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
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
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
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
Notes because there are no other Notes like them Thirdly He adds that these Notes must not be common to other things but proper to the thing of which it is a Note Now I defie him to shew any such extra-essential Notes in Nature which are not common to other things for what in Logick we call Propria do immediately result from the Nature of things and therefore are not extra-essential Notes nay are no Notes at all to find out the Essence or Existence of things by for we must first know what the Nature and Essence of things is before we can know their essential Properties and as for inseparable Accidents how inseparable soever they are from such a thing yet they may be common to other things and then by his own Rule cannot be Notes But this is not the Case as I observed before for the Church is not a Natural but a Mystical Body and therefore its Nature depends upon its Institution and though in Natural Beings we may distinguish between the Essence and the essential Properties yet where Institution alone is Nature whatever is made proper necessary and inseparable by Institution is of the Nature of it and there is no Distinction that I know of between the Essence and essential Properties In natural Beings we call that the Nature and Form and Essence of the thing by which every thing is what it is and without which it would cease to be that kind of Being which now it is as Rationality is of the Essence of a Man for Man is a reasonable Creature and without a Principle of Reason he cannot be a Man. Now in allusion to Natural Beings we apply the same Terms to matters of Institution and call that the Nature and Essence of a Church without which according to the Laws of its Institution it would not be a Church And therefore whatever by Institution is so proper peculiar to and inseparable from a Church that without it it cannot be a Church is of the Nature and Essence of the Church and not an extra-essential Property which indeed is Non-sence The observing this one distinction between Nature and Institution will confound this whole Doctrine of the Notes of the Church For 1. There can be no Notes of an Institution but the Institution it self Notes must signify either by Nature or Institution There can be no Natural Notes of an Institution which is not the Effect of Nature but of the Divine Will and therefore if there be any they must be instituted Notes that is the Institution of the Church must be the Mark or Note whereby to know it unless we will say that there must be a second Institution to be the Notes of the first and by the same Reason there must be a third to be the Notes of the second and there will be no place to stop at unless we stop at the first Institution which needs no other Notes to prove it self by 2. That in matters of Institution there is no distinction between Nature and Properties In natural Beings indeed there is a Distinction between the Nature and Properties of things because there are some Properties which by a natural Causality spring from Nature as Visibility from Rationality But now in Matters of Institution one part of the Institution is not the natural Cause of the other but the whole Institution and every part of it immediately depends upon the Will and Pleasure of God and therefore there can be no extra-essential Properties of a Church but whatever is proper and inseparable by a Divine Institution is the Essence of the Church for it has no other Nature and Essence but its Institution 3. Hence it evidently follows that there can be no extra-essential Notes of a Church that nothing can be a Note of a Church but what is essential to it by Institution for whatever Institution makes proper and necessary it makes essential I confess this is a very improper way of speaking to call the Nature and Essence of any thing the Note of it for a Note or Sign ought to be different and distinct from the thing shown or signified by it and thus we ought roundly to deny that there are any Notes of a Church or that the Church can be found out by Notes but the Protestants in compliance with the Popish way of speaking called that the Notes of the Church which is not properly Notes and Signs but the Rule and Standard of the Church by which all Societies of Men which pretend to be Christian Churches are to be tried And it is certain there can be no other Rule or Standard of the Church but its Institution as to Faith and Worship and Government Common sense will tell us that there is no way to try an instituted Society but by the Rules of its Institution That Church which conforms to the original Rule and Standard of its Institution is a true Church and every Church is more or less corrupt as it varies from it And here we ought to fix the Controversy that the Church is not to be found out by Notes but to be tried by the Rule of its Institution and then farewel to Cardinal Bellarmin's Notes which I believe he himself though a Jesuit would not have had Confidence to say that they belonged to the Institution of a Church In the next Place he says I have reckoned up the Cardinal's Notes now here now there piece-meal but durst not let them pass by in their Majestick Train lest the Reader with Saba's Queen should be dazl'd at the Glory transported as she was that there was no Life in her If Rhetorick would do the Business we were certainly undone and should have no more Life left than the Queen of Sheba But the truth is the Cardinal's Notes may possibly lose something of their Majesty when they are shown by Hereticks and there is no help for that but as for their Train to supply the Defects of the Discourser they have been since shewn in very good Order and we live still But whether they be Triumphant Notes still of the Church-militant as he calls them is somewhat doubtful and indeed it seems somewhat unreasonable that the Notes should be triumphant while the Church is militant tho triumph it seems they do over some slavish and servile Minds but their Triumph would be very short were not the Church so militant as it is But as if there were some Charm in this Majestick Train nothing will serve him but to reckon them up in their Order and I must confess he has given such a new Grace and Majesty to them that I believe Bellarmin himself could not know them again 1st The Name Catholick how sacred to all those who own any of the Three Creeds really and veritably O how sacred indeed for Hereticks themselves own and challenge the Name 2dly It s Antiquity how indubitable and above all suspicion of Novelty Yes yes Antiquity is not Novelty but a pretence to Antiquity may for
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
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
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