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
them These Homilies were either those which Charlemagn caused to be taken out of the Fathers and applied to the several Lessons through the year as Sigebert observes or of their own composing however they were to be turned by the Bishops either into Rustick Roman or German as served best to the capacities of the People For the Franks then either retained the Original German or used the Rustick Roman but this latter so much prevailed over the other that in the solemn Oaths between Lewis and Charles upon parting the Dominions of France and Germany set down in Nithardus the Rustick Roman was become the Vulgar Language of France and these were but the Grandchildren of Charlemagn Marquardus Freherus thinks that onely the Princes and Great Men retained the German but the generality then spake the Rustick Roman as appears by the Oath of the People which begins thus Si Lodâ—igs Sacrament que Son Fradre Carlo jurat conservat Carlus meo Serdra de suo part non los tanit si jo returnar non licit pois ne io ne neuls cui eo returnar nil pois in nulla adjudha contra Lodwig nun li iver By which we may see what a mixture of Latin there was in the vulgar Language then used by the Franks and how easie it was for the People then to understand the publick Offices being constant but the Sermons not being so there was greater necessity to turn them into that corruptor Rustick Roman which was thoroughly understood by them In Spain the Latin was less corrupted before the Gothick and Arabick or Moorish Words were taken into it Lucius Mariness saith that had it not been for the mixture of those words the Spaniards had spoken as good Latin as the Romans did in the time of Tully and he saith that to his time he had seen Epistles written in Spanish wherein all the Nouns and Verbs were good Latin. In Italy the Affinity of the vulgar prevailing Language and the Latin continued so great that the difference seemed for some hundred years no more than of the learned and common Greek or of the English and Scotch and so no necessity was then apprehended of Translating the correct Tongue into a corrupt Dialect of it But where there was a plain difference of Language there was some care even then taken that the People might understand what they heard as appears by these things 1. Alcuinus gives an Account why one day was called Sabbatum in 12 Lectionibus when there were but six Lessons and he saith it was because they were read both in Greek and Latin they not understanding each others Languages Not because the Greek was a holy Tongue but quia aderant Graeci quibus ignota er at lingua Latina which shews that the Church then thought it a reasonable cause to have the Scripture in such a Language which might be understood by the People The same Reason is given by Amalarius 2. In the German Churches there were ancient Translations of Scripture into their own Language B. Rhenanus attributes a Translation of the Gospels to Waldo Bishop of Freising assoon as the Franks received Christianity and he saith it was the immortal Honours of the Franks to have the Scripture so soon translated into their own Language which saith he is of late opposed by some Divines So little did he know of an universal Tradition against it Goldastus mentions the Translation in Rhime by Ottfridus Wissenburgensis published by Achilles Gassarus the Psalter of Notkerus Rudolphus ab Eems his Paraphrase of the old Testament Andreas du Chesn hath published a Preface before an old Saxon Book wherein it is said that Ludovicus Pius did take care that all the People should read the Scripture in their own Tongue and gave it in charge to a Saxon to translate both Old and New Testament into the German Language which saith he was performed very elegantly 3. In the Saxon Churches here it was not to be expected that the Scripture should be translated till there were Persons learned both in the Saxon and the other Languages Bede in his Epistle to Egbert puts him upon instructing the common People in their own Language especially in the Creed and Lord's Prayer and to further so good a Work Bede himself translated the Gospel of St. John into the Saxon Tongue as Cuthbert saith in the Epistle about his Death in the Life of Bede before his Saxon History It appears by the old Canons of Churches and the Epistles of Aelfric saith Mr. Lisle that there was an old Saxon Canon for the Priest to say unto the People the sense of the Gospel in English and Aelfric saith of himself that he had translated the Pentateuch and some of the Historical Books The New Testament was translated by several hands and an ancient Saxon Translation hath been lately published with the Gothick Gospels And there were old Saxon Glosses upon the Gospels of Aldred Farmen and Owen The last Work of K. Alfred was the translating the Psalter and if the MS. History of Ely deserves credit he translated both the Old and New Testament 4. It is not denied either by Bellarmin or Baronius that the Slavonians in the 9th Century had a permission upon their conversion to Christianity to enjoy the Bible and to have publick Offices performed in their own Language But they tell us it was because they were then Children in the Faith and to be indulged but methinks Children were the most in danger to be seduced or there were not Priests enough to officiate in Latin at first But this was no Reason then given as appears by the Pope's own Letter published by Baronius Wherein he gives God thanks for the Invention of Letters among them by Constantine a Philosopher and he expresly saith that God had not confined his Honour to three Languages but all People and Languages were to praise him and he saith God himself in Scripture had so commanded and he quotes St. Paul's words for it One would wonder those great Men should no better consider the Popes own Reasons but give others for him which he never thought of It is true he adds that he would have the Gospel read first in Latin and then in Salvonian and if they pleased he would have the Mass said in Latin but the Slavonians continued their Custom and the Pope was willing enough to let them enjoy it for his own convenience as well as theirs For there was a secret in this matter which is not fully understood Aventinus saith that Methodius invented their I etters and translated the Scriptures into the Slavonian Tongue and persuaded the People to reject the Latin Service but this I see no ground for But the Truth of the matter was the Slavonians were converted by the means of Methodius and Cyril otherwise called Constantine two Greek Bishops and the Christian Religion was settled among them by their means
Gropperus the supposed Author of the Enchiridion But Gropperus was thought fit to be a Cardinal as well as Bellarmin and certainly knew the Tradition of the Church if there had been any such in this matter The Council of Florence it is plain he thought not to be a sufficient declarer of it No more did Joh. Major who after it denied this Sacrament to consist of Matter and form or that the Acts of the Penitent were the parts of it So did Gabriel Biel who refutes the contrary Opinion and saith Contrition can be no part because it is no sensible sign and satisfaction may be done after it So that he cuts off two parts in three of the Matter of this pretended Sacrament Guido Brianson who lived after the Council of Florence supposes no certain Tradition in the Church about this matter but he sets down both Opinions with their Reasons and prefers that which excludes the Acts of the Penitent from being parts of the Sacrament although the Florentine Council had declared the contrary Durandus rejects two parts in three of those declared by the two Councils and for the same Reasons mentioned by Biel. Ockam absolutely denies all three to be Parts of the Sacrament And so did Scotus before him whose words are remarkable De Poenitentiae Sacramento dico quod illa tria nullo modo sunt partes ejus viz. These three are by no means any part of the Sacrament of Penance and yet the Council of Trent not only declares that they are so but denounces an Anathema against him that denies them to be required as the Matter of the Sacrament of Penance And let any one by this judge what Catholick Tradition it proceeded upon when some of the greatest Divines in the Church of Rome were of another Opinion As to the Form of this Sacrament the Council of Trent denounces an Anathema against thesewho affirm Absolution to be only declarative of the Remission of Sins and yet I shall prove that this was the more current Doctrin even in the Church of Rome up to the Master of the Sentences Gabriel Biel saith the ancient Doctors did commonly follow it but it was supposed by Scotus because it seemed to take off from the efficacy of Absolution and consequently make it no Sacrament which is a cause of Grace But after he hath set down Scotus his Arguments he saith that Opinion were very desirable if it had any Foundation in Scripture or Fathers And to his Arguments he answers that true Contrition obtains Pardon with God before Sacerdotal Absolution but not with the Church and that Contrition supposes a desire of Absolution which will never hold to make Absolution to confer the Grace of Remission if the Sin be really forgiven before For what is the desire of the Penitent to the force of the Sacrament administred by the Priest And he saith they all grant that by true and sufficient Contrition the sin is forgiven without the Sacrament in act i. e. the actual receiving absolution So that here was an universal Tradition as to the Power of Contrition but in the other they had different Opinions Marsilius saith that God forgives sin upon Contrition Authoritatively the Priests Absolution is ministerial in the Court of Conscience and before the Church And those sins which God â—irst absolves from principally and Authentically the Priest afterwards absolves from in right of the Church as its Minister Tostatus saith that the Priests Absolution follows God's Ockam that the Priests then bind and loose when they shew men to be bound or loosed and for this he relies on the Master of the Sentences Thomas de Argentina that the Power of the Keys doth extend to the Remission of the fault which was done before by Contrition but it tends to the Increase of Grace in the Person Gulielmus Antissiodore that Contrition takes away the guilt and punishment of Sin as to God and Conscience but not as to the Church for a man is still bound to undergo the Penance which the Church enjoyns him Bonaventure that Absolution presupposes Grace for no Priest would absolve any one whom he did not presume God had absolved before Alexander Hales that where God doth not begin in Absolution the Priest cannot make it up But the Master of the Sentences himself most fully handles this point and shews from the Fathers that God alone can remit sin both as to the Fault and the Punishment due to it And the Power of the Keys he saith is like the Priests Judgment about Leprosie in the Levitical Law God healed the Person and the Priest declared him healed Or as our Saviour first raised Lazarus then gave him to his Disciples to be loosed He is loosed before God but not in the face of the Church but by the Priests Judgment Another way he saith Priests bind by enjoyning Penance and they loose by remitting it or readmitting Persons to Communion upon performing it This Doctrin of Peter Lombard's is none of those in quibus Magister nontenetur for we see he had followers of great Name almost to the Council of Trent But it happened that both Th. Aquinas and Scotus agreed in opposing this Doctrin and the Franciscans and Dominicans bearing greatest sway in the Debates of the Council of Trent what they agreed in passed for Catholick Tradition And Vasquez is in the right when he saith this Doctrin was condemned by the Council of Trent and so was Scotus when he said that it did derogate from the Sacrament of Penance for in truth it makes it but a nominal Sacrament since it hath no Power of conferring Grace which the Council of Trent makes necessary to a true and proper Sacrament The main Point in this Debate is whether true contrition be required to Absolution or not Which Scotus saw well enough and argues accordingly For none of them deny that where there is true Contrition there is immediately an Absolution before God and if this be required before the Priests Absolution he can have no more to do but to pronounce or declare him absolved But if something less than Contrition do qualifie a Man for Absolution and by that Grace be conveyed then the Power of Absolution hath a great and real Effect for it puts a Man into a State of Grace which he had not been in without it And from hence came the Opinion that Attrition with Absolution was sufficient and they do not understand the Council of Trent's Doctrin of the Sacrament of Penance who deny it as will appear to any one that reads the 4th Chapter of the Sacrament of Penance and compares it with the 7 and 8 Canons about Sacraments in general It is true that Contrition is there said to have the first place in the Acts of the Penitent but observe what follows True Contrition reconciles a Man to God before he receives this Sacrament What hath the Priest then to do but to declare
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