Selected quad for the lemma: england_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A32849
|
Additional discourses of Mr. Chillingworth never before printed
|
Chillingworth, William, 1602-1644.
|
1687
(1687)
|
Wing C3883; ESTC R9935
|
73,616
|
104
|
well intend them for that purpose which I conceive as for that which you conceive The last place alledged tells us that she was begotten and Born as other Men and Women are Which if the Collyridians had thought her God Eternal and absolutely without beginning should not have been barely said but proved as being in effect the very point in question and therefore seeing Epiphanius contents himself with saying so without proof it is evident he never thought they would make difficulty to grant it and consequently that they did not believe her to be God Eternal But then again if the Rule be good which part of your proofs depend upon That whatever Epiphanius denies in this discourse that the Collyridians held for upon that ground from Non Deum hanc efficeret non tamen Deus you conclude they believed her God If I say this Rule be good then you should be constant to it and now that he says Non tamen aliter genita est praeter hominum naturam she was not begotten in a different way from other men you should infer that they believed not that she was God but that she was otherwise Born and Begotten than the ordinary sort of Men. And so whereas he says before Non tamen corpus de caelo tulit her Body was not from Heaven you should infer that they believed her Body came from Heaven And again from those Sanctum erat Mariae corpus non tamen Deus you should collect that they though not only her person but her Body to be God or if these be wild and weak deductions then you must acknowledge that I have done yours some favour in vouchsafing them a particular answer 5. Demand Whether in the Church of Roman it be not an approved and perpetually practised worship of the Blessed Virgin that Incense which was never anciently offered unto any either by Iews or Gentiles but to the true or to a supposed true God and Tapers and divers other oblations should be offered to her honour Answ. A practice of the Church of Rome and approved too by those that practise it belongs not to her except it be a practice of the Church and approved by her What her practice is abroad I know not here at home I see no such practice nor do I know any approbation of it in any of her publick declarations But this I know that there is nothing in it unlawful or savouring of the Collyridian Superstition to offer Wax Tapers or any other thing at the Memories of the Blessed Virgin or any other Canonized Saint either as means to procure their intercession by these outward Signs of the Honour and Devotion which they bear to them as of Old we find by S. Austin they did use to adorn their Tombs with Flowers or as monuments of their thankâ—ulness for some benefits received by their Intercession as Theodoret tells us of Eyes and Ears and Haâ—ds some of Gold and some of Silver hung up in the Chappels of the Saints that had been presented as oblations by those that had recovered health in those Members according to their Vows made to that purpose in time of Sickness Reply I do not deny but a practice may be tolerated in a Church and not approved As the Publick Stews are in Italy and Usury in England But it is one thing to Tolerate with condemnation another to Tolerate without condemnation nay with condemnation of those that should oppose or condemn it And such I doubt not upon examination you may find is this practice general in the Church of Rome offering Tapers to the Saints and for their honour I say not only to God at the Memories of the Saints as you would mince the matter which yet were a groundless superstition God having appointed no such Sacrifice to be offered to him under the Gospel but to the Saints themselves and to their honour prove this lawful for either of those purposes you mention either to procure their intercession or as Monuments of thankfulness for benefits obtained by it and then you shall do something Otherwise you will but trifle as now you have done For instead of telling us what may be done de jure you tell us what of Old has been done de facto As if ab antiquo and a principio were all one or as if the Church as we pretend being subject to corruption part of this corruption might not possibly have come in S. Austins or Theodorets time yet this I say not as if I would decline the Tryal of this cause by S. Austin or Theodoret but because I am sure you will not be Tryed by the Fathers no not the consent of Fathers in all things and therefore there is no reason nor equity in the World that you should serve your selves with their Authority in any thing But now what is it which was done in S. Austins time that may justifie the Practice of the Roman Church was there then any approved offering of Wax Tapers and Incense to the Queen of Heaven or any other Saint nil horum you neither do nor can produce any thing out of S. Austin to this purpose But what then is it Why forsooth they were used to adorn their Tombs Egregiam verò laudem spolia ampla of Old in S. Austins time they were used to adorn their Tombs with Flowers therefore we may offer Tapers to them Truly an excellent Enthymeme but I fear the concealed proposition which shold make it a Syllogism hides its head for shame and dares not appear yet we will for once make bold to draw it forth into light that you may look upon it and tell us how you like it This therefore it is Whose soever Tombs we adorn to them and to their honour we may offer Wax Tapers Consider it I pray you and if you approve it then approve also of offering Tapers not only to Canonize Saints but to all Christians that may have Monuments in Churches For all their Tombs may be adorned with more pretious and lasting Ornaments that Flowers yet if you had proved but this only that in S. Austins time they adorned the Saints Tombs with Flowers by these outward signs to procure their Intercession this though not much to the purpose had been not absolutely to delude us But your quoted places prove not so much as this and yet I believe you quoted the best you could find Nay they prove not they did adorn their Tombs with Flowers at all much less that they did it for your pretended purpose such fools you think to deal with that will take any thing for any thing Your first place I say proves it not unless out of meer courtesie we understand by ferebat she brought to adorn S. Stephens Tomb. The Second proves it not unless we give you leave after Altari without warrant from S. Austin to put in S. Stephani whereas I am yet to seek for any place in S. Austin where he calls any
Communion § 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