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
yet must we believe there was at that time a known Catholick Tradition about it and that it was impossible they should err about such a Tradition Nay farther the same Authour tells us that although this Bishop had gained the greatest part of the Council to him yet his own heart misgave him and in the next Congregation himself proposed that instead of equal it might be put a like Veneration and yet we must believe there was a Catholick Tradition for an Equal Veneration to Scripture and Tradition But the Bishop of Chioza Naclantus he saith inveighed more bitterly against this Equality and in the face of the Council charged the Doctrine with Impiety and he would not allow any Divine Inspiration to Tradition but that they were to be considered onely as Laws of the Church It 's true he saith he professed to consent to the Decree afterwards but withall he tells us that he was brought under the Inquisition not long after upon suspicion of Heresie which shews they were not well satisfied with his submission We are extremely beholden to Cardinal Pallavicini for his Information in these matters which are past over too jejunely by F. Paul. 2. I proceed to the Testimony of the Divines of the Roman Church before the Council of Trent It is observed by some of them that when the Fathers appealed to the Tradition of the Church in any controverted Point of Faith they made their Appeal to those who wrote before the Controversie was started as S. Augustin did against the Pelagians c. This is a reasonable Method of proceeding in case Tradition be a Rule of Faith and therefore must be so even in this point whether Tradition be such a Rule or not For the Divines who wrote before could not be ignorant of the Rule of Faith they received among themselves Gabriel Biel lived in the latter end of the 15th Century and he affirms that the Scripture alone teaches all things necessary to salvation and he instances in the things to be done and to be avoided to be loved and to be despised to be believed and to be hoped for And again that the Will of God is to be understood by the Scriptures and by them alone we know the whole Will of God. If the whole Will of God were to be known by the Scripture how could part of it be preserved in an unwritten Tradition And if this were then part of the Rule of Faith how could such a Man who was Professour of Divinity at Tubing be ignorant of it I know he saith he took the main of his Book from the Lectures of Eggelingus in the Cathedral Church at Mentz but this adds greater strength to the Argument since it appears hereby that this Doctrine was not confined to the Schools but openly delivered in one of the most famous Churches of Germany Cajetan died not above 12 Years before the Council who agrees with this Doctrine of Biel or Eggelingus and he was accounted the Oracle of his time for Divinity for he affirms that the Scripture gives such a perfection to a Man of God or one that devoutly serves him that thereby he is accomplished for every good Work How can this be if there be another Rule of Faith quite distinct from the Written Word Bellarmin indeed grants that all things which are simply necessary to the Salvation of all are plainly contained in Scripture by which he yields that the Scripture alone is the Rule of Faith as to necessary points and he calls the Scripture the certain and stable Rule of Faith yea the most certain and most secure Rule If there be then any other it must be less certain and about points not necessary to Salvation i. e. it must be a Rule where there is no need of a Rule For if Mens Salvation be sufficiently provided for by the Written Rule and the Divine Revelation be in Order to mens Salvation what need any other Revelation to the Church besides what is Written He asserts farther that nothing is de fide but what God hath revealed to the Prophets and Apostles or is deduced from thence This he brings to prove that whatsoever was received as a matter of Faith in the Church which is not found in Scripture must have come from an Apostolical Tradition But if it be necessary to Salvation according to his own Concession it must be written and if it be not how comes it to be received as a matter of Faith unless it be first proved that it is necessary to Salvation to receive an unwritten Rule of Faith as well as a written For either it must be necessary on its own Account and then he saith it must be written and if not then it can be no otherwise necessary than because it is to be believed on the Account of a Rule which makes it necessary And consequently that Rule must be first proved to be a necessary Article of Faith Which Bellarmin hath no where done but onely sets down Rules about knowing true Apostolical Traditions from others in matters of Faith wherein he wisely supposes that which he was to prove And the true Occasion of setting up this new Rule of Faith is intimated by Bellarmin himself in his first Rule of judging true Apostolical Traditions Which is when the Church believes any thing as a Doctrine of Faith which is not in Scripture then saith he we must judge it to be an Apostolical Tradition Why so Otherwise the Church must have erred in taking that for a matter of Faith which was not And this is the great Secret about this New Rule of Faith they saw plainly several things were imposed on the Faith of Christians which could not be proved from Scripture and they must not yield they had once mistaken and therefore this New Additional Less certain Rule for unnecessary Points must be advanced although they wanted Tradition among themselves to prove Tradition a Rule of Faith which I shall now farther make appear from their own School Divines before the Council of Trent We are to observe among them what those are which they strictly call Theological Truths and by them we shall judge what they made the Rule of Faith. For they do not make a bare Revelation to any Person a sufficient Ground for Faith but they say the Revelation must be publick and designed for the general Benefit of the Church and so Aquinas determines that our Faith rests onely upon the Revelations made to the Prophets and Apostles and Theological Truths are such as are immediately deduced from the Principles of Faith i. e. from publick Divine Revelations owned and received by the Church The modern School men who follow the Council of Trent make Theological Truths to be deduced from the unwritten as well as the Written word or else they would not speak consonantly to their own Doctrine And therefore if those before them deduce Theological Truths onely from the Written Word
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
to the Fathers wherein I am in great measure prevented by a late Discourse wherein it is at large shewed that the Fathers made use of no other Rule but the Scriptures for deciding Controversies therefore I shall take another method which is to shew that those who do speak most advantageously of Tradition did not intend to set up another Rule of Faith distinct from Scripture And here I shall pass over all those Testimonies of Fathers which speak either of Tradition before the Canon of Scripture or to those who did not receive it or of the Tradition of Scripture it self or of some Rites and Customs of the Church as wholly impertinent And when these are cut off there remain scarce any to be considered besides that of Vincentius Lerinensis and one Testimony of S. Basil. I begin with Vincentius Lerinensis who by some is thought so great a Favourer of Tradition but he saith not a word of it as a Rule of Faith distinct from Scripture for he asserts the Canon of Scripture to be sufficient of it self for all things How can that be if Tradition be a Rule of Faith distinct from it He makes indeed Catholick Tradition the best Interpreter of Scripture and we have no reason to decline it in the Points in dispute between us if Vincentius his Rules be follow'd 1. If Antiquity Universality and Consent be joyned 2. If the difference be observed between old Errours and new ones For saith he when they had length of time Truth is more easily concealed by those who are concerned to suppress it And in those Cases we have no other way to deal with them but by Scripture and ancient Councils And this is the Rule we profess to hold to But to suppose any one part of the Church to assume to it self the Title of Catholick and then to determine what is to be held for Catholick Tradition by all Members of the Catholick Church is a thing in it self unreasonable and leaves that part under an impossibility of being reclaimed For in case the Corrupt Part be judge we may be sure no Corruptions will be ever owned Vincentius grants that Arianism had once extremely the advantage in Point of Universality and had many Councils of its side if now the prevailing Party be to judge of Catholick Tradition and all are bound to submit to its Decrees without farther Examination as the Authour of the Guide in Controversies saith upon these Rules of Vincentius then I say all men were then bound to declare themselves Arians For if the Guides of the present Church are to be trusted and relied upon for the Doctrine of the Apostolical Church downwards how was it possible for any Members of the Church then to oppose Arianism and to reform the Church after its prevalency To say it was condemned by a former Council doth by no means clear the difficulty For the present Guides must be trusted whether they were rightly condemned or not and nothing can be more certain than that they would be sure to condemn those who condemned them But Vincentius saith Every true Lover of Christ preferred the ancient Faith before the novel betraying of it but then he must chuse this ancient Faith against the judgment of the present Guides of the Church And therefore that according to Vincentius can be no Infallible Rule of Faith. But whether the present Universality dissents from Antiquity whose Judgment should be sooner taken than its own saith the same Authour This had been an excellent Argument in the mouth of Ursacius or Valens at the Council of Ariminum and I do not see what Answer the Guide in Controversies could have made But both are Parties and is not the Councils Judgment to be taken rather than a few Opposers So that for all that I can find by these Principles Arianism having the greater number had hard luck not to be established as the Catholick Faith. But if in that case particular Persons were to judge between the New and the Old Faith then the same Reason will still hold unless the Guides of the Church have obtained a new Patent of Infallibility since that time The great Question among us is Where the true ancient Faith is and how we may come to find it out We are willing to follow the ancient Rules in this matter The Scripture is allowed to be an Infallible Rule on all hands and I am proving that Tradition was not allowed in the ancient Church as distinct from it But the present Question is how far Tradition is to be allowed in giving the Sense of Scripture between us Vincentius saith we ought to follow it when there is Antiquity Universality and Consent This we are willing to be tryed by But here comes another Question Who is to be Judge of these The present Guides of the Catholick Church To what purpose then are all those Rules Will they condemn themselves Or as the Guide admirably saith If the present Universality be its own Judge when can we think it will witness its departure from the true Faith And if it will not what a Case is the Church in under such a pretended Universality The utmost use I can suppose then Vincentius his Rules can be of to us now is in that Case which he puts when Corruptions and Errours have had time to take root and fasten themselves and that is By an Appeal to Scripture and Ancient Councils But because of the charge of Innovation upon us we are content to be tried by his second Rule By the Consent of the Fathers of greatest Reputation who are agreed on all hands to have lived and died in the Communion of the Catholick Church and what they delivered freely constantly and unanimously let that be taken for the undoubted and certain Rule in judging between us But if the present Guides must come in to be Judges here again then all our labour is lost and Vincentius his Rules signifie just nothing The Testimony of S. Basil is by Mr. White magnified above the rest and that out of his Book de Spiritu Sancto above all others to prove that the Certainty of Faith depends on Tradition and not merely on Scripture The force of it is said to lye in this that the practice of the Church in saying with the holy Spirit though not found in Scripture is to determine the Sense of the Article of Faith about the Divinity of the Holy Ghost But to clear this place we are to observe 1. That S. Basil doth not insist on Tradition for the Proof of the Article of Faith for he expresly disowns it in that Book It is not enough saith he that we have it by Tradition from our Fathers for our Fathers had it from the Will of God in Scripture as appears by those Testimonies I have set down already which they took for their Foundations Nothing can be plainer than that S. Basil made Scripture alone the Foundation of Faith
now denies it Which shews that he believed the sense of the Church not to have been always the same about it But others speak out as Gregory de Valentia Suarez Filliucius and Tanner who say absolutely it is now a matter of Faith to hold Chrism to be essential to Confirmation and that it is now not onely erroneous but heretical to deny it Their Testimonies are at large produced by Petrus Aurelius or the famous Abbat of S. Cyran And even he grants it to be Heresie since the Council of Trent but he yields that Alensis Bonaventure and de Vitriâ—co all held that Opinion which was made Heresie by it From whence it follows that there hath been a change in the Doctrine of the Roman Church about Confirmation by Chrism For if it be Heresie now to assert that which was denied without any reproach before the Tradition cannot be said to continue the same Thus we have seen there was no certain Tradition for the Matter of this Sacrament and as little is there for the Form of it Which is Consigno te signo Crucis confirmo te Chrismate salutis in nomine Patris c. But Sirmondus produces another Form out of S. Ambrose Deus Pater omnipotens qui te regeneravit ex Aqua Spiritâ— Sancto concessitque tibi peccata tua ipse te ungat in vitam aeternam And from thence concludes the present Form not to be ancient and he confesses that both Matter and Form of this Sacrament are changed Which was an ingenuous Confession but his adversary takes this Advantage from it that then the Sacrament it self must â—e changed if both Matter and Form were and then the Church must be a very unfaithful keeper of Tradition which I think is unanswerable Suarez proposes the Objection fairly both as to the Matter and Form of this Sacrament that we read nothing of them in Scripture and Tradition is very various about them but his Answer is very insufficient viz. that though it be not in Scripture yet they have them by Tradition from the Apostles now that is the very thing which Sirmondus disproves and shew that the Church of Rome is clearly gone off from Tradition here both as to Matter and Form. Of Orders I proceed to the Sacrament of Orders It it impossible for those of the Church of Rome to prove this a true and proper Sacrament on their own Grounds For they assert that such a one must have Matter and Form appointed by Christ but that which they account the Matter and Form of Orders were neither of them of Christ's Institution The Council of Florence they say hath declared both the matter is that by the delivery whereof the Order is confer'd as that of Priesthood by the delivery of the Chalice with the Wine and the Paten with the Bread and the Form is Accipe potestatem offerendi Sacrificium in Ecclesia pro vivis mortuis Now if neither of these be owned by themselves to have been appointed by Christ then it necessarily follows that they cannot hold this to be a true and proper Sacrament Imposition of hands they grant was used by the Apostles and still continued in the Christian Church and Bellarmin confesses that nothing else can be proved by Scripture to be the external Symbol in this Sacrament And others are forced to say that Christ hath not determined the Matter and Form of this Sacrament particularly but hath left a latitude in it for the Church to determin it Which in my opinion is clear giving up the Cause as to this Sacrament It is observed by Arcudius that the Council of Trent doth not declare the particular Matter and Form of this Sacrament but only in general that it is performed by words and external signs Sess. 23. c. 3. From whence he infers that the outward Sign was left to the Churches determination and he saith that Christ did particularly appoint the Matter and Form of some Sacraments as of Baptism and the Lord's Supper and Extreme Unction but not of others and therefore in the Sacrament of Orders he saith Christ determined no more but that it should be conveyed by some visible sign and so it may be either by the delivering the Vessels or by the imposition of hands or both But we are to consider that the Council of Florence was received by the Council of Trent and that it is impossible to reconcile this Doctrin with the general Definition of a Sacrament by the Roman Catechism viz. that it is a sensible thing which by the Institution of Christ hath a power of causing as well as signifying Grace which implies that the external Sign which conveys Grace must be appointed by the Authour of the Sacrament it self or else the Church must have Power to annex Divine Grace to its own appointments But here lies the main difficulty the Church of Rome hath altered both Matter and Form of this Sacrament from the primitive Institution and yet it dares not disallow the Ordinations made without them as is notorious in the Case of the Greek Church and therefore they have been forced to allow this latitude as to the Matter and Form of this Sacrament although such an allowance doth really overthrow its being a true and proper Sacrament on their own grounds Yet this Doctrine hath very much prevailed of late among their chief Writers Cardinal Lugo confesses that of old Priesthood was conferred by imposition of Hands with suitable Words and he saw it himself so done at Rome without delivering the Vessels by Catholick Greek Bishops He saith farther that the Fathers and Councils are so plain for the conferring Priesthood by imposition of hands that no one can deny it but yet he must justifie the Roman Church in assuming new Matter and Form which he doth by asserting that Christ left the Church at liberty as to them Nicol. Ysambertus debates the point at large and his Resolution of it is that Christ determined only the general matter but the particular sign was left to the Church and he proves by Induction that the Church hath appointed the external sign in this Sacrament and as to the Order of Priesthood he proves that Imposition of hands was of old an essential part of it but now it is only accidental Franciscus Hallier confesses the Matter of this Sacrament to have been different in different times In the Apostles times and many Ages after hardly any other can be found but imposition of hands as he proves from Scripture and Fathers He carries his proofs down as low as the Synod of Aken in the time of Ludovicus Pius and the Council of Mâ—aux A. D. 845. but afterwards he saith that by the Council of Florence and the common Opinion of their Divines the delivery of the Vessels is the essential matter of this Sacrament Here we find a plain change in the Matter of a Sacrament owned after the continuance of
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
any of the School-men and that the Accidents of the Bread and Wine might be separated from the Substance of them but this was not then made a Matter of Faith as it was afterwards But the case was remarkably alter'd after the Lateran Council under Innocent III. For Transubstantiation being admitted there among the Articles of Faith and so entred in the Canon-Law in the very beginning of the Decretals this did not merely become a School-Term but by the Inquisitors of that time it was accounted Heresie to deny it It may be sufficiently proved by the School-men and Canonists that a difference of Opinions as to the Modus did still continue but that belongs to a more proper place and Joh. Parisiensis declares p. 103 that the Lateran Council in his Opinion did not make Transubstantiation a Point of Faith or at least that Substance was not to be taken for the Matter but the Suppositum but the Inquisitors went more briskly to work and made it downright â—â—â—â—esie to assert that the Substance of the Elements did remain after Consecration Of this we have full Evidence in the Register of Courtney Arch-Bishop of Canterbury which is no Invisible Manuscript For there we read f. 25. that he called a select Convecation of Bishops Divines and Canonists May 17. A. D. 1382. to declare some Propositions to be Heretical and sâ—me to be Erroneous and contrary to the determination of the Church Among the first these two are set down in the first Place 1. That the material Substance of the Bread and Wine doth remain in the Sacrament of the Altar after Consecration 2. That the Accidents do not remain without their Subject in that Sacrament after Consecration After this the Arch-Bishop sent forth his Mandate to all his Suffragans not only to prohibit the preaching of that Doctrine but to inquire after those who did it And June 12. Robert Rygge Chancellour of Oxford and Thomas Brightwall appeared before him and were examined upon these Propositions which they declared to be Heretical who thereupon required the Publication of them as such in the University and the proceeding against those who were suspected to favour them The Ground the Arch-Bishop went upon was that these had been already condemned by the Church and therefore ex abundanti they declared them to be so condemned as appears by the Monition given to Robert Rygge himself as too much suspected to favour the contrary Doctrine as well as Nicholas Hereford Philip Reppyndon D. D. and John Ashton B. D. Against these the Arch-Bishop proceeded as Inquisitor Haereticae Pravitatis per totam suam Provinciam as it is in the Record who appearing desired a Copy of the several Propositions and then they were required to give in their judgment upon them Ashton refused but the other promised which they performed soon after and to these two Propositions their Answers were To the first that as far as it was contrary to the Decretal Firmiter Credimus it was Heresie To the second that as far as it was contrary to the Decretal Cum Marthoe it was Heresie These Answers were judged insufficient because they did not declare what that Sense was And the Arch-Bishop put this Question to them whether the same Numerical material Bread which before Consecration was set upon the Altar did remain in its proper Substance and Nature after Consecration but they would give no other Answer at that time But afterwards Reppyndon abjured and was made Bishop of Lincoln From hence it appears that it was then thought that the Modus was so far determin'd by the Lateran Council that the contrary Doctrine was declared not merely Erroneous in Faith but Heretical In the first Convocation held by Th. Arundel Arch-Bishop of Canterbury A. D. 1396 A Complaint was brought that several Divines and others of the University of Oxford held some heretical and erroneous opinions the first whereof was That the Substance of Bread doth remain after Confecration and doth not cease to be Bread which is there affirmed to be Heresie speaking of material Bread. The second that the Court of Rome in the Can. Ego Berengarius had determined that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is naturally true Bread. It is very hard to say how this came to be then accounted Heretical Doctrine when no less a man than Durandus in the same Age affirms that the Canonists grant that the Opinion of the ceasing of the Substance was grounded on the Can. Firmiter Credimus i. e. on the Lateran Council but that of the remaining of the Substance on that Ego Berengarius But however it passed for Heretical or at least very Erroneous Doctrine here but the main Heresie was to hold that the Substance remained For A. D. 1400. as appears by the Register p. 2. f. 179. William Sawtre alias Chatris a Parochial Priest in London was summoned before the same Arch-Bishop in Convocation upon an Information of Heresie and one of the main Articles against him was that he held the Substance of the Bread to remain in the Sacrament of the Altar after Consecration and that it doth not cease to be Bread. Sawtre answered that he believed that after Consecration the Bread did remain with the Body of Christ but it doth not cease to be simply Bread but it remains holy and true the Bread of Life and Body of Christ. The Arch Bishop examined him chiefly upon this Article and because he did not answer home to the point he was condemned for a Heretick and was the first who was burned for Heresie in England And yet his Answer was that he could not understand the matter then the Arch-Bishop asked him if he would stand to the Churches Determination he said he would so far as it was not contrary to the Will of God. Upon which he was declared an Heretick and delivered over to the Secular Power In the same Convocation John Purvey made an Abjuration of Heresie and the first he renounced was that after Consecration in the Sacrament of the Altar there neither is nor can be an Accident without a Subject and that the same Substance and Nature of Bread remained which was before In the Examination of William Thorp by Thomas Arundel Arch-Bishop of Canterbury A. D. 1407. which is not in the Register being defective but the account is preserved from his own Copy The Arch-Bishop declared that the Church had now determined that there abideth no Substance of Bread after Consecration in the Sacrament of the Altar And that if he believed otherwise he did not believe as the Church believed Thorp quoted S. Augustin and Fulgentius to prove that the Substance remained and the very Mass on Christmas Day The Arch-Bishop still pressed him with the Churches Determination Thorp said this was a School-nicety whether Accidents could be without a Subject no said the Arch-Bishop it is the Faith of the Church I go upon Thorp replyed it was not so for a thousand years after Christ. In the
against him that denies the Conversion of the whole Substance of the Elements into the Body and Blood of Christ the Species of Bread and Wine only remaining Now a Controversie hath been started in the Church of Rome what is to be understood by Species whether real Accidents or only Appearances Some of the Church of Rome who have had a Tast of the New Philosophy reject any real Accidents and yet declare Transubstantiation to be a matter of Faith and go about to explain the Notion of it in another manner Among these one Emanuel Maignan a Professor of Divinity at Tholouse hath at large undertaken this matter The Method he takes is this 1. He grants that nothing remains of the Bread after Consecration but that whereby it was an Object of Sense because that which is really the Being of one thing cannot be the Being of another And he confesses that the Modus as to the not being of the Substance after Consecration is determin'd by the Councils of Constance and Trent 2. He asserts that real Accidents supposing them separable from the Substance are not that whereby the Elements are made the Objects of Sense because they do not make the Conjunction between the Object and the Faculty 3. Since he denies that Accidents have any real Being distinct from the Substance they are in he grants that it is as much a matter of Faith that there are no real Accidents after Consecration as that there is no real Substance and he brings the Authorities of the Councils of Lateran Florence and Trent to prove it 4. As the Substance did by Divine Concourse so Act upon the Senses before as to make it be an Object of Sense so after Consecration God by his immediate Act makes the same Appearances although the Substance be gone And this he saith is the effect of this Miraculous Conversion which is concealed from our Senses by God's immediate causing the very same Appearances which came before from the Substance Which Appearances he saith are the Species mention'd by the Council of Trent and other elder Councils and Fathers Against this new Hypothesis a famous Jesuit Theophilus Raynaudus opposed himself with great vehemency and urged these Arguments against it 1. That it overthrows the very Nature of a Sacrament leaving no external visible sign but a perpetual illusion of the Senses in such a manner that the Error of one cannot be corrected by another 2. That it overthrows the Design of the Sacrament which is to be true and proper Food My Flesh is meat indeed c. John 6. Which he saith is to be understood of the Sacrament as well as of the Body of Christ and therefore cannot agree with an imaginary appearance 3. It is not consistent with the Accidents which befall the Sacramental Species as to be trod under foot to be cast into indecent places to be devoured by Brutes to be Putrified c. If the Body of Christ withdraws there must be something beyond mere Appearances 4. He makes this Doctrine to be Heretical because the Council of Constance condemned it as an Heretical Proposition to affirm that in the Eucharist Accidents do not remain without their Subject and because the Council of Trent uses the Word Species in the Sense then generally received and so it signified the same with Accidents Which saith he farther appears because the Council speaks of the Species remaining but if there be no real Accidents the Species doth not remain in the Object but a new Appearance is produced And it seems most reasonable to interpret the Language of the Council according to the general Sense wherein the Words were understood at that time VII What things were disputed and opposed by some in the Council without being censured for it although they were afterwards decreed by a Major Party yet cannot be said to have been there received by a Catholick Tradition Because Matters of Faith which have been universally received in the Church can never be supposed to be contested in a Council without Censure but if it appears that there were Heats and warm Debates among the Parties in the Council it self and both think they speak the Sense of the Catholick Church then we must either allow that there was then no known Catholick Tradition about those matters or that the Divines of the Church of Rome assembled in Council did not understand what it was And what happens to be decreed by a Majority can never be concluded from thence to have been the Tradition before because there was a different Sense of others concerning it And since in a division a single Person may make a Majority it will be very hard to believe that he carries Infallibility and Catholick Tradition along with him But I think it Reasonable in the enquiry after Catholick Tradition to take notice of the different Opinions in the Council and among the School-men before it and not only to observe what was the Sense of the Roman Church but of the Eastern Churches too and where the matter requires it to go through the several Ages of the Church up to the Apostolical Times that I may effectually prove that in the main Points in Controversie between us which are established by the Council of Trent there cannot be produced any Catholick and Apostolical Tradition for them THE CONTENTS SOme Postulata about Catholick Tradition Page 1. I. Point examined about Traditions being a Rule of Faith equal with Scriptures 2. The Sense of the Council of Trent concerning it 3. No. Catholick Tradition for it shew'd from the differences about it in the Council 4. From the Divines of the Roman Church for some Ages before the Council 5. The Testimonies of the Canon Law against it 17. Of the Ancient Offices of the Roman Church 20. Of the Fathers 21. The first step of Traditions being set up as a Rule by the second Council of Nice 26. Not receiv'd as a Rule of Faith till after the Council of Lateran under Innocent III. 27. The occasion of it set down from new Points of Faith there determin'd 28. Never established for a Rule till the Council of Trent 29. II. About the Canon of Scripture defined by the Council of Trent 30. The Sense of the Council ibid. The difference there about it 31. A constant Tradition against it in the Eastern Church 33. No Catholick Tradition for it in the Western Church 35. The several steps as to the Alteration of the Canon set down 38. The different meaning of Apocryphal Writings 40. III. About the free use of the Scripture in the vulgar Language prohibited by the Council of Trent 43. The Sense of the Council ibid. No Catholick Tradition about this proved from the Writers of the Roman Church 44. The General Consent of the Catholick Church against it proved from the Ancient Translations into Valgar Languages 46. The first Occasion of the Scriptures being in an unknown Language 52. The first prohibition by Gregory VII 56. Continued by the
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
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
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
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
Terms ex Condigno yet because it still uses the words vere mereri it implies something more than mere Congruity and because it speaks of meriting the Increase of Grace and not the first Grace now a Congruity is allowed for the first Grace which it excludes by mentioning the Increase And withal it brings places to prove that the giving the Reward must be a Retribution of Justice and if so the merit must be more than that of Congruity 2. Because God's Promise doth not give any Intrinsick value to the Nature of the Act no more than his threatning doth increase the Nature of Guilt If the King of Persia had promised a Province to him that gave him a draught of Water the Act it self had been no more meritorious but it only shewed the Munificence of the Prince no more do God's Promises of Eternal Life add any merit to the Acts of Grace but onely set forth the Infinite Bounty of the Promiser 3. In the Conference at Ratisbon the year this Decree passed by the Emperour's Order the Protestant Party did yield that by virtue of God's Promise the Reward of Eternal Life was due to justified Persons as a Father promising a great Reward to his Son for his pains in studying makes it become due to him although there be no proportion between them And if no more were meant by Merit of Congruity than that it was very agreeable to the Divine Nature to reward the Acts of his own Grace with an infinite Reward they would yield this too 4. Cardinal Pallavicini gives us the plain and true meaning of the Council viz. that a Merit de Congruo was allowed for Works before Justification but for Works after they all agreed he saith that there was a Merit de condigno in them both for increase of Grace and Eternal Glory By Merit de condigno is meant such an intrinsick value in the nature of the Act as makes the Reward in Justice to be due to it Some call one of these Meritum secundum quid which is the same with de congruo which really deserves no reward but receives it onely from the liberality of the Giver and this hath not truly say they the notion of Merit but that which makes the reward due is simple and true Merit when it doth not come merely from the Kindness of the Giver but from Respect to the worthiness of the Action and the Doer and this is de condigno Let us now see what Catholick Tradition there was for this Doctrine and whether this were taught them by their Fathers in a continued succession down from the Apostles times But that there was a change as to the sense of the Church in this matter I shall prove in the first place from an Office which was allow'd in the Church before and forbidden after It was an Office with respect to dying Persons wherein are these Questions Q. Dost thou believe that thou shalt come to Heaven not by thy own Merits but by the virtue and Merit of Christ 's Passion A. I do believe it Q. Dost thou believe that Christ died for our Salvation and that none can be saved by their own Merits or any other way but by the Merits of his Passion A. I do believe it Now when the Indices Expurgatorii were made in pursuance to the Order of the Council of Trent this passage was no longer endured For in the Roman Index the Ordo baptizandi wherein this Question was is forbidden till it were Corrected But the Spanish Indices explain the mystery that of Cardinal Quiroga saith expresly those Questions and Answers must be blotted out and the like we find in the Index of Soto major and Sanâ—oval What now is the Reason that such Questions and Answers were no longer permitted if the Churches Tradition continued still the same Was not this a way to know the Tradition of the Church by the Offices used in it This was no private Office then first used but although the prohibition mentions one Impression at Venice as though there had been no more I have one before me Printed by Gryphius at Venice two years before that and long before with the Praeceptorium of Lyra A. D. 1495. where the Question to the dying Person is in these words Si credit se Merito Passionis Christi non propriis ad gloriam pervenire Et respondeat Credo And the same Questions and Answers I have in a Sacerdotale Romanum Printed by Nicolinus at Venice 1585. Cardinal Hosius says that he had seen these Questions and Answers in the Sacerdotale Romanum and in the Hortulus Animae and that they were believed to be first prescribed by Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury On what account now come these things to be prohibited and expunged if the Churches Doctrine and Tradition about this matter be still the very same No doubt it was believed that the Council of Trent had now so far declared the Sense of the Church another way that such Questions and Aâ—sâ—â—rs were no longer to be endured But before the Council of Trent the Canons of Colen against Hermannus their Bishop when he published his Reformation declare that God's giving Eternal Life up on good Works is ex gratuita dignatione suae clementiae from the Favour which God vouchsafes to them Which to my apprehension is inconsistent with the Notion of true Merit in the Works themselves for if there be any Condignity in them it cannot be mere Grace and Favour in God to reward them The same Canons in their Enchiridion some years before when they joyned with their Bishop call it stupidity to think that good Works are rewarded with Eternal Life for any Dignity in the Works themselves And if there be no dignity in them there can be no true Merit as the Council of Trent determines with an Anathema Pope Adrian VI. gives such an account of the Merit of our Works that he could never imagine any condignity in them to Eternal Life For saith he our Merits are a broken reed which pierce the hand of him that leans upon them they are a menstruous Cloth and our best Actions mixt with impurities and when we have done all that we can we are unprofitable Servants Petrus de Alliaco Cardinal of Cambray attributes no other effect to good Works than of Causa sine qua non and saith that the Reward is not to be attributed to any Virtue in them but to the Will of the Giver Which I think overthrows any true Merit Gabriel Biel attributes the Merit of Good Works not to any intrinsecal Goodness in them but to God's acceptation Which is in words to assert Merit and in truth to deny it for how can there be true Merit in the Works if all their value depends upon divine Acceptance Thomas Walden charges Wickliff with asserting the Doctrine of Merit and incouraging men to trust in their own Righteousness and he
quotes Scripture and Fathers against it and he blames the use of the term of Merit either ex congruo or ex condigno which he saith was an Invention of some late Schoolmen and was contrary to the ancient Doctrine of the Church As he proves not only from Scripture and Fathers but from the ancient Offices too as in the Canon of the Mass Non aestimator meriti seá veniâ— quaesumus largitor c. Fer. 4. Pass Ut qui de meritorum qualitate diffidimus non judicium tuum sed misericâ—rdiam consâ—quamur Dom. 2. Adv. Ubi nulla suppetunt sufsragia meritorum tuae nobis indulgentiae succurre praesidtis How comes the Doctrine condemned in Wickliff to be established in the Council of Trent For he was blamed for asserting true Merit and the Council asserts it with an Anathema to those that deny it And yet we must believe the very same Tradition to have been in the Church all this while Vega saith that Walden speaks against Merits without Grace but any one that reads him will find it otherwise For he produces those passages out of the Fathers against Merits which do suppose Divine Grace as it were easie to shew but Friar Walden thought the notion of Merit inconsistent with the Power and Influence of Divine Grace necessary to our best Actions God saith he doth not regard Merit either as to Congruity or Condignity but his own Grace and Will and Mercy Marsilius de Ingen who lived before Walden reckons up three Opinions about Merit the first of those who denied it and of this saith he Durandus seems to be and one Job de Everbaco The second of those who said that our Works have no merit of themselves but as informed by dâ—â—ine Grace and from the Assistance of the Holy Ghost so they do tâ—uly merit Eternal Life and of this Opinion he saith was Thomas de Argentina The third was of those who granted that true Merit doth imply an Equality but then they distinguish Equality as to Quantity and as to Proportion and in this latter sense they asserted an Equality And of this Opinion he saith was Petrus de Tarantasia But he delivers his own Judgment in these Conclusions 1. That our Works either considered in themselves or with Divine Grace are not meritorious of Eternal Life ex condigno which he proves both from Scripture and Reason viz. because 1. No Man can make God a Debtor to him for the more Grace he hath the more he is a Debtor to God. Ana 2. He cannot merit of another by what he receives from him And 3. No man can pay what he owes to God and therefore can never merit at his hands 4. No man can merit here so much Grace as to keep him from falling away from Grace much less then Eternal Life 2. These works may be said to be meritorious of Eternal Life ex condigno by divine acceptation originally proceeding from the Merit of Christ's Passion because that makes them worthy But this is Christ's Merit and not the true Merit of our Works 3. Works done by Grace do merit Eternal Life de congruo from God's liberal disposition whereby he hath appointed so to reward them It beeing agreeable to him to give Glory to them that love him But this is an improper kind of Merit and can by no means support the Tradition of true Merit Durandus utterly denies any true Merit of Man towards God he doth not deny it in a large improper sense for such a Condignity in our actions as God hath appointed in order to a Reward which is by the Grace of God in us but as it is taken for a free Action to which a Reward is in Justice due because whatever we doe is more owing to the Grace of God than to our selves but to make a Debtor to us we must not only pay an equivalent to what we owe but we must go beyond it but to God and our Parents we can never pay an equivalent much less exceed it And we can never merit by what God gives us because the Gift lays a greater Obligation upon us And he saith the holding the contrary is temerarious and blasphemous The two grounds of holding Merit were the supposing a Proportion between Grace and Glory and an Equality between Divine Grace and Glory in Vertue Grace being as the Seed of Glory and to both these he answers To the first That the giving a Reward upon Merit is no part of distributive but commutative Justice because it respects the relation of one thing to another and not the mere quality of the Person To the second That the Value of an Act is not considered with respect to the first Mover but to the immediate Agent and as to Grace being the seed of Glory it is but a metaphorical expression and nothing can be drawn from it So that Durandus concludes true Merit with respect to God to be temerarious blasphemous and impossible Ockam declares That after all our good Works God may without Injustice deny Eternal Life to them who do them because God can be Debtor to none and therefore whatever he doth to us it is out of mere Grace And that there can be nothing meritorious in any act of ours but from the Grace of God freely accepting it And therefore he must deny any true Merit Gregorius Ariminensis saith That no Act of ours though coming from Grace to never so great a degree is meritorious with God ex condigno of any Reward either Temporal or Eternal because every such Act is a Gift of God and if it were at all meritorious yet not as to Eternal Life because there is no equivalency between them and therefore it cannot in Justice be due to it and consequently if God gives it he must do it freely But saith he God is said to be just when he gives bona pro bonis and merciful when he gives bona pro malis not but that he is merciful in both but because his mercy appears more in the latter and in the other it seems like justice in a general sense from the conformity of the Merit and the Reward but in this particular retribution it is mere Mercy Scotus affirms that all the meritoriousness of our Acts depends on divine Acceptation in order to a Reward and if it did depend on the intrinsick worth of the Acts God could not in justice deny the Reward which is false and therefore it wholly depends on the good will and favour of God. Bellarmin is aware of this and he confesses this to be the Opinion of Scotus and of other old Schoolmen But how then do they hold the Doctrine and Tradition of true Merit He holds that good Works are properly and truly good So do we and yet deny Merit But he grants that he denies that they bear any proportion to Eternal Life and therefore they cannot be truly meritorious of it Bellarmin himself asserts that without
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
above 800 years and yet we must believe the Tradition of this Church to have been always the same Which is impossible by the Confession of their own Writer He cannot tell just the time when the change was made but he concludes it was before the time of the Vetus Ordo Romanus which mentions the Vessels Petrus a Sancto Joseph saith that by Christ's Institution there is a latitude allowed in the matter of Orders but he shews not where but he thinks of it self it consists in the delivery of the Vessels but by the Pope's permission Imposition of Hands may be sufficient Which is a Doctrin which hath neither Scripture Reason nor Tradition for it Joh. Morinus shews that there are five Opinions in the Church of Rome about the matter of this Sacrament The first and most common is that it consists in the delivery of the Vessels The second that Imposition of Hands together with that makes up the matter The third that they convey two different powers The fourth that Unction with Imposition of Hands is the matter The fifth that Imposition of Hands alone is it and this saith he the whole Church Greek and Latin ever owned but he saith he can bring two demonstrations against the first i. e. against the general sense of the now Roman Church 1. From the Practice of the Greek Church which never used it 2. From the old Rituals of the Latin Church which do not mention them and he names some above 800 years old and in none of them he finds either the Matter or Form of this Sacrament as it is now practised in the Church of Rome nor in Isidore Alcuinus Amalarius Rabanus Maurus Valafridus Strabo although they wrote purposely about these things He thinks it was first received into the publick Offices in the tenth Age. Afterwards he saith he wonders how it came about that any should place the essential Matter of Ordination only in delivery of the Vessels and exclude the Imposition of Hands which alone is mentioned by Scripture and Fathers And again he saith it strikes him with astonishment that there should be such an alteration both as to Matter and Form. And at last he saith Christ hath determined no particular Matter and Form in this Sacrament But still the Difficulty returns how this can be a true and proper Sacrament whose Matter and Form depend on divine Institution when they confess there was no divine Institution for the Matter and Form in Orders Bellarmin as is proved before hath a Chapter on purpose to prove that the Matter and Form of Sacraments are so determin'd that it is not lawful to add diminish or alter them and he charges it on Luther as a part of his Heresie that no certain Form of words was required to Sacraments and he makes it no less than Sacrilege to change the Matter of them So that all such who hold the Matter and Form in Orders to be mutable must either charge the Church of Rome with Sacrilege or deny Orders to be a true and proper Sacrament Of the Sacrament of Penance The next new Sacrament is that of Penance They are agreed that Matter and Form are both necessary to a true and proper Sacrament The Matter is the external or sensible Sign and what is that in this New Sacrament There are two things necessary to the Matter of a Sacrament 1. That it be an External and sensible Sign which S. Augustin calls an Element in that known Expression Accedat verbum ad Elementum fit Sacramentum which Bellarmin would have understood only of Baptism there spoken of but S. Augustin's meaning goes farther as appears by his following Discourse and immediately he calls a Sacrament verbum visibile and therefore cannot be applied to Words as they are heard for so they have nothing of a Sacramental sign in them How then can Contrition make up any part of the Matter of a Sacrament when it is not external How can Confession when it is no visible sign nor any permanent thing as an Element must be how can satisfaction be any part of the Sacrament which may be done when the Effect of the Sacrament is over in Absolution 2. There must be a Resemblance between the Sign and the Thing signified Which St. Augustin is so peremptory in that he denies there can be any Sacrament where there is no Resemblance And from hence he saith the Signs take the name of the Thing signified as after a certain manner the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is the Body of Christ. And this was looked on as so necessary that Hugo de Sancto Victore and Peter Lombard both put it into the Definition of a Sacrament as Suarez confesses viz. that it is the visible appearance of Invisible Grace which bears the similitude and is the Cause of it But this is left out of the Definition in the Roman Catechism and Suarez thinks it not necessary for the same Reason because it is very hard to understand the similitude between words spoken in Confession and the Grace supposed to be given by Absolution any more than in the words of Abrenunciation and the Grace of Baptism How can the Act of the Penitent signifie the Grace conveyed in Absolution For there is no effect of the Sacrament till Absolution by their own Confession and therefore the Acts of the Penitent being antecedent to it and of a different nature from it can have no such Resemblance with it as to signifie or represent it However the Councils of Florence and Trent have declared that the Acts of the Penitent viz. Contrition Confession and Satisfaction are as the matter in the Sacrament Quasi materia What is this quasi materia Why not are the matter Is not true matter necessary to a true Sacrament If there be none true here then this can be but quasi Sacramentum as it were a Sacrament and not truly and properly so But if it be true matter why is it not so declared But common Sense hindred them and not the difference between the matter here and in other Sacraments For in the Definition of Sacraments they were to regard the Truth and not the kind of Matter They are not solid and permanent Matter saith Bellarmin not Matter externally applied saith Soto not any Substance but humane Acts saith Vasquez but none of these clear the point For still if it be true Matter of a Sacrament why was it not so declared Why such a term of Diminution added as all men must understand it who compare it with the expressions about the other Sacraments But they knew very well there was a considerable Party in the Church of Rome who denied the Acts of the Penitent to be the Matter or Parts of this Sacrament The Council of Colen but little before the Council of Trent excludes the Acts of the Penitent from any share in this Sacrament which Bellarmin denies not but blames
not to the Sins committed by them In the Gregorian Sacramentary published by Menardus there is a Prayer wherein this place of St. James is mentioned and presently it follows Cura quaesumus Redemptor noster gratia Spiritus Sancti languores istius infirmi c. and immediately before the anointing Sana Domine infirmum istum cujus ossa turbata sunt c. and while he was anointing the Patient was to say Sana me Domine and where the pain was greatest he was to be so much more anointed ubi plus dolor imminet amplius perungatur While the rest were anointing one of the Priests was to pray pristinam immelioratam recipere merearis sanitatem what was this but bodily health and yet this was per hanc Sacramenti Olei Unctionem after which follows a long Prayer for Recovery from Pains and Diseases And such there are in the several Offices published by Menardus in his Notes although the general strain of them shews that they were of latter times when the Unction was supposed to expiate the Sins of the several Senses Cassander produces many instances to shew that the Prayers and Hymns and the Form of anointing did respect bodily health In one he finds this Form In nomine Patris Filii Spiritus Sancti accipe sanitatem Not the health of the Mind but the Body Maldonat takes notice of Cassander's Offices and the expressions used in them but he gives no answer to the main design of them But three things he owns the Church of Rome to have varied from the ancient Tradition in with respect to this Sacrament 1. As to the Form the Council of Trent owns no other but that now used Per istam Unctionem c. but Maldonat confesses it was Indicative Ego te ungo c. or Ungo te Oleo sancto c. and he runs to that shift that Christ did not not determin any certain Form whereas the Council of Trent saith the Church understood by Tradition the other to have been the Form. Here the Council of Trent makes an appeal to Tradition and is deserted in it by one of its most zealous defenders and Gamachaeus affirms this to be an essential Change and he thinks the Sacrament not to be valid in another Form. Sâ—arez thinks the other Form not sufficient But Maldonat affirms the other Form was used and so at that time there was no Sâ—crament of extreme Unction because not administred in a valid or sufficient Form. And yet in the Gregorian Office the Form is Indicative Inungo te de Oleo sancto c. So in that of Ratoldus Ungo te Oleo sanctificato in nomine Patris c. In the Tilian Codex Inungo te in nomine Patris Filii Spiritus Sancti Oleo sancto atque sacrato c. In the Codex Remigii the general Forms are Indicative Ungo te Oleo sancto c. but there being a variety of Forms set down among the rest there is one Per istam Unctionem Dei c. Which afterwards came to be the standing Form and yet the Council of Trent confidently appeals to Tradition in this matter Which shewed how very little the Divines there met were skilled in the Antiquities of their own Church Suarez shews his skill when he saith the Tradition of the Roman Church is infallible in the Substance of this Sacrament and that it always used a deprecative Form but Maldonat knew better and therefore on their own grounds their Tradition was more than fallible since the Roman Church hath actually changed the Form of this Sacrament 2. Maldonat observes another change and that is as to the Season of administring it For the Council of Trent saith it ought to be in Exitu Vitae and therefore it is called Sacramentum Exeuntium the Sacrament of dying Persons but Maldonat saith it is an abuse to give it only to such for in the ancient Church they did not wait till the party were near death but he saith it was given before the Eucharist and that not once but for seven days together as is plain he saith in the ancient MS. Offices and he quotes Albertus Magnus for it So that here is another great change in the Roman Tradition observed and owned by him 3. In not giving it now to Children for in the ancient Writers he saith there is no exception but it was used to all that were sick and he quotes Cusanus for saying expresly that it was anciently administred to Infants But the reason of the change was the Doctrin of the Schoolmen for with their admirable Congruities they had fitted Sacraments for all sorts of sins as Bellarmin informs us Baptism against Original Sin Confirmation against Infirmity Penance against actual Mortal Sin Eucharist against Malice Orders against Ignorance Matrimony against Concupiscence and what is now left for Extreme Unction Bellarmin saith they are the Remainders of sin and so saith the Council of Trent But what Remainders are there in Children who have not actually sinned and Original sin is done away already Therefore the Church of Rome did wisely take away Extreme Unction from Children but therein Maldonat confesses it is gone off from Tradition I know Alegambe would have Maldonat not believed to be the Author of the Books of the Sacraments but the Preface before his Works hath cleared this beyond contradiction from the MSS. taken from his Mouth with the day and year compared with the Copy printed under his Name But if Maldonat may be believed the Church of Rome hath notoriously gone off from its own Tradition as to this Sacrament of Extreme Unction Of Matrimony The last new Sacrament is that of Matrimony which having its institution in Paradise one would wonder how it came into mens heads to call it a Sacrament of the New Law instituted by Christ especially when the Grace given by it supposes Mankind in a fallen condition Hower the Council of Trent denounces an Anathema against him that saith that Matrimony is not truly and properly a Sacrament one of the Seven of the Evangelical Law instituted by Christ. That which is truly and properly a Sacrament must be a Cause of Grace according to the general Decrees about the Nature of Sacraments So that those who do not hold the latter must deny the former Now that there was no Tradition even in the Roman Church for this I prove from the Confession of their own most learned Divines since the Council of Trent Vasquez confesses that Durandus denies that it confers Grace and consequently that it is truly a Sacrament but he yields it in a large improper sense and that the Canonists were of his Opinion and that the Master of the Sentences himself asserted no more than Durandus And which adds more to this he confesses that Soto durst not condemn this Opinion as heretical because Thomas Bonaventure Scotus and other Schoolmen did only look on
For when Alexius Meneses Archbishop of Goa undertook to reform them according to the Roman Church if that may be called a Reformation and held a Council at Diamper to that purpose A. D. 1599. he found that they had no Sacrament of Chrism or Penance or Extreme Unction of which they were utterly ignorant saith Jarricus from Antonius Goveanus who was Prior of Goa and published the whole proceedings Which Book was translated out of Portugese by Joh. Baptista a Glano into French and printed at Brussels 1609. From whence the Author of the Critical History of the Faith and Customs of the Eastern Nations hath given an Account of these things and he saith they owned but three Sacraments Baptism Eucharist and Orders that they knew nothing of the Sacrament of Chrism or extreme Unction and abhorred Auricular Confession But in excuse of them he saith that they joyned Confirmation with Baptism as other Eastern Churches did that the Sacrament of Extreme Unction as it is practised in the Church of Rome is known only to the Latin Church but the Eastern Church had the Unction of S. James for the Cure of Diseases as the Greek Church had Cotovicus affirms the same of the other Eastern Churches called Chaldean who are under the same Patriarch with the Christians of S. Thomas that they knew nothing of the Sacraments of Confirmation and Extreme Unction This Patriarch is the same which is commonly called the Patriarch of Babylon whose Residence is at Mozal but called of Babylon because Seleâ—cia after the desolation of the true Babylon had the name given to it as it were â—asie to prove if it were pertinent to this design and upon the destruction of Seleâ—cia the Patriarch removed first to Bagdat and then to Mozal whose Jurisciction extends over all those Eastern Christians which are called Nestorian In the Abyssine Churches Godignus saith positively from those who had been conversant among them that they knew nothing of the Sacraments of Chrism and Extreme Unction and that all the Confession they have is gâ—neral and rare and that they have no Bishops under the Abuna and believe the bond of Matrimony easily dissolved So that the Tradition of Seven Sacraments is wholly unknown to them but as it was imposed by the Roman Mâ—ssionaries which imposition was so ill received there and brought such Confusion and Disorders among them that they are for ever banished In the Armenian Churches Joh. Chernacensis a Latinized Armenian saith that the Armenians owned not the Seven Sacraments that they knew nothing of Chrism and Extreâ—â— Unction Here we see a general consent as to the total ignorance of two of the Seven Sacraments in these Churches But Clemens Galanus who had been many years a Missionary among the Armenians endeavours to prove that they had the Tradition of the seven Sacraments but very unsuccessfully For he produces none of their ancient Authors for it but he names Vartanus whom he sets himself to confute afterwards and he confesses that he took away the Sacrament of Penance and made Burial of the Dead to be one of his seven But more than that he saith the Armenian Churches have forbidden Extreme Unction as the Nestorians had done Auricular Confession So that nothing like a truly Catholick Tradition can be produced for the Number of seven Sacraments either in the Church of Rome or elsewhere within Bellarmin's own term of 500 years I am now to give an account when this Number of seven Sacraments came into the Church and on what Occasions it was advanced to be a point of Faith. The first I can find who expresly set down the Number of seven Sacraments was Hugo de S. Victore who lived in the twelfth Century not long before Peter Lombard But that there was an Innovation made by him in this matter I shall make appear by comparing what he saith with what others had delivered who were short of the Primitive Fathers Rupertus Tuitiensis lived much about the same time in Germany that Hugo did at Paris and he gives a different Resolution of the Question about the Principal Sacraments For he names no more than Baptism the Eucharist and the double Gift of the Holy Ghost and saith he these three Sacraments are necessary instruments of our Salvation But Hugo saith there are seven principal Sacraments which sufficiently shews that he thought there were other Sacraments besides these and so he expresses his mind in another place where he makes all symbolical Signs to be Sacraments but the principal Sacramâ—nts he saith are those which convey Grace Fulbertus Carnotensis lived in France in the beginning of the tenth Century and where he Discourses of the Sacraments he names no more than Baptism and the Eucharist He calls the Body and Blood two Sacraments and so did Rabanus Maurus before him Who lived in the ninth Age and was a Person of great Reputation and he names no more Sacraments than Baptism and Chrism and the Eucharist where he proposes to treat of them and had as just an Occasion to have mention'd the rest as Hugo had But Bellarmin saith he handled all wherein the Clergy were concerned and therefore omitted none but Matrimony But were not they concerned to know whether it were a Sacrament or not The Question is not whether he mention'd the things but whether he called them Sacraments but I do not find Extreme Unction so much as mention'd by him in the place he refers us to In the same â—ge Walafridus Strabo where he purposely discourseth of the Sacraments names no more than Rabanus Maurus and this had been an inexcusable omission in such who treat of Ecclesiastical Offices and were to inform Persons of their duties about them And therefore I lay much more weight on such an omission in them than in any other Writers I know Paschasius Radbertus mentions no more than three Sacraments Baptism Chrism and the Eucharist but Bellarmin and Sirmondus say he mention'd them for Example sake because it was not his business to handle the Number of Sacraments but this Answer will by no means serve for those who purposely treated of these matters and therefore an omission in them is an argument that they knew nothing of them And this Argument will go yet higher for in the beginning of the seventh Century Isidore of Sevil treated of these matters and he names no more than Baptism Chrism and the Eucharist and he tells us they are therefore called Sacraments because under the covering of corporeal things a secret and invisible virtue is convey'd to the paâ—takers of them And this very passage is entred into the Canon Law c. 1. q. 1 c. Multi Secularium c. and there it passes under the Name of Gregory I. but the Roman Correctors restore it to Isidore But it may be objected that Ivo Carnotensis made a Collection of Canons before Gratian who handles
the Sacraments in his first and second Part and he seems to make the annual Chrism to be a Sacrament for which he quotes an Epistle of Fabianus who saith it ought to be consecrated every year quia novum Sacramentum est and this he saith he had by Tradition from the Apostles Which Testimony the modern Schoolmen rely upon for a sufficient proof of this Apostolical Tradition But this Epistle is a notorious counterfeit and rejected by all men of any tolerable Ingenuity in the Church of Rome Thus we trace the Original of some pretended Apostolical Traditions into that Mass of Forgeries the Decretal Epistles which was sent abroad under the Name of Isidore Ivo produces another Testimony from Innocentius I. to prove that Extreme Unction was then owned for a kind of Sacrament and therefore ought not to be given to Penitents If this Rule holds then either Matrimony was no Sacrament or Penitents might not marry but the Canonists say even excommunicated Persons may marry but one of them saith it is a strange Sacrament excommunicated Persons are allow'd to partake of But this genus est Sacramenti signifies very little to those who know how largely the Word Sacrament was used in elder times from Iertullian downwards But our Question is not about a kind of a Sacrament but strict and proper Sacraments and if it had been then thought so he would not have permitted any to administer it unless they will say it is as necessary to Salvation as Baptism which none do It appears from hence that there was then a Custome among some in regard to S. James his Words if Persons were sick to take some of the Chrism to anoint them and to pray over them in hopes of their Recovery but this was no Sacrament of dying Persons as it is now in the Church of Rome If it had been then so esteemed S. Ambrose or who-ever was the Author of the Book of Sacraments would not have omitted it and the other supernumeraries when he purposely treats of Sacraments the same holds as to S. Cyril of Jerusalem And it is a poor evasion to say that they spake only to Catechumens for they were to be instructed in the Means and Instruments of Salvation as they make all Sacraments to be And it is to as little purpose to say that they do not declare there are but twâ— for our business is to enquire for a Catholick Tradition for sâ—ven true and proper Sacraments as the Council of Trent determines under an Anathema But if we compare the Traditions for two and for seven together the other will be found to have far greater Advantage not only because the two are mention'd in the eldest Writers where the seven are not but because so many of the Fathers agree in the Tradition that the Sacraments were designed by the Water and Blood which came out of our Saviour's side So S. Chrysostom S. Cyril of Alexandria Leo Magnus but above all S. Augustin who several times insists upon this which shews that they thought those two to be the true and proper Sacraments of Christianity however there might be other Mystical Rites which in a large sense might be called Sacraments As to the Occasions of setting up this Number of seven Sacraments they were these 1. Some pretty Congruities which they had found out for them The Number seven they observe was in request in the Levitical Law as to Sacrifices and Purifications Naaman was bid to wash seven times And Bellarmin in good earnest concludes that the whole Scripture seemed to foretell the seven Sacraments by those things But besides he tells us of the seven things relating to natural Life which these have an Analogy with the seven sorts of sins these are a remedy against and the seven sorts of Vertues which answer to the seven Sacraments But none of all these prove any Catholick Tradition 2. Making no difference between Mystical Rites continued in Imitation of Apostolical Practices and true and real Sacraments Imposition of Hands for Confirmation and Ordination is allowed to be a very just and reasonable Imitation of them and as long as the Miraculous Power of Healing Diseases continued there was a fair Ground for continuing the Practice mentioned by S. James but there was no Reason afterwards to change this into quite another thing by making it a Sacrament chiefly intended for doing away the Remainders of Sin. 3. Advancing the Honour of the Priesthood by making them so necessary for the actual Expiation of all sorts of Sins and in all conditions For no Sacrament is rightly administred by the Council of Trent without the Priest and therefore clandestine Marriages are declared void by it And it pronounces an Anathema against those who say any others than Priests can administer Extreme Unction however it appears that in the time of Innocentius 1. any might make use of the Chrism when it was consecrated by a Bishop but they are grown wiser in the Church of Rome since that time and as they have altered a Ceremony of Curing into a Sacrament of Dying so they have taken Care that none but Priests shall perform that last Office that the People may believe they can neither live nor dye without them VI. Of Auricular Confession The Council of Trent declares that the Universal Church always understood that Christ did institute an entire Confession of Sins and that it is received by Divine Right to all who sin after Baptism because our Lord Jesus Christ before his Ascension into Heaven did leave Priests as his Vicars to be Presidents and Judges to whom all mortal sins were to be made known and of which they were by The Power of the Keys to give Sentence so as either to remit or retain them It farther saith That the most holy and ancient Fathers by a great and unanimous Consent did use this secret Sacramental Confession from the beginning And it denounces Anathema's 1. Against him that denies the Sacrament of Penance to be of Christ's Institution 2. Against him that denies that our Saviour's words Receive ye the Holy Ghost Whose sins ye remit they are remitted c. are to be understood of the Power of remitting and retaining in the Sacrament of Penance as the Calick Church always understood them 3. Against him that denies Confession to be a Part of it or to have Divine Institution and to be necessary to Salvation as it relates to all mortal though secret Sins Thus we see the Sense of the Council of Trent in this matter and I shall now make it evident there was no such Catholick Tradition as is here pretended for it by the Confession of their own Writers 1. As to the General Sense of the Church 2. As to the Founding it on John 22. Those sins ye remit c. 1. As to the General Sense of the Church Maldonat reckons up Seven several Opinions among themselves about Confession 1.
appointed it and S. James published it which Scotus utterly denies But to the place of S John Bonaventure saith it was not enough to have it implied in the Priest's Power because it being a harder duty than Absolution it requir'd a more particular Command Which was but reasonably said especially when Bellarmin after others urges that it is one of the most grievous and burthensome Precepts but his Inference from it is very mean that therefore it must have a divine Command to inforce it on the People but Bonaventure's Argument is much stronger that it ought then to have been clearly expressed But as to the Peoples yielding to it other accounts are to be given of that afterwards Alexander Hales observes that if Christ had intended a command of Confession John 20. it would have been expressed to those who are to confess and not to those who are to absolve as he did to those who were to be baptized John 3. Except a man be born of water c. so Christ would have said except a man confess his sins c. and he gave the same Reasons why Christ did not himself institute it which Bonaventure doth who used his very words And now who could have imagined that the Council of Trent would have attempted to have made men believe that-it was the sense of the Universal Church that Christ instituted Confession in John 20 when so many great Divines even of the Church of Rome so expresly denied it as I have made appear from themselves But now to give an account by what steps and degrees and on what occasions this Auricular Confession came into the Church these things are to be considered 1. In the first Ages puâ—lick scandalous Offenders after Baptism were by the Discipline of the Church brought to publick Penance which was called Exomologesis which originally signifies Confession And by this Bellarmin saith the Ancients uâ—derstood either Confession alone or joyned with the other parts of Penance but Albaspineus shews that it was either taken for the whole course of publick Penance or for the last and solemn act of it when the Bishop led the Penitents from the entrance of the Church up to the Bâ—dy of the Congregation where they expressed their abhorrence of their faults in the most penitent manner by their Actions as well as by Words So that this was a real and publick Declaration of their sorrow for their sins and not a Verbal or Auricular Confession of them The same is owned by La Cerda But Boileau pretends that it had not this sense till after the Novatian Heresie and the Death of Irenaeus and that before that time it signified Confession according to the sense of the Word in Scripture This seems very strange when Baronius himself confesses that Tertullian usâ—s it for that part of Penance which is called Satisfaction and Bellarmin grants it is so used both by Tertullian and Irenoeus when he saith the Woman seduced by Marcus afterwards spent her days in Exmologesi What! in continual Confession of her sin No but in Penitential Acts for it and so Petavius understands it both in Irenoeus and Tertullian and he saith it did not consist onely or principally in Words but in Actions i. e. it was nothing of kin to Auricular Confession which is a part of Penance distinct from satisfaction And to make these the same were to confound the different parts of the Sacrament of Penance as the â—ouncil of Trent doth distinguish them But besides this there were several other Circumstances which do make an apparent difference between these Penitential Acts and the modern notion of Confession 1. The Reason of them was different For as Rigaltius observes the penitential Rigour was taken up after great Numbers were admitted into the Church and a great dishonour was brought upon Christianity by the looseness or inconstancy of those who professed it There were such in S. Paul's time in the Churches of Corinth and elsewhere but although he gives Rules about such yet he mentions no other than avoiding or excommunicating the guilty Persons and upon due Sorrow and Repentance receiving them in again but he imposes no necessity of Publick or Private Confession in order to Remission much less of every kind of mortal sin though it be but the breach of the tenth Commandment as the Council of Trent doth yet this had been necessary in case he had thought as that declares that God will not forgive upon other terms And so much the rather because the Evangelists had said nothing of it and now Churches began to fill it was absolutely necessary for him to have declared it if it were a necessary condition of Pardon for sins after Baptism But although the Apostles had given no Rules about it yet the Christian Churches suffering so extremely by the Reproaches cast upon them they resolved as far as it was possible to take care to prevent any scandalous Offences among them To this end the actions of all Persons who professed themselves Christians were narrowly watched and their faults especially such as were scandalous complained of and then if they confessed them or they were convicted of them a severe and rigorous Discipline was to be undergone by them before they were restored to Communion that their Enemies might see how far the Christians were from incouraging such enormities as they were accused of They were charged with Thyestean Suppers and promiscuous mixtures whereas any Persons among them who were guilty of Homicide or Adultery were discharged their society and for a great while not admitted upon any terms and afterwards upon very rigorous and severe terms And besides these to preserve the purity of their Religion in times of Persecution they allowed no Compliance with the Gentile Idolatry and any tendency to this was looked upon as a degree of Apostasie and censured accordingly And about these three sorts of sins the severity of the Primitive Discipline was chiefly exercised which shews that it proceeded upon quite different grounds from those of the Council of Trent about Auricular Confession 2. The method of proceeding was very different for here was no toties quoties allow'd that men may sin and confess and be absolved and then sin the same sin again and confess again and receive Absolution in the same manner The Primitive Church knew nothing of this way of dealing with Sinners upon Confession If they were admitted once to it that was all So Pamelius himself grants and produces several Testimonies of Fathers for it and so doth Albaspineus and Petavius Dare any say this is the sense of the Church of Rome about Confession that a man cannot be received a second time to Confess and be absolved from the same sin How then can they pretend any similitude between their Confession and the ancient Exomologesis Besides none ever received Absolution from the ancient Church till full satisfaction performed But in the Church of Rome Absolution is given
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