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
- Le t ui velit, Ormcorum vetcrum commentaries, et nullurn, ?uantum opinor, ant
?.? . , . 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
�
