the Mass c. And in this case though what they retain of the Essentials of Christian Worship is sufficient to denominate them true Churches yet other Churches are not bound to Communicate with them in their Corruptions The plain state then of the case is this All Churches which profess the true Faith and Worship of Christ though intermixed with great Corruptions belong to the one Body of Christ and to know whether any Church be a true Church we must not so much enquire whom they communicate with or separate from but what their Faith and Worship is That external Unity is so far from being the Mark of a true Church that we may be bound not to communicate with true Churches which are corrupt because we are not bound to communicate in a corrupt Faith or Worship And that in this case the guilt of Separation lies on that side where the Corruptions are And yet all the Christian Churches in the World that retain the true Faith and Worship of Christ though they are divided from each other upon the Disputes of Faith or Worship or Discipline are yet the One Church of Christ as being united in the Essentials of Faith and Worship which by the Institution of Christ makes them his one Mystical Body and one Church Some Lines after he has a very notable Remark about the Unity of the Church That the Church admits not but casts out some though they profess Christianity Schismaticks Hereticks which being cast out if you mark it well she is united with her self And I assure you it is worth marking for if you mark it well every Conventicle in Christendom is thus united with it self But is this the Unity of the Catholick Church to cast all out of our Communion who are not of our Mind and then call our selves the Catholick Church when there are a great many other Churches which profess the Faith of Christ as truly and sincerely as we do and are as much united among themselves as we are Why may not the Church of England upon this Principle call her self the Catholick Church For she has more Unity in this way than the Church of Rome has When all Hereticks and Schismaticks are cast out she is united with her self and if this Unity be a Mark of the Catholick Church all the Churches and Conventicles of Christendom are the Catholick Church for they are all united with themselves But then the difficulty will be how all these Churches which are united with themselves but separated from one another make one Catholick Church or which of these Churches which are thus united with themselves which it seems is Catholick Unity is the One Church for every one of them have this Mark of the Catholick Church that they are united with themselves He proves Pag. 8. That Schismaticks are not of the Church one Holy entire Church from their very Name which signifies rending and tearing not the Seamless Coat alone but the blessed Body of our Lord. And I must confess the Name Schismatick is as good a Mark of a Schismatical Church as the Name Catholick is of the Catholick Church But we must consider who are the God-Fathers and whether they have given proper Names or not Now the Church of Rome is the common God-Mother which Christens her self Catholick and all other Churches Schismaticks but whether she be infallible in giving Names ought to be considered But Schism signifies rending and tearing and yet a Schismatical Church signifies a Church too and how they are a Church without belonging to the One Church when there is but One Church is somewhat mysterious And therefore Schism is not tearing off a part of the Church but one part dividing from the other in external Communion which supposes that both parts still belong to the same Church or else the Church is not divided For Apostacy and Schism are two different things Apostates cease to be of the Church Schismaticks are of the Church still though they disturb the Peace of the Church and divide the external Communion of it which differ as forsaking the Church and going out of it which no Man does who does not renounce the Faith of Christ and raising Quarrels and Contentions in it to the alienating of Christians from each other But that Schismaticks are not of the Church he proves from St. Paul ' s rebuking his siding Corinthians with this quick Interrogatory Is Christ saith he he means his Catholick Church divided How nothing more absurd than to grant division in the Church An excellent Paragraph does St. Paul who reproves these Corinthians for their Schisms shut them out of the Church for them too does he deny them to belong to the Church when he directs his Epistle to the Church of God at Corinth Is it so very absurd to grant that there are Divisions in the Church when St. Paul rebukes them for their Divisions which surely supposes that they were divided And is it absurd to suppose that to be which at the same time we confess to be To say that Christ is divided or that there are more Christs than one would be very absurd indeed to say that the Church of Christ is divided is no Adsurdity because it is true but the Absurdity or Unreasonableness and Indecency which St. Paul charges them with is the Absurdity in Practice that when there is but one Christ one Lord whom they all worship that the Disciples of the same Lord should divide from each other as if they served and worshipped different Masters But he has a very choice Note about the Unity of the Church Pag. 9. That it is the Unity of a Body a living animate Body but not I hope of a Natural but a Mystical Body animated by that Divine Spirit which dwells in the whole and in every part of it and therefore nothing can cut us off from the Unity of this Body but that which divides us totally from the quickning and animating Influences of this Spirit which it is certain all external Divisions do not Well! but it is not the Unity of a Mathematical Body which is divisibile in semper divisibilia but animate This I believe every Body will grant him that the Church is not a Mathematical Body but what hurt is there in Mathematical Unity Oh! that is divisible without end and that I confess is an ill kind of Unity But I hope it is one till it be divided and I fear a living animate Body is divisible too and if that cannot be one which is divisible I fear there is no such thing as Unity in Nature excepting in God and then it is not sufficient to prove the Catholick Church to be one because it is united unless he can prove that it is not divisible But indeed he is a little out in applying his Axiom for as much as he despises this Mathematical Unity he can find this indivisible Unity only in a Mathematical Point and possibly this may be the Reason why the Church
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
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
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
Reformation Other Notes I observed were not properly Notes of the true Church any otherwise than as they are Testimonies to the Truth of common Christianity Such as his 9th the Efficacy of Doctrine The 10th the Holiness of the Lives of the first Authors and Fathers of our Religion As for the Efficacy of Doctrine he saies That should bear Testimony to the Church also if it be true that more are converted to the Catholick Church than Apostatize from it Let him read the Examination of the 9th Note for this But if it be true also that the Roman Catholicks do convert more to the Christian Faith than any other sort of Christians as the Spaniards converted the poor Indians this follows undeniably that they believe they are more bound to spread the Christian Religion than any other And what if they did believe so are not others as much bound as they And what follows from hence That they are the only true Church because they are more zealous in propagating Christianity Does this relate to the Efficacy of Doctrine or to the Zeal of the Preacher But he says The Pharisees compassing Sea and Land to make a Proselyte proved them to be the best and most zealous of all the Jewish party tho they made them ten times more the Children of Hell than they were before I think none but our Author would have had so little Wit as to have justified the Church of Rome by the Zeal of the Pharisees for tho as he says our Saviour's Wo against the Pharisees was not precisely intended against their Zeal yet this proves that the greatest Corrupters of the Faith may be the most zealous to propagate their Errors and therefore such a Zeal does not prove them to be the best men nor the truest Church Thus I said the 11th Note the glory of Miracles and the 12th the spirit of Prophesie are Testimonies to the Religion not primarily to the Church To which he answers Let no man be so besotted as to say that all Miracles of a later date are delusions Fear not Sir no Miracles neither late nor early are delusions but some delusions are called Miracles witness the Miracles that poor Ietzer felt But the question is Whether true Miracles prove that particular Church in which they are done the only true Church or only give testimony to the Religion in confirmation of which they are wrought The spirit of Prophesie also he says belongs to the Church unless we find that all the true Churches in the Circle pretend to it All that pretend to a Religion revealed by Prophesie pretend to the spirit of Prophesie but all do not pretend in this age to have the gift of Prophesie though they may as justly pretend to it as the Church of Rome See the Answer to the 12th Note I added That the 13th 14th 15th Notes I doubted would prove no Notes at all because they are not always true and at best uncertain The 13th is the confession of Adversaries which he says will carry a cause in our Temporal Courts And good reason too because they are supposed to speak nothing but what they know and what the evidence of truth extorts from them but how the Adversaries of Christianity should come to know so well which is the true Church who believe no Church at all is somewhat mysterious and yet the Cardinal is miserably put to it to make out this Note as may be seen in the Answer The 15th Temporal felicity he says will evidence the Church as Iob's later state did evidence his being in favour with God. But what did his former state do Was he not then in favour with God too but would any man talk at this rate who remembers that Christ was crucified and his Church persecuted for three hundred years The 14th the unhappy Exit of the enemies of the Church he says Count Teckely may be a witness of it who sides with Infidels against the Church and is accordingly blest And what thinks he of the misfortunes of some great Princes who have been as zealous for the Church His third and fourth Notes I said were not Notes of a Church but Gods promises made to his Church And here he triumphs mightily Is there such opposition then between Notes and Promises and finds out some promises which he says are Notes of the Church I shall not examine that because it is nothing to the purpose for if there be some Promises which are not Notes of the Church I am safe for I did not say that no Promises could be Notes but that these were not Notes but Promises and gave my reasons for it why these particular Promises could not be Notes As for the third A long duration that it shall never fail I said this could never be a Note till the day of judgment A fine time he says to chuse our Religion in the mean while but thanks be to God we have other Notes of a Church than this and therefore need not wait till the day of Judgment to know the true Church But it is certain the duration of the Church till the end of the World is such a mark of the Church as cannot be known till the end of the World. The fourth Amplitude and extent is not to distinguish one Christian Church from another but to distinguish the Christian Church from other Religions and then I doubt this Prophesie has not received its just accomplishment yet for all the Christian Churches together bear but a small proportion to the rest of the world And if this promise be not yet accomplished it cannot be a Note of the Church But the Reader may see all this fairly stated in the examination of these Notes His fifth Note The Succession of Bishops in the Church of Rome from the Apostles time till now I grant is a Note of the Roman Church and the Succession of Bishops in the Greek Church is as good a Note of the Greek Church and any Churches which have been later planted who have Bishops in Succession from any of the Apostles or Apostolick Bishops by this Note are as good Churches as they This he very honestly grants and thereby confesses that this Note will not prove the Church of Rome to be the one Catholick Church which the Cardinal intended by it Now because I said This Note is common to all true Churches and therefore can do the Church of Rome no Service He takes me up All true Churches then where is your Communion with Luther ' s or Calvin ' s Disciples They do not so much as pretend to Succession Nor is this the Dispute now whether those Churches which have not a Succession of Bishops are true Churches but if he will allow a Succession of Bishops to be a Note of a true Church all those Churches are true Churches which have this Succession as the Greek Church and the Church of England have and therefore this Note can do no Service to the Church of Rome as not
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