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
above quoted Seeing therefore it is certain even to the confession of the Adversaries that Papias Iustin Martyr Meleto and Irenaeus the most considerable and eminent men of their Age did believe and teach this Doctrine and seeing it has been proved as evidently as a thing of this nature can be that none of their contemporaries opposed or condemned it It remains according to Cardinal Perrons first rule that this is to be esteemed the Doctrine of the Church of that Age. My second Reason I form thus Whatsoever Doctrine is taught by the Fathers of any Age not as Doctors but as witnesses of the Tradition of the Church that is not as their own opinion but as the Doctrine of the Church of their times that is undoubtedly to be so esteemed especially if none contradicted them in it But the Fathers above cited teach this Doctrine not as their own private opinion but as the Christian Tradition and as the Doctrine of the Church neither did any contradict them in it Ergo it is undoubtedly to be so esteemed The Major of this Syllogism is Cardinal Perrons second Rule and way of finding out the Doctrine of the Ancient Church in any Age and if it be not a sure Rule farewel the use of all Antiquity And for the Minor there will be little doubâ— of it to him that considers that Papias professes himself to have received this Doctrine by unwritten Tradition though not from the Apostles themselves immediately yet from their Scholars as appears by Eusebius in the forecited third Book 33. Chapter That Irenaeus grounding it upon evident Scripture professes that he learnt it whether mediately or immediately I cannot tell from a Presbyteri qui Johannem Discipulum Domini viderunt Priests or Elders who saw Iohn the Lords Disciple and heard of him what our Lord taught of those times of the thousand years and also as he says after from Papias the Auditor of Iohn the Chamber-fellow of Polycarpus an Ancient man who recorded it in writing a Faverdentius his Note upon this place is very Notable Hinc apparet saith he from hence it appears that Irenaeus neither first invented this opinion nor held it as proper to himself but got this blot and blemish from certain Fathers Papias I suppose and some other inglorious fellows the familiar Friends of Irenaeus are here intended I hope then if the Fathers which lived with the Apostles had their blots and blemishes it is no such horrid Crime for Calvin and the Century writers to impute the same to their great Grandchildren Aetas parentâ—m pejor avis progeniem fert vitiosiorem But yet these inglorious Disciples of the Apostles though perhaps not so learned as Faverdentius were yet certainly so honest as not to invent lies and deliver them as Apostolick Tradition or if they were not what confidence can we place in any other unwritten Tradition Lastly that Iustin Martyr grounds it upon plan Prophecies of the Old Testament and express words of the New he professeth That he and all other Christâ—ans of a right belief in all things believe it joyns them who believe it not with them who deny the Resurrection or else says that none denied this but the same who deâ—ied the Resurrection and that indeed they were called Christians but in deed and Truth were none Whosoever I say considers these things will easily grant that they held it not as their own opinion but as the Doctrine of the Church and the Faith of Christians Hereupon I conclude whatsoever they held not as their private opinion but as the Faith of the Church that was the Faith of the Church of their time But this Doctrine they held not as their private opinion but as the Faith of the Church Ergo it was and is to be esteemed the Faith of the Church Trypho Do ye confess that before ye expect the coming of Christ this place Hierusalem shall be again restored and that your People shall be congregated and rejoyce together with Christ and the Patriarchs and the Prophets c. Iustin Martyr I have confessed to you before that both I and many others do believe as you well know that this shall be but that many again who are not of the pure and holy opinion of Christians do not acknowledge this I have also signified unto you For I have declared unto you that some called Christians but being indeed Atheists and impious Hereticks do generally teach blasphemous and Atheistical and foolish things but that you might know that I speak not this to you only I will make a Book as near as I can of these our disputations where I will profess in writing that which I say before you for I resolve to follow not men and the Doctrines of men but God and the Doctrine of God For although you chance to meet with some that are called Christians which do not confess this but darâ— to Blaspheme the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Iacob which also say there is no Resurrection of the Dead but that as soon as they die their Souls are received into Heaven do not ye yet think them Christians as neither if a man consider rightly will he account the Sadducees and other Sectaries and Hereticks as the Genistae and the Meristae and Galileans and Pharisees and Hellenians and Baptists and other such to be Iews but only that they are called Iews and the Children of Abraham and such as with their lips confess God as God himself cries out but have their Hearts far from him But I and all Christians that in all things believe aright both know that there shall be a Resurrection of the Flesh and a thousand years in Hierusalem restored and adorned and inlarged according as the Prophets Ezekiel and Esay and others do testifie for thus saith Isaiah of the time of this thousand years For there shall be a new Heaven and a new Earth and they shall not remâ—mber the former c. And after A certain man amongst us whose name was Iohn one of the Twelve Apostles of Christ in that Revelation which was exhibited unto him hath foretoldâ— That they which believe ouâ— Christ shall live in Hierusalem a thousand years and that after the Universal and everlasting Resurrection and Judgment shall be I have presumed in the beginning of Iustin Martyrs answer to substitute not instead of also because I am confident that either by chance or the fraud of some ill-willers to the Millinaries opinion the place has been corrupted and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 turned into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not into alâ—o For if we retain the usual reading But that many who are also of the pure and holy opinion of Christians do not acknowledge this I have also signified unto you then must we conclude that Iustin Martyr himself did believe the opinion of them which denied the thousand years to be the pure and holy opinion of Christians and if so why did he not himself believe it nay
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
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
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
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
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
how could he but believe it to be true professing it as he does if the place be right to be the pure and holy opinion of Christians for how a false Doctrine can be the pure and holy opinion of Christians what Christian can conceive or if it may be so how can the contrary avoid the being untrue unholy and not the opinion of Christians Again if we read the place thus That many who are also of the pure and holy opinion of Christians do not acknowledge this I have also signified certainly there will be neither sense nor reason neither coherence nor consequence in the words following For I have â—old you of many called Christians but being indeed Atheists and Hereticks that they altogether teach blasphemous and impious and foolish things for how is this a confirmation or reason of or any way pertinent unto what went before if there he speak of none but such as were purae piaeque Christianorum sententiae of the pure and holy opinion of Christians And therefore to disguise this inconsequence the Translator has thought fit to make use of a false Translation and instead of for I have told you to make it besides I have told you of many c. Again if Iustin Martyr had thought this the pure and holy opinion of Christians or them good and holy Christians that held it why does he rank them with them that denyed the Resurrection Why does he say afterward Although you chance to meet with some that are called Christians which do not confess this do not ye think them Christians Lastly what sense is there in saying as he does I and all Christians that are of a right belief in all things believe the Doctrine of the thousand years and that the Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament teach it and yet say That many of the pure and holy opinion of Christians do not believe it Upon these reasons I suppose it is evident that the place has been corrupted and it is to be corrected according as I have corrected it by substituting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the place of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not instead of also Neither need any man think strange that this misfortune of the change of a Syllable should befal this place who considers that in this place Iustin Martyr tells us that he had said the same things before whereas nothing to this purpose appears now in him And that in Victorinus comment on the Revelation wherein by S. Hieroms acknowledgment this Doctrine was strongly maintained there now appears nothing at all for it but rather against it And now from the place thus restored these Observations offer themselves unto us 1. That Iustin Martyr speaks not as a Doctor but as a witness of the Doctrine of the Church of his time I saith he and all Christians that are of a right belief in all things hold this And therefore from hence according to Cardinal Perrons Rule we are to conclude not probably but demonstratively that this was the Doctrine of the Church of that time 2. That they held it as a necessary matter so far as to hold them no Christians that held the Contrary though you chance to meet with some called Christians that do not confess this but dare to Blaspheme the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob c. Yet do not ye think them Christians Now if Bellarmines Rule be true that Councils then determine any thing as matters of Faith when they pronounce them Hereticks that hold the Contraâ—y then sure Iustin Martyr held this Doctrine as a matter of Faith seâ—ing he pronounceth them no Christians that contradicâ— it 3. That the Doctrine is grounded upon tâ—e Scripture of the Old and New Testament and the Revelation of S. Iohn and that by a Doctor and Martyr of the Church and such a one as was converted to Christianity within 30 years after the Death of S. Iohn when in all probability there were many alive that had heard him expound his own words and teach this Doctrine and if probabilities will not be admitted this is certain out of the most authentical records of the Church that Papias the Disciple of the Apostles Disciples taught it the Church professing that he had received it from them that learned it from the Apostles and if after all this the Church of those Times might Err in a Doctrine so clearly derived and authentically delivered how without extream impudence can any Church in after times pretend to Infallibility The Millinaries Doctrine was over-born by imputing to them that which they held not by abrogating the Authority of S. Iohn's Revelation as some did or by derogating from it as others ascribing it not to S. Iohn the Apostle but to some other Iohn they know not who which Dionysius the first known adversary of this doctrine and his followers against the Tradition of Irenaeus Iustin Martyr and all the Fathers their Antecessors by calling it a Judaical opinion and yet allowing it as probable by corrupting the Authors for it as Iustin Viâ—â—orinus Seâ—erus VI. A Letter relating to the same Subject SIR I Pray remember that if a consent of Fathers either constitute or declare a Truth to be necessary or shew the opinion of the Church of their Time then that opinion of the Jesuits concerning Predestination upon prescience which had no opposer before S. Austin must be so and the contrary Heretical of the Dominicans and the present Church differs from the Ancient in not esteeming of it as they did Secondly I pray remember that if the Fathers be infalliblâ— when they speak as witnesses of Tradition to shew the opinion of the Church of their Time then the opinion of the Chiliasts which now is a Heresie in the Church of Rome was once Tradition in the Opinion of the Church Thirdly Since S. Austin had an opinion that of whatsoever no beginning was known that came from the Apostles many Fathers might say things to be Tradition upon that ground only but of this Opinion of the Chiliasts one of the ancientest Fathers Irenaeus says not onely that it was Tradition but sets down Christs own words when he taught it and the pedigree of the opinion from Christ to Iohn his Disciple from him to several Priest whereof Papias was one who put it in writing and so downwards which can be shewn from no other Father for no other opinion either controverted or uncontroverted Fourthly That if Papias either by his own error or a desire to deceive could cozen the Fathers of the purest age in this why not also in other things why not in twenty as well as one why not twenty others as well as he Fiâ—thly That if the Fathers could be cozened how could general Councils scape who you say make Tradition one of their Rules which can only be known from the Fathers Sâ—xthly If they object how could errors come in and no beginning of them known I pray remember to ask them the same Question