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
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
being peculiar to it But as for what he says That Succession of Doctrine without Succession of Office is a poor Plea. I must needs tell him I think it is a much better Plea then Succession of Office without Succession of Doctrine For I am sure that is not a safe Communion where there is not a Succession of Apostolical Doctine but whether the want of a Succession of Bishops will in all Cases Unchurch will admit of a greater Dispute I am sure a true Faith in Christ with a true Gospel Conversation will save men and some Learned Romanists defend that old Definition of the Church that it is Caetus Fidelium the company of the Faithful and will not admit Bishops or Pastors into the Definition of a Church His seventh Note I own is home to his purpose That that is the only true Church which is united to the Bishop of Rome as to its Head. If he could prove this it must do his Business without any other Notes But it is like the Confidence of a Iesuit to make that the Note of the Church which is the chief Subject of the Dispute Very well says our Answerer so Irenaeus so St. Cyprian St. Ambrose St. Hierom Optatus St. Austin are answered for none of these can turn the Scale Nor did any of these Fathers ever say That the Bishop of Rome is the Head of the Church This is the Dispute still and will be the Dispute till the Church of Rome quit her absurd claims to it But he says We of the Church of England should consider that not above 100 years ago we communicated with the Apostolick See. And does that make the Church of Rome the Head of the Church But have we grounds enough for such a Breach as we have made It is ground enough sure to Renounce our Subjection to the Bishop of Rome if he have no right to claim it But Transubstantiation and the Worship of Images and Addresses to Saints he thinks very harmless things But the mischief is we do no think them so But this is not a place to dispute these matters His first Note concerning the name Catholick I observed makes every Church a Catholick Church which will call it self so And here he learnedly disputes about some indelible names which the providence of God orders to be so for great Ends. St. Paul directs his Epistle to the Romans i. e. he hopes to the Roman Catholicks p. 34. But a Roman Catholick was an unknown name in those days and many Ages after But at that time the world in the Apostles phrase was in Communion with her Where has the Apostle any such Phrase And yet we are now a disputing not about Catholick Communion but about the name Roman Catholick Church Whereas it does not appear that the Romans had at that time so much as the Name of the Church as I observed before and the very Name of the Catholick Church cannot be proved so Ancient as that time And her Faith being spoken of which he interprets her being admired throughout the whole World whatever it proves does not prove that She had then the Name of the Catholick Church He adds It is not without something of God that She keeps the name still But how does She keep it She will call her self Catholick when no Body else will allow her to be so and thus any Church may keep this Name which did Originally belong to all true Orthodox Churches As for Hereticks they have challenged the Name and kept it too among themselves as the Church of Rome does tho it belonged no more to them than it does to her His other indelible names of Times and Places he may make the best of he can But let all concerned in Black-fryars and Austin-fryars and the House of Chartreux which has so miraculously preserved its Name look to it for he seems to hope that these indelible Names are preserved for some good purpose I added The name Catholick does not declare what a Church is but in what Communion it is and is no Note of a true Church unless it be first proved that they are true Churches which are in Communion with each other For if three parts in four of all the Churches in the World were very corrupt and degenerate in Faith and Worship and were in one Communion this would be the most Catholick Communion as Catholick signifies the most General and Universal but yet the fourth part which is sincere would be the best and truest Church and the Catholick Church as that signifies the Communion of all Orthodox and pure Churches This Distinction of Catholick our Answerer likes well and says it does not hurt them for that case is yet to come viz. that the most corrupt Communion should be most Catholick or Universal but that was not the force of the Argument nor any part of it tho it may be it is too true but the Argument was this That the bare Name of Catholick cannot prove a Church to be a true Church because that does not relate to its Nature and Essence but to its Communion Now Catholick Communion signifies either the most universal Communion or the Communion only of pure and Orthodox Churches be their number more or less If we take it in the first Sense the most Catholick Communion may be the most corrupt for it may so happen that the greater number of Churches which are in Communion with each other may be very corrupt If we take it in the second Sense we must first know whether those Churches are Pure and Orthodox before we can tell whether they be Catholick Churches and therefore in both Senses the bare Name of Catholick cannot prove a Church to be a true Church for we must first know whether they be true as that signifies Pure and Orthodox Churches before we can know whether they be Catholick But he says It is not probable that God would spread such a Temptation and Stumbling-block before his own People yet if he should for Example sake have suffered Lutheranism or Cranmerism to have spread to such a measure the palpableness of the Schism would have been security perhaps sufficient to keep all prudent Persons where they were This is nothing to the present Argument as indeed it would be surprising to find him say any thing to the purpose but yet if the most Catholick Communion as that signifies the most Universal tho the Notes does not refer to Catholick Communion but to the name Catholick were a Note of the true Church it is not sufficient to say That it is probable that God will not suffer a corrupt Communion to be the most Universal but he must prove that God has promised this shall not be And if according to this Supposition Lutheranism or Cranmerism had prevailed three parts in four over the Church how could the palpableness of the Schism secure his prudent Man from the Infection for if three parts of the Church were divided from 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
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
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
fourth why should a prudent Man charge so much the greater number with the Schism Why should the three parts be the Schismaticks and not the fourth 3ly I observed another Mystery of finding the true Church by Notes is to pick out of all the Christian Churches in the World one Church which we must own for the only Catholick Church and reject all other Churches as Heretical or Schismatical or Uncatholick Churches who refuse Obedience and Subjection to this one Catholick Church For if this be not the intent of iâ— what do all the Notes of the Church signifie to prove that the Church of Rome is the only true Catholick Church And if they do not prove this the Cardinal has lost his Labour Now I observed That there are many things to be proved here before we are ready for the Notes of the Church They must first prove that there is but one true Church in the World. Or as I had expressed it before One Church which is the Mistress of all other Churches and the only Principle and Center of Catholick Unity To this he Answers p. 37. That there is but one true Church ought to be proved Credo unam Sanctam doth it seems not prove it but if there were as many Churches as Provinces if they are true they are one as hath been explained Nor stands it with the very Institution of the Creed to say I believe many true Churches no more than to say I believe in many true Faiths which I suppose there is some new Institution for also believing in the true Faith for if they be true say I they are one Harp not therefore any more on that jarring String It is really a miserable case for a Church which is able to speak somewhat better for her self to be exposed by such Advocates as do not understand her own Principles For will any learned Romanist deny that there are several particular true Churches Or will any Protestant deny that all true Churches are one Catholick Church which we profess in our Creed But the Controversy between us and the Cardinal is quite of a different nature not whether there are any particular true Churches nor whether all the true Churches in the World make one Catholick Church but whether the Church of Rome which considered in it self is but a particular Church be the only true Catholick Church the center of Catholick Unity so that no Church is a true Church but only by communion with and subjection to the Church of Rome Now this he can never prove by the Notes of a true Church unless he first prove that there is but one particular Church the communion with and subjection to which makes all other Churches true Churches For if there be more true Churches than one which owe subjection to no other Church but only a friendly and brotherly correspondence then though his Notes of a Church could prove the Church of Rome to be a true Church yet they could not prove that all other Churches must be subject to the Church of Rome The Church of England may be a true Church still though she renounce obedience to the Bishop of Rome But he undertakes to prove the Church of Rome not to be the Mistress which as it may be construed is invidious though she challenges all the authority of a Mistress but the Mother of other Churches And if he could do it it were nothing to the present argument which is not Whether the Church of Rome be the Mistress or Mother which he pleases of all other Churches but whether the bare Notes of a true Church can prove this prerogative of the Church of Rome when there are other true Churches besides her self But yet his arguments to prove this are very considerable 1st Because the Church of Rome is acknowledged to be so by all in communion with her P. 37. which is indeed unanswerable The Church of Rome her self and all in communion with her say she is the Mo-Mother of all other Churches and therefore she is so 2dly The Learned King Iames the First did not stick to own her Did King Iames the First own the Pope's Supremacy 3. To us in England 't is past denial our Mother and Nurse too Our step-mother we will own her and nothing more But 't is her authority that keeps up in England above all other Reformed Churches our Bishops our Liturgy our Cathedrals by her Records her Evidences they stand the shock of Antichristian Adversaries This is strange news We are indeed then more beholden to the Church of Rome than we thought for but does the Church of Rome allow our Bishops or our Liturgy how then does her Authority keep them up truly only because she cannot pull them down and I pray God she may never be able to do it She is not our Principle as he speaks and never shall be our Center again His fourth Argument is from Vitruvius which I believe is the first time it was used from the situation of Rome for the Empire of the World which he thinks holds as well for the Empire of the Church And so he concludes with our Lords Elogies of St. Peter's Chair which I could never meet with yet This is a formidable man especially considering how many such Writers the Church of â—ome is furnished with I added That they must prove that the Catholiks Church does not signifie all the particular true Churches that are in the World but some one Church which is the fountain of Catholick Unity That is says he he should say not only signifie all but also some one P. 39. No Sir I say not signifie all but some one The Cardinal proposes to find out by his Notes the one true Catholick Church among all the Communions of Christendom and to prove that the Church of Rome is this Catholick Church Now I say this is a senseless undertaking unless he can prove that the Catholick Church does not signifie all the particular true Churches which make the one Church and Body of Christ but some one Church which is the fountain of Catholick Unity and Communion with which gives the denomination of Catholick Churches to all others Now what has our Answerer to say to this besides his Criticism of all and some one Truly he fairly grants it and says that other Churches as daughters of the Mother-church are formally Catholick but take the Mother by her self and she is fundamentally Catholick But this I say ought to have been proved that there is any one Church which alone is the Catholick Church as the foundation of Catholick Unity which the Cardinal's Notes cannot prove That the Catholick Church began in one single Church as he says I readily grant and became Catholick by spreading it self all over the World but thus the Church at Ierusalem not at Rome was the Matrix as he speaks of the Catholick Church which yet gave the Church of Ierusalem no preheminency or authority over all other Churches But the
justifie as any one would guess by his way of justifying him let but the Romanists quit this Plea that our Faith must be resolved into the Authority of the Church and I shall not despair to see our other Disputes fairly ended For the Conclusion of the whole I observed That it is a most senseless thing to resolve all our Faith into the authority of the Church Whereas it is demonstrable that we must know and believe most of the Articles of the Christian Faith before we can know whether there be any Church or not The order observed in the Apostles Creed is a plain evidence of this for all those Articles which are before the Holy Catholick Church must in order of nature be known before it This he grants that in order of Nature all these Articles of the Creed concerning Father Son and Holy Ghost must be known before we can know a Church but to us the Church is most known Which is plain and down-right non-sense if by most known he means first known which is the present dispute for whatever by the order of nature must be known first must be first known without any distinction For we speak now not of the Methods of Learning but of resolving our Faith into its first Principles and that surely must follow the order of nature If the belief of the Churches Authority be not in order of nature before the belief of Father Son and Holy Ghost it is a senseless thing to resolve our Faith into that which though we should grant were the first cause of knowing these yet is not the first principle in order of nature into which Faith must be resolved Children indeed as he observes must receive their Creed upon the Authority of their Parents or of the Church which is more known to them than their Creed as all other Scholars must receive the first Principles of any Art or Science upon the authority of their Masters But will you say that the Latin Tongue is resolved into the authority of the School-master because his Scholars in learning the Latin Tongue rely on his authority which yet is just as good sense as to say that our Faith must be resolved into the authority of the Church because the Church teaches Catechumens their Catechism and they receive it upon the authority of their Parents or Priests And hence indeed he may conclude that a young Catechumen knows his Teachers before he knows his Creed but to conclude that he knows a Church first as that signifies a blessed Society where Salvation is to be had is a little too much for that supposes that he knows the Church before he has learnt Unam Sanctam Ecclesiam that is before he has found the Church in the Creed which is great forwardness indeed If he does not speak of Children but of Men-Catechumens for such there were in the Primitive Church and such he seems to speak of when he says It is plain that the Catechumen knew there was a Church a blessed Society where Salvation was to be had before he would enter himself to be Catechised in the Faith. I do not doubt but such men did know the Church before they submitted to the instructions of it but they knew Christ too and believed in him before they knew the Church For they first believed in Christ and then joyned themselves to that Society which professed the Christian Faith that they might be the better instructed in the Doctrines of Christianity that they might learn from the Church what the Christian Faith is and the reasons of it not that they would wholly resolve their Faith into Church-authority But I find by our Author that the Creed was made only for Catechumens For he says The first person used at the beginning of the Creed I believe signifies I who desire to be made a member of the Church by the Holy Sacrament of Initiation do believe what hath been proposed to me first and then comprehended in that Fundamental Breviate What he designs by this I cannot guess for still the Catechumen professes to believe in Father Son and Holy Ghost before he believes the Holy Catholick Church But pray what does I signifie when a Bishop or Priest or the Pope himself repeats the Creed If as he concludes We must believe Father Son and Holy Ghost before we can compleatly determine the Church and its definition he should have said before we can know whether there be a Church or not much less believe upon its authority then indeed as he says the Creed must begin with I believe in God. But if our Faith must be resolved into the authority of the Church as the Church of Rome teaches and as these laborious endeavours of finding out a Church by extra-essential Notes supposes then the Creed as I said ought to begin with I believe in the Holy Catholick Church and upon the authority of this Church I believe in God the Father Almighty and in Iesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost Thus I have with invincible patience particularly answered one of the most senseless Pamphlets that ever I read and I hope it will not be wholly useless for sometimes it is as necessary to expose non-sense as to answer the most plausible Arguments though notwithstanding the mirth of it I do not desire to be often so employed FINIS The Use and great Moment of Notes p. 1. Pag. 2. Pag. 4. Pag. 5. Disc. p. 1. Ephes. 4. 1 2 3. 1 Cor. 12. 12 13 c. Disc. P. 5. Pag. 6. Disc. p. 9. Disc. p. 9. Disc. p. 10. Disc. p. 13. Disc. p. 14. Disc. p. 15. Joan. Laun. Epist. Vol. 8. ep 13. Nicol. Gatinaeo Disc. p. 17. Disc. p. 19. Disc. p. 22.