purpose, but this is enough for any but chofe, who are relolved to facrifice their confciences to the Pope's ambition, and for them it is too much. §. 7. The fourth and laft argument is this: The Papilts themselves, whatever fometimes they pretend, yet indeed do not make the Fathers the ground & fourdation of their Faith, but acknowledg them fallible. 1.This appears from what hach already been difcourfed concerning their avowed Doctrine, That Infallibility is the proper and peculiar priviledge of the Church, and confequently belongs not to the Fathers in their fingle capacities. 2. It appears from the acknowledged novelty of feveral Romifh doctrines, which their molt learned men confefs 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 confeffe in their dayes (viz. of Jerome and Auguftine) Lay-men were converfant in the reading of the Scripture, faith Akorini (a). And whereas many Popish Authors expound thofe words fob.5.39. spóviteras y papas indicatively, as if they did only acquaint us with the practice of the Jewes, and not containe a command of Chrift to his hearers to read the Scriptures. Toler and Maldonate (b) both wit neffe, that Chryfoftome, Theophylact, and Augustine, and all weighty authors except Cyrill do understand it imperatively for a command of Christ. 2. They acknowledg the novelty of Tranfubstantiation. The words of Scotus are thefe:(c) Before the Later an Councell, the doctrine of Transubstantiation was no point of (a) Fatemur tunc temporis fub etate Hicronymi & Chryfoftomi) laicos in Scripturarum lectione verfates fuiffe. Inftit.Moral.l.8.c.26. (b) In locum. (c) Prout recitatur à Bellar. de Euchar.l.3.0.230 Uaum addit Scotus,quod minimè probandum eft; Ante Lateranenfe Con cilium non fuiffe dogma fidei Tranfubstantiationem. faith and the first Lateran Councel was above 1100 years after Chrift's birth. And Alphonfus de Caftro delivers this memorable affertion: Many things are known to later Authors, which the Antient writers were wholly ignorant of, for these feldome make any mention of Tranfubftantiation. (a) 3. The doctrine of Indulgencies and Purgatory (I joyn them both together as being neer of kin) of which Bifhop Fisher hath this remarkable paffage. (b) No Ore thodox Chriftian now doubts whether there be a Purgatory, though the Antients seldome or never mentioned it: Anda little after; Confidering that Purgatory was for a good while unknown, and again, feeing then Purgatory was known and received in the Church fo lately, who can wonder that Indulgencies were not used in the primitive Church? So Gabriel Biel:(c) Before the times of S. Gregory (& that was 600 years after Chrift), there was little or no afe of Indulgencies but now they are fed frequently because the Church without doubt hath the spirit of Christ, and therefore cannot erre. That fine dubio did his worke, for I was about to difpute against his affertion, but that phrafe quite took away my courage. You fee it is a courtesy that the Par pifts will condefcend to prove their doctrine from Scrip (a) Multa funt pofterioribus nota, quæ vetufti illi fcriptores prorfus ignoraverunt. Nam de Tranfubftantiationerara eft in antiquis fcriptoribus mentio.lib.8. contra bærefes in verbo Indulgentia. (b) Nemo jam dubitat orthodoxus an Purgatorium fit, de quo tamen apad prifcos nulla vel quàm rariffima fiebat mentio. Contemplantés igitur aliquandiu Purgatorium incognitum fuiffe. Cùm itaque Purgatorium tam ferò cognitum ac receptum fuerit Ecclefiæ, quis jam de In dulgentiis mirari poteft, quòd in principio nullus fuerit earum ufus. Roffenfis in confutatione Lutheri, p. 496. (c) Ante tempora Beati Gregorii modicus vel nullus fuit ufus Indulgentiarum. Nunc autem crebrefcit earum ufus,quia Ecclefia fine dubio habet fpiritum Chrifti,ideog, non errat.in le&.57.fuper Canonem Missa. ture and Fathers; whereas if they would stand upon their termes, they might argue thus: The conclufion without doubt is true, that the Church cannot erre; therefore a fig for the premises. So Durandus: (a) Concerning Indulgencies little can be faid with any certainty, because the Scripture Speaks not exprefly of them; and the holy Fathers Aug: Ambrofe, Hilary, Jerome do not at all mention them. And Cajeran exprefly: (b) No facred Scripture, no autho rity of antient Fathers,either Greek or Latine, hath brought the rife 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 fuch as have been handed to them from the Apoftles by all the antient Fa. thers in an uninterrupted fucceffion. I believe I could inftance in twenty feveral Articles of the Romish Church, for which they have no colour of Authority from any of the Fathers. But this may fuffice for a Specimen of that refpect which the Papifts have for the Fathers, when they do not comply with their humors. The Fathers were fo ignorant for a thousand years together, that they did not underftand, or fo negligent that they did not inftru&t their people in that great mystery of Tranfubftantiation, (then which none was more neceffary to be taught, be caufe none more difficult to believe.) The Fathers were fo hard-hearted and cruel, that they would fuffer fouls to fry in Purgatory for hundreds of years together, whom they might have certainly released by the help of Indulgencies. The Fathers were fo indifcreet,that they allowed their hearers to read the Scriptures, and have them in a a De Indulgentiis pauca dici poffunt per certitudinem, quòd nec Scrip. zura expreffè de eis loquitur.Sancti etiam,ut Ambr.Hilar. Aug. Hier. minime loquuntur de indulgentiis.in lib.4.de fentent.dift.20 qu.z.cum.4. b Nulla Scriptura facra, nulla prifcorum doctorum Græcorum vel Latinorum authoritas Indulgentiarum ortum ad noftram deduxit nolitiam, Opufc.15.cap.3. ... vulgar tongue. But now it is not fit to be granted, fait Sixtus Senenfis. The Church of Rome hath got a mo nopoly of all knowledg, fidelity, tender-heartednefs, (which you will wonder atj difcretion, and all good qualities, and Infallibility into the bargain. This is the excellency of the Romish faith, that it is calculated for any Meridian. Are any of their doctrines feemingly favoured by the Fathers? why then you fhall 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 filent or opponent? why they are furnished with another strain that the Fathers were but private Dectors, and had their failings. The chief of the Fathers had their falls, faith Bellarmine. b In the books of the Antients, which the Church reads as authentick, fometimes are found wicked and beretical paffages, faith Sixtus Senenfis. And to long as the Church of Rome referves to her felf alwayes a liberty of determining what paffages are wicked and heretical, I trow fhe is out of Gur-fhot: I do not value Origins judgment, faith Pererius. And that you may fee the Papifts do infanire cum ratione, I pray you take notice, that what they want in confcience and honeft dealing, they make up in wit, and therefore.bave devised several ingenious fhifts, whereby they can elude the moft pregnant teftimonies of the Fathers levied against them. Sometimes they answer, that the Fathers fpeak yigma's in oppofition to the prefent Adverfary they were difpu ting with, not Ayuatixas as laying down their own pofi tive opinion: thus Perron d and Sixtus Senenfis. Some a Lib.6.Biblioth.annot. 152. Præcipui Patrum lapfi funt. de verlo Dei.lib.3.cap 10. * In libris fanctorum doctorum, quos authenticè legit Ecclefia, nonnunquam inveniuntur quædam prava & hæretica. Præfat.in lib.5 Biblioth. In Rom..difp.6. d Lib.1.de Eucbar.p.5.2. times ་ i times they fay the Fathers speak declimatorio more,hyperbolically, and by ex. efs: thus Sixtus Senenfis aniwers our allegations from the Fathers for reading the Scrip ture. (a) Thus Petavius anfwers a clear paffage of Chryfoftomes against Auricular Confeffion. (b) At other times they tell us, the Fathers did not alwaies fpeak what they thought, but what they faw neceffary to confute their Adverfaries: thus Perron anfwers the citations from the Fathers against creature-worship. If you alledge the Epiftles of the Fathers, they tell you, the Fathers did not ufe fully to open their minds in thofe writings: So Ferron anfwers a Teftimony of Auftins agai:ft Tranfubftantiati on. Sometimes they plead, that the Fathers fpeak the opinion of others, not their own; as Bellarmine anfwers a place out of Hierom. (c) Ifyou bring any paffage out. of their Poems, they fay the Fathers did ufe Poetical li berty, as Bellarmine antwers to Prudentius (d). So just was the judgment of the University of Doway upon Ber tram's Book, of the body and bloud of Chrift: Seeing we bear many errors in the antient Fathers, and extenuate and excuse them, and oft times by fome devised fiction we deny and put a convenient fenfe upon them when they are oppofed against us in difputations with our adversaries, we do not fee why Bertram doth not deferve the fame equity, and diligent recognition. (e) And thus they deale with the Fathers,when they displease their humour,and oppofe their doctrines. But if the Fathers deliver any thing that (a) Lib.6. Bibl. annot. 52. (b) Animadverf. in Epiphanii hærefes 59.pag 244. (c) Lib.de gratia primi kominis.cap.11.(d)De Purgatorio, lib.z.cap.18. (c) Cum in veteribus diis plurimos feramus errores, & extenuemus; excufemus,cxcogitato commento perfæpe negemus, & commodum iis fenfum affingamus,dum opponuntur in difputationibus, aut confli&ionibus cum adverfariis, non videmus, cur non candem æquitatem & diligentem repegniliqucm mereatur Bertramus. Vide Ind. expurg,in tit, B. feems |