Christians Now I must confess these Notes as he well observes are common to all Christian Churches and were intended to be so and if this does not answer his Design we cannot help it The Protestant Churches do not desire to confine the Notes of the Church to their own private Communions but are very glad if all the Churches in the World be as true Churches as themselves The whole Catholick Church which consists of a great many particular Diocesan or National Churches has the same Nature And when the whole consists of univocal parts every part must have the same Nature with the whole And therefore as he who would describe a man must describe him by such Characters as fit all Mankind so he who gives the Essential Characters of a Church must give such Notes as fit all true Churches in the World. This indeed does not fit the Church of Rome to make it the only Catholick and the only true Church nor do we intend it should but it fits all true Churches wherever they are and that is much better To answer then his Argument when we give Notes which belong to a whole Species as we must do when we give the Notes of a true Christian Church there being a great many true Churches in the World which make up the Catholick or Universal Church we must give such Notes as belong to the whole kind that is to all true Christian Churches And though these Notes are common indeed to all true Christian Churches yet they are proper and peculiar to a true Christian Church as the Essential Properties of a man are common to all men but proper to mankind And this is necessary to make them true Notes For such Notes of a true Church as do not fit all true Churches cannot be true Notes As for what the Cardinal urges That all Sects of Christians think themselves to have the true Faith and true Sacraments I am apt to think they do but what then If they have not the true Faith and true Sacraments they are not true Churches whatever they think of it and yet the true Faith and true Sacraments are certain Notes of a true Church A Purchase upon a bad Title which a man thinks a good one is not a good Estate but yet a Purchase upon a Title which is not only thought to be but is a good one is a good Estate All that can be said in this case is That men can be no more certain that they have a true Church than they are that they have a true Faith and true Sacraments and this I readily grant But as mens mistakes in this matter does not prove that there is no true Faith nor true Sacraments so neither does it prove that a true Faith and true Sacraments are not Notes of the true Church 2. The Cardinal 's second Objection is That the Notes of any thing must be more known than the thing it self which we readily grant Now says he which is the true Church is more knowable than which is the true Faith and this we deny and that for a very plain reason because the true Church cannot be known without knowing the true Faith for no Church is a true Church which does not profess the true Faith. We may as well say that we can know a Horse without knowing what the shape and figure of a Horse is which distinguishes it from all other Creatures as that we can know a Christian Church without knowing what the Christian Faith is which distinguishes it from all other Churches or we may as well say that we can know any thing without knowing what it is since the very Essence of a true Church consists in the true Faith which therefore must be first known before we can know the true Church But 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 koow the true Faith. 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 But herein we do not consider them as a Church but as credible Witnesses Whether there be any such thing as a Church or not we can know only by the Scriptures But without knowing whether there be a Church or not if we know that for so many Hundred years these Books have been owned to be written by such men and have been received from the Apostles days till now by all who call themselves Christians this is as good an Historical Proof as we can have for any thing and it is the Authority of an uninterrupted Tradition not the Authority of the Church considered as a Church which moves us to believe them For setting aside the Authority of Tradition how can the Authority of a Company of men who call themselves the Church before I know whether there be any Church move me to believe any thing which was done 1600. years a-go But there is a Company of men in the World and have been successively for 1600. years whether they be a Church or not is nothing to this question who assure me that these Books which we call the Scriptures were written by such inspired men and contain a faithful account of what Christ did and taught and suffered and therefore I believe such Books and from them I learn what that true Faith is which makes a true Christian Church As for the true interpretation of Scripture that we cannot understand what it is without the Church this I also deny The Scriptures are very intelligible to honest and diligent Readers in all things necessary to salvation and if they be not I desire to know how we shall find out the Church for certainly the Church has no Character but what is in the Scripture and then if we must believe the Church before we can believe or understand the Scriptures we must believe the Church before we can possibly know whether there be a Church or not If we prove the Church by the Scripture we must believe and understand the Scripture before we can know the Church If we believe and understand the Scriptures upon the Authority and Interpretation of the Church considered as a Church then we must know the Church before the Scripture The Scripture cannot be known without the Church nor the Church without the Scripture and yet one of them must be known first and yet neither of them can be known first according to these Principles which is such an absurdity as all the Art of the World can never palliate 3. The Cardinal 's third Objection is That the true Notes of the Church must be inseparable from it whereas the Churches of Corinth and Galatia did not always teach true Doctrine some of the Church
one Church which we must own for the only Catholick Church and reject all other Churches as Heretical or Schismatical or Un-catholick Churches who refuse Obedience and Subjection to this One Catholick Church For if this be not the Intent of it what will all the Notes of the Church signify 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 For tho the Notes he assigns were the Notes of a true Church yet they may and must belong to all other true Churches as well as to the Church of Rome unless he can prove that there is but One true Church or but One Church which is the Mistress of all other Churches and the only Principle and Center of Catholick Unity And this ought to have been proved first before he had thought of the Notes of the Church So 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 for tho we all grant that there is but One Catholick Church yet we say there may be and hope nay more than so know that there are many true Churches which make up the Catholick Church Yet before the Notes of a true Church can do any Service to the Church of Rome they must prove that there is but one true Church in the World and then it will signify something to prove the Church of Rome to be that true Church They must prove also that the Catholick Church does not signify all the particular true Churches that are in the World but some one Church which is the Fountain of Catholick Unity which all other Churches are bound to submit to and communicate with if they will be Members of the Catholick Church For tho all the Churches in the World were in Subjection to that Church yet they receive their Catholicism from their Communion with that Church and therefore that only is the Catholick Church It is not meerly the Communion of all Churches together which makes the Catholick Church but it is the Subjection of all Churches to that one Catholick Church which makes them Catholick So that they must prove that there is one particular Church which is the Catholick Church that is that a part is the whole that one particular Church is all the Churches of the World for so the Catholick Church signifies in Ancient Writers This is so absurd that some of our Modern Advocates for the Catholick Church of Rome tell us that they do not mean the particular Diocess of Rome by the Catholick Church but all those Churches which are in Communion with the Church of Rome But suppose this yet it is only the Church of Rome which makes all the other Churches Catholick and therefore she only is the Catholick Church And I will presently make them confess it to be so For let us suppose that no other Churches should submit themselves to the Church of Rome by the Church of Rome understanding the particular Diocess of Rome would she be the Catholick Church or not If notwithstanding this she would be the Catholick Church then it is evident that they make the particular Church of Rome the Catholick Church if she would not then I cannot see how Communion with the Church of Rome is essential to the Catholick Church These things I say ought to have been proved before the Cardinal had given us the Notes of the Church for it is a hard thing to prove by Notes that the particular Church of Rome is the only Catholick Church till it be proved that a particular Church may be the Catholick Church or that there is one particular Church which is the Catholick Church This he knew we all deny and it is a ridiculous thing to think to convince us by Notes that the Church of Rome is the particular Catholick Church when we deny that there is any such Church and affirm that it is a Contradiction to own it as great a Contradiction as it is to say that a Particular Church is the Universal Church 4thly But when I consider the farther Design of these Note-Makers to find out such a Church on whose Authority we must rely for the whole Christian Faith even for the holy Scriptures themselves it makes me now admire that they should think this could be done by some Notes of a Church especially by such Notes as the Cardinal gives us For suppose he had given us the Notes of a true Church which is the utmost he can pretend to before we can hence conclude that this Church is the Infallible Guide and uncontroulable Judg of Controversies we must be satisfied that the true Church is Infallible This indeed Bellarmin attempts to prove in his third Book of the Church and it is not my Concern at present to inquire how he proves it But I am sure 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 known but by the Scriptures So that a Man must believe 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 Scriptures into the Authority of the Church cannot without great Impudence urge the Authority of the Scriptures to prove the Church's Infallibility and yet thus they all do nay prove their very Notes of the Church from Scripture as the Cardinal does and think this is no Circle neither because we Hereticks believe the Scriptures without the Authority of their Church and therefore are willing to dispute with them out of the Scriptures But this is a fault on our side and when we dispute with them whatever we do at other times we should not believe the Scriptures till they had proved them to us their way by the Authority or their Church and then we should quickly see what blessed Work they would make of it How they would prove their Church's 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 I confess I would gladly hear what Notes they would give a Pagan to find out the true Infallible Church by It is certainly a most sensless thing to resolve all our Faith into the Authority of the Church as if the Church were the first Object or our Faith in Religion 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
venture their Cause to any other Sentence but that of Scripture which had so plainly decided for them and was indeed the most proper to be appealed to yet the greatest number and the most learned of the Protestant Writers have never declined the Judgment of the Primitive Church but next to the inspired Writings of the Apostles have always esteemed and been willing to be determined by it And we are well assured that the Ancient Church even the Roman it self as well as the whole Christian besides is in all material Points on the Protestant side and a perfect Stranger if not an utter Enemy to those new Articles of Faith and Corruptions of Doctrine which have been since brought into the Western Church and which we have for that Reason protested against because they were unknown and contrary to the Faith and Doctrine of the Primitive Church It would too much exceed the set Limits of this Paper to make this out so fully as might easily be done by going through the chiefest Points of Difference between us Bellarmine in his Discourse upon this Note goes wholly off from it and chuses rather to pursue Luther and Calvin and some other worthy Reformers through all the Paths of Calumny and Slander but I shall not follow him to take him off from those false and injurious Representations he hath made of their Doctrines If any Body has the curiosity to see the Art of Misrepresenting in its greatest perfection let him but read that Chapter but if he will see it as perfectly shamed and exposed let him read Bishop Morton's long and learned Answer to it * Apologia Catholica p. 61. to p. 278. We are examining the Doctrines and finding out the Marks of the Church and not of particular Men and had Calvin or others taught any such Doctrines as are very falsly there laid to their Charge I know none had been concerned in them but themselves and no Church could have been prejudiced by them any farther than it had received them I shall therefore keep more close to Bellarmine's Note tho not to his Method upon it and I assure a late Adviser †Advice to the â—onfuter of Belâ—â—mine 't is not the design of confuting him but setting Men right in the way to the True Religion and the True Church when others are so busy to draw them off by false Marks and Pretences which is the cause of this Vndertaking I confess it would be too prolix as Bellarmine says to produce all the Testimonies of the Ancients thereby to shew what was the Doctrine of the Primitive Church in every particular Point controverted between us I shall therefore offer only some plain and brief Remarks by which the sense of the Primitive Church may be undeniably known in most of the Controversies and by which it will appear what was the Doctrine of the Church then and how contrary that of the Church of Rome is now to it And here I should first begin with the most Primitive that is with the Apostolick Church which truly and only deserves the Title of being Mother and Mistress of all Christian Churches that ever were or shall be in the World it is as vain as arrogant for any later and particular Church to assume that to it self which is but a Sister-Church at most and younger than some of the rest and tho more fine and proud yet not half so honest and uncorrupt This Apostolick Church which was founded and governed by the Apostles over all the World is the true Standard of the Christian Church and as in revealed Religion That which is first is true according to Tertullian's * Id verum quod prius id prius quod ab initio ab initio quod ab Apostolis Tertul. de praescript l. 4. Axiom because it comes nearest to the first pure Fountain of Revelation so as he adds That is first which is from the Beginning and from the Apostles We should first then examine what was the Faith and Doctrine of the Apostolick Church the greatest and almost only account of which we have in their own Canonical Writings which are received and allowed as such by the whole Christian Church and in these our Adversaries find so little of their own late and new Doctrines that they cannot but own that these are insufficient to authorise and establish most of them without the Authority of the present Church and without the help of unwritten Traditions When we produce Scripture against our Adversaries we then produce the only Authentick Records of the Apostolick Church and the only certain account we have of the Faith and Doctrine of the most Primitive Church let them object therefore never so much against Scripture as a Rule of Faith yet whilst it contains the only sure Testimony of what was taught and believed by the first Christian Church so far as any of these Doctrines are not in Scripture so far they cannot appear to be the Doctrine of the Apostolick Church and whilst we hold all that Faith and all those Doctrines that are contained in Scripture we hold all that can be known to be so in the most pure and most Primitive Church and whatsoever they have added to Scripture which they will needs have to be but an imperfect Rule of Faith they have added so far as can be known to the Doctrine of the Apostolick Church for if Scripture be not the only Rule of that yet it is the only Historical Account we have of it But I shall not at present deal with them out of Scripture tho as it is only a Record and Evidence of the Apostolical Faith they will count this but a Trick I know to draw them into a Scripture Dispute which they are mighty averse to and which they design to avoid by an Appeal from that to the Primitive Church we will go on therefore with our Note as they I suppose mean and understand it and that we may not be too troublesom to them with Scripture and the Apostolick Writings we will go several Ages lower even down to those Times wherein the Church was in its glorious State under the first Christian Emperors and whether their Doctrines or ours were most agreable to those of this Primitive Church Let us now come briefly to enquire in some particular Instances and by some few short Remarks and Observations And First Was any such thing as their pretended Supremacy then allowed of when in the first general Council at Nice * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conc. Nicen. Can. 6. There was a limited Power assigned to the Bishop of Rome as there was to the other Metropolitans of Alexandria and Antioch who were to keep their Bounds set them by antient Custom which is utterly inconsistent with an Universal Supremacy over the whole Church by a Divine Right as is since pretended and claimed contrary to all Antiquity For the next General Council appoints the Bishop of Constantinople to have Prerogatives of Honour
THE NOTES OF The Church As Laid down By Cardinal BELLARMIN Examined and Confuted With a Table of the Contents IMPRIMATUR Apr. 6. 1687. Guil. Needham LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXVIII THE SEVERAL TRACTS Contained IN THIS VOLUME 1. A Brief Discourse concerning the Notes of the Church with some Reflections on Cardinal BELLARMIN's Notes 2. An Examination of Note concerning BELLARMIN's First The Name of Catholick 3. His Second Note Antiquity 4. His Third Note Duration 5. His Fourth Note Amplitude or Multitude and Variety of Believers 6. His Fifth Note The Succession of Bishops 7. His Sixth Note Agreement in Doctrine with the Primitive Church 8. His Seventh Note Vnion of the Members among themselves and with the Head. 9. His Eighth Note Sanctity of Doctrine 10. His Ninth Note Efficacy of the Doctrine 11. His Tenth Note Holiness of Life 12. His Eleventh Note The Glory of Miracles 13. His Twelfth Note The Light of Prophecy 14. His Thirteenth Note Confession of Adversaries 15. His Fourteenth Note The Vnhappy End of the Church's Enemies 16. His Fifteenth Note Temporal Felicity 17. A Vindication of the Brief Discourse concerning the Notes of the Church in Answer to a Late Pamphlet Intituled The Vse and great Moment of the Notes of the Church as delivered by Cardinal Bellarmin de Notis Ecclesiae Justified 18. A Defence of the Confuter of Bellarmin's Second Note of the Church Antiquity against the Cavils of the Adviser 19. A TABLE of the Contents THE CONTENTS Of the following NOTES The INTRODUCTION to the Notes of the Church THE Visibility of the Catholick Church takes away the Necessity of finding out Notes to distinguish it by especially of such Notes as are matter of Dispute themselves p. 3. The Vse of Notes of find out an Infallible Church and these appropriated by the Cardinal to the Church of Rome only p. 4. What Protestants intend in those Notes they give of the true Church and what the Papists by their Notes of a Church p. 5. The Protestant Way of finding out the Church by the essential Properties of a true Church p. 6. Three things objected to this by the Cardinal and Answers returned p. 7 8 9 10 11 12. The Cardinal's Way considered and examined 1st To find out which is the True Church before we know what a True Church is p. 13. Two Enquiries in order of Nature before which is the True Church whether there be a True Church or not and what it is ibid. No Notes of these but such as they dare not give viz. the Authority of the Scriptures and every Man 's private Judgment of the Sense and Interpretation of them p. 14. 2ly She gives us Notes whereby to find out the True Catholick Church before we know what a particular Church is p. 15. Impossible to know what the Catholick Church is before we know what a particular Church is ibid. No other Notes of a True Church but what belongs to every True particular Church and that can be nothing but what is essential to a Church and what all Churches do agree in viz the true Faith and Worship of Christ p. 16. The 6th which is the same with the 2d and the 8th are the chief if not the only Notes of this Nature and here our Claim is as good if not better than theirs ibid. His 9th 10th 11th and 12th not properly Notes of a True Church any otherwise than as they are Testimonies of the common Christianity which is professed by all true Churches ibid. The 13th 14th 15th no Notes at all because they are not always true ibid. His 3d and 4th Notes are not Notes of a Church but only God's Promises made to his Church p. 17. His 1st Note doth not declare what a Church is but in what Communion it is and is no Note of a true Church unless it be frrst proved that they are true Churches which are in Communion with each other ibid. His 5th common to the Greek and any other Church who have Bishops in Succession from the Apostles or Apostolical Bishops p. 18. The 7th Note serves to purpose the Cardinal's Design and doth his Business without any other Note ibid. 3dly Another Mystery in forming these Notes is to pick out of all the Christian Churches in the World one Church which we must own for the Catholick Church and reject all others as Heretical or Schismatical or Vncatholick Churches who refuse Obedience and Subjection to this one Catholick Church p. 19. That there is but one True Church in the World and that the Catholick Church doth not signify all the particular True Churches but some one Church which all others are bound to submit to and communicate with if they will be Members of the Catholick Church this necessary to be proved before the Cardinal had given us these Notes of a Church p. 20 21. 4thly Another Design in making these Notes is to find out such a Church on whose Authority we must rely for the whole Christian Faith even for the Holy Scriptures themselves p. 22. But here we must first be satisfied that the True Church is Infallible this can never be proved but by Scripture which a Man must first believe before it can be proved to him that there is an Infallible Church p. 23. The Church is not the first Object of our Faith in Religion since we ought to know and believe most of the Articles of the Christian Faith before we can know whether there be any Church or no. p. 23 24. The Contents of the First NOTE CATHOLICK THE sincere Preaching of the Faith or Doctrine of Christ as it is laid down in the Scripture is the only sure and infallible Mark of the Church of Christ p. 25. The Church of Rome declines being examined by this Rule p. 26. Bellarmin's Argument for the Name Catholick being an undoubted true Mark of a True Church p. 26. The Weakness of the Cardinal's Argument exposed in three Particulars I. In what respect the Name Catholick was esteemed by some of the Fathers in their Time a Note of a Catholick Church and in what respects 't will ever be a standing Note of it p. 27. This shewn to be upon the account of the Catholick Faith and therefore in their time is joined with the Word Catholick p. 28. What the Catholick Faith and why called Catholick ibid. None in the first Ages of Christianity went by the Name of Catholick but those who profest the true Catholick Faith. p. 29. II. No Argument can be drawn from the bare Name of Catholick to prove a Church to be Catholick p. 29. I. The Christian Church was not known by the Name Catholick at the Beginning though of an antient and early Date and therefore no essential Note of it p. 30. 2. Names are oft times arbitrary and at random and falsly imposed on things and therefore nothing can be concluded from them ibid. 3. Names are oft times imposed on
of Corinth denying the Resurrection and the Galatians warping towards Judaism and the Church of Corinth being guilty of great miscarriages in receiving the Lords-Supper and yet were owned for true Churches by the Apostles An argument which much became the Cardinal to use it being the best evidence I know of for the Church of Rome being a true Church that every corruption in Faith and Sacraments do not Unchurch but how this proves that true Faith and true Sacraments are not an essential note and character of a true Church I cannot guess I would desire any one to tell me for him whether a corrupt Faith and false Sacraments be the Notes of a true Church or whether it be no matter as to the nature of a Church what our Faith and Sacraments are Secondly Let us now consider the Cardinal's way by some certain marks and notes to find out which is the true Church before we know what a true Church is To pick out of all the Churches in the World one Church which we must own for the only true Church and reject all other Churches which do not subject themselves to this one Church To find out such a Church on whose authority we must rely for the whole Christian Faith and in whose Communion only pardon of sin is to be had That this is the use of Notes in the Church of Rome I have already shewn you and truly they are very pretty things to be proved by Notes as to consider them particularly 1. To find out which is the true Church before we know what a true Church is This methinks is not a natural way of inquiry but is like seeking for we know not what There are two inquiries in order of nature before which is the true Church viz. Whether there be a true Church or not and what it is The first of these the Cardinal takes for granted that there is a Church but I wont take it for granted but desire these Note-makers to give me some Notes to prove that there is a Church There is indeed a great deal of talk and noise in the World about a Church but that is no proof that there is a Church and yet it is not a self-evident proposition that there is a Church and therefore it must be proved Now that there is a Church must be proved by Notes as well as which is this true Church or else the whole design of Notes is lost and I would gladly see those Notes which prove that there is a Church before we know what a Church is To understand the mystery of this we must briefly consider the reason and use of Notes in the Church of Rome according to the Popish resolution of Faith into the authority of the Church the first thing we must know is which is the True Church for we must receive the Scriptures and the Interpretation of them and the whole Christian Faith and Worship from the Church and therefore can know nothing of Religion till we have found the Church The use then of Notes 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 Now I first desire to know how they will prove That there is a Church without the Scripture That you 'l say is visible it self for we see a Christian Church in the World but what is it I see I see a company of men who call themselves a Church and this is all that I can see and is this seeing a Church A Church must have a Divine Original and Institution and therefore there is no seeing a Church without seeing its Character for there can be no other Note or Mark of the being of a Church but the Institution of it And this proves that we cannot know that there is a Church without knowing in some measure what this Church is for the Charter which founds the Church must declare the Nature and Constitution of it what its Faith and Worship and Laws and Priviledges are But now these essential Characters of a Church must not be reckoned by the Romanists among the Notes of a Church for then we must find out the true Church by the true Faith and the true Worship not the true Faith by the true Church which destroys Popery Hence it is that these Note-makers never attempt to give us any Notes whereby we shall know that there is a Church or what this Church is for there are no Notes of these but such as they dare not give viz. The Authority of the Scriptures and every mans private judgment of the Sense and Interpretation of them for at least till we have found a Church we must judg for our selves and then the Authority of the Church comes too late for we must first judg upon the whole of Religion if we must find out a true Church by the true Faith before we can know the true Church and we cannot rely on her Authority before we know her and therefore they take it for granted that there is a Church which they can never prove in their way and attempt to give some Notes whereby to know which is the Church and then learn what the Church is from the Church her self which is like giving marks whereby to know an Unicorn before I know whether there be an Unicorn or not or what it is 2. Another blunder in this Dispute about Notes is That they give us Notes whereby to find out the true Catholick Church before we know what a particular Church is For all Bellarmin's Notes are intended only for the Catholick Church and therefore his first Note is the name Catholick whereas the Catholick Church is nothing else but all 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 which have all the same Nature and are in some sense of the same Communion So that it is impossible to know what the Catholick Church is before we know what a particular Church is as it is to know what the Sea is before we know what Water is Every true single particular Church has the whole and intire nature of a Church and would be a true Church though there were no other Church in the World as the Christian Church at Jerusalem was before any other Christian Churches were planted and therefore there can be no other Notes of a True Church but what belong to every true particular Church and that can be nothing but what is essential to a Church and what all true Christian Churches in the World agree in viz. The True Faith and Worship
consistent with the Pains and Fire of Purgatory which Bellarmin tells us is hotter than Hell it self is past my Apprehension The Chuch of Rome says that Souls are to continue in Purgatory till they have made full satisfaction for their Sins and are throughly purged from them and that whoever says that there is no Debt of temporal Punishment to be pay'd either in this World or in Purgatory before they can be admitted into Heaven is accursed Concil Trid. Sess 6. Can. 30. The Church of Rome says the Cup is not to be administred to the Laity and gives many reasons for it lest the Blood of Christ should be spilt lest the Wine kept for the Sick should fret lest Wine may not always be had or lest some may not be able to bear the smell or taste of it Whether these are sufficient Reasons or no the Council of Trent enjoyns all to believe them so under an Anathema Concil Trid. Sess 21. Can. 1. 2. The Council of Constance acknowledges that our Saviour instituted the Sacrament in both kinds and that it so continued in the Church of Rome many Centuries and yet with a Notwithstanding to both these it sacrilegiously robs the People of the Cup. Concil Const Sess 13. The Church of Rome says that the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist by the Priests pronouncing these Words Hoc est corpus meum is transubstantiated into the natural Body and Blood of Christ the Species or Accidents only of the Bread and Wine remaining and hath made it an Article to be believed by all under an Anathema Concil Trid. Sess 13. de Real Praes c. 1. Cornel. a Lapide tells us that it was the Opinion of some of their grave Divines that this Change is made after so powerful and effectual manner that if Christ had not been incarnated before the force of this Charm would have incarnated him and cloath'd him with Human Nature The Church of Rome says that in the Sacrifice of the Mass Christ is offered as often as that is celebrated and that tho' therein he be unbloodily offer'd yet is it a true propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins both of the Living and Dead Concil Trid. Sess 22. Cap. 1. And declares the Person accursed that denies any part of this Ibid. In all these Particulars you see and several other might be instanc'd in the Faith and Doctrine of the Church of Rome bears a manifest repugnance to the Gospel of Christ Now if the Holy Scripture may be allow'd so much as to be a Rule of Faith and Manners in those things it particularly treats of the Church of Rome contradicting that Rule in those things must be condemned for a Corrupter of the Christian Faith or Doctrine And having thus made it evident that she holds not the true Catholick Faith 't is as evident that she is not and consequently deserves not to be called a Catholick Church THE END LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-yard 1687. The Second Note of the CHURCH EXAMINED VIZ. ANTIQUITY Secunda Nota est ANTIQVITAS Bellar. L. iv c. v. de Notis Ecclesiae IMPRIMATUR Apr. 5. 1687. JO. BATTELY IT is a shrewd sign that a Church is in an ill Case when the most learned and witty Defenders of it commend it to the World by such Marks and Characters whereby they say it may be known as are neither proper to it alone nor in Truth belong to it But more truly and evidently belong to them whom they oppose That this is the Case of the present Church of Rome in that Famous Note of ANTIQUITY which Bellarmin and others make a Mark of the true Church I will clearly and distinctly demonstrate by shewing these three Things I. That the Plea of bare Antiquity is not proper to the Church but common to it with other Societies of false Religion II. That true Antiquity is not on the side of the present Roman Church But III. That it is truly on Ours I. It is confessed by all even by them who make Antiquity a Mark of the Church that the Notes of a Thing must be proper to that of which they are a Note and not common to it with other Things Which quite destroys this Note of Antiquity upon a double Account First Because that which is proper to a Thing is inseparable from it and did ever belong to it since it had a Being and can at no Time without the destruction of its Being be absent from it This every Fresh-Man in Learning knows and by that may know that Antiquity is not a Note proper to the Church because it did not always belong to the Church For there was a Time when the Church was New. Which was objected to it by the Adversaries of our Religion and the Defenders of the Church answered the very same to them then that we do to the Romanists now as will appear in the second Thing I have to observe Secondly That other Societies have laid claim to this Note and it could not be denied them and therefore 't is not a proper Note whereby the true Church may be certainly known being common to it with others that are not of the Church 1. For first the Samaritans claimed it against the Jews as appears from the Womans Discourse with our Saviour Joh. iv 20. Our Fathers worshipped in this Mountain c. They had done so for many Ages before they worshipped in Jerusalem For here God appeared unto Abraham who here also built an Altar when he came first out of Chaldea Gen. xii 6 7. Here Jacob likewise built an Altar when he came out of Mesopotamia Gen. xxxiii 20. Here there was a Sanctuary in the Days of Joshua who gave his last Charge to Israel and made a Covenant with them in this Place Chap. xxiv 25 26. Here the Patriarchs were buried v. 32. Nay here-abouts was Shiloh Judg. xxi 19. where by the order of Joshua the Tabernacle and the Ark of God were setled long before it was brought to Jerusalem Josh xviii 1 2. which was all this time in the Hands of the Jebusites To which Plea the Jews could not make an Answer but by maintaining this Principle That not the Antiquity of Place but the Authority of God's Precept was to be their direction in this Case And God it appeared by the Holy Books had chosen Jerusalem to place his Name there 2. Thus the Jews themselves argued against Christ that he did not follow the Tradition of the Elders which had been derived to them from ancient times Mark vii 1 c. and against Christians whom they called the Sect of the Nazarens Acts xxiv 5. as much as to say Hereticks newly sprung up from Jesus of Nazareth 3. And thus the Pagans argued against them both particularly against the Christians saying to St. Paul at Athens May we know what this New Doctrine whereof thou speakest is Acts xvii 19. And in after-times calling it a Novel Religion a
plain Evidence of the want of true Antiquity This is like suborning of Witnesses which is enough to make all the World suspect that what they are brought for and what they depose is not true it is no other than forging of old Writings and Instruments to help out the known Weakness of a crackt Title Thus the Decretal Epistles were counterfeited to prop up the Pope's Spiritual Power and Constatine's Donation to establish his Temporal The Cheat of the first was so evident from the Style being so sordid and so unlike those Ages and yet being so like it self in all parts as shew'd it to have throughout but one Author that tho they were formerly made use of and did great Service yet they are now laid by as too gross to be owned by most of the Learned Men of that Church and the other tho it be still defended by some of them yet has such marks of Forgery as makes most of them confess it but great numbers are there of forged and spurious Authors whole Testimonies are still produced by these Writers for those Doctrines and Opinions which are destitute of true Antiquity a Collection of which is given us by our James in his Bastardy of the false Fathers and all those Criticks who have wrote Censures upon the Fathers Works cannot but own it I cannot charge this upon any publick Act of the Church as that of purging and correcting the Fathers but most of their Writers who bring such large and false Musters of the Fathers are guilty of it and particularly some of their late Books amongst us * Consensus Veterum Nubes Testium We have a very great and early Instance of this notorious way of Forgery in the very Head and Governours of that Church and that was in falsifying the Nicene Canons and thrusting in a Canon of a particular Synod among those of a General Council thereby to claim a Power of Appeals to themselves which was such an Imposture as shows what some Men will do to gain Power and Authority over other Churches and what an unfaithful Preserver a Church may be that pretends to be infallible not only of Oral Tradition but even of Writings too for they had Copies without question of the Council of Nice and if the other great Churches of Constantinople Antioch and Alexandria had not had authentick and agreeing Copies to the contrary the Churches of Africa had been run down by one of the most palpable Forgeries in the World and the Church of Rome would no doubt have made a great deal more use of it afterwards than upon that particular occasion But 3. Tho Antiquity is to be sometimes supprest and stifled that it may say nothing against them and sometimes suborned and counterfeited that it may bear false Witness for them and tho they generally make a fair show and a great noise with the pretence of it yet they cannot but often betray the little Esteem and Regard which they have of it thus to give an Instance or two In the famous Question of the Virgin 's immaculate Conception tho the Fathers are acknowledged to be generally against it and their own Bishop Canus †De Sanctorum Auctoritate l. 7. loc Theolog. c. 1. Lovan reckons up St. Ambrose St. Austin St. Chrysostom and a great many more who expresly assert her being conceived in Original Sin and says that this is the unanimous Opinion of all the Fathers who happen to make mention of it (a) Sancti namque omnes qui in ejus rei mentionem incidere uno ore asseuerarunt beatam Virginem in Peccato originali conceptam hoc vid. Ambig hoc August hoc Chrysost c. Ib. yet he declares this to be a very weak and infirm Argument which is drawn from the Authority of all the Fathers and that notwithstanding that the contrary Opinion is piously and probably maintained and defended in the Church (b) Infirmum tamen exomnium authoritate argumentum ducitur quin potius contraria sententia probabilitèr piè in Ecclesiâ defenditur Ib. and Bellarmine says (c) Inter Catholicos non sunt numerandi Bellarm. de Amis grat l. 4. c. 15. they are not to be reckoned among Catholicks who are of another Opinion tho it be contrary it seems to all Antiquity Thus at other times Bellarmine shifts off the Authority of St. Cyprian when he plainly opposes that of the Pope and says that he mortally erred and offended in so doing (d) Videtur mortalitèr peccasse Bellarm l. 4. de Romano Pontifico c. 7. and concerning Justin Martyr Irenaeus and others their Opinion he says cannot be defended from great Error (e) Eorum sententiam non video quo pacto ab errore possumus defendere Bellarm. de beat §. l. 1. c. 6. when it is against his own thus also of St. Hierom he was of that Opinion but it is false and it shall be refuted (f) Videtur Hieronymus inâ—eâ sententiâ fuiâ—se sed falsa est c suo loco râ—fâ—llenda Bellarm. de Pontif. Rom. l. 1. c. 8. And to mention no more tho they stick not upon all occasions to slight and contemn Antiquity when it will not make for them Baronius one of their greatest Searchers into Antiquity but as great a Corrupter of it who had taken that Oath I suppose prescribed by Pope Pius 4th not to receive or expound Scripture but according to the uniform Consent of the Fathers yet doth unwarily but ingenuously confess that the holy Fathers whom for their great Learning we justly call the Doctors of the Church yet the Catholick that is Roman Church doth not always follow nor in all things the Interpretation of Scripture * Nam sanctissimos Patres quos Doctores Ecclesiae ob illorum sublimem eruditionem merito nominamus in Interpretatione Scripturarum non semper ac in omnibus Catholica Ecclesia sequitur Baron Annal. Eccles an 34. n. 213. p. 238. Colon. They can go off it seems from their Oath and from the Fathers too when they think fit and they are not always bound to keep so close to Antiquity as they give out at other times and pretend they do But in the last place 4. The Determinations and Decrees of the present Church are the only things they stick to and 't is the Authority and Infallibility of that which they relie more upon and a thousand times more regard than all Antiquity or the whole Sense of the Primitive Church They pretend indeed not to determine any thing contrary either to Scripture or to the Primitive Church but they make themselves the only Judges of both they tells us they make no new Doctrines nor no Innovations in Faith but they keep to themselves the Power of declaring what Doctrines are new and what are not and then I can see little difference between their making and their declaring new Articles of Faith since 't is their declaring makes them to be believed
have also divided from them For 't is very idle to say that tho we were Members of that Church when we first began to differ from it yet that by our Divisions we cut our selves from her Communion and therefore that the Unity of her Communion is not affected by our Departure For thus we may as well excuse all the separations from ours or from any other Church viz. that by separating from us they no longer belong to us We are very confident that in all Points of Doctrine of any great moment we of the Church of England do agree much more together than those of the Church of Rome and as for them who have gone out from us they as little break the Unity of the rest whom they are gone from as Luther's departing from the Church of Rome broke the Unity of those who still remained in it So that either the Church of Rome must renounce her pretence to Unity upon this account that Sects and Parties have not broken away from her or she must set up this wise Note of the true Church that all her Members are united except those that are divided from her which is a Mark that will fit any Society in the World. But the Cardinal does here offer a difference between the Division of Hereticks from the Church and a Division from Heresy That in their Church they have a certain Rule for ending Controversies viz. the Sentence of the chief Pastor or the Definition of a general Council and therefore Dissension does not arise among them from the Doctrine of the Church but from the Malice of the Devil Now in answer to this not to be importunate with that Question That if these be the ways of compounding Controversies how comes it to pass that their Controversies still remain I would know 1. Why were not these the means of composing those Controversies that carried us away from them Our Fathers were once of their Communion and those means were not sufficient to retain them in it To say this arose from the Malice of the Devil is to say in effect that the Devil was in 'em which is a little too Magisterial for a Controvertist though he were a Cardinal Unless he resolves to ascribe it to the Devil that they were taken off from an implicit Faith and a blind Obedience to the Church of Rome For it seems to be some Peoples Opinion when Men begin to judg a little for themselves the Spirit of Heresy comes in and then away they go But from hence I gather that the Sentence of the Pope or of a plenary Council is no certain Rule for ending Controversies nor certain means of preventing Divisions if some other means be not used to keep Men from trying the Spirits and proving all things What they are the Cardinal knew very well but mentioned them not nor shall I need to do it In the mean time when whole Countries went off from that Church as soon as they had a little considered what they had believed upon her Authority I need not say whether the Separation was caused by the Doctrine of that Church or by the Malice of the Devil but leave the World to judg But 2. How could those be certain means of composing Controversies concerning which even in their own Church there were the greatest Controversies of all What deference is to be given to the Sentence of their chief Pastor has always been a great Dispute amongst them and the best if not the greatest Part of their Church do not think him infallible Nor is it yet agreed what is requisite to make the Sentence of a general Council decisive nor of those Councils that have contradicted one another which they are to follow And that cannot be a certain Rule for deciding Controversies which is it self controverted So that they have neither that Union of Members among themselves nor those certain means of Union which they pretend to have Which I shall farther shew from a Learned Writer of their own the Famous ‖ Ep. par 8. p. 353. Launoy who in an elaborate Epistle to Nic. Gatinaeus wholly overthrows the pretence in Question For whether or no there be such an Union in the Church of Rome as will serve the Cardinal's turn I will leave the Reader to judg by this short and faithful account of that Epistle First then He proves unanswerably by numerous and apposite Testimonies of every Age That from the Apostles Times till the Council of Trent the constant universal Doctrine concerning the Church was this that it is the Society of the Faithful without ever inserting into the Definition of it any thing relating to its being united to the Pope or any other Bishop as to a Visible Head. Nay P. 400.415 Secondly That all the most Learned Lovers of Antiquity and Godly Opposers of Novelty in the Roman Communion both in the Time of the Council of Trent and ever since have retained that Notion of the Church and stuck to the Ancient Definition And Thirdly P. 415.419 That Canisius and Bellarmin have egregiously innovated in their Doctrine by adding to the ancient Definition such things as are repugnant to all Antiquity and mean while that they opposed each other Canisius making it of the nature of the Church to be under a * Uno summo post Christum capite Monarch and giving no place in his Definition of it to other Governours to whom the Church also is to be united Whereas Bellarmin makes an Aristocracy wherein one is Chief at least †Esse caetum hominum c. colligatum sub regimine legitimorum pastorum ac praecipue unius Christi in terris Vicarii Romani Pontificis De Eccl. l. 3. c. 2. a tempered and limited Monarchy essential to the Church going in this matter against Antiquity against Canisius and against himself in that he elsewhere makes Antiquity a Note of the true Church and says 't is a Demonstration of the Novelty of a Doctrine when the first Authors can be named and pointed to which is his own Case and Canisius's as to this Doctrine He reflects upon both of 'em P. 418 419.428 for ill Logick in these Definitions and shews how they destroy each other He censures the Followers of Canisius sharply and judiciously and then remarks that tho Bellarmine have greater Authority amongst Divines yet Canisius's Definition is more generally received and that for four Reasons because there is more Court-Flattery in it because it is put into Catechisms which the other is not and so sticks by virtue of an early Impression because some Men are mad upon Novelties and lastly others insufferably Ignorant as to the Holy Scriptures and Ancient Tradition the Principles of true Theology Fourthly He thinks they have done harm to the Church and that for these Reasons 1. Because P. 430. for want of Logick they have confounded the Nature of the Church with the State of it 2. They have neglected St. Paul's
it follows that the Church must know them too by Revelation from him then it follows also that the Church must know all things that are to happen hereafter because it is God only that can communicate such Knowledg If he meant that those who have any degree of it must necessarily belong to the Church because God only can give it neither is this true as I shall presently shew Nor if it were could the Gift of foretelling some Things be for this Reason a Note of the Church unless also the want of this Gift should be a demonstration against any Communion that it is not a True Church which I am sure can never be proved from hence that none but God can bestow it 3. He adds that in Deut. 18. it is laid down for a Note of False Doctrine If a Prophet foretells any thing and it does not come to pass Now First This Argument is very impertinent unless as lying Prophecy is said to be a Note of False Doctrine so False Doctrine be also supposed a Note of a False Church which is a very dangerous Supposition to a Church that had rather be tried by any other Note than that of the Truth of her Doctrine for it seems if we can clearly prove by any Good Argument that she professeth False Doctrine it follows without more to do that she is no True Church But Secondly It is not said in the place cited by the Cardinal that False Prophecy is a Note of False Doctrine but that 't is a Note or rather an Argument that the Prophet had no Commission from God to say that such an Event should come to pass Nor does it follow from hence that the False Prophet must needs be a Heretick unless it be impossible for a Catholick or an Orthodox Professor to tell a Lye which I think no Man will be so hardy as to say Thirdly Much less is it said that a Prophet's foretelling rightly a future contingent Event is a Note of True Doctrine which had been necessary to make True Prophecy a Note of the True Church Nay on the other Hand there is express Caution given not long before against being seduced into Idolatry by true Predictions If there arise among you a Prophet or a Dreamer of Dreams and giveth thee a Sign or a Wonder and the Sign or the Wonder comes to pass whereof he spake unto hee saying Deut. xiii 1 2 3. Let us go after other Gods Thou shalt not hearken unto the Words of that Prophet For the Lord your God proveth you c. Which shews the Confidence of the Cardinal in pronouncing so peremptorily that there have been no true Predictions amongst Heathens and Hereticks unless perhaps for a Testimony to our Faith. For this Warning plainly supposed that such Predictions there would be not to confirm Believers in the Truth but to prove their Constancy under a Temptation to Error They must indeed be False Prophets as that signifies False Teachers who should endeavour to gain Authority to Impious Doctrines and to Idolatrous Practices by appealing to the Truth of their own Predictions But yet they were to be True Prophets in respect of the Events which they would foretell And therefore to pretend that Heathens and Hereticks never foretold any Contingency which came to pass but when Providence designed a farther Testimony to confirm us in the Faith is to speak gently a wretched Mistake And there is no more Difficulty in this Point than whether we are to believe God or Bellarmin But if there had been no true Prophecies amongst Heathens besides those which were designed for a Testimony to the Christian Faith yet even these are a manifest Argument that the Gift of Prophecy is no certain Note of the Church nay they prove it more evidently than any other Prophecies could do because those Predictions surely have the most unquestionable Truth which were made for a Testimony to True Doctrine Of which kind that there had been several amongst the Gentiles seems very probable from those Remains thereof which we meet with in Virgil and Tacitus Eclog. 4. De Divin â— Not to insist upon that famous Acrostic of Sybilla Erythraea in Lactantius and Eusebius which it is certain that Cicero had seen Apol. 2. Strom. l. 6. Ep. 49. Qu. 2. De Civit. Dei lib. 18. c. 47. nor what Justin Martyr and Clemens Alexandrinus say of the Books of Hystaspes I shall only note what St. Austin says of this Master viz. That Christ was not foretold in Israel only but in other Nations also And that Predictions concerning Christ may be met with in the Books of those who are Strangers to Israel and that it is not incongruous to believe that this Mystery was revealed to Men of other Nations Which Things saith he may be mentioned as Advantages on our side over and above what is necessary Now will any Man say that these Predictions did less shew a Prophetic Light amongst the Gentiles because they were true With what Conscience therefore could Bellarmin shuffle off those famous Predictions of Balaam a Heathen Soothsayer Numb xxiv 15 c. concerning Christ to which he adds those of the Sybills by saying that they were a Testimony to our Faith As if the Argument were not so much the stronger that the Gift of True Prophecy is not confined within the Communion of the Church Surely he could not be ignorant that the Old Testament it self is called the Word of Prophecy 2 Pet. i. 19. and that the main Predictions thereof were for a Testimony to confirm us in the Faith. But by the same reason that he strikes off the true Predictions of Heathens from being an Instance of Prophetick Light because forsooth they were for the Confirmation of our Faith he must also set aside the best Evidence of Prophetick Light within the Communion of the Church the Predictions whereof were no less but more than any others for a Testimony to our Faith. As to the Oracles of Apollo which he does well to reject from being True Prophecies we need not to offer them for the disparagement of this Note of Prophetick Light since they might be deceitful and yet the Light of Prophecy neither be always in the Church nor never amongst those that are out of it But when he tells us That Hereticks are deceived as often as they would foretell any thing and that this appears from the False Prophets in the Old Testament it is a pitiful thing that such a Man should think it enough to prove a Conclusion so general by a particular Instance He refers us to 1 Kings 22. where we find that Ahab's Prophets spake by a Lying Spirit But does this prove that Hereticks never prophecy truly There were some False Prophets amongst the Ten Tribes upon their Revolt therefore there never were any True Ones How came it then to pass that there were so many of the Lord's Prophets amongst them 1 King. xviii 4. that at one time