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
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
of Rome makes the Pope the Center of Catholick Unity which is as near a Mathematical Point as it well can be In the same place he very gravely asks If the Church of God be distinguished even from the Heretick and the Schismatick which of the Churches is like to be most Catholick That which maintains its Unity against Heresy and Schism or that which is most favourable to the Separation No doubt Sir that which opposes Heresy and Schism is the most Catholick Church but I thought the Question had been not about the Most but the One Catholick Church For one Church may be more Catholick than another by more strictly adhering to the Catholick Faith and Worship and yet both of them belong to the same Catholick Church Well but what then Truly I cannot guess he says the Dissenter scarce owns any such Distinctions or very rarely what Do they never talk of Heresy and Schism nor own that there are any Heresies and Schisms But they pronounce no Anathema's except one perhaps Against the Church of Rome I suppose he means But Anathema's are proper only for General Councils and this is a new Note of the Catholick Church which Bellarmine did not think of viz. Pronouncing Anathema's in which the Church of Rome has outdone all Churches in the World and therefore is the most Catholick Church But they would have Dissenters looked upon as Members of the Aggregate Church notwithstanding their Dissensions as well as others Who are these They the Church of England Then they are kinder to Dissenters than the Church of Rome notwithstanding all the good Words they have lately given them But what then What then do you say There is a terrible Then. For this Kindness of the persecuting Church of England to the Dissenters proves her to be a Harlot For 't is the famous Case brought before King Solomon Catholicks like the honest Woman would have the whole Child the Harlot would have the Child divided Was ever such Stuff put together Catholicks are for shutting all out of the Church and being the whole Church themselves therefore they are for the whole Child when they have cut off three parts of it and divided it into a whole united with it self Others are so charitable as far as it is possible to make a whole Church the One Catholick Church of all the divided Communions of Christendom and they like the Harlot would have the Child divided What a Blessing is Ignorance and Stupidity The first to find out such Arguments as all the Wit and Learning in the World could never have discovered and the second to make Men believe them and publish them without blushing But here is enough in all Conscience of this let us now try if we can pick out any thing that may deserve an Answer And that the Reader may the better judg between us I shall take a Review of the Brief Discourse concerning the Notes of the Church in the Method wherein it lies and consider what this Answerer and Justifier of Bellarmine's Notes has to say against it I observed then that the true State of this Controversy about the Notes of the Church as it is managed by Cardinal Bellarmine is not what it is which makes a Church a true Church but how among all the Divisions of Christendom we may find out that only true Church which is the Mistress of all other Churches the only Infallible Guide in matters of Faith and to which alone the Promises of Pardon and Salvation are made Now the Answerer grants that this is the Controversy between us and says the Roman-Catholicks put the Question right And no doubt but they have Christian Liberty to put what Questions they please all that I there observed was that Protestants in the Notes they gave of a Church answer to that Question What a true Church is that Papists give Notes whereby to know which is the True Church and which is the most reasonable way shall be examined presently I began with the Protestant Way To find out a Church by the essential Properties of the Church such as the Profession of the true Christian Faith and the Christian Sacraments rightly and duly administred by Persons rightly ordained according to the Institution of our Saviour and the Apostolical Practice Here he complains that we give but poor two Notes of a Christian Church pag. 12. But if two be all they are a great deal better than such fifteen Notes as are none And here I considered what Cardinal Bellarmine objects against these Notes 1. That Notes whereby we will distinguish things must not be common to other things but proper and peculiar to that of which it is a Note Now I must confess these Notes as he observes are common to all Christian Churches and were intended to be so The Protestant Churches do not desire to confine the Notes of the Church to their own private Communion but are very glad if all the Churches in the World be as true Churches as themselves And this says the Answerer let me tell him will be easily granted tam quà m one every whit as good as another And this I wish he could make good for the sake of his own Church But will he call this Answering He cites a place out of Tertullian which he durst not translate for fear every English Reader should see that it was to no purpose That Hereticks tho they differed from each other yet did all conspire to oppose the Truth which is an admirable Argument against all Churches conspiring in the same Faith. But this he says supposes all Churches to be alike pure equally Catholick equally Apostolick Just as much as to say that a Man is a reasonable Creature supposes all Men to be equally wise and equally honest The true Faith and true Sacraments I hope may be essential to all true Churches as Reason is to Humane Nature and yet all true Churches may not retain the Christian Faith and Sacraments in equal Purity no more than every Man who has Reason reasons equally well and truly And therefore the Church of England can distinguish her self still both from Papists and Fanaticks notwithstanding these Notes His next Argument why these cannot be the Notes of the Church is because the true Faith and true Sacraments are essential to the Church and therefore can be no Notes of Discovery pag. 13. according to his former wise Observation that a Note must be extra-essential which has been examined already For says he the Question is which is the true Church But Protestants think the first Question ought to be What a true Church is and then we can know without any other Notes which is a true Church as when we know what a Man is we can easily find out a Man. But how shall I know half this Essence true Faith c. We must either say by consent with Scripture or consent with the Primitive Church and then we shall stumble upon the Cardinal's Notes or somewhat
does he call them Heathens and if they see a Church and do not believe it to be a Church then it is such a seeing of a Church as does not prove that there is a Church for if it did then all that see the Church would believe it as all that see the Sun believe that there is a Sun. Good works indeed may be seen as he learnedly proves and a Iewish Synagogue may be seen and Christian Oratories and Chappels with Crosses upon them and this may prove that those who built them believed in a Crucified God which is all he alledges to prove that it is self-evident that there is a Church by which I see something also that he does not know What it is to see a Church Though I told him before That to see a company of men who call themselves a Church is not to see a Church For a Church must have a Divine Original and Institution and therefore there is no seeing a Church without seeing its Charter for there can be no other Note or mark of the being of a Church but the Institution of it I observed That the use of Notes in the Church of Rome is to find out the Church before and without the Scriptures for if they admit of a Scripture-proof they must allow that we can know and understand the Scriptures without the authority or interpretation of the Church which undermines the very foundation of Popery In answer to this he says Nothing is more easie and familiar but that men love to be troublesome to their Friends than that the Scriptures must be known by the Church and the Church may be known besides its own evidence by the Scriptures This I believe he has heard so often said without considering it that it is become very easie and familiar to him but it is the hardest thing in the world to me and therefore begging leave of him for being so troublesome I must desire him to explain to me how two things can be known by each other when neither of them can be known first for if the Son must beget the Father and the Father beget the Son which of them must be begotten first But he has an admirable proof of this way of knowing the Church by the Scripture and the Scripture by the Church For so St. Peter exhorts the wife to good conversation that she may thereby win the husband to Christianity even without the Word without the Holy Scripture Implying that a man may be brought over to Christianity both ways by the Church and by the Scripture Suppose this what is this to knowing the Scripture by the Church and the Church by the Scripture The pious and modest conversation of the wife may give her husband a good opinion of her Religion and may be the first occasion of his inquiring into it which may end in his conversion and so may the holy and exemplary lives of Christians do but does the Husband in this case resolve his faith into the authority of his Wife withou th e Scripture and then resolve the authority of his wife into the authority of the Scripture if St. Peter had said this indeed I should have thought we might as reasonably have given this authority to the Church as to a Wise. 2ly I observed Another blunder in this dispute a bout Notes is that they give us Notes whereby to find out the true Catholick Church before we know what a particular Church is because the Catholick Church is nothing else but all the true Christian Churches in the world united together by one common faith and worship and such acts of communion as distinct Churches are capable of and obliged to every particular Church which professes the true faith and worship of Christ is a true Christian Church and the Catholick Church is all the true Christian Churches in the world And therefore there can be no Notes of a true Church but what belong to all the true Christian Churches in the World. Which shows how absurd it is when they are giving Notes of a True Church to give Notes of a true Catholick and not of a true particular Church when I know what makes a particular Church a true Church I can know what the Catholick Church is which signifies all true particular Churches which are the one Mystical body of Christ but I can never know what a true Catholick Church is without knowing what makes a particular Church a true Church for all Churches have the same nature and are homogeneal parts of the same body This I perceive our Answerer did not understand one word of and therefore says nothing to the main argument which is to prove that those who will give Notes of the Church must give such Notes as are proper to all true particular Churches for there can be no other true Notes of a Church but what belong to all true Churches because all true Churches have the same Nature and Essence which spoils the Cardinal's design of Notes to find out the one Catholick Church which all Christians must communicate in and out of which there is no Salvation And therefore instead of touching upon the main point he runs out into a new Harangue about Unity and Catholicism what Unity and Communion makes a Catholick Church whether the Catholick Church be the aggregate of all Churches or only of Sound and Orthodox Churches which has been considered already and is nothing to the purpose here For the only single question here is Whether I can know the Catholick Church before I know what a true particular Church is and consequently whether the Notes of the Church ought not to be such as belong to all true particular Churches By this Rule I briefly examined Cardinal Bellarmin's Notes Those which belonged to all true Churches which very few of them do I allow to be true Notes but not peculiar to the Church of Rome As the 6th The agreement and consent in Doctrine with the Ancient and Apostolick Church And the 8th The Holiness of its Doctrine are the chief if not the only Notes of this nature and these we will stand or fall by And because I said we will stand or fall by these Notes the Answerer endeavours to shew that they do not belong to the Church of England but whether they belong to the Church of Rome and do not belong to us was not my business to consider in a general Discourse about Notes but it has been examined since in the Examination of those particular Notes and there the Reader may find it But our Answerer according to his old wont has pickt out as unlucky instances as the greatest Adversary of the Church of Rome could have done viz. the Doctrine of Justification and Repentance which are not so corrupted by the very worst Fanaticks as they are by the Church of Rome witness their Doctrines of Confession and Penance I may add of Merits and Indulgences for want of which he quarrels with the
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
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
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