13. Epist 39. Lib. 7. Epist 30. ad Eulogium he rejects the name given to himself this name of Singularity or consented to use it as Popes now do And who is he who contrary to the Gospel and the Decrees of the Canons presumeth to take upon him this foolish and proud Name Did ever any Protestant inveigh more bitterly against the Popes Universal Episcopacy I would gladly know whether both parts of a contradiction can be true Whether the antient or modern Roman Bishops or both be infallible Do not the modern Popes assume and earnestly contend for this foolish proud and Antichristian Name And lest we should imagine that Pope Gregory condemn'd this Name in other Patriarchs only not as to himself he addeth in the before-mentioned Epistle to Mauritius the Emperour Gracious Lord Nunquid hac in re propriam causam defendo c. Do I in this speak for my self or plead my own cause and not rather the cause of the whole Church Where note he acknowledgeth the Emperour to be his Lord and to whose judgment he is willing to refer the whole cause Did Pope Gregory make the Emperour supreme Judge in an Article of Faith Let Papists judge Notwithstanding all this zeal his successor Boniface soon after Ann. 607. as Sigebert Marianus Scotus Martinus Polonus and other Historians testifie Epist 32. ad Maurit lib. 2. Epist 61. ad Maur. Beda de aetate Anastas vita Bonifacii 3. Ad. Chron. l. 1. In Praefat. Reipub. Eccl. by the favour of that execrable Regicide Phocas obtained this proud foolish and prophane Title and the present Pope not onely owneth the Name but contrary to the judgment of his Predecessors who are supposed to have been infallible executeth an Universal jurisdiction over all Princes Bishops Churches as far as he is able to the diminution yea almost abrogation of their due Rights Priviledges and Authority as Marcus Antonius de Dominis Arch-bishop of Spalato justly complained So much for the Popes Supremacy Art. 7 Concerning the sacrifice of the Mass The next Article is the proper and real Sacrificing Christ his very Body and Bloud in the Mass by the Priest as a Propitiation for the sins both of quick and dead This Error in all probability arose from want of a discreet understanding of some Rhetorical or Hyperbolical expressions used by the Antient Fathers in their popular Sermons and Discourses concerning the Sacrament of Christ's death and Passion Christus in seipso immortaliter vivens iterum in hoc Mysterio moritur Greg. M. de Concil Dist 2. Quid sit But that it was no part of their Faith to believe that Christ is really and properly sacrificed in the Mass we shall evidently prove out of their own Writings I shall begin with Justin Martyr Apol. ad Antonin who discoursing of the Holy Eucharist sheweth how the Christians then used to offer Bread and Wine to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Minister who receiving them offereth up to God not Christ himself but Glory Thanks and Praise for those his gifts i. e. Bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mal. 1.11 which relates to all Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Wine which after the Ministers Prayers and Thanksgivings are distributed to every one that is present Where note First They termed Bread and Wine after the Ministers Prayers or Consecration Secondly Both Bread and Wine were given to all present not Bread onely much less neither one nor the other as in Private Masses But of sacrificing or offering up Christ himself to God he hath not a word in that place The same Father in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew P. 201. treateth at large concerning the abrogation of the Jewish Sacrifices and coming to mention the Christian Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Dialog pag. 270. which Malachy foretold should be offered up to God by the Gentiles in every place he interprets it as Tertullian Eusebius and the rest of the Fathers do of Prayers and Praises Which saith he I account the onely perfect sacrifices pleasing to God. Which Spiritual Sacrifices a little after he opposeth to all the Sacrifices Offerings and Oblations of the Law. Surely had Saint Justin believed that in the Eucharist Christ himself his Body and Bloud were by the Priest really and properly sacrificed to God he would no doubt have made mention of this Christian Sacrifice far exceeding in virtue and value no onely all Jewish Offerings but the Prayers and Thanksgivings of all Christians at least he would never have affirmed that the latter were in his opinion the onely perfect Sacrifices under the Gospel pleasing to God. But he is altogether silent as to any such Sacrifice yea contrarily in that very place he addeth That these onely Sacrifices to wit Prayers and Praises Christians have learned to make and that in or at the commemoration or remembrance of their alimony both wet and dry i. e. the Eucharistical Bread and Wine in which they remember the Passion of Christ Where it is remarkable that Justin Martyr instead of proper sacrificing of Christ in the Holy Eucharist mentions onely the Commemoration or Memorial of his Passion and that the Prayers and Thanksgivings attending it for it 's called the Eucharist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were the onely Sacrifices Christians had learned in that most solemn Office of Religion to offer up to God. So much for Justin I pass on to St. Irenaeus who acknowledgeth that Christ teaching his Disciples to offer to God First-fruits of his Creatures Lib. 4. c. 32.32 34. lest they should seem ungrateful took that Bread which is of the creature or Creation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 possibly was the word and gave thanks and said This is my Body In like manner the Cup of Wine which is of the creature i. e. the Vine confessing it to be his Bloud and taught the Oblation of the new Testament which the Church receiving from the Apostles offereth to God throughout the World to him who granteth to us the First-fruits of his Gifts in the New Testament Here we find an Oblation but not a Sacrifice which two De Missa l. 1. c 2. as Bellarmine observeth are different things much less a sacrifice of Christs Body and Bloud Irenaeus plainly sheweth what kind of Oblation he meant when he declareth it to be not of Christ the Creator but of Gods creatures to wit Bread and Wine which the Church offers to God. De Euchar. lib 10. c. 27. V. Litur Chrysost Bellarmine grants this First as an expression of honour love and gratitude to him for his creatures bountifully bestowed on us for our sustenance Secondly That out of a part of them to wit Bread and Wine set on Gods Table or Altar by the prayers of the Priest they might become sacramentally and mystically his Body and Bloud Thirdly That out of the remains the poor might be relieved These Oblations Saint Cyprian after him calleth in an improper
punishment properly so call'd to be inflicted by God for them wholly and onely to the blood merits and satisfaction of Christ our Saviour and Redeemer who is highly dishonour'd by these pretended Pardous Saint Paul not without some indignation asketh the Corinthians Was Paul crucified for you 1 Cor. 1.13 If the sufferings of St. Paul and other Saints satisfie at least in part for mens sins or which is all one for the temporal punishment due to them why may it not be truly said that Paul as well as Christ was crucifi'd or suffer'd death for us Indeed I cannot but wonder at the strange perverseness of our Adversaries who will by no means grant that the merits righteousness and obedience especially active of Christ are or can be through saith imputed unto us for our justification and remission of our sins and yet earnestly contend that by the Papal Indulgence the merits fastings and prayers of Saints Monks and Fryars may be imputed or made over to any that will be at the cost to purchase it Nor the Popes Supremacy Seventhly As to the Popes Supremacy over all Christians and Churches altho a great noise is made with Thou art Peter c. and to thee will I give the Keys c. Certainly Card. Cusanus concordant lib. 3. cap. 13. Marsilius defens part 2. cap. 18. Licèt fortè non sit de jure divino Rom. Pontif. ut talem Petro succedere c. Bellar. de P.R. l. 1. c. 12. Matth. 22.26 as some of their own Writers confess it hath no ground in Scripture yea it is contrary thereunto For that our Saviour altho his Apostles were often disputing who should be chief amongst them never declar'd Peter to be his Viceroy or Vicar which would have put a final end to all this contention about Supremacy Yea he makes them all alike equal even after he had said Thou art Peter c. Secondly V. Euseb Hist l. 2. c. 1. de primatu Jacobi Hic primus Episcopalem cethedram cepit cum ante caeteros omnes suum ei in terris thronum Dominus tradidisset Epiphan adv Haeres lib. 3. Tom. 2. pag. 1039. Jacobus Apostolorum princeps Ruffinus Hist lib. 2. cap. 1. Saint John was the Disciple whom Jesus loved in an especial manner above the rest of the Apostles for no doubt he had a love for every one of them Saint James his Brother or Cousin was made Bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles and succeeded our Saviour in his Throne as Epiphanius saith Why might not either of these plead a right of Supremacy as well as Peter Thirdly Saint Paul altho he was Novissimus Apostolorum the last Apostle call'd after all the rest 2 Cor. 12.11 yet he saith he thought he came not behind even the chiefest Apostles yea 1 Cor. 15.10 that he labour'd more than they all and had on him the care of all the Churches 2 Cor. 11.28 Can we think he would have presum'd to have written of himself in such an high manner if he had thought that Christ his Lord had appointed St. Yet Stapleton durst write Petro data est potestas mandativa atque regiminis Apostolis potestas executiva tantùm est gubernationis Doctrin Princip lib. 6. c. 7. Peter as his Vice-gerent to be the Head Sovereign Prince and supreme Governour of all the Apostles Churches and Christians Nay farther it is clear from Gal. 1.12 17.18 That St. Paul neither receiv'd instruction nor Authority to preach the Gospel from St. Peter but immediately from Christ himself Cypr. Epist 71. Nec Petrus super quem Dominus aedificavit Ecclesiam cùm secum Paulus disceptaret vendicavit se primatum tenere obtemperari sibi oportere Petrus Paulus ambo principes Card. Cusanus Epist 2. de usu Commun Gal. 2.11 Erat Paulus Princeps Apostolorum honore par Petro ne quid dicam amplius Chrysostom in Galat. c. 2. Petrus universalis Episcopus non vocatur Greg. lib 4. Epist 32. Paulus ascendit Hierosolymam Petri cognoscendi causa ex Ofsicio Jure scil ejusdem fidei praedicationis Tertul. de Praescr non subjectionis Matth. 16. V. Cyprian Epist unit Eccl. in locum h … It 's St. Chrysostoms observation Sermon de Pentecoste Hom. 55. in Matth. Add Hilary lib. 2. de Trinit 16. Ambrose in Eph. cap. 2. Pope Gregory the Great in Psal 102. v. 25. Cyril de Trinit lib. 4. Aug. de Verb. Domini Ser. 13. Beda in cap. 21. Joan. Lib. 1. in Jovnian Compare Origen in Matth. 16. Ephes 2.20 and executed his Apostolick Office three years before he ever saw St. Peter's face Which is furthermore evident and undeniable from Gal. 2.9 That James is plac'd before Cephas or Peter and Cephas and John gave to Paul the right hand of fellowship as to one equal in Authority with themselves and in ver 11. we find Paul withstanding Peter to his face not seemingly as St. Hierom thought opposed therein by Saint Augustine but really and in earnest for Peter was indeed as the Text saith to be blamed All which particulars laid together evince I think to any ingenuous man that St. Peter was not supreme over all the Apostles for where there is an Equality there can be no Supremacy But St. Paul doth assert and prove himself equal not inferiour to St. Peter Therefore St. Peter was not Supreme at least St. Paul did not think him to be so Now if S. Peter had not Supreme Power over all Christians how can the Pope pretend to it as succeeding St. Peter in his Authority Can he have more Power than St. Peter had As for those words Thou art Peter c. it is to be observ'd that our Saviour saith not Thou art Peter and on thee but on this Rock i. e. this faith thou hast professed that I am the Son of God will I build my Church and so many of the Fathers expound it as I shall shew afterward 'T is true Our Lord promised to give unto Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and accordingly after his Resurrection he gave him them but our Saviour gave them him and the rest of the Apostles all together at the same time and in the same manner And as the Christian Church was in some sense built on Peter i. e. in respect of the faith he taught so it was equally pari modo ex aequo as St. Hierom saith on the rest of the Apostles agreeable to that of St. Paul being built on the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Jesus Christ himself not Peter being the Chief Corner-stone It is not therefore true that some affirm Potestatem Apostoli receperunt immediate à Christo Francis de victoria Relect. 2. qu. 2. Conclus 3. 4. John 20.22 Matth. 16.16 John 21.17 Non Petrus sed Christus Graecis Paulum praefecit Chrysost Hom. in 2. cap. ad Galatas Matth. 28.18 19. Cùm dicitur Petro pasce oves meas ad
the Aquarii who would not use Wine but Water onely in the holy Eucharist Epist 63. Vinum quo Christi sanguis ostenditur argueth in this manner Where there is no Wine in the Cup the bloud of Christ cannot be express'd for we see the bloud to be shown ostendi in the Wine And in his Comment upon the Lords Prayer he applies those words Give us this day our daily bread to the sacramental bread The same Cyprian declares in his Sermon of the Lords Supper what manner of body is in the Sacrament of the Eucharist when he saith Veracissimum sanctissimum creat corpus suum sanctificat De coena Dom. Who continually even to this present day doth create sanctifie and bless his Body distributing the same to godly Receivers Now it 's undeniable that Christ's very own proper body is not continually created sanctified or blessed The words of Athanasius are very remarkable Our Lord distinguisheth the Spirit from the Flesh Ad Serapion De Spir. S. In cap. 6. Joann V. Câ—prian de coena Dom. August de verbâ—s Apost Serm. 2. Tom. 10. spiritualiter intelligenda sunt nisi manducaveritis carnem c. Aug. Tract 27. in Joan. ubi plura that we might learn that the words he spake John 6. were not carnal but spiritual For to how many men was his body enough to eat that it should become the food of the whole World But therefore he mentions his Ascension into Heaven that he might draw us off from a corporal sense and thenceforward should understand his Flesh he spake of as heavenly and spiritual Food 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the words I speak to you are spirit and life as if he had said my Body which is shown and given for the World is given for food that it may be spiritually 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 communicated to every one Cyril of Hierusalem saith under the Type 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Bread Mystagog lib. 4. where he granteth that in John 6 c. Except ye eat is to be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spiritually Christs Body is given thee and under the Type of Wine his Bloud Nazianzen termeth the Bread and Wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 antitypes of Christs Body and Bloud In like manner Dionysius Areopag and Basil in his Liturgy But I must not forget Gregory Nyssen As saith he In Laudem Gorgoniae Orat. in Baptis the Altar is by Nature a common Stone but being consecrated to God's service is made an Holy Table and as the Eucharistical Bread is at first common Bread but when the Mystery i.e. Mystical Prayer of consecration hath sanctify'd it is called and is the Body of Christ As the Priest to day a common man by benediction is made a Teacher of Piety and nothing changed in body hath his soul transform'd by invisible Grace so the Water in Baptism when it 's nothing else but water by the heavenly blessing of Grace reneweth a man. Where it 's evident Gregory Nyssen alloweth no other Transubstantiation in the Eucharist than in Baptism the Ordination of a Priest or the Consecration of an Altar Chrysostom in his Epistle to Caesarius which is to be seen in the Florentine Library * Which is published since this Author wrote See the Exposition of the Doctrin of the Ch. of E. in answer to the Bishop of Meaux in Append. It is quoted by Damascen contra Acephalos Etiamsi Natura panis permansit Hom. 11. in Math. V. Athanas ad Serap de SS Comment in 1 Cor. 10. V. Chrysost Hom. 46. in Joan. Sicut mortis similitudinem sumpsisti ità etiam similitudinem pretiosi sanguinis De Sacramentis lib 4. cap. 5. Haec oblatio est figura corporis sanguinis Domini Ibid. Fide tangitur Christus non corpore as Peter Martyr a Florentine witnesseth as also in the University-Library at Oxford writeth after this manner Before the bread be sanctify'd we call it Bread but the divine Grace sanctifying it we call it the Lords Body altho the nature of bread remain These words directly overthrow Transubstantiation In another place the same Father discourses after this manner If it be so dangerous to apply to private uses these hallowed Vessels in the which is not the very true body of Christ but onely the Mystery of his Body is contain'd c. much more our bodies to sin Adding That we ought to climb up into Heaven when we receive the Communion if we would have the fruition of Christ's Body yea rather above the Heavens for saith he in another place Wheresoever the carcass is there will the Eagles be gather'd together The Lord is the Carcass because of his death and this is a Table for mounting Eagles not for pratling Jays I shall now add the words of St. Ambrose who discoursing of our Saviour's celebrating the holy Sacrament with his Disciples breaking bread and giving it to them saying Take eat this is my body c. adds As ye have received the similitude of my death so drink also the similitude of my precious bloud This oblation is the figure of the Body and Bloud of the Lord. In another place Christ is touch'd by Faith not bodily Let us now hear Theodoret's testimony Our Saviour saith he In Lucam lib. 6. cap. 8. So Saint Jerom in Psal 50. Dei tui corpus sanguinem mente continge cordis manu suscipe in the institution of the Eucharist chang'd the names not natures of things and applied that to his body which belonged to the symbol or sign of it and to the sign what appertain'd to his body which he did that such as partake of the divine Mysteries should not be attent on the nature of those things they see but by the change of names should believe that mutation which is made by Grace For he that is Christ that called what is by nature a Body Wheat or Bread the same honoured the signs or symbols with the names of his Body and Bloud not changing their Nature Dial. 1.8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but adding Grace to Nature And when the Eutychian Heretick would hence draw an argument that as the signs of Christs Body and Bloud are one thing before Consecration another after it so our Lord's body after it's Union to his divine Person ceased to be in substance what it appeared and was chang'd into the divine Nature of the Godhead Theodoret replieth upon him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You are taken in your own Net for the Mystical signs after Consecration recede not from their former nature but remain in their former substance form and appearance Mark. He saith not onely in their former form and appearance but in their substance also This is an irrefragable testimony against the Novel Doctrine of Transubstantiation I will add the words of Gelasius who was as some say Bishop of Rome but however one that liv'd towards the latter end of the fifth Century
is no purging if no purging no Purgatory In another place he saith After this life is a time of punishment but not of purging Hence he adds It is better for a man to be chastis'd and purg'd by temporal affliction here All which places directly confront the Romish Doctrine concerning purgation of Souls by fire after death In his fourth Oration on Baptism he mentions several sorts of fire I know saith he the purging fire viz. that which Christ came to send on Earth viz. the fire of Tribulation and temporal Affliction as Nicetas in his Comment understands it The fire of love and faith towards God which purgeth the Soul from sin Therefore saith he Christ desired to have it kindled on Earth as soon as might be that we might have the benefit of it This cannot be Purgatory-fire which Christ kindled not on Earth I know saith he another fire but it is a punishing not purging fire as that of Sodom or that which goeth before the face of the Lord to burn up his Enemies or the fire join'd with the never-dying worm which is eternal Had Nazianzen known any other fire purgative of Souls after this life no question he would here have mention'd it but he was it seems wholly ignorant of this Romish Purgative fire after death which Bellarmine asserts to be a point of Faith which he that believeth not cannot be saved De Purgat l. 10. c. 15. but shall go to Hell. Parcite non credimus However to make a shew of Nazianzen's consent he quoteth those words in his Oration In Sancta lumina They shall be baptiz'd with another fire which is the last Baptism which devours the gross matter like fire and consumeth the levity of sin But herein the Cardinal discovers much want of sincerity and fair dealing for Nazianzen in that place speaketh thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By chance or it may be they shall be there baptiz'd with fire so that he delivers it not positively as an Artiele of Faith but as an uncertain Opinion or possibility onely as Augustin doth after him Again he directs his Speech to the Novatian Hereticks But the Roman Church is not so merciful as to send Hereticks to Purgatory and possibly he might mean by that Fire Origen cont Cols l. 5. Cyril Catech 15. the fire of Conflagration at the end of the World as others of the Fathers which Bellarmin denies not are sometimes to be understood I must not omit his intimate Friend Basil the Great who saith Moral sum lib. 10. The present time is the time of repentance and remission of sins In his Exhortation to Baptism he mentions only Heaven and Hell taking no notice of Purgatory By the Baptism of Fire he understands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word of Doctrine In his Comment on Psal 33. he distinguisheth two sorts of men onely such as are dead to sin and die in a mortify'd and sanctify'd Estate and such as are sinners The death of the former is blessed of the latter miserable in regard punishment attends them like Dives in the Parable Now Dives we know was in Hell as is plain Luke 16. not Purgatory Basil therefore it seemeth knew no such place I pass to Epiphanius who confuting the Novatians writeth thus Her. 59. In the other World after mens death there is no Fasting Pennance Alms or Piety there Lazarus cometh not to Dives nor Dives to Lazarus Why did he not except those who are labouring in Purgatory as Romanists speak Epiphanius goes on The Store-houses are sealed no coming out the time accomplished the Combat ended the Race run and the Crowns are given To what end then are Prayers Masses Indulgences c and they who have striven are quiet If quiet how labouring in Purgatory Again All things are plainly ended after death whilst all are in Combate after falling there may be rising again There is yet hope there is yet help Salvation is not desperate After death the King shuts the door admitteth none After our departure we may not correct what was amiss formerly in us How are these words reconcileable to the modern Romans Faith They say men may correct after death by the help of others what was formerly amiss in them After death Salvation is not desperate there is yet hope and help for some of a middle sort when they have undergone temporary punishment or penance in Purgatory The door of Heaven after death is not shut the Store-houses are not seal'd up but may be open'd afterward the Combate is not ended nor whatsoever Epiphanius saith all the Crowns yet given some being reserv'd for those that are making satisfaction for their venial sins or compleating it for those that were mortal in Purgatory Yet the Fathers are all theirs and the Roman Church never did never can err But it 's objected that Epiphanius undoubtedly held Purgatory as a point of Faith in regard he alloweth Prayers for the dead and condemns Aërius as an Heretick for denying it I answer Prayer for the dead doth no way prove the Romish Purgatory Or that they for whom the Church anciently prayed were in pain or torment neither doth Epiphanius intimate any such thing yea he contradicts it in part at least when he saith We pray for the Patriarchs Prophets Apostles Martyrs who as our Adversaries confess were never in Purgatory but happy in the Lord. Saint Ambrose pray'd for the Emperour Valentinian when deceased De Obitu Valentin Confess lib. 9. cap. ult yet in the very same place he declares that he believ'd he was in heavenly Glory Saint Augustin also pray'd for his Mother Monica when departed yet immediately adds that he believ'd God had granted what he begg'd i. e. remission of her sins and everlasting life Prayer then for the dead does not infer Purgatory But this by the way Let us now hear what Saint Chrysostom saith in his third Sermon upon the Philippians he makes not three but onely two sorts of Christians Such as die in the true Faith and such as die in Infidelity and their Sins The former after their departure out of this life are blessed who are gone to Christ and there are nearer to him not by Faith but face to face And Homily the fourth on the Epistle to the Hebrews Tell me what mean those bright Lamps in Funerals Is it not that we bring forth the dead like victorious Combatants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Why are the Hymns Is it not because we glorifie God for crowning him that is departed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he hath free'd him from labours and from the fear of death having him with himself Consider what ye sing when ye say Return unto thy Rest O my soul c. These expressions agree with Purgatory like Water with Fire How are they blessed with Christ victorious crowned free from all sorrows at rest and peace who being of the number of the faithful no gross sinners but in a state of Grace are yet
tormented in the fiery flames of Purgatory The same Father in another place hath these words Hom. 5. in Genesin He that in this present life shall not wash away his sins shall find no consolation hereafter this is the time of combating that of crowning I shall onely add what he writeth in his second Homily upon Lazarus quoted by Bellarmin When we are departed hence it is not in our power to repent or to wash away the sins we have committed V. Cyril Alexand in Joan. lib. 12. c. 36. Thus we have seen that the Greek Fathers in the first Ages of the Church were not of the present Roman Faith as to this new Article of Purgatory I might descend lower were it not needless for 't is confess'd by some of the Romish Writers V. Polyd. Virg. de invent rerum lib. 8. c. 1. Alph. de Castro c. 8. p. 572. particularly Roffensis the Pope's Martyr in Henry VIII his days That in the ancient Fathers especially the Greeks there is either none or very rare mention of Purgatory Neither saith he did the Latin Fathers all at once receive it neither does the Greek Church at this day believe it This Concession is true for the Greeks in their printed Confession offer'd to the Council of Basil Jeremy Patriarch of Constantinople Ann. 1438. in his Censure of the Lutheran Confession and Cyril Patriarch of that Church in his Confession of Faith sent by him to Cornelius Hage Ambassadour for the States of Holland at Constantinople An. 1630. deny any purgation of sins after death by fire in Purgatory which say the Greeks in their Apology was condemn'd by the fifth General Council altho it is not now to be found in the late Editions of the Councils From what hath been said I hope it is evident First That there neither is nor ever was any Catholick or universal consent of all Christian Churches as to this new Roman Article of Faith viz. Purgatory Secondly That Bellarmin the Jesuit doth but abuse the World in quoting the Greek Fathers as owning it For is it probable that the Romans should understand their meaning in their Writings better than themselves It 's true some of them as Origen Gregory Nyssen c. mention Purgation of Souls from sin by Fire but it makes nothing for the Popish doctrine of Purgatory For First Origen's Purgatory is universal which all Prophets Apostles Origen in Exod. Hom. 6. the blessed Virgin must pass through not some onely neither very good nor very bad but of a middle sort as Romanists hold Secondly The Purgation Saint Basil Gregory Nyssen and others speak of is not before the Resurrection V. Origen in lib. Regum p. 36. Contra Celsum lib. 5. p. 241. Cyrilli Catech. l. 15. pag. 168. Ego puto quod post resurrectionem ex mortuis indigeamus sacramento nos eluente purgante Origen Hom. 14. in Lucam but at the end of the World by the fire of Conflagration which shall purge as some think the whole Creation so that at last all men even Devils too shall be saved as Origen held who turn'd Hell into Purgatory Such Sentences of the Fathers will not at all be serviceable to our Adversaries purpose So much for the Greek come we now to the Latin Fathers I shall begin with Tertullian who in his Apologetick Cap. 47. mentions onely two places to which Souls go Hell and Paradise In his Book De Testimon Animae Cap. 4. He thus bespeaketh the Soul We affirm thee to remain after death and to expect the day of judgment Expectare diem Judicii proque merito aut cruciatui destinari aut refrigerio utroque sempiterno and according to your behaviour to be destinated to torment or comfort and both eternal As for temporary torments in the fire of Purgatory before the day of Judgment Tertullian takes no notice of them In his fifth Book against Marcion Cap. 6. commenting on that famous place 1 Cor. 3. he rightly understandeth the Gold Silver Hay Stubble not of sins venial or mortal but Doctrines worthy or unworthy of the foundation i. e. Christ or Christian Religion Strom 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with whom agrees Clemens of Alex. in his fourth Book Cap. 34. against Marcion as also De Anima Cap. 35.55 he saith The Souls of all good Christians are in Abraham 's bosom in refrigerio a place of refreshment until the Resurrection as many of the ancient Fathers thought when they shall receive plenitudinem mercedis the fulness of their reward Not as Papists now teach any of them in Purgatorian torments It is farther observable that he there distinguisheth that place from Hell or any part of it as Purgatory is supposed to be And discoursing on those words apply'd by Romanists to Purgatory Thou shalt not come out thence till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing He affirmeth that all Souls abide apud inferos till the Resurrection Which utterly overthrows the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory and renders all their Masses Indulgences c vain and unprofitable From the Master let us pass to his Scholar Saint Cyprian who in his Epistle to Demetrian saith that at the ending of this temporal life we are severed into the receptacles either of eternal death or immortality Ad aeternae mortis vel immortalitatis hospitia dividamur p. 166. And in his Book De bono mortalitatis he comforts the Christians generally in a time of raging Pestilence with these considerations That the servants of Christ when they die depart as Simeon desired in peace Enter into Paradise go to Christ begin to reign with Christ that when they are taken out of the storms of this World they gain the haven of Rest and eternal security Securitatis aeternae portum petimus Lastly That after death the righteous are call'd ad refrigerium to refreshment not torment in Purgatory fire whither some are sent by the Romanists and the unrighteous to punishment All which expressions are utterly inconsistent with this new Article of Faith as every man not blinded with prejudice may easily discern To the same purpose in his Epistle to Antonium he adviseth in contradiction to the bitter doctrine of Novatus that pardon and peace should be granted to Penitents in extremis at or a little before their death Because saith he apud inferos exomologesis fieri non posset in Hell or the state of death or in the grave as the word Inferi is sometimes taken there can be no satisfaction made by suffering penance or punishment for sin It 's true in the latter end of the same Epistle he saith It 's one thing to be presently admitted to the reward of Faith or heavenly Glory and another to be purged from sins by being long tormented in fire But this testimony is no good proof of the Roman Purgatory in regard he there speaketh expresly De die judicii of the day of Judgement after the Resurrection whereas our Adversaries
confess that their Purgatory Fire is of no use after the Resurrection and eternal Judgment The like saying he hath in his Epistle to Demetrian After we have gone out of this life nullus remanet satisfactionis locus There is no place for satisfying for our sins Here life is got or lost for ever Our Adversaries say after we are gone out of this World we may by suffering in Purgatory fully satisfie God for our sins compleat our Exomologesis or Penance obtaining thereby at last life eternal Surely Saint Cyprian was of another opinion Come we to Lactantius The Heathens saith he Instit lib. 6. c. 3. lib. 3. c. 19. Caeli inferorum speak of a Bivium two ways apud inferos relating to the dead which more truly say that these two ways are Heaven and Hell for to the righteous immortality to the wicked eternal death belongs Here Lactantius mentions two not three ways men go after death The next Latin Father is Saint Hilary who in his Comment on Matth. C. 27. overthroweth the main ground on which Purgatory is built for he saith expounding the Parable of the Virgins Alienis meritis ac operibus neminem adjuvandum c. that no man after this life can be helped or deliver'd by the good works or merits of others because every man must necessarily provide Oil for his own Lamp. The wise Virgins in Saint Hilary's judgment are they who embracing the opportunity or season of this life the time of repentance and reconciliation with God prepare themselves for Christ's coming The foolish are they who would be borrowing Oil of their Neighbours provide not in time for themselves but depend on the courtesie of others their Works Prayers Merits which will stand them in no stead when being out of their bodies they have neglected and lost the time of repentance If Hilary was in the right redemption of Souls out of Purgatory by other mens Prayers Merits Fastings by Indulgences Masses Pardons Scapularies and such foolish inventions are all vain and insignificant which will stand men in no stead yield them no help or relief The same Father elsewhere maketh only two sorts of men Fideles Impii In Psal p. 120. faithful and impious The former he saith going out of the body are placed in Abraham's bosom where they are kept free from evil viz. of punishment till after the resurrection so he thought they be admitted into Heaven the other are hindred like Dives by the interposing Gulf from going thither To the same purpose he discourseth in Psalm 2. I pass to Saint Ambrose who in his Book De Bono Mortis saith thus Cap. 2. He that receiveth not here remission of sins shall not be there i. e. in Heaven He speaketh indefinitely of all sins whether mortal or venial And again Cap. 12. When that day viz. of death cometh they go to their Redeemer to the very bosom of Abraham a place of rest not torment speaking of good Christians Certainly it is harsh to affirm that justify'd persons reconcil'd to God by Christ's bloud for as Hilary even now taught us this must be done here in this life or no where and consequently in a state of Grace and favour with him should in regard of some small venial sins or mortal as they are called not fully satisfy'd for in this life by Penance Fasting Alms c. be cast into fiery torments and to lie there many years none know how long unless helped out by the uncertain Prayers Merits c. of others particularly unless the alsufficient and abundantly satisfactory Merits of Christ be applyed to them by the Popes Indulgences I add next Saint Hierom In Amos cap. 9. who saith When the Soul freed from the bands of the body shall have liberty to fly whither it will or whither it is compell'd to go It shall either be carried to Hell of which it is written In Hell who will confess to thee or it shall be lifted up to Heaven It seemeth a third place viz. Purgatory Hierom knew not I will end with Saint Augustin who having mention'd Heaven and Hell Hypognost lib. 5. De Pecc mer. remiss c. 28. Epist 80. adds A third place we are altogether ignorant of neither do we find it in holy Scripture Elsewhere he saith There is no middle place to any that he should not be with the Devil who is not with Christ In his Epistle to Hesychius he writeth thus In what state the day of death findeth any one accordingly shall he be judged at the last day The like Sentence almost word for word we find in Justin Martyr In Dial. p. 107. who quoteth it as a saying of our Saviour In what things I find you so will I judge you In his Epistle to Macedonius he saith After this life there is no place to correct our manners or what hath been amiss How then can Repentance or temporal satisfaction for sins be perfected or supply'd after death I will add his words upon the 31. Psalm If God pardon sins he will cover them if he cover them he will not take notice of them if he will not take notice of them he will not punish them How is this reconcileable with Gods punishing the sins that he hath pardon'd in Purgatory It 's true We know God punisheth sometimes in this life such as he pardons for their future amendment and for example to others but what is this to punishing men after this life when there is no amendment possible as our Adversaries grant nor others to be thereby warned I acknowledge there are some places quoted by Bellarmin and others wherein St. Augustin seemeth to own Purgation of the Souls of some men from sin after this life as De Genesi lib. 2. contr Manich. Cap. 10. de Civit. Dei lib. 21. cap. 24. Altho Ludovicus Vives saith Comment in locum the place is not to be found in the antient Manuscripts nor in that printed at Friburge Hom. 16. inter 50. in Psalm 37. But in his Enchiridion his Book De fide operibus and Ad Dulcitium where he professedly handles this Point and expoundeth the principal place of Scripture now urged by Romanists for their Doctrine of Purgatory he speaketh very doubtfully and uncertainly First He acknowledgeth that 1 Cor. 3. is difficult and obscure one of those intimated by Saint Paul 2 Epist Cap. 3. ver 16. of the true meaning of which he was not certain But such an obscure place is as all will grant a very unfit ground to build an Article of Faith upon which to deny shall be Heresie and destructive of Salvation Secondly To Dulcitius quoting his own Books before-mention'd he interprets it expresly De igne doloris of the figurative and metaphorical Fire of grief according to Psalm 39. My heart was hot within me at last the fire kindled c. arising from the loss of temporal enjoyments as Estate Wealth c. too earnestly loved
any Saint As for the place usually quoted out of Justin M. to this purpose it is grosly perverted by false pointing The words are these But him i. e. God the Father and him who came from him and taught us and the Host of good Angels these things the Son and the Prophetick Spirit we worship and adore Bellarmine was not ashamed to render them thus But him the Father and his Son who came and taught us these things and the Host of good Angels and the Prophetical Spirit we worship and adore Thus by placing a note of distinction after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teaching us these things he abuseth his Reader into a conceit that the Primitive Christians as Justin here witnesseth did adore not only the Father Son and Holy Ghost but the Host of Holy Angels also Yea if the Cardinals reading be right then they worshiped and adored the Holy Angels in the third place next to the Father and Son before the Holy and Prophetical Spirit which certainly was far from the least thought or practice of the Primitive Christians or their Apologist Justin Martyr who elsewhere declares in his own and the Christians names that they worshipped as the Father and Son so in the third place not the Holy Angels but the Holy Ghost But enough of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only we may observe by the way with what honesty and fidelity our Adversaries quote the Fathers There is another place they bring out of Irenaeus Ut Maria Virgo sit Evae advocata Lib. 5. cont Haer. ultra medium That the Virgin Mary may be Eves Advocate Hence most impertinently they infer that Eve prayed or might pray to the Virgin Mary whereas all that can be concluded from those words is that the Virgin Mary prayeth for Eve. I wonder how it is possible to conceive that Eve should pray to the Virgin Mary some thousands of years before she was born The truth is those words of Irenaeus do not at all relate to any religious Advocation or Invocation for in that place he onely makes a Parallel or comparison betwixt Eve and the Virgin Mary that as Eve a Virgin brought sin and death into the World so Mary a Virgin brought forth a Saviour and Redeemer ut Maria sit Evae advocata that Mary might be an Advocate or Pleader to excuse the sin of Eve and defend the honour of the Sex. Take Tertullians Verses as a Comment on Irenaeus who speaks fully and clearly what he meant Virgo viro nocuit sed vir de virgine vicit Lib. 1. advers Marcionem V. Origen in Dialog p. 256. Tertul. de Habitu mulier c. 10. Virginis ut virgo caro carnis debita solvat That as by a Virgin came Death so also by a Virgin came deliverance from Death The Virgin Mary in and by her Son making full reparation or satisfaction for Eves transgression What Doth this concern religious Invocation of the blessed Virgin But I shall not satisfie my self much less others in bare Asserting Let us come to the trial of the Cause and produce our Witnesses Justin Martyr Ecclesia nec invocationibus Angelicis facit aliquid sed purè orationes dirigens ad Dominum Iren. lib. 20. c. 57. in fine Apol. 2. giving an account to the Emperor Antoninus of the Christian Religion saith We offer up the Sacrifices of Prayer and Thanksgiving to God We think him alone worthy of this Honour by whom all things were created And a little after We worship God alone The Church of Smyrna being accused by the Heathens Euseb Hist Eccl. lib. 4. c. 15. V. Lactant. Instit lib. 5. cap. 11. de vera relig c. 55. Cont. Faustum lib. 22. c. 21. as if they intended to worship their martyred Bishop Saint Polycarp answer in vindication of themselves We worship Christ the Son of God but Martyrs we worthily love 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as his Disciples and faithful Servants whose memory on their Natalitia or Obit days we celebrate which exactly agrees with St. Austins's dogmatical resolution of this Question We honour Angels Charitate non servitute with love not service and in another place with the worship or honour of Love and Fellowship as holy Men are worshipped in this life Origen against Celsus Lib. 8 p. 386. Edit Cant. and the same he saith lib 5. c. 60. vet Edit The good Angels in some sense we reverence honour or worship as Gods Ministers but we worship one God and his onely Son with Prayers and supplications offering them to God by his onely begotten begging that he as our High Priest would present them to God. He saith not by the Intercession of Saints upon our Prayers to them or Angels but Christ the Son of God our High Priest whose peculiar Office it is as such to present our Prayers and spiritual Sacrifices unto God. And a little after God alone is to be prayed unto Prayers are to be offered also to his onely Son. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And whereas Celsus alledged as now Papists do the power of Courtiers to injure or help those who respect or disrespect them V. Ambros p. 300. in Rom. cap. 1. Origen adviseth him to commit and commend himself to God onely the Supreme Ruler of all things and to beg of him all that help and protection which cometh from Angels and just Men For saith he as the shadow follows the motion of the Body so he that pleaseth God hath the Friends of God V. Origen in Romanos 2. p. 140. Angels and blessed Souls favourable to him who will render God more favourable and will pray together with him although unrequested But of our praying therefore to them not a word is to be found in all his Books against Celsus yea in these words the ground of all Invocation of Saints or Angels is wholly taken away Not to weary the Reader lib. 5. in Cels p. 233. He saith all Prayers are to be offered up to God and that it is not fit or reasonable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to call upon Angels If not on Angels much less on Saints The same we find lib. 8. in Cels p. 402. Clemens Alexandrinus accounted it gross folly to beg of those who are no Gods as if they were Strom. 7. wherefore justly seeing there is one good God we and Angels beg of him the bestowing of good things Tertullian says Apologet. cap. 34. Praecepit Christus secretè orare ut quem ubique audire fideret ei soli Religionem offerret Tertullian Apologet. cap. 30. These things I can beg of none else but of him of whom I know I shall obtain them because he alone which Papists dare not deny granteth them and I to whom it belongeth to obtain them am his Servant whom not Saints or Angels I onely serve or observe And in another place We are to ask of him by whom something is promised i. e. God. Have Saints or Angels promised
c. Fulber Epist ad Adeodatum Epist ad Heribaldum To these may be added Bertram de corpore sanguine Domini to Charles the Great who about seven hundred years ago in a just Treatise impugneth the Doctrine of Transubstantiation to whom you may add Fulbertus Carnoton Berengarius Hincmarus in vita Remigii Rabanus Maurus Purgatory As for Purgatory and its Appendix Indulgences whose most gross abuse defended by the Pope first opened Luther's mouth against him much need not be said in regard as we have seen above Roffensis the Popes Martyr and Alphonsus de Castro to whom I may now add Polydore Virgil confess they are late Novelties of which in the antient Greek Fathers there is little or no mention The modern Greek Church as appeareth peareth from their Confession offer'd to the Council of Basil and since that of Cyril late Patriarch of Constantinople denieth any Purgation of sins after death by Fire Lumbard and Gratian take no notice of Indulgences The later Schoolmen Albertus Al. Halensis Durand Cajetan quoted by Bishop Usher and Dr. Field in his Appendix say that Finalis Gratia c. final Grace abolisheth all remains of sin in Gods Children Answer to the Challenge p. 179. Part. prima summae Tit. 10. c. 3. Opusc 15. c. 1. De Indulg lib. 4. dist 20. qu. 3. Primus in Purgatorium extendit Indulgentias V. Chemnit Exam. de Indulg 742. 100 Gravamina what need then of any Purgatorian fire Antoninus acknowledgeth that concerning Indulgences nihil habemus expressè c. We have nothing expresly or clearly delivered either in Scripture or the antient Fathers This same is affirmed by Cajetan and Durand Agrippa de Vanitate Scient cap. 61. saith that Pope Boniface VIII first extended Indulgences to Purgatory they were opposed before Luther by the University of Paris Wesselus Wickliffe Hus Jerome of Prague Savanorola yea the States of Germany complain to the Pope of them as intolerable burdens cheats and incentives to all manner of wickedness Add Platina in Boniface 9. Urspergensis Chron. p. 322. Art. 4 Image-worship Worshipping of Image was V. Polyd. Virgil. de Invent rerum lib. 6. V. Cassand infra See Vspergensis Rhegino ad Ann. 794. and Matth. Westminst ad Ann. 794. Cassand Consult art de Imagin The work of Mens Hands may not be adored no not in honour of their Prototypes p. 213. De Trad. Part 3. De Imagin as is notorious first Decreed though not with Latria in the second Nicene Council about the year 794 but was opposed and condemned by the General Councils of Constantinople and Frankfort in which last were three hundred Bishops called by the Emperour and Pope whose Legates were there present as the Bishop of Rhemes reports apud Alanum Copum Dial. 4. and Suarez grants it in 3. Part. Thomae qu. 25. disp 54. This worship of Images was confuted also by Albinus or Alcuinus out of the Scriptures as Hoveden relates in continuat Bedae ad ann 794. Moreover by the Book of Charles the Great if it be not the same with the former which is still extant in the Vatican and acknowledged to be genuine by some learned Papists Agobardus Bishop of Lyons wrote against worshipping Pictures or Images So did also Jonas Bishop of Orleans in his Book de Cultu Imaginum cap. 5. allowing them onely for Ornament in Churches but detests the giving them any part of divine Honour as accursed wickedness Peresius saith as much Gerson de defect viror Eccles Holcot de Sapientia Lect. 158. Miraudula Apol. qu. 3. condemn bowing before them Durand de ritib. Eccl. Catharinus de cult Imagin grant that their use is dangerous in regard of the peril of Idolatry See our Churches Homily on the Peril of Idolatry Polydore Virgil saith De Invent. rerum lib. 6. c. 13. De Imag. l. 2. c. 22. all the Fathers condemn'd worshipping Images Bellarmine himself granteth that the worship of Images as defended and practised by the Roman Church i.e. with Latria or the same worship we give to the Prototypes cannot be maintained without such nice distinctions of absolutely and relatively or accidentally univocally or analogically properly or improperly as scarce themselves much less the weak common people can understand or if they do can hardly avoid Error in practising them Peresius more plainly They are a scandal to the weak who cannot understand them but by erring Hence the Cardinal accounteth it not safe to teach their Votaries publickly to give Divine Honour or Latria to the Image of Christ for his sake De Trad. p. 226. V. Biel. in Canon Missae Sect. 49. Part 3. qu. 28. Art. 3. Instit Mor. Tom. 1. l. 9. Suarez Tom. 1. Disp 54. Sect. 4. Vasq in qu. 25. disp 110. c. 2. See Orig. in Cels l. 6. 8. Arnob. lib. 6. Apud Bellar. de Imag. l. 2. c. 8. V. Aug. de fide symb cap. 7. Biblioth Patrtom Tom. 5. pag. 609. Concil Trident. Compare Origen Lib. 7. in Celsum Nevertheless it 's undeniable that this is the professed Doctrine of the Church of Rome declared by their Oracle Aquinas and constans opinio as Azorius speaks the constant Opinion of their Divines defended by Valentia Suarez and that as the sense of the Council of Trent Vasquez the Jesuit to defend this Adoration blushed not to write that it is lawful to worship the Sun yea God bless us the Devil himself so the worship be directed ultimately to God and his Honour whereas it 's notorious that the Heathens might and did in this very manner defend their gross Idolatry The very making of the Images of the Trinity is condemn'd by Abulensis Durand Peresius and others yet defended and practised by the Roman Church Walafridus Strabo called it Superstition and blockishness hebitudinem to worship Images I will end that I be not too tedious with the words of Jonas Bishop of Orleans as an Answer to our Adversaries Reply That they place no Divinity in their Images but worship them onely in honour of God and of him whose Image it is seeing they know there is no Divinity in Images they are the more to be condemned for giving to an infirm and beggerly Image the honour that is due to the Divinity I cannot omit what I find in Agobardus it being so consonant with Jonas as making one sentence De Pict Imag. p. 237. They which answer as our Roman Catholicks now do they think no Divinity to be in the Image they worship but that they worship it in honour of him whose image it is are easily answered because if the Image they worship be not God neither is it to be worshipped in honour of the Saints who use not to arrogate to themselves Divine Honour He adds That the Images of Christ and the Apostles were expressed by the Antients after the custom of the Gentiles V. Euseb supra rather for love and memory than for any religious honour or
worship He concludes This is the sincere Religion this is the Catholick Custome p. 251. In Confess sidei per Critopulum Patriarch 5. Ann. 1430. Sess 4. Veritas fidei Catholicae Caranza An. 1409. An. 1414. Respons de Privileg Patriarch Concord l. 2. c. 25. Supra cap. 20. p. 748. this is the Tradition of the Fathers c. The Greeks condemn giving Latria or Douleia to Images in their confession of Faith. The Popes Supremacy over Emperours Councils Bishops c. This was contradicted by the Council of Basil confirmed by Pope Nicolas who decreed that it was de fide a point of Faith that the Pope ought to be subject to a General Council Of the same opinion were the Councils of Pisa and Constance who deposed several Popes as Schismaticks and Hereticks for refusing to appear upon their Summons Balsamon a Greek Writer sheweth that the five Patriarchs were equal in honour and power and were all instead of one Head over the whole Church Cusanus the Cardinal confesseth that the eight first General Councils were all called by the Emperours and that the Canon of the Council of Chalcedon concerning the precedency of the Bishop of Constantinople before him of Alexandria notwithstanding Pope Leo's disclaiming it was in full force and Authority Card. Cusanus Concord l. 2. c. 20. Ad An. 1088. Sigonius de Regno Ital. l. 7. Sigebert termeth the Pope absolving Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance to their Princes Novelty and Heresie Otho the Emperour deposed Pope John and assumed his antient right of Nomination to the Popedom The Popes usurped Authority over the Emperour was wrote against by Mcrsilius Occam Gerson Dante 's Zabarella Cusanus Tostatus Apud Bellarmin de Concil l. 1. c. 140. In Sent. lib. 4. dist 12. art 5. Part 3. qu. 83. Art. 1. Alliaco Antoninus and many others The Sacrifice of Christ in the Mass was unknown to Pope Lumbard who saith The Sacrament is called a Sacrifice because it is the Memorial and representation of the true Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross Aquinas expresseth his sense after the same manner The Celebration of this Sacrament is an image and representation of the passion of Christ quae est vera immolatio which is a true Immolation or Sacrifice and now its celebration dicitur is called the Immolation immolatio of Christ In Can. Missae Lect. 85. Loc. Treol l. 12. c. 12. p. 660. Biblioth l. 4. Concord c. 131. Decret part 3. de Consecrat dist 2. c. 48. Glossa in Grat. de Consecr See Canon of the Mass and Dr. Field in Append. Of the same judgement were Biel and Cornelius Muss a Bishop of note in the Council of Trent who as Canus and Sixtus Senensis relate openly denied that Christ instituted any proper Sacrifice of himself when he celebrated his Supper Jansenius acknowledgeth it can hardly be proved from Hoc facite Do this c. Instead of many more who might be added take the words of the Popes own Canon Law set out by Gregory XIII The sacramental Bread suo modo vocatur after its manner is called the Body of Christ when revera indeed it is the Sacrament of Christs Body and the immolation of his Flesh made by the Priest is termed his Passion death and crucifixion non rei veritate sed significante mysterio not in the truth of the thing but in a significant mystery The Gloss upon it is still more plain The Sacrament in regard it truly representeth Christs Flesh dicitur Christi corpus sed impropriè is called Christ's Body but improperly It is called Christs Body that is saith the Gloss significat it signifies it Communion in one kind The Ordo Romanus appointed the Wine allo to be consecrated De Observ Eccles c. 19. In 4. Dist 9. Prop. 6. Consult Art. 22. In 4. Sent. qu. 11. Mem. 3. V. Tapperum apud Cassandr de Commun sub utraque specie Ibid. qu. 31. that the people might fully communicate saith Micrologus Ovandus declares as also Cassander that it were better to grant the Cup to the people which was earnestly desired by the Emperours Ferdinand and Maximilian and under some good conditions permitted to the Bohemians Halensis a famous Schoolman granteth contrary to Bellarmine that it ought to be received under both kinds Which manner of receiving saith he Dominus tradidit our Lord delivered is majoris efficaciae of more efficacy and perfection Totus Christus non continetur sub utraquespecie 4. qu. 40. Aquin. in 6. Joann Alph. de Castro adv Haeres lib. 6. Serm. de Quadragess quoted by B. Juel as to Grace than to receive one onely Eccius Salmeron Lindanus Valentia Costerus Bellarmine Card. Bona confess that the Primitive Christians for many Ages yea say some for above one thousand years after Christ received the Sacrament in both kinds The custome of receiving in one kind had its first Original from the Manichean Hereticks as we learn from Pope Leo the Great P. Gelasius decrees That if they would not receive both they should be excluded from both Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester in his Book called the Devil's Sophistry ascribes its first beginning to the private superstitious Devotion of some indiscreet persons Others as Costerus in Enchir. to the connivance or negligence of Church Governours In the Mass-book it self there are as Dr. Field observes some expressions which imply In Append. in lib. 3. In Miss de Sanct. that the people were receivers of both kinds as particularly those words Cibo potuque refecti being refreshed with meat and drink in a Prayer after the receiving the Communion Again Sacramenta quae sumpsimus Domini prosint nobis c. Let the Sacraments Lord we have received be profitable to us To these add those words Quotquot sacrosanctum corpus sanguinem Filii tui sumpserimus V. Consult p. 238. Art. 24. quoted by Cassander As many of us as have received the body and bloud of thy Son. Gerardus Lorichius and Ruardus Tapperus are for the peoples receiving in both kinds See Dr. Field's Appendix to his second Book where are many clear Testimonies I had almost forgot Invocation of Saints Bannes 22. qu. 1. Art. 10. Conclus 2. a late learned Schoolman agreeth with Protestants that it hath no express grounds in Scripture In like manner Eccius in Enchirid. c. 15. De Venerat SS Suarez in 3. Thomae qu. 3. disput Lib. 1. de Eccles trium c. 6. 42. Salmeron in 1 Tim. cap. 2. disp 8. Bellarmine himself although to make a shew he alledg places out of the old Testament granteth that there was no Invocation of Saints before Christs Ascension in regard the Saints were then in Limbo and not admitted to the sight of God. The same is affirmed of the Saints under the New Testament by many of the most antient Fathers V. Sixtum Senens lib. 6. Annotat. 345. In 4. Sent. qu. 3. Irenaeus Tertullian Chrysostome to wit that
yet renounced and with some reluctancy forsaken for Christ's sake and the Gospels Such a man saith St. Augustine is saved yet as it were by fire urit enim eum dolor for grief burneth him as Latin Authors speak So that by Fire in that place 1 Cor. 3. This learned Father did not so far as I can perceive understand any proper and material fire but Metaphorical onely Then he immediately adds Whether therefore in this life only men suffer these things i. e as I said before this figurative fire of grief or also after this life some such judicia judgments or punishments follow the sense of Saint Pauls words quantum arbitror as I think abhors not from truth So that Saint Austin doth not peremptorily assert it as a point of Catholick Faith to be believed necessarily to Salvation that there is any such to wit grief after this life but leaveth it uncertain and delivereth it as his opinion onely Thirdly It is worthy of our observation that they who held amongst whom Saint Jerom was one that all Christians In fine Comment in Isaiam not Hereticks or Schismaticks who professed faith in Christ should how wickedly soever they had lived and died be at last saved an Opinion detested by Saint Austin and earnestly confuted by him in several places of his Works did bring this very Text 1 Cor. 3. to prove it He that buildeth on this foundation i. e. faith in Christ and the p rofession of it wood bay stubble i. e. a wicked and barren life shall be saved yet so as by fire Saint Austin labouring to bring men off from this dangerous Error so plainly contradicted by the Holy Scripture in many places 1 Cor. 6.9 10. Forsitan verum est lib. 21. de Civit. Dei cap. 26. is sometimes not unwilling to grant that it is possible that some of the weaker sort of Christians departing out of this life under the guilt of some lesser sins might be purged some way or other from them after this life which the Greeks at this day who deny the Romish Purgatory grant but he is far from believing or urging it on others as an Article of Catholick Faith of which to be sure he would never have spoken in so doubting and uncertain a manner neither will any learned man deny but that some of the Ancient Fathers as Saint Chrysostom St. Jerom with others noted by Sixtus Senensis were of Opinion that men dying grosly wicked yea and Devils too saith Origen should at last be saved or might at least have their punishment in Hell mitigated by the Prayers and Alms of their surviving Friends which Tenet is now condemned even by the Papists themselves Fourthly It is considerable that Saint Austin ad Dulcitium expresly affirmeth that the Fire mentioned 1 Cor. Ergò utriusque opus probabit 3. is such as not onely he that buildeth on the foundation Wood Hay Stubble but also he that buildeth or layeth on Gold Silver precious Stones must pass through For Saint Paul immediately adds the fire shall try every mans work then he adds the tentation of tribulation ignis est is fire i. e. in a figurative and metaphorical sense as it is written Ecclesiasticus 27. The Furnace trieth the Potters Vessels and just men the tentation of tribulation which he explains thus He that mindeth the things of this life 1 Cor. 7. careth too much for them if yet for Christ's sake he be at last willing to forsake them shall be saved but quasi per ignem as it were by fire quia urit eum dolor rerum quas dilexerat amissarum sed non subvertit neque consumit fundamenti stabilitate munitum incorruptum because the grief of the beloved things he hath lost burneth him but subverts or consumes him not being preserved incorrupt by the stability of the foundation to wit Faith in Christ Then he adds Tale aliquid c. some such thing i. e. burning in the fire of grief for of it he before spake to happen also after this life non incredibile est is not incredible He saith not as Bellarmin must be believed under peril of damnation and whether it be so or no quaeri potest may be enquired after and either be found or lies hid to wit that some not all of the faithful by a kind of Purgatory or Purgative fire per ignem quendam purgatorium whether figurative or proper and material he resolveth not by how much the more or less they have loved these perishing good things shall by so much the sooner or later be saved but not such of whom it 's said by St. Paul 1 Cor. 6.9 they shall not inherit the Kingdom of God unless they be pardoned here upon their true repentance Can any ingenuous Person believe St. Austin took this Purgatory Doctrine whatsoever it be or our Adversaries will have his meaning to be for an undoubted Article of the Christian Faith Lastly St. Austin expoundeth that place the Romanists urge much in maintenance of their Purgatory Matth. 5.26 Thou shalt not come out thence till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing as Protestants do that is thou shalt never come out thence as donec until is taken Matth. 1. last and in other places So Dulcitius had interpreted that place which S. Austin approveth of and applieth to this present Controversie From all that hath been said I infer First That the Fire mentioned 1 Cor. 3. is not the Popish Purgatory fire neither did Saint Austin so understand it Secondly That the true sense of that place is as he confesseth very difficult dark and obscure Thirdly That whatsoever Saint Austin inferr'd from it Whether that there is after this life a proper or only a figurative fire of Grief it is no part of the Antient Catholick Faith but a truth if a truth which a true Christian may be ignorant of without peril of damnation Quaripotest It may be questioned or sought after and possibly never be found out but lie hid Fourthly That therefore Saint Austin was no Roman Catholick Lib. quarto Dialog cap. or of Pope Pius's faith I might add that even Pope Gregory the Great confesseth that the Fire 1 Cor. 3. may be understood of temporal affliction but I shall not descend so low at this time To these express places quoted out of Saint Austin Bellarmin replies 39. Apud Bellarm lib. 10. c. 5. de Purgatorio that he doubted not of Purgatory but of the quality of the punishment and sins there to be purged But it 's evident from his own words above recited First That he understood not the Fire mentioned 1 Cor. 3. the principal place alledged by our Adversaries in a proper and natural sense as they do but moral and Metaphorical not of material but figurative Fire the fire of Grief The Greeks in their Apology deny not Pardon or purgation of some sins after death tho not by material fire for which nevertheless the Romish
Church condemns them as Hereticks and rejecters of Purgatory Secondly It 's undeniable that he did not hold the Purgation of sins after death no not by the fire of Grief much less material fire to be an undoubted truth or Article of Christian Faith De Purgat lib. 10. cap. ult as Bellarmin in that place affirmeth it to be But in regard the words of Saint Cyprian in his Epistle to Antonian are much urged by some as clearly confirming the Romish Doctrine of Purgatory where he writeth Aliud est statim fidei virtutis mercedem accipere aliud pro peccatis longo dolore cruciatum emendari purgari diu igne It's one thing presently to receive the reward of Faith and Vertue another for one being long tormented with grief for his sins to be cleansed and purged a great while in fire To answer this place we are first of all to observe the occasion of these words Saint Cyprian a little before takes notice of an Objection of the Novatian Hereticks against the receiving the Lapsi such as for fear in time of Persecution like Peter denied Christ They alledged that if such might be admitted to Absolution and the Communion of the Church none would be Martyrs or lay down their lives for the faith of Christ Saint Cyprian answers not so for altho a time of Penance and then Peace is granted to Adulterers yet Virginity and Continency did not languish or decay in the Church Then follow the words above mentioned Aliud est c. It 's evident enough then that the Fire here mentioned is not to be understood of any proper and material Purgatorian fire which Papists plead for but Metaphorical or of the fire of Grief as St. Austin expounds the Fire 1 Cor. 3. which place most probably Saint Cyprian here alludes unto in regard such as fell away in time of Persecution were not to be admitted to the peace of the Church until they had undergone the grief and shame of a publick As Bellarmin grants de Purgat lib. 1. cap. 5. long and severe Penance termed Exomologesis So much Saint Cyprian's own words intimate It 's one thing presently to receive as Martyrs did the reward of their Faith and Vertue a great encouragement to Martyrdom another to be cleansed longo dolore with long grief and which are Paraphrastical of his former words to be long purged with fire To this I shall add that it was the Opinion of many of the Ancient Fathers as Irenaeus Justin Martyr Tertullian Lactantius Biblioth l. 6. annotat 345. Ambrose with others quoted by Sixtus Senensis that none except Martyrs were immediately upon their death admitted admitted to the presence of God ad oscula Domini to receive the Crown of Eternal Glory but were kept in loco invisibili as Irenaeus or in abditis receptaculis in some secret invisible places until the day of Judgment sollicitously expecting then to receive their final Sentence this is pendere in die judicii ad sententiam Domini as Saint Cyprian there phraseth it Thus I hope I have given let the Learned Reader judge a true and fair interpretation of Saint Cyprian's words which do not import any proper fire to purifie Souls before the day of Judgment so that upon the view of what is abovesaid we may conclude that the Romish Doctrine of Purgatory is no part of the Antient Primitive and Apostolick Faith but in the Fifth Century in Saint Austin's days began to be a doubtful and uncertain Opinion only So much at present for Purgatory I should now make some enquiry in the Writings of the Antient Fathers after Indulgences the fuel that feeds this Purgatorian Fire Lib. 80. Tit. Indulgentiae De Indulgentiis pauca dici possunt per certitudinem quia nec Scriptura expressè de iis loquitur Durand l. 4. dist 20. qu. 3. Ambr. Hilar Aug. Hieronym minimè de iis loquuntur Idem ibid. Roffensis assert Luther confut art 18. But I am much discouraged in regard Alphonsus de Castro a learned and earnest Papist who lived near Luther's time and knew what was the first occasion of his opposing the Church of Rome to wit the abominable abuse of these Indulgences by the Pardon-mongers He I say in that very Book which he wrote against Heresies and Luther by name hath informed me Inter omnes est c. that amongst all the Points in dispute betwixt Protestants and Papists there is not one which the Scripture hath less clearly delivered and of which Antient Writers have spoken less than concerning Indulgences The Popes Martyr Roffensis confesseth the use of them was sero receptus in Ecclesia of late received by the Church Of Purgatory he saith there is especially amongst the Greek Writers ferè nulla mentio almost no mention of it Now Indulgences as is granted are grounded on Purgatory they must stand and fall together So long saith he as there was no care or fear of Purgatory no Man sought for Pardons for on it depends all the credit of Pardons Take away Purgatory and what use of Pardons When therefore Purgatory was so lately known and received in the Church who now can marvel at Pardons that in the beginning of the Church there was no use of them Pardon 's therefore began after that they had trembled a while at the pains of Purgatory Thus he Antoninus Sylvester Pierius Ostiensis the Lovain Divines Polydore Virgil Cajetan and others of whom more hereafter say as much so that it will be labour in vain to search for them in the Writings of the antient Authors Here I cannot but wonder our Adversaries do not blush to boast of their present Roman Faith and Church as if they were the same only the same with the antient Primitive and Catholick one and to accuse us Protestants of Novelty Heresie and setting up a new Faith and Church under the Banner of M. Luther whereas they not we are guilty of those Crimes by introducing new Articles of Faith Purgatory and Indulgences amongst the rest which we only protest against Art. 4 Concerning Invocation of Saints I now come to Invocation of Saints and Angels a grand Article of the Roman Faith according to Pope Pius his new Creed Eximium adorationts genus Bellarm. de Beat. Sanct. concerning which I shall in general take the boldness to say that for above three hundred years after Christ there cannot be produced out of the genuine Writings of one antient Father one clear and pertinent testimony for Invocation of Saints or Angels Besides my own little observation I have good Vouchers for this Assertion to wit the most Reverend and learned Primate Usher who read over all the Fathers and Mr. Mountague in his Treatise of Invocation of Saints V. Molinaeum de Novit Papis p. 388. apud Chemnit in Exam. p. 6. 13. Apol. 2. yea Cardinal Perron acknowledgeth this to be truth who as also Cassander never used in private Devotions to pray to