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
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
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
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