but requiring that which is an important ingredient in every argument, especially in controversy with the Romish Church-the single item of proof. Yet it is upon evidence such as this, that a doctrine is set forth, to which assent is required under the penalty of a popish Anathema : and it is curious to remark that, in the very face of this Anathema, many writers of their communion acknowledge the comparative novelty of the doctrine of Purgatory, notice its rejection by the Greek Church, and fairly admit that it has no foundation in Scripture !

Take a few examples. Cardinal Fisher, the Popish Bishop of Rochester in 1504, acknowledges that, "in the ancient Fathers, there is little or no mention of a Purgatory: that the Greeks do not believe it to this day; that even the Latins did not receive it at once, but gradually and almost insensibly: that it is not surprising, considering the recent date of the doctrine, that the use of indulgences, which arose out of it, should have been unknown in the primitive Church and that the fear of purgatorial torments introduced these means of avoiding them."1

Thomas de Vio, Cardinal of Cajeta (about 1520), observes, that "If we could have any certainty concerning the origin of Indulgences, it would help us much in the disquisition of the truth of Purgatory; but we have not in writing any authority, either of

í See Note 4X, p. 174.

the Holy Scriptures, or ancient doctors, Greek or Latin, which affords us any knowledge thereof."1

Alphonsus de Castro (about 1550) remarks, that Indulgences are not to be despised on account of their recent use in the Church, since "many things are known to us, of which the Ancients were altogether ignorant."" Among these novelties he instances Purgatory, and Transubstantiation. Of Purgatory, he observes, that "by the Greek writers more especially, it is rarely mentioned; and that, consequently, even to this day, it is not believed by the Greeks." And again he maintains that "one of the most notorious errors of the Greeks and Armenians, is their teaching that there is no place of Purgatory, in which souls departing this life are cleansed from the pollutions which they had contracted in the body, before they deserve to be received into everlasting habitations." +

"Punishment in Purgatory," says Father Barns (about A.D. 1625), "is a doctrine seated in human opinion. Neither from Scripture, nor from the Fathers, nor from the earlier Councils, can it be firmly deduced. Nay, with submission to better judgment, the contrary opinion seems more conformable to them." 5

Picherellus contends that "there is no fuel to

1

Cajetan de Indulgent. cap. 2; also Opusc. 15, C.

be found in Scripture, either to kindle or to maintain the fire of Purgatory." 1

1

Thus much then for the support which the doctrine of Purgatory derives from antiquity, succession, and universal consent. The Fathers of the first five

centuries tacitly, but clearly, oppose it; the Greeks positively reject it; and many, even of their own Communion, pronounce it to be utterly devoid of any scriptural foundation.

Since then it is forbidden to add unto the word of God, as also to diminish aught from it, Purgatory must be abandoned as a "vain thing," which has no warrant either of Scripture or of the Church of God for its reception: inasmuch as "for any doctrine to be an article of the Catholic faith, it is necessary that two things should be united; one, that it be revealed of God by the prophets, apostles, or canonical authors; the other, that it be proposed by the Church."2

1 Picherell. de Missa, c. 2. p. 150. Mor. part 2, lib. iv. c. 18.

Compare Azorii, Instit.

See note PP, p. 82.

2 Veron's Regula Fidei, c. i. sec. 2.

153

NOTES TO CHAPTER IV.

Note A, p. 93.

Τοὺς κατὰ ἀλήθειαν εὐσεβεῖς καὶ φιλοσόφους μόνον ταληθὲς τιμᾷν καὶ στέργειν ὁ λόγος ὑπαγορεύει, παραιτουμένους δόξαις παλαιῶν ἐξακολουθεῖν, ἂν φαῦλαι ὦσιν. Justin. Mart. Apol. ii. (rectius i.) sub init. p. 53. Paris, 1615.

Note B, p. 94.

Φωνῇ Κυρίου παιδευόμεθα πρὸς τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς ἀληθείας. Οὐ γὰρ ἁπλῶς ἀποφαινομένοις ἀνθρώποις προσέχοιμεν, οἷς καὶ ἀνταποφαίνεσθαι ἐπ ̓ ἴσης ἔξεστιν. εἰδ ̓ οὐκ ἀρκεῖ μόνον ἁπλῶς εἰπεῖν τὸ δόξαν, ἀλλὰ πιστώσασθαι δεῖ τὸ λεχθὲν, οὐ τὴν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀναμένομεν μαρτυρίαν, ἀλλὰ τῇ τοῦ Κυρίου φωνῇ πιστούμεθα τὸ ζητούμενον, ἢ πασῶν ἀποδείξεων ἐχεγγυωτέρα, μᾶλλον δὲ, ἣ μόνη απόδειξις οὖσα τυγχάνει. Clem. Alexand. Strom. lib. vii. c. 16, tom. ii. p. 891. Oxon. 1715.

Note C, p. 94.

Μάρτυρας δεῖ λαβεῖν τὰς γραφάς. αμάρτυροι γὰρ αἱ ἐπιβολαὶ ἡμῶν καὶ αἱ ἐξηγήσεις ἄπιστοί εἰσιν. Origen. Homil. i. in Jerem. sec. 7, tom. iii. p. 129, B. Paris, 1740.

Note D, p. 94.

Δεῖ τῶν ἀκροατῶν τούς πεπαιδευμένους τὰς γραφάς δοκιμάζειν τὰ παρὰ τῶν διδασκάλων λεγόμενα· καὶ τὰ μὲν σύμφωνα ταῖς γραφαῖς δέχεσθαι, τὰ δὲ ἀλλότρια ἀποβάλλειν. Basil. Moral. Regula 72, sub. init. tom. ii. p. 372. Paris, 1518.

Note E, p. 94.

Sed nolo argumento credas, sancte Imperator, et nostræ disputationi: Scripturas interrogemus, interrogemus Apostolos, interrogemus prophetas, interrogemus Christum. Ambros. de Fide, lib. i. c. 6, tom. ii. col. 541. Paris, 1690.

Note F, p. 94.

Ego hujus Epistolæ auctoritate non teneor, quia literas Cypriani non ut canonicas habeo, sed eas ex canonicis considero, et quod in eis divinarum Scripturarum auctoritate congruit, cum laude ejus accipio: quod autem non congruit, cum pace ejus respuo. August. contra Cresconium, lib. ii. c. 32, tom. vii. col. 240. Basil. 1569.

Note G, p. 95.

Neque enim quorumlibet disputationes, quamvis catholicorum et laudatorum hominum, velut Scripturas canonicas habere debemus; ut nobis non liceat salvâ honorificentiâ, quæ illis debetur hominibus, aliquid in eorum scriptis improbare ac respuere, si fortè invenerimus quòd aliter senserint quàm veritas habet, divino adjutorio vel ab aliis intellecta, vel à nobis. Augustin. ad Fortunatianum, Epist. cxlviii. c. 4, sec. 15, tom. ii. col. 502. Paris, 1689.

Note H, p. 95.

Μὴ τοίνυν τὰς τῶν πολλῶν δόξας περιφέρωμεν, ἀλλὰ τὰ πράγματα ἐξετάζωμεν. πῶς γὰρ οὐκ ἄτοπον ὑπὲρ μὲν χρημάτων μὴ ἑτέροις πιστεύειν, ἀλλ' ἀριθμῷ καὶ ψήφῳ τοῦτο ἐπιτρέπειν, ὑπὲρ δὲ πραγμάτων ψηφιζομένους ἁπλῶς τῶν ἑτέρων παρασύρεσθαι δόξαις, καὶ ταῦτα ἀκριβῆ ζυγὸν ἁπάντων ἔχοντας καὶ γνώμονα, καὶ και νόνα, τῶν θείων νόμων τὴν ἀπόφασιν ; διὸ παρακαλῶ, καὶ δέομαι πάντων ὑμῶν, ἀφέντες τί τῷ δεῖνι καὶ τῷ δεῖνι δοκεῖ περὶ τούτων, παρὰ τῶν γραφῶν ταῦτα ἅπαντα πυνθάνεσθε.-Chrysost. Hom. xiii. in 2 Cor. versus finem: tom. ix. p. 841. Paris, 1603.

Note I, Ρ. 98.

Οὐκ αρνούμεθα οὖν τὸ καθάρσιον πῦρ, καὶ τὴν τοῦ κόσμου φθορὰν, ἐπὶ καθαιρέσει τῆς κακίας, καὶ ἀνακαινώσει τοῦ παντός· λέγοντες παρὰ τῶν προφητῶν ἐκ τῶν ἱερῶν βιβλίων μεμαθηκέναι. Origen. cont. Celsum, lib. iv. p. 174. Cantab. 1658.

Note K, p. 98.

Ego puto, quod et post resurrectionem ex mortuis indigeamus. sacramento eluente nos atque purgante: nemo enim absque sordibus resurgere poterit: nec ullam posse animam reperiri,