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. III. (Book 3)

• Bishop Jewel's Challenge imitated by Doctor Pierce.
• Primitive Reformers acknowledge An∣tiquity to stand for Catholics.
• The Doctor's notion of Beginning: He is obliged thereto by an Act of Parliament, 5 Eliz.
• Five Questions proposed touching that Notion.

1. VVHat ground or motive the Preacher had to renew the vain brag of Bishop Iewel, derided by his Adver∣saries, and condemned by his Brethren, it will be lesse difficult for us to imagin, than for him∣self sincerely to acknowledge. However, that, both that Bishop and He are singular in this matter of challenging the concurrence of Antiquity for themselves, and imputing Novelty to the Catholic Church, we have a cloud of Witnesses among the first Reformers, both in grosse and by retayl, through all the

particular Points by him mentioned.

2. In general let him consider what Me∣lancthon writes:* 1.1 Presently from the beginning of the Church, the antient Fathers obscured the doctrine concerning the justice of Faith, en∣creased Ceremonies and devised peculiar Wor∣ships.* 1.2 In like manner Peter Martyr affirms, That in the Church errours did beg in immedi∣ately after the Apostles times:* 1.3 And that pre∣sently after their Age men began to decline from the Word of God:* 1.4 And therefore so long as we insist upon Councils and Fathers, we shall al∣wayes be conversant in the same errours. In so much as Beza had the arrogance to write thus in an Epistle:* 1.5 I have said more than once, and I suppose not without reason that compa∣ring the antient times of the Church, even those immediately succeeding the Apostles with ours, they had better Consciences, but lesse Knowledge: On the contrary, We have more Knowledge, but lesse Conscience. This is my Iudgement, &c. These are esteem'd as learned Writers as the Reformation had; They spent their lives in reading and examining Antiquity, and were as willing to make it speak on their sides, as the Preacher was: But as ill Consciences as they had, they were convinced and forced pub∣lickly to confess that the Fathers were against them, and focus.

And in particular Opposition to his Claim of Antiquity, (like Bishop Iewels for the first six Centuries) Doctor Fulk is so far

from concurring with him or Bishop Iewel, that he is so choleric at the suspition of such a charge, that he addresses himself to his Adversary in this civil language;* 1.6 I An∣swer, saies he, if he charge me with confessing the continuing of the Church in incorruption for six hundred years next after Christ, he lyeth in his heart.

3. One passage there is of that famous Andreas Duditius, which truly I cannot read without extream compassion and astonish∣ment at the dreadful judgment of God, and it may do Doctor Pierce much good, if he sadly reflect on it. Many years he had lived in great esteem for learning and prudence, a Catholick Bishop of Petscben in Hungary, called Quinque Ecclesiae; present he was at the frame∣ing the Decrees of the Council of Trent: But at last falling in love with a Maid of honour in the Queen of Hungaries Court, to marry her, he quitted both his Bishoprick and Religion. This poor man in his declining Age could not ab∣stain from confessing in a Letter to Beza his unsatisfaction in his new Religion, vainly hoping some either Cordial or Opiate for his distressed Conscience, from one as deeply plunged, and by the very same motives enga∣ged in the same change. I pray observe his words:* 1.7 [Si veritas est, saies he, quam veteres Patres, &c.] If that be truth which the antient Fathers, by mutual consent have professed, it will entirely stand on the Papists side: For if heretofore

any Controversies out of a beat of Disputation aros•• between the learned among them, an end was pre∣sently imposed thereto by Decrees of Councils or e∣ven of the Pope alone. But what strange people have we among us? They are alwaies wandring, toss'd with every wind of Doctrine, and being hur∣ried into the main Deep, they are carried some∣times this way, sometimes another. If you would inform your self what their Iudgment to day is touching Religion, you may perhaps come to know it: But what it will be to morrow on the same Ar∣gument, neither themselves nor you can certainly affirm: Thus Duditius. And what Cordial against this scrupulous Melancholly does Beza his good friend afford him? Take it from himself:* 1.8 [Scio speciosum esse venerandae velustatis nomen, &c.] I know the name of ve∣nerable Antiquity is very specious: But whence shall we fetch the beginning of that Title, but from the Prophets and Apostles? For, as for Wri∣ters that come after them, if we will take their own advice, we will believe them on no other terms but as far as they shall evidently make good what they deliver, out of the Holy Scriptures: That is in effect, have but the Christian mode∣sty and humility to prefer your own sense of Scriptures before all the Fathers and Councils of Gods Church, and then nothing, they say, need to trouble you: Antiquity, venerable Antiquity will be on your side: You may con∣fidently say of all your Adversaries Doctrins, From the Beginning it was not so.

4. Many other Confessions of the like nature might be added: but for brevity-sake I will content my self with onely one more, and that is (as it seems to me) a secret acknow∣ledgement of the Church of England in her publick Liturgy, directly contrary to the Preachers pretension and applications of his Text, by which she, after a sort, imputes Novelty to her self, and confesses the Roman to be that Church which was from the begin∣ning. In the Order for Morning-prayer there are these Versicles and Responds.

V. O. Lord save the King.* 1.9

R. And mercifully hear us when we call up∣on thee.

V. Endue thy Ministers with righteousness.

R. And make thy chosen people joyfull.

V. O Lord save thy People.

R. And bless thine Inheritance.

Then follows a Versicle for Peace. Now these, as almost all the other Prayers, are ma∣festly translated out of the Roman Office. But that which ought to be observed, is, That in the Roman Office there is a Versicle and Re∣spond immediately following these, and going before the Versicle for Peace, which the Eng∣lish Church has studiously left out; and that is this,* 1.10

V. Be mindfull of thy Congregation (O Lord.)

R. Which thou didst possess from the begin∣ning.

Now the ground why this special Versicle or Prayer for the Church was left out, is not so mysterious, but it may be very probably guess'd at.

The first Reformers did not love to put God in mind of that Church which was from the beginning: Or rather they were desirous the People should forget the Church which was from the beginning: They had rather no Prayers at all should be made for the Church, than for one that was from the beginning, because apparently that could not be the Re∣formed Church of England, whose beginning themselves saw.

5. Notwithstanding such plain Confessi∣ons of these Pillars of Reformation, yet the Do∣ctor confidently stands (with a little con∣traction and abatement) to Bishop Iewel's Challenge: He indeed mentions 27. Points, of which 22. are about circumstantial matters touching the Eucharist, and two more of them [viz. 1. That Ignorance is the Mother and Cause of true Devotion and Obedi∣ence. 2. And that the Lay-people (if he speaks of them in general) are forbidden to read the Word of God in their own tongue,] are Calumnies. The other are three indeed of the Preacher's points, viz. 1. Supremacy of the Pope. 2. Worship of Images. 3. Com∣mon-prayers in a strange tongue, though the only fault he can find in this last, is, That the later Church hath adhered too close to An∣tiquity;

that the hath not varied in the lan∣guage of her Devotions from her Predeces∣sors; and, after A. D. 600. continued to say her Prayers in the same Language she did before. But then this Bishop, (as being somewhat better experienc'd in Antiquity than Doctor Pierce) had not the confidence in this his Catalogue to reckon as Novelties either the Infallability of the Church, Invo∣cation of Saints, Purgatory, or Prayer for the Dead, Celibacy of the Clergy, or Sacrifice of the Mass. So much more courage had the Preacher than even Bishop Iewel himself. Well, between both, all antiquity is for them, and nothing but novelty on our side. No doubt but his admiring and believing Hea∣rers assured themselves that some never-be∣fore-examined Witnesses, some hitherto un∣known or un-observed Records had been found out by their learned and confident Preacher, to justifie their deserted claim of Antiquity, I mean by way of aggression, and not simple defence. But when the Sermon is publish'd, nothing appears in the Text or Margins, but Assertions and Quotations an hundred times before produced, and as often silenced, ma∣ny of which too (as he explains them) have no regard to the publick received Doctrin of the Catholic Church, but particular Opinions of some Catholic Divines, as much disputed against by other Catholics as by Protestants.

6. However to qualifie a little the admira∣tion

that many Protestants have of their new Champion, or Hyperaspista, as he calls it, som∣thing must be said thi•• hundred and one time to old allegations and new mistakes. And first, whereas in all points now in debate be∣tween us, he so often repeats, From the Begin∣ning it was not so; He did very well to fix a no∣tion and conception of this word Beginning, or a distinct measure of time after which only whatever Doctrins are broached, ought in his opinion, to be esteemed Novelties; Novelties of so great importance, as to justifie a separa∣tion from the external communion of all Chur∣ches both Eastern and Western. And that is the time of the Apostles, and so downward, till the fourth General Council inclusively: This he has don not out of a voluntary liberality, but because an Act of Parliament obliges him, wherein it is said: That such persons, (Laicks or Ecclesiasticks) to whom Queen Elizabeth shall,* 1.11 by Letters patents under the great Seal of England, give authority to execute any Iuris∣diction spiritual, or to correct any Errors, Here∣sies, Schisms, &c, shall not in any wise have au∣thority to adjudge any matter or caus to be Here∣sy, but only such as heretofore have been determi∣ned to be Heresy by the authority of the Canonical Scriptures, or by the first four General Coun∣cils, or any of them, or by any other General Council, wherein the same was declared Heres•• by the express and plain words of the said Can••∣nical Scriptures, or such as hereafter shall be

judged to be Heresy by the High Court of Par∣liament with the assent of the Clergy in their Convocation.

7. By this Proviso it appears, that, though in words the Doctor is more liberal to us than the Presbyterians and other Sects, who will call all things Novelties, which they think are not in express Scripture, yet the Law would have allow'd him a greater extent, for the might have enlarg'd the time beyond the four first General Councils to any succeding Coun∣cil, that (in the Opinion of Commissioners) judged Heresy by express Scripture, or to fu∣ture Acts of Parliament, judging after the same manner: but we are content with, and thank him for his allowance.

8. Only he must give us leave to propound a few Questions upon this occasion;* 1.12 As first, Does he submit only to the four first General Councils, because they had an Authority in∣herent in them obliging him thereto? Or because he judged their Decisions conform∣able to God's express word? If the former, then he must inform us, why only four Coun∣cils have such authority, which it seems the Church lost as soon as the Fathers at Chalce∣don rose? If the later, then he deludes us, and with Presbyterians, Independents, Quakers, &c. makes Scripture alone in effect th Rule of Reformation, and Protestants only the In∣terpreters of that Rule: Because the Statute tyes no further to any General Council, than as

that Council is believ'd to proceed according to express Scripture: which, whether it does or no, who must be Judge, Doctor Pierce? To answer this Question well will be a great Ma∣ster-piece: I am sure his late immortal Arch∣bishop found it a Task too hard for himself, as shall be seen before we part: too hard I say to resolve so, that any rational man can be satis∣fied with.

9. A second Question is,* 1.13 Whether to judge of Heresy, that is to determin authoritatively what is Heresy, and what is conformable to Scripture, be not an Act of Iurisdiction parely Spiritual and Pastoral? (though it seems to reside notwithstanding sometimes in Lay-Commissioners, but ordinarily in the Parliament) And this not being possible to be denyed, then he must be further ask'd, since by one of the 39. Articles it is affirmed, That General Councils may and have err'd, whe∣ther the English judge of Heresy (be it the King, as in the days of Henry the 8th and Edw. the 6th. or the Parliament also, as in Queen Elizabeths) be infallible or no? If he acknowledge it infallible, he must resolve us, whether the Supreme Temporal Authority, with the assent of the Clergy be infalli••le only in England, or in other Countrys also as Hol∣land, Swedland? &c. If the former, he must shew what Promises our Lord has made to England alone. If the later, then it will fol∣low that that may, and certainly will be He∣resy

and contrary to Scripture in England, which England it self confesses is not Heresy beyond Sea. But if no such Authority be in∣deed infallible, then it will follow, that De∣cisions, made by it, do not oblige in Consci∣ence: and by consequence in his Opinion there is no Spiritual Authority on earth that does so, I mean oblige, not only to non-contradiction, but to internal assent. The conse∣quences of which Position he may imagin, and shal see anon.

10. A third Question is,* 1.14 Whether since Presbyterians and Independents, and all such Reformed Churches, following the Heresy of Aerius, do directly oppose the Order of Bishops and their Iurisdiction, (that is, the whole frame of God's Church) manifestly asserted in the four first General Councils, and as is here affirmed, of Divine Right by expresse Scripture; whether, I say, they be not, accor∣ding to this Rule formal Heretics, or however Schismatics; since to alter this Frame, they relinquish'd both this Church and ours? And especally for their denying the Supream Ec∣clesiastical, or Spiritual Authority, to be in Temporal Governors, which yet the Statute tells us, in effect, is the fundamental Corner-stone of the English Church? If all this do not render them Heretics, or at least in the high∣est degree Schismatics, what will become of this Act of Parliament, and his Primitive Rule of Reformation? If they be such, what will

become of the English Church, which gives to Heretics and Schismatics the right-hand of Fellowship, and acknowledges them holy∣Christian•• Reformed Congregations? And on the other side, since, notwithstanding the ex∣tremity of passion against Catholics, if was ne∣ver yet pronounced that Roman Catholics are Heretics, nor possibly could by their own Rule and measute; how comes it to passe that we alone are punish'd with death as Heretics, and this meerly for Religion since we both of∣ten have justified and still are ready to justifie our Principles of Fidelity and Peaceableness beyond all exception; which yet no other Diffenters from this Church, though real He∣retics and Schismatics, either have, or I fear will do?

10. A fourth Question shall be,* 1.15 how can the Preacher answer to God for abusing Scri∣pture, and mis-applying, through the whole Sermon, his Text, to the prejudice of his Church? He pretends that our Saviour's words are to be esteem'd the Pattern, or Primitive Rule of Reformation, and con∣sequently, as our Lord demonstrated Pha∣rasaical Divorces to be illegal, because Ab initio non fuit sic: So the D••ctor pre∣tends to prove the Justice and Legality of the English Reformation, because, by the like examinat••on, he finds that Roman Doctrins are 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 initio non fuit sic; Therefore they, as Jewish Divorces, are 〈◊〉〈◊〉

abolished, and that only to be confirmed, which God instituted from the Beginning. But he little considers that our Saviours say∣ing, It was not so, signifies, It was directly con∣tray to SO, as if he said, You allow Divorces, ob quamcunque causam, in manifest opposition to God's Ordinance from the Beginning, who said, Whomsoever God hath joyn'd, let no man put asunder: This is therefore a Novelty necessary to be reform'd. Now, if the Preacher would have made use of this, indeed, perfect Primive Rule of Refermation, he by his Text was obliged to have produced from the Be∣ginning, that is either in Scriptures, or in the Fathers within the four first General Councils, some expresse Authorities and Decisions di∣rectly contrary to Roman Doctrines, which he calls Novelties: He ought to have quoted out of Holy Scriptures, or some Councils or consent of Fathers, such sayings as these: 1. St. Peter and his Successors never bad nor ought to have any Supremacy of Iurisdiction. 2. The whole Church is a fallible Guide, not to be relyed upon against our private sence of God's Word. 3. There is no state after death in which Souls may find refreshment by the prayers of the living. 4. The body of Christ is not substanti∣ally present on the Altar. 5. There is no true Christian Sacrifice 6. Both Elements are es∣sential to the Sacrament. 7. All respect to Ima∣ges is forbidden. 8. Invocation of Sains is un∣lawful. 9. The Scriptures must be given into all

mens hands, without any certain guide to interpret them. 10. Prayers not in a vulgar tongue, though interpreted, are abominable. 11. To forbid the use of Mariage to Priests is a Doctrine of Devils. 12. To separate Bed and Board among maried per∣sons, though when, without danger of their lives, they cannot live together, is a practice condemn'd by our Lord. And after all, 13. To break the visible unity of God's Church, for Doctrines and Practises not in themselves causing Damnation, but onely said to be false, is the Duty of every good Christian. Such sayings as these had been to some purpose, they would have been perti∣nent to his Text; But no such appear. On the contrary, it serves his turn to say again and again, From the Beginning it was not so: This is the burthen of his Song: If he can shew that, because this is the first time, we hear or read such a Doctrine (mentioned in any Ec∣clesiastical writer) as Origen, Tertullian, &c. therefore it is a Novelty, it was never in the Church before, the saies somthing to the pur∣pose.

But, let me ask him, was there no Do∣ctrine at all in the Church before it was writ∣ten? Or was there no Doctrine in the Church but what was written? And again, is all that's written in any Age still Extant, and come to our hands? Or do those Fa∣thers, who first writ it, say, That they, or their times first introduc'd it? No: On the contrary, they expressly declaim against Inno∣vations,

Noveltie is their Prescription against all Heresies; So that for them to bring into the Church any Doctrines not heard of, or not received before, had been to profess them∣selves Hereticks, and there would not have wanted other Fathers that would have con∣demned such Innovations: Which yet was never done to Origen or Tertullian, &c, for a∣ny Doctrines mentioned by the Preacher: Whereas for other Errors they were suffici∣ently proscribed. From whence 'tis evident, that, through the whole Sermon there is a palpable misapplication of the Text, and that the Preacher has been injurious to our Savi∣our, in making his just condemnation of the Pharisees, a warrant for him unjustly to con∣demn his Church. Indeed, in all matters left indifferent, and no way commanded from the beginning, nor contrary to any Divine Revelation, the Church of later times may vary, as she thinks sit, either from the practice, or injunctions of the former: For example, supposing Celibacy of the Clergy, (the 7th, Point the Doctor instances in) had not been practised or mentioned from the beginning; yet, if God had not commanded the contrary, and the thing in it self be feasible (of which more anon) the Church of a later Age may lawfully enjoyn it: The Rule therefore holds only for mat∣ters of Faith and Divine Revelation. In which 'tis true, That the Later times may

not vary from the former; But yet, neither doth the Rule hold in these, as to the express terms of every Proposition that is matter of Faith, but only as to the sense and substance. It is not necessary that ab initio, God the Son should be declared in expresse terms Consub∣stantial with the Father, which was first put into the Christians ••reed by the Council of Nice: But only that that Doctrine can be shewed ab initio, which is identified in sense with this: Nor can I think the Doctor, upon second considerations, will offer to gainsay so plain a truth.

But it is now time to Examin the parti∣cular P••ints which he charges on the Church as Novelties, and of each of which be saies as unwarrantably, as our Lord, against the Iewish Innovations said justly, From the be∣ginning it was not so.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Melanct. in 1 Cor. 3.
• * 1.2

  Pet. Mart. 1. devotis. p. 477.
• * 1.3

  Id. ib. p. 490.
• * 1.4

  Id. ib. p. 476.
• * 1.5

  Beza Epist. T••eol. 1.
• * 1.6

  Fulk in Rejoynd. to Bristow. page. 4.
• * 1.7

  Andre, Duditius in Epist. Theol. Beza. 1.
• * 1.8

  Ibid.
• * 1.9

  Common-Prayer-book.
• * 1.10

  Memento congregationis tuae Domi••e quam p••ssedis••i AB INITIO.
• * 1.11

  Stat 1 Eliz.
• * 1.12

  Quest. 1.
• * 1.13

  Quest. 2.
• * 1.14

  Quest. 3.
• * 1.15

  Quest. 4.