The learned controversialists I have been quoting, add the following instances, from such, and so various quarters, as make them fair samples of the system.

Cardinal Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, who suf fered death during the troubles in King Henry the VIIIth's reign, is a man, as readers of our history know, of no ordinary name. He is supposed to have assisted Henry VIII. in his work against Luther, and while in prison received a Cardinal's hat from the Pope. He surely is as fair a specimen of the Roman controversialist as could be taken. Now in one of his works against Luther, he thus speaks on the subject of Indulgences and Purgatory, “There are many things, about which no question was agitated in the Primitive Church, which, by the diligence of posterity, when doubts had arisen, have now become clear. No orthodox believer, certainly, now doubts whether there be a Purgatory. Whoever will read the commentaries of the old Greeks, he will find no mention, as I think, or as little as possible, concerning Purgatory. Nor did the Latins, all at once, and without effort, apprehend the truth of this matter. For faith, whether in Purgatory or in Indulgences, was not so necessary in the Primitive Church as now. For then love so burned, that every one was ready to meet death for Christ. Crimes were rare and such as occurred, were avenged by the great severity of the Canons. Now, however, a good part of

the people would rather burn Christianity itself, than bear the rigour of the Canons; so that it was not without the especial providence of the Holy Spirit, that after the lapse of so many years, belief in Purgatory and the use of Indulgences was generally received by the orthodox. As long as there was no care of Purgatory, no one sought for Indulgences. For the consideration for Indulgences depends entirely on it. If you take away Purgatory, what is the use of Indulgences? for we should not need these, but for it. By considering, then, that Purgatory was for some time unknown, and then believed by certain persons, by degrees, partly from revelations, partly from the Scriptures, and so at length, that faith in it became firmly and generally received by the orthodox Church, we shall most easily form our view of Indulgences."

Medina, a Spanish Franciscan of the same century, well esteemed for his learning in the Fathers and Councils, when writing upon the subject of Episcopacy, is led to consider the opinion of St. Jerome, who is accused by many of expressing himself incorrectly concerning it. This is not the place to examine that Father's views; Medina does examine them, and, in consequence, charges him with agreeing with the Aerian heretics. Not content with this, he proceeds to bring a similar charge against Ambrose, Augustine, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Ecumenius, and Theophylact. This, in addition to its untenable

there be so many

nature, is, indeed, a startling accusation in the mouth of one, who, according to the abstract profession of his Church, is bound to direct himself by the judgment of Antiquity. The circumstance of error in a single Father we could bear without any great surprise; but should of them upon one side, as he supposes in the case before him, perchance we are the heretics, and they the witnesses of Catholic doctrine. To those, however, who rest upon the Church's Infallibility, there is certainly no danger of such a misfortune. dina, feeling himself in that position, and independent of all the Fathers brought together, thus remarks: "These men were otherwise most holy, and most thoroughly acquainted with the Holy Scriptures; yet this opinion of theirs was condemned by the Church, first in Aerius, then in the Waldenses, lastly in Wickliffe." And presently,

Me

From respect to Jerome and those Greek Fathers, this opinion was in their case hushed up, or tolerated; but in the case of heretics, who in many other points also dissented from the Church, it has always been condemned as heretical." It is fair to add that Bellarmine, who quotes this passage to refute it, speaks of it with severity'.

To the same purpose is the following remark of another Roman writer, quoted by Taylor. "In the old Catholic writers we suffer very many errors, and

1 De Clericis, i. 15

extenuate and excuse them; and finding out some commentary, we feign some convenient sense, when they are opposed in disputations'."

It is not surprising, with these sentiments, that Romanists should have undertaken before now to suppress and correct portions of the Fathers' writings. An edition of St. Austin published at Venice, contains the following most suspicious confession; "Besides the recovery of many passages by collation with ancient copies, we have taken care to remove whatever might infect the minds of the faithful with heretical pravity, or turn them aside from the Catholic and orthodox faith 2." And a corrector of the press at Lyons, of the middle of the 16th century, complains that he was obliged by certain Franciscans to cancel various passages of St. Ambrose, whose works he was engaged upon 3.

The Council of Constance furnishes us with a memorable instance of the same disregard for Antiquity, to which the whole Roman Communion is committed, in the decree by which it formally debars the laity from the participation of the Cup

'Taylor's Dissuasive, i. i. 1. vol. x. p. 136.

2 “In quo, præter locorum multorum restitutionem secundum collationem veterum exemplarium, curavimus removeri illa omnia, quæ fidelium mentes hæreticâ pravitate possent inficere, aut à catholicâ orthodoxâ fide deviare." Vid. Taylor. Diss. Part ii. i. 6. vol. x. p. 497.

3“Qui pro auctoritate has omnes paginas dispunxerunt, ut vides, et illas substitui in locum priorum curaverunt, præter omnem librorum nostrorum fidem." Ibid.

in the Lord's Supper. There is no need of entering into the defence put forward by Romanists, as if the Church had a certain discretion committed to her in the Administration of the Sacraments, and used it in this prohibition, as in the substitution of affusion for immersion in Baptism. The question simply is, even allowing this, for argument's sake, is the spirit betrayed in the following language, one of reverence for Antiquity :

66

Whereas," says the Council," in certain parts of the world, some temerariously presume to affirm, that the Christian people ought to receive the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, under both kinds of bread and wine, and do everywhere make the laity communicate not only in bread but in wine also, and pertinaciously assert that communion should take place after supper, or else not fasting, contrary to the laudable and reasonable custom of the Church, which they damnably endeavour to reprobate as sacrilegious, this present holy General Council of Constance, legitimately assembled in the Holy Ghost, being anxious to preserve the faithful from this error, after mature deliberation of persons most learned both in divine and human law, declares, decrees, and defines, that, though Christ instituted this venerable Sacrament after supper, and administered it to His disciples under both kinds of bread and wine, yet, notwithstanding this, the laudable authority of the sacred Canons and the approved custom of the Church has observed