dangerous Hereticks have been Bishops Primates and also Patriarchs so that the Dr's plea cannot exempt the Church of England from this trial by his calling it a Patriarchal Church ‖ p. 179. Or since it also is controverted what hath been the Common Doctrine of former ages or of the Fathers will he for the decision of this submit to the judgment herein of the much major part of the present Church Catholick or of Christianity or of his Canonical Superiours i.e. submit to the most common reason of the Church that reades the Fathers Writings If he will do this as in all reason he should then as to many of these points in difference between Protestants and the Church of Rome and particularly in these the so much now decried Transubstantiation and the necessary consequent of it Adoration and those other points exclaimed against Veneration of Images and Relicks Invocation of Saints as also in this point what was the judgment of Antiquity in these whose doctrine this major part of the Church declares themselves in these things to follow I say in all these and many others He will be cast even by the confession of Protestants who also acknowledge their discession at the Reformation to have been made a toto mundo and as well from the Greek as Latin Church Or to be short will he submit to the judgment of a lawful General Council if it hath determined any of these differences or of what Councils do appear to have had the acceptation both of the East and West excepting Protestants But such Concessions often used by him in general signify nothing and his true Plea seems contrary to it viz. his 13th Principle which is Clearness of Scripture to all persons in all Necessaries which if granted what needs herein the guidance of and submission to the Clergy either of the past or present age Ib. l. 5 Let the things in dispute be proved c. And who to judge of this proof your selves Or Superiour Councils rather Ib. l. 2 But those who separate from the Church of England make c. This is nothing to that particular wherein N. O. said the Dr justified Sects mentioned before in Note on p. 180. l. 9. Pag. 181. l. 12. We defend the Government of the Church by Bishops to be the most ancient and Apostolical Government and that no persons can have sufficient reason to cast that off which hath been so universally received in all Ages since the Apostles times if there have been disputes among us about the nature of the differences between the two Orders and the necessity of it in order to the Being of a Church such there have been in the Church of Rome too Here if by defending the Government of the Church by Bishops to be the most Ancient and Apostolical Government he means exclusively to a Government in other places by a Presbytery without Bishops its being as ancient and Apostolical as it Whenas contrary to this in his Irenicum he saith ‖ par 2. c. 6. That in all probability the Apostles did not observe any one fixed course of settling Church-Government but settled it according to the several circumstances of time places and persons And p. 344. That the Apostles did not establish Episcopacy from any unalterable Law of Christ or from any such indispensable reasons as will equally hold in all times places and persons and there ‖ c. 2. p. 395. 396. quotes that incomparable man as he stiles him Mr Hales in his Tract of Schism saying That Bishops by Christs institution I add or Apostolical Constitution for this also would oblige have no Superiority over men further than of Reverence And making all difference between Church-officers to arise from consent of Parties and to the same purpose cites Arch-bishop Cranmer ‖ p. 391. where perhaps he might have done well to have followed the discretion of the former times in not thus publishing and exposing the nakednes of this Father of the English Reformation From all which it follows that the Government by Bishops as understood contradistinct to not the same with that of Presbyters is no Constitution Apostolical and that if it arise only from consent of Parties by consent of Parties also it may be removed Again in what he saith next That no persons can have sufficient reason to cast that off which hath been so universally received in all Ages since the Apostles times if he means No Magistrate Ecclesiastical or Civil hath any lawful power to cast off or change the Church-Government by Bishops whereas he saith the contrary to this in his Irenicum and from Bishop Downham Mason and some others their allowing a Presbyterial Government only in case of necessity viz. where Bishops cannot be had argues thus ‖ part 2. c. 8. Conclusion It remains saith he that the determining of the form of Gorernment is a matter of liberty in the Church and what is so may be determined i.e. either way by lawful authority and what is so determined by that anthority doth bind men to obedience Thus he A matter of liberty in the Church What where Bishops may be had where is no case of necessity This follows
not and so the Design of his Irenicum is evacuated Again in the next words Which hath been so universally received in all ages since the Apostles times if he means universally so received for places as well as times contrary to what he saith in his Irenicum p. 322. That it is probable that the Apostles did settle the Government in the Church in a Colledge of Presbyters and in a Bishop and Deacons too according to the diversity of places and variety of circumstances And Ibid. That the Succession of Rome i.e. by Bishops is as muddy as Tiber it self And That the line of Succession fails us here where we most need it Again If in his words following concerning the disputes there have been of the necessity of Episcopacy in order to the being of a Church he holds Episcopacy so necessary to the Church's being as that none have any power in any age or time to alter it and so if he will join in this matter with the belief of Catholicks in the Council of Trent ‖ Sess 23. c. 4. Sacrosancta Synodus declarat praeter caeteros Ecclesiasticos gradus Episcopos qui in Apostolorum locum successerunt ad hunc Hierarchicum Ordinem praecipuè pertinere positos sicut idem Apostolus ait a Spiritu Sancto regere Ecclesiam Dei eosque Presbyteris superiores esse things not controverted in the Roman Church And Ib. Can. 6. Siquis dixerit in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ non esse Hierarchiam Divinâ ordinationc institutam quae constat ex Episcopic Presbyteris Ministris Anathema sit I say if such be his meaning here I have no more to do but congratulate with him the correction of his former errour But in these expressions he may mean only what well consists with his Irenicum that as the Government by Bishops is most Ancient and Apostolical in some places so the Presbyterial was in some others And That no persons can have sufficient reason to cast off this Episcopal Government in such places where it hath been settled unless the Supreme Majestrate from some necessary circumstances think fit to alter it as the Apostles he saith in some places settled a Presbytery in stead of it I say he may have such a meaning And if his former opinion be changed herein perhaps he might have done well to have published his present contrary judgment more fully and clearly to make an amends for his formerly published mistakes Which else when a future opportunity may serve and power assist the inclinations of contrary Sects may minister arguments afresh for the Lawfulness of their Abrogating the Episoopal Government and introducing their own And he may see what use the Replyer to Durel ‖ Patronus bona fidei hath made of them already in Defence of Presbyterianism against Episcopacy Ib. l. 8 We appeal and are ready to stand to the judgment of the Primitive Church for interpreting the letter of Scripture in any difference between us and the Church of Rome See before Note on p. 180. l. 12. Ib. l. 4 But those who separate from our Church will allow nâ—thing to be lawful in the worship of God but what hath an express command in Scripture See the former Disc § 88. These Separatists ground this their tenent upon Scriptures as they think clear some of whom at least are supposed to have used their best endeavour rightly to understand them the sense also they take these Scriptures in being very contrary to their interest and having brought great sufferings upon them The point seems very necessary to be clear to them in Scriptures both for the right service of God and for the peace of the Church Must not therefore our Author here either relinguish his 13th Principle or say the Texts are indeed clear on the Separatists side or that none knows when he useth his best endeavours and so neither knows when he mistakes plain Scriptures As for the modern Sectarists their appealing to the Primitive Church in the differences between them and that of England as the Church of England he saith doth in her differences with Rome See Patronus bonae fidei in Causa Puritanorum in his Prodromus p. 88. 89. where also he cites as on his side contra Hierarchicos abeuntes a primaevâ praxis Dr Stillingfleet's Irenicum p. 66. 67. 68. See also in fidei Patrono p. 4. 5. Pag. 182. l. 2. Which infallibility those of the Church of Rome do challenge They plead only the Infallibility of the Church Catholick whose Subjects they are in her General Councils Neither is there one word in the Principles Considered concerning the Infallibility of the Church of Rome with which yet the Dr so often relieves himself Ib. l. 16. To talk of Accommodation is folly and to design it madness Viz. against the Determinations of a lawful General Council or also a Patriarchal by any Ecclesiastical Body inferiour and subordinate to it What terms of Composition can an Arian expect after the Council of Nice Ib. l. 7 But there is no such thing in the least pretended by our Church that declares in her Articles That General Councils may err and that all the proof of things to be believed is to be taken from Holy Scripture And not from Church or Councils declaring to us the sense of Scripture because they fallible herein then no proof in any matter of faith is admitted from Primitive times or consent of Fathers which He but now appealed to See Note on p. 180. l. 12 Pag. 183. l. 2. And none of them charge our Church with any errour in doctrine nor plead that as the reason of their separation What then means the Presbyterian Ministers complaint ‖ See Reasons shewing the necessity of Reformation of the Publick Doctrine c. 1660. p. 5 6. for the Church of Englands imposing upon them things in the Common Prayer Book and 39. Articles repugnant to Scripture and requiring their assent to them citing the 4.5 and 36. Canon of the Synod 1603. and 13. Eliz. 12. And do they not hold this an erroneous doctrine but now named by Him p. 181. That somthing may be lawful to be used in the worship of God besides what he hath expresly commanded And see the forecited Author in Bon. Fid. Part. p. 4. requiring of Durell Vt purgaret Hierarchicos a Crimine corruptae doctrinae Anglicanae commutatae in Arminianismum Papismum in multis Ibid. l. 6. The Church of Rome not only requires the belief of her errours which is plaine by the often objected Creed of Pius c. But makes the belief of them necessary to salvation If in the Profession required by Pius no distinction is made between the Definitions of former Councils and other common Articles of the Creed so neither is there in the Athanasian Creed between the said Definitions and former Articles of the Apostle's Creed As for making the belief of them necessary to salvation N. O. hath already answered Consid p.