the Chruch on Earth is likewise cut off from it before God in Heaven but you know it must be Clave non errante when the cause of abscission is true and sufficient Ad. § 3. If you say so you say no more than the Fathers but what evasions and tergiversations are these Why do you put us off with ifs and ands I beseech you tell me or at least him that desires to reap some benefit by our Conference directly and Categorically Do you say so or do you say it is not so Were the Excommunicated Churches of Asia still members of the Catholick Church I mean in Gods account or were they not but all damned for that horrible Heresie of celebrating the Feast of Easter upon a diverse day from the Western Churches If you mean honestly and fairly answer directly to this Question and then you shall see what will come of it Assure your self you have a Wolf by the Ears If you say they were you overthrow your own conclusions and say that Churches divided in Communion may both be members of the Catholick If they were not then shall we have Saints and Martyrs in Heaven which were no members of the CathOlick Roman Church As for Irenaeus his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Russinus his Abscindere ab unite corporis they imply no more but this at the most That Victor quantum in â—e â—ut did cut them off from the External Communion of the Catholick Church supposing that for their Obstinacy in their Tradition they had cut themselves off from the internal Communion of it but that this sentence of Victors was ratified in Heaven and that they were indeed cut off from the mystical Body of Christ so far was Irenaeus from thinking that he and in a manner all the other Bishops reprehended Victor for pronouncing this Sentence on them upon a cause so insufficient which how they could say or possibly think of a Sentence ratified by God in Heaven and not reprehend God himself I desire you to inform me and if they did not intend to reprehend the Sentence of God himself together with Victors then I believe it will follow unavoidably that they did not conceive nor believe Victors Sentence to be ratiâ—ied by God and consequently did not believe that these excommunicated Churches were not in Gods account true members of the Body of Christ. Ad. § 4. And here again we have another subterfuge by a Verbal distinction between Excommunication and voluntary separation As if the separation which the Church of Rome made in Victors time from the Asian Churches were not a voluntary separation or as if the Churches of Asia did not voluntarily do that which was the cause of their separation or as if though they sepated not themselves indeed conceiving the cause to be insufficient they did not yet remain voluntarily separated rather than conform themselves to the Church of Rome Or lastly as if the Grecians of Old or the Protestants of Late might not pretend as justly as the Asiâ—n Churches that their Separation too was not voluntarily but of necessity for that the Church of Rome required of them under pain of Excommunication such conditions of her Communion as were neither necessary nor lawful to be performed Ad § 5. And here again the matter is stâ—eightned by another limitation Both sides say you must claim to be the Church but what then if one of them only claim though vainly to be the Church and the other content it self with being a part of it These then it seems for any thing you have said to the contrary may be both members of the Catholick Church And certainly this is the case now between the Church of England and the Church of Rome and for ought I know was between the Church of Rome and the Church of Greece For I believe it will hardly be proved that the Excommunication between them was mutual nor that the Church of Greece esteems it self the whole Church and the Church of Rome no Church but it self a sound member of the Church and that a corrupted one Again whereas you say the Fathers speak of a voluntary separation certainly they speak of any Separation by Hereticks and such were in Victors judgment the Churches of Asia for holding an opinion contrary to the Faith as he esteemed Or if he did not why did he cut them from the Communion of the Church But the true difference is The Fathers speak of those which by your Church are esteemed Hereticks and are so whereas the Asian Churches were by Victor esteemed Hereticks but were not so Ad § 6. But their Authorities produced shew no more than what I have shewed that the Church is but one in 4exclusion of Hereticks and Schismaticks and not that two particular Churches divided by mistake upon some overvalued difference may not be both parts of the Catholick Ad § 7. But I desire you to tell me whether you will do this if the Doctrines produced and confirmed by such a consent of Fathers happen to be in the judgment of the Church of Rome either not Catholick or absolutely Heretical If you will undertake this you shall hear farther form me But if when their places are produced you will pretend as some of your side do that surely they are corrupted having neither reason nor shew of reason for it unless this may pass for one as perhaps it may where reasons are scarce that they are against your Doctrine or if you will say they are to be interpreted according to the pleasure of your Church whether their words will bear it or no then I shall but lose my Labour for this is not to try your Church by the Fathers but the Fathers by your Church The Doctâ—ines which I undertake to justifie by a greater consent of Fathers than here you produce for instance shall be these 1. That Gods Election supposeth prescience of mans Faith and perseverance 2. That God doth not predetermine men to all their Actions 3. That the Pope hath no power in temporalties over Kings either directly or indirectly 4. That the Bishop of Rome may Err in his publick determinations of matters of Faith 5. That the B. Virgin was guilty of Original sin 6. That the B. Virgin was guilty of actual sin 7. That the Communion was to be administred to the Laity in both kinds 8. That the reading of the Scripture was to be denied to no man 9. That the Opinion of the Millenaries is true 10. That the Eucharist is to be administred to Infants 11. That the substance of Bread and Wine remains in the Eucharist of her Consecration 12. That the Souls of the Saints departed enjoy not the Vision of God before the Last day 13. That at the day of judgment all the Saints shall pass through a purging fire All these propositions are held by your Church either Heretical or at least not Catholical and yet â—n this promise of yours you have undertaken to believe them as firmly
then that it be in one only place Id Ibid. 7. Although there be many Heresies of Christians and that all would be called Catholicks yet there is always one Church c. S. August de util credend c. 7. 8. The question between us is where the Church is whether with us or with them for she is but one Id. de unitat c. 2. 9. The proofs of the Catholick prevailed whereby they evicted the Body of Christ to be with them and by conseqâ—ence not to be with the Donatists for it is manifest that she is one alone Id. Collat. Carthag lib. â— 10. In illud cantic 6. 7. There are 60 Queens and 80 Concubines and Damsels without number but my Dove is one c. He said not my Queens are 60 and my Concubines c. but he said my Dove is but one because all the Sects of Philosphers and Heresies of Christians are none of his his is but one to wit the Cathâ—lick Church c. S. Epâ—phan in sine Panar 11. A man may not call the Conventicles of Hereticks I mean Marcionites Manichees and the rest Churhces therefore the Tradition appoints you to say I believe one Holy Catholick Church c. S. Cyrill Catech. 18. And these Testimonies I think are sufficient to shew the judgment of the Ancient Church that this Title of the Church one is directly and properly exclusive to all companies besides one to wit that where there are diverse professions of Faith or diverse communions there is but one of these which can be the Catholick Church Upon this ground I desire some company of Chrâ—stians to be named professing a diverse Faith and holding a diverse Communion from the Roman which was the Catholick Church at the time of Luthers rising and if no other in this sense can be named than was she the Catholick Church at that time and therefore her judgment to be rested in and her Communion to be embraced upon peril of Schism and Heresie Mr. Chillingworths Answer Upon the same ground if you pleased you might desire a Protestant to name some Company of Christians professing a diverse Faith and holding a diverse Communion from the Greek Church which was the Catholick Church at the time of Luthers rising and seeing he could name no other in this sense concludes that the Greek Church was the Catholick Church at that time Upon the very same ground you might have concluded for the Church of the Abyssines or Armenians or any other society of Christians extant before Luthers time And seeing this is so thus I argue against your ground 1. That ground which concludes indifferently for both parts of a contradiction must needs be false and deceitful and conclude for neither part But this ground concludes indiâ—ferently both parts of a contradiction viz. That the Greek Church is the Catholick Church and not the Roman as well as That the Roman is the Catholick Church and not the Greek Therefore the ground is false and deceitful seem it never so plausible 2. I answer Secondly that you should have taken notice of my Answer which I then gave you which was that your major as you then framed your Argument but as now your minor is not always true if by one you understand one in external Communion seeing nothing hindred in my Judgment but that one Church excommunicated by another upon an insufficient cause might yet remain a true member of the Catholick Church and that Church which upon the overvaluing this cause doth excommunicate the other though in fault may yet remain a member of the Catholick Church which is evident from the difference about Easter-day between the Church of Rome and the Churches of Asia for which vain matter Victor Bishop of Rome excommunicated the Churches of Asia And yet I believe you will not say that either the Church excommunicating or the Church excommunicated ceased to be a true member of the Church Catholick The case is the same between the Greek and the Roman Church for though the difference between them be greater yet it is not so great as to be a sufficient ground of excommunication and therefore the excommunication was causeless and consequently Brutum fulmen and not ratified or confirmed by God in Heaven and therefore the Church of Greece at Luthers rising might be and was a true member of the Catholick Church As concerning the places of Fathers which you alledge I demand 1. If I can produce you an equal or greater number of Fathers or more ancient than these not contradicted by any that lived with them or before them for some doctrin condemned by the Roman Church whether you will subscribe it If not with what face or conscience can you make use of and build your whole Faith upon the Authority of Fathers in some things and reject the same authority in others 2. Secondly because you urge S. Cyprians Authority I desire you to tell me whether this Argument in his time would have concluded a necessity of resting in the Judgement of the Roman Church or no If not how should it come to pass that it should serve now and not then fit this time and not that as if it were like an Almanack that would not serve for all Meridians If it would why was it not urged by others upon S. Cyprian or represented by S. Cyprian to himself for his direction when he differed from the Roman Church and all other that herein conformed unto her touching the point of Re-baptizing Hereticks which the Roman Church held unlawful and damnable S. Cyprian not only lawful but necessary so well did he rest in the Judgment of that Church Quid verba audiam cùm facta videam says he in the Comedy And Cardinal Perron tells you in his Epistle to Casaubon that nothing is more unreasonable than to draw consequences from the words of Fathers against their lively and actual practice The same may be said in refutation of the places out of S. Austin who was so far from concluding from them or any other a necessity of resting in the Judgment of the Roman Church that he himself as your Authors testifie lived and died in opposition of it even in that main fundamental point upon which Mr. Lewgar hath built the necessity of his departure from the Church of England and embracing the Communion of the Roman Church that is The Supream Authority of that Church over other Churches and the power of receiving Appeals from them Mr. Lewgar I know cannot be ignorant of these things and therefore I wonder with what conscience he can produce their words against us whose Actions are for us If it be said that S. Cyprian and S. Austin were Schismaticks for doing so it seems then Schismaticks may not only be members of the Church against Mr. Lewgars main conclusion but Canoniz'd Saints of it or else S. Austin and S. Cyprian should be rased out of the Roman Kalendar If it be said that the point of Re-baptization was not
defined in S. Cyprians time I say that in the Judgment of the Bishop and Church of Rome and their adherents it was For they urged it as an Original and Apostolick Tradition and consequently at least of as great force as any Church definition They excommunicated Firmilianus and condemned S. Cyprian as a false Christ and a false Apostle for holding the contrary and urged him Tyrannico terrore to conform his judgment to theirs as he himself clearly intimates If it be said they differed only from the particular Church of Rome and not from the Roman Church taking it for the universal society of Christians in Communion with that Church I Answer 1. They know no such sense of the word I am sure never used it in any such which whether it had been possible if the Church of Rome had been in their judgment to other Churches in spiritual matters as the City was to other Cities and Countries in temporals I leave it to indifferent men to judge 2. Secondly that they differed not only from the particular Roman Church but also from all other Churches that agreed with it in those doctrins 3. Thirdly I desire you would answer me directly whether the Roman Church taking it for that particular Church be of necessity to be held Infallible in Faith by every Roman Catholick or not To this Question I instantly desire a direct answer without tergiversation that we may at length get out of the cloud and you may say Coram quem quaeritis adâ—um If you say they are not bound to believe so then it is no Article of Faith nor no certain truth upon which men may safely rest without fluctuation or fear of error And if so I demand 1. Why are all your Clergy bound to swear and consequently your Laity if they have Communion of Faith with them by your own grounds bound to believe That the Roman Church is the Mistris of all other Churches where it is evident from the relation and opposition of the Roman to other Churches that the Roman Church is there taken for that particular Church 2. Secondly why then do you so often urge that mistaken saying of Iraeneus Ad â—anc Ecclesiam necesse est omnem câ—nvenire Ecclesiam falsely translating it as Cardinal Perrâ—n in French and my â— F. in English All Churches must agree with this Church for convenire aâ—n signifies not to agree with but to come unto whereas it â—s evident for the aforesaid reason that the Roman is here taken for that particular Church 3. Thirdly if that particular Church be not certainly infallible but subject to error in points of fâ—ith I would know if any division of your Church should happen in which the Church of Rome either alone or with some others should take one way the Churches of Spain and France and many other Churches another what direction should an ignorant Catholick have then from the pretended Guide of Faith How shall he know of which of these Companies is the Church seeing all other Churches distinguished from the Roman may err and seeing the Roman Church is now 〈◊〉 sâ—bject to error and consequently not certain to guard those men or those Churches that adhere unto it from erring 4. Fourthly if that particular Church be not infallible in Faith let us then suppose that de facto it does err in faith shall we not then have an Heretical head upon a Catholick body A head of the Church which were no member of the Church which sure were a very strange and heterogeneous Monster If to avoid these inconveniences you will say that Roman Catholicks must of necessity hold that particular Church infallible in faith I suppose it will evidently follow that S. Austin and S. Cyprian notwithstanding those sentences you pretend out of them were no Roman Catholicks seeing they lived and died in the contrary belief and profession Let me see these absurdities fairly and clearly avoided and I will dispute no more but follow you whithersoever you shall lead me 3. Thirdly I answer that the places alledged are utterly impertinent to the conclusion you should have proved which was That it was impossible that two Societies of Christians divided upon what cause soever in external Communion may be in truth and in Gods account both of them parts of the Catholick Church whereas your testimonies if we grant them all say no more but this That the Societies of Hereticks which are such as overthrow any doctrin necessary to salvation and of Schismaticks which are such as separate from the Churches Communion without any pretence of error in the Church or unlawfulness in the conditions of her Communion I say they prove only this that such Societies as these are no parts of the Church which I willingly grant of all such as are properly and formally Hereticks and Schismaticks from which number I think with S. Austin they are to be exempted Qui quaerunt causa sollicitudine veritatem corrigi parati cum invenerint Whereas I put the case of such two Societies which not differing indeed in any thing necessary to salvation do yet eâ—oncously believe that the errors wherewith they charge one another are damnable and so by this opinion of mutual error are kept on both sides from being Hereticks Because I desire to bring you and others to the truth or to be brought to it by you I thought good for your direction in your intended Reply to acquaint you with these things 1. That I conceive the in your discourse is this That whensoever any two Societies of Christians differ in external Communion one of them must be of necessity Heretical or Schismatical I conceive there â— no such necessity and that the stories of Vidor and tâ—e Bishops of Asia S. Cyprâ—on and Pope Stephâ—n make it evident and therefore I desire you to produce some conâ—incing argument to the contrary and that you may the better do it I thought good to inform you what I mean bâ—an Heretick and what by a Schismatick An Herdick therefore I conceive him tha holds an Error against Faith with obâ—tinacy Obstinate I conceive 〈◊〉 who will not change his Opinion when his reasons for it are so answered that he cannot reply and when the reasons against it are so convinâ—ing that he cannot answer them By the Faith I understand all those Docâ—â—â—ne and no more which Christ taught his Apostles and the Apostles the Church yet I exclude not from this number the certain and evident deductions of them A Schismatick I account him and Facurdus Hermianâ—nsâ— hath taught me to do so who withoâ—t any supposing of error in the conditions of a Churches Communion divides himself either from the obedience of that Church to which he owes obedience or from the Communion of that Church to which he owes Communion 2. Another thing which I thought fit to acquaint you with is this That you go upon another very false and deceitful supposition viz. that if we will not be Protestants presently we
must be Papâ—sts if we forsake the Church of England we must go presently to the Church of Rome Whereas if your Arguments did concâ—ude as they do not that before Lâ—thers time there was some Church of one Denomination which was the Catholick Church I should much rather think it were the Church of Greeâ—e â—han the Church of Rome and I believe others also would think so as well as I but for that reason which one gives why more men hold the Pope above a Council than a Council above a Pope that is because Councils give no maintenance or preferment and the Popes do Think not yet I pray that I say this as if I conceived this to be your reason for preferring the Roman Church before the Greek for I protest I do not but rather that concâ—iving verily you were to leave the Church of England to avoid trouble you took the next Boat and went to the Church of Rome because that bespake you first You impute to me as I hear that the way I take is destructive only and that I build nothing which first is not a fault for Christian Religion is not now to be built but only I desire to have the rubbish and impertinent Lumber taken off which you have laid upon it which hides the glorious simplicity of it from them which otherwise would embrace it Remember I pray Averroes his saying Quandoquidem Christiant adorant quod comedunt sit anima mea cum Philosophis and consider the swarms of Atheists in Italy and then tell me whether your unreasonable and contradictious Doctrines your forged Miracles and counterfeit Legends have not in all probability produced this effect Secondly if it be a fault it is certainly your own for your discourse intended for the proof of a positive conclusion That we must be Papists proves in deed and in truth nothing but even in shew and appearance no more but this Negative that we must not be Protestant but what we must be if we must not be Protestants God knows you in this Discourse I am sure do not shew it Mr. Lewgars Reply § 1. The minor of Mr. Chillingworths Argument against my gâ—oâ—nd is very weâ—k being 〈◊〉 upon 〈◊〉 false â—â—pposition that a Protestant could name no other Church professing a diverse Faith c. from the Greek Châ—â—ch which waâ— the Catholick Church for if he could â—ot indeed name any other the title would remain to the Greek Church But he hath the Roman to name and so my ground cannot conclude either so the 〈…〉 or any other besides the Roman but for that it does except he can name some other § 2. His second answer is weak likewise for my Minor is always true at least they thought it to be so whose Authorities I produce in confirmation of it as will appear to any one that considers them well how their force lies in Thesi not in Hypothesi not that the Church was not then divided into more Societies than one but that â—he could never be § 3. As for his Instance to the contrary wherein he believes I will not say the Churches excommunicated by Victor ceased to be a true member of the Catholick If I say so I say no more than the Ancient Fathers said before me Iraeneus when he desired Victor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to cut off so many and great Churches and Ruffinâ— reprehendit cam quod non benè fecisset abscindere ab unitate corporis c. § 4. But howsoever the case of Excommunication may be the division of external Communion which I intended and the Fathers spake of in the alledged Auâ—horities was that which was made by voluntary separation § 5. Whereby the Church before one Society is divided into several distinct Societies both claiming to be the Church of which Societies so divided but one can be the Catholick and this is proved by the Authorities alledged which Authorities must not be answered by disproving them as he does for that is to change his Adversary and confute the Fathers sayings instead of mine but by shewing their true sense or judgment to be otherwise than I alledged it § 6. To his demand upon the places alledged I Answer that I do not build my whole faith of this conclusion upon the Authority of those Fathers for I produce them not for the Authority of the thing but of the Exposition The thing it self is an Article of the Creed Unam Catholicam grounded in express Scripture Columba mea unica but because there is difference in understanding this Prophesie I produce these Authorities to shew the Judgment of the Ancient Church how they understood it and the proper answer to this is either to shew that these words were not there or at least not this meaning and so to shew their meaning out of other places more pregnant § 7. And I promise that whensoever an equal consent of Fathers can be shewed for any thing as I can shew for this I will believe it as firmly as I do this § 8. But this is not the Answerers part to propound doubts and difficulties but to satisfie the proof objected § 9. And if this course be any more taken I will save my self all farther labour in a business so likely to be endless § 10. His second Answer to the places is wholly impertinent for therein would he disprove them from watching a necessity of resting in the judgment of the Roman Church whereas I produced them only to shew that among several Societies of Christians only one can be the Catholick and against this his second Answer saith nothing § 11. In his third Answer he makes some shew of reply to the Authorities themselves but he commits a double Error One that he imposes upon me a wrong conclusion to be proved as will appear by comparing my conclusion in my Paper with the conclusion he would appoint me § 12. Another that he imposes upon the Authorities a wrong Interpretation no way grounded in the words themselves nor in the places whence they were taken nor in any other places of the same Fathers but meerly forged out of his own Brain For first the places do not only say that the Societies of Hereticks and Schismaticks are no part of the Church but that the Church cannot be divided into more Societies than one and they account Societies divided which are either of a diverse Faith or a diverse Communion Neither do they define Hereticks or Schismaticks in that manner as he does § 13. For an Heretick in their Language is he that opposes partinaciously the Common Faith of the Church and a Schismatick he that separates from the Catholick Communion never making any mention at all of the cause § 14. And if his definition of a Schismatick may stand then certainly there was no Schismatick ever in the World nor none are at this day for none did none does separate without some pretence of Error or unlawfulness in the Conditions of the Churches Communion §
as you now do this That two diviced Societies cannot be both members of the Catholick Church Ad § 8. It is not then the Answerers part to shew that the proofs pretended are indeed no proofs and doth not he prove no proofs at least in your mouth who undertakes to shew that an equal or greater number of the very same witnesses is rejected by your selves in many other things Either the consent of the Fathers in any Age or Ages is infallible and then you are to reject it in nothing or it is not so and then you are not to urge it in any thing As if the Fathers Testimonies against us were Swords and Spears and against you bulrushes Ad § 9. In effect as if you should say If you answer not as I please I will dispute no longer But you remember the proverb will think of it Occasionem quaerit qui cupit discedere Ad § 10. I pray tell me Is not Therefore a note of an Illation or a conclusion And is not your last therefore this Therefore her judgment is to be rested in which though it be not your first conclusion yet yours it is and you may not declaim it and it is so near of kin to the former in your judgment I am sure that they must stand or fall together therefore he that speaks pertinently for the disproving of the one cannot speak impertinently towards the disproving the other and therefore you cannot so shift it off but of necessity you must answer the Argument there urged or confess it ingenuously to be unanswerable Or if you will not answer any thing where the contradiction of your first conclusion is not in terms inferred then take it thus If S. Cyprian and S. Austin did not think it necessary in matter of Faith to rest in the judgment of the Roman Church and the adherents of it Then either they thought not the Catholick Churches judgment necessary to be rested on or they thought not that the Catholick Church But the Antecedent is true and undeniably proved so by their Actions and the consequence Evident Therefore the consequent must be true in one or other part But you will not say the former is true it remains therefore the latter must be and that is That S. Austin and S. Cyprian did not think the Church of Rome and the adherents of it to be the Catholick Church Ad § 11. But I tell you now and have already told you that in our discourse before Mr. Skinâ—â—r and Dr. Sheldon I answered your Major as then you framed your Argument as now your Minor thus If you understand by one company of Christians one in External Communion I deny your Major For I say that two several Societies of Christians which do not externally communicate together may be both parts of the same Catholick Church and what difference there is between this and the conclusion I told you you should have proved I do not well unstand Ad § 12. And is it possible you should say so when every one of the places carry this sense in their forehead and 7 of the 11 in terms express it That they intended only to exclude Hereticks and Schismaticks from being parts of the Church For if they did not against whom did they intend them Pagans lay no claim to the Church therefore not against them Catholick they did not intend to exclude I know not who remains besides but Hereticks and Schismaticks Besides the frequent opposition in them between One Church on the one side and Hereticks and Schismaticks who sees not that in these places they intended to exclude only these pretenders out of the Churches Unity Lastly whereas you say that the places say That the Church cannot be divided and that they account those divided who are of a diverse Faith or a diverse Communion I tell you that I have read them over and over and unless my Eyes deceive they say not one word of a diverse Communion Ad § 13. Whereas a Heretick in your Language is he that opposeth pertinaciously the common Faith of the Church In mine He is such a one as holds an Error against Faith with Obstinacy Verily a monstrous difference between these definitions To oppose and hold against I hope are all one Faith and the common Faith of the Church sure are not very different pertinaciously and with Obstinacy methinks might pass for Synonimous and seeing the parts agree so well methinks the Total should not be at great hostility And for the definition of a Schismatick if you like not mine which yet I give you out of a Father I pray take your own and then shew me If you mean to do any thing that wheresoever there are two Societies of Christians differing in external Communion one of them most be of necessity either Heretical or Schismatical in your own sense of these words To the contrary I have said already and say it now again that you may not forget it the Roman and the Asian Churches in Victors time the Roman and the African in S. Stephens time differed in external Communion and yet neither of them was Heretical For they did not oppose pertinaciously the common Faith of the Church Neither of them was Schismatical for they did not separate never making mention of the cause at all but were separated by the Roman Church and that upon some cause though it were not sufficient Ad § 14. The Donatist did so as Facundus Hermianensis testifies but you are abused I believe with not distinguishing between these two They did pretend that the Church required of them some unlawful thing among the conditions of her Communion and they did pretend that it was unlawful for them to communicate with the Church This I confess they did pretend but it was in regard of some Persons in the Church with whom they thought it unlawful to communicate But the former they did not pretend I mean while they continued meer Schismaticks viz. That there was any Error in the Church or impiety in her publick service of God And this was my meaning in saying A Schismatick is he which separates from the Church without pretence of Error or unlawfulness in the conditions of her Communion Yet if I had left out the term unlawfulness the definition had been better and not obnoxious to this Cavillation and so I did in the second Paper which I sent you for your direction which if you had dealt candidly you should have taken notice of Ad § 15. I have replied as I think fully to every part and particle of your Argument Neither was the History of S. Cyprians and S. Austins opposition to the Church of Rome an excursion or diversion but a cleer demonstation of the contradictory of your conclusion viz. That the Roman Church c. and therefore her judgment not to be rested upon For an answer hereto I shall be very importunate with you and therefore if you desire to avoid trouble I pray come out
of my debt as soon as may be If it be said that my Argument is not contradictory to your conclusion because it shews only that the Roman Church with her adherents was not in S. Cyprians or S. Austins time the Catholick Chruch but was at the time before Luther I say to conclude the one is to conclude the other For certainly if it were then at Luthers time so it was always so if it was not always it was not then for if it be of the essence or necessary to the Church as is pretended to be a Society of Christians joyned in Communion with the Church and Bishop of Rome then did it always agree to the Church and therefore in S. Cyprians and S. Austins time as well as at Luhers â—ising if it were not always particularly not in S. Cyprians time of the Essence or necessary to the Church to be so then it was impossible the Church should acquire this Essence or this property afterwards and therefore impossible it should have it at the time of Luthers rising Necessarium est quod non aliquando inest aliquando not inest alicui inest alicui non inest sed quod semper oâ—ni Arist. Post. Analyt Again every Sophister knows that of Particulars nothing can be concluded and therefore he that will shew that the Church of Rome and the adherents of it was the Catholick Church at Luthers rising He must argue thus It was always so therefore then â—t was so Now this Antecedent is overthrown by any Instance to the contrary and so the first Antecedent being proved false the first consequent cannot but be false for what Reason can be imagined that the Church of Rome and the Adherents of it was not the whole Catholick Church at S. Cyprians time and was at Luthers rising If you grant as I think you cannot deny that a Church divided from the Communion of the Roman may be still in truth and in Gods account a part of the Catholick which is the thing we speak of then I hope Mr. Lewgars Argâ—ment fâ—om Unity of Communion is fallen to the ground and it will be no good Plea to say Some one Church not consisting of divers Communions was the Catholick Church at Luthers â—ising No one Church can be named to be the Catholick Church but the Roman Therefore the Roman Church was the Catholick at Luthers rising For Mr. Lewgar hath not nor cannot prove the Major of this syllogism certainly true but to the contrary I have proved that it cannot be certainly true by shewing divers instances wherein divers divided Communions have made up the Catholick Church and therefore not the dividing of the Communions but the cause and ground of it is to be regarded whether it be just and sufficient or unjust and insufficient Neither is the Bishop or Church of Rome with the Adherents of it an infallible Judge thereof for it is evident both he and it have erred herein divers times which I have evinced already by divers examples which I will not repeat but add to them one confessed by Mr. Lewgar himself in his discourse upon the Article of the Catholick Church pag. 84. S. Athanasius being excommunicated though by the whole Church yet might remain a member of Christs body not visible for that is impossible that a person cut off from visible Communion though unjustly should be a visible member of the Church but by invisible Communion by reason of the invalidity of the sentence which being unjust is valid enough to visible excision but not farther II. A Discourse against the Infallibility of the Roman Church with an Answer to all those Texts of Scripture that are alledged to prove it THE Condition of Communion with the Church of Rome without the performance whereof no man can be received into it is this That he believe firmly and without doubting whatsoever that Church requires him to believe It is impossible that any man should certainly believe any thing unless that thing be either evident of it self as that twice two are four that every whole is greater than a part of it self or unless he have some certain reason at least some supposed certain reason and infallible guide for his belief thereof The Doctrins which the Church of Rome requireth to be believed are not evident of themselves for then every one would grant them at first hearing without any further proof He therefore that will believe them must have some certain and infallible ground whereupon to â—â—â—ld his belief of them There is no other ground for a mans belief of them especially in many points but only an assurance of the Infallibility of the Church of Rome Now this point of that Churches Infallibility is not evident of it self for then no man could chuse but in his heart believe it without farther proof Secondly it were in vain to bring any proof of it as vain as to light a Candle to shew men the Sun Thirdly it were impossible to bring any proof of it seeing nothing can be more evident than that which of it self is evident and nothing can be brought in proof of any thing which is not more evident than that matter to be proved But now experience teacheth that millions there are which have heard talk of the Infallibitliy of the Roman Church and yet do not believe that the defenders of it do not think it either vain or impossible to go about to prove it and from hence it follows plainly that this point is not evident of it self Neither is there any other certain ground for any mans belief of it or if there be I desire it may be produced as who am ready and most willing to submit my judgment to it fully perswaded that none can be produced that will endure a severe and impartial examination If it be said The Roman Church is to be believed infallible because the Scripture says it is so 1. I demand how shall I be assured of the Texts that be alledged that they are indeed Scripture that is the Word of God And the answer to this must be either because the Church tells me so or some other if any other be given then all is not finally resolved into and built upon that Churches Authority and this answer then I hope a Protestant may have leave to make use of when he is put to that perillous Question How know you the Scripture to be the Scripture If the answer be because the Church tells me so my reply is ready that to believe that Church is infallible because the Scriptures say so and that the Scripture is the word of God because the same Church says so is nothing else but to believe the Church is infallible because the Church says so which is infallible 2. I could never yet from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Apocalypse find it written so much as once in express terms or equvalently that the Church in subordination to the Sea of Rome
importuning God for the sending of the Messias To this purpose speaks the Prophet in ver 1. For Zions sake I will not hold my peace and for Hierusalems sake I well not rest until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness But the words following these that are objected make it most evident which are ye that make mention of the Lord keep not silâ—nce and give him no rest till he establish and till he make Hierusalem a praise in the Earth The 5th place had they set down entirely for very shame they could not have urged it for the Infallibility of the Roman Church The words are Behold the days come saith the Lord that I will make a new Covenant with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah not according to the Covenant which I made with their Fathers But this shall be the Covenant that I will make with the House of Israel After those days saith the Lord I will put my Law in their inward parts and write it in their Hearts and I will be their God and they shall be my People and they shall teach no more every man his Neighbour and every man his Brother saying know the Lord for they shall all know me from the least of them to the greatest of them saith the Lord. And now I have transcribed the place I think it superfluous to make any other answer The same Answer and no other will I make also to the 6th place The words are Therefore say unto the House of Israel thus saith the Lord God I do not this for your sakes O House of Israel but for my holy names sake ver 22. I will take you from among the Heathen and gather you out of all Countries and will bring you into your own Land v. 24. Then will I sprinkle clean Water upon you ver 25. A new heart also will I give you ver 26. And I will put my Spirit in you and cause you to walk in my Statutes and ye shall keep my judgments and do them ver 27. And ye shall dwell in the Land that I gave to your Fathers I will also save you from all your uncleannesses and I will call for the Corn and will encrease it and lay no Famine upon you And the desolate Land shall be tilled ver 34. And they shall say this Land that was desolate is become like the Garden of Eden The 7th place also carries its answer in its forehead Thus saith the Lord God behold I will take the Children of Israel from among the Heathen whether they be gone and I will make them one Nation in the Land upon the mountains of Israel and one King shall be King to them all c. to the end of the Chapter In all which place he that can find a Syllable of the Church of Rome he must have better eyes than I have The next 8th place would be very pregnant for the Church of Rome if of courtesie we would grant that whatsoever is promised to Israel is intended to them As you may see in the place at large from ver 17. to the end of the Chapter The 9th and last place out of the Canticles had it been urged by a Protestant it would have been thought a sufficient Answer to have said That Mystical Texts are not fit to argue upon but if this will not serve then we answer 1. That there is no mention nor intimation of the Church of Rome 2. That it proves either too much or nothing at all that is that the Roman Church is impeccable as well as infallible unless we will say that Errors only are Spots and impieties are not Out of the New Testament they alledge these Texts Matth. 16. 18. Upon this Rock I will build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it But this is said of the Catholick not of the Roman Church nor can it ever be proved that the Church in Communion with the See of Rome is the Catholick Church Secondly it says something for the perpetuity of the Church but not for the Inâ—allibility of it unless you will take for granted what can never be proved That a Church that teaches any Erroneous Doctrine is a Church no longer which is all one as if you should say a man that has the Stone or Gout or any other Disease is not a man They urge Matth. 28. 19 20. And I am with you all days even unto the consummation of the World And here also if we will grant 1. That by you is meant you and only you of the Church of Rome 2. That our Saviour has here obliged himself to assist not only Sufficiâ—nter but also irresistibiliter not only to preserve in the Church a light of sufficient direction as he provided a Star for the Wise Men and a Pillar of Fire and a cloud for the conduct of the Israelites but also compel or at least necessitate them to follow it 3. That he will be with them not only to keep them from all damnable and destructive Errors but absolutely form all erroneous Doctrines If these things I say were granted some good might be done But certainly these are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too great favours to be lookt for by strangers And yet if all this be granted we should run into this inconvenience on the other side that if the promise be absolute not only the whole Church of Rome not only a general Council not the Pope alone but every Bishop every Priest every one who is sent by Christ to Baptize and Preach the Gospel might claim this assistance by vertue of Christs words and consequently Infallibility They urge Matth. 18. 17. If he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as the Heathen and the Publican And here again the Church must be the Church of Rome or we are as far to seek as ever But what if by it be meant which is most evident out of the place every particular Church of Christians whereunto any one Christian injured by another may address himself for remedy Certainly whosoever reads the place without prejudice I am confident that he shall not deny but that the sense of the Words is That if any Christian injure another and being first admonished of it by him in private then by him before two or three Witnesses Lastly by the Church he lives in and yet still proceeds on obstinately in doing injury to his Brother he is to be esteemed as a Heathen or a Publican and then if Infallibility may be concluded what a multitude of Infallible Churches shall we have They urge Matth. 18. 20. Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them But this also either shoots short or over either proves nothing or too much Either it proves not the Infallibility of the whole Church or it proves the Infallibility of every part of it Either not the Infallibility
ADDITIONAL DISCOURSES OF Mr. Chillingworth NEVER BEFORE PRINTED Imprimatur Ex Aedib Lambeth Iun. 14. 1686. GUIL NEEDHAM R R. in Christo P. ac D. D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cant. à Sacr. Domesticis LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in S. Pauls Church-Yard 1687. CONTENTS I. A Conference betwixt Mr. Chillingworth and Mr. Lewgar whether the Roman Church be the Catholick-Church and all out of her Communion Hereticks or Schismaticks p. 1. II. A Discourse against the Infallibility of the Roman Church with an Answer to all those Texts of Scripture that are alledged to prove it p. 26. III. A Conference concerning the Infallibility of the Roman Church proving that the present Church of Rome either errs in her worshiping the Blessed Virgin or that the Ancient Church did err in condemning the Collyridians as Hereticks p. 41 IV. An Argument drawn from Communicating of Infants as without which they could not be saved against the Churches Infallibility p. 68. V. An Argument against Infallibility drawn from the Doctrin of the Millenaries p. 80. VI. A Letter relating to the same subject p. 89. VII An Argument against the Roman Churches Infallibility taken from the Contradictions in their Doctrin of Transubstantiation p. 91. VIII An account of what moved the Author to turn a Papist with his Confutation of the Arguments that perswaded him thereto p. 94. IX A Discourse concerning Tradition p. 103. The Reader is desired to take notice of a great mistake of the Printer and to Correct it That he has made this the ruâ—ning Title over most of the Additional Pieces viz. A Conference betwixt Mr. Chillingworth and Mr. Lewgar which should only have been set over the first there are also some literal mistakes as pag. 65. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twice for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and such like not to be imputed to the Author A CONFERENCE BETWIXT Mr. CHILLINGWORTH AND Mr. LEWGAR Thesis THE Church of Rome taken diffusively for all Christians communicating with the Bishop of Rome was the Judge of Controversies at that time when the Church of England made an alteration in her Tenents Argu. She was the Judge of Controversies at that time which had an Authority of deciding them But the Church of Rome at that time had the Authority of deciding them Ergo. Answ. A limited Authority to decide Controversies according to the Rule of Scripture and Universal Tradition and to oblige her own Members so long as she evidently contradicted not that Rule to obedience I grant she had but an unlimited an infallible Authority or such as could not but proceed according to that Rule and such as should bind all the Churches in the World to Obedience as the Greek Church I say she had not Quest. When your Church hath decided a Controversie I desire to know whether any particular Church or person hath Authority to reexamine her decision whether she hath observed her Rule or no and free hâ—mself from the obedience of it by his or her particular judgment Answ. If you understand by your Church the Church Catholick probably I should answer no but if you understand by your Church that only which is in Subordination to the See of Rome of if you understand a Council of this Church I answer yea Arg. That was the Catholick Church which did abide in the Root of Apostolick Unity But the Church of Rome at that time was the only Church that did abide in the Root of Apostolick Unity Ergo. Quest. What mean you by Apostolick Unity Answ. I mean the Unity of that Fellowship wherein the Apostles Lived and Died. Quest. Wherein was this Unity Answ. Herein it consisted that they all professed one Faith obeyed one Supream Tribunal and communicated together in the same Prayers and Sacraments Sclut Then the Church of Rome continued not in this Apostolick Unity for it continued not in the same Faith wherein the Apostles Lived and Died for though it retained so much in my judgment as was essential to the being of a Church yet it degenerated from the Church of the Apostles times in many things which were very profitable as in Latin Service and Commâ—nion in one kind Argu. Some Church did continue in the same Faith wherein the Apostles lived and died But tâ—ere was no Church at that time which did continue in the Apostles Faith besides the Roman Church Ergo. Answ. That some Church did continue in the Apostles Faith in all things necessary I grant it that any did continue in the Integrity of it and in a perfect conformity with it in all things expedient and profitable I deny it Quest. Is it not necessary to a Churches continuing in the Apostles Faith that she continue in a perfect conformiâ—y with it in all things expedient and profâ—table Answ. A perfect conformity in all things is necessary to a perfect continuance in the Apostles Faith but to an imperfect continuance an imperfect conformity is sufficient and such I grant the Roman Church had Quest. Is not a perfect continuance in the Apostles Faith necessary to a Churches continuance in Apostolick Unity Asw. It is necessary to a perfect continuance in Apostolick Unity Argu. There was some one company of Christians at the time of Luthers rising which was the Catholick Church But there was no other company at that time besides the Roman Ergo the Roman at that time was the Catholick Church Answ. There was not one company of Christians whch in opposition to and Exclusion of all other companies of Christians was the Catholick Church Argu. If the Catholick Church be some one company of Christians in opposition to and exclusion of all other companies then if there was some one company she was one in opposition to and exclusion of all other companies But the Catholick Church is one company of Christians in opposition to and exclusion of c. Ergo There was then some one company which was the Catholick Church in opposition to and exclusion of all other companies The Minor proved by the Testimonies of the Fathers both Greek and Latin testifying that they understood the Church to be one in the sense alledged 1. If this Unity which cannot be separated at all or divided is also among Hereticks what contend we farther Why call we them Hereticks S. Cypr. Epist. 75. 2. But if there be but one Flock how can he be accounted of the Flock which is not within the number of it Id Ibid. 3. When Parmenian commends one Church he condemns all the rest for besides one which is the true Catholick other Churches are esteemed to be among Hereticks but are not S. Optat. lib. 1. 4. The Church therefore is but one this cannot be among all Hereticks and Schismaticks Ibid. 5. You say you offer for the Church which is one this very thing is part of a lie to call it on which you have divided into two Id Ibid. 6. The Church is one which cannot be amongst us and amongst you it remains
15. And so I expect both a fuller and directer answer to my Argument without excursions or diversions into any other matter till the judgment of Antiquity be cleared in this point Mr. Chillingworths Answer Ad § 1. The Minor of my Argument you say is very weak being grounded upon a false Supposâ—tion That a Protestant could name no other Church professing a diverse Faith from the Greek which was the Catholick Church And your reason is because he â—ight name the Roman But in earnest Mr. Lewgar do you think that a Protestant remaining a Protestant can esteem the Roman Church to be the Catholick Church or do you think to put tricks upon us with taking your proposition one while in sâ—nsu composito another while in sensu drviso For if your meaning was that a Prâ—testant not remaining but ceasing to be a Protestant might name the Roman for the Catholick so I say also to your discourse that a Protestant ceasing to be a Protestant might name a Greek to be the Catholick Church and if there were any necessity to find out one Church of one denomination as the Greek the Roman the Abyssine which one must be the Catholick I see no reason but he might pitch upon the Greek Church as well as the Roman I am sure your discourse proves nothing to the contrary In short thus I say if a Grecian should go about to prove to a Protestant that hâ—s Church is the Catholick by sayâ—ng as you do for the Roman some one was so before Luther and you can name no other therefore ours is so Whatsoever may be answered to him may be answered to you Foâ— as you say a Protestant ceasing to be a Proteâ—tant may name to him the Roman so I say a Protestant ceasing to be a Protestant may name to you the Grecian If you say a Protestant remaining a Protestant can name no other but the Roman for the Catholick I may very ridiculously I confess but yet as truly say he can name no other but the Grecian If you say he cannot name the Greek Church neither remaining a Protestant I say likewise neither remaining a Protestant can he name the Roman for the Catholick So the Argument is equal in all respects on both sides and therefore either concludes for both parts which is impossible for then contradictions should be both true or else which is certain it concludes for neither And therefore I say your ground you build on That before Luther some Church of one denomination was the Catholick if it were true as it is most false would not prove your intent It would destroy perhaps our Church but it would not build yours It would prove peradventure that we must not be Protestants but it will be far from proving that we must be Papists For after we have lâ—ft being Protestants I tell you again that â—ou may not mistake there is yet no necessity of being 〈◊〉 no moâ—â— than if I go out of England there is a neâ—essity of going to Rome And thus much to shew the 〈◊〉 of your ground if it were true Now in the 〈◊〉 place I say it is false neither have you proved any thing 〈◊〉 contrary 〈…〉 You say the Authorities you have produced shew to any that consider them well That the Church could never be divided into more Societies than one and you mean I hope one in external Communion or else you daily in ambiguities and then I say I have well considered the alledged authorities and they appear to me to say no such thing but only that the Societies of Hereticks and Schismaticks are no true members of the Church Whereas I put the case of two such Societies which were divided in external Communion by reason of some overvalued difference between them and yet were neither of them Heretical or Schismatical To this I know you could not answer but only by saying That this supposition was impossible viz. That of two Societies divided in external Communion neither should be Heretical nor Schismatical and therefore I desired you to prove by one convincing Argument that this is impossible This you have not done nor I believe can do and therefore all your places fall short of your intended conclusion and if you would put them into Syllogistical form you should presently see you conclude from them Sophistically in that fallacy which is called A dicto secundura quid ad dictum Simpliciter Thus No two diviced Societies whereof one is Heretical or Schisinatical can be both members of the Catholick Church therefore simply no two divided Societies can be so the Antecedent I grant which is all that your places say as you shall see anon but the consequence is Sophistical and therefore that I deny It is no better nor worse than if you should argue thus No true divided Societies whereof one is Out-lawed and in Rebellion are both members of the same Commonwealth therefore simply no two divided Societies But against this you pretend That the a ledged places say not only that the Societies of Hereticks and Schismaticks are no parts of the Church but that the Church cannot be divided into more Societies than one And they account Societies divided which are either of a diverse Faith or of a diverse Communion This is that which I would have proved but as yet I cannot see it done There be Eleven Quotations in all seven of them speak expresly and formally of division made by Hereticks and Schismaticks viz. 1. 3 4. 7. 9 10 11. Three other of them viz. 5 6. 8. though they use not the word yet Mr. Lewgar knows they speak of the Donatists which were Schismaticks and that by the relative particles you and them are meant the Donatists And lastly the second Mr. Lewgar know says nothing but this That an Hereticks cannot be accounted of that one Flock which is the Church But to make the most of them that can be The first saith the Unity of the Church cannot be separated at all nor divided This I grant but then I say every difference does not in the sight of God divide this Unity for then diversity of Opinions should do it and so the Iesuits and Dominicans should be no longer members of the same Church Or if every difference will not do it why must it of necessity be always done by difference in Communion upon an insufficient ground yet mistaken for sufficient for such only I speak of Sure I am this place says no such matter The next place saies the Flock is but one and all the rest that the Church is but one and that Hereticks and Schismaticks are not of it which certainly was not the thing to be proved but that of this one Flock of this one Church two Societies divided without just cause in Communion might not be true and lively members both in one Body Mystical in the sight of God though divided in Unity in the sight of men It is true indeed whosoever is shut out from
shall be always infallible 3. If it be said that this is drawn from good consequence from Scripture truly interpreted I demand what certain ground have I to warrant me that this consequence is good and this interpretation true and if answer be made that reason will tell me so I reply 1. That this is to build all upon my own reason and private interpretation 2. I have great reason to fear that reason assures no man that the infallibility of the Church of Rome may be deduced from Scripture by good and firm consequence 4. If it be said that a Consent of Fathers do so interpret the Scripture I answer 1. That this is most false and cannot without impudence be pretended as I am ready to justifie to any indifferent Hearer 2. I demand who shall be judge whether the Fathers mean as is pretended If it be said reason will tell me so I say 1. this is false 2. This is again to do that which is objected to Protestants for such a horrid crime that is to build all finally upon reason If it be said they are so interpreted by the Catholick Church I demand whether by the Catholick Church be meant that onely that is in subordination to the Bishop of Rome or any other with that or besides that Iâ— any other it is false and impudent to pretend that they so understand the Fathers or Scriptures If that only then this is to say that that Church is infallible because it may be deduced from Scripture that it is so and to prove that it may be deduced from Scripture because the Fathers say so and to prove the Fathers do say and mean so because the Church of Rome says they do so And then what a stir and trouble was here to no purpose why was it not rather said plainly at the beginning The Church of Rome is certainly infallible because she her self says so and she must say true because she is infallible and that is as much to say as unless you grant me the Question I neither can nor will dispute with you If it is said indeed the Fathers do not draw this doctrin from Scripture but yet they affirm it with a full consent as a matter of Tradition I reply 1. Tâ—at this pretence also is false and that upon tryal it will not appear to have any colour of probability to any who remembers that it is the present Roman Church and not the Catholick Church whose infallibility is here disputed 2. I demand who shall be judge whether the Fathers do indeed affirm this or no If reason then again we are falleâ— upon that dangerous Rock that all must be resolved into private reason If the Church I ask again what Church is meant If the Church of the Grecians or Abyssâ—nes or Protestants or any other but the Roman it is evident they deny it If the Church of Rome then we are again very near the head of the Circle For I ask how shall I be assured this Church will not err and deceive me in interpreting the Fathers and the Answer must be eithe none or this that the Church is infallible Obj. If it be said that the Infallibility of the Roman Church would yield the Church so many commodities and that the want of an infallible Church to guide men in the way to Heaven would bring so many mischiefs upon the world that it cannot be thought but that God out of his love to men hath appointed this Church as an infallible guide to all other Churches seeing it is so necessary there should be some such guide and so evident there is no other Ans. I answer that this argument would serve the Church of Greece or England or Geneva to prove it self infallible and the guide of all other Churches would they but take upon them to be so For every one might say for it self It is necessary there should be some Guide it is evident there is no other Ergo I am appointed by God to be that Guide The same argument any man might use to make himself Monarch of any popular State for first he might represent unto them the commodities of a Monarchy and the mischiefs of a Democracy then he might say That God surely out of his Love to them hath appointed some remedy for their inconveniences And lastly that he hath ordained no other to redress them but himself and then conclude that he alone must of necessity be the man appointed to rule over them I answer Secondly that here also we must resolve all into Reason and the private Spirit or that we are still in the Circle For I demand how do you know that these pretended commodities are to be compassed and these pretended mischiefs are to be avoided only by the Infallibility of the Church of Rome or some other Church and not by any other means which God hath provided If you say reason tells you so I say 1. This is to make reason your last and lowest foundation 2. I assure you Reason tells me no such matter and yet I know that I am as willing to hear it as you are If you say the Church tells you so and she is infallible this I say is to prove the Church infallible because she is so Thirdly I demand How it is possible you should know that these pretended commodities might not be gained and these mischiefs which you fear avoided without any assistance of the Church of Rome's infallibility if all men in the world did believe the Scripture and live according to it and would require no more of others but to do so If you say that notwithstanding this there would be no unity in Doctrin I answer 1. It is impossible you should know this considering that there are many places in Scripture which do more than problably import that the want of piety in living is the cause of want of unity in believing 2. That there would be unity of Opinion in all things necessary and that in things not necessary unity of Opinion is not necessary But lastly that notwithstanding differences in these things of lesser importance there might and would be unity of Communion unity of charity and affection which is one of the greatest blessings which the world is capable of absolute unity of opinion being a matter rather to be desired than hoped for Obj. Against this it has been objected that the Scripture cannot be the guide because many men have used their best endeavors to follow it and yet have fallen some into Arianism others into Pelagianism others into other damnable Heresies and how can I secure any man but he may do the like Ans. To this I answer by distinguishing the persons which are pretended to have made use of this Guide and yet to have fallen into Heresie that they were either such as did love the truth sincerely and above all things as did seek it diligently and with all their power to this intent that they might conform their belief and
all contentious men we must seek therefore for Judges between us If Christians are to be our Judges both sides will not afford such We must seek for a Judges abroad If he be a Pagan he cannot know the secrets of Christianity If he be a Iew he is an Enemy to Christian Baptism Therefore there is no judgment of this matter can be found on Earth We must seek for a Judge from Heaven But to what end do we sollicite Heaven when we have here in the Gospel a Will and Testament And because here we may fitly compare Earthly things with Heavenly The case is just as if a man had many Sons while he is present with them he commands every one what he will have done and there is no need as yet of making his last Will. So also Christ as long as he was present on Earth though neither now is he wanting for a time commanded his Apostles whatsoever was necessary But just as an Earthly Fatheâ— when he â—â—ls his Death approaching fearing lest after his Death the Brothers should fall out and quarrel he calls in Witnesses and translates his Will from his dying Heart into Writing-Tables that will continue long after him Now if any controversie arises among the Brothers they do not go to his Tomb but consult his last Wâ—ll and thus he whilst he rests in his Grave does speak to them in those silent Tables as if he were alive He wâ—ose Testament we have is in Heaven Therefore we are to enquire 〈◊〉 pleasure in the Gospel as in his last Will and Testament It is plain from hence that he knew not or any living speaking audible Judge furnished with Authority and infallibility to decide this controversie had he known any such assisted with the Spirit of God for this purpose it had been horrible impiety against God and the Churches peace to say there was none such or the Spirit of God was not able by his assistance to keep this Judge from being hindred with partiality from seeing the Truth Had he thought the Bishop of Romes speaking ex Cathedra to be this Judge now had been the time to have â—aid so but he says directly the contrary and therefore it is plain he knew of no such Authority he had Neither is there the like reason for a Judge finally and with Authority to determine controversie in Religion and civil disserences For if the controversie be about Mâ—ne and Thine about I and or Money or any other thing it is impossible that both I should hold the possession of it and my adversary too and one of us must do injury to the other which is not fit it should be Eternal But in matters of Doctrine the case is clean contrary I may hold my opinion and do my Adversary no wrong and my Adversary may hold his and do me none Texts of Scripture alledged for Infallibility The Texts alledged for it by Cardinal Perron and Mr. Stratford are partly Prophecies of the Old Testament partly promises of the New 1. Esa. 1. 26. Thou shalt be called the City of Iustice the faithful City 2. Esa. 52. 1. Through thee shall no more pass any that is uncircumcised or unclean 3. Esa. 59. 21. As for me this is my Covenant with them saith the Lord my spirit that is upon thee and my Words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth nor out of the mouth of thy seed nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed saith the Lord from henceforth and for ever 4. Esa. 62. 6. Upon thy Walls Hierusalem I have appointed Watchmen all the day and all the night for ever they shall not hold their peace 5. Jerem. 31. 33. This shall be the Covenant which I will make with the House of Israel saith the Lord I will give my Law in their Bowels and in their Heart I will write it and I will be their God and they shall be my People 6. Ezek. 36. 27. I will put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in my Statutes and ye shall keep my judgments and do them 7. Ezek. 37. 26. I will give my Sanctification in the midst of them for ever 8. Ose. 2. 19 20. I will dispouse thee to me for ever and I will dispouse thee to me in Iustice and judgment and in mercy and commiserations I will Espouse thee to me in Faith and thou shalt know that I am the Lord. 9. Cant. 4. 7. Thou art all fair my Love and there is no spot in thee Now before we proceed further let us reflect upon these places and make the most of them for the behoof of the Roman Church and I believe it will then appear to any one not veil'd with prejudice that not one of them reaches home to the conclusion intended which is That the Roman Church is infallible The first place perhaps would do something but that there are Three main exceptions against it 1. That here is no evidence not so much as that of probability that this is here spoken of the Church of Râ—me 2. That it is certain that it is not spoken of the Church of Rome but of the Nation of the Iews after their conversion as is apparent from that which follows Zion shall be redeemeâ— with judgment and her converts with righteousnâ—ss 3. That it is no way certain that whatsoever Society may be called the City of righteousness the faithful City mâ—st be infallible in all her Doctrine with a great deal more probability it might challenge from hence the priviâ—edg of being Impeccable which yet Roman Catholicks I believe do not pretend to The Second place is liable to the same exceptions the Church of Rome is not spoken of in it but Zion and Hierusalem and it will serve as well nay better to prove Impeccability than Infallibility The third place is the Achilles for this opinion wherein every writer Triumphs but I wonder they should do so considering the Covenant here spoken of is made not with the Church of Rome but with Zion and them that turn from transgression in Iacob the words are And the Redeâ—mer shall come out of Zion and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob saith the Lord. As for me this is my Covenant with them saith the Lord My Spirit that is in thee and my Words c. Now if the Church of Rome be Zion and they that turn from iniquity in Iacob they may have Title to this Covenant if not they must forbear and leave it to the Iews after their Conversion to whom it is appropriated by a more Infallible Interpreter than the Pope I mean S. Paul Rom. 11. 26. And it seems the Church of Rome also believes as much for otherwise why does she in the Margent of her Bible send us to that place of S. Paul for an exposition Read the 4th place and you shall find nothing can be made of it but this that the Watchmen of Hierusalem shall never cease
and examined whether for the reasons alledged they might not do so 4. And lastly upon a thorow examination of the matter I do now affirm what before I did not that the Collyridians for ought appears to the contrary might justly and truly have said for the justification of their practice as much nay the very same things that the Papists do for theirs For they might have said we are Christians and believe the Scripture and believe there is but one God We offer not to the Blessed Virgin as believing she is God but the Mother of God our worship of her is not absolute but relative not terminated in her but given to her for her Sons sake And if our practice may be allowed we are content to call our Oblation not a Sacrifice but a present neither is there any reason why it should be called a Sacrifice more than the Offering and Burning a Taper to the honour of the same Virgin All this the Collyridians might have said for themselves and therefore I believe you will have more cause to repent you for daubing over impiety with untempered Morter than I shall have for slandering the Roman Church with a matter of truth 9. Demand Whether therefore one of the two must not of necessity follow that either the Ancient Church Erred in condemning the Opinion and Practice of the Collyridians as Heretical or else that the Church of Rome Errs in approving the same opinion and the same practice in effect which in them was condemned That is whether the Church of Rome must not be Heretical with the Collyridians or else the Collyridians Catholicks with the Church of Rome Answ. It appears by the former answers that neither did the Ancient Church Err in condemning the opinion and practice of the Collyridians as Heretical nor doth the Church of Rome approve the same opinion or the same practice Reply The Substance of the former answer is but this That the Papists offer to the Virgin Mary and other Saints Wax Tapers by way of gift or present not of Sacrifice and to her not as to a God but as the Mother of God but that the Collyridians offered to her by way of Sacrifice as to a Sovereign Power and Deity To this I have replied and proved that it no way appears that the Collyridians did believe the Blessed Virgin to be a Sovereign Power and Deity or that she was not subordinate to God Then that their offering might be called a gift as well as the Papists and the Papists a Sacrifice as well as theirs both of them being a Consumption of a Creature in honour of the Blessed Virgin and neither of them more than so and therefore either the Collyridians must stand with the Church of Rome or the Church of Rome fall with the Collyridians It had been perhaps sufficient for me thus to have vindicated my Assertion from contrary objections without taking on my self the burden of proving a Negative yet to free from all doubt the conformity of the Roman Church with the Collyridians in this point I think it will be necessary to shew and that by many very probable Arguments that Epiphanius did not impute to them the pretended Heresie of believing the Virgin Mary God for then that other Evasion that their oblation is a Sacrifice and the Papists is not together with this pretence will of it self fall to the ground Now an opinion may be imputed to a man two ways either because he holds and maintains it expresly and formally and in terms or because it may by a rational deduction be collected from some other opinion which he does hold In this latter sense I deny not but Epiphanius might impute this opinion we speak of to the Collyridians as a consequence upon their practice which practice they esteemed lawful But that they held it and owned it formally and in terms this I say Epiphanius does not impute to them which I think for these seven reasons My first Reason is because he could not justly do so and therefore without evident proof we may not say he did so for this were to be uncharitable to him in making him uncharitable to others Now I say he could not justly charge them with this opinion because he was not informed of nay such opinion that they held but only of their practice and this practice was no sufficient proof that they held this opinion That his information reached no further than their Practice appears out of his own Words I have heard saith he Haeres 78. another thing with great astonishment that some being madly affected to the Blessed Virgin endeavour to bring her in in Gods place being mad and besides themselves For they report that certain Women in Arabia have devised this Vanity to have meetings and offer a Cake to the Blessed Virgin The same practice he sets down Haeres 79. But that he was informed of any such opinion that they held he has not a Word or Syllable to any such purpose and yet if he had been informed of any here had been the place to set it down which certainly writing his Book rather of Heretical opinions than practices he would not have omitted to do if there had been occasion his silence therefore is a sufficient Argument that he was not informed of any such opinion that they held Now that their practice was no assurance that they held this opinion it is manifest because they might ground it not upon this opinion that she was God but upon another as false though not altogether so impious That the Worship of Oblations was not proper to God alone And therefore though Epiphanius might think oâ— Fear that possibly they might ground their practice upon that other impious opinion and therefore out of abundanâ— caution confute that also as he doth obliquely and in a word and once only in all his long discourse by telling them that our Saviour called her Woman yet he had no ground from their practice to assure himself that certainly they did hold so Nay Justice and Reason and Charity would that he should incline himself to believe that they grounded their practice upon that other opinion which had less impiety in it that is that this worship of Oblations was not proper to God but communicable to Creatures high in his favour My second is Because if Epiphanius had known that these Collyridians held the Blessed Virgin to be a Supream Power and Deity this being a far greater matâ—er than offering a Cake to her should in all probability rather have given them their denomination at least when he sets down what their Heresie was he would have made this part of it that they did believe so But to the contrary in his Anacaephaleosis p. 130. he thus describes them They that offer to the name of the Blessed Virgin Cakes who are called Collyridians And again p. 150. They that offer to the Blessed Virgin Cakes who are called Collyridians So to the 79th Heresie he gives
lest in condemning the Collyridians he might seem to have involved the practice of the Roman Church in the same Condemnation My Seventh and last Reason is this Had Epiphanius known that the Collyridians held the Virgin Mary to be a Sovereign power and Deity then he could not have doubted whether this their offering was to her or to God for her whereof yet he seems doubtful and not fully resolved as his own words intimate Haeres 79. ad fin Quam multa c. How many things may be objected against this Heresie for idle Women either worshipping the Blessed Virgin offer unto â—â—r a Cake or else they take upon them to offer for her this foresaid ridiculous oblation Now both are foolish and from the Devil These Arguments I suppose do abundantly demonstrate to any man not viel'd with prejudice that Epiphanius imputed not to the Collyridians the Heresie of believing the Virgin Mary God and if they did not think her God there is then no reason imaginable why their oblation of a Cake should not be thought a Present as well as the Papists offering a Taper or that the Papists offering a Taper should not be thought a Sacrifice as well as their offering a Cake and seeing this was the difference pretended between them this being vanished there remains none at all So that my first Conclusion stands yet firm that either the Ancient Church erred in condemning the Collyridians or the present errs in approving and practising the same worship An ADVERTISEMENT The Reader when he meets with the Phrase Catholick Doctrin in the two following Discourses must remember that it does not signifie Articles of Faith determined in any General Councils which might be looked upon as the Faith of the whole Church but the Current and Common Opinion of the Age which obtained in it without any known opposition and contradiction Neither need this be wondred at since they are about matters far removed from the Common Faith of Christians and having no necessary influence upon good life and manners whatsoever necessity by mistake of some Scriptures might be put upon them IV. An Argument drawn from the admitting Infants to the Eucharist as without which they could not be saved against the Churches Infallibility THE Condition without the performance whereof no man can be admitted to the Communion of the Church of Rome is this that he believe firmly and without doubting whatsoever the Church requires him â—o believe More distinctly and particularly thus He must believe all that to be divine Revelation which that Church teaches to be such as the Doctrin of the Tâ—inity the Hypostatical union of two natures in the person of Christ. The procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son the Doctrin of Transubstantiation and such like Whatsoever that Church teaches to be necessary he must believe to be necessary As Baptism for Infants Faith in Christ for those that are Capable of Faith Penance for those that have committed mortal sin after Baptism c. Whatsoever that Church declares expedient and profitable he must believe to be expedient and profitable as Monastical Life Prayer to Saints Prayer for the Dead going on Pilgrimages The use of Pardons Veneration of holy Images and Reliques Latin Service where the people understand it not Communicating the Laity in one kind and such like Whatsoever that Church holdeth lawful he must believe lawful As to Marry to make distinction of Meats as if some were clean and others unclean to flie in time of Persecution for them that serve at the Altar to live by the Altar to testifie a truth by Oath when a lawful Magistrate shall require it to possess Riches c. Now is it impossible that any man should certainly believe any thing unless either it be evident of â—t self or he have some certain reason at least some supâ—osed certaâ—n reason and infallible ground for his belief Now the Doctrins which the Church of Rome teacheth it is evident and undeniable that they are not evident of themselves neither evidently true nor evidently credible He therefore that will believe them must of necessity have some certain and infallible ground whereon to build his belief of them There is no other ground for a Mans belief of them especially in many points but only an assurance of the Infallibility of the Church of Rome No man can be assured that that Church is infallible and cannot err whereof he may be assured that she hath erred unless she had some new promise of divine assistance which might for the future secure her from danger of erring but the Church of Rome pretends to none such Nothing is more certain than that that Church hath erred which hath believed and taught irreconcileable Contradictions one whereof must of necessity be an Error That the Râ—ceiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist is necessary for Infants and that the receiving thereof is not necessary for them That it is the will of God that the Church should administer the Sacrament to them and that it is not the will of God that the Church should do so are manifest and irreconcileable Contradictions Supposing only that which is most evident that the Eucharist is the same thing of the same vertue and efficacy now as it was in the primitive Church That Infants are the same things they were have as much need are capable of as much benefit by the Eucharist now as then As subject to irreverent carriages then as now And lastly that the present Church is as much bound to provide for the spiritual good of Infants as the Ancient Church was I say these things supposed the propositions before set down are plain and irreconcileable Contradictions whereof the present Roman Church doth hold the Negative and the Ancient Church of Rome did hold the Affirmative and therefore it is evident that either the present Church doth err in holding something not necessary which is so or that the Ancient Church did err in holding something necessary which was not so For the Negative Proposition viz. That the Eucharist is not necessary for Infants that it is the Doctrin of the present Church of Rome it is most manifest 1. From the disuse and abolition and prohibition of the contrary Ancient practice For if the Church did conceive it necessary for them either simply for their salvation or else for their increase or confirmation in grace and advancement to a higher degree of glory unless she could supply some other way their damage in this thing which evidently she cannot what an uncharitable sacriledge is it to debar and defraud them of the necessary means of their so great spiritual benefit especially seeing the administration of it might be so ordered that irreverent casualties might easily be prevented which yet should they fall out against the Churches and Pastors intention certainly could not offend God and in reason should not offend man Or if the Church do believe that upon such a vain fear of irreverence which
we see moved not the Ancient Church at all she may lawfully forbid such a general perpetual and necessary charity certainly herein she commits a far greater error than the former Secondly from the Council of Trents Anathema denounced on all that holâ— the contrary in these words If any man say that the receiving of the Eucharist is necessary for little children before they come to years of discretion let him be Anathema Concil Trid. Sess. 21. de communione parvulorum Can. 4. Now for the Affirmative part of the Contradiction to make it evident that that was the Doctrin of the Ancient Church I will prove it First from the general practice of the Ancient Church for several Ages Secondly by the direct and formal Testimonies of the Fathers of those times Thirdly by the confession of the most learned Antiquaries of the Roman Church My First Argument I form thus If to communicate Infants was the general practice of the Ancient Church for many Ages then certainly the Church then believed that the Eucharist was necessary for them and very available for their Spiritual benefit But it is certain that the Communicating of Infants was the general practice of the Church for many Ages Therefore the Church of those times thought it necessary for them To deny the consequence of the proposition is to chaâ—ge the Church with extream folly wilful superstition and perpetual profanation of the Blessed Sacrament As for the Assumption it is fully confirmed by Clemens Rom. Constit. Apost l. 3. c. 20. Dionysins Areopagita de Eccles. Hiâ—rarch cap. ult S. Cyprian and a Council of African Bishops with him Epist. 59. ad Fidum and in his Treatise de Lapsis p. 137. Edit Pamel Paulinus Bishop of Nola in Italy An. 353. in Epist. 12. ad Senem out of Ordo Romanus cited by Alevinus S. Bedes Scholar and Master to Charlemain in his Book de divinis officiis cap. de Sab. Sancto Pasc. Gennadius Massiliensis de Eccles. dogmatibus c. 52. Coâ—ncil Toletanum 2. Can. 11. It continued in the Western Church unto the days of Lâ—wes the Debonair witness Cardinal Perron des passages de S. Austin p. 100. Some footsteps of it remained there in the time of Hugo de S. Victore as you may see lib. 1. de Sacram. Coerem cap. 20. It was the practice of the Church of the Armenians in Waldensis his time as he relates out of Guido the Carmelite Tom. 2. de Sacr. c. 91. de erroribus Armenorum It is still in force in the Church of the Abyssines witness Franc. Alvarez Hist. Aethiop c. 22. Thomas a Iesu de procuranda salute omnium gentium It has cotinued without any interruption in the Greek Church unto this present Age as may be evidently gathered out of Lyranus in c. 6. Iohn Arcudius lib. 1. c. 14. lib. 3. c. 40. de concord Eccles. Orient Occident in Sacram. administratione Card. Perron des passages de S. Austin p. 100. where he also assures us of the Primitive Church in general that she gave Infants the Eucharist as soon as they were baptized and that the custome of giving this Sacrament to little Infants the Church then observed and before p. 21. That in those Ages it was always given to Infants together with Baptism The same is likewise acknowledged by Contzen in Iohn 6. ver 54. and by Thomas a Iesu de proc salute omnium gentium So that this matter of the practice of the Ancient Church is sufficiently cleared Seeing therefore the Ancient Church did use this Custom and could have no other ground for it but their belief that this Sacrament was necessary for Infants it follows necessarily that the Church then did believe it necessary But deductions though never so evident are superfluous and may be set aside where there is such abundance of direct and formal Authentical Testimonies whereof some speak in Thesi of the necessity of the Eucharist for all men others in Hypothesi of the necessity of it for Infants My Second Argument from the Testimonies of the Fathers of those times I form thus That Doctrin in the affirmative whereof the most eminent Fathers of the ancient Church agree and which none of their contemporaries have opposed or condemned ought to be taken for the Catholick Doctrin of the Church of those times But the most eminent Fathers of the Ancient Church agree in the Affirmation of this Doctrin that the Eucharist is necessary for Infants and none of their contemporaries have opposed or condemned it Ergo it ought to be taken for the Catholick Doctrin of the Church of their times The Major of this Syllogism is delivered and fully proved by Card. Perron in his Letter to Casaubon 5. obs and is indeed so reasonable a postulate that none but a contentious spirit can reject it For confirmation of the Minor I will alledge first their sentences which in Thesi affirm the Eucharist to be generally necessary for all and therefore for Infants and then their Suffrages who in Hypothesi avouch the necessity of it for Infants The most pregnant Testimonies of the first rank are these Of Iraeneâ—s lib. 4. cont Heres c. 34. where he makes our Union to Christ by the Eucharist the foundation of the hope of our resurrection in these words As the bread of Earth after the Invocation of God is now not common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things an earthly and an heavenly so our bodies receiving the Eucharisâ— are not now corruptible for ever but have hope of resurrection The like he hath lib. 5. c. 2. And hence in probabiâ—ity it is that the Nicene Câ—uncil stiled this Sacrament Symbolum resurrectionis the pledge of our Resurrection And Ignatius Ep. ad Eph. Pharmacum Immortalitatis the Medicine of Immortality Cyril Alex. lib. 4. in Joan. They shall never partake nor so much as tast the life of holiness and happiness which receive not the Son in the mystical Benediction Cyril lib. 10. in Joan. c. 13. lib. 11. c. 27. This corruptible nature of our body could not otherwise be brought to life and immortality unless this body of natural life were conjoyned unto it The very same things saith Gregory Nyssen Orat. Catech. c. 37. And that they both speak of our conjunction with Christ by the Eucharist the Antecedents and Consequents do fully manifest and it is a thing confessed by learned Catholicks Cyprian de coena Domini and Tertullian de resur carnis speak to the same purpose But I have not their Books by me and therefore cannot set down their words S. Chrysostom Hom. 47. in Joh on these words â—isi manducaveritis has many pregnant and plain speeches to our purpose As the words here spoken are very terrible verily saith he if a man eat not my flesh and drink not my blood he hath no life in him for whereas they said before this could not be done he shews it not only not impossible but also very necessary And a
little after he often iterates his speech concerning the holy mysteries shewing the necessity of the thing and that by all means it must be done And again what means that which he says my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed either that this is the true meat that saves the soul or to confirm them in the faith of what he had spoken that they should not think he spoke Enigmatically or parabolically but knew that by all means they must eat his body But most clear and unanswerable is that place lib. 3. de Sacerdotio where he saith If a man cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven unless he be born again of water and the holy spirit and if he which eats not the flesh of our Lord and drinks not his blood is cast out of eternal life And all these things cannot be done by any other but only by those holy hands the hands I say of the Priest how then without their help can any man either avoid the fire of hell or obtain the Crowns laid up for us Theophylact. in 6. Joan. when therefore we â—ear that unless we eat the flesh of the Son of man we cannot have life we must have faith without doubting in the receiving of the divine mysteries and never inquire how for the natural man that is he which followeth humane that is natural reasons receives not the things which are above nature and spirituaâ— as alâ—o he understands not the spiritual meat of the flesh of our Lord which they that receive not shall not be partakers of eteâ—nal life as nâ—t receiving Iesus who is the true liâ—e S. Austin de pec mer. Remis c. 24. Very well do the puny Christians call Baptism nothing else but salvation and the Sacrament of Christs Boâ—y nâ—thing else but Life from whence sâ—â—uld this be but as I believâ— from the Ancient and Apâ—stolical Tradition by which thâ—s Doctrin is implanted into the Churches 〈◊〉 Christ that but by Baptism and the participation of the Lordâ— Table not any man can attain neither to the Kingdom of God nor to salvation and eternal life Now we are taught by the learned Cardinal that when the Fathers speak not as Doctors but as witâ—esses of the Customs of the Church of their times and dâ— not say I believe this should be so holden or so understood or so observed but that the Church from one end of the earth to â—he other believes it so or observes it so then we no longer hold what they say for a thing said by them but as a thing said by the whole Church and principally when it is in points whereof they could not be ignorant either because of the condition of the things as in matters of fact or because of the sufficiency of the persons and in this case we argue no more upon their words probably as we do when they speak in the quality of particular Doctors but we argue thereupon demonstratively I subsume But S. Austin the sufficientest peâ—son which the Church of his time had speaking of a point wherein he could not be ignorant says not that I belieâ—e the Eâ—charist to be neceâ—sary to salvation but the Churches of Christ believe so and have received this doctriâ— from Apostolical Traâ—ition Therefore I argue upon his words not probably but demonstratively that this was the Catholiâ—â—â— doctrin of the Church of his time And thus much for the Thesis That the Eucharist was held generally necessary for all Now for the Hypothesis That the Eucharist was held necessary for Infants in particular Witnesses hereof are S. Cyprian Pope Innocentius I. and Eusebius Emissenus with S. Austin together with the Author of the Book intituled Hypognostica Cyprian indeed does not in terms affirm it but we have a very clear intimation of it in his Epistle to Fidus. For whereas he and a Council of Bishops together with him had ordered that Infants might be baptizâ—d and sacrificed that is communicated before the eighth day though that were the day appointed for Circumcision by the old Law There he sets down this as the reason of their Decree that the mercy and grace of God was to be denied to no man Pope Innocent the first in Ep. ad Epis. Cone Milev quae est inter August 93. concludes against the Pelagians that Infants could not attain eternal life without Baptism because without Baptism they were uncapable of the Eucharist and without the Eucharist could not have eternal life His words are but that which your Fraternity affirms them to Preach that Infants without the grace of Baptism may have the rewards of eternal life is certainly most foolish for unless they eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood they shall have no life in them Now that this sense which I have given his words is indeed the true sense of them and that his judgment upon the point was as I have said it is acknowledged by Maldonate in Ioan. 6. v. 54. by Binius upon the Councils Tom. 1. p. 6. 24. by Sanctesius Repet 6. c. 7. and it is affirmed by S. Austin who was his Contemporary held correspondence by Letters with him and therefore in all probability could not be ignorant of his meaning I say he affirms it as a matter out of Question Epist. 106. and Cont. Iulian. lib. 1. c. 4. where he tells that Pelagius in denying this did dispute contra sedis Apostolicae authoritatem against the authority of the Sea Apostolick and after but if they yield to the Sea Apostolick or rather to the Master himself and Lord of the Apostles who says that they shall not have life in them unless they eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood which none may do but those that are baptized then at length they will confess that Infants not baptized cannot have life Now I suppose no man will doubt but the belief of the Apostolick Sea was then as S. Austin assures us l. 1. cont Iul. c. 4. the belief of the Church of Rome taking it for a particular Church and then it will presently follow that either other Churches do not think themselves bound in conformity of belief with the Roman Church notwithstanding Irenaus his necesse est ad hanc Ecclesâ—iam omnem convenire Ecclesiam or that this was then the Doctrin of the Catholick Church For Eusebius Emissenus I cannot quote any particular proof out of him but his belief in this point is acknowledged by Sanctes Repet 6. c. 7. Likewise for S. Austin the same Sanctesius and Binius and Maldonate either not mindful or not regardful of the Anathema of the Council of Trent acknowledge â—n the places above quoted that he was also of the same belief and indeed he professeth it so plainly and so frequently that he must be a meer stranger to him that knows it not and very impudent that denies it Eucharistianâ— infantibus puteâ— necessariam Augustinus say also the Divines of
That before the worlds end Christ should reign upon earth for a thousand years and that the Saints should live under him in all holiness and happiness That this Doctrin is by the present Roman Church held false and Heretical I think no man will deny That the same Doctrin was by the Church of the next Age after the Apostles held true and Catholick I prove by these two Reasons The first Reason Whatsoever doctrin is believed and taught by the most eminent Fathers of any Age of the Church and by none of their contemporaries opposed or condemned that is to be esteemed the Catholick Doctrin of the Church of those times But the Doctrin of the Millenaries was believed and taught by the eminent Fathers of the Age next after the Apostles and by none of that Age opposed or condemned Therefore it was the Catholick Doctrin of the Church of those times The Proposition of this Syllogism is Cardinal Perrons rule in his Epistle to Casaubon 5. observ And is indeed one of the main pillars upon which the great Fabrick of his Answer to King Iames doth sâ—and and with which it cannot but fall and therefore I will spend no time in the proof of it But the Assumption thus I prove That Doctrin which was believed and taught by Papias Bishop of Hierapâ—lis the disciple of the Apostles disciples according to Eusebius who lived in the times of the Apostles saith he by Iustin Martyr Doctor of the Church and Martyr by Melito Bishop of Sardis who had the gift of Prophesie witness Tert. and whom Bellarmine acknowledgeth a Saint By S. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons and Martyr and was not opposed and condemned by any one Doctor of the Church of those times That Doctrine was believed and taught by the most Eminent Fathers of that Age next to the Apostles and opposed by none But the former part of the Proposition is true Ergo the Latter is also true The Major of this Syllogism and the latter part of the Minor I suppose will need no proof with them that consider that these here mentioned were equal in number to all the other Ecclesiastical Writers of that Age of whom there is any memory remaining and in weight and worth infinitely beyond them they were Athenagoras Theophilus Antiochenus Egesippus and Hippolitus of whose contradiction to this Doctrine there is not extant neither in their works nor in story any Print or Footstep which if they or any of them had opposed it had been impossible considering the Ecclesiastical Story of their time is Written by the professed Enemies of the Millinaries Doctrine who could they have found any thing in the monuments of Antiquity to have put in the Ballance against Iustin Martyr and Irenaeus no doubt would not have buried it in silence which yet they do neither vouching for their opinion any one of more Antiquity than Dionysius Alexandrinus who lived saith Eusebius nostra aetate in our Age but certainly in the latter part of the third Century For Tatianus because an Heretick I reckon not in this number And if any man say that before his fall he wrote many Books I say it is true but withal would have it remembred that he was Iustin Martyrs Scholar and therefore in all probability of his Masters Faith rather than against it all that is extant of him one way or other is but this in S. Hierome de Script Eccles. Justini Martyris sectator suit Now for the other part of the Minor that the forementioned Fathers did believe and teach this Doctrine And first for Papias that he taught it it is confessed by Eusebius the Enemy of this Doctrine Lib. 3. Iâ—ist Eccles. c. 33. in these words Other things besides the same Author Papias declares that they came to him as it were by unwritten Tradition wherein he affirms that after the Resurrection of all Flesh from the Dead there shall be a Kingdom of Christ continued and established for a thousand years upon Earth after a humane and corporeal manner The same is confessed by S. Hierome another Enemy to this opinion descript Eccles. S. â—9 Papias the Auditor of John Bishop of Hieropolis is said to have taught the Iudaical Tradition of a thousand years whom Irenaeus and Apollinarius followed And in his preface upon the Commentaries of Victorinus upon the Apocalypse thus he writes before him Papias Bishop of Hieropolis and Nepos Bishop in the parts of Egypt taught as Victorinus does touching the Kingdom of the thousand years The same is testified by Irenaeus lib. 5. cont Her c. 33. where having at large set forth this Doctrine he confirms it by the Authority of Papias in these words Papias also the Auditor of John the familiar friend of Policarpus an Ancient man hath testified by writing these things in the fourth of his Books for he hath written five And concerning Papias thus much That Iustin Martyr was of the same belief it is confessed by Sixtus Senensis Biblioth Stae l. 6. An. 347. by Feverdentius in his premonition before the five last Chapters of the 5th Book of Irenaeus By Pamelius â—n Antidoto ad Tertul. parad paradox 14. That S. Mâ—lito Bishop of Sardis held the same Doctrine is confessed by Pamelius in the same place and thereupon it is that Gennadius Massiliensis in his Book de Eccles. dogmatibus calls the followers of this opinion Melitani as the same Pamelius testifies in his Notes upon that fragment of Tertullian de Spe fidelium Irenaeus his Faith in this point is likewise confessed by Eusebius in the place before quoted in these words He Papias was the Author of the like Error to most of the Writers of the Church who alledged the Antiquity of the Man for a defence of their side as to Irenaeus and whosoever else seemed to be of the same opinion with him By S. Hierome in the place above cited de script Eccles. S. 29. Again in Lib. Ezek. 11. in these words For neither do we expect from Heaven a Golden Hierusalem according to the Iewish tales which they call Duterossis which also many of our own have followed Especially Tertullian in his Book de spe â—idelium and Lactantius in his seventh Book of Institutions and the frequent expositions of Victorinus Pictavionensis and of late Severus in his Dialogue which he calls Gallus and to name the Greeks and to joyn together the first and last Irenaeus and Apollinarius Where we see he acknowledges Irenaeus to be of this opinion but that he was the first that held it I believe that that is more a Christian untruth than Irenaeus his opinion a Judaical Fable For he himself acknowledges in the place above cited that Irenaeus followed Papias and it is certain and confessed that Iustin Martyr believed it long before him and Irenaeus himself derives it from Presbyteri qui Johannem discipulum Domini viderunt from Priests which saw Iohn the Disciple of the Lord. Lastly by Pamelius Sixtus Senensis and Faverdentius in the places
feet in all of them and therefore if my head be out of my belly it must be out of the place where my belly is and if it be not out of the place where my belly is it is not out of my belly but in it Again to shew that according to the Doctrin of Transubstantiation our Saviours body in the Eucharist hath not the several parts of it out of one another he disputed thus Wheresoever there is a body having several parts one out of the other there must be some middle parts severing the extreme parts But here according to this Doctrin the extreme parts are not severed but altogether in the same point Therefore here our Saviours Body cannot have parts one out of other Mr. Dan. To all this for want of a better Answer gave only this Let all Scholars peruse these After upon better consideration he wrote by the side of the last Syllogism this Quoad entitatem verum est non quoad locum that is according to entity it is true but not according to place And to Let all Scholars peruse these he caused this to be added And weigh whether there is any new matter worth a new Answer Chillingworth Replyed That to say the extreme parts of a body are severed by the middle parts according to their entity but not according to place is ridiculous His reasons are first Because severing of things is nothing else but putting or keeping them in several places as every silly woman knows and therefore to say they are severed but not according to place is as if you should say They are heated but not according to heat they are cooled but not according to cold Indeed is it to say they are â—evered but not severed VIII An account of what moved the Author to turn a Papist with his own Confutation of the Arguments that perswaded him thereto I Reconciled myself to the Church of Rome because I thought my self to have sufficient reason to believe that there was and must be always in the World some Church that could not err and consequently seeing all other Churches disclaimed this priviledge of not being subject to error the Church of Rome must be that Church which cannot err I was put into doubt of this way which I had chosen by D. Stapleton and others who limit the Churches freedom from Error to things necessary only and such as without which the Church can be a Church no longer but grantted it subject to error in things that were not necessary Hereupon considering that most of the differences between Protestants and Roman Catholicks were not touching things necessary but only profitable or lawful I concluded that I had not sufficient ground to believe the Roman Church either could not or did not err in any thing and therefore no ground to be a Roman Catholick Against this again I was perswaded that it was not sufficient to believe the Church to be an infallible believer of all doctrins necessary but it must also be granted an infallible teacher of what is necessary that is that we must believe not only that the Church teacheth all things necessary but that all is necessary to be believed which the Church teacheth to be so in effect that the Church is our Guide in the way to Heaven Now to believe that the Church was an infallible Guide and to be believed in all things which she requires us to believe I was induced First because there was nothing that could reasonably contest with the Church about this Office but the Scripture and that the Scripture was this Guide I was willing to believe but that I saw not how it could be made good without depending upon the Churches authority 1. That Scripture is the Word of God 2. That the Scripture is a perfect rule of our duty 3. That the Scripture is so plain in those things that concern our duty that whosoever desires and endeavors to find the will of God there shall either find it or at least not dangerously mistake it Secondly I was drawn to this belief because I conceived that it was evident out of the Epistle to the Ephesians that there must be unto the worlds end a Succession of Pastors by adhering to whom men might be kept from wavering in matters of faith and from being carried up and down with every wind of false doctrin That no Succession of Pastors could guard their adherents from danger of error if themselves were subject unto error either in teaching that to be necessary which is not so or denying that to be necessary which is so and therefore That there was and must be some Succession of Pastors which was an infallible guide in the way to Heaven and which should not possibly teach any thing to be necessary which was not so nor any thing not necessary which was so upon this ground I concluded that seeing there must be such a Succession of Pastors as was an infallible guide and there was no other but that of the Church of Rome even by the confession of all other Societies of Pastors in the world that therefore that Succession of Pastors is that infallible Guide of Faith which all men must follow Upon these grounds I thought it necessary for my salvation to believe the Roman Church in all that she thought to be and proposed as necessary Against these Arguments it hath been demonstrated unto me and First against the first That the reason why we are to believe the Scripture to be the word of God neither is nor can be the Authority of the present Church of Rome which cannot make good her Authority any other way but by pretence of Scripture and therefore stands not unto Scripture no not in respect of us in the relation of a Foundation to a building but of a bâ—ilding to a Foundation doth not support Scripture but is sâ—pported by it But the general consent of Christians of all Nations and Ages a far greater company than that of the Church of Rome and delivering universally the Scripture for the word of God is the ordinary external reason why we believe it whereunto the Testimonies of the Jews enemies of Christ add no small moment for the Authority of some part of it That whatsoever stood upon the same ground of Universal Tradition with Scripture might justly challenge belief as well as Scripture but that no Doctrin not written in Scripture could justly pretend to as fuâ—l Tradition as the Scripture and therefore we had no reason to believe it with that degree of faith wherewith we believe the Scripture That it is unreasonable to think that he that â—eads the Scripture and uses all means appointed for this purpose with an earnest desire and with no other end buâ— to find the will of God and obey it if he mistake the meaning of some doubtful places and fall unwillingly into some errors unto which no vice or passion betrays him and is willing to hear reason from any man that will undertake