then it will follow that they did not hold the unwritten Word to be a Rule of Faith. Marsilius ab Inghen was first Professor of Divinity of Heidelberg at the latter end of the 15th Century saith Bellarmin but Trithemius saith the 14th and he determines that a Theological Proposition is that which is positively asserted in Scripture or deduced from thence by good Consequence and that a Theological Truth strictly taken is the Truth of an Article of Faith or something expressed in the Bible or deduced from thence He mentions Apostolical Traditions afterwards and joins them with Ecclesiastical Histories and Martyrologies So far was he from supposing them to be part of the Rule of Faith. In the beginning of the 15th Century lived Petrus de Alliaco one as famous for his skill in Divinity as for his Dignity in the Church He saith that Theological Discourse is founded on Scripture and a Theological Proof must be drawn from thence that Theological Principles are the Truths contained in the Canon of Scripture and Conclusions are such as are drawn out of what is contained in Scripture So that he not onely makes the Scripture the Foundation of Faith but of all sorts of true Reasoning about it He knew nothing of Cardinal Palavicini's two first Principles of Faith. To the same purpose speaks Gregorius Ariminensis about the middle of the 14th Century he saith all Theological Discourse is grounded on Scripture and the Consequences from it which he not onely proves from Testimony but ex communi omnium conceptione from the general Consent of Christians For saith he all are agreed that then a thing is proved Theologically when it is proved from the Words of Scripture So that here we have plain Tradition against Traditions being a distinct Rule of Faith and this delivered by the General of an Order in the Church of Rome He affirms that the Principles of Theology are no other than the Truths contained in the Canon of Scripture and that the Resolution of all Theological Discourse is into them and that there can be no Theological Conclusion but what is drawn from Scripture In the former part of that Century lived Darandus he gives a threesold Sense of Theology 1. For a habit whereby we assent to those things which are contained in Scripture as they are there delivered 2. For a habit whereby those things are â—efended and declared which are delivered in Scripture 3. For a habit of those things which are deduced out of Articles of Faith and so it is all one with the holy Scripture And in another place he affirms that all Truth is contained in the Holy Scripture at large but for the People's Conveniency the necessary Points are summed up in the Apostles Creed In his Preface before his Book on the Sentences he highly commends the Scriptures for their Dignity their Usefulness their Certainty their Depth and after all concludes that in matters of Faith men ought to speak agreeably to the Scriptures and whosoever doth not breaks the Rule of the Scriptures which he calls the Measure of our Faith. What Tradition did appear then for another Rule of Faith in the 14th Century But before I proceed higher I shall shew the Consent of others with these School Divines in the three last Centuries before the Council of Trent In the middle of the 15th lived Nicholaus Panormitanus one of mighty Reputation for his skill in the Canon Law. In the Ch. Significâsti prima 1. de Electione debating the Authority of Pope and Council he saith If the Pope hath better Reason his Authority is greater than the Councils and if any private person in matters of Faith hath better Reason out of Scripture than the Pope his saying is to be preferred above the Pope's Which words do plainly shew that the Scripture was then looked on as the onely Rule of Faith or else no Man's grounding himself on Scripture could make his Doctrine to be preferred before the Pope's who might alledge Tradition against him and if that were an equal Rule of Faith the Doctrine of one Rule could not be preferred before the other At the same time lived Tostatus the famous Bishop of Avila one of infinite Industry and great Judgment and therefore could not be mistaken in the Rule of Faith. In his Preface on Genesis he saith that there must be a Rule for our understandings to be regulated by and that Rule must be most certain that Divine Faith is the most certain and that is contained in Scripture and therefore we must regulate our understandings thereby And this he makes to be the measure of Truth and Falshood If he knew any other Rule of Faith besides the Scriptures he would have mentioned it in this place and not have directed Men onely to them as the exact measure of Truth and Falshood In the beginning of this Century Thomas Walden Confessor to our Henry 5th saith Trithemius disputed sharply against Wickliff but he durst not set up the Churches Authority or Tradition equal with the Scriptures For when he mentions Tradition after Scriptures he utterly disclaims any such thought as that of Equality between them but he desires a due distance may be kept between Canonical Scripture and Ecclesiastical Authority or Tradition In the first place he saith we ought to believe the holy Scriptures then the Definitions and Customs of the Catholick Church but he more fully explains himself in another place where he plainly asserts that nothing else is to be received by such Faith as the Scripture and Christ's symbolical Church but for all other Authorities the lowest degree is that of Catholick Tradition the next of the Bishops especially of the Apostolical Churches and the Roman in the first place and above all these he places that of a General Council but when he hath so done he saith all these Authorities are to be regarded but as the Instructions of Elders and Admonitions of Fathers So that the chief Opposers of Wickliff had not yet found out this new Rule of Faith. Much about the same time lived Joh. Gerson whom Cardinal Zabarella declared in the Council of Constance to be the greatest Divine of his time and therefore could not be ignorant of the true Rule of Faith. He agrees with Panormitan in this that if a man be well skilled in Scriptures his Doctrine deserves more to be regarded than the Pope's Declaration for saith he the Gospel is more to be believed than the Pope and if such a one teaches a Doctrine to be contained in Scripture which the Pope either knows not or mistakes it is plain whose Judgment is to be preferred Nay he goes farther that if in a General Council he finds the Majority incline to that part which is contrary to Scripture he is bound to oppose it and he instances in Hilary And he shews that since the Canon of Scripture received by the Church no Authority of the Church is
the Tridentine Canon I shall prove these two things 1. That there hath been a constant Tradition against it in the Eastern Church 2. That there never was a constant Tradition for it in the Western Church 1. That there hath been a constant Tradition against it in the Eastern Church which received the Jewish Canon without the Books declared Canonical by the Council of Trent We have very early Evidence of this in the Testimony of Melito Bishop of Sardis who lived not long after the middle of the 2d Century and made it his business to enquire into this matter and he delivers but 22 Books of the Old Testament The same is done by Origen in the next who took infinite Pains as Eusebius saith in searching after the Copies of the Old Testament And these Testimonies are preserved by Eusebius in the following Century and himself declares that there was no sacred Book among the Jews from the time of Zorobabel which cuts off the Books canonized by the Council of Trent In the same Age we have the Testimonies of Athanasius St. Cyril of Jerusalem Epiphanius S. Basil S. Gregory Nazianzene Amphilochius and S. Chrysostom It is not to be imagined that a Tradition should be better attested in one Age than this was by so considerable Men in different Churches who give in the Testimony of all those Churches they belonged to And yet besides these we have in that Age a concurrent Testimony of a Council of Bishops at Laodicea from several Provinces of Asia and which is yet more this Canon of theirs was received into the Code of the Catholick Church and so owned by the Council of Chalcedon which by its first Canon gives Authority to it And Justinian allows the force of Laws to the Canons which were either made or confirmed by the four General Councils But it is the point of Tradition I am upon and thereâ—ore Justinian's Novel may at least be a sâ—rong Evidence of that in the 6th Century In the 7th Leontius gives his own Testimony and that of Theodorus In the 8th Damascen expresly owns the Hebrew Canon of 22 Books and excludes by name some of the Books made Canonical at Trent In the 9th we have the Testâ—mony of Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople if he be the Authour of the Laterculus at the end of his Chrâ—nography but if he be not he must be an Authour of that Age being translated by Anastasius Bibliothecarius In the 12th Balsamon and Zonaras refer to the Council of Laodicea and the Greek Fathers In the 14th Nicephorus Calisthus reckons but 22 Books of the Old Testament And in this Age we have the clear Testimony of Metrophanes afterwards Patriarch of Alexandria who saith there are but 22 Canonical Books of the Old Testament but the rest i. e. Tobit Judith Wisedom Ecclesiasticus Baruch and Machabees are usefull and therefore not wholly to be rejected but the Church never received them for Canonical and Authentical as appears by many Testimonies as among others of Gregory the Divine Amphilochius and Damascen and therefore we never prove matters of Faith out of them 2. Let us now compare this Tradition with that of the Western Church for the New Canon of Trent It cannot be denied that Innocentius I. and Gelasius did enlarge the Canon and took in the Apocryphal Books unless we call in question the Writings under their Names but granting them genuine I shall shew that there is no comparison between this Tradition and that of the Eastern Church and therefore there could be no possible Reason for the Council of Trent to make a Decree for this Tradition and to anathematize all who did not submit to it For 1. This Tradition was not universally received at that time Innocentius his Epistle is supposed to be written A. D. 405. Was the Western Church agreed before or after about this matter This Epistle was written to Eruperius a Gallican Bishop to whom St. Jerom dedicated his Commentaries on Zechariah but now it unluckily falls out that the Tradition of the Gallican Church was contrary to this as appears by S. Hilary who could not be ignorant of it being a famous Bishop of that Church and he tells us there were but 22 Canonical Books of the Old Testament I confess he saith some were for adding Tobit and Judith but it is very observable that he saith that the other Account is most agreeable to ancient Tradition which is a mighty Argument against Innocentius who brings no Tradition to justifie his Canon When St. Augustin produced a Place out of the Book of Wisedom the Divines of Marseilles rejected it because the Book was not Canonical Therefore in that time Innocent's Canon was by no means received in the Gallican Church for by it this Book was made Canonical But S. Jerom who had as much learning as Pope Innocent vehemently opposed this New Canon more than once or ten times and not onely speaks of the Jewish Canon but of the Canon of the Church The Church saith he reads the Books of Tobit Judith and Machabees but the Church doth not receive them among Canonical Scriptures What Church doth he mean Not the Synagogue certainly Pope Innocent saith Those Books are to be received into the Canon S. Jerom saith the Church doth not receive them but that they are to be cast out Where is the Certainty of Tradition to be found If Innocent were in the right S. Jerom was foully mistaken and in plain terms belied the Church But how is this consistent with the Saintship of St. Jerom Or with common discretion if the Church did receive those Books for Canonical For every one could have disproved him And it required no great Judgment or deep Learning to know what Books were received and what not If S. Jerom were so mistaken which it is very hard to believe how came Ruffinus not to observe his errours and opposition to the Church Nay how came Ruffinus himself to fall into the very same prodigious mistake For he not onely rejects the controverted Books out of the Canon but saith he follow'd the ancient Tradition therein What account can be given of this matter If Innocent's Tradition were right these men were under a gross Delusion and yet they were learned and knowing Persons and more than ordinarily conversant in the Doctrines and Traditions of the Church 2. This Opinion was not received as a Tradition of the Church afterwards For if it had been how could Gregory I. reject the Book of Machabees out of the Canon when two of his Predecessours took it in It is somewhat hard to suppose one Pope to contradict two of his Predecessours about the Canon of Scripture yet I see not how to avoid it nor how it is consistent with the Constancy of Tradition much less with the pretence to Infallibility He did not merely doubt as Canus would have it thought but he
to be equalled to it He allows a Judgment of Discretion in private persons and a Certainty of the literal Sense of Scripture attainable thereby He makes the Scripture the onely standing infallible Rule of Faith for the whole Church to the end of the world And whatever Doctrine is not agreeable thereto is to be rejected either as Heretical suspicious or impertinent to Religion If the Council of Trent had gone by this Rule we had never heard of the Creed of Pius IV. In the beginning of the 14th Century lived Nicolaus de Lyra who parallels the Scriptures in matters of Faith with First-principles in Sciences for as other Truths are tried in them by their reduction to First-principles so in matters of Faith by their reduction to Canonical Scriptures which are of divine Revelation which is impossible to be false If he had known any other Principles which would have made Faith impossible to be false he would never have spoken thus of Scripture alone But to return to the School Divines About the same time lived Joh. Duns Scotus the head of a School famous for Subtilty He affirms that the holy Scripture doth sufficiently contain all matters necessary to salvation because by it we know what we are to believe hope for and practise And after he hath enlarged upon them he concludes in these words patet quod Scriptura sacra sufficienter continet Doctrinam necessariam viatori If this be understood onely of Points simply necessary then however it proves that all such things necessary to Salvation are therein contained and no man is bound to enquire after unnecessary Points How then can it be necessary to embrace another Rule of Faith when all things necessary to Salvation are sufficiently contained in Scripture But Thomas Aquinas is more express in this matter For he saith that those things which depend on the Will of God and are above any desert of ours can be known no otherways by us than as they are delivered in Scriptures by the Will of God which is made known to us This is so remarkable a Passage that Suarez could not let it escape without corrupting it for instead of Scripture he makes him to speak of Divine Revelation in general viz. under Scripture he comprehends all that is under the written Word he means the unwritten If he had meant so he was able to have expressed his own mind more plainly and Cajetan apprehended no such meaning in his words But this is a matter of so great consequence that I shall prove from other passages in him that he asserted the same Doctrine viz. That the Scripture was the onely Rule of Faith. 1. He makes no Proofs of matters of Faith to be sufficient but such as are deduced from Scripture and all other Arguments from Authority to be onely probable nay although such Persons had particular Revelations How can this be consistent with another Rule of Faith distinct from Scripture For if he had owned any such he must have deduced necessary Arguments from thence as well as from Canonical Scriptures But if all other Authorities be onely probable then they cannot make any thing necessary to be believed 2. He affirms that to those who receive the Scriptures we are to prove nothing but by the Scriptures as matter of Faith. For by Authorities he means nothing but the Scriptures as appears by the former place and by what follows where he mentions the Canon of Scripture expresly 3. He asserts that the Articles of the Creed are all contained in Scripture and are drawn out of Scripture and put together by the Church onely for the Ease of the People From hence it nenessarily follows that the Reason of believing the Articles of the Creed is to be taken from the written Word and not from any unwritten Tradition For else he needed not to have been so carefull to shew that they were all taken out of Scripture 4. He distinguisheth the Matters of Faith in Scripture some to be believed for themselves which he calls prima Credibilia these he saith every one is bound explicitly to believe but for other things he is bound onely implicitly or in a preparation of mind to believe whatever is contained in Scripture and then onely is he bound to believe explicitly when it is made clear to him to be contained in the Doctrine of Faith. Which words must imply the Scripture to be the onely Rule of Faith for otherwise implicit Faith must relate to whatever is proved to be an unwritten Word From all this it appears that Aquinas knew nothing of a Traditional Rule of Faith although he lived after the Lateran Council A. D. 1215. being born about nine years after it And Bonaventure who died the same year with him affirms that nothing was to besaid about Matters of Faith but what is made clear out of the holy Scriptures Not long after them lived Henricus Gandavensis and he delivers these things which are very material to our purpose 1. That the Reason why we believe the Guides of the Church since the Apostles who work no Miracles is because they preach nothing but what they have left in their most certain Writings which are delivered down to us pure and uncorrupt by an universal consent of all that succeeded to our times Where we see he makes the Scriptures to be the onely Certain Rule and that we are to judge of all other Doctrines by them 2. That Truth is more certainly preserved in Scripture than in the Church because that is fixed and immutable and men are variable so that multitudes of them may depart from the Faith either through Errour or Malice but the true Church will always remain in some righteous persons How then can Tradition be a Rule of Faith equal with Scriptures which depends upon the Testimony of Persons who are so very fallible I might carry this way of Testimony on higher still as when Richardus de S. Victore saith in the thirteenth Century that every Truth is suspected by him which is not confirmed by Holy Scripture but in stead of that I shall now proceed to the Canon Law as having more Authority than particular Testimonies 3. As to the Canon Law collected by Gratian I do not insist upon its Confirmation by Eugenius but upon its universal Reception in the Church of Rome And from thence I shall evidently prove that Tradition was not allowed to be a Rule of Faith equal with the Scriptures Dist. 9. c. 3 4 5 7 8 9 10. The Authority and Infallibility of the holy Scripture is asserted above all other Writings whatsoever for all other Writings are to be examined and men are to judge of them as they see cause Now Bellarmin tells us that the unwritten Word is so called not that it always continues unwritten but that it was so by the first Authour of it So that the unwritten Word doth not depend on
as to this Point And no one upon all Occasions speaks more expresly than he doth as to the Sufficiency of Scripture for a Rule of Faith and he was too great and too wise a Man to contradict himself 2. That there were different forms of speech used in the Church concerning the Holy Ghost some taken out of Scripture and others received by Tradition from the Fathers When he proves the Divinity of the Holy Ghost he appeals to Scripture and declares that he would neither think nor speak otherwise than he found there But it was objected that the Form S. Basil used was not found in Scripture he answers that the equivalent is there found and that there were some things received by Tradition which had the same force towards Piety And if we take away all unwritten Customs we shall doe wrong to the Gospel and leave a bare name to the Publick Preaching And from thence he insists on some Traditionary Rites as the Sign of the Cross Praying towards the East c. His business is to shew that to the greater solemnity of Christian Worship several Customs were observed in the Church which are not to be found in Scripture And if other ancient Customs were received which are not commanded in Scripture he sees no Reason that they should find such fault with this And this is the whole force of S. Basil's Reasoning which can never be stretched to the setting up Tradition as a Rule of Faith distinct from Scripture Having thus shewed that there was no Catholick Tradition for this New Rule of Faith I am now to give an Account how it came into the Church The first Step that was made towards it was by the second Council of Nice For although the Emperour in the Synodical Epistle proposed to them the true ancient Mehod of judging in Councils By the Books of Scripture placed on a Throne in the middle of the Council yet they found they could by no means doe their business that Way and therefore as Bellarmin observes they set up Tradition in the 6th and 7th Sessions and pronounced Anathema's against those who rejected unwritten Traditions But although there were then almost as little pretence for Tradition as Scripture in the matter of Images yet there having been a practice among them to set up and to worship Images which Richerius thinks came first into the Church from the Reverence shewed to the Emperours Statues they thought this the securest way to advance that which they could never defend by Scripture But this prevailed very little in the Western Church as is well known by the rejection of that Synod however Pope Hadrian joined with them and produced a wretched Tradition about Sylvester and Constantine to justifie their Proceedings as appears by the Acts of that Council And from the time that Images were received at Rome the force of Tradition was magnified and by degrees it came to be made use of to justifie other Practices for which they had nothing else to plead Hitherto Tradition was made use of for matters of Practice and the Scripture was generally received as the Rule of Faith but some of the Schoolmen found it impossible to defend some Doctrines held in the Church of Rome by mere Scripture and therefore they were forced to call in the Help of Tradition The most remarkable of these was Scotus who although in his Prologue he asserted as is said already that the Scripture did sufficiently contain all things necessary to salvation yet when he came to particular Points he found Scripture alone would never doe their business And especially as to the Sacraments of the Church about which he saw the Church of Rome then held many things which could never be proved from thence And this was the true occasion of Traditions being taken in for a partial Rule For after the Council of Lateran had declared several things to be of Faith which were in no former Creeds as Scotus confesses and they were bound to defend them as Points of Faith the Men of Wit and Subtilty such as Scotus was were very hard put to it to find out ways to prove those to have been old Points of Faith which they knew to be very new Then they betook themselves to two things which would serve for a colour to blind the common People and those were 1. That it was true these things were not in Scripture but Christ said to his Disciples I have many things to say unto you c. and among those many things they were to believe these new Doctrines to be some 2. When this would not serve then they told them though these Doctrines were not explicitly in Scripture yet they were implicitly there and the Church had authority to fetch them out of those dark places and to set them in a better light And thus Scotus helped himself out in that dark Point of Transubstantiation First he attempts to make it out by Tradition but finding that would not doe the business effectually he runs to the Authority of the Church especially in the business of Sacraments and we are to suppose saith he that the Church doth expound the Scripture with the same Spirit which indited them This was a brave Supposition indeed but he offers no proof of it If we allow Scotus to have been the Introducer of Tradition as to some Points of Faith yet I have made it appear that his Doctrine was not received in the Schools But after the Council of Constance had declared several Propositions to be Heretical which could not be condemned by Scripture there was found a Necessity of holding that there were Catholick Truths not contained in Scripture The first Proposition there condemned was That the Substance of Bread and Wine remain in the Sacrament of the Altar the second That the Accidents do not remain without their Subject Now how could such as these be condemned by Scripture But although onely some were said to be Heretical yet all were said to be against Catholick Truth But where is this Catholick Truth to be found Cardinal Cusanus thought of a current sense of Scripture according to the Churches Occasions so that though the Churches Practice should be directly contrary yet the Scripture was to be understood as the Church practised This was a very plain and effectual way if it had not been too gross and therefore it was thought much better by Cardinal Turrecremata to found Catholick Verities on unwritten Tradition as well as on Scripture After this Leo X. in his famous Bull against Luther Exurge Domine made a farther step for 22 Proposition condemned therein is That it is certain that it is not in the power of the Church or Pope to appoint new Articles of Faith. It seems then the Pope or Church have a Power to constitute new Articles of Faith and then neither Scripture nor Tradition can be the certain Rule of Faith but the Present Church or Pope
Canon taking Ecclesiastical Writings which were read in Churches into that number And in this sense S. Augustin used the Word Apocryphal when the Book of Enoch is so called by him and such other counterfeit Writings under the Names of the Prophets and Apostles but elsewhere he distinguishes between the Canonical Books of Salomon and those which bear his Name which he saith the more learned know not to be his but the Western Church had of old owned their Authority But in the case of the Book of Enoch he appeals to the Canon which was kept in the Jewish Temple and so falls in with S. Jerom and he confesses it is hard to justifie the Authority of those which are not in the Hebrew Canon Of the Machabees he saith It is distinguished from the Writings called Canonical but it is received by the Church as such What! to confirm matters of Faith No. But for the glorious sufferings therein recorded and elsewhere he saith it is usefull if it be soberly read S. Augustin knew very well that all Books were not received alike and that many were received in some parts of the Western Church from the old Translation out of the LXX which were not received in the Eastern and therefore in his Books of Christian Doctrine he gives Rules in judging of Canonical Books to follow the Authority of the greatest Number of Catholick Churches especially the Apostolical and that those which were received by all should be preferred before those which were onely received by some But he very well knew that the Hebrew Canon was universally received and that the controverted Books were not and therefore according to his Rule these could never be of Equal Authority with the other 4. When the Roman Church declared that it received the controverted Books into the Canon This is said to have been done by Gelasius with his Synod of LXX Bishops and yet it is hard to understand how Gregory so soon after should contradict it The Title of it in the old MS. produced by Chiffletius and by him attributed to Hormisdas is The Order of the Old Testament which the holy Catholick Roman Church receives and honours is this But whether by Gelasius or Hormisdas I cannot understand why such a Decree as this should not be put into the old Roman Code of Canons if it had been then made That there was such a one appears by the Copies of it in the Vatican mentioned by the Roman Correctors of Gratian and by mention of it by the Canon Si Romanorum Dist. 19. and De Libellis Dist. 20. and by the latter we understand what Canons of Councils and Decrees of Popes are in it among whom are both Gelasius and Hormisdas This they agree to be the same with that published by Wendelstin at Mentz 1525. The Epistle of Innocentius to Exuperius with the Canon is there published but not the other and so is the Canon of the Council of Carthage but that of Laodicea is cut off and so they are in that published by Dionysius Exiguus and Quesnell Justellus his ancient Copy was imperfect there but both these Canons being in the Roman Code are an Argument to me that the controverted Books were received by the Roman Church at that time but in such a manner that S. Jerom's Prologues still stood in the vulgar Latin Bible with the Commentaries of Lyra and Additions of Burgensis which were stiff for the Hebrew Canon and S. Jerom's Authority prevailed more than the Pope's as appears fully by what hath been already produced 5. To advance the Authority of these Books one step higher Eugenius IV. declared them to be Part of the Canon in the Instruction given to the Armenians Which the Roman Writers pretend to have been done in the Council of Florence But Naclantus Bishop of Chioza in the Council of Trent as Pallavicini saith denied that any such Decree was made by the Council of Florence because the last Session of it ended 1439. and that Decree was signed Feb. 4. 1441. To this the Legat replied that this was a mistake occasioned by Abraham Cretensis who published the Latin version of it onely till the Greeks departure but the Council continued three years longer as appeared by the Extracts of Augustinus Patricius since published in the Tomes of the Councils But he never mentions the Canon of Scripture however because Cervinus affirms that he saw the Original signed by the Pope and Cardinals we have no reason to dispute it But then it appears how very little it signified when Antoninus the Bishop of Florence opposed it and Cardinal Ximenes and Cardinal Cajetan slighted it and all who embraced the Council of Basil looked on Eugenius his Decree as void and after all that very Decree onely joins the Apocryphal Books in the same Canon as the Council of Carthage had done but it was reserved as the peculiar Honour of the Council of Trent to declare that Matters of Faith might be proved out of them as well as out of any Canonical Scriptures III. About the free use of the Scripture in the vulgar Language prohibited by the Council of Trent To understand the Sense of the Council of Trent in this matter we must consider 1. That it declares the vulgar Latin to be Authentick i. e. that no man under any pretence shall dare to presume to reject it Suppose the pretence be that it differs from the Original no matter for that he must not reject that which the Council hath declared Authentick i. e. among the Latin Editions But suppose a Man finds other Latin Translations truer in some parts because they agree more with the Original Text may he therein reject the vulgar Latin By no means if he thinks himself bound to adhere to the Council of Trent But the Council supposes it to agree with the Original And we must believe the Council therein This is indeed the meaning of the Council as far as I can judge But what Catholick Tradition was there for this Tes for a thousand years after Gregory 's time But this is not Antiquity enough to found a Catholick Tradition upon If there were no more than a thousand from Gregory there were six hundred past before him so that there must be a more ancient Tradition in the Church wherein this version was not Authentick and how came it then to be Authentick by virtue of Tradition Here then Tradition must be given up and the Council of Trent must have some other ground to go upon For I think the Traditionary Men will not maintain the vulgar Latin to have been always Authentick 2. That it referred the making the Index of prohibited Books to the Pope and in the 4th Rule of that Index All Persons are forbidden the use of the Scripture in the vulgar Tongue without a particular Licence and whosoever presumes to doe it without a faculty unless he first gives up his Bible he is not to receive Absolution My business is
such Consent as is boasted of even in the Latin Church As to the Greek Church he saith it is an argument of Universal Tradition when they had the same Tradition even in their Schism To this I Answer 1. We do not deny that the latter Greeks after the taking Constantinople by the Latins did hold Seven Mysteries which the Latins render Sacraments For after there were Latin Patriarchs at Constantinople and abundance of Latin Priests in the Eastern Parts they had perpetual Disputes about Religion and the Latins by degrees did gain upon them in some points and particularly in this of Seven Sacraments for the Latins thought it an advantage to their Church to boast of such a Number of Sacraments and the Greeks that they might not seem to come behind them were willing to embrace the same Number The first Person among them who is said to have written about them was Simeon Bishop of Thessalonica whom Possevin sets at a greater distance that the Tradition might seem so much elder among them for he makes him to have lived 600 years before his time but Leo Allatius hath evidently proved that he lived not two hundred years before him which is a considerable difference for Simeon dyed but six months before the taking of Thessalonica A. D. 1430 as he proves from Joh. Anagnosta who was present at the taking it From hence it appers how very late this Tradition came into the Greek Church After him Gabriel Severus Bishop of Philadelphia wrote about the Seven Sacraments and he lived at Venice in Arcudius his time who wrote since Possevin and Crusius wrote to this Gabriel A. D. 1580 and he was consecrated by Jeremias A. D. 1577. So that neither his Authority or that of Jeâ—emias can signifie any thing as to the Antiquity of this Tradition among the Greeks Leo Allatius talks of the old as well as Modern Greeks who held Seven Sacraments but he produces the Testimony only of those who lived since the taking of Constantinople as Job the Monk Simeon Johannes Palaeologus Jeremias Gabriel Cyrillus Berrhoensis Parthenius and such like But he very craftily saith he produces these to let us see they have not gone off from the Faith of their Ancestors whereas that is the thing we would have seen viz. the Testimony of the Greeks before and not afterwards As to the ancient Greeks he confesses they say nothing of the number De numero apud eos altum silentium est And how could therebe a Tradition in so much silence But some speak of some and others of others but all speak of all This is a very odd way to prove a Tradition of a certain Number For then some might believe Three others Four others Five but how can this prove that all believed just Seven However let us see the Proof But instead of that he presently starts an Objection from the pretended Dionysius Areopagita viz. That where he designs to treat of all the Sacraments he never mentions Penance Extreme Unction and Matrimony and after a great deal of rambling Discourse he concludes that he did ill to leave them oâ—t and that others Answers are insufficient He shews from Tertullian Ambrose and Cyril that the necessary Sacraments are mentioned but where are the rest and we are now enquiring after them in the ancient Greek Church but they are not to be founâ— As one may confidently affirm when one who professed so much skill in the Greek Church as Leo Allatius hath no more to say for the Proof of it 2. Those Greeks who held Seven Sacraments did not hold them in the Sense of the Council oâ— Trent And that for two Reasons 1. They do not hold them all to be of divine Institution Which appears by the Patriarch Jeremias his Answer to the Tubing Divines who at first seems to write agreeably to the Church of Rome in this matter except about Extreme Unction but being pressed hard by them in their Reply he holds to the Divine Institution of Baptism and the Eucharist but gives up the rest as instituted by the Churches Authority Which is plain giving up the Cause How then comes Bellarmin to insist so much on the Answer of Jeremias The Reason was that Socolovius had procured from Constantinople the Patriarch's first answer and translated and printed it upon which great Triumphs were made of the Patriarch's Consent with the Church of Rome but when these Divines were hereby provoked to publish the whole proceedings those of the Church of Rome were unwilling to be undeceived and so take no notice of any farther Answer Since the time of Jeremias the Patriarch of Alexandria as he was afterwards Metrophanes Critopulus published an Account of the Faith of the Greek Church and he saith expresly of Four of the Seven that they are Mystical Rites and equivocally called Sacraments And from hence it appears how little Reason Leo Allatius had to be angry with Caucus a Latinized Greek like himself for affirming that the modern Greeks did not look on these Sacraments as of Divine Institution but after he hath given him some hard words he offers to prove his Assertion for him To which end he not only quotes that passage of the Patriarch Jeremias but others of Job and Gregorius from whence he infers that Five of the Sacraments were of Ecclesiastical Institution and he saith nothing to take it off So admirably hath he proved the Consent of the Eastern and Western Churches 2. They do not agree in the Matter or Form or some essential part of them with the Council of Trent and therefore can make up no Tradition for the Doctrin of that Council about the Seven Sacraments This will be made appear by going through them 1. Of Chrism 1. As to the Form Arcudius shews that Gabriel of Philadelphia Cabasilas and Marcus Ephesius all place the Form in the Consecration of it but the Church of Rome makes the Form to lie in the Words spoken in the Use of it 2. As to the Minister of it Among the Greeks it is commonly performed by the Presbyter though the Bishop be present but the Council of Trâ—nt denounces an Anathema against him that saith the Bishop alone is not the ordinary Minister of it 3. As to the Character The Council of Trent declares that whosoever affirms that Confirmation doth not imprint an indelible Character so as it cannot be repeated is Anathematized but Arcudius shews at large that the modern Greeks make no scruple of reiterating Confirmation But Catumsyritus another Latinized Greek opposes Arcudius herein and saith that the Use of Chrism among the Geeeks doth not relate to the Sacrament of Confirmation but was a Symbolical Ceremony relating to Baptism and for this he quotes one Corydaleus a Man of great Note in the Patriarchal Church at Constantinople Therefore Caucus had reason to deny that the Greeks receive that which the Latins call the Sacrament of Confirmation And
THE Council of Trent EXAMIN'D and DISPROV'D BY Catholick Tradition In the main Points in Controversie between Us and the Church of Rome WITH A Particular Account of the Times and Occasions of introducing them PART I. To which a PREFACE is prefixed concerning the true Sense of the Council of Trent and the Notion of Transubstantiation The Second Edition Corrected WITH An APPENDIX in Answer to some late Passages of J. W. of the Society of Jesus Concerning the Prohibiting of Scripture in Vulgar Languages LONDON Printed for H. Mortlock at the Phoenix in S. Pauls Church-yard 1688. THE PREFACE THere is it seems a Train in Controversies as well as in Thoughts one thing still giving a start to another Conferences produce Letters Letters Books and one Discourse gives Occasion for another For this follows the former as a necessary Pursuit of the same Argument against Tradition I. S. in his last Letter had vouched the Authority of the Council of Trent proceeding upon Tradition and he instanced in three Points Transubstantiation Sacramental Confession and Extreme Unction The Examination of this I thought fit to reserve for a Discourse by it self wherein instead of confining my Self to those three Particulars I intend to go through the most material Points there established and to prove from the most Authentick Testimonies that there was no true Catholick Tradition for any of them And if I can make good what I have undertaken I shall make the Council of Trent it Self the great Instance against the Infallibility of Tradition This is a new Undertaking which the impetuousness of our Adversaries setting up Tradition for the Ground of their Faith hath brought me to But besides the shewing that really they have not Tradition on their side I have endeavoured to trace the several steps and to set down the Times and Occasions of Introducing those Points which have caused that unhappy breach in the Christian world whose sad effects we daily see and lament But have little hopes to see remied till these new Points be discarded and Scripture interpreted by truely Catholick Tradition be made the Standard of Christian Communion I do not pretend that all these Points came in at one Time or in the same Manner for some Errours and Corruptions came in far more early some had the favour of the Church of Rome in a higher degree some were more generally received in the Practice of the Church in later times than others and some were merely School Points before the Council of Trent but as far as the Thomists and Scotists could be made to agree there against the Reformers these passed for Articles of Faith. For this was one of the great Arts of that Council to draw up their Decrees in such Terms as should leave Room enough for Eternal Wranglings among themselves provided they agreed in doing the business effectually against the Hereticks as they are pleased to call them I therefore forbear to urge these as Points of Faith which have been freely debated among themselves since the Council of Trent without any Censure We have enough in the plain Decrees and Canons of that Council without medling with any School-Points And so I cannot be charged with Misrepresenting The great Debate of late hath been about the true Exposition of the Points there defined and for my part I am content to yield to any just and reasonable Methods of giving the true sense of them And such I conceive these to be I. Where the Council of Trent makes use of Words in a strict and limited Sense there it is unreasonable to understand them in a large and improper Sense As for instance Sess. 6. c. 26. It decrees that Justified Persons do verè promerere truely merit Eternal Life and Can. 32. there is an Anathema against him who denies true Merit in the good Works of justified Persons both as to Increase of Grace and Eternal Life There is no one conversant in Ancient Writers but knows that there was a large and improper Sense of the Word Merit but how is it impossible to apply that Sense where such Care is taken that it may be understood in a strict and limited Sense If the Council had left the Word in its General Sense there might have been Reason to have given the fairest Interpretation to it but when it is certainly known that there had been a difference of Opinions in the Church of Rome about true and proper Merit and that which was not however it were called and the Council declares for the former no man of understanding can believe that onely the improper Sense was meant by it As in the Point of the Eucharist when the Council declares that the words of Christ This is my Body are truely and properly to be understood Would it not be thought strange for any one to say that the Council notwithstanding might mean that Christ's Words may be figuratively understood And we must take the true notion of Merit not from any large expressions of the Ancients but from the Conditions of true and proper Merit among themselves But of this at large afterwards So as to the Notion of Sacraments every one knows how largely that Word was taken in Ancient Writers but it would be absurd to understand the Council of Trent in that Sense when Sess. 6. Can. 1. De Sacramentis it denounces an Anathema not merely against him that denies seven Sacraments but against him that doth not hold every one of them to be truely and properly a Sacrament And in the Creed of Pius IV. one Article is that there are seven true and proper Sacraments How vain a thing then were it for any to Expound the Sacraments in a large and improper Sense II. Where the Council of Trent hath not declared it self but it is fully done in the Catechism made by its Appointment we ought to look on that as the true Sense of the Council As in the Case of the Sacraments the Council never declares what it means by true and proper Sacraments but the Catechism makes large and full amends for this Defect For after it hath mention'd the use of the Word in Profane and Sacred Writers it sets down the Sense of it according to their Divines for a sensible sign which conveys the Grace which it signifies And after a large Explication of the Nature of Signs it gives this Description of a true and proper Sacrament that it is a sensible thing which by Divine Institution not only hath the force of signifying but of causing Grace And to shew the Authority of this Catechism for explicating the Doctrine of the Sacraments we need only to look into Sess. 24. c. 7. de Reform where it is required that the People be instructed in the Sacraments according to â—it It is supposed that the Catechism was appointed to be made in the 18th Sesâ—ion at the Instigation of Carolus Borromaeus since Canonized but it was not finished while the Council sate and therefore Sess. 25. it
This had put an end to the business if it would have taken but the World being wiser and the Errours and Corruptions complained of not being to be defended 〈◊〉 Scripture Tradition was pitched upon as a secure Way and accordingly several attempts were made towards the setting of it up by some Provincial Councils before that of Trent So in the Council of Sens 1527. Can. 53. It is declared to be a pernicious Errour to receive nothing but what is deduced from Scripture because Christ delivered many things to his Apostles which were never written But not one thing is alledged as a matter of Faith so conveyed but onely some Rites about Sacraments and Prayer and yet he is declared a Heretick as well as Schismatick who rejects them Indeed the Apostles Creed is mentioned but not as to the Articles contained in it but as to the Authours of it But what is there in all this that makes a man guilty of Heresie Jod Clicthoveus a Doctor of Paris the next Year wrote an Explication and Defence of this Council but he mistakes the Point for he runs upon it as if it were whether all things to be believed and observed in the Church were to be expresly set down in Scripture whereas a just consequence out of it is sufficient And the greatest strength of what he saith to the purpose is that the other Opinion was condemned in the Council of Constance And from no better a Tradition than this did the Council of Trent declare the unwritten Word to be a Rule of Faith equal with the Scriptures II. About the Canon of Scripture defined by the Council of Trent This is declared by the Council of Trent Sess. 4. and therein the Books of Tobias Judith Wisedom of Solomon Ecclesiasticus Maccabees and Baruch are received for Canonical with the twenty two Books in the Hebrew Canon and an Anathema is denounced against those who do not And presently it adds that hereby the World might see what Authorities the Council proceeded on for conâ—â—rming matters of Faith as well as reforming manners Now to shew that there was no Catholick Tradition for the ground of this Decree we are to observe 1. That these Canonical Books are not so called in a large sense for such as have been used or read in the Church but in the strict sense for such as are a good Foundation to build matters of Faith upon 2. That these Books were not so received by all even in the Council of Trent For what is received by virtue of a Catholick Tradition must be universally received by the Members of it But that so it was not appears by the account given by both the Historians F. Paul saith that in the Congregation there were two different Opinions of those who were for a particular Catalogue one was to distinguish the Books into three parts the other to make all the Books of equal authority and that this latter was carried by the greater number Now if this were a Catholick Tradition how was it possible for the Fathers of the Council to divide about it And Cardinal Pallavicini himself saith that Bertanus and Seripandus propounded the putting the Books into several Classes some to be read for Piety and others to confirm Doctrines of Faith and that Cardinal Seripando wrote a most learned Book to that purpose What! against a Catholick Tradition It seems he was far from believing it to be so And he confesses that when they came to the Anathema the Legats and twenty Fathers were for it Madrucci and fourteen were against it because some Catholicks were of another opinion Then certainly they knew no Catholick Tradition for it Among these Cardinal Cajetan is mention'd who was saith Pallavicini severely rebuked for it by Melchior Canus but what is that to the Tradition of the Church Canus doth indeed appeal to the Council of Carthage Innocentius I. and the Council of Florence but this doth not make up a Catholick Tradition against Cajetan who declares that he follows S. Jerom who cast those Books out of the Canon with Respect to Faith. And he answers the Arguments brought on the other side by this distinction that they are Canonical for Edification but not for Faith. If therefore Canus would have confuted Cajetan he ought to have proved that they were owned for Canonical in the latter Sense Cajetan in his Epistle to Clemens VII before the Historical Books owns the great Obligation of the Church to S. Jerom for distinguishing Canonical and Apocryphal Books and saith that he hath freed it from the Reproach of the Jews who said the Christians made Canonical Books of the Old Testament which they knew nothing of And this was an Argument of great consequence but Canus takes no notice of it and it fully answers his Objection that men could not know what Books were truly Canonical viz. such as were of divine inspiration and so received by the Jews Catharinus saith in Answer to Cajetan that the Jews had one Canon and the Church another But how comes the Canon to be received as of divine Inspiration which was not so received among the Jews This were to resolve all into the Churches Inspiration and not into Tradition Bellarmin grants that the Church can by no means make a Book Canonical which is not so but onely declare what is Canonical and that not at pleasure but from ancient Testimonies from similitude of style with Books uncontroverted and the general Sense and Taste of Christian People Now the Case here relates to Books not first written to Christians but among the Jews from whom we receive the Oracles of God committed to them And if the Jews never believed these Books to contain the Oracles of God in them how can the Christian Church embrace them for such unless it assumes a Power to make and not merely to declare Canonical Books For he grants we have no Testimony of the Jews for them But Catharinus himself cannot deny that S. Jerom saith that although the Church reads those Books yet it doth not receive them for Canonical Scriptures And he makes a pitisull Answer to it For he confesses that the Church taken for the Body of the Faithfull did not receive them but as taken for the Governours it did But others grant that they did receive them no more than the People and as to the other the cause of Tradition is plainly given us And in truth he resolves all at last into the opinion of the Popes Innocentius Gelasius and Eugenius 4. But we are obliged to him for letting us know the Secret of so much zeal for these Apocryphal Books viz. that they are of great force against the Hereticks for Purgatory is no where so expresly mention'd as in the Maccabees If it had not been for this S. Jerom and Cajetan might have escaped Censure and the Jewish Canon had been sufficient But to shew that there hath been no Catholick Tradition about
and they Translated the Scriptures and Offices of Worship into their own Language The Pope had not forgotten the business of the Bulgarians and he could not tell but this might end in subjection to another Patriarchal See and therefore he enâ—eavours to get Methodius and Cyril to Rome and having gained them he sends a sweetning Letter to the Prince and makes the concession before mentioned For he could not but remember how very lately the Greeks had gained the Bulgarians from him and lest the Slavonians should follow them he was content to let them have what they desired and had already Established among themselves without his Permission All this appears from the account of this matter given by Constantinus Porphyrogenetus compared with Diocleas his Regnum Slavorum and Lucius his Dalmatian History It is sufficient for my purpose that Diocleas owns that Constantine to whom Andreas Dandalus D. of Venice in his M S History cited by Lucius saith the Pope gave the name of Cyril did Translate the Bible into the Slavonian Tongue for the benefit of the People and the publick Offices out of Greek according to their Custom And the Chancellour Seguier had in his Library both the New Testament and Lâ—turgies in the Slavonian Language and in Cyril's Character and many of the Greek Fathers Commentaries on Scripture in that Tongue but not one of the Latin. 2. The next step was when Gregory 7. prohibited the Translation of the Latin Offices in the Slavonian Tongue And this he did to the King of Bohemia himself after a peremptory manner but he saith it was the request of the Nobility that they might have divine Offices in the Slavonian Tongue which he could by no means yield to What was the matter How comes the Case to be so much altered from what it was in his Predecessor's time The true Reason was the Bohemian Churches were then brought into greater Subjection to the Roman See after the Consecration of Dithmarus Saxo to be their Archbishop and now they must own their Subjection as the Roman Provinces were wont to do by receiving the Language But as his Predecessour had found Scripture for it for Gregory pretends he had found Reason against it viz. The Scripture was obscure and apt to be misunderstood and despised What! more than in the time of Methodius and Cyril If they pleaded Primitive Practice he plainly answers that the Church is grown wiser and hath corrected many things that were then allowed This is indeed to the purpose and therefore by the Authority of S. Peter he forbids him to suffer any such thing and charges him to oppose it with all his might But after all it is entred in the Canon Law De Officio Jud. Ord. l. 1. Tit. 31. c. Quoniam as a Decree of Innocent 3. in the Lateran Council that where there were People of different Languages the Bishop was to provide Persons fit to officiate in those several Languages Why so If there were a prohibition of using any but the Latin Tongue But this was for the Greeks and theirs was an holy Tongue That is not said nor if it were would it signifie any thing for doth any imaginary holiness of the Tongue sanctifie ignorant Devotion But the Canon supposes them to have the same Faith. Then the meaning is that no man must examin his Religion by the Scripture but if he rseolves beforehand to believe as the Church believes then he may have the Scriptures or Prayers in what Language he pleases But even this is not permitted in the Roman Church For 3. After the Inquisition was set up by the Authority of Innocent 3. in the Lateran Council no Lay Persons were permitted to have the Books of the Old and New Testament but the Psalter or Breviary or Hours they might have but by no means in the vulgar Language This is called by D'achery and Labbe the Council of Tholouse but in truth it was nothing else but an Order of the Inquisition as will appear to any one that reads it And the Inquisition ought to have the Honour of it both in France and Spain Which Prohibition hath been so gratefull to some Divines of the Church of Rome that Cochlaeus calls it pious just reasonable wholsom and necessary Andradius thinks the taking of it away would be destructive to Faith Ledesma saith the true Catholicks do not desire it and bad ought not to be gratified with it Petrus Sutor a Carthusian Doctour calls the Translating Scripture into the vulgar Languages a rash useless and dangerous thing and he gives the true Reason of it viz. that the People will be apt to murmur when they see things required as from the Apostles which they cannot find a word of in Scripture And when all is said on this Subject that can be by men of more Art this is the plainest and honestest Reason for such a Prohibition but I hope I have made it appear it is not built on any Catholick Tradition IV. Of the Merit of Good Works The Council of Trent Sess. 6. c. 16. declares That the Good Works of justified Persons do truly deserve Eternal Life and Can. 3â— an Anathema is denounced against him that denies them to be meritorious or that a justified Person by them doth not truly merit Increase of Grace and Happiness and Eternal Life The Council hath not thought fit to declare what it means by truly meriting but certainly it must be opposed to an improper kind of Meriting and what that is we must learn from the Divines of the Church of Rome 1. Some say That some of the Fathers speak of an improper kind of Merit which is no more than the due Means for the attaining of Happiness as the End. So Vega confesses they often use the word Merit where there is no Reason for Merit either by way of Congruity or Condignity Therefore where there is true Merit there must be a proper Reason for it And the Council of Trent being designed to condemn some prevailing Opinions at that time among those they called Hereticks this Assertion of true Merit must be levelled against some Doctrine of theirs but they held Good Works to be necessary as Means to an end and therefore this could not be the meaning of the Council Suarez saith the words of the Council ought to be specially observed which are that there is nothing wanting in the good works of justified Persons ut vere promeruisse censeantur and therefore no Metaphorical or improper but that which by the Sense of the Church of Rome was accounted true Merit in opposition to what was said by those accounted Hereticks must be understood thereby 2. Others say that a meer Congruity arising from the Promise and Favour of God in rewarding the acts of his Grace in justified Persons cannot be the proper Merit intended by the Council And that for these Reasons 1. Suarez observes that although the Council avoids the
be so highly approved He saith farther that Christ himself only appointed two viz. Baptism and the Lord's Supper and for the rest he saith it may be presumed the Apostles did appoint them by Christ's Direction or by divine Iâ—spiration But how can that be when he saith the Form even of those he calls proper Sacraments was either appointed by our Lord or by the Church How can such Sacraments be of divine Institution whose very Form is appointed by the Church He puts the Question himself why Christ appointed the Form only of Two Sacraments when all the Grace of the Sacraments comes from him He answers because these are the principal Sacraments which unite the whole man in the body of the Church by Faith and Charity But yet this doth not clear the Difficulty how those can be proper Sacraments whose Form is not of Divine Institution as he grants in the Sacrament of Penance and Orders the Form is of the Churches Appointment And this will not only reach to this greâ—t School Divine but to as many others as hold it in the Churches Power to appoint or alter the Matter and Form of some of those they call Sacraments For however they may use the Name they can never agree with the Council of Trent in the Nature of the Seven Sacraments which supposes them to be of Divine Institution as to Matter and Form. And so the Divines of the Church of Rome have agreed since the Council of Trent Bellarmin hath a Chapter on purpose to shew that the Matter and Form of Sacraments are so certain and determinate that nothing can be changed in them and this determination must be by God himself Which he saith is most certain among them and he proves it by a substantial Reason viz. because the Sacraments are the Causes of Grace and no one can give Grace but God and therefore none else can appoint the Essentials of Sacraments but he and therefore he calls it Sacrilege to change even the matter of Sacraments Suarez asserts that both the Matter and Form of Sacraments are determined by Christ's Institution and as they are determined by him they are necessary to the making of Sacraments And this he saith absolutely speaking is de Pide or an Article of Faith. And he proves it from the manner of Christ's instituting Baptism and the Eucharist and he urges the same Reason because Christ only can confâ—r Grace by the Sacraments and therefore he must appoint the Matter and Form of them Cardinal Lugo affirms that Christ hath appointed both Matter and Form of the Sacraments which he proves from the Council of Trent He thinks Christ might have grantâ—d a Commission to his Church to appoint Sacraments which he would make efficacious but he reither believes that he hath done it or that it was fitting to be done Petrâ—s à Sancto Joseph saith that although the Council of Trent doth not expresly affirm the Sacraments to be immediately instituted by Christ yet it is to be so understood And although the Church may appoint Sacramentalia i. e. Rites about the Sacraments yet Christ himself must appoint the Sacraments themselves and he concludes that no Creature can have authority to make Sacraments conferring Grace and therefore he declares that Christ did appoint the Forms of all the Sacraments himself although we do not read them in Scripture If now it appears that some even of the Church of Rome before the Council of Trent did think it in the Churches Power to appoint or alter the Matter and Form of some of those they called Sacraments then it will evidently follow they had not the same Tradition about the Seven Sacraments which is there deliver'd Of Chrism The Council of Trent declares the matter of Confirmation to be Chrism viz. a Composition made of Oâ—l of Olive and Balsam the one to signifie the clearness of Conscience the other the Odour of a good Fame saith the Council of Florence But where was this Chrism appointed by Christ Marsilius saith from Petrus Aureolus that there was a Controversie between the Divines and Caâ—â—â—ists about this matter and the latter affirmed that Chrisâ—â— was not appointed by Christ but astâ—â—wards by thâ— Church and that the Pope could dispense with it which he could not do if it were of Christ's Instiâ—â—â—ion Petrus Aureolus was himself a great Man in the Church of Rome and after he had mentioned this difference and named one Brocardus or Bernardus with other Canonists for it he doth not affirm the contrary to be a Catholick Tradition but himself asserts the Chrism not to be necessary to the Sacrament of Confirmation which he must have done if he had believed it of Divine Institution Gregory de Valentia on the occasion of this Opinion of the Canonists that Confirmation might be without Chrism saith two notable things 1. That they were guilty of Heresie therein for which he quotes Dominicus Soto 2. That he thinks there were no Canonists left of that mind If not the Change was greater since it is certain they were of that Opinion before For Guido Brianson attests that there was a difference between the Divines and Canonists about this matter for Bernard the Glosser and others held that Chrism was not necessary to it because it was neither appointed by Christ nor his Apostles but in some ancient Councils Guil. Antissiodorensis long before mentions the Opinion of those who said that Chrism was appointed by the Church after the Apostles times and that they confirmed only by imposition of hands but he doth not condemn it only he thinks it better to hold that the Apostles used Chrism although we never read that they did it But he doth not lay that Opinion only on the Canonists for there were Divines of great note of the same For Bonaventure saith that the Apostles made use neither of their Matter nor Form in their Confirmation and his Resolution is that they were appointed by the Governors of the Church afterwards as his Master Alexander of Hale had said besore him who attributes the Institution of both to a Council of Meaux Cardinal de Vitriaco saith that Confirmation by Imposition of Hands was srom the Apostles but by Chrism from the Church for we do not read that the Apostles used it Thomas Aquinas confesses there were different Opinions about the Institution of this Sacrament some held that it was not instituted by Christ nor his Apostles but afterwards in a certain Council But he never blames these for contradicting Catholick Tradition although he dislikes their Opinion Cajetan on Aquinas saith that Chrism with Balsam was appointed by the Church after the Primitive times and yet now this must be believed to be essential to this Sacrament and by Conink it seems to be heretical to deny it For he affirms that it seems to be an Article of Faith that Confirmation must be with Chrism and no Catholick he saith
Of those who denied it to be of Divine Right but held it to be useful in the Church and for this he quotes Rhenanus and Erasmus 2. Of those who make it to be onely of Ecclesiastical Institution and this saith he is the Opinion of all the Canonists 3. Of those who thought it came in by Apostolical Tradition of which he reckons Theodore Archbishop of Canterbury 4. Of some Divines who held it to be instituted only by St. James 5. Of others who held it to be of Divine Right and not instituted by the Apostles but insinuated by Christ and for this he quotes Alexander Hales and Bonaventure 6. Of some who thought it instituted in the Old Testament 7 Of those who held it instituted by Christ but not as a Precept but by way of Council and for this he mentions Scotus and his Followers Vasquez reckons up among those whose Opinions are not condemned The Canonists Erasmus Bonaventure Alexander Hales and Scotus who all differed from the Council of Trent Suarez mentions three Opinions among them 1. Of those who said it was instituted in the Law of Nature 2. Of those who attributed it to the Law of Moses 3 Of those who dâ—nyed any Institution of it by way of Precept from Christ in the Law of Grace and for this he quotes Hugo de Sancto Victore Alexandèr Hales and Bonaventure and they went upon this Ground that no such Institution could be proved either by Scripture or Tradition Gregory de Valentia Confesses some Catholick Authors denied the Divine Institution of Confession for which he produces the Canonists and Erasmus and Rhenanus But he thinks they were not guilty of Heresie because they were not obstinate but that is not our business which is to shew that by their own confession there was not a constant Catholick Tradition in the Church about it Natalis Alexander who hath lately pretended to answer Daillè confesses that from the ninth to the thirteenth Age many Catholicks did hold that Confession to God alone was sufficient to obtain Remission of sins and he proves it from Lombard Gratian and the Canonists But he saith it was no heresie in them the point not being yet settled by a general Council Boileau in his Answer to Daillè cannot deny that in the time of Lombard and Gratian men held several ways about this matter but he answers with Thomas upon the Sentences that it was an opinion then but since the Council of Lateran it is become a Heresie But if it were no heretical Opinion then what becomes of Infallible Tradition If the Church defines by Tradition that Tradition must be proved before the Definition otherwise it hath no ground to proceed upon The Council of Lateran under Innocent III. it seems made it a Heresie to deny this Sacramental Confession Within much less than a Century before it lived Peter Lombard and Gratian. Peter Lombard made it his business to collect a Body of Divinity out of the Sentences of the Fathers and his work hath been universally esteemed in the Roman Church When he comes to state this point of Confession out of the Fathers i. e. to give an account of the Tradition of the Church about it he tells us in the beginning that learned men were of different opinions and for what reason because the Doctors of the Church seemed to deliver not only divers but contrary things i. e. they had no certain and constant Tradition about them And when he comes to the point of Confession to God only he quotes for it besides Scripture S. Ambrose and S. Chrysostem and Prosper and against it S. Augustine and Leo and concludes himself for the latter but saith not a word more to shew that the constant Tradition of the Church had been for this opinion Gratian puts the same Question and for Confession to God alone he quotes S. Ambrose S. Augustine and Prosper besides Scripture and argues largely for it after c. Convertimini c. Then he sets down the Arguments on the other side from c. 38. and after c. 60. he sums up the force of them and again after c. 87. and when he hath said all on one side and on the other he concludes after c. 89. that he left all to the Readers Judgment for both Opinions had wise and pious Defenders and produces that saying as out of Theodore's Penitential that some think that we ought to confess only to God as the Greeks others that we ought to do it to the Priest too as almost all the Church besides but then he adds that Confession to God purges away Sin but that to the Priest shews how they are purged i. e. by Contrition So the Gloss interprets it Bellarmin thinks that ut Groeci was foisted into the Canon and I shall not dispute against it provided that which answers to it ut tota ferè sancta Ecclesta be allowed to be so too as the Roman Correctors do confess Boileau hath taken another course for he saith this whole Distinction is without ground attributed to Gratian but how doth he prove it From Ant. Augustinus his Dialogue where a MS. is cited that this was not Gratian's but an elder Author 's And what is gotten by this But the other answers it must be Gratian 's because of the citation out of the Digests and other Books of Civil Law then lately found If this will not do he saith Gratian hath many Errours as the Roman Correctors observe Yes truly do they and about this Point several times for the Councils of Lateran and Trent have otherwise determined But what is all this to the Tradition of the Church in Gratian's time Innocent III. in the Council of Lateran enjoyns strictly the Practice of Confession once a year under the Penalty of Excommunication and of being deprived of Christian Burial but there is not a Word of the Churches Tradition before for the Ground of it But finding several Opinions about it and the Waldenses then opposing it he resolves by his Authority to bind all Persons to it But after this the Canonists allowed no more than Ecclesiastical Institution for it as is plain by the Gloss on the Canon Law Dist. 5. de Poenit. Tit. In Poenitentia but the Roman Correctours quote against it Council Trident. Sess. 14. c. 5. i. e. a Council some 100 years after must tell what the Tradition then was but the Gloss saith the Greeks had no such Tradition and therefore were not bound to Confession So that we have no evidence for any Catholick Tradition in this matter before the Lateran Council 2. But the Council of Trent hath gone beyond the Council of Lateran and hath fixed the Divine Right of Confession on John 20. Whose sins ye remit c. and therefore I am now to shew by the Confession of their own Writers that this hath not been the Traditionary Sense of this Place Cajetan not long before the Council first sate
in his Notes on this place confesses that no Precept of Sacramental Confession is contained in it But how should it be of Divine Right in the sense of the Council of Trent if there be no Command for it Tes by Cons quence if they will obtain Remission of Sins but this can by no means be inferred from hence because the Remission of Sins by Baptism is implied in it but none of them plead for particular Confession before Baptism in order to Remission and therefore not after unless some Command of Christ made it more necessary after Baptism than before Vasquez saith that Cajetan means no more than that it cannot be proved out of this place but Catharinus saith that neither there nor in any other place doth Cajetan allow that Auricular Confession can be proved out of Scripture Gabriel Biel confesses he cannot find sufficient force to conclude the Necessity of Confession from the Power of Absolution here granted because it may be valid upon voluntary Confession of the Party and therefore he resolves it into an unwritten Tradition Guide Brianson takes great pains to prove it out of this place but at last yields that Christ's instituting such a Power doth not bind Persons to confess their Faults to them that have it For the Power of retaining doth not imply that no sins are retained which are not retained by the Priest upon Confession neither then doth the Power of Absolution imply that no sins are remitted but such as are confessed to a Priest. And therefore he betakes himself as Biel doth to unwritten Tradition and so doth Nicol. de Orbellis Jac. de Almain debates the matter at large and he says only that it is a probable Opinion that this Confession is of divine Appointment but he yields that Christ's granting a Power of Absolution dâ—th not make it a duty to confess to a Priest and he saith it is a false proposition that where a Power of judging is given others are bound to submit to it for all that follows is that their Sentence is valid if they do submit But the force of what the Council of Trent deduces from this place lies wholly in this as Vasquez observes that because Christ hath given Authority to absolve and they cannot exercise that Authority without Confession therefore Confession is hereby made necessary And he confesses that scarce any have deduced the Argumert effectually from this place But he saith one thing very observable that if this place be extended to Remission of Sins in Baptism then it can never prove the necessity of Sacramental Confession And Greg. de Valentia as plainly owns that the Fathers did understand it of Baptism he names S. Cyprian and S. Ambrose but Natalis Alexander allows S. Cyril of Alexandria to have so understood it and that Jansenius and Ferus followed him but besides these S. Augustin interprets this place as S. Cyprian had done For as S. Cyprian from hence infers the Power of Baptizing and granting Remission of Sins in the Guides of the Church so S. Augustin saith the Churches Charity by the Hâ—ly Ghost looses the Sins of those who are her Members and retains the sins of those who are not And it may be observed that whereas St. Matthew speaks of the Power of Baptizing granted to the Apostles S. John instead of that mentions this Pâ—wer of remitting or retaining Sins and S. Mark and S. Luke speak of Baptism to which the one joins Sâ—lvation and the other Remission of Sins And theâ—efore this seems to be meant by our Saviour in the Words of S. John and thus S. Peter exercised this Power of loosing on the converted Jews Act. 2. 38. and his Power of binding on Simon Magus Act. 8. 21. Peter Lombard carries S. Augustin's meaning farther to the Power of Priests over the Sins of the Members of the Church but then he limits this Power and makes it no more than declarative as I have observed already and for this he quotes a notable passage of S. Jerom who saith that Men are apt to assume too much to themselves under pretence of this Power of the Keys whereas God regards not the Sentence of the Priests but the Life of the Penitents But Natalis Alexander thinks there is no binding Power with respect to Baptism Was there not as to Simon Magus And as long as every year the Church judged of the competency of Persons for it When Christ spake these words the Church was wholly to be formed and it was a great Power lodged with the Apostles and their Successors to admit into the Church or to exclude from it not as private Persons but by Authority from Christ himself But then this Power is vain and idle in a constituted Church By no means they have still a Power of casting out and taking in again and of imposing such Acts on Offenders as may give satisfaction to the Church whose Honour suffers and whose Discipline is broken But the question is Whether by Christ's appointment under the Gospel no known mortal sin can be pardon'd to baptized Persons without Confession of it to a Priest And whether these words of our Saviour do imply it Scotus is by no means satisfied with mens Reasoning out of this place that because Christ hath given such a Power therefore it is mens duty to confess their sins For saith he this only implies the usefulness and efficacy of this Power if it be made use of as in Confirmation none think themselves damned if they do not use it though it be very useful and therefore he goes another way to work viz. by joyning this precept and that of loving God and our selves together with it But how doth this prove that a man ought to take this particular way Truly Scotus here shews his Subâ—ilty Suppose there be another way that is harder and this be found more easie he thinks a man is bound to take the shortest and easiest way viz. by Confession and Absolution But for all this his heart did misgive him and he could not but see that this proved nothing unless this way of Confession were first proved to be a secure way And therefore he puts the Case that if it be not proved by these Words it may be by S. James Confess your faults one to anoâ—her No saith he this will not do for which he gives this Reason that it holds no more for confession to a Priest than to any other therefore after all he is willing to resolve it into some unwritten Tradition since there was no convincing evidence for it either in this or any other place of Scripture Which shew'd they ran to Tradition when they had nothing else to say Bonaventure denies that Christ himself appâ—inted tâ—e Confession of sins for which he gives this reason lest it should prove an occasion of sinning ne ex verbis Domini daretur aliquibus recidivandi occasio but afterwards he thinks the Apostles
before Satisfaction and although some have complained of this as a great abuse yet they have been sharply answer'd that it is to call in question the Conduct of the Church for five hundred years and they may as well question many other things which depend upon the Authority of the Present Church 3. The Obligation to Confession is very different from what it was in the ancient Exomologesis Now by the Doctrine of the Church of Rome a person looks on himself as bound in Conscience to confess every Mortal sin but in the Ancient Church none can imagine that persons were bound to undergo the Exomologesis for every mortal sin there being no Penitential Canons which did ever require it but they had respect to some particular sins and the Penance was proportion'd to them We ought to take notice of two things with respect to the Discipline of the Ancient Church which will shew the different notion it had of these things from what is now current in the Church of Rome 1. That it did not exclude those from all hopes of Salvation whom it excluded from Penance as may be seen in the Illiberitan Council where many are wholly shut out from the Church whom we cannot think they thought uncapable of Salvation From whence it follows that they did not look on Confession and Absolution as a necessary condition of Salvation but now in the Church of Rome they allow Confession to all because they think they cannot otherwise be in a state of Salvation in an ordinary way But in the Ancient Church they could not look on the desire of Confession as necessary for to what purpose should they make that necessary when they denyed the thing But in the Church of Rome they make the desire necessary because they hold the thing it self to be so if there be means to have it 2. That the Penitential Canons never extended in the Primitive Church to all those sins which the Church of Rome now accounts Mortal and therefore necessary to be confessed The Council of Trent saith expresly they must confess omnia singula peccata mortalia etiam occulta and an Anathema is denounced against him that denies it to be necessary to Remission of them Now if we consider their notion of mortal sins we shall easily discern the vast difference between the Obligation to Confession by the Council of Trent and by the old Penitential Canons For mortal sins are not only all Voluntary Acts committed against the known Laws of God but against the Laws of the Church and even venial sins may become mortal by the Disposition of the Person and by other circumstances which the Casuists set down at large now the Council of Trent doth expresly oblige men not only to relate the Acts themselves but all Circumstances which change the kind of Sin. And this is a racking the Consciences of Men far beyond whatever we find in the old Penitential Canons for Petavius confesses that many sins now accounted mortal had no Penance appointed for them by the old Canons and therefore I need not take any pains to prove it If any one hath a mind to be satisfied he may see it in Gregory Nyssen's Canonical Epistle where he owns that several of those sins for which the Scripture excludes from the Kingdom of Heaven have no Canonical Penance prescribed them by the ancient Canons of the Church Which shews a mighty difference from the Rule of the Council of Trent The most plausible place in Antiquity brought for all mortal sin is that of S. Cyprian where he saith that some confessed their very thoughts though they had not proceeded to actual sin It is true that he doth speak of some such but was it for sins of thought against the tenth Command No but it is very plain that he speaks of that sin which was thought to imply a renouncing Christianity and S Cyprian elsewhere calls summum delictum and the Sin agâ—inst the Holy Ghost viz. consenting to any Act of gentile Idolatry and yet Saint Cyprian had much ado to perswade those who were actually guilty to submit to due Penance for it but they obtained Tickets from the Confessors and were admitted to communion without undergoing the Discipline of the Church the consequence whereof would be that the Discipline would be lost and the Church over-run with Apostates this makes S. Cyprian plead hard against such practices and among other arguments he uses this of the great tenderness of some who because they had entertained such thoughts of doing as others did for their own safety they offered to unburthen their Consciences before them and desired remedy for small Wounds how much more ought they to confess their faults whose wounds are greater This is the whole force of his reasoning where the Thought and Act relate to the same sin and that said to be no less than denying Christ and sinning against the Holy Ghost But there is no parity in the case of other sins which even S. Cyprian calls minora delicta being against men immediately and there is no intimation in him that ever the thoughts of those sins were discovered or that Persons were under any obligation by the Rules of the Church to do it 2. Private Offenders were sometimes advised in those first Ages for the ease of their Consciences to make Confession of their sins of which we see an instance as to the Practice in one Case in S. Cyprian's time And Tertullian compares such Persons who avoid it to those who have such secret Ulcers that they chuse rather to perish than to discover them Now in Cases of this nature he advises to Confession and publick penitential Acts that so they may in the Judgment of the Church have the secret Wounds of their Consciences healed And this is that which Origen doth advise to in such Cases to seek out a wise spiritual Physician and to make known his inward distemper to him and to follow his advice and direction as to the Method of Cure. Now this we never oppose but the only Question is whether it be necessary for all Persons and for every Mortal Sin to make Confession of it to the Priest that it may be forgiven and Origen never once supposes this for he mentions several other ways for the Remission of Sins after Baptism by Martyrdom by Alms by forgiving and converting others by great Love to God and in the last place he brings in this of a Laborious Penance and Confession Either the former ways are sufficient without this or not if they are then this is not necessary to the Remission of all mortal Sins if not to what purpose doth he mention so many ways when this one is sufficient without them and all those are insufficient without this For Boileau confesses that no mortal sins according to them can be remitted where there is not at least the desire of this But Origen shews the different ways of
Offenders was destroy'd S. Chrysostom himself several times mentions those who were in the state of Penitents and the Prayer that was made for them to what purpose in case the whole Order of Penitents was taken away He likewise speaks of the charge for the Penitents to go out What a mockery were this if there were no Publick Discipline then left And lest it should be said that these things were said by him at Antioch before the fact of Nectarius I have shew'd already that the latter Homilies on S. Matthew were made by him at Constantinople and in his Liturgy there used the dismission of the Penitents was continued 6. While the publick Discipline was kept in the several Churches none were injoyned to undergo it but open and publick Offenders The Evidence being so clear in Antiquity for the publick Penance of those who were bound to give the Church satisfaction before they receiv'd Absolution from it there was a necessity found by some learned Men of the Roman Communion to set up a new Hypothesis viz. that by the Ancient Rules of the Church all Persons conscious to themselves of secret siâ—s were bound to undergo publick Penance for the Remission of their sins The occasion of the debate was this Some in the Church of Rome held no more necessary in case of mortal Sin to prepare men for Communion than Confession to a Priest and Absolution others saw the fatal Consequence of this and therefore insisted on the Necessity of Penance both Parties made their Appeal to the Ancient Church and both were mistaken For on the one side there was no such Doctrine then held that Confession and Absolution did sufficiently prepare Persons for the Eucharist and on the other there was no good Evidence that any were enjoyned publick Penance for secret faults But in the Case of such sins the Confession was left to God in Secret and a true and hearty Contrition for them was thought the best as well as most necessary Preparation for the Eucharist Monsr Arnauld saw well enough that without his Hypothesis it was impossible to prove the Necessity of Confession in the Ancient Church for he yields that the Church did not use the Power of the Keys but in Publick On the the other hand Petavius urges that on the same Ground that they would reduce as they pretended the Ancient Discipline they must make many other alterations in the Church and so justifie the Reformers But Monsr Arnauld was defective in his Proofs as Petavius at large shews not when he proves that the Penance was publick but that all Persons under mortal sins were bound to undergo it For Petavius makes it appear that all such as are accounted mortal siâ—s in the modern sense were not then thought necessary to be expiated by publick Penance but only such as were notorious and scandalous and he at large answers all Monsr Arnauld's Arguments Notwithstanding which Morinus took up Monsr Arnauld's Opinion and without any colour charges it on Theodore Archbishop of Caâ—terbury that â—e first in his Penitential appointed publick Penance to be onely for publick Offences But the learned Editor of the Abstract of Theodore's Penitential hath fully vindicated him in this matter But after these Boileau resumes the Opinion of Monsr Arnauld and lays it for the Foundation of his History of Auricular Confession But he grants that all the solemn and ceremonial Penance imposed by the Penitential Canons did not extend to all kind of mortal sins but chiefly to Idolatry Adultery and Homicide but this he insists upon that some part of this publick Penance viz. Exclusion from the Communion was inflicted on Persons guilty of secret mortal sins But this will by no means do his business for he is to prove that no secret mortal sin could be forgiven without Confession to a Priest and that all persons were required by the ancient Church in case they were conscious to themselves of any such sins to make them known and to undergo publick Penance for them before they could obtain Remission of them We do not deny that Persons under Trouble of Conscience for secret sins were from time to time advised to resort to their Guides to make known their Cases to them and to take their Directions we do not deny that such Persons might be required by such Guides to withdraw themselves from joyning in the most solemn Acts of publick Communion till they had manifested the sincerity of their Repentance by Fastinâ— and Prayers and other penitential Acts we do not deny that some of these Persons might either by Advice or of their own Accord joyn themselves with the publick Penitents as is well known in the Case of Fabiola at Rome so much magnified by S. Jerom but this is the thing we desire to see proved that no sin whatsoever of a mortal nature as it is defined in the Church of Rome was then thought capable of Remission by the penitential Acts of the Party especially by true Contrition without Confession to a Priest and Absolution from him And this is the true state of the Case and I can find nothing produced by him to this purpose which deserves to be considered 7. As the publick Discipline declined Persons were exhorted to make private Confession of their sins if they could not be brought to publick Penance Thence in the Greek Church came the Penitentials of Johannes Jejunator who first took upon himself the Title of Oecumenical Patriarch in the time of Mauritius to the great Offence of the Bishops of Rome and of some others after him Morinus grants that there was a great alteration in the Greek Church about this matter he thinks it began with the business of the Penitentiary but after the publick Discipline was disused instead of that he saith came up a secret Confession and Penance which was left to the honesty and piety of the Penitent and not required by any Canonical Authority among them and so he saith it continued from the time of Nectarius to this day as to the People So that we have a plain Confession from him that there is no Rule in the Greek Church requiring this secret Confession of Sins in order to the forgiveness of them But it is observable concerning the modern Greeks that if Persons do make Confession among them they think themselves obliged to keep to the old Penitential Canons and blame Joh. Jejunator for receding from them for Simeon of Thessalonica saith they had them from the Fathers and the Fathers by Tradition down from the Apostles But although they are therein mistaken yet they shew how different their Tradition is from that of the Roman Church which thinks it self under no such obligation but allows Absolution to be granted upon Confession and a right of Communion without Penance performed for which there is no colour as to any ancient Tradition either of the Eastern or Western Church In the Western Church we find the
publick Discipline fallen to decay in the beginning of the ninth Age and Charles the Great summoning several Councils for putting things into as good an Order as they would then bear In the second Council of Cavaillon A. D. 813. we find a Complaint Can. 25. that the old Canonical Penance was generally disused and neither the ancient Order of Excommunicating or Absolving was observed Which is a plain and ingenuous acknowledgment that they had gone off from the ancient Tradition of the Church and therefore they pray the Emperor's Assistance that the publick Discipline might be restored for publick Offenders and the ancient Canons be brought into use again From whence it follows that at that time notorious Offenders escaped with private Confession and Penance and even that was done by halves can 32. and some thought it not necessary to do it at all can 33. And upon this Occasion they do not declare it necessary for the Remission of Sins to confess even the most secret mortal Sins to a Priest but very fairly say that both are useful for Confession to God purgeth the Sin and to the Priest teaches men how their sins may be purged For God who is the Author and giver of Health giveth it often by the Invâ—sible Operation of his Power and often by the means of Physicians Boileau yields that there were some then in the Roman Church who denied Confession to Men to be necessary but he saith they were Adversaries and Rebels This had been a good Answer if the Council had called them so which it doth not but on the contrary declares that God doth often forgive sin immediately without the Priests Interposition or else the latter Clause signifies nothing And the most it saith before is that Confession to a Priest is useful in the Church which is not the the thing disputed by us but the Necessity of it and his Critical Observations of Utrumque signifie just nothing unless he had proved that the Council had before said that both were necessary which it doth not He doth not deny that the Opinion of the Sufficiency of Confession to God alone did continue in the Church to the time of the Council of Lateran and that it gave Occasion to the Canon which enforced the Necessity of Confession to a Priest but he adds that learned and pious Men may have false Opinions before the Judgment of the Church So that at last we find Universal Tradition is given up and the Necessity of Auricular Confession is resolved into the Authority of the Roman Churches Definition or rather the Pope's Declaration of it either with or without the Consent of the Lateran Council But he saith The Fathers did not speak so exactly of the Trinity before the Council of Nice nor the Greek Fathers of Grace and Predestination before S. Augustin If this be true it is impossible to prove either of those great Points merely by Tradition for those Fathers either delivered the sense of the Church or they did not if they delivered the sense of the Church then either the sense of the Church was doubtful or they did not understand it if the sense of the Church were doubtful then it is plain those Doctrines could not be proved by Tradition if the sense of the Church were not doubtful but the Fathers did not understand it then how is it possible that the Churches Tradition should be an Infallible Guide when even the Fathers of the Church were mistaken about it But I have sufficiently proved that not only before but even after the Council of Lateran there was no Universal Tradition for the Necessity of Auricular Confession FINIS A CATALOGUE of some BOOKS Printed for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in S. Paul 's Church-Yard A Bational Account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion being a Vindication of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury's Relation of a Conference c. from the pretended Answer by T. C. Wherein the True Grounds of Faith are cleared and the False discovered the Church of England vindicated from the Impuâ—ation of Scism and the most important particular Controversie bêtween us and those of the Church of Rome throughly examined By Edward Stillingfleet D. D. and Dean of S. Paul's Folio the Second Edition Origines Britiannicae Or the Antiquity of the British Churches with a Preface concerning some pretended Antiquities relating to Britain in vindication of the Bishop of S. Asaph by Edward Stillingfleet D. D. Dean of S. Paul's Folio The Rule of Faith Or an Answer to the Treatise of Mr. J. S. entituled Sure footing c. by John Tillorson D. D. to which is adjoyned A Reply to Mr. J. S.'s third Appendix c. by Edward Stillingfleet D. D. A Letter to Mr. G. giving a true Account of a late Conference at the D. of P's A second Letter to Mr. G. in answer to two Letters lately published concerning the Conference at the D. of P's Veteres Vindicati In an Expostulary Letter to Mr. Sclater of Putney upon his Consensus Veterum c. wherein the absurdity of his Method and the weakness of his Reasons are shewn His false Aspersions upon the Church of England are wiped off and her Faith concerning the Euchâ—rist proved to be that of the primiâ—ive Church Together with Animadversions on Dean Boileau's French translation of and Remarks upon Bertram An Answer to the Compiler of Nubes Testium Wherein is shewn That Antiquity in relation to the Points in Controversie set down by him did not for the first five hundred Years Believe Teach and Practice as the Church of Rome doth at present Believe Teach and Practice together with a Vindication of Veteres Vindicati from the late weak and disingenuous Attempts of the Author of Transubstantiation Defended by the Author of the Answer to Mr. Sclater of Putney A Letter to Father Lewis Sabran Jesuit in answer to his Letter to a Peer of the Church of England wherein the Postscript to the Answer to the Nubes Testium is Vindicated and Father Sabran's Mistakes farther discovered A second Letter to Father Lewis Sabran Jesuit in Answer to his Reply A Vindication of the Principles of the Author of the Answer to the Compiler of Nubes Testium in answer to a late pretended Letter from a Dissenter to the Divines of the Church of England Scripture and Tradition Compared in a Sermon preached at Guild-Hall-Chapel Nov. 27. 1687. by Edward Stillingfleet D. D. Dean of S. Paul's the second Edition A Discourse concerning the Nature and Grounds of the Certainty of Faith in Answer to J. S. his Catholick Letters by Edward Stillingfleet D. D. Dean of St. Paul's An Historical Examination of the Authority of General Councils shewing the false Dealing that hath been used in the publishing of them and the Difference amongst the Papists themselves about their Number The second Edition with Corrections and Alterations AN APPENDIX In Answer to some late Passages of J. W. of the Society of Jesus concerning the Prohibition
of Scripture in Vulgar Languages by the Council of Trent SInce the Publication of the foregoing Book I have met with a Reflexion upon it made by J. W. in the Preface to a Treatise lately Reprinted by him Wherein he observes that a great part of the Objections made against them are either grounded on mistakes or touch points of Discipline not of Faith which alone they are bound to defend This last Clause I could not but wonder at since the new Title of his Book is A Defence of the Doctrine and Holy Rites of the Roman Catholick Church c. Why should I W. take such needless pains to defend the Rites of the Church if they are bound to defend nothing but Points of Faith I had thought the Honour and Authority of the Church had been concerned in its Commands and Prohibitions as well as in its Definitions and Decrees And although it be not pretended that the Church is Infallible in Matters of Discipline yet it is a strong Prejudice against any pretence to Infallibility in a Church if it be found to err notoriously in any thing of general Concernment to the Catholick Church But how comes my late Book to be made an Example As for instance saith he I find in a Book newly Published with this Title The Council of Trent Examin'd and Disprov'd by Catholick Tradition that for 15 Pages together Dr. St. labours to prove that there is no Catholick Tradition against Translating Scripture into Vulgar Languages Whereas I expresly say that the Prohibition of reading the Scripture so translated without a particular License was that which I undertook to shew could not be justified by any Catholick Tradition And that there was a General Consent of the Catholick Church not merely for the Translations of Scripture into Vulgar Languages but for the free use of them by the People Which I made out by these Particulars 1. That where-ever the Christian Religion prevailed the Scripture was Translated into the Vulgar Language for the Peoples benefit Which I proved from the Ancient Italick Versions before St. Jerom's time the Gothick Persian Armenian Syriack Coptick and Aethiopick Translations without the least prohibition of the Common use of them 2. That where a Language grew into Disuse among the People there the Scripture was Translated into the Tongue which was better understood And for this I instanced in the Arabick Versions after the prevalency of the Saracens in the Eastern and Southern Parts and after the Moors coming into Spain 3. That even after the Primitive Times Christian Princes and Bishops did take Care that the People should read the Scriptures in their own Language For Princes I instanced in Ludovicus Pius and Alfred for Bishops in Waldo Bishop of Fressing Methodius and Cyrill c. 4. That the Pope himself in the 9th Century did approve of it and for a Reason common to all times and Churches viz. that All People and Languages were to praise God and that God himself had so commanded 5. That Gregory VII was the first Person who forbad the use of Scripture and Divine Offices in the Vulgar Tongue and was not ashamed to own that the Church saw cause to alter several things from what they were in the Primitive Church 6. That upon the setting up the Inquisition by Innocent III. this Prohibition took place in France and Spain and other Places 7. That some noted Divines of the Church of Rome have highly commended it and said that the taking of it away would be pernicious and destructive to Faith and Devotion 8. That the Prohibition in the Church of Rome is built on the Authority of the Council of Trent which appointed the Index to be made in which the fourth Rule forbids all Persons the use of the Scripture in the Vulgar Tongue without a particular License and whosoever presumes to doe it is to be denied Absolution 9. From hence it follows that the Council of Trent is evidently disproved as to Catholick Tradition for any Foundation of such a Prohibition And what now saith J. W. against all this He would gladly know against whom I dispute Against J. S. and all such who would make the World believe the Council of Trent did proceed upon Catholick Tradition To prove I am mistaken he tells me in his 6th Chap. I may find an Account of several new Translations of Scripture into Vulgar Tongues made by Catholicks and approved in the Roman Church Then he mentions an English Translation made by the Rhemish and Doway Colleges and in French by the Doctours of Lovain and some others What now follows from hence Is it any Mistake in me to say There was such a Prohibition of Reading the Scripture in the Church of Rome and inforced by the Rule made by Appointment of the Council of Trent This had been indeed to the purpose if it could have been proved I do not deny that there have been such Translations made where it was found impossible to hinder all Translations and the use of them have been connived at or allow'd to some particular persons whom they were otherwise secure of But such Translations are like the Galenists allowing some Chymical Medicines to their Patients they declare against their use as dangerous but if the Patient will have them then pray take them of my Apothecary who is a very honest man and prepares mischievous Medicines better than another This is just the Case of the Church of Rome as to Translations of Scripture If we ask their Opinion in general whether Translations be allowable or not their Answer hath been formerly very free and open by no means for they are very dangerous and mischievous things And here besides those I have already mentioned I could produce many more to the same purpose But alas these men lived before the Age of Mis-representing and Expounding Now all is Mistake on our side and Infallibility on theirs We cannot for our hearts understand their Doctrines or Practices aright although we take never so much pains and care to doe it One would think by the present way of dealing with us that the Church of Rome were like the New Name on the White Stone which no man knows but he that hath it and so it were impossible for any else to understand it but such as are in it I thought my self pretty secure from Mistaking when I pitched on the Council of Trent for my Guide But it seems I am mistaken here too How so Did not the Council of Trent appoint the Congregation of the Index at first Sess. 18 Did it not own that the Matters of it were prepared before its Dissolution And if there were a Prohibition of the free use of the Scripture in Vulgar Languages by the Rules of the Index is not the Council of Trent justly chargeable with that Prohibition Especially when the Title in the Roman Edition is Regulae Indicis Sacrosanctoe Synodi Tridentinoe jussu editoe Jacob. Ledesma was one of the same
to determin The sense of the Gallican Clergy in this matter doth fully appear by the Representation which they sent to Alexander VII about the Translation of the Missal into French. Which was done by Voisin a Doctour of the Faculty and was published at Paris by the Permission of Cardinal de Retz Archbishop there and had the Approbation of some Doctours of the Sorbon The rest of the Bishops and Clergy highly resented this matter and Assembled together to consult about it Nov. 29. 1660. where they proposed two things to be considered 1. The matter of Right whether such a Translation were to be permitted or not 2. The matter of Fact whether this were a good Translation or not The debate was adjourned to Dec. 3. and from thence to the 7th on which they came to a Resolution to suppress it And a Circular Letter was sent to all the Bishops to forbid the use of it under pain of Excommunication and the King desired to interpose his Authority in it Dec. 9. they agreed to send an account of the whole matter to the Pope in the name of the Gallican Clergy wherein they declare their great dislike of it as contrary to the Custom of the Church and as pernicious to the Souls of Men. And in the Body of it they say that they look on the Translations of Scripture into vulgar Languages as the great occasion of the Northern Heresies and quote Vincentius Lerinensis saying that the Scripture is the Book of Hereticks And after add that they bad sent to the Pope their Condemnation of all Translations of Scripture and Divine Offices into the Vulgar Languages This was subscribed by the General Assembly of the Clergy Jan. 7. 1661. The Pope sent a Brief in Answer which was received Feb. 25. wherein he very Tragically complains that some Sons of Perdition in France had to the ruine of Souls and in Contempt of the Churches Laws and Practice arrived to that degree of madness as to translate the Roman Missal into French. And he charges the doing of it not onely with Novelty but Disobedience Sedition Schism c. and declares that he abhorred and detested it and for ever damned reprobated and forbad it under pain of Excommunication and requires all Persons to deliver up their Books to the several Ordinaries that they might be burnt I now desire J. W. to inform me whether we are bound to believe that in France Translations of Scripture into the vulgar Language are allowed and approved I am really so unwilling to mistake that I take the best care I can to be rightly informed I have no design either to deceive others or to be deceived my self and therefore have not trusted to second-hand Evidence but searched and considered the Authours themselves whose Testimonies I rely upon I am certain I have fallen into no wilfull mistake but have truly and impartially stated things according to the clearest Evidence I could find and therefore I think it some what hard to be told that our Objections are grounded on Mistakes and especially as to this matter about the Prohibition of reading Scripture in the Vulgar Language for I hope I have made it appear not onely that there is such a Prohibition but that it is founded on the Authority of the Council of Trent And if it be so then it serves my main design viz. to prove that it went off from Catholick Tradition for if there were so many Translations of old without the least prohibition and there be since the Council of Trent so severe a one backed with the Pope's Authority here must be a very great change in Tradition For that is accounted pernicious and mischievous to the Souls of men which before was accounted usefull and beneficial to them If the Physicians in one Age should condemn the common Reading of Hippocrates and Galeâ— as destructive to the Health of mens bodies which those of former Ages extremely commended would not any one say there was a great Change in the Opinions of Physicians and that they did by no means hold to the Judgment of those before them If the common Lawyers â—hould now say Littleton's Tenures is a Book very unfit to be read by young Lawyers that it fills their heads with seditious and dangerous Principles and therefore ought to be taken out of their hands would not any one say here is a wonderfull Change for no such thing was ever apprehended before but the Book was thought very usefull and proper to instruct Students in some fundamental Points of the Law When Manna was rained from Heaven in the Wilderness for 40. years and for 30. of them every man gathered his own share and proportion and ate of it as he saw cause would it not have been thought a strange alteration among them if after 30. years a sett of Physicians should have risen up and told the People it was true Manna was Angels food but if they had not great care in the taking it and used it promiscuously it would turn them to Devils or at least it would fill them with such distempers as they would never be able to reach to Canaan This might be pretended to be great Care and Tenderness of them in these new Physicians but on the other side they would tell them they had done very well with their eating Manna for 30. years together and there had been no such distempers among them but such as humane nature is always subject to that such an alteration might be of worse Consequence than their common use of Manna for so it was at first appointed and so it had continued and they could not tell but their new Physicians might be worse to them than their old distempers and they could never believe that could be so hurtfull which God himself had appointed for their food The former Discourse makes the Application needless But after all it is said This is but a point of Discipline and not of Faith and in such the Church may change her Measures To that I answer 1. It is more than a point of Discipline for it is changing the Rule of Faith with respect to the People While the Scriptures were in the hands of the People they resolved their Faith into the Word of God as it was delivered to them and understood by them But when that is taken out of their hands and they are bid to Trust to the Churches Testimony for matters of Faith they have a different Resolution of their Faith and a different Ground and Reason of believing For they cannot ground their Faith upon a written Rule who are uncapable of understanding it 2. It is no matter of Discipline to overthrow the design of publishing the Scripture for the universal Benefit of the Church of God. And this the Jansenists have well proved in Defence of their Translation of the New Testament against the Prohibitions of it For say they the Prohibition of reading the Scripture under pain of Excommunication is it self