YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY A PRESERVATIVE AGAINST POPERY IN SEVERAL ^tktt IBisfwursJes UPON THE PRINCIPAL HEADS OF CONTROVERSY BETWEEN PROTESTANTS AND PAPISTS: BEING WRITTEN AND PUBLISHED 33g tf)e moiSt tmtnmt Mbimd of tj^e €i)mc^ of CnglanB, CHIEFLY IN THE REIGN OF KING JAMES II. COLLECTED BY THE RIGHT REV. EDMUND GIBSON, D.D. SUCCESSIYELV LORD BISBOP OP LINCOLN ANB LONDON, [B. 1689, jj. 1748.] CAREFULLY REVISED AND EDITED FOR THE BRITISH SOCIETY FOE PEOMOTING THE RELIGIOUS PEINOIPLES OF THE EEFOEMATION, BY THE REV. JOHN GUMMING, D.D. VOL. III. LONDON: PUBLISHED AT THE SOCIETY'S OFFICE, S, EXETEE HALL, STRAND. 1848. G%^ CONTENTS OF VOLUME III, OF THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. PAGE, [. — The Papal Supremacy: a novel doctrine. By Dr. Lloyd, late Bishop of Worcester ....... 1 II. — The Texts examined which Papists cite out of the Bible, to prove the Supremacy of St. Peter and the Pope over the whole Church. In two parts. By Dr. Patrick, late Bishop of Ely 8 III. — The Texts examined which Papists cite out of the Bible, for the proof of theii' Doctrine concerning the Visibility of the Church. By Mr. Resbury, late Rector of Shadwell . . 53 OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. CHAP. I. THE TEtJB NOTION OF THE CATHOLIC CHUKCH EXPLAINED AND STATED. I. — A plain and familiar Discourse, by way of Dialogue, betwixt a Minister and his Parishioner, concerning the Catholic Church. In three parts. By Dr. Freeman, late Dean of Peterborough 78 TI. — A Discourse concerning the Nature, Unity, and Communion of the Catholic Church. By Dr. Sherlock, late Dean of St. Paul's ... 128 CONTENTS. CHAP. II. PAGE THE POPISH NOTES OF THE CHURCH EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. The Notes of the Church as laid down by Cardinal Bellarmine, examined and confuted . . . . • .166 General Introduction, and a Vindication thereof. By Dr. Sher lock, late Dean of St. Paul's 181 I. — An Examination of Bellarmine's first Note, concerning the name of Catholic. By Dr. Freeman, late Dean of Peterborough 227 II. — Second Note — Antiquity. By Dr. Patrick, late Bishop of Ely 240 III. — Third Note — Duration. By Dr. Williams, late Bishop of Chichester 252 IV. — Fourth Note — Amplitude or Multitude, and variety of BeHevers. By Dr. Fowler, late Bishop of Gloucester . . . 264 V. — Fifth Note — The Succession of Bishops. By Dr. Thorp, late Prebendary of Canterbury ...... 278 VI. — Sixth Note — Agreement in" Doctrine with the Primitive Church. By Mr. Payne, late Prebendary of Westminster . 292 VII. — Seventh Note — Union of the Members among themselves, and with the Head. By Dr. Claggett, late Preacher of Gray's Inn . . . . . . . , .311 VIII. — Eighth Note — Sanctity of Doctrine. By Dr. Scott, late Rector of St. Giles' in the Fields 337 IX.— Ninth Note— Efficacy of the Doctrine. By Mr. Linford, late Prebendary of Westminster ggg THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. CHAP. I. THE PAPAL SUPREMACY A NOVEL DOCTRINE, IN A DISCOtTESE, ENTITLED, CONSIDERATIONS TOUCHING THE TEUE WAY TO SUPPRESS POPERY IN THIS KINGDOM, ETC. He that, laying aside prejudices, shall look impartially into the Scriptures, and into the undoubted records of the primitive Church, shall find no foundation for that prodigious fabric of the Papacy. For the first three hundred years after Christ he will find only two, namely Victor and Stephen, that took upon them to censure any which were not of their diocese. And though their censures (for ought that appears) were only decla^ rations of non-communion, such as any bishop in those days might send forth against the Bishop of Rome, as well as he against other bishops ; yet we find that, even for that, they were blamed and condemned by other bishops. And that is all the effect that we read their censures had in any place out of Rome itself. Pope Victor, in his censure of the Asian bishops, is thought not to have gone beyond threatening to break com munion with them, and endeavouring to persuade other bishops to do the same. And yet for this he was smartly handled by some of the brethren : and it is charitably thought he was set right by the grave counsel* of Irenseus, who vnit to him in the name of the Galilean Church, and told him he did not learn this of any of his predecessors. Of Pope Stephen it is certain that he went farther in his quarrel with the Asian and • Euseb. Hist. Eccles. v. 24. Vales, in Locum, [p. 105. C. D. Paris. 1659-] VOL. III. B 2 AGAINST THE DOCTHINE African bishops ;* for he not only broke off communion, but all civil conversation vrith them, and commanded his people not to let any of them come within their doors. But this was only at Rome ; for it does not appear that he pretended any authority elsewhere. .A.nd how he was scorned abroad for his pride and folly in this, the reader may see in those two excellent Epistles,! the latter of which was left out of the Roman edition of St. Cyprian ; and Pamelius honestly declares he would have stifled it, if others had not published it before him. Lest any one should take offence at my not giving the usual garnish of the Popes of that age to those two whom I have mentioned (for I dare not call them saints and martyrs, though the Roman Church does, both elsewhere, and in her Offices ou their days J), I ought to let him know how that Church is abused by them that have gained no small advantage to them selves by such fictions. That the old Roman Church in the time of Constantius knew nothing of either of their martyr doms, it appears by her catalogue of Popes, published first by Cuspinian, and since by Bucherius the Jesuit. Nay, she knew the contrary of one of them ; for in the Roman calendar of that age, published by the same Jesuit, Victor is not mentioned at all, and Stephen is among the Popes that were no martyrs. If this proof were not enough, or if this place were proper for it, I should shew ftom good authors, that though these Popes lived under Emperors that were afterwards persecutors, yet they died before the beginning of their persecutions. I do not say but thfey may be saints : but if they are, it is more than we have any grotmd to believe ; for neither the church history, nor any writer vfithin an hundred years of their time, has any more of their sanctity than of their sufferings. Of Stephen there is great cause to doubt the contrary, from what we read of him in St. Cyprian's Epistles ;§ aiid more from that of FirmiUan,|| which is thoijght to have been translated by St. Cypriati, and * Firmilian's Epistle among Cyprian's Epist. 75- p. 166. edit. Rigaltii. [p. 150. Paris. 1726.] t Cypr. Epist. 74 et 75. [Indignor apertam et manifestam Stephani stultitiaiB quod qui sic de episcopatus sui loco gloriatur St se successorem Petri tenere contendit super quern fundamenta Ecclesiee collocata sunt, multas alias petras inducat et ecclesiarum mnltarum nova edificia consti- tuat. p. 148. Paris. 1726.] Vide Rigalt. in Cyprian. Epist. 75. [Vide Stephani Baluzii notas in Ep. 75. p. 508. Paris. 1726] } July 28, and August 2. ^ Cyprian. Ep. 74 et 75. II Rigalt. Obs. in Ep. 75. [et Baluzii notas in Ep. 75.] OF THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. i which was written* about the time of Stephen's death, rather after than before it. It is to be hoped, that many Roman Catholics among us have truly that reverence which all of them profess to have to true primitive christian antiquity, and to the judgment of saiuts and martyrs in all ages. We all agree that Irenseus and Cyprian had a just right to those titles. And Firmihan was a chief pillar of the Church in his age : he was thought worthy to preside in several Eastern Councils ; namely, in that against the Novatians, before Stephen was pope, and those against Samosatenus, after Stephen was dead : and, after his own death, the Eftsternf Church of that age called him ' Firmilian of blessed memory.' Why this man is not in the calendar of saints, they best know who can teU us why Victor and Stephen are there : no doubt the saint-makers do all things with great consideration. But can any one imagine, that those excellent men did ever believe themselves to be under the Roman bishop? that they owed any obedience to him whom they schooled so ; or any reverence to his censures which they slighted in that manner? Could any assurance of their cause have justified that contempt of authority, if they had known any in him ? But it appears they knew it not ; nor did others in that age. Those that were against them in the cause, blamed them for that, and nothing else ; and yet held communion with them, for all Pope Stephen and his censures. So far, it appears, those great men had the judgment of the Church on their side. They knew of no authority over the Universal Church that the Pope had, more than any other bishop, by any right, whether divine or human. What the judgment of the Church was in the next centuries, let them consider that shall read those canons, J and remember * Almost twenty-two years after the reign of Alexander Severus. Cyprian. Epist. 75. p. 160. t In their Synodical Epist. t See in the Codex Canonum Universalis Ecclesiffi, or in the Councils ; Concil. Nicen. I. can. 6. [Labbe, vol. 2- p. 35. Venetus, 1728.] Concil. Constant. I. can. 2. [Ibid. p. 1125.] Concil. Ephes- I. can. 8. [Labbe gives only six canons. The eighth may be found in Balsamon's collection, Paris. 1620, p. 319. Labbe remarks, vol- 3. p. 805. (Paris. 1671) as the reason of his omission of canons 7 and 8 :— " Causam banc fiiisse arbitror quod non universse Ecclesise decreta visa sint Latinis, sed in peculiari ac privata Nestorii ejusque fautorum causa canones pro re duntaxat nata a Patribus Ephesmis constituti."] ConcU. Chalced. can. 28. [The 28th and following canons, says Labbe— "Non extant m codicibus Grsecis manuscriptis quos habuimus hujus Concilii nee etiam B 2 4 AGAINST THE DOCTEINE they are such as passed in the first four General Councils, and in the African Council of 217 bishops (of whom St. Austin was one) assembled at Carthage : to which I add the African Church's epistle to Pope Coelestine I., as containing a full de claration of their mind in that canon. I know there are objec tions against one or two of these canons ; but all the dust that has been raised will not hinder any reasonable man from seeing that which, I think, is sufficient for our purpose, namely, that all the Fathers that sat in those Councils, or at least the major part of them, were of the same judgment with those above- mentioned in this point of the authority of the Bishop of Rome. They aU allowed him precedency, as being bishop of the impe rial city. They had commonly a great deference to his judgment in debates between themselves. And sometimes the Christian Emperors made him honorary judge, whether alone or vrith others, in such controversies. Indeed, by the canons of Sardica, those few* western bishops that continued there, after the easterlings had left them, were pleased merely of their charity to give him a new power, to order the reviewing of any provincial judgment upon complaint of any bishop that was aggrieved in it. And Pope Leo, not being satisfied with this, got the Emperor Valentinian III. to ordainf that the Bishop of Rome should give law throughout his part of the empire (which then contained Uttle more than Italy, and part of France, and part of Spain, and the lUyrian diocese). Yet all that the Bishop of Rome had by these concessions and grants, did not amount to an authority over the Universal Church : I add — nor over the British Churchj in particular. And so far in Latinis neque in collectionibus Dionysii et Isidori." vol. 4. p. 768. Lut. Par. 1671.] Together with Act. 16. of that Councfl. ConcU. Afric. can. 31 in the Greek, or 72 and 92 in the Latin. Epist. ad Goelestinum, which is at the end of that Council. * The Western and Eastern bishops together were 170, saith St. Atha- nasius (who was one of them). Ad Solit. vitam agentes. torn. i. 818. [Ad Monachos, vol. 1. par. 1. p. 27-8. n. 15. Patav. 1777.] Of the Eastern, 73 declared against the Western bishops. Hilar. Frag. p. 448 : and some were neuters, [vol. 2. p. 664. Veron. 1730.] t By his Novel, dated An. 445, June 6. Vid. Leo I. Epist. 89. [Lab, vol. 3- p. 1401- Lut. Par. 1671.] t There were no British bishops at the Council of Sardica ; as appears by the inscription of the Synodical Epistle, Athan. tom. i. p. 756. (vol. 1. par. 1. p. 132. Patavii, 1777. etLab. Cone. vol. 2. p. 707. Venet. 1728.] and by the subscriptions, both of the Synodical Epistle, Hilar. Frag col. 408 ; and of the Canons in the edition of Isidorus Mercator. Though the British bishops, or some of them, did afterwards approve of the Council's OF THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. §¦ was this from arguing that he had by Di-nne right any juris diction out of his own diocese, that his seeking or accepting what was given him by these concessions or grants is a con vincing argument to the contrary. But for the Church's judgment, nothing can be more plain, than that all those bishops who gave their votes to those canons which I cited before out of the first four General Councils, and that of Afric, together with the epistle annexed, had no question or thought of any authority that he had by Divine right out of his ovra proper diocese, or by human right out of the Roman patriarchy, or any power of jurisdiction that he had elsewhere from the Roman Emperors or from the primitive Fathers. Whatsoever power he has gotten since the decay of the Roman empire and of the Christian religion (from whence I have already* dated the beginning of Popery), as it is plain he has gotten in many countries which were not anciently within his jurisdiction upon any account, it must be either by force or fraud, abusing either the weakness or ignorance of the people, or else by the concession or connivance of princes and states. Blessed be God, there are some Christian nations in the world, which have stood so far out of his reach, that he has not been able to hook them in by any of these ways. And as he has no colourable pretence to a power over those countries, where it is certain he never had any, as Ethiopia, Russia, &c. (which they that are pleased to call therefore ' schismatical,' must give me leave to admire as well their folly as their uncharitableness : and yet they that do not call them so, make the Pope no head of the Universal Church) ; so in those countries where he has gotten power, it is not necessary that he should always hold it till we see who is Antichrist, whether he, or one of the tribe of Dan, who (they say) shall come to, take it from him. They over whom he gained a power by force or fraud, are kept under it stUl the same way ; which creates no right by any law what soever. And therefore when God makes them strong enough and wise enough, they will deliver themselves from him. They judgment in the case of St. Atbanasius, Ath. tom. 1. p. 720. [vol. 1. par. 1. p. 98. ut supra] (where note, the translation is false.) And as for that law of Valentinian III., it was not made till after Britain was forsaken by the Romans; which was Theodosii 18. (or anno 440,) saith Prosper Pithaei ; anno 443, saith the Saxon Chron. [Anno 435. p. 11. Oxon. 1692. Hoc anno Gothi expugnabant Romse urbem nee unquam postea Romani regnabant in Britaimia.] Theodosii 23. (or anno 445,) saith Beda, Hist. 1. 13. [vol. 2. p. 67. Lond. 1843.] • P. 4, 5, Sec, 6 AGAINST .THE DOCTRINE that gave him a power over them when they saw cause, may have as good or better cause to recall it. And they have just cause to do this, when they see him desert that title by their gift, and claim his power by immediate Divine right ; or when he employs his power "not to edification but destruction:"* and especially when, doing all this, he will force their obedience by such means as come not from the " wisdom which is from above,"t but from that which the Apostle calls "earthly, sensual, devilish." Whosoever among our Roman Cathohcs -will be pleased to consider these things with that attention and impartiality that is due to all things of religion, I cannot but think he vrill see, that the Christian religion doth no way obUge him to own the Pope's authority in this kingdom. He will see, that jure Divino the Pope could have no autho rity over this particular Church, which he had not over the Church Universal. And it doth not appear by any records of the primitive times, that the Pope ever had any such authority over the Universal Church, or that by the diffusive Church he was believed or acknowledged to have it. But, on the contrary, it appears by instances which I have given of those times, that he was denied to have such an autho rity, and that as well by the bishops assembled in their Councils, as by the best and wisest men of those times in their writings: nay, he was contradicted and resisted as oft as he endeavoured to impose any thing against the mind of particular Churches. He will see, that whatsoever human right the Pope had acquired over the people of this kingdom, was no more of one kind, than we are aU originally of one nation ; and that the power which he was suffered to exercise over us, was very much greater at one time than another. In the worst and darkest of times it was highest, for it grew up on the bad titles or other weakness of princes ;J and yet then he could not hold it peace ably, nor long enough to make a prescription. But at all other times it was much less than he claimed ; which sheweth plainly it was no more but what the state pleased to give him : and they owned that the Pope had no right over them by any con cessions of their own, more than what he had over the rest of the Westem Churches. Particularly in those times next before the Reformation, that • 2 Cor. X. 8. t James iii. 15. t From King Stephen to Henry III. OP THE PAPAL SUPEEMACY. 7 right which was generally acknowledged to be in him, was not a supreme right, but subordinate to a General Council. This appears to have been the sense of the Western Church. For it was declared in plain terms by four General Councils,* which were acknowledged for General in that age, and were abetted as such by the generality of the Westem Church. They not only declared this doctrine in their canons, but they reduced it to practice ; for those Councils deposed divers Popes, f and made new ones in their stead. Which acts of theirs the Papalins of this age are obhged to defend, as ill as they like the canons ; for vrithout them they cannot make up the succession of their present Popes. But admitting those acts to have been just and good; how can they reject those canons from which they had their virtue and efficacy ? If they say the Pope did not approve them, it is partly true. Out of doubt those Popes did not like them that lost by them. Nor, per haps, those that came in by those canons might not like them so well at another time. But how then could they take upon them to be Popes ? Their accepting a title from those CouncUs, and the people's ovraing them in it, was enough to shew that those canons were then in force ; and they were never repealed by any Council since ; nor hath there been any Council to do it, that can be reasonably thought so fit as those four were, to declare the sense of the Western Diffusive Church. • Pisa, Constance, Sienna, and Basil. t Greg. XII. aud Benedict XIII. and John XXIII. AGAINST THE DOCTRINE CHAP. II. THE TEXTS EXAMINED WHICH PAPISTS CITE OUT OP THE BIBLE, TO PROVE THE SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER AND OF THE POPE, OVER THE WHOLE CHURCH. THE FIEST PART. The question to be debated in this paper is, whether the Apostle St. Peter was constituted by Christ himself to be, in his stead, theHead and supreme Governor of the wholeChurch? This we deny, having undeniable proofs that all the Apostles were placed by Christ in equal power and authority over his Church. But the doctors of the Roman Church affirm this with so much confidence as to say, that to deny it is " not a simple error, but a pernicious heresy." These are the words of Bellarmine ;* who earnestly contends, that the government of the whole Church was committed to Peter, especially about matters of faith. Which bold assertion he labours to support three ways. First, By some places of Holy Scriptures. Secondly, By many privileges and prerogatives of St. Peter. Thirdly, By testimonies of Greek and Latin Fathers. I am concerned only in the first of these ways ; in which if this cause find no true support, we need not trouble ourselves about the' other two ; which are so weak, that some ingenuous persons in their communion have acknowledged, the Preroga tives are either feigned at pleasure, or no more to the purpose of his supremacy than the pretended testimonies of ancient Fathers which are against it. Now the Scriptures which they allege for the proof of it are, two places in the holy Gospels : the one in St- Matthew xvi. 18, 19 ; the other in St. John xxi. 17. In the former of these this supreme authority (they say) is promised to St. Peter ; in the latter it is conferred. I begin with the first, Matth. xvi. 18, 19. "And I say unto thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Chnrch, &c. And I will give unto thee the keys of the king dom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven." The sense of which words, saith * L. I. deRom. Pontif. c. 10, 11. [vol. 1. p. 300^305. Prag. 1721.] OF THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. Bellarmine, is " plain and obvious ; giving us to understand, the sovereignty over the whole Church to be here promised unto Peter, in two metaphors. The one is a metaphor of a foundation and a building. The other is a metaphor of keys. For what a foundation is in the building, that the head is in the body, the govemor in the city, the king in his kingdom, and the father of the family in the house : and to whom the keys of a city are delivered, he is appointed the king or at least the govemor of that city, to admit and shut out whom he pleaseth." IFnto which I have this to say, before I give the true sense of these words ; that to call this a " plain and obvious" sense of the words, which is wrapt up in a couple of metaphors, is to stumble at the very threshold ; and to contradict himself in the terms, as they ordinarily speak. For what is metaphorical, is not " plain and obvious," but needs explanation by putting it into common words ; into which if the metaphors be reduced, we shall find there is no such sense contained in them, as is pretended. I shall explain them distinctly, and begin with the former part of this promise, " Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I vrill build my Church :" which we may call the first proof they bring of St. Peter's being the monarch of the Church. I. Which sense is so far from being " plain and obvious," that having considered both the words, and all the ancient ex positors upon them, I can find nothing plainer than these two things : first, that there is no certainty St. Peter is here meant by the "rock," upon which Christ saith he will build his Church : nor, secondly, if he were, that Christ intended by calling him a " rock," to make him the Lord of his Church. First, I say there is no evidence that St. Peter is here meant by the " rock ;" but quite contrary, we are led by the general stream of ancient interpreters to understand by the " rock" upon which the Church is built, that faith concerning Christ which Peter had newly confessed. There are more than two that thus expound these words, for one that expounds them otherwise ; as may be seen in a Sermon lately printed on this subject :* which shews also, that the other expositions do not really differ from this ; but even they who apply these words to St. Peter, had respect (in calling him the "rock") to his preaching the doctrine of Christ, and having the honour to be * Sermon on St. Peter's Day, 1686. 10 AGAINST THE liocTEINE the first preacher of it to the Gentiles. Which is all the pri\i- lege that can be thought to be peculiarly intended to him in these words. For, excepting this, whatsoever was said to him was directed to all the Apostles ; because Peter, as their mouth, spake the sense of them all when he said, " Thou art Christ the Son of the living God;" and therefore Christ's answer was returned to them all when he said, " Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church." As much as to say, " Thou art what thy name imports^ which I have given thee with respect to this soUd faith thou hast now confessed ; upon which, as upon a rock, I will build my Church by your ministry ; and particularly by thine, who shalt have the honour to lay the first stone of it in the Gentile world." Thus St. Austin* expounds the words in many places, where he observes Peter had his name from Petra the Rock, viz. " that faith which he confessed," upon which Christ told him he would build his Church. For he doth not say, " Thou art Peter, and upon thee will I build my Church," but " upon this rock," which plainly relates to another thing, viz. that immoveable foundation, confessed by Peter, that he was " Christ the Son of God." Whence those known words of the same Father, " I vdll build thee upon me, not me upon thee." If it were the intention of this paper to quote testimonies, I could name a great multitude, even the Ordinary Gloss, which speak to the same purpose. But it is wholly needless, since the other exposition, which makes St. Peter the rock here spoken of, is against the most unanimous consent of the Fathers of the Church, which they of the Church of Rome are bound to follow both by the doctrine of the Council of Trent,t and by the form of that Oath of Profession of Faith, which Pope Pius IV. drew up and enjoined according to the mind of that Council. And yet (so "vUely are some addicted to regard nothing but their interest) there are those, who, to make these words sound as if Christ promised to build his Church upon Peter himself, have not blushed thus tp translate them : " Thou art Peter, and upon this Peter will I build my Church." So Dr. Allen would have had the translation run in the Rhemish Testament. And so Hart alleges them in * Tract, cxxiv. in Job. Serm. xiii. de Verbis Dom. &c. [Super banc ergo (inquit) petram quam confessus es sedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Petra enim erat Christus, super quod fundamentum etiam ipse sedificatus est Petrus. vol 3. p. 822. Paris. 1680.] t Sess. 4. OF. THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. 11 his conference with J)r. Reynolds.* And now lately the Catholic Scripturist translates them after this manner (accord ing to the language which Christ spoke), " Thou art a rock, and upon this rock will I build my Church." As if it were lawful for them to do anything (even contradict that very Council, whose decrees they are swom to observe), that they may make the Scripture seem to be on their side. For the Council of Trent hath decreed the old Latin translation to be authentical, vrith a prohibition that " no man dare or presume under any pretence to reject it." Notvpithstanding which, here are men that presume to reform it, and to make a new translation of their own heads, as different from that ' authentic' vulgar translation as from ours ; for in this ours and that are the same, as everybody may know that understands the Latin tongue. This is a presumption with a witness, to make their own translation depart so far from the language which Christ spoke, as to put instead of " tu es Petrus," " tu es Petra ;" for so Christ's words should have been translated, if they signified " thou art a rock," unless they can shew us that petrus, in any author, is Latin for " a rock." Till this be done, we must say that such men, contrary to their faith solemnly sworn, depart, not only from antiquity, but from themselves. And when they have done all they can, it will evidently appear, that the Church was not built by his hands alone, (though he began, as I said, and laid the first stone among the Gentiles), but by them all ; and more especially by St. Paul, who was called late into this office,f but " laboured more abundantly than they all ;" and, " as a wise master builder laid the foundation," upon which others built. Which founda tion, he tells us, is "Jesus Christ himself," who, he likewise says, is the " only foundation," and that " no man can lay other foundation" besides him. Which shews this promise, I am treating of, had respect to all that had the office of Apostles, and wholly ruins the authority of St. Peter, upon which they would have the Church to be built. For if Jesus Christ be the only foundation that can be laid, then Peter cannot be the foundation, but only as a minister of Jesus Christ, who helped to lay the foundation, which is Christ himself and his faith. In which ministry he was no more employed than other Apostles ; but St. Paul, who came last » Chap. 2, divis. 1. t 1 Cor,, xv. 10. et iii, 10, 11. 12 AGAINST THE DOCTEINE into this ministry, was as "wise a master-builder" as himself; and took more pains than he or any of the rest, laying the foundation where neither St. Peter nor anybody else had ever been, '¦ lest he should build upon another man's foundation," as he tells the Roman Church, Rom. xv. 20. Which words utterly overthrow their vain distinction of a " first" and a " secondary" foundation, whereby they en deavour to elude those words of St. Paul in the place before- named, 1 Cor. iii. 11. For it appears by this other place, that St. Paul was a " secondary" or " ministerial" foundation, if we may so speak— that is, speak improperly, meaning thereby one that laid the foundation ; which he did as mucH as St. Peter, or any other Apostle — nay, a great deal more, as he himself teUs us, when he saith he laboured more abundantly than they all. In exact speaking, there is no foundation on which the Church is built but Christ alone (as St. Paul assures us) ; " in whom all the building fitly framed together, groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord," Ephes. ii. 21 . But faith in Christ being that whereby we are joined to him, it may be called by the same name ; and accordingly the Colossians are said to be " grounded* in the faith" as upon a foundation (the Greek word signifies), from which he would have them not to be moved. And the Apostles, as he there saith, being the preachers of this faith, and the instruments whereby men were brought to believe on Christ, and so joined to him as " hring stones," are called by the name of " foundation" in the place before-named, Ephes. ii. 20. " Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets," &c. But then it is erident, that Peter alone is not this foundation, but all the Apostles. For there are twelve foundations of this sort, as we read in Rev. xxi. 14, by whose ministry the Church was built upon Christ, the sole foundation (in proper speaking) that was laid for all to build upon. Finally, the Apostles understood no such pre-eminence as is now pretended, to be promised to St. Peter in these words j nor did he himself so understand them, when the Holy Ghost was come upon them to lead them into all truth. For then St. Paul could not have said, that he came " not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles," and that he was " behind them in nothing," 2 Cor. xi. 5, and xii. 11 : nor could he have under- • Ty viarii Te&cHeXiwiiivoi. Col. i. 23. OF THE PAPAL SUPEEMACY. 13 taken to correct St. Peter, Gal. ii. 11, 12, &c. : nor would St. Peter have borne his censure, if he had known he was the head of the Church ; but have bidden St. Paul know his distance, and remember that he ought not to control him, but be controlled by him as his better. Secondly, After all this that hath been said, to shew that there is nothing here promised to Peter but what belongs to all the Apostles, except only that of his being employed in laying the first foundation of "faith among the Gentiles, it remains that I shew there is nothing in the word " rock," which implies any superiority of power and authority over the rest of his brethren and the whole Church, if we should suppose this promise to have been made to him alone ; for it denotes nothing of government, but hath respect to the support and stability of that structure, which is firmly laid upon it. And therefore the ancient Doctors (as may be seen in the Sermon before-mentioned) gave other reasons of his being called a " rock," and not this, " Because to him was com mitted the government of the whole Church, especially about faith." Which is the explanation Bellarmine gives of this word, affirming it to be the signification of this metaphor, " For it is proper to a fundamental rock to govern and sustain the whole edifice." This is perfectly new language, never heard of in the world before, that " it is proper to a Foundation to govern ;" for it is altogether improper, and nobody thinks of any such thing, when he reads of a Foundation. But if it be proper, then all the Apostles were Governors of the whole Church as well as he, because they were all Foundations, as was before observed, having the very same power given to them by Christ, which (we now suppose) was here promised to him alone. Unto which they of the Church of Rome have nothing to reply ; but only this (which is merely a bold affirmation, and as absurd as all the rest), " They were indeed all of them the heads, governors, and pastors of the Church universal ; but not after the same manner as Peter was."* Why so? "For they had the highest and most ample power, as apostles, and ambassadors ; but Peter also as an ordinary pastor." As much as to say, "They had indeed the highest power in the Church, and as large as he ; but not so high a power as his." • Bellarm. 1. 1. de Pontif. Rom. cap. xi. [vol. 1. p. 305. col. 1. Prag- 1721.] 14 AGAINST THE DOCTEINE Let any man try if he can make any other sense of thmi words—that is, find any sense at all in them. For was this power of being an ordinary pastor greater than that of the Apostles, or no 1 If it were greater, then it is not true whicll he affirms, that " the Apostles had the highest power."* If it were less than the power of the Apostles, then they were all greater than he, as he was an ordinary pastor. And then it is nonsense to say, " they so had a plenitude of power, as that St. Peter was notwithstanding the head of them, and they all depended on him." For he rather depended on them, as an ordinary pastor, if that was less than the power of the Apostle* ship ; and if it were not, but greater than it, then (as I said) it is false, that the Apostles had the highest power. This is sufficient to shew into what absurdities men run, when they go about to maintain a falsehood ; and what wretched shifts they devise to obscure the clear truth, whicii shines in their eyes. Which when they have done, they walk on in darkness, and cannot be persuaded to see or acknowledge their error. Nay, one error grows out of another ; and having begun to wrest the holy Scripture, they go on to strain it, so far as to extend it to any purpose they have to serve by it. For having presumed that Peter, and he alone, is promised;^ to be made Govemor of the whole Church by these words of our Saviour, they immediately presume, without the show of a proof, that the Bishops of Rome succeed him in this authority. Which is a very large step, or rather leap, from Peter to the Popes of Rome ; between whom there is such a vast distance,'^' that it is impossible to make out the claim, to which they pre tend, from him. For there is no evidence that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, but only that he founded that Church, and settled a bishop there. For if he was Bishop of Antioch, it was against all ancient rules to leave that, and go to another see. The truth is, he was properly bishop of neither ; but planted a Church in each, and first at Antioch, before he came to Rotne. And who can think he did not settle one to take care of that Church of Antioch, when he left it ? who may be called! his successor, as well as he whom he is supposed to have placed' afterwards in Rome. Which two things being allowed as un-" questionable matters of fact, there is no reason can be given, why all the power and jurisdiction which is claimed upon the • Habuerunt summam potestatem. OF THB PAPAL SUPREMACY. 15 Account of succession should not devolve, by the right of pri mogeniture, upon the Bishop of Antioch ; since it is confessed he first sat there, and sat there seven years, which is more than can be proved he did at Rome, where he was not when St. Paul came thither. Acts xxviii., nor when he first answered before Nero, nor when he was ready to be offered, 2 Tim. iv. 6, 1 1, 1 6 : nor can any certain time be assigned when he was there, as we are sure St. Paul was, who is acknowledged to be a founder of that Church, and had as much (or rather more) right to leave a bishop to succeed him there, as St. Peter ; who could transfer to nobody, neither there nor anywhere else, what was personally Vested in him, as all the privilege here granted him was. Or, if he was to have any successor in his supposed dominion, there were others had a better title to it thain the Bishop of Rome ; particularly St. John, who it is certain survived St. Peter. Therefore, all that Bellarmine dare say in this matter is, that " the Apostles being dead, the Apostolical authority remained in St. Peter's successor alone."* For which he gives us not one word of proof, but only this notorious falsehood, that the Roman bishop alone is called by all the " Apostohcal Bishop," and his see simply the "Apostolical See." When all the world knows, Jerusalem, Constantinople, and divers other places, are called by the same name of " Apostohcal Sees, or Churches;" and their bishops called notonly "Apostolical," but "Catholic," and said to be " Bishops of the Catholic Church." The meaning of all which is nothing else, but that they held the Catholic religion and faith, as Launoyf most ingenuously confesses, and maintains the Roman bishops themselves in tended no more, when they subscribed themselves " Bishops of the Cathohc Church." Nay, Bellarmine himself in the place now named is con- Strained to acknowledge, that " the supreme ecclesiastical power was given not only to Peter, but to other Apostles also." For they might all say that of St. Paul, 2 Cor. xi. 28, " My daily business, the care of all the churches." " But it was given to Peter as an ordinary pastor, who should have perpetual suc cessors : to others as delegates, who should have no successors." Which is a mere invention, a pure figment of his own brain; vrith- out the shadow of a ground for it in the Book of God, or any ancient authority ; and against his own confession, that all the * L. 1. De Pont. Rom. c- xi. t Epist. pars i. ad Franciscum Bonum. 16 .AGAINST. THE DOCTRINE Apostles had the highest power (which includes all power both ordinary and extraordinary), and a power to appoint their suc cessors in the places they converted. There have abundance of other things been said by our writers to shew, that, whatsoever may be supposed to hava been promised in these words, the Bishops of Rome can thence derive no lawful claim to the like authority. And yet (as if there were nothing plainer, than that Christ spake to the Roman bishops, when he said these words to St. Peter) they have the confidence from hence to entitle the Pope to the privilege of in- fallibihty, as well as to a supreme dominion over the Church, So Bellarmine,* who elsewhere alleges these words, to prove that " the chief bishop" (i. e. theirs), " when he teacheth the whole Church, m things belonging to faith can in no case err." But this depends upon his former suppositions, that Peter is the Rock of the Church as its supreme Govemor, and therefore every one of his successors in like manner is the same : whicii having no foundation, all his superstructure upon them falls to the ground. And indeed it is so sandy, that honest men among themselves are ashamed to build anything of this nature upon it : particularly Launoy, who on set purpose demonstrates that Bellarmine neither obeyed the decree of the Trent Council,f nor kept the profession of faith enjoined by Pius IV., when he drew his conclusion of the Pope's infallibility from these words^ " Thou art Peter," &c., but was guilty of dovraright flattery of the Court of Rome ; for whose sake he in like manner falsified' in the citations he brings out of the Fathers, to maintain the same untruth. But further than this, the same vmter presses these words to prove that "General Councils cannot err, neither inbeliering, nor teaching :"J which is as much as to confess, that what Christ said to Peter was intended to all bishops, of whom a General Council consists. But here he endeavours to bring off himself by this salvo, "if the Council be confirmed by the Pope ;" as if they received their infalhbility from him who turns their doubtful opinions into oracles. Whence it is, that from the very same words ["Thou art Peter," &c.] he proveSj the Pope to be above a Council, § " immediately constituted by * L. iv. De Rom. Pontif. c. 3. [vol. 1. p. 449. col. 1. Prag. 1721, Summus Pontifex cum totam Ecclesiam docet in his quse ad fidem per tinent nullo casu errare potest.] t Epist. pars v. Gulielmo Voello. J L- 2. de Cone. Autor. cap. 1. § lb. cap 15. OP THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. 17 Christ the pastor and head, not only of all particular churches, but also of the whole universal Church congregated together." If this be to interpret the Scripture, I know not what is setting it upon the rack, and stretching it as far as it pleaseth him who takes it in hand. No heretics ever took so great a liberty as this which, according to their way of reasoning, makes it necessary to seal up the Bible quite, that nobody may look into it. For if the danger of wresting the Holy Scrip tures be a just cause for denying the liberty of reading them to illiterate people, it ought not to be granted to the most learned, who, it appears by this great Cardinal, are in as much or more danger of this than any other men. And so farewell the study of the Scriptures, which neither priest nor people must meddle withal ! But, thanks be to God, there is such a thing as honesty and integrity still remaining in the world ; which qualifies all men for the wholesome perusal of them, and hath preserved the minds of some in that communion so uncorrupted, as to make them disdain and reject these perverse and arrogant interpre tations, or distortions rather, of Holy Scripture. There is one hath lately declared his sense of this promise to St. Peter, in remarkable words, with which I conclude this part of my dis course : * " Supposing Christ to have spoken these words, ["and upon this rock"] of the person of Peter, he meant nothing else thereby, but that Peter should labour very much in the edification of the Church, that is, in the conversion of the faithful and administration of the churches. And, there fore, the most that can be deduced from hence is, that he should be the first and the chief among those who were to preach the Gospel : but it cannot from hence be gathered, with Bellar mine, that the government of the whole Church was committed to Peter, especially about faith." II. The truth of this will further appear in the exphcation of the next words, which expound those of which I have now treated ; "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven." The sense of which is not so "plain and obvious" as Bellar mine pretends ; but we agree that they are a plain allusion to • Du Pin. de antiquae Eccles. Discipl. Dissert, iv. cap. 1. sect. 1. [p. 307. Paris, 1686-] VOL. III. ^ 18 AGAINST THE DOCTRINE the words of the prophet Isaiah concerning EUakim, Isa. xxii. 23 : "I will give thee the keys of the house of David," i. e. make thee — not high priest, as he grossly mistakes, but— steward of the royal family, to take in and thrast out whom thou shalt think fit. Such was the power here promised to Peter by our Lord, who saith of himself, " that he hath the key of David," Rev. iii. 7, i. e. of the house or family of Darid, which he alone governs by an absolute power ; but tells Peter he intended to make him under himself, his supreme Lord and Master, such a steward in the Church, as Eliakim had been in the Court. I say, in the Church ; for by the " kingdom of heaven," I think nobody will now dispute is meant the family of Christ, or the Christian Church, in a great many places of the Gospel; and most likely is so to be interpreted here. But if any body be so minded, as to understand by the " kingdom of heaven," not the Christian society here below, but the company of the blessed above, let them consider that the sense will still be the same ; because by admission into the one, and abiding in it, we come to the other. And baptism is the key which lets us into the Church, out of which such as notoriously break their bap tismal vow, ought to be shut by the censures of the Church, and again received into it upon their hearty repentance by granting them absolution. Thus the following words expound it, " and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth," &c. That " binding and loosing" are one and the same with the " power of the keys," is acknowledged by the Roman Cate chism,* and by Bellarmine himself, who confesses the plain sense of these words to be, that " first of all an authority or power is promised, defined by keys ; and then the actions or office of this power is explained by those words, loosing and binding. So that to loose and to open, to shut and to bind, is altogether the same thing."-f And we need not further trouble ourselves to inquire how far this power extends : for it is cer tain there is nothing here promised, though we suppose it never so large, which was intended to him alone, but to them all ; except that of opening the door first to let the Gentiles into the Church. This is apparent from what was said before concerning Christ speaking to them all in him, as he spake for them all in answer * De Sacrament. Poeniten. u. 44. t L. 1. de Pont. Rom. cap. 12. verum. [Pragffi, 1721. vol. 1. p. 308, n. 36.] OF THE PAPAL SUPEEMACY. 19 to our Saviour's question propounded to the whole company. Which produced this promise from our Saviour, not to him alone, but to all them in whose name he spake. Which is no new interpretation, but as old as the Church itself; for "the ancients say with an unanimous consent, that these keys were given to the whole Church in the person of Peter,"* as a late writer in the Roman communion honestly confesses. St. Austin particularly "inculcates this an hundred times" (as his words are) ; a proof of which may be seen in another of his brethren,f who hath made a collection of twenty-six places out of his works, to shew that he taught this openly, frequently, and constantly, in such plain words as may be understood by them selves, without the help of an interpreter. I cannot well for bear to mention one of them, because it affords us many con siderable remarks :{ "As some things," says he, " are spoken which may seem properly to belong to the Apostle Peter, and yet have not a clear sense but when they are referred to the Church (whereof he is acknowledged to have represented the person in a figure, because of the primacy he had among the Apostles) ; as that is, I will give thee the keys of the KINGDOM OF HEAVEN ; and if there be any like : so Judas sus tains, after a certain manner, the person of the Jews, the enemies of Christ," &c. Here they of the Church of Rome are very forward to catch at these words, which signify a place of priority that Peter had among the Apostles (which nobody denies) ; but are not willing to take any notice of all the rest, which utterly overthrow that primacy which they would advance him unto from this place. For first, he says, some things do but " seem" to be long to Peter, which in truth ought to be referred to the Church. And secondly, that their sense is " not clear" or evident, till they be carried beyond him. Among which things, thirdly, he reckons what our Saviour here saith, " I vrill give thee the keys," &c.; which they would now engross to St. Peter, and have us believe this to be the plain and obvious sense of Christ's words, which St. Austin says are not plain, unless we refer them to the Church. Whose person, fourthly, he says he did bear or represent, not by rirtue of his place, or . any authority he had above the rest, but " in a figure," to * Du Pin de antiquse Eccles. Disc. Dissert, iv. c. 1. sect. 1. [ut supra, p. 308.] f Jo. Launoy, Epist. pars 2. Hadriano Vallantio, p. 14, &c. t Aug. Enarratio in Psal. cviii. C 2 20 AGAINST THE DOCTEINE signify unity '(that is), as the ancients interpret it. And it is farther remarkable, fifthly; that Christ did not promise him the primacy in promising him the keys, for " he had" the pri macy (here spoken of) before; and with respect to that, Christ directed to him these words rather than [to] any of the rest, because he was already the first, not in office, but in order, and so the fittest person to be singled out to represent what Christ m- tended. And to convince every one there is no authoritative primacy meant in these words of St. Austin, he adds, sixthly, that Judas sustained the person of Christ's enemies, as Peter did of the Church. Will anybody infer from hence, that Judas had a jurisdiction over all the vricked, and left it to his successors, one of which hath now the same ? Let them for bear to make such inferences, from what is said of St. Peter's primacy, which gave him no right to rule, but only made him stand fairest, being the first, to be chosen to represent the rest. If any will be still so perverse as to wrangle, because St. Austin doth not mention Judas's primacy as he doth Peter's ; let them learn more modesty by knowing that Prosper, one of St. Austin's scholars, upon the very same Psalm, says in ex press terms, that Judas* carried the primacy of Christ's ene mies. Which if they will not expound to signify a supreme authority to govern Christ's enemies, let them no longer in terpret St. Peter's primacy to signify such an authority over his friends. He had none here promised him, is as certain as anything can be ; but the keys to commend unity were pro mised him ; which were in truth given to all the rest. This is the ancient sense, which drew this plain and per tinent observation from another honest writer, in the Roman communion,f " He said to Peter, I will give thee the keys, but he did not say, I wiU give them to thee alone." Which is justified to be true by three other passages in the holy Gospels. In the first of which he promises as much to all, in the very same words, as he had done to him, Matth. xviii. 18 : "Verily I say unto you. Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven : and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven ;" which is the expli cation, as you heard before, of the power of the keys, in the same terms (without the least difference but what is between * Judas primatum gessit inimicorum Christi. [Melius ergo universa clarebunt, si quaedam ad omne genus inimicorum Christi quorum Judas primatum gerit, &c. In Psalmum 108. p. 407. Paris. 1711.] t Rigaltius in Epist. Firmiliani. OF THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. 21 the plural number and the singular), wherem it was delivered to St. Peter. And in the next chapter he repeats it again, only in other words, when he saith, Matth. xix. 28 : " Ye shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging (i. e. ruling and govern ing) the twelve tribes of Israel ;" without any mention of one throne, peculiar and higher than the rest, to St. Peter. And thus far there is no more than a promise to be met withal in the Gospel ; but no actual grant, no words whereby our Lord makes a conveyance of this power to them, till after his resur rection from the dead. When he gives out a commission to them, as large as can be made ; wherein there is nothing pe- cuUar reserved to St. Peter, but it runs in general terms to them all, John xx. 21, 22, 23. For he neither saith, I send " thee," nor " breathed upon him alone," saying, " Receive thou the Holy Ghost : Whosesoever sins thou remittest," &c. : but he saith to them, being all (save Thomas) assembled together, " As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said thus, he breathed on them, and said unto them. Receive ye the Holy Ghost : Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye re tain, they are retained." And accordingly it may be added, when the Holy Ghost descended (of which this breathing on them was an emblem and pledge), " they were all (Thomas with the rest) with one accord in one place," and it was im parted to each of them alike, without any mark of distinction. For we read of no flame that crowned the head of St. Peter, greater and more illustrious than that upon his brethren : but the text saith, " the tongues, Uke as of fire, were divided, and sat upon every one of them singly,* and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost;" Acts ii. 2, 3. The mighty wind, also, wherein this flame came (betokening the powerful in spiration which was entering into them) , " filled all the house where they were sitting," and not only that corner were St. Peter was placed. AnA. so this promise was equally performed in common to them all, as it had been made to them all. Nay, this very thing is no less than a demonstration, that the promise was intended to all, because the performance was to all. That here his promise was performed, is very manifest to those who are desirous to understand the truth ; for no other time can be named when it was performed to Peter ; nor any • 'E^' 'iva sKadTov nvrdv. 22 AGAINST THE DOCTRINE Other words found wherein the thing promised was conveyed, but these, " as my Father sent me, so I send 7'^^-" ^"^ lastly, this is the sense of the Church, as appears by St. Cvprian in ancient times ; who observes that our Lord, who said to Peter, " Thou art Peter," &c. gave to all his Apostles " equal power"* after his resurrection, when he said, "As the living Father sent me, so I send you," &c. ; concluding from thence, that all the Apostles were what St. Peter was :t Ani by Theophylact, in later times, who thus glosses upon Matth. xvi. 19:" Though our Lord said only to Peter, I will give THEE, yet they were given to all the Apostles. When? At that time when he said. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted. For the words I will give denote the future time, that is, after the resurrection." Then he said to them all, " As my Father hath sent me, so I send you." Which are words so large, that they contain in them a plenitude of power, and confute the conceit of those who say that Christ indeed gave the power of remitting and retaining sins to all the Apostles, but the power of the keys to Peter alone. Whereby if they meant, that to Peter it was given to open the gate first to the Gentiles, it ought to be allowed to be a true sense ; though we are not certain it was the thing peculiarly intended by our Saviour in these words, But understanding thereby a distinct power from that of bind ing and loosing, retaining and remitting (which St. Peter ex ercised when he let the Gentiles into the Church), it is cer tainly false that he gave him such a power, which he did not confer upon the rest. For should we suppose binding and loosing to be distinct from the power of the keys, yet this power of the keys, be it what it will, we may be sure is included in these comprehensive words, " As my Father hath sent me, so I send you ;" which were spoken unto them all. And therefore as the keys were not promised to him alone; so not to him more than any other Apostle ; but only the use of fhem Jirst, before any other Apostle. That's the most, as I have often said, which can reasonably be conceived to be peculiarly promised to Peter in these words, that he should first open the door of faith to the Gentiles, as we read he did, Acts X. ; and as some think to the Jews also. Acts ii. Ter- * Parem Potestatem. f Hoc utique erant et cajteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio prasditi et honoris et potestatis, &c. L. de Unitate Ecclesis et Epist, xxm. ad Jubaianum. OP THE PAtAL SUPREMACY. 23 tuUian* seems to be of this mmd (and I shall not here dispute it), who mentioning this place, " I will give thee the keys," &c., thus proceeds : " so the event teaches us ; the Church was first built on him, that is, by him. He first handled the key. See what key ; Ye men of Israel, hear these words : Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, &c. Acts ii. 22, &c. He iu fine did first by the baptism of Christ unlock the entrance of the heavenly kingdom, &c. ; he bound Ananias with the bond of death; and he absolved the man lame of his feet from the weakness wherevrith he laboured ; and in the dispute which arose about the obligation of the law, Peter first of all by the instinct of the Holy Ghost (having told them how God made choice of him, that the Gentiles should hear the word from his mouth) said. And now why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we are able to bear, &c. ;" where he plainly makes the "power of the keys" and "binding and loosing" to be the same thing : and from the scope of his dis course it appears, as Launoy f hath observed, that they then beheved at Rome, that in the person of Peter the keys were given to the Church, that is (says he) " the power of binding and loosing." Which things if the late Catholic Scripturist had known, or would have been pleased to mind, how could he have had the confidence to say, that " our Lord spa-ke these words to Peter to signify, that he was the head and chief in ordinary. For though the power of binding and loosing was afterwards given to the other Apostles, yet the keys of the kingdom of heaven are never in Scripture said to be given to any but to St. Peter."| " By which keys also," he saith, " is signified, the plenitude of highest power." For this vain conceit is contrary to the common opinion of the ancient Fathers (whom they are bound by their profession of faith and oath to follow) ; contrary to their greatest schoolmen, such as Scotus, Aquinas, Alex. Alensis, who afiirm that the keys promised to Peter in St. Matth. xvi. were given to all the Apostles in St. John xx.; contrary also to their own Catechism (as I have shevra), according to which he ought to have in structed his followers. The sum of what has been said is this : 1 . The power which our Lord here promised to Peter, was not meant to him alone. * L. de Pudicitia, c. xxi. + Epist. pars ii. Hadriano Vallantio, p. 6. i The Seventh Point, n. 6. 24 AGAINST THE DOCTRINE 2. For he did but represent and sustain the person of the Church (as the ancients speak), to whom this promise belongs. 3. And therefore our Lord afterward promises the very same thing, in the same words, to all the Apostles, which he here promises to Peter. 4. And accordingly when he performed his promise, he gave this power to every one of them equally. 5. But Christ directed this promise at the first singularly to him, that he might commend unity. _ . 6. Or, at the most, he promised him the honour of opening the door of faith first unto the Gentiles. 7. From whence we can only gather, that he was the first among the Apostles ; but not that he was promised any power which the rest had not ; for the contrary is apparent. 8. To all which I must add (repeating briefly what I said upon the foregoing words), that if we should grant our Sariour to have promised some power to Peter (when he said, " I will give thee the keys") which the other Apostles had not, it would prove [only] a personal prerogative, and cannot be shewn to have descended to any successor, much less to the Pope of Rome ; who, Bellarmine saith, " is a true prince, who hath power to make true laws to bind the whole Church." And this he proves from these words, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven," &c.* Concerning which it vrill be thought too sharp perhaps to say (though they are the words of one in the Roman communion),! " simply to relate the words of this author, is simply to confute them ; they are so very contrary to truth and equity." The reader therefore may be pleased briefly to consider, what out Lord himself saith to all his Apostles, Matth. xxiii. 8, 9, 10, which utterly overturns these proud pretensions. " But be not ye called Rabbi, for one is your Master, even Christ ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth; for one is your Father which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters, for one is your Master, even Christ." The repetition of one and the same thing so often, in words of the same import, argues it to be a matter of great moment, which ought to be duly weighed. And it is this, that no man, no not any of his Apostles, should take upon him to prescribe that as a part of religion, which God our Sariour hath not prescribed by his * L. iv. De Rom. Pontif. c. 16. [Pragse, 1721. vol. 1. p. 480. n. 4.] t Launoy ubi supra, p. 77. OP THE PAPAL SUPEEMACY. 25 laws : and that we ought.not absolutely to submit to any man's dictates, as children do to the will of their fathers ; nor pin our faith, as we speak, upon any man's sleeve, i. e. let it depend entirely upon his authority : for this is a submission which is due only to God our Sariour, who (in this sense of the words) is our only Father, and Master, and Leader ; and therefore we cannot without the highest injury to him own any one else to be such, nor give them these names, but as they teach, not their own, but Christ's doctrine unto men. And in this office all the Apostles were equal, and no one of them could claim an authority over the rest of his brethren. There are many other places wherein we read of " one Shep herd," " one Lord," " one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy :" from whence we may conclude, that Peter himself had no power to make, but only to declare, the laws of his and our Lord and Lawgiver, Jesus Christ. So the words pf Christ's commission run, when he saith, not to him alone but to them all, " Go ye and disciple all nations, &c. teaching them to observe all things whatsoever 1 have commanded you," Matth. xxviii. 20. Here is their authority, to publish the commands of their Master, not what they pleased to command themselves. Which Peter was so far from doing, that he went not about the abrogation of the ceremonial law and the calling of the Gentiles, till he was authorised by an heavenly vision ; which discovered this mystery to him as a part of the counsel of God, but no law, nor so much as a thought, of his own. For being charged afterwards by the Jews for eating with men uncircumcised, he excuses himself by a long apology, wherein he relates how he was commanded to do it by God himself, whom he could not withstand. Acts xi. 3, 4, &c., which was not done like a Law giver. Nay, after this revelation made to him, he was so weak as to observe this Law, to the great offence of the Gentiles ; for which he was reprehended by St. Paul, who had the honour to abrogate the law of Moses among the Gentiles, while St. Peter, who began that work, was the minister of the circumcision. Gal. ii. 7, 10, 11, &c. Nor doth the word [bind] import a power to impose laws, but only to tie men to those laws which are already made. Thus it signifies in that very place, which Bellarmine alleges to maintain his sense of the word, viz. to make .laws; Matth. xxiii. 4 : " For they bind heavy burdens, and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders," &c. — that is, they were rigorous interpreters of the laws of God, which it was 26 AGAINST THE DOCTEINE their office to expound accordmg to the plain sense andmeanins of them, and not according to the tradition of the elders, which had made them intolerable burdens. But suppose the word to signify what they please, it vrill do them no serrice ; because this power of binding was not pro mised to Peter alone, but to them all, as hath been before proved. And consequently he could do nothing, which they could not do as much as he ; that is, they were all "ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God :"* all of them like to Eliakim, to whom the " key of the house of Darid" is promised, as the " keys of the kingdom of heaven" to Peten For by that very word which we translate " stewards," or " dispensers," is that officef to which Eliakim was advanced in the room of Shebna expressed by the LXX. in Isa. xxii- 1 9, 21 i which was not a supreme power in the court, where all the rest of the courtiers did not depend on him as their lord and prince; but the power of a prime minister in the royal family, which he governed not after his own will, but the king's. In like manner all the Apostles were " ministers, by whom men believed,'' I Cor. iii. 5 : " stewards of the heavenly mysteries," 1 Cor. iv* 1, 2, which they faithfully dispensed according to the will of Christ; who "hath the key of Darid;" that is, is the sole supreme Govemor of the Church, and gives rules to it ; which the Apostles delivered but did not ordain themselves, nor bind upon men by their own authority, but by his. For they were not authors of the Dirine laws which they taught, but the pub lishers of them, and equal publishers of one and the same common doctrine : which every bishop in the Church hath as much authority to bind upon men as the Pope : they being " all of the same merit and priesthood" (as St. Hierom speaks),| " all successors of the Apostles." There are some other words of St. Hierom (it may not be here unfit to note), which are usually alleged to prove the con trary, riz. that he thought St. Peter had some supremacy of power over the rest of the Apostohcal College ; from whence they hope to derive the Uke power unto the Pope over all bishops : they are in his first book against Jovinian, where he saith, " One among the Twelve was therefore chosen, that, an HEAD being constituted, the occasion of schism might be removed." But they are unconscionably dismgenuous who allege this passage, and do not give us the entire sentence, but * J Cor. iv. 1. f o'lKovofiiav. % Epist. ad Evagrium. OP THE PAPAL SUPEEMACY. 27 only this conclusion of it ; which can have no such meaning as they pretend, without making mere nonsense of the words fore going, which are these : " But thou sayest, the Church was founded upon Peter ; though the very same in another place is done upon all the Apostles, and they received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church is solidly bottomed upon them equally." And then follow the words now named, " Yet one was therefore chosen among the Twelve," &c. Which makes it as clear as the sun, that he dreamed of no such headship of one over all the rest, as signifies a supre macy of power ; for what one text, he saith, affirms of Peter, another affirms of them all ; they all receiring the keys (which is the highest power), and the stability of the Church relying upon them equally. I conclude this part of my discourse with the observation of a late learned writer of our Church.* " If any power or degree of power was here promised to Peter more than to the rest of the Apostles, it must be gathered either from the force of the substance of the promise, or from the circumstances wherewith it was delivered. " The substantial part is nothing else but that of a steward in the Church, set forth by the emblem of keys, and more ex- pHcitly declared by the power of binding and loosing ; which carries in it no intimation of such a thing as a supremacy over the whole Church, but only of a ruling power in some family ; 1 that is, in that part of the Universal Church where his lot I should fall. For this very thing being presently after promised ; to all the Apostles, it makes it erident there was no supremacy I here promised; for then there must be not one, but twelve I supremes. " As for the circumstances, wherein this part and the former I of our Sariour' s promise was dehvered (which some are pleased to urge as very considerable), they are of no strength to sup- , port so great a weight as they lay upon them. For first, it is i very unreasonable that circumstances should be thought of greater force to declare the meaning of this promise, than the I very substance itself is. And secondly, all these circumstances (save only that of his own name and his father's joined toge- : ther) are not peculiar to him, but common to others who con- I fessed Christ's dirinity, and had it revealed from God, and were blessed, and designed for stones in the fabric of the * Dr. Hammond's Dispatcher dispatch'd, p. 3. c. 7. sect. 2. n. 13. 28 AGAINST THE DOCTEINE Church, as well as Peter. And further, even that circum stance of calling him Simon Baijona, had a risible reason for it, to distinguish this Simon from Simon Zelotes. So that there is nothing left but the small circumstance of calling him by his name, to be the grand foundation of St. Peter's supremacy. " Can any one be satisfied with such poor proofs ? Whicl are no better than if we should argue in this manner : Out Lord said to Peter, Follow me, and so he did to the other eleven,^ and by this made them his disciples in common. But had he said, Simon Barjona, follow thou me (as he might very well, if any other Simon were then present), he alone, according to this way of discoursing, had been taken into discipleship; and none after him enjoyed this honour." But I have said enough, if not too much, upon these texts, and must here end this paper, for fear of swelUng it beyond the intended bulk. The rest shall soon follow. OP THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. 29 THE TEXTS EXAMINED WHICH PAPISTS CITE OUT OF THE BIBLE, TO PROVE THE SUPREMACY OF ST. PETER AND OF THE POPE OVER THE WHOLE CHURCH. THE SECOND PART. Now we are come to the last reserve of the Roman Church for the support of this cause, which lies in those words of Christ to Peter, John xxi. 15, 16, 17 : "Feed my lambs, and feed my sheep." They are sensible of the truth of that which hath been oft repeated, that in neither of the former places Christ gave anything to Peter, but only promised he would give him such things as are therein mentioned. Now they are hard put to it to find when he did perform this promise, and not find vrithal that he performed it to all the Apostles, and therefore (as I have said) made it to them all. Here is the only place they rely upon ; here they would fain find, what is no where else to be found, something peculiarly granted to Peter, which was conferred upon none of the rest. Read the words, say they, and observe how they are peculiarly spoken to Peter : " So when they had dined, Jesus said to Simon Peter, Simon son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these ? He saith unto him. Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him. Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon son of Jonas, lovest thou me ? He saith unto him. Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon son of Jonas, lovest thou me ? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me ? And he said unto him. Lord, thou knowest all things ; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him. Feed my sheep." See, say they, with what solemnity our Lord here speaks to Peter, and to him alone, calling him three times particularly by his name and relation, and bidding him as oft, " Feed his lambs or sheep ;" whereby he instated him in the office he had promised him, and made him in a particular manner to be a pastor, even the pastor of the whole Church, with a supreme power over it. 30 AGAINST THE DOCTHINE First, To which we reply, that haring seen and considered all this, we can see nothing here that looks like a grant or commission ; nothing given to St. Peter by these words ; whiel are a plain charge or command requiring him to do his office; which was therefore conferred upon him before, together witl the rest of the Apostles, when our Lord said, " As my Father hath sent me, so I send you, &c. Receive ye the Holy Ghost," &c. Secondly, And as here is no commission, no conveyance of anything made to him, but a bare precept to do his duty, so the duty doth not concern him alone, but belongs to them all as much as him. It is at this time required in a precept directed to him alone, that's true ; and Bellarmine might have spared all his labour to prove that these words were spoken it» Peter alone. They were so, if we understand thereby that he only by name is now admonished of his duty (the reason of which we shall see presently) ; but the duty, of which he was admonished, was not peculiar to him ; and so the words do not belong to him alone, as appears by many arguments. 1 . From St. Peter himself, who seems to have interpreted the mind of Christ in this speech to him, in his words to the elders of the Church to whom he wrote, 1 Pet. v. 1 : " The elders, which are among you, I exhort, who am" — What? The Monarch of. the Church ? the Vicar of Christ ? or. Pastor of pastors ? the chief Apostle ? or supreme Bishop ? No such thing, but — " Su/iirp£o-/3wT£poc, your fellow-elder, &c. Feed the flock of God which is among you," &c. And from whom did these elders receive their power and authority ? From St, Peter ? No such matter ; but from the chief Shepherd or Pastor, from whom he bids them expect their reward, ver. 4. 2. In like manner, St. Paul gives the very same charge tffl the elders of Ephesus, to " take heed to themselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." Acts xx. 28. 3. For Christ (as I said) hath given this power imto all his Apostles, when he said, " As my Father hath sent me, so 1 send you," &c. John xx. 21. What did he send them to do! but " to 'gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad," and to " feed his flock," as he the " good Shepherd" had done, John x. 1 1 . and xi. 52. And therefore we may say here of these words, as Rigaltius doth of the former—" He said to Peter, Feed my sheep ; but he doth not say. Do thou alone feed them." No. It may be further OP THB PAPAL SUPREMACY. 31 observed, that our Lord in his hfetime sent them all " to the lost sheep of the house of Israel," Matth. x. 6, 7. And a little before this, seeing the people scattered abroad, " as sheep haring no shepherd," he bade his disciples pray that the " Lord would send labourers among them." Not one (who should depute others), but as many as were needful to gather in his harvest, Matth. ix. 36, &c. 4. And therefore thus the ancient Fathers have expounded these words, particularly the Roman clergy themselves, in their letter to the clergy of Carthage, where admonishing them of their duty (in the absence of St. Cyprian, by reason of the then persecution), they press them with these words to Peter, "Feed my sheep," which, they tell them, " the rest of the disciples in hke manner did," and accordingly it was now incumbent upon them also, "in the room of the pastor, to keep the flock."* This Launoyt proves is the exposition of the Church, and most justly condemns Bellarmine (and such like flatterers) as failing in his duty ; which required him to expound these words according to the sense of the whole Church, which is directly against this exposition, that Christ here gave this power to Peter alone. A great many of the ancient Popes of Rome, he there shews, speak otherwise ; and one of their neighbours, St. Ambrose, expressly declares, that " those sheep and that flock which Christ bade Peter feed, he did not alone receive, but he both received them with us, and with him we all received them."J As much as to say. What Christ said to Peter he spake in him to all bishops. Which is the sense of St. Austin in a great many places, as the same author shews, § making Peter here also to have represented the whole Church, so that " when it was said to him, it was said to all, Lovest thou me ? Feed my sheep." || 5. But what need any further testimonies ? when this Preface is sung not only in the Feast of St. Peter, but of all the rest of the Apostles and Evangelists except St. John, and on their Octaves, in the Roman Church at this very day — " We humbly beseech thee, O Lord, the Eternal Pastor, not to forsake thy flock, but preserve it with continued protection, • Vice Pastoris custodire gregem. ¦f" Epist. Par. ii. ad Raimundum Formentinum, p. 27, &c. t L. de Sacerd. dignit. c. 2. § Launoy Epist. pars v. Carolo Magistro. II De Agone Christiano, cap. 30. 32 AGAINST THE DOCTEINE by t% blessed Apostles ; that it may be governed by the' same rulers, which as Vicars of thy work thou didst bestow upon it, to be set Pastors over it." This is sufficient to shew,- that the Roman Church itself hath anciently believed this charge was given to all the Apostles, to feed his flock and be the chief pastors of it.* What? vrill some say. Was there nothing here pecuharly; spoken to Peter? No mystery in those words thrice repeated, and specially directed to him by name, as you cannot but acknowledge ? Yes, no doubt ; but it is no more than this; that Peter, of all the rest, had lately thrice denied his Master, This might well have made Peter himself question his love to Christ, and move our Lord to ask him whether he still' remained as confident as he was before that he had a greater-' affection to him than any of his disciples. For so he begins this speech, " Lovest thou me more than these ?" As he had fancied he did when he said, " Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended," Matth. xxvi. 33. The vanity of which thoughts he had found by sad experience, he alone denying, nay, abjuring his Master. In this Peter was singular, and did more than any of the rest. For which cause more was to be said to him, and more was to be done by him, than any of them. He was to answer thrice to three questions, which were solemnly put to him, that by a threefold confession he might obliterate his threefold denial. This is all the mystery which the ancient Christians could find in this solemn speech, made with particular application to Peter ; as may be seen in St. Cyril of Alexandria,f St. Austm,J Greg. Nazianzen,§ and a long train, which I could set down, of other Fathers, which assures us that this was the common and literal exposition of these words, and that they understood- no other reason why our Lord addressed himself only to Peter, though other Apostles were present, but only this — That he might declare he would have Peter, notwithstanding his denying him thrice, be confident, upon this profession of love' to him, he was restored to his favour, and that he would have' him no less than the rest look upon the care of his flock as belonging to him, who had deserved by his shamefully repeated denial of him, his fall from that office, more than any other of * Praeesse Pastores. t In Johan. xxi. { Orat. xxix. in Johan. § Tract. 29. OP THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. 33 his Apostles ; for though they all fled, yet none denied him but Peter alone. And therefore these words were as if our Lord had said. Though there be cause enough for me to reject thee, yet because thou didst repent thee of thy sin, and dost now profess thy love to me, feed my sheep no less than the rest of my Apostles to whom I have committed the care of them ; which will sufficiently expose the vanity of the Catholic Scripturist, * who bids us (against the sense of all antiquity), " to note that our Lord would not have required greater love in Peter rather than in any of the rest, nor have said, Lovest thou me more than these ? if he had not here intended to give him higher dignity in pastorship than the rest." Note rather, good reader, what hath been said, and these words of St. Cyril, who was a better Scripturist and more Catholic than this Jesuit. I will not set them down at large, but only the conclusion of them, which are very remarkable, and expressly expound this passage as I have done : " In that speech of our Lord, Feed my sheep, there was a kind of renewalf of the Apostleship formerly bestowed upon him, doing away the infamy of his fall, and blotting out the cowardice of human infirmity." Where a great person of our ovra hath justly remarked that word "renewal:"! he doth not say that our Lord augmented his dignity (which is the new doctrine), but that he renewed it, or restored him to it. Which dignity he had said in the beginning of this discourse Peter was advanced unto, when our Lord named him, not prm aliis, above others, but cum aliis,% with other disciples, to be an Apostle ; and therefore now did not give him more than the rest, but only declared he did not take the forfeiture he had made of that dignity, but reinstated him in it together with the rest. This is undoubtedly the ancient sense of Christ's Church ; to which I know not what to add for the exphcation of these words, unless it be this, that Peter had just before this dis course of our Lord's begun to express his earnest desire to re cover his favour ; casting himself into the sea (when the other disciples came by the ship) to get to our Sariour ;_ which may be looked upon as a token of excessive love to him, and of a more than ordinary desire to enjoy his company. From hence * Seventh Point, n. 7. t 'Avavkuaig, Hirirep tiq, &c. L. xii. in Job. p. 1120. X Bishop Andrew's Tortura Torti, p. 51. § 'O^ou toXq iripotf, Cyrill. lb. VOL. III. D 34 against' the doctrine a very learned writer* of this Church thinks our Lord takes occasion to make this speech to him (but whether to check or to cherish that desire, he dares not determine), the import of which he gives in this paraphrase : " Thou hast made pro fession of more than ordinary love to me, of readiness to lay down thy life for my sake, though all others, even these thy fellows, should forsake me ; and art willing, I see, by thy pre sent hazard of it, to make good thy former words. But wouldst thou have me yet to shew thee a more excellent way ? I have told it thee long since ; thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. Simon, the son of Jona, if thou desirest to prove thyself a Cephas, or testify thy sincerity of faith and love (which by the powers of darkness were of late so grievously shaken). Feed my lambs, feed my sheep. Yea, seeing thou thrice deniedst the Shepherd of thy soul, I say unto thee the third time. Feed my sheep. Let the memory of thy fore-passed threefold sin, also let this my present threefold admonition, excite thee unto triple diligence in thy charge, to shew such pity and compassion as I have shewed to thee, unto that lost and scattered flock which have denied me, or consented to my crucifying. Let thy faithful performance of what I request at my farewell, be the first testimony of thy love to me, to be lastly testified by the loss of thy life ; which thou didst pro mise me, when I gave mine for my sheep, John xiii. 37, but shalt not pay till thou hast fulfilled this my request. Verily, verily, I say imto thee, when thou wast young thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldst ; but when thou art old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldst not," &c. These things being well considered, there is no necessity, I think, to dispute about the meaning of the word " feed," (which is still a metaphor, it is fit to observe, as well as the two f8r- mer, " rock" and " keys ;") for whatsoever can be thought to be meant thereby, all the Apostles were required to do it as well as Peter, and had the lambs and the sheep committed to their care, as much as he. But because there are very great things which many of the Roman doctors draw from this single word " feed," and there are also very curious observations made about the small word " my," and about "lambs and sheep" (that is, about every word of this short sentence), it vrill not be unprofitable briefly to examine upon what foundation they stand. * Dr. Jackson, Book iii. upon the Creed, c. 7. OP the papal supremacy. 35 I, Now, by the word " Feed," they understand the highest power* to have been committed to him ; which if it were true, then all to whom it is said, " Feed the flock" had the highest power : and so there were many supremes, all the elders of Ephesus (it hath been shevm before) being required " to feed the Church of God," Acts xx. 28 ; which includes in it, nobody doubts, authority and rule ; but [that] is not the thing prin cipally, much less only, intended ; and is far from signifying the highest power. For the Greek word for feedf in the first mention of this charge, " Feed my lambs," ver. 15, and in the last, " Feed my sheep," ver. 1 7, imports nothing of ruling or governing, nor was ever applied to signify the power of princes ; but denotes merely the simple office of leading the flock to their pasture. And, accordingly, the ancient Fathers com monly refer these words to the feeding by word and doctrine, to which they had more regard than to mere rule and power, which is now the only thing that is contended for from this poor word " feed." And that because once, ver. 1 6, our Lord uses a word which is translated to this sense. Translated, J I say, for it originally signifies no more than the other before-named, denoting nothing of dominion or empire. For a man may be a shepherd of the sheep, who is not their lord. But it is applied to kings, and to God himself, not because it is apt to denote the absolute dominion of God over all creatures, or the highest power of kings over their subjects, but to give us to understand how God is affected towards us, and to admonish kings of their duty ; which is, to govern their people committed to their charge, gently and diligently, as a shepherd doth his flock. There are many places of Scripture that justify this, which I shall not so much as mention, because there is no reason why this word only should be regarded, and the other neglected ; nor why the other§ should not rather interpret this|l (being twice repeated, and this used but once), than this interpret the other; nor why either should signify ruhng after the manner of a prince, and not of a pastor ; nor (if we allow the utmost that can be made of it) why they should suppose Peter to have had any pre eminence in this authority over the flock of Christ, which was not grounded upon his eminent affectionate care, and more than ordinary fidelity in feeding it. * Summam Potestatem. Bellarm. 1. 1. de P. R. c. 15. + BoffKe. J Tloii/aivf. § BdtTKE. II Ilol/iaive. D 2 36 AGAINST THE iDOCTEINE And yet, such is the desire of dominion in some people, they have not only made Peter universal Pastor, with an ordinary power (as they call it), which no other Apostle had, but found him a successor also in this power, and without any deed of conveyance but this one word " feed" made the Pope of Rome his sole heir ; unto whom they ascribe the most exorbi tant power, derived to him from St. Peter, sole heir to the great Shepherd of the sheep, Christ Jesus. If you would know what this power is, Bellarmine will inform you : who, here and there in his works, asserts the power of the Bishop of Rome to extend unto five great things ; for the support of which he alleges these words, " Feed my sheep." First, He saith that he is made hereby the supreme judge in controversies of faith.* " Nothing can be more clearly spoken in the Gospel, than that which our Lord said to Petey in the presence of the rest of the Apostles, Feed my sheep. For he spake to Peter only, and he gave him all his sheep to feed, so that he did not exclude the Apostles themselves. Now it is indubitable, that it is one of the offices of a pastor to discern good pasture from bad." Secondly, He proceeds from hence also to make the Pope an infallible judge.f " For in these words, saith he. Feed my sheep, the Pope was made the pastor and doctor of the whole Church ; and if so, then the whole Church is bound to hear and to follow him ; so that if he err, the whole Church will err." Thirdly, Hence also he derives his power to make laws for the wholeChurch. J "For Christ," says he, " giring Peter what he promised, uses a kingly word, viz. Uolpaive." And there fore. Fourthly, He proves by this, that the Pope is absolutely above the whole Church, even above a General Council. § "For since Christ the good Shepherd hath communicated to Peter his own name in these words. Feed my sheep, it is plain the pastor is so above the sheep, that he can in no wise be iudged by them." •' ^ Fifthly, In fine, he proceeds so far, as from these words to prove the Pope's temporal power over princes ; || whom, if they * L. iv. de Pont. Rom. c. 1. [Pragae, 1721. vol. 1. p. 445 u. 6, 7.] + lb, cap. iii. tertio. [Ibid. p. 452. n. 33 ] II t'''^?' l^- ^^^'^- ""P- ^^-^ ^ ^- 2- de Conciliis, c. xvii. i f j' J "i,^°"»- Pontif. cap. vii. [Debent autem reges Deo serrire letendendo tcclesiam puniendoque hsereticoset schismaticos. Ergo potest ' OP THE papal SUPEEMACY. 37 be heretics, for instance, he may " not only excommunicate, but command the people also not to obey them, and therefore to deprive them of their dominion over their subjects." Wherein he doth but follow some of their Popes, viz. Gregory VII. Boniface VIII. and Nicholas IV., who in their Decretals allege this place, to maintain the power which they challenged to themselves in temporal things. But these are such far-fetched and absurd inferences from these words, that to name them, as was said before, is to con fute them : this being not to interpret the Scripture, but to torture it, and force it to say what they please, though never so much against its meaning ; which some in their own com munion are so sensible of, that they abhor such riolent abuses of God's holy Word, and openly declare there are no such things as these to be found therein. One* more particu larly hath demonstrated Bellarmine's arguments to be sophis tical and against the rules of the Council of Trent, when he proves from these words [" Feed my sheep"] the Pope's supe riority over General Councils, and his unerring judgment in matters of faith ; and shews that forty Popes of Rome, by call ing every bishop of the Church their " fellow bishops," have openly declared these words " Feed my sheep" are not proper to them alone ; and that this is a most certain tr|fiition of the Roman Church itself, by its bishops ; which he proves from Stephen I. to Innocent III., by near two hundred and twenty testimonies ; which, if they be not sufficient to make a tradi tion, there can never be any sufficient tradition (as he speaks), it being scarce possible there should be anything better testified. And anotherf also more lately hath overthrown these pre sumptuous assertions ; shewing that all the Apostles and their successors were pastors of the flock of Christ, who spake to them in the person of Peter, when he said " Feed my sheep ;" and that if these words had been spoken to Peter alone and his successors, they would not have proved them to be infallible,! or their authority to be above that of a General Council ;§ much less their authority over kings or their ac debet regibus jubere ut hoc faciant et nisi fecerint etiam cogere per ex- communicationem aliasque commodas rationes. Ibid. p. 507. n. 21.] * Launoy Epist. pars ii. et pars v. t Lud. El. du Pin. [p. 308. Paris. 1686.] t De antique Ecclesi* Discipl. Dissert, v. [Ibid. p. 342.1 I Dissert, vi. [Ibid. p. 377.] 38 against the doctrine dominions, either directly or indirectly, the Church universal haring always understood these words to speak of a spiritual power only. " And therefore they that are not ashamed to in terpret them othervrise depart from the sense of the Catholic Church, that they may, by any means, defend their unlawful attempts."* II. But if the word " feed" alone vrill not do this great business, Bellarmine hopes the next little word " my" will assist mightily to the establishing St. Peter's universal pastor ship. For he saith it furnishes them vrith a notable reason, why all the flock that called Christ their owner should be looked upon as his:* "For since Christ adds, without any restriction, the pronoun my to the noun sheep, it manifestly signifies, that all those sheep were committed to Peter which can be called Christ's sheep ; and it is certain all are Christ's sheep, none excepted." Unto which if any one should think fit to reply (as no mean persons have done) : That our Lord in the word "my" (if any emphasis must be laid upon it), pointed to those who had been his own peculiar charge in his life-time, when " he was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel," I ap peal to all men of sense, whether it would not be a more rea sonable exp»sition than his ; especially when they shall con sider that these " lost sheep," the Jews, were afterwards the peculiar care of St. Peter, unto whom "the Gospel of the circumcision was conimitted, as the Gospel of the uncircum- cision to St. Paul ; for he that wrought effectually in Peter to the Apostleship of the circumcision, i. e. of the Jews, the same was mighty in me, says St. Paul, towards the Gentiles," &c. Gal. ii. 7, 8. But there is no need of this interpretation, nor do I rely upon it ; since our Lord expressly declared in his hfe-time, " Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold : them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice ; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd," John x. 1 6 : all which sheep were committed to the care not of Peter alone, but of all the Apostles : every one of which had an equal share in his charge ; though Peter (as I have shewn), had need to be par ticularly excited to do his part of this office, and to feed as many as he could possibly, seeing the proof of his love to * Dissert. 7. p. 485. t L. 1. de Rom. Pontif. cap. l6. [Pragte, 1721. vol. 1. p. 316, n- 8.] OF THE PAPAL SUPEEMACY. 39 Christ and of his fideUty, in which he had lamentably failed, did therein consist. III. After all this they make pleasant work with the words "lambs" and "sheep," which they say includes the whole Church, Apostles and all : so that they who were pastors no less than Peter, are tumed into simple sheep, who were to be led by him. Which is confuted by the whole history of the Gospel, and by all antiquity; nothing being plainer than that Peter did not so much as nominate a successor to Judas, much less take upon him by his sole authority to appoint one : but the whole college of the Apostles appointed two persons to be presented to God, desiring Him to shew which he had chosen. Acts i. 23, 24. Nor did he ordain St. Stephen and the other six deacons ; but the twelve called the multitude of the dis ciples unto them, and bade them look out seven men, &c. " whom we (not Peter alone) may appoint over this business," Acts ri. 3. Nay, more than all this, Peter was so far from exercising supreme authority over them, that the Apostles sent him, as there was occasion, not he them, to do an Aposto lical office ; and also sent John in joint commission vrith him. Acts viii. 14. And I have observed already, how St. Paul withstood him to his face, and that publicly, when he was in an error : which can no way consist vrith the supposition of his being inferior to Peter in order or power ; for though an infe rior may privately give his advice to a superior, yet to call the supreme Governor in question, and to reprove bim before all is intolerable presumption and contempt of authority. . But this conceit is so very dear to them, that the late Ca tholic Scripturist could not forego it, but is pleased to tell us, that if every one of the other Apostles be sheep of Christ, St. Peter is here made pastor to every one of them, for he is com manded to feed them. And others are so fond of it, as to find a mystery in these words ; which, the better to accommodate to their fancies, they tum into three, instead of two only which are in the Greek.* And by lambs, ver. 15, and by little sheep (as they will needs have it read, ver. 16,) understand the Jews and the Gentiles : and by sheep, ver. 1 7, the bishops pf the Church ; who are, saith Bellarniine,-|- " as it were the ewes or mothers of the lambs ; and therefore the Lord com mitted to Peter the care of the lambs, i. e. of the people of the Jews ; and of the little sheep, i. e. the people of the Gentiles; * 'Apvia and 7rpo/3ara. t L. 1. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 16. 40 AGAINST THB DOCTRINE and of the sheep, that is, they that brought forth these lambs in Christ, which are Apostles and Bishops. Or, by lambs," he saith, "we may understand mere laics, the people who have no pastoral care, being only children, not fathers in Christ ; and by the little sheep, inferior priests, who are so the fathers of the people, that they are bishops' sons ; and by sheep the great priests, that is, bishops who are so set over both lambs and lambkins, that they are notwithstanding sub ject themselves to Peter." That is, you may understand this mystery how you please, if you but so contrive it that Peter have all under his care, and the Apostles themselves be his curates. But they who can be pleased with such conceits as these, have little reverence for the Holy Scriptures ; and it is a great affront to our understandings to offer us mere imaginations for reasons, their own dreams instead of the Dirine Oracles. If it may consist with Christian sobriety to make such a nice dis tinction between lambs and sheep, as to make them imply different things (any more than the two several words for feed,* and for Lovest thou me, are thought to do), it is far more likely that our Lord intended to signify the care that ought to be taken of all Christians suitable to the diversity of their states ; " some of which," as a great manf of our own Church speaks, " are to be handled tenderly, and cherished like lambs ; others to be looked unto like elder sheep, and to be fed vrith stronger meat, but with less personal or assiduous attendance." This hath some sense in it, which is very useful, and agree able to all men's thoughts ; but if we set our fancies on work, they abound with vain conceits of which we can find no end. For if lambs, and lambkins, and sheep only be St. Peter's walk, and he the shepherd, where are the rams ? as a no less learnedj than ingenious man asks ; they are excepted, it seems, and rams, as Turrianus fancies, are the Apostles, or their successors, that is. Bishops ; or as Cardinal Tolet§ (Bel larmine's equal) will have it, they are kings and princes ; and so these two, apostles and kings, are by this interpretation both shut out ; whom Bellarmine intended by his derice to have shut into Peter's fold. But the graver sort of writers even in the Roman church, * BoffKE and Troifiatve, ayaTT^g and ^iXelg. t Dr. Jackson, B. 3. c. 7. sect. 10. * Dr. Collin's EPHPHATA, p. 51. § In xv. Joh. Annot. 3. OP THE PAPAL SUPEEMACY. 41 are ashamed of such mysteries as these, which they see may be invented at pleasure. Maldonate* himself (to say nothing of Jansenius) bids those who subtilly inquire, why Christ calls his disciples lambs rather than sheep, think again and again what they do, and take heed lest they expose themselves to the laughter of the leamed ; for the chfference is in word, not in sense ; save only, that the word lamb hath something in it more soft and tender, and might be used to commend them the more to Peter's affection. For this diminutive form of speech is a sign of very tender and ardent love, and more mov ing than any other ; as appears by the common instance of a dying father, who expresses more of his own affection and works more upon his friends, if he says, " I commend to you the care of my little babes," than if he simply says, " I com mend the care of my children to you." Whence it is our Sariour sometimes used this form, just before he parted with his disciples, John xiii. 33 : " Little children, yet a little while I am vrith you," &c. : and his Apostles also, particularly St. John, who uses it seven times in his first Epistle, to declare the great ness and tenderness of his love, and to excite the hke in others. That writerf indeed pursues no less than the other the pre tensions of the Church of Rome from these words, though he like not this curiosity ; insisting upon Christ's committing all the sheep, i. e. all Christians, to Peter. Which will not do their business, since they were no othervrise committed to him than they were to the rest of Christ's Apostles ; who had the same power given them, and were to take the same care of all Christ's flock that he did. Not that every one them was to feed or teach all Christians, simply and universally under stood; for that was impossible, and would have made the labours of the rest useless, if one were sufficient ; but all inde finitely, so that among them none should be neglected, but instructed by some or other of them. This must necessarily be the meaning ; for otherwise, our Lord bade Peter do that which could not be done by one man, or if it could have been done, would have made all the other Apostles idle, and left them nothing to do. No, say they, we do not mean that Peter alone was to preach the Gospel to all nations ; so he could not feed all ; but this sort of feeding must be allowed to others. But he alone was to rale and govern in chief, to feed by authority and * In Job. xxi. 15, &c. t Maldonate. 42 AGAINST THE DOCTEINE power over all, whereby he was to prescribe what was to be taught and believed. But this is to retum where we were before, to the significa tion of the word " feed ;" which cannot mean one thmg with respect to Peter, and another with respect to the rest; but signifies the same power, be it what it will, common to them all. If this need any further exphcation, those words of our Lord, "Go, and teach all nations," Matth. xxriii. 19; "Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel unto every crea ture," Mark xvi. 15, will satisfy us, that Peter had uo pecu- har authority conferred on him above the other Apostles; for he gave this charge to them all, and it was ushered in with a far more magnificent preface to it, than when he spake here particularly to Peter ; for he first acquaints them with his own supreme authority, saying, " All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth," and then adds, " Go ye therefore, and teach all nations," &c. ; which is a commission as large as could be given to men, including in it all the power that was necessary for the establishing and governing those Churches which they should gather unto Christ. Who can think that they who had this authority given them, were themselves to be taught and governed by Peter alone? Nothing could put such a conceit into men's minds, but an ambitious desire to advance themselves to the highest domi nion by raising Peter above all others : who, it is erident, did not take themselves to be all inferior to him ; nor to be less able to feed him, than he was to feed them. For St. Paul (who was herein inferior that he was called late to be an Apostle, as " one born out of due time") did take upon him to feed Peter, and that with his staff too, if I may so speak, that is, with his reproof; and this at Antioch, St. Peter's own seat ; where it had been very proper for him, one would think, to have stood upon his pecuhar prerogative, if he had known of any belonging to him. Which if he could have challenged, we should still be to seek by what right the Bishop of Rome claims the same autho rity that St. Peter had. 0, says Boniface VIII.* Christ spake to Peter and to his successors, when he said " Feed my sheep." But how doth he prove that 1 Why, we must take his bare word for it, both that he spake these words to Peter's successors and to them alone, and that the bishops of Rome * Extravagant. L. 1. tit. 8. de Major, et Obedieiitia. OF THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. 43 are his sole successors : all this he delivers as an infallible dic tator, and it is not good manners to question that the universal flock of Christ is so committed to them, that " whether Greeks or others shall say, they are not committed to Peter and his successors, they must necessarily confess they are none of the sheep of Christ." But it is worth any body's while to read on to the end of that Extravagant where he asserts this ; whereby they will be infallibly satisfied he was no infallible interpreter, but a gross perverter, of the holy Scriptures. For here it is that he proves in the Church there is both the spiri tual and the temporal power, from those words, " Behold here are two swords," Luke xxii. 38 ; and that the temporal power is subject to the spiritual, because " the powers that are, are ordained of God," Rom. xiii. 1 ; for they would not be in order, unless sword were under sword, and spiritual things are superior to temporal : for the prophecy of Jeremy is verified of the Church and the ecclesiastical power, chap. i. 10, " Behold, I have set thee this day over the nations, and over the kingdoms, to root up and pull dovra," &c. : therefore the temporal power, if it go out of the way, must be judged by the spiritual ; but the supreme spiritual power, by God alone, not by man, as the Apostle bears witness, 1 Cor. ii. 15, "He that is spiritual judgeth all things, but he himself is judged of no man." After all which goodly interpretation of holy Scriptures, more like Pasquil than the Pope, he concludes most pontifically, " We declare, affirm, define, and pronounce, that it is altogcr ther necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Pope of Rome." This is his conclusion from " Feed my sheep," and from other places of, Scripture expounded after the very same fashion as he abuses this : which though it be very presumptuous, yet is not too arrogant for him who could entertain such a mon strous conceit, as this which we read in one of his decrees,* where he says, " Christ made Peter the chief, that from him as from a certain head, he might diffuse as it were his gifts into the whole body ; for that having taken him in consortium iNDiviDUiE Teinitatis, iuto the partnership of the undirided Trinity, he would have him caUed that which the Lord himself was, saying, Thou art Peter, and upon this eock I vrill build my Church." Now if Peter be thus exalted into the consortship of the blessed Trinity, and the Pope have a just * Sexti Decret. L. 1. tit. 6. cap. 17. Fundamenta. 44 AGAINST THE DOCTEINE claim unto all that belongs to Peter, then is the Pope no less^ than OUE LoED God, as some of the canonists have called him ; unto whom Boniface might well conclude all must be subject, upon pain of damnation. I conclude this whole discourse with these three observa tions, which are better grounded than their proud decrees. First, It is worth considering, that this lofty structure which they have erected in the Church of Rome, of the supremacy of their bishop, is built barely upon three metaphorical speeches of our Sariour unto Peter, vrithout one word or syllable con cerning the Bishop of Rome, or any other successor. One would have expected that a thing of this mighty moment should have had a stronger foundation, and been delivered in plainer words than " upon this rock," " I vrill give thee the keys," and " feed my sheep :" and that we should have been told also in downright terms who should inherit the supreme power, supposed to be conferred by these metaphorical speeches, when he was dead and gone, especially if all Christians in the world must necessarily, upon pain of damnation, be subject to Peter's successor. And yet so it is, this is all that a wit of such height as Bel larmine's (who is wont to scrape up all that any way seems to make for his purpose) durst venture to allege out of the holy Scriptures for the proof of so weighty a point. The Rhemists indeed, in their Annotations upon the New Testament, make bold with two places more, which they apply to this business ; but with so little reason (not to say so ridi culously), that he had the discretion to let them alone. One is in St. Matthew, xiv. 29 ; where, upon the word ' walked,' they have this vrise note : " Peter," saith St. Bernard, "walking upon the waters as Christ did, declared himself the ONLY vicAE of Christ, which should be ruler not over one people but over all ; for many waters are many people. And from hence he deduceth the hke authority aud jurisdiction to his successors the bishops of Rome." And a goodly deduction it is, for which they are mightily beholden to St. Bernard, who could spy such a notable decla ration of St. Peter's sole ricarship, aud draw from thence such a fine argument for the Pope's authority, as no ancient doctor besides himself was able to find in this place. But must his fancies pass for substantial proofs of the Bishop of Rome's supremacy, which was raised to a great height in his days ? At this rate nobody need want proofs for the most detestable OF THE PAPAL SUPEEMACY. 45 heresies which he shall please to devise, if such conceits as these be allowed for arguments. And their second annotation is like to this, of which, for aught I know, they may have the honour to be the inventors, without the help of St. Bernard. For because our Sariour, when there were two ships, went in that which was Simon's, Luke V. 3, and thence taught the people, they gravely con clude, that undoubtedly he taught out of that ship, and not the Other, on purpose to signify the Church resembled by Peter's ship, and that in it is the chair of Christ, and only true preach ing. By which it is erident, they intended the reader should understand, that as Peter was owner of that ship, so he and his successors are rulers of the whole Church. For upon the foUovring verses, ver. 7, 10, they observe how Peter had so much work that he was fain to call for help, and "joined those who were in the other ship as co-partners in the preaching of the Gospel ;" as much as to say, the work was committed to him alone, who took in such help as he needed. He was the only pastor, and all the rest, as was said before, his curates. For, they tell us, " all this aforesaid did properly mean his travails in the conversion of the world, and his prerogative therein before all men ; as is evident by Christ's special pro mise made to him severally and apart in this place, that he should be made the takee of men." What then became of all the rest ? Were they to sit still in their ship and do nothing ? O no, by no means : " He giveth to other (say these annota- tors) the like office, as to Peter's co-operators and co-adjutors." Before, they said that Peter called them and joined them to himself as co-partners in the preaching of the Gospel ; but now haring better (it seems) bethought themselves, they say Christ appointed them to this office ; yet still they are but as Peter's co-operators and assistants. He was the taker of men, and converted the world ; they only came in to his help, and brought all the fish into his net. Their ship signified nothing, it was Peter alone that signified all. Their ship stands for a mere cjrpher ; his ship is the figure of the whole Church, where he governs, and they are but helps in govemment, mere co-adjutors unto him, the great, and indeed only, bishop over all. Who can endure such annotations as these, in which men play vrith the holy Scriptures as they please, and play with them in so saucy a manner, as to interpret them directly against the Scriptures : in which the Apostles call themselves workers 46 against the doctrine together with Christ, 2 Cor. ri. 1, employed by him to be his co-operators, not St. Peter's, who was so far from being the converter of the world, that his travails and pains were most bestowed in the least part of it. Which Bellarmine, I sup pose, saw well enough, and therefore was so wise as not to mention such allegories, which may serve to entertain the fancies of silly people, but are the just sCom of those that have any measure of spiritual understanding ; who have heard per haps that the Fathers sometimes resembled the Church of Christ to Peter's ship, but not that they ever dreamed of making him, and the Bishop of Rome after him, the Govemor of the whole Church, because he was master of that ship. There is nothing more unaccountable than such a conclusion, unless it be their pretence to infallibility, who are mere triflers when they meddle with the holy Scriptures, which is the next thing I would have observed. Secondly, If the danger of wresting the Scriptures be a good reason why the common people should not read them, then nobody at all should look into them ; for their most leamed priests have wrested them more than the common people : and that against their oath, whereby they are bound to interpret Scripture according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, who all agree that what was said to Peter in these three places belonged to all the Apostles, whose writings, as the rest of the Scriptures, have by none been more foully abused than by the Popes of Rome, whose interpretations and applications of them, should they be collected in a book, would make one of the most shameful pieces that hath been yet extant in the world. Thirdly, And let the reader observe once more how ill they of that Church are agreed about the interpretation of these three places of Scripture, which are the subject of this dis course. There are four interpretations of the first place, " Thou art Peter," &c. (as hath been elsewhere observed), which have had great authors in the Roman Church, as well as others. Some by "rock" understand Peter's faith in the confession he had newly made (which by the way Joh. Eckius* says in the age before us, nobody denied to be the sense, and bids Luther name the man that said othervrise) : others Christ himself, whom Peter had confessed to be the Son of God : others Petek ; and others, all the Apostles ; which last is the exposition of * L. 1. contra Luther, de Petri Primatu, c. 13. OP the papal SUPREMACY. 47 Paschasius Radbertus, the famous broacher of transubstantia- tion, whose words are these, " The Church of God is built not only upon Peter, but upon all the Apostles."* Now they who follow the first and second sense can find no prerogative here for St. Peter above the rest of the Apostles ; and they that adhere only to the third (in opposition to the other, as they now commonly do) are confuted by those who assert the fourth, that these words were spoken to all the Apostles. And indeed they are all forced to confess, that nothing is here promised which is not contained in the next words, "and I will give thee the keys," &c. But what this is, none of them can cer tainly tell. For one sort, such as Cajetan, hold the keys contain more than binding and loosing ; which Bellarmine says is false, nay, a thing never heard of in the Church. And consequently this power of binding and loosing being promised to them all, Matth. xriii. 18, the power of the keys was promised to them all ; and Christ promising nothing biit what he per formed, he gave therefore the highest power to them all, which is contained in the keys. Here they are at a great loss, and cannot agree how to bring themselves off from this difficulty, which strips Peter of his supremacy. Therefore some have derised the above- named conceit, that Peter alone had the keys given to him as their ordinary, and they as his legates. But this seems too gross unto others, who acknowledge they all had the keys immediately from God, as much as Peter, if they be considered as Apostles, but not if they be considered as bishops and pastors ; for these two offices they fancy they had, the Apos tolical and the pastoral dignity ; the first immediately from Christ, the other by and underPeter. But this is in a manner the same thing in a little finer dress, which was said before. Therefore others unsatisfied with this, that the Apostles should receive their jurisdiction from Peter, have ordered the matter on this fashion, that Peter might use the keys alone, but they not vrithout him. But Sixtus Senensis cannot digest this ; and therefore hath derised a threefold power in Peter, of Apostleship, of order, and of the kingdom.f With respect to the flrst, he grants Paul was equal to Peter, because he had the office of preaching the Gospel not from Peter, but from God, as much * L. 4. in Matthseum. t Biblioth. Sanct. 1. 5. Annot. clxix. 48 against the docteinb as Peter himself had. With respect to the second also, he acknowledges the truth of what St. Jerome writes against Jorinian, that " all the Apostles equally received the keys" (let the Catholic Scripturist mind that), " and firmly laid the foundation of the Church :" and of what he says to Eva- grius, " All bishops are equal, because all the Apostles were so." But then with respect to the last, riz. the power of the kingdom, and authority over all bishops and churches, Peter was head of all : that is, Peter must some way or other be above all the rest, but how, they do not know. For Cardinal Baronius vrill have it,* that all the Apostles had the use of the keys equally with Peter, by the " oedinaby power of remitting sins ;" and by this distinction expounds the fore-named words of St. Jerome. But his brother. Car dinal Bellarmine, being aware, that, if Peter had the keys more than any of the rest, by an extraordinary power, his authority would not descend upon any of his successors, says quite contrary, that the Apostles had the power of the keys after an exteaoedinary manner, and Peter oidy by an OEDiNAEY.-(- Thus what one builds up, his fellow pulls down. There is a confusion of tongues in this Babel, which they labour to erect. They cannot agree so much as about the terms, wherein they deUver this new doctrine. For it is a pure in- ventioij, without any reason, or any authority for it : but it must be so, though they know not how, because it is their pleasure. As all the rest is, which they draw from the last place, " feed my sheep ;" in which they say, Christ gave the power which he had promised ; and therefore since he promised it to all, he gave it to all, if any thing was given here. And yet, against such clear demonstration, they will have this to he a peculiar grant to Peter; nobody knows how or why, hut because it seems good to them. For this is so little approved by others, that they fairly grant the ancient opinion was (and make it theirs), that these words were not spoken to Peter in a personal, but in a pubhc capacity, as he represented all the Apostles. Insomuch that they can find nothing pecuhar to liim in the word " feed," because of that of St. Austin,^ " When Christ said to Peter, he said to all, Feed my sheep :" * Ad An. 34. n. ccv. t L. 1. de Rom. Pont. c. 12. [Pragse, 1721. vol. 1. p. 310. n. 59.] t De Agone Christi, c. 30. OF THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. 49 Nor in the word "sheep," because St. Ambrose saith, in the place before named, " Those sheep not only Peter received ; but he received them with us, and we received them with him." Which things are so erident, that it hath brought some in that communion to this conclusion, that out of none of these three places, nor all of them together, can be gathered so much as the bare primacy of St. Peter,* after that manner which Bel larmine collects it : but it must be gathered thus, that in those places " Peter bears the person of the Church, speaks for the rest of the Apostles, and is himself spoken unto by Christ in their name, as the first and principal." Behold then the unity of which they boast in that Church ; and how little certainty there is among them, even of the main point of their faith, and as Bellarminef makes bold to call it, " the sum of Christian religion." It stands upon such a tottering foundation, that, finding how little these texts in the New Testament avail them, they ran sack the old, to fetch some feeble support unto it from thence. And the late Catholic Scripturist fancies the Old Testament helps them thus far in this point, that it teaches, " That among the priests of the old law, one was chosen successively to be the highest and chief priest. Commanding all such causes as are ecclesiastical causes to be brought to the tribunal of the high-priest, and his sentence to be obeyed even under pain of death."J And for this he alleges Deut. xvii. 8. But this only proves how ignorant such Catholics as he are in the Holy Scriptures ; where it is impossible for him to find that the high-priests were chosen successively ; for they had that dignity by inheritance, in one certain family, and not by election. And as for the power which he ascribes to them (though he promises us in his preface to produce loud-speaking texts for all the points we mislike in their religion), there is not so much as a whisper of it in the place he alleges ; the words of which he did vrisely not to quote, but only the chapter and verse : which we that have the liberty to read the Bible, can easily discern speak loudly against him, and confute that doctrine which he would confirm by them. " If there arise," says Moses in that text, " a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and * Du Pin. de antiquse Eccles. Discipl. Dissert. 4. p. 311. f Praefatio in L. de Pontific. Rom. X Seventh Point, n. 1, 3. VOL. III. ^ 50 AGAINST THE DOCTEINE plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of contro versy within thy gates ; then shalt thou arise, and get the^ up into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose. And thou shalt come unto the priests the Lerites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and inquire, and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment. And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place (which the Lord shall choose) shall shew thee," &c. I need not recite the rest at large to the end of the 12th verse ; for every understanding reader must eridently see, without going further, that he speaks not a syllable of the power of the high-priest, but of the authority of the supreme tribunal or court among the Jews, which consisted of a great number of persons, wherein all controversies, which could not be ended in inferior courts, were to be finally determined without any appeal. In which supreme court, the high-priest was so far from being the chief, that he was not so much as admitted to be a member of it, unless he was a vrise man. And then, he did not bear an absolute sway there, but the sentence was passed by the whole Council ; as appears (not merely from the Jevrish writers, but) from these repeated ad monitions in the very body of this law : " They shall shew thee the sentence of judgment," ver. 9 ; and "thou shalt do accord ing to that thing, which they of that place shew thee ;" and "observe to do according to all that they inform thee," ver. 10, "according to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee ;" " according to the judgment which they shall tell thee :" " Thou shalt not decline from the sentence which THEY shall shew thee," ver. 1 1 . Where he must be bUnd who doth not see six flat contradictions to the assertion of this Catholic Scripturist in this very place, which he pro duces to prove that Moses here sets up the tribunal of the high-priest, and orders his sentence to be obeyed upon pain of death in causes ecclesiastical. This was neither his court, nor were causes judged by his sentence, nor is there one word here of causes ecclesiastical, hut only of civil, " between blood and blood, plea and plea, stroke and stroke ;" unless we supppose the word we translate " stroke" relates to the plague of the leprosy, which belonged to the priests to judge of it, but excluded men from all civil as well as sacred society. And if the utmost be granted that can be supposed [that OP THE PAPAL SUPEEMACY. 51 there is mention here of something appertaining to spiritual causes], yet it must be also allowed by all men of sense, that this text speaks most of ciril causes ; and therefore can no more prove an absolute obedience to be due to spiritual than to civil governors. All which considered, I do not see but Dr. Reynolds had reason to say, that they might as well call in the help of the first words of Genesis [" In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"] as this verse in Deuteronomy, to sup port the Pope's supremacy : " For there," as Pope Boniface VIII. very gravely observes in the forementioned Extravagant, " Moses says, God created the heavens and the earth, in the beginning, not in the beginnings ; and therefore he who resists the Pope's authority, resists the ordinance of God ; unless (with Manichseus) he feign two beginnings (or principles), which is false and heretical." And by such fine fetches as this Innocent III.* proved his power over the whole Church from these words in Deutero nomy : but he did not mince the matter, as this Catholic Scripturist doth, but stoutly affirmed that the Pope may exercise temporal jurisdiction, as well as spiritual, not only in the Church's patrimony, but in other countries also, in certain causes. For, " Deuteronomy being by interpretation a second law, it proves by the very force of the word, that what is here decreed in Deut. xrii. 8, ought to be observed in the New Testament. And then the place which the Lord hath chosen, is the Apostolical See, viz. Rome ; the Leritical priests are his brethren, the cardinals ; the high-priest or judge is the Pope, the vicar of him who is a priest for ever after the order of Mel- chisedeck, appointed by God the Judge of quick and dead : the first sort of judgments between blood and blood, is meant of criminal and ciril causes ; the last, between stroke and stroke, is meant of ecclesiastical and criminal ; the middle, between plea and plea, belongeth to both ecclesiastical and ciril ; in which, if any one contemn the sentence of the Apos- toUc See, he is doomed to die ; that is, to be separated by the sentence of excommunication, as a dead man, from the communion of the faithful." Nothing is more evident than that, according to this Cathohc exposition of Pope Innocent, the Bishop of Rome is, by the Divine Law, head of all Christians, as well in ciril causes as in • Decret. Greg. L. 4. tit. 17. c. 13. per Venerabilem. E 2 52 AGAINST THE DOCTRINE ecclesiastical. This text in Deuteronomy proves the one as much as the other : that is, it proves just nothing, but that the mystery of iniquity wrought very high, when such mystical senses of Holy Scripture were swallowed glibly, to confirm the chiefest mystery of the Romish faith. Perhaps the Catholic Scripturist vrill say, that they now argue from this place only by a parity of reason, that there must be but one high-priest among Christians because there was no more among the Jews. To which they may have an answer, when they prove that Judea was as big as the whole Christian world. That's as hopeful a task for him to labour in, as any he hath undertaken. And so I take my leave of him till he hath finished it ; for it will be too tedious to follow him to his next text out of the New Testament, Matth. xxiii. 2, which he calls an unanswerable text concerning the high-priests of the old law. " Upon the chair of Moses have sitten the Scribes and Pharisees ; all therefore whatsoever they shall say unto you, observe and do it." For nobody but himself can see a syllable here concerning the high-priests, who did not sit in Moses's chair, but were the successors of Aaron. And besides that, this place belongs to another head of their doctrine, about the Pope's infalhbility ; of which if this be a proof, it hkewise proves the infalhbility of Annas and Caiaphas, and justifies those that crucified our blessed Lord and Sariour. OF THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. 53 THE TEXTS EXAMINED WHICH PAPISTS CITE OUT OF THE BIBLE, FOR THE PROOF OF THEIR DOCTRINE CONCERNING THE VISIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. CHAP. III. In that part of the controversy which we have with those of the Church of Rome, under this head> of the Visibility of the Church, it is absolutely necessary to state the case vrith all cleamess imaginable ; because by doing this, it will on the one side appear, that those texts which are cited by the Romanists, have no other concern than with the Church militant here on earth, generally considered : and on the other side, that those of the learned Protestants that have defended the invisibility of the Church, have mainly refuged themselves under the notion of the Church universal. For this is certain, if this be the definition of the Church, that it is Ceetus Fidelium, or the Com pany of the Faithful, that is, the company of all those that are already possessed of their eternal happiness vrith God, and of all those that are now in the way toward that happiness ; as also of those who to the end of the world shall be ever called to the obtainment of it ; if, I say, we take all this in, as neces sary to the definition of the Church, then all the proofs of Scripture that are brought to argue the diffusiveness, and most glorious figure the Church hath made in this world, are im pertinent to the purpose, as to its risibility ; because, as to that part of it which is in heaven, and as to that part of it which is not yet in being, only in the eternal purpose of God, it must still be to us invisible : neither can it possibly be supposed, under this notion, as one common society united under any one mortal man as its vicarious and substituted head, or indeed under any other government than that which the blessed Jesus, the Lord of all, universally maintains. Again, if the notion of the Church were to be limited (as some have done) to those only who from eternity were elect and predestinate, and in time are effectually called by the Spirit of God, and inwardly endued vrith those graces and virtues that are necessary to qualify for everlasting happiness ; then, also, there is no possible proof can be alleged to make the Church (thus considered) in any age visible ; because God only knows 54 against THE DOCTRINE the hearts, and tries the spirits : these graces are inward, and however they may and will (according to the notion such have) unavoidably exert themselves in most excellent fruits of a good life ; yet they are such as may be so counterfeited by the hypo crite, that they cannot be always distinguished, but by the all- seeing eye that discerns into the very root and principle of all. So that, under either of these notions, the Church is inrisible, nor can it possibly be otherwise. And thus con sidered, as some have rightly observed, the Church is the sub ject of our faith, and not our sight ; to which therefore they have applied that article in the Apostles' Creed, " I believe the holy Cathohc Church ;" that is, though I cannot possibly see it as it is cathohc and universal, yet. I beheve it. There is no question, but as to the notion of the Church in general, it is (as Bellarmine* himself expresseth it, deriving it from the word 'EKxKriaia, Ceetus Voeatorum) the whole company of the faithful, or those that are called to the know ledge, and behef, and profession of the truth : but then, as I have said, 'tis as certain, that the Church, thus considered, is inrisible. For though the persons, who in their turns upon the stage of this world, have or do embrace the truth, who are baptized into, and Uve in the profession of it, though these may be actually seen, and known, and conversed vrith, and Unked into one common and risible society ; yet, take the Church in its aggregate sense, as the whole company of those that have, or do, or shall thus profess, and so it must needs be inrisible, unless to that eye only that can see all things, uno aetu et intuitu, by one act and riew. That therefore in which this part of the controversy is con cerned, is the Church indeed, but it is that part of the Church only which we express by the Church mihtant. And it is the Cardinal's own title, when he enters upon this dispute ; De Ecelesia militante; that is, that part of the Church that is conversant in this world, that have embraced the faith of the Gospel, that have taken up the profession of it, and do main tain this profession in the use of the holy rites and sacraments which Christ hath instituted and commanded to be observed. And here one would think, that the question between us should be, whether the risibility of the Church, as thus considered, is not so firnJy assured to us in the holy Scriptures, as that there * Bell, de Eccles. Milit. 1. iii. c. 1. [De Controv. vol. 2. p. 108. Par. 1608.] OP THE PAPAL SUPEEMACY. 55 neither hath been, nor evervriU be any one part of time or age, wherein there shall not be a risible society of men professing the true faith, and maintaining the true religion in doctrine and worship, as it hath been taught and established by Christ and his Apostles ; or, whether it is possible for the Church, in any the least space of time, from its rise and beginning, to the end and consummation of the world, wholly and entirely to fail ? But this is not the question ; though the Papists would sometimes in their arguings seem to make it so: and some Protestants (at least as to any public or risible profession of the truth) have seemed to own and maintain that there hath been, or may be such an entire defection of the Church, as that it may have been universally fallen off as to some of the very fundamentals in Christianity. As to this, taking the question in its due latitude, there is really no controversy betwixt the Church of Rome and us. For as the Romanists vriU not content themselves with some little reserved number of men professing the truth, that that should go under the style or nomination of the Church ; so the Pro testants, on the other side, however some in the warmth of dispute, or the bias of contradiction, may have given them selves too great a hberty in asserting the defectibihty of the Church ; yet in their sober jeasonings, there are none possibly of the writers, nor indeed of the whole Reformed communion, that rightly understand what they say, or whereof they affirm, but do so securely depend upon the truth and faithfulness of Christ's blessed promises to his Church, "as tq assure them selves, that there always were, and always will be, a visible part of mankind that shall profess his trath. Visible, I say, not perhaps in any glorious splendour, or with external pomp or observation ; Christ himself never designed to make that an inseparable note of his Church, as appears when he tells us, "that the kingdom of God cometh not vrith observation ;"* but risible so, as that it may be apparently discemed by those that vrill not shut their eyes, even by such as (if I may so ex press it) are themselves without, and much more by those who are of the same faith and communion. This, indeed, those places in the Scripture give us just ground to hope and beheve, that tell us, that upon that confession St. Peter had made " Christ would build his Church, and the gates of hell should not prevail agamst it ;"t that he " would be with them to the * Luke xvii. 20. t Matth. xvi. 18. 56 AGAINST THE DOCTEINE end of the worid."* And "that where two or three are ga thered together in his name, he vrill be in the midst of them."f It is so small a number as two or three will make a " gathering together," and that smallest collection of men, is Christ ready to own as his Church, by "being m the midst of them." The Church is therefore called " the pillar and ground of trath."]: And the Apostle tells us, " the foundation of God standeth sure, haring this seal, the Lord knoweth them that are his."§ Herein, I say, we may be supposed to agree vrith our adver saries, that the Church, generally speaking, neither ever did, nor ever vrill, as to the fundamentals of Christianity, totally and entirely fail, but in one part of the world or other, vrill in every age maintain even its risibility to the end and consum mation of all things. When the Arian heresy had so far pre vailed that it became proverbial, " Athanamis contra Mundum, et Mundus contra Athanasium : Atbanasius against the world, and the world against Atbanasius :" it is true, so far as that heresy prevailed, there was an absolute defection in some of the essentials of a Christian Church, and that defection was of vast extent, and looked something like universal, when they had gained over to themselves the secular power to encourage and cover them : but yet, even then all Church histories agree in considerable numbers of Bishops and Fathers, and their Churches, who were contemporary with Atbanasius, and main tained the orthodox faith with all clearness and stedfastness, against all the subtilty or cruelty of their enemies. So I may add as to the Church of Rome, it is not to be denied but the very fundamentals of Christianity, as they are summed up in that which we call the Apostles and the Nicene Creed, are still kept up and professed, and have always so been, though miserably blended with many impious and impure both doctrines and usages, which for some hundreds of years have been creeping in, and are now in their full height, being of that quahty, that though they do not directly and immediately cut them off from all title to a Christian Church, yet, ex consequenti, mediately and by necessary consequence, they seem to strike at and over throw the foundation of faith, and that so far, that it absolutely binds and obliges all persons that know and are aware of it, upon pain of damnation, to separate from her, in such faith and such practices. Such, for instance, as their doctrines of merits, transubstantiation, sacrifice of the mass, praying to * Matth. xxviii. 20. t Matth. xviii. [20.] X 1 Tim. iii. 15. - § 2 Tim. ii. 19. OP THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. 57 saints and angels, the worshipping of images, the obscurity of the Scriptures, purgatory, with some others. And yet, even as to this part of that Church's apostasy, were it not something foreign to the design of these papers, it might be fairly enough made out, that in all ages, by the confession of their own several writers and historians, there have still appeared, sometimes whole communities of people, and other times particular per sons of famed learning, remarkable piety, and strong interest in the world, who have either noted and complained of, or openly opposed and resisted, at least dissented and kept themselves free from the errors, corruptions, and supersti tions, as they sprung and grew up in the times wherein they lived. This, therefore, is not the question really betwixt the Church of Rome and us. Whether the Church may in any age so en tirely fail, as to become no where risible ? But that which is plainly in dispute, and that which our adversaries would pre tend under this head of the Visibihty of the Church to prove, from the many texts of Scripture which they allege, is this, viz. That it is necessary, from the prophecies in the Old Testament, and the promises that Christ and his Apostles have left with us in the New Testament, that the Church should in all ages appear in its just splendour, diffusiveness, succession, and regulated form, in the risible profession of its faith, and uniform use of its sacraments, under its stated governors and pastors, subordinate to one monarch or head of the Church thus constituted. And that the Church of Rome hath throughout all ages appeared thus risible, and was that Church thus pointed out by prophecies of old, secured by infallible promises, and could digito monstrari, be always shewn and riewed in its suc cession, in its numbers, and in its risible head and monarch under Christ, whose ricar he is, viz. the Pope or Bishop of Rome. That this, and no other, is the state of the question, may be made out from all or most of the Romish writers, both from the definitions they give of their Church, the drift of their arguments, and the scorn they generally throw upon the Re formed Church, charging it with novelty, slendemess of num ber, weakness of interest, and want of succession. I shall pitch upon Bellarmine, and observe it from the definition he gives us of the Church, when he is setting himself to argue its Visibility, from Scriptures, reason, and the Fathers. His definition is this, " It is a company of men knit together in the profession of the same faith, the communion of the same sacraments, and under 58 AGAINST THE DOCTRINE the government of lawful pastors, especially of that one Vicar of Christ upon the earth, the Bishop of Rome."* This is his definition, and this we are to suppose he sticks to in all the proofs that himself, or indeed after him the Catholic Scripturist, and the author of the " Touchstone of the Reformed Gospel," do allege to justify it. So that he and they make the Church of Rome, as comprehended in its nume rous communion, and as govemed under its splendid and glo rious head and monarch, the Bishop of Rome, to be " the one and trae Church," and wholly the subject of those texts which they cite, either from the prophets of old, or from the New Testament. In considering of which, it w'ill not be amiss to shew — I. That it is not the style or usual manner of the Scriptures, in describing the Church, especially in the books of the New Testament, to insist much upon the numbers, or the outward pomp and splendour of the Church, but rather to the con trary. II. That none of those places of Scripture, which either the Cardinal, or the Touchstone of the Reformed Gospel, or the Catholic Scripturist have cited, do prove any thuig of the Visibility of the Church, as supposed (in Bellarmine's defini tion) under the govemment of one risible head, Christ's Vicar upon earth, the Bishop of Rome. I. The first I shall touch at but briefly, viz. That it is not in the style or usual manner of the Scriptures, especially of the books of the New Testament, in describing the Church, to insist much upon the numbers, or outward pomp and splendour of the Church, but rather to the contrary. I confess, many of the prophecies in the Old Testament, and those particularly which the Catholic Scripturistf hath mustered up in such plenty, do speak of glorious things that should in time befall the Church; but these (as shall be shewn in their proper place) are generally to be understood of the vast diffusiveness of the Gospel, that it should run through all nations, should shine into the darkest and most distant corners of the world : or else * Nostra autem sententia est, Ecclesiam unam tantum esse et non duas, et illani unam et veram, esse csetum hominum ejusdem Christianse Fidei Professione, et eorundem Sacramentorum Communione colligatum, sub Regimine legitimorum Pastorum, ac prsecipue Unius Christi in terris Vicarii Romani Pontificis. Bell, de Eccles. MiUt. lib. 3. cap. 2. fDe Con trov. vol. 2. col. 108.] t Cath. Script. 3d Point. OP THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. 59 they respect the spiritual, and not the carnal or temporal estate of the Church ; or else they are restrained, some of them, merely to the recovery of the Jevrish state from its captirit/, towards whom such kind of expressions were proper, and accommodate to their economy ; or, in a word, may point at the last upshot and consummation of the Church. Otherwise, in almost all the passages that concern the Church in the books of the New Testament, she is generally described in another kind of style. Our Sariour calls them by the name of a "little flock."* He discourseth them continually under the snpposal .of persecution and poverty, great hardships of hfe, perfect scorn and contempt in this world, &c. He never so much as hints to St. Peter the grandeur of his successor, the riches of his see, the extent of his dominion, his supremacy over kings and emperors, or the uncontrollable interest he should have vrith so many states and principalities in the world. But when the Apostles were contesting a little superiority among themselves, he checks the dispute as fond, and foreign to their character ; he reproaches them for affecting what might become only the heathen potentates and great ones in the world, who were then making power and extent of govemment their main design and endeavour. " He said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them ; — But ye shall not be so ; but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he that is chief, as he that doth serve ."f Nay, the Apostle St. Paul speaks of himself, and those who in common vrith him bore the mighty character of Apostles, and first pubhshers of the Gospel, that they are " made as the filth of the world, and the off-scouring of all things unto this day." We are told indeed of the falling away of the Church in a great part of it, and that part of the apostasy is, I con fess, set forth to us in some splendour, when " the man of sin shall be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and ex- alteth himself above all that is called God, or that is wor shipped :" J so " that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shevribng himself that he is God." This text of Scripture, if they please to accept of it, we heartily allow them for the proof of their Church, and its risibility for many ages. But to proceed : we find in the Book of the Revelation of St. John, a book wherein the Romanists themselves will ac- * Luke xii. 32. t Luke xxii. 24, 25, 26. t 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4. 60 AGAINST THE DOCTRINE knowledge that some great revolutions of the Church are deterrainately set down ; there the Church is represented under the character of a woman flying into the vrilderness,* fed and maintained there by the proridence of God. It is trae, she is described in terms that proclaim her great and illustrious enough. " She is clothed vrith the sun, she hath the moon uuder her feet, and upon her head a crovra of twelve stars."t But all this points plainly at her spiritual state ; and as she is supposed to be elevated above this world and all sublunary things : whereas the apostatized part of mankind, set up in opposition to the true Church, is described under the character of a woman too, but in a very gaudy dress : " She is arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked vrith gold and precious stones and pearls, haring a golden cup in her hand," &C.J: All which intimates to us the secular grandeur by which that apostatized party, that were in direct opposition to the true Church, should make themselves so notorious and remarkable. And so all along throughout the whole book, we may observe the trae Church (unless in her last consummation, when she appears adorned as becomes the owned and acknow ledged bride of the holy Jesus), her circumstances are generally represented as very low and discouraged, trampled on, and triumphed over, prophesying in sackcloth, made merry upon amongst her successful enemies, bearing still the afflictive and tragical part throughout every scene ; a thing which those of the Church of Rome themselves seem so convinced of, that some of their writers, in the descriptions they make of that Antichrist whom they have feigned and imagined, tell us§ — " That in the reign of Antichrist, the extemal state of the Roman Church, and public intercourse of the faithful with the same, shall cease, and that there shall be only a communion in heart with it, and practice in secret :" so the Rhemists confess. And Suarez declares, || Diebus Antichristi, omnem cultum divi- num cessaturum ; that " in the days of Antichrist, all divine worship should cease." Here one might by the way put in a remembering question, viz. Where then vrill our adversaries place the Visibility of the Church ? But — II. Come we to consider, that none of those places of Scrip- * Rev. xii. 6. t lb. ver. 1. J Rev. xvii. 4. § Vid. Rhem. Annotat in 2 Thess. ii. sect. 10. II Vid. Suarez. tom. ii. qu. 59. art. 6. sect. 6. OP THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. 61 ture, which either the Cardinal or the Touchstone of the Reformed Gospel, or the Catholic Scripturist, have cited, do prove anything of the Visibility of the Church, as defined by Bellarmine, riz. " a company of men — knit together under the govemment of Christ's Vicar on earth, the Bishop of Rome." And here, before I set myself to examine the Scriptures by which the Cardinal pretends to confirm or illustrate this argu ment, I must beg the reader's pardon, that I so much as men tion most of them, because they are so very impertinent to the purpose for which he quoted them, that were not his writings everywhere in the hands of the learned, it would seem impossible to persuade those that could not consult them that ever so great a disputant as Bellarmine, on so public a stage of learning, wherein his writings, both in his own and future ages, must be conversant, should so extravagantly trifle, in first pretending so solemnly to the Scriptures, and then pitching upon such passages, that one would think a man in jest while he is propounding them. He tells us first,* he can prove it from all those Scriptures where the Church is so much as named. " For," saith he, " wherever we meet vrith the name of Church, there a risible congregation must always be understood ;" upon this he quotes Numbers xx. 4. "Why have ye hiought u]^ Ecclesiam Bomini, the congregation of the Lord, into this wilderness ?" " Here," saith the Cardinal gravely, " that most knovra and noted people of Israel is called the Church, or congregation of the Lord." This is strict reasoning indeed! The people of Israel were many in number, and risible enough at that time, to every eye that then had the good fortune to meet or con verse vrith them, and this risible company of the Israelites are here called Ecelesia Domini, the congregation of the Lord ; therefore the Church is always risible to the world's end, under the govemment of one risible Head, the Bishop of Rome. He follows this mighty blow of his with another irrefragable text,t wherein he tells us the Scripture expressly speaks of the risible Church, 1 Kings viii. 14. " The king turned his face about, and blessed omni ecclesiee Israel, all the congregation of Israel, and all the congregation of Israel stood." Now, had we been so lucky in our translation as to have rendered it the * BeU. de Eccles. Mil. lib. 3. cap. 12. [vol. 2. col. 142. Paris. 1608.] t Vid. Bell, ubi supra. 62 AGAINST THE DOCTEINE Church of Israel, as the Vulgar hath it, Ecelesia Israel, we should long before this time have been conrinced, that God had a risible Church then, and not have been so hardy as to have ventured the hsts vrith the Romanists about their risible Church now. But this it is to out-face an argument through our mere ignorance of a Latin word. His next citation from Scripture is that of Matth. xri. 18.* " Upon this rock vrill I build my Church." A place which the Cathohc ^Scripturist mentions indeed, but teUs us he will not insist on it. Whether he was conrinced it was nothing to the purpose ? or, whether he thought it a text so plain and cogent, that it would be but holding a candle to the sun, to enlarge much upon it ? As he hath not thought fit to tell us, so we dismiss him. The Cardinal however spends his remarks upon it, and gives his adversary pretty good scope too ; he finds he can play with him here, and yet take him at last ; for he tells us, " Whether by this rockf we understand Christ, or the confession of his faith, as the heretics would have it ? Or, whether by this rock we understand Peter, as the Roman Catholics do ? Still the foundation of the Church is something sensible, and therefore the Church itself must be sensible too, or risible. For though we see neither Christ nor Peter at present, yet they were both of them at that time riewed by bodily eyes, and at this time are both seen in their ricar or successor." I was vrilling to lay before the reader the whole weight of the argument, that he himself may judge how very unanswerably the Cardinal hath urged it. However, since he hath given us our choice to understand this rock of the con fession that St. Peter then made, we vrill take it so, and then see how the argument wUl go. As to the understanding of St. Peter himself to be this rock, I need only refer the reader to the preceding treatises upon the subject of the Pope's supre macy ; and particularly that that sets itself to examine the texts by which the Papists pretend to prove it. And so proceed to consider, whether, if we take this rock to be the confession that Peter made of Christ, " that he was the Son of the hring God," and that Christ, upon this confession of his, promised that this should be the foundation upon which he would build his Church ; whether from hence it must unques tionably follow, that the Church shall be always visible, under the known government of that one pastor, the Bishop of » Cath. Script. 3d Point, p. 41. f Vid. BeU. ubi supra. OP THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. 63 Rome, or Vicar of Christ ? I grant that, could it be made out, that by this rock the person of Peter was immediately intended, and in his person the Pope was unavoidably included as his direct and perpetual successor, this text might carry some force in it, and Christ's promise that " the gates of hell should never prevail against it," might be made to speak something of an endless and unalterable succession secured to that See : but since none but the Romanists could ever so much as have dreamed of such an interpretation as this, and so many tracts have formerly and of late so strenuously rin- dicated this passage from so false a gloss, and the Cardinal hath said, though we should not understand it of the person of St. Peter, yet his argument holds good, let us consider it in the true sense it must and only must bear. Our Lord haring asked his disciples, what the world generally, and afterwards what they themselves thought of him, Simon Peter, usually the most forward in anything of this kind, makes a very plain and home confession, " 'Thou art Christ the Son of the hring God." Upon this, our Sariour, approving this hearty confession, tells Peter, vrith some allusion to his name, that this confession of his was the very rock or foundation "upon which he would build his Church ;" that is, that whoever should hereafter heartily believe and profess Jesus to be the Son of God, i. e. the true Messiah and Sariour of the world, that every such person should be entitled to this relation with Christ ; he should be esteemed a member of that society which should make up his Church. " And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it ;" that is, the belief and profession of this great truth should never hereafter be rooted out, but still there shall be always some in the world, who, notwithstanding all the opposition of heU itself, shall own and profess this faith. This, in the event, hath hitherto been accomplished ever since it proceeded from our Sariour's mouth ; and this we question not will for ever be. In every succession of ages there will still be some whom Christ shall own and acknow ledge as his Church, from this fundamental confession of him. And thus far of the Church's Visibility, that is, that it shall never fail, but some numbers of persons shall still be known and distinguished as the followers of Chrst ; I have already said, is the undoubted promise of our Lord, and so believed and embraced by every good Protestant. And here let me further add, that as it may be made out, that there have not 64 AGAINST THE DOCTEINE wanted in all ages since the first depravation of the Church,] some who still have borne their witness, and asserted the pure and unblended truth against the corruptions and superstitions of the Church of Rome itself, so upon the strength of this very promise we still depend, that there will never fail a genera tion of men that shall keep themselves unspotted from these "garments of the flesh," shall never drink of the "cup of Babylon's fornications," and shall keep the truths of God entire and inviolate, notvrithstanding all the force, the frovras, the blood and destraction which the Church of Rome hath hitherto wrought, or is still meditating against any in this cause, by which she hath gained a considerable title to the " gates of hell" mentioned in the text. But how from hence should be collected, that there shall be always a splendid visible Church under the headship of that great monarch the Bishop of Rome, and that whoever are not under the government of this monarchy, or within the communion of this society, are to be supposed as not having made St. Peter's confession, that " Christ is the Son of the living God ;" this, as the text doth not seem to point towards it, so the Cardinal hath not so much as attempted to make it out. His next text is Matth. xriii. 17.* "Tell it to the Church; but if he neglect to hear the Church," &c. "Certainly," saith the Cardinal, " this could by no means be observed, were the Church inrisible." " It were an hard case," saith the Touch- stone,f " to be condemned as an heathen, for not telling or hearing a Church which hath so closely lain hid, that no man could hear, see, feel, nor understand it for a thousand years." The Catholic ScripturistJ mentions this text, and enforceth it the same way. Here, if the question were asked, to whom did our Sariour then speak ? it must be answered, to his disciples surely, to St. Peter probably, and the rest of the Apostles. Who then was the Church that they must tell the offence of their brother , to? Was St. Peter at that time seated in his Pontifical throne, aud had he his Consistory of Cardinals about him to receive the complaints and accusations of his subjects one against another ? If not, then the Church might be invi sible at that time, notvrithstanding Christ's directions to tell the Church. The Touchstone^ puts the man into the condition of an heathen or a publican, if he do not tell as well as do not * Bellarm. [ut supra, 143.] f Touchstone Reform. Gosp. cap. 8.p, 22, t Cath, Script. Point 3. p. 41. § Touchstone, ubi supra. OF THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. 65 hear the Church ; that I have nothing to say to at this time, only perhaps he did not well understand the author he took it from. Well ! but for once we vrill suppose, that this is a direction for the Church in future ages, when it should come to be formed and estabhshed in its just government. Then we must only suppose, that when there is such a Church, it must be applied to, and told ; not that there shall be always such a formed and risible Church. It is, we must all acknowledge, a most wholesome rule, that notorious and publicly scandalous offences should come under the cognizance of the Church, and the offender some way or other subjected to her censures. But then, this must be only when the Church is in that condition that makes her capable of throwing a just awe upon criminals, by the infliction of punishments tremendous and dreadful ; and nothing further is here supposed or commanded. Nor is it to be doubted, as I have already said, but that there vrill always be such a society of men, I mean, so much of the Church of Christ risible in all ages, wherein this rule may perpetually be of great use and influence, where any notorious and scandalous offence of its members may be so represented, as to meet with their due check by rebukes, instructions, excommunications, or otherwise, as the offender may need or deserve ; though I must also here add, that by experience it appears how much more effectual these methods have proved, when the Church is in the lowest and most persecuted state, and acts by its own more peculiar instruments of correction and discipline. And there fore, notwithstanding the rule, and the usefulness of this rule, there is nothing in it from whence can be picked out such a risible Church as Bellarmine defines. Much less is there in some following texts which he proceeds to cite, which I shall but name, as he himself hath done, vrith this remark only, that the Cardinal, in merely quoting them, seems very well assured in this his first head of arguing, that wherever the name of Church is, there also it is evidently risible, and under its re quisite form of monarchical government, whose head is Christ's ricar upon earth. His texts are these : Acts xx. 28. " Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of God," &c. " How," saith he, " can they feed the Church which they know nothing of ?" Again, Acts. xv. 3. "Being brought on their way by the Church, they passed through Phoenice ;" ver. 4. "And when they were come to Jerusalem, VOL. III. ? 66 AGAINST THE DOCTRINE they were received- of the Church." Acts xviii. 22. "When Paul had gone up and saluted the Church." Again, 1 Cor. xv^ Gal. i. Phil. iii. St. Paid tells us of himself, " that he perse, cuted the Church." And bespeaks Timothy : " These things I write unto thee, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the House of God, which is the Church of the firing God ;" 1 Tim. iii. 14, 15. 'These texts prove, as the Cardinal gravely observes, that Christ had a Church in bemg at the same time : so they do, and so may twenty more of that kind do, for any dispute we have with him in that matter. From these proofs where the Church is named, the Cardinal proceeds to others where she is not named, but plainly de scribed : thus. Psalm xviii. (to us Psalm xix.) " In sole posuit tabemaculum suum ; He hath set his tabernacle in the sun :"* so Vulg. hath it from the LXXII., but we render it, "In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun :" I will not contend which of them foUoweth the original the nearest. The argument the Psalmist is upon vrill bear either of them : for, speaking of the visible testimony that is given to the power and proridence of God from the mighty fabric of the heavens, and that all nations in the world may see enough of God, in the frame, and order, and influences of those vast and glorious bodies, it may very well be said of God, " that he hath set his tabernacle in the sun," i. e. he hath made himself very risible in that glorious piece of his ovra workmanship, that whoever beholds that, may contemplate and adore the Dirine power and goodness, who hath framed so goodly and so useful a body as that is. But if it be rendered as we have it in our translation, then it refers to the heavens, and the firmament, which, ver. 1, the Psalmist tells us, did every where declare the glory of God ; they do it in all their several parts, but more especially and more conspi cuously in the sun, for which the heavens are made a seat and tabernacle. And what then is this to the Visibihty of the Church ? Yes : doth not the Apostle, when he is upon the subject of the universal publication of the Gospel, make use of the words immediately foregoing ? " Their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the end of the world," Rom. x. 18. What then! he does not even there cite this expression particularly, " He hath set his tabemacle in the sun :" or, if he did unquestionably refer to those words in the Psalmist which he seems to quote, it were not very absurd to suppose-" * Vid. Bellarm. ubi supra. OP THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. 6/ (1.) The Apostle, upon the same argument with the Psalm ist, that is, that all nations, both Jew and Gentile, had been already effectually preached to by the mighty works of the creation, which had been so long, so conspicuously, so univer sally seen, and might have been contemplated by all the rational world, " Their sound went into all the earth," &c. But (2.) to allow this, that the Apostle is upon the extensive and universal promulgation of the Gospel, yet does he not seem to bring in this passage of the Psalmist as a proof, but allusively Only, and by way of accommodation. However (3. and lastly), suppose we to the utmost, that the words, as uttered by Darid, were prophetical, and they are brought in by the Apostle in proof of the fulfilling of this pro-. phecy ; yet all that could be made out thence, would be only that the Gospel was diffusively pubUshed, not only throughout all the region of Judea, but amongst the Gentiles too ; which we readily grant, and have infinite reason to bless God for it, because the glad tidings have reached even our remotest isles too. And what is this still to the perpetual Visibility of the Church under the government of one great pastor and ricar of Christ, the Bishop of Rome ? Having mentioned this, that this last text cited by the Car dinal, if it be any way referred to by the Apostle, it must be understood of the vast publication of the Gospel, both in Judea and amongst the Gentiles : our due observation of this will cut short ^ great deal of work, and serve as one answer to a great heap of texts which the Catholic Scripturist hath fetched out of the Old Testament, in proof of his third point about the Visibility of the Church, and its continuance still, from one age to another, under lawful pastors. We are to consider, that one great subject of the prophecies of old was not only the coming of the Messiah, but the conse quence of that, riz. "breaking down the middle wall of parti tion," and enlarging the boundaries of the Church, which in the Prophet's time were kept vrithin the pale of the Jevrish nation, at least within the communion of their rights and usages, and the seal of their covenant. And this vrill appear a subject fit for the Prophets to have been very lofty and very large upon, if we consider : — , (1.) How prejudiced the Jews were in their conceptions about the etemal duration of their present economy, that it was never to be altered, much less abohshed, for the bringing in of the Gentiles to so near affinity and relation with God. P 2 68 AGAINST THE DOCTRINE Or if we consider, (2.) how mighty and signal an event and revolution of Proridence this would be when it once came about. For the Christian religion to spread itself into so large a compass, to gain over to itself such vast empires and king doms, to break in with its light into the darkest, the most bar barous and uncultivated parts and comers of the world, to triumph over strongest oppositions, to level greatest mountains, to plain the roughest passages, to prevail upon the most preju diced and opposite part of mankind, reducing them from the greatest ignorance of God and aversion to good, to the know ledge and love of God, and the practice of all rirtue and true goodness, and this in places most distant from one another ; and all from such small and inconsiderable beginnings, the ap pearance of one person in the world, who in his outward guise was poor and contemptible to a proverb, scorned and hated to the most cruel and ignominious death that could be thought of, and for the generality followed only by persons of the meanest figure and lowest education ; a few poor and unlearned fisher men, whom he appointed the first pubhshers of his Gospel, and by whose means, notwithstanding, it became so diffused and universal. This was a subject worthy the noblest thoughts, and the most flaming expressions they could be dehvered in by inspired Prophets, who accordingly enlarged and expatiated upon it, in great variety of phrase, which every where occurs in their writings. Having thus prepared a just hght to set those texts in, which the Catholic Scripturist, vrithout any order or method, but in great number, hath huddled together in proof of his Roman Church, as now under the government of those whom he calls lawful pastors : haring thus done, I say, I need give myself or the reader very little trouble in examining them further, than barely propounding them ; in the reading of which, when rescued out of some of his uncouth and barbarous translations, every one may see how httle to his purpose they are brought in by him. Thus he quotes, Psal. Ixxxix. 3, 4, " I have made a cove- aant vrith my chosen, I have sworn unto Darid my servant. Thy seed vrill I estabhsh for ever, and build up thy throne in dl generations."* This, he tells us, is verified in none but Hhrist, and hath rightly enough apphed to it that passage of -he angel, Luke i. 32, "The Lord God shall give him the * Cath. Script. Point 3. p. 31- [1687-] OF THE tAPAL SUPREMACY. 69 throne of his father Darid, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end." Thus far we are satisfied, if the Scripturist be so too, we ovra it all, and let him make his best on it. Then he tells us,* that these promises are of that kind and nature that they cannot be made void or prevented, even by the sins of Darid' s posterity; and for this he citeth several verses in the same psalm, from ver. 29 to ver. 38 : " If his children forsake my law, and walk not ui my judgments," &c. -A.11 which we own as most assuredly true, but stUl nothing to his purpose. Of the same intent and meaning is that promise made by Nathan to Darid, quoted by the Scripturist, 2 Sam. rii. 16, primarily intended to assure Darid, that his posterity should inherit the throne after him, which Saul's did not. And, secondarily, that his kingdom should be everlasting in him who is Lord of aU, and who should in time proceed from Darid's loins. To the same purpose is that long passage out of Psal. Ixxii. ver. 52, and so on, which vrith other quotations of the same and greater length, I shall take leave not to transcribe, because I would not swell the bulk of these papers too much, but refer the reader to their perusal himself, assuring him that though he vrill apprehend nothing in them to the purpose of this author's argument, yet he vrill not lose his labour, but meet with something therein that is very useful and comfortable. So those many texts he cites from Isaiah's prophecy ; they do indeed represent the care and faithfulness of God to his Church ; the imchangeableness of his love, and his wise over ruling aU things for their protection, or for their seasonable deliverance in his own time : which, as they were originally designed for the support of the Jevrish Church under her bondage, and the hardships of her captirity, giring her fre quent assurances of restoration and deliverance in due time ; so also, in some analogy, they have no doubt a prophetical respect to the Church under the dispensation of the Gospel, both as to its enlargement and diffusiveness amongst the Gentiles, as also its seasonable support, or vindication under all her oppressions, and the violences of her enemies, fisa. xlix. 14, 15, 16; chap. hv. ver. 9, 10, 11, 12 ; chap. Ix. 15, 18, 19, * Cath. Script. Point 3. p. 31. [1687.] t Id. ibid. 70 AGAINST THE DOCTRINE 20 ; chap. Ixi. (the verse misprinted in the author) ver. 8, 9 ; chap. bdi. ver. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12. AU which, if the reader wiU consult, as they are rendered in our Bibles, or indeed as they are in the barbarous translation wherein this man hath quoted them, he vrill find (as I have said) some things very useful and very comfortable, and especially not unfit for that part of Christ's Church to converse with, who are at this pre sent time under most severe and deplorable circumstances, through the merciless cruelty of those that would pretend themselves the only visible Church. But this author's* choicest remark is, upon his last quota tion from Isa. Ixri. 21, where he tells us, is very clearly expressed, that the true Church shall have a perpetual succes sion of priests and Levites : " I vriU also take of them for priests and Lerites, saith the Lord : for as the new heavens, and the new earth, which I vrill make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain." This prophecy, in aU probability, did primarily concern a very- particular instance of proridence to the Jews, whom the Romans and Grecians in their Macedonian and Syrian wars finding in captirity, should restore them to their liberty, and send them back with honour into their own country: so the learned Grotius conjectures ; and then, that those who were of the priestly and Leritical order, under what state of servitude and drudgery soever they had lain hid and obscure in the time of their captirity, should be restored to the dignity and service of their office and function in their own country. But if (as in most of the prophedes of this kind we may reasonably conceive ) the prophet points toward the state of the Church under the dispensation of the Gospel, it does indeed mean no less than that the Gospel should spread itself into the regions and countries beforementioned ; that it shall have its ministers to publish it, and that the Church, from one age to another, shall remain and have its being to the end of the world. This Calrinf himself owns in his commentaries upon the place, who yet is no friend to this author's, or Bellarmine's Visibihty of the Church. Nor indeed is the emphasis to be laid upon the expression of priests and Lerites, as our author would seem to do, to assert ftom thence the certain and risible succession of lawful pastors in the Church, particularly of that * Cath. Script, p. 36. [1687.] t Vid. Calvin, in Loc. [Op. vol. 4- p. 480. col. 2. Genev. 1617.] OF THB PAPAL SUPREMACY. 71 one pastor the Bishop of Rome. For, besides that the priestly and Levitical order under the Mosaic law, is not to be looked upon as typifying the episcopacy and ministry of the Christian Church, but of the Lord Jesus only, the great High-priest of our profession, who himself offered the only proper and pro pitiatory sacrifice that made all the other for ever cease : besides this, I say, where can the Church of Rome at this instant shew its succession, or pastoral authority and jurisdic tion in any parts of Africa ? I may add, of Greece either, which yet our author* is so angry with our Bibles that they have avoided to translate the proper names of Tharshish, Pul, and Lud into. His next transition is to the prophet Jeremy ;~'and the first passage he remarks upon in him is pretty observable, both for the text itself and his own note upon it. The text is this, Jer. XXX. .2, " Though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee, but I will correct thee in measure." In which words it is eri dent the Church may be scattered among nations that are her professed and rictorious enemies, and consequently not in so " flourishing a condition upon the face of the earth," as he elsewhere expresseth it,f and contends for. And his own comment upon it in this place is, " that the Church indeed may be chastised for a while, but never brought to consummation." Which in the meaning of it is true, but the phrase of being brought to consummation, as he useth it, hath an elegancy in it very extraordinary, perhaps an original. His next texts out of Jeremiah are of the same purport and design with those I have already noted from him out of Isaiah, riz. the glorious progress the Gospel should make, and its con tinuance against aU opposition, that it should no more faU than the ordinances of heaven, the sun and moon, day and night. The texts are Jer. xxxi. ver. 35, 36, 37 ; chap, xxxii. 38, 39, 40; and again, chap, xxxui. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. AU which (as formerly) I refer to the reader's own perusal ; only cannot vrithout some indignation remark, that those expressions of the prophet, which cannot possibly belong to any other than the holy Jesus only, he blasphemously applieth them more than once to his pretended ricar the Pope. So upon Jer. xxxiu. 1 7, " Darid shaU never want a man to sit upon the * Cath. Script, p. 37. [1687-] t Id. p. 34. 72 AGAINST THE DOCTRINE throne of the house of Israel;" he makes his remark in a parenthesis, " Christ must successively have his ricar, or rice gerent in all ages."* Again, where the prophet in the same chapter, ver. 21, expresseth it, "Then may also my covenant be broken with Darid my servant, that he should not have a son" (a vicar, or ricegerent, saith the author) " to reign upon his throne." The texts out of Ezekiel are of the same kind : Ezek. xxxiv. 22, 23, 24 ; chap, xxxrii. 23, 24, 25, 26 ; chap, xlriii. 35. In all which there is nothing further remarkable, but that he still drives at that blasphemous thought, to make whatsoever is spoken by God of the glorious and endless reign of Darid his servant, that is, of Jesus, the Messiah, and Son of the living God, to seem primarily designed and fully accomplished in the Pope or head of the Roman Church. However, we Protestants have one invincible argument, that the letter of some of these texts which this man has cited, is not fulfilled in every age and in every part of the Christian Church ; that particularly of Ezek. xxxrii. 23, " Neither shaU they defile themselves any more vrith their idols, nor with their detestable things," &c.t We know there are some parts of the world who caU them selves the Church who do pollute themselves vrith idols ; though we also believe and assure ourselves that there vrill come a time when this part of the prophecy, so far as it respects the Chris"- tian Church, shaU be literaUy accomphshed, that is, when all the wretched idolatry which as yet any where prevails, shall for ever cease ; that time when " I5abylon the Great, the mother of harlots and abominations," shall be doomed to its fall and ruin ; and when " those kings that have committed fornicar tion with her," shall come " to hate the whore, and make her desolate and naked, and eat her flesh, and burn her vrith fire;" which we are assured by the Holy Ghost, wUl all m due time come to pass. Rev. xrii. 5, 16. Amen! even so. Lord Jesus, This author cites but one passage from Daniel, chap. ii. 44, which we also easily allow him may be interpreted of that kingdom, which Christ should set up in the times of his Gospel, but this is whoUy spiritual, and refers to his mediatory admi nistration. And now, the Scripturist haring so largely proved (as you may imagine) what he designed from those numerous texts in * Cath. Script, p. 38. [1687.] f Ibid. p. 39. OP THE PAPAL SUPEEMACY. 73 the Old Testament, he thinks he hardly needs to offer at any from the New; only ex abundanti,* is pleased to throw us in two or three from thence, which I shall briefly consider. His first is that of 2 Cor. iv. 3, " If our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost." This also the Touchstonef hath noted. The Apostle is indeed speaking here of the plain and perspicuous revelation of the Gospel, that they had preached it in all simphcity and plainness, vrithout any of the arts which seducers were wont to gloss or cover their falsehoods vrith ; and besides their preaching, they had asserted the truth of what they published with such miraculous powers derived upon them from above, that those who would not discem and em brace it, being thus plainly and conrictively tendered, must be inexcusably bhnd, and perish through their own fatal obduracy. What is this to the risible constitution of the Church under the great head of all at Rome ? Could any body but a priest of the Society of Jesus have smelt or suspected that the mean ing of this text is, that whoever doth not see and acknowledge the Bishop of Rome to be the Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, is lost and must perish ? There may be something perhaps picked out from this passage that looks a little asquint at one dariing opinion of the Romanists concerning the obscu rity of tlie Scriptures, but nothing to their advantage as to this part of our controversy with them. His next text is that which the CardinalJ cites too, Eph. iv. 1 1 , 1 2, 13. " He gave some Apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, till we all come in the unity of the faith, &c.'' This place doubtless expres seth to us the unspeakable bounty and goodness of God in Christ Jesus, in supplying his Church vrith such variety of officers and ministers, who in the discharge of their several functions, should sufficiently publish and make known the Gospel, and should form and constitute the Church under some govern ment, and that the ministry in the Church (at least in one or other of its characters) should continue till the Church had attained its perfected state in the other world. But what ! will you say it is necessary that all these offices should con tinue, that the Church might not fail, or prove inrisible? Where then are the office's of the Apostles, or prophets, or evangelists still vested ? Either they were not necessary to the * Cath. Script, p. 40, 41. t Touchstone, p. 22. t Vid. Bellarm. de Eccles. Milit. Ub. 3. cap. 13. [Ibid. col. 144.] 74 AGAINST THE DOCTEINE continuance- (however they might be to laying the foundations) of the Church, or else the Church hath failed ever since those persons died off, for the character itself died vrith them. Or, are the Apostle, and prophet, and evangehst, all together centered in the Bishop or Pope of Rome? Is he an Apostle? Where was his immediate ordination by Christ ? Is he a prophet ? Where does he utter his predictioiis, and confirm them by miracles ? Is he an evangelist ? What regions and countries doth he travel into to publish the Gospel ? I confess, if ever there had been any reason to have mentioned the Bishop of Rome as a necessary universal monarch, who must in all ages successively have continued risibly seated in his throne, to whom the whole Christian Church should be subordinate, here had been the opportunity the Apostle would have taken to have laid it before us. But since the Holy Spirit of God hath not thought fit, upon so fair an occasion, so much as to point toward it, the Cardinal, and those that work under him, might have had some modesty, and not ventured upon that for proof, which seems so directly against them. The next quotations are made both by the Cardinal* and the other two ; Matth. v. 14, 15. The Apostles are " the hght of the world, set upon candlesticks, not hid under a bushel, and a city set upon an hill." It is pity that hill which the city is set upon had not been seven hUls, and then the proof had been inrincible on Rome's side. We know where Rome is described, and to what purpose, by that very situation, which in time may make it sufficiently risible. But the plain and unaf fected meaning of these texts is, that the Apostles, and first publishers of the Gospel, were persons which were to bring into the world a mighty light, which would make them very conspicuous and remarkable ; and therefore they are cautioned, both as to their work, that they should not be slothful or neg ligent in discharging so great a trust ; they should not hide the light that was put into their hands, for that very reason, that they might display it every where abroad. And then as to their behariour, they are further cautioned, that that may be blameless and irreprovable ; because, as a city on an hillj they were in the riew of all men. Besides, I may add, simili tudes make no proofs, much less do parables. Which may be an answer in short to the parable of the mustard-seed, urged * Bellarm. ubi supra. Cath. Script. OP THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. 75 by the Scripturist ;* and to Bellarmine' sf parables of the floor, the net, the sheepfold, and the feast, &c. They further quote that of Matth. xxriii. 20, "I vriU be vrith you to the end of the world." " The Apostles (saith Bel larmine, and after him the Scripturistf) could not continue to the end of the world, and therefore he will be with them in the person of such as shall succeed them in teaching and preaching, &c." Our Lord certainly will be both vrith his Church, and vrith his ministers ; he takes this character to himself, that " He walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks, and holdeth the seven stars in his right hand."§ Our adverr saries shall not rob us of the comfort of this, and all the precious promises of this kind : we are hereby most infallibly assured of the care and inspection of Dirine Providence over his Church, and all her faithful pastors and governors, even when they may seem to be reduced to the greatest extremities. And here the Scripturist should have ended, but that he could not forbear one blasphemous suggestion, as if the Pope of Rome was intimated by that Paraclete, or Holy Spirit of God, which Christ promised shoiUd " come and abide in his Church ;" for to no other purpose can he be supposed, by the series of his discourse, to have quoted that text, when he brings it in thus: "Again in the hke sense he saith, John xiv. 16, And he vrill give another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever." II That blessed Spirit of God, whom our Sariour promised immediately to the Apostles ; whom he designed as his great Advocate in the world, as well as their Comforter (for so the word UapuKXriToe may be doubly rendered), that is, should as well plead his cause, and " conrince the world of sin, righte ousness, and judgment," John xri- 8, 9, 10, as inwardly support and instruct them in their greatest difficulties : that blessed Spirit, whom after his ascension he so risibly sent amongst them according to his promise, by which, even to them, he plainly demonstrated that he was a true Pro phet, the Messiah, and " Son of the liring God," Acts u. : this Holy Spirit of God, and no other, was the immediate subject of this promise, and yet would this profane trifler insinuate amongst his negligent and ignorant readers, as if this were a text proper to prove the Bishop of Rome deputed by * Cath. Script, p. 41. [1687.J t BeUar. de Eccles. Mil. lib. 3. u. 12. [Ibid. col. 143.] t Cath- Script, p. 42. [1687.] § Rev. ii. 1. II Cath-Script. p. 42. [1687.] 76 -AGAINST THE DOCTEINE OP THE PAPAL SUPEEMACY. Christ from one generation to another, to be his ricar and substitute. And thus I have, as briefly as I could, examined aU the texts that were worth any notice, and brought by the Ro manists in proof of their doctrine of the Visibihty of the Church. By which we may see vrith what sort of weapons they are most used to fight. For, would we but excuse them Scripture, reason, or real antiquity, at which we may observe them so very awkward, we may reasonably presume they have other kind of arguments with vvhich they could more skUfully and with better success manage their cause. OF THE CATHOLIC CHUKCH. CONTENTS. CHAP. I. The true Notion of the Catholic Church explained AND stated. CHAP. II. The Popish Notes op the Church examined and con futed. CHAP. III. Safety op Saltation in a Protestant Church. CHAP. IV. Danger op Saltation in the Chuech op Rome. A PLAIN AND FAMILIAR DISCOURSE BY WAY OF DIALOGUE BETWIXT A MINISTER AND HIS PARISHIONER, CONCERNING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. IN THREE PARTS. I. Shewing what is the Nature of the Catholic Church. II. That the Church of Rome is not the Catholic Church. III. That the Scriptures, and not the Church, are the Rule of Faith. TO THE READER. Readee, The design of this Tract is to furnish thee with answers to the many captious questions of the Romanists concerning the Church. Hence thou wilt be enabled to shew them where our rehgion was before Luther, and our Church before Henry VIII. Here thou wilt see the Church of England vindicated from novelty and schism; the Church of Rome condemned for usurpation and tyranny ; that the traditions of that Church are spurious, and its infallibihty not to be trusted ; but that being in the communion of the Church of England, thou art in a safe bottom ; and that haring the Scripture for thy rule, thou hast a sure guide. I have made it short, that it might not be chargeable ; and in the way of dialogue, that it might be easy. If thou reapest any benefit by it, bless God, and pray for the author. Farewell. CHAP. I. A PLAIN AND FAMILIAR DISCOURSE BY WAY OF DIA LOGUE BETWIXT A MINISTER AND HIS PARISHIONER, CONCERNING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. PART I. SHEWING THE NATUEE OP THE CATHOLIC CHUECH. Par. Sir, I come to thank for your many useful discourses of late to your people, and especially for one of them. Min. I endeavoured to make them as useful as I could, and I pray God they may be useful : but what is that one you mentioned ? Par. It was that conceming the Catholic Church : truly, I was very much pleased at it ; and the rather, because the Romish Priests that are now very busy in practising upon the people, insist on this as their main artifice. What ! will ye not believe the Church ? Is there any salvation out of the Church? And the like. Min. I am very glad you took so much notice of it, and I hope the rest of my hearers did so too ; I heard as much as you tell me, concerning this sophistical derice of theirs to cor rupt our people, and I preached it on purpose to arm them against it. Par. But that I should rob you too much of your time, I would beg the favour to discourse it a little over again with you ; for I am pretty much abroad, and often happen into the company of Papists, and sometimes of priests, and the subject of discourse is usually, the Catholic Church : now I would be glad to be so furnished, as to be able to stand my ground against them. Min. With all my heart ; time cannot be better spent than in doing so good a work. Par. If you please then, I'll propose the questions to you, as sometimes they propose them to me. And the first is. What is meant by the Cathohc Church ? 80 THE TRUE NOTION OF THE Min. Taking your question to be meant of the Church since Christ's commg m the flesh, without any respect to angels or good men before the Gospel (who are yet sometimes included in it), I thus describe it : The whole number of Christians in aU ages and places, admitted into the Church by Baptism, and gathered into particular Churches under their respective pastors and bishops, united to one another, and to Christ their Head, by the profession of one faith or religion. Par. Pray, Sir, let me desire you to take this description again asunder ; I perceive there are many things included in it ; and I desire to understand this point thoroughly. Min. Agreed. Ask then any thing about it that you doubt of, and would be satisfied in. Par. I would know first. Of what does the Catholic Church consist ? Min. I have told you : the whole number of Christians in all ages and places ; every indiridual person that hath given up his name to Christ, and makes profession of his rehgion, is a member of this Church, and all of them together make up the Catholic Church, or the mystical body of Christ. " Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular," says the Apostle, 1 Cor. xii. 27. I might also tell you, that the word in the original used to express the Church by,* properly sig nifies the whole number of persons belonging to any city or corporation assembled together. Par. What is the rite or ceremony, whereby persons are initiated into the Church, and made members of it ? Min. Baptism, or immersion into, or sprinkling with water; so our Lord and Sariour ordained, Matth. xxviii. 19: " Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Par. Must not this body have a head, and one that is supreme in it ? Min. I have expressed that also : it is the Lord Jesus ; " He," says the Apostle, Eph. v. 23, "is the Head of the Church, and Sariour of the body." He is the founder of this order ; he governs it by his laws, inspires it by his Spirit, pro tects it by his proridence : "To him is committed all power in heaven and earth," Matth. xxriu. 18 ; by rirtue whereof he hath constituted several officers and governors in his Church under him : but for one Vicar-general, or Lieutenant over the * 'EKK\t](Tia. CATHOLIC CHURCH EXPLAINED AND. STATED. 81, whole, there is not the least ground in Scripture, as I may have an occasion to shew you. Par. You have prevented me the asking you that question. Whether Christ hath left a risible Head on earth ? Yet I have one or two more questions about this matter to put to you. Pray, what is it makes the Catholic Church one ? Min. The profession of one Faith, or Christianity. But two things you must here remember : 1 . By Faith or Chris tianity, I mean the whole institution or doctrine of Christ con tained in the Holy Scriptures, especially those of the New Testament. And then, 2. That this Faith or rehgion must be publicly professed, which is best done by meetmg together, and worshipping God according to the prescriptions Christ hath left us in his Gospel, one chief part whereof is, our fre quent participation of the blessed Sacrament, which our Lord hath instituted as a federal rite of his Church, aptly represent ing both that near conjunction betwixt Christ and his Church, and that mutual fellowship of one Christian with another. So St. Paul speaks, 1 Cor. x. 17 : "For we being many, are one bread and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread." It is this gave being to the Church, and on this de pends its unity : to preserve the faith from corruption, is to preserve the Church from schisms ; but to add to, or diminish from the faith, is to break and divide the Church. Par. Why did you say in your description of the Church, That believers must be gathered into particular Churches, under their several pastors and bishops ? Min. For very good reason ; because othervrise it might be a rout or multitude, but not a Church. As the profession of Christianity unites the several members to one another, and all to Christ their common Head ; so, that there might be order and government amongst the members, and that the several acts of communion in the Church (whereby their profession of Christ's religion is chiefly manifested and maintained) might be duly performed, it is necessary that there should be officers to direct and oversee, and take care in the discharge of them. Hence, says the ApoStle, Eph. iv. 11, "Christ gave in his Church, some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying the body of Christ :" and though these pastors and bishops are officers of the Church in general, and may on occasion adrise and act for the good of the whole, and exercise their power and func- VOL. III. G 82 THE TRUE NOTION OP THE tion in any part of it ; yet for the greater advantage and better edification of believers, it was necessary every bishop, and presbyter under his bishop, should be set his ovm bounds and limits ; what to be his particular charge, and where more espe cially to concern his care and conduct ; each of which charges within such a compass, are parts of the Catholic Church, as agreeing in the same faith, and making profession of it in the same acts of communion. * Par. But if bishops and pastors are the peculiar officers of Christ's Church, what place and power do yoti allow the supreme magistrate in this government ? Min. Though kings and princes are not properly officers tod governors of Christ's Church, as a Church, it being not a civil or secular, but a distinct spiritual society ; yet to them is to be given the extemail management of this society, a power to settle its outward pohcy, and to be the moderators and governors of it : upon this account the great Constantine styled himself a ciril bishop,* as being chiefly concerned in the guidance and direction of the outward affairs of the Church. The bishops and pastors of the Church have their ordination, and derive their commission from a higher power, even Christ; but they act and exercise it under the protection of the supreme magistrate. Par. You have very well cleared the description you gave of Christ's Cathohc Church : pray give me leave to ask you, has not God promised that his Church should never fail on earth? Min. Yes; and you have the promise in these words, Matth. xri. 18, "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it;" and agdin, Christ speaking to his disciples, Matth. xxriu. 20, says, " I will be vrith you always to the end of the world." Par. I suppose this promise is made to the universal Ca thohc Church, and not to any one part of it. Min. It is so ; and therefore you may observe our Sariouf speak indefinitely, " my Church," vrithout naming any parti cular Church in this or that other country. Par. But how far does this promise of our Sariour secure the Catholic Church froni error and defection ? Min. To be sure, from all fundamental errors ; for the Church can last no longer than that doctrine remains in it that gave a being to it : whatever error destroys that, destroys fhe * 'V^ir'wKoirog twv 't^w. CATHOLIC CHURCH EXPLAINED AND STATED. 83 Church : and, therefore, our Sariour's promise must be sup posed to preserve it free from all such errors. Par. What then is the true meaning of the promise ? Min. It seems to be this : That there shall be always a Church .in the world, in some place or other, professing the true faith of Christ, and liriiig in the use of his holy institu tions so long as the world shall last. Par. The Cathohc Church then may err in some lesser matters ; I mean in points not fundamental, and yet remain the true Church of Christ ; and so may any part of it, and yet be a true member of the whole. Min. You say well : as a man may have mtoy infirmities and wounds about him, and yet remain a true man : as a par ticular Christian may be guilty of many mistakes both in faith and practice, and yet be a true Christian, provided his mis takes destroy not the foundation of Christianity. Were there not at some time very great corruptions in the Jevrish Church, even idolatry itself, and yet because they worshipped the true God, thougli others also, God did^ not wholly cast them off from being his people ? Was there not faction and profane- ness, and great mistakes in point of faith, conceming the re surrection, in the Church of Corinth, and yet St. Paul still acknowledged them to be a real and true Church ? Were not the Seven Churches in Asia overrun vrith many errors and unchristian practices, and yet St. John writes to them by the Spirit, and in the name of Christ hinaselfy as unto true Chris tian Churches ? Par. What was the Catholic Church? or where was it when Luthei* began his reformation ? Min. Were I not able to tell you where, it would be no weakening to our Sariour's promise : he might have a Chur if t X Eph. ii. 20. Rev. xxi. 19. CATHOLIC CHURCH EXPLAINED AND STATED. 95 that for the most part he is named before the rest of the Apostles, all it can signify is this : that upon the account of the eminency of his faith, the fervour of his zeal in the cause of his Master, of his bemg first called to the Apostohcal office, a pri macy of order and honour is due to him ; and more than this, a primacy of power and jurisdiction it cannot signify, it being so plainly contrary to other Scriptures, and those inimmerable. Par. I was going to desire you, since their arguments for St. Peter's supremacy are so weak, to shew how Strong our proofs are against it. Min. To give you them briefly: we find our Sariour in vesting all the Apostles vrith equal powers, and deriring on aU the same mission which he himself had received from God^ John XX. 21 ; empowering all to preach, plant, and propagate the faith ; to feed and rule the fiock of Christ, committing the same keys of the kingdom of heaven to one as well as another j breathirig the same Holy Ghost on all ; forbidding all ambitious attempts amongst them, who should be greatest ; promising in differently to all twelve thrones to sit upon, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, Matth. xix. 28. Does not St. Paul say, " Christ set in his Church, first Apostles, secondarUy Prophets." He does not say, first St. Peter, but first Apostles ; aU the Apostles Were first. Was not St. Peter so far from challenging, much less exercising any such superiority over the Apostles, that we find him styling himself their fellow-presbyter, 1 Pet. v. 1, 2;- and submitting to the orders of the Apostolic college ? Besides, are not St. James and St. John said in Scripture to be pUlars, as well as St. Peter? Are not the whole twelve Apostles equally styled the twelve foundations of the Nevr Jerasalem ? Does not St. Paul challenge an equaUty vrith the chiefest Apostles ? And did he not, on occasion, vrithst^nd St. Peter td the face, Gal. ii. 11, which he neither ought nor durst to have done, had he been his superior and lord ? Par. The proof is clear and full beyond exception ; I see plainly the Pope cannot justify his supremacy by virtue of any right, as St. Peter's successor. But whence had he it then ? How came his Holiness to rise to this height of power and dominion ? Min. The truth is, how large an empire soever his Holiness now claims over all other Churches, his authority, in the begin ning, was no greater than that of his brother bishops; the title was the same, aud his Holiness lay in common to them all : a precedence indeed was given him, because he was bishop of the 96 THE TRUE NOTION OF THE imperial city ; addresses were made to him, because he was near the court and the royal presence ; appeals were brought him, because he was powerful, and as able to defend as to determine ; and that Church was often made the standard of the catholic faith, because for a time it continued pure and uncorrupt, whilst almost all others were overgrovra with Arianism and other heresies. But of these honours that were given him, he made advantage to climb higher : from a priority of place, he soon challenged a superiority of power ; from being next to the Em peror, he aspired to be next to God ; from being an arbitrator, he set up for a judge ; and when he was grown so great that none durst control him, he would be an unerring judge, and grew infallible. Par. These, I perceive, were the steps of the papal pride and empire : but I have been told, the Pope was beholden to that bloody regicide Phocas for the title of Universal Pastor. Min. I shall shew you that presently ; but it vrill not be amiss here to inform you, that the Pope's challenging a supre macy of power over the whole Christian Church, is not only contrary to Scripture, but to the ancient canons of the Church. Par. I have heard and read as much in some of our ovra authors ; but pray which are those canons ? Min. They are chiefly four ; or, if you vrill, but one, four times repeated and confirmed in the first four General Councils succeeding one another. Par. I shall be glad to hear them read in order, if you have them at hand. Min. I can easily gratify you in this matter : the first is that famous one, the 6th canon of the first General Council of Nice, called by Constantine the Great, a. D. 325, which decreed that the Bishop of Alexandria shall have the same power within his province as the Bishop of Rome had in his. 'The words of the canon are these : " Let ancient customs still take place, those that are in Egypt, Libya, and PentapoUs, that the Bishop of Alexandria have power over all these, because such also is the custom of the Bishop of Rome." Par. What do you infer from this canon 1 Min. I infer that which is obrious to every eye, riz. that the Bishop of Rome had not then an universal power over all Christian Churches, since the Bishop of Alexandria was to ex ercise the same jurisdiction in his own prorince as the Bishop of Rome did in his. Par. You wUl be pleased to go on to recite the other canons you mentioned. CATHOLIC CHURCH EXPLAINED AND STATED. 97 Min. The second is the third canon of the second General Council held at Constantinople, by the command of Theodosius the Emperor, a. d. 380 ; which decreed, "that the Bishop of Constantinople, upon the account of its being New Rome, or the seat of the empire, should have the privilege of honour next to the Bishop of Rome." Par. How does this canon make against the Pope's supremacy ? Min. As it declares what kind of primacy the Bishop of Rome had above other bishops, and on what bottom it stood, riz. a primacy of honour, or the first place ; and because Rome, of which he was bishop, had been the imperial city. Now the Council decreed, that the Bishop of Constantinople should have the same honour next to him, and for the same reason ; because Constantinople was become New Rome, that is, the seat of the empire was removed thither. Par. You have made this very plain to me : what is the third canon ? Min. It is the eighth canon of the third General Council at Ephesus, A.D. 431. It runs thus : "Let the same course be observed in other dioceses, and in all prorinces every where, that none of the holy bishops seize upon another prorince, which was not of old and from the beginning under his power." Par. This canon needs no exposition, it is so erident ; pray, what do the Romanists say to it ? Min. Some of them deny it to be a canon of this Council, and (as they usually serve any thing that is against them) have endeavoured to strike it out from amongst the acts of it. Others say, it respected a particular case, the exemption of the Cyprian bishops from the encroachments of the Patriarch of .Antioch, who pretended that it belonged to him to ordain their metro- poUtan. Now though this be granted, yet the decree passing in general words, without any reserve for the Bishop of Rome, must be supposed to conclude him, as well as any other, to be an ambitious usurper, if he claimed or exercised any jurisdiction over any church, that was not from the beginning under his power. Par. This is so full to the purpose, that it may well be the last. Min. Yet I told you there was a fourth : it is the 28th canon of the fourth General Council assembled at Chalcedon, A. D. 45 1 ; which ordained " that the Bishop of Constantinople should enjoy equal privileges with the Bishop of Rome ;" there VOL. III. H 98 THE TEUE NOTION OF THE being the same reason for the one as the other, Constantinople then being the imperial seat, as Rome had been. Par. I dare say the Romanists do not let this canon pass without some dirt thrown upon it. Min. You are a notable guesser ; som.e serve it as they do the forequoted canon of the General Council of Ephesus— leave it out of their editions of the CouncUs : others teU the world that this Council was not free, and the canon extorted by tumultuous importunity, whereas all the Fathers testified their owning of it by their subscriptions : others, that it is spurious, and put in clandestinely. But how then came the Pope's legates, who were present at the Council, so vehemently to oppose it ? Had there been no such canon, there would have been no need of such an opposition. Others, that the Fathers at this Council offered the title of supreme and universal pastor to the Pope ; and all because the persons delegated by the Pope to inform the CouncU against Dioscorus patriarch of Alexan dria, do, in their accusation against him, presume to give their master that glorious title. All are calumnies to bespatter and bring into discredit a canon that Ues so heavy upon them and their cause too. Par. Truly these canons are very plain and manifest, and fully prove, not only the right of jurisdiction that every Church has over its own members, but withal that the Pope has no right of jurisdiction over all. But I think there is no need of such kind of proof, after so express and pregnant an one from Scripture against St. Peter's supremacy over the rest of the Apostles, on which chiefly the Pope's is grounded. Min. It maybe not ; but the Church of England ovraing the four first General Councils, and often appealing to them, I was willing to let you see what they say as to this point. Other canons also there are very ancient, founded on the independent power every Church has over those in communion with her, forbidding appeals to be made to foreign and transmarine Churches ; requiring that no person excluded the communion of one Church shoiUd be received by another : but these are enough. Par. Now you are among the ancients, you may please to let me see what other proof there is in antiquity, that the bishops of Rome in the first ages had no such extravagant power and authority over the Church. Min. I must do it briefly then : the bishops of Rome began very early to aspire after it, to discover their ambitious incUna- CATHOLIC CHURCH EXPLAINED AND STATED. 99 tions that way ; but they were always withstood and censured for it by other bishops. Par. Are there many instances of this nature ? Min. Yes, too many ; I'll mention some few, and shall begin vrith that of Pope Victor, a. D. 196, who, because the Eastern bishops would not comply vrith the custom of the Church of Rome about the time of keeping Easter, rashly, and with a spirit savouring too much of pride and arrogance, threw them under the sentence of excommunication. Par. It looks indeed like a very severe censure on so small an occasion. Min. It was thought to be so then hy all good men ; the whole Christian world was amazed at it, and many eminent persons, especially that meek and holy bishop Irenseus, sharply chid and rebuked him for it. Par. This instance I have often met with in our own authors. Min. I'll give you another : it was not long after this, when the Eastern Churches, and especially those in Afric, thought it necessary that persons baptized by heretics, should be bap tized a-new ; Stephen, then bishop of Rome, was so highly displeased herewith, that he declared he would hold no com munion with them, refused to see and speak with the bishops that were deputed to give him an account of their practice, and to shew their reasons for it ; fell foul on St. Cyprian bishop of Carthage, and Firmihan bishop of Csesarea, and treated both vrith indecent language on this occasion. Par. I wonder how these two eminent bishops resented this hard usage from their brother bishop ? Min. Very grievously, as they had reason ; both censured him for it as done out of a proud and arrogant spirit ; and St. Cyprian afterwards calling an assembly of eighty-seven bishops to Carthage to debate this point, opened the synod with a notable speech,* taxing the bishop of Rome with pride and ambition, shewing that no one ought to make himself Bishop of bishops ; that all bishops had equal power in their respective dioceses, and could no more be judged by others, than be themselves judges of others. Par. I am glad to hear this account of St. Cyprian, because the Romish authors cite him very often on their side. Min. I know they do ; and many other Fathers also, but * Syn. Carth. apud Cypr. p. 282. [col. 597- Venet. 1728.] H 2 100 THE TRUE NOTION OF THE with what little reason I shall shew you presently : however, this has brought into my mind a saying or two more of St. Cyprian's to our purpose :* " The other Apostles," says he, " were indeed that which Peter was, endowed with equal con sortship of honour and power." Again : " Our Lord gave to aU the Apostles after his resurrection an equal power, saying, As the Father sent me, so send I you."t To the same purpose St. Chrysostom : J " St. Paul sheweth," saith he, " that each Apostle did enjoy equal dignity :" and yet more clearly, when comparing St. Peter and St. Paul together,^ he makes St. Paul at least equal in honour to St. Peter. Par. These two instances you have mentioned are very pat to the business ; but I have an imperfect remembrance in my head of some bishop that took upon himself the title of Uni versal Pastor, and the bishop of Rome called him the fore runner of Antichrist for it ; would you please to give me an account of that story. Min. I designed to have done it, had you not mentioned it, and it is this ; in the year 589, John bishop of Constantinople, that he might bear up the better against the grovring greatness of the bishops of Rome, procured for himself in a synod con vened in that city, about the cause of Gregory bishop of An tioch, tWfe title of (Ecumenical or Universal Bishop : but this was so passionately resented at Rome, that two bishops of that see, one after another, Pelagius and Gregory the Great, loaded the title vrith all the names of ignominy and reproach that could be invented ; and amongst others, styled it DevUish and Antichristian. Par. It may be after all this, the bishop of Constantinople had no ill design in taking the title upon him. Min. It does not appear that he had ; but as the Roman empire was then styled the Universe, or the whole world, || and Constantinople the imperial seat, so were the bishops over the great Churches in that empire, and especially the bishop of Constantinople, the greatest of all, styled Universal Bishops ; so that it should seem the bishop of Constantinople took up that great title, only the better to correspond vrith the greatness of the city over which he was bishop. » Cypr. de Univ. Eccl. [Ibid. col. 397.] t Chrys. in Gal. ii. 8. [Op. vol. 10. p. 811. Par. 1837.1 X In Gal. i. 8. [Ibid. p. 794.] § Greg. lib. vi. Ep. 30. [lib. vii. Ep- 33. vol. 2. col. 881. Par. 1705.] {{ Orbis Romanus. rj oUovn'tvi}. CATHOLIC CHURCH EXPLAINED AND STATED. 101 Par. Then the bishop of Constantinople took on him that title rather as a badge of honour, than any accession of power. Min. Yes, surely ; for had he designed an unlimited juris diction over the whole Church by.it, it is not probable that the Eastern patriarchs and bishops, that were most of them at that synod, would have consented to it, and thereby at one cast have thrown away all their power. Par. I have been told, it is no unusual thing in antiquity, for a particular bishop to have the title of Universal or (Ecume nical Pastor bestowed upon him : what may be the reason of that ? Min. I shewed you this the last meeting we had, because every bishop is bishop of the cathohc Church ; and though for the more advantageous governing of it, each bishop has his part particularly to oversee, yet is he in some measure in trusted with the care of the whole ; as the Church is but one, and the episcopal office one, each bishop has the whole epis copal power, and is bishop of the whole Church. Par. But if this was all the bishop of Constantinople aimed at by that title, viz. greater honour and dignity ; calling him self the Universal Bishop, as being bishop of the imperial city of the universe; what made the bishops of Rome so storm at it, as you said they did ? Min. Probably, as may be gathered from the aspiring temper of several of the bishops of that see, it was because they were out-done in their own way, they had been long driving at that title, and another stepped in before them^ and run away vrith it. Par. It was not then, I perceive, the title they so much quarreUed vrith, as the persons that wore it ; had the bishops of Rome had it conferred on them by a synodical canon, it would have been but a very becoming and graceful title ; but they being passed by, and others crovraed with it, it must be proud and ungodly. Min. I beUeve you have hit it ; that, it is very hkely, was the true reason of all their spleen and bitterness : the title of Universal Pastor was foul and ahonoinable only tiU the bishops of Rome could get it set on their own heads ; for, as much as Pope Gregory exclaimed against it, and condemned it in the bishop of Constantinople, his immediate successor but one. Pope Boniface IIL, got it taken from the see of Constantinople, and affixed it to his own of Rome. Par. Here was a quick change indeed from one extreme to 102 THE TRUE NOTION OF THE the other; one Pope with all his might raUed against it another vrithin twelve months vrith all his subtilty courted it pray, how came Boniface by it ? Min. After the basest and rilest manner that can be thought of; it was by flattering and courting the most execrable Phocas, that most barbarous traitor and murderer, who, by imbruing his hands in the blood of his prince, and butchering his children before his eyes, possessed himself of his crovra and dignity. Par. Certainly, no Christian, much less a Christian bishop, can be supposed to fawn on such a monster of a man as tins tyrant and usurper is represented to be. Min. Yet no sooner was this abominable wretch in the throne, but Pope Gregory first, and then Boniface a httle after (Sabinian, that was Pope betwixt, dying in half a year), soothed and complimented him at that rate, that one would have thought him to have been a Constantine or Antoninus. Par. So then by flattering applications and wicked compli ances, a grant of it was obtained from Phocas. Min. Right : Phocas, won by the dextrous addresses and fawning insinuations of Boniface, puts out- at last an edict, peremptorily requiring that the Church of Rome be styled and esteemed the Head of all Churches, and the Pope Universal Bishop. Par. I perceive they got it basely, and by the favour of the basest of men : have their methods been any better to extend and enlarge their power and dominion ? Min. No, surely : the Eastern empire sinking apace by the successful invasions of the Saracens, and the Western much broken by the irruptions of the Lombards, the bishops of Rome, ever watchful to serve themselves of all occurrences, took the opportunity, while the Emperor's hands were full, to play a game for themselves; and what by the bounty of some princes, particularly of Pepin king of France, who gave them the lands his father Charles had won from the Lombards ; and by the weakness and timorousness of others embroUed in foreign wars, or distracted with ciril commotions, they have at last raised themselves to that height of power and authority, as to be able to lord it over God's heritage, and to give laws, a new faith, I had almost said a new Gospel, to the Christian world. Par. Sir, I am very much engaged to you for this discourse ; you have made it very plain, that the supremacy of power and jurisdiction the Pope claims over all other Churches, is illegal CATHOLIC CHUECH EXPLAINED AND STATED. 103 and usurped. But though he has not a right of supremacy over all Churches, he may have over some ; and they tell us his claim to the English Church is clear and unquestionable. Min. Not so fast : the things they found their title on are chiefly these two ; Archbishop Wilfred's appealing to Rome, A. D. 673, and being restored by the Pope's sentence ; and Augustine the monk's coming over hither by the command of Gregory I. to convert the Saxons ; neither of which can do them any service. Par. I know nothing of Archbishop Wilfred's case. Min. It was this in brief : he was a great pluraUst, and had engrossed into his power so many benefices, that it became a scandal on religion : hereupon King Alfred orders him to quit some of them ; but he refusing, appeals to the Pope ; and though the Pope was very much his friend, and often writ in his favour, yet was he not restored, till by his submission and obedience to the king's orders, he had made himself capable of the king's favour. You may read this at large in Arch bishop Bramball's " Just Vindication," c. 4. p. 6. Par. Augustine the monk's story I am better acquainted with, and lately read it in the close of the Dean of St. Paul's " Origines Britannicse." Min. There indeed you have it at large, and haring read it so lately, I need say the less of it. It is most certain, Chris tianity was planted in this island long before Augustine the monk set his foot upon it, and that was (as our historian Gildas informs us) about the latter end of Tiberius's reign ; which some make to be five or six years before it was planted in Rome itself. Who was the first founder of the British Church, is not so certain : it is enough to our purpose that it continued here in the foUovring ages, a free and an independent Church, governed under her own bishops, and subject to no foreign jurisdiction; haring rites and usages of her ovra, differing from them of the Roman Church, both in the obsen-a- tion of Easter, the administration of baptism, and other par ticulars ; a good argument that she had no dependence on Rome, nor owed any subjection to her. Par. But was not religion at a low ebb when Augustine the monk came over ? And did not he recover and settle it again ? Min. Yes, it was driven up by the Pagan Saxons (whom the Britons had called in to their assistance against the Picts and Scots) into a corner with the Britons into Wales ; aud he, as it appears, was very instrumental.to convert the Saxons, and 104 THE TRUE NOTION OP THE restore the Gospel to those parts of the land where they most inhabited : but does this give him, or the bishop of Rome that sent him, a supremacy and jurisdiction over us ? Did the British bishops, seven in number, and the Christian monks that were found here, tamely submit their necks to the Roman yoke ? Nothing less, they unanimously and resolutely main tained the rights of their Church, withstood his usurpation, and would acknowledge no subjection but to their own primate and metropolitan. Par. You have produced many canons and testimonies from the Fathers against the Pope's supremacy : I suppose you are not ignorant what boast they make of the Fathers and anti quity, as if they were all for it, and on their side : you have seen, I believe, three pamphlets that came out lately ; I think the titles of them are, " The Succession of the Church and Sacraments," " Consensus Veterum," by E. S., and " Nubes Testium." Min. Yes, and I have seen all or most of them answered too before they came out ; and as for what concerns the point of supremacy we have been debating, you vriU find them fully confuted in two most excellent books, the Dean of St. Paul's "Rational Account," part U. chap. 1. p. 300, 301, &c. and " Dr. Barrow's Treatise on the Pope's Supremacy." And it may be, somebody or other, that has time to spare, may think it worth their while to consider them over again. Par. Truly there is no need of it : I have been told they are usually very tardy in their quotations ; that they oftentimes translate wrong, and mistake the sense, and in many of their books I perceive they give us the Greek Fathers in Latin : but as they have set them down, I do not see how they make much for their purpose. Min. Do you perceive that ? I am, under due examination of them, of your opinion ; I cannot stay to give you a par ticular account of every testimony cited by them ; but, as far as I can discem, the whole force and strength of them alto gether may be ranked and considered under a few general heads. Par. I hke the method very well ; and so in answering one, you answer many. Min. The heads are these : 1. The great things said of St. Peter in the Scriptures and in the ancient Fathers. 2. The great things said of the Church of Rome and the bishops thereof. 3. Communion with the Church of Rome being CATHOLIC CHURCH EXPLAINED AND STATED. 105 Sometimes made the test of a catholic. 4. The frequent appeals made to that Church and the bishops thereof. 5. The antiquity and uninterrupted succession of that Church. Par. I believe you have done them right ; these seem to contain the main of their strength, and I beheve you are able to do them right too in the answering them. Min. I must confess it is no hard matter for a man to con fute a vritness that is not against him ; for these are such. As for the 1st, the great things said of St. Peter in the Scrip tures and the ancient Fathers, viz. where he is caUed the ambassador, steward or minister of Christ, a rock on which the Church is founded, where the keys of the Church are com mitted to him, and a power given him of binding and loosing, and where he is commanded to feed the flock ; where he is styled the head, the prince, the captain, the president of the Apostles : to this the answer is ready and full. The same things said of him in Scripture, 2 (5or. v. 20, Eph. ii. 20, Eph. iv. 1 1, are therein said also of all the Apostles ; and if not the same, yet as great things are said of the rest of the Apostles, by the ancients, as of him : after all, we yield that these magnificent titles denote something of honour pecuUar to him, not a supremacy, but a primacy ; not an authority, but a precedence ; not a dominion, but a dignity. Par. As to the 2nd : the great things spoken of the Church of Rome and the bishops thereof, viz. that she is the ApostoUc See, the prerogatives of the Apostles' chair, the principal Church, and the more powerful principaUty, and the hke, I wUl not trouble you for an answer, I have heard it often given, and I think it satisfactory. Min. I suppose you mean, because Rome was the imperial seat ; and upon that account was that Church and the bishop of it, in power and riches and interest, in rank and splendour and dependences, much superior to all others. Par. Yes, I mean that ; and for the same reason, when the seat of the empire was translated to Constantinople, did that see set up to ¦'At vrith the Roman, and had an equality of honour conferred upon her. Min. There may yet be another reason given of it, viz. be cause the Roman Church was founded by those two most eminent Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul (though neither the one nor the other, it may be, was formally bishop of it). Now out of love and honour to their memories, might the ancients speak so 106 THE TEUE NOTION OP THE many big and swelling things of the Church planted by them, and of its bishops. Par. I had gotten over this stUe pretty well without yow help ; but I think the 3rd particular is not so easy : pray, why was the faith of the Church of Rome made the test of Catholicism, and communion with that Church, of cathohcs ? Min. Had you been never so little conversant in Church history, this would as httle have puzzled you as the other : it was because the Church of Rome kept herself, for some con siderable time longer, pure and untainted, whilst most of the Eastern Churches were more or less defiled with heresy : here was the trae soUd grain growing without the mixtures of Arian tares ; and therefore to her did the Fathers, in their disputes with heretics and schismatics, frequently appeal, as a true catholic Church, that stUl held the trae catholic faith .; but because she was once a chaste and undefiled Church, does it follow that she must be always so ? Most certainly the Church of Rome has been so changed and altered since, so diseased and deformed, that she cannot be known to be herself. Par. It hink they laya great stress upon the 4th head, " The frequent appeals that have been made to that Church." Min. They have little reason so to do ; for all the appeals (till the after- encroachments and usurpations of that see) that were made to the Pope, were not as to a Governor set over all, who by his authority could command justice to be done (which the Fathers and St. Cyprian particularly so often and zealously declaim against), but as to a brother and a friend of innocence, that was most able to afford relief and succour to the injured and oppressed : they did not appeal to his bar to right them, but sued to his kindness to own them and their cause. Of so great power and interest was the bishop of that Church, by reason of his nearness to the Court, and his residence in that wealthy and populous city, that every one was ready to court him, and on every occasion to fly to his patronage, knowing well which side he took would go far to weigh down the balance : but at first, whenever he thought fit to interpose, it was in the nature of a friend, and not as a judge ; by way of counsel and adrice, and not of sentence and judgment. Par. The last head you mentioned they cite the Fathers for, is the antiquity and uninterrupted succession of the Church of Rome ; but I confess I am to seek how succession and antiquity can give supremacy. CATHOLIC CHURCH EXPLAINED AND STATED. 107 Min. So am I too. It is true the ancients, in their disputes vrith schismatics, especially the Donatists, sometimes make use of this argument against them, that they were but as it were of yesterday, and could derive no succession from the Apostles ; whereas the orthodox Churches were of long standing, and they could trace their bishops backward from one to another, till they came to the first founder and planter of them ; and because the Church of Rome was, at the time of the Donatists, the most clear and uninterrupted in this point of succession, they were wont to instance in her particularly ; but supposing the Church of Rome was now the only Church that could shew a succession (as she is not, for the Greek Church and the British Church can shew it as well as she), how does succession prove the Pope's supremacy ? Or the want of it prove a Church no Church ? May not a man be acknowledged to be a true son of Adam, though he cannot name all his progenitors that came betwixt ? ' Par. It may be it is, because that Church is yet in being, and God has promised that his Church shall never fail. Min. But because she is not yet destroyed, does it follow she never shall be ? It is an erident demonstration indeed of the wonderful patience and forbearance of God towards a very degenerate and depraved Church, but can be no argument for the goodness of a Church, or for the perpetual duration of it. Par. Sir, I think you have omitted one thing which they plead, and then I shall ease you of your trouble : some of the Fathers, St. Cyprian especially, style the See of Rome " the chair of St. Peter," and tell us, " that that chair is but one, and from it sprang the unity of the priesthood :" how are these expressions to be understood ? Min. I thank you for putting me in mind of it ; they are Optatus's words as well as St. Cyprian's ;* and the true sense of them is this : that as the episcopal office is but one, and the whole power of it put into the hands of every bishop ; so each Church had but one bishop, or one episcopal chair, the better to preserve unity, and this was the original or fountain of priesthood to all the clergy vrithin its jurisdiction ; such was Rome the one chair of St. Peter, though that Church was founded by St. Paul also ; yet for unity sake, only one epis copal chair was set up, and one episcopal succession preserved, "* Opt. Mil. lib. 2. adv. Parm. Cyp. Ep. 55. ad Cornel. 108 THE TRUE NOTION OP THE and from it the unity of the priesthood was derived into all parts within that see or patriarchate. Par. I perceive you limit those words, " from whence the unity of the priesthood first began," to those places within the bishop of Rome's jurisdiction. Min. Polydore VirgU* does so ; " for," says he, " it is very clear that orderly priesthood was appointed at Jerusalem long before St. Peter came to Rome." The younger sister may have the better fortune, become the more honourable, and take place of the elder, but she cannot make herself bom first, and of the longest standing. There being Churches completely formed before the Roman was in being, she could not be the original of priesthood to them ; but by many accidental advantages grovring the greatest and richest Church, she became the first too ; and this primacy of honour and dignity was at that time, and for that reason, readily yielded to her by the elder Churches. So that the priesthood which is but one, may be said to begin first at Rome, for the same reason that the Roman is called the first Church, in regard of the dignity of it, as being the principal member of Christ's Church cathoUc; but yet there may be a first amongst equals, aud a man may be above thousands in honour and digiuty, over whom he has no absolute command or power. * Lib. 4, de Invent. Rerum. CATHOLIC CHURCH EXPLAINED AND STATED. 109 PART III. SHEWING THAT THE SCRIPTURES, AND NOT THE CHUECH, ARE THE EULE OP FAITH. Par. Sir, I think your discourse the other day made it very plain, that the Church of Rome is not the Catholic Church. Pray what Church do the Romanists mean, when they say "that the Church is the Rule of Faith?" Min. They mean their own particular Church, and call it the Catholic : but you have heard upon what grounds we deny it, and I am glad they appeared clear and conrincing to you. Par. I fancy, if you vrill not allow their Church to be the cathoUc Church, their zeal vrill not be so hot for the Church's being " the unerring oracle of truth," and " infallible de cider of controversies." Min. I am of your mind ; for in my conscience, the holy cathoUc Church in all ages, especially in the first, that were nearest the fountain of trath, and so could best discem truth from falsehood, never held the same faith and doctrine that the Church of Rome does now. Par. But taking the Church to be meant of the " true ca thohc Church of Christ," is she to be admitted to be the Rule of Faith? Min. No ; we have, as we ought, a very great veneration for her, and pay all due deference to her judgment, and are confirmed in the faith by the testimony and vritness she bears to it : but the Rule she judged by, was the doctrine of Christ by God's appointment committed to writing, and that must be ours : and if not the catholic Church, much less the Church of Rome, which I have shewn is but one part of it, and that a very corrupt part too. Par. But this being the foundation on which the whole fabric of their religion is built, methinks they should be able to say a great deal for it. Min. What that is I shall endeavour to shew you, and at the same time shew you the weakness of it ; but before we enter upon that, it vrill not be amiss that we fix the terms of the question. Par. If you please ; but I think there is no great difficulty in that : by Faith, I suppose, is meant the belief of the whole 110 THE TRUE NOTION OF THE Christian doctrine revealed by Christ to his Apostles, and by them dehvered to us : and by Rule, that thing whereby we know what is the Christian doctrine, and what is not. Min. You have expressed it well enough : now this Rule, the Reformed say, is the Scriptures only ; the Romanists, the Church. Par. How may the Scriptures be proved to be the complete and only Rule of Faith ? Min. Indeed it is so plain, it needs no proof; and I am sure you have no doubt of it. It is manifest from their own testimony, and there are many collateral proofs besides. What did the primitive Christians preserve vrith more care than these Dirine writings? What did their persecutors more indus triously seek to destroy than the Bible ? What was reckoned a clearer sign of a false Christian, than to deliver up this book to be burnt ? Did not believers in those times count it a delir vering up their rehgion ? .Did they not brand those with the odious name of betrayers* of their reUgion that did it ? Hav? not the doctors of the Church in all ages appealed to this for the trath of their doctrine ? Have they not with " this sword of the Spirit," encountered all the errors and heresies that sprung up in the Church ? And did they not ever account it a main part of their office and function to expound and apply it to the people ? All which put together, seem to be a clear and full evidence, that the Scriptures contain in them the fuU wiU of God concerning the salvation of man. Par. But these you said were not the main arguments, but only like so many supernumerary auxiliaries, of which there were no need. You were mentioning some others. Min. I was so ; and they are taken from the Scriptures themselves, and the joint concurrent testimony of the catholic Church. Par. I think, though the Papist will not grant the Scrip tures to contain the whole wiU of God, yet they own them to be the Word of God ; and therefore an argument from thence will be of as great force to them as to us. Min. It ought to be so ; and can any thing be clearer than these two texts to this purpose: John xx. 30, 31 : "These things are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that beliering, ye might have hfe through his name." 2 Tim. iU. 15, 16, 17 : " And that from • Traditores- CATHOLIC CHURCH EXPLAINED AND STATED. HI a chUd thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus : all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is pro fitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruc tion in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." Par. These are very plain, and nothing needed to be said after them ; but because they boast so much of antiquity and tradition, you may please to shew what they speak for us in this point. Min. You must not expect that I should produce all the testimonies of the ancients to this purpose. Many of our learned men have done it to my hand ; and I vrish you would give me leave to refer you to two great men indeed, who have done this work thoroughly and beyond contradiction ; Dr. TUlotson's " Rule of Faith," part 4. sect. 2. And Dr. StUUng- fleet's " Rational Account," part 1. chap. 11. p. 261. Par. However you may please to give a taste of one or two. Min. I will then ; and they shall be of those who lived near, or not far remote from the Apostolical times ; and we shall find all of them fix on the Scrijoture, and not one men tion the infallible testimony of the Church, much less the Roman, as the only ground whereinto faith is to be resolved : Irenseus* tells us, "That the Scriptures are perfect, as spoken from the Word of God and his Spirit ; and that they are the foundation and pillar of our faith." Tertullian,f writing against Hermogenes the heretic, who asserted " that all things at the beginning were made of some subject matter," hath these words : " Let those of Hermogenes' shop shew that it is written : if it be not written, let them fear that woe which is allotted to such as add or take away." And in the same place makes this profession for himself : J " I adore the fulness of the Scripture." St. Basil§ is also full to this purpose: " It is a manifest falling from the faith," saith he, "either to reject any of those points that are written, or to bring in any of those things that are not written." St. Gregory Nyssen,|| " In that only the truth must be acknowledged, wherein the seal of the • Lib. 2. c. 47. 1. 3. c. 1. [vol. 1. p. 173. col- 2. Venet. 1734.] t Tertul. adv. Herm. c. 22. X Adoro Scripturse plenitudinem. § Basil- Ilfpi TriuTiwg, tom. 2. II Greg. N, De An. et Refu. tom. 2 p. 039. 1 1 2 THE TRUE NOTION OP THE Scripture testimony is to be seen." Clemens Alexandpaus* calls the consent of the Old and New Testament, "The eccle siastical canon, and the touchstone of true and false." St. Chrysostom,f "The most exact balance, square, and rule of of Divine verity.'' Vincentius LirinensisJ saith, " That the canon or rale of Scripture is perfect, abundantly sufficient in itself for all things ; yea, more than sufficient." These may suffice, as you desired, for a taste; I have referred you, where you may have a more perfect account. Par. I see plainly both Scripture and antiquity give it for the written Word to be the Rule of Faith ; pray, upon what account do the Papists attribute it to the Church ? Min. Upon this twofold account ; both, as they pretend, she is the only safe repository and conservator of certain un written traditions conceming this faith, and the only sure and infallible interpreter, of those that are written. Par. Do they wholly exclude the Scriptures ? Min. No, not in words, but in effect they do :§ they make it but an obscure part of the Rule ; tradition is to supply its deficiency,- and the interpretation of the Church its obscurity. Par. What do they mean by their unwritten traditions ? Min. Certain doctrines and articles of faith delivered by Christ and his Apostles that were never committed to writing, but left in custody of the Church, to be transmitted to posterity by word of mouth ; and these the Council of Trent ordains "to be received vrith the same religious reverence and affection as we do the Scriptures themselves." || Par. But does not the Apostle exhort the Thessalonians, " to hold the traditions which they had been taught, whether by word or writing," 1 Thess. ii. 15 ? Min. The Scriptures then might not be all written, the Apostles being all, or many of them, liring : St. Paul had taught the Thessalonians before many necessary truths which he did not mention in this Epistle ; but they being sure that all proceeded from the same infallible Spirit that was in him, the one was equally to be held fast, and adhered to vrith the * Clem. Alexandr. Strom. 2. t St. Chrys. Hom. 13. in 2 Ep. ad Cor. [vol. 10. p. 631. Par. 1837.) t Vincen. Lir. satis superque sufficiat. Cont. Hser. c. 2. [p. 4. Lond. 1611.] § Regula Fidei non totalis sed partialis. Bel. lib. 4. c. 12. de Verbo non scripto. [De Controv. vol, 1. col. 205. Par. 1608. J II Sess. 4. Deer. 1. [Labbe, Concil. vol, 14 col. 746. Lut. Par. 1672.] CATHOLIC CHUIICH EXPLAINED AND STATED. 113 other : the whole Christian doctrine, when first preached by our blessed Sariour and his Apostles was unwritten ; some parts of it were written before others, and some Churches had them before others ; but it was not long before the whole was completely written and delivered to all. Par. It seems indeed, had not God been pleased to have ordered the whole Christian doctrine to be put into writing, we should not at this distance have been at so great a certainty what is Gospel and what not. Min. At so great a certainty, say you ? We should have been at a great loss, and the whole doctrine of the Gospel endangered by multitudes of novelties and pretended Apostoli cal traditions. The devU very early put men upon this trade, first to broach new doctrines, and then (to gain credit and reputation to them) to entitle them to some -A!postolical man or other, that were contemporaries vrith the Apostles, or hved not long after them. Par. Can you produce any instances of this kind ? Did this way of corrupting the faith begin so soon ? Min. Yes, truly : the Apostles were scarce cold in their graves when another doctrine than what they preached was published and fathered upon them ; and had not the true been committed to writing, in all likelihood, without the extraordi nary mercy of God, it had long before now been lost and buried under heaps of traditionary forgeries. How soon did the mil lenary opinion spring up ? How fast did it grow and spread, and how long continue ? Papias affirming he had it from those who conversed vrith the Apostles. What a mighty difference was there betvrixt the Eastern and Westem Churches about the time of keeping Easter, whilst each pretended an Apostolical tradition for their own custom ? Others there were about the time our Saviour lived, and about the time of his public minis try ; but these are enough to shew, that if unwritten doctrines were so soon after the Apostles' death laid at their doors that were none of theirs, what little credit and trust is to be given to those that have been invented since, even in these latter ages, and attributed to them ? Par. But do the Reformed reject all traditions whatsoever? Min. No : all the most learned of the Reformed, and parti cularly those of the Church of England, have a great venera tion for what is truly primitive and ancient, and held by the catholic Church in the first ages ; whether they be expositions of Scripture, symbols of faith, devotional hymns, forms of •VOL. III. I 114 THE TRUE NOTION OF THE prayers, or decrees of CouncUs that were free and oecumenical, for the ending of controversies in matters of faith, or estab lishing rites and ceremonies for the more decent and orderly management of ecclesiastical affairs. Par. I suppose every thing, that by erident reason may be dravra from Scripture, though not expressed in it, that is not contrary to it, and what neither in its nature nor consequence tends to corrupt the true catholic faith. Min. Yes, every tradition of that nature ; and there is great reason we should have respect to such ; for when we see how the Fathers expounded Scripture at the beginning, and what were the articles of their faith, it cannot but be a great strength ening and confirmation of ours ; and the orders and canons left by them, are so many helps and directions to governors in succeeding ages what they may and what they ought to do to preserve the faith and the unity of the Church. Par. I perceive you limit the traditions you allow of to those of the whole catholic Church, and especially to that in the first ages. Min. I do so, and those we contend for more earnestly than the Romanists do ; they confirm us in many of our own doc trines, which, though they may be gathered out of Scripture, yet are not laid down there in so many words, such as infant baptism and the Dirine right of episcopal authority above presbyters ; and they confirm us against many of the Church of Rome's, which, as they have no foundation in Scripture, so have not the least countenance from primitive traditions, as, I think, was made erident at our last meeting in the point of the Pope's supremacy. Par. Are all others then to be suspected, whether their authors be private doctors or particular churches ? Min. Yes, to be suspected, but not presently to be con demned without examination ; so far as their traditions agree with the written Word and those of the catholic Church, we approve of them ; but then it is not for any rirtue derived on them from the authority of their respective authors, but for their own sake and the sake of the Scriptures to which they are conformable ; but if they have not the ancient catholic stamp and image upon them, they are to be disowned as iUegi- timate, and to be cast out ; and of this sort seem to be those additional Trent-doctrines, invented by particular men to serve a turn to promote the interests of that Church, and then espoused and adopted by the Church as catholic, and imposed on the world in a bUnd undisceming age as such. CATHOLIC CHUECH EXPLAINED AND STATED. 115 Par. This seems to be a severe charge, but I suppose you speak not without grounds. Min. You may be sure of it ; for they are certainly such as contradict the Scriptures, which they own to be the Word of God equally vrith their traditions ; and therefore both cannot be trae ; the Christian verity is but one, and cannot becontrary to itself ; either the Scriptures or their traditions are mistaken and must be rejected. Par. But they say we take the Scriptures upon the credit of the Roman Church ; and why then do we so clamorously cry down their traditions ? May they not be beUeved in one thing as weU as another ? Min. That is a very great mistake ; it is upon the credit of the whole Church of Christ that we receive and embrace them, whereof the Roman Church is but a part ; they were com mitted at first to every particular church in the world to be carefully preservedj that they might neither be corrupted nor lost ; and we have the suffrage of all and every one of them for the canon of it ; unless we can think that all the churches in the world could conspire to impose upon us, we are safe ; and upon confidence they did not we receive them : let them shew us the same concurrent testimony of the catholic Church for their traditions, and we vrill receive them too. Par. If was then the catholic Church that made the canon of Scripture. Min. You must take me right. It is not the authority of the Church that gives the Scriptures their authority, but the Dirine and inspired authority whence they proceeded ; knovring them to have been indited by the Holy Spirit in Christ and his Apostles, and finding by comparing the several copies lodged in the keeping of the several churches, how exactly they did answer to and agree with one another, she declared them to be canonical, and bore witness to their Dirine authority. Par. However, the Church of Rome was one that gave in her testimony for the canon of the Scripture. Min. Yes ; but we have reason to bless God she was not the only one that was the keeper of the Dirine writings ; she has so corrupted them since, men would have been apt to have sus pected she had forged them at first ; she has not only added many apocryphal books to the holy canon, but so abused the canonical, that we must cease to wonder at their religion being different from ours, since their Bible is not the same. I 2 116 THE TEUE NOTION OP THE Par. I hope you do not speak this without book ; one would be sure of it before he lays so great a crime to their charge. ' Min. You shall judge of it yourself in Gen. iU. 15. That they might force the text to give some countenance to that extravEigant honour and worship they pay to the blessed Virgin, instead of "that" or "he," they translate "she shall break thy head." Learned men well know how full of errors the Vulgar Latin edition is, and yet the Trent CouncU made it the only authentic one, and. some of that communion prize it above the original. Who can compare the two Bibles put out by those two Popes not long after one another. Pope Sixtus V. and Pope Clement VIII.* each duly authorised by each Pope, with a curse to every one that should use any other, and not per ceive the many corruptions of both, and the palpable contrar dictions in each to one another ? Par. I did not know before that they had thus served the Bible, but I have often heard how bold they have made with the writings of the Fathers ; a late ingenious author hath told us what they have done to St. Chrysostom' s Epistle to Caesa- rius for being against their doctrine of transubstantiation. Min. It is very true, some of the Sorbonne doctors cut it out of the Greek edition of Palladius, published by Monsieur Bigot, 1680. The very original leaves, as they were razed out, are in the hands of a learned man I could name to you. I must not stay to shew you what spurious treatises have been composed by them, and fathered upon men of name and anti quity ; how they have put the genuine works of many of the Fathers into the inquisition, and racked and tortured them to speak on their side. How in some places sentences have been foisted in ; in others, passages left out, words changed, and points altered, and all to establish and spread the papal pride and usurpation : instances of every particular hereof, more than a few, are to be found in Dr. James's leamed treatise of their " Corruption of Scripture, Fathers, and CouncUs." Par. I have heard that book often mentioned, but never saw it ; pray, is it English ? And what is the design of it ? Min. It is in English, and a very useful book. He gives us an account of no less than 187 treatises that have been forged by Papists, and scattered abroad under the names of the ancient Fathers, turns us to no less than fifty places of the trae Fathers that have been corrupted by them ; shews us the * Dr. James's Bellum Papale. CATHOLIC CHUECH EXPLAINED AND STATED. 117 infinite wrong their Indices Expurgatorii have done to innu merable authors, both ancient and modern, not sparing the very Bible itself. Par. I think you have made it very erident, that the Church, upon the account of her traditions, is not the Rule of Faith ; and truly, after all the noise the Church of Rome makes about them, she does not, as I have been told, think fit to stick to it herself. ' Min. It is true, there have been so many clashings and falhngs out betwixt their apostohcal traditions, that to keep peace amongst them, they are forced to fly to the judgment of the -present Church, to determine which is the true chUd, and which the counterfeit. Dipping the person three times in baptism, in signification of the blessed Trinity, giring the eucharist to infants, administering baptism only at Easter and Whitsuntide, were once esteemed ancient and apostohcal traditions, now in as little use amongst them as among us. The Epistle to the Hebrews,* for near four hundred years together, was rejected by them, though now for a much longer time it has been received as canonical. Pope Gelasiusf called it a grand sacrilege to deny the cup to the laity ; the Council of Trent now anathematizes those that hold it necessary. Pope Gregory condemned the title of Universal Pastor as antichristian ; Pope Boniface III. as greedily catched at it, and all his successors glory in it, as the top and flower of the Papal dignity. Par. Then they do with their traditions as they do with the Scriptures, put what sense they please upon them, and neither the one nor the other signifies anything, till the Church has first catechised them, and taught them what to say. • Min. It is just so, when all is done ; though for the better grace of the thing, they may pretend great regard to Scripture and tradition in what they hold for articles of faith : the definition of the Church, which they must have infallible, is with them the only and whole rule, and all their faith is built on that foundation. Par. What do they mean by the Church, to which they attribute such an infallible spirit ? In what part of the Church do they place it ? Min. Truly, you must not expect that T should tell you • St. Jerom. in Isa. u. 6. 8. [vol.4, col. 95. Veron. 1735.] t Gratiau. de Consecr. Dist, 2. cap. 2. 118 THE TEUE NOTION OF THE this, for they cannot teU themselves ; sometimes it is in the Church rirtual, the Pope, the risible head of it ; sometimes in the Church representative, a General CouncU ; sometimes in both, a CouncU with the Pope presiding hi it. The trath is, it is with the Pope and a General Council, catch as catch can ; sometimes the one, and sometimes the other, has been upper most, according as the Pope's power and interest was in the full or wane. The CouncU of Constance decreed in favour of a General Council, the Council of Lateran in favour of the Pope ; both have had their turns, and both have their parties and abettors. Par. Were I a Romanist, I should be for the Pope. I desire to be excused from naming all ray reasons ; but why should not this be thought a good one ? Is it not reasonable to lodge the infallibUity where they fix the supremacy ? For his Holiness cannot but know that his supremacy is chpt, whilst the judgment of one, or many together, is to be taken and, preferred before his. Min. There is something in what you say ; but so many Popes have been such ignorant and lewd persons, some guilty of heresy, some of atheism, some of debauchery, as might be instanced in Liberius, Vigilius, Honorius, Adrian, Hildebrand, and others ; that all of them have not the face to say. Popes cannot err, who have actually erred in a very high degree so often. They have therefore compounded the matter, especially their late authors, and have placed it in the definitions and decrees of a General Council, confirmed and ratified by the Pope. Par. But have not General Councils contradicted one another as well as Popes ? Min. They must confess this too. The seventh General Council of Constantinople, held in the year of our Lord 755, and in the 13th year of Constantine Copronjrmus, whereat were present 338 bishops, condemned the use of images in churches on any accotmt whatsoever, as a custom borrowed from the Pagans, justifies her decree both from Scripture, reason, and ancient Fathers, amongst whom Eusebius Pam- phili's epistle to Constantia the empress, desiring the image of Christ to be sent her, is most worthy our notice and observar tion.* " What image of Christ do you mean ? Of his Divine nature ? That cannot be had ; as no man knoweth the * Hist- Magd. Cent. 8. c. 9. CATHOLIC CHURCH EXPLAINED AND STATED. 119 Father but the Son, so no man knoweth the Son but the Father. Of his human nature ? Understand, that the splen dour and shining brightness of his glorified body, cannot be represented with dead colours and shining pictures." But the second CouWl of Nice, about thirty-three years after, in the eighth year of the reign of Irene and her son Constantine, consisting of 350 bishops, with as much zeal, determined for images, not only that they should be received into churches, but be adored and worshipped there. To this Council did Adrian, bishop of Rome, send an epistle, approring the worship of images ; and several bishops that had condemned them in the Council of Constantinople here recanted their opinion, and begged pardon. Par. I remember you shewed me before, how the decrees of the Council of Constance and Lateran were at sword-pike with one another in the point of supremacy. Min. I did so ; and I was going to shew you a further repugnancy of one Council to another, in the point of image- worship. The great Council at Frankfort, held under Charles the Great, king of France, in the year of our Lord 794,' seconded that of Constantinople against images, and that too in spite of Pope Adrian's ambassadors, whom he sent on purpose to defend them. But the Council comparing the acts of the Council of Constantinople and Nice together, went a middle way, and whilst it allowed images and pictures in churches for decency and ornament, it strictly forbid all wor ship and veneration of them as impious, and against the law of God. In this Council all the arguments brought by the second Council of Nice for the adoration of images, are fully refuted, and Epiphanius's epistle to John bishop of Jerusalem, disallowing the very bringing in of images into churches, was recited ; but whatever was said and urged therein against them, the Trent Fathers, when they came, overraled all, and the Council of Frankfort did not pull them dovra vrith more reason, than that Council set them up again with riolence, denouncing an anathema against all that dare refuse to pay worship and veneration to them. Par. Where must the infalUbiUty be now ? Methinks they should be ashamed to pretend to it. Min. They beg your pardon for that, as a great man hath worded it : ." They are sure they have it, though they know not where to find it." Par. Pray, Sir, since they will not let this doctrine go, what do they allege in behalf of it ? 120 THE TRUE NOTION OF THE Min. They force many places of Scripture to speak in its cause ; they pretend an absolute necessity for it for many good purposes, viz. in order to the finding out the true sense of Scripture, to the preserring peace and unity, and to the preventing schisms and divisions, eiTors and heresies in the Church. Par. I remember they cite all those places for it, where a power is said to be given to the Church to forgive sins, where the ministers of the Gospel are called God's husbandmen, labourers, building, are said to have the nund of Christ. Min. But he must have a piercing eye that can discem the infalhbility of the Church in these texts; but suppose it might be proved from hence, what reason has the Church of Rome to engross and monopolize them to herself? Par. It is obvious that they are spoke in general, and so concern one part of the Church as well as another ; but I suppose they have other texts in store, that seem to be more express and particular to their purpose. Min. They often mention Matth. m. 18, where Christ says to Peter, " The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church." But this text, I before shewed you, concerns the Church in general ; and though God hath promised hereby that his Church shall never faU on earth, yet those words do not name the way and means ; and God can do it vrithout the help of an infalhble guide on earth. Par. I remember another they make use of; it is our Saviour's words to the Apostles, Matth. xxvUi. 20 : "I am vrith you always to the end of the world." Min. This promise being made to the Apostles' successors as well as to the Apostles, cannot be interpreted to secure to them an infallibUity, but only a general assistance in the dis charge of their duty and office, for then all the Apostles' successors had been infallible by rirtue of it, as well as them selves, and the govemor of the Church of Sardis been pre served from error, who yet is blamed for " letting go what he had received and heard," Rev. iU. 1, 2, 3. Par. I vrill not trouble you to name the rest, unless there is more difficulty to understand the sense of them, than of these. Min. Only one more, if you please, because by the sound of the words it seems to be a little on their side. It is in 1 Tim. iu. 15, where the Church is caUed "the pillar and ground of trath." But now this, you must know, was spoken of the Church of Ephesus, that hath long since, as many- other 'CATHOLIC CHURCH EXPLAINED AND STATED. 121 thurches have done, sinned against God's protection, and is come to ruin : the meaning of the words, not shevring what a Church is in her nature and constitution, but what is incum bent on her as her dnty; viz. to be the great preserver and propagator of the Christian truth, like a pillar with a vrriting fixed on it, that is risible to all that pass by it. It shews not what a Church is, but what she ought to be, and is to be interpreted like those texts in Mai. ii. 7 : " The priests' Ups should preserve knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth :" that is, he should do so, if he does his duty ; but how often does he faU therein, and the truth suffer by it? For so it follows, " but ye are departed out of the way, ye have made many to stumble." Prov. xvi. 10 : "A dirine sentence is in*the lips of the king, his mouth transgresseth not in judgment ;" that is, it should be so, but they vrill not say it is always so, unless they think kings to be infalUble too. Par. I perceive Scripture will do them but little serrice ; I would be glad to see whether they can have any better luck with the reasons they pretend to. - Min. They teU us they have many, and those unanswerable, if you will believe them ; for without this infallible guide, we can have no true sense of Scripture, nor certainty of faith. Par. I mistrusted they had not much to say, when I heard you mention they talked so big. If these be their strong argu ments, I do not despair of an answer. Min. You need not ; it is ready at hand, and what the meanest capacity may be able to give : are not all things neces sary to salvation plainly set down in Scripture ? Does not the Scripture contain the duty of all ? And was not God able, or was he unvrilling so to express it, as all should be capable to understand it ? Are not private men commanded " to read, to search the Scriptures, to prove all things, to try the spirits, men and doctrines that pretend to be inspired," by the Scrip tures ? And must they not first understand the sense of Scrip tures before they can measure and judge of anything by them ? Did Christ and his Apostles preach so as not to be understood by their hearers ? Could they not write as intelligibly as they preached, especially since they wrote the same things, and almost in the same form of words ? May not single persons come to the meaning and sense of Scripture by the same way as the Church does? Has not God imprinted on men's minds such natural notions of himself, and of good and eril, accord ing to which all revelation is to be interpreted ? Has he not 122 THE TEUE NOTION OP THE given to all reason to discern and judge ? May not men be skiUed in the original, understand the propriety of the phrase, find out the design and scope of the text, have the assistance of God's holy Spirit, and must not the Church go the same way ? After all, may they not as well understand the laws of God, as the definitions and decrees of a Pope or Council ? Par. But the Church pretends to something farther and be yond all this ; to immediate inspiration, and divine iUumina- tion. Min. The best of it is, she must give us something more than her bare word, before we believe her : can she prove her extraordinary spirit by extraordinary works, or a voice from heaven ? Is not all enthusiasm and Quakerism founded on this principle ? Does not this wholly supersed^'the necessity of Scripture at all, since God can as easily reveal his mind to the Church by inspiration vrithout Scripture, as the sense and meaning of the Scriptures? Par. Certainly this is enough to convince any reasonable man, that the trae sense and meaning of the Scripture may be learned vrithout such an interpreter ; that a man's ovra reason, assisted by the help of his spiritual guides, consulting the sense of the primitive Church, is the best and safest, and a direct way to a right understanding of Scripture. Min. Yet there is one thing more that I have not men tioned ; if I cannot find out the sense of Scripture without this infallible interpreter, the Church, how shall I know what the Church is, and that the Church is such an infaUible inter preter ? If you send me to be informed by the Scriptures, I cannot understand them till the Church has interpreted them to me ; if you send me to reason and discourse, and such other ordinary means whereby other things come to be known ; by the same way I may find out as well the sense of Scripture, as who is the interpreter of them. Par. I remember they direct us to the Scripture to find out the Church ; and to the Church to find out the sense of Scrip ture. Min. Is not this to dance in a circle, and to prove nothing ? A sophism that may make men's brains turn round, but not inform their minds ? If the Scripture must be known before the Church, and the Church before the Scripture, neither one nor the other can be known, because they cannot be both first ; unless we wUl make them both to be the same thing, as the Church of Rome iu effect does (who vriU have the Scripture to CATHOLIC CHUECH EXPLAINED AND STATED. 123 have no other sense than the Church puts upon it) and then all the proof amounts only to this. The Church bears witness to herself. For to say the Scriptures, interpreted by the infal Uble Church, declare the Church to be the infallible interpreter of Scripture, is no more than to say. The infallible Church says she is infalUble ; you must take it on her word : but you know what our Saviour said in a case not unUke to this, " If I bear witness of myself, ray vritness is not true." Par. But they say, as I am informed, that we must use our reason to discover our guide,* but when that is once found out, we are to give up our reason, and all to be wholly guided by him. Min. They are forced to allow this ; for in their attempts to make a proselyte to their Church, they set before him rea sons and arguments to move him to it, and that supposes he has both an abihty and a right to judge of those motives, whether they be convincing or no. And has he a right to judge of the Church, and not of its doctrine ? Or can he otherwise make a true judgment conceming the Church, than by judging first of the particular doctrines it holds ? If it is an orthodox faith that makes an orthodox Church, the faith the Church professes ought to be examined before the Church is made choice of : but it seems a man must use his eyes and reason once for all : afterwards he has no need of either ; he must see by other's eyes, and judge by other's understandings. But certainly a man must quite lose his reason, before he can so wholly abandon himself to another's guidance. I may, and ought to consult my spiritual guide and teacher, but I must know him well first, and be assured both of his skill and honesty, before I leave myself out, and wholly cast myself upon him ; every man desires to walk safely, and he is the most likely to do it who sees where he goes. Par. You will be pleased to give me leave to mention every thing that I can recall, that they urge in their behalf ; they tell us that there are many things in Scripture hard to be under stood : and many disputes and controversies oftentimes arise about the sense of it : that all sects and parties cite Scripture, and pretend it is on their side. Must, then, every man follow his own private judgment, and interpret Scripture according to his own fancy? Min. No ; the Church of England is far from allowing that: * Guide in Contr. pr. p. 3. R. H. 124 THE TEUE NOTION OP THE she adrises us to compare one Scripture with another, to ex plain the more hard by the more easy, and so to prove what the sense of Scripture is, from Scripture itself; she sends us in her Articles and Canons to consult the cathoUc Church in the first ages, who are the best witnesses what is truth and what is not. The Apostles, as it should seem, very early drew up, and agreed upon a short summary of faith for the use of the Church, and each sent it to be carefully preserved and maintained by the several churches of his own plantation : this is called in Scripture, 2 Tim i. 13, Rom. xii. 6, 1 Tim. ri. 20, " The form of sound words," the proportion of faith, the depositum, or thing committed to Timothy's trust ; accord ingly, in after ages, when any dispute arose in the Church con ceming the sense of Scripture, or an article of faith, each Church was sent to, to give an account what was its beUef and sense in that particular, and what they all agreed on could not be looked upon othervrise than the truth, than according to that faith the Apostles had taught and committed to their charge. Par. So I have read it was in the first memorable CouncU of Nice ; when the heresy of Arius, denying the Dirinity of Christ, was debated by the Fathers, and a dispute arose con cerning the sense of that text in St. John, " I and my Father are one ;" each Father was to bring in the sense of that church over which he presided, and all agreeing that the text was to be understood of the consubstantiality of the Son vrith the Father, it was presently so determined, and Arius and his doc trine condemned. Min. But you must here remember, as you go, that when we have recourse to the catholic Church for the sense of Scrip ture, we appeal to it, not as to an infaUible interpreter, but as to a most credible witness of the Apostolical doctrine. We build not our faith on the authority of the ancient Fathers, but on that very thing they built theirs, the authority of the inspired writings ; only we are much strengthened and confirmed in ours by the exact agreement it bears with theirs. Par. Ought we not also to pay a due respect and submis sion to that particular Church, under whose care and govem ment the Divine Proridence hath cast us ? Min. Yes, and to obey her in all things relating to the order and outward polity of it, and in matters of faith to follow her as faf as she agrees with the Scripture and catholic Church ; and wherein we are convinced she does not so, not to set up a CATHOLIC CHURCH EXPLAINED AND STATED. 125 Church against her,* to be humbly silent, and modestly dis senting, unless in points fundamental, following the Apostle's rule, " Hast thou faith ? have it to thyself." Had not every Church a right to make its ovra rules and orders for decency, and upon the breaking out of any difference to interpose its authority for the closing of it, it would be very deficient in its constitution, as wanting power to secure its unity, and conse quently both its being and well-being. Par. Sir, I have not many things more to start. They some times tell us, that it is inconsistent with the goodness and wisdom of God, as the great lawgiver of his Church, to leave things thus at random and in confusion, and no better to pro- ride for its peace and unity, than to suffer every man to judge as he will and believe as he list. ' Min. All this is to pretend to be wiser than God. Does not God know how to govera his Church vrithout their direction ? Is it not more suitable to the nature of man, to be left to the use of his reason and judgment in his actions, than to be under an infalhble dictator, that hampers, as it were, his faculties, and leaves no place for deliberation and choice ? Is there any rirtue in behering, where all the difficulty is not to believe, as it happens when the judge is infallible ? Is not peace and con cord very desirable in the State as well as in the Church ? And must God be censured for an imprudent govemor, because he has not taken sufficient care of that too, by an universal infal lible judge in ciril matters ? Is it not as absolutely necessary to salvation, that we should be holy as well as orthodox 1 And must the goodness and wisdom of God be called in question, because he has not prorided a never-failing means to keep men from sin, as is pretended he has done to keep men from error ? To restrain their wills, as to direct their judgments? Par. They say again, Do we not see, how, for not owning the infallible Church, and leaving every man to interpret Scripture for himself, schisms and heresies, and dirisions swarm amongst us ? What distractions in religion 1 What endless controversies in the (Church ? Min. This may be trae : but will an infallible judge help the matter ? AU things necessary in religion are so plain, that no infallible judge can make them plainer ; his interpretation cannot be plainer than the text. I need ask none but myself, what it is to love God, and to believe in Christ ? And for * Article 20, Church of England. 126 THE TEUE NOTION OP THE controversies in lesser matters, they are of so little consequence to religion, that they may as well be borne withal by mutual charity amongst Christians, as ended by peremptory decrees and decisions by an infallible authority. But sects and diri sions, God knows, there are too many amongst us; but could an infallible judge be able to silence and put an end to all ? Par. So they pretend. But I read, that in the Apostles' days, though they had the infalhble assistance of God's holy Spirit " to lead them into all truth," there were schisms and dirisions in the Church. Min. It is well observed, there were so ; and if so great a measure of the Divine Spirit could not do it then, how can we imagine that the mere shadow and dream of infallibility should do it now ? Have the Romanists themselves found so great benefit by it, that they can upon experience with any assurance recommend it to us ? Par. I have heard indeed, that there are as many and as fierce disputes and controversies amongst them, as amongst us. Min. You were not misinformed : the disputes betwixt the Franciscans and Domiiucans, the Jansenists and the Molinists, are not yet put an end to ; and many others might be named. As we are not agreed vrith them that there is such an infallible guide, so are they as little agreed amongst themselves who it is. Now we say, " Physician, heal thyself." Par. However, I am afraid, these multitudes of opinions and sects that arc amongst us, do a great deal of hurt to religion ; it is apt to make some men think there is none, because there are so many ; and every man uncertain of his own. Min. It may be so, but there is no reason it should ; if I must question the truth of every thing that others deny or doubt of, I must not believe my own eyes ; for there have been those that have denied there was any such thing as motion ; and there are those that deny bread to be bread ; then the Roman ists cannot be certain that their Church is infallible, for all the rest of mankind deny it. If by a sober and modest use of my reason, and those ministerial assistances Christ hath afforded me in his Church, I may certainly know the true sense of Scrip ture, I may also certainly know what is the true religion, for this depends upon the other ; but does it follow, because others have neglected the means, and are of no religion, that I must not believe mine ? Par. I see plainly, an infallible judge, were there one, could CATHOLIC CHUECH EXPLAINED AND STATED. 127 not prevent errors and heresies from springing up ; pray, why does God permit them in his Church ? Min. St. Paul gives one reason of it, 1 Cor. xi. 19: there " must be heresies," or dirisions in the Church, " that they which are approved might be made manifest ;" and God who can bring good out of evil, can turn them several ways to his Church's good and advantage. They afford an occasion, that the true faith is better explained and confirmed to us ; they put men upon inquiry, and the more diligently any man exa mines, the more clearly he discerns, and the more stedfastly he believes afterwards. To this we owe many excellent writings of the ancient Fathers ; the errors and heresies that arose in their days concerning the Dirinity of the Son arid the Holy Ghost, were the occasion that we have those doctrines so clearly stated and fully explained to us. Par. Sir, you have abundantly satisfied me as to this point. I ask but one question more : since the Christian doctrine more strictly than ever any before, binds all its professors to unity iand love and peace, how come so many disputes and dissen sions and animosities to arise amongst them ? Min. They proceed from whence all other erils come, from men's lusts and passions. That which makes some men to be of no religion, makes others of any, and, as occasion serves, of many. They have a lust to gratify, or an interest to serve, and they vrill be of that sect that can best comply, or best pay them for it. I need not tell you from what root most of the Romish errors and superstitions grow ; and because the name of Scripture is venerable, and carries authority vrith it, that many times is pressed into the service, and by an unnatural con struction forced to bear witness against itself. So long as there is rice in the world, there vrill be error; no Church or religious society can be wholly exempt from either ; that is the best and purest that has the fewest of both. 128 THE TEUE NOTION OF THE A DISCOURSE CONCERNING THE NATURE, UNITY, AND COMMUNION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH : WHEREIN MOST OF THE CONTROVERSIES RELATING TO THE CHURCH, ARE BRIEFLY AND PLAINLY STATED. THE INTRODUCTION. In the preface to the " Vindication of some Protestant Prin ciples of Church-Unity and CathoUc Communion, from the Charge of Agreement vrith the Church of Rome," I promised a Discourse about the Church, and intended to have discharged that obligation, which has been very importunately demanded of me, long before this ; and indeed had finished, what I now publish, several months ago : I shall not trouble my reader with the reasons why I then laid it aside ; I hope, " The Pre servative against Popery" will satisfy him, that I have not been idle in the mean time ; but the true and only reason why I have delayed to publish this part, which has been so long finished, was, because I intended to finish the whole be fore I published it, which would have given more general satisfaction to my readers : but I have not leisure for that now, and think it more adrisable to publish a part than none at all, especially since what I here publish is an entire dis course concerning the nature, unity, and communion of the catholic Church. It is sufficiently known, that there is no argument of greater consequence in our disputes with the Church of Rome, than the tmity and authority of the cathoUc Church. Nothing will serve them but to make the Church of Rome the catholic Church, and then nobody is a member of the Church cathoUc, who is not in communion with the Church of Rome; and since nobody can be saved but in the Church, all heretics and schismatics, who are not in communion vrith the Church of Rome, must be damned, and there is a sad end of us all. Thus the cathoUc Church is an infallible teacher of faith : for who dares say, that the cathoUc Church can fail, or err in fundamentals ? Since Christ himself has promised, that " the gates of hell shall not prevaU against his Church :" and there- CATHOLIC CHUECH EXPLAINED AND STATED. 129 fore the Church of Rome, which is the cathohc Church, and principle of cathoUc unity, must be infallible ; and no Christian ought to dispute anything which she has determined in matters of faith. The Bishop of Rome is the head of this cathoUc Church, St. Peter's successor, and Christ's ricar upon earth; and there fore he is the supreme governor of the Church, from whom all other bishops derive their authority, and to whom all Christian princes and emperors themselves, are subject in ordine ad spiritualia, which vrill go a great way to a temporal sovereignty and universal empire - These pretences, indeed, have been sufficiently baffled by Protestant dirines, ever since the beginning of the Reforma tion; but we have to deal vrith men who have confidence enough to be baffled and not to own it, to see all their arguraents confuted an hundred times over, and to repeat them again vrith a good grace, vrithout replying to those answers which have been so often given them, or so ranch as taking notice that there ever had been any answer raade to them. But after all that is said on one side and the other, I am very sensible there never vrill be an end of these wranglings, vrithout settling the true notion of the cathohc Church ; which, though a great many good things have been said about it, I think was never thoroughly done yet : what my present performance is, I must leave other men to judge ; but if my notion be right, I am sure there is an end of all the vain and arrogant pretences of the Church of Rome, as vrill appear to any indifferent reader, who peruses this discourse vrith care and judgment. The foundation of all I have laid in an inquiry into the trae notion of the unity of the catholic Church ; which gives occasion to state the true notion of the Church, and most of those controversies which depend upon it. I have there only considered what is meant by the imity of the cathoUc Church, as that signifies the Church of Christ both in heaven and earth. What relates to the nature and unity of particular Churches, their government, union and combina tions into one cathoUc communion, must be reserved for another Part. VOL. III. 130 THE TRUE NOTION OF THE CHAP. I. CONCERNING THE UNITY OP THE WHOLE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN HEAVEN AND EAETH. It is acknowledged by all Christians, that Christ has but one Church, which is his one body : but then we must con sider the extent of this one Church. The Church on earth indeed is but one, but this one Church on earth is not the one Church and one body of Christ, but only a very httle part of it. Christ has but one Church and one body in all, and therefore it must comprehend the whole Church from the be ginning to the end of the world, at least from the first planting of a Church by Christ and his Apostles, till the last judgment, for they all belong to this one (Dhurch, and this one body of Christ ; so that far the greatest part of this one Church is already translated into heaven, and the Church on earth is but a very little part of the whole ; for the Church in heaven, and the Church on earth, are but one Church and one body. Here we must lay the foundation, if we would ' rightly under stand what makes one Church ; for since this unity compre hends the whole Church, we cannot argue merely from the Church's being one, to infer any other kind of unity, but what makes the whole, but what unites the whole Church in heaven and earth into one body ; for that only is the true unity of the Church, because the whole Church in earth and heaven is the one Church. And therefore to place the unity of the Church in anything which can concern only one part of the Church, but not the whole, as suppose that part only which is on earth, not that which is in heaven, is maiufestly absurd, because it does not give an account how the whole Church is one, and yet the oneness of the Church properly relates to the whole, not to a part : for a part, be it never so much one, can be but one part, not the one Church. Now hence we may learn, wherein the unity of the Church does not consist, and wherein it does. 1 . Wherein the unity of the Church does not consist. As 1 . The unity of the Church does not consist in its being one organized politic body, under the government of one risible head on earth: for though a visible head on earth might CATHOLIC CHURCH EXPLAINED AND STATED. 131 make the Church on earth one, yet it cannot unite the Church on earth and the Church in heaven into one body, unless this risible head on earth be the head of the inrisible Church in heaven too : for if the unity of the Church consists in being united under one head, that head must be the head of the whole Church, or else the Church is not united in the head, if the head, which is the principle of union, be not the head of the whole. Now I suppose no Papist ¦will say, that the Bishop of Rome is the head of the inrisible as well as of the risible Church ; and then the Church is not one, as being united under the Bishop of Rome ; though there are some things which would make one suspect, that the Church of Rome did believe the Pope to be the head of the inrisible as well as of the risible (3hurch : for if his authority be con fined to the Church on earth, one would wonder whence he should pretend to canonize saints in heaven, or to release souls out of purgatory, unless his being Christ's ricar on earth makes hira his ricar in heaven, and in purgatory also : but this by the way. If they say, that when they speak of the unity of the Church, they mean only the unity of the Church on earth, and that the Pope is the visible head of this unity : I answer, 1 . That they must grant, then, that they speak very improperly; for the Church on earth is nqt that one Church which is the one body of Christ, and therefore the unity of the Church does not consist in the headship of the Pope; but they ought only to say, that the unity of the Church on earth consists in its union to the Pope. 2. And therefore they must quit all their arguments for the Pope's headship, taken from the Church's being one, the one bpdy of Christ ; for the Church on earth is not this one body of Christ : and therefore it does not follow, that because Christ has but one body, therefore the Church on earth must have one risible head. 3. Nay, they must confess, that the formal and essential unity of the Church on earth does riot consist in its union to the Pope ; for the Church on earth is one with the Church in heaven, they being both but one Church, and therefore must have the same essential unity ; for how they should be one by two sorts of unity, that is, be one vrithout the same formal unity, is very mysterious, and near akin to a contradiction. And therefore since the unity of the Church in heaven does not consist in its union to the Pope, no more does the unity K 2 132 THE TEUE NOTION OF THE of the Church upon earth, the unity bemg the same in both. And thus all their arguments from the unity of the Church on earth, to prove an universal risible head of the Church, are lost too. 2dly. Nor does the unity of the Church consist in joining together in the extemal and risible acts of worship, or in main taining mutual intercourse and correspondence vrith each other ; these are duties which result from Church unity, when they are practicable (as I shall shew more hereafter), but the unity of the Church cannot consist in them, for the Church in heaven and earth are one vrithout them ; and so may distant Churches on earth be one Church without any such risible correspondence. 3dly. Nor can the unity of the Church consist in such Articles of Faith as have not always been the faith of the Christian Church. For since the whole Church in all ages is but one, it can have but one faith ; and that cannot be the one faith which has not been the faith of the whole Church. And therefore it is ridiculous to talk of such a power in the Church of every age, as to make or declare new articles of faith, unless there be authority to make a new Church too in every age ; but then how the Church should change its faith in every age, and yet continue one and the same Church, is worth inquiry. As far as any Church has altered the faith of the Apostles and primitive Christians, it is become a new Church ; and a new Church, I think, is not the same vrith the old : the unity of the present Church, considered as a Church, does not consist only in its unity vrith itself, but with the Church also of former" ages ; for unless it be one vrith the ApostoUc Churches, it can not be the one Church of Christ. And therefore, though all the Christian world should at this day unite in the faith and worship of the Council of Trent, it would be as much dirided from the one Church of Christ, as it differs from the faith and worship of the Primitive Church. I shall only observe here by the way, what a contradiction the worship of saints and' the Virgin Mary is to the belief of one Church. For if the Church in heaven and earth be but one Church, then the most glorious saints in heaven, not excepting the blessed Virgin herself, are but members of the same body with us, which makes it as absurd to worship them in heaven, as it is for one member of the same body on earth to worship another, for they are the same body still ; and though there is a great difference in honour between the members of the same CATHOLIC CHUECH EXPLAINED AND STATED. 133 body, yet that relation that is between them will not admit of the worship of any member. For it is no act of communion in the same body for one member to worship another. To pay dirine honours, to erect temples and altars to the greatest saints, advances them above the degeee of fellow-members, and if they be not fellow-merabers of the same body, then the Church in heaven and in earth is not one Church. From whence we may learn who they are who diride the unity of the Church, they who command the worship of saints and the Virgin, or those who refuse it. We believe the Church in heaven and earth to be the one body of Christ, and that the most glorious saints are but members of the same body vrith us, and therefore not the objects of our worship, hut of our bro therly love and honour ; but those who worship saints, destroy the unity of Christ's body, by dividing the Church on earth and the Church in heaven ; for nothing is more contrary to the sense of mankind than to worship those of our own communion. And therefore the natural interpretation of that worship they pay to saints is, that they are not members of the same body vrith us, but are as much above us, as the object of our worship is and ought to be. 2dly. This notion of Church unity, that it must include the whole Church, from the beginning of Christianity to the end of the world, as well that part of it which is already transplanted into heaven, as that which still sojourns on earth, which is all but one body, may direct us wherein to place this unity of the Church, which to be sure can consist in nothing but what belongs to the whole Church : any notion of unity which does not explain how the whole Church is but one, must be false, because the unity of the Church properly belongs to the whole, and not to a part. Now as this unity respects the whole Church, it is impossible there should be any other head of unity but Christ ; any other medium of unity but the Gospel covenant, nor any other kind of unity but the unity of one spi ritual body, communion or society : that we are all united by the Gospel covenant in one body to Christ, the one and only Head of the Universal Church. 1 . The unity of the Church must consist in its union to some one Head. This is acknowledged by aU Christians, and there fore I need not prove it ; and it is as erident that none can be the head of the Universal Church but only Christ, and that for this plain reason, because it is union to Christ alone which makes the Christian Church. The Church is the Church of 134 THE TEUE NOTION OP THE Christ, and therefore he alone is the Head of his ovra Church. Tjiis the Romanists themselves grant, that Christ alone is the Head of his Church, and that the Bishop of Rome is only a ricarious head, Christ's ricar on earth. But when we speak of the unity of the Universal Church, part of which is translated to heaven, and part stiU militant on earth, it must be united in Christ alone ; for as he needs no ricar in heaven, where he him self is immediately present, so there can be no ricar on earth, as a common head of unity for the Church on earth and in heaven ; and therefore the unity of the whole Church cannot consist in its union to such a vicarious head, as I observed before ; and then there can be no other head of unity but only Christ. 2. It is as evident also, that the only medium or bond of this union between Christ and the Church is the Gospel covenant, for that is the foundation of our relation to Christ ; he is our Head and Husband, our Lord and Sariour ; we his subjects, disciples, spouse, and body, by covenant. And therefore the sacraments of the new covenant. Baptism and the Lord's Sup per, are the federal rites of our union to Christ : Baptism is our regeneration or new birth, whereby we are incorporated into his body ; in the Lord's supper we spiritually eat his flesh and drink his blood, which signifies and effects as intimate an union to him as there is of our bodies and the food we eat ; and this proves that there can be no other head of unity but only Christ, because the Gospel covenant unites us to none else ; which I take to be St. Paul's meaning, when he reproves the Corinthian schism, 1 Cor. i. 12, 13 : " Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of ApoUos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is Christ dirided ? Was Paul crucified for you ? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul ?" That is, that there is no other head to whom we can be united but only Christ, who purchased the Gospel covenant by his death, and into whose name we are baptized ; his alone we are, to whom we are united by baptism, we are in covenant with none else, and therefore belong to him alone : if they might have owned any other head besides him who died for them, and into whose name they were baptized ; if Christ had made Peter the rica rious head of uriity, as the Romanists pretend, St. Paul's argu ment against these sidings and factions, that one said he was of Paul, another of ApoUos, a third of Cephas or Peter, had not been good, for at least those who were imited to Peter were in the right ; but St. Paul knew no other head of umty but only CATHOLIC CHURCH EXPLAINED AND STATED- 135 Christ, because the Gospel covenant, which is the only medium arid bond of union, unites us to no other head ; and therefore those who said they were of Peter, or belonged to him as their head and centre of unity, which is the case of the Church of Rome at this day, were as great schismatics as those who said they were of Paul. Now this covenant extends to the whole Church, and there fore unites the whole Church to Christ. For those who are translated into heaven are still united to Christ by the same covenant with the Church on earth. There are several duties indeed of this covenant which the saints in heaven are exempted from, because their state aud condition there is above them. Their faith and hope is tumed into sight and enjoyment ; their spiritual warfare is accomplished, for there is no devil, nor flesh, nor world to tempt them ; the mystical supper of our Lord is celebrated by them, not in extemal symbols and figures, but in a more dirine manner, in the imraediate presence of the Lamb ; but though the duties of the covenant change with their state and condition of life, yet the covenant is the same still ; by this covenant it is that they are in heaven, and still expect the completion of their happiness in the resurrection of their bodies immortal and glorious ; and by the same covenant it is that we hope, when our warfare is accomphshed, also to get to heaven, and to rise together with them at the sound of the last trumpet : and therefore the whole Church in heaven and earth is one, by being united to the same head by the same covenant. 3. The unity then of the Universal Church can consist in nothing but this, that the whole Church both in heaven and earth, is united in one body to Christ. For since there is no other head of unity for the Church but Christ, the formal reason of this unity must consist in the union of the whole Church to Christ, which makes the Universal Church the one body of Christ, and this is the unity of the Church. For I think it is no less than a demonstration, that the unity of the Universal Church, which is part in heaven and part on earth, cannot be the unity of an organized body, which must consist in a regular subordination of different ranks and degrees of men, as the Church on earth does : for the Church on earth and in heaven, which is the one Church of Christ, is no such one common governed society ; and therefore the unity of the Church cannot consist in the unity of one external govemment, But how then is the whole Church but one body ? Traly I 136 THE TRUE NOTION OF THE know no other way, but that they are all united to Christ in the same covenant, and aU who are thus united to him, Christ accounts his one body. Thus Christ, as bearing his Church, is compared to a rine, aU whose branches, we know, are united only in the stock or root, John xv. 1 ; and to an olive tree, Rom. xi. 17 ; and to a sheepfold, which consists of single and indiridual sheep, which are one fold only, because they are under one shepherd, John x. 16. It is trae, indeed, the Church is caUed also the body and spouse of Christ, but as that relates to the Universal Church, it does not signify an organical body (though that the Church on earth is also by Christ's own institution, of which more hereafter), but it is so called for mystical reasons, which I shaU briefly explain to you. 1 . Now I first observe, that the relation between man and vrife is but an emblem and figure of that union which is be tween Christ and his Church. Hence the Apostle exhorts " husbands to love their -wives, even as Christ loved his Church;" and tells us of marriage, "it is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and his Church," Ephes. v, 25, 32, 2. To be the body and the spouse of Christ signifies the same thing. Hence the Apostle argues, " that men ought to love their vrives as their own bodies," ver. 28. " For no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord theC!hurch," 29. " For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones," 30. So that the vrife is the body, the very flesh of the husband, and so is the Church of Christ. 3. To imderstand this matter, why the Church is called the body and spouse of Christ, we must inquire why the wife is called the body of the man, flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone ; and the reason of that is, because the woman was formed out of the man. God at first formed man with an entire human body, of the dust of the earth ; and out of man, while he slept, he formed the woman, who, though a distinct separate person, yet was part of the man, flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone. And this was a natural marriage, for two were by nature one flesh ; and this was the natural and fundamental reason of the matrimonial imion. " For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his vrife, and they two shall be one flesh." For though other women are not made as Eve was, no more than other men are made as Adam was, yet the woman being originally of the man, the reason holds as to the whole kind ; and in subsequent marriages CATHOLIC CHUECH EXPLAINED AND STATED. 137 a legal ceremony and contract does what a natural formation did at first, that is, unites two into one flesh. Thus the blessed Jesus, out of great pity and compassion to fallen man, intending to marry us unto himself, and thereby to recover us out of a state of sin and misery, first marries our nature to himself by an hypostatical union, as man was created first, and then the woman formed out of him. Christ took a human body of the substance of a pure rirgin, which signifies that it was an espousable nature which he took, and was a pledge and earnest and medium of our marriage to him. For though we cannot be married immediately to the Dirinity, yet to a God incarnate we may. For marriage requires that hus band and vrife be of the same nature. But this is not enough, that the husband and vrife partake of the same nature, but the woman must be formed out of the man ; which makes her flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone. And thus, accordingly, the Church is formed out of the body of Christ, and is in a mystical sense, his very flesh and bones, as St. Paul speaks, " We are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones." For the sufferings of Christ in the flesh gave life and being to the Church ; he purchased to himself a Church by his own blood, that is, he formed to himself a Church out of his broken body, as Adam's body was broken, and a rib taken out of him to form the woman. And there fore as the woman was made of the same flesh with Adam, so the sufferings of Christ in his human nature purchased a Church, not of angels, but of men, of the same nature vrith himself, as the Apostle observes, Heb. ii. 16, "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham ;" and therefore is not the Sariour of angels but of men ; is not married to the angeUcal but to the human nature. And to make the analogy still more complete, as the woman was formed out of Adam's side so was the Church out of Christ's side, for when he was pierced with the soldier's spear there came out of his side both " water and blood," John xix. 34. And the Evangelist sets a peculiar remark upon it : " he that saw it bare record, and we know that his record is trae : and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe," V. 36 ; and this is speciaUy observed, and great weight laid upon it, 1 John, V. 6 : " This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ ; not by water only, but by water and blood." This some think signifies no more, but that it was a demon- 138 THE TRUE NOTION OP THE stration that he was truly dead ; and that his heart was wounded where there is a capsula called the pericardium, which contains water, which being pierced, water came out together vrith blood ; but the water and blood came out distinct, though from the same wound, which was never known before, and cannot be done again by the greatest artist ; and though this might be a reason why St. John might take notice of it in his Gospel, where he gave an account of his death, yet it does not seem a sufficient reason why he should lay such a weight on it in his Epistles ; "This is he who came by water and blood, not by water only, but by water and blood :" and therefore I doubt not but the ancient Fathers were in the right, who teU us that the two sacraments of the new covenant flowed out of his side, which are the formation of this spiritual spouse his Church, the birth and the nourishment of it ; Baptism and the Lord's Supper, which came from his wounded body, and have both of them a peculiar respect to his death and passion. Thus we see the Church is called Christ's body and spouse for mystical reasons, because it is formed out of his broken body, his death and sufferings giving Ufe and being to the Church ; and therefore it is but one body, because aU those who are redeemed by his blood, and united to him by covenant, which is a kind of marriage-vow and contract, are his body and spouse. And therefore the sacraments of the new covenant. Baptism and the Lord's Supper, do no othervrise unite us to each other than they unite us all to Christ, which makes us aU one body ; or as the Apostle speaks with respect to the Lord's Supper, " For we being many, are one bread and one body, for we are aU partakers of that one bread." We all partake of the same body of Christ, which is therefore called the " com munion of his body and blood ;" and therefore we all are but one body ; so that it is a vain thing to inquire after any other principle of unity for the whole Church, but the union of aU Christians to Christ, who are one body by their union to one head. But it may be objected against this, that this confines the Church to the company of the elect, who are the mystical body of Christ ; that according to this notion there can be no risible Church upon earth ; for no man can tell who belongs to the mystical body of Christ, which is made up only of trae and sincere Christians, and no man can see who they are without seeing their hearts. Now this is a mighty prejudice against any notion, if it destroys the risibility of the Church, which is CATHOLIC CHURCH EXPLAINED AND STATED. 139 so plainly taught in Scripture, and does, for ought we know, unchurch the greatest number of risible Church members ; if the Church consists only of those who were elected from all eternity, and are in time called by the grace of God to a state of real holiness and sanctification, and made the liring mem bers of Christ's body, I cannot possibly see how there can be a risible Church on earth ; for this internal grace which makes a Church member is inrisible, and therefore Church members are inrisible too, and then I fear the Church itself must be inrisible, if all the members of it are inrisible ; for inrisible members cannot make a risible society : and to say that the field in which the corn and the tares grow together is risible, will not make the Church risible, unless this risible field, as risible, be the Church, and then the tares as well as the corn must be Church members : for to see where the corn grows, if we cannot see the corn, does not make the corn risible ; and if the corn only be the Church, inrisible corn cannot make a risible Church. Which has made me often wonder that some leamed Protestants, and that of late too, have so much insisted on this notion, which gives manifest advantage to their adver saries ; and serves no end that I know of, but what may better he served vrithout it. But the union of the Church to Christ, which I have now explained, is a risible union ; for we are united to Christ by the Gospel, covenant, and the covenant is risible ; the sacraments of the covenant. Baptism and the Lord's Supper, are risible , the profession of faith and obedience to Christ, made by these risible sacraments, is risible also ; and therefore the Church, which is united to Christ by a risible covenant, risible sacra ments, and a visible profession, is risible also. But you vrill say, can vricked men then be members of Christ's mystical body ? Yes ; no doubt but they may in this world, if they can be in covenant vrith him. We are united by convenant, and those who are thus united are members of his body, and Christ has but one body, which is his Church, and mystical spouse. And what absurdity is there in saying that men may be in convenant with Christ, and not perform the conditions of the convenant, nor obtain the rewards of it ? This no man will deny, but that bad men who Uve in risible communion with the Church, who are baptized in the name of Christ, and feast at his table, are visibly in covenant vrith him ; for if the sacraments of the covenant do not prove that we are in cove nant no man can tell whether he be in covenant or not. Now 140 THE TRUE NOTION OP THE all that are in covenant with Christ are his body, and unless we can find two covenants and two bodies for Christ, we must grant that good and bad men in this world are in the same covenant and members of the same body. Our Sariour teUs us, that there are some branches in him which bear no fruit ; but they are in him for all that, though they shaU be taken away, and separated from him, Johnxv. 2. St. Paul dissuades the Corinthians from fomication by this argument, that they are the members of Christ : " Know ye not, that your bodies are the members of Christ ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them members of an harlot? God forbid," 1 Cor. -vi. 15. Which supposes that such a thing may be done, that the members of Christ may be made members of an harlot : and that supposes that very bad men may he members of Christ's body. But are not all the members of Christ mystically united to him ? And can there be such a mystical union between Christ and bad men ? I answer, if by mystical union be meant, being united in the same life and spirit, it is plain that bad men are not thus mystically united to Christ, for they are not hring but dead members of his body, they are branches that are in the rine, but bear no fruit ; and yet may be members of his mystical body, which is so called, not upon account of any mystical union (which some men talk of, but no man could ever explain) but for mystical reasons, as I have already shewn you. Now if those mystical reasons, for which the Church is called the body of Christ, include vricked professors, and concealed hypocrites, as well as truly good men, then I hope bad men may be said to be the members of Christ's mys tical body, vrithout such a mystical union to him. Now I observed before, the mystical reason why the Church is called the body of Christ, flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, is because he purchased the Church with his own blood ; the Church is formed out of his broken body, as Eve was formed out of the body of Adam. And therefore if bad men who are in covenant vrith Christ are the purchase of his blood, and have a covenant right to the expiation of it, and aU the beneflts procured by it, then they are the merabers of his mystical body, flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone. And methinks no man should deny that those who are in covenant with Christ should have a covenant right to the expiation of his death, and all the blessings purchased by his blood; for otherwise we cannot teU what it is to be in covenant, if it CATHOLIC CHUECH EXPLAINED AND STATED. 141 confer no right to the privileges of it : and yet no man has a right to the purchase of Christ's blood, but those who are his body ; and therefore if bad men have such a covenant right, as certainly they have, if they be in covenant, then they are by covenant united to his body. If you object, that by this reason all mankind are Christ's mystical body, for he died for all men, and therefore they are all the purchase of his blood, and consequently they are his mys tical body, which is formed out of his broken body : I answer, it is trae, indeed, that in some sense Christ died for all, because none are excluded from the beneflts of his death, who unite themselves to his body by faith and baptism ; but yet he died for none, so as to give them an immediate right and title to the purchase of his blood, for his purchase is confined to his Church, which is his body. He is the Sariour of his body : he loveth his church, and gave himself for it. And therefore his Church only is his mystical body, flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, and the sufferings of his natural body extend no farther than his mystical body : and therefore Christ is said to have "reconcUed both (Jew and Gentile) to God in one body by the cross," Ephes. U. 16. That is, he has reconciled all, both Jews and Gentiles, who by faith and baptism are united in his one mystical body, to God by his sufferings on the cross. So that we are not the body of Christ, and cannot be said to be the purchase of his blood, till we are united to him by covenant. This we may learn from that analogy there is between the law and the Gospel. The legal sacrifices, especially that great sacrifice on the day of expiation, were typical of the sacrifice of Christ, and the carnal Israel was a type of the spiritual Israel, or of the Christian Church. Now as the rirtue and expiation of legal sacrifices was applicable only to the carnal Israel, so the expiation of Christ's death extends only to the spiritual Israel, the Christian Church, which is Christ's mysti cal body ; which one thing, if well considered, would answer all the difficulties, and silence those fierce disputes about univer sal redemption. However, this shews what difference there is between bad Christians, and the world of infidels ; the first are risibly in covenant with Christ, and are the purchase of his blood, and have a covenant-right to the redemption of it, and therefore are members of his mystical body, for none else have any right to his sacrifice ; the other have no interest in him. 142 THE TEUE NOTION OP THE nor relation to him. And if we will not allow of this, I desire to know who those children of the kingdom are, that at the last day shall be shut out. But is not our mystical union to Christ then an union of spirits, a participation of his nature and Ufe, having his Spirit dwelhng in us, being led by the Spirit, and walking in the Spirit ? I answer. This is our spiritual union to Christ ; this is to live in him, to be quickened by him, but it is not our mystical union, as that signifies such an union as makes us members of his mystical body ; for that in a strict proper sense is only a covenant-relation. Every member of Christ's mystical body ought to partake of his life and spirit, or else they are only dead and rotten members, which shall be cut off, and shall never inherit etemal life ; but such dead members are members still, till they are cut off, either by Church cen sures in this world, or by the sentence of Christ in the next. This participation of the life and spirit of Christ, is not our mystical union to Christ, but the effect of it. We cannot re ceive the influences of life and grace from Christ, till we are united to him, and made the members of his body ; for his spirit only quickens and animates his ovra. body ; and we are united to his body by covenant, and by the sacraments of it, which convey this divine life and spirit to us : and therefore baptism is our regeneration, or new birth, the beginnings of a new life, because it incorporates us into Christ's mystical body, which puts us under the influences and communications of his life and spirit ; as when a branch is engrafted iuto a stock, it receives nourishment and Ufe from it. So that these dirine and supernatural influences are consequent upon our union to Christ ; and though all who are united to (ihrist have these influences of grace, as the root naturally communicates its sap and juices to aU its branches, yet all do not improve it, do not digest it into principles of life and action, do not bring forth fruits worthy of it, like dead and vrithered branches, who can-: not receive the sap and nourishment which ascends from the root, and would quicken them, were not its entrance stopped and hindered; but notwithstanding this, they are members and branches still, though dead and fruitless: there is no account indee had of them, Christ knows them not, and does not reckon them as his, and therefore the description, and characters of the Church in Scripture, are such as belong only to living members, to those who are renewed and sanctified, CATHOLIC CHUECH EXPLAINED AND STATED. 143 and quickened by the Dirine Spirit ; but yet they do belong to Christ's mystical body, though they are in it only as a dead branch is in the rine. But how can the Church on earth, and the Church in heaven be one Church and one body, if the Church on earth has such corrapt and rotten members in it ? for the Church in heaven has none but living and holy members. I answer, the same covenant makes them the same Church, and the same body of Christ, and that there are bad men in the Church on earth, and none but saints in heaven, does not prove that they are two churches, but that they are in two different states. Of right, none but sincere believers and truly pious men ought to be members of the Church on earth, as well as in heaven ; but the government of the Church, the receiring in and cast ing out of the Church, being entrusted with men who cannot see the heart, or who are not careful in the exercise of disci pline to preserve the purity of the Church, secret hypocrites may be received into the Church, and those who are openly profane may not be cast out of it ; but in the other world Christ makes the distinction, and separates the chaff from the wheat, and therefore the Church in heaven can consist only of good men, because bad men can find no admission there. And besides this, it is agreeable enough to the state of the Church on earth, and indeed cannot well be othervrise, that good and bad men should be intermixed in it ; because it is a state of trial and discipline, of growth and improvement ; though bad men, as that signifies hypocrites and unbelievers, if they were knovra, ought not to be received into the Church ; yet if they be, by the influences of grace, and the instructions of the word, and the prayers of the Church, and the examples and conver sations of good men, and the prudent exercise of discipline, they may be reclaimed to rirtue, and become hring members of Christ's body ; those who were dead before, may recover a new Ufe, by being engrafted into this heavenly rine : nay, in deed, though all men are not equally vricked, yet no man has this dirine life but only from Christ, and the communications of his grace, which he cannot receive from Christ till he be united to him ; and therefore the Apostles required no other quahfication for baptism, but only faith ; the very worst of men, who believed in Christ, and professed obedience to him, were received into the Church by baptism, and put under the influences of grace, without expecting till they had first re formed their lives ; which, besides the authority of the Apostles, 144 THE TEUE NOTION OP THE seems to me much more agreeable to the Gospel dispensatioui than that discipline which was afterwards used in the Church, when they did not immediately baptize those who professed to beUeve in Christ, but kept them in the state of catechumens a great while, till they were instructed in the principles of Christian faith, and had given proof of a holy and rirtuous hfe ; which is to expect, that men should become new crea tures before they are born again, that they should walk in the Spirit, before they have received the Spirit in baptism, that they should bring forth fruit, before they are implanted into this spiritual rine. Now if men, who have hved very wicked Uves, raay be admitted to baptism upon their profession of faith and repentance, that in this laver of regeneration they may wash away all their sins, and become new creatures, and receive the Spirit of grace and sanctification to reform their Uves ; this shews, that the very constitution of the Church on earth is such, that there may be very bad men in it, unless aU who are baptized should infallibly prove good men : for bad men, who profess the faith of Christ, and repentance of their sins, have a right to baptism, where they must receive grace to mortify and subdue their lusts and renew their natures : and yet if after baptism they resist the grace and Spirit of God they wiU continue bad men still, and this the ministers of the Church can never know whether they will or not. Nay, the Gospel-covenant admits the chUdren of Christian parents to baptism, and it is impossible to know how those who are baptized in their infancy will prove when they are men : and yet these are all members of the Church, and the mystical body of Christ, at least tUl they are cut off by the censures of the Church ; and there is no inconvenience in this, if the governors of the Church were but so strict in their discipline as to prevent all public scandals : for since the Church on earth is the school and nursery of virtue, where bad men may be reformed and become saints, since Christ is that spiritual rine from whom alone we can receive the communications of a dirine life, it is very fitting that all believers should be re ceived into the Church, and incorporated into Christ's body ; for it cannot be knovra whether they vrill prove good or bad men, fruitful or barren branches, till they partake of the sap and fatness of the root, till they have received such communi cations of grace as may renew them into a dirine nature. And therefore to say, that none but real saints are members of the Church on earth, is to make no difference bet\^een a school CATHOLIC CHURCH EXPLAINED AND STATED. 145 of trial, exercise, and discipline, and the state of perfect and con summate souls ; between a state of warfare, where the rictory is doubtftd, and the triumphant company of conquerors ; between those who run in a race, and those who have won the prize : for such a difference there is between the state of the Church on earth, and in heaven. We cannot run this spiritual race, unless we be in the Church, for there is no prize, no crown to run for out of it. And therefore those who lose, as well as those who -win the prize, must be in the Church, and members of it : they are all in the same covenant, that if they overcome they shall receive the crown : good men conquer in this world, and triumph in heaven ; bad men are conquered, and they lose their crown, and this makes the separation and difference between the Church in heaven and earth : in heaven there are none but those who have conquered ; on earth all, who ran in the same race, and are engaged in the same war fare, are mixed together in the same body and society : those who conquer, and those who are conquered, are of the same company on earth, but none but conquerors are cro^wned in heaven. Thus I have shewed wherein the unity of the Church con sists, that the whole Church both in heaven and earth are united to Christ in the same covenant, which makes it his own mystical body : and it was necessary to lay the foundation here, for without this it is impossible to imderstand what the unity of the Church on earth means, most of the mistakes in this matter being plainly owing to that first and fundamental mistake about the true notion of Catholic Unity, as it includes the unity of the universal Church, part of which is translated to heaven, and part still miUtant on earth. Those who have been aware of this, that the Church in heaven and earth is but one Church, have hence concluded, that the catholic Church is only the nuraber of the elect ; that none but truly good men, who are renewed and sanctified by the Holy Spirit, are merabers of Christ's mystical body ; which makes the Church on earth as invisible to us, as the Church in heaven. Others, when they talk of the unity of the Church, never think of the Church in heaven, and therefore advance such a notion of Church unity, as excludes the Church in heaven, as if the Church on earth were the whole Church of Christ ; or that the Church in heaven and earth were not one Church, or that the notion of Church unity must not relate to the whole Church, but only to one part of it. Thus, as I observed before, the Romanists VOL. III. L 146 THE TEUE NOTION OP THE do, who place the unity of the Church in its union and subjection to the Bishop of Rome, which can concern only that part of the Church which is on earth, for the Church in heaven is not under his government. Others, considering that the unity of the Church consists in the union of all the parts and members of it to Christ, have no regard at all to the unity of the Church on earth, as that also is one body and communion ; and there fore it vrill be time now to apply this notion of Church unity to the unity of the Church on earth. CHAP. II. CONCEENING THE UNITY OP THE CATHOLIC CHUECB ON EARTH. Ip the whole Church be one, to be sure every part of it must be one with the whole, and therefore one vrith itself, with that same kind of unity which belongs to the whole. So that the essential unity of the Church on earth, that which makes a Church, and makes it one, is, that all true Churches are members of the one mystical body of Christ, as being aU united to him, as to their Head, by the same covenant. So that whatever makes a Church a true Church, makes it a member of the one catholic Church, or of the one body of Christ. And here comes in what the Apostle makes essential to this one body ; " one Lord, one faith, one baptism," Eph. iv. 5 : which signifies what I said before, being united to Christ in the same covenant. For Christ is the "one Lord," to whom we ure united ; the " one faith" is the condition of this covenant ; and the " one baptism" is the federal rite of it, or the sacrament of our union to Christ. Where this is not, there is no Church ; and where this is, there is but one Church ; how many particular Churches, or distinct commu nions soever this Church is dirided into; from whence it is erident that there never can be more than one Church in the world, for those norainal Churches which have not the same Lord, the same faith, the same baptisra, are no Churches, and all that have are but one, which makes it a ridiculous triumph of the Church of Rome, as if we Protestants did not believe one cathoUc Church, or could not tell where to find it, when we CATHOLIC CHURCH EXPLAINED AND STATED. 147 profess to believe but one Church, and that all true Churches are merabers of this one Church. For it is plain from this account, that though all the Churches in the world were united in one ecclesiastical body, yet this external risible union is not the thing which makes them the one body of Christ. They are one body, by being all united to one mystical Head, the Lord Jesus Christ, not by an external and visible union to each Other ; this external union is a duty which all Christians and Christian Churches are bound to observe, as far as possibly they can ; but all true Christians and Christian Churches are the one body of Christ, whether they be thus risibly united or not. But for the better under standing this matter we must consider — I. The true notion of the Catholic Church on earth. II. What the nature and unity of a particular Church is, and how every particular Church is a part of that Universal Catholic Church, which is the body of Christ. III. What that imity and comraunity is, which all distinct particular Churches ought to maintain vrith each other, and whence this obUgation results. I. The true notion of the Catholic Church on earth. Now it is erident from what I have already discoursed, that the true notion of a Church is the Ceetus Fidelium, or the company of the faithful, of those who profess the true faith of Christ, and are united to him by baptism. There can be no other notion of the universal Church in heaven and earth, but the whole company and family of the faithful, who are united to Christ by covenant, and are his mystical body in the sense above explained. And if the universal Church in heaven and earth be the whole company of the faithful, the catholic Church on earth must be the whole nuraber of the faithful on earth, for we raust still retain the same notion of a Church, where the whole consists of univocal parts, for there every part has the same nature vrith the whole. I know indeed of late the clergy have in a great measure monopolized the name of the Church, whereas, in propriety of speech, they do not belong to the definition of a Church. They are members of the Church, as they are themselves of the number of the faithful ; and they are the governors of the Church, as they have received authority from Christ the supreme Lord and Bishop of the Church ; but they are no more members of the Church, than the king is his kingdom, or the shepherd his flock. And therefore St. Paul expressly L 2 148 THE TRUE NOTION OP THE distinguishes the Church from the Apostles and ministers of it. 1 Cor. xU. 28. " God hath set some in the Church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." These are placed in the Church for the instruc tion, edification, and good government of it ; and therefore are of a distinct consideration from the Church in which they are placed. Thus, Eph. iv. 11, 12: "He gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangeUsts, and some pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ;" that is, the Church of Christ, which is therefore distinguished from the pastors and teachers of it. Thus in directing his Epistles to several Churches he gives us the definition of a Church. 1 Cor. i. 2 : " Unto the Church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours ;" that is, the whole company of the faithful. Eph. i. 1 : " Paul, an Apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus :" which is the true defini tion of a Church. Col. i. 2 : " To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ, which are at Colosse." And Phil. i. 1, he expressly distinguishes the saints or Church, as that signifies the company of the faithful, from the bishops and deacons : " To all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, vrith the bishops and deacons." The leamed Launoy* has produced various texts of Scrip ture for this definition of the Church, that it is the company of the faithful, and has proved by the testimony of the Fathers in all ages, even dovra to the Council of Trent itself, that this was the received notion of the Church, till it was altered by Canisius and Bellarmine. Canisius puts Christ's vicar into the definition, that the Church is the risible collec tion of all baptized beUevers, under one head, Christ in heaven, and his ricar on earth, which makes the Church a monarchy. Bellarmine defines the Church to be a company of men, united together by the profession of the same Christian faith, and the communion of the same sacraments, under the govemment of lawful pastors, but chiefly of the Bishop of Rome, as the one ricar of Christ on earth, which makes the * Johan. Launoius Nicolao Gatineo, Ep. xiii. vol- 8. CATHOLIC CHUECH EXPLAINED AND STATED. 149 Church a kind of mixed and tempered monarchy ; the govem ment of bishops, and the Pope as supreme ricar : whereas before these raen, neither pastors nor bishops, ranch less the Pope of Rome, were ever put into the general definition of a Church ; for as for St. Cjrprian's definition, I shall account for it hereafter.And indeed it stands to reason, that they should not ; for pastors and bishops are set over the Church, are overseers of the flock, to instract and govern it, and therefore must be distin guished from the Church which they govern. The Church is the mystical body of Christ, which is in subjection to Christ the Head ; but the bishops and pastors of the Church, considered as such, represent the head, and not the body, for they receive their power and authority from Christ, and act in his place and stead, as he teUs them after his resurrection, " As my Father hath sent me, so send I you," John xx. 21. And, " He that receiveth you, receiveth me ; and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me," Matth. x. 40, and John xiU. 20. And therefore, as Christ the Head is distinguished from the body, so are those also who act under the Head, and represent and exercise his authority in the Church. As private believers, they are the members of the Church ; as Church governors, they are the vicars of Christ. Now from hence I shall observe some few things, the use of which we shall afterwards better understand. As 1 . That bishops and pastors are not the Church, but the governors of the Church ; and therefore the promises made to the Church, do not belong to the bishops of the Church, as that " the gates of hell shall not prevail against it :" which certainly proves that the Church shall never totally fail ; but does not prove that the bishops, or any bishop of the Church, shall be infallible. For the bishops are not the Church ; there are distinct promises to the Church, and to the pastors and ministers of it, and they ought to be kept distinct, which will put an end to a great many controversies between us and the Church pf Rome. Thus, if St. Paul, in his Epistle to Timothy, 1 Tim. iU. 15, caUs the Church " the pUlar and ground of truth," whatever that signifies, it belorigs to the Church, or to the company of the faithful, not merely to the pastors and bishops of it. And therefore the infallibility of the Pope, or General Council, can never be proved from it, though " the pillar and ground of tmth" should signify infallibility. IjO the true notion op the Thus whatever authority Popes or General Councils may chaUenge in matters of faith, yet if they decree anything contrary to the common faith of Christians, their decrees are not the faith of the Church, but the faith of Popes and General CouncUs, who are not the Church, though they are the governors of it ; and yet under this venerable name of the catholic Church, every packed conventicle challenges an indisputable authority to its decrees. 2. Nay, as bishops are not the cathoUc Church, so neither are they the representatives of the cathoUc Church, much less is any one bishop the whole catholic Church rirtual. The office of a bishop is not to represent, but to govemthe Church, and therefore bishops are not the Church's representatives hy institution, no more than the king is the representative of his kingdom. How then do they come to be the Church's repre sentatives ? Did all the Christians in the world, who are the catholic Church, ever intrast them vrith this power? Did they ever resign up their faith into the hands of their bishops? This never was done, and yet no man has a representative hut by his ovra consent ; and if it could be done, bishops then must sit in CouncU, not only as bishops, but as lay representa tives, if two such different capacities are not inconsistent ; and yet bishops have challenged this authority only as bishops,, and excluded the laity, nay, presbyters themselves, from any votes ; and therefore such councils of bishops, who acted only as bishops, could not be the representatives of the catholic Church. In matters of discipUne and government, bishops act not as representatives, but governors of the Church, by that authority which they have received, not frora the people, but from Christ ; and their decrees and constitutions about such matters, have a sacred and venerable authority, when they do not contradict any dirine laws and institutions. But bishops have no authority over the faith of the Church ; nay, the Church herself has no authority to alter the faith, and there fore can give no such authority to her bishops : however, if she could, she never did, and therefore no council of bishops can be the Church representative in defining articles of faith. As bishops are the supreme pastors and teachers of the Church, they may declare what the faith is, and agree what doctrine shall be taught in their churches, and consent to censure and excommunicate those who will not profess to beUeve as they do ; but if they make any decrees contrary to the common faith of Christians, uo Christian is bound to CATHOLIC CHURCH EXPLAINED AND STATED. 151 believe thera, nor is ever the worse for their anatheraas and excoraraunications ; and it is a ridiculous thing for them to call this the faith of the catholic Church, which is only the decrees and definitions of some bishops in it, who are far enough from being the catholic Church. And this I think sufficiently proves, that the most General Council that ever was may err, and yet the catholic Church not err, for bishops are not the catholic Church, nor so much as the representatives of it ; and therefore could it be proved that the cathoUc Church could not err, this would not prove the infallibiUty of a General CouncU, which is not the Church, for the faith may still be preserved pure and uncorrupt among private Christians, even when General Councils err. 3dly, I observe farther, that the whole cathoUc Church on earth is not one organized body; for it is only the whole company of the faithful, and no ecclesiastical ministers or pastors belong to the definition of it ; and yet unless some oecumenical pastor be essential to the notion and definition of the catholic Church, it cannot be one organized body. The catholic Church indeed is organized by parts, that is, the whole com pany of the faithful are distributed into particular bodies under the government of particular bishops, which makes a particular Church, and is essential to the definition of it ; of which more presently : but the catholic Church itself is the whole company of the faithful, who are united in one body to Christ only, who is the only Head of his Church. Now hence it eridently foUows, 1 . That no organized Church can be the catholic Church, nor the bishop of it an oecumenical paStor; because the catholic Church is not organized, but every organized Church is a par ticular Church. Which shews how vain the pretences of the Church of Rome are to be the cathoUc Church, and of the Pope of Rome to be the universal bishop. 2. It as eridently follows, that there neither is, nor can be any risible tribunal of the cathoUc Church, which shall be the centre of catholic comraunion, and have authority over all par ticular Churches in matters of faith, and worship, and govem ment. For the catholic Church being no organized body, it has no authority, and can have no tribunal. 1. It has no authority. For the whole company of the faithful, which is the true notion of the catholic Church, are the mystical body of Christ, and in subjection to hira, as a wife is subject to her husband. The cathoUc Church is made 1 52 THE TRUE NOTION OP THE Up of particular and indiridual Christians, who are all imme diately united to Christ their Head, and are made one in him ; and though bishops, as the ministers of Christ, have received authority from him to govern the Church, which they exercise in particular Churches over which they are placed, yet as merabers of the catholic Church, they are not considered as bishops, but as private Christians ; for it is not their authority in the Church, but their union to Christ, which makes them members of his body ; and thus they are united to Christ no othervrise than all other private Christians are. Now if the catholic Church be only a company of private and particular Christians, united immediately to Christ, and made one body in him, the catholic Church has no more authority than parti cular Christians have, which is none at all. The catholic Church is united to Christ by a belief of his Gospel, obedience to his laws, and a participation of his Spirit, which is a state of per fect and absolute subjection to him, and therefore can have no authority to alter the faith, to make a new creed, or a new Gospel, which would be to have power over Christ, not to be subject to him. To be sure, unless we wUl grant this autho rity to every particular Christian, the catholic Church cannot have it, which is only the whole multitude of particular Chris tians, who are united singly to Christ, and made one body in him ; and therefore are not such a body as can make a new faith, and new laws, but are made one body by embracing the same faith, which they raust receive frora Christ, but have no authority to make ; because their receiving this faith unites them into one body in Christ, and they continue one body in Christ no longer than they profess this faith, and therefore never can have authority to change it. Where a raultitude of men unite themselves into one body or ciril society, to form and model their own government, and to make laws for themselves, there the whole authority is in the coramunity, and they may make and alter and repeal laws as they please : but where a society is formed by a voluntary submission of singular and particular persons to known and stated laws, and no man can be of this society vrithout submission to these laws, nor continue longer in it than he does submit to thera, it is a contradiction to say, that such a body of men have any power over the laws, because it is only their submission to such laws, which makes them such a society : the whole society in this case have no more authority than a single man, for they are not a society for government, but for obedience and subjection. CATHOLIC CHURCH EXPLAINED AND STATED. 153 Christ indeed has placed an authority in his Church for the instruction and govemment of it; but an authority in the Church, and the authority of the Church, are two very dif ferent things. The first signifies the authority of Christ, who is the Head ; the second is the authority of the Body, which is the Church : the Head has authority over his Church, and may appoint what ministers he pleases to exercise this autho rity, but the Church has no authority at all, no more than the body has, which is subject to the head. This may be thought a very nice distinction between the authority in the Church, and the authority of the Church, but it is as useful as it is trae : for though the authority of Christ must be much more sacred and venerable, than the authority of the Church, whatever authority it were supposed to have, yet the name of the cathohc Church is thought much more venerable than the name of bishops, though they are the ministers of Christ ; and therefore those who would impose upon the faith of Christians, talk of nothing less than the authority of the catholic Church, which sounds very big, and frights people into a submission. While they pretend only the authority of Christ's ministers, private Christians make bold to examine their comraission, and how far their authority reaches, and whether they do not prevaricate in the exercise of this authority, as it is possible ministers may do ; but the narae of the catholic Church strikes all dead, for who dare oppose the decrees of the catholic Church ? which is to conderan the whole catholic Church of error or heresy : who dares separate from the catholic Church ? which must be an unpardonable schism, and a state of damnation ; since it is universally agreed, that there is no salvation to be had out of the cathoUc Church : and thus when a packed conventicle of schismatics and heretics usurp to themselves the name of the cathoUc Church, they irapose upon Christians under so vene rable a disg-uise, and enslave thera to their own dictates ; but now all these arausements vanish, when we remember that the catholic Church has no authority; that whatever the authority of bishops in or out of council be, it is not the authority of the Church, but the authority of Christ, and it is not his authority neither, when they exceed their comraission, and teach such things as he has given no authority to teach ; and therefore we may reject such a councU of bishops, without condemning the catholic Church, and renounce their communion without sepa rating from the catholic Church. 154 THE TEUE NOTION OP THE And this very consideration, that the catholic Church has no authority, and therefore cannot innovate in matters of faith, nor alter the laws and institutions of our Saviour, is Uttle less than a demonstration, that there is no authority in the Church neither to do it. For the bishops and pastors of the Church, as they are Christ's rainisters, so they are themselves members of the catholic Church ; now as they are merabers of the ca tholic Church, they must receive nothing but what Christ has taught ; for the Church is founded on the faith of Christ, and has no authority to alter it : now is it imaginable, that bishops, as private Christians and merabers of the catholic Church, are obhged to beUeve nothing but what Christ has taught, and yet as bishops, or Christ's ministers, have authority to teach what Christ has not taught ? That is, that as bishops they have authority to teach that, which as private Christians, they them selves must not believe, if they will continue members of the catholic Church : nay, can we imagine, that Christ has given authority to his rainisters to teach that which the catholic Church must not receive ? For if the catholic Church has no authority, it must no more receive new doctrines than make them. I know, indeed, nobody vrill pretend to an authority of making new articles of faith, but only of declaring what the faith is ; but this is the very same thing, if this authority of declaring be such, as to oblige all people to believe such deck' rations without any dispute or examination ; for then they may make a new faith under a pretence of declaring the old ; as we see the Council of Trent has done, which has declared such doctrines as the Christian Church was a stranger to before ; and there is no difference, that I know of, between declaring and making an article of faith, which was neither declared nor made before. And therefore Christian bishops and pastors have no such authority either to make or to declare articles of faith, as can obhge all Christians to believe it merely upon their definitions and declarations : it is their office to preach the Gospel, to conrince and persuade gainsayers by Scripture and reason, which obhges all Christians diligently and impartially to attend to their instractions : but yet leaves every raan at hberty to judge, whether they preach the Gospel of Christ or their own inventions. 2dly. That the cathoUc Church has no authority, is erident from this also, that it has no risible tribunal wherein to exercise this authority. For the cathohc Church is nothing CATHOLIC CHURCH EXPLAINED AND STATED. 155 else but the whole company or multitude of indiridual Chris tians, who are all singly united to Christ, and made one body in him, and considered as the catholic Church are not the one body of Christ, nor can be, under any other notion. So that had the catholic Church any authority, it could be exercised only by the whole multitude of Christians, for nothing else is the catholic Church ; and this is as impossible, as it is for the whole multitude of Christians to meet together in one place. But cannot the catholic Church meet and act by its repre sentatives, as kingdoms and commonwealths do ? I answer ; I have already proved, that all the bishops of the Church, ranch less any one bishop, cannot represent the catholic Church ; for as bishops they are not the Church, but the governors of it under Christ ; and no raan ever yet thought of any other representatives for the Church ; and it is erident, de facto, that there are no other representatives ; for the whole multitude of Christians never did make choice of any such representatives, and no man can be represented but by his own consent : and if there could be any such represen tatives made by the unanimous vote of all the Christians in the world (which I think is morally impossible), yet then the highest and most sovereign authority in the Church would be derived frora the people, which I suppose the Church of Rorae vrill not very well Uke. Nay, indeed, it is absolutely impossible, that the catholic Church should be represented ; for the catholic Church is the whole raultitude of Christians, considered as the whole com pany or multitude ; now a multitude, as a raultitude, can never be represented by any thing but itself, there can be no formal, nor virtual multitude, but the whole entire number. The catholic Church signifies all Christians, and if you leave out any of the number, it is not all. and therefore is not the catholic Church. Now, if the catholic Church have any authority, it must have it as it is the catholic Church, that is, as it is the whole company of Christians ; for particular Christians have no such authority, as all men grant ; and therefore that which destroys the catholic Church, must destroy its authority too, aud any thing less than all, makes it cease to be catholic ; and therefore the cathoUc Church cannot be represented by a few of the whole number, because a few are not all, and thercr fore not the cathohc Church. It is a different case, indeed, when every particular man has an original right and share in the power, and the whole power is not formally seated in the 156 THE TRUE NOTION OP THE whole body, for then it may by common consent be contracted into one or more hands, by particular men's giving up their share in the government, as some fancy that ciril sorieties were first formed ; but where the power is formally seated in the whole and not in particular merabers, as the authority of the catholic Church raust be, if it be the authority of the Church considered as catholic, there it is erident the authority must continue in the whole, and can by no consent be put into a few hands ; and then it is impossible that the cathoUc Church can have any representatives, nor consequently any risible tribunal. And yet that dispute between the Church of Rome and some Protestant dirines, which is managed vrith so much warmth and zeal, about the perpetual risibility of the Church, issues in this controversy about a risible tribunal of the cathoUc Church ; for nothing else vrill do the Protestant cause any hurt, or the Popish cause any good. We do say, and we may safely say, that there always has been, and ever vrill be a risible Chnrch ; for while there are any men who risibly profess Christianity there will be a risible Church : and what then ? What then? Why, then, you must hear the Church; then you must submit to the authority of the Church ; then you must believe as the Church believes, and receive your faith from- the decrees and definitions of the Church. But pray, why so ? Has every visible Church this authority ? No ; but the catholic Church has. Suppose that : but how shall I speak with the catholic Church, which is dispersed over aU the world, and is nothing else but the whole nuraber of Christians all the world over ? Now it seems impossible for rae to speak vrith all the Christians in the world, and to know what their belief is in all matters of controversy ; and though the catholic Church is risible, and part of it is to be seen in England, and part in HoUand, and part in France, &c. yet no man can see it altogether, nor speak vrith all the Christians in the world together; and therefore though the cathoUc Church be risible, it cannot determine any one controversy, unless there be some visible catholic tribunal, frora which we must receive the faith of the whole'Church: this the Papists assert, and make the Church of Rome to be that risible catholic Church, or risible tribunal of the catholic Church, to which all Christians are bound to submit. Now, besides what I have already proved, that the catholic Church neither has, nor can have any such risible tribunal, suppose such a thing might be, yet this dispute about CATHOLIC CHURCH EXPLAINED AND STATED. 157 the risibility of the Church is nothing to the purpose ; for though the Church be risible, it does not hence follow, that the catholic Church has such a risible tribunal, to which all Christians must subrait : and if the risibility of the Church does not prove one suprerae catholic tribunal, what do the Papists get by the Church's risibiUty, or what do the Protes tants lose by it ? The Church of Rome is a risible Church, and so is the Church of England ; and if mere risibility give this authority to a Church, the Church of England has as good authority as the Church of Rome, because it is as risible a Church. 4. In the next place I observe, that the essential unity of the catholic Church is not an external and visible union of an organized body, because the catholic Church itself is not an organized body. There is and can be but one catholic Church, because the whole company of Christians is this cathoUc Church ; but then the essential unity of the catholic Church does not consist in an external and risible union of all Christians, which is the unity of civil societies, of kingdoms and commonwealths, and other inferior corporations, which are united under one risible government, which knits and ties thera together, as nerves and sinews do the members of the natural body ; but though there be an external and risible union in and between particular Churches, of which more pre sently, yet the unity of the catholic Church consists only in the union of all Christians to Christ, which makes them his one raystical body. This is. a very material point in opposition to the preten sions of the Bishop of Rorae, who will needs be the supreme and oecumenical pastor, and head of unity to the catholic Church ; and though the Christian world never owned him so, as has been abundantly proved by learned raen, especially by the learned Dr. Isaac Barrow, in his " Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy," which is a sufficient confutation of such a claim, yet it will be of no great use to shew, frora the nature of the catholic Church, and the essential unity of it, that it cannot be so ; and there are several considerations which wUl raake this very evident. 1 . That there is no other Head for the whole cathoUc Church on earth to be united to, but only Christ : for the cathoUc Church is the whole company of Christians ; and to whom can the whole company of Christians be united, but only to Christ ? For the whole clergy, as well as laity, are 158 THE TRUE NOTION OP THE included in the notion of the catholic Church, in the whole company of Christians ; and therefore unless you can find out a bishop who is not of the nuraber of Christians (and such an one would be a very monstrous head for the Christian Church), he cannot be the head, because he is a member of the catholic Church, and must himself, with the rest of Christians, be united to the Head : which I think is a demonstration, that no bishop can be the head of the catholic Church, because it is a contradiction to be the head and a meraber of the same body. A bishop is the pastor and governor of a particular Church, and a member of the universal Church ; but to be the head of the universal Church, of which he himself is a member, is a contradiction. 2. Nor can the essential unity of the Church consist in our union to any other head but Christ, because it is our union to Christ alone which makes the Church; and that which makes the Church, must make it one ; for what does not be long to the essence of a thing, cannot be the principle of an essential unity. It is the Church of Christ, because it is united to hira, and to hira only, by faith and the Christian sacraraents ; and therefore it is the one Church of Christ, be cause the whole Church is united to hira, and to him only, as it must be, if no other union can make a Church ; and where there is but one head of union, there can be but one body. No other union caf make a Church, and therefore no other union can be essential to the unity of the Church. 3. And therefore, though our Sariour had appointed an universal pastor, as the Bishop of Rome pretends to be ; yet he could not have been the head of umty to the catholic Church; he had in that case been the supreme governor, whom all Christians had been bound to obey ; nay, more than that, he had been the centre of Church-communion to all Christians; which is the external and risible unity of the Church, when all Christians Uve in the same communion, like one household and family. But there is a vast difference between the essen tial unity of the Church, and the external exercise of it in a risible comraunion among Christians ; between being one and liring in umty ; union to Christ alone makes the Church one, but the exercise of this unity in a risible communion, is a duty which results from our imity, and raust be expressed in such ways as Christ has prescribed, of which raore anon ; and had Christ appointed an universal pastor, communion vrith, and subjection to, this universal pastor had been necessary to CATHOLIC CHUECH EXPL.4.INED AND STATED. 159 the external unity of Church-eommunion, but yet had not been that which makes the Church one, which is one before and vrithout it; the not distinguishing of which, has occasioned great mistakes in this matter, as will appear in the process of this discourse. 4. I observe farther, that there is a vride difference between being a supreme pastor, and a vicarious head of the Church, a title which is given to the Bishop of Rome, not vrithout great injury to Christ our Head. Christ, had he pleased, might have appointed a supreme pastor for the government of his Church ; but as he is Head of the Church, he cannot have a ricar, or ricarious head : for though a head signifies a supreme govemor too, in Scripture phrase, yet Christ is not merely a head of government, but of union ; and though a governing head may have a ricar or lieutenant, yet a head of union caimot, no more than a natural head can ; for the union be tween Christ and his Church is as immediate as between the head and the members, between the husband and the wife, which will admit of no intermediate ricars. The Church is called the body and spouse of Christ, as I have already observed, for mystical reasons, because it is formed out of his broken and crucified body, as Eve was out of the body of Adam ; upon which account we are said to be flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone; that is, the Church is redeemed and purchased by the blood of Christ : and thus he is the Head of that body which he himself has bought at the price of his blood- We are united to Christ by faith in him, by being bap tized in his name, by feeding on the sacrament of his body and blood ; the effect of this union is, that we receive from hira the pardon of our sins, and the influences of his grace and Spirit : thus Christ is our Head, and thus none but Christ can be the head, not so much as the ricarious head of the Church, as I think I need not prove. We are redeemed by no other but Christ, and therefore the Church is his raystical body only : we are united to no other by faith and sacraments : our union to no other person can entitle us to the pardon of sin, and the grace of the Holy Spirit ; and therefore Christ alone is the head of union to his Church : it is a Church, and it is one Church, not by its union to the suprerae pastor on earth, if there were such an one, but by its union to Christ : for the unity of the Church consists in its union to its head, and it is evident that the Church can have no other head but Christ ; and therefore can have no other principle or centre of unity. 160 THE TEUE NOTION OP THE Now frora hence it plainly follows, that no Christian can separate from the cathoUc Church (in this sense of it, as it sig nifies the whole company and family of Christians, which is the true notion of the cathohc Church) while he continues a Chris tian ; for that is a contradiction, to be a Christian, and not to belong to the whole number of Christians ; that is, to be a Christian, and to be no Christian : for if he be a Christian, he belongs to the number of Christians, and then he is a member of the catholic Church, and consequently not a separatist from it : nothing can separate us from the catholic Church, but what forfeits our Christianity, either a final apostasy, or such heresies as are equivalent to apostasy : which shews how vainly the Church of Rorae charges us vrith schisra and separation from the catholic Church, because we disovra the authority of the Pope, their pretended head of the Church, and reject a corrupt comraunion, though we are Christians still, and we hope of a much purer comraunion than they are. Schism and separation is a breach of the external and risible comraunion of the Church, not of the essential unity of it ; the Church is one Church still, whatever breaches and schisras there are in its extemal communion ; for the unity of the catholic Church con sists in the union of the whole to Christ, which makes them one body in him, not in the external communion of the several parts of it to each other. And therefore it is not a separation from one another, but only a separation frora Christ, which is a separation from the catholic Church. But what the trae notion of schism is, I shall discourse more at large hereafter. 5. I observe further, that the indefectibility of the catholic Church does not depend upon the indefectibihty of any or ganized Churches ; for the catholic Church does not consist of organized Churches, as organized, but is made up of parti cular Christians ; and therefore, while the whole race of Chris tians does not fail in the world, the catholic Church cannot fail. There is no promise, that I know of, to any particular Church; that it shaU not fail, and all organized Churches are particular. Several of them have totally failed, others have been very greatly corrupted, both in faith and manners and worship ; but had these failures and corruptions been much greater and more general than ever they have been, yet while there are a number of good Christians preserved in the world, though not united in one visible body, the catholic Church does uot fail ; for since the catholic Church is not an organized Church, nor raade up of organized Churches as such, though CATHOLIC CHUECH EXPLAINED AND STATED. 161 all the particular organized Churches in the world were so cor rupt, as not to deserve the name of true Churches, if there be a number of good Christians preserved among them, though unknovra and concealed, as it was in the time of Elias, the catholic Church is safe amidst aU the corruptions of particular Churches. I am abundantly satisfied, that there always has been, since the first planting of Christianity in the world, and I beheve always will be to the end of the world, a true risible Church ; but yet I do not think the indefectibility of the Church neces sarily requires a perpetual visibihty ; that the Church raust needs be owned to fail, if there should be no risible organized Church, vrith whom we could hold communion. This indeed would mightily eclipse, but not extinguish the Church ; for it is certain the catholic Church subsists in single and indiridual Christians, who may he concealed from public notice, and therefore it is not sufficient to prove that the Church has failed, though there were no risible society of Christians, but what were corrupted vrith damnable practices and errors. It is very trae, were there no risible society of Christians, no administration of baptism, by which men are raade mem bers of the Christian Church, and this state should continue so long, tiU the whole race of baptized Christians were lost in the world, there would be too much reason then to say, that the Church had failed too ; for I cannot see how the Church can subsist vrithout a nuraber of baptized Christians ; but this never was the state of the Church, and I beUeve never vrill be ; for Antichrist hiraself sits in the temple of God, which sup poses that even in his reign there is a risible society of Chris tians. Now how corrupt and degenerate soever the external state of the risible Church may be, while there is a society of baptized Christians, though so corrupt in their external policy and government, faith and worship, that it may adnUt of a dispute, whether they are a true Christian Church or not, yet though the risible state of the Church may be Antichristian, there may be an inrisible nuraber of Christians among them, who raay preserve theraselves frora the corruptions, supersti tions, heresies, and idolatries of the risible Church ; and in these men the cathoUc Church is preserved from a total failure. Indeed this is the only difference between Protestant divines in this matter : they all agree, that the catholic Church shall not fail, because Christ has promised it shall not fail, that the VOL. III. M 162 THE TRUl! NOTIOK OP THE gates of hell shall not prevail against it ; but some doubt whether there shall be always a true visible organized Church in the world. They agree that there shall be always a risible society of Christians in the world, who shall profess the whole Christian faith, and administer the trae Christian sacraments, but they differ whether such a Church may be called a tme Christian Church, if together vrith the trae Christian faith and sacraments, they set up an Antichristian hierarchy, and impose an Antichristian faith and worship. Those who affirm that such a Church is a trae Christian Church, do consequently teach that the true Church shall be always visible, though it may be corrupt even to the degTeeof antichristianism; those who affirm that such a corrupt Church is not a true Churchs do also consequently affirm that the true Church may be sometimes inrisible, and consist only of such private Christians as preserve themselves from those corruptions which unchurch the risible Church : I may have occasion to consider this raore hereafter, all that I observe at present is, that this does not alter the case as to the indefectibihty of the Church ; for whUe there is a visible society professing the Christian faith, and administra ting the Christian sacraraents, the catholic Church may sub sist in an inrisible and unorganized number of Christians, who profess the true faith without such corrapt and antichristian mixtures. Were the catholic Church an organical body, then indeed it must be always risible, and the Church would faU if ever it became invisible ; but if the cathoUc Church be an un organized body of Christians, who are united only in Christ, it is possible that it may be unknown and invisible, as great numbers of private Christians may be, and yet the Church not fail. Now this shews the weakness and fallacy of several argu ments used by the Church of Rome. As 1 . That the per petual risibility of the Roman Church proves it to be that indefectible Church of which our Sariour promised, " that the gates of hell should not prevail against it." A promise which all men grant our Sariour made to the cathohc Church, not to any particular Church, that is, to the whole company of Chris tians, that there should never want a succession of trae beUevers in the world, not to any particular organized Church, or body of Christians, such as the Church of Rome is. And therefore the indefectibility of the Church cannot prove that it shall be always risible, and then the uninterrupted risibility of any Church cannot prove that it is indefectible ; for if the inde- CATHOLIC CHURCH EXPLAINED AND STATED. 163 fectible Church may be Sometimes inrisible, then that visible Church may not be always indefectible; when the indefectible Church is inrisible, to be sure that Church, which at that time is risible, is not the indefectible Church ; and thus I am sure it raay be, whether it has been or not ; but if it may be, the ar gument is naught. 2. And so is that argument to prove the Church to be infal Uble, because it is indefectible. "That it cannot err, because it never shall so grievously err as to cease to be a Church. The indefectibility of the Church, as you have already heard, does not necessarily prove that there shall be any one risible or ganized Church which shall never fail ; for the Church does hot fail while there are any true Christians in the world, it may be preserved in a nuraber of single and concealed Chris tians, who are neither known to one another, nor ranch less to the world. And therefore if indefectibility proves infalUbility, it proves only that there shall be some private infallible Chris tians, not that there is any risible infalUble Church. For it can prove only those to be infalUble who are indefectible ; and therefore since it does not necessarily prove that any risible organized Church shall be indefectible, it cannot prove any such Church to be infallible neither. "The infallibihty of pri vate Christians the Church of Rorae will not aUow ; and yet if indefectibUity prove infalUbility, this is aU the infalhbUity which the indefectibility of the Church can prove, that there shaU always, in the greatest degeneracy of the Church, be a nuraber of private infalUble Christians, who shall continue in the true faith and worship of Christ. When our Sariour says, that the gates of hell shall not prevaU against his Church, we may consider it either as a promise, or a prophecy, or both, that there always shall be some sound and orthodox beUevers in the world, who in the greatest degeneracy of the Church shall be the seeds of a reformation, and a new visible resurrection of it ; now I hope Christ can make good such a promise (if we consider it as a promise) without bestowing infalUbility Tipon any Christians ; for men may be orthodox Christians vrithout being infallible ; and if we consider it as a prophecy, I hope Christ can certainly foretel things which have no neces sary causes, and then he can foretel that there shall never want true believers, though it is possible there might be none ; that aU Christians shall not err, though they are all faUible, and therefore may err ; and then neither the promise nor the pro phecy can prove the infaUibiUty of any Christians : and this M 2 164 THE TRUE NOTION OP THE is all that Protestants can mean, when they say, that the catholic Church cannot err in fundamentals ; not that there is any visible society of Christians which is infaUible in its defi nitions of fundamental doctrines, but that the catholic Church, or the whole number of Christians, shall never err fundamen tally, that is, that there shall always be some true and orthodox believers in the Church. 3. Nor is it a good argument to prove any Chnrch to be a new upstart Church, because after some time of concealment it reassumes its risibihty, and appears openly in the world. The stabbing question, as the Church of Rome thinks, to the Reformed Churches, is, Where was your Church before Luther? Those who own the Church of Rome vrith all her corruptions to be a true Church, have a plain and easy answer to this. That the Church was before Luther, where it was afterwards ; for they did not make a new Church, but only reformed that part of the old which consented to such a reformation ; they pro fess the same faith stUl, have the same sacraraents, and the sarae Christian worship, but purged frora those innovations and corruptions which had deforraed the risible coramunion of the Roman Church, which can no more raake a new Church, than a man's washing off the dirt makes a new face. And I con fess, I think, those who deny the risible organized Church of Rome to be a true Church, do not want a good answer neither. For during the degeneracy of that Church, the Church might subsist in those private Christians, who preserved themselves in a great measure from the corruptions of that Church, which might more easily be done before the Reformation than since ; for many of their doctrines and practices were not then so pereraptorily decreed by their Councils, nor so strictly im posed on the consciences of men, as the CouncU of Trent has since done. And there are evidences enough, that there never wanted some in all ages, who have condemned their innova tions, and that profound ignorance, wherein that Church brought up honest and devout men, was the true reason why there were not more ; now all these men may be reckoned the seeds of the Reformation, out of which a risible Church would spring, as soon as a new light broke in upon the world. There was no failure of the Church, though it was obscured and con cealed ; we may as well say, that it is a new sun which rises every morning, not that which set at night, as make a new Church of the visible resurrection of old and primitive Chris tianity, the profession of which was never lost, though the pro- CATHOLIC CHURCH EXPLAINED AND STATED. 165 fessors of it were not so risible. If the true Church be inde fectible and never fails, it can never be new again ; and if the indefectibihty of the Church raay be preserved in sorae private and unknown Christians, the want of a risible society of such pure and orthodox Christians, cannot prove that the Church has failed ; and then when the old Christian Church appears again with a new glory, it is ridiculous to call it new, only because for some years it has been concealed. Thus I have considered " the true notion of the Catholic Church on earth," which there is so much talk of in our disputes with the Church of Rome ; and I hope have made it appear how little serrice this can do them. CHAP. II. A BRIEF DISCOURSE CONCERNING THE NOTES OF THE CHURCH: WITH SOME REFLECTIONS ON CARDINAL BELLARMINE's NOTES. If Cardinal Bellarmine had not told us, that this is a most profitable controversy,* I should very much have wondered at that pains which he and so many other of their great dirines have taken, to find out the Notes of the Church. For is not the catholic Church risible ? And if we can see which is this Church, what need we guess at it by marks and signs ? And that by such marks and signs too as are matter of dispute themselves! Cannot we distinguish between the Christian Church, and a Turkish mosque, or Jewish synagogue, or Pagan temple ? Cannot we, vrithout aU this ado, distinguish a Christian frora a Turk, or a Jew, or a Pagan ? And it vrill he as easy to find out a Christian Church, as it is to find out Christians ; for a Christian Church is nothing else but a society of Christians united under Christian pastors, for the worship of Christ; and wherever we find such a society as this, there is a Christian Church, and all such particular or national Churches aU the world over, raake up the whole Christian Church, or the universal Church of Christ. But this vrill not do the Cardinal's business : though the Christian Church is risible enough, yet not such a Church as he wants. For since there are a great many Christian Churches in the world, as the Greek, the Arminian, the Abyssinian, the Roman Church, he would find out which of these Churches is the catholic Church ; which after all their shuffles they can raake no better sense of, than which of the parts is the whole. Since there are many unhappy disputes amongst Christians, the use of Notes is to find out an infalUble Church, which must * Controv. tom. 2. I, 4. de Notis Ecclesiee. [De Controv. vol. 2. col. 159. Par. 1608.] NOTES OP THE CHURCH EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. 167 by an indisputable authority dictate to aU other Churches what they must beUeve and what they must practise ; and to bring all other Churches into subjection, they mustfind out a Church, out of whose communion there is no pardon of sin, no eternal life to be had. That is, in short, the use of notes is to prove the Church of Rome to be the only catholic Church, the only infallible oracle of faith, and final judge of controversies ; and that the pro mises of pardon of sin, and eternal life, are raade only to the Church of Rome, and to those other Cihurches which are in subjection to her. Thus Bellarmine unriddles this matter, that the usefulness of this inquiry after the notes of the true Church, is, because in the true Church only there is the true faith, the true^ remission of sins, the true hope of eternal salva tion ;* which is certainly true, that all this is to be had only in the trae Church of Christ. For there can be no true Church without the true faith ; and no remission of sins, nor hope of salvation out of the trae Church. But then all the Churches in the world, which profess the true faith of Christ, are such true Churches. But this vrill not do the business neither ; for it is not enough to know that every true Church professes the trae faith ; but we raust find out such a Church as cannot err in the faith, and has authority to correct the faith of all other Churches ; and we must allow the pardon of sin and eternal Ufe to be had in no other Church but this ; which is the only thing which can make such a Church the mistress of all other Churches ; and this Church must be the Church of Rorae, or else the Cardinal is undone vrith all his notes and marks of the Church. The observing this, gives us the true state of the controversy ; which is not, what it is which makes a Church a true Church ; which is necessary for all Christians to know, that they raay take care that nothing be wanting in their coramunion which is essential to a true Church ; which is the only use of notes that I know of. But the dispute is, how among aU the diri sions of Christendom, we may find out that only true Church, which is the mistress of all other Churches, the only infalUble guide in matters of faith, and to which alone the promises of pardon and salvation are made ; and by some notes and cha racters of such a Church, to prove that the Church of Rome * Omnes enim confitentur in sola vera Ecelesia esse veram fidem, veram peccatorum remissionem, veram spem salutis seteruEe. Bel. de Notis Ecclesise, cap. I. £Ibid.] 168 THE POPISH NOTES OP THE CHURCH is that Church. The first of these is what the Protestants in tend in those notes they give of the true Church ; to shew what it is which is essential to the being and constitution of a Christian Church ; for that, and none else, is a trae Church, which has all things essential to a true Church. The second is, what the Papists intend by their notes of a Church, to prove that the Church of Rome is the only trae Church : and some brief remarks upon both these ways, vrill abundantly serve for an introduction to a more particular examination of Cardinal Bellarmine's "Notes of the Church," which is the only design of these papers. It is no wonder that Papists and Protestants differ so much about the notes of the true Church, since the questions, which each of them intend to answer by their several notes, so vastly differ. When you ask a Protestant, what are the notes of a trae Church ? He answers to that question, what it is which is essential to a true Church ; or what it is which makes a Church a true Church ; that is, what a true Church is ; and examines the truth of his Church by the essential marks and properties of a Church. When you ask a Papist for notes of a true Church, he answers to that question. Which is a true Church ? and thinks to point you out to a trae Church by some external marks and signs, without ever inquiring what it is which is essential to a Church ; and this he must of necessity do, ac cording to his principles, for he can know nothing of reUgion, till he has found the Church from which he must leam every thing else. Let us consider, then, which of these is most rea sonable. First, to begin vrith the Protestant way of finding out the Church by the essential properties of a true Church : such as the profession of the trae Christian faith, and the Christian sacraments rightly and duly administered by persons rightly ordained, according to the institution of our Sariour, and the apostolical practice. This is essential to a true Church ; for there can be no true Christian Church vrithout the true Chris tian faith and Christian sacraments, which cannot be rightly adrainistered but by church-officers rightly and duly ordained. The regular exercise of discipline is not necessary to the being of the Church, but to the purity and good govemraent of it. This is the sura of what the Protestants aUege for the notes of the trae Church, and these are as infallible notes of a true C^hurch, as human nature is of a man ; for they are the essen tial principles of it. By this every man raay know whether EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. 169 he be a member of a true Church or not ; for where this is, there is a true Church ; where this is not, there is no trae Church, whatever other marks of a Church there be. And I know no other use of notes, but to find out what we seek for. In answer to such notes as these. Cardinal Bellarmine ob jects three things : — 1 . That notes, whereby we wiU distinguish things, raust not be common to other things, but proper and pecuUar to that of which it is a note. As if you would describe a man to me, whom I never saw, so as that I may know him when I meet him ; it is not enough to say, that he has two hands, or two eyes, &c., because this is common to all raen. And this, he says, is the fault of these notes : for, as for the sincere preach ing of .the truth, or the profession of the true Christian faith, this is common to all sects, at least in their own opinion ; and the same may be said of the sacraments. All sects and profes sions of Christians, either have the trae faith and sacraraents, or at least think that they have so ; and therefore these marks cannot risibly distinguish the tree Church from any other sect of Christians. Now, I must confess, these notes, as he well observes, are common to aU Christian Churches, and were intended to be so ; and if this does not answer his design, we cannot help it. The Protestant Churches do not desire to confine the notes of the Church to their own private communions, but are very glad, if all the Churches in the world be as true Churches as them selves. The whole cathoUc Church, which consists of a great many particular diocesan or national Churches, has the same nature ; and when the whole consists of univocal parts, every ¦part raust have the same nature vrith the whole ; and there fore, as he who would describe a man, must describe him by such characters as fit all mankind, so he who gives the essential characters of a Church must give such notes as fit all true Churches in the world. This, indeed, does not fit the Church of Rome, to raake it the only cathohc and the only true Church, nor do we intend it should ; but it fits all true Churches, wherever they are, and that is much better. To answer then his argument : When we give notes which belong to a whole species, as we must do when we give the notes of a true Christian Church (there being a great many trae Churches in the world, which raake up the catholic or universal Church), we must give such notes as belong to the 170 THE POPISH NOTES OP THE CHUECH whole kind; that is, to aU true Christian Churches. And though these notes are common, indeed, to all true Christian Churches, yet they are proper and pecuhar to a true Christian Church, as the essential properties of a man are common to aU men, but proper to mankind : and this is necessary to make them trae notes, for such notes of a true Church as do not fit all true Churches, cannot be true notes. As for what the Cardinal urges, " That all sects of Chris tians think themselves to have the true faith and true sacra ments," I am apt to think they do ; but what then ? If they have not the trae faith and true sacraraents, they are not true Churches, whatever they think of it ; and yet the true faith and true sacraraents are certain notes of a true Church. A purchase upon a bad title, which a man thinks a good one, is not a good estate ; but yet a purchase upon a title, which is not only thought to be, but is a good one, is a good estate. AU that can be said in this case is, that men can be no more cer tain that they have a true Church, than they are that tbey have a true faith and trae sacraraents, and this I readily grant. But as men's mistake in this matter does not prove that there is no true faith, nor true sacraments, so neither does it prove that a true faith and true sacraments are not notes of the true Church. 2. The Cardinal's second objection is, "That the notes of anything must be more knovra. than the thing itself;" which we readUy grant. Now, says he, " Which is the true Church is more knowable than which is the trae faith :" and this we deny, and that for a very plain reason, because the trae Church cannot be known vrithout knowing the true faith : for no Church is a true Church which does not profess the true faith. We may as well say that we can know a horse, vrith out knowing what the shape and figure of a horse is, which distinguishes it from all other creatures, as that we can know a Christian Church, vrithout knowing what the Christian faith is, which distinguishes it frora all other Churches : or, we may as well say, that we can know anything without know ing what it is, since the very essence of a true Chnrch consists in the true faith, which therefore must he first known before we can know the true Church. But the Cardinal urges, " That we cannot know what trae Scripture is, nor what is the trae interpretation of Scripture, but from the Church ; and therefore we must know the Church before we can know the trae faith." As for the first, I readUy EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. 171 grant, that at this distance from the writing the books of the New Testament, there is no way to assure us, that they were written by the Apostles, or Apostohcal men, and owned for inspired writings, but the testimony of the Church in all ages. But herein we do not consider thera as a Church, but as credible witnesses. Whether there can be any such thing as a Church or not, we can know only by the Scriptures : but without knowing whether there be a Church or not, if we Ipiow that for so many hundred years these books have been owned to be written by such men, and have been received frora the Apostles' days tUl now by all who call themselves Christians, this is as good an historical proof as we can have for anything ; and it is the authority of an uninterrupted tradition, not the authority of a Church, considered as a Church, which moves us to beUeve them : for, setting aside the autho rity of tradition, how can the authority of a company of men, who call themselves the Church, before I know whether there l^e any Church, move me to beheve anything which was done sixteen hundred years ago ? But there is a company of men in the world, and have been successively for sixteen hundred years (whether they be a Church or not, is nothing to this question), who assure me, that these books, which we call the Scriptures, were written by such inspired raen, and contain a faithful account of what Christ did, and taught, and suffered ; and therefore I believe such books ; and from them I learn what that true faith is which makes a trae Christian Church. As for the trae interpretation of Scripture, that we cannot understand what it is vrithout the Church, this I also deny. The Scriptures are very intelligible to honest and diligent readers, in all things necessary to salvation ; and if they be not, I desire to know how we shall find out the Church ; for certainly the Church has no charter but what is in the Scrip ture : and then, if we raust believe the Church before we can believe or understand the Scriptures, we must beUeve the Church before we can possibly know whether there be a Church or not. If we prove the Church by the Scripture, we must beUeve and understand the Scripture before we can know the Church. If we beUeve and understand the Scriptures upon the authority and interpretation of the Church, con sidered as a Church, then we must know the Church before the Scripture. The Scripture cannot be known vrithout the Church, nor the Church without the Scripture, and yet one of them must be known first ; yet neither of them can be known 172 THE POPISH NOTES OF THE CHURCH first, according to these principles, which is such an absurdity, as all the art of the world can never palliate. 3. The Cardinal's third objection is, " That the true notes of the Church must be inseparable from it ;" whereas the Churches of Corinth and Galatia did not always teach trae doctrine, some of the Church of Corinth denying the resurrec tion, and the Galatians warping towards Judaism ; and the Church of Corinth being guUty of great miscarriages in re ceiving the Lord's Supper; and yet were owned for true Churches by the Apostles. An argument which much became the Cardinal to use, it being the best eridence I know of for the Church of Rorae being a true Church, that every corruption in faith and sacraments do not unchurch ; but how this proves that true faith and true sacraments are not an essential note and character of a true Church, I cannot guess. I would desire any one to tell me for him, whether a corrupt faith and false sacraments be the notes of a true Church, or whether it be no matter as to the nature of a Church, what our faith and sacraments are. Secondly, Let us now consider the Cardinal's way, by some certain marks and notes, to find out which is the true Church, before we know what a true Church is. To pick out of aU the Churches in the world one Church, which we must own for the only true Church, and reject all other Churches which do not subject themselves to this one Church. To fluid out such a Church, on whose authority we must rely for the whole Christian faith, and in whose communion only pardon of sin is to be had. That this is the use of notes in the Church of Rorae, I have already shewn you ; and truly they are very pretty things to be proved by notes ; as to consider them particularly. 1 . To find out which is the true Church, before we know what a true Church is. This, raethinks, is not a natural way of inquiry, but is hke seeking for we know not what. There are two inquiries in order of nature before " which is the tme Church," viz. whether there be a true Church or not, and what it is. The first of these the Cardinal takes for granted, that there is a Church ; but I wont take it for granted, but desire these note-makers to give me some notes to prove that there is a Church. There is indeed a great deal of talk and noise in the world about a Church, but that is no proof that there is a Church ; and yet it is not a self-erident proposition, that there is a (Church, and therefore it must be proved. EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. 173 Now that there is a Church, must be proved by notes, as well as which is this true Church, or else the whole design of notes is lost, and I would gladly see those notes, which prove that there is a Church, before we know what a Church is. To understand the mystery of this, we must briefly consider the reason and use of notes in the Church of Rome, according to the Popish resolution of faith into the authority of the Church. The first thing we raust know is, which is the true Church, for we must receive the Scriptures, and the interpretation of them, and the whole Christian faith and worship from the Church, and therefore can know nothing of religion till we have found the Church. The use then of notes is to find out the Church before, and vrithout the Scriptures ; for if they admit of a Scripture proof, they must allow that we can know and under stand the Scriptures vrithout the authority or interpretation of the Church, which undermines the very foundation of Popery. Now I first desire to know how they vrill prove that there is a Church without the Scripture ? That, you vrill say, is risible itself, for we see a Christian Church in the world ; but what is it I see ? I see a company of men who call ¦ theraselves a Church, and this is all that I can see ; and is this seeing a Church ? A Church must have a divine original and institu tion ; and therefore there is no seeing a Church vrithout seeing its charter, for there can be no other note or mark of the being of a Church but the institution of it. And this proves that we cannot know that there is a Church, vrithout knovring in some measure what this Church is, for the charter which founds the Church raust .declare the nature and constitution of it, what its faith and worship and laws and privileges are. But now these essential characters of a Church must not be reckoned by the Romanists among the notes of a Church, for then we raust find out the true Church by the true faith and the true worship ; not the true faith by the true Church, which destroys Popery. Hence it is, that these note-makers never attempt to give us any notes, whereby we shall know that there is a Church, or what this Church is, for there are no notes of these, but such as they dare not give, viz. " The authority of the Scriptures, and every man's private judgment of the sense and the inter pretation of them ;" for, at least till we have found a Church, we must judge for ourselves, and then the authority of the Church coraes too late ; for we must first judge upon the whole of rehgion, if we must find out a true Church by the true faith. 174 THE POPISH NOTES OF THE CHUECH before we can know the true Church ; and we cannot rely on her authority, before we know her, and therefore they take it for granted that there is a Church, which they can never prove in their way, and attempt to give sorae notes whereby to know which is the Church, and then learn what the Church is, from the Church itself, which is like giring marks whereby to know an unicorn, before I know whether there be an unicorn or not, or what it is. 2. Another blunder, in this dispute about notes, is, that they give us notes whereby to find out the true cathoUc Church, before we know what a particular Church is. For aU Bellar mine's notes are intended only for the catholic Church ; and therefore his first note is the name Catholic ; whereas the catholic Church is nothing else but aU trae Christian Churches in the world, united together by one comraon faith and wor ship, 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 tme Christian Church ; and the catholic Church is all the trae Christian Churches in the world, which have all the same nature, and are in some sense of the same communion, so that it is as impossible to know what the catholic Church is, before we know what a particular Church is, as it is to know what the sea is, before we know what water is. Every trae, single, particular Church has the whole and entire nature of a Church, and would be a true Church, though there were no other Church in the world, as the Christian Church at Jerusalem was before any other Christian Churches were planted ; and therefore there can be no other notes of a true Church, but what belong to every true particular Church, and that can be nothing but what is essential to a Church, and what all tme Christian Churches in the world agree in, viz. the true faith and worship of Christ. Now, so far as BeUarmine's notes belong to every trae parti cular Church, so far we allow them, and let the Church of Rome make the best of thera she can, for we doubt not to make our claim to thera as good, and ranch better than her's ; but he has naraed very few such : the 6th, the agreement and consent in doctrine vrith the ancient and apostolic Church, which is the same with his second note conceming antiquity, which must refer to the antiquity of its doctrine ; for an ancient Church, though founded many years since, if it have innovated in doctrine, cannot plead antiquity ; and a Church EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. 175 founded but yesterday, which professes the same ancient faith, may : and the 8th, the holiness of its doctrine, are the chief, if not the only notes of this nature ; and these we will stand and fall by : many of his other are not properly the notes of a true Church, any otherwise than as they are testimonies of the truth of common Christianity, which is professed by all true Churches ; and if they are notes of the Church, so every true particular Church has a share in thera. Such as his 9th, the efficacy of doctrine. The 10th, the holiness of the lives of the first authors and Fathers of our religion ; and I suppose the holiness of Christ and his Apostles give testiraony to the truth of common Christianity, and therefore to all Churches who profess the common faith once delivered to the saints. The 11th, the glory of miracles, which also proves the truth of Christian religion ; and I hope a little better than Popish miracles do transubstantiation. The 12th is the spirit of prophecy, which, as far as it is a good note, belongs to the religion, not to the Church. Other notes he assigns, which I doubt will prove no notes at all, as the 13th, 14th, and loth, because they are not always true, and at best uncertain. His 3rd and 4th notes are not notes of a Church, but God's promises made to his Church ; as of a long duration, that it shall never faU, and amplitude or extent, and multitude of believers. These promises we beUeve God vrill fulfil to his Church, but they can be no notes which is the true Church. For the first of these can never be a note till the day of judg ment. That Church which shall never be destroyed is the true Church, but a bare long continuance is no mark of a true Church ; for an apostolical Church may continue by the patience and forbearance of God many hundred years, and be destroyed at last, and then this argument of a long duration is confuted. And as for ampUtude and extent, that is not to distinguish one Christian Church from another, that the most numerous Church should be the traest ; but to distinguish the Christian Church from all other religions ; and then I doubt this prophecy has not received its just accoraplishraent yet, for though we take in all the Christian Churches in the world, and not exclude the greatest part of thera, as the Church of Rome does, yet they bear but a small proportion to the rest of the world. And now there are but three of his fifteen notes of the Church left. The first concerning the name Cathohc, which makes every Church a catholic Church, which will call itself 176 THE POPISH NOTES OP THE CHURCH SO : though catholic does not declare what a Church is, but in what communion it is, and is no note of a trae 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 catholic communion, as catholic signifies the most general and universal ; but yet the fourth part, which is sincere, would be the best and truest Church, and the cathoUc Church, as that signifies the communion of all orthodox and pure Churches. His fifth note is, " The succession of bishops in the Church of Rome from the Apostles till now." This 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 apostolical bishops, by this note are as good Churches as they. So that this is a note common to all true Churches, and therefore can do the Church of Rome no service. His seventh note indeed 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 that vrill be examined hereafter. But it is like the confidence of a Jesuit, to make that the note of the Church, which is the chief subject of the dispute. The sum is this : There can be no notes of a true Church, but what belong to all trae Churches : for though there is but one catholic Church, yet there are a great raany true particular Churches, which raake up this catholic Church, as homoge- neal parts, which have all the same nature. But now very few of the Cardinal's notes belong to all true Churches ; and those which do so signify nothing to his purpose, because they are common to more Churches than the Church of Rome. And as for the catholic Church, that is knovra only by particular Churches ; for it is nothing else but the union of all trae Churches in faith and worship, and one comraunion, as far as distinct Churches at a great distance are capable of it : and therefore there is no other way to know which is the cathoUc Church, but by knovring all the true Churches in the world, which either are in actual communion vrith one another, or are in a disposition for it, whenever occasion is offered : for it is EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. 177 impossible that all true Christian Churches all the world over, should ever join in any risible and extemal acts of communion : and, therefore, though we know and believe, that there is a cathoUc Church, because we are assured that all true Churches in the world are but one Church, the one body and spouse of Christ ; yet it is next to impossible to know all the parts of the catholic Church (vrithout which we caimot know the whole catholic Church), because we cannot know all the particular trae Churches all the world over. Nor indeed is there any need we should ; for we may certainly know, which is a truly cathoUc Church, without knowing the whole cathoUc Church. For every Church which professes the true catholic faith, and imposes only catholic terms of coraraunion, and is ready, out of the principles of brotherly love and charity (that cement of cathoUc communion), to communicate with all Churches, and to receive all Churches to her coraraunion upon these terras, is a traly catholic Church : which shews how ridiculous it is to make the catholic Church our first inquiry, and to pretend to give notes to find out the true cathoUc Church by, before we know what a true particular Church is. But the mystery of this vrill appear raore in what foUows. 3rdly. For another raystery of finding the true Church by notes, is to pick out of all the Christian Churches in the world one Clhureh, which we must own for the only catholic Church ; and reject all other Churches as heretical or schismatical, or un-cathoUc Churches, who refuse obedience and subjection to this one catholic Church. For if this be not the intent of 'it, what will all the notes of the Church signify to prove, that the Church of Rome is the ordy true catholic Church ? And if they do not prove this, the Cardinal has lost his labour. For though the notes he assigns were the notes of a true Church, yet they may, and must belong to all other trae Churches, as well as to the Church of Rorae ; unless he can prove that there is but one true Church, or but one Church, which is the rais- tress of all other Churches, and the only principle and centre of cathoUc unity. And this ought to have been proved first, before he had thought of the notes of the Church. So that there are raany 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 : for though we all grant, that there is but one cathoUc Church, yet we say, there raay be, and hope, nay, raore than so, know that there are many true Churches, which make up the cathoUc Church. VOL. III. N 178 THE POPISH NOTES OF THE CHUECH Vet before the notes of a true Church can do any serrice to the Church of Rome, they must prove, that there is but one trae Church in the world ; and then it vrill signify something to prove the Church of Rome to be that true Church. 'They must prove also, that the catholic Church does not signify all the particular true Churches that are in the world ; but some one Church, which is the fountain of cathohc unity ; which all other Churches are bound to submit to, and com municate with, if they will be merabers of the cathohc Church. For though all the Churches in the world were in subjection to that Church, yet they receive their cathoUcism from their communion vrith that Church ; and therefore that only is the cathoUc Church. It is not merely the coramunion of aU Churches together, which makes the cathohc Church; but it is the subjection of all Churches to that one catholic Church, which makes them catholic : so that they must prove, that there is one particular Church, which is the catholic Church ; that is, that a part is the whole ; that one particular Church is all the Churches of the world ; for so the cathoUc Church signifies in ancient writers. This is so absurd, that some of our modern advocates for the catholic Church of Ronie tell us, that they do not mean the particular diocese of Rome by the catholic Church, but all those Churches which are in com munion with the Church of Rome : but suppose this, yet it is only the Church of Rome which makes all the other Churches catholic, and therefore she only is the catholic Church. And I will presently make them confess it to be so : for let us sup pose, that no other Churches should submit themselves to the Church of Rome (by the Church of Rome understanding the particular diocese of Rome) would she be the catholic Church or not ? If notwithstanding this she would be the catholic Church ; then it is erident, that they make the particular Church of Rome the catholic Church ; if she would not, then I cannot see how coraraunion with the Church of Rome is essential to the catholic Church. These things, I say, ought to have been proved, before the Cardinal had given us the notes of the Church ; for it is a hard thing to prove by notes, that the particular Church of Rome is the only catholic Church, till it be proved, that a par ticular Church may be the catholic Church, or that there is one particular Church, which is the catholic Church. This he knew we all deny ; and it is a ridiculous thing to think to convince us by notes, that the Church of Rome is the particular EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. 179 Catholic Church; when we deny that there is any such Church; and affirm that it is a contradiction to ovra it ; as great a con tradiction, as it is to say, that a particular Church is the universal Church. 4thly. But when I consider the farther design of these note- makers, to find out such a Church on whose authority we must rely for the whole Christian faith, even for the Holy Scrip tures themselves, it makes me raore adraire, that they should think this could be done by some notes of a Church ; especiaUy by such notes as the Cardinal gives us. For suppose he had given us the notes of a true Church, which is the utmost he can pretend to ; before we can hence Conclude that this Church is the infalUble guide, and uncon trollable judge of controversies, we must be satisfied, that the true Church is infallible. This indeed Bellarmine attempts to prove in his Third Book of the Church ; and it is not my con cern at present to inquire how he proves it. But I am sure this can never be proved but by Scripture ; for unless Christ have bestowed infallibiUty on the Church, I know not how we can prove she has it ; and whether Christ have done it or not, can never be known but by the Scriptures : so that a man must believe the Scriptures, and use his own judgment to under stand thera, before it can be proved to hira, that there is an infallible Church ; and therefore those who resolve the belief of the Scriptures into the authority of the Church, cannot, without great irapudence, urge the authority of the Scriptures to prove the Church's infallibiUty ; and yet thus they all do ; nay, prove their very notes of the Church from Scripture, as the Cardinal does : and think this is no circle neither, because we heretics believe the Scriptures without the authority of their Church, and therefore are willing to dispute with them out of the Scriptures. But this is a fault on our side, and when we dispute with them, whatever we do at other tiraes, we should not beUeve the Scriptures, till they proved them to us their way, by the authority of their Church ; and then we should quickly see what blessed work they would raake of it. How they would prove their Church's infalhbUity, 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 beUeve the Scriptures, and every thing else. I confess, I would gladly hear what notes they would give a Pagan to find out the true infalUble Church by. N 2 180 THE POPISH NOTES OP THE CHURCH It is certainly a most senseless thing to resolve all our faith into the authority of the Church, as if the Church were the first object of our faith in religion ; whereas it is deraonstrable, that we must know and believe most of the articles of the Christian faith, before we can know whether there be any Church or not. The order observed in the Apostles' Creed is a plain evidence of this, for all those Articles which are before the Holy Catholic Church, raust in order of nature be known before it. That there is a God, who raade the world ; that Jesus Christ is the only Son of God, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, bom of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried ; and descended into hell ; that he rose again the third day from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, and frora thence shall corae to judge the quick and the dead. I beUeve in the Holy Ghost ; and then we raay add the Holy CathoUc Church, and not tUl then. For the Church is a society of raen for the worship of God, through the faith of Jesus Christ, by the sanctification of the Holy Spirit, which unites them into one mystical body: so that we must know Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, before we can know what the catholic Church means. And is it not strange then, that our faith must be founded on the authority of the Church. when we must first know all the great articles of our faith, before we can know anything about a Church ? This inverts the order of our Creed, which, according to the principles of the Church of Rome, should begin thus : I believe in the Holy Catholic Church, and upon the authority of that Church, I beUeve in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost : and no doubt but the Apostles, or those Apostohcal men who framed the Creed, would have put it so, had they thought the whole Christian faith must be resolved into the authority of the Church. This short discourse, I think, is enough in general concem ing the Notes of the Church ; and I shall leave the particular examination of Cardinal Bellarmine's Notes to other hands, which the reader may expect to foUow in their order. EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. 181 A VINDICATION OF THE BRIEF DISCOURSE CONCERNING THE NOTES OF THE CHURCH. IN ANSWER TO A LATE PAMPHLET, ENTITLED, " The Use and great Moment of the Notes of the Church, as delivered by Cardinal Bellarmine, De Notis Ecclesiee, justified." When we are almost tired vrith grave and serious disputes, it is very corafortable to raeet vrith a pleasant and diverting adversary, who serves instead of a Prevaricator^ or Terra Filius, to refresh and recruit our spirits with a scene of mirth. And though this Justifler of Bellarmine's Notes looks very de murely, and argues very logically, and seems to be in very good earnest, yet a Merry Andrew vrill be a Merry Andrew still, though he be dressed up in the habit of a philosopher ; and therefore I raust beg my reader's pardon, if I cannot for bear smiling sometimes, though to pay due respect to ray ad versary, and to raaintain a just decorum, I mil do it very gravely too. He begins very moringly :* "The world is come to a fine pass, when it shall as good as deny Christ's one holy cathoUc Church." This is very wicked indeed ! But who are these miscreants, that dare do such a thing ? A company of sense less wretches, who deny Christ's Church, and yet confess, " That there is no remission of sins, or eternal salvation out of it." Then, I suppose, they are raen who do not care ranch for salvation, nor sense: for to deny a Church, out of which they confess there is no salvation, is to resolve to be daraned ; and to say, that salvation is not to be had out of the Church, and yet that Christ has no such Church, deserves daranation, as much as nonsense does. And therefore I suppose, by " as good," he does not raean that they altogether deny it, but do something " as good," or rather as bad as that ; but what this should be, I cannot guess, unless it be to deny the Roman Catholic Church to be this one holy cathoUc Church of Christ, and that indeed is a very sad thing too. And " they seek to * The Use and great Moment of Notes, p. I. [Lon4. 1687,] 182 the POPISH NOTES OP THE CHUiRCH baffle those, who by prayer and guidance of God's good Spirit, search to find it out," i. e. they confute Bellarmine's " Notes of a Church," and that must be confessed to be a very sad thing also, and " as good as denying Christ's one holy catholic Church." Well ! Cardinal Bellarraine (after others) " hath to very good purpose lent his helping hand to shew us the city built on a hill." But it had been better he had lent us his eyes ; for Protestants see vrith their eyes, and not vrith their hands; and notwithstanding his pointing to it, we cannot see what he would shew us, unless it be the Church buUt on seven hills. But this is all* " to little purpose with the obstinate, who vrill not agree neither what the Church is, no nor what a note raay be." This is unpardonable obstinacy, that we de sire the Cardinal, or any one for hira, first to tell us what a trae Church is, before he tells us which is the trae Church ; to explain the nature before he gives us the external notes and marks of a Church ; which is as unreasonable as to ask what a hind and a panther is, before we ask of what colour they are, whether white or spotted ; and who would think any one should be so perverse, as to ask what a note is, which our author will give us a learned definition of presently. The Discourser had said, p. 166, " That a Church is a society of Christians united under Christian pastors for the worship of Christ, and wherever we find such a society as this, there is a Christian Church ; and aU such particular or national Churches all the world over, make up the whole Christian Church, or the universal Church of Christ." That is, (says the Justifier, p. 2,) " whatsoever therefore is the denomination of beUevers, Abyssinian or Armenian, Greek, Roman, let us add, Lutheran, Calrinist, with a wide &c., they are each of them Churches of Christ," (suppose this, of which more presently, and if we allow the Roman, they may modestly allow all the rest,) "and the Church universal is nothing else but the ag gregate or omnium gatherum" (very elegantly !) " of all such professions." And what then ? The Church universal is made up of all particular Churches. What then, do you say? Why pray, " consider, whoever thou art, good reader, the Church- cathohc consisting of all nations, Jew and Gentile, and there fore primarily called Cathohc" (and therefore not from their union to the Bishop of Rome, as the head of cathoUc unity), * [Ibid.] p. 2. EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. 183 " had its plantation by our blessed Lord and his Apostles, in one faith and one coinmunion, antecedently to all such diri sions that now or then were made by the craft and policy of Satan." A notable observation this! That the faith and comraunion of the Church was one, before it was dirided : What then ? " And therefore far is the universal Church from being an aggregate of all such breaches of faith and cha rity." "An aggregate of breaches," an union of dirisions may possibly be as good a Church as it is sense. But though " breaches" cannot very well be " aggregated," it is possible that two divided Churches may both belong to the one body of Christ, as quarrelling brethren raay still be the children of the same father, and owned by him too, though corrected and punished for their quarrels. Churches consist of raen, who are liable to mistakes and passions, and therefore may quarrel and separate from each other, while they are both united to Christ in faith and worship. For though the bishops, and pastors, and members of distinct and co-ordinate Churches ought to maintain a brotherly correspondence, and exercise all acts of communion that distant Churches are capable of with each other, upon account of that common relation they all have to Christ, in whom they are united into one body ; and our coraraon Head will exact a severe account of those who cause divisions ; yet if such dirisions happen as separate us from each other, but do not diride us from Christ, each Church may continue a trae Church still, and belong to the one mys tical body of Christ, though there may be sorae scandalous breaches and dirisions araong them. What is it then that unites any Church to Christ, but the trae faith and worship of Christ ? And if contending Churches may both retain the true Christian faith and worship, at least in such a degree as not to be unchurched, the external peace of the Church is broken, which is a very great crime, and will fall heavy upon the authors of it ; yet if they both belong to Christ, this " ag gregate of breaches, and ominum gatherum of professions," as our author very vrittily speaks, may be united in Christ's rays tical body. For though they fling one another out of the Church, our coraraon Saviour may chastise their follies, but ovra them both, as in such a divided state of Christendom, we have great reason to hope he vrill. But let us hear what our author says is the catholic Church. " It is only a comprehension of all those Churches which keep to the unity of the faith, and persist in their first undirided 184 THE POPISH NOTES OF THE CHUECH estate in the bond of universal peace." By the " unity of the faith," I hope he means, that one faith, in which, as he teUs us, Clhrist and his Apostles planted the Church ; and then I doubt this vrill fall hard upon the Church of Rome, which rejects all other Churches who do retain this one Apostolic faith, if they disown the new articles of the Trent Creed ; and the " first undirided estate" of the Church was settled in an equality and brotherly association of bishops and Churches, not in the empire of one over all the rest, and then this is more severe upon the Church of Rome than Protestants de sire ; for she has destroyed this first undivided state, by chal lenging such a supremacy as enslaves all other Churches to her, and therefore is so far from being the one catholic Church, that if this definition be true, she is no part of it. And as for " the bond of universal peace," what claim she can lay to that, let the cruel persecutions of those innocent Christians, whom she calls heretics, the excomraunication of whole Churches, the deposing of princes, and all the blood that has been shed in Christendom under the banners of Holy Church, vritness for her. And thus we come to the " notion of a note or mark,'' which, he says, " is clear by its definition," p. 3. and there fore I hope he vrill give us such a definition as is self-erident, or which all mankind agree in; for a definition which the contending parties do not agree in, can clear nothing. Let us then hear his definition : " That it is a most sensible appearance in or about the subject inquired after, whereby we are led toward the knowledge of the present eristence or essence of the said subject." And from hence he concludes, " It is manifest then, that a note of a thing raust be extra- essential of itself, because by it, and the light from thence, we arrive to the knowledge of the essence." And he adds, " upon which grounds you see the reasonable demands of those, who challenge, first. That a distinctive mark or note must be more known than the thing notified : secondly. That a note must be in conjunction at least, in some measure proper, not com mon or indifferent to many singulars, ranch less to contraries." Now all that I can pick out of this is, 1 . That the exist ence or essence of things raust be known by notes. 2. That such notes whereby we discover the existence or essence of things, must be extra-essential, or not belong to the essence of it. And yet, 3. That the note must not be common, but proper to the thing of which it is a note. Which are as pretty EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. 185 notions as a man shall ordinarily meet vrith, and therefore I shall briefly examine them. First, That the existence or essence of things must be known by notes. For if the existence and essence of things may be known without notes, this dispute about notes is to no purpose. And yet how raany things are there, whose existence and essence are known vrithout notes ? Who desires any note to know the sun by ? To know what light, or taste, or sounds, pain, or pleasure is ? The presence of these objects, and the notice our senses give us of thera, that is, the things them selves, are the only notes of themselves. The use of signs or notes, is only to discover the existence of such things as are absent, inrisible, or future ; but what is present and visible, exposed to the notice of sense or reason, is best known by it self, and can be rightly knovra no other way ; and therefore since all the dispute is about marks of the Church, he ought to prove that the Church is such a society as can be known only by notes, and then it must either be absent, inrisible, or future ; for all other things may be known by themselves with out notes. Secondly, Especially since he vrill allow nothing to be a note but what is extra-essential, or does not belong to the essence of the thing ; which seems to me a very extraordinary way of finding out the existence or essence of things by such notes as do not belong to their essence ; and then I think they cannot prove their existence. For how can I find out any thing vrithout knowing in sorae measure what it is I find ? Or, how can I know what the essence of any thing is by such notes as are not essential ? There are but two sorts of notes, or signs, that I know of, natural, or instituted ; and they both suppose that we know the thing, and the note and sign of it, before we can find it out by signs or notes. As for natural signs, the most certain signs we have are causes and effects, but we must know both the causes and effects, before the one can be a sign of the other. Thus smoke is a sign of fire, but it is no sign of fire to any raan who does not know what fire is, and that it will cause a smoke when it seizes on combustible matter, and that nothing else can cause a smoke but fire. Thus in uni vocal effects, the effect declares the nature of the cause ; as we know, that a raan had a raan to his father, but then we must first know what a man is, and that a man begets in his own likeness. But this I suppose is not our author's meaning, that the notes of the Church are natural causes and effects, or 186 THE POPISH NOTES OP THE CHURCH natural concomitants or adjuncts, because the Church is not a natural, but a raystical body, and therefore can have no natural notes. Let us then consider instituted signs, and they we grant must be extra-essential ; but then there never was, and never can be, an instituted sign to discover the essence and existence of what we did not know before : the use of such signs is to distinguish places or persons, by different names, or habits, or colours, &c. or to serve instead of words, as the sound of the trumpet, or the beat of the drum, or to be for legal contracts and securities, and the Uke ; but instituted signs are no signs, till we know the thing of which they are signs ; which shews how ridiculous it is to talk of such extra-essential notes, as shall discover the existence and essence of things which we knew not before ; for if we must first know the Church, before we can find it out by notes, these extra-essential notes may be spared. To be sure this shews how far this definition of a note is from being clear, since it does not suit any kind of notes which mankind are acquainted with ; and if the notes of the Church are a peculiar sort of notes by themselves, he should not have appealed to the common notion and definition of signs and notes, because there are no other notes like them. Thirdly, He adds, that these notes must not be common to other things, but proper to the thing of which it is a note. Now I defy hira to shew any such extra-essential notes in nature, which are not common to other things : for what in logic we call propria, do immediately result from the nature of things, and therefore are not extra-essential notes, nay, are no notes at all to find out the essence or existence of things by ; for we must first know what the nature and essence of things is, be fore we can know their essential properties ; and as for inse parable accidents, how inseparable soever they are from such a thing, yet they may be comraon to other things, and then by his own rule cannot be notes. But this is not the case, as I observed before, for the Church is not a natural, but a mystical body, and therefore its nature depends upon its institution ; and though in natural beings we may distinguish between the essence and essential properties, yet where institution alone is nature, whatever is made proper, necessary, and inseparable by institution, is of the nature of it ; and there is no distinction, that I know of, between the essence and essential properties. In natural beings, we caU that the nature, and form, and essence of the thing, by which EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. 187 levery thing is what it is, and without which it would cease to be that kind of being which now it is, as rationahty is of the ¦essence of a man, for man is a reasonable creature, and without a principle of reason he cannot be a man. Now in allusion to natural beings, we apply the same terras to raatters of institu tion, and call that the nature and essence of a Church, without which, according to the laws of its institution, it would not be a Church. And therefore whatever by institution is so proper, peculiar to, and inseparable from a Church, that without it it cannot be a Church, is of the nature and essence of the Church, and not an extra-essential property, which indeed is nonsense. The obserring this one distinction between nature and institu tion, will confound this whole doctrine of the notes of the Church. For, 1 . There can be no notes of an institution but the institu tion itself : notes raust signify either by nature or institution : there can be no natural notes of an institution, which is not the effect of nature, but of the Dirine will ; and, therefore, if there be any, they raust be instituted notes, that is, the insti tution of the Church must be the mark or note whereby to know it ; unless we will say, that there must be a second insti tution to be the notes of the first ; and by the sarae reason there must be a third to be the notes of the second, and there vrill be no place to stop at, unless we stop at the first institu tion, which needs no other notes to prove itself by. 2. That in matters of institution, there is no distinction be tween nature and properties. In natural beings indeed there is a distinction between the nature and properties of things, because there are some properties, which by a natural casualty spring from nature, as risibility from rationality. But now in matters of institution, one part of the institution is not the natural cause of the other, but the whole institution and every part of it immediately depends upon the vrill and pleasure of God : and therefore there can be no extra-essential properties of a Church, but whatever is proper and inseparable by a Divine institution, is the essence of the Church ; for it has no other nature and essence but its institution. 3. Hence it eridently follows, that there can be no extra- essential notes of a Church : that nothing can be a note of a Church, but what is essential to it by institution ; for what ever institution makes proper and necessary, it makes essential. I confess, this is a very improper way of speaking, to call the nature and essence of any thing the note of it ; for a note or 188 THE POPISH NOTES OP THE CHURCH sign ought to be different and distinct from the thing shewn or signified by it ; and thus we ought roundly to deny, that there are any notes of a Church, or that the Church can be found by notes ; but the Protestants, in compUance vrith the Popish way of speaking, called that the notes of the Church, which is not properly notes and signs, but the rule and standard of the Church, by which aU societies of men, which pretend to be Christian Churches, are to be tried. And it is certain there can be no other rule or standard of the Church, but its insti tution, as to faith, and worship, and govemraent. Common sense wiU teU us, that there is no way to try an instituted society, but by the rules of its institution : that Church which conforms to the original rule and standard of its institution, is a true Church, and every Church is more or less corrupt, as it varies frora it : and here we ought to fix the controversy, that the Church is not to be found out by notes, but to be tried by the rule of its institution ; and then farewell to Cardinal Bel larmine's notes, which, I believe, he himself, though a Jesuit, would not have had confidence to say, that they belonged to the institution of a Church. In the next place he says, " I have reckoned up the Car dinal's notes, now here, now there, piecemeal, but durst not let them pass by in their majestic train, lest the reader, vrith Sheba' s queen, should be dazzled at the glory, transported as she was, that there was no life in her." If rhetoric would do the business, we were certainly undone, and should have no more hfe left than the Queen of Sheba : but the truth is, the Cardinal's notes may possibly lose something of their majesty when they are shewn by hereties, and there is no help for that: but as for their train, to supply the defects of the Discourser, they have been since shevra in very, good order, and we live still : but whether they be triumphant notes still of the Church- militant, as he calls them, is soraewhat doubtful ; and indeed it seeras somewhat unreasonable that the notes should be tri umphant, while the Church is miUtant ; though triumph it seems they do over some slarish and serrile minds ; but their triumph would be very short, were not the Church so miUtant as it is. But as if there were some charm in this majestic train, no thing will serve him but to reckon them up in their order ; and I must confess, he has given such a new grace and majesty to them, that I believe Bellarmine himself could not know them again. _ 1st. "The name Cathohc, how sacred to all those, who own EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. 189 any of the three Creeds, really and veritably !" 0, how sacred indeed ! For heretics themselves own and challenge the name. 2dly. " Its antiquity,how indubitable, and above all suspicion of novelty !" Yes, yes ; antiquity is not novelty, but a pretence to antiquity may : for how old is the Council of Trent ? which is the true antiquity of many Popish articles of faith. 3dly. " Perpetual duration, out-lasting all earthly empires and kingdoms." For it plucks them dovra as fast as it can. 4thly. "Amplitude ; being a great body according to pro phecy." But not so big as Paganism yet. 5thly. "Succession apostolical, the very Jews confessing it :" as they do transubstantiation. " How strong, invincible, clear, and undeniable by gainsayers !" Then I suppose it has no gainsayers, if they do not deny it. 6thly. " Primitive consent, how great and how manifest to those good men who inquire !" Yea, how great indeed ! for nobody can find it but the Vicar of Putney. " Witness the multitudes that return to the Catholic Church upon that account." Monsieur de Meaux's French converts, I suppose, who never heard of the dragoons. 7thly. " Intimate union with their Head, Christ, and vrith one another :" hut Bellarmine's risible head of unity is the Pope, not Christ; so that this is a new note, and it seems the Church's union vrith Christ is extra-essential also, or else it could be no note. 8thly. " Sanctity of doctrine, as revealed by God, in whora is light, and no darkness at all." In teaching men to break faith with heretics; to depose heretical princes, and absolve their subjects from their oaths of allegiance, and arm thera against their Uege lord ; to prefer the celibacy of priests (though the manifest cause of so raany adulteries and fornications) as a more holy state than matriraony ; and such like doctrines, wherein is darkness, but no light at all. 9thly. "Efficacy upon infidels." Witness the Spanish con verts in the golden Indies. But why ,not upon heretics as well as infidels ? I fear the conversions in England are so slow, that he dares not yet make that a mark of the Church. 1 Othly. " The holiness of the Fathers ; whose lives we vrish to be legends (though unquestionably trae), when we see hov? far they have outdone us." Ay ! that makes heretics call them legends. 1 1 thly. " The glory of miracles, which a man would be wary of contradicting, for fear of blasphemy and sinning against 190 THE POPISH NOTES OP THE CHURCH the Holy Ghost :" especially when they are such miracles as nobody ever saw, but the monk who relates them, or miracles to prove both parts of a contradiction to be trae ; as, for in stance, that the Virgin Mary was, and was not conceived in original sin. But if ever they had suffered poor Jetzer's fate, they would rather hereafter believe, than feel such miracles. " StiU continued, and denied by none but sceptics, in dispos session of derils." I suppose he means the boy of Bilson, and curing the struma, the king's eril ; but this is a Protestant as well as a Popish miracle, and is a better proof that the king, than that the Pope, is the head of the Church. 12thly. "The gift of prophecy." Witness the Maid of Kent. " To say nothing concerning the confession of adver saries, and unhappy exit of the Church's enemies." Which may very well be spared ; for there have been confessions and unhappy exits on both sides. Though Henry VIII. and Queen Elizabeth, and James I. were no exaraples of such un happy exits. " These— these are the notes, which, like a bill in ParUaraent, deserve a second reading," and then to be thrown out, though I hope they vrill never come in there. The way being thus prepared, the court sat, and the jury of notes empannelled, which I suppose is the reason why he caUs but twelve of Bellarmine's fifteen, the rest being supernume raries, the Discourser is summoned to make his appearance. " Enter Discourser."* Which, I can assure you, put him into a fright on the sudden, fearing it might be the inquisition ; but he recollected himself, and thus began his plea : — " Is not the Catholic Church risible ? And if we can see which is the Church, what need we guess at it by marks and signs ? And that by such marks and signs, too, as are matter of dispute themselves !f Cannot we distinguish between the Christian Church, and a Turkish mosque, and a Jewish syna gogue ? Cannot we, vrithout all this ado, distinguish a Chris tian from a Turk, or a Jew, or a Pagan ? And it vrill be as easy to find out a Christian Church, as it will be to find out Christians." And what now is the hurt of this? Oh ! says the Justifier, " What spirit is that which enries the Christian the fehcity of finding the true Church, and casts an eril eye upon the notes conducing to it, let any Christian judge." A very evil spirit, doubtless ! But does the Discourser do this ? Who says that the Church is visible, and may be knovra with- * [The Use and great Moment of Notes,] p. 5. t Disc, p. 166- EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. 191 out disputable notes. For notes are only to discover things absent and invisible, but what is risible is best known by itself. " Yes ; for whereas he pretends it is risible (besides that he fiatly denies it after, p. 173). Nay, say I, not araong counter feits : is it risible at sea which is the royal navy, when the enemy puts up the English colours ?" First, then, let us reconcile the Discourser vrith himself. He asks, whether the Church be not visible ? and therein appeals to the confession of his adversaries, that the Church is risible, and wonders what need there is of notes, of disputable notes, to find out a risible Church, in p. 173. He desires to know, " How they will prove that there is a Church without the Scripture ?" He answers for them, " That the Church is risible, for we see a Christian Church in the world." But, says he, " What is it I see ? I see a corapany of raen, who call themselves a Church, and this is all that I can see : and is this seeing a Church ? A (Church must have a dirine ori ginal and institution, and therefore there is no seeing a Church without seeing its charter ;" and is this to deny the visibihty of the Church, because it cannot be seen or known vrithout its charter, when its charter is as risible as the society which calls itself the Church ? And surely that Church is risible enough, whose society and charter are both risible, though the Church cannot be known vrithout its charter. But now the Answerer vrill not allow the Church to be risible among counterfeits, and then it has not been risible these hundred years at least ; and then what becomes of Bel larmine's notes, which are none, if the Church be not risible, for they are notes not of an invisible, but of a risible Church. But the comparison whereby he proves this, is an eternal con futation of such extra-essential notes. " Is it visible at sea which is the royal navy, when the enemy puts up the English colours ?" Which shews how fallible notes are ; for colours are notes of the royal navy, and these raay deceive us : but if you go aboard, and see the ships and the company, and their com- raissions, you cannot be raistaken. The natures of things cannot be counterfeited, but notes may. The Discourser says, " A Christian Church is nothing else but a society of Christians united under Christian pastors, for the worship of Christ." This the Justifier thinks a very slight way of speaking, " nothing else but !" And if he does not under stand English, I cannot help that. But " Christian Pastors for a need will take in presbyters who renounce episcopacy, nay. 192 THE POPISH NOTES OP THE CHURCH congregational who renounce presbytery :" it takes in, indeed, aU Christian pastors, be they what they wiU. 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 the true Christian Churches, but what is the general notion of a Christian Church ; who are true pastors, but that the union of Christians under trae Chris tian pastors makes a Church : though the pastores ecelesia, in the ancient language, signified only bishops, who had the care of the flock, and the government of the inferior presby ters. Thus the worship of Christ, he says, may signify with Liturgy, or without it, with the Apostles' Creed, or vrithout it, &c. ; and so it raay, if both vrith and without be the true wor ship 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, p. 6.) " and all such Churches of Christ (if they could meet) would be Uke the men in the market-place, one crying out one thing, and another another, and no authority could send them home peaceably to their dweUings." I con fess 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 Coun cUs, 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 comraunion ? And how is this a schism, if they maintain brotherly union vrith 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 vrithout 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 poten tates, may not aU these Churches unite into a national com- EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. 193 munion vrithout the leave of potentates too ; and is not such a national union of Churches a national Church ? Suppose princes voluntarily submit their sceptres 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 serrice ? 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 comraunion ? If it be, then unity is not neces sary, or the universal Church does not include all Churches ; if it be not, then aU Churches may be the universal, the one catholic Church of Christ. " We," says he, " look for unity, they shew us multitude and dirision." Is multitude and divi sion the same thing ? or is unity inconsistent with raultitude ? How then could the Churches of Jerasalera, of Antioch, of Corinth, of Ephesus, of Rome, be one Church ? " We desire unity, they shew us universaUty :" as if there could not be unity in universality. I wish this author would first leam grammar and logic, or, which I fear is harder to teach him, common sense, before he pretends again to dispute in dirinity ; but now we have hira, we raust make the best of him we can. And here the Answerer spends several pages in proring that the Church raust be one, which nobody that I know of denies, and which he may find truly stated in answer to Cardinal Bel larmine'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 aU trae particular Churches, as every raan 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 CathoUc 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, vrithout considering how all particular Churches must be united to make the one VOL. III. 0 194 THE POPISH NOTES OF THE CHUECH catholic Church, which was nothing to his purpose. In such a divided state of Christendom as this, mere extemal unity and coramunion cannot be the raark of a true Church, because all Churches are divided from each other. If we are not at unity vrith the Church of Rome, no more is the Church of Rome at unity vrith us ; and if mere unity be the mark of the trae Church, neither part of the dirision can pretend to it. -And therefore either some Churches may be trae Churches, which are not at unity with all others, or there is no truei Church in the world. And therefore though Cardinal Bellar mine 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 risible head of the Church : and thus the catholic Church signifies all those Churches which are united to the Bishop of Rome, as the centre 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 catholic Church does not consist in subjection to a risible head, and aU other external communion is broken and dirided, we must con tent ourselves to know, what it is that makes a particular na tional Church, a true, sound, and pure Church ; for whatever divisions there are in the world, every true Church is part of Christ's one catholic Church. And whatever unity there be among other Churches, if they be not trae Churches; they are no parts of Christ's catholic Church. And this was aU the Discourser intended, or was obliged to in pursuit of his design. And thus I might pass over what he talks about Church- Unity, hut that he has some very peculiar marks which are worth our notice. He says, p. 7. "Protestants salve the unity of the Church, mainly because Christendom is dirided and separated from heathenism " (which I wish heartily all Christendom perfectly were) " not considering so much the unity with itself," But pray who told hira that Protestants do not place the unity of the Church in unity, but in separation ? AU 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 bythe EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. 195 same Holy Spirit which dwells in the whole Christian Church, Eph. iv. 4, 5, 6. But still they are not one entire coramu nion, but diride and separate from each other : this we vriU grant is a very great fault, but yet if they communicate in such things as raake one Church, whatever their other dirisions are, they are one Church still ; their quarrels and divisions raay hurt themselves, but cannot destroy the unity of the Church, for the Church is one body, not merely by the unity and agreement of Christians amongst themselves, but by the ap pointment and institution of Christ, who has made all those that profess the true faith, and are united in the same sacra ments, 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 Apostleexpressly asserts, that Christians are but one body ; but they are exhorted to live in unity and concord, because they are but one body : " I there fore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you, that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, vrith all lowliness and meekness, vrith 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 hut " one body and one Spirit," therefore they must " en deavour to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of pace." 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 ecclesias tical communion, results from this unity of body, which makes schism a very great eril, and very destructive to men's souls, as all other rices are; but the Church, which has but one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptisra, one God, one Father of all, is but one Church stUl, 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 body being many, are one body, so also is Christ."t 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 frora hence he shews, what tenderness all Christians ought to express for each other, as being raerabers of each other : ver. 25, " That there should be no schism in the body, but that the raerabers should * Eph. iv- 1, 2, 3. t 1 Cor. xii- 12, 13, &c. 0 2 196 THE POPISH NOTES OP THE CHURCH have the same care one for another." But suppose Christiana 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 merabers of the same body are very unnatural, but they are the same body stiU. Ver. 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 shaU 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 a hand, that is, have the most eminent gifts, they enried and dirided from each other, as if they did not belong to the sarae 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 stiU, 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 aU the dirisions of Christendom. For let us consider what the dirisions of Christendom are, and whether they be such as wholly destroy the unity of the body. All the Churches in the world are dirided from the Church of Rome, by disovraing the authority of the Pope as the risible head of the cathoUc 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 risible head, but in their union to Christ, who is the one Lord of the Church. Some Churches are dirided in faith ; not but that they agree in the necessary articles 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 vrith 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 corrapt the Christian faith with new and perverse doctrines of her ovm, other orthodox Christians are not bound to beUeve as they do; EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. 197 yet both of them are true Christian Churches still ; for the true faith makes a true Church, but only vrith this difference, that those who profess the true faith of Christ without any corrupt mixtures, are sound and orthodox Churches ; other Churches are raore or less pure, according to the various cor raptions of their faith. And thus it is with respect to the Christian sacraraents, and Christian worship ; every Church which observes the institutions of our Sariour, and worships God the Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, is a true Church ; but those Churches which corrupt this worship, though they are trae are corrupt Churches ; as the Church of Rome does in the worship of saints and angels, and the Virgin Mary, and the adoration of the host, and the sacrifice of the mas.s, &c. And in this case, though what they retain of the essentials of Christian worship, is sufficient to denominate thera true Churches, yet other CUurches are not bound to comunicate vrith 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 in termixed with great corruptions, belong to the one body of Christ ; and to know whether any Church be a trae Church, we must not so much inquire whom they communicate vrith, or sepa rate from, but what their faith aud worship is. That external unity is so far from being the mark of a true Church, that we may be bound not to coraraunicate vrith trae 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 trae faith and worship of Christ, though they are dirided from each other upon the disputes of faith, or worship, or discipline, are yet the one Church of Christ, as being united in the essen tials of faith and worship, which by the institution of Christ makes thera 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 adraits not, but casts out some, though they profess Christianity, schismatics, heretics ; which being cast out, if you mark it well, she is united with herself." And I assure you it is worth marking : for if you mark it weU, every conventicle in Christendom is thus united with itself. But is this the unity of the catholic Church, to cast all out of our communion who are not of our mind, and then call ourselves the catholic Church, when there 198 THE POPISH NOTES OP THE CHUECH 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 herself the cathoUc Church? For she has more unity in this way than the Church of Rome has. When all heretics and schismatics are cast out, she is united vrith herself; and if this unity be a mark of the cathohc Church, all the Churches and conventicles of Christendom are the catholic Church, for they are all united with themselves. But then the difficulty wUl be, how all these Churches, which are united with themselves, but separated from one another, make one catholic Church ? Or, which of these Churches, which are thus united with themselves (which it seems is catholic unity), is the one Church ? For every one of them hath this mark of the catholic Church, that they are united vrith themselves. He proves, p. 8, " That schismatics 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 schismatic is as good a mark of a schismatical Church, as the name catholic is of the cathoUc Church : but we must consider who are the godfathers, and whether they have given proper names or not. Now the Church of Rome is the common godmother, which christens herself Catholic, and aU other Churches Schisraatics ; but whether she be infalUble in giring names, ought to be considered. But schism signifies " rending and tearing ;'' and yet a schis matical Church signifies a Church too, and how they are aChurch vrithout belonging to the one Church, when there is but one Church, is soraewhat mysterious. And therefore schism is not tearing of a part of the Church, but one part diriding from the other in extemal communion, which supposes that both parts still belong to the same Church, or else the Church is not dirided. For apostasy and schism are two different things ; apostates cease to be of the Church, schismatics are of the Church still, though they disturb the peace of the Church and diride the external communion of it ; which differ as for saking 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 schisraatics are not of the Church, he proves " from EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. 199 St. Paul's rebuking his siding Corinthians, with this quick interrogatory : Is Christ, saith he (he means his catholic Church), dirided ? How ? nothing more absurd than to grant dirision in the Church." An excellent paragraph! Does St. Paul, who reproves these Corinthians for their schisras, shut thera 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 dirisions in the Church, when St. Paul rebukes thera for their dirisions, which surely supposes that they were dirided? And is it absurd to suppose that to be, which at the sarae time we confess to be ? To say that Christ is dirided, or that there are more Christs than one, would be very absurd indeed; to say that the Church of Christ is divided, is no absurdity, because it is tme ; 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, whora they all worship, that the disciples of the sarae Lord should diride frora each other, as if they served and worshipped dif ferent Masters. But he has a very choice note about the Unity of the Church, page 9 : " That it is the unity of a body, a hring aniraate l3ody ;" but not I hope of a natural, but a mystical body, animated by that Dirine 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 dirides us totaUy from the quickening and animating influences of the Spirit, which it is certain all external divisions do not. Well 1 "but it is not the unity of a raatheraatical body which is dirisible in semper divisibilia, but animate." This I believe every body will grant hira, that the Church is not a mathematical body; but what hurt is there in mathematical unity ? Oh ! that is divisible vrithout end, and that I confess is an ill kind of unity : but I hope it is one, till it be dirided, and I fear a liring aniraate body is dirisible too ; and if that cannot be one which is divisible, I fear there is no such thmg as unity in nature, excepting in God ; and then it is not sufficient to prove the cathoUc Church to be one, because it is United, unless he can prove that it is not dirisible. But indeed he is a little out in appljring 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 200 THE POPISH NOTES OP THE CHUECH makes the Pope the centre of catholic 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 heretic and the schismatic, which of the Churches is like to be most cathoUc ? 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 schisra is the most catholic Church ; but I thought the question had been, not about the most, but the one, catholic Church. For one Church may be more cathoUc than another, by more strictly adhering to the catholic faith and worship, and yet both of them belong to the sarae cathoUc 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 ovra that there are any heresies and schisms ? But " they pronounce no anathemas, except one perhaps." Against the Church of Rorae, I suppose he means. But anathemas are proper only for General Councils ; and this is a new note of the catholic Church, which Bellarmine did not think of, viz. pronouncing anathemas, in which the Church of Rome has outdone all the Churches in the world, and therefore is the most cathohc Church. " But they would have Dissenters looked upon as members of the aggregate Church, notwith standing their dissensions, as well as others." Who are these "They?" the Church of England : then they are kinder to Dis senters than the Church of Rome, notvrithstanding all the good words they have lately given them. But what then ? What then, do you say ? There is a terrible then. For this kind ness of the persecuting Church of England to the Dissenters proves her to be a harlot. For "it is the famous case brought before King Solomon, Catholics, like the honest woman, would have the whole child; the harlot would have the chUd divided." Was ever such stuff put together ? Catholics are for shutting all out of the Church, and being the whole Church themselves, therefore they are for the whole chUd, when they have cut off three parts of it, and dirided it into a whole, united with itself. Others are so charitable, as far as it is possible, to make a whole Church, the one catholic Church, of all the dirided com munions 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 arguraents, as all the wit and learn- EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. 201- ing in the world could never have discovered : and the second to make men beUeve them, and publish thera without blush ing. But here is enough in all conscience of this ; let us now try if we can pick out anything that may deserve an answer. And that the reader may the better judge between us, I shall take a reriew of the " Brief Discourse concerning the Notes of the Church," in the raethod 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 Bellar mine, 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 Cathohcs 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 trae 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,f rightly and duly administered by persons rightly ordained, ac cording to the institution of our Sariour, and the Apostolical practice."f Here he complains that we give but "poor two" notes of a Christian Church (page 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 BeUarmine objects against these notes. 1 . " That note 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 ob serves, 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 them- * Disc. p. 167. t Page 168. 202 THE POPISH NOTES OF THE CHUECH selves." "And this," says the Answerer, " let me teU him, wiU be easily granted, tarn, quam, one every whit as good as ano ther." And this I wish he could make good, for the sake of his ovra Church. But will he caU this answering ? He cites a place out of TertulUan, which he durst not translate, for fear every English reader should see that it was to no purpose: that heretics, though 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 aUke pure, equally catholic, equally apostolic." Just as much as to say, "That a man is a reasonable creature, supposes all men to be equaUy wise and equally honest." The true faith, and true sacra raents, I hope, raay be essential to all true Churches, as reason is to human 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 herself still both from Papists and fanatics, 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 dis covery, (page 1 68) ; 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 trae 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 shaU I know half this essence, trae faith, &c. ? We must either say, by consent vrith Scripture, or consent with the primitive Church, and then we shall stumble upon the Cardinal's notes, or somewhat like it." They, I confess, will be in danger of a very fatal stumble, if they stumble either upon Scripture or antiquity ; but we dare venture both. Let them but grant, that true faith is the note of a true Church, and we wiU refer the trial of our faith to Scripture and antiquity when they please : though Cardinal Bellarmine had so much vrit as not to refer the trial of the Church's faith to Scripture. I added, " That when we give notes which belong to a whole species, as we must do, when we give the notes of a true Chris tian Church, we must give such notes as belong to the whole EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. 203 kind ; that is, to all true Christian Churches. And though these notes are comraon indeed to all true Christian Churches, yet they are proper and peculiar to a trae Christian Church. As the essential properties of a man are common to all men, but proper to mankind : and this is necessary to make thera true notes ; for such notes of a Church, as do not fit all true Churches, cannot be true notes." But this, which is the true answer to Bellarmine's argument, he wisely drops. "As for what the Cardinal urges, that all sects of Christians think themselves to have the true faith and true sacraments :" I answered, " I am apt to think they do ; but what then ? If they have not the true faith and true sacraments, they are not true Churches, whatever they think of it ; and yet the true faith and true sacraments are certain notes of the true Church. A purchase upon a bad title, which a man thinks a good one, is not a good estate ; but yet a purchase upon a title, which is not only thought to be, but is a good one, is a good estate."* To this he answers : " This is the same error again ; for a good title, I hope, is essential ; it is no note of a good estate." Oh the wit of some disputers ! What other note is there of a good estate, but a good title ? But he says, there are " other notes, which lead to the discovery of a good title :" what then ? they are the notes of the title, not of the estate ; they prove a good title, and a good title makes a good estate. And yet, " that the land be not pre-engaged, be free from all incum brances, that there be no flaw in the demise," I take to be essential to a good title, and therefore, according to our author's logic, cannot be notes neither. But what is all this to the purpose ? Bellarmine proves, that the true faith cannot be the note of a true Church, because all sects of Christians pretend to it. I answer, that though those who pretend to the true faith, and have it not, are not trae Churches ; yet those who have the true faith are trae Churches. As a purchase upon a bad title, which a raan thinks a good one, is not a good estate, but yet a purchase upon a good title is a good estate. To this the Justifier of BeUarmine answers, " That a good title is essential, and there fore is no note of a good estate." Whereas the dispute here is not about essential or extra-essential notes, but whether the true faith cannot be a note of the true Church, because some men pretend to the true faith, who have it not. But want of * Disc. p. 170. 204 THE POPISH NOTES OP THE CHUECH understanding is necessary to raake some men answerers of books, which men of understanding know they cannot answer. The Cardinal's second objection against the Protestant notes of a Church is, " That the notes of any thing must be more known than the thing itself;" this I granted.* "Now," says he, "which is the true Church, is more knowable than which is the true faith :" and this I denied, for this plain reason, " Because the trae Church cannot be knovra without knovring the trae faith : for no Church is a true Church which does not profess the true faith." Now, says our Answerer, " this being denied, we prove it thus, &c." (page 15.) But methinks he should first have answered the argument, before he had gone to proring ; but that it seems is not his talent. WeU, but how does he prove that the true Church raay be known before we know the true faith ? Adrairably, I assure you I " If the Church be the pUlar of truth, raised up aloft, that it may be conspicuous to all men, it must be more manifest than the trath." This pillar raised aloft is a new notion, which I sup pose he-learned from the monument at London-bridge, which indeed is very visible ; but other vriser writers, by the " piUar and ground of truth," prove that the Church is the foundation whereon truth is built ; but that would not serve his purpose, to raake the Church more risible than the truth, for he knows that the foundation is not so visible, as that which is buUt on it. And in the next page he honestly confesses, that the true faith is the foundation of the Church, and therefore proves that the true Church cannot be known by the true faith ; for that is as if I should say, I cannot know the house unless I see the foundation, the next way to overturn it. So dangerous things are metaphors, which prove backward and forward, as a man fancies. But let the Church " be a pillar raised aloft," or a foundation-pillar, or what pUlar he pleases, must not we know the Church, before we know it to be a pillar of trath ? Or, can we know which Church is the pillar of truth, be fore we know what truth is ? Well ! But let us now look to ourselves, for he undertakes to demonstrate it. " The fraits of the Spirit, the graces, are raore known than the Spirit itself :" ergo, the true Church must be known before the trae faith. " The outward profes sion of faith, raore than the inward profession :" ergo, the true Church raust be known before the outward profession of * Disc. p. 170. EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. 205 the true faith, which makes a trae Church. " The concrete more than the abstract, the believer than the belief." I can know the men before I know their faith : ergo, the true Church must be knovra before the true faith. He is a very hard-hearted man who vrill not allow this for demonstration ; but he is a very good-natured man who vrill allow it to be sense. Well ! but he has a distinction that will do the business. Aliud notius nobis, et aliud natura, i. e. sorae things are raore knowable in theraselves, and some things are more knowable to us : but we are inquiring which is most knowable to us, the true faith or the trae Church. He grants then, " That true faith being a constituent of, or essential to the Church, may be said to be natura notior, first known in the order of nature. But we would not have these methods confounded : for if faith be essential, it is the less knovra to us for that very reason : because the first constituents of a compound are last knovra, except to the maker. It is more manifest to us, that we are flesh and blood, though God knows that we are dust and ashes." How happy is the age that has produced so great a schoolman as this, to whom the great Aquinas himself is but a mere norice ! The Church is a compound body, in which faith is mixed and blended, as the four elements are in natural bodies : and therefore as we can more easily know what a stone or a tree is, than see the four elements in it, fire and air, and water and earth, of which it is compounded, and which are so mixed together as to become inrisible in their own natures ; so the Church is more knowable than the true faith, which is so compounded vrith the Church, as to become invisible itself : nay, to be as much changed and transformed in the composition, as dust and ashes is into flesh and blood : and thus I confess he has hit upon the true reason, why the true Church raust be known before the true faith, because the Church of Rome (which is his true Church) has so changed and transformed the faith, that unless the faith can be known by the Church, the Church can never be known by the faith. How much is one grain of coraraon sense better than all these philosophical subtilties ? For indeed the Chnrch is not a compound body, but a society of men professing the faith of Christ, and the only difference between them and other societies is the Christian faith ; and therefore the Chris tian faith is the only thing whereby the Church is to be known, and to be distinguished from other bodies of raen ; and there- 206 THE POPISH NOTES OP THE CHURCH - fore the Church cannot be known vrithout the faith ; unless I can know any thing vrithout knowing that, by which alone it is what it is : and when there are several Churches in the world, and a dispute arises which is the true Church, there is no other possible way of deciding it without knowing the tme faith ; for it is the true faith which makes a true Church, " not as dust and ashes make flesh and blood," but as a true faith makes true believers, and true believers a true Church; and though that society of men which is the Church is risible, yet the true Church is no more risible than the true faith ; for to see a Church is to see a society of men who profess the true faith, and how to see that, without seeing the true faith, is past my understanding. In the next place the Cardinal urges, " That we cannot know what trae Scripture is, nor what is the true interpretation of Scripture, but from the Church : and therefore we must know the Church before we can know the trae faith."* To this I answered, " As for the first, I readily grant, that at this dis tance from the writing of the books of the New Testament, there is no way to assure us, that they were written by the Apostles, or Apostolical men, and owned for inspired writings, but the testimony of the Church in all ages." And our Answerer says, " I begin now to answer honestly," p. 17, and I am very glad I can please him. But it seems, I had pleased him better, if I would have called it an infallible tradition ; but that infallible is a word we Protestants are not much used to, when appUed to tradition ; it satisfies us, if it be a very credible tradition, the truth of which we have no reason to suspect. But I have lost our Answerer's favour for ever, by adding, " But herein we do not consider them as a Church, but as credible witnesses." This makes him sigh to think, " how loth men are to own the Church. For this company of men so attesting, were Chris tians, not vagrants, or idle praters of strange news in ridiculous stories " (I hope not, for then they could not be credible wit nesses), " but were agreed in the attestation of such a Divine volume, not only as a book" (which would do very little serrice indeed), "but as a rule, as an oracle." All this I granted; but stUl the question is, whether that testimony they give to the Scriptures, relies upon their authority, consi dered as a Church, or considered only as credible witnesses. And when this author shaU think to answer what there I urge » Disc- p. 170- EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. 207 to prove that they must not be considered as aChurch, but as cre dible vritnesses, I shall think of a reply, or shall yield the cause. But this Answerer is a most unmerciful man at comparisons : " For," says he, " to tell us we cannot know the Church, but by the Scripture, is to tell us that we cannot know a piece of gold without a pair of scales." The weight of gold, I suppose he means, and then it is pretty right ; and if we must weigh gold after our Tather, I suppose we may weigh it after the Church too, though she be our mother. " Or that a child cannot know his father, till he comes to read philosophy and understand the secrets of generation." And it is well, if he can know him then : this, I confess, is exceeding apposite, for a chUd must be a traditionary believer, and take his mother's word (as Papists beUeve the mother Church) who is his father. " That we could not understand the true interpretation of Scripture neither, vrithout the Church." This I denied, and gave my reasons for it, which our Answerer, according to his method of answering books, takes no notice of, but gives his reasons on the other side. I affirmed, " That the Scriptures are very intelligible in all things necessary to salvation, to honest and dUigent readers." Instead of this, he says I affirm, " That every honest and diligent reader knows the sense" (of Scripture it must be) " in all things necessary to salvation ;" which differ as much, as being intelligible, and being actuaUy understood: though I vrill excuse him so far, that I verily believe he had no dishonest intention in changing my words, but did not understand the difference between thera : " But," says he, " did not St. Peter write to honest and dihgent readers, when he warns them of wresting sorae places in St. Paul to their own destruction, as others also did?" As they did other Scriptures also, St. Peter says ; but he says too, that they were fhe " unlearned and the unstable," who did thus. And though the Scriptures be intelligible, such raen need a guide, not to dictate to thera, but to expound Scripture, and help thera to understand it ; but does St. Peter therefore warn them against reading the Scriptures, or direct them to receive the sense of Scripture only from the Church ? Or say, that honest or dUi gent readers cannot understand them vrithout the authority of the Church ? But it seeras, there are several articles very ne cessary to salvation, which men cannot agree about, no not all Protestants, as " the divinity of the Son of God, the necessity of good works, the distinction of sins mortal and less mortal," 208 THE POPISH NOTES OP THE CHURCH (which is a new distinction, unless by less mortal, he means venial, that is, not mortal at all), "the necessity of keeping the Lord's day, and using the Lord's Prayer." Now these points are either intelUgibly taught in the Scripture, or they are not ; if not, how does he know they are in the Scripture ? If they be, why cannot an honest and diligent reader understand that which is intelUgible ? 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 itself 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 raust not steal, defraud ; we must do as we vrill 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 othervrise ; and if the Church should be found tripping in such raatters, honest readers might be apt to question her infallibility in other cases, for those who once mistake, can never be infallible. 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 raay understand the Scriptures, though it be against the exposition of the Church, as, that dirine worship must be given to none but God ; that God, who is an invisible Spirit, must not be worshipped by material and risible images ; that public 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 vrith all men ; that every soul must be subject tp 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 : " It 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, though we do not fully comprehend it. For I would know, whether they EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. 209 fully comprehend the doctrine of the holy Trinity and incar nation, 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 vrill ovra that they can understand what the Church teaches about them : and then, though they cannot comprehend these mysteries, yet they may as well understand what the Scripture, as what the Church teaches about them. " Now," says 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, diUgent reader cannot understand thera ? How came they then to determine them for articles of faith ? By their ovra 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 Irenseus, TertulUan, and St. Augustin, which have been so often answered already, that I do not think it worth the while to engage vrith this Answerer about them. Let the reader, if he pleases, consult some late books to this purpose, as that learned rindication of the answer to the royal papers about Church authority, and the " Pillar and Groimd of Trath." But I cannot pass on vrithout taking notice of his unanswerable argument, to prove, " that the Church of Rorae understands St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, and by consequence, the articles of justification, whether by faith alone, or works, better than all the lay-readers of the Reformation, viz. because he can never be persuaded, that any private raan 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 settled 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 VOL. III. P 210 THE POPISH NOTES OP THE CHURCH are at Rome:'' I say, if those Christians) might he supposed at that thne (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 Rorae at sixteen hun dred years distance ? However, by this rule, we may under stand aU St. Paul's other Episties as weU as the Church of Rome, and that vrill serve our purpose : and yet methinks, if the Churches to which the Epistles were sent, are the only authentic 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 thera is now in being, excepting the Church of Rorae ; and therefore, at least, we must make what shift we can to expound them ourselves, 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 Car dinal's use of notes, and found several faults vrith them :* 1. " That he gives notes to find out which is the trae 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 trae Church or not ? And what it is ? And though the Cardinal takes it for granted, that there is a Church, I de manded a proof it, that they would give rae some notes whereby to prove that there is a true Church." This demand amazes our Answerer, and makes him cross hiraself, and fall to his beads, " Hear, O heavens ! and give ear, O earth !" But this is a deril that won't be conjured down ; let hira 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-erident," he says, "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 catholic 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 Jewish synagogue may be seen, and Christian oratories and chapels vrith crosses upon them, and this may prove, " that those who built them, believed in » Disc p. 172. EXAMINED AND CONFUTED.' 211 a cracified God," which is all he alleges to prove, that it is self-erident 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 ];iim 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 Dirine original and institution, and therefore there is no seeing a Church, vrithout seeing its charter ; for there can be no other note or raark 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 vrithout the Scriptures ; for if they admit of a Scripture-proof, they raust allow, that we can know and understand the Scriptures vrithout the authority or interpretation of the Church, which undermines the very foundation of Popery." In answer to this he says, " Nothing is more easy and faraUiar (but that men love to be troublesome to their friends) than that the Scriptures must be knovra by the Church, and the Church may be known (besides its ovra eridence) by the Scriptures." This I beUeve he has heard so often said, without considering it, that it is become very easy and famUiar 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 knovra 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 vrife to good conversation, that she may thereby win the husband to Christianity, even vrithout the Word, vrithout the holy Scripture :" implying that a raan 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 Scrip ture. The pious and modest conversation of the wife raay give her husband a good opinion of her religion, and raay be the first occasion of his inquiring into it, which may end in his conversion ; and so may the holy and exemplary Uves of Chris tians do : but does the husband in this case resolve his faith into the authority of his vrife vrithout the Scripture ? and then » Disc. p. 173. p 2 212 THE POPISH NOTES OP THE CHURCH resolve the authority of his wife into the authority of the Scrip ture ? 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 wife. , 2dly. I observed. Another blunder in this dispute about notes, is,* "that they give us notes whereby to find out the true cathoUc Church, before we know what a particular Church is — because the catholic Church is nothing else but all the true Christian Churches in the world, united together by one com mon faith and worship, and such acts of comraunion as distinct Churches are capable of, and obliged to ; every particular Church, which professes the trae faith and worship of Christ, is a trae Christian Church, and the cathoUc Church is aU the trae Christian Churches in the world. And therefore there can be no notes of a true Church, but what belong to aU the true Christian Churches in the world." Which shews how absurd it is, when they are giving notes of a trae Church, to give notes of a trae catholic, and not of a true particular Church : when I know what makes a particular Church a true Church, I can know what the catholic Church is, which signifies all true particular Churches, which are the one mystical body of Christ ; but I can never know what a true catholic Church is, without knowing what makes a particular Church a true Church ; for all Churches have the sarae nature, and are horaogeneal parts of the sarae 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 vriU give notes of the Church, must give such 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 cathoUc 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 commimion makes a catholic Church ; whether the catholic 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 catholic * Disc. p. 174. EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. 213 Church, before I know what a true particular ChUreh is ; and consequently, vvhether the notes of the Church ought not to be such as belong to all true particular Churches. By this rule, I briefly examined Cardinal Bellarmine'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 Rorae. As the 6th, " The agreeraent and consent in doctrine with the ancient and Apostolic Church;" and the 8th, " The holiness of its doctrine," are the chief, if not the only notes of this nature, and these we vrill stand or faUby. And because I said, we vriU 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, accord ing to his old wont, has picked 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 fanatics 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 vrith 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 10 th, " the holiness of the lives of the first authors and fathers of our religion." As for the efficacy of doctriae, he says, " That should bear testimony to the Church also, if it be true, that more are converted tp the cathoUc Church, than apostatize from it." Let him read the exami nation of the 9th note for this. But if it be true also, that the Roman Catholics 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 beUeve so, are not others as much bound as they ? And what follows from hence ? That they are the only true Church, because they are raore zealous in propagating Christianity ? Does this relate to the efficacy of the doctrine, or to the zeal of the preacher ? But he says. 214 THE POPISH NOTES OP THE CHURCH " The Pharisees compassing sea and land to make a proselyte, proved them to be the best and most zealous of all the Jewish party," though they raade them ten times more the children of heU than they were before. I thmk none but our author would have had so little vrit, as to have justified the Church of Rome by the zeal of the Pharisees ; for though, as he says, our Sariour's " woe 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 1 2th, " the spirit of prophecy," are testimonies to the reUgion, 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 Jetzer felt. But the question is. Whether true miracles prove that particular Church in which they are done the only trae Church ; or only give testimony to the reUgion in confirma tion of which they are wrought. " The spirit of prophecy also," he says, " belongs to the Church, unless we find that aU the true Churches in the circle pretend to it." .AH that pretend to a religion revealed by prophecy, pretend to the spirit of prophecy ; but all do not pretend in this age to have the gift of prophecy, though they raay as justly pretend to it as the Church of Rorae. See the answer to the 12th note. I added, that the 13th, 14th, and 15th notes, I doubted, would prove no notes at all, because they are not always trae, and at best uncertain. The 13th is " the confession of ad versaries," which, he says, " vrill carry a cause in our teraporal courts." And good reason too, because they are supposed to speak nothing but what they know, and what the eridence of trath extorts from them ; but how the adversaries of Chris tianity should come to know so weU 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 fehcity," he says, "vrill eridence the Church, as Job's later state did eridence his being in favour with (jrod." But what did his former state do ? Was he not then in favour vrith God too ? But would any man talk at this rate, who remembers that EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. 215 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 Teckeley may be a witness of it," who sides vrith infidels against the Church, and is ac cordingly blessed. And what thinks he of the misfortunes of some great prmces, who have been as zealous for the Church ? His 3rd and 4th notes, I said, "were not notes of a Church, but God's 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 3rd, "A long duration, that it shall never faU;" I said, "This could never be a note tUl the day of judgment." " A fine time," he says, "to choose our religion in the meanwhile:" but thanks be to God, we have other notes of a Church than this, therefore need not wait till the day of judgment to know the true Church. But it is certain, the duration of the Church tiU the end of the world, is such a mark of the Church as can not be known till the end of the world. The fourth, " Am plitude and extent, is not to distinguish one Christian Church from another, but to distinguish the Christian Church from other rehgious ;" but then I doubt this prophecy 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 accomphshed, it cannot be a note of the Church. But the reader may see all this fairly stated in the examination of these notes. His 5th 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 froin any of the Apostles, or Apostolical bishops, by this note are as good Churches as they. This he very honestly grants, and thereby confesses, that this note vriU not prove the Church of Rome to be the one catholic Church, which the Cardinal intended by it. Now because I said, " This note is common to aU true Churches, and therefore can do the 216 THE POPISH NOTES OP THE CHUECH Church of Rome no serrice," he takes me up : " AU true Churches ! then where is your communion with Luther's or Calrin's disciples ? They do not so much as pretend to suc cession." 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, aU those Churches are trae 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 pecuUar to it. But as for what he says, " That succession of doctrine, with out succession of office, is a poor plea;" I raust needs tell him, I think it is a much better plea than succession of office, with out succession of doctrine. For I am sure, that is not a safe communion, where there is not a succession of Apostohcal doctrine ; 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, vrith a true Gospel-conversa tion, vrill save men ; and sorae learned Romamsts* defend that old definition of the Church, that it is ceetus fidelium, the company of the faithful, and will not admit bishops or pastors into the definition of a Church. His 7th 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 raust do his business vrithout any other notes. But it is like the con fidence of a Jesuit, to make that the note of the Church, which is the chief subject of the dispute. " Very well," says our Answerer, " so Irenseus, 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 stUl, and vrill 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 an hundred years ago, we communicated with the Apostolic 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, * Joban. Laun. Epist. vol. 8. Ep. 13. Nicol. Gatinseo. EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. 217 and addresses' to saints, he thinks very harmless things. But the mischief is we do not think them so. But this is not a place to dispute these matters. His first note, concerning the name Catholic, I observed, " makes every Church a cathoUc Church which will caU itself so." And here he leamedly disputes about some indelible names, which the proridence of God orders to be so for great ends. St. Paul directs his Epistle to the Romans, i. e. he hopes to the Roman Cathohcs, p. 34 ; but a Roman Catholic was an unknown name in those days, and many ages after. But at that time, the world, in the Apostle's phrase, was in communion vrith her. Where has the Apostle any such phrase ? and yet we are now a disputing, not about cathohc commu nion, but about the name Roman Catholic Church. Whereas, it does not appear that the Romans had at that time so much as the narae of the Church, as I observed before ; and the very name of the Catholic Church cannot be proved so ancient as that time ; and," her faith being spoken of, which he inter prets her being admired throughout the whole world, whatever it proves, does not prove that she had then the name of the Catholic Church. He adds, " It is not vrithout something of God, that she keeps the name still :" but how does she keep it ? She will call herself cathoUc, when nobody 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 heretics, they have challenged the name, and kept it too among themselves, as the Church of Rome does, though it be longed no more to them than it does to her. His other inde- Uhle names of times and places, he may make the best of he can. But let all concerned in Black-friars, and Austin-friars, and the house of Chartreux, which has so miraculously pre served its name, look to it ; for he seems to hope, that these indelible names are preserved for some good purpose. I added,* the name Catholic does not declare what a Chnrch is, but in what communion it is : and is no note of a true Church, unless it be proved that they are the true Churches which are in communion vrith 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 coramunion, this would be the most catholic communion, as cathoUc signi fies the most general and universal ; but yet, the fourth part, • Disc. p. 176. 218 THE POPISH NOTES OP THE CHURCH which is sincere, would be the best and truest Church, and the cathoUc Church, as that signifies the communion of all orthodox and pure Churches. This distinction of catholic, 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 catholic oruni- versal ; but that was not the force of the argument, nor any part of it, though, it may be, it is too trae ; but the argument was this, that the bare name of catholic cannot prove a Church to be a true Church, because that does not relate to its nature and essence, but to its communion. Now, cathohc communion signifies, either the most universal communion, or the communion only of pure and orthodox Churches, be their nuraber more or less. If we take it in the first sense, the most catholic 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 catholic Churches ; and therefore, in both senses, the bare name of catholic cannot prove a Church to be a true Church ; for we raust first know whether they be true, as that signifies pure and orthodox Churches, before we can know whether they be catholic. But he says, " It is not probable that God would spread such a temptation and stumbUug-block before his own people ; yet if he should, for example's sake, have suffered Lutherauism or Cranraerisra to have spread to such a measure, the palpable- ness 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 anything to the purpose), but yet, if the most cathoUc communion, as that signifies the most universal (though the notes do not refer to cathohc communion, but to the name catholic), were a note of the true Church, it is not sufficient to say, that it is probable that God will not suffer a corrupt coramunion to be the most universal; but he must prove that God has promised this shall not be : and if, ac cording to this supposition, Lutheranism or Cranmerism had prevaUed three parts in four over the Church, how could the palpableness of the schisra secure his prudent man from the infection? For if three parts of the Church were dirided from the fourth, why should a prudent raan charge so much EX.AMINED AND CONFUTED. 2l9 the greater number vrith the schism ? why should the three parts be the schismatics, and not the fourth ? Srdly. 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 Catholic Church, and reject all other Churches as heretical or schismatical, or uncathohc Churches, who refuse obedience and subjection to this one catholic Church." For if this he not the intent of it, what do all the notes of the Church signify to prove that the Church of Rome is the only true cathoUc 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 centre of catholic unity." To this he answers, p. 37, " That there is but one true Church ought to be proved" (Credo unam Sanctam doth, it seeras, not prove it) ; " but if there were as many Churches as prorinces, if they are true, they are one, as hath been explained. Nor stands it with the very in stitution of the creed, to say, I beUeve many true Churches ; no more than to say, I beheve in many true faiths " (which, I suppose, there is some new institution for also, beliering 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 herself, to be exposed by such advocates as do not understand her ovra principles. For will any learned Romanist deny, that there are several particular true Churches ? Or vrill any Protestant deny, that all true Churches are one cathoUc 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 aU the true Churches in the world make one catholic Church; but whether the Church of Rome (which considered in itself is liut a particular Church) be the only true cathoUc Church, the centre of cathoUc unity. So that no Church is a true Church but only by communion vrith and subjection to the Church of Rome. Now, this he can never prove by the notes of a true » Disc. p. 177. 220 THE POPISH NOTES OP THE CHUECH Church, unless he first prove that there is but one particular Church, the communion with, and subjection to which, makes aU other Churches trae 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 could they not prove that aU other Churches must be subject to the Church of Rorae. The Church of England raay be a true Church stiU, though she renounce obedience to the Bishop of Rorae. But he undertakes to prove the Church of Rorae not to be the mistress, which, as it may be construed, is inridious (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 herself. But yet his arguraents to prove this are very considerable. 1st. " Because the Church of Rorae is acknowledged to be so by all in communion with her," p. 37, which is indeed unan swerable ; the Church of Rome, herself, aud all in communion vrith her, say, she is the mother of all other Churches, and therefore she is so. 2dly. " The leamed King James the First did not stick to own her." Did King Jaraes the First own the Pope's supre macy? 3rdly. "To us in England, it is past denial, our mother and nurse too." Our step-mother, we vriU ovra her, and nothing more. " But it is her authority that keeps up in England, above all other reformed Churches, our bishops, our liturgy, our cathedrals ; by her records, her eridences, they stand the shock of antichristian adversaries." This is strange news! We are indeed, then, raore 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 thera up ? Traly, 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 centre again. His fourth argument is from Vitruvius (which I be. Ueve is the first time it was used), frora the situation of Rome, for the empire of the world, which, he thinks, holds as weU for EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. 221 the empire of the Church. And so he concludes with our Lord's elogies of St. Peter's chair, which I could never meet with yet. This is a formidable man, especially considerinp- how many such writers the Church of Rome is furnished with. I added, "That they must prove that the catholic Church does not signify all the particular trae Churches that are in the worid, but some one Church, which is the fountain of catholic unity :" that is, says he, " he should say, not only signify all, but also some one," p. 39. No, Sir, I say, " not signify all, but some one." The Cardinal proposes to find out by his notes the one true catholic Church among all the comraunions of Chris tendom ; and to prove that the Church of Rome is this cathohc Church. Now, I say, this is a senseless undertaking, unless he can prove that the catholic Church does not signify all the parti cular true Churches, which make the one Church and body of Christ, but some one Church, which is the fountain of catholic unity, and communion vrith which gives the denomination of ca tholic 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 catholic ; but take the mother by herself, and she is fundamentally catholic." But this, I say, ought to have heen proved, that there is any one Church which alone is the catholic Church, as the foundation of catholic unity, which the Cardinal's notes cannot prove. That the catholic Church began in one single Church (as he says), I readUy grant, and became catholic, by spreading itself all over the world ; but thus the Church at Jerusalem, not at Kome, was the matrix, as he speaks, of the catholic Church, which yet gave the Church of Jerusalem no pre-eminency or authority over all other Churches. But the Church of Rome does not pretend herself to be fundamentally catholic in this sense, that she was the first Church, but that by virtue of St. Peter's chair, the sovereign authority of the Church is seated in her, and none can belong to the cathoUc Church but those who embrace her communion, and submife to her authority. Which shews how well our Answerer understood this contro versy, when he says, p. 40, "Time was when the Church of Jerusalem was so (that is, the catholic Church, as it was the first and only Chuf ch, 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 1" The Church of Rome does not challenge to be the cathoUc 222 THE POPISH NOTES OP THE CHURCH Church in the sense now given, i. e. as the first and original Church ; and if she did, aU the world knows she was not ; and the sense now given vrill not prove the Church of Rome to be the catholic Church in the sense in which she claims it. But this is intolerable, to dispute vrith men who do not under stand what they dispute about. To hasten then to a conclu sion ; for if my reader, as I suspect, is by this time sick of reading, he raay easily guess how sick I ara of vmting. The last thing I objected against Bellarmine's notes was, that they pretend to find out " an infallible Church by notes, on whose authority we raust rely for the whole Christian faith, even for the Holy Scriptures themselves. For suppose he had given us the notes of a trae Church ^before we can hence conclude, that this Church is the infalhble guide, and uncon trollable judge of controversies, we must be satisfied that the Church is infalUble. This can never be proved but by Scripture ; for unless Christ have bestowed infallibiUty 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 infalhble Church ; and therefore those who resolve the belief of the Scripture into the authority of the Church, cannot, vrithout great impudence, urge the authority of the Scriptures to prove the Church's infallibiUty; 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 judge, or at least a judge which must have the final decision of contro versies, whether infallible or not ; this is not the present dis pute, 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 Scrip tures, 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 Dirine 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 * Disc. p. 179. EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. 223 the infalUble authority of the Church ? If he vrill say we can, we are agreed, and then we wiU 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 adrice 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 raake of it : how they would prove their Church's infalhbility, 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 raust beUeve the Scriptures, and everything else." He says, " it is very freakish, to say no worse especially when I grant (to ray cost) that we come to the knowledge of the Scripture by the uninterrupted tradition of credible witnesses, though I vrill not say tradition of the Church." But if he understands no difference between the authority of an infalhble judge, and of a vritness, 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 raen believe the Scriptures ; and when they believe the Scriptures, they may find more essential notes of a Church than these, viz. that trae evangelical faith and worship which makes a Church; hut these notes the Cardinal rejects, because we cannot know the true faith and the Scriptures without the Church ; and the Justifier of Bellarmine 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 be fore I can say any more to them. But yet he says, " If the Church should say to a Pagan, we have some books sacred vrith us, which we reckon are oracles of God, transmitted to us from generation to genera tion, for almost seventeen hundred years, which we and our forefathers have been versed in by daily expUcations, homilies, sermons. However you accord not vrith the contents of the book, yet we justly take ourselves to be the best judges and 224 THE POPISH NOTES OP THE CHURCH expounders of those oracles. The Pagan would say. The Church spoke reason," p. 44. But nothing to the purpose. For the question is, what notes of a Church you vrill give to a Pagan, to conrince 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 Dirine, and had been versed in near seventeen hun dred years. But would this make a Pagan believe the Scrip tures ? 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 yourselves 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 Bellarmine, whom he undertakes to justify, as any one would guess by his way of justifying him : let but the Romamsts quit this plea, that our faith must be resolved into the authority of the Church, and I shall not despair to see our other disputes fairly ended. For the conclusion of the whole, I observed, " That it is a most senseless thing to resolve all our faith into the authority of the Church. Whereas it is demonstrable, that we must know and beUeve most of the articles of the Christian faith, before we can know whether there be any Church or not. The order observed in the Apostles' Creed is a plain evidence of this ; for all those articles which are before the holy cathoUc Church, must in order of nature be known before it." This he grants, that in order of nature, all those articles of the creed concerning Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, raust be knovra, before we can know a Church, but " to us the Church is raost knovra :" which is plain and downright nonsense ; if by "most known," he means first knovra, which is the present dispute ; for whatever by the order of nature must be knovra first, must be first known vrithout any distinction. For we speak now not of the methods of learning, but of resolring our faith into its first principles, and that surely raust foUow the order of nature. If the behef of the Church's authority be not in order of nature before the belief of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, it is a senseless thing to resolve our faith into EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. 225 that, which though we should grant were the first cause of kiiowing these, yet it is not the first principle in order of nature into which faith must be resolved. Children, indeed, as he observes, must receive their creed upon the authority of their parents, or of the Church, which is more knovra to thera than their creed ; as all other scholars raust receive the first principles of any art or science upon the authority of their masters. But will you say, that the Latin tongue is resolved into the authority of the schoolraaster, because the scholars in learning the Latin tongue rely on his authority ? which yet is just as good sense as to say, that our faith must be resolved into the authority of the Church, because the Church teaches catechumens their catechism, and they receive it upon the authority of their parents, or priests. And hence, indeed, he may conclude that a young catechumen knows his teachers be fore he knows his creed : but to conclude that he knows a Church first, " as that signifies a blessed society, where salva tion is to be had," is a Uttle too much ; for that supposes that he knows the Church before he has learned unam sanctam ec clesiam, that is, before he has found the Church in the Creed, which is great forwardness indeed. ... If he does not speak of children, but of men-catechumens, for such there were in the primitive Church, and such he seems to speak of, when he says, " It is plain that the cate chumen knew there was a Church, a blessed society, where salvation was to be had, before he would enter himself to be caj;echised in the faith :" I do not doubt but such men did know the Church before they submitted to the instructions of it ; but they knew Christ too, and believed in hira before they knew the Church. For they first beheved in Christ, and then joined themselves to that society which professed the Christian faith, that they might be the better instructed in the doctrines of Christianity ; that they might learn from the Church what the Christian faith is, and the reasons of it ; not that they would wholly resolve their faith into Church authority. But I find by our author, that the Creed was made only for catechumens ; for he says, " the first person used at the be ginning of the Creed, I believe, signifies I, who desire to_ be made a member of the Church, by the holy sacrament of ini tiation, do believe what hath been proposed to me first, and then comprehended in that fundamental breriate." What he designs by this, I cannot guess ; for stiU the cate chumen professes to beUeve in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, VOL, III. a 226 THE POPISH NOTES OF THE CHURCH before he believes the holy catholic Church. But pray, what does I signify, when a bishop, or priest, or the Pope hiraself repeats the Creed? Ii, as he concludes, we raust believe Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, before we can completely determine the Church, and its definition : he should have said, before we can know whether there be a Church or not, much less beUeve upon its authority ; then, indeed, as he says, " the Creed raust begin with I beUeve in God." But if our faith must be resolved into the authority of the Church, as the Church of Rome teaches : and as these laborious endeavours of finding out a Church by extra-essential notes suppose ; then the Creed, as I said, ought to begin vrith, " I believe in the holy cathoUc Church, and upon the authority of this Church, I beUeve in God the Father Almighfy, and in Jesus Church, and in the Holy Ghost." Thus I have vrith inrincible patience particularly answered one of the raost senseless pamphlets that ever I read ; and I hope it vrill not be whoUy useless ; for sometimes it is as neces sary to expose nonsense, as to answer the most plausible argu ments ; though, notvrithstanding the mirth of it, I do not desire to be often so employed. EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. 227 BELLARMINE'S FIRST NOTE OF THE CHURCH, CONCERNING THE NAME OF CATHOLIC, EXAMINED. Prima Nota, est ipsum Catholicts Ecelesia et Christianorum Nomen. Bellar. cap. iv. de Notis Ecelesise. p. 1477. That the sincere preaching of the faith or doctrine of Christ, as it is laid down in the Scriptures, is the only sure, infalUble mark of the Church of Christ, is a trath so clear in itself, so often and fully proved by leamed raen of the Reforraation, that it may justly seem a wonder, that any Church, which is not conscious to herself of any errors and deriations from it, should refuse to put herself upon that trial : this gave being to the Church of Christ at first, makes it one and makes it cathoUc. According as this fares in any part or member of it, is that Church distinguished and denominated ; it will be true or false, pure or corrapt, sound or heretical, according as the faith it holds bears a conformity or repugnance to the written doctrine of our Sariour : an orthodox faith makes an orthodox Church, hut if her faith becomes tainted and heterodox, the Church ¦wUl be so too ; and should it happen wholly to apostatize frora the faith of (IJhrist, it would wholly cease to be a cathoUc Church. This may seem to be the reason, that the present Church of Rome, being notoriously warped froni truth, de- cUnes the being examined and measured by this rule (haring, indeed, some reason to be against the Scripture that is so eri dently against her) and erideavours to support herself with great names and swelling titles : hence it is that we so often hear the name of cathoUc, antiquity, ampUtude, unity, succes sion, miracles, prophecy, and several others that their great Cardinal sets dovrai, as so many perpetual and never-failing marks and characters to find out the trae Church, and to assert his own. a 2 228 THE POPISH NOTES OF THE CHURCH I shall in this short Tract examine the first of these, and that I may give it all the fair play imaginable, endeavour to represent it in its full force, and to its best advantage : Bellar mine makes it thus to speak for itself: "The Apostle in 1 Cor. iU. 4, makes it the sign and raark of schismatics to be called after the name of particular men, though of the Apostles them selves, whether of Paul, or ApoUos, or Cephas : and in the writings of the ancient Fathers, the orthodox Churches were known and distinguished by the narae of catholic ; and the conventicles of schismatics and heretics, by the names of their first authors. And therefore since the Church of Rome is by all, even her bitterest adversaries, called catholic, and the seve ral sects of the Reformed after the names of their particular doctors, as Luther, Calrin, ZuLngUus, and the like ; it follows that the name of cathoUc is not only a sm-e undoubted raark of the true Church, but also that this Church of Rorae is that Church :" this is his arguraent ; and as ranch as he values his Church upon it, I can see no more in it but this, that because Churches professing the true orthodox faith, were anciently styled catholic, therefore all that have been styled cathoUc since, be their faith what it vrill, must be true and orthodox Churches : and because the Apostle forbids Christians to be called after the name of particular men, though of never so great eminency in the Church ; and those mentioned in the works of the ancients were really schismatics and heretics, that were so called, as the Valentinians, Marcionites, Montanists, and others : therefore all that in after ages shall be so nick named, though out of malice and ill will by their enemies, whilst they disown it themselves, must go for schismatics and heretics. This is so weak a topic, that I might justly break off here, haring exposed it sufficiently by a bare representing of it : yet for the reader's farther information and satisfaction in this matter, I shall proceed to shew these three things : — I. In what respect the name of Catholic was esteemed by some of the Fathers in their time a Note of a catholic Church, and in what respects it will ever be a standing Note of it. II. That from the bare name of Catholic, no argument can be drawn to prove a Church to be Catholic. III. That the Church of Rome, having egregiously corrupted the true catholic faith, neither is nor deserves the name of a Catholic Church. EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. 229 I. In what respect the name of Catholic was esteemed by some of the Fathers in their time, a .Note of the catholic Church. And this, as eridently appears from their writings, and even fi:om those testimonies cited by Bellarmine, was upon the account of the cathoUc faith ; that in their time was generally and for the most part in conjunction with the name of CathoUc ; and whenever it is so, it vrill be an infallible note of a CathoUc Church. The cathoUc faith is that which was de livered by Christ himself to his Apostles, and by them to the Church, contained in those writings, which they by the- extra ordinary direction and assistance of the Holy Ghost, indited and commended to the care and keeping of all the Churches planted by them,, as a sure unerring rule of faith and man ners ; caUed Catholic, both as it contains all.things in it neces sary to salvation, and as it was to be preached and pubUshed in aU times, and successively in all places : according to Vincentius Lirinensis. Rule, quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibv-s ereditum est : it set out at Jerusalem, but was not to stop there, but from thence to spread itself into aU p^rts of the world. The Apostles were first to preach to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, but not to them only :. " Go, teach all nations," was our Sariour's coramission to the AposT ties ; and " I vrill give thee the heathen for thine inheritance," Was God's promise to our Saviour. The Christian Church was not to be confined to the limits of one nation, Uke that of the Jews, vrithin the small territories of Judea, but to be made up of " every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." Now in the first ages of Christianity, before the main body of the Chnrch was dirided, only some few misled and seduced people separating from it, it being generally trae, that they that bore the name of catholic, professed the true catholic faith, and those that were called after the name of particular men had depraved and corrupted it ; the very name catholic became a distinguishing note of a true Church, and to be caUed after the narae of the author of any sect, the mark of an heretical and schismatical one ; but yet this was not so much for the sake of the bare names, as for the things, the tenets and doctrines signified by them. In this sense are aU those Fathers to be understood, quoted by BeUarmme and others, who seem to lay any stress upon the narae : it was 230 THE POPISH NOTES OP THE CHUECH upon the account of the trae cathoUc faith, which in those times did for the most part, if not everywhere, accompany and go along vrith the name : thus when St. Cyril of Jerasalem* ad- rised his catechumens, when they should go into any city, to inquire for the catholic Church, he gave this reason for it, " Because there the trae catholic faith is taught ;" and in the same place adds, " the Church is therefore caUed cathohc, because it teaches all those truths all men are bound to know in order to salvation :" and upon the sarae account, Pacianusf not unfitly said, " Christian is my name, and CathoUc my su-- narae ; by the one I am distinguished from heathens, by the other frora heretics and schismatics :" because in that age few or none went by the name of Catholic, but those that were so indeed, and professed the true cathoUc faith. And as this is a trae account of the original of the narae Catholic, and the weight that was laid upon it in those early times, so will the name ever continue to be a sure and unerring note of the cathoUc Church, whilst it is inseparably conjoined with the profession of the cathohc faith : where this is taught and pro fessed, there is a trae Church ; where this fails in part or in whole, the Church decays, or is lost. II. No argument can be drawn from the bare name of Ca tholic, to prove a Church to be catholic. This is so clear and erident in itself, that it neither needs rior is scarce capable of a proof: " The Church of Rome is called Cathohc, therefore she is cathoUc : the Papists are caUed Catholics, therefore they are catholics." This is such a way of reasoning, that every man raust be ashamed to ovra, but those who have the confidence to say anything, when they are not able to say anything to the purpose. For, 1 . The Christian Church was not known hy the name of Cathohc at the beginning ; and therefore it can be no essential note of it. We find no mention of this name in the writings of the New Testament : we read, " That the disciples were called Christians at Antioch ;" but the narae CathoUc, princi pally respecting the diffusive nature of the Church, the Church could not properly be so caUed, till the Christian faith had been more generally and universally preached in the world : therefore Pacianus, in the fore-quoted place, confesses, that * Cap. 18. Catech. [Catecb. 18. s. 26. p. 297, 298. Venet. 1763.] t Epist. ad Symprou. deNom. Cath. [Bibl. Patr. vol.7, p. 259. col. 1.] EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. 231 the name CathoUc was not used in the Church in the days of the Apostles ; and from thence some have concluded, that the Creed which goes under the Apostles' narae, haring this de nomination of the Church inserted in it,. Catholic Church, was not composed hy them, but by some holy bishops of a later standing in the Church ; yet must it be confessed, that the name is very ancient, and of an early date, it being found in the Oriental Creeds, particularly those of Jerusalem and Alexandria, and in the inscriptions of St. James, St. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude's Epistles, which are all styled general or catholic Epistles. 2. Names are oftentimes arbitrarily and at random, and falsely iraposed on things ; and therefore nothing can be concluded frora thera i the Church of Sardis had a name to live, but was dead : the Church of Laodicea gloried that she was rich,, but was poor ; many on earth are called gods, who are but mortal men ; Simon Magnus was called the great power of' God, but was a child of the deril ; Mahomet a great prophet, but was an impostor ; Diana the great goddess of the Ephesians,, but was an idol ; our blessed Sariour foretold that many should come in his name, each saying, " I am Christ," but were deceivers. Thus, you see, things and persons are not always as they are called ; nor do I beUeve the Papists are wilUng that their Church should be thought in reaUty to be, according to the signification of some names that are too libe- raUy bestowed upon her ; the Bishop of Rome caUs himself Christ's ricar, but others, "Antichrist;" the Church of Rorae styles herself the CathoUc Church, but others, " the whore of Babylon." I do as Uttle justify the fastening such odious, names upon thera, as approve their arrogating to theraselves the other glorious titles; yet this I am pretty weU assured of, that a man of ordinary abihties may say as much to prove the Pope, Antichrist, and the Romish Church, an harlot; as the whole college can justify the pretence of the one to he Christ's. ricar, or of the other to be his undefiled spouse. 3. Names are oftentimes imposed on things,, and so used,. as marks of distinction only, vrithout any farther design of representing their natures and quaUties by them : thus we caU the Romanists Catholics ; not that we think they are truly so, but in compUment, or irony, in compUance vrith common use, or by way of discrimination frora other Chris tians ; and in the sarae respects, it may be supposed, that they call us the Reformed : and if they thmk this is a good argu- 232 THE POPISH NOTES OP THE CHURCH ment to prove them Cathohcs, we have the same, and it vriU hold as strong, to prove us Reformed. They call us Re formed, therefore we are Reformed, is as good an argument as, we call thera Catholics, therefore they are Cathohcs. In this sense are those words of St. Austin,* cited by Bellarmine, to be understood : " That should a stranger happen m any city to inquire even of an heretic, where he might go to a cathoUc Church ; the heretic would not dare to send him to his ovra house or oratory." Not that that heretic did be lieve, that those that were there called Catholics, did hold the trae catholic doctrine, for then he could not have believed his own ; but looking' upon it as a bare name of distinction, he directed him to that assembly of Christians that were so caUed. St. Austin seeras here to suppose a case, as if a traveller enter ing into a city, where both Popish and Reformed Churches were allowed, and should chance to meet a Protestant, and of him inquire the way to a CathoUc Church, and he direct him to a Popish one ; or a Papist, and of him inquire the way to a Reformed Church, and he direct hira to a Protestant one : it would not therefore follow, that either the one or the other did believe either Church to answer and correspond vrith its name, that the Popish was CathoUc, or the Protestant Reformed ¦ but that they were words of vulgar use, whereby they might be known from one another, but not the true Church from the false. 4. It does not foUow, that because the name of Catholic in that time, when it was for the most part in conjunction vrith the catholic faith, was a sure note of a true Church, it must always be so, even when the name and thing are parted. It was not long before the Christian Church became miserably tom and rent asunder, dirided into many and very great bodies, all pretending to Catholicism. By what mark now is the catholic Church to be known ? Not by the name surely, when all parties laid claim to it, and the grossest heretics, such as the Manichaeans themselves, as St. Austin tells us, who had the least to shew for it, coveted and gloried in it. Have never any heretics or schisraatics been styled Cathohcs ? Nor ever any orthodox styled heretics ? The Greek Church is called Catholic, and yet the Church of Rome vrill have her an heretical one : the Donatists appropriated to themselves that ample title ; and yet St. Austin thought them no better than schis- • Cont. Epist. Fundam. c. 4. [vol. 8- col. 153. Far-. 1688-] EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. 233 .matics : the Arians called themselves Catholics, and the orthodox, Horaousians and Athanasians ; but neither the one was the more, nor the other the less catholic for what they were called. Trath is always the same, and the nature of things remains unalterable, let men fix on thera what names they please : by this rule then is the true Church to be knovra, not because it bears the name of Catholic, for that a Church may do, and yet be guilty of schism and heresy, but because .it professes the true faith, and then though it be in narae .heretic, it is in reality catholic : this is Lactanthis's rule,* to discern the true Church by the true religion : " That Church alone," says he, "is cathoUc, that retains the true worship of God." And St. Austin,f in his disputes vrith the Donatists, where the trae Church was, appeals to the Scripture, as the only infallible judge : araongst many others to this purpose, he hath these words, " I say this, and thou sayest that, but thus saith the Lord." 5. Again, does it follow, that because the being called after the names of particular men, in that age, when all so called were, for the raost part, corrupt in the faith, was a sure brand of schismatics and heretics, it must ever be so ? May not names and titles be unjustly and maUciously imposed ? If the Churches of the Reformed must go for heretics and schisraatics merely because they are distinguished by the names of those men that were the first and raost eminent instruments in that blessed work, as of Lutherans, Calrinists, ZuingUans, and the like ; is there not the same reason, that the several orders in the Church of Rome, that go rmder the names of their parti cular founders, as the Benedictines, Franciscans, Dominicans, Jansenists, and Molinists, and others, be esteemed so too ? If there be any difference, the advantage of reason is on our side ; since the Reformed assume not those names to themselves, and though they deservedly honour the meraories of those men, and with thankful hearts embrace the Reformation, God was pleased by their ministry to make in the Church, yet do they by no means affect to be calledafter their names : they own no name but Christian or CathoUc, when it signifies persons adhering to the trae catholic faith : the others are nick-names * Instit. lib. iv. e. ult. Sola catbolica est quae verum cultum retinet. [vol. 1. p. 293. Wirceb. 1783.] t Non audiamus, baec dico, hsec dicis, sedaudiamus, hsecdicitDominus, &c. Ibi quseramus Ecclesiam. Epist- 166. [Ut supra, vol.2, col. 301.] DeUnit. Eccl. c. 2. [Ibid. vol. 8. col. 340.] 234 THE POPISH NOTES OP THE CHUECH fastened on them by their adversaries out of scom or maUce, to represent them to the world, as far as they are able, as so many schismatics from the cathoUc Church, and as having Other leaders than Christ and his Apostles : but those in the Church of Rome that are denomuiated from then- particular founders, give themselves those appeUations, and seem to prefer them before that traly catholic one of Christian, which whUe with some neglect they leave to the coraraon people, they glory and pride theraselves in the other ; so that if this note of a heretic is valid, it tums vrith great force against themselves, who are really guUty of it, and not against us, whom they vriU make guUty of it, but are not. III. The Church of Rome having egregiously corrupted the catholic faith or religion, neither is nor deserves the name of a catholic Church. Whether she is guilty of this or not, wUl be best seen, ty comparing her doctrine in several points vrith that dehvered by Christ, and left upon record by his holy Apostles ; for though the Church of Rome vrill not allow the Scriptures to be the whole and perfect rale of faith and manners, yet they acknow ledge them to be the Word of God ; and granting that, they must acknowledge that all those doctrines and practices that are forbidden by them, are corruptions and depravations of it. Let us then bring their faith to the touch-stone ; how readest thou ? The Scripture says, "Thou The Church of Rome suys, shalt worship the Lord thy that angels and saints are to God, and him only shalt thou be worshipped and prayed serve."* Matth. iv. 10. Which unto. — Catech. Rom. par. 3. words eridently appropriate c. 2. n. 8, 9. [par. 3. cap. 16. all kinds, and all degrees of p. 355. Mechl. 1831.1 religious worship unto God, Though vrith an inferior they being an answer to the kind of worship, not the same devil's temptation, who re- that is given to God. — Ibid. quired but the lowest degree; the deril acknowledging the right he had of disposing of the kingdoms of the world to be only derivative, not natural (they were delivered to me), * See Discourse of tbe Object of Religious 'Worsbip. 1685. EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. 235 at the same time confessed himself not to he the supreme God, and consequently cannot be supposed to claim the high est degree of worship. The Scripture says, " How shaU they call on him in whom they have not beUeved?"* Making God alone the object of prayer, who is the only ob ject of men's faith and confi dence. Rom. x. 14. The Scripture says, "There is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave hiinself a ransom for all."f lTim.ii.5, 6. The Scripture says, as it is in the second Commandment, " Thou shalt not raake to thy self any graven image, nor the Ukeness of any thing, &c. Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them,"J Exod. XX. 4. Where, we see, aU use of images in the wor ship of God, whether carved or painted, are expressly for bidden, vrithout any exception or distinction. The Scripture coramands all persons indifferently, "to read, to search, to meditate on the * See Discourse concerning Invocation of Saints. t Two others in 1686. X See particular Examination of Monsieur de Meaux in the Articles of Invocation of Saints, and 'Worship of Images. 1686. The Church of Rome says, " It is good and profitable to pray to saints and angels." — ConcU. Trid. sess. 25. de In- vocat. The Church of Rome prays to saints as intercessors, and teaches that Godbestows many favoursuponmenbytheir "me rit, grace, and intercession." •—Catech. Rom. par. 3. c. 2. n. 12. [par. 3. cap. 24. p. 357, ut supra.] The Church of Rome re quires, " That due worship and veneration be given to them, such as kissing, unco vering the head, and falling down before them ;" and de nounces a curse against those that think othervrise. — ConcU, Trid. sess. 25. [p. 211. Paris. 1832.] Catech. Rora.par. 3.c. 2. n. 24. And then to cover the sharae and guUt of this, adds the second coraraandment to the first, and by making it of the same sense vrith that, makes it to have none of its own, nor of any signification. The Church of Rome aUows not this liberty to the laity, but upon Ucense, that is not 1684. 236 THE POPISH NOTES OP THE CHURCH Scriptures, that the Word of God dwell in thera richly in all wisdom."* Luke xri. 29. John V. 39. Psal. i. 2. Col. iU. 16. The Scripture expressly for bids prayers in an unknown tongue, as altogether unpro fitable and unedifying in the Church, 1 Cor. xiv. 2, " He that speaketh in an unknown tongue, speaketh not unto men;"f ver. 11, "If I know not the meaning of the voice, he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me;" ver 16, " When thou shalt bless with the Spirit (by the gift of an unknovra tongue) how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say. Amen, at thy giring of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest ?" The Scripture says, "Bless ed are the dead which die in the Lord, for they rest from their labours," Rev. xiv. 13. "To day," said our Sariour to the repenting thief on the cross. easUy to be obtained; and says, "that more hurt than good comes by the reading of them." — Reg. Ind. Libr. Pro- hib. Reg. 4. [p. 279. Paris. 1832.] Nay, a hberty to read them under such a re striction was thought too much, and therefore the fa culty of granting such hcenses was, by the order of Pope Cle- mentVIII. quite takenaway. — Reg. Ind. Libr. Prohib. Auct. Sexti 5. et Clem. 8. Obser. circa 4. regul. The Church of Rorae strictly enjoins such and no other, viz. in the Latin tongue, and de nounces a curse against those, who say, " that Divine serrice ought to be administered only in the vulgar tongue." — Con cU. Trident, sess. 22. c. 8, and can. 9. Hereby making the people perform to God an un reasonable serrice, whUst it takes from them the know ledge of the prayers offered in their name, and suffers them not to understand their own desires. The Church of Rome says, that souls who die in a state of grace, but are not suffi ciently purged frorri their sins, "go first into purgatory," a place of torment bordering * See Treatise on Search the Scriptures. 1 685. As also the Lay Chris tian's Obligation to read the Scriptures. 1687. t See Discourse of Divine Service in an unknown Tongue. 1685. EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. 237 '*' shalt thou be with me in Paradise," Luke xxiU. 43. And Paradise is acknowledged by thera to be a place of peace and joy. — Bellar. de Sanct. Beat. 1. 1. c. 3. Test. 4. The Scripture says, " That the blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, cleanseth us from aU sin," 1 John i. 7. And that God for Christ's sake hath "forgiven us all our tres passes," Eph. iv. 32. Col. u. 13. The Scripture says. That when our Saviour instituted the blessed sacrament of his body and blood,* he com manded it to be adrainistered and received in both kinds, the cup as well as the bread, saying, "Drink ye aU of it," Matth.xxri. 27. Neither were the disciples any raore priests near upon heU; from which yet their deliverance may be expedited by thesuffrages, that is, prayers, alms, and masses, said and done by the faithful that are aUve, in their behalf. — BeUar. de Purgat. 1. 2. c. 6. Catech. Rom. par. 1. c. 6. n. 3. ConcU. Trid. sess. 25. De cret. de Purgat. [Doctrina de Purgatorio, p. 209, ut supra.] Now how "this resting from their labours and being in Para dise," can be consistent vrith the pains and fire of purgatory, which Bellarmine tells us is hotter than hell itself, is past my apprehension. The Church of Rome says, that souls are to continue in purgatory till they have made fuU satisfaction for their sins, and are thoroughly purged from them ; and that whoever says, that there is no debt of teraporal punishment to be paid either in this world, or in purgatory, Ijefore they can be admitted into heaven, is ac - cursed.— ConcU. Trid. sess. 6. can. 30. The Church of Rome says the cup is not to be adrainis tered to the laity, and gives raany reasons for it, " lest the blood of Christ should be spilt ; lest the wine kept for the sick should fret; lest vrine may not always be had, or lest some may not be able to bear the smell or taste of it." Whether * See Discourse of the Communion in one Kind, in Answer to Mon sieur de Meaux. 1687. - 238 TH* POPISH NOTES OP THE CHURCH when they took the cup, than when they received the bread ; for if they were made priests by our Sariour's pronouncing these words, " Do this in re membrance of me ;" they be came so, before they had taken, at least before they had eaten the bread, as well as before they had received the cup; it not appearing that Christ raade any pause be twixt his saying, " Take, eat, this is my body," and his say ing, "Do this in reraerabrance of me," but spake them as it were in a breath, as one con tinued sentence ; and then upon this account the whole sacrament, the bread as well as the vrine, raust belong only to the priests. The Scripture says, that the bread and vrine in the sa crament, even after consecra tion, are bread and wine still,* 1 Cor. xi. 26, 27. -And it is very erident, that when our Sariour said, "'This is my body,"f he meant it only as the representation of his body; a manner of speech well un derstood by the Jews, who commonly said the same thing of the Paschal Lamb : they called it the Body of the Pass over, when as it was but the me morial, a figure usual in sacra raents, and indeed essential to them. these are sufficient reasons or no, the Council of Trent en joins aU to beUeve them so, under an anathema. — ConcU. Trid. sess. 21. can. 1 et 2. The CouncU of Constance ac knowledges that our Sariour instituted the sacrament in both kinds, and that it so con tinued in the Church of Rome many centuries, and yet, with a notwithstanding to both these, it sacrilegiously robs the people of the cup. ConcU. Constan. sess. 13. The Church of Rome says, that the bread and vrine in the eucharist, by the priests pronouncing these words, hoc est corpus meam, is transub stantiated into the natural body and blood of Christ; the species or accidents only of the bread and vrine remain ing, and hath raade it an article to be believed by all under an anathema. — Concil. Trid. sess. 13.de Real. Prses. c. 1 . Cornel, a Lapide teUs us, that it was the opinion of some of their grave dirines, that this change is made after so powerful and effectual * See Discourse of Transubstantiation. 1685. t Another of the Real Presence, &c. in Answer to two Discourses from Oxford, 1687. EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. 239 manner, that if Christ had not been incarnated before, the force of this charm would have incamated him, and clothed him vrith human na ture. Adeb patenter et efficaciter, ut si Christus necdum esset in- earnatus, per heec verba (hoe est corpus m^um) incarnaretur, corpusque humanum assumeret. — Cornel, a Lapid. Com. in Esa. c, 7. The Scripture says, " That The Church of Rome says, Christ needed not daily, as " That in the sacrifice of the those high priests, to offer up mass Christ is offered as often sacrifice, &c., for this he did as that is celebrated ; and that once, when he offered up him- though therein he be un- setf," Heb. rii. 27. " And bloodUy offered, yet it is a that without shedding of blood true propitiatory sacrifice for is no remission," Heb. is.. 22. the suis both of the Uring and dead." — ConcU. Trid. sess. 22. cap. 1 . And declares the per son accursed that demes any part of this. — Ibid. In all these particulars, you see (and several other might be instanced in) the faith and doctrine of the Church of Rome heirs a manifest repugnance to the Gospel of Christ. Now, if the Holy Scripture may be allowed so much as to be a rule of faith and manners in those things it particularly treats of, the Church of Rome contradicting that rale in those things, raust be condemned for a corrupter of the Christian faith or doctrine. And having thus made it erident, that she holds not the trae catholic faith, it is as evident that she is not, and consequently deserves not to be called, a cathoUc Church. 240 THE POPISH NOTES OP TIlE CHURCH THE SECOND NOTE OF THE CHURCH EXAMINED, VIZ. ANTIQUITY. Secunda Nota est ANxrauixAs. — Bellar. Lib. iv. cap. v, de Notis Ecclesiee. It is a shrewd sign that a Church is in an ill case, when the most learned and witty defenders of it, commend it to the world by such raarks and characters, whereby they say it may be knovra, as are neither proper to it alone, nor in truth be long to it ; but more fully and eridently belong to them whom they oppose. That this is the case of the present Church of Rome, in that famous note of Antiquity, which Bellarmine and others make a mark of the trae Church, I wUl clearly and distinctly demonstrate by shewing these three things. I. That the plea of bare Antiquity is not proper to the Church, but common to it with other societies of false religion. II. That true Antiquity is not on the side of the present Roman Church. But, III. That it is truly on ours. I. It is confessed by all, even by thera who make anti quity a mark of the Church, that the notes of a thing must be proper to that of which they are a note, and not common to it vrith other things : which qmte destroys this note of antiquity; ppon a double account. Fu-st, Because that which is proper to a thing is inseparable from it, and did ever belong to it since it had a being ; and can at no time, without the destraction of its being, be absent from it. This every fresh-man in learning knows; and by that may know, that antiquity is not a note proper to the Church, because it did not always belong to the Church : for there was a time when the Church was new. Which was ob jected to it by the adversaries of our reUgion ; and the de fenders of the Church answered the very same to them then, that we do to the Romanists now; as will appear in the second thing I have to observe. EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. 241 Secondly, That other societies have laid claim to this note,, and it could not be denied them ; and therefore it is not a proper note, whereby the true Church may be certainly known, being common to it with others that are not of the Church. 1 . For. first, the Samaritans claimed it against the Jews, as appears frora the woman's discourse with our Saviour, John iv. 20 : " Our fathers worshipped in this mountain," &c. They had done so for raany ages before they worshipped in Jerusalera. For here God appeared unto Abrahara, who here also built an altar when he came first out of Chaldea, Gen. rii. 6, 7. Here Jacob likewise built an altar when he came out of Mesopotamia, Gen. xxxiii. 20. Here there was a sanc tuary in the days of Joshua, who gave his last charge to Israel, and made a covenant with them in this place, chap. xxiv. 25, 26. Here the patriarchs were buried, ver. 32. Nay, hereabouts was Shiloh, Judg. xxi. 1 9 ; where, by the order of Joshua, the tabernacle and the ark of God were settled, long before it was brought to Jerusalem, Josh. xviU. 1, 2, which was all this time in the hands of the Jebusites. To which plea the Jews could not make an answer, but by maintaining this principle : that not the antiquity of place, but the authority of God's precept, was to be their direction in this case. And God, it appeared by the holy books, had chosen Jerusalem to place his name there. 2. Thus the Jews theraselves argued against Christ, that he did not follow the tradition of the elders, which had been de rived to thera from ancient times, Mark rii. 1, &c., and against Christians, whora they called the sect of the Nazarenes, Acts xxiv. 5 ; as much as to say, heretics newly sprung up from Jesus of Nazareth. 3. And thus the Pagans argued against them both ; par ticularly against the Christians, saying to St. Paul at Athens, "May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is?" Acts xvU. 19. And in after-tiraes calling it a novel reli gion, a novel narae ; and disputing that their rehgion was the tmer, because they were strengthened and defended by the authority of antiquity. So we read in Amobius,* and in Symmachus,t and Pra- dentius,J and many others whom I omit ; contentuig myself • Lib. 2. t Ad Valentin. Theodos. et Arcad. t In Agone Romani Martyris. VOL. III. K 242 THE POPISH NOTES OP THE CHURCH with St. Austin alone, because he gives a most pertinent answer to this poor pretence, which vrill as well serve us against the Papists, as it did him against the Pagans.* Who contended that what they held was trae, because of its antiquity. "As if," saith he, "antiquity, or ancient custom, should carry it against the trath. Thus murderers, adulterers, and all wicked men, may defend their crimes, for they are ancient practices, and began at the beginning of the world. Though from hence they ought rather to understand their error, because that which is reprehensible and filthy, is thereby proved to have been UI begun, &c., nor can it be made honest and unreprovable, by having been done long ago." But this is a part of the deril's craft and subtlety (as he ex- ¦cellently observes in the same place), " who, as he invented ¦those false worships, and sprinkled sorae juggling tricks to draw men into them ; so he took such course, that in process of time the fallacy was commended, and the filthy invention was excused by being derived frora antiquity : for, by long custom, that began not to seem filthy, which was so in itself^ The irrational vulgar began to worship demons, or dead men, who appeared to them as if they had been gods ; which wor ship being drawn down into custom of long continuance, thinks thereby to be defended, as if it were the truth of reason. Whereas the reason of truth is not from custom (which is from antiquity), but from God ; who is proved to be God, not by long continuance (or antiquity) but by eternity." Let this be applied to our present business, and it is suffi cient to shew, that bare antiquity cannot be a note of truth : for there are very ancient errors. Which is so erident, that it is a wonder such a man as Bellarraine was, should let this pass the muster among the notes he reckons up, of the truth of his Church ; which he could intend for no raore than to make a