« PoprzedniaDalej »
matists; for it is manifest that she is one alone. Id. Collat. Carthag. lib. iii.
10. In Illud Cantic. vi. 7. "There are sixty queens, and eighty concubines, and damsels with out number; but my dove is one," &c. He said not—“My queens are sixty, and my concubines," &c. but he said, "My dove is but one;" because all the sects of philosophers, and heresies of Christians, are none of his; his is but one, to wit, the catholic church, &c.-S. Epiphan. in fine Panar.
11. A man may not call the conventicles of heretics (I mean Marcionites, Manichees, and the rest) churches; therefore the tradition appoints you to say, "I believe one holy catholic church,' &e.-S. Cyril. Catech. 18.
And these testimonies, I think, are sufficient to shew the judgment of the ancient church, that this title of the church one, is directly and properly exclusive to all companies besides one; to wit, that where there are 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 diverse faith, and holding a diverse 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, then was she the catholic church at that time; and therefore her judgment to be rested in, and her communion to be embraced, upon peril of schism and heresy.
Mr. Chillingworth's Answer.
Upon the same ground, if you pleased, you
might desire a protestant to name some company of Christians, professing a diverse faith, and holding a diverse communion, from the Greek church, which was the catholic church at the time of Luther's rising; and, seeing he could name no other in this sense, conclude, that the Greek church was the catholic church at that time. Upon the very same grounds 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 for 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 judgment, 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, first, 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. Because you urge St. Cyprian's authority, I desire you to tell me, whether this argument in his time would have concluded a necessity of resting in the judgment of the Roman church, or not?, If not, how should it come to pass, that it should serve now, and not then; fit this time, and not that? As if it were like an almanack, that would not serve for all meridians: if it would, why was it not urged by others upon St. Cyprian, or represented by St. 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 rebaptizing heretics; which the Roman church held unlawful and damnable; St. Cyprian not only lawful, but necessary; so well did he rest in the judgment 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 St. Augustine; who was so far from concluding from them, or any other, a necessity of resting in the judgment of the Roman church, that he himself, as your authors testify, lived and died in opposition of it, even of 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 St. Cyprian and St. Augustine were schismatics for doing so; it seems, then, schismatics may not only be members of the church, against Mr. Lewgar's main conclusion, but canonized saints of it; or else St. Augustine and St. Cyprian should be razed out of the Ro-` man calendar.
If it be said, that the point of rebaptization was
not defined in St. Cyprian's time; I say, that in the judgment of the bishop and church of Rome, and their adherents, it was: for they urged it as an original and apostolical tradition, and consequently at least of as great force as any church definition. They excommunicated Firmilianus, and condemned St. Cyprian as a false Christ, and a false apostle, for holding the contrary; and urged him tyrannico terrore to conform his judgment to theirs, as he himself clearly intimates.
If it be said, they differed only from the particular church of Rome, and not from the Roman church, taking it for the universal society of Christians in communion with that church; I answer,
1. They knew no such sense of the word, I am sure never used it in any such; which whether it had been possible, if the church of Rome had been in their judgment, to other churches in spiritual matters, as the city was to other cities and countries in temporals, I leave it to indifferent men to judge.
2. Secondly, That they differed not only from the particular Roman church, but also from all other churches that agreed with it in those 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 quæritis, adsum. If you say, They are not bound to believe so; then it is no article of faith,