unclean thing should enter into Heaven if the guilt and the stain be remov'd what uncleanness can there be left behinde Indeed Simon Magus as Epiphanius reports Haeres 20. did teach That after the death of the body there remain'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a purgation of souls But whether the Church of Rome will own him for an authentick Doctor themselves can best tell 3. It relies upon this also That God requires of us a full exchange of Penances and Satisfactions which must regularly be paid here or hereafter even by them who are pardon'd here which if it were true we were all undone 4. That the Death of Christ his Merits and Satisfaction do not procure for us a full remission before we dye nor as it may happen of a long time after All which being Propositions new and uncertain invented by the School Divines and brought ex postfacto to dress this opinion and make it to seem reasonable and being the products of ignorance concerning remission of sins by Grace of the righteousness of Faith and the infinite value of Christs Death must needs lay a great prejudice of Novelty upon the Doctrine it self which but by these cannot be supported But to put it past suspition and conjectures Roffensis and Polydore Virgil affirm That whoso searcheth the Writings of the Greek Fathers shall finde that none or very rarely any one of them ever makes mention of Purgatory and that the Latine Fathers did not all believe it but by degrees came to entertain opinions of it But for the Catholick Church it was but lately known to her But before we say any more in this Question we are to premonish That there are Two great causes of their mistaken pretensions in this Article from Antiquity The first is That the Ancient Churches in their Offices and the Fathers in their Writings did teach and practice respectively prayer for the Dead Now because the Church of Rome does so too and more than so relates her prayers to the Doctrine of Purgatory and for the souls there detain'd her Doctors vainly suppose that when ever the H. Fathers speak of prayer for the dead that they conclude for Purgatory which vain conjecture is as false as it is unreasonable For it is true the Fathers did pray for the dead but how That God would shew them mercy and hasten the resurrection and give a blessed sentence in the great day But then it is also to be remembred that they made prayers and offered for those who by the confession of all sides never were in Purgatory euen for the Patriarchs and Prophets for the Apostles and Evangelists for Martyrs and Confessors and especially for the blessed Virgin Mary So we finde it in Epiphanius S. Cyril and in the Canon of the Greeks and so it is acknowledged by their own Durantus and in their own Mass-book anciently they prayed for the soul of S. Leo Of which because by their latter doctrines they grew asham'd they have chang'd the prayer for him into a prayer to God by the intercession of S. Leo in behalf of themselves so by their new doctrine making him an Intercessor for us who by their old doctrine was suppos'd to need our prayers to intercede for him of which Pope Innocent being asked a reason makes a most pitiful excuse Upon what accounts the Fathers did pray for the Saints departed and indeed generally for all it is not now seasonable to discourse but to say this onely that such general prayers for the dead as those above reckon'd the Church of England did never condemn by any express Article but left it in the middle and by her practice declares her faith of the Resurrection of the dead and her interest in the communion of Saints and that the Saints departed are a portion of the Catholick Church parts and members of the Body of Christ but expresly condemns the Doctrine of Purgatory and consequently all prayers for the dead relating to it And how vainly the Church of Rome from prayer for the dead infers the belief of Purgatory every man may satisfie himself by seeing the Writings of the Fathers where they cannot meet with one Collect or Clause praying for the delivery of souls out of that imaginary place Which thing is so certain that in the very Roman Offices we mean the Vigils said for the dead in which are Psalms and Lessons taken from the Scripture speaking of the miseries of this World Repentance and Reconciliation with God the bliss after this life of them that dye in Christ and the resurrection of the Dead and in the Anthemes Versicles and Responses there are prayers made recommending to God the soul of the newly defunct praying he may be freed from Hell and eternal death that in the day of Iudgement he be not judged and condemned according to his sins but that he may appear among the Elect in the glory of the Resurrection but not one word of Purgatory or its pains The other cause of their mistake is That the Fathers often speak of a fire of Purgation after this life but such a one that is not to be kindled until the day of judgement and it is such a fire that destroyes the Doctrine of the intermedial Purgatory We suppose that Origen was the first that spoke plainly of it and S. Ambrose follows him in the opinion for it was no more so does S. Basil S. Hilary S. Hierome and Lactaâ—tius as their words plainly prove as they are cited by Sixtus Senensis affirming that all men Christ onely excepted shall be burned with the fire of the worlds conflagration at the day of Iudgement even the B. Virgin her self is to pass thorow this fire There was also another Doctrine very generally receiv'd by the Fathers which greatly destroyes the Roman Purgatory Sixtus Senensis sayes and he sayes very true that Iustin Martyr Tertullian Victorinus Martyr Prudentius S. Chrysostom Arethas Euthymius and S. Bernard did all affirm that before the day of Judgement the souls of men are kept in secret receptacles reserved unto the sentence of the great day and that before then no man receives according to his works done in this life We do not interpose in this opinion to say that it is true or false probable or improbable for these Fathers intended it not as a matter of faith or necessary belief so far as we finde But we observe from hence that if their opinion be true then the Doctrine of Purgatory is false If it be not true yet the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory which is inconsistent with this so generally receiv'd opinion of the Fathers is at least new no Catholick Doctrine not believ'd in the Primitive Church and therefore the Roman Writers are much troubled to excuse the Fathers in this Article and to reconcile them to some seeming concord with their new Doctrine But besides these things it is certain that the Doctrine of Purgatory before the day of
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The end of all our agonies and affirms That the Holy men of God rest in joy and in never failing hopes and are come to the end of their holy combates S. Iustin Martyr affirms That when the soul is departed from the body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 presently there is a separation made of the just and unjust The unjust are by Angels born into places which they have deserved but the souls of the just into Paradice where they have the conversation of Angels and Archangels S. Ambrose saith That Death is a haven of rest and makes not our condition worse but according as it findes every man so it reserves him to the judgement that is to come The same is affirm'd by S. Hilary S. Macarius and divers others they speak but of two states after death of the just and the unjust These are plac'd in horrible Regions reserv'd to the judgement of the great day the other have their souls carried by Quires of Angels into places of rest S. Gregory Nazianzen expresly affirms that after this life there is no purgation For after Christs ascension into heaven the souls of all Saints are with Christ saith Gennadius and going from the body they go to Christ expecting the resurrection of their body with it to pass into the perfection of perpetual bliss and this he delivers as the Doctrine of the Catholick Church In what place soever a man is taken at his death of light or darkness of wickedness or vertue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same Order and in the same degree either in light with the just and with Christ the great King or in darkness with the unjust and with the Prince of darkness said Olimpiodorus And lastly we recite the words of S. Leo one of the Popes of Rome speaking of the Penitents who had not perform'd all their penances But if any one of them for whom we pray unto the Lord being interrupted by any obstacles falls from the gift of the present Indulgence viz. of Ecclesiastical Absolution and before he arrive at the appointed remedies that is before he hath perform'd his penances or satisfactions ends his temporal life that which remaining in the body he hath not receiv'd when he is devested of his body he cannot obtain He knew not of the new devices of paying in Purgatory what they paid not here and of being cleansed there who were not clean here And how these words or of any the precedent are reconcileable with the Roman Doctrines of Purgatory hath not yet entred into our imagination To conclude this particular We complain greatly that this Doctrine which in all the parts of it is uncertain and in the late additions to it in Rome is certainly false is yet with all the faults of it pass'd into an Article of Faith by the Council of Trent But besides what hath been said it will be more than sufficient to oppose against it these clearest words of Scripture Blessed are the dead which dye in the Lord from henceforth even so saith the Spirit that they may rest from their labours If all the dead that dye in Christ be at rest and are in no more affliction or labours then the Doctrine of the horrible pains of Purgatory is as false as it is uncomfortable To these words we adde the saying of Christ and we relie upon it He that heareth my word and believeth on him that sent me hath eternal life and cometh not into judgement but passeth from death unto life If so then not into the judgement of Purgatory If the servant of Christ passeth from death to life then not from death to the terminable pains of a part of Hell They that have eternal life suffer no intermedial punishment judgement or condemnation after death for death and life are the whole progression according to the Doctrine of Christ and Him we chuse to follow Sect. V. THe Doctrine of Transubstantiation is so far from being Primitive and Apostolick that we know the very time it began to be own'd publiquely for an opinion and the very Council in which it was said to be pass'd into a publick Doctrine and by what arts it was promoted and by what persons it was introduc'd For all the world knows that by their own parties by Scotus Ocham Biel Fisher Bishop of Rochester and divers others whom Bellarmine calls most learned and most acute men it was declared that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not express'd in the Canon of the Bible that in the Scriptures there is no place so express as without the Churches declaration to compel us to admit of Transubstantiation and therefore at least it is to be suspected of novelty But further we know it was but a disputable question in the ninth and tenth ages after Christ that it was not pretended to be an Article of Faith till the Lateran Council in the time of Pope Innocent the Third MCC years and more after Christ that since that pretended determination divers of the chiefest Teachers of their own side have been no more satisfied of the ground of it than they were before but still have publickly affirm'd that the Article is not express'd in Scripture particularly Iohannes de Basselis Cardinal Cajetan and Melchior Canus besides those above reckon'd And therefore if it was not express'd in Scripture it will be too clear that they made their Articles of their own heads for they could not declare it to be there if it was not and if it was there but obscurely then it ought to be taught accordingly and at most it could be but a probable doctrine and not certain as an Article of Faith But that we may put it past argument and probability it is certain that as the Doctrine was not taught in Scripture expresly so it was not at all taught as a Catholick Doctrine or an Article of the Faith by the primitive ages of the Church Now for this we need no proof but the confession and acknowledgement of the greatest Doctors of the Church of Rome Scotus says that before the Lateran Council Transubstantiation was not an Article of faith as Bellarmine confesses and Henriquez affirms that Scotus says it was not ancient insomuch that Bellarmine accuses him of ignorance saying he talk'd at that rate because he had not read the Roman Council under Pope Gregory VII nor that consent of Fathers which to so little purpose he had heap'd together Rem transubstantiationis Patres ne attigisse quidem said some of the English Jesuits in Prison The Fathers have not so much as touch'd or medled with the matter of Transubstantiation and in Lombard's time it was so far from being an Article of Faith or a Catholick Doctrine that they did not know whether it were true or no And after he had collected the sentences of the Fathers in that Article he confess'd He could not tell whether there
worshipped as did the Gentiles These things they did but against these things the Christians did zealously and piously declare We have no Image in the world said S. Clemens of Alexandria It is apparently forbidden to us to exercise that deceitful art For it is written Thou shalt not make any similitude of any thing in Heaven above c. And Origen wrote a just Treatise against Celsus in which he not onely affirms That Christians did not make or use Images in Religion but that they ought not and were by God forbidden to do so To the same purpose also Lactantius discourses to the Emperor and confutes the pretences and little answers of the Heathen in that manner that he leaves no pretence for Christians under another cover to introduce the like abomination We are not ignorant that those who were converted from Gentilisme and those who lov'd to imitate the customs of the Roman Princes and people did soon introduce the Historical use of Images and according to the manner of the world did think it honorable to depict or make Images of those whom they had in great esteem and that this being done by an esteem relying on Religion did by the weakness of men and the importunity of the Tempter quickly pass into inconvenience and superstition yet even in the time of Iulian the Emperor S. Cyril denies that the Christians did give veneration and worship to the Image even of the Cross it self which was one of the earliest temptations and S. Epiphanius it is a known story tells that when in the village of Bethel he saw a cloth picture as it were of Christ or some Saint in the Church against the Authority of Scripture He cut it in pieces and advis'd that some poor man should be buried in it affirmed that such Pictures are against Religion and unworthy of the Church of Christ. The Epistle was translated into Latine by S. Hierome by which we may guess at his opinion in the question The Council of Eliberis is very ancient and of great fame in which it is expresly forbidden that what is worshipped should be depicted on the walls and that therefore Pictures ought not to be in Churches S. Austin complaining that he knew of many in the Church who were Worshippers of Pictures calls them Superstitious and adds that the Church condems such customs and strives to correct them and S. Gregory writing to Serenus Bishop of Massilia sayes he would not have had him to break the Pictures and Images which were there set for an historical use but commends him for prohibiting to any one to worship them and enjoyns him still to forbid it But Superstition by degrees creeping in the Worship of Images was decreed in the seventh Synod or the second Nicene But the decrees of this Synod being by Pope Adrian sent to Charls the Great he convocated a Synod of German and French Bishops at Francfurt who discussed the Acts pass'd at Nice and condemn'd them And the Acts of this Synod although they were diligently suppressed by the Popes arts yet Eginardus Hinâ—marus Aventinus Blondus Adon Amonius Regino famous Historians tell us That the Bishops of Francfurt condemn'd the Synod of Nice and commanded it should not be called a General Council and published a Book under the name of the Emperor confuting that unchristian Assembly and not long since this Book and the Acts of Francfurt were published by Bishop Tillius by which not only the infinite fraud of of the Roman Doctors is discover'd but the worship of Images is declar'd against and condemned A while after this Ludovicus the Son of Charlemain sent Claudius a famous Preacher to Taurinum in Italy where the Preached against the worshipping of Images and wrote an excellent Book to that purpose Against this Book Ionas Bishop of Orleans after the death of Ludovicus and Claudius did write In which he yet durst not assert the worship of them but confuted it out of Origen whose words he thus cites Images are neither to be esteemed by inward affection nor worshipped with outward shew and out of Lactantius these Nothing is to be worshipped that is seen with mortal eyes Let us adore let us worship nothing but the Name alone of our only Parent who is to be sought for in the Regions above not here below And to the same purpose he also alleges excellent words out of Fulgentius and S. Hierom and though he would have Images ratain'd and therefore was angry at Claudius who caus'd them to be taken down yet he himself expresly affirms that they ought not to be worshipped and withal addes that though they kept the Images in their Churches for History and Ornament yet that in France the worshipping of them was had in great detestation And though it is not to be denied but that in the sequel of Ionas his Book he does something praevaricate in this question yet it is evident that in France this Doctrine was not accounted Catholick for almost nine hundred years after Christ and in Germany it was condemned for almost MCC years as we find in Nicetas We are not unskill'd in the devices of the Roman Writers and with how much artifice they would excuse this whole matter and palliate the crime imputed to them and elude the Scriptures expresly condemning this Superstition But we know also that the arts of Sophistry are not the wayes of Salvation And therefore we exhort our people to follow the plain words of Scripture and the express Law of God in the second Commandment and add also the Exhortation of S. Iohn Little children keep your selves from Idols To conclude it is impossible but that it must be confessed that the worship of Images was a thing unknown to the Primitive Church in the purest times of which they would not allow the making of them as amongst divers others appears in the Writings of Clemens Alexandrinus Tertullian and Origen SECT IX AS an Appendage to this we greatly reprove the custom of the Church of Rome in picturing God the Father and the most Holy and Undivided Trinity which besides that it ministers infinite scandal to all sober minded men and gives the new Arrians in Polonia and Antitrinitarians great and ridiculous entertainment exposing that Sacred Mystery to derision and scandalous contempt It is also which at present we have undertaken particularly to remark against the Doctrine and practise of the Primitive Catholick Church S. Clemens of Alexandria sayes that in the Discipline of Moses God was not to be represented in the shape of a man or of any other thing and that Christians understood themselves to be bound by the same law we find it expresly taught by Origen Tertullian Eusebius Athanasius S. Hierom S. Austin Theodoret Damascen and the Synod of Constantinople as it is reported in the sixt Action of the second Nicene Council And certainly if there were not
of riot and deordination But we cannot deserve blame who return to our ancient and first health by preferring a New Cure before an Old sore CHAP. II. The Church of ROME as it is at this day disordered teaches Doctrines and uses Practises which are in themselves or in their true and immediate Consequences direct Impieties and give Warranty to a wicked Life Sect. I. OUr first instance is in their Doctrines of Repentance For the Roman Doctors teach that unless it be by accident or in respect of some other obligation a sinner is not bound presently to repent of his sin as soon as he hath committed it Some time or other he must do it and if he take care so to order his affairs that it be not wholly omitted but so that it be done one time or other he is not by the precept or grace of Repentance bound to do more Scotus and his Scholars say that a sinner is bound viz. by the precept of the Church to repent on Holy dayes especially the great ones But this is thought too severe by Soto and Medina who teach that a sinner is bound to repent but once a year that is against Easter These Doctors indeed do differ concerning the Churches sense which according to the best of them is bad enough full as bad as it is stated in the charge but they agree in the worst part of it viz. That though the Church calls upon sinners to repent on Holy days or at Easter yet that by the Law of God they are not tyed to so much but only to repent in the danger or article of death This is the express Doctrine taught in the Church of Rome by their famous Navar and for this he quotes Pope Adrian and Cardinal Cajetan and finally affirms it to be the sense of all men The same also is taught by Reginaldus saying It is true and the opinion of all men that the time in which a sinner is bound by the commandment of God to be contrite for his sins is the imminent article of natural or violent death We shall not need to aggravate this sad story by the addition of other words to the same purpose in a worse degree such as those words are of the same Reginaldus There is no precept that a sinner should not persevere in enmity against God There is no negative precept forbidding such a perseverance These are the words of this man but the proper and necessary consequent of that which they all teach and to which they must consent For since it is certain that he who hath sinn'd against God and his Conscience is in a state of enmity we say he therefore ought to repent presently because until he hath repented he is an enemy to God This they confess but they suppose it concludes nothing for though they consider and confess thâ—â— yet they still saying a man is no bound by Gods Law to repent till the article of death do consequently say the same thing that Reginaldus does and that a man is not bound to come out of that state of enmity till he be in those circumstances that it is very probable if he does not then come out he must stay in it for ever It is somthing worse than this yet that Sotus sayes even to resolve to defer our repentance and to refuse to repent for a certain time is but a venial sin but Medina sayes it is none at all If it be replyed to this that though God hath left it to a sinners liberty to repent when he please yet the Church hath been more severe than God hath been and tyes a sinner to repent by collateral positive Laws for having bound every one to confess at Easter consequently she hath tyed every one to repent at Easter and so by her Laws can lye in the sin without interruption but twelve moneths or thereabouts yet there is a secret in this which nevertheless themselves have been pleased to discover for the ease of tender consciences viz. That the Church ordains but the means the exteriour solemnity of it and is satisfied if you obey her Laws by a Ritual repentance but the holiness and the inward repentance which in charity we should have suppos'd to have been design'd by the Law of Festivals non est id quod per praeceptum de observatione Festorum injungitur is not that which is enjoyn'd by the Church in her Law of Holy dayes So that still sinners are left to the liberty which they say God gave even to satisfie our selves with all the remaining pleasures of that sin for a little while even during our short mortal life onely we must be sure to repent at last We shall not trouble our â—â—lves or our charges with confuting this impious Doctrine For it is evident that this gives countenance and too much warranty to a wicked life and that of it self is confutation enough and is that which we intended to represent If it be answered that this is not the doctrine of their Church but of some private Doctors we must tell you that if by the Doctrine of their Church they mean such things only as are decreed in their Councils it is to be considered that but few things are determin'd in their Councils nothing but Articles of Belief and the practise of Sacraments relating to publick Order and if they will not be reprov'd for any thing but what we prove to be false in the Articles of their simple Belief they take a liberty to say and to do what they list and to corrupt all the World by their Rules of Conscience But that this is also the Doctrine of their Church their own men tell us Communis omnium It is the Doctrine of all their men so they affirm as we have cited their own words above who also undertake to tell us in what sense their Church intends to tye sinners to actual repentance not as soon as the sin is committed but at certain seasons and then also to no more of it than the external and ritual part So that if their Church be injuriously charged themselves have done it not we And besides all this it is hard to suppose or expect that the innumerable cases of Conscience which a whole Trade of Lawyers and Divines amongst them have made can be entred into the records of Councils and publick Decrees In these cases we are to consider who teaches them Their Gravest Doctors in the face of the Sun under the intuition of Authority in the publick conduct of souls in their allowed Sermons in their books licens'd by a curious and inquisitive Authority not passing from them but by warranty from several hands intrusted to examine them ne fides Ecclesiae aliquid detrimenti patiatur that nothing be publish'd but what is consonant to the Catholick Faith And therefore these things cannot be esteem'd private Opinions especially since if they be yet they are the private opinions of them all and
are not Venial in their own nature and in their appendant circumstances either the people are cozen'd by this Doctrine into an useless confidence and for all this talking in their Schools they must nevertheless do to Venial sins as they do to Mortal that is mortifie them fight against them repent speedily of them and keep them from running into mischief and then all their kinde Doctrines in this Article signifie no comfort or ease but all danger and difficulty and useless dispute 3 or else if really they mean that this easiness of opinion be made use of then the danger is imminent and carelesness is introduc'd and licentiousness in all little things is easily indulg'd and mens souls are daylie lessen'd without repair and kept from growing towards Christian perfection and from destroying the whole body of sin and in short despising little things they perish by little and little This Doctrine also is worse yet in the handling For it hath infinite influence to the disparagement of holy life not onely by the uncertain but as it must frequently happen by the false determination of innumerable cases of Conscience For it is a great matter both in the doing and the thing done both in the caution and the repentance whether such an action be a venial or a mortal sin If it chance to be mortal and pour Confessor says it is venial your soul is betrayed And it is but a chance what they say in most cases for they call what they please venial and they have no certain rule to answer by which appears too sadly in their innumerable differences which is amongst all their Casuists in saying what is and what is not mortal and of this there needs no greater proof than the reading the little Summaries made by their most leading guides of Consciences Navar Cajetane Tolet Emanuel SÃ and others where one sayes such a thing is mortal and two say it is venial And lest any man should say or think this is no great matter we desire that it be considered that in venial sins there may be very much fantastick pleasure and they that retain them do believe so for they suppose the pleasure is great enough to outweigh the intolerable pains of Purgatory and that it is more eligible to be in Hell a while than to cross their appetites in such small things And howeveâ— it happen in this particular yet because the Doctorâ— differ so infinitely and irreconcileably in saying what is and what is not Venial whoever shall trust to their Doctrine saying that such a sin is Venial and to their Doctrine that says it does not exclude from Gods favour may by these two Propositions be damned before he is aware We omit to insist upon their express contradicting the words of our Blessed Saviour who taught his Church expresly That we must work in the day time for the night cometh and no man worketh Let this be as true as it can in the matter of Repentance and Mortification and working out our pardon for mortal sins yet it is not true in Venial sins if we may believe their great S. Thomas whom also Bellarmine follows in it for he affirms That by the acts of Love and Patience in Purgatory Venial sins are remitted and that the acceptation of those punishments proceeding out of Charity is a virtual kinde of penance But in this particular we follow not S. Thomas nor Bellarmine in the Church of England and Ireland for we believe in Jesus Christ and follow him If men give themselves liberty as long as they are alive to commit one whole kinde of sins and hope to work it out after death by acts of Charity and Repentance which they would not do in their life time either they must take a course to sentence the words of Christ as savouring of heresie or else they will find themselves to have been at first deceiv'd in their Proposition and at last in their expectation Their faith hath fail'd them here and hereafter they will be asham'd of their hope Sect. VII THere is a Proposition which indeed is new but is now the general Doctrine of the Leading Men in the Church of Rome and it is the foundation on which their Doctors of Conscience rely in their decision of all cases in which there is a doubt or question made by themselves and that is That if an Opinion or Speculation be probable it may in practise be safely followed And if it be inquir'd What is sufficient to make an Opinion probable the answer is easie Sufficit opinio alicujus gravis Doctoris aut Bonorum exemplum The opinion of any one grave Doctor is sufficient to make a matter probable nay the example and practise of good men that is men who are so reputed if they have done it you may do so too and be safe This is the great Rule of their Cases of Conscience And now we ought not to be press'd with any ones saying that such an opinion is but the private opinion of one or more of their Doctors For although in matters of Faith this be not sufficient to impute a Doctrine to a whole Church which is but the private opinion of one or more yet because we are now speaking of the infinite danger of souls in that communion and the horrid Propositions by which their Disciples are conducted to the disparagement of good life it is sufficient to alledge the publick and allowed sayings of their Doctors because these sayings are their Rule of living and because the particular Rules of Conscience use not to be Decreed in Councils we must derive them from the places where they grow and where they are to be found But besides you will say That this is but the private opinion of some Doctors and what then Therefore it is not to be called the Doctrine of the Roman Church True we do not say It is an Article of their Faith but a rule of manners This is not indeed in any publick Decree but we say that although it be not yet neither is the contrary And if it be but a private opinion yet is it safe to follow it or is it not safe For that 's the question and therein is the danger If it be safe then this is their Rule A private opinion of any one grave Doctor may be safely followed in the questions of Vertue and Vice But if it be not safe to follow it and that this does not make an opinion probable or the practise safe Who sayes so Does the Church No Does Dr. Cajus or Dr. Sempronius say so Yes But these are not safe to follow for they are but private Doctors Or if it be safe to follow them though they be no more and the opinion no more but probable then I may take the other side and choose which I will and do what I list in most cases and yet be safe by the Doctrine of the Roman Casuists which is the great line and general measure