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
Lovaine in their Index to their Edition of S. Austin and they refer us in their Index only to Tom. 2. pag. 185. that is to the 106. Epist. the words whereof I have already quoted to shew the meaning of Innocentius and to Tom. 7. pag. 282. that is lib. 1. de pec Mer. remis c. 20. where his words are Let then all doubt be taken away Let us hear our Lord I say saying not of the Sacrament of Holy Baptism but of the Sacrament of his Table to which nonâ— may lawfully come but be which has been baptized unless you eat the flesh of the Son and drink his blood you shall have no life in you what seek we any further what can be answered hereunto What will any man dare to say that this appertains not to little Children and that without the participation of his body and blood they may have Life c. with much more to the same effect Which places are indeed so plain and pregnant for that purpose that I believe they thought it needless to add more otherwise had they pleased they night have furnished their Index with many more referrences to this point as de Pec. Mer. Rem l. 1. c. 24. where of Baptism and the Eucharist he tells us that Salus vita eterna sine his frustra promittitur parvulis The same he has Cont. 2. Epist. Pelag ad Bonifacium l. 1. c. 22. which yet by Gratian de Consec D. 3. c. Nulli and by Tho. Aquinas p. 3. q. 3. art 9. ad tertiam is strangely corrupted and made to say the contrary and l. 4. c. 4. the same Cont. Iulian. l. 1. c. 4. and l. 3. c. 11. 12. Cont. Pelag. Celest. l. 2. c. 8. de Praedest Sanctorum ad Prosp. Hilar. l. 1. cap. 14. Neither doth he retract or contradict this opinion any where nor mitigate any one of his sentences touching this matter in his Book of Retractations Sanctesius indeed tells us that he seems to have departed from his Opinion in his works against the Donatists But I would he had shewed some probable reason to make it seem so to others which seeing he does not we have reason to take time to believe him For as touching the place mentioned by Beda in 1. ad Corinth 10. as taken out of a Sermon of S. Austins ad infantes ad Altare Besides that it is very strange S. Austin should make a Sermon to Infants and that there is no such Sermon extant in his works nor any memory of any such in Possidius S. Austins Scholars Catalogue of his works nor in his Book of Retractaitons setting aside all this I say First That it is no way certain that he speaks there of Infants seeing in propriety of speech as S. Austin himself teacheth us Ep. 23 Infants were not Fideles of whom S. Austin in that supposed Sermon speaks Secondly Admit he does speak of Infants where he assures us that in Baptism every faithful man is made partaker of Christs body and blood and that he shall not be alienated from the benefit of the Bread and Cup although he depart this life before he eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup. All this concludes no more but that the actual participation of the Eucharist is not a means simply necessary to attain salvation so that no impossibility shall exeuse the failing of it Whereas all that I aim at is but this that in the judgment of the Ancient Church it was believed necessary in case of possibility necessary not in actu but in voto Ecclesiae not necessary to salvation simply but necessary for the increase of grace and glory And therefore Lastly though not necessary by necessity of means for Infants to receive it yet necessary by necessity of precepts for the Church to give it The last witness I promised was the Author of the work against the Pelagians called Hypognostica who l. 5. c. 5. ask the Pelagians Seeing he himself hath said unless you eat the flesh c. How dare you promise eternal life to little Children not regenerate of water and the Holy Ghost not having eaten his flesh nor drank his blood And a little after Behold then he that is not Baptized and he that is destitute of the Bread and Cup of life is separated from the Kingdom of Heaven To the same purpose he speaks l. 6. c. 6. But it is superfluous to recite his words for either this is enough or nothing The third kind of proof whereby I undertook to shew the belief of the ancient Church in this point was the Consession of the learnedest Writers and best verst in the Church of Rome Who what the Council of Trent forbids under Anathema that any man should say of any ancieâ—t Father are not yet afraid nor make no scruple to say it in plain terms of the whole Church for many Ages together viz. That she believed the Eucharist necessary for Infants So doth Maldonate in Ioan. 6. Mitto Augustini Innocentii sententiam quae etiam viguit in Ecclesia per sexcentes annos Eucharistiam etiam Infantibus necessariam I say nothing says he of Austins and Innocentius his opinion that the Eucharist was necessary even for Infants which doctrin flourished in the Church for 600. years The same almost in terms hath Binius in his Notes on the Councils pag. 624. Hinc constat Innocentii sententia quae sexcentos circiter annos viguit in Ecclesiâ quam Augustinus sectatus est Eucharistiam etiam infantibus necessariam fuisse Lastly That treasury of Antiquity Cardinal Perron though he speaks not so home as the rest do yet he says enough for my purpose des passages de S. August c. 10. p. 101. The Custom of giving the Eucharist to Infants the Church then observed as profitable This I say is enough for my purpose For what more contradictious than the Eucharist being the same without alteration to Infants being the same without alteration should then be profitable and now unprofitable then all things considered expedient to be used if not necessary and therefore commanded And now though there be no variety in the case all things considered not necessary nor expedient and therefore forbidden The Issue of all this Discourse for ought I can see must be this That either both parts of a Contradiction must be true and consequently nothing can be false seeing that which contradicteth truth is not so or else that the Ancient Church did err in believing something expedient which was not so and if so why may not the present Church err in thinking Latin Service and Communion in one kind expedient or that the present Church doth err in thinking something not expedient which is so And if so why may she not err in thinking Communicating the Laity in both kinds and Service in vulgar Languages not expedient V. An Argument drawn from the Doctrin of the Millenaries against Infallibility THE Doctrin of the Millenaries was
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
defined in S. Cyprians time I say that in the Judgment of the Bishop and Church of Rome and their adherents it was For they urged it as an Original and Apostolick Tradition and consequently at least of as great force as any Church definition They excommunicated Firmilianus and condemned S. Cyprian as a false Christ and a false Apostle for holding the contrary and urged him Tyrannico terrore to conform his judgment to theirs as he himself clearly intimates If it be said they differed only from the particular Church of Rome and not from the Roman Church taking it for the universal society of Christians in Communion with that Church I Answer 1. They know no such sense of the word I am sure never used it in any such which whether it had been possible if the Church of Rome had been in their judgment to other Churches in spiritual matters as the City was to other Cities and Countries in temporals I leave it to indifferent men to judge 2. Secondly that they differed not only from the particular Roman Church but also from all other Churches that agreed with it in those doctrins 3. Thirdly I desire you would answer me directly whether the Roman Church taking it for that particular Church be of necessity to be held Infallible in Faith by every Roman Catholick or not To this Question I instantly desire a direct answer without tergiversation that we may at length get out of the cloud and you may say Coram quem quaeritis adâ—um If you say they are not bound to believe so then it is no Article of Faith nor no certain truth upon which men may safely rest without fluctuation or fear of error And if so I demand 1. Why are all your Clergy bound to swear and consequently your Laity if they have Communion of Faith with them by your own grounds bound to believe That the Roman Church is the Mistris of all other Churches where it is evident from the relation and opposition of the Roman to other Churches that the Roman Church is there taken for that particular Church 2. Secondly why then do you so often urge that mistaken saying of Iraeneus Ad â—anc Ecclesiam necesse est omnem câ—nvenire Ecclesiam falsely translating it as Cardinal Perrâ—n in French and my â— F. in English All Churches must agree with this Church for convenire aâ—n signifies not to agree with but to come unto whereas it â—s evident for the aforesaid reason that the Roman is here taken for that particular Church 3. Thirdly if that particular Church be not certainly infallible but subject to error in points of fâ—ith I would know if any division of your Church should happen in which the Church of Rome either alone or with some others should take one way the Churches of Spain and France and many other Churches another what direction should an ignorant Catholick have then from the pretended Guide of Faith How shall he know of which of these Companies is the Church seeing all other Churches distinguished from the Roman may err and seeing the Roman Church is now 〈◊〉 sâ—bject to error and consequently not certain to guard those men or those Churches that adhere unto it from erring 4. Fourthly if that particular Church be not infallible in Faith let us then suppose that de facto it does err in faith shall we not then have an Heretical head upon a Catholick body A head of the Church which were no member of the Church which sure were a very strange and heterogeneous Monster If to avoid these inconveniences you will say that Roman Catholicks must of necessity hold that particular Church infallible in faith I suppose it will evidently follow that S. Austin and S. Cyprian notwithstanding those sentences you pretend out of them were no Roman Catholicks seeing they lived and died in the contrary belief and profession Let me see these absurdities fairly and clearly avoided and I will dispute no more but follow you whithersoever you shall lead me 3. Thirdly I answer that the places alledged are utterly impertinent to the conclusion you should have proved which was That it was impossible that two Societies of Christians divided upon what cause soever in external Communion may be in truth and in Gods account both of them parts of the Catholick Church whereas your testimonies if we grant them all say no more but this That the Societies of Hereticks which are such as overthrow any doctrin necessary to salvation and of Schismaticks which are such as separate from the Churches Communion without any pretence of error in the Church or unlawfulness in the conditions of her Communion I say they prove only this that such Societies as these are no parts of the Church which I willingly grant of all such as are properly and formally Hereticks and Schismaticks from which number I think with S. Austin they are to be exempted Qui quaerunt causa sollicitudine veritatem corrigi parati cum invenerint Whereas I put the case of such two Societies which not differing indeed in any thing necessary to salvation do yet eâ—oncously believe that the errors wherewith they charge one another are damnable and so by this opinion of mutual error are kept on both sides from being Hereticks Because I desire to bring you and others to the truth or to be brought to it by you I thought good for your direction in your intended Reply to acquaint you with these things 1. That I conceive the in your discourse is this That whensoever any two Societies of Christians differ in external Communion one of them must be of necessity Heretical or Schismatical I conceive there â— no such necessity and that the stories of Vidor and tâ—e Bishops of Asia S. Cyprâ—on and Pope Stephâ—n make it evident and therefore I desire you to produce some conâ—incing argument to the contrary and that you may the better do it I thought good to inform you what I mean bâ—an Heretick and what by a Schismatick An Herdick therefore I conceive him tha holds an Error against Faith with obâ—tinacy Obstinate I conceive 〈◊〉 who will not change his Opinion when his reasons for it are so answered that he cannot reply and when the reasons against it are so convinâ—ing that he cannot answer them By the Faith I understand all those Docâ—â—â—ne and no more which Christ taught his Apostles and the Apostles the Church yet I exclude not from this number the certain and evident deductions of them A Schismatick I account him and Facurdus Hermianâ—nsâ— hath taught me to do so who withoâ—t any supposing of error in the conditions of a Churches Communion divides himself either from the obedience of that Church to which he owes obedience or from the Communion of that Church to which he owes Communion 2. Another thing which I thought fit to acquaint you with is this That you go upon another very false and deceitful supposition viz. that if we will not be Protestants presently we
if they had done it as a Gift or Present and not as a Sacrifice Epiphanius then surely was too hasty to condemn them being informed of nothing but that they offered a Cake unto her Methinks before he had put them in his Catalogue he should have enquired whether they offered this Cake as a Gift only or as a Sacrifice Certainly had the practice of offering to Saints by way of gifts been the practice of the Church in his time he would not have been so uncharitable as to condemn that action as impious and Heretical which might have received so lawful and pious a construction But he good man it seems could not conceive a difference between a Sacrifice and the offering a Creature by way of Consumption to the Honour of that to which it is offered The subtle Wits of our times I hope have found out another definition for it and I shall understand by you what it is But if you can find no other then certainly though setting up a Picture or hanging up a Leg or Eye or Ear in memory of some miraculous cure obtained by a Saints intercession would be a Gift or Present only yet offering of Incense or burning a Taper in the honour of a Saint daub the matter how you will will be without Question a Sacrifice If you say that there may be such an offering and yet no Sacrifice I would know then how you would prove that the Collyridians offering was indeed a Sacrifice All that Epiphanius says of them is but this Panem proponunt in Mariae nomen offerunt And though this offering of theirs was indeed a Sacrifice in the notion of thâ— word which I have given it yet doth he not any where say expresly That they did Sacrifice or offer it as a Sacrifice but only and barely that they did â—ffer it not using as good fortune would have it any word which doth of necessity and properly signifie to Sacrifice and therefore you are fain to help the Dice and alter every place for your advantage Epiphanius says not as you trâ—nslate him ut in nomen Virginis Collyridem quendam Sacrificeâ—t nor Sacrificantes osserunt as Petavius but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which maâ— as well signifie to consâ—â—â—rate or offer as to Sacrifice if there be any difference between them So the next place offerunt panem iâ— nomen Mariae omnes autem pane particâ—pant proves not I hope offering by way of Sacrifice unless the Consumption of the oblation make it a Sacrifice which if it do how your Tapers can be kept from being Sacrifices I cannot imâ—gine unless again perhaps Consumption by way of Eating will make it a Sacrifice and by Burning will not which cannot be because the whole Burnt-offerings were Sacrifices as well as any other Your thiâ—d place is Deo autem ab aeterno nullatenus mulier 〈◊〉 But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not to Sacrifice but only to 〈◊〉 the Office of a Priest and so Petavius translates thâ— place Nunquam sacerdotio functa est mulier And though Sacrificing be one perhaps yet will you not say it is the only Office of a Priest as your next and last place would have declared had you set it down faithfully but in that also you juggle again and force it to speak to your purpose thus Diaconissarum ordo est in Ecclesia sed non ad Sacrificandum but Petavius hath translated it truly thus Quanquam vero Diaconissarum in Ecclesia ordo sit nâ—n tamen ad sacerdotii functionem aut ullam administrationem institutus est And now though by an usual Synechdoche the name of the Genus be given to the Species and therefore had a man fairly and candidly translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Saâ—rifico I should not have much condemned him yet to do it when the Question is whether this tâ—eir offering confessed to be an offering were in propriety of speech a Sacrifice to do it for Ends to shift off a convincing argument to palliate over a foul matter by putting a verbal difference where there is none indeed and all that you may Imperitos rerum in fraudem illicere that is But I forbear you But Secondly it is pretended they offered this Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the name of the Blessed Virgin i. e. unto her her self directly and terminately as an act of Divine Worship and adoration due unto her as unto a Sovereign Power and Deity And to colour and countenance this strange gloss many places are quoted out of Epiphanius which I will examine in order as they lie The first place is mortuis cultum Divinum praestantes where your meaning is I believe that Epiphanius says the Collyridians did so but the truth is he says only mortuos colentes as Petavius translates it and therefore here once again you help the Dice yet if he had said so why should you rather from cultum divinum collect that that they thought her God than from mortuis that they thought her Dead and therefore certainly not a God Certainly this can be no warrant to you that Epiphanius charges them with so thinking For Protestants you know impute to Papists that they give to Saints cultum divinum and yet they do not impute to them the Heresie of thinking that the Saints are Sovereign Powers and Deities But as S. Paul accuseth the Gentiles for that knowing God to be God they did not worship him as God so on the other side Protestants condemn Papists and Epiphanius for ought we can see hitherto might condemn the Collyridians for that knowing the Blessed Virgin not to be God they yet worship'd her as God That is gave her that worship which is Gods own peculiar which yet they might do not because they thought her God but because this worship which was indeed proper to God they might think not proper but communicable to such Creatures as were high in his favour The next place is Revera virgo erat honorata sed non ad adorationem nobis data sed ipsa adorans Deum c. I answer that the c. perhaps conceals something more pertinent to your purpose but in the Words set down there appears to me just nothing for I can frame out of them no other Syllogism but this Whatsoever Epiphanius in this place says is not to be adored that the Collyridians thought to be God But Epiphan here says the Virgin is not to be adored Ergo. The Collyridians thought her God Of this Syllogism I deny the Major proposition and I believe shall stay as long for a proof of it as I have done for an answer to some other discourses which being written in a few days have waited now with a longing expectation for a promised answer many â—onths If you say you would conclude from these Words that they did adore her and therefore thought her God I have answered already that they might do this not because they thought her God but because they
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