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
concerning the Millenaâ—ies which lasted uncontradicted until Dionysius Alexanâ—rinus two hundred and fifty years after Christ and if they tell you that Papias was the first beginner look in Irenâ—us and he will tell you the contrary Loco citato l. 5. c. 33. Seventhly Remember that if I ought not to condemn the Church of Rome out of Scripture because my interpretation may deceive me then they ought not to build their Infallibility upon it and less upon her own word because theirs may deceive them unless the same thing may be a wall when you lean upon it and a bulrusâ— when we do Eighthly Remember that they cannot say they trust not their Interpretation in this but a consent of Fathers because the Fathers are not said to be infallible but as they tell the Opinion of the Church of their time which is infallible therefore they must first prove out of Scripture that she is infallible or else she who is her self the subject of the Question cannot be allowed till then to give a verdict for her self Ninthly Remember the Roman Church claim no Notes of the Church but what agree with the Grecian too as Antiquity Succession Miracles c. but onely Communion with the Pope and Splendor both which made for the Arrians in Liberius his time and it were a hard Case that because the Greeks are poor upon Earth they should be shut out of Heaven Tenthly Remember that if we have an Infallible way we have no use at least no necessity of an Infallible Guide for if we may be saved by following the Scripture as near as we can though we err it is as good as any Interpreter to keep unity in charity which is only needful though not in opinion and this cannot be ridiculous because they say if any man misinterpret the Council of Trent it shall not damn him and why without more ado may not the same be said of Scripture VII An Argument against the Infallibility of the present Church of Rome taken from the Contradictions in your Doctrin of Transubstantiation Chillingworth THat Church is not infallible which teacheth Contradictions But the Church of Rome teacheth Contradictions Therefore the Church of Rome is not infallible Mr. Daniel I deny the Minor Chilling That Church teacheth Contradictions which teacheth such a Doctrin as contains Contradictions But the Church of Rome teacheth such a Doctrin Therefore the Church of Rome teacheth Contradictions Mr. Daniel I deny the Minor Chilling The Doctrin of Transubstantion contains Contradictions But the Church of Rome teacheth the Doctrin of Transubstantiation Therefore the Church of Rome teacheth such a Doctrin as contains Contradictions Mr. Dan. I deny the Major Chilling That the same thing at the same time should have the true figure of a mans body and should not have the true figure of a mans body is a Contradiction But in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation it is taught that the same thing viz. our Saviour present in the Sacrament has the true figure of a mans body and has not the true figure of a mans body at the same time therefore the Doctrin of Transubstantiation contains Contradictions Mr. Dan. The Major though not having all rules required to a contradiction as boys in Logick know yet let it pass Chilling Boys in Logick know no more conditions required to a Contradiction but that the same thing should be affirmed and denied of the same thing at the same time For my meaning was that that should not be accounted the same thing which was considered after divers manners Mr. Dan. I deny the Minor of your syllogism Chilling I prove it according to the several parts of it And first for the first part He must have the Figure of a mans body in the Eucharist who is there witâ—out any real alteration or difference from the natural body of a man But our Saviour according to the Romish Doctrin of Transubstantiation is in the Sacrament without any real alteration or difference from the natural body of a man Therefore according to this Doctrin he must there have the figure of a mans body To the second part that he must not have the figure of a mans body in the Sacrament according to this Doctrin thus I prove it He must not have the figure of a mans body in the Eucharist which must not have extension there But our Saviours â—ody according to the Doctrin of Transubstantiation must not have extension there Therefore according to this doctrin he must not have the figure of a mans body there The Major of this Syllogism I proved because the figure of a mans body could not be without extension The Minor I proved thus That must not have extension in the Eucharist whose every part is together in one and the same point But according to this Doctrin every part of our Saviours body must be here in one and the same point therefore here it must not have extension Mr. Dan. Answered by distinguishing the Major of the first Syllogism and said that he must not have the true figure of a mans body according to the reason of a figure taken in its essential consideration which is to have positionem partium sic sic extra partes but not the accidental consideration which is in ordine ad locum And this answer he applied for the solution of the Minor saying thus Our Saviour is there without any real alteration intrinsecal but not extrinsecal for ho is not changed in order to himself but in order to place Or otherwise he is not altered in his continual existence which is only modus essentiae and inseparable even by divine power though altered in modo existendi which is situation and required to figure taken in order to place Chill Against this it was replied by Chillingworth That the distinction of a mans body as considered in it self and as considered in reference to place is vain and no solution of the Argument And thus he proved it If it be impossible that any thing should have several parts one out of another in order and reference of each to other without having these parts in several places then the distinction is vain But it is impossible that any thing should have several parts one out of another without having these parts in several places Therefore the distinction is vain The Major of this Syllogism he took for granted The Minor he proved thus Whatsoever body is in the proper place of another body must of necessity be in that very body by possessing the demensions of it therefore whatsoever hath several parts one out of the other must of necessity have them one out of the place of the other and consequently in several places For illustration of this Argument he said If my head and belly and thighs and legs be all in the very same place of necessity my head must be in my belly and my belly in my thighs and my thighs in my legs and all of them in my feet and my
all contentious men we must seek therefore for Judges between us If Christians are to be our Judges both sides will not afford such We must seek for a Judges abroad If he be a Pagan he cannot know the secrets of Christianity If he be a Iew he is an Enemy to Christian Baptism Therefore there is no judgment of this matter can be found on Earth We must seek for a Judge from Heaven But to what end do we sollicite Heaven when we have here in the Gospel a Will and Testament And because here we may fitly compare Earthly things with Heavenly The case is just as if a man had many Sons while he is present with them he commands every one what he will have done and there is no need as yet of making his last Will. So also Christ as long as he was present on Earth though neither now is he wanting for a time commanded his Apostles whatsoever was necessary But just as an Earthly Fatheâ— when he â—â—ls his Death approaching fearing lest after his Death the Brothers should fall out and quarrel he calls in Witnesses and translates his Will from his dying Heart into Writing-Tables that will continue long after him Now if any controversie arises among the Brothers they do not go to his Tomb but consult his last Wâ—ll and thus he whilst he rests in his Grave does speak to them in those silent Tables as if he were alive He wâ—ose Testament we have is in Heaven Therefore we are to enquire 〈◊〉 pleasure in the Gospel as in his last Will and Testament It is plain from hence that he knew not or any living speaking audible Judge furnished with Authority and infallibility to decide this controversie had he known any such assisted with the Spirit of God for this purpose it had been horrible impiety against God and the Churches peace to say there was none such or the Spirit of God was not able by his assistance to keep this Judge from being hindred with partiality from seeing the Truth Had he thought the Bishop of Romes speaking ex Cathedra to be this Judge now had been the time to have â—aid so but he says directly the contrary and therefore it is plain he knew of no such Authority he had Neither is there the like reason for a Judge finally and with Authority to determine controversie in Religion and civil disserences For if the controversie be about Mâ—ne and Thine about I and or Money or any other thing it is impossible that both I should hold the possession of it and my adversary too and one of us must do injury to the other which is not fit it should be Eternal But in matters of Doctrine the case is clean contrary I may hold my opinion and do my Adversary no wrong and my Adversary may hold his and do me none Texts of Scripture alledged for Infallibility The Texts alledged for it by Cardinal Perron and Mr. Stratford are partly Prophecies of the Old Testament partly promises of the New 1. Esa. 1. 26. Thou shalt be called the City of Iustice the faithful City 2. Esa. 52. 1. Through thee shall no more pass any that is uncircumcised or unclean 3. Esa. 59. 21. As for me this is my Covenant with them saith the Lord my spirit that is upon thee and my Words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth nor out of the mouth of thy seed nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed saith the Lord from henceforth and for ever 4. Esa. 62. 6. Upon thy Walls Hierusalem I have appointed Watchmen all the day and all the night for ever they shall not hold their peace 5. Jerem. 31. 33. This shall be the Covenant which I will make with the House of Israel saith the Lord I will give my Law in their Bowels and in their Heart I will write it and I will be their God and they shall be my People 6. Ezek. 36. 27. I will put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in my Statutes and ye shall keep my judgments and do them 7. Ezek. 37. 26. I will give my Sanctification in the midst of them for ever 8. Ose. 2. 19 20. I will dispouse thee to me for ever and I will dispouse thee to me in Iustice and judgment and in mercy and commiserations I will Espouse thee to me in Faith and thou shalt know that I am the Lord. 9. Cant. 4. 7. Thou art all fair my Love and there is no spot in thee Now before we proceed further let us reflect upon these places and make the most of them for the behoof of the Roman Church and I believe it will then appear to any one not veil'd with prejudice that not one of them reaches home to the conclusion intended which is That the Roman Church is infallible The first place perhaps would do something but that there are Three main exceptions against it 1. That here is no evidence not so much as that of probability that this is here spoken of the Church of Râ—me 2. That it is certain that it is not spoken of the Church of Rome but of the Nation of the Iews after their conversion as is apparent from that which follows Zion shall be redeemeâ— with judgment and her converts with righteousnâ—ss 3. That it is no way certain that whatsoever Society may be called the City of righteousness the faithful City mâ—st be infallible in all her Doctrine with a great deal more probability it might challenge from hence the priviâ—edg of being Impeccable which yet Roman Catholicks I believe do not pretend to The Second place is liable to the same exceptions the Church of Rome is not spoken of in it but Zion and Hierusalem and it will serve as well nay better to prove Impeccability than Infallibility The third place is the Achilles for this opinion wherein every writer Triumphs but I wonder they should do so considering the Covenant here spoken of is made not with the Church of Rome but with Zion and them that turn from transgression in Iacob the words are And the Redeâ—mer shall come out of Zion and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob saith the Lord. As for me this is my Covenant with them saith the Lord My Spirit that is in thee and my Words c. Now if the Church of Rome be Zion and they that turn from iniquity in Iacob they may have Title to this Covenant if not they must forbear and leave it to the Iews after their Conversion to whom it is appropriated by a more Infallible Interpreter than the Pope I mean S. Paul Rom. 11. 26. And it seems the Church of Rome also believes as much for otherwise why does she in the Margent of her Bible send us to that place of S. Paul for an exposition Read the 4th place and you shall find nothing can be made of it but this that the Watchmen of Hierusalem shall never cease
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
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
Altar the Altar of such or such a Saint which yet I think they forbore not for the unlawfulness but for fear of misconstruction Then for Theodoret he tells us indeed of Vows made of monuments of thankfulness dedicated for benefits obtained by the intercession of the Martyrs But here also I fear your Conscience tells you that you abuse us and hide your self in ambiguities For to whom does Theodoret say these Vows were made to whom were these monuments of thankfulness dedicated What to the Author or Procures of the received favours To God or to the Martyrs If to the Martyrs that had been something towards though not home to your purpose For there is a a wide difference between offering of a Creature by way of Consumption as was never lawfully done but to God alone as a profession that he is the Lord of the Creature and erecting a permanent Monument to a Saints honour which I doubt not but it may lawfully be done to a living Saint much more to the memory of a Martyr But Theodoret in the place hath not so much as this Nay it is evident that these gifts he speaks of were both Vowed and payed to God himself His words are Piè precatos ea consequi c. that they which pray piously obtain the things which they desire they paying of their Vowed presents in the sign of their recovered health doth abundantly testifie For their Lord accepts most gratiously these presents how mean so ever 6. Demand Whether according to the Doctrine of the Roman Church this may not be done lawfully by Women and Children and men that are not Priests Answ. They may offer any thing by way of gifts and presents by the Doctrine of the Roman Church But it is contrary to the Roman Doctrine for any other than Priests to offer any thing by way of Sacrifice as the Collyridians did Reply Aristotle says most truly that true Definitions he means I think of the terms of the conclusion to be demonstrated are the best principles of Science and therefore want of them must needs be a cause of Error and confusion in any discourse Let me therefore here request you to set down what is a Sacrifice and how distinguished from an oblation by way of gift or present and you will quickly see that if the Collyridians offering a Cake to the Blessed Virgin were indeed a Sacrifice your offering a Taper to her must likewise be so For a Sacrifice is nothing else for ought I know but the oblation of any Creature by way of Consumption to the honour of that whatsoever it is to which it is offered For if you include in the definition that this offering must be intended to the highest Lord of all So is as you pretend your offering of Tapers to the Blessed Virgin intended to God finally though not immediately If you say it must be directed immediatly to him and is not only no lawful Sacrifice but simply no Sacrifice unless it be so I say you may as well require to the essence of a Sacrifice that it be offered by a Priest and from thence conclude because the Collyridians were you say no Priests their offering was no Sacrifice For the object of the Action is as extrinsecal to the essence of it as the efficient And therefore if the defect of a due and legitimate Offerer cannot hinder but that an offering may be a true Sacrifice neither will the want of a due and lawful object be any hindrance but still it may be so Secondly I say this is to confound the essence of things with the lawful use of them in effect as if you should say that a Knife if misimployed were a Knife no longer Thirdly it is to make it not unlawful to offer Incense which yet you seem somewhat scrupulous of or Burnt-offerings to the Virgin Mary or the Saints or even to living Men provided you know and believe and profess them to be Men and not Gods For this once supposed these offerings will be no longer Sacrifices and to offer to Creatures offerings that are not Sacrifices you say by the Doctrine of the Roman Church is lawful It is lastly to deny which is most ridiculous that the Pagans did indeed Sacrifice to any of their inferiour Gods 7. Demand If it be said that this worship which they give to the Blessed Virgin is not that of Latria but that of Dulia or Hyperdulia for that they do not esteem her God or if it be said that their worship to her is not finally terminated neither but given her for her relation to Christ. I demand whether as it is in S. Pauls judgment a great crime for him that knows God not to worship him as God so it be not as great a crime for him that knows her not to be God yet to worship her as if she were God with the worship which is proper and hath been alwaies appropriated to God alone such is the worship of oblations Answ. The worship of oblations as worship is taken largly for honour and oblations for a gift or present was never appropriate to God alone take worship and oblations in any higher sense and so it is not allowed in the Church of Rome Reply The oblation of things by way of Consumption is the worship I spoke of this is a higher matter than that of gifts and presents and this is allowed in the Church of Rome to be imployed on and directed into though not terminated in the Virgin Mary and other Saints 8. Demand Whether any thing can be said for the justifying the Doctrine and practice of the Roman Church in this matter which might not also have been as justly pretended for the justification of the Collyridians in their opinion and practice seeing it was never imputed to them that they accounted the Blessed Virgin God or that they believed in more Gods than one And seeing their choosing her out rather than any other Woman or any other Creature for the object of their Devotion shews plainly that they gave it her for her Relation to Christ Answ. The Collyridians could not say this as appears by what has been said before As it is a most shameless slander upon Gods Church and such as without repentance will lie heavy upon his Soul that uttered it that the Collyridians might as justly and truly have said all this for themselves as Papists for themselves Reply To this I reply four things 1. That to my last and most convincing reason you have answered as much as you could I believe but yet you have answered nothing and I am well content you should do so for where nothing is to be had the King himself must lose his right 2. That if I had thought or spoke better of the Collyridians than they deserved yet I cannot see how this had been to slander the Church of Rome 3. That I did not positively affirm that the Collyridians might do so but desired only it might be inquired into
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
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
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
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