Roman-Catholick doctrines no novelties, or, An answer to Dr. Pierce's court-sermon, miscall'd The primitive rule of Reformation by S.C. a Roman-Catholick.

CHAP. XXI. (Book 21)

The Fundamental RULE of Church-Government. Limi∣tations of the Authority of Gen Councils. Their Grounds made by Arch Bishop Lawd, Dr. Feild, &c. Of Points Fundamental, and Non-fun∣damental. Protestants allow not so much Authority to Gen. Councils, as God commanded to be given the Iewish Sane∣drim. Of the pretended In∣dependence of the English Church, from the Example of Cyprus.

The foresaid fundamental Rule of all Go∣vernment, That no Laws can validly be repealed by an Authority Inferior to that, by

which they were Enacted, is a Rule not now invented to serve our present purpose, but written in the hearts of all mankind, that consider what Government is; and it is, as to Church-matters, particularly taken notice of by St. Augustine, when he de∣clares the Order that is in the Church, and which alone can keep it in unity; Particular Writings of Bishops,* 1.1 saies he, if any Error be in them, may be corrected by o∣thers more learned, or by Synods; and Synods themselves assembled either in Provinces, or Regions ought without any tergiversation to yield and submit to the Authority of Plenary Councils; and oftimes former Plenary Coun∣cils, may be corrected by other following Ple∣nary Councils.

2. This most Irrefragable Rule, is that by which Schism may most certainly, and undeniably be discovered. And therefore though in gross it be admitted by Prote∣stants, (I mean the wisest and most learn∣ed among them) yet out of a necessity of maintaining the grounds of the English Re∣formation, they put such restrictions & ex∣ceptions to it, as utterly take away all use of it. For whereas S. Augustine makes the Su∣pream Authority of the Church, to reside in plenary or general Councils, because he with∣al implies, that such Councils may be correct∣ed, they therefore take the liberty to reject them, at least in decisions in their esteem of

less importance, and by that means altoge∣ther inervate their Authority: Not consi∣dering that in case the Decisions, which he saies, may be mended, should regard mat∣ters of belief, which perhaps, upon bet∣ter consideration, may be expressed more commodiously, and so, as that they may be less liable to misconstruction; yet it be∣longs not to any particular men or Churches to correct them, but onely to succeeding Councils of equal Authority. To demonstrate this, I will here set down what Authority learned Protestants, such as Doctor Field, the late Arch-Bishop Lawd, &c. acknowledg in general Councils, and withal, how they circumscribe the same Authority.

3. These agree, that the Universal Church is infallible in fundamentals: Hence says the Archbishop,* 1.2 The visible Church hath in all ages taught that unchan∣ged faith of Christ in all Points fundamen∣tal: Doctor White had reason to say this, &c.* 1.3 Again, The whole Church cannot uni∣versally erre in absolutely fundamental Do∣ctrines, therefore it is true also that there can be no just cause of making a Schism from the whole Church.* 1.4 Again, quoting Kickerman, he saith, That she cannot erre, neither in the Faith, nor in any weighty point of Faith. And from Doctor Field he asserts,* 1.5 That she cannot fall into Heresie, &c. That she may

erre indeed in superstructions and deductions, and other unnecessary Truths, from her cu∣riosity or other weakness. But if she can erre either by falling away from the Foundation totally, or by heretical error in it, she can no longer be holy: (for no Assemblies of Hereticks can be holy:) And so that Arti∣cle of the Creed, [I believe the holy Ca∣tholick Church] is gone. Now this holiness, saith he, Errors of a meaner allay take not a∣way from the Church.* 1.6 The same Archbi∣shop likewise acknowledges, that a General Council de post facto is unerrable: that is, when the Decisions of it are received and admitted generally by Catholicks.

4. Thus far goes the Arch-Bishop, atten∣ded by Doctor Field, Doctor White, &c. But being necessarily obliged to maintain the separation of his own Church from the Roman, &c. he (treating of that point) ex∣tends most enormously the Errors of the Church in non-Fundamentals; for then, forgeting his former phrases of unprofit∣able curiosities, unnecessary subtilties, unne∣cessary Doctrines,* 1.7 to which her curiosity or weakness, may carry her beyond her Rule, he saith,* 1.8 The Roman Church held the Funda∣mentals literally, yet she erred grosly; dang∣erously, nay damnably in the exposition of some of them: That she had Errors, though not Fundamental, yet grating upon the Founda∣tion, &c. Now what he speaks of the Ro∣man,

is manifest, must as well be applied to the Eastern Church too; and so to the whole Church Catholick at Luthers discession, for most of the Doctrines found fault with by Protestants in the Roman Church, them∣selves see to have been, and still to be taught by the Eastern, &c. with an accessi∣on on of other Errors, from which the Roman is free.

5. Hitherto these Writers speak of the Authority of the Church onely in gene∣rals: The Church, say they, cannot Erre in Fundamentals; She may Erre in non-Fun∣damentals: But who is to discern between Fundamentals and non-Fundamentals? And who is to judg of the Churches Error in non-Fundamentals? Doctor Field will tell us to this purpose,* 1.9 That no particular man or Church, may so much as profess pub∣lickly, that they think otherwise then has been determined in a general Council, except with these three limitations. 1. Vnless he know most certainly the contrary to what the Church has determined. 2. If there be no gainsaying of men of worth, place and esteem? 3. If there appear nothing that may argue an unlawful proceeding. And the Arch-Bishop briefly to this effect,* 1.10 states the Point: That General Councils, lawfully called and ordered, and lawfully proceeding, are a great and awful representation, and cannot erre in matters of Faith, upon condition. 1. That

they keep themselves to God's Rule, and not attempt to make a new one of their own. 2. And they are with all submission to be ob∣served by every Christian, where Scripture, or evident demonstration come not against them.

6. These are their limitations, and sure it was a very great necessity, that forced such wise and learned men, to grant so licentious a liberty, for annulling what ever hath been, or shall be determined by the Supream Tribunal in Gods Church. A liberty never heard, or thought of from Doctor Pierces beginning, I am certain. A liberty manifestly destructive to all their own Articles, Canons, and Acts of Parlia∣ment: For sure they will not say, that these are of more sacred and inviolable Autho∣rity, then those of the whole Church: Do none pretend to know most certainly the contrary to those determinations? or do none of worth, place, and esteem, gainsay them, when all the Christian world Refor∣m'd, and non-Reform'd, except a little portion of England, absolutely reject them? Lastly, does nothing appear, that may argue an unlawful proceeding in Hen. the Eighths first Reformation, or K. Edwards, or Q. Eli∣zabeths? But there was no possible avoiding the concession of this liberty, apparently ruinous to themselves; because they have usurped it against the whole Church, could not refuse it to any that would make use of it to destroy their own.

7. Let us here briefly examine these Grounds, laid by the Arch-Bishop, &c. viz. 1. The Church is unerrable in Fundamen∣tals, but subject to error in non-Fundamen∣tals. 2. The Decisions of General Councils, are to be observed, where Scripture, or evi∣dent Demonstration come not against them.

8. In these Assertions is included a Sup∣position not denied by Catholicks, That even among Doctrines determin'd by the Church, there are some which are in themselves fundamental, others not so: but yet withal those Doctrines which in themselves are not fundamental, being once determin'd by the Church, are ne∣cessary to be assented to by all Catholicks, to whom they are so represented, for in those circumstances, Obedience is a fun∣demental duty. But though Catholicks allow this distinction in general, they withal profess, it is impossible for any particular persons of themselves to de∣termin among all the Churches Decisions, and say, this or this Point is necessary and fundamental, the others not. And the reason is, because the terms Necessary, Fundamental, &c. are relative terms when applied: for that is necessary to be be∣lieved and known by one, which is not so by another: Many Doctrines are necessary to Churches for their well ordering, which are not so to any single persons, Parishes, &c.

&c. For this reason all Decisions of the Church are sacred to them; no permissi∣on to question any of them is allow'd: and by this means the Church is continu∣ed in unity, and by assenting to all De∣cisions, they are sure never to dissent from those that are necessary. Whereas Prote∣stants taking a liberty of discerning be∣tween fundamentals and non-fundamentals, and of dissenting in non-fundamentals at least, wherein they think the Church Ca∣tholick may be fallible (though they have no Rule by which to judg so) are, be∣sides a certainty of dis-union, exposed to errours even in fundamentals.

9. The ground upon which those learn∣ed Protestants conclude a fallibility even in the universal Church as to Doctrines not fundamental [besides the manifest in∣terest of their own Church] is because the end why Christ made such promises of leading his Church into all Truth, was, lest the Gates of Hell should prevail against her, which can be done only by Heresies against fundamental Doctrines: and therefore God's assistance for other Points not fundamental, is not to be pre∣sumed on.

10. But, though this Position in general were allow'd them, That the Church is fallible in unnecessaries, this will not ex∣cuse them for dissenting from the Church

in any particular Doctrines actually de∣cided by a General Council. Themselves acknowledge that all dissenting even in∣ternal is unlawful without a certain de∣monstration, that the Church hath actu∣ally erred in such and such Doctrines. But which way possibly can any particular, person, or Church, arrive to such a de∣monstration? It must be by producing express Scripture, or universal Tradition, formally opposite and contradictory to what the universal Church hath declared. Who can think, who dares believe, that those supreme Guides of all Christians, who were by our Lord placed in the Church, and graced with such promises, who are the only Guardians of the Scrip∣ture it self, and only unappealable Iudges of the sense of it, should conspire to propose Doctrines formally and mani∣festly contrary to express Scripture or e∣vident demonstration? And as for uni∣versal Tradition, there can be no Iudge of it, but the whole Church: particular persons, or Churches, are utterly un∣capable of making such a judgment, e∣specially in opposition to the whole Church.

11. It were happie therefore, if Prote∣stants, considering the Promises of Christ, and the necessity of unity in the Church, would allow but as much submission to

the Supreme Tribunal of his Church, as God obliged the Iews to perform to their Sanedrim, to which no such Promises were made. For then, though in Thesi they did affirm the Church to be fallible, yet they would acknowledge, that not only all declaration of non-assenting is forbid∣den, but an internal assent is of necessary obligation to every one of her Decisi∣ons.

12. Let them seriously consider the passage of Deuteronomy heretofore pro∣duced,* 1.11 in which God commands the Jews under the penalty of death, to obey whatsoever sentence should be pronounced by the present Iudges of those dayes in any Controversies touching the Law. This Precept argues that the Supreme Council of the Iews was infallible in Fundamentals. And in∣deed God had promised that the Scepter should not depart from Judah,* 1.12 nor a Law-giver from between his knees till Shiloh (that is the Messias) came. By vertue of which Promise the Iewish Religion could not fail in Fundamentals: and the effect of this Promise was manifestly performed: For as to the outward pro••ession and pra∣ctises of the Mosaical Law, it was alwayes continued, in so much as our Saviour himself enjoyned Obedience to all the Commands of those who sate in Moses his Chair.* 1.13 I say as to the outward practises

of it: For in the Spiritual sense of it, the Iewish Ecclesiastical Magistrates were horribly perverted, so far as to oppose and Murder the Messiah himself, typified therein; But now Shiloh was already come, and God's promise of Indefectibi∣lity rested in this New High Priest, and his Successors.

13. Notwithstanding all this, yet Er∣rors might creep in about non-fundamen∣tals, as the Rabbins confess, when they suppose a future Sanedrim might annul the Decisions of a former Council; in which case the Ordinances of the later must take place, and without all tergiver∣sation be obeyed. So as though they, being indeed in such things fallible, should com∣mand any thing contrary to the true sense of the Law, the Iews were under the ut∣most penalty obliged to obey them, which obedience required a submission of Judg∣ment and internal assent to such Com∣mands, that they were agreeable to God's Law, because it would be utterly unlaw∣ful to obey any commands of men, which the Subject believed to be contrary to God's Law. Now the reasonableness of this Command of God appears in this, That it was a less evil and inconvenience that some Legal Precepts of no great im∣portance should be transgressed, than that Contentions and Disputes should be end∣less

14. From this pattern Protestants may be instructed, that though they should allow a General Council no more obliging Authority, than the Iews did to their Sanedrim, which was infallible in funda∣mentals, but subject to Error in non-funda∣mentals, they can never have a warrant to Dissent from any Decisions of such a Council, but ought to submit their inter∣nal Judgment to them. For, since it is impossible they should have any demon∣strative proofs that such Councils have de facto erred, I mean in matter of Do∣ctrine; all other inferiour Judgments, all only probable Arguments against them, ought to cease; the Judgment of the whole Church rendring all contrary opi∣nions altogether improbable. So that though (upon their Supposition that the Church in non-fundamentals is fallible) she should have erred in such not-much-concerning Decisions, and by consequence their assent would be erroneous, yet that small incommodity would be abundantly recompenc'd with the most acceptable vertue of Obedience, humble submission of Judgment, love of Peace and Unity which accompanies it. Besides, that both Truth and Errour in such things lyes only on the Churches, and not at all on their ac∣count.

15. But since Protestants find an extra∣ordinary difficulty more than Catholicks, to submit their Judgments to Authority, and are apt to think all their opinions and perswasions to be certain knowledges; Let it be supposed that their first Reform∣ers not being able to perswade themselves to renounce their Opinions, should there∣upon have been excommunicated by the Church: In this case they ought to have suffered such Censures with patience, and not voluntarily forsake her Communion; and much less ought they to have set up, or repair to an Anti-communion: For that was in the highest degree a Formal Schism.

16. In all this discourse touching the Infallibility of the Church, and the un∣lawfulness of separation from it; I do not mean a Church of one denomination, no, not the Roman, as such, for so we ascribe not Infallibility to her: But I intend the Vniversal Church, which we call Ro∣man Catholick, because all true Orthodox Churches (an union of which, constitutes the Universal Church, acknowledge the Roman Church, to be the Root of their Unity. Therefore Protestants, in vain, seek to excuse their separation, upon pretence it was onely from the Roman, not from the Vniversal Church: because, 1. A sepa∣ration from the external Communion of

any one true Member of the Catholick Church, for Doctrines which are common∣ly held by other Churches in communion with that Member, is indeed a separation from all Churches; which is manifestly the case of the English separation. 2. Be∣cause it is evident, that the pretended Re∣formed Churches, really separated them∣selves a toto mundo. A thing which Calvin confesseth in an Epistle of his to Melan∣cthon, in these words, Nec non parvi re∣fert, &c. For it doth not a little concern us, that not the least suspition of any discord risen among us, descend to posterity: For it were a thing more then absurd, after we have been constrained to make a discession from the whole world, if we, in our very beginnings, should also divide from one another. And which Chil∣lingworth also confesseth in several places, cap. 5. sect. 55. As for the external Communion of the visible Church, (saith he) we have, without scruple formerly granted, that Prote∣stants did forsake it: that is, renounce the practise of same observances, in which, the whole visible Church before them, did com∣municate. And sect. 56. What do you con∣clude (saith he) from ••ence, but that see∣ing there was no visible Church, but corrup∣ted, [where note, that he must affirm not only corruptions in manners, but also in Doctrines and Lawes, for from several of these, he will not deny Luther to have

made a discession] Luther forsaking the ex∣ternal Communion of the corrupted Church, could not but forsake the external communion of the Catholick Church. Well, let this be granted; what will come of it? That Luther must be a Scismatick? By no means. I say, it is evident (as these confess) that the pretended Reformed Churches really sepa∣rated themselves from the whole world, that is, from that holy Catholick Church which we believe is to continue so in every Age: Since not one Church upon earth antece∣dent to their separation, can be found out with which they are joyned in external Communion, not one which has Laws, or Governors in common with them, not one that will joyn with them, or with which they will joyn in publick Offices, Lyturgies, Sacrifices and Synods. The En∣glish Church doth not pretend a Com∣munion with Churches manifestly Here∣tical, as the Armenian, Coptite, Abissine, Nestorian, Iacobite, Georgian Churches, &c. And for the Grecian, the Reformers, at their first separation, were actually divided from her; and sure they will not say, that by separation from the Roman, they be∣came ipso facto in communion with the Grecian; or if they would say so, the Gre∣cian would protest against them, as we see their Patriark Hieremias did, &c.

17. And that is but a very ineffectual Salve,* 1.14 which a late learned Protestant Wri∣ter in his discourse of Schism, insists upon, when, seeing clearly the English Church could not pretend a Communion with any other Ancient Churches in the world, he therefore claims priviledges of the English Church, equal to those ancient ones of Cyprus; which was a Church independent of all other, and exempted from the Ju∣risdiction of the Eastern Patriark of Antioch: For though this pretention could be made good, which is impossible, yet this would not serve their turn, considering the En∣glish Church, ever since her Conversion, acknowledged her self a Member of the Western Patriarchate: But though she had in∣deed such a priviledge, and never re∣nounced it, who will say the Cyprian Church, (because exempted from certain Acts of Patriarckical Iurisdiction, as Ordi∣nations, Visitations, &c.) could therefore independently of all the world, frame or change Articles of Faith, or be excused from subscribing to the Decisions of Coun∣cils, though onely Patriarckical?

Notes

• * 1.1

  Aug. de Bapt. cont. Donat. l. 2. c. 3.
• * 1.2

  Archb. Lawd, Conser. Sect. 37. Numb. 3.
• * 1.3

  Id. ib. sect. 21. n. 5.
• * 1.4

  Ibid.
• * 1.5

  Ibid.
• * 1.6

  Id. sect. 33. a. 14.
• * 1.7

  Id. Sect. 21. n. 5.
• * 1.8

  Id. Sect. 37. ••. 5. 6.
• * 1.9

  Dr. Field of the Church cap. 5. p. 666.
• * 1.10

  Lawd Sect. 33. con. 5. n. 1.
• * 1.11

  Deut. 17.
• * 1.12

  Gen. 49. 10.
• * 1.13

  Matth. 23.
• * 1.14

  Dr. Bramhall.