of General Councils or the infallibility of particular Councils for there two or three at least are assembled in Christs name But then besides these two or three for ought I can see or gather from the Text they may as well be of any other Church as the Roman They urge Luke 10. 16. He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me But this will not do you any service unles of favour we grant that you here is you of the Church of Rome and but very little if that be granted for then every Bishop every Priest must be Infallible For there is not the meanest of the Messengers of Christ buâ— this may be verified of him That he that heareth him heareth Christ and he that despiseth him despiseth Christ. They urge out of John 14. ver 15 16. I will ask my Father and he will give you another Paraclete that he may abide with you for ever eâ—en the Spirit of Truth But here also what warrant have we by you to understand the Church of Rome whereas he that compares v. 26. with this shall easily perceive that our Saviour speaks only of the Apostles in their own persons for there he says going on in the same discourse The Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my name he shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have said to you which cannot agree but to the Apostles themselves in person and not to their Successors who had not yet been taught and therefore not forgotten any thing and therefore could not have them brought to their remembrance But what if it had been promised to them and their Successors had they no Successors but them of the Roman Church this indeed is pretended and cried up but for proofs of it desiderantur Again I would fain know whether there be any certainty that every Pope is a good Christian or whether he may not be in the sence of the Scripture of the World If not how was it that Bellarmine should have cause to think that such a rank of them went successively to the Devil III. A Conference concerning the Infallibility of the Roman Church Proving that the present Church of Rome either errs in her worshipping the Blessed Virgin Mary or that the Ancient Church did err in condemning the Collyridians as Hereticks 1. Demand WHether the Infallibility of the Roman Church be not the foundation of their Faith which are members of that Church Answ. The Infallibility of the Church is not the foundation but a part of their Faith who are members of the Church And the Roman Church is held to be the Church by all those who are members of it Reply That which is the last Reason why you believe the Scripture to be the written Word of God and unwritten Traditions his unwritten word and this or that to be the true sense of Scripture that is to you the foundation of your Faith and such unto you is the Infallible Authority of the Roman Church Therefore unto you it is not only a part of your faith but also such a part as is the foundation of all other parts Therefore you are deceived if you think there is any more opposition between being a part of the faith and the foundation of other parts of it than there is between being a part of a house and the foundation of it But whether you will have it the foundation of your faith or only a part of it for the present purpose it is all one 2. Demand Whether the Infallibility of the Roman Church be not absolutely overthrown by proving the present Roman Church is in error or that the Ancient was Answ. It is if the Error be in those things wherein she is affirmed to be infallible viz. in points of Fâ—ith Reply And this here spoken of whether it be lawful to offer Tapers and Incense to the honour of the Blessed Virgin is I hope a Question concerning a point of Faith 3. Demand Whether offering a Cake to the Virgin Mary be not as lawful as to offer Incense and Tapers and divers other oblations to the same Virgin Answ. It is as lawful to offer a Cake to her honour as Wax-Tapers but neither the one nor the other may be offered to her or her honour as the term or object of the Action For to speak properly nothing is offered to her or to her honour but to God in the honour of the Blessed Virgin For Incense it is a foul slander that it is offered any way to the Blessed Virgin for that incensing which is used in the time of Mass is ever understooâ— by all sorts of people to be directed to God only Reply If any thing he offered to her she is the Object of that oblation as if I see water and through water something else the water is the object of my sight though not the last object If I honour the Kings Deputy and by him the King the Deputy is the object of my action though not the final object And to say these things may be offered to her but not as to the object of the action is to say they may be offered to her but not to her For what else is meant by the object of an action but that thing on which the action is imployed and to which it is directed If you say that by the object of the action you mean the final object only wherewith the action is terminated you should then have spoken more properly and distinctly and not have denied her simply to be the object of this action when you mean only she is not such a kind of object no more than you may deny a man to be a living creature meaning only that he is not a horse Secondly I say it is not required of Roman Catholicks when they offer Tapers to the Saints that by an actual intention they direct their action actually to God but it is held sufficient that they know and believe that the Saints are in Subordination and near Relation to God and that they give this honour to the Saints because of this relation And to God himself rather habitually and interpretative than actually expresly and formally As many men honour the Kings Deputy without having any present thought of the King and yet their action may be interpreted an honour to the King being given to his Deputy only because he is his Deputy and for his relation to the King Thirdly I say there is no reason or ground in the world for any man to think that the Collyridians did not chuse the Virgin Mary for the object of their worship rather than any other Woman or any other Creature meerly for her relation to Christ and by consequence there is no ground to imagine but that at least habitually and interpretative they directed their action unto Christ if not actually and formally And Ergo if that be a sufficient defence for the Papists that they make not
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
ADDITIONAL DISCOURSES OF Mr. Chillingworth NEVER BEFORE PRINTED Imprimatur Ex Aedib Lambeth Iun. 14. 1686. GUIL NEEDHAM R R. in Christo P. ac D. D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cant. à Sacr. Domesticis LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in S. Pauls Church-Yard 1687. CONTENTS I. A Conference betwixt Mr. Chillingworth and Mr. Lewgar whether the Roman Church be the Catholick-Church and all out of her Communion Hereticks or Schismaticks p. 1. II. A Discourse against the Infallibility of the Roman Church with an Answer to all those Texts of Scripture that are alledged to prove it p. 26. III. A Conference concerning the Infallibility of the Roman Church proving that the present Church of Rome either errs in her worshiping the Blessed Virgin or that the Ancient Church did err in condemning the Collyridians as Hereticks p. 41 IV. An Argument drawn from Communicating of Infants as without which they could not be saved against the Churches Infallibility p. 68. V. An Argument against Infallibility drawn from the Doctrin of the Millenaries p. 80. VI. A Letter relating to the same subject p. 89. VII An Argument against the Roman Churches Infallibility taken from the Contradictions in their Doctrin of Transubstantiation p. 91. VIII An account of what moved the Author to turn a Papist with his Confutation of the Arguments that perswaded him thereto p. 94. IX A Discourse concerning Tradition p. 103. The Reader is desired to take notice of a great mistake of the Printer and to Correct it That he has made this the ruâ—ning Title over most of the Additional Pieces viz. A Conference betwixt Mr. Chillingworth and Mr. Lewgar which should only have been set over the first there are also some literal mistakes as pag. 65. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twice for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and such like not to be imputed to the Author A CONFERENCE BETWIXT Mr. CHILLINGWORTH AND Mr. LEWGAR Thesis THE Church of Rome taken diffusively for all Christians communicating with the Bishop of Rome was the Judge of Controversies at that time when the Church of England made an alteration in her Tenents Argu. She was the Judge of Controversies at that time which had an Authority of deciding them But the Church of Rome at that time had the Authority of deciding them Ergo. Answ. A limited Authority to decide Controversies according to the Rule of Scripture and Universal Tradition and to oblige her own Members so long as she evidently contradicted not that Rule to obedience I grant she had but an unlimited an infallible Authority or such as could not but proceed according to that Rule and such as should bind all the Churches in the World to Obedience as the Greek Church I say she had not Quest. When your Church hath decided a Controversie I desire to know whether any particular Church or person hath Authority to reexamine her decision whether she hath observed her Rule or no and free hâ—mself from the obedience of it by his or her particular judgment Answ. If you understand by your Church the Church Catholick probably I should answer no but if you understand by your Church that only which is in Subordination to the See of Rome of if you understand a Council of this Church I answer yea Arg. That was the Catholick Church which did abide in the Root of Apostolick Unity But the Church of Rome at that time was the only Church that did abide in the Root of Apostolick Unity Ergo. Quest. What mean you by Apostolick Unity Answ. I mean the Unity of that Fellowship wherein the Apostles Lived and Died. Quest. Wherein was this Unity Answ. Herein it consisted that they all professed one Faith obeyed one Supream Tribunal and communicated together in the same Prayers and Sacraments Sclut Then the Church of Rome continued not in this Apostolick Unity for it continued not in the same Faith wherein the Apostles Lived and Died for though it retained so much in my judgment as was essential to the being of a Church yet it degenerated from the Church of the Apostles times in many things which were very profitable as in Latin Service and Commâ—nion in one kind Argu. Some Church did continue in the same Faith wherein the Apostles lived and died But tâ—ere was no Church at that time which did continue in the Apostles Faith besides the Roman Church Ergo. Answ. That some Church did continue in the Apostles Faith in all things necessary I grant it that any did continue in the Integrity of it and in a perfect conformity with it in all things expedient and profitable I deny it Quest. Is it not necessary to a Churches continuing in the Apostles Faith that she continue in a perfect conformiâ—y with it in all things expedient and profâ—table Answ. A perfect conformity in all things is necessary to a perfect continuance in the Apostles Faith but to an imperfect continuance an imperfect conformity is sufficient and such I grant the Roman Church had Quest. Is not a perfect continuance in the Apostles Faith necessary to a Churches continuance in Apostolick Unity Asw. It is necessary to a perfect continuance in Apostolick Unity Argu. There was some one company of Christians at the time of Luthers rising which was the Catholick Church But there was no other company at that time besides the Roman Ergo the Roman at that time was the Catholick Church Answ. There was not one company of Christians whch in opposition to and Exclusion of all other companies of Christians was the Catholick Church Argu. If the Catholick Church be some one company of Christians in opposition to and exclusion of all other companies then if there was some one company she was one in opposition to and exclusion of all other companies But the Catholick Church is one company of Christians in opposition to and exclusion of c. Ergo There was then some one company which was the Catholick Church in opposition to and exclusion of all other companies The Minor proved by the Testimonies of the Fathers both Greek and Latin testifying that they understood the Church to be one in the sense alledged 1. If this Unity which cannot be separated at all or divided is also among Hereticks what contend we farther Why call we them Hereticks S. Cypr. Epist. 75. 2. But if there be but one Flock how can he be accounted of the Flock which is not within the number of it Id Ibid. 3. When Parmenian commends one Church he condemns all the rest for besides one which is the true Catholick other Churches are esteemed to be among Hereticks but are not S. Optat. lib. 1. 4. The Church therefore is but one this cannot be among all Hereticks and Schismaticks Ibid. 5. You say you offer for the Church which is one this very thing is part of a lie to call it on which you have divided into two Id Ibid. 6. The Church is one which cannot be amongst us and amongst you it remains
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
shall be always infallible 3. If it be said that this is drawn from good consequence from Scripture truly interpreted I demand what certain ground have I to warrant me that this consequence is good and this interpretation true and if answer be made that reason will tell me so I reply 1. That this is to build all upon my own reason and private interpretation 2. I have great reason to fear that reason assures no man that the infallibility of the Church of Rome may be deduced from Scripture by good and firm consequence 4. If it be said that a Consent of Fathers do so interpret the Scripture I answer 1. That this is most false and cannot without impudence be pretended as I am ready to justifie to any indifferent Hearer 2. I demand who shall be judge whether the Fathers mean as is pretended If it be said reason will tell me so I say 1. this is false 2. This is again to do that which is objected to Protestants for such a horrid crime that is to build all finally upon reason If it be said they are so interpreted by the Catholick Church I demand whether by the Catholick Church be meant that onely that is in subordination to the Bishop of Rome or any other with that or besides that Iâ— any other it is false and impudent to pretend that they so understand the Fathers or Scriptures If that only then this is to say that that Church is infallible because it may be deduced from Scripture that it is so and to prove that it may be deduced from Scripture because the Fathers say so and to prove the Fathers do say and mean so because the Church of Rome says they do so And then what a stir and trouble was here to no purpose why was it not rather said plainly at the beginning The Church of Rome is certainly infallible because she her self says so and she must say true because she is infallible and that is as much to say as unless you grant me the Question I neither can nor will dispute with you If it is said indeed the Fathers do not draw this doctrin from Scripture but yet they affirm it with a full consent as a matter of Tradition I reply 1. Tâ—at this pretence also is false and that upon tryal it will not appear to have any colour of probability to any who remembers that it is the present Roman Church and not the Catholick Church whose infallibility is here disputed 2. I demand who shall be judge whether the Fathers do indeed affirm this or no If reason then again we are falleâ— upon that dangerous Rock that all must be resolved into private reason If the Church I ask again what Church is meant If the Church of the Grecians or Abyssâ—nes or Protestants or any other but the Roman it is evident they deny it If the Church of Rome then we are again very near the head of the Circle For I ask how shall I be assured this Church will not err and deceive me in interpreting the Fathers and the Answer must be eithe none or this that the Church is infallible Obj. If it be said that the Infallibility of the Roman Church would yield the Church so many commodities and that the want of an infallible Church to guide men in the way to Heaven would bring so many mischiefs upon the world that it cannot be thought but that God out of his love to men hath appointed this Church as an infallible guide to all other Churches seeing it is so necessary there should be some such guide and so evident there is no other Ans. I answer that this argument would serve the Church of Greece or England or Geneva to prove it self infallible and the guide of all other Churches would they but take upon them to be so For every one might say for it self It is necessary there should be some Guide it is evident there is no other Ergo I am appointed by God to be that Guide The same argument any man might use to make himself Monarch of any popular State for first he might represent unto them the commodities of a Monarchy and the mischiefs of a Democracy then he might say That God surely out of his Love to them hath appointed some remedy for their inconveniences And lastly that he hath ordained no other to redress them but himself and then conclude that he alone must of necessity be the man appointed to rule over them I answer Secondly that here also we must resolve all into Reason and the private Spirit or that we are still in the Circle For I demand how do you know that these pretended commodities are to be compassed and these pretended mischiefs are to be avoided only by the Infallibility of the Church of Rome or some other Church and not by any other means which God hath provided If you say reason tells you so I say 1. This is to make reason your last and lowest foundation 2. I assure you Reason tells me no such matter and yet I know that I am as willing to hear it as you are If you say the Church tells you so and she is infallible this I say is to prove the Church infallible because she is so Thirdly I demand How it is possible you should know that these pretended commodities might not be gained and these mischiefs which you fear avoided without any assistance of the Church of Rome's infallibility if all men in the world did believe the Scripture and live according to it and would require no more of others but to do so If you say that notwithstanding this there would be no unity in Doctrin I answer 1. It is impossible you should know this considering that there are many places in Scripture which do more than problably import that the want of piety in living is the cause of want of unity in believing 2. That there would be unity of Opinion in all things necessary and that in things not necessary unity of Opinion is not necessary But lastly that notwithstanding differences in these things of lesser importance there might and would be unity of Communion unity of charity and affection which is one of the greatest blessings which the world is capable of absolute unity of opinion being a matter rather to be desired than hoped for Obj. Against this it has been objected that the Scripture cannot be the guide because many men have used their best endeavors to follow it and yet have fallen some into Arianism others into Pelagianism others into other damnable Heresies and how can I secure any man but he may do the like Ans. To this I answer by distinguishing the persons which are pretended to have made use of this Guide and yet to have fallen into Heresie that they were either such as did love the truth sincerely and above all things as did seek it diligently and with all their power to this intent that they might conform their belief and
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
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
all contentious men we must seek therefore for Judges between us If Christians are to be our Judges both sides will not afford such We must seek for a Judges abroad If he be a Pagan he cannot know the secrets of Christianity If he be a Iew he is an Enemy to Christian Baptism Therefore there is no judgment of this matter can be found on Earth We must seek for a Judge from Heaven But to what end do we sollicite Heaven when we have here in the Gospel a Will and Testament And because here we may fitly compare Earthly things with Heavenly The case is just as if a man had many Sons while he is present with them he commands every one what he will have done and there is no need as yet of making his last Will. So also Christ as long as he was present on Earth though neither now is he wanting for a time commanded his Apostles whatsoever was necessary But just as an Earthly Fatheâ— when he â—â—ls his Death approaching fearing lest after his Death the Brothers should fall out and quarrel he calls in Witnesses and translates his Will from his dying Heart into Writing-Tables that will continue long after him Now if any controversie arises among the Brothers they do not go to his Tomb but consult his last Wâ—ll and thus he whilst he rests in his Grave does speak to them in those silent Tables as if he were alive He wâ—ose Testament we have is in Heaven Therefore we are to enquire 〈◊〉 pleasure in the Gospel as in his last Will and Testament It is plain from hence that he knew not or any living speaking audible Judge furnished with Authority and infallibility to decide this controversie had he known any such assisted with the Spirit of God for this purpose it had been horrible impiety against God and the Churches peace to say there was none such or the Spirit of God was not able by his assistance to keep this Judge from being hindred with partiality from seeing the Truth Had he thought the Bishop of Romes speaking ex Cathedra to be this Judge now had been the time to have â—aid so but he says directly the contrary and therefore it is plain he knew of no such Authority he had Neither is there the like reason for a Judge finally and with Authority to determine controversie in Religion and civil disserences For if the controversie be about Mâ—ne and Thine about I and or Money or any other thing it is impossible that both I should hold the possession of it and my adversary too and one of us must do injury to the other which is not fit it should be Eternal But in matters of Doctrine the case is clean contrary I may hold my opinion and do my Adversary no wrong and my Adversary may hold his and do me none Texts of Scripture alledged for Infallibility The Texts alledged for it by Cardinal Perron and Mr. Stratford are partly Prophecies of the Old Testament partly promises of the New 1. Esa. 1. 26. Thou shalt be called the City of Iustice the faithful City 2. Esa. 52. 1. Through thee shall no more pass any that is uncircumcised or unclean 3. Esa. 59. 21. As for me this is my Covenant with them saith the Lord my spirit that is upon thee and my Words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth nor out of the mouth of thy seed nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed saith the Lord from henceforth and for ever 4. Esa. 62. 6. Upon thy Walls Hierusalem I have appointed Watchmen all the day and all the night for ever they shall not hold their peace 5. Jerem. 31. 33. This shall be the Covenant which I will make with the House of Israel saith the Lord I will give my Law in their Bowels and in their Heart I will write it and I will be their God and they shall be my People 6. Ezek. 36. 27. I will put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in my Statutes and ye shall keep my judgments and do them 7. Ezek. 37. 26. I will give my Sanctification in the midst of them for ever 8. Ose. 2. 19 20. I will dispouse thee to me for ever and I will dispouse thee to me in Iustice and judgment and in mercy and commiserations I will Espouse thee to me in Faith and thou shalt know that I am the Lord. 9. Cant. 4. 7. Thou art all fair my Love and there is no spot in thee Now before we proceed further let us reflect upon these places and make the most of them for the behoof of the Roman Church and I believe it will then appear to any one not veil'd with prejudice that not one of them reaches home to the conclusion intended which is That the Roman Church is infallible The first place perhaps would do something but that there are Three main exceptions against it 1. That here is no evidence not so much as that of probability that this is here spoken of the Church of Râ—me 2. That it is certain that it is not spoken of the Church of Rome but of the Nation of the Iews after their conversion as is apparent from that which follows Zion shall be redeemeâ— with judgment and her converts with righteousnâ—ss 3. That it is no way certain that whatsoever Society may be called the City of righteousness the faithful City mâ—st be infallible in all her Doctrine with a great deal more probability it might challenge from hence the priviâ—edg of being Impeccable which yet Roman Catholicks I believe do not pretend to The Second place is liable to the same exceptions the Church of Rome is not spoken of in it but Zion and Hierusalem and it will serve as well nay better to prove Impeccability than Infallibility The third place is the Achilles for this opinion wherein every writer Triumphs but I wonder they should do so considering the Covenant here spoken of is made not with the Church of Rome but with Zion and them that turn from transgression in Iacob the words are And the Redeâ—mer shall come out of Zion and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob saith the Lord. As for me this is my Covenant with them saith the Lord My Spirit that is in thee and my Words c. Now if the Church of Rome be Zion and they that turn from iniquity in Iacob they may have Title to this Covenant if not they must forbear and leave it to the Iews after their Conversion to whom it is appropriated by a more Infallible Interpreter than the Pope I mean S. Paul Rom. 11. 26. And it seems the Church of Rome also believes as much for otherwise why does she in the Margent of her Bible send us to that place of S. Paul for an exposition Read the 4th place and you shall find nothing can be made of it but this that the Watchmen of Hierusalem shall never cease
and examined whether for the reasons alledged they might not do so 4. And lastly upon a thorow examination of the matter I do now affirm what before I did not that the Collyridians for ought appears to the contrary might justly and truly have said for the justification of their practice as much nay the very same things that the Papists do for theirs For they might have said we are Christians and believe the Scripture and believe there is but one God We offer not to the Blessed Virgin as believing she is God but the Mother of God our worship of her is not absolute but relative not terminated in her but given to her for her Sons sake And if our practice may be allowed we are content to call our Oblation not a Sacrifice but a present neither is there any reason why it should be called a Sacrifice more than the Offering and Burning a Taper to the honour of the same Virgin All this the Collyridians might have said for themselves and therefore I believe you will have more cause to repent you for daubing over impiety with untempered Morter than I shall have for slandering the Roman Church with a matter of truth 9. Demand Whether therefore one of the two must not of necessity follow that either the Ancient Church Erred in condemning the Opinion and Practice of the Collyridians as Heretical or else that the Church of Rome Errs in approving the same opinion and the same practice in effect which in them was condemned That is whether the Church of Rome must not be Heretical with the Collyridians or else the Collyridians Catholicks with the Church of Rome Answ. It appears by the former answers that neither did the Ancient Church Err in condemning the opinion and practice of the Collyridians as Heretical nor doth the Church of Rome approve the same opinion or the same practice Reply The Substance of the former answer is but this That the Papists offer to the Virgin Mary and other Saints Wax Tapers by way of gift or present not of Sacrifice and to her not as to a God but as the Mother of God but that the Collyridians offered to her by way of Sacrifice as to a Sovereign Power and Deity To this I have replied and proved that it no way appears that the Collyridians did believe the Blessed Virgin to be a Sovereign Power and Deity or that she was not subordinate to God Then that their offering might be called a gift as well as the Papists and the Papists a Sacrifice as well as theirs both of them being a Consumption of a Creature in honour of the Blessed Virgin and neither of them more than so and therefore either the Collyridians must stand with the Church of Rome or the Church of Rome fall with the Collyridians It had been perhaps sufficient for me thus to have vindicated my Assertion from contrary objections without taking on my self the burden of proving a Negative yet to free from all doubt the conformity of the Roman Church with the Collyridians in this point I think it will be necessary to shew and that by many very probable Arguments that Epiphanius did not impute to them the pretended Heresie of believing the Virgin Mary God for then that other Evasion that their oblation is a Sacrifice and the Papists is not together with this pretence will of it self fall to the ground Now an opinion may be imputed to a man two ways either because he holds and maintains it expresly and formally and in terms or because it may by a rational deduction be collected from some other opinion which he does hold In this latter sense I deny not but Epiphanius might impute this opinion we speak of to the Collyridians as a consequence upon their practice which practice they esteemed lawful But that they held it and owned it formally and in terms this I say Epiphanius does not impute to them which I think for these seven reasons My first Reason is because he could not justly do so and therefore without evident proof we may not say he did so for this were to be uncharitable to him in making him uncharitable to others Now I say he could not justly charge them with this opinion because he was not informed of nay such opinion that they held but only of their practice and this practice was no sufficient proof that they held this opinion That his information reached no further than their Practice appears out of his own Words I have heard saith he Haeres 78. another thing with great astonishment that some being madly affected to the Blessed Virgin endeavour to bring her in in Gods place being mad and besides themselves For they report that certain Women in Arabia have devised this Vanity to have meetings and offer a Cake to the Blessed Virgin The same practice he sets down Haeres 79. But that he was informed of any such opinion that they held he has not a Word or Syllable to any such purpose and yet if he had been informed of any here had been the place to set it down which certainly writing his Book rather of Heretical opinions than practices he would not have omitted to do if there had been occasion his silence therefore is a sufficient Argument that he was not informed of any such opinion that they held Now that their practice was no assurance that they held this opinion it is manifest because they might ground it not upon this opinion that she was God but upon another as false though not altogether so impious That the Worship of Oblations was not proper to God alone And therefore though Epiphanius might think oâ— Fear that possibly they might ground their practice upon that other impious opinion and therefore out of abundanâ— caution confute that also as he doth obliquely and in a word and once only in all his long discourse by telling them that our Saviour called her Woman yet he had no ground from their practice to assure himself that certainly they did hold so Nay Justice and Reason and Charity would that he should incline himself to believe that they grounded their practice upon that other opinion which had less impiety in it that is that this worship of Oblations was not proper to God but communicable to Creatures high in his favour My second is Because if Epiphanius had known that these Collyridians held the Blessed Virgin to be a Supream Power and Deity this being a far greater matâ—er than offering a Cake to her should in all probability rather have given them their denomination at least when he sets down what their Heresie was he would have made this part of it that they did believe so But to the contrary in his Anacaephaleosis p. 130. he thus describes them They that offer to the name of the Blessed Virgin Cakes who are called Collyridians And again p. 150. They that offer to the Blessed Virgin Cakes who are called Collyridians So to the 79th Heresie he gives
this Title Against the Collyridians who offer to Mary So Haeres 78 and 79. He sets down what he heard of them but no where that they held this opinion of her I conclude therefore that he never conceived this opinion to be a part of their Heresie and they were no further chargeable with it than as a probable consequent upon their practice My third is Because had the Collyridians held her God they would have worshiped her all the year long and not only once a year at a Solemn time as Epiphanius says they did My fourth is Because if Epiphanius had known that they held her God he would questionless have urged them with those Attributes that are given to God in Scripture as Eternity Immortallity Impossibility Omnipotence c. And shewed them that if they believed the Scripture they could not think of her any of those things if they did not they had no reason to think of her any thing more than of an ordinary Woman My fifth is because had their opinion been that the Blessed Virgin was God a great part of Epiphanius ' s discourse were plainly ridiculous both where he says only without proof she was not a God but a Mortal Creature which to them that held the contrary should not have been said but proved But especially where he speaks to this purpose as he does very frequently that the honour of Oblations was not to be given to Angels or Men much less to Women but only to God for what had that been to the Collyridians if they thought her as is pretended a Sovereign Power and Deity to what purpose was it for Epiphanius to ask Quis prophetam What prophet ever permitted that a Man much less a Woman should be adored though he be yet alive Nor John nor Tecla nor any other Saint For neither shall the Old Superstition have dominion over us that leaving the Living God we should Adore his Creatures To what end I say was all this if they thought her not a Saint noâ— Creature but God himself and the Lord of all How did this Argument touch them Ne Angelos quidem He suffers not the very Angels to be adored how much less the Daughter of Anna if they thought her not the Daughter of Anna but God Eternal In vain had it been to say â—o them Not to a Woman no nor to a Man but to God alone is this mistery of Oblation due So that the Angels themselves are not fit Subjects for such an honour Or again Let the Creature be turned to the Creator Let shame at length compel you to worship God alone Or lastly thaâ— so often repeated Let Mary be honoured but the Lord only adored For they might have answered all this in a word saying All this discourse sits besides the Cushion and concerns us and our offering nothing at all â—or we believe the Blessed Virgin to whom we offer neâ—ther Man nor Woman nor Angel nor Creature but a Deity A Sixth Reason let it be this If Epiphanius did indeed say of the Collyridians as is pretended That they held the Virgin Mary God and so difference their practice from the Papists Then the Author of this Answer and Petavius in his Translation needed not to have dictated to him what he should say nor make him say so whether he will or no But it is evident they do so as of the Author of this Answer I have already shewn and for Petavius his part I will so present it to your view that if you will not shut your Eyes you shall not choose but see 〈◊〉 First then Haeres â—8 prope fin he Petavius sets in his Margent quidam Deum Mariam esse crediderum and to countenance this with a loquuntur of his own putting in makes them speak of her like mad Men i. e. they said she was God whereas in Epiphanius's Greek they say just â—othing Secondly To fasten the pretended Opinion on them he translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Novum dogma presuming it seem◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would easily be mistaken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore meanes nothing by it but a vanity or folly Thirdly He translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Illud and so makes it look backward to that pretended Novum dogma of the Collyridians whereas it signifies there And and looks forward to their practice Fourthly With the help of a Colon he stops the sense at Commentas fuisse whereas in Epiphanius there is but a Comma and the sense goes on without suspension Fifthly With an adeo ut he brings in their action as an effect of their former opinion whereas Epiphanius lays nothing to their charge but their Action only So that whereas Epiphanius his words truly translated run thus Another thing I have received with great astonishment that others being mad concerning the Blessed Virgin have and do go about to bring her in in the place of God being mad I say and besides themselves For they report that certain Women in Arabia have brought this vanity of offering a Cake to her name Petavius makes them thus Not without admiration we have heard another thing that some in these things that concern the most holy Virgin have proceeded to that degree of madness that they would obtrude her upon us for a God and speak of her as madmen For they report that certain Women in Arabia have invented that new Opinion so that to the Virgins name and honour they offer by way of sacrifice a Cake or wreath of Bread Again in the same Haeres 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he translates advantageously per mulieres sacrificia facere Whereas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is more general than sacrificia facere and signifies sacris operari or sacros ritus peragere Again in the same place whereas Epiphanius says simply and absolutely Let no man offer to her name he makes it Let no man offer sacrifice to her name as if you might lawfully offer any thing provided you do not call it a sacrifice So again Haeres 79. besides his putting cunningly ipsa â—uit which before we took notice of he makes no scruple to put in Dogma and Sacrificium wheresoever it may be for his purpose Epiphanius his title to this Heresie is Against the Collyridians who offer to Mary Pâ—tavius puts in Sacrifice Again in the same page before D. he puts in his own illo dâ—gmate and whereas Epiphanius says in all this he makes it in all this Opinion Pag. 1061. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he translates â—â—is womanish Opinion whereas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though perhaps it may signifie a thâ—ught or act of thinking yet I believe it never signifies an Opinion which we hold Ibid. at B. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this he renders this Opinion Pag. 1064. at C. Nor that we should offer to her name simply and absolutely he makes it Nor that we should offer sacrâ—fice to her name So many times â—s he fain to corrupt and translate him partially
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
to shew him his error I say that it is unreasonable to think that a God of goodness will impute such an error to such a man Against the second it was demonstrated unto me that the place I built on so confidently was no Argument at all for the Infallibility of the Succession of Pastors in the Roman Church but a very strong Argument against it First no Argument for it because it is not certain nor can ever be proved that S. Paul speaks there of any succession Ephes. 4. 11 12 13. For let that be granted which is desired that in the 13. ver by until we all meet is meant until all the Children of God meet in the Unity of Faith that is unto the Worlds end yet it is not said there that he gave Apostles and Prophets c. which should continue c. until we all meet by connecting the 13. ver to the 11. But he gave then upon his Ascension and miraculously endowed Apostles and Prophets c. for the work of the ministry for the Consummation of the Saints for the Edification of the Body of Christ until we all meet that is if you will unto the Worlds end Neither is there any incongruity but that the Apostles and Prophets c. which lived then may in good sense be said now at this time and ever hereafter to do those things which they are said to do For who can deny but S. Paul the Apostle and Doctor of the Gentiles and S. Iohn the Evangelist and Prophet do at this very time by their writings though not by their persons do the work of the ministry consummate the Saints and Edifie the Body of Christ. Secondly it cannot be shewn or proved from hence that there is or was to be any such succession because S. Paul here tells us only that he gave such in the time past not that he promised such in the time to come Thirdly it is evident that God promised no such succession because it is not certain that he hath made good any such promise for who is so impudent as to pretend that there are now and have been in all Ages since Christ some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers Especially such as he here speaks of that is endowed with such gifts as Christ gave upon his Ascension of which he speaks in the 8 ver saying He led Captivity Captive and gave gifts unto men And that those gifts were Men endowed with extraordinary Power and Supernatural gifts it is apparent because these Words and he gave some Apostles some Prophets c. are added by way of explication and illustration of that which was said before and he gave gifts unto Men And if any man except hereunto that though the Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists were extraordinary and for the Plantation of the Gospel â—et Pastors were ordinary and for continuance I answer it is true some Pastors are ordinary and for continuance but not such as are here spoken of not such as are endowed with the strange and heavenly gifts which Christ gave not only to the Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists â—ut to the inferior Pastors and Doctors of his Church at the first Plantation of it And therefore S. Paul in the 1st to the Corinth 12. 28. to which place we are referred by the Margent of the Vulgar Translation for the explication of this places this gift of teaching amongsâ— and prefers it before many other miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost Pastors there are still in the Church but not such as Titus and Timothy and Apollos and Barnabas not such as can justly pretend to immediate inspiration and â—llumination of the Holy Ghost And therefore seeing there neither are nor have been for many Ages in the Church such Apostles and Prophets c. as here are spoken of it is certain he promised none or otherwise we must blasphemously charge him with breach of his promise Secondly I answer that if by dedit he gave be meant promisit he promised for ever then all were promised and all should have continued If by dedit be not meant promisit then he promised none such nor may we expect any such by vertue of or warrant from this Text that is here alledged And thus much for the first Assumpt which was that the place was no Argument for an infâ—llible succession in the Church of Rome Now for the second That it is a strong Argument against it thus I make it good The Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists and Pastors which our Saviour gave upon his Ascension were given by him that they might Consummate the Saints do the work of the Ministry Edifie the Body of Christ until we all come into the Unity of Faith that we be not like Children wavering and carried up and down with every wind of Doctrine The Apostles and Prophets c. that then were do not now in their own persons and by oral instruction do the work of the Ministry to the intent we may be kept from wavering and being carried up and down with every wind of Doctrine therefore they do this some other way Now there is no other way by which they can do it but by their writings and therefore by their writings they do it therefore by their writings and believing of them we are to be kept from wavering in matters of Faith therefore the Scriptures of the Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists are our Guides Therefore not the Church of Rome FINIS a How by the whole Church when himself was part of it and communicated still with divers other parts of it b What not to them who know and believe him to be unjustly Excommunicated a Vt in nomen Virginis Collyridem quandam Sacrificarent Epiph. haer 78. Offerunt panem in nomen Mariae omnes autem pane participaâ—t b Deâ— enim ab aeterno nulla tenus mulier Sacrisicavit Idem haeres 79. c Diaconissarum ordo est in Ecclesia sed non ad Sacrificandum nam neque Diaconis concâ—editum est ut aliquod mâ—sterium persiciant Id. Ibid. a vid. sup littera a b Mortuis cultum divinum praestantes Id. Ibid. And again Revera virgo erat honorata sed non adadorationem nobis data sed ipsa adorans Deum And again Non ut adoretur Virgo nec ut Deum hanc efficeret c. Sit in honore Maria Pater Filius Spiritus S. adoretur Mariam nemo adoret Deo debetur hoc mysterium Id. Ibid. c Pro Deo hanc introducere statuerant Id. Ibid. Revera Sanctum erat Mariae corpus non tamen Deus And again Mulierem eam appellavit Joh. 2. Velut prophetans ne aliqui nimium admirati Sanctum in hanc haeresin dilabantur And again Non tamen aliter genita est praeter hominis naturam sed sicut omnes ex semine 〈◊〉 utero Mulieris Id. Ibid. a Ad aquas â—bilotanas Episcopo offerente Projecte reâ—quias martyris gloriosissâ—mi Stephani ad ejus memoriam veniebat magne multitudinis concursus cocursus Ibi caeca mulier ut ad episcopum portantem pignora Sacra duceretur oraâ—it Flores quâ—â— ferebat dedit recepit oculis admovit protenus vidit August de Civit. Dei l. 22. c. 8. abscedens aliquid de Altaâ—i S. Stephani storum quod â—â—currit tuâ—it Idem Ibid. c. b Theodoretus de curandis affecâ— Graec. l. 8. Faverdentâ— Edit Iren. p. 497.