The Grounds of Protestant Religion, Table of contents

The Grounds of Protestant Religion · Table of contents

THE CONTENTS.

PART I. Of the Grounds of Faith.

CHAP. I. The Occasion of the Conference, and Defence of the Greek Church.

T.C^s. Title examined and retorted. The Labyrinth found in his Book and Doctrine. The occasion of the Conference about the Churches Infallibility. The rise of the dispute about the Greek Church, and the consequences from it. The Charge of Heresie against the Greek Church examined, and she found, Not-guilty, by the concurrent testimony of Fathers, General Councils, and Popes▪ Of the Council of Florence and the proceedings there; That Council neither General nor Free. The distinction of Ancient and Modern Greeks, disproved. The debate of the Filioque being inserted into the Creed. The time when and the right by which it was done, discussed. The rise of the Schism between the Eastern and Western Churches, mainly occasioned by the Church of Rome.

Page 1.

CHAP. II. Of Fundamentals in General.

The Popish Tenet concerning Fundamentals, a meer step to the Roman Greatness. The Question about Fundamentals stated. An enquiry into the nature of them. What are Fundamentals, in order to particular persons; and what to be owned as such, in order to Ecclesiastical Communion. The Prudence and Moderation of the Church of England, in defining Articles of Faith. What judged Fundamental by the Catholick Church. No new Articles of Faith can become necessary. The Churches power in propounding matters of Faith, examined. What is a sufficient Proposition. Of the Athanasian Creed, and its being owned by the Church of England. In what sense the Articles of it are necessary to Salvation. Of the distinction of the material and formal object of Faith, as to Fundamentals. His Lordship's integrity, and T. C. his forgery, in the testimony of Scotus. Of Heresie, and how far the Church may declare matters of Faith. The testimony of St. Augustine vindicated.

Page 44.

CHAP. III. The Absurdities of the Romanists Doctrine of Fundamentals.

The Churches Authority must be Divine, if whatever she defines be Fundamental. His Lordship, and not the Testimony of S. Augustine, shamefully abused, three several wayes. Bellarmin not mis-cited; the Pelagian Heresie condemned by the General Council at Ephesus. The Popes Authority not implyed in that of Councils. The gross Absurdities of the distinction of the Church teaching and representative, from the Church taught and diffusive, in the Question of Fundamentals. The Churches Authority and Testimony in matters of Faith, distinguished. The Testimony of Vincentius Lirinensis explained, and shewed to be directly contrary to the Roman Doctrine of Fundamentals. Stapleton and Bellarmin, not reconciled by the vain endeavours used to that end.

Page 79.

CHAP. IV. The Protestant Doctrine of Fundamentals, vindicated.

The unreasonableness of demanding a Catalogue of Fundamentals. The Creed contains the Fundamentals of Christian Communion. The belief of Scripture supposed by it. The Dispute concerning the Sense of Christs Descent into Hell, and M^r. Rogers his Book, confessed by T. C. impertinent: With others of the same nature. T. C. his fraud, in citing his Lordships words. Of Papists and Protestants Vnity. The Moderation of the Church of England, compared with that of Rome. Her grounds of Faith justified. Infant-Baptism how far proved out of Scripture alone.

Page 98.

CHAP. V. The Romanists way of Resolving Faith.

The ill consequences of the resolution of Faith by the Churches Infallibility. The grand Absurdities of it, manifested by its great unreasonableness in many particulars. The certain Foundations of Faith unsettled by it, as is largely proved. The Circle unavoidable by their new attempts. The impossibility of proving the Church Infallible by the way that Moses, Christ, and his Apostles were proved to be so. Of the Motives of Credibility, and how far they belong to the Church. The difference between Science and Faith considered, and the new art of mens believing with their wills. The Churches Testimony must be, according to their principles, the formal object of Faith. Of their esteem of Fathers, Scripture, and Councils. The rare distinctions concerning the Churches Infallibility discussed. How the Church can be Infallible by the assistance of the Holy Ghost, yet not divinely Infallible, but in a manner and after a sort. T.C. applauded for his excellent faculty in contradicting himself.

Page 109.

CHAP. VI. Of the Infallibility of Tradition.

Of the unwritten Word, and the necessary Ingredients of it. The Instances for it particularly examined and disproved. The Fathers Rule for examining Traditions. No unwritten Word the Foundation of Divine Faith. In what sense Faith may be said to be Divine. Of Tradition being known by its own light, and the Canon of the Scripture. The …estimony of the Spirit, how far pertinent to this Controversie. Of the use of Reason in the resolution of Faith. T. C's. Dialogue answered, with another between himself and a Sceptick. A twofold resolution of Faith into the Doctrine, and into the Books. Several Objections answered from the Supposition made of a Child brought up without sight of Scripture. Christ no Ignoramus nor Impostor, though the Church be not Infallible. T. C's. Blasphemy in saying otherwise. The Testimonies of Irenaeus and S. Augustin examined and retorted. Of the nature of Infallible Certainty, as to the Canon of Scripture; and whereon it is grounded. The Testimonies produced by his Lordship, vindicated.

p. 161.

CHAP. VII. The Protestant Way of resolving Faith.

Several Principles premised in order to it. The distinct Questions set down, and their several Resolutions given. The Truth of matters of fact, the Divinity of the Doctrine, and of the Books of Scripture, distinctly resolved into their proper grounds. Moral Certainty a sufficient Foundation for Faith, and yet Christian Religion proved to be infallibly true. How Apostolical Tradition made by his Lordship a Foundation of Faith. Of the Certainty we have of the Copies of Scripture, and the Authority of them. S. Augustine's Testimony concerning Church-Authority largely discussed and vindicated. Of the private Spirit, and the necessity, of Grace. His Lordship's Way of resolving Faith vindicated. How far Scripture may be said to be known by its own Light. The several Testimonies of Bellarmine, Brierly, and Hooker, cleared.

p. 202.

CHAP. VIII. The Churches Infallibility not proved from Scripture.

Some general Considerations from the design of proving the Churches Infallibility from Scripture. No Infallibility in the High-Priest and his Clergy under the Law; if there had been, no necessity there should be under the Gospel. Of S. Basil's Testimony concerning Traditions. Scripture less liable to corruptions than Traditions. The great uncertainty of judging Traditions, when Apostolical, when not. The Churches perpetuity being promised in Scripture, proves not its Infallibility. His Lordship doth not falsifie A. C's. words, but T. C. doth his meaning. Producing the Jesuits words no traducing their Order. T. C's. miserable. Apology for them. The particular Texts produced for the Churches Infallibility, examined. No such Infallibility necessary in the Apostles Successours, as in Themselves. The Similitude of Scripture and Tradition to an Ambassadour and his Credentials, rightly stated

p. 235.

CHAP. IX. The Sense of the Fathers in this Controversie.

The Judgement of Antiquity enquired into, especially of the three first Centuries; and the reasons for it, The several Testimonies of Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Tatianus, Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, and all the Fathers who writ in vindication of Christian Religion, manifested to concurr fully with our way of resolving Faith. T. C's. Answers to Vincentius Lyrinensis, à Gandavo, and the Fathers produced by his Lordship, pitifully weak. The particulars of his 9th. Chapter examined. S. Augustine's Testimony vindicated. T. C's. nauseous Repetitions sent as Vagrants to their several homes. His Lordships Considerations found too heavy for T. C's. Answers. In what sense the Scripture may be called a Praecognitum. What way the Jews resolved their Faith. This Controversie, and the first part, concluded.

p. 261

PART II. Of Schism.

CHAP. I. Of the Universal Church.

THe Question of Schism explained. The nature of it enquired into. Several general Principles laid down for clearing the present Controversie. Three grounds of the charge of Schism on Protestant Churches by our Authour. The first, of the Roman Churches being the Catholick Church, entred upon. How far the Roman Church may be said to be a true Church. The distinction of a Church morally, and metaphysically true, justified. The grounds of the Unity of the Catholick Church, as to Doctrine and Government. Cardinal Perron's distinction of the formal, causal, and participative Catholick Church examined. The true sense of the Catholick Church in Antiquity manifested from S. Cyprian, and several cases happening in his time: as, the Schism of Novatianus at Rome; the case of Felicissimus and Fortunatus. Several other Instances out of Antiquity to the same purpose, by all which it is manifest, that the Unity of the Catholick Church had no dependence on the Church of Rome. The several Testimonies to the contrary, of S. Ambrose, S. Hierom, John Patriarch of Constantiople, S. Augustine, Optatus, &c. particularly examined; and all found short of proving that the Roman Church is the Catholick Church. The several Answers of his Lordship to the Testimonies of S. Cyprian, S. Hierom, S. Greg. Nazianzen, S. Cyril, and Ruffinus, about the Infallibility of the Church of Rome, justified. From all which it appears, that the making the Roman Church to be the Catholick, is a great Novelty, and perfect Jesuitism.

p. 289.

CHAP. II. Protestants no Schismaticks.

Schism a culpable Separation; therefore the Question of Schism must be determined by enquiring into the causes of it. The plea from the Church of Rome's being once a right Church, considered. No necessity of assigning the punctual time when errours crept into her. An account why the originals of errours seem obscure. By Stapletons Confession, the Roman and Catholick Church were not the same. The falsi…y of that assertion manifested, that there could be no pure Church since the Apostles times, if the Roman Church were corrupt. No one particular Church free from corruptions; yet no separation from the Catholick Church. How far the Catholick Church may be said to erre. Men may have distinct communion from any o…e particular Church, yet not separate from the Catholick Church. The Testimony of Petrus de Alliaco vindicated. Bellarmin not mis cited. Almain full to his Lordships purpose. The Romanists guilty of the present Schism, and not Protestants. In what sense there can be no just cause of Schism; and how far that concerns our case. Protestants did not depart from the Church of Rome, but were thrust out of it. The Vindication of the Church of Rome from Schism, at last depends upon the two false Principles, of her Infallibility, and being the Catholick Church. The Testimonies of S. Bernard, and S Austin not to the purpose. The Catalogue of Fundamentals, the Churches not erring, &c. referr'd back to their proper places.

p. 324.

CHAP. III. Of keeping Faith with Hereticks.

The occasion of this Dispute. The reason why this Doctrine is not commonly defended: Yet all own such Principles from whence it necessar…ly follows. The matter of fact as to the Council of Constance, and John Hus, opened. Of the nature of the safe conduct granted him by the Emperour, that it was not a general one, salvâ justitiâ, but particular, jure speciali; which is largely proved. The particulars concerning Hierom of Prague. Of the safe-conduct granted by the Council of Trent. Of the distinction of Secular and Ecclesiastical Power, and that from thence it follows, that Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks. Simancha, and several others fully assert this Doctrine. Of the Invitation to the Council of Trent, and the good Instructions there; and of Publick Disputation.

p. 343.

CHAP. IV. The Reform…tion of the Church of England justified.

The Church of Rome guilty of Schism, by unjustly casting Protestants out of Communion. The Communion of the Cathol…ck and particular Churches, distinguished. No separation of Protestants from the Catholick Church. The Devotions of the Church of England and Rome compared. Particular Churches Power to reform themselves in case of general Corruption, proved. The Instance from the Church of Judah vindicated. The Church of Rome paralleld with the ten Tribes. General Corruptions make Reformation the more necessary. Whether those things we condemn as errours, were Catholick Tenets at the time of the Reformation. The contrary shewed, and the d…fference of the Church of Rome before and since the Reformation. When things may be said to be received as Catholick Doctrines. How far particular Churches Power to reform themselves extends. His Lordships Instances for the Power of Provincial Councils in matters of Reformation vindicated. The particular case of the Church of England discussed. The proceedings in our Reformation defended. The Church of England a true Church. The National Synod 1562. a lawful Synod. The B…shops no intruders in Queen Elizabeth's time. The justice and mod…ration of the Church of England in her Reformation. The Popes Power here, a forcible and fraudulent Usurpation.

p. 356.

CHAP. V. Of the Roman Churches Authority.

The Question concerning the Church of Rome's Authority entred upon. How far our Church, in reforming her self, condemns the Church of Rome. The Pope's equality with other Patriarchs, asserted. The Arabick Canons of the Nicene Council proved to be supposititious. The Polity of the Ancient Church discovered from the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice. The Rights of Primats and Metropolitans settled by it. The suitableness of the Ecclesiastical, to the Civil Government. That the Bishop of Rome had then a limitted Jurisdiction within the suburbicary Churches; as Primate of the Roman Diocese. Of the Cyprian Priviledge; that it was not peculiar, but common to all Primats of Dioceses. Of the Pope's Primacy according to the Canons, how far pertinent to our dispute. How far the Pope's Confirmation requisite to new elected Patriarchs. Of the Synodical and Communicatory Letters. The testimonies of Petrus de Marcâ concerning the Pope's Power of confirming and deposing Bishops. The Instances brought for it, considered. The case of Athanasius being restored by Julius, truly stated. The proceedings of Constantine in the case of the Donatists cleared, and the evidence thence against the Pope's Supremacy. Of the Appeals of Bishops to Rome, how far allowed by the Canons of the Church. The great case of Appeals between the Roman and African Bishops discussed. That the Appeals of Bishops were prohibited, as well as those of the inferiour Clergy. T. C's. fraud in citing the Epistle of the African Bishops, for acknowledging Appeals to Rome. The contrary manifested from the same Epistle to Boniface, and the other to Coelestine. The exemption of the Ancient Britannick Church from any subjection to the See of Rome, asserted. The case of Wilfrids Appeal answered. The Primacy of England not derived from Gregory's Grant to Augustine the Monk. The Ancient Primacy of the Britannick Church not lost upon the Saxon Conversion. Of the state of the African Churches, after their denying Appeals to Rome. The rise of the Pope's Greatness under Christian Emperours. Of the Decree of the Sardican Synod, in case of Appeals, whether ever received by the Church: No evidence thence of the Pope's Supremacy. Zosimus his forgery in sending the Sardican Canons instead of the Nicene. The weakness of the Pleas for it, manifested.

p. 382.

CHAP. VI. Of the Title of Universal Bishop.

In what sense the Title of Vniversal Bishop was taken in Antiquity. A threefold acceptation of it; as importing 1. A general care over the Christian Churches, which is attributed to other Catholick Bishops by Antiquity, besides the Bishop of Rome, as is largely proved. 2. A peculiar dignity over the Churches within the Roman Empire. This accounted then Oecumenical, thence the Bishops of the seat of the Empire called Oecumenical Bishops: and sometimes of other Patriarchal Churches. 3. Noting Vniversal Jurisdiction over the whole Church as Head of it, so never given in Antiquity to the Bishop of Rome. The ground of the Contest about this Title between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople. Of the proceedings of the Council of Chalcedon, about the Popes Supremacy. Of the Grammatical and Metaphorical sense of this Title. Many arguments to prove it impossible that S. Gregory should understand it in the Grammatical sense. The great absurdities consequent upon it. S. Gregory's Reasons proved to hold against that sense of it, which is admitted in the Church of Rome. Of Irenaeus his opposition to Victor. Victor's excommunicating the Asian Bishops, argues no authority he had over them. What the more powerful principality in Irenaeus is. Ruffinus his Interpretation of the 6. Nicene Canon vindicated. The Suburbicary Churches cannot be understood of all the Churches in the Roman Empire. The Pope no Infallible Successour of S. Peter, nor so acknowledged to be by Epiphanius. S. Peter had no Supremacy of Power over the Apostles.

p. 422.

CHAP. VII. The Popes Authority not proved from Scripture, or Reason.

The insufficiency of the proofs from Scripture, acknowledged by Romanists themselves. The impertinency of Luke 22.32. to that purpose. No proofs offered for it, but the suspected testimonies of Popes in their own cause. That no Infallibility can thence come to the Pope, as S. Peters Successour, confessed, and proved by Vigorius, and Mr. White. The weakness of the evasion of the Popes erring as a private Doctor, but not as Pope, acknowledged by them. Joh. 21.15. proves nothing towards the Popes Supremacy. How far the Popes Authority is owned by the Romanists over Kings. T. C's. beggings of the Question, and tedious repetitions, past over. The Argument from the necessity of a living Judge, considered. The Government of the Church not Monarchical, but Aristocratical. The inconveniencies of Monarchical Government in the Church, manifested from reason. No evidence that Christ intended to institute such Government in his Church, but much against it. The Communicatory letters in the primitive Church, argued an Aristocracy. Gersons testimony from his Book de Auferibilitate Papae, explained and vindicated. S. Hieroms testimony full against a Monarchy in the Church. The inconsistency of the Popes Monarchy with that of temporal Princes. The Supremacy of Princes in Ecclesiastical matters, asserted by the Scripture and Antiquity, as well as the Church of England.

p. 451.

CHAP. VIII. Of the Council of Trent.

The Illegality of it manifested, first from the insufficiency of the Rule it proceeded by, different from that of the first General Councils, and from the Popes Presidency in it. The matter of Right concerning it, discussed. In what cases Superiours may be excepted against as Barties. The Pope justly excepted against as a Party, and therefore ought not to be Judge. The Necessity of a Reformation in the Court of Rome, acknowledged by Roman Catholicks. The matter of fact enquired into, as to the Popes Presidency in General Councils. Hosius did not preside in the Nicene Council as the Popes Legat. The Pope had nothing to do in the second General Council. Two Councils held at Constantinople, within two years; these strangely confounded. The mistake made evident. S. Cyril not President in the third General Council as the Popes Legat. No sufficient evidence of the Popes Presidency in following Councils. The justness of the Exception against the place, manifested; and against the freedom of the Council from the Oath taken by the Bishops to the Pope. The form of that Oath in the time of the Council of Trent. Protestants not condemned by General Councils. The Greeks and others unjustly excluded as Schismaticks. The Exception from the small number of Bishops cleared and vindicated. A General Council in Antiqui…y not so called from the Popes General Summons. In what sense a General Council represents the whole Church. The vast difference between the proceedings in the Council of Nice, and that at Trent. The Exception from the number of Italian Bishops, justified. How far the Greek Church and the Patriarch Hieremias may be said to condemn Protestants; with an account of the proceedings between them.

p. 475.

PART. III. Of Particular Controversies.

CHAP. I. Of the Infallibility of General Councils.

HOw far this tends to the ending Controversies. Two distinct Questions concerning the Infallibility and Authority of General Councils. The first entred upon, with the state of the Question. That there can be no certainty of faith, that General Councils are Infallible; nor, that the particular decrees of any of them are so: which are largely proved. Pighius his Arguments against the Divine Institution of General Councils. The places of Scripture considered, which are brought for the Churches Infallibility, and that these cannot prove that General Councils are so: Matth. 18.20. Act. 15.28. particularly answered. The sense of the Fathers in their high expressions of the Decrees of Councils. No consent of the Church as to their Infallibility. The place of St. Austin about the amendment of former General Councils by latter, at large vindicated. No other place in St. Austin prove them Infallible, but many to the contrary. General Councils cannot be Infallible in the conclusion, if not in the use of the means. No such Infallibility without as immediate a Revelation as the Prophets and Apostles had: taking Infallibility not for an absolute unerring Power, but such as comes by a promise of Divine Assistance preserving from errour. No obligation to internal assent, but from immediate Divine Authority. Of the consistency of Faith and Reason in things propounded to be believed. The suitableness of the contrary Doctrine to the Romanists principles.

p. 505.

CHAP. II. Of the Use and Authority of General Councils.

The denying the Infallibility of General Councils takes not away their Vse and Authority. Of the submission due to them by all particular persons. How far external obedience is required in case they erre. No violent opposition to he made against them. Rare Inconveniencies hinder not the effect of a just power. It cannot rationally be supposed, that such General Councils as are here meant should often or dangerously erre. The true notion of a General Council explained. The Freedom requisite in the proceedings of it. The Rule it must judge by Great Difference between external obedience, and internal assent to the Decrees of Councils. This latter unites men in errour, not the former. As great uncertainties supposing General Councils Infallible as not. Not so great certainty requisite for submission as Faith. Whether the Romanists Doctrine of the Infallibility of Councils, or ours, tend more to the Churches peace? St. Austin explained. The Keyes according to him given to the Church. No unremediable inconvenience supposing a General Council erre. But errours in Faith are so, supposing them Infallible when they are not. The Church hath power to reverse the Decrees of General Councils. The power of Councils not by Divine Institution. The unreasonableness of making the Infallibility of Councils depend on the Popes Confirmation. No consent among the Romanists about the subject of Infallibility, whether in Pope or Councils. No evidence from Scripture, Reason, or Antiquity, for the Popes personal Infallibility.

p. 533.

CHAP. III. Of the errours of pretended General Councils.

The erroneous Doctrine of the Church of Rome in making the Priests intention necessary to the essence of Sacraments. That Principle destructive to all certainty of Faith, upon our Authours grounds. The absurdity of asserting, That Councils define themselves to be Infallible. Sacramental actions sufficiently distinguished from others without the Priests Intention. Of the moral assurance of the Priests Intention, and the insufficiency of a meer virtual Intention. The Popes confirmation of Councils supposeth personal Infallibility. Transubstantiation an errour decreed by Pope and Council. The repugnancy of it to the grounds of Faith. The Testimonies brought for it out of Antiquity examin'd at large, and shewed to be far from proving Transubstantiation. Communion in one kind a violation of Christs Institution. The Decree of the Council of Constance implyes a non obstante to it. The unalterable nature of Christs Institution cleared. The several Evasions considered and answered. No publick Communion in one kind for a thousand years after Christ. The indispensableness of Christs Institution owned by the Primitive Church. Of Invocation of Saints, and the Rhetorical expressions of the Fathers which gave occasion to it. No footsteps of the Invocation of Saints in the three first Centuries; nor precept or example in Scripture, as our Adversaries confess. Evidences against Invocation of Saints from the Christians Answers to the Heathens. The worship of Spirits and Heroes among the Heathens, justifiable on the same grounds that Invocation of Saints is in the Church of Rome. Commemoration of the Saints without Invocation, in S. Austins time. Invocation of Saints as practised in the Church of Rome, a derogation to the merits of Christ. Of the worship of Images and the near approach to Pagan Idolatry therein. No Vse or Veneration of Images in the Primitive Church. The Church of Rome justly chargeable with the abuses committed in the worship of Images.

Page 554.

CHAP. IV. Of the possibility of Salvation in the Roman Church.

Protestants Concessions ought not to be any ground to prefer the Communion of the Church of Rome. How far those Concessions extend. The uncharitableness of Romanists, if they yield not the same to us. The weakness of the Arguments to prove the Roman Church the safer way to Salvation on Protestant principles. The dangerous Doctrines of Romanists about the easiness of salvation, by the Sacrament of Pennance. The case parallel'd between the Donatists and Romanists, in denying salvation to all but themselves; and the advantages equal from their adversaries Concessions. The advantage of the Protestants, if that be the safest way which both parties are agreed in, manifested and vindicated in several particulars. The Principle it self at large shewed to be a meer contingent Proposition, and such as may lead to Heresie and Infidelity. The case of the Leaders in the Roman Church, and others, distinguished. The Errours and Superstitions of the Roman Church, make its communion very dangerous in order to Salvation.

Page 611.

CHAP. V. The Safety of the Protestant Faith.

The sufficiency of the Protestant Faith to Salvation, manifested by disproving the Cavils against it. T. C's tedious Rep…titions passed over. The Argument from Possession at large consider'd. No Prescription allowable, where the Law hath antecedently determined the right. Of the Infallibility of Oral Tradition. That, contrary to the received Doctrine of the Roman Church; and in it self unreasonable. The Grounds of it examined. The ridiculousness of the Plea of bare Possession, discovered. General Answers returned to the remaining Chapters, consisting wholly of things already discussed. The place of S. Cyprian to Cornelius particularly vindicated. The proof of Succession of Doctrine lyes on the Romanists by their own principles.

Page 625.

CHAP. VI. The Sense of the Fathers concerning Purgatory.

The Advantage which comes to the Church of Rome, by the Doctrine of Purgatory, thence the boldness of our Adversaries in contending for it. The Sense of the Roman Church concerning Purgatory, explained. The Controversie between the Greek and Latin Church concerning it. The Difference in the Church of Rome about Purgatory. Some general Considerations about the Sense of the Fathers, as to its being an Article of Faith. The Doubtfulness and Vncertainty of the Fathers Judgements in this particular, manifested by S. Austin the first who seemed to assert a Purgation before the day of Judgement. Prayer for the Dead used in the Ancient Church, doth not inferr Purgatory. The Primate of Armagh vindicated from our Adversaries Calumnies. The general Intention of the Church distinguished from the private Opinions of particular persons. The Prayers of the Church respected the day of Judgement. The Testimonies of the Fathers in behalf of Purgatory, examined; particularly of the pretended Dionysius, Tertullian, S. Cyprian, Origen, S. Ambrose, S. Hierom, S. Basil, Nazianzen, Lactantius, Hilary, Gregory Nyssen, &c. And not one of them asserts the Purgatory of the Church of Rome. S. Austin doth not contradict himself about it. The Doctrine of Purgatory no elder than Gregory 1. and built on Credulity and Superstition. The Churches Infallibility made at last the Foundation of the belief of Purgatory. The Falsity of that Principle: and the whole concluded.

Page 636.