Church of Rome does not pretend her self to be fundamentally Catholick in this sense that she was the first Church but that by virtue of Saint Peter's Chair the Soveraign Authority of the Church is seated in her and none can belong to the Catholick Church but those who embrace her Communion and submit to her authority Which shows how well our Answerer understood this Controversie when he says Pag. 40. Time was when the Church of Ierusalem was so that is the Catholick Church as it was the first and only Church and the Matrix of all other Churches or the Church of Antioch which never was so then why not the Church of Rome What think you in the sense given The Church of Rome does not challenge to be the Catholick Church in the sense now given i. e. as the first and original Church and if she did all the World knows she was not and the sense now given will not prove the Church of Rome to be the Catholick Church in the sense in which she claims it But this is intolerable to dispute with men who do not understand what they dispute about To hasten then to a conclusion for if my Reader as I suspect is by this time sick of Reading he may easily guess how sick I am of Writing The last thing I objected against Bellarmin's Notes was That they pretend to find out an infallible Church by Notes on whose authority we must relie for the whole Christian Faith even for the Holy Scriptures themselves For suppose he had given us the Notes of a true Church before we can hence conclude that this Church is the infallible Guide and uncontroulable Iudg of Controversies we must be satisfied that the Church is infallible This can never be proved but by Scripture for unless Christ have bestowed Infallibility on the Church I know not how we can prove she has it and whether Christ have done it or not can never be proved but by the Scriptures So that a man must read the Scriptures and use his own judgment to understand them before it can be proved to him that there is an Infallible Church and therefore those who resolve the belief of the Scripture into the Authority of the Church cannot without great impudence urge the Authority of the Scriptures to prove the Churches Infallibility and yet thus they all do nay prove their Notes of the Church from Scripture as the Cardinal does To which our Adversary answers Infallibility and Transubstantiation God forgive all the stirs that have been made upon their account Amen say I and so far we are agreed He makes some little offers at proving an Infallible Judg or at least a Judg which must have the final decision of Controversies whether Infallible or not this is not the present dispute but how we shall know whether the Church be Infallible or not If by the Scriptures how we shall know them without the Church To avoid a Circle here of proving the Church by the Scriptures and the Scriptures by the Church he says There are other convictions whereby the Word of God first pointed at by the Church makes out its Divine original But let him answer plainly Whether we can know the Scriptures to be the Word of God and understand the true sense of them without the Infallible authority of the Church If he will say we can we are agreed and then we will grant that we may find out the Church by the Scripture but then he must not require us afterwards to receive the Scripture and interpretation of it upon the authority of the Church And so farewell to Popery As for that advice I gave Protestants Where they dispute with Papists whatever they do at other times not to own the belief of the Scriptures till they had proved them in their way by the authority of the Church and then we should quickly see what blessed work they would make of it How they would prove their Churches Infallibility and what fine Notes we should have of a Church when we had rejected all their Scripture-proofs as we ought to do till they have first satisfied us that theirs is the only true Infallible Church upon whose authority we must believe the Scriptures and every thing else He says it is very freakish to say no worse Especially when I grant to my cost that we come to the knowledg of the Scripture by the uninterrupted tradition of credible witnesses though I will not say tradition of the Church But if he understand no difference between the authority of an Infallible Judg and of a Witness he is not fit to be disputed with As for what I said That I would gladly hear what Notes they would give a Pagan to find out the true Infallible Church by he honestly confesses There can be no place for such Notes when the authority of the Scripture is denied Which is a plain confession how vain these Notes are till then believe the Scriptures and when they believe the Scriptures they may find more essential Notes of a Church than these viz. that true Evangelical Faith and Worship which makes a Church but these Notes the Cardinal rejects because we cannot know the true Faith and the Scriptures without the Church and the Justifier of Bellarmin says that there can be no place for the Notes of the Church when the Authority of the Scripture is denied and therefore they must first agree this matter before I can say any thing more to them But yet he says If the Church should say to a Pagan We have some Books Sacred with us which we reckon are Oracles of God transmitted to us from generation to generation for almost seventeen hundred years which we and our forefathers have been versed in by daily Explications Homilies Sermons However you accord not with the Contents of the Book yet we justly take our selves to be the best Iudges and Expounders of those Oracles The Pagan would say the Church spoke reason Pag. 44. But nothing to the purpose For the question is What Notes of a Church you will give to a Pagan to convince him which is the true Church before he believes the Scripture and here you suppose a Pagan would grant that you were the best Interpreters of Books that you accounted Divine and had been versed in near seventeen hundred years But would this make a Pagan believe the Scripture Or take your words for such Notes of a Church as you pretended to produce out of Scripture especially if he knew that there were other Christians who pretended to the Scriptures and the interpretation of them as well as your selves and the only way you had to defend your selves against them was without the authority of Scripture to make your selves Judges both of the Scriptures and the Interpretation of them But he knows none that are so senseless to resolve all their Faith into the authority of the Church I perceive he does not know Cardinal Bellarmin whom he undertakes to
speaking nothing else But and if he does not understand English I cannot help that But CHRISTIAN PASTORS for a need will take in Presbyters who renounce Episcopacy nay Congregational who renounce Presbytery It takes in indeed all Christian Pastors be they what they will. Whether Presbyterian and Independent Ministers are Christian Pastors the Discourser was not concerned to determine for he did not undertake to tell in particular which are true Christian Churches but what is the general Notion of a Christian Church who are true Pastors but that the Union of Christians under true Christian Pastors makes a Church Tho the Pastores Ecclesiae in the ancient Language signified only Bishops who had the care of the Flock and the government of the inferiour Presbyters Thus the Worship of Christ he says may signify with Liturgy or without it with the Apostles Creed or without it c. And so it may if both with and without be the true Worship of Christ. What a long Definition must the Discourser have given of a Christian Church had he been directed by this Author and stated all the Controversies about Episcopacy and Presbytery and the several Kinds and Modes of Worship in his Definition which when he had done it had been nothing at all to his purpose The Discourser proceeds All such particular or National Churches all the World over make up the whole Christian Church or Universal Church of Christ. Yes says the Justifier pag. 6. and all such Churches of Christ if they could meet would be like the Men in the Market-place one crying out one thing and another another and no Authority could send them home peaceably to their Dwellings I confess I am of another Mind that could all the Churches in the World meet how much soever they differ at a distance they would agree better before they parted and this I think all those should believe who have any Reverence for General Councils which certainly such a Meeting as this would be in a proper sense Well! But there is Schism lies in the Word National Church How so good Sir as if Nations here were at their own disposal And pray why may not all the Churches in a Nation unite into one National Communion And how is this a Schism if they maintain Brotherly Communion with other Christian Churches Or as if Christ begged leave of the Potentates of the Earth to plant his Truth among them Why so Cannot there be a National Church without Christ's begging leave of Potentates to plant his Gospel among them Suppose there be Churches planted in a Nation without the leave of the Potentates may not all these Churches unite into a National Communion without the leave of Potentates too And is not such a National Union of Churches a National Church Suppose Princes voluntarily submit their Scepters to Christ and encourage and protect the Christian Churches in their Dominions and unite them all into one National Church is there any need of Christ's asking leave of such Potentates who willingly devote themselves to his Service But he says the greater Mistake is that these Churches all put together make up the Universal Church of Christ. But are not all the Churches the Universal Church What then is the Universal Church but All Yes he says Universal enough I confess but where is the Unity Why is it impossible that all Churches should be united in one Communion If it be then Unity is not necessary or the Universal Church does not include all Churches If it be not then all Churches may be the Universal the One Catholick Church of Christ. We says he look for Unity they shew us Multitude and Division Is Multitude and Division the same thing Or is Unity inconsistent with Multitude How then could the Churches of Ierusalem of Antioch of Corinth of Ephesus of Rome be one Church We desire Unity they shew us Universality As if there could not be Unity in Universality I wish this Author would first learn Grammar and Logick or which I fear is harder to teach him common sense before he pretends again to dispute in Divinity but now we have him we must make the best of him we can And here the Answerer spends several Pages in proving that the Church must be One which no body that I know of denies and which he may find truly stated in answer to Cardinal Bellarmine's seventh Note But what is this to the Discourser who was not concerned to state this Point He gives such a Definition of a Church as belongs to all true particular Churches as every Man ought to do who gives the Definition of a Church for a particular Church has the entire Nature and Essence of a Church and there can be no true Definition of a Church but what belongs to a particular Church He says indeed that the Universal Church consists of all true particular Churches and so most certainly it does No says the Answerer all particular Churches are not at Unity and therefore they cannot be the One Catholick or Universal Church But suppose this is there any other Notion of the Universal Church but that it is made up of all true particular Churches which is all that the Discourser asserted without considering how all particular Churches must be united to make the One Catholick Church which was nothing to his purpose In such a divided State of Christendom as this meer external Unity and Communion cannot be the Mark of a true Church because all Churches are divided from each other If we are not at Unity with the Church of Rome no more is the Church of Rome at Unity with us and if meer Unity be the Mark of the true Church neither part of the Division can pretend to it And therefore either some Churches may be true Churches which are not at Unity with all others or there is no true Church in the World. And therefore though Cardinal Bellarmine makes Unity the Mark of a true Church yet not the Unity of all Churches with each other for he knew there was no such thing in his Days in the World and I fear is not likely to be again in haste but the Unity of Churches to the Bishop of Rome who is the visible Head of the Church And thus the Catholick Church signifies all those Churches which are united to the Bishop of Rome as the Center of Unity But this is such an Unity as the Scripture says nothing of and which Protestants disown and which this Answerer has not said one word to prove for this is the Unity of Subjection not the Unity of Love and Charity which Christ and his Apostles so vehemently press us to Now if the Unity of the Catholick Church does not consist in Subjection to a visible Head and all other external Communion is broken and divided we must content our selves to know what it is that makes a particular National Church a true sound and pure Church for whatever Divisions there are in the World every true
Church is part of Christ's one Catholick Church And whatever Unity there be among other Churches if they be not true Churches they are no Parts of Christ's Catholick Church And this was all the Discourser intended or was obliged to in pursuit of his Design And thus I might pass over what he talks about Church-Unity but that he has some very peculiar Marks which are worth our notice He says pag. 7. Protestants salve the Unity of the Church mainly because Christendom is divided and separated from Heathenism which I wish heartily all Christendom perfectly were not considering so much the Unity with it self But pray who told him that Protestants do not place the Unity of the Church in Unity but in Separation All true Christian Churches are united in the most essential things They have one Hope one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and Father of all and this makes them one Body animated by the same Holy Spirit which dwells in the whole Christian Church Ephes. 4. 4 5 6. But still they are not one entire Communion but divide and separate from each other This we will grant is a very great Fault but yet if they communicate in such things as makes one Church whatever their other Divisions are they are one Church still their Quarrels and Divisions may hurt themselves but cannot destroy the Unity of the Church for the Church is one Body not meerly by the Unity and Agreement of Christians among themselves but by the Appointment and Institution of Christ who has made all those who profess the true Faith and are united in the same Sacraments to belong to the same Body to be his One Body And therefore Christians are never exhorted to be one Body for that they are if they be Christians as the Apostle expressly asserts that Christians are but one Body but they are exhorted to live in Unity and Concord because they are but one Body I therefore the Prisoner of the Lord beseech you that ye walk worthy of the Vocation wherewith you are called with all Lowliness and Meekness with Long-suffering forbearing one another in Love Endeavouring to keep the Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace There is One Body and one Spirit Because there is but one Body and one Spirit therefore they must endeavour to preserve the Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace Which supposes the Christian Church to be one Body by Institution though the external Peace of the Church be broken by Schisms and Factions because our Obligation to preserve the Peace of the Church and the Unity of Ecclesiastical Communion results from this Unity of Body which makes Schism a very great Evil and very destructive to Mens Souls as all other Vices are but the Church which has but one Hope one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and Father of all is but one Church still though Christians quarrel with each other Thus St. Paul asserts that as the Body is one and hath many Members and all the Members of that one Body being many are one Body so also is Christ. But how do all Christians come to be one Body in Christ That he answers for by one Spirit are we all baptized into one Body and have been made to drink into one Spirit And from hence he shews what Tenderness all Christians ought to express for each other as being Members of each other Pag. 25. That there should be no Schism in the Body but that the Members should have the same care one for another But suppose Christians have not this mutual care one of another do they cease to be Members of the same Body No such matter these Quarrels between the Members of the same Body are very unnatural but they are the same Body still Pag. 15 16. If the Foot shall say because I am not the Hand I am not of the Body is it therefore not of the Body And if the Ear shall say because I am not the Eye I am not of the Body is it therefore not of the Body That is though the Members of the same Body out of Discontent and Envy and Emulation should separate from each other and deny that they belong to the same Body yet they are of the Body still For we must consider that the Schisms in the Church of Corinth were occasioned by an Emulation of Spiritual Gifts and unless every one of them could be an Eye or an Hand that is have the most eminent Gifts they envied and divided from each other as if they did not belong to the same Body which the Apostle tells them was as absurd as if the Eye and the Hand and the Foot should deny their Relation to the same Natural Body because they differed in their Use and Honour however if such a thing were possible in the Natural Body they would all belong to the same Body still and so it is in the Christian Church Which shews that the whole Christian Church is the one Mystical Body of Christ united to him by Faith and Baptism notwithstanding all the Divisions of Christendom For let us consider what the Divisions of Christendom are and whether they be such as wholly destroy the Unity of the Body All the Churches in the World are divided from the Church of Rome by disowning the Authority of the Pope as the visible Head of the Catholick Church but this does not destroy the Unity of the Body because the Unity of the Body does not consist in the Union of all Churches to one visible Head but in their Union to Christ who is the one Lord of the Church Some Churches are divided in Faith not but that they agree in the necessary Article of the Christian Faith for to renounce any essential Article of the Christian Faith does so far unchurch but some Churches believe only what Christ and his Apostles taught others together with the true Faith of Christ teach Heretical Doctrines contrary to that form of sound Words once delivered to the Saints And though this must of necessity divide Communions for if any Church corrupt the Christian Faith with new and perverse Doctrines of her own other Orthodox Christians are not bound to believe as they do yet both of them are true Christian Churches still for the true Faith makes a true Church but only with this difference that those who profess the true Faith of Christ without any corrupt Mixtures are Sound and Orthodox Churches other Churches are more or less pure according to the various Corruptions of their Faith. And thus it is with respect to the Christian Sacraments and Christian Worship every Church which observes the Institutions of our Saviour and worships God the Father through our Lord Jesus Christ is a true Church but those Churches which corrupt this Worship though they are true are corrupt Churches as the Church of Rome does in the Worship of Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary and the Adoration of the Host and the Sacrifice of
Age that has produced so great a Schoolman as this to whom the great Aquinas himself is but a meer Novice The Church is a compound Body in which Faith is mixed and blended as the four Elements are in Natural Bodies And therefore as we can more easily know what a Stone or a Tree is than see the four Elements in it Fire and Air and Water and Earth of which it is compounded and which are so mixt together as to become invisible in their own Natures so the Church is more knowable than the true Faith which is so compounded with the Church as to become invisible it self Nay to be as much changed and transformed in the Composition as Dust and Ashes is into Flesh and Blood And thus I confess he has hit upon the true Reason why the true Church must be known before the true Faith because the Church of Rome which is his true Church has so changed and transformed the Faith that unless the Faith can be known by the Church the Church can never be known by the Faith. How much is one grain of common Sense better than all these Philosophical Subtilties For indeed the Church is not a compound Body but a Society of Men professing the Faith of Christ and the only difference between them and other Societies is the Christian Faith and therefore the Christian Faith is the only thing whereby the Church is to be known and to be distinguished from other Bodies of Men and therefore the Church cannot be known without the Faith unless I can know any thing without knowing that by which alone it is what it is And when there are several Churches in the World and a Dispute arises which is the true Church there is no other possible way of deciding it without knowing the true Faith for it is the true Faith which makes a true Church not as Dust and Ashes make Flesh and Blood but as a true Faith makes true Believers and true Believers a true Church and tho that Society of Men which is the Church is visible yet the true Church is no more visible than the true Faith for to see a Church is to see a Society of Men who profess the true Faith and how to see that without seeing the true Faith is past my Understanding In the next place the Cardinal urges That we cannot know what true Scripture is nor what is the true Interpretation of Scripture but from the Church and therefore we must know the Church before we can know the true Faith. To this I answered As for the first I readily grant that at this distance from the writing the Books of the New Testament there is no way to assure us that they were written by the Apostles or Apostolical men and owned for inspired Writings but the Testimony of the Church in all Ages And our Answerer saies I begin now to answer honestly p. 17. and I am very glad I can please him But it seems I had pleased him better if I would have called it an Infallible Tradition but that Infallible is a word we Protestants are not much used to when applied to Tradition it satisfies us if it be a very credible Tradition the Truth of which we have no reason to suspect But I have lost our Answerers favour for ever by adding But herein we do not consider them as a Church but as credible Witnesses This makes him sigh to think how loth men are to own the Church For these company of men so attesting were Christians not Vagrants or idle Praters of strange news in ridiculous Stories I hope not for then they could not be credible Witnesses but were agreed in the Attestation of such a Divine Volume not only as a Book which would do very little Service indeed but as a Rule as an Oracle All this I granted but still the question is whether that Testimony they give to the Scriptures relies upon their Authority considered as a Church or considered only as credible Witnesses And when this Author shall think fit to Answer what I there urge to prove that they must not be considered as a Church but as credible Witnesses I shall think of a Reply or shall yield the cause But this Answerer is a most unmerciful man at comparisons For saies he to tell us we cannot know the Church but by the Scripture is to tell us that we cannot know a piece of Gold without a pair of Scales The weight of Gold I suppose he means and then it is pretty right and if we must weigh Gold after our Father I suppose we may weigh it after the Church too tho She be our Mother Or that a Child cannot know his Father till he comes to read Philosophy and understand the Secrets of Generation And it is well if he can know him then This I consess is exceeding apposite for a Child must be a Traditionary Believer and take his Mothers word as Papists believe the Mother Church who is his Father That we could not understand the true Interpretation of Scripture neither without the Church This I also denied and gave my reasons for it which our Answerer according to his method of answering Books takes no notice of but gives his Reasons on the other side I affirmed That the Scriptures are very intelligible in all things necessary to Salvation to honest and diligent Readers Instead of this he saies I affirm That every honest and diligent Reader knows the Sense of Scripture it must be in all things necessary to Salvation which differ as much as being intelligible and being actually understood tho I will excuse him so far that I verily believe he had no dishonest Intention in changing my Words but did not understand the difference between them But says he did not St. Peter write to honest and diligent Readers when he warns them of wresting some places in St. Paul to their own Destruction as others also did As they did other Scriptures also St. Peter saies but he saies too that they were the unlearned and the unstable who did thus And tho the Scriptures be intelligible such men need a guide not to dictate to them but to expound Scripture and help them to understand it but does St. Peter therefore warn them against reading the Scriptures or direct them to receive the Sense of Scripture only from the Church Or say that honest and diligent Readers cannot understand them without the Authority of the Church But it seems there are several Articles very necessary to Salvation which men cannot agree about no not all Protestants as the Divinity of the Son of God the necessity of good Works the distinction of Sins mortal and less mortal which is a new distinction unless by less mortal he means Venial that is not mortal at all the necessity of keeping the Lords day and using the Lords Prayer Now these points are either intelligibly taught in the Scripture or they are not if not how does he know they are in
the Scripture If they be why cannot an honest and diligent Reader understand that which is intelligible That all men do not agree about the Sense of Scripture in all points is no better argument to prove that the Scriptures are not intelligible than that Reason it self is not intelligible for all men do not agree about that neither Well but he will allow That honest Readers may arrive to the understanding of that part of Scripture which the light of nature suggests That we must not steal defraud we must do as we will be done by p. 19. But he little thinks what he hath done in granting this for then if the Church should expound Scripture against the light of Nature honest Readers may understand the Scripture otherwise and if the Church should be found tripping in such matters honest Readers might be apt to question her Infallibility in other cases for those who once mistake can never be Insallible And yet this light of Nature teaches a great many shrewd things and the Scripture teaches them too and therefore in these matters honest and diligent Readers may understand the Scriptures tho it be against the Exposition of the Church as That Divine Worship must be given to none but God That God who is an invisible Spirit must not be worshipped by material and visible Images That publick Prayers ought to be in a Language which is understood by the People That Marriage is honourable among all Men That Faith is to be kept with all Men That every Soul must be subject to the higher Powers That none can judicially forgive Sins but only God That to forgive Sin is not to punish it and therefore God does not punish for those Sins which he has wholly pardoned And other such like things are taught by the light of Nature as well as Scripture and we thank him heartily that he will give us leave to understand these things But he proceeds 'T is the Revelation part the Mysterious part which is properly called the holy Scripture which is not so perspicuous What are not the words perspicuous and intelligible To what purpose then were they writ Or is it the thing which is above our Comprehension but that does not hinder but we may understand what the Scripture teaches tho we do not fully comprehend it For I would know whether they fully comprehend the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation the Natures and Person of Christ which were the Subject of the Arian Nestorian and Eutychian Heresies when the Church teaches these things I suppose they will not say they do and yet they will own that they can understand what the Church teaches about them And then tho they cannot comprehend these mysteries yet they may as well understand what the Scripture as what the Church teaches about them Now saies our Author to say the Scripture is plain to every honest private Reader in these Arcana is to deny and cassate all Church History make Oecumenical Councils ridiculous run down all Synods and Convocations that ever were or shall be Why so I pray Does Church-History or Oecumenical Councils all Convocations and Synods declare That the Scriptures are not intelligible in these matters Or that a private honest diligent Reader cannot understand them How came they then to determine them for Articles of Faith by their own Authority or by the Authority of Scripture Should Synods and Convocations and Oecumenical Councils determine that for an Article of Faith which is not plain and intelligible in Scripture they were ridiculous indeed and there were an end of their Authority And here he appeals to the Testimonies produced by the Cardinal out of Irenoeus Tertullian and St. Augustin which have been so often answered already that I do not think it worth the while to engage with this Answerer about them let the Reader if he pleases consult some late Books to this purpose as that Learned Vindication of the Answer to the Royal Papers about Church Authority and the Pillar and ground of Truth But I cannot pass on without taking notice of his unanswerable Argument to prove That the Church of Rome understands St. Paul ' s Epistie to the Romans and by consequence the Articles of Iustification whether by Faith alone or Works better than all the Lay-Readers of the Reformation viz. because he can never be perswaded that any private man should understand an Epistle of St Paul better than the Church to which it was written How unworthy is it to opine the contrary And how silly is it to think that those must necessarily understand an Epistle best to whom it was written But if those Christians at Rome to whom St. Paul wrote for he takes no notice of any formed and setled Church there at the writing of his Epistle and therefore does not direct it to the Church as he does in other Epistles but to the Saints that are at Rome I say if those Christians might be supposed at that time when the state of the Controversy among them was generally known to understand this Epistle better than we can now yet what is this to the Church of Rome at sixteen hundred years distance However by this Rule we may understand all St. Paul's other Epistles as well as the Church of Rome and that will serve our purpose And yet methinks if the Churches to which the Epistles were sent are the only Authentick Expositors of such Epistles all those Churches to whom St. Paul wrote should have been preserved to this day to have expounded those Epistles to us and yet not one of them is now in being excepting the Church of Rome and therefore at least we must make what shift we can to expound them our selves for the Church of Rome can pretend no greater right in them than the Church of England And thus I came in the second place to consider the Cardinals use of Notes and found several faults with them 1. That he gives Notes to find out which is the true Church before we know what a true Church is whereas there are two Inquiries in order of nature before this viz. Whether there be a true Church or not and what it is And though the Cardinal takes it for granted that there is a Church I demanded a proof of it that they would give me some Notes whereby to prove that there is a true Church This demand amazes our Answerer and makes him cross himself and fall to his Beads Hear O Heavens and give ear O earth But this is a Devil that wo'nt be conjured down let him either give me some Notes to prove that there is a Church or tell me how I shall know it Yes that he will do for it is self-evident he saies that there is a Church p. 20. as it is that there is a Sun in the Firmament or else the Heathens could never see it But what do the Heathens see a Christian Church Do they then believe the Holy Catholick Church why then
does he call them Heathens and if they see a Church and do not believe it to be a Church then it is such a seeing of a Church as does not prove that there is a Church for if it did then all that see the Church would believe it as all that see the Sun believe that there is a Sun. Good works indeed may be seen as he learnedly proves and a Iewish Synagogue may be seen and Christian Oratories and Chappels with Crosses upon them and this may prove that those who built them believed in a Crucified God which is all he alledges to prove that it is self-evident that there is a Church by which I see something also that he does not know What it is to see a Church Though I told him before That to see a company of men who call themselves a Church is not to see a Church For a Church must have a Divine Original and Institution and therefore there is no seeing a Church without seeing its Charter for there can be no other Note or mark of the being of a Church but the Institution of it I observed That the use of Notes in the Church of Rome is to find out the Church before and without the Scriptures for if they admit of a Scripture-proof they must allow that we can know and understand the Scriptures without the authority or interpretation of the Church which undermines the very foundation of Popery In answer to this he says Nothing is more easie and familiar but that men love to be troublesome to their Friends than that the Scriptures must be known by the Church and the Church may be known besides its own evidence by the Scriptures This I believe he has heard so often said without considering it that it is become very easie and familiar to him but it is the hardest thing in the world to me and therefore begging leave of him for being so troublesome I must desire him to explain to me how two things can be known by each other when neither of them can be known first for if the Son must beget the Father and the Father beget the Son which of them must be begotten first But he has an admirable proof of this way of knowing the Church by the Scripture and the Scripture by the Church For so St. Peter exhorts the wife to good conversation that she may thereby win the husband to Christianity even without the Word without the Holy Scripture Implying that a man may be brought over to Christianity both ways by the Church and by the Scripture Suppose this what is this to knowing the Scripture by the Church and the Church by the Scripture The pious and modest conversation of the wife may give her husband a good opinion of her Religion and may be the first occasion of his inquiring into it which may end in his conversion and so may the holy and exemplary lives of Christians do but does the Husband in this case resolve his faith into the authority of his Wife withou th e Scripture and then resolve the authority of his wife into the authority of the Scripture if St. Peter had said this indeed I should have thought we might as reasonably have given this authority to the Church as to a Wise. 2ly I observed Another blunder in this dispute a bout Notes is that they give us Notes whereby to find out the true Catholick Church before we know what a particular Church is because the Catholick Church is nothing else but all the true Christian Churches in the world united together by one common faith and worship and such acts of communion as distinct Churches are capable of and obliged to every particular Church which professes the true faith and worship of Christ is a true Christian Church and the Catholick Church is all the true Christian Churches in the world And therefore there can be no Notes of a true Church but what belong to all the true Christian Churches in the World. Which shows how absurd it is when they are giving Notes of a True Church to give Notes of a true Catholick and not of a true particular Church when I know what makes a particular Church a true Church I can know what the Catholick Church is which signifies all true particular Churches which are the one Mystical body of Christ but I can never know what a true Catholick Church is without knowing what makes a particular Church a true Church for all Churches have the same nature and are homogeneal parts of the same body This I perceive our Answerer did not understand one word of and therefore says nothing to the main argument which is to prove that those who will give Notes of the Church must give such Notes as are proper to all true particular Churches for there can be no other true Notes of a Church but what belong to all true Churches because all true Churches have the same Nature and Essence which spoils the Cardinal's design of Notes to find out the one Catholick Church which all Christians must communicate in and out of which there is no Salvation And therefore instead of touching upon the main point he runs out into a new Harangue about Unity and Catholicism what Unity and Communion makes a Catholick Church whether the Catholick Church be the aggregate of all Churches or only of Sound and Orthodox Churches which has been considered already and is nothing to the purpose here For the only single question here is Whether I can know the Catholick Church before I know what a true particular Church is and consequently whether the Notes of the Church ought not to be such as belong to all true particular Churches By this Rule I briefly examined Cardinal Bellarmin's Notes Those which belonged to all true Churches which very few of them do I allow to be true Notes but not peculiar to the Church of Rome As the 6th The agreement and consent in Doctrine with the Ancient and Apostolick Church And the 8th The Holiness of its Doctrine are the chief if not the only Notes of this nature and these we will stand or fall by And because I said we will stand or fall by these Notes the Answerer endeavours to shew that they do not belong to the Church of England but whether they belong to the Church of Rome and do not belong to us was not my business to consider in a general Discourse about Notes but it has been examined since in the Examination of those particular Notes and there the Reader may find it But our Answerer according to his old wont has pickt out as unlucky instances as the greatest Adversary of the Church of Rome could have done viz. the Doctrine of Justification and Repentance which are not so corrupted by the very worst Fanaticks as they are by the Church of Rome witness their Doctrines of Confession and Penance I may add of Merits and Indulgences for want of which he quarrels with the
fourth why should a prudent Man charge so much the greater number with the Schism Why should the three parts be the Schismaticks and not the fourth 3ly I observed another Mystery of finding the true Church by Notes is to pick out of all the Christian Churches in the World one Church which we must own for the only Catholick Church and reject all other Churches as Heretical or Schismatical or Uncatholick Churches who refuse Obedience and Subjection to this one Catholick Church For if this be not the intent of iâ— what do all the Notes of the Church signifie to prove that the Church of Rome is the only true Catholick Church And if they do not prove this the Cardinal has lost his Labour Now I observed That there are many things to be proved here before we are ready for the Notes of the Church They must first prove that there is but one true Church in the World. Or as I had expressed it before One Church which is the Mistress of all other Churches and the only Principle and Center of Catholick Unity To this he Answers p. 37. That there is but one true Church ought to be proved Credo unam Sanctam doth it seems not prove it but if there were as many Churches as Provinces if they are true they are one as hath been explained Nor stands it with the very Institution of the Creed to say I believe many true Churches no more than to say I believe in many true Faiths which I suppose there is some new Institution for also believing in the true Faith for if they be true say I they are one Harp not therefore any more on that jarring String It is really a miserable case for a Church which is able to speak somewhat better for her self to be exposed by such Advocates as do not understand her own Principles For will any learned Romanist deny that there are several particular true Churches Or will any Protestant deny that all true Churches are one Catholick Church which we profess in our Creed But the Controversy between us and the Cardinal is quite of a different nature not whether there are any particular true Churches nor whether all the true Churches in the World make one Catholick Church but whether the Church of Rome which considered in it self is but a particular Church be the only true Catholick Church the center of Catholick Unity so that no Church is a true Church but only by communion with and subjection to the Church of Rome Now this he can never prove by the Notes of a true Church unless he first prove that there is but one particular Church the communion with and subjection to which makes all other Churches true Churches For if there be more true Churches than one which owe subjection to no other Church but only a friendly and brotherly correspondence then though his Notes of a Church could prove the Church of Rome to be a true Church yet they could not prove that all other Churches must be subject to the Church of Rome The Church of England may be a true Church still though she renounce obedience to the Bishop of Rome But he undertakes to prove the Church of Rome not to be the Mistress which as it may be construed is invidious though she challenges all the authority of a Mistress but the Mother of other Churches And if he could do it it were nothing to the present argument which is not Whether the Church of Rome be the Mistress or Mother which he pleases of all other Churches but whether the bare Notes of a true Church can prove this prerogative of the Church of Rome when there are other true Churches besides her self But yet his arguments to prove this are very considerable 1st Because the Church of Rome is acknowledged to be so by all in communion with her P. 37. which is indeed unanswerable The Church of Rome her self and all in communion with her say she is the Mo-Mother of all other Churches and therefore she is so 2dly The Learned King Iames the First did not stick to own her Did King Iames the First own the Pope's Supremacy 3. To us in England 't is past denial our Mother and Nurse too Our step-mother we will own her and nothing more But 't is her authority that keeps up in England above all other Reformed Churches our Bishops our Liturgy our Cathedrals by her Records her Evidences they stand the shock of Antichristian Adversaries This is strange news We are indeed then more beholden to the Church of Rome than we thought for but does the Church of Rome allow our Bishops or our Liturgy how then does her Authority keep them up truly only because she cannot pull them down and I pray God she may never be able to do it She is not our Principle as he speaks and never shall be our Center again His fourth Argument is from Vitruvius which I believe is the first time it was used from the situation of Rome for the Empire of the World which he thinks holds as well for the Empire of the Church And so he concludes with our Lords Elogies of St. Peter's Chair which I could never meet with yet This is a formidable man especially considering how many such Writers the Church of â—ome is furnished with I added That they must prove that the Catholiks Church does not signifie all the particular true Churches that are in the World but some one Church which is the fountain of Catholick Unity That is says he he should say not only signifie all but also some one P. 39. No Sir I say not signifie all but some one The Cardinal proposes to find out by his Notes the one true Catholick Church among all the Communions of Christendom and to prove that the Church of Rome is this Catholick Church Now I say this is a senseless undertaking unless he can prove that the Catholick Church does not signifie all the particular true Churches which make the one Church and Body of Christ but some one Church which is the fountain of Catholick Unity and Communion with which gives the denomination of Catholick Churches to all others Now what has our Answerer to say to this besides his Criticism of all and some one Truly he fairly grants it and says that other Churches as daughters of the Mother-church are formally Catholick but take the Mother by her self and she is fundamentally Catholick But this I say ought to have been proved that there is any one Church which alone is the Catholick Church as the foundation of Catholick Unity which the Cardinal's Notes cannot prove That the Catholick Church began in one single Church as he says I readily grant and became Catholick by spreading it self all over the World but thus the Church at Ierusalem not at Rome was the Matrix as he speaks of the Catholick Church which yet gave the Church of Ierusalem no preheminency or authority over all other Churches But the
justifie as any one would guess by his way of justifying him let but the Romanists quit this Plea that our Faith must be resolved into the Authority of the Church and I shall not despair to see our other Disputes fairly ended For the Conclusion of the whole I observed That it is a most senseless thing to resolve all our Faith into the authority of the Church Whereas it is demonstrable that we must know and believe most of the Articles of the Christian Faith before we can know whether there be any Church or not The order observed in the Apostles Creed is a plain evidence of this for all those Articles which are before the Holy Catholick Church must in order of nature be known before it This he grants that in order of Nature all these Articles of the Creed concerning Father Son and Holy Ghost must be known before we can know a Church but to us the Church is most known Which is plain and down-right non-sense if by most known he means first known which is the present dispute for whatever by the order of nature must be known first must be first known without any distinction For we speak now not of the Methods of Learning but of resolving our Faith into its first Principles and that surely must follow the order of nature If the belief of the Churches Authority be not in order of nature before the belief of Father Son and Holy Ghost it is a senseless thing to resolve our Faith into that which though we should grant were the first cause of knowing these yet is not the first principle in order of nature into which Faith must be resolved Children indeed as he observes must receive their Creed upon the Authority of their Parents or of the Church which is more known to them than their Creed as all other Scholars must receive the first Principles of any Art or Science upon the authority of their Masters But will you say that the Latin Tongue is resolved into the authority of the School-master because his Scholars in learning the Latin Tongue rely on his authority which yet is just as good sense as to say that our Faith must be resolved into the authority of the Church because the Church teaches Catechumens their Catechism and they receive it upon the authority of their Parents or Priests And hence indeed he may conclude that a young Catechumen knows his Teachers before he knows his Creed but to conclude that he knows a Church first as that signifies a blessed Society where Salvation is to be had is a little too much for that supposes that he knows the Church before he has learnt Unam Sanctam Ecclesiam that is before he has found the Church in the Creed which is great forwardness indeed If he does not speak of Children but of Men-Catechumens for such there were in the Primitive Church and such he seems to speak of when he says It is plain that the Catechumen knew there was a Church a blessed Society where Salvation was to be had before he would enter himself to be Catechised in the Faith. I do not doubt but such men did know the Church before they submitted to the instructions of it but they knew Christ too and believed in him before they knew the Church For they first believed in Christ and then joyned themselves to that Society which professed the Christian Faith that they might be the better instructed in the Doctrines of Christianity that they might learn from the Church what the Christian Faith is and the reasons of it not that they would wholly resolve their Faith into church-Church-authority But I find by our Author that the Creed was made only for Catechumens For he says The first person used at the beginning of the Creed I believe signifies I who desire to be made a member of the Church by the Holy Sacrament of Initiation do believe what hath been proposed to me first and then comprehended in that Fundamental Breviate What he designs by this I cannot guess for still the Catechumen professes to believe in Father Son and Holy Ghost before he believes the Holy Catholick Church But pray what does I signifie when a Bishop or Priest or the Pope himself repeats the Creed If as he concludes We must believe Father Son and Holy Ghost before we can compleatly determine the Church and its definition he should have said before we can know whether there be a Church or not much less believe upon its authority then indeed as he says the Creed must begin with I believe in God. But if our Faith must be resolved into the authority of the Church as the Church of Rome teaches and as these laborious endeavours of finding out a Church by extra-essential Notes supposes then the Creed as I said ought to begin with I believe in the Holy Catholick Church and upon the authority of this Church I believe in God the Father Almighty and in Iesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost Thus I have with invincible patience particularly answered one of the most senseless Pamphlets that ever I read and I hope it will not be wholly useless for sometimes it is as necessary to expose non-sense as to answer the most plausible Arguments though notwithstanding the mirth of it I do not desire to be often so employed FINIS The Use and great Moment of Notes p. 1. Pag. 2. Pag. 4. Pag. 5. Disc. p. 1. Ephes. 4. 1 2 3. 1 Cor. 12. 12 13 c. Disc. P. 5. Pag. 6. Disc. p. 9. Disc. p. 9. Disc. p. 10. Disc. p. 13. Disc. p. 14. Disc. p. 15. Joan. Laun. Epist. Vol. 8. ep 13. Nicol. Gatinaeo Disc. p. 17. Disc. p. 19. Disc. p. 22.