ADDITIONAL DISCOURSES OF Mr. Chillingworth NEVER BEFORE PRINTED.  

Imprimatur.  
Ex Aedib. Lambeth. jun. 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. Paul's Churchyard, 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 Heretics or Schismatics. p. 1.  
II. A Discourse against the Infallibility of the Roman Church, with an Answer to all those Texts of Scripture that are alleged 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 worshipping the Blessed Virgin; or that the Ancient Church did err in condemning the Collyridians' as Heretics. p. 41  
IU. An Argument drawn from Communicating of Infants, as without which they could not be saved against the Church's Infallibility. p. 68  
V. An Argument against Infallibility, drawn from the Doctrine 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 Doctrine of Transubstantiation. p. 91.  
VIII. An account of what moved the Author to turn a Papist, with his Confutation of the Arguments that persuaded 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 ru●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 Tenants.  
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 Controversy, 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 h●mself from the obedience of it, by his or her particular judgement?  
Answ. If you understand by your Church, the Church Catholic, 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 Catholic Church, which did abide in the Root of Apostolic Unity: But the Church of Rome at that time was the only Church that did abide in the Root of Apostolic Unity. Ergo.  
Quest. What mean you by Apostolic 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 Supreme Tribunal, and communicated together in the same Prayers and Sacraments.  
Sclut. Then the Church of Rome continued not in this Apostolic Unity; for it continued not in the same Faith, wherein the Apostles Lived and Died: for though it retained so much (in my judgement) 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 Communion in one kind.  
Argu. Some Church did continue in the same Faith wherein the Apostles lived and died: But t●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 conformity with it in all things expedient and profitable?  
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 Church's continuance in Apostolic Unity?  
Asw. It is necessary to a perfect continuance in Apostolic Unity.  
Argu. There was some one company of Christians at the time of Luther's rising, which was the Catholic Church; But there was no other company at that time besides the Roman: Ergo, the Roman at that time was the Catholic Church.  
Answ. There was not one company of Christians, which in opposition to and Exclusion of all other companies of Christians was the Catholic Church.  
Argu. If the Catholic 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 Catholic Church is one company of Christians in opposition to and exclusion of, etc. Ergo, There was then some one company which was the Catholic 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 alleged.  
1. If this Unity which cannot be separated at all or divided, is also among Heretics, what contend we farther? Why call we them Heretics, 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 Catholic, other Churches are esteemed to be among Heretics, but are not. S. Optat. lib. 1.  
4. The Church therefore is but one, this cannot be among all Heretics and Schismatics. 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 then, that it be in one only place. Id: Ibid.  
7. Although there be many Heresies of Christians, and that all would be called Catholics, yet there is always one Church, etc. S. August. de util. credend. c. 7.  
8. The question between us is, where the Church is, whether with us or with them, for she is but one. Id. de unitat. c. 2.  
9 The proofs of the Catholic prevailed, whereby they evicted the Body of Christ to be with them and by consequence not to be with the Donatists; for it is manifest that she is one alone. Id. Collat. Carthag. lib. ●  
10. In illud cantic. 6. 7. There are 60 Queens and 80 Concubines and Damsels without number, but my Dove is one, etc. He said not, my Queens are 60, and my Concubines, etc. but he said my Dove is but one; because all the Sects of Philosphers and Heresies of Christians are none of his; his is but one, to wit, the Catholic Church, etc. S. Ep●phan. in sine Panar.  
11. A man may not call the Conventicles of Heretics (I mean Marcionites, Manichees, and the rest) Churhces; therefore the Tradition appoints you to say, I believe one Holy Catholic Church, etc. S. Cyrill. Catech. 18.  
And these Testimonies I think are sufficient to show the judgement of the Ancient Church, that this Title of the Church one, is directly and properly exclusive to all companies besides one; to wit, that where there are divers professions of Faith, or divers communions, there is but one of these, which can be the Catholic Church. Upon this ground I desire some company of Christians to be named, professing a divers Faith, and holding a divers Communion from the Roman, which was the Catholic Church at the time of Luther's rising: and if no other in this sense can be named, than was she the Catholic Church at that time, and therefore her judgement to be rested in, and her Communion to be embraced upon peril of Schism and Heresy.  
Mr. Chillingworths' Answer.  
Upon the same ground, if you pleased, you might desire a Protestant to name some Company of Christians, professing a divers Faith, and holding a divers Communion from the Greek Church, which was the Catholic Church at the time of Luther's rising; and seeing he could name no other in this sense▪ concludes that the Greek Church was the Catholic Church at that time. Upon the very same ground you might have concluded for the Church of the Abyssines, or Armenians, or any other society of Christians extant before Luther's time. And seeing this is so, thus I argue against your ground.  
1. That ground which concludes indifferently for both parts of a contradiction, must needs be false and deceitful, and conclude for neither part: But this ground concludes indifferently both parts of a contradiction; viz. That the Greek Church is the Catholic Church, and not the Roman, as well as, That the Roman is the Catholic Church, and not the Greek: Therefore the ground is false and deceitful, seem it never so plausible.  
2. I answer Secondly, that you should have taken notice of my Answer, which I then gave you; which was, that your major, as you then framed your Argument, but as now, your minor is not always true, if by one you understand one in external Communion; seeing nothing hindered in my Judgement, but that one Church excommunicated by another upon an insufficient cause, might yet remain a true member of the Catholic Church; and that Church, which upon the overvaluing this cause doth excommunicate the other, though in fault, may yet remain a member of the Catholic Church: which is evident from the difference about Easter-day between the Church of Rome and the Churches of Asia; for which vain matter Victor Bishop of Rome excommunicated the Churches of Asia. And yet I believe you will not say, that either the Church excommunicating, or the Church excommunicated, ceased to be a true member of the Church Catholic. The case is the same between the Greek and the Roman Church; for though the difference between them be greater, yet it is not so great, as to be a sufficient ground of excommunication: and therefore the excommunication was causeless, and consequently Brutum fulmen, and not ratified or confirmed by God in Heaven; and therefore the Church of Greece at Luther's rising might be, and was a true member of the Catholic Church.  
As concerning the places of Fathers, which you allege; I demand, 1. If I can produce you an equal, or greater number of Fathers, or more ancient than these, not contradicted by any that lived with them or before them, for some doctrine condemned by the Roman Church, whether you will subscribe it? If not, with what face or conscience can you make use of, and build your whole Faith upon the Authority of Fathers in some things, and reject the same authority in others?  
2. Secondly, because you urge S. Cyprians Authority, I desire you to tell me, whether this Argument in his time would have concluded a necessity of resting in the Judgement of the Roman Church, or no? If not, how should it come to pass, that it should serve now, and not then, fit this time and not that? as if it were like an Almanac, that would not serve for all Meridian's? If it would, why was it not urged by others upon S. Cyprian, or represented by S. Cyprian to himself for his direction, when he differed from the Roman Church, and all other that herein conformed unto her, touching the point of Rebaptising Heretics; which the Roman Church held unlawful and damnable, S. Cyprian not only lawful, but necessary; so well did he rest in the Judgement of that Church: Quid verba audiam, cum facta videam, says he in the Comedy? And Cardinal Perron tells you in his Epistle to Casaubon, that nothing is more unreasonable, than to draw consequences from the words of Fathers, against their lively and actual practice.  
The same may be said in refutation of the places out of S. Austin; who was so far from concluding, from them or any other, a necessity of resting in the Judgement of the Roman Church, that he himself, as your Authors testify, lived and died in opposition of it; even in that main fundamental point, upon which Mr. Lewgar hath built the necessity of his departure from the Church of England, and embracing the Communion of the Roman Church, that is, The Supreme Authority of that Church over other Churches, and the power of receiving Appeals from them. Mr. Lewgar, I know, cannot be ignorant of these things; and therefore I wonder, with what conscience he can produce their words against us, whose Actions are for us.  
If it be said, that S. Cyprian and S. Austin were Schismatics for doing so; it seems then Schismatics may not only be members of the Church, against Mr. Lewgars main conclusion, but Canonised Saints of it; or else S. Austin and S. Cyprian should be razed out of the Roman Calendar.  
If it be said, that the point of Rebaptisation was not defined in S. Cyprians time; I say that in the Judgement of the Bishop and Church of Rome and their adherents, it was: For they urged it as an Original and Apostolic 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 judgement 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 judgement 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 doctrines.  
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 Catholic, 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, ad●um. If you say, they are not bound to believe so; than 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 Mistress 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 ●anc Ecclesiam necesse est omnem c●nvenire Ecclesiam? falsely translating it, as Cardinal Perr●n in French, and my ●. F. in English— All Churches must agree with this Church; for convenire a●n signifies not to agree with, but to come unto; whereas it ●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 f●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 Catholic 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 〈◊〉 subject 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 Catholic 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 Catholics 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 Catholics; 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 alleged 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 God's account, both of them parts of the Catholic Church: whereas your testimonies, if we grant them all, say no more but this; That the Societies of Heretics, which are such as overthrow any doctrine necessary to salvation; and of Schismatics, which are such as separate from the Church's 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 Heretics, and Schismatics; 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 e●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 Heretics.  
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 ● no such necessity; and that the stories of Vidor and t●e Bishops of Asia, S. Cypr●on and Pope Steph●n make it evident; and therefore I desire you to produce some convincing argument to the contrary; and that you may the better do it, I thought good to inform you what I mean b●an Heretic, and what by a Schismatic.  
An Herdick therefore I conceive him, that holds an Error against Faith with obstinacy. 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 convincing, that he cannot answer them. By the Faith I understand all those Doctrine, 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 Schismatic I account him, (and Facurdus Hermian●ns● hath taught me to do so) who, without any supposing of error in the conditions of a Church's 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 must be Pap●sts; if we forsake the Church of England, we must go presently to the Church of Rome: Whereas if your Arguments did conclude (as they do not) that before L●thers time, there was some Church of one Denomination, which was the Catholic Church; I should much rather think it were the Church of Gree●e, ●han the Church of Rome; and I believe others also would think so as well as I, but for that reason which one gives, why more men hold the Pope above a Council, than a Council above a Pope, that is, because Councils give no maintenance or preferment, and the Popes do.  
Think not yet, I pray, that I say this, as if I conceived this to be your reason for preferring the Roman Church before the Greek; (for I protest I do not) but rather, that conceiving verily you were to leave the Church of England, to avoid trouble you took the next Boat, and went to the Church of Rome, because that bespoke you first.  
You impute to me (as I hear) that the way I take is destructive only, and that I build nothing; which first, is not a fault; for Christian Religion is not now to be built; but only I desire to have the rubbish and impertinent Lumber taken off, which you have laid upon it, which hides the glorious simplicity of it from them which otherwise would embrace it. Remember, I pray, Averro his saying; Quandoquidem Christiant adorant quod comedunt, sit anima mea cum Philosophis; and consider the swarms of Atheists in Italy, and then tell me, whether your unreasonable and contradictious Doctrines, your forged Miracles and counterfeit Legends have not in all probability produced this effect. Secondly, if it be a fault, it is certainly your own; for your discourse intended for the proof of a positive conclusion— That we must be Papists proves in deed and in truth nothing; but even in show and appearance no more but this Negative, that we must not be Protestant; but what we must be, if we must not be Protestants, God knows; you in this Discourse (I am sure) do not show it.  
Mr. Lewgars Reply.  
§. 1. The minor of Mr. Chillingworths' Argument against my g●o●nd is very we●k, being 〈◊〉 upon 〈◊〉 false supposition, that a Protestant could name no other Church professing a divers Faith, etc. from the Greek Ch●●ch, which wa● the Catholic Church: for if he could ●ot indeed name any other, the title would remain to the Greek Church: But he hath the Roman to name, and so my ground cannot conclude, either so, the 〈…〉 or any other, besides the Roman, but for that it does, except he can name some other.  
§. 2. His second answer is weak likewise; for my Minor is always true; at least they thought it to be so, whose Authorities I produce in confirmation of it, as will appear to any one that considers them well; how their force lies in Thesi, not in Hypothesi; not that the Church was not then divided into more Societies than one, but that ●he could never be.  
§. 3. As for his Instance to the contrary, wherein he believes I will not say the Churches excommunicated by Victor ceased to be a true member of the Catholic: If I say so, I say no more than the Ancient Fathers said before me. Iraeneus when he desired Victor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to cut off so many and great Churches; and Ruffin●, reprehendit cam, quod non benè fecisset abscindere ab unitate corporis, etc.  
§. 4. But howsoever the case of Excommunication may be, the division of external Communion which I intended, and the Fathers spoke of in the alleged Authorities, was that which was made by voluntary separation.  
§. 5. Whereby the Church (before one Society) is divided into several distinct Societies, both claiming to be the Church; of which Societies so divided, but one can be the Catholic; and this is proved by the Authorities alleged; which Authorities must not be answered by disproving them, as he does (for that is to change his Adversary, and confute the Father's sayings, instead of mine) but by showing their true sense or judgement to be otherwise than I alleged it.  
§. 6. To his demand upon the places alleged I Answer, that I do not build my whole faith of this conclusion upon the Authority of those Fathers; for I produce them, not for the Authority of the thing, but of the Exposition. The thing itself is an Article of the Creed, Unam Catholicam; grounded in express Scripture, Columba mea unica: but because there is difference in understanding this Prophecy, I produce these Authorities, to show the Judgement of the Ancient Church how they understood it; and the proper answer to this is either to show, that these words were not there, or at least, not this meaning; and so to show their meaning out of other places more pregnant.  
§. 7. And I promise, that whensoever an equal consent of Fathers can be showed for any thing, as I can show for this, I will believe it as firmly as I do this.  
§. 8. But this is not the Answerers' part, to propound doubts and difficulties, but to satisfy the proof objected.  
§. 9 And if this course be any more taken, I will save myself all farther labour in a business so likely to be endless.  
§. 10. His second Answer to the places is wholly impertinent; for therein would he disprove them from watching a necessity of resting in the judgement of the Roman Church; whereas I produced them only to show, that among several Societies of Christians, only one can be the Catholic; and against this his second Answer saith nothing.  
§. 11. In his third Answer he makes some show of reply to the Authorities themselves; but he commits a double Error: One, that he imposes upon me a wrong conclusion to be proved, as will appear by comparing my conclusion in my Paper, with the conclusion he would appoint me.  
§. 12. Another, that he imposes upon the Authorities a wrong Interpretation, no way grounded in the words themselves, nor in the places whence they were taken, nor in any other places of the same Fathers, but merely forged out of his own Brain. For first, the places do not only say, that the Societies of Heretics and Schismatics are no part of the Church; but that the Church cannot be divided into more Societies than one; and they account Societies divided, which are either of a divers Faith or a divers Communion. Neither do they define Heretics or Schismatics in that manner as he does.  
§. 13. For an Heretic in their Language is he, that opposes partinaciously the Common Faith of the Church: and a Schismatic, he that separates from the Catholic Communion; never making any mention at all of the cause.  
§. 14. And if his definition of a Schismatic may stand, then certainly there was no Schismatic ever in the World, nor none are at this day: for none did, none does separate without some pretence of Error, or unlawfulness in the Conditions of the Church's Communion.  
§. 15. And so I expect both a fuller and director answer to my Argument, without excursions, or diversions into any other matter, till the judgement of Antiquity be cleared in this point.  
Mr. Chillingworths' Answer.  
Ad §, 1. The Minor of my Argument, you say, is very weak, being grounded upon a false Supposition, That a Protestant could name no other Church professing a divers Faith from the Greek, which was the Catholic Church: And your reason is, because he ●ight name the Roman. But in earnest, Mr. Lewgar, do you think that a Protestant remaining a Protestant, can esteem the Roman Church to be the Catholic Church? or do you think to put tricks upon us, with taking your proposition one while in s●nsu composito, another while in sensu drviso? For if your meaning was, that a Pr●testant not remaining, but ceasing to be a Protestant, might name the Roman for the Catholic; so I say also to your discourse, that a Protestant ceasing to be a Protestant, might name a Greek to be the Catholic Church; and if there were any necessity to find out one Church of one denomination, as the Greek, the Roman, the Abyssine, which one must be the Catholic? I see no reason, but he might pitch upon the Greek Church, as well as the Roman; I am sure your discourse proves nothing to the contrary. In short, thus I say, if a Grecian should go about to prove to a Protestant, that h●s Church is the Catholic, by saying (as you do for the Roman) some one was so before Luther, and you can name no other, therefore ours is so: Whatsoever may be answered to him, may be answered to you. Fo● as you say, a Protestant, ceasing to be a Prote●tant, may name to him the Roman; so I say, a Protestant, ceasing to be a Protestant, may name to you the Grecian. If you say, a Protestant, remaining a Protestant, can name no other but the Roman, for the Catholic; I may (very ridiculously I confess, but yet as truly) say, he can name no other but the Grecian. If you say, he cannot name the Greek Church neither, remaining a Protestant; I say likewise, neither remaining a Protestant, can he name the Roman for the Catholic. So the Argument is equal in all respects on both sides; and therefore either concludes for both parts (which is impossible, for then contradictions should be both true) or else (which is certain) it concludes for neither. And therefore I say, your ground you build on, That before Luther some Church of one denomination was the Catholic (if it were true, as it is most false) would not prove your intent. It would destroy perhaps our Church, but it would not build yours. It would prove peradventure, that we must not be Protestants, but it will be far from proving that we must be Papists. For after we have l●ft being Protestant's (I tell you again that ●ou may not mistake) there is yet no necessity of being 〈◊〉; no mo●● than if I go out of England, there is a necessity of going to Rome. And thus much to show the 〈◊〉 of your ground, if it were true. Now in the 〈◊〉 place, I say it is false, neither have you proved any thing 〈◊〉 contrary.  
〈…〉. You say, the Authorities you have produced, show to any that consider them well, That the Church could never be divided into more Societies than one; and you mean (I hope) one in external Communion, or else you daily in ambiguities; and then I say, I have well considered the alleged authorities, and they appear to me to say no such thing; but only, that the Societies of Heretics and Schismatics are no true members of the Church: Whereas I put the case of two such Societies, which were divided in external Communion by reason of some overvalued difference between them, and yet were neither of them Heretical or Schismatical. To this I know you could not answer, but only by saying, That this supposition was impossible; viz. That of two Societies divided in external Communion, neither should be Heretical nor Schismatical; and therefore I desired you to prove by one convincing Argument, that this is impossible. This you have not done, nor I believe can do; and therefore all your places fall short of your intended conclusion; and if you would put them into Syllogistical form, you should presently see you conclude from them Sophistically in that fallacy, which is called A dicto secundura quid, ad dictum Simpliciter. Thus,— No two diviced Societies, whereof one is Heretical or Schisinatical, can be both members of the Catholic Church: therefore simply no two divided Societies can be so: the Antecedent I grant, which is all that your places say, as you shall see anon; but the consequence is Sophistical, and therefore that I deny: It is no better nor worse than if you should argue thus; No true divided Societies, whereof one is Outlawed and in Rebellion, are both members of the same Commonwealth; therefore simply no two divided Societies.  
But against this you pretend, That the a ledged places say not only, that the Societies of Heretics and Schismatics are no parts of the Church; but that the Church cannot be divided into more Societies than one: And they account Societies divided, which are either of a divers Faith, or of a divers Communion: This is that which I would have proved, but as yet I cannot see it done. There be Eleven Quotations in all; seven of them speak expressly and formally of division made by Heretics and Schismatics, viz. 1. 3, 4. 7. 9, 10, 11. Three other of them, (viz. 5, 6. 8.) though they use not the word, yet Mr. Lewgar knows they speak of the Donatists, which were Schismatics; and that by the relative particles you and them are meant the Donatists. And lastly, the second, Mr. Lewgar know, says nothing but this, That an Heretics cannot be accounted of that one Flock, which is the Church.  
But to make the most of them that can be: The first saith, the Unity of the Church cannot be separated at all, nor divided. This I grant, but then I say, every difference does not in the sight of God divide this Unity; for then diversity of Opinions should do it; and so the jesuits and Dominicans should be no longer members of the same Church. Or if every difference will not do it, why must it of necessity be always done by difference in Communion, upon an insufficient ground, yet mistaken for sufficient? (for such only I speak of.) Sure I am, this place says no such matter. The next place says, the Flock is but one; and all the rest, that the Church is but one, and that Heretics and Schismatics are not of it; which certainly was not the thing to be proved, but that of this one Flock, of this one Church, two Societies divided without just cause in Communion, might not be true and lively members; both in one Body Mystical in the sight of God, though divided in Unity in the sight of men: It is true indeed, whosoever is shut out from the Church on Earth, is likewise cut off from it before God in Heaven: but you know it must be Clavae non errante; when the cause of abscission is true and sufficient.  
Ad. § 3. If you say so, you say no more than the Fathers: but what evasions and tergiversations are these? Why do you put us off with ifs and and's? I beseech you tell me, or at least him that desires to reap some benefit by our Conference, directly and Categorically,— Do you say so, or do you say, it is not so? Were the Excommunicated Churches of Asia still members of the Catholic Church (I mean in God's account) or were they not? but all damned for that horrible Heresy of celebrating the Feast of Easter upon a divers day from the Western Churches? If you mean honestly and fairly, answer directly to this Question, and then you shall see what will come of it. Assure yourself, you have a Wolf by the Ears: If you say they were, you overthrew your own conclusions, and say that Churches divided in Communion may both be members of the Catholic. If they were not; then shall we have Saints and Martyrs in Heaven, which were no members of the Catholic Roman Church.  
As for Irenaeus his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Russinus his— Abscindere ab unite corporis; they imply no more but this at the most; That Victor (quantum in ●e ●ut) did cut them off from the External Communion of the Catholic Church; supposing, that for their Obstinacy in their Tradition, they had cut themselves off from the internal Communion of it: but that this sentence of Victors was ratified in Heaven, and that they were indeed cut off from the mystical Body of Christ, so far was Irenaeus from thinking, that he, and in a manner all the other Bishops reprehended Victor for pronouncing this Sentence on them, upon a cause so insufficient: which how they could say, or possibly think of a Sentence ratified by God in Heaven, and not reprehend God himself, I desire you to inform me: and if they did not intend to reprehend the Sentence of God himself, together with Victors, than I believe it will follow unavoidably, that they did not conceive, nor believe Victor's Sentence to be ratified by God; and consequently did not believe, that these excommunicated Churches were not in God's account true members of the Body of Christ.  
Ad. § 4. And here again, we have another subterfuge, by a Verbal distinction between Excommunication, and voluntary separation: As if the separation, which the Church of Rome made in Victor's time from the Asian Churches, were not a voluntary separation; or as if the Churches of Asia, did not voluntarily do that which was the cause of their separation; or as if (though they sepated not themselves indeed, conceiving the cause to be insufficient) they did not yet remain voluntarily separated, rather than conform themselves to the Church of Rome: Or lastly, as if the Grecians of Old, or the Protestants of Late, might not pretend as justly as the Asian Churches, that their Separation too was not voluntarily, but of necessity; for that the Church of Rome required of them under pain of Excommunication such conditions of her Communion, as were neither necessary nor lawful to be performed.  
Ad §. 5. And here again the matter is straightened by another limitation. Both sides (say you) must claim to be the Church: but what then, if one of them only claim (though vainly) to be the Church, and the other content itself with being a part of it? These than it seems (for any thing you have said to the contrary) may be both members of the Catholic Church: And certainly this is the case now, between the Church of England and the Church of Rome: and for aught I know, was between the Church of Rome and the Church of Greece: For I believe, it will hardly be proved, that the Excommunication between them was mutual; nor that the Church of Greece esteems itself the whole Church, and the Church of Rome no Church but itself a sound member of the Church, and that a corrupted one.  
Again, whereas you say, the Fathers speak of a voluntary separation; certainly they speak of any Separation by Heretics; and such were (in Victor's judgement) the Churches of Asia, for holding an opinion contrary to the Faith, as he esteemed: Or if he did not, why did he cut them from the Communion of the Church? But the true difference is, The Fathers speak of those, which by your Church are esteemed Heretics, and are so; whereas the Asian Churches were by Victor esteemed Heretics, but were not so.  
Ad §. 6. But their Authorities produced show no more, than what I have showed; that the Church is but one in 4exclusion of Heretics and Schismatics; and not that two particular Churches divided by mistake upon some overvalued difference, may not be both parts of the Catholic.  
Ad §. 7. But I desire you to tell me, whether you will do this, if the Doctrines produced and confirmed by such a consent of Fathers, happen to be in the judgement of the Church of Rome, either not Catholic, or absolutely Heretical. If you will undertake this, you shall hear farther form me: But if, when their places are produced, you will pretend (as some of your side do) that surely they are corrupted, having neither reason nor show of reason for it; unless this may pass for one (as perhaps it may, where reasons are scarce) that they are against your Doctrine; or if you will say, they are to be interpreted according to the pleasure of your Church, whether their words will bear it or no; then I shall but lose my Labour; for this is not to try your Church by the Fathers, but the Fathers by your Church.  
The Doctrines which I undertake to justify, by a greater consent of Fathers than here you produce, for instance shall be these.  
1. That God's Election supposeth prescience of man's Faith and perseverance.  
2. That God doth not predetermine men to all their Actions.  
3. That the Pope hath no power in temporalties over Kings either directly or indirectly.  
4. That the Bishop of Rome may Err in his public determinations of matters of Faith.  
5. That the B. Virgin was guilty of Original sin.  
6. That the B. Virgin was guilty of actual sin.  
7. That the Communion was to be administered to the Laity in both kinds.  
8. That the reading of the Scripture was to be denied to no man.  
9 That the Opinion of the Millenaries is true.  
10. That the Eucharist is to be administered to Infants.  
11. That the substance of Bread and Wine remains in the Eucharist of her Consecration.  
12. That the Souls of the Saints departed enjoy not the Vision of God before the Last day.  
13. That at the day of judgement, all the Saints shall pass through a purging fire.  
All these propositions are held by your Church either Heretical, or at least not Catholical; and yet ●n this promise of yours you have undertaken to believe them as firmly, as you now do this, That two diviced Societies cannot be both members of the Catholic Church.  
Ad §. 8. It is not then the Answerers' part to show, that the proofs pretended are indeed no proofs? and doth not he prove no proofs (at least in your mouth) who undertakes to show, that an equal or greater number of the very same witnesses is rejected by yourselves in many other things? Either the consent of the Fathers, in any Age or Ages, is infallible, and then you are to reject it in nothing; or it is not so, and then you are not to urge it in any thing: As if the Father's Testimonies against us were Swords and Spears, and against you bulrushes.  
Ad §. 9 In effect as if you should say. If you answer not as I please, I will dispute no longer. But you remember the proverb,— will think of it.— Occasionem quaerit, qui cupit discedere.  
Ad §. 10. I pray tell me, Is not Therefore a note of an Illation, or a conclusion? And is not your last therefore this, Therefore her judgement is to be rested in? which though it be not your first conclusion, yet yours it is, and you may not declaim it: and it is so near of kin to the former (in your judgement I am sure) that they must stand or fall together: therefore he that speaks pertinently for the disproving of the one, cannot speak impertinently towards the disproving the other: and therefore you cannot so shift it off, but of necessity you must answer the Argument there urged, or confess it ingenuously to be unanswerable.  
Or if you will not answer any thing, where the contradiction of your first conclusion is not in terms inferred, then take it thus: If S. Cyprian and S. Austin did not think it necessary in matter of Faith to rest in the judgement of the Roman Church and the adherents of it; Then either they thought not the Catholic Churches judgement necessary to be rested on, or they thought not that the Catholic Church. But the Antecedent is true, and undeniably proved so by their Actions, and the consequence Evident: Therefore the consequent must be true in one or other part: But you will not say the former is true; it remains therefore, the latter must be, and that is— That S. Austin and S. Cyprian did not think the Church of Rome and the adherents of it to be the Catholic Church.  
Ad §. 11. But I tell you now, and have already told you, that in our discourse before Mr. Skin●●r and Dr. Sheldon I answered your Major, as than you framed your Argument, as now your Minor thus— If you understand by one company of Christians, one in External Communion, I deny your Major. For I say, that two several Societies of Christians, which do not externally communicate together, may be both parts of the same Catholic Church: and what difference there is between this, and the conclusion I told you, you should have proved, I do not well unstand.  
Ad §. 12. And is it possible you should say so, when every one of the places carry this sense in their forehead, and 7 of the 11 in terms express it— That they intended only to exclude Heretics and Schismatics from being parts of the Church: For if they did not, against whom did they intend them? Pagans lay no claim to the Church, therefore not against them: Catholic. they did not intend to exclude: I know not who remains besides, but Heretics and Schismatics. Besides the frequent opposition in them between— One Church on the one side, and Heretics and Schismatics; who sees not, that in these places they intended to exclude only these pretenders out of the Church's Unity?  
Lastly, whereas you say, that the places say— That the Church cannot be divided; and that they account those divided who are of a divers Faith, or a divers Communion: I tell you, that I have read them over and over, and unless my Eyes deceive, they say not one word of a divers Communion.  
Ad §. 13. Whereas a Heretic in your Language, is he that opposeth pertinaciously the common Faith of the Church;— In mine— He is such a one, as holds an Error against Faith with Obstinacy: Verily a monstrous difference between these definitions. To oppose and hold against (I hope) are all one: Faith and the common Faith of the Church, sure are not very different: pertinaciously and with Obstinacy, methinks might pass for Synonimous; and seeing the parts agree so well, methinks the Total should not be at great hostility. And for the definition of a Schismatic, if you like not mine (which yet I give you out of a Father) I pray take your own; and then show me, (If you mean to do any thing) that wheresoever there are two Societies of Christians, differing in external Communion, one of them most be of necessity either Heretical, or Schismatical in your own sense of these words. To the contrary, I have said already, (and say it now again, that you may not forget it) the Roman and the Asian Churches in Victor's time, the Roman and the African in S. Stephen's time differed in external Communion; and yet neither of them was Heretical; For they did not oppose pertinaciously the common Faith of the Church: Neither of them was Schismatical; for they did not separate (never making mention of the cause at all) but were separated by the Roman Church, and that upon some cause, though it were not sufficient.  
Ad §. 14. The Donatist did so (as Facundus Hermianensis testifies:) but you are abused, I believe, with not distinguishing between these two— They did pretend, that the Church required of them some unlawful thing among the conditions of her Communion: and they did pretend, that it was unlawful for them to communicate with the Church. This I confess they did pretend; but it was in regard of some Persons in the Church, with whom they thought it unlawful to communicate: But the former they did not pretend, (I mean while they continued mere Schismatics,) viz. That there was any Error in the Church, or impiety in her public service of God: And this was my meaning in saying,— A Schismatic is he, which separates from the Church without pretence of Error, or unlawfulness in the conditions of her Communion: Yet if I had left out the term unlawfulness, the definition had been better, and not obnoxious to this Cavillation; and so I did in the second Paper which I sent you for your direction; which if you had dealt candidly, you should have taken notice of.  
Ad §. 15. I have replied (as I think) fully to every part and particle of your Argument. Neither was the History of S. Cyprians and S. Augustine's opposition to the Church of Rome an excursion or diversion; but a clear demonstation of the contradictory of your conclusion: (viz. That the Roman Church, etc. and therefore her judgement not to be rested upon) For an answer hereto I shall be very importunate with you; and therefore, if you desire to avoid trouble, I pray come out of my debt as soon as may be.  
If it be said, that my Argument is not contradictory to your conclusion; because it shows only, that the Roman Church with her adherents was not in S. Cyprians or S. Augustine's time the Catholic Church, 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 Luther's 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 joined in Communion with the Church and Bishop of Rome; then did it always agree to the Church; and therefore in S. Cyprians and S. Augustine's time, as well as at Luhers ●ising: if it were not always, particularly not in S. Cyprians time, of the Essence or necessary to the Church to be so; than it was impossible the Church should acquire this Essence, or this property afterwards, and therefore impossible it should have it at the time of Luther's rising. Necessarium est, quod non aliquando inest, aliquando not inest, alicui inest, alicui non inest; sed quod semper & o●ni. Arist. Post. Analyt.  
Again, every Sophister knows, that of Particulars nothing can be concluded; and therefore he that will show, that the Church of Rome and the adherents of it was the Catholic Church at Luther's rising; He must argue thus;— It was always so, therefore then ●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 Catholic Church at S. Cyprians time, and was at Luther's 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 God's account a part of the Catholic (which is the thing we speak of:) than I hope Mr. Lewgars' Argument f●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 Catholic Church at Luthers ●ising:  
No one Church can be named to be the Catholic Church, but the Roman:  
Therefore the Roman Church was the Catholic at Luther's 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 showing divers instances, wherein divers divided Communions have made up the Catholic 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 Catholic Church, pag. 84. S. Athanasius being excommunicated (though by the 
a How by the whole Church, when himself was part of it, and communicated still with divers other parts of it?  whole Church) yet might remain a member of Christ's body, (not visible, for that is impossible, 
b What not to them who know and believe him to be unjustly Excommunicated?  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 alleged 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 itself (as that twice two are four; that every whole is greater than a part of itself) or unless he have some certain reason (at least some supposed certain reason) and infallible guide for his belief thereof.  
The Doctrines 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 ●●●ld his belief of them.  
There is no other ground for a man's belief of them, especially in many points, but only an assurance of the Infallibility of the Church of Rome.  
Now this point of that Church's Infallibility, is not evident of itself; for than no man could choose 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 show men the Sun. Thirdly, it were impossible to bring any proof of it, seeing nothing can be more evident, than that which of itself 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 itself.  
Neither is there any other certain ground for any man's belief of it: or if there be, I desire it may be produced, as who am ready and most willing to submit my judgement to it, fully persuaded 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 alleged, 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, than all is not finally resolved into, and built upon that Church's Authority; and this answer than I hope a Protestant may have leave to make use of, when he is put to that perilous 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 justify 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 Catholic Church; I demand, whether by the Catholic Church be meant that only that is in subordination to the Bishop of Rome, or any other with that, or besides that. I● any other, it is false and impudent to pretend that they so understand the Fathers or Scriptures: If that only, than 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 herself 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 doctrine from Scripture, but yet they affirm it with a full consent, as a matter of Tradition. I reply. 1. T●at this pretence also is false, and that upon trial it will not appear to have any colour of probability to any who remembers, that it is the present Roman Church, and not the Catholic Church whose infallibility is here disputed. 2. I demand, who shall be judge, whether the Fathers do indeed affirm this or no: If reason, than again we are falle● 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 Abyssines or Protestants, or any other but the Roman, it is evident they deny it. If the Church of Rome, than 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 either 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 itself infallible, and the guide of all other Churches, would they but take upon them to be so. For every one might say for itself; 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 Doctrine: 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 endeavours 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 Heresy, 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 life unto it; such as following S. Paul's direction, did first try all things deliberately, and then chose what in their conscience they thought was best: or they were such as for want of the love of the truth, God suffered to fall into strong delusions, to fall to a false Religion, because they brought not forth the fruits of the true; to make shipwreck of their faith, because they had cast away a good conscience; to have their Eyes blinded, and their light taken away, because they made not the right use of it, but were idle and unprofitable, and set their hearts upon vanity, and had only a form of Religion, but denied the effect of it in their lives and conversation; in a word, such as were betrayed to their Error, and kept for ever in it, either by negligence in seeking the Truth, or unwillingness to find it, or by some other voluntary sin: And for these I dare not flatter them with hope of pardon; but let me tell you, it is not the error of the understanding, but the sin of their will that truly and properly damns them: But for the former I am confident, that nothing is more contumelious to the goodness of God, than to think that he will damn any such; for he should damn men that truly love him, and desire to serve him, for doing that which all things considered, was impossible for them not to do.  
Obj. If it is said, that pride of their own understanding made them not submit to the Church of Rome, and to her guidance, and that for this, being a voluntary sin, they may be justly damned.  
Ans. I answer, that whether the Church of Rome be the guide of all men is the Question, and therefore not to be begged but proved: that the man we speak of is very willing to follow this Guide, could he find any good ground to believe it is his Guide; and therefore the reason he follows her not, is not pride but ignorance: that as it is humility to obey those whom God hath set over us, so it is credulity to follow every one that will take upon him to lead us: that if the blind lead the blind, not only the leader but the follower shall perish: Lastly, that the present Church of Rome pretends very little and indeed nothing of moment, to get the office of being Head and Guide of the Church, which Antichrist when he cometh, may not and will not make use of, for the very same end and purpose; and therefore he had reason, not to be too sudden and precipitate, in committing himself to the conduct of the Pope, for fear of mistaking Antichrist for the Vicar of Christ.  
Obj. But in all Commonwealths, it is necessary there should be not only a Law for men to live by, but also a living and speaking Judge to decide their differences arising about the various Interpretations of the Law, and otherwise Controversies would be endless: therefore if such a judge be so necessary in civil affairs, for the procuring and preserving our temporal peace and happiness; how much more necessary is he, for the deciding of those Controversies, that concern the saving and damning of our souls for ever.  
Ans. Hereunto I answer, 1. That if it were as evident and certain that God hath appointed the Pope or Church of Rome to be the Guide of Faith, and Judge of Controversies, as that the King hath appointed such a one to be Lord Chief Justice, the having of such a Guide would be very available, for to preserve the Church in Unity, and to conduct men's souls to Heaven: but a Judge that has no better title or evidence to his place, than the Pope has to that which he pretends to, a Judge that is doubtful and justly questionable whether he be the Judge or no, is in all probability likely to produce clean contrary effects, and to be himself one of the Apples of strife, one of the greatest subjects of Controversy, and occasion of dissensions.  
And to avoid this great inconvenience, if God had intended the Pope or Church of Rome for this great Office, certainly he would have said so very plainly and very frequently; if not frequently, certainly sometimes, once at least he would have said so in express terms: but he does not say so, no not so much as once, nor any thing from whence it may be collected, with any sure or firm consequence: therefore if it be not certain, certainly it is very probab●le he never meant so.  
Again, in Civil Controversies the case can hardly be so put, that there should be any necessity that the same man should be Judge and Party: but in matters of Religion, wherein all have equal interest, every man is a party, and engaged to judge for temporal respects, this way or that way, and therefore not fit to be a Judge. But what then if he which was with so much clamour and so little reason vouched, for the Infallibility of the Roman Church, do tell you plainly, there is no living Judge on Earth appointed by God, to decide the Controversies arising amongst Christians; nor no way to determine them but Scripture. His words are express and formal, and need no other commentary but a true interpretation.  

Optatus Melevit. lib. 5. ad princip.  
Vos dicitis, Licet; nos, non Licet: inter Vestrum Licet, & nostrum non Licet, nutant & remigant animae populorum. Nemo vobis credat, nemo nobis; omnes contentiosi homines sumus. Quaerendi sunt judices: si Christiani, de utrâque parte dari non possunt: de foris quaerendus est judex. Si Paganus, non potest nosse Christiana Secreta: Si Judaeus, inimicus est Christiani Baptismatis. Ergo in terris de hac re nullum poterit reperiri judicium: de coelo quaerendus est judex. Sed ut quid pulsamus coelum, cum habeamus hic in Evangelio Testaomentum? Quia hoc loco rectè possunt terrenae coelestibus comparari; tale est, quod quivis botninum habens numerosos filios: His, quamdiu presens est, ipse imperat singulis; non est adhuc necessarium Testamentum. Sic & Christus, quamdiu praesens in terris fuit (quanivis nec modo desit) pro tempore quicquid necessarium erat, Apostolis imperavit. Sed quomodo terrenus pater cum se in confinio senserit mortis, timens ne post mortem suam rupt● pace litigent fratres, adhibitis testibus voluntatem suam de pectore morituro transfert in tabulas diù duraturas; & si fuerit inter fratres contentio nata, non itur ad tumulum, sed quaeritur Testamentum, & qui in tumulo quiescit, tacitis de tabulis loquitur vivus. Is, cujus est testamentum, in coelo est: Ergo voluntas ejus velut in Testamento sic in Evangelio inquiratur.   
That is, You say such a thing is Lawful; we say it is Unlawful: the minds of the People are doubtful and wavering between your lawful and our unlawful. Let no man believe either you or us; we are 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 jew, he is an Enemy to Christian Baptism. Therefore there is no judgement of this matter can be found on Earth. We must seek for a Judge from Heaven. But to what end do we solicit 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 Father; when he ●●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 controversy arises among the Brothers; they do not go to his Tomb, but consult his last W●ll; and thus he whilst he rests in his Grave, does speak to them in those silent Tables as if he were alive. He whose Testament we have, is in Heaven. Therefore we are to inquire 〈◊〉 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 controversy: had he known any such assisted with the Spirit of God for this purpose, it had been horrible impiety against God and the Church's peace, to say there was none such: or the Spirit of God was not able by his assistance to keep this Judge from being hindered with partiality, from seeing the Truth. Had he thought the Bishop of Rome's speaking ex Cathedra to be this Judge, now had been the time to have ●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 controversy, in Religion and civil disserences: For if the controversy be about M●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 alleged for Infallibility.]  
The Texts alleged 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 justice, 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 Jerusalem 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 judgements 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 justice and judgement, 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 veiled 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 R●me. 2. That it is certain that it is not spoken of the Church of Rome; but of the Nation of the jews, after their conversion, as is apparent from that which follows. Zion shall be redeeme● with judgement, and her converts with righteousness. 3. That it is no way certain, that whatsoever Society may be called, the City of righteousness, the faithful City, m●st be infallible in all her Doctrine: with a great deal more probability, it might challenge from hence the privilege of being Impeccable; which yet Roman Catholics 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 Jerusalem; 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 jacob, the words are: And the Rede●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, etc. Now if the Church of Rome be Zion and they that turn from iniquity in jacob, they may have Title to this Covenant; if not they must forbear, and leave it to the jews 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 Margin 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 Jerusalem shall never cease importuning God, for the sending of the Messias: To this purpose speaks the Prophet in ver. 1. For Zions' sake I will not hold my peace, and for Hierusalems' sake I well not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness: And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness. But the words following these that are objected, make it most evident, which are, ye that make mention of the Lord keep not silence, and give him no rest, till he establish and till he make Jerusalem a praise in the Earth.  
The 5th place had they set down entirely, for very shame they could not have urged it for the Infallibility of the Roman Church. The words are, Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new Covenant with the House of Israel, and with the House of Judah; not according to the Covenant which I made with their Fathers— But this shall be the Covenant that I will make with the House of Israel— After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my Law in their inward parts and write it in their Hearts, and I will be their God and they shall be my People; and they shall teach no more every man his Neighbour and every man his Brother, saying, know the Lord; for they shall all know me from the least of them to the greatest of them, saith the lord And now I have transcribed the place, I think it superfluous to make any other answer.  
The same Answer and no other will I make also to the 6th place. The words are. Therefore say unto the House of Israel; thus saith the Lord God, I do not this for your sakes O House of Israel, but for my holy names sake, ver. 22. I will take you from among the Heathen, and gather you out of all Countries, and will bring you into your own Land, v. 24. Then will I sprinkle clean Water upon you, ver. 25. A new heart also will I give you, ver. 26. And I will put my Spirit in you and cause you to walk in my Statutes, and ye shall keep my judgements and do them, ver. 27. And ye shall dwell in the Land that I gave to your Fathers: I will also save you from all your uncleannesses, and I will call for the Corn and will increase it, and lay no Famine upon you. And the desolate Land shall be tilled, ver. 34. And they shall say, this Land that was desolate, is become like the Garden of Eden.  
The 7th place also carries its answer in its forehead: Thus saith the Lord God, behold I will take the Children of Israel from among the Heathen whether they be gone; and I will make them one Nation in the Land upon the mountains of Israel: and one King shall be King to them all, etc. to the end of the Chapter. In all which place, he that can find a Syllable of the Church of Rome, he must have better eyes than I have.  
The next (8th) place would be very pregnant for the Church of Rome, if of courtesy we would grant, that whatsoever is promised to Israel, is intended to them. As you may see in the place at large, from ver. 17. to the end of the Chapter.  
The 9th and last place out of the Canticles, had it been urged by a Protestant; it would have been thought a sufficient Answer to have said, That Mystical Texts are not fit to argue upon; but if this will not serve, than we answer. 1. That there is no mention nor intimation of the Church of Rome. 2. That it proves either too much or nothing at all: that is, that the Roman Church is impeccable, as well as infallible; unless we will say that Errors only are Spots, and impieties are not.  

Out of the New Testament they allege these Texts.  
Matth. 16. 18. Upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.  
But this is said of the Catholic, not of the Roman Church: nor can it ever be proved that the Church in Communion with the See of Rome is the Catholic Church. Secondly, it says something for the perpetuity of the Church, but not for the Infallibility of it: unless you will take for granted what can never be proved, That a Church that teaches any Erroneous Doctrine, is a Church no longer; which is all one, as if you should say, a man that has the Stone, or Gout, or any other Disease, is not a man.   

They urge, Matth. 28. 19, 20.  
And I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the World.  
And here also if we will grant, 1. That by you, is meant you and only you of the Church of Rome. 2. That our Saviour has here obliged himself to assist, not only Suffici●nter, but also irresistibiliter, not only to preserve in the Church a light of sufficient direction, as he provided a Star for the Wise Men, and a Pillar of Fire and a cloud for the conduct of the Israelites; but also compel or at least necessitate them to follow it. 3. That he will be with them, not only to keep them from all damnable and destructive Errors, but absolutely form all erroneous Doctrines: If these things I say were granted, some good might be done. But certainly these are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, too great favours to be looked for by strangers: And yet if all this be granted, we should run into this inconvenience on the other side; that if the promise be absolute, not only the whole Church of Rome; not only a general Council; not the Pope alone; but every Bishop, every Priest, every one who is sent by Christ to Baptise and Preach the Gospel, might claim this assistance by virtue of Christ's words, and consequently Infallibility.   

They urge, Matth. 18. 17.  
If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the Heathen and the Publican. And here again the Church must be the Church of Rome, or we are as far to seek as ever. But what if by it be meant, which is most evident out of the place, every particular Church of Christians, whereunto any one Christian injured by another, may address himself for remedy. Certainly whosoever reads the place without prejudice, I am confident that he shall not deny, but that the sense of the Words is. That if any Christian injure another, and being first admonished of it by him in private; then by him before two or three Witnesses; Lastly, by the Church he lives in; and yet still proceeds on obstinately in doing injury to his Brother, he is to be esteemed as a Heathen, or a Publican: and then if Infallibility may be concluded, what a multitude of Infallible Churches shall we have?   

They urge, Matth. 18. 20.  
Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.  
But this also either shoots short, or over; either proves nothing, or too much: Either it proves not the Infallibility of the whole Church, or it proves the Infallibility of every part of it: Either not the Infallibility of General Councils, or the infallibility of particular Councils; for there two or three at least are assembled in Christ's name. But then besides these two or three for aught 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, unless; 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, bu● 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, e●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 sense 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 Heretics.  
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 F●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 understood 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 King's 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 employed, 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 Catholics 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, expressly and formally. As many men honour the King's 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 choose the Virgin Mary for the object of their worship, rather than any other Woman or any other Creature, merely 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 the Blessed Virgin the final object of their worship, but worship her not for her own sake, but for her relation unto Christ: Epiphanius surely did ill to charge the Collyridians' with Heresy, having nothing to impute to them, but only that he was informed, that they offered a Cake to the honour of the Blessed Virgin, which honour yet they might, and without question did give unto her for her relation unto Christ, and so made her not the last object and term of their worship: and from hence it is evident, that he conceived the very action itself, substantially and intrinsically malicious, i. e. he believed it a sin that they offered to her at all: and so by their action put her in the place of God by giving unto her this worship proper to God; and not that they terminated their action finally in her, or did i● very deed think her to be a God, and not a Creature.  
But to speak properly, you say, nothing is offered to her or to her honour, but to God in honour of the Blessed Virgin.  
Belike than if through Henly I go from hence to London, I may not be said properly to go to Henly, but only to London: or if through Water I see the Sand, I may not be properly said to see the Water, but only the Sa●d. Away with such shifting Sophistry; either leave your practice of offering to Saints if it be naught, or colour it not over with such empty distinctions if it be good: Christ saith to his Apostles in regard of their relation to him, He that heareth you heareth me, and he that despiseth you despiseth ●●e: and yet who doubts, but they that heard the Apostles did properly hear them, and they that despised them did properly despise them, though their action stayed not in them, but reached up to Heaven and to Christ himself. You pray to Saints and Angels, though you do not terminate your prayers in them; and yet I doubt not but your prayers to Saints, may be as properly called prayers, as those you make to God himself. For though these be of a more excellent nature than they, yet do they agree in the general nature, that they are both prayers. As though a Man be a more excellent living creature than a ho●se, yet he agrees with him in this, that both are living creatures. But if nothing be properly offered to her or to her honour, why do you in your sixth Answer say, you may offer any thing to the Virgin Mary, by way of presents and gifts by the doctrine of the Roman Church? Certainly he that offers by way of gift or present, offers as properly as he that offers ●y way of sacrifice; as a horse is as properly a living creature as a Man.  
But if it were so as ●ou say (which is most false) that you did not properly offer to the Blessed Virgin, but to God in honour of her; yet in my judgement, this would not qualify or mend the matter but make it worse. For first, who taught you, that in the time of the Gospel (after the accomplishment of the prediction, sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not but a body hast thou prepared me: after this Interpretation of it in the Epistle to the Hebrews, He taketh away the first that he may establish the second) that it is still lawful to offer Tapers or Incense to God. Secondly, in my understanding, to offer to God in honour of the Virgin, is more derogatory from God's honour, than to offer to her in the honour of God. For this is in my apprehension to subordinate God to her, to make her the terminating and final object of the action; to make God the way and her the end, and by and through God to convey the worship unto her.  
But for incense, you say, it is a soul slander, that it is offered any way to the Blessed Virgin.  
To this I answer, that your imputing slander to me, is itself a slander: For●. In your 5th Answer, you have given a clear intimation that you have never been out of England: so that you cannot certainly know, what is the practice of your Church in this point beyond Sea. And he that lives amongst you, and has but half an Eye open and free from prejudice, cannot but see, that the Roman Religion is much more exorbitant in the general practice of it, than it is in the Doctrine published in Books of Controversy; where it is delivered with much caution and moderation, nay cunning and dissimulation that it may be the fitter to win and engage Proselytes; who being once ensnared, though they be afterwards startled with strange and unlookt-for practices, yet a hundred to one, but they will rather stifle their Conscience, and dash all scruples against the pretended Rock of their Church●s Infallibility, and blindly follow those guides, to whose Conduct they have unadvisedly committed themselves, than come off again with the shame of being reputed weak and inconstant: so terrible an Idol is this vain nothing, the opinion and censure of foolish men.  
But to return again to you, I say your ignorance of the practice of the Roman Church beyond the Seas, does plainly convince that you have rashly and therefore slanderously charged me with the Crime of slander. As for your reason you add, consider it again, and you will see it is worth nothing. For what if incensing in time of Mass, be understood by all sorts of People to be directed to God alone (which yet you cannot possibly know) yet this I hope hinders not, but that in Processions, you may Incense the Images of the Saints, and consequently (according to your Doctrine) do this Honour to the Saints themselves represented by the Images. I myself (unless I am very much mistaken) was present when this very thing was done to the Picture of Saint Benet or Saint Gregory in the Cloister of Saint Vedastus in the Monastery in Douai.  
But indeed what a ridiculous inconsequence is it, to think that Wax Tapers may lawfully be offered to the Saints and incense may not: or if Incense may not, which you seem to disclaim as impious, that Wax Tapers may.  
4. Demand. Whether the Collyridians' were not condemned as Heretics by the Ancient Church. First, for offering a Cake upon a Anniversary Feast to the Blessed V●rgin. Secondly for that they did this not being Priests.  
Answ. The Collyridians' were condemned as Heretics for two things. First, for employing Women in the place and Office of Priests to offer a Cake (not in the nature of a gift or present,) but in the nature of a 
a Vt in nomen Virginis Collyridem quandam Sacrificarent. Epiph. haer. 78. Offerunt panem in nomen Mariae, omnes autem pane participa●t—  Sacrifice, which was never lawful for any but 
b De● enim ab aeterno nulla tenus mulier Sacrisicavit. Idem haeres. 79.  men, and those 
c Diaconissarum ordo est in Ecclesia, sed non ad Sacrificandum, nam neque Diaconis conc●editum est, ut aliquod m●sterium persiciant. Id. Ibid.  consecrated.  
Secondly, for offering this 
a vid. sup. littera (a)  Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the name of the Blessed Virgin, i. e. unto her, herself directly and terminatively, as an act of 
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, etc. Sat in honore Maria; Pater & Filius & Spiritus S. adoretur, Mariam nemo adoret. Deo debetur hoc mysterium Id. Ibid.  Divine Worship and adoration, due unto her, as unto a Sovereign 
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.  Power and Deity.  
Reply. It seems then these Women might offer this Cake to the honour and name of the Virgin Mary, 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 Saint's 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 th● word which I have given it, yet doth he not any where say expressly, That they did Sacrifice, or offer it as a Sacrifice, but only and barely that they did ●ffer it: not using (as good fortune would have it) any word which doth of necessity and properly signify to Sacrifice: and therefore you are fain to help the Dice, and alter every place for your advantage. Epiphanius says not, as you translate him, ut in nomen Virginis Collyridem quendam Sacrifice●t; nor Sacrificantes osserunt, as Petavius: but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which ma● as well signify, to cons●●●rate or offer, as to Sacrifice, if there be any difference between them. So the next place, offerunt panem i● nomen Mariae, omnes autem pane partic●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 imagine; 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 thi●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 th● 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, n●n tamen ad sacerdotii functionem, aut ullam administrationem institutus est. And now though by an usual Synecdoche the name of the Genus be given to the Species, and therefore had a man fairly and candidly translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Sa●rifico, I should not have much condemned him, yet to do it when the Question is, whether this their 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, herself, 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 Heresy 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 aught we can see hitherto, might condemn the Collyridians', for that knowing the Blessed Virgin not to be God, they yet worshipped 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, etc.  
I answer that the etc. 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 months'. 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 thought Creatures high in God's favour capable of adoration.  
The next place— Non ut adoretur Virgo, nec ut deum hanc efficeret— tells us that Christ took Flesh of the Virgin, not that she should be adored, nor to make her God: And this you think imports, that they conceive her God. Yet if I should, condemning your Practice of offering Tapers to her, use the same Words and say,— Christ took Flesh of the Virgin, not that she should be adored, or to make her God: You would not yet conceive that I charged you with the Heresy of believing her God, but only of the impiety of giving to her that worship which was peculiar to God: and why then might not Epiphanius, having like occasion, use the same words to the Collyridians' upon the same, and no other ground.  
The next place— Mariam nemo adoret Deo debetur hoc mysterium,— is so far from proving your imagination, that it strongly confirms my assertion, that Epiphanius did not impute to the Collyridians' the opinion, that the Virgin Mary was God. If I should say to a Papist, the Blessed Virgin is not to be worshipped with the worship of Hyperdaulia, because such worship is due only to the Mother of God, would they not say I were mad and argued against myself, for that they believed she was the Mother of God. By like reason, if Epiphanius knew, that the Collyridians' believed the Virgin Mary to be God, he reasoned as wildly against himself in saying— Mariam nemo adoret, Deo debetur hoc mysterium— For it is very true (might they have said) this service is due to God alone, but you know our Belief and Profession that she is God, and therefore by your own rule capable of this worship.  
The next place is— Pro Deo hanc introducere studuerunt. And may not this be justly said to any man, who to any thing besides God, gives that worship which is proper and peculiar unto God? What if to man that should teach— The Pope had power to dispense with men for the keeping of God's Laws— I should say, pro Deo Papam introducis. Must I of necessity mean that that man did verily believe the Pope not a man but a Sovereign Power and Deity? S. Paul tells us that Covetousness is Idolatry; he tells us of some, whose God is their Belly; is it therefore consequent, that every covetous man doth indeed believe his Gold, and every Glutton his Belly, to be indeed a Sovereign Power and Deity? Away with such fopperies. Whosoever loves, or fears, or trusts in any thing more than God, may yet be justly said to make that his God, and whosoever should worship any Creature with that external worship which God has appropriated to himself, might justly be said to bring in that Creature for God. S. Paul tells us of some, who in words professed God, yet fact is negabant, in their deeds deny him: so these on the contrary, may in their words deny this Creature to be God, and in their Hearts not think it so, yet seeing their actions to it are as if it were God, they may be justly charged, that with their deeds they make this Creature God.  
Qui fingit Sacros ex auro & marmore vultus,  
Non facit ille Deos, qui colit ille facit.  
What if upon consideration of the strangely enormous worship which Papists give to the Virgin Mary (swearing by her name, making Vows unto her, offering Tapers to her Honour, attributing a kind of Communicated omniscience and almost omnipotence to her, as I can easily make good they do, partly out of the Offices of their Church, partly out of private men's Works, but set out with Licence and approbation) what I say, if upon this consideration I should affirm, pro Deo ipsam introducere conantur. Would it therefore be consequent, that I must impute this Blasphemy to them, that they believed and taught her to be a Sovereign Power and Deity? I trow not. And therefore Epiphanius might say the same of the Collyridians' considering their Action, without any intent of imputing to them any such opinion. This Petavius sure saw well enough, and therefore (as I shall hereafter demonstrate to the Eye) to countenance his Marginal Annotation, Quidam Mariam Deum esse credider●nt, he cunningly abuses and perverts Epiphanius his Text with false Translation.— Sic pugnat, Sic est metuendus Ulysses.— The next place is, revera sanc●um erat Mar●ae corpus non tamen Deus. (The Body of Mary was truly holy, but not a God.) As much to the purpose as— Tityre tu patulae— for what if Epiphanius say, she is not God, and therefore not to be adored, does it therefore follow that the Collyridians' believed she was a God? He that knows Logic or sense, cannot but know, that he that will confute an Adversaries conclusion, must choose such principles to do it, to which his Adversary consents, and out of that which he grants prove that which he denies; or if his first propositions be not agreed to by his Adversary, he must prove them in the end by such as are agreed to; or else he does nothing. And therefore seeing Epiphanius thinks it sufficient for the convincing of the Collyridians', of the unlawfulness of the practice, to say, she was not God: it is evident, that so far was he from imputing to them the belief that she was God, that he seems rather to take the contrary for a principle agreed upon between them, which it was sufficient to say and superfluous to prove. This answer I thought good to make, while I conceived that here Epiphanius had denied the Person of the Virgin Mary to be God; but after upon better consideration I sound that Petavius had abused me with adding to Epiphanius of his own— Illa fuit— and that Epiphanius says not here, non tamen Deus (she was not God) of her Person, but of her Body; and as yet I do not understand that you impute to the Collyridians' the belief, that her Body was God.  
The next place— Mulierem eam appellavit, etc.— says no more but this; that our Saviour calls the Blessed Virgin Woman, that no man might think her any thing more than a Woman, as it were prophetically refuting the Schisms and Heresies which would be in the World: lest some out of excess of admiration of her, might fall into the Dotage of this Heresy. Thus far Epiphanius: but then the Question will be, what was this Heresy. You say the belief that she was God. I say, not that she was God, but that they might lawfully offer to her. And as I deny not but it follows, she is a Woman, therefore not a God; so I think you will grant it follows as justly, she is a Woman, therefore not to be adored with offerings. And therefore seeing the words lie indifferently between us, and are not expressly and especially here applied, for the refutation of that Heresy which you pretend they were guilty of, I see no reason why Epiphanius might not as well intent them for that purpose which I conceive, as for that which you conceive.  
The last place alleged tells us, that she was begotten and Born as other Men and Women are. Which if the Collyridians' had thought her God, Eternal and absolutely without beginning, should not have been barely said but proved, as being in effect the very point in question; and therefore seeing Epiphanius contents himself with saying so without proof, it is evident he never thought they would make difficulty to grant it, and consequently that they did not believe her to be God Eternal.  
But then again, if the Rule be good which part of your proofs depend upon, That whatever Epiphanius denies in this discourse, that the Collyridians' held (for upon that ground from— Non & Deum hanc efficeret: & non tamen Deus, you conclude they believed her God) If I say this Rule be good, than you should be constant to it, and now that he says,— Non tamen aliter genita est praeter hominum naturam, (she was not begotten in a different way from other men) you should infer, that they believed not that she was God, but that she was otherwise Born and Begotten than the ordinary sort of Men. And so whereas he says before— Non tamen corpus de caelo tulit— (her Body was not from Heaven) you should infer, that they believed her Body came from Heaven. And again from those— Sanctum erat Mariae corpus non tamen Deus— you should collect that they though not only her person, but her Body to be God: or if these be wild and weak deductions, than you must acknowledge that I have done yours some favour in vouchsafing them a particular answer.  
5. Demand. Whether in the Church of Roman, it be not an approved and perpetually practised worship of the Blessed Virgin, that Incense (which was never anciently offered unto any, either by jews or Gentiles, but to the true, or to a supposed true God) and Tapers and divers other oblations, should be offered to her honour?  
Answ. A practice of the Church of Rome, and approved too by those that practise it, belongs not to her, except it be a practice of the Church and approved by her. What her practice is abroad I know not; here at home I see no such practice; nor do I know any approbation of it, in any of her public declarations: But this I know, that there is nothing in it unlawful or savouring of the Collyridian Superstition, to offer Wax, Tapers or any other thing at the Memories of the Blessed Virgin or any other Canonised Saint, either as means to procure their intercession, by these outward Signs of the Honour and Devotion which they bear to them (as of Old we find by S. Austin 
a Ad aquas ●bilotanas, Episcopo offerente Projecte, re●quias martyris gloriosiss●mi Stephani, ad ejus memoriam veniebat magne multitudinis concursus & cocursus. Ibi caeca mulier, ut ad episcopum portantem pignora Sacra duceretur, ora●it: Flores qu●● ferebat dedit; recepit, oculis admovit, protenus vidit. August. de Civit. Dei. l. 22. c. 8. abscedens aliquid de Alta●i (S. Stephani) storum quod ●●currit, tu●it. Idem. Ibid. etc.  they did use to adorn their Tombs with Flowers) or as monuments of their thankfulness for some benefits received by their Intercession, as Theodoret 
b Theodoretus de curandis affect Graec. l. 8.  tells us of Eyes and Ears and Ha●ds, some of Gold and some of Silver (hung up in the Chapels of the Saints) that had been presented as oblations by those that had recovered health in those Members, according to their Vows made to that purpose in time of Sickness.  
Reply. I do not deny, but a practice may be tolerated in a Church, and not approved. As the Public Stews are in Italy, and Usury in England: But it is one thing to Tolerate with condemnation, another to Tolerate without condemnation, nay with condemnation of those that should oppose or condemn it. And such I doubt not upon examination, you may find is this practice, general in the Church of Rome, offering Tapers to the Saints and for their honour. I say, not only to God, at the Memories of the Saints, as you would mince the matter, which yet were a groundless superstition, (God having appointed no such Sacrifice to be offered to him under the Gospel) but to the Saints themselves and to their honour, prove this lawful for either of those purposes you mention, either to procure their intercession or as Monuments of thankfulness for benefits obtained by it, and then you shall do something. Otherwise you will but trifle as now you have done: For instead of telling us what may be done de jure, you tell us what of Old has been done de facto. As if ab antiquo, and a principio were all one; or as if the Church (as we pretend) being subject to corruption, part of this corruption might not possibly have come in S. Augustine's or Theodoret's time; yet this I say not, as if I would decline the Trial of this cause by S. Austin or Theodoret; but because I am sure you will not be Tried by the Fathers, no not the consent of Fathers in all things: and therefore there is no reason nor equity in the World, that you should serve yourselves with their Authority in any thing.  
But now what is it, which was done in S. Augustine's time, that may justify the Practice of the Roman Church? was there then any approved offering of Wax, Tapers and Incense, to the Queen of Heaven or any other Saint? nile horum: you neither do nor can produce any thing out of S. Austin to this purpose. But what then is it? Why forsooth, they were used to adorn their Tombs: Egregiam verò laudem & spolia ampla; of Old in S. Augustine's time they were used to adorn their Tombs with Flowers, therefore we may offer Tapers to them. Truly an excellent Enthymeme, but I fear the concealed proposition which should make it a Syllogism, hides its head for shame and dares not appear: yet we will for once make bold to draw it forth into light, that you may look upon it and tell us how you like it. This therefore it is.  
Whose soever Tombs we adorn, to them and to their honour we may offer Wax Tapers.  
Consider it I pray you, and if you approve it, then approve also of offering Tapers not only to Canonize Saints, but to all Christians that may have Monuments in Churches. For all their Tombs may be adorned, with more precious and lasting Ornaments that Flowers; yet if you had proved but this only, that in S. Augustine's time, they adorned the Saints Tombs with Flowers by these outward signs to procure their Intercession; this, though not much to the purpose, had been not absolutely to delude us. But your quoted places prove not so much as this; and yet I believe you quoted the best you could find. Nay they prove not they did adorn their Tombs with Flowers at all, much less that they did it for your pretended purpose; such fools you think to deal with, that will take any thing for any thing. Your first place, I say, proves it not, unless out of mere courtesy we understand by ferebat, she brought to adorn S. Stephens Tomb.  
The Second proves it not, unless we give you leave after Altari (without warrant from S. Austin) to put in, S. Stephani, whereas I am yet to seek for any place in S. Austin, where he calls any Altar, the Altar of such or such a Saint, which yet I think they forbore not for the unlawfulness, but for fear of misconstruction.  
Then for Theodoret, he tells us indeed of Vows made, of monuments of thankfulness dedicated, for benefits obtained by the intercession of the Martyrs. But here also I fear your Conscience tells you, that you abuse us and hide yourself in ambiguities. For to whom does Theodoret say these Vows were made? to whom were these monuments of thankfulness dedicated? What, to the Author? or Procures of the received favours? To God, or to the Martyrs? If to the Martyrs, that had been something towards, though not home to your purpose: For there is a a wide difference between offering of a Creature by way of Consumption (as was never lawfully done but to God alone, as a profession that he is the Lord of the Creature) and erecting a permanent Monument to a Saints honour; which I doubt not but it may lawfully be done to a living Saint, much more to the memory of a Martyr. But Theodoret in the place, hath not so much as this: Nay it is evident that these gifts he speaks of, were both Vowed and paid to God himself. His words are— Piè precatos ea consequi, etc.— that they which pray piously, obtain the things which they desire, they paying of their Vowed presents in the sign of their recovered health, doth abundantly testify. For their Lord accepts most graciously these presents how mean so ever.  
6. Demand. Whether according to the Doctrine of the Roman Church, this may not be done lawfully by Women and Children, and men that are not Priests?  
Answ. They may offer any thing by way of gifts and presents, by the Doctrine of the Roman Church; But it is contrary to the Roman Doctrine, for any other than Priests, to offer any thing by way of Sacrifice, as the Collyridians' did.  
Reply. Aristotle says most truly, that true Definitions (he means I think of the terms of the conclusion to be demonstrated) are the best principles of Science: and therefore want of them, must needs be a cause of Error and confusion in any discourse. Let me therefore here request you to set down what is a Sacrifice, and how distinguished from an oblation by way of gift or present, and you will quickly see, that if the Collyridians' offering a Cake to the Blessed Virgin were indeed a Sacrifice, your offering a Taper to her, must likewise be so. For a Sacrifice is nothing else (for aught I know) but the oblation of any Creature by way of Consumption, to the honour of that, whatsoever it is, to which it is offered. For if you include in the definition, that this offering must be intended to the highest Lord of all: So is, as you pretend, your offering of Tapers to the Blessed Virgin, intended to God finally, though not immediately. If you say it must be directed immediately to him; and is, not only no lawful Sacrifice, but simply no Sacrifice unless it be so: I say you may as well require to the essence of a Sacrifice, that it be offered by a Priest, and from thence conclude, because the Collyridians' were, you say, no Priests, their offering was no Sacrifice. For the object of the Action is as extrinsical to the essence of it, as the efficient; And therefore if the defect of a due and legitimate Offerer, cannot hinder but that an offering may be a true Sacrifice, neither will the want of a due and lawful object be any hindrance but still it may be so. Secondly, I say, this is to confound the essence of things with the lawful use of them; in effect as if you should say, that a Knife, if misemployed, were a Knife no longer. Thirdly, it is to make it not unlawful, to offer Incense (which yet you seem somewhat scrupulous of) or Burnt-offerings to the Virgin Mary, or the Saints, or even to living Men, provided you know and believe and profess them to be Men and not Gods. For this once supposed, these offerings will be no longer Sacrifices, and to offer to Creatures offerings that are not Sacrifices, you say, by the Doctrine of the Roman Church is lawful: It is lastly, to deny (which is most ridiculous) that the Pagans did indeed Sacrifice to any of their inferior Gods.  
7. Demand. If it be said, that this worship which they give to the Blessed Virgin is not that of Latria, but that of Dulia or Hyperdulia, for that they do not esteem her God: or if it be said, that their worship to her is not finally terminated neither, but given her for her relation to Christ. I demand, whether as it is, in S. Paul's judgement, a great crime for him that knows God, not to worship him as God, so it be not as great a crime, for him that knows her not to be God, yet to worship her (as if she were God) with the worship which is proper and hath been always appropriated to God alone, such is the worship of oblations?  
Answ. The worship of oblations, as worship is taken largely for honour, and oblations for a gift or present, was never appropriate to God alone; take worship and oblations in any higher sense, and so it is not allowed in the Church of Rome.  
Reply. The oblation of things by way of Consumption, is the worship I spoke of; this is a higher matter, than that of gifts and presents, and this is allowed in the Church of Rome, to be employed on, and directed into, (though not terminated in) the Virgin Mary and other Saints.  
8. Demand. Whether any thing can be said for the justifying the Doctrine and practice of the Roman Church in this matter, which might not also have been as justly pretended, for the justification of the Collyridians' in their opinion and practice; seeing it was never imputed to them, that they accounted the Blessed Virgin God, or that they believed in more Gods than one. And seeing their choosing her out, rather than any other Woman or any other Creature for the object of their Devotion, shows plainly, that they gave it her for her Relation to Christ?  
Answ. The Collyridians' could not say this, as appears by what has been said before: As it is a most shameless slander upon God's Church, and such as (without repentance) will lie heavy upon his Soul that uttered it, that the Collyridians' might as justly and truly have said all this for themselves as Papists for themselves.  
Reply. To this I reply four things. 1. That to my last and most convincing reason, you have answered (as much as you could I believe, but yet you have answered) nothing; and I am well content you should do so; for where nothing is to be had, the King himself must lose his right. 2. That if I had thought or spoke better of the Collyridians' than they deserved, yet I cannot see how this had been to slander the Church of Rome. 3. That I did not positively affirm, that the Collyridians' might do so, but desired only it might be inquired into and examined, whether for the reasons alleged they might not do so. 4. And lastly, upon a thorough examination of the matter, I do now affirm, what before I did not, that the Collyridians' for aught 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 Son's 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 Mortar, 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' Catholics 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 myself 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 show, and that by many very probable Arguments, that Epiphanius did not impute to them the pretended Heresy of believing the Virgin Mary God: for than that other Evasion, that their oblation is a Sacrifice and the Papists is not, together with this pretence will of itself fall to the ground.  
Now an opinion may be imputed to a man two ways: either because he holds and maintains it expressly 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 God's 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 o● Fear that possibly they might ground their practice upon that other impious opinion, and therefore out of abundant 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 Supreme Power and Deity; this being a far greater mat●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 Heresy 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. Heresy 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 Heresy, 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 worshipped 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, Immortality, Impossibility, Omnipotence, etc. And showed 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 no● 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 ●o them— Not to a Woman, no nor to a Man, but to God alone, is this mystery (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, tha● 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. ●or we believe the Blessed Virgin to whom we offer ne●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 shown: 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. ●8. prope fin. he (Petavius) sets in his Margin, 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' Greek they say just ●othing.  
Secondly, To fasten the pretended Opinion on them, he translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Novum dogma: presuming it seem● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would easily be mistaken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and therefore means 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 Virgin's 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 ●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 Heresy is, Against the Collyridians' who offer to Mary— P●tavius puts in— Sacrifice.  
Again in the same page, before D. he puts in his own illo d●gmate, and whereas Epiphanius says— in all this, he makes it, in all this Opinion.  
Pag. 1061. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he translates, ●●is womanish Opinion, whereas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though perhaps it may signify a th●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 sacr●fice to her name. So many times ●s he fain to corrupt, and translate him partially, 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, than 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 etc. How many things may be objected against this Heresy? for idle Women either worshipping the Blessed Virgin, offer unto ●●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 vieled with prejudice, that Epiphanius imputed not to the Collyridians' the Heresy 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 Catholic Doctrine, in the two following Discourses, must remember, that it does not signify 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 wondered 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 Church's 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 ●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 Doctrine of the Trinity, the Hypostatical union of two natures in the person of Christ. The procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son: the Doctrine 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, etc.  
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 Relics: 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 fly in time of Persecution: for them that serve at the Altar, to live by the Altar: to testify a truth by Oath, when a lawful Magistrate shall require it: to possess Riches, etc.  
Now is it impossible that any man should certainly believe any thing; unless either it be evident of ●t self, or he have some certain reason (at least some supposed certain reason) and infallible ground for his belief. Now the Doctrines 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 Man's 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 irreconcilable Contradictions, one whereof must of necessity be an Error.  
That the Receiving 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 irreconcilable Contradictions: Supposing only, (that which is most evident) that the Eucharist is the same thing, of the same virtue 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 irreconcilable 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 Doctrine 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 sacrilege 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 Pastor's 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 we see moved not the Ancient Church at all) she may lawfully forbid such a general, perpetual and necessary charity, certainly herein she commits a far greater error than the former. Secondly, from the Council of Trents Anathema, denounced on all that hol● the contrary, in these words. If any man say that the receiving of the Eucharist, is necessary for little children, before they come to years of discretion, let him be Anathema. Concil. Trid. Sess. 21. de communione parvulorum, Can. 4.  
Now for the Affirmative part of the Contradiction, to make it evident that that was the Doctrine of the Ancient Church; I will prove it, First, from the general practice of the Ancient Church for several Ages. Secondly, by the direct and formal Testimonies of the Fathers of those times. Thirdly, by the confession of the most learned Antiquaries of the Roman Church. My First Argument I form thus. If to communicate Infants was the general practice of the Ancient Church for many Ages; then certainly the Church then believed, that the Eucharist was necessary for them, and very available for their Spiritual benefit: But it is certain, that the Communicating of Infants was the general practice of the Church for many Ages: Therefore the Church of those times thought it necessary for them. To deny the consequence of the proposition, is to cha●ge the Church with extreme folly, wilful superstition, and perpetual profanation of the Blessed Sacrament. As for the Assumption, it is fully confirmed by Clemens Rom. Constit. Apost. l. 3. c. 20. Dionysins Areopagita de Eccles. Hi●rarch. cap. ult. S. Cyprian and a Council of African Bishops with him, Epist. 59 ad Fidum; and in his Treatise de Lapsis p. 137. Edit. Pamel. Paulinus Bishop of Nola in Italy, An. 353. in Epist. 12. ad Senem; out of Ordo Romanus, cited by Alevinus S. Bedes Scholar and Master to Charlemagne in his Book de divinis officiis cap. de Sab. Sancto Pasc. Gennadius Massiliensis de Eccles. dogmatibus c. 52. Councils. Toletanum 2. Can. 11. It continued in the Western Church, unto the days of L●wes the Debonair, witness Cardinal Perron des passages de S. Austin p. 100 Some footsteps of it remained there in the time of Hugo de S. Victore, as you may see lib. 1. de Sacram. & Coerem. cap. 20. It was the practice of the Church of the Armenians in Waldensis his time, as he relates out of Guido the Carmelite, Tom. 2. de Sacr. c. 91. de erroribus Armenorum. It is still in force in the Church of the Abyssines, witness Franc. Alvarez. Hist. Aethiop. c. 22. & Thomas a jesus de procuranda salute omnium gentium. It has continued without any interruption in the Greek Church, unto this present Age, as may be evidently gathered out of Lyranus in c. 6. john. Arcudius' lib. 1. c. 14. & lib. 3. c. 40. the concord. Eccles. Orient. & Occident. in Sacram. administratione; Card. Perron des passages de S. Austin. p. 100 where he also assures us of the Primitive Church in general, that she gave Infants the Eucharist as soon as they were baptised: and that the custom of giving this Sacrament to little Infants the Church then observed: and before p. 21. That in those Ages it was always given to Infants together with Baptism. The same is likewise acknowledged by Contzen in john 6. ver. 54. and by Thomas a jesus de proc. salute omnium gentium. So that this matter of the practice of the Ancient Church is sufficiently cleared. Seeing therefore the Ancient Church did use this Custom, and could have no other ground for it, but their belief that this Sacrament was necessary for Infants, it follows necessarily, that the Church then did believe it necessary.  
But deductions, though never so evident, are superfluous and may be set aside, where there is such abundance of direct and formal Authentical Testimonies; whereof some speak in Thesi, of the necessity of the Eucharist for all men, others in Hypothesi, of the necessity of it for Infants.  
My Second Argument, from the Testimonies of the Fathers of those times I form thus. That Doctrine, in the affirmative whereof the most eminent Fathers of the ancient Church agree, and which none of their contemporaries have opposed or condemned, aught to be taken for the Catholic Doctrine of the Church of those times.  
But the most eminent Fathers of the Ancient Church agree in the Affirmation of this Doctrine, that the Eucharist is necessary for Infants; and none of their contemporaries have opposed or condemned it. Ergo, it ought to be taken for the Catholic Doctrine of the Church of their times. The Major of this Syllogism is delivered and fully proved by Card. Perron, in his Letter to Casaubon 5. obs. and is indeed so reasonable a postulate, that none but a contentious spirit can reject it.  
For confirmation of the Minor, I will allege, first, their sentences, which in Thesi affirm the Eucharist to be generally necessary for all, and therefore for Infants: and then their Suffrages, who in Hypothesi avouch the necessity of it for Infants.  
The most pregnant Testimonies of the first rank are these: Of Iraene●s lib. 4. cont. Heres. c. 34. where he makes our Union to Christ by the Eucharist, the foundation of the hope of our resurrection, in these words. As the bread of Earth, after the Invocation of God, is now not common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two things an earthly and an heavenly: so our bodies receiving the Eucharist, are not now corruptible (for ever) but have hope of resurrection. The like he hath, lib. 5. c. 2. And hence in probability it is, that the Nicene Councils styled this Sacrament, Symbolum resurrectionis, the pledge of our Resurrection. And Ignatius Ep. ad Eph. Pharmacum Immortalitatis, the Medicine of Immortality.  
Cyril. Alex. lib. 4. in Joan. They shall never partake, nor so much as taste, the life of holiness and happiness, which receive not the Son in the mystical Benediction. Cyril. lib. 10. in Joan. c. 13. & lib. 11. c. 27. This corruptible nature of our body, could not otherwise be brought to life and immortality, unless this body of natural life were conjoined unto it. The very same things saith Gregory Nyssen. Orat. Catech. c. 37. And that they both speak of our conjunction with Christ by the Eucharist, the Antecedents and Consequents do fully manifest, and it is a thing confessed by learned Catholics.  
Cyprian de coena Domini, and Tertullian de resur. carnis, speak to the same purpose: But I have not their Books by me, and therefore cannot set down their words. S. Chrysostom, Hom. 47. in Joh▪ on these words, ●isi manducaveritis, has many pregnant and plain speeches to our purpose. As, the words here spoken are very terrible: verily, saith he, if a man eat not my flesh, and drink not my blood, he hath no life in him; for whereas they said before, this could not be done, he shows it not only not impossible, but also very necessary. And a little after; he often iterates his speech concerning the holy mysteries, showing the necessity of the thing, and that by all means it must be done. And again, what means that which he says, my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed; either that this is the true meat that saves the soul; or to confirm them in the faith of what he had spoken, that they should not think he spoke Enigmatically, or parabolically, but knew that by all means they must eat his body.  
But most clear and unanswerable is that place lib. 3. de Sacerdotio, where he saith, If a man cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven unless he be born again of water and the holy spirit; and if he which eats not the flesh of our Lord and drinks not his blood, is cast out of eternal life: And all these things cannot be done by any other, but only by those holy hands, the hands, I say of the Priest, how then without their help can any man, either avoid the fire of hell, or obtain the Crowns laid up for us.  
Theophylact. in 6. Joan. when therefore we ●ear, that unless we eat the flesh of the Son of man, we cannot have life, we must have faith without doubting in the receiving of the divine mysteries, and never inquire how: for the natural man, that is he which followeth humane, that is, natural reasons, receives not the things which are above nature and spiritual; as al●o he understands not the spiritual meat of the flesh of our Lord, which they that receive not, shall not be partakers of eternal life, as n●t receiving jesus, who is the true li●e. S. Austin de pec. mer. & Remis. c. 24. Very well do the puny Christians call Baptism nothing else but salvation; and the Sacrament of Christ's Bo●y n●thing else but Life; from whence s●●uld this be, but as I believ● from the Ancient and Apostolical Tradition, by which th●s Doctrine is implanted into the Church's 〈◊〉 Christ, that but by Baptism and the participation of the Lord● Table, not any man can attain, neither to the Kingdom of God, nor to salvation and eternal life.  
Now we are taught by the learned Cardinal; that when the Fathers speak, not as Doctors, but as witness, of the Customs of the Church of their times; and d● not say, I believe this should be so holden, or so understood, or so observed, but that the Church from one end of the earth to ●he other believes it so, or observes it so; then we no longer hold what they say, for a thing said by them, but as a thing said by the whole Church; and principally when it is in points, whereof they could not be ignorant, either because of the condition of the things, as in matters of fact; or because of the sufficiency of the persons: and in this case, we argue no more upon their words probably, as we do when they speak in the quality of particular Doctors, but we argue thereupon demonstratively.  
I subsume. But S. Austin the sufficientest pe●son which the Church of his time had, speaking of a point, wherein he could not be ignorant; says not that I believe the Eucharist to be necessary to salvation; but the Churches of Christ believe so, and have received this doctri● from Apostolical Tradition: Therefore I argue upon his words not probably, but demonstratively, that this was the Catholi●●● doctrine of the Church of his time. And thus much for the Thesis, That the Eucharist was held generally necessary for all. Now for the Hypothesis; That the Eucharist was held necessary for Infants in particular. Witnesses hereof are S. Cyprian, Pope Innocentius I. and Eusebius Emissenus, with S. Austin together with the Author of the Book entitled Hypognostica.  
Cyprian indeed does not in terms affirm it, but we have a very clear intimation of it in his Epistle to Fidus. For whereas he and a Council of Bishops together with him, had ordered, that Infants might be baptised and sacrificed, that is, communicated before the eighth day, though that were the day appointed for Circumcision by the old Law. There he sets down this as the reason of their Decree, that the mercy and grace of God, was to be denied to no man.  
Pope Innocent the first, (in Ep. ad Epis. Cone. Milev. quae est inter August. 93.) concludes against the Pelagians; that Infants could not attain eternal life without Baptism; because without Baptism they were uncapable of the Eucharist, and without the Eucharist could not have eternal life. His words are, but that which your Fraternity affirms them to Preach, that Infants without the grace of Baptism may have the rewards of eternal life, is certainly most foolish; for unless they eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood; they shall have no life in them.  
Now that this sense which I have given his words, is indeed the true sense of them, and that his judgement upon the point was as I have said; it is acknowledged by Maldonate in joan. 6. v. 54. by Binius upon the Councils Tom. 1. p. 6. 24. by Sanctesius, Repet. 6. c. 7. and it is affirmed by S. Austin who was his Contemporary, held correspondence by Letters with him, and therefore in all probability could not be ignorant of his meaning. I say he affirms it, as a matter out of Question, Epist. 106. and Cont. julian. lib. 1. c. 4. where he tells that Pelagius in denying this, did dispute contra sedis Apostolicae authoritatem; against the authority of the Sea Apostolic; and after, but if they yield to the Sea Apostolic, or rather to the Master himself and Lord of the Apostles, who says, that they shall not have life in them, unless they eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, which none may do but those that are baptised; then at length they will confess, that Infants not baptised cannot have life.  
Now I suppose no man will doubt, but the belief of the Apostolic Sea; was then (as S. Austin assures us l. 1. cont. jul. c. 4.) the belief of the Church of Rome, taking it for a particular Church: and then it will presently follow, that either other Churches do not think themselves bound in conformity of belief with the Roman Church▪ notwithstanding Irenaus his— necesse est ad hanc Eccles●iam, omnem convenire Ecclesiam: or that this was then the Doctrine of the Catholic Church. For Eusebius Emissenus I cannot quote any particular proof out of him: but his belief in this point is acknowledged by Sanctes. Repet. 6. c. 7. Likewise for S. Austin, the same Sanctesius and Binius, and Maldonate, either not mindful or not regardful of the Anathema of the Council of Trent, acknowledge (●n the places above quoted) that he was also of the same belief: and indeed he professeth it so plainly and so frequently, that he must be a mere stranger to him that knows it not, and very impudent that denies it. Eucharistian● infantibus pute● necessariam Augustinus, say also the Divines of Louvain, 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 show 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 non● may lawfully come, but be which has been baptised) 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? etc. 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 the 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. julian. 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 showed 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. Augustine's, ad infantes ad Altar. 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. Augustine's 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 Christ's 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 judgement 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, etc. 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 Baptised, 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 show the belief of the ancient Church in this point, was the Confession of the learnedest Writers and best versed in the Church of Rome. Who, what the Council of Trent forbids under Anathema, that any man should say of any ancient 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 joan. 6. Mitto Augustini & Innocentii sententiam (quae etiam viguit in Ecclesia per sexcentes annos) Eucharistiam etiam Infantibus necessariam. I say nothing says he, of Augustine's and Innocentius his opinion, that the Eucharist was necessary even for Infants, which doctrine 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 aught 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 Doctrine of the Millenaries, against Infallibility.  
THE Doctrine of the Millenaries was, That before the world's end, Christ should reign upon earth for a thousand years, and that the Saints should live under him in all holiness and happiness. That this Doctrine is by the present Roman Church held false and Heretical, I think no man will deny.  
That the same Doctrine, was by the Church of the next Age after the Apostles held true and Catholic I prove by these two Reasons.  
The first Reason, Whatsoever doctrine is believed and taught by the most eminent Fathers of any Age of the Church, and by none of their contemporaries opposed or condemned, that is to be esteemed the Catholic Doctrine of the Church of those times.  
But the Doctrine of the Millenaries was believed and taught by the eminent Fathers of the Age next after the Apostles, and by none of that Age opposed or condemned.  
Therefore it was the Catholic Doctrine of the Church of those times. The Proposition of this Syllogism is Cardinal perron's rule, (in his Epistle to Casaubon, 5. observ.) And is indeed one of the main pillars, upon which the great Fabric of his Answer to King james doth s●and, and with which it cannot but fall; and therefore I will spend no time in the proof of it.  
But the Assumption thus I prove.  
That Doctrine which was believed and taught by Papias Bishop of Hierap●lis, the disciple of the Apostles disciples (according to Eusebius) who lived in the times of the Apostles, saith he, by justin Martyr, Doctor of the Church and Martyr: by Melito Bishop of Sardis, who had the gift of Prophecy, witness Tert. and whom Bellarmine acknowledgeth a Saint. By S. Irenaeus Bishop of Lions and Martyr; and was not opposed and condemned by any one Doctor of the Church of those times: That Doctrine was believed and taught by the most Eminent Fathers of that Age, next to the Apostles, and opposed by none.  
But the former part of the Proposition is true, Ergo, the Latter is also true.  
The Major of this Syllogism and the latter part of the Minor, I suppose will need no proof, with them that consider, that these here mentioned were equal in number to all the other Ecclesiastical Writers of that Age, of whom there is any memory remaining; and in weight and worth infinitely beyond them: they were Athenagoras, Theophilus Antiochenus, Egesippus and Hippolytus: of whose contradiction to this Doctrine there is not extant, neither in their works, nor in story, any Print or Footstep: which if they or any of them had opposed, it had been impossible, considering the Ecclesiastical Story of their time is Written by the professed Enemies of the Millinaries Doctrine; who could they have found any thing in the monuments of Antiquity to have put in the Balance against justin Martyr and Irenaeus, no doubt would not have buried it in silence: which yet they do, neither vouching for their opinion any one of more Antiquity than Dionysius Alexandrinus, who lived, saith Eusebius, nostra aetate, [in our Age] but certainly in the latter part of the third Century. For Tatianus because an Heretic I reckon not in this number. And if any man say that before his fall he wrote many Books; I say, it is true; but withal would have it remembered, that he was justin Martyrs Scholar, and therefore, in all probability of his Master's Faith, rather than against it, all that is extant of him one way or other is but this in S. Hierome, de Script. Eccles. Justini Martyris sectator suit.  
Now for the other part of the Minor, that the forementioned Fathers did believe and teach this Doctrine. And first for Papias that he taught it, it is confessed by Eusebius the Enemy of this Doctrine (Lib. 3. I●ist. Eccles. c. 33.) in these words,— Other things besides the same Author (Papias) declares, that they came to him as it were by unwritten Tradition, wherein he affirms that after the Resurrection of all Flesh from the Dead, there shall be a Kingdom of Christ continued and established for a thousand years upon Earth, after a humane and corporeal manner. The same is confessed by S. Hierome, another Enemy to this opinion, (descript. Eccles. S. ●9.) Papias the Auditor of John Bishop of Hieropolis is said to have taught the judaical Tradition of a thousand years, whom Irenaeus and Apollinarius followed. And in his preface upon the Commentaries of Victorinus upon the Apocalypse, thus he writes,— before him Papias Bishop of Hieropolis and Nepos Bishop in the parts of Egypt taught as Victorinus does touching the Kingdom of the thousand years.  
The same is testified by Irenaeus (lib. 5. cont. Her. c. 33.) where having at large set forth this Doctrine, he confirms it by the Authority of Papias in these words. Papias also the Auditor of John, the familiar friend of Policarpus an Ancient man, hath testified by writing these things in the fourth of his Books, for he hath written five. And concerning Papias thus much.  
That justin Martyr was of the same belief, it is confessed by Sixtus Senensis (Biblioth. Stae. l. 6. An. 347.) by Feverdentius in his premonition before the five last Chapters of the 5th. Book of Irenaeus. By Pamelius ●n Antidoto ad Tertul. parad. paradox. 14.  
That S. M●lito Bishop of Sardis held the same Doctrine is confessed by Pamelius in the same place; and thereupon it is that Gennadius Massiliensis in his Book de Eccles. dogmatibus, calls the followers of this opinion Melitani; as the same Pamelius testifies in his Notes upon that fragment of Tertullian de Spe fidelium.  
Irenaeus his Faith in this point is likewise confessed by Eusebius, in the place before quoted in these words. He (Papias) was the Author of the like Error to most of the Writers of the Church, who alleged the Antiquity of the Man for a defence of their side, as to Irenaeus and whosoever else seemed to be of the same opinion with him.  
By S. Hierome in the place above cited the script. Eccles. S. 29. Again in Lib. Ezek. 11. in these words. For neither do we expect from Heaven a Golden Jerusalem (according to the jewish tales which they call Duterossis) which also many of our own have followed: Especially Tertullian in his Book de spe ●idelium; and Lactantius in his seventh Book of Institutions, and the frequent expositions of Victorinus Pictavionensis: and of late Severus in his Dialogue which he calls Gallus: and to name the Greeks and to join together the first and last, Irenaeus and Apollinarius. Where we see he acknowledges Irenaeus to be of this opinion; but that he was the first that held it, I believe that that is more a Christian untruth than Irenaeus his opinion a Judaical Fable. For he himself acknowledges in the place above cited, that Irenaeus followed Papias; and it is certain and confessed that justin Martyr believed it long before him: and Irenaeus himself derives it from— Presbyteri qui Johannem discipulum Domini viderunt; from Priests which saw john the Disciple of the Lord. Lastly, by Pamelius, Sixtus Senensis, and Faverdentius in the places above quoted.  
Seeing therefore it is certain, even to the confession of the Adversaries, that Papias, justin 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 perron's 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 perron's 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 doubt 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 learned it, (whether mediately or immediately I cannot tell) from (a) Presbyteri qui Johannem Discipulum Domini viderunt. Priests or Elders who saw john the Lord's 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 john 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 Grandchilds. Aetes' parent●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 Apostolic Tradition; or if they were not, what confidence can we place in any other unwritten Tradition.  
Lastly, that justin Martyr grounds it upon plan Prophecies of the Old Testament, and express words of the New: he professeth, That he, and all other Christians of a right belief in all things, believe it; joins them who believe it not, with them who deny the Resurrection; or else says, that none denied this, but the same who de●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 Jerusalem shall be again restored, and that your People shall be congregated, and rejoice together with Christ, and the Patriarches and the Prophets, etc.  
justin 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 Heretics, 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 dar● to Blaspheme the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of jacob, 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 Heretics, as the Genistae and the Meristae and Galileans, and Pharisees and Hellenians and Baptists and other such to be jews; but only that they are called jews, 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 Jerusalem restored and adorned and enlarged; according as the Prophets, Ezekiel and Esay and others do testify: 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 remember the former, etc. And after.— A certain man amongst us whose name was john, one of the Twelve Apostles of Christ, in that Revelation which was exhibited unto him, hath foretold That they which believe ou● Christ shall live in Jerusalem a thousand years, and that after, the Universal and everlasting Resurrection and Judgement shall be.  
I have presumed in the beginning of justin 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 (al●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 justin Martyr himself did believe the opinion of them which denied the thousand years, to be the pure and holy opinion of Christians: and if so, why did he not himself believe it? nay how could he but believe it to be true, professing it (as he does if the place be right) to be the pure and holy opinion of Christians: for how a false Doctrine can be the pure and holy opinion of Christians, what Christian can conceive? or if it may be so, how can the contrary avoid the being untrue, unholy and not the opinion of Christians?  
Again, if we read the place thus— That many who are also of the pure and holy opinion of Christians, do not acknowledge this, I have also signified: certainly there will be neither sense nor reason, neither coherence nor consequence in the words following— For I have ●old you of many called Christians, but being indeed Atheists and Heretics, 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, etc. Again, if justin 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 denied 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 befall this place, who considers that in this place justin 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 acknowledgement) 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 justin 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 perron's 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, etc. Yet do not ye think them Christians: Now if Bellarmine's Rule be true, that Councils than determine any thing as matters of Faith, when they pronounce them Heretics that hold the Contra●y; then sure justin Martyr held this Doctrine as a matter of Faith, se●ing he pronounceth them no Christians, that contradict it.  
3. That the Doctrine is grounded upon t●e Scripture of the Old and New Testament and the Revelation of S. john, 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. john, 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 extreme impudence can any Church in after times, pretend to Infallibility.  
The Millinaries Doctrine was overborn, by imputing to them that which they held not: by abrogating the Authority of S. John's Revelation, as some did: or by derogating from it, as others; ascribing it not to S. john the Apostle, but to some other john, they know not who: which— Dionysius the first known adversary of this doctrine and his followers; against the Tradition of Irenaeus, justin 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 justin, Vi●●orinus, Se●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 show 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 infallibl●, (when they speak as witnesses of Tradition) to show the opinion of the Church of their Time, than the opinion of the Chiliasts (which now is a Heresy 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 only that it was Tradition, but sets down Christ's own words when he taught it, and the pedigree of the opinion from Christ 
Faverdent● Edit. Iren. p. 497.  to john his Disciple; from him to several Priest; (whereof Papias was one who put it in writing) and so downwards; which can be shown 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.  
Fi●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?  
Sixthly, If they object, how could errors come in, and no beginning of them known? I pray remember to ask them the same Question concerning the Millena●ies, which lasted uncontradicted, until Dionysius Alexan●rinus two hundred and fifty years after Christ; and if they tell you that Papias was the first beginner, look in Iren●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 bulrush 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 herself the subject of the Question) cannot be allowed till then to give a verdict for herself.  
Ninthly, Remember the Roman Church claim; no Notes of the Church, but what agree with the Grecian too (as Antiquity, Succession, Miracles. etc.) but only Communion with the Pope and Splendour: 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 lest 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 Doctrine 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 Doctrine as contains Contradictions: But the Church of Rome teacheth such a Doctrine: Therefore the Church of Rome teacheth Contradictions.  Mr. Daniel. 
I deny the Minor.  Chilling. 
The Doctrine of Transubstantion contains Contradictions: But the Church of Rome teacheth the Doctrine of Transubstantiation: Therefore the Church of Rome teacheth such a Doctrine 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 man's body, and should not have the true figure of a man's body, is a Contradiction: But in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation it is taught, that the same thing, (viz. our Saviour present in the Sacrament) has the true figure of a man's body, and has not the true figure of a man's body at the same time; therefore the Doctrine of Transubstantiation contains Contradictions.  Mr. Dan. 
The Major, though not having all rules required to a contradiction (as boys in Logic know) yet let it pass.  Chilling. 
Boys in Logic 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 man's body in the Eucharist, who is there without any real alteration or difference from the natural body of a man: But our Saviour, according to the Romish Doctrine of Transubstantiation, is in the Sacrament without any real alteration or difference from the natural body of a man: Therefore according to this Doctrine he must there have the figure of a man's body. To the second part, that he must not have the figure of a man's body in the Sacrament, according to this Doctrine, thus I prove it. He must not have the figure of a man's body in the Eucharist, which must not have extension there: But our Saviour's ●ody, according to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, must not have extension there; Therefore, according to this doctrine, he must not have the figure of a man's body there. The Major of this Syllogism I proved, because the figure of a man's 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 Doctrine, every part of our Saviour's 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 man's body, according to the reason of a figure taken in its essential consideration, which is to have positionem partium sic & sic extra parts; 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 extrinsical; 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 man's body as considered in itself, 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 dimensions 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 show that according to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, our Saviour's 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 Doctrine, the extreme parts are not severed, but altogether in the same point; Therefore here our Saviour's 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. 
Replied, 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 ●evered, but not severed.   

VIII. An account of what moved the Author to turn a Papist, with his own Confutation of the Arguments that persuaded him thereto.  
I Reconciled myself to the Church of Rome, because I thought myself 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 privilege 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 Church's freedom from Error to things necessary only, and such as without which the Church can be a Church no longer, but granted it subject to error in things that were not necessary: Hereupon considering that most of the differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics; 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 Catholic.  
Against this again I was persuaded, that it was not sufficient to believe the Church to be an infallible believer of all doctrines 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 Church's 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 endeavours 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 world's 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 doctrine.  
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 building to a Foundation, doth not support Scripture, but is supported 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 Doctrine not written in Scripture, could justly pretend to as fu●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 ●eads the Scripture, and uses all means appointed for this purpose, with an earnest desire and with no other end, bu● 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 to show 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 World's end: yet it is not said there, that he gave Apostles and Prophets, etc. which should continue, etc. 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, etc. 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 World's end. Neither is there any incongruity, but that the Apostles and Prophets, etc. 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. john 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 Edify the Body of Christ.  
Secondly, it cannot be shown 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, etc. 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, ●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, ●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 Margin of the Vulgar Translation, for the explication of this,) places this gift of teaching amongst, 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 Apollo's and Barnabas: not such as can justly pretend to immediate inspiration and illumination of the Holy Ghost: And therefore seeing there neither are nor have been for many Ages in the Church, such Apostles and Prophets, etc. 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, than he promised none such, nor may we expect any such by virtue of, or warrant from this Text that is here alleged: And thus much for the first Assumpt which was, that the place was no Argument for an infallible 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, Edify 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, etc. 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.