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
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
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
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
thought Creatures high in Gods favour capable of adoration The next place Non ut adoretur Virgo nec ut deum hanc efficeret tells us that Christ took Flesh of the Virgin not that she should be adored nor to make her God And this you think imports that they conceive her God Yet if I should condemning your Practice of offering Tapers to her use the same Words and say Christ took Flesh of the Virgin not that she should be adored or to make her God You would not yet conceive that I charged you with the Heresie of believing her God but only of the impiety of giving to her that worship which was peculiar to God and why then might not Epiphanius having like occasion use the same words to the Collyridians upon the same and no other ground The next place Mariam nemo adoret Deo debetur hoc mysterium is so far from proving your imagination that it strongly confirms my assertion that Epiphanius did not impute to the Collyridians the opinion that the Virgin Mary was God If I should say to a Papist the Blessed Virgin is not to be worshiped with the worship of Hyperdaulia because such worship is due only to the Mother of God would they not say I were mad and argued against my self for that they believed she was the Mother of God By like reason if Epiphanius knew that the Collyridians believed the Virgin Mary to be God he reasoned as wildly against himself in saying Mariam nemo adoret Deo debetur hoc mysterium For it is very true might they have said this service is due to God alone but you know our Belief and Profession that she is God and therefore by your own rule capable of this worship The next place is Pro Deo hanc introducere studuerunt And may not this be justly said to any man who to any thing besides God gives that worship which is proper and peculiar unto God What if to man that should teach The Pope had power to dispense with men for the keeping of Gods Laws I should say pro Deo Papam introducis Must I of necessity mean that that man did verily believe the Pope not a man but a Sovereign Power and Deity S. Paul tells us that Covetousness is Idolatry he tells us of some whose God is their Belly is it therefore consequent that every covetous man doth indeed believe his Gold and every Glutton his Belly to be indeed a Sovereign Power and Deity Away with such fopperies Whosoever loves or fears or trusts in any thing more than God may yet be justly said to make that his God and whosoever should worship any Creature with that external worship which God has appropriated to himself might justly be said to bring in that Creature for God S. Paul tells us of some who in words professed God yet fact is negabant in their deeds deny him so these on the contrary may in their words deny this Creature to be God and in their Hearts not think it so yet seeing their actions to it are as if it were God they may be justly charged that with their deeds they make this Creature God Qui fingit Sacros ex auro marmore vultus Non facit ille Deos qui colit ille facit What if upon consideration of the strangely enormous worship which Papists give to the Virgin Mary swearing by her name making Vows unto her offering Tapers to her Honour attributing a kind of Communicated omniscience and almost omnipotence to her as I can easily make good they do partly out of the Offices of their Church partly out of private mens Works but set out with Licence and approbation what I say if upon this consideration I should affirm pro Deo ipsam introducere conantur Would it therefore be consequent that I must impute this Blasphemy to them that they believed and taught her to be a Sovereign Power and Deity I trow not And therefore Epiphanius might say the same of the Collyridians considering their Action withouâ— any intent of imputing to them any such opinion This Petavius sure saw well enough and therefore as I shall hereafter demonstrate to the Eye to countenance his Mâ—rginal Annotation Quidam Mariam Deum esse crediderâ—nt he cunningly abuses and perverts Epiphanius his Text with false Translation Sic pugnat Sic est metuendus Ulysses The next place is revera sancâ—um erat Marâ—ae corpus non tamen Deus The Body of Mary was truly holy but not a God As much to the purpose as Tityre tu patulae for what if Epiphanius say she is not God and therefore not to be adored does it therefore follow that the Collyridians believed she was a God He that knows Logick or sense cannot but know that he that will confute an Adversaries conclusion must choose such principles to do it to which his Adversary consents and out of that which he grants prove that which he denies or if his first propositions be not agreed to by his Adversary he must prove them in the end by such as are agreed to or else he does nothing And therefore seeing Epiphanius thinks it sufficient for the convincing of the Collyridians of the unlawfulness of the practice to say she was not God it is evident that so far was he from imputing to them the belief that she was God that he seems rather to take the contrary for a principle agreed upon between them which it was sufficient to say and superfluous to prove This answer I thought good to make while I conceived that here Epiphanius had denied the Person of the Virgin Mary to be God but after upon better consideration I sound that Petavius had abused me with adding to Epiphanius of his own Illa fuit and that Epiphanius says not here non tamen Deus she was not God of her Person but of her Body and as yet I do not understand that you impute to the Collyridians the belief that her Body was God The next place Mulierem eam appellavit c. says no more but this that our Saviour calls the Blessed Virgin Woman that no man might think her any thing more than a Woman as it were prophetically refuting the Schisms and Heresies which would be in the World lest some out of excess of admiration of her might fall into the Dotage of this Heresie Thus far Epiphanius but then the Question will be what was this Heresie You say the belief that she was God I say not that she was God but that they might lawfully offer to her And as I deny not but it follows she is a Woman therefore not a God so I think you will grant it follows as justly she is a Woman therefore not to be adored with offerings And therefore seeing the words lie indifferently between us and are not expressly and especially here applied for the refutation of that Heresie which you pretend they were guilty of I see no reason why Epiphanius might not as
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
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