The nullity of the Romish faith, or, A blow at the root of the Romish Church being an examination of that fundamentall doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning the Churches infallibility, and of all those severall methods which their most famous and approved writers have used for the defence thereof : together with an appendix tending to the demonstration of the solidity of the Protestant faith, wherein the reader will find all the materiall objections and cavils of their most considerable writers, viz., Richworth (alias Rushworth) in his Dialogues, White in his treatise De fide and his Apology for tradition, Cressy in his Exomologesis, S. Clara in his Systema fidei, and Captaine Everard in his late account of his pretended conversion to the Church of Rome discussed and answered / by Matthevv Poole ...

CHAP. III. Of the Authority and Infallibility of the Fathers.

Prop. 3. Sect. 1. THe third Proposition then is this: The Faith of the Papists hath no solid foundation in the Authority of the Fathers: This the rather deserves consi∣deration, because they make their great boast of it, and urge it as a principall Pillar of their Faith: It is asserted in their Cannon Law, That the Fathers are to be owned and followed even to the least jot. And although some of them have declared their dislike of that assertion; yet they generally agree in this, That the Authority of the Fathers, especially where they consent, is a solid Foundation for their faith to rest upon. Hence those expressions of their great Doctors, Take away the Authority of Fathers, and Councels, and all things in the Church are doubtfull and uncertaine, Eccius.(a) From the Writings of the Fathers as from an Oracle Vniversities have the certainty of their assertions, and Councels have their decrees,(b) Sixtus Senensis, Melilior Canus an Author of great Note among the Ro∣manists laies down this Conclusion, That the common sence of the Fathers in the exposition of Scripture is a most certaine Argument to confirme Theologicall assertions: For (saith he) the sence of all those Holy men is the sence of Gods Spirit. And a little after, Although you may require of a Philosopher the reason of a Philosophicall Conclusion, yet

in the exposition of Holy Scripture, you are bound to believe your Ancestors, though they give you no reason for it, and to defend whatsoever opinions you receive from them, of the Law of faith and of Religion: And a little after, All those Holy men together cannot erre in a matter of Faith.(a) All the Fathers together do never erre, nor can they agree in one error saith Bell.(b) The sayings and Testimonies of the Antient Fathers are not to be examined, when all or al∣most all do agree in one opinion, saith Salmeron.(c) That which the Fathers unanimously deliver about Religion is In∣fallibly true, saith Gregory de Valentiá;(d) from all which we plainly see, that according to their opinion, the judg∣ment of the Fathers is a sure basis and ground of Faith: That is it which I am now to disprove, and to shew, That the Writings of the Fathers, neither are, nor can be a safe and sufficient foundation for a Papists Faith.

§. 2. Onely let me premise two things. 1. I would not be misunderstood as if I did intend to derogate from the just Authority of the Fathers, or to defraud them of that veneration which is due to persons of such Antiqui∣ty,

ability, and integrity, but onely to denie that preten∣ded infallibility which none did more dislike then them∣selves as we shall see hereafter. Let them have all the honour which is due to the most worthy men, not acted by divine inspiration, but let them not have that Honour which belongs to God onely, and his inspired ones: We grant their Testimony is highly credible, especially where there is indeed that which is oft pretended, but seldome proved, viz. an universall consent, but their Authority is not infallible. 2. That I do not fall into this dispute as declining the judgment of the Fathers of the first 600 years, or suspecting their partiality on the Popes side. I know sufficiently, and so may any man (whom the God of this World hath not blinded) that doth but read what our Learned Divines have said in this particular, or with his own eyes look into the Fathers, that there is is not one considerable point in controversie between us and the Romanists, but if judgment were to be given by any impartiall person from the Fathers (excepting those who are evidently demonstrated to be spurious Authors) their mouths would presently be stopped and their cause and confidence lay'd in the dust; onely be∣cause that work is so thoroughly done by others, and would swell this into a voluminous bignesse; I shall for∣beare that, and proceed to handle what I proposed; and P shall prove the proposition by foure Arguments.

1. All those assertions and Arguments which the Pa∣pists urge against the Authority of sacred Scripture, for the decision of controversies do no lesse overthrow all the Authority of the Writings of the Fathers. When they attempt to disprove the Authority of the Scriptures considered in themselves; these are then Arguments uni∣versally owned and urged: God would not have his Church depend upon Paper-Books saith Costerus. Scripture (say they) cannot decide controversies, because it cannot

summon and heare both parties, it cannot compell trangressours to obedience, it doth not particularly condemne Hereticks: It doth not say Erras Jacobe Gretsere, Gretser you are in an errour: It speaks doubtfully, and men dispute about the sence of Scripture, and so controversies will be endlesse. Hence I thus argue; Either those Arguments are strong and cogent against the Scriptures Authority, or they are not: If they be not, then the Scripture must be ow∣ned as Judge of Controversies, notwithstanding all those Arguments: If they be valid against the Authority of Scriptures, why are they not as strong against the Autho∣rity of the Fathers! Or what difference is there in this par∣ticular, between the writings of the Scripture and of the Fathers? Are the writings of S^t Paul deaf that they cannot hear parties, and dumbe; that they cannot deliver sentence, and can the Writings of St Austine, heare, and speake? Doth not the Scripture say Gretser you are in an errour? And do the writings of Ierome or Ambrose say, Luther you are in an error? Cannot S^t Paul con∣demne Hereticks and compell transgressors to obedience? and can S^t Cyprian do it? What offence hath St Paul done, that Peters Successors should thus degrade him, sure Manet altâ mente repostum they bare him a grudge for reproving S^t Peter Gal. 2. And so now they are even with him. In short, forasmuch as the Arguments and premises are wholly the same concerning the Scriptures and the Fathers, either the authority of both of them must be receaved as Judges of Controversies, or else both must be rejected: For, in pari causâ idem jus, say the Lawyers, in the same cause, there is the same right.

Againe another of their Arguments, Why the Scripture cannot of it selfe be a ground of Faith is this; because without the Church, we cannot know which books of Scrip∣ture are genuine, and which are spurious: This is the great Argument of Stapleton, and all other Romish Doctors.

In like manner I argue the writings of the Fathers can∣not in themselves be a solid ground of my faith, because without the Churches judgment I cannot tell which of their Writings are genuine, and which are spurious. For that there are great multitude of spurious Writings masked under the names of the Fathers, is acknowledged by Sixtus Senensis. Bel. and others, and the Fathers them∣selves oft complained of that practise in their daies. So again, Scripture is obscure and ambiguous, and full of see∣ming contradictions, and there are many disputes about the true sence, and therefore it cannot be the rule of my faith say Bellarm. Becanus, Costorus, and the rest. The same may be more justly said against the Authority of the Fa∣thers. Their obscurity and ambiguity appeares from the very same Arguments which they bring to make good their charge against the Scriptures, even from the multitude of Comments which Learned men have made upon the darke passages, of the Fathers, in which, no lesse then in S^t Pauls Epistles are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, things hard to be un∣derstood, which men of corrupt minds wrest to their own destruction, and from the great disputes which are at this day fervent in the World, concerning the judgments of the Fathers, and their meaning in severall passages' about which there are as fierce contests as about any passages of the Scripture: it having been truly observed by indifferent persons, that both Papists and Protestants have fortified their severall and contrariant assertions with plausible allegations from the Fathers: Nor are there onely seeming contradictions in the Fathers (as there are in Scripture) but most reall and direct ones, and if it be not enough, that one of them contradicts ano∣ther, many pregnant instances are given of the same Fa∣ther in one place, contradicting himselfe in another; But for this and other things concerning the Fathers Au∣thority, I must refer the Reader to those Learned Au∣thors

that have exemplified this in severall Instances (a). Once more, The Scripture (they say) is corrupted and falsified in severall places, and so unfit to be a rule: And have the Fathers Works seen no corruption? Yes, we have it under the hands of Possevinus, Sixtus Senensis, Bellarm. and others who confess their hard hap in this particular, and how wofully they are corrupted in multi∣tudes of places, and needs must the Fathers fare worse then the Scriptures herein, because they were never pre∣served with that care and conscience which was exercised about the Holy Scriptures; Therefore, either they must quit their Arguments against the Scriptures Authority, or else renounce the Authority of the Fathers which is ob∣noxious to the same inconveniencies.

§.4. 2. That the Fathers whose writings are extant (for of them this proposition treats) are not infallible, may be undeniably evinced from the Hypothesis of our Adver∣saries, and the supposed subject of that Infallibility which is pretended. Infallibility is the proper and peculiar priviledge of the Church, say all the Papists: The onely question is, What this Church is? Some make it the Pope, others a Councell, others the whole body of the faithfull, but they generally agree that it must be some one or all of those: But the Fathers I am here discoursing of are not one, or all of these, and therefore they cannot pre∣tend to the supposed infallibility; nor can the Papists by their own principles ascribe it to them; to which may be added, That if the Pope himselfe, notwithstanding his pretended gift of Infallibility, may erre as a private Doctor, either in speaking, or writing (which all the Papists grant) how can either any, or most of them, who have no other capacity but that of a private Doctor be exempt from a possibility of erring? And consequently the Fathers are not infallible, nor a solid foundation for a Papists faith.

Sect. 5. Again, if they will needs obtrude upon us, this upstart Infallibility of particular fathers, I demand whether this infallibility belongs to all the fathers that lived in one Age, or only to the Writers of that Age, or only to those of the Writers, whose works have had better hap then others to come to our hand, and whe∣ther to all them together, or onely to a part of them? For one of these they must unavoydably assert: If they say the first, that this Infallibility was in all the fathers that lived in one Age, or the Major part of them (as in reason they must, for what Scripture or Reason had one, to pretend Infallibility, more then another, excepting alwayes the Bishop of Room, of whose Infallibility, it must, bee confessed, there was never any quaestion, name∣ly, in those dayes none had the impudence to assert it) if that be granted yet those few, whose writings are ex∣tant (of whom alone our controversie is) might all be fallible, though the Major part of the Fathers be ac∣knowledged infallible. If it be said, those Fathers do not onely speak their own sence, but the sence of the Church of their Age, and in that respect, they are infallible, which is the common plea, and most plausible Argument they use in this point: The Fathers are infallible, not in their expositions, but in their traditions, and the Doctrines they deliver as received from their Ancestors: Thus Sr Ke∣nelm Digby, White, Holden, and the Papists of the new Modell, This I shall have occasion to handle more largely afterward: At present it may suffice to answer two things. 1 That it is most certain, they are so far from delivering the sence of the Church of that Age in the controversies between us, and the Romanists, that they seldom touch, upon the most of them, and when they do it, it is obiter, and by accident, not ex professo, and solemnly, they be∣ing then taken up with other matters, as disputing against Jewes, and Gentiles, and the hereticks of that Age

2 However, that being purely matter of fact to under∣stand, and report the History of the Churches Doctrine in their Age; if they were infallible in matters of Faith, yet in point of fact, they were not infallible, For the Pope himself is allowed to bee fallible in such matters, and as it is confessed, the Pope may erre, through fear or hope, or humane passions (as Liberius Marcellinus, and others did) at best, for a season: so doubtlesse might the Fathers, either through weaknesse, misunderstand, or through favour, or prejudice misreport the sence of others; (of which it were easy to give many Instances.) If the se∣cond thing be asserted, that this Infallibility belongs only to the Writers of each Age, wee would desire them to set the••r inventions on work, to devise a reason why the Writers were infallible; ••and not the Preachers, seeing the Apostles who had, and all others that pretend to In∣fallibility (as the Pope, and Councell) challenge it equal∣ly in their Sermons, and Writings, in their verbal, and written decrees, and much lesse can they with any colour assert that this Infallibility belongs only to those Writers which are come to our hands, as if it were not sufficient for the rest, that they lost their Writings, but they must also lose their Infallibility. And yet such is the impudence of these men, and the desperatenesse of their cause, that they are found to attribute this Infallibility, not onely to all conjunctly, but to the most of that smal remnant of surviving Writers, as you saw from their expressions, which because they are so monstrously bold as to assert, I shall take the boldnesse to aske, by what right shall five Fathers, vid. Dionysius, Clemens, Ignatius, Polycarpus, and Hermes, supposing that all the works extant under their names were genuine (for these are all left us of those great numbers of the Fathers of the first Age) I say, by what right shall these five invest themselves with the name, or privi∣ledge of the whole Catholick Church of that Age: (for

it is to her alone the supposed promise of Infallibility was made) in what Scripture, or Father, or Lexicon, do five Fathers make up the whole Church? True it is, the Pope hath a peculiar priviledge in this point, and is by the Jesuites invested with the name of the Church —The Church Virtuall. And it must be acknowledged there is since colour for the Title: for having swallowed up all the rights and priviledges of the Church, he ought to have the Name into the bargain: But setting aside that prodigious 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; I would know, why I might not as well say, that five of the Romish Doctors, viz. Salme∣ron, Canus, Costerus, Stapleton, and Bellarmine, are the Church of Rome, or that five of our English Doctors are the Church of England, nay, all the Protestant World, as that five of the Fathers made up the whole Church of their Age? Yet againe, forasmuch as they ascribe infal∣libility, not onely to all, but also to the major part of the Fathers: of these five then, two may erre by their own confession. And that all the particular Fathers have their their errors is generally acknowledged by the Papists, and often urged by them to defend themselves from the force of many convincing allegations from the Fa∣thers against their opinions. Well then, to keep to this particular instance: It is granted that Dionysius may erre, and so may Ignatius, then the Infallibility is preser∣ved in Clemens, and Polycarpus, and Hermes: But they also, or any two of them may erre in other things, and then the Infallibility is preserved in Dionysius, and Igna∣tius, and Hermes. Thus (it seems) Infallibility is banded between the Fathers like a Tennis-ball, from one to ano∣ther, and they have it by turnes. Such monsters must be in the Conclusion, if Infallibility be in the premises. That is enough for the second Argument.

§. 5. The third Argument is this: The Fathers pro∣fesse they are not infallible: either they say true or false;

if true, then they are not infallible; if false, then they erred in that assertion, and therefore are not Infallible. So the Papists are gone by their own Argument, and rule too: For here we have the consent of the Fathers; It were infinite to recount all passages to this purpose: I shall onely suggest some few which are evident and un∣deniable in this particular. Clemens Alexandrinus hath these words, The principle of our Doctrine is the Lord who hath taught us by the Prophets, by the Gospell, and by the Apostles; and he addes, If any man think this Principle needs another Principle, he doth not indeed keep that Princi∣ple. But the Papists say, the Scripture principle needs another principle to support it, viz. the Churches Autho∣rity: Ergo, the Papists have forsaken the principle of the Scripture, and so saved us further labour of proving their Apostacy. And he addes, that the standard by which things are to be examined, is not the testimony of men (there∣fore not the Testimony of Fathers, Councels, Popes, who I thinke are all men, save onely that severall of the Popes are represented by their own Authors as beasts) but the Word of the Lord. And lest you should understand it of Tradition, he calls it just before the Scripture and word of the Lord: We do not (saith he) believe the assertions of men, they must not onely say, but prove, and that: too from the

Scriptures. What can be more expresse? So Basil (a) tels us, The hearers that are instructed in the Scriptures must examine the Doctrine of their teachers, they must re∣ceive those things which are agreeable to Scripture, and re∣ject those things which are contrary to it: Where we plainly see S^t Basils direct contrariety to the principles and practise of the Romish Church.

1. St Basil allowes his heares to examine their teachers Doctrine; so do not the Papists. The people are so bound to be subject to their Pastours, that if their Pastours shoulderre, the people were bound to erre with them, saith Tannerus, (b) A Christian is bound to receive the Churches Doctrine with∣out examination, saith Bellarmine. Pastours are simply to be heard in all things, nor are we to consider what is said, but who said it, i. e. if he were a lawfull Pastour, as Sta∣pleton (d) bellowes it out (for it is a speech fitter for a beast then for a man,) (c) And yet these are the men who will not depart a nailes bredth from the Fathers: This is the Church, the principall note whereof is consent with the Fathers, of which you may judge by this, and what we shall adde from others.

2. Basil makes the Scripture alone the rule by which all other things are to be examined, not Fathers, not Coun∣cels, not Traditions: but the Papists are of another minde. S^t Clara. (a) tels us of a Popish Treatise, written by a friend of his, solemnly approved by the Parishian Doctors of the Sor∣bon (so you see it is no particular fancy, but a received opinion) where (saith he) that Author expresly asserts, that the Church therefore receives the Scriptures, because, and so far as they are conformable to Tradition not contrarily, i.e. She doth not receive Tradition, because, and so far as it agrees with Scripture: And thus far doubtlesse he was in the right, saith S^t Clare; And consequently Basil was in the wrong.

That saying of Cyprians is never to be forgotten, (b) That Christ alone is to be heard, the Father witnesseth from Heaven: We are not therefore to regard what others before us thought, but what he that was before all, Christ first did, for we are not to follow the custome of men but the truth of God. If the Papists would say as much, this con∣troversy would be at an end. And it is observable, that Pamelius who is very brisk and free of his Notes and ani∣madversions whereever Cyprian casts in a word that may seem to give countenance to their opinions, passeth over this place with profound silence, as well seeing, it was so hot, it would have burned his Fingers.

St Chrysostome (a) is as fully Protestant in this parti∣cular (as if he had been of Councell in our cause) in two points he is positive for us. 1. He presseth the people to examine things delivered to them (therefore he was against the Popish implicit faith) Let us not carry about the opinion of the multitude, but let us examine things; and not contented to deliver the assertion, he addes a reason. Is it not absurd, that when you are to receive m••ny, you do not trust other men, but examine it your selves, and when you are to judge of things, then to be drawn away by other mens opi∣nions? And this (saith he) is the worse fault in you, be∣cause you have the Scriptures. That brings in the second Herely of Chrysostomes: The rule by which he commands them to try all things is the Scripture, and (the mischiefe too is) he cals it a perfect rule, you have (saith he) an exact standard and rule of all things: and he concludes thus, I beseech you do not regard what this or that man thinks, but enquire all things of the Scriptures: I know no way to avoid this evident testimony but one: if I might advise them, the next Jesuite that Writes shall swear these words were foisted into Chrysostomes works, by the Protestants; and that they are not to be found in an old Manuscript Copy of Chrysostome in the Vatican.

What Protestant can deliver our Doctrine more fully then Origen: It is necessary (saith he) that we should alledge the Testimony of Scriptures, without which our ex∣positions do not command faith(b): Or then Cyrill, Do

not believe me saying these things, unlesse I prove them out of the Scriptures (c) Or then Ambrose, thus speaking to the Emperour Gratian, I would not you should believe our Argument or disputation, let us aske the Scriptures, aske the Prophets, the Apostles, (d) S^t Austin had none of the Fathers in greater veneration, then Cyprian, and Ambrose; yet heare how he speaks of them, of Cyprian thus: (e) I am not obliged by his Authority; I do not look on his Epistles as Canonicall, but I examine them by the Scrip∣tures, and what is repugnant thereunto, with his good leave I reject it: Would the Papists give us but this liberty, we should desire no more: and of Ambrose he saith the like.

Peradventure it will be said in this point, as it is in the generall; That although it is confessed by the Fathers, that particular Doctors are liable to error; yet in such things wherein the Fathers do unanimously agree, they have an infallible Authority, and are a sufficient founda∣tion of Faith.

To this I answer: 1 If this were granted, it doth not in the least, secure the Romists concernments because there is not one of all those points controverted between them and us, wherein such unanimous consent can be produ∣ced, but in every one of them there are pregnant allega∣tions, out of some of the Fathers repugnant to their opi∣nions and assertions. This their learned men cannot but know, and if they have any ingenuity in them, they can∣not deny.

2 I answer with Witaker against urging this very Plea: What a silly thing is it to deny, that, that which happen'd to each of them cannot possibly happen to all of them. (a) And with Gerhard, the Testimonies of the Fa∣thers collectively taken, cannot bee of another kind and na∣ture, then they are distributively (b) Nor can any man deny the truth of the proposition, if he apprehends the meaning of it; for how can the same persons, being onely considered under a double notion be both fallible and infallible at the same time; And if Austin, Ambrose, Cyprian (supposing these were all the Fathers) be each of them fallible, how can a meer collective consideration of them render them infallible?

3. I Answer with Learned Dr Holdsworth: That the Fathers deny this Infallibility, not onely to one or two of them dispersedly, but to all the Antients collectively considered, (c) and this I shall prove onely by one Ar∣gument. They that make Infallibility the peculiar pro∣perty of the Canonicall Writer, deny the Infallibility of the Fathers, eitheir collectively, or distributively con∣sidered: But the Fathers make Infallibility the peculiar property of the Canonicall Writers, and abjudicate it from all other Writers. S^t Ierome is expresse, Except the Apostles, whatsoever else is afterward said, let it be cut off,

for it hath no Authority (a) And againe, I make a diffe∣rence between the Apostles and other Writers, those alwaies said Truth; but these in somethings as men did erre (b)

St Austin makes this difference between the Holy Scrip∣tures and all other Writings, That those are to be read with a necessity of believing, but these with a liberty of judging (c) What living man can expresse the Pro∣testant Doctrine in more evident termes then the same Father elsewhere doth, That which is confirmed by the Authority of the Holy Scriptures, is without doubt to be believed, but for other witnesses and testimonies, (whether more, or fewer; agreed, or divided, all is one to S^t Austin) you may receive them or reject them as you shall judge, they have more or lesse weight (d) And again, when he was pressed by Ierom with the Authority of six or seven of the Greek Fathers, he thus Answers: (c) I have lear∣ned to give this honour and reverence to the Books of Scrip∣ture, to believe there is no error in them: But as for others, how Learned or Godly soever they be, I so read them that I do not believe any thing to be true, because they thought so,

but because they proved it so to be by the Scriptures. To conclude, so evident is St. Austin's judgment in that point, that it forced this ingenuous confession from a learned and acute Papist, Occam by name, who spea∣king of a passage of St. Austins about this point, hath these words.(a) It is to be noted, that Austin in that authority speaking of other writers beside the pen-men of the Scripture, mak••s no difference among these Non-Canonical Writers: and therefore, whether they be Popes, or others, whether they writ in Council, or out of Council, the same judgment is to be passed upon them. You see St. Austin's mind is plain, and doth (our Adversaries themselves being judges) di∣rectly overturne that great fundamental point of the In∣fallibility of Councels and Popes (which, if you will be∣lieve them, is not only true, but necessary to salvation) and yet these are the men that walk in the good old paths; These are they, that maintaine no doctrine, but what hath been conveyed to them by the Fathers. I know no Salvo but that which they use in the great ar∣ticle of Transubstantiation, viz. to tell us, we must not believe our selves when we read such passages in the Fathers, and that together with the eyes of our mind our Reasons, and Consciences, we must give up the eyes of our body to the Pope's disposal. And this doctrine of Austins (if you will believe the Romanists) when delive∣red by the Protestants is a new and upstart doctrine, ne∣ver heard of in the world till Luther's dayes; and by this you may judge of the justice of that charge, when the like is said of our other doctrines. I might fill up a Trea∣tise with pertinent citations out of the Fathers to this

purpose, but this is enough for any but those, who are resolved to sacrifice their consciences to the Pope's am∣bition, and for them it is too much.

§ 7. The fourth and last argument is this: The Papists themselves, whatever sometimes they pretend, yet indeed do not make the Fathers the ground & foun∣dation of their Faith, but acknowledg them fallible 1. This appears from what hath already been discoursed concer∣ning their avowed Doctrine, That Infallibility is the pro∣per and peculiar priviledge of the Church, and conse∣quently belongs not to the Fathers in their single capaci∣ties. 2. It appears from the acknowledged novelty of several Romish doctrines, which their most learned men confess cannot be proved from the Fathers: Such are

1. The doctrine of forbidding the reading of the Scripture to Lay-men (as they are called:) We confess in their dayes (viz. of ••erome and Augustine) Lay-men were conversant in the reading of the Scripture, saith Azo∣rius (a) And whereas many Popish Authors expound those words Ioh. 5 39. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 indicatively, as if they did only acquaint us with the practice of the Jewes, and not containe a command of Christ to his hearers to read the Scriptures. Tolet and Maldonaete (b) both wit∣nesse, that Chrysostome, Theophylact, and Augustine, and all weighty authors except Cyrill do understand it impera∣tively for a command of Christ.

2 They acknowledg the novelty of Transubstantiati∣on. The words of Scotus are these: (c) Before the Lateran Councell, the doctrine of Transubstantiation was no point of

faith: and the first Laeteran Councel was above 1100 years after Christ's birth. And Alphonsus de Castro de∣livers this memorable assertion: Many things are known to later Authors, which the Antient writers were wholly ignorant of, for these seldome make any mention of Transub∣stantiation. (a)

3 The doctrine of Indulgencies and Purgatory (I joyn them both together as being neer of kin) of which Bishop Fisher hath this remarkable passage. (b) No or∣thodox Christian now doubts whether there be a Purgatory, though the Antients seldome or never mentioned it: And a little after; Considering that Purgatory was for a good while unknown, — and again, seeing then Purgatory was known and received in the Church so lately, who can wonder that Indulgencies were not used in the primitive Church? So Gabriel Bi el: (c) Before the times of St. Gregory (& that was 600 years after Christ) there was little or no use of Indul∣gencies: but now they are used frequently, because the Church without doubt hath the spirit of Christ, and therefore cannot erre. That sine dubio did his worke, for I was about to dispute against his assertion, but that phrase quite took away my courage. You see it is a courtesy that the Pa∣pists will condescend to prove their doctrine from Scrip∣ture

and Fathers; whereas if they would stand upon their termes, they might argue thus: The conclusion without doubt is true, that the Church cannot erre; therefore a fig for the premises. So Durandus: (a) Concerning Indul∣gencies little can be said with any certainty, because the Scripture speaks not expresly of them; and the holy Fathers Aug: Ambrose, Hilary, Ierome do not at all mention them. And Cajetan expresly: (b) No sacred Scripture, no au∣thority of antient Fathers, either Greek or Latine, hath brought the rise of Indulgencies to our knowledge: And yet (if you please to believe it) this and all the doctrines of the Romish Church are no other then such as have been handed to them from the Apostles by all the antient Fa∣thers in an uninterrupted succession. I believe I could instance in twenty several Articles of the Romish Church, for which they have no colour of authority from any of the Fathers. But this may suffice for a Specimen of that respect which the Papists have for the Fathers, when they do not comply with their humors. The Fathers were so ignorant for a thousand years together, that they did not understand, or so negligent that they did not instruct their people in that great mystery of Transubstantiation, (then which none was more necessary to be taught, be∣cause none more difficult to believe.) The Fathers were so hard-hearted and cruel, that they would suffer souls to fry in Purgatory for hundreds of years together, whom they might have certainly released by the help of Indul∣gencies. The Fathers were so indiscreet, that they allowed their hearers to read the Scriptures, and have them in a

vulgar tongue. But now it is not fit to be granted, saith Sixtus Sinensis (a) The Church of Rome hath got a mo∣nopoly of all knowledg, fidelity, tender-heartedness, (which you will wonder at) discretion, and all good qua∣lities, and Infallibility into the bargain.

This is the excellency of the Romish faith, that it is calcu∣lated for any Meridian. Are any of their doctrines seem∣ingly favoured by the Fathers? why then you shall have large Harangues concerning the authority of the Fathers, and their adherence to them. Are there any of their points, wherein the Fathers are either silent of op∣ponent? why they are furnished with another strain: that the Fathers were but private Doctors, and had their failings. The chief of the Fathers had their falls, saith Bel∣larmine.(b) In the books of the Antients, which the Church reads as authentick, sometimes are found wicked and heretical passages, saith Sixtus Sinensis. And so long as the Church of Rome reserves to her self alwayes a liberty of determining what passages are wicked and heretical, I trow she is out of Gun-shot: I do not value Origens judgment, saith Pererius.(c) And that you may see the Papists do insanire cum ratione, I pray you take notice, that what they want in conscience and honest dealing, they make up in wit, and therefore have devised several ingenuous shifts, whereby they can elude the most preg∣nant testimonies of the Fathers levied against them. Sometimes they answer, that the Fathers speak 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in opposition to the present Adversary they were dispu∣ting with, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as laying down their own posi∣tive opinion: thus Perron: (d) and Sixtus Senensis(e) Some∣times

they say the Fathers speak declamatorio more, by per∣bolically, and by excess: thus Sixtus Senensis answers our allegations from the Fathers for reading the Scrip∣ture (a) Thus Petavius answers a clear passage of Chry∣sostomes against Auricular Confession. (b) At other times they tell us the Fathers did not alwaies speak what they thought, but what they saw necessary to confute their Adversaries: thus Perron answers the citations from the Fathers against creature-worship. If you alledge the Epistles of the Fathers, they tell you, the Fathers did not use fully to open their minds in those writings: So Perron answers a Testimony of Austins against Transubstantiati∣on. Sometimes they plead, that the Fathers speak the opinion of others, not their own; as Bellarmine answers a place out of Hierom. (c) If you bring any passage out of their Poems, they say the Fathers did use Poetical li∣berty, as Bellarmine answers to Prudentius (d) So just was the judgment of the University of Doway upon Ber∣tram's Book, of the body and bloud of Christ: Seeing we bear many errors in the antient Fathers, and extenuate and excuse them, and oft times by some divised fiction we de∣ny and put a convenient sense upon them, when they are op∣posed against us in disputations with our adversaries, we do not see why Bertram doth not deserve the same equity, and diligent recognition. (e) And thus they deale with the Fathers, when they displease their humor, and oppose their doctrines. But if the Fathers deliver any thing that

seems to countenance their conceits, then every passage of the Fathers is dogmatical, and every word an argu∣ment: then the Fathers have done playing and quibling, then they have opened their minds fully, and given us their most serious and last thoughts.

§ 8. And lest you should think it was only the opi∣nions of several Fathers which they despised, I shall ac∣quaint you with their practice in case of consent of the Fathers, or the major part of them. That the Angels were corporeal, was the opinion of most of the Fathers saith Pererius (a) For this opinion Sixtus Senensis rec∣kons up Origen, Lactant: Athenas: Methodius, Hilarius, Damascinus, Cassianus, and the secound Councel of Nice: to whom Maldonat addes, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Clemens Alexan: Theodoret, Tertullian, Ambrose, Augustine, &c. such a Constellation one shall seldome find in any controverted opinion: Yet hear what Senensis saith, I think the con∣trary opinion is the trust. If a Protestant had said as much, what tumults and tragedies would it have raised in the Romane Court? how would all the world have rung with it? So again, that I may further lay open this Romish imposture, I shall represent to the reader's con∣sideration that controversy concerning the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin: what is the common and current doctrine of the Church of Rome at this day is sufficiently known from the decree of the Councel of Trent concerning Original sin, (in which decree they ex∣presly tell us, they would not have her included) (b), and from the severe constitutions of Sixtus the fourth,

and Paul the fifth, and Gregory the fifteenth Popes, against those that should presume to teach this Doctrine, that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in sin, and from the practice of divers Popish Universities, who have not only received the doctrine of the immaculate concep∣tion of the Virgin, but bind their members by solemn oath to own it, and from the writings of multitudes of the most eminent Popish writers, who positively assert it, as Delrio, Henriquez, Az••rius, Suarez, Vasquez, Salmeron, Acosta, Abulensis, Canus, Navarrus, and a world of others. Now let us see, whether in this point they made the consent of Fathers their rule, or (which is equivalent) what was the judgment of the antient Fa∣thers therein: which I shall give you from the mouths of the Papists themselves, then which they cannot desire a fairer tryal. Hear Canus: All the antients that make any mention of this matter, have with one mouth asserted, that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in sin, as Ambrose, Aug: Chrys: &c. and none of them contradicted that assertion: and then he addes his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the Romish opinion: That the argument from authority is weak, and the contrary doctrine is probably and piously defended in the Church of Rome(a) And he confesseth, he knew no other way to confute this argument of Erasmus against the authority of the Fathers, then by saying the opinion was not de fide, or no matter of faith. (b) A remedy as bad as the di∣sease.

1. Because the opinion is most absurd that a Doctrine

is not de fide till the Pope or Councell have determined it, from whence would follow amongst many other grosse absurdities. 1. That it was not de fide while Christ lived that Jesus was the Messias, no Councell ha∣ving determined it. 2. That most of the Articles of the Christian Religion were not de fide before the Councell of Nice. 3. That God revealing a truth in his Holy Scriptures cannot oblige our faith as much as a Councell, revealing it in their Decrees. But I need say no more of this, because it is rejected by diverse of their own most Learned Authors: It is the common opinion of Doctors, that a Councell doth not make a thing to be of Faith, but denies, or declares, that such a thing is, or formerly was de fide, as the Holy Fathers abundantly confirme, saith White (a)

2. Because this was de fide according to their own Doctrine: For the Councell of Basil had positively de∣fined and determined it, as pious and agreeable to Faith, reason, and Scripture, to be embraced by all Catholicks; and that it should be lawfull to no man to teach the con∣trary. (b) This put S Clara so hard to it, that he is for∣ced to this horrible shift, that they onely defined it, tan∣quam piam & consonam fidei. Now the termes tanquam & consonam are termes of diminution (c) But to re∣turne; Salmeron treating of this point tels us, that his Adversaries reckon 200, others 300 Fathers against his and the Romish Doctrine of the immaculate conception: Well, what is his Answer? Really it is so full of Heresy that I fear they will chide me for translating it: he tels you, The Argument from Authority is weak: I Answer

(saith he) from Exod. 23.2. Thou shalt not speak in a cause to incline after many to wrest judgment, as Augustine answered the Donatists; it was a signe that a cause wanted truth, which leaned upon Authority; That the youn∣ger Doctors see further then the antients: that is to say, the Romish Doctors are wiser then the Antient Fa∣thers. (a) I commend these passages to the care of my Lords the Inquisitors, the next time the purging humour takes them, they richly deserve a roome in the Iudex ex∣purgatorius.

And yet these are the onely adorers of the Antient Fathers, that tell you We do not receive part of the Doctrine of the Fathers, and reject part, but we embrace it all saith Duraeus (b) We hold the whole Volumes saith Campian (c) These are they that hold the Fathers to be uncorrupted judges of Controversies, whom God would not suffer to fall into error, and lead others into it, saith Costerus (d) Will you see more of this mistery of iniquity? I shall onely name the rest: Diverse Popish Authors of prime note acknowledge that it was the generall opinion of the Fa∣thers, That the Sacrament of the Lords Supper ought to be given to Infants. So Maldonate, The Opinion of S^t Au∣gustine, and Innocent the first, (a Pope, and therefore his

opinion infallibly true) flourished in the Church for 600 years that the Eucharist was necessary to Infants (a) That the Lords Supper should be receaved by the people in both kinds. For the Councell of Constance in that very place where it takes away one kind, (the Cup) do ac∣knowledge that the use of both kinds by the people was instituted by Christ, and enjoyed by the people in the an∣tient Church (b) That the Saints departed, should not be admitted to the vision of God, before the day of judg∣ment: So much Perron confesseth, and Sixtus Senensis, (c) That the Saints should raigne with Christ a thousand years, that Pamelius grants(d) In all these and severall others, it is known that the Church of Rome asserts the contrary, how truly, and justly I dispute not, nor is it ma∣teriall to my purpose, which is onely to shew how upon all occasions, where need requires they do as little regard the Authority of the Fathers as any, whom they most traduce for so doing. But would you know the mistery of this? why, The Fathers are not reckoned as Fathers when they deliver any thing which they did not receive from the Church, saith Duraeus (e) In earnest, that saying de∣served a Cardinals Cap. And Baily the Jesuite seconds him in it, where putting this question; Whether the Au∣thority of the Doctors (Fathers) ought to be admitted; he answers: Yes, as f••r as the Church approves of them (f)

The Fathers have Authority with us as far as we please:

I will adde a third (that you may see it is a ruled case:) and that is Gresserus. A Father (saith he) is one that feeds the Church with wholesome Doctrine: but if instead of corne he give chaff or tares, he is not now a Father but a step∣Father, not a teacher but a seducer.

When the Fathers say any thing which seems to coun∣tenance their positions, then they are Fathers, uncorrupt judges, infallible interpreters, and Purgatory is too mild a punishment for him that shall goe one haires breadth from them. But if the Fathers will once begin to take upon them, if they will exceed those bounds the Pope hath set them, and contradict his interest or opinion, then it is time to take them a peg lower, then they call them Fathers, but make children of them: They had better have held their Tongues; for now all comes out, and the Papists are the Chams (as they call the Protestants) who uncover their Fathers nakednesses: Then Eusebius (who when he is Orthodox in the Romane account passeth for a most famous Writer, a most learned man, and a Catho∣lick with Lindanus, (a) Sixtus Senensis (b) and others) is all on a sudden transubstantiated into an Arrian Heretick with Costerus (c) and Baronius (d) Then poor Tertullian (who, when he speaks righteous things passeth for a most noble Author, the chiefe of all the Latine Fathers with Lindanus, (e)) is not so much as a man of the Church;

nay, he is an hereticall Author, an heresiarch, a Montanist say Azorius(a) and Bellarm (b) Then Origen (who when he is a good boy passeth for a witnesse beyond exception with Duraeus (c) another master of the Churches after the Apostles as Jerome calls him saith Lindanus (d)) is a meer schismatick saith Canus (e) the Father of the Arrians and Eunomians saith Maldonate (f) Then Constantine himselfe, (that you may see the Church of Rome is not guilty of respect of persons) is not much to be regarded he was a greater Emperor then Doctor saith Bellarm. (g) Then Lactantius is better skilled in Tully, then in the Scripture and Victorinus was a Martyr but wanted learning saith Bellarmine (h) Nay, I think both he and the rest of the Fathers wanted wit as well as learning: for if they would but have blotted out all Anti-Romish passages (which might have been done with one Blot, provided it reached from the beginning to the end of their works) they had all passed for Orthodox and admirable men, and we had not heard one word of their infirmities or miscarriages.

What need I trouble my selfe and the Reader, with saying that which all the World knows concerning the Papists receding from the common sence of the Fathers in expositions of Scripture, and preferring new interpre∣tations before them, (not fearing their own Tridentine thunderbolt, That no man should dare to interpret Scripture

against the common consent of the Fathers, (a) For which I shall onely referre the reader to those places where he may be more fully satisfied, that this was the opinion and practise of the Learned and approved Romanists, as Cajetan (b) Pererius, (c) Maldonate (d) and severall o∣thers(e)

§. 9. In short, to strike the businesse dead, you shall have the positive judgment of the principall pillars of the Romish Church: Sacred Doctrine (saith Aquinas) useth Authority of Scripture as a necessary Argument, but the Authorities of other Doctors of the Church onely as a pro∣bable Argument: for our faith leanes upon the revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets, not to other Doctors (f) The Authorities of the Fathers without the Scripture doth not oblige my faith, saith Biel (g) It is the property of the Holy Scriptures, that there is no error in it which needs correction saith Baronius (h) The Writings of the Fathers (saith Bellarmine in totidem terminis) are not a rule, and have not authority to oblige me (i) And not contented to assert, he elsewhere offers proofs of the invalidity of the

Fathers without, and their perfect subjection to the Au∣thority of the Church and Bishop of Rome. The Fa∣thers execute the office of Doctors, but Counsels and Popes exe∣cute the office of a Iudge committed to them by God(a) And againe: The Pope hath no Fathers in the Church, but all are his sonnes: No wonder then that the sonnes are subject to the Father, not the Fathers to the Sonnes (b) Thus Gregory de Valentiâ cuts the knot he cannot untie: If the consent of Doctors cannot be made out, the Pope may use his Autho∣rity (c) Really these Jesuites are most ingenious fel∣lowes, they are resolved never to be at a non-plus: when they saw the Scripture was not for their turnes, they vote that should not be judge of controversies and fled to the Fathers. When they saw multitudes of notable passages cited out of the ••athers destructive to their Hierarchy, then it must be consent of the Fathers: Now because they know they cannot make out the con∣sent of the Fathers for any one Article of their Faith. Here is a Salvo for that, the Popes Authority is evident: It is but saying, that is a first Principle, and all controver∣sies are at an end. By this time I think I may expect the Reader that hath but a dram of ingenuity in him must needs acknowledge that the Authority of the Fa∣thers is neither ex veritate rei (in truth) nor ex opinione Pontificiorum (in the judgment of the Papists) a solid foundation for a Papists Faith which was the Proposition to be proved: I shall dismisse this with two Obser∣vations.

1. How sweetly the Romish Doctors agree in that which they acknowledge to be a principall foundation of Faith, viz. the Authority of the Fathers.

2. I shall leave this Syllogisme, taken out of their own Authors, to the consideration of the prudent Rea∣der: If you take away the authority of Fathers and Coun∣cels, all things in the Church are uncertaine, saith Eccius, as you saw before: But B••llarmine and others, have here taken away the Authority of the Fathers: And in the next Chapter you shall see they take away the Authori∣ty of Councels: Ergo, There is nothing certaine in the Romish Church: Thus I have shewed that the Faith of the Papists hath no sure ground or foundation in the Authority of the Pope, Scriptures, or Fathers: Now I come to the fourth particular, the Authority and Infal∣libility of the Church and Councels which is the sacra anchora the principall refuge of a languishing cause.

Notes

• (a)

  Tollatur Patrum & Conciliorum authoritas & omnia in Ecclesiâ erunt ambigua, dubia, pendentia, incerta. In Euchiridio de Conciliis.
• (b)

  Et Scriptis Sanctorum Patrum velut ex oraculis Theologorum Aca∣demiae assertionum suarum constanliam accipiunt, summique, Pontifices decreta sumirat in praefat. lib 5. Biblioth.
• (a)

  In expositione sacrarum literarum communis omnium sanctorum veterum intelligentia certissimum argumentum Theologo praestat ad Theologicas assertiones corroborand as. Quippe cum sanctorum omnium sensus Spiritus Sancti sensus ipse sit. — Quanquam à Philosophis quidem rationem Philosophicae conclusionis jure forsitan postularis, in Sacrarum autem litera∣rum intelligentiâ, majoribus nostris debes, nullâ etiam ratione habitâ, cre∣dere, & quas sententias de lege, de fide, deque religione ab illis accepisti defendere. Loc. Theolog. lib. 7. c. 3. Conclus. 5. Sancti simul omnes in fidei Dogmate errare non possunt. Ibid. Conc. 6.
• (b)

  Patres nunquam omnes simul errant, etiam si aliquis eorum interdum erret, nam simul omnes in uno errore convenire non possunt. Bel. lib. 2. de Christo cap. 2. et l. 1. de Purgat. c. 10.
• (c)

  Non sunt probanda (examinanda) veterum Patrum dicta & testimonia quando omnes vel fere omnes in unam sententiam conve∣niunt, lib. 1. Epis. Pauli part. 3. disp. 6. in fine.
• (d)

  Quod Patres una∣nimi consensu circa religionem tradunt, infallibiliter verum est; in Ana∣list fidei lib. 8. c, 8.
• (a)

  Whitakar, Gerhard, Daille.
• Lib. Stromatum 7. versus sinem. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (a)

  In Moralium regulâ 72. in initio. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (b)

  In Collatione Ratesbonensi. §. 9.
• (d)

  In causa fidei non est considerandum quid dicatur sed quis dicat: Relect. con. 1. qu. 4. art. 2. p. 91. Ecclesiam audire populum fidelem Christus jubet, Doctrinam Ecclesiae populam expendere non jubet Stapleton Tripliciat. adversus Whitak. pro Eccles. Author pag. 89, cap. 9. Et ali∣bi voci Ecclesi in Doctrinâ fidei simpliciter & absolute acquiescendum est, in Robert. con. 4. qu. 3. art. 3.
• (c)

  Debet Christanus sine examine recipere Doctrinaem ecclesiae Bellar. de verbi Dei Interpretatione, lib. 3. c. 10.
• (a)

  Prodiit quidam Dialogus—solenniter Parisiis approbatus — In quo expresse asserit Ecclesiam ideo recipere Scripturas, quia & in quen'um sunt conformes fidei, quam ab Apostolis per traditiones ac∣cepit; non è converso. Et bactenus sine dubio rectissimè. Systemat. fidei cap. 11. in initio.
• (b)

  Quod solus Christus debet audiri Pater de celo testatur —Non ergo debemus attendere quid alius ante nos faciendum putaverit, sed quid qui aste omnes est Christus prior fecerit, neque enim hominus consuetudinem, sequi oportet, sed Dei veritatem. Epistola. 63. ad Ciecilium.
• (a)

  13. Homilia in 2. ex. ad Corinth. versus finem 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (b)

  Necesse est nobis Scriptur as sanctas in testimonium vocare, sensis quippe 〈◊〉〈◊〉 et enarrationes nostroe sine his testibus non habent fidem. Homil. 1. re Jerem.
• (c)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Catechesi. 4.
• (d)

  Nolo Argumento nosiro credas, Sancte Imperator, aut nostrae disputationi Scriptur as interrogemus Apostolos, interrogemus Prophet as interrogemus Christum, lib. 1. de fide ad Gratianum.
• (e)

  Ejus Authoritate non teneor, ejus liter as non ut Canonicas habeo, eas ex Canonicis considero; quod Scripturae non congruit cum pace ejus respuo. in lib. 2, contra Cressonium cap. 32.
• (a)

  Quam hoc ineptum est quod singulis contigit, id nogare posse in omnes cadere Contra lib. 6. De Firmamentis patrum. pag. 414.
• (b)

  Patrum singulorum testimonia collective sumpta non possiunt esse alterius generis quam singula sunt distributivè. Confess. Cathol. lib. 1. par. 2. cap. 13.
• (c)

  Non solum de uno aut altero sparsim, sed de omnibus veteribus gre∣gatim in scriptis suis Patres ubique pronuntiant & corum dogmata esse ad Scripturas expendenda ut probentur, & eorum testimonia ex Scrip∣turis aestimanda ut ex istarum consensulaut dissensu magis minusve va∣leant ad fidei controversi as dirimend as, Lect. 46.
• (a)

  Exceptis Apostolis, quodcunque ali••d postea disitur, abscindatur non 〈◊〉〈◊〉 postec authoritatem. in Psal. 86. (c) Scito me aliter habere Apostolas, aliter reliquos tractatores, illos sem••er vera dicere istos in qui∣busdam, ut homines errare. Epist. 62. ad Theoph. Alex.
• (b)

  Id 〈◊〉〈◊〉 literarum à nobis non cum credendi necessitate sed cum judi•• andi libertate •• gendum est. contra. Faustum 1. 11. c. 5.
• (c)

  Quod Divinarum scriptur arum perspic••â firmatur Authoritate, sine ullâ dubitat••one credendum ess: aliis veto testibus vel testimoniis tibi credere vel non credere liceat, quantum ca momenti ad faciendam fidem vel habere vel non habere perpenderis. Epis. 112. ad Paulineim.
• (d)

  Solis Scripturarum libris — didici bune timorem honoremque deferre ut nullum corum seribendo errasse fi••missimè eredam — Alios autera ita lego ut quantalibet sanctitate, ductrináque proepollcant, non ideo verum putem quia ipsi ita senserunt, sed quia per Canonicas persuadere potnerimt: Tom. 2. Epis. 19.
• (c)

  Quod Divinarum scriptur arum perspic••â firmatur Authoritate, sine ullâ dubitat••one credendum ess: aliis veto testibus vel testimoniis tibi credere vel non credere liceat, quantum ca momenti ad faciendam fidem vel habere vel non habere perpenderis. Epis. 112. ad Paulineim.
• (a)

  Notandum quòd Augustinus in authoritate illa loquens de scripto∣ribus aliis à scriptoribus Bibliae, inter hos scriptores & illos non distin∣guit: & ideo, sive fuerint summi Pontifices, sive alii, sive scripserint aliquid in Concilio, sive extra, consimile de eis judicium est habendum. Part. 3. Dialog. tract. 1. lib. 3. cap. 24.
• (a)

  Fatemur tune temporis (sub aetate Hieronymi & Chrysostomi) laicos in Scripturarum lectione versatos fuisse. Instit. Moral. lib. 8. cap. 26.
• (b)

  in locum.
• (c)

  Prout recitatur à Bellar. de Euchar. lib. 3. c. 23. unum addit Scotus, quod minimè probandum est; Ante Lateranense con∣cilium non fuisse dogma fidei Transubstantia••ionem.
• (a)

  Multa sunt posterioribus nota, quae vetusti illi scriptores prorsus ignoraverunt. Nam de Transubstantiatione— vara esi in antiquis scripto∣ribus mentio. lib. 8. contra haereses in verbo Indulgentia.
• (b)

  Nemo jam dubitat orthodoxus an Purgatorium sit, de quo tamen apud priscos nulla vel quàm rarissima fiebat mentio. — Contemplan∣tes igitur aliquamdiu Purgatorium incognitum fuisse. — Cùm ita{que} Purgatorium tam serò cognitum ac receptum fuerit Ecclesiae, quis jam de Indulgentiis mirari potest, gaòd in principio nullus fuerit earum usus. Roffensis in confutatione Lutheri, p. 496.
• (c)

  Ante tempora Beati Gregorii modicus vel nullus fuit usus Indulgen∣tiarum. Nunc autem crebrescit earum usus, quia Ecclesia sine dubio habet spiritum Christi, ideo{que} non errat. in lect. 57. super canonem Missae.
• (a)

  De Indulgentiis pauca dici possunt per certitudinē, quòd nec Scrip∣tura expressè de eis loquitur.—Sancti etiam, ut Ambros. Hilar. Aug. Hieron. minimè loquuntur de Indulgentiis. in lib. 4. de sentent. dist. 20. qu. 3. cum. 4.
• (b)

  Nulla Scriptura sacra, nulla priscorum Doctorum Graecorum vel Latinorum authoritas Indulgentiarum ortum ad nostram deduxit no, titiam, Opuse, 15. cap. 1.
• (a)

  lib. 6. Biblioth. annet. 152.
• (b)

  Praecipui Patrum lapsi sunt de verbo Dei, lib. 3. cap. 10.
• In si∣bris sanctorum Doctorum, quos authenticè legit Ecclesia, nonnunquam in∣veniuntur quaedam prava & haeretica. Praesat. in lib. 5. Biblioth.
• (c)

  In Rom. 3. disp. 6.
• (d)

  lib, 1. de Euchar. p. 52.
• (e)

  Praefat in lib. 5. Biblioth.
• (a)

  lib. 6. Bibl. annot. 52.
• (b)

  Animadvers. in Epiphanii haereses. 59. pag. 244.
• (c)

  lib. de gratia primi hominis. cap. 11.
• (d)

  De Purgatorio. lib. 2. cap. 18.
• (e)

  Cum in veteribus aliis plurimos feramus errores, & extenuemus, excusemus, excogitato commento persaepe negamus, & commoduna iis sen∣sum affingamus, dum opponuntur in disputationibus, aut conflictionibus cum adversariis, non videmus, eur non eandem aequitatem & diligentem recognitionem mereatur Bertramus. Vide Ind. expurg. in tit. B.
• (a)

  Lib. 1. in Genes. dis. 106.
• (b)

  Declarat sancta Synodus non esse suae intentionis comprehendere in hoc decreto, ubi de peccato originali agitist, beatam & immaculatam Virginem Mariam Dei genetricem. conc. Trident. in sess. 5.
• (a)

  Sancti (antiqui) omnes, qui in eius rei mentionem inciderunt, uno ore asseverârunt Beatam Virginem in peccato originali conceptam,—& nullus sancturum contravenit: Infirmum tamen ex omnium authori∣lute argumentum ducitur, quin potius contraria sententia probabiliter & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 defenditur, loc. theol. lib. 7. c. 1.
• (b)

  ibid. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 3.
• (a)

  Communis Doctorum sentextia sert conilium non facere aliquid de fide, sed decernere esse seu prius fuisse de fide, ut Sancti etiam Patres abunde confirmant. De fide & Theologia. Tract. 2. Sect. 22.
• (b)

  Ses. 36.
• (c)

  In systemate fidei cap. 35. p. 377.
• (a)

  Argumentum ab authoritate infirmum est—Respondemus ex verbo Dei Exod. 23.1. In judicio plurimorum non acquisces sententiae, ut a vero devies cum Augustinus respondent Donatistis signum esse cause à veritatis nervo destitutae, quae soli multorum Authoritati, qui errari pos∣sunt innititur Doctores quo juniores, co perspicatiores sunt. Disp. 51. in Rom. 5.
• (b)

  Nos pat••um Doctrinam non aeliqu•• ex parte admittimus, aeliā re∣pudiamus, sed integram amplectimur. Contra Whitak. fol. 140.
• (c)

  Tenemus integra volumina. In decem rationibus, rat. 5.
• (d)

  Incorrupti sunt judices controversiarum, neque enim credibile est eos, presertim in rebus quae fidem attingunt, à Deo sic destitutos fuisse, ut ••psi errarint, doctrináque suâ alios in errorem induxerint. In Euchir. p. 64.
• (a)

  Missam facio Augustini & Innocentii. 1. sententiam qui sexcentos circiter annos viguit in Ecclesiâ Eucharistiam etiam infantibus necessari∣am. in Joh. 6. vers. 53.
• (b)

  Sessione 13.
• (c)

  Lib. 6. Bibl. Annot. 345.
• (d)

  In notis super Cypriani hortationem ad martyrium.
• (e)

  Neque enim patres censentur, cum suum aliquid, quod ab Ecclesiā non acceperunt, seribunt vel docent: con. Whit. ubi supra.
• (f)

  Debetne ad∣mitti Doctorum (Patrum) Authoritas? Debet quatenus ab Ecclesia ap∣probatur in Catecbis.
• Nam Ecclesiae pater ille dicitur qui Ecclesiam salutari Doctrinâ alit & pascit—Iam vero si pro salutifero Doctrinae pabulo—offerat & adducatur lolium & zizania—perversorum dogmatum—eate∣nus non Pater est sed vitricus, non Doctor sed seductor. In lib. 2. de jure ac more prohibendi libras noxios cap. 10.
• (a)

  Panopl. l. cap. 17. §. inprimis.
• (b)

  Apud Baron. in Anal. tom. 3. an. 340.
• (c)

  Haereticus Arrianus, in Apologiá contra Grevinchovium c. 8. n. 9.
• (d)

  Loco jam citato.
• (e)

  Nobilis admodum author, latinorum omnium facile princeps. Panopl. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. cap. 23.
• (a)

  Tom. 1. Moral. lib. 8. ca. 16.
• (b)

  Lib. 1. de Sanctis ca. 5.
• (c)

  Testis omni sane exceptione major. contra Whitak sol. 109.
• (d)

  Alterum Eccle∣siarum post Apostolos Magistrum asebat Hieronymus. Panop. lib. 3. cap. 26.
• (e)

  Loc. com. lib. 7. cap. 3. num. 11.
• (f)

  In Iohan. 1.3.
• (g)

  De verbo Dei 1. 4. c. 11.
• (h)

  Lactantius magis librorum Ciceronis quam Scripturarum Sanctarum peritus. Victorinus martyr quidem fuit, sed ei cruditio de∣fuit, Lib. 1. de sanctis 6.5. in fine.
• (a)

  Sessione 4.
• (b)

  In Prafatione in Pentateuchum.
• (c)

  Lib. 3. in Gen. qu. 5. n. 45.
• (d)

  la muitis locis Joh. 8.56. Mat. 16.18. & 19.
• (e)

  Stella in Luc. 10. 21. Baronius in Annal. Tom. 1. An. 34. Patres in interpretatione Scripturarum non semper—Catholicam Ecclesiam sequuntur.
• (f)

  Sacrae Doctrina Authoritatibus Canonicae Scripturae utitur propriè ex necessitate Argumentando, authoritatibus autem aliorum doctorum Ecclesiae arguendo ex propriis, sed probabilitet. Innititur enim fides nostra revelationi Apostolis & Prophetis factae—non ••utem revela∣tioni, si quae fuit aliis Doctoribus factae. Part. 1. qu. 1. art. 8.
• (g)

  Authoritates patrum sine Scripturis non obligant ad fidem. Lect. 41: in Canon Missae.
• (h)

  Divinae tantum Scripturae, nihil habere erroris, quod corrigatur. Tom. 4. Annal. An. 369.
• (i)

  Patrum Scripta non sunt regula, nec ha∣bent authoritatem obligandi. de Concil. lib. 2. cap. 12. §. Dico secundo.
• (a)

  Augustinus & ceteri Patres in comm••ntartis sungebantur officio doctorum, at Concilia & Pontifices funguntur officio judicis à Deo sibi commisso lib. 3. de verbo Dei cap. 10.
• (b)

  Ponlifex non habet ullos in Ecclesiâ Patres, sed omnes filios. Quid vero mirum est, si non pater fi∣liis, sed filii patri suo subjiciantur. Lib. 2. de Romano Pontifice cap. 27.
• (c)

  Si de Doctorum consensu non aperte constar••t, sua tunc constat Au∣thoritas Pentifici in Analysi lib. 8. cap. 8. pag. 119.