Page:Delineation of Roman Catholicism.djvu/386

 378 PvaolToa3,. [BOOi H. �. Ti te:timony of tle fatkits is urged to support tl  rg. 1. But e testimony, except  f  it ees wi& Scfipe, avail no&ing. Neveaheless, o eHest fathers of the church cernly did not teach pur, ough they h many crude notions respecting a future state, some of wch my be brought fayour e Rosh dec,he. But properly, their contra&cm can prove nong, except that ey held several enus senten respecng a future s. We may confidenti F say, at ere is not one faer, nor one counc, of the pfitive chch, that  owned by the Church of Rome themselves, for five hundred years aer Cist, tt ever taught the doctrine of pur,  ey now teach and lieve it; an on e other hand, we c puce several pages from primitive fathers tt oveum the docte. But before we duce stimony of the fakers, we premise the following observaons: (1.) Either none, or ve few of e Greek fathers, menon the d- ne of pm; and all the Latin fae did not believe it; but by deuces the opinion, in various shas, became crent; ough caffiolic or gener church received it oy in p. The words of Ruf- fensis, (John Fisher, bishop of Rochester, heed June 22, 1535,) in s 18th article ainst Luther, o ese: "He that pieces, let him re the' commenmdes of the otd Greeks, and,  I supse, he sl find none, or ve rare mention of putgarry. Bm neither &d �e Latins at one time, but by litfie and little conceive the uth of s �ing."* And ain: "For a long wle it was unknown; it w laxly known  the Gatholic Church. Then it w believed by some by tfie and litfie; pauly kern Scripture, ply from revelations." The fol- lowing question from Polydore VI, who quotes Fisher, bishop of Rochester, w place this subject in a st clearer light: "As it re- r the orion of is matter, as far as I can cein, ter inq, I do not d it before Saint Grego presented it in reference  s stions. erefom, in a subject of so much obscurity, I use the t- mony of Jo, bishop of Rochester, who, in that work which he lately wrote t Luer, thus decles e manet in the nning of conchsions on ts int :--' Probly he moved many not much m indulgences, because their use appea more recenfiy in the church, d found out ve lately amg Csans.' To ts I swer, t it does not appear cerinly from wt time ey st be teach indulgences. They were used ong some ( they say) of e cient Roms, which can be colrec,d from their stations, and fol- lows of course. No ohodox Csan doubts respecting purgato; concerning wch, neveheless, ere is no mention among cien except ve rarely. But even ong e Greeks to is day is not believed: for  long  there was no ce about purm, noy quired after indulgences; for all the value of indulgences den on p; if you e away pm, what use is ere . ., . qum ransmmnm, de purgatono sermonera rovemet. Sed neque/.atini 8imul onmez, at sensire hujus rei veritatem conceperunt.--Art. 18, cont. Luth. as quoted by Bishop Jeremy Taylor, Diuasive, second Ira*t, book ii, sec. 2, Of Pu,'gtor,j, vol. ii, p. 935. t Aliquami. iu incolnitum fuit; serb cognitum universm ecclesim. Deinde quibtm- dn perletenure, lmm, ex Scripturi pm e! revelationibus crediturn fuit.--/k*m. 1
 * Le t ui velit, Ormcorum vetcrum commentaries, et nullurn, uantum opinor, ant

�