The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 1 · Chapter 28
CHAP. 28. Reaſons of the Cardinal and others, to prove that the true Doctrine and conformity to the word of God, is no mark of the true Church.
AMong the marks of the true Church, our Adverſaries uſe to put the conformity with the ancient Church, that is, with the doctrine of the Fathers: Whereupon one may with great reaſon wonder, why they will not do unto holy Scripture the like honour, as to the writings of the Fathers; and why they will not have the conformity with the word of God, to be alſo a mark whereby the true Church muſt be known? Who ſeeth not, that they put conformity with the Fathers for a mark of the Church, becauſe they know that the people cannot perceive that mark, and ſeeth nothing in the writings of the Fathers, which are Greek and Latin, and of an endleſs length? And that they will not have conformity with the holy Scripture to be a mark to know the Church by, becauſe that mark is eaſie to be known, and for fear that the people ſhould be obliged to read Scripture, which they fear as much as Felons do Laws?
Yet let us ſee what reaſon they can give for their avoiding of that touch-ſtone, and denying, that their Church ſhould be known by the Word of God, to be the true Church.
They ſay (and M. Du Perron with the reſt) that this mark is both obſcure and controverted, becauſe all Churches, how corrupt ſoever they be, ſay that they have the true doctrine, and conformity with the Word of God.
By ſpeaking thus, they overthrow all the marks which themſelves attribute unto the true Church, as antiquity, holineſs of doctrine, multitude, the name of Catholick, &c. for there is none of thoſe marks but is controverted and challenged by other Churches beſides the Roman. Beſides we maintain, that thoſe marks for the moſt part are not proper to the Roman Church. If we give to the Church no other marks but ſuch as are not controverted, ſhe ſhall have none at all. Thus giving Laws, ſending Embaſſadors, judging ultimately of all cauſes, coyning money, &c. are marks of Soveraignty, although an uſurper aſſume them unjuſtly.
This may ſerve to anſwer the Cardinal, who argueth thus; If the Doctrine be the mark of the Church, it muſt be either a controverted or an uncontroverted Doctrine: Not the controverted, for it is the thing in diſpute: Not the uncontroverted, for it is a Doctrine common to the two contending parties. I anſwer, that the whole and entire Doctrine of ſalvation, is a mark of the true Church: Of which Doctrine, if ſome part be controverted, yee the truth is on the one ſide, and may be diſcerned by thoſe that will ſubject themſelves unto the Word of God.
M. du Perron ſaith in the fourth chapter; that the examination of the Church is eaſie and certain, but the examination of the ſaith is perilous and hard, and that the moſt learned are often deceived in it: For which he giveth this reaſon; that he that hath the Church, is ſure to have the true faith, although he knows not diſtinctly all the Articles thereof, and to be in the way of ſalvation; whereas he that hath faith, and is not in the Church cannot hope for any ſalvation. The Reader may obſerve an affected ambiguity in theſe words, He that hath the Church: For one knows not whether he underſtands thereby he that is in the true Church, or he that hath a true knowledge that ſuch a Church is the true and the good. For in the firſt ſenſe it is falſe, that every man that is in the true Church hath the true faith. There are many hypocrites in the Church, that believe not what they profeſs: There are many profane perſons in the true Church, which know nor what belongs to true Doctrine, and in their heart laugh at Chriſtian Religion. Many are in the true Church by their birth, and by cuſtom, or by the publick ſtream, not caring for Religion: But if by him that hath the Church, he underſtands him that hath a true knowledge of the true Church, then it is certain, that ſuch an one hath alſo the knowledge of the true faith, becauſe it is the knowledge of the true faith that makes him to know the true Church. And thus he muſt know the true faith, before he can know the true Church: The Church is the Aſſembly of the faithful: Thoſe are faithful that have the true faith: It is then impoſſible to know that one belongs to the Aſſembly of the faithful, not knowing what is the true faith.
The ſame ambiguity he uſeth in the fifth chapter, ſaying, that to know the whole Doctrine in all the points or inſtances thereof, is a thing harder to know then the ſociety of the Church. The ambiguity is in theſe words, to know the ſociety of the Church: For either he ſpeaks of that ſuperficial knowledge whereby Pagans and Infidels ſee the Chriſtian Church, as one ſeeth a ſociety of men that call themſelves Chriſtians, who yet care not for Chriſtian Religion: In that ſenſe I grant, that it is eaſier to know the Church, then to be inſtructed in the Chriſtian Doctrine; But that Doctrine is uſeleſs; and is not that which is in queſtion in this place: Or elſe he ſpeaks of a certain knowledge, that ſuch a Church is the true Church, to which they muſt joyn that will be ſaved. Of that knowledge, I ſay that it cannot be acquired but by the knowledge of the true faith and doctrine, which therefore is more known then the true Church.
He goeth on, and to prove how difficult it is, to know the true Church by the true Doctrine, he ſaith, that to know the true Church by the Doctrine, it is not enough to know the right of the Church in ſome particular difference with one Sect or another; but that it is neceſſary to know the truth of the Doctrine of the Church in all the particulars controverted by hereſies both paſt and preſent, before one can judge (by vertue of that examination of the Doctrine) where the true Church is. For (ſaith he) if that Church be in the wrong but in one controverſie, it is enough for her to forfeit the title of true Church.
Upon the whole matter, to fright men away from examining the Doctrine of the Roman Church, the Cardinal makes the way ſo long, that a thouſand years of ſtudy would not be enough: For he will have one to know all the Objections and Anſwers that ever were made upon every point of Divinity; And yet in the end, if one be deficient in one point, he holds that all is loſt, All that, to the end that no body may buſie his mind about Scripture, and that all be afraid of the Doctrine of Salvation, as of a laborious and perilous ſtudy, and ſo take the ſhorter way, which is to believe the Church; never enquiring what the Church ought to believe; and to be perſwaded that the Roman Church is the true Church, without troubling themſelves to get inſtruction in the Faith.
But it is eaſie to ſhew that the way which our Adverſaries trace to the world by ſending men to the Church, without examining the doctrine, is much the way about; yea that it is infinite, and hath no end. For they will have us to know the true Church by the antiquity and the ſucceſſion of Chairs. A knowledge not to be attained but by getting information upon every point of controverſie of that which was believed in every age, and in every Countrey. There, beſides the infinite length, many dark intervals will be found, and a labyrinth of inextricable perplexities.
Whereas he that ruleth his faith by the holy Scripture, takes a ſhort and certain way, avoiding curioſities and uſeleſs queſtions, and contenting himſelf with that which is clear in Scripture, for there he ſhall find all that is neceſſary to ſalvation.
If by Scripture he believeth that God hath created the world, he needs not know all the Objections of Philoſophers againſt Creation. If by Scripture he believeth that Jeſus Chriſt is a true man, the ſimplicity of that belief will be ſufficient for him, although he never heard of the Objections of the Eutychians or Marcionites. What needs a Husbandman or a Tradeſman to know how Auſtin confuted the Donatiſts? ſeeing that it is not neceſſary for him to know ſo much as that Auſtin or Donatus ever were in the world. Neither doth a neceſſity lye upon him to undertake the examination of the whole doctrine either of the Roman Church or ours. Let him but ſtand firm in that reſolution, not to receive any Doctrine as neceſſary to Salvation, unleſs he that teacheth it, ſhew it in the Word of God. By this means the moſt heavy and ſlow underſtandings come out of all difficulty. If any tell him, that to have Gods favour he muſt call upon Saints, and venerate Images or Relicks, or that Jeſus Chriſt is ſacrificed in the Maſs, he will go to the Doctors of the Roman Church, and tell them; My Maſters, you will have me to believe theſe things, I beſeech you to let me ſee them in Scripture; If theſe things be ſhewed him in expreſs or equivalent terms, he will acquieſce: If they be not ſhewed him in Scripture, he will not believe them, and he needs no other examination of the doctrine.
In one point appeareth the great advantage of our cauſe over that of our Adverſaries; That whereas they object unto us, that by ſeeking to make the true Church known by the true Doctrine, we take a long and difficult way; We object unto them, that by enjoyning the people to know the true Church, without knowing and examining the Scripture, they take an impoſſible way: For how can one know which is the true Chriſtian Church, without knowing Jeſus Chriſt before, and the Redemption by Jeſus Chriſt? How can one know whether a Church be pure, and no Heretick, but by the rule of purity? And ſince the true Church is a Society united together by the profeſſion of the true Faith, (for ſo our Adverſaries define it) how can one know whether ſuch a Society be the true Church, without knowing the true Faith?
The Cardinal adds, that the marks of the Church muſt be outward and ſenſible, and therefore other then the Doctrine. Note, that when we ſay, that the true Doctrine is the mark of the true Church, we underſtand, that to know whether a Church be true, pure, and Orthodox, we muſt know whether ſhe holds a doctrine conformable with the Word of God. Now that conformity as well as the difformity is a thing ſenſible and diſcerned by the eye and ear. Do we not ſee with our eyes, that in the Roman Church the people is denyed the Communion of the cup? Do we not ſee pictures of the Trinity, and the people bowing the knee before Images? Do we not hear publick Service and Prayers in an unknown tongue? And if theſe things be formally prohibited in the holy Scripture, are they not unto us ſenſible marks of a falſe and erroneous Church?
Some will uſe this argument, That Society that teacheth the true Doctrine, is more known then the true Doctrine.
I anſwer, that by that reaſon all thoſe marks fall to the ground, which our Adverſaries give unto true Doctrine; For doth the people of the Roman Church learn theſe marks from the Roman Church? It follows then, that the Roman Church which teacheth theſe marks, is more known then theſe marks; and by conſequent, that they are no marks, ſince they are leſs known. In effect, although the Church be eaſier to be known then the Doctrine by a ſuperficial, and many times unprofitable knowledge, whereby Pagans know the Church without knowing whether it be good and ſound in the Faith; yet to know that ſuch a Church is the true, and not an heretical Church, we muſt firſt know the true Doctrine: So is a Mathematician known as he is … man, before he that knoweth him in that notion know what belongs to the Mathematicks. But one cannot know whether he be a good Mathematician without ſome previous knowledge of the Mathematicks. Thus the Keeper of a treaſure is known before the treaſure; but none can know whether he be keeper of a good treaſure, but he that knoweth that it is a good treaſure, and wherein the goodneſs of it conſiſteth. By that ſuperficial knowledge the Church may be known before the Scripture, when the Church teſtifieth to a Pagan that ſuch a Book is the holy Scripture: But that Pagan ſhall never certainly know that ſuch a Church is the true Church, before he hath comprehended and believed the Doctrine contained in the Scripture.
But (ſay ſome of them) if true Doctrine were the mark of the true Church, every Church that hath the true Doctrine, ſhould be a true Church, which nevertheleſs is not; for the Churches that are meerly Schiſmatical have the true Doctrine, and yet are not the true Church. This Objection is frequent with the Cardinal.
I anſwer, That never any Church was Schiſmatical that maintained the true Doctrine: For under the true Doctrine, I comprehend that of Manners and Charity, which is violated by the Schiſmatical Churches: Neither do I find any Schiſmatical Church, but hath preſently added unto the Schiſm ſome Error in the Faith, as when the inflammation comes preſently after the wound given.
But (ſay they) if the Church ſhew which is the Scripture, the Scripture cannot ſhew which is the Church; for two things cannot ſhew one another.
I anſwer, that this is a falſe aſſertion: Many times two ſeveral things evidence one another mutually. The cauſes are demonſtrated by the effects, and the ſame effects by the cauſes. The Church may teſtifie that theſe Books are Divine and Sacred, and the ſame Books ſhew which is the true Church. But Scripture ſheweth the Church in a far more excellent manner then the Church ſheweth Scripture: For the Church is a witneſs unto Scripture; but Scripture is a rule unto the Church. The Church makes not theſe Books to be divine; but the rules of Scripture being practiſed formally, make a Society of Chriſtians to be the true Church; Herein this difference is evident, that a falſe Church can yield that true teſtimony to Scripture, and yet makes it not to be Scripture.