A VINDICATION OF THE BRIEF DISCOURSE Concerning the Notes of the Church In Answer to a Late PAMPHLET ENTITuLED The Use and Great Moment of the Notes of the Church as delivered by Cardinal BELLARMIN De Notis Ecclesiae Justified IMPRIMATUR Aug. 11. 1687. Guil. Needham LONDON Printed for Riâ—hard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-yard MDCLXXXVII A VINDICATION of the Brief Discourse concerning the Notes of the Church WHen we are almost tired with grave and serious Disputes it is very comfortable to meet with a pleasant and diverting Adversary who serves instead of a Praevaricator or Terrae Filius to refresh and recruit our Spirits with a Scene of Mirth And though this Iustifier of Bellarmin's Notes looks very demurely and argues very Logically and seems to be in very good Earnest yet a Merry Andrew will be a Merry Andrew still though he be drest up in the Habit of a Philosopher and therefore I must beg my Readers Pardon if I cannot forbear Smiling sometimes though to pay due respect to my Adversary and to maintain a just Decorum I will do it very gravely too He begins very movingly The World is come to a fine pass when it shall as good as deny Christ's One Holy Catholick Church This is very wicked indeed But who are these Miscreants that dare do such a Thing A Company of Senseless Wretches who deny Christ's Church and yet confess that there is no remission of Sins or Eternal Salvation out of it Then I suppose they are Men who don't care much for Salvation nor Sence for to deny a Church out of which they confess there is no Salvation is to resolve to be damned and to say that Salvation is not to be had out of the Church and yet that Christ has no such Church deserves Damnation as much as Nonsence does And therefore I suppose by as good he does not mean that they altogether deny it but do something as good or rather as bad as that but what this should be I cannot guess unless it be to deny the Roman-Catholick Church to be this One Holy Catholick Church of Christ and that indeed is a very sad thing too And they seek to baffle those who by Prayer and Guidance of God's good Spirit search to find it out i. e. they confute Bellarmin's Notes of a Church and that must be confessed to be a very sad thing also and as good as denying Christ's One Holy Catholick Church Well! Cardinal Bellarmin after others hath to very good purpose lent his helping Hand to shew us the City built on a Hill. But it had been better he had lent us his Eyes for Protestants see with their Eyes and not with their Hands and notwithstanding his pointing to it we cannot see what he would shew us unless it be the Church built on Seven Hills But this is all to little purpose with the Obstinate who will not agree neither what the Church is no nor what a Note may be This is unpardonable Obstinacy that we desire the Cardinal or any one for him first to tell us what a true Church is before he tells us which is the true Church to explain the Nature before he gives us the External Notes and Marks of a Church which is as unreasonable as to ask what a Hind and a Panther is before we ask of what Colour they are whether White or Spotted and who would think any one should be so perverse as to ask what a Note is which our Author will give us a learned Definition of presently The Discourser had said pag. 3. That a Church is a Society of Christians united under Christian Pastors for the Worship of Christ and wherever we find such a Society as this there is a Christian Church and all such particular or national Churches all the World over make up the whole Christian Church or the Universal Church of Christ. That is says the Justifier pag. 2. whatsoever therefore is the Denomination of Believers Abassine or Armenian Greek Roman let us add Lutheran Calvinist with a wide c. they are each of them Churches of Christ suppose this of which more presently and if we allow the Roman they may modestly allow all the rest and the Church Universal is nothing else but the Aggregate or omnium gatherum very elegantly of all such Professions And what then The Church Universal is made up of all particular Churches What then do you say Why pray consider whoever thou art good Reader the Church Catholick consisting of all Nations Iew and Gentile and therefore primarily called Catholick and therefore not from their Union to the Bishop of Rome as the Head of Catholick Unity had its Plantation by our blessed Lord and his Apostles in one Faith and one Communion antecedently to all such Divisions that now or then were made by the Craft and Policy of Satan A notable Observation this That the Faith and Communion of the Church was one before it was divided What then And therefore far is the Universal Church from being an Aggregate of all such Breaches of Faith and Charity An Aggregate of Breaches an Union of Divisions may possibly be as good a Church as it is sense But though Breaches cannot very well be aggregated it is possible that two divided Churches may both belong to the one Body of Christ as quarrelling Brethren may still be the Children of the same Father and owned by him too though corrected and punished for their Quarrels Churches consist of Men who are liable to Mistakes and Passions and therefore may quarrel and separate from each other while they are both united to Christ in Faith and Worship For though the Bishops and Pastors and Members of distinct and coordinate Churches ought to maintain a Brotherly Correspondence and exercise all Acts of Communion that distant Churches are capable of with each other upon account of that common Relation they all have to Christ in whom they are united into one Body and our common Head will exact a severe Account of those who cause Divisions yet if such Divisions happen as separate us from each other but do not divide us from Christ each Church may continue a true Church still and belong to the one Mystical Body of Christ though there may be some scandalous Breaches and Divisions among them What is it then that unites any Church to Christ but the true Faith and Worship of Christ And if contending Churches may both retain the true Christian Faith and Worship at least in such a degree as not to be unchurched the external Peace of the Church is broken which is a very great Crime and will fall heavy upon the Authors of it yet if they both belong to Christ this Aggregate of Breaches and omnium gatherum of Professions as our Author very wittily speaks may be united in Christ's Mystical Body For though they fling one another out of the Church our common Saviour may chastise their Follies but own them
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
how old is the Council of Trent which is the true Antiquity of many Popish Articles of Faith. 3dly Perpetual Duration out-lasting all earthly Empires and Kingdoms For it plucks them down as fast as it can 4thly Amplitude being a great Body according to Prophecy But not so big as Paganism yet 5thly Succession Apostolical the very Iews confessing it as they do Transubstantiation How strong invincible clear and undeniable by Gainsayers Then I suppose it has no Gain-sayers if they do not deny it 6thly Primitive consent how great and how manifest to those good Men who enquire Yea how great indeed for no Body can find it but the Vicar of Putney Witness the Multitudes that return to the Catholick Church upon that account Monsieur de Meaux's French Converts I suppose who never heard of the Dragoons 7thly Intimate Union with their Head Christ and with one another But Bellarmin's visible Head of Unity is the Pope not Christ so that this is a new Note and it seems the Churches Union with Christ is extra-essential also or else it could be no Note 8thly Sanctity of Doctrine as revealed by God in whom is Light and no Darkness at all In teaching Men to break Faith with Hereticks to depose Heretical Princes and absolve their Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance and arm them against their Leige Lord to prefer the Caelibacy of Priests tho the manifest Cause of so many Adulteries and Fornications as a more Holy State than Matrimony and such like Doctrines wherein is Darkness but no Light at all 9thly Efficacy upon Infidels Witness the Spanish Converts in the Golden Indies But why not upon Hereticks as well as Infidels I fear the Conversions in England are so slow that he dares not yet make that a Mark of the Church 10thly The Holiness of the Fathers Whose Lives we wish to be Legends though unquestionably true when we see how far they have out-done us Ay! that makes Hereticks call them Legends 11thly The Glory of Miracles which a Man would be wary of contradicting for fear of Blasphemy and sinning against the Holy Ghost Especially when they are such Miracles as no Body ever saw but the Monk who relates them or Miracles to prove both parts of a Contradiction to be true as for Instance that the Virgin Mary was and was not conceived in Original Sin. But if ever they had suffered poor Ietzer's Fate they would rather hereafter believe than feel such Miracles Still continued and denied by none but Scepticks in dispossession of Devils I suppose he means the Boy of Bilson and curing the Struma the Kings-Evil but this is a Protestant as well as Popish Miracle and is a better proof that the King than that the Pope is the Head of the Church 12. The Gift of Prophecy Witness the Maid of Kent To say nothing concerning the Confession of Adversaries and unhappy Exit of the Churches Enemies Which may very well be spared for there have been Confessions and unhappy Exits on both sides Tho Hen. 8. Queen Elizabeth and King Iames 1. were no Examples of such unhappy Exits These These are the Notes which like a Bill in Parliament deserve a second Reading and then to be thrown out though I hope they will never come in there The way being thus prepared the Court fat and the Jury of Notes empannell'd which I suppose is the reason why he calls but 12 of Bellarmin's 15 the rest being Supernumeraries the Discourser is summoned to make his Appearance Enter Discourser Which I can assure you put him into a fright on the sudden fearing it might be the Inquisition but he recollected himself and thus began his Plea. Is not the Catholick Church visible And if we can see which is the Church what need we guess at it by Marks and Signs and that by such Marks and Signs too as are matter of dispute themselves cannot we distinguish between the Christian Church and a Turkish Mosque and a Iewish Synagogue cannot we without all this adoe distinguish a Christian from a Turk or a Iew or a Pagan And it will be as easy to find out a Christian Church as it will be to find out Christians And what now is the hurt of this Oh! says the Justifier What Spirit is that which envies the Christian the Felicity of finding the true Church and casts an evil Eye upon the Notes conducing to it let any Christian judg A very Evil Spirit doubtless But does the Discourser do this Who says that the Church is visible and may be known without disputable Notes for Notes are only to discover things absent and invisible but what is visible is best known by it self Yes for whereas he pretends 't is visible besides that he flatly denies it after p. 14. Nay say I not among Counterfeits Is it visible at Sea which is the Royal Navy when the Enemy puts up the English Colours First then let us reconcile the Discourser with himself He asks whether the Church be not visible and therein appeals to the Confession of his Adversaries that the Church is visible and wonders what need there is of Notes of disputable Notes to find out a visible Church in Pag. 14. He desires to know How they will prove that there is a Church without the Scripture He answers for them that the Church is visible for we see a Christian Church in the World but says he 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 Charter and is this to deny the Visibility of the Church because it cannot be seen or known without its Charter when it Charter is as visible as the Society which calls its self the Church And surely that Church is visible enough whose Society and Charter are both visible tho the Church cannot be known without its Charter But now the Answerer will not allow the Church to be visible among Counterfeits and then it has not been visible this hundred Years at least and then what becomes of Bellarmin's Notes which are none if the Church be not visible for they are Notes not of an invisible but of a visible Church But the Comparison whereby he proves this is an eternal Confutation of such extra-essential Notes Is it visible at Sea which is the Royal Navy when the Enemy puts up the English Colours Which shows how fallible Notes are for Colours are Notes of the Royal Navy and these may deceive us but if you go aboard and see the Ships and the Company and their Commissions you cannot be mistaken The Natures of things cannot be counterfeited but Notes may The Discourser says A Christian Church is nothing else but a Society of Christians united under Christian Pastors for the Worship of Christ. This the Justifier thinks a very slight way of
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
both as in such a divided State of Christendom we have great reason to hope he will. But let us hear what our Author says is the Catholick Church 'T is only a Comprehension of all those Churches which keep to the Unity of the Faith and persist in their first undivided Estate in the Bond of Universal Peace By the Unity of the Faith I hope he means that one Faith in which as he tells us Christ and his Apostles planted the Church and then I doubt this will fall hard upon the Church of Rome which rejects all other Churches who do retain this One Apostolick Faith if they disown the new Articles of the Trent Creed and the first undivided Estate of the Church was settled in an Equality and Brotherly Association of Bishops and Churches not in the Empire of one over all the rest and then this is more severe upon the Church of Rome than Protestants desire for she has destroyed this first undivided State by challenging such a Supremacy as enslaves all other Churches to her and therefore is so far from being the One Catholick Church that if this Definition be true she is no part of it And as for the Bond of Universal Peace what Claim she can lay to that let the cruel Persecutions of those innocent Christians whom she calls Hereticks the Excommunication of whole Churches the deposing of Princes and all the Blood that has been shed in Christendom under the Banners of Holy Church witness for her And thus we come to the Notion of a Note or Mark which he says is clear by its Definition page 3. and therefore I hope he will give us such a Definition as is self-evident or which all Mankind agree in for a Definition which the contending Parties do not agree in can clear nothing Let us then hear his Definition That it is a most sensible Appearance in or about the Subject enquired after whereby we are led toward the Knowledg of the present Existence or Essence of the said Subject And from hence he concludes 'T is manifest then that a Note of a Thing must be extra-essential of it self because by it and the Light from thence we arrive to the Knowledg of the Essence And he adds upon which Grounds you see the reasonable Demands of those who challenge first That a distinctive Mark or Note must be more known than the Thing notified Secondly That a Note must be in Conjunction at least in some measure proper not common or indifferent to many singulars much less to contraries Now all that I can pick out of this is 1. That the Existence or Essence of things must be known by Notes 2. That such Notes whereby we discover the Existence or Essence of things must be extra-essential or not belong to the Essence of it And yet 3. That these Notes must not be common but proper to the thing of which it is a Note Which are as pretty Notions as a Man shall ordinarily meet with and therefore I shall briefly examine them First That the Existence or Essence of things must be known by Notes For if the Existence and Essence of things may be known without Notes this Dispute about Notes is to no purpose And yet how many things are there whose Existence and Essence are known without Notes Who desires any Note to know the Sun by to know what Light or Taste or Sounds Pain or Pleasure is The Presence of these Objects and the notice our Senses give us of them that is the things themselves are the onely Notes of themselves The use of Signs or Notes is only to discover the Existence of such things as are absent visible or future but what is present and visible exposed to the notice of Sense or Reason is best known by it self and can be rightly known no other way and therefore since all the dispute is about Marks of the Church he ought to prove that the Church is such a Society as can be known only by Notes and then it must either be absent invisible or future for all other things may be known by themselves without Notes Secondly Especially since he will allow nothing to be a Note but what is extra-essential or does not belong to the essence of the thing which seems to me a very extraordinary way of finding out the Existence or Essence of things by such Notes as do not belong to their Essence and then I think they cannot prove their Existence For how can I find out any thing without knowing in some measure what it is I find or how can I know what the Essence of any thing is by such Notes as are not essential There are but two sorts of Notes or Signs that I know of natural or instituted and they both suppose that we know the thing and the Note and Sign of it before we can find it out by Signs or Notes As for Natural Signs the most certain Signs we have are Causes and Effects but we must know both the Causes and Effects before the one can be a Sign of the other Thus Smoke is a Sign of Fire but it is no Sign of Fire to any Man who does not know what Fire is and that it will cause a Smoak when it seises on combustible Matter and that nothing else can cause a Smoak but Fire Thus in univocal Effects the Effect declares the Nature of the Cause as we know that a Man had a Man to his Father but then we must first know what a Man is and that a Man begets in his own Likeness But this I suppose is not our Author's meaning that the Notes of the Church are Natural Causes and Effects or Natural Concomitants or Adjuncts because the Church is not a Natural but a Mystical Body and therefore can have no Natural Notes Let us then consider instituted Signs and they we grant must be extra-essential but then there never was and never can be an instituted Sign to discover the Essence and Existence of what we did not know before The Use of such Signs is to distinguish Places or Persons by different Names or Habits or Colours c. or to serve instead of Words as the Sound of the Trumpet or the Beat of the Drum or to be for Legal Contracts and Securities and the like but instituted Signs are no Signs till we know the thing of which they are Signs which shews how ridiculous it is to talk of such extra-essential Notes as shall discover the Existence and Essence of things which we knew not before for if we must first know the Church before we can find it out by Notes these extra-essential Notes may be spared To be sure this shews how far this Definition of a Note is from being clear since it does not suit any kind of Notes which Mankind are acquainted with and if the Notes of the Church are a peculiar sort of Notes by themselves he should not have appealed to the common Notion and Definition of Signs and
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
the Mass c. And in this case though what they retain of the Essentials of Christian Worship is sufficient to denominate them true Churches yet other Churches are not bound to Communicate with them in their Corruptions The plain state then of the case is this All Churches which profess the true Faith and Worship of Christ though intermixed with great Corruptions belong to the one Body of Christ and to know whether any Church be a true Church we must not so much enquire whom they communicate with or separate from but what their Faith and Worship is That external Unity is so far from being the Mark of a true Church that we may be bound not to communicate with true Churches which are corrupt because we are not bound to communicate in a corrupt Faith or Worship And that in this case the guilt of Separation lies on that side where the Corruptions are And yet all the Christian Churches in the World that retain the true Faith and Worship of Christ though they are divided from each other upon the Disputes of Faith or Worship or Discipline are yet the One Church of Christ as being united in the Essentials of Faith and Worship which by the Institution of Christ makes them his one Mystical Body and one Church Some Lines after he has a very notable Remark about the Unity of the Church That the Church admits not but casts out some though they profess Christianity Schismaticks Hereticks which being cast out if you mark it well she is united with her self And I assure you it is worth marking for if you mark it well every Conventicle in Christendom is thus united with it self But is this the Unity of the Catholick Church to cast all out of our Communion who are not of our Mind and then call our selves the Catholick Church when there are a great many other Churches which profess the Faith of Christ as truly and sincerely as we do and are as much united among themselves as we are Why may not the Church of England upon this Principle call her self the Catholick Church For she has more Unity in this way than the Church of Rome has When all Hereticks and Schismaticks are cast out she is united with her self and if this Unity be a Mark of the Catholick Church all the Churches and Conventicles of Christendom are the Catholick Church for they are all united with themselves But then the difficulty will be how all these Churches which are united with themselves but separated from one another make one Catholick Church or which of these Churches which are thus united with themselves which it seems is Catholick Unity is the One Church for every one of them have this Mark of the Catholick Church that they are united with themselves He proves Pag. 8. That Schismaticks are not of the Church one Holy entire Church from their very Name which signifies rending and tearing not the Seamless Coat alone but the blessed Body of our Lord. And I must confess the Name Schismatick is as good a Mark of a Schismatical Church as the Name Catholick is of the Catholick Church But we must consider who are the God-Fathers and whether they have given proper Names or not Now the Church of Rome is the common God-Mother which Christens her self Catholick and all other Churches Schismaticks but whether she be infallible in giving Names ought to be considered But Schism signifies rending and tearing and yet a Schismatical Church signifies a Church too and how they are a Church without belonging to the One Church when there is but One Church is somewhat mysterious And therefore Schism is not tearing off a part of the Church but one part dividing from the other in external Communion which supposes that both parts still belong to the same Church or else the Church is not divided For Apostacy and Schism are two different things Apostates cease to be of the Church Schismaticks are of the Church still though they disturb the Peace of the Church and divide the external Communion of it which differ as forsaking the Church and going out of it which no Man does who does not renounce the Faith of Christ and raising Quarrels and Contentions in it to the alienating of Christians from each other But that Schismaticks are not of the Church he proves from St. Paul ' s rebuking his siding Corinthians with this quick Interrogatory Is Christ saith he he means his Catholick Church divided How nothing more absurd than to grant division in the Church An excellent Paragraph does St. Paul who reproves these Corinthians for their Schisms shut them out of the Church for them too does he deny them to belong to the Church when he directs his Epistle to the Church of God at Corinth Is it so very absurd to grant that there are Divisions in the Church when St. Paul rebukes them for their Divisions which surely supposes that they were divided And is it absurd to suppose that to be which at the same time we confess to be To say that Christ is divided or that there are more Christs than one would be very absurd indeed to say that the Church of Christ is divided is no Adsurdity because it is true but the Absurdity or Unreasonableness and Indecency which St. Paul charges them with is the Absurdity in Practice that when there is but one Christ one Lord whom they all worship that the Disciples of the same Lord should divide from each other as if they served and worshipped different Masters But he has a very choice Note about the Unity of the Church Pag. 9. That it is the Unity of a Body a living animate Body but not I hope of a Natural but a Mystical Body animated by that Divine Spirit which dwells in the whole and in every part of it and therefore nothing can cut us off from the Unity of this Body but that which divides us totally from the quickning and animating Influences of this Spirit which it is certain all external Divisions do not Well! but it is not the Unity of a Mathematical Body which is divisibile in semper divisibilia but animate This I believe every Body will grant him that the Church is not a Mathematical Body but what hurt is there in Mathematical Unity Oh! that is divisible without end and that I confess is an ill kind of Unity But I hope it is one till it be divided and I fear a living animate Body is divisible too and if that cannot be one which is divisible I fear there is no such thing as Unity in Nature excepting in God and then it is not sufficient to prove the Catholick Church to be one because it is united unless he can prove that it is not divisible But indeed he is a little out in applying his Axiom for as much as he despises this Mathematical Unity he can find this indivisible Unity only in a Mathematical Point and possibly this may be the Reason why the Church
like it They I confess will be in danger of a very fatal Stumble if they stumble either upon Scripture or Antiquity but we dare venture both Let them but grant that true Faith is the Note of a true Church and we will refer the Trial of our Faith to Scripture and Antiquity when they please Tho Cardinal Bellarmin had so much Wit as not to refer the Trial of the Churches Faith to Scripture I added That when we give Notes which belong to a whole Species as we must do when we give the Notes of a true Christian 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 Church as do not fit all true Churches cannot be true Notes But this which is the true Answer to Bellarmine's Argument he wisely drops As for what the Cardinal urges that all Sorts of Christians think themselves to have the True Faith and True Sacraments I answered 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 the 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 To this he answers This is the same Error again for a good Title I hope is essential 't is no Note of a good Estate Oh the Wit of some Disputers What other Note is there of a good Estate but a good Title But he says there are other Notes which lead to the Discovery of a good Title what then they are the Notes of the Title not of the Estate they prove a good Title and a good Title makes a good Estate And yet that the Land be not praeengaged be free from all Incumbrances that there be no flaw in the Demise I take to be essential to a good Title and therefore according to our Authors Logick cannot be Notes neither But what is all this to the purpose Bellarmin proves That the true Faith cannot be the Note of a true Church because all Sects of Christians pretend to it I answer that though those who pretend to the true Faith and have it not are not true Churches yet those who have the true Faith are true Churches As a Purchase upon a bad Title which a Man thinks a good one is not a good Estate but yet a Purchase upon a good Title is a good Estate To this the Justifier of Bellarmin answers That a good Title is essential and therefore is no Note of a good Estate Whereas the Dispute here is not about essential or extra-essential Notes but whether the true Faith cannot be a Note of the true Church because some Men pretend to the true Faith who have it not But want of Understanding is necessary to make some Men Answerers of Books which Men of Understanding know they cannot answer The Cardinal 's second Objection against the Protestant Notes of a Church is That the Notes of any thing must be more known than the thing it self this I granted Now says he which is the true Church is more knowable than which is the true Faith and this I denied for this 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. Now says our Answerer This being denied we prove it thus c. Pag. 15. But methinks he should first have answered the Argument before he had gone to proving but that it seems is not his Talent Well but how does he prove that the true Church may be known before we know the true Faith Admirably I assure you If the Church be the Pillar of Truth raised up aloft that it may be conspicuous to all Men it must be more manifest than the Truth This Pillar raised aloft is a new Notion which I suppose he learnt from the Monument at London-Bridg which indeed is very visible but other wiser Writers by the Pillar and Ground of Truth prove that the Church is the Foundation whereon Truth is built but that would not serve his purpose to make the Church more visible than the Truth for he knows that the Foundation is not so visible as that which is built on it And in the next Page he honestly confesses that the true Faith is the Foundation of the Church and therefore proves that the true Church cannot be known by the true Faith for that is as if I should say I cannot know the House unless I see the Foundation the next way to overturn it So dangerous a thing are Metaphors which prove backward and forward as a Man fancies But let the Church be a Pillar raised aloft or a Foundation-Pillar or what Pillar he pleases must not we know the Church before we know it to be a Pillar of Truth Or can we know which Church is the Pillar of Truth before we know what Truth is Well! But let us now look to our selves for he undertakes to demonstrate it The Fruits of the Spirit the Graces are more known than the Spirit it self Ergo the true Church must be known before the true Faith. The outward profession of Faith more than the inward profession Ergo The true Church must be known before the outward profession of the true Faith which makes a true Church The Concrete more than the Abstract the Believer than the Belief I can know the Men before I know their Faith Ergo the true Church must be known before the true Faith. He is a very hard-hearted Man who will not allow this for Demonstration but he is a very good-natured Man who will allow it to be Sense Well! But he has a Distinction that will do the Business Aliud notius nobis aliud natura i. e. Some things are more knowable in themselves and some things are more knowable to us But we are enquiring which is most knowable to us the true Faith or the true Church He grants then that True Faith being a Constituent of or essential to the Church may be said to be Naturâ notior first known in the Order of Nature But we would not have these Methods confounded For if Faith be essential 't is the less known to us for that very reason because the first Constituents of a Compound are last known except to the Maker 'T is more manifest to us that we are Flesh and Blood though God knows that we are Dust and Ashes How happy is the
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
Reformation Other Notes I observed were not properly Notes of the true Church any otherwise than as they are Testimonies to the Truth of common Christianity Such as his 9th the Efficacy of Doctrine The 10th the Holiness of the Lives of the first Authors and Fathers of our Religion As for the Efficacy of Doctrine he saies That should bear Testimony to the Church also if it be true that more are converted to the Catholick Church than Apostatize from it Let him read the Examination of the 9th Note for this But if it be true also that the Roman Catholicks do convert more to the Christian Faith than any other sort of Christians as the Spaniards converted the poor Indians this follows undeniably that they believe they are more bound to spread the Christian Religion than any other And what if they did believe so are not others as much bound as they And what follows from hence That they are the only true Church because they are more zealous in propagating Christianity Does this relate to the Efficacy of Doctrine or to the Zeal of the Preacher But he says The Pharisees compassing Sea and Land to make a Proselyte proved them to be the best and most zealous of all the Jewish party tho they made them ten times more the Children of Hell than they were before I think none but our Author would have had so little Wit as to have justified the Church of Rome by the Zeal of the Pharisees for tho as he says our Saviour's Wo against the Pharisees was not precisely intended against their Zeal yet this proves that the greatest Corrupters of the Faith may be the most zealous to propagate their Errors and therefore such a Zeal does not prove them to be the best men nor the truest Church Thus I said the 11th Note the glory of Miracles and the 12th the spirit of Prophesie are Testimonies to the Religion not primarily to the Church To which he answers Let no man be so besotted as to say that all Miracles of a later date are delusions Fear not Sir no Miracles neither late nor early are delusions but some delusions are called Miracles witness the Miracles that poor Ietzer felt But the question is Whether true Miracles prove that particular Church in which they are done the only true Church or only give testimony to the Religion in confirmation of which they are wrought The spirit of Prophesie also he says belongs to the Church unless we find that all the true Churches in the Circle pretend to it All that pretend to a Religion revealed by Prophesie pretend to the spirit of Prophesie but all do not pretend in this age to have the gift of Prophesie though they may as justly pretend to it as the Church of Rome See the Answer to the 12th Note I added That the 13th 14th 15th Notes I doubted would prove no Notes at all because they are not always true and at best uncertain The 13th is the confession of Adversaries which he says will carry a cause in our Temporal Courts And good reason too because they are supposed to speak nothing but what they know and what the evidence of truth extorts from them but how the Adversaries of Christianity should come to know so well which is the true Church who believe no Church at all is somewhat mysterious and yet the Cardinal is miserably put to it to make out this Note as may be seen in the Answer The 15th Temporal felicity he says will evidence the Church as Iob's later state did evidence his being in favour with God. But what did his former state do Was he not then in favour with God too but would any man talk at this rate who remembers that Christ was crucified and his Church persecuted for three hundred years The 14th the unhappy Exit of the enemies of the Church he says Count Teckely may be a witness of it who sides with Infidels against the Church and is accordingly blest And what thinks he of the misfortunes of some great Princes who have been as zealous for the Church His third and fourth Notes I said were not Notes of a Church but Gods promises made to his Church And here he triumphs mightily Is there such opposition then between Notes and Promises and finds out some promises which he says are Notes of the Church I shall not examine that because it is nothing to the purpose for if there be some Promises which are not Notes of the Church I am safe for I did not say that no Promises could be Notes but that these were not Notes but Promises and gave my reasons for it why these particular Promises could not be Notes As for the third A long duration that it shall never fail I said this could never be a Note till the day of judgment A fine time he says to chuse our Religion in the mean while but thanks be to God we have other Notes of a Church than this and therefore need not wait till the day of Judgment to know the true Church But it is certain the duration of the Church till the end of the World is such a mark of the Church as cannot be known till the end of the World. The fourth Amplitude and extent is not to distinguish one Christian Church from another but to distinguish the Christian Church from other Religions and then I doubt this Prophesie has not received its just accomplishment yet for all the Christian Churches together bear but a small proportion to the rest of the world And if this promise be not yet accomplished it cannot be a Note of the Church But the Reader may see all this fairly stated in the examination of these Notes His fifth Note The Succession of Bishops in the Church of Rome from the Apostles time till now I grant is a Note of the Roman Church and the Succession of Bishops in the Greek Church is as good a Note of the Greek Church and any Churches which have been later planted who have Bishops in Succession from any of the Apostles or Apostolick Bishops by this Note are as good Churches as they This he very honestly grants and thereby confesses that this Note will not prove the Church of Rome to be the one Catholick Church which the Cardinal intended by it Now because I said This Note is common to all true Churches and therefore can do the Church of Rome no Service He takes me up All true Churches then where is your Communion with Luther ' s or Calvin ' s Disciples They do not so much as pretend to Succession Nor is this the Dispute now whether those Churches which have not a Succession of Bishops are true Churches but if he will allow a Succession of Bishops to be a Note of a true Church all those Churches are true Churches which have this Succession as the Greek Church and the Church of England have and therefore this Note can do no Service to the Church of Rome as not
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