THE Council of Trent EXAMIN'D and DISPROV'D BY Catholick Tradition In the main Points in Controversie between Us and the Church of Rome WITH A Particular Account of the Times and Occasions of introducing them PART I. To which a PREFACE is prefixed concerning the true Sense of the Council of Trent and the Notion of Transubstantiation The Second Edition Corrected WITH An APPENDIX in Answer to some late Passages of J. W. of the Society of Jesus Concerning the Prohibiting of Scripture in Vulgar Languages LONDON Printed for H. Mortlock at the Phoenix in S. Pauls Church-yard 1688. THE PREFACE THere is it seems a Train in Controversies as well as in Thoughts one thing still giving a start to another Conferences produce Letters Letters Books and one Discourse gives Occasion for another For this follows the former as a necessary Pursuit of the same Argument against Tradition I. S. in his last Letter had vouched the Authority of the Council of Trent proceeding upon Tradition and he instanced in three Points Transubstantiation Sacramental Confession and Extreme Unction The Examination of this I thought fit to reserve for a Discourse by it self wherein instead of confining my Self to those three Particulars I intend to go through the most material Points there established and to prove from the most Authentick Testimonies that there was no true Catholick Tradition for any of them And if I can make good what I have undertaken I shall make the Council of Trent it Self the great Instance against the Infallibility of Tradition This is a new Undertaking which the impetuousness of our Adversaries setting up Tradition for the Ground of their Faith hath brought me to But besides the shewing that really they have not Tradition on their side I have endeavoured to trace the several steps and to set down the Times and Occasions of Introducing those Points which have caused that unhappy breach in the Christian world whose sad effects we daily see and lament But have little hopes to see remied till these new Points be discarded and Scripture interpreted by truely Catholick Tradition be made the Standard of Christian Communion I do not pretend that all these Points came in at one Time or in the same Manner for some Errours and Corruptions came in far more early some had the favour of the Church of Rome in a higher degree some were more generally received in the Practice of the Church in later times than others and some were merely School Points before the Council of Trent but as far as the Thomists and Scotists could be made to agree there against the Reformers these passed for Articles of Faith. For this was one of the great Arts of that Council to draw up their Decrees in such Terms as should leave Room enough for Eternal Wranglings among themselves provided they agreed in doing the business effectually against the Hereticks as they are pleased to call them I therefore forbear to urge these as Points of Faith which have been freely debated among themselves since the Council of Trent without any Censure We have enough in the plain Decrees and Canons of that Council without medling with any School-Points And so I cannot be charged with Misrepresenting The great Debate of late hath been about the true Exposition of the Points there defined and for my part I am content to yield to any just and reasonable Methods of giving the true sense of them And such I conceive these to be I. Where the Council of Trent makes use of Words in a strict and limited Sense there it is unreasonable to understand them in a large and improper Sense As for instance Sess. 6. c. 26. It decrees that Justified Persons do verè promerere truely merit Eternal Life and Can. 32. there is an Anathema against him who denies true Merit in the good Works of justified Persons both as to Increase of Grace and Eternal Life There is no one conversant in Ancient Writers but knows that there was a large and improper Sense of the Word Merit but how is it impossible to apply that Sense where such Care is taken that it may be understood in a strict and limited Sense If the Council had left the Word in its General Sense there might have been Reason to have given the fairest Interpretation to it but when it is certainly known that there had been a difference of Opinions in the Church of Rome about true and proper Merit and that which was not however it were called and the Council declares for the former no man of understanding can believe that onely the improper Sense was meant by it As in the Point of the Eucharist when the Council declares that the words of Christ This is my Body are truely and properly to be understood Would it not be thought strange for any one to say that the Council notwithstanding might mean that Christ's Words may be figuratively understood And we must take the true notion of Merit not from any large expressions of the Ancients but from the Conditions of true and proper Merit among themselves But of this at large afterwards So as to the Notion of Sacraments every one knows how largely that Word was taken in Ancient Writers but it would be absurd to understand the Council of Trent in that Sense when Sess. 6. Can. 1. De Sacramentis it denounces an Anathema not merely against him that denies seven Sacraments but against him that doth not hold every one of them to be truely and properly a Sacrament And in the Creed of Pius IV. one Article is that there are seven true and proper Sacraments How vain a thing then were it for any to Expound the Sacraments in a large and improper Sense II. Where the Council of Trent hath not declared it self but it is fully done in the Catechism made by its Appointment we ought to look on that as the true Sense of the Council As in the Case of the Sacraments the Council never declares what it means by true and proper Sacraments but the Catechism makes large and full amends for this Defect For after it hath mention'd the use of the Word in Profane and Sacred Writers it sets down the Sense of it according to their Divines for a sensible sign which conveys the Grace which it signifies And after a large Explication of the Nature of Signs it gives this Description of a true and proper Sacrament that it is a sensible thing which by Divine Institution not only hath the force of signifying but of causing Grace And to shew the Authority of this Catechism for explicating the Doctrine of the Sacraments we need only to look into Sess. 24. c. 7. de Reform where it is required that the People be instructed in the Sacraments according to â—it It is supposed that the Catechism was appointed to be made in the 18th Sesâ—ion at the Instigation of Carolus Borromaeus since Canonized but it was not finished while the Council sate and therefore Sess. 25. it
was refer'd to the Judgment and Authority of the Pope I confess therefore it hath not a Conciliar Authority stamped upon it but it hath a sort of transfused Infallibility as far as they could convey it and as much as a Council hath when it borrows it from the Popes Confirmation It was near two Tears hammering at Trent viz. from 26. of Feb. 1562. to Decemb. 1563. when the Council rose Afterwards it was preparing at Rome three Years longer and then presented to the Pope to be approved and published by his Authority after it had been carefully review'd by Cardinal Sirlet Borromeo and others and hath since been universally received in the Roman Church so that we can have no more Authentick Exposition of the Sense of the Council of Trent than what is contained in that Catâ—chism III. Where the Council of Trent declares a thing in general to be lawfull and due but doth not express the manner of it that is to be understood from the generally receiv'd and allowed Practices at that time For otherwise the Council must be charged with great unfaithfulness in not setting down and correcting publick and notorious Abuses when it mention'd the things themselves and some Abuses about them As in the 25th Session concerning Purgatory Invocation of Saints Worship of Images and Relicks it goes no farther than that the sound Doctrine be taught that Saints are to be Invocated Images and Relicks to be Worship'd but never defines what that sound Doctrine is what bounds are to be set in the Worship of Saints Images and Relicks which it is unlawfull to exceed So that in this Case we have no other way to judge of the Meaning of the Council but by comparing the Publick and Allow'd Practices of the Church with the General Decrees of the Council And we have this farther Reason for it that we are told by the latest Expositors of it that the Sense of the Church in speculative Points is to be taken from Publick Practices For thus one of them expresses himself Moreover even her Speculative Doctrines are so mixed with Practical Ceremonies which represent them to the Vulgar and instruct even the meanest Capacities in the abstrusest Doctrines that it seems ever impossible to make an alteration in her Doctrine without abrogating her Ceremonies or changing her constant Practices IV. Where the Decrees of the Council are not sufficiently clear there we must take in the Canons to make the Sense more plain This Rule I take from the Council it self which in the 6th Session just before the Canons saith that those are added that all may know not only what they are to hold and follow but what they are to shun and avoid As in the famous Instance of Transubstantiation suppose that the Words of the Decree do not determine expresly the Modus yet it is impossible for any one to doubt of it who looks into the Canon which denounces an Anathema against him not only that denies Transubstantiation but that asserts the substance of Bread and Wine to remain after Consecration Therefore he that asserts Transubstantiation according to the Council of Trent must hold it in such a manner as thereby to understand that the Substance of Bread and Wine doth not remain Otherwise he is under an Anathema by the express Canon of the Council Therefore it is so far from being a fatal Oversight as a late Author expresses it to say that the Council of Trent hath determin'd the Modus of the Real Presence that no man who is not resolved to oversee it can be of another Opinion And herein the Divines of the Church of Rome do agree with us viz. that the particular Modus is not only determin'd by the Council but that it is a Matter of Faith to all Persons of the Communion of that Church As not only appears from the 2d Canon but from the very Decree it self Sess. 13. ch 4. The holy Synod declares that by Consecration of the Bread and Wine there is a Conversion of the whole Substance of the Bread into the Substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole Substance of the Wine into the Substance of his Blood which Conversion is fitly and properly by the holy Catholick Church called Transubstantiation In which Words the Council doth plainly express the Modus of the Real Presence to be not by a Presence of Christ's Body together with the Substance of the Bread as the Lutherans held but by a Conversion of the whole Substance of the Bread into the Substance of the Body c. And since there were different Manners of understanding this Real Presence if the Council did not Espouse one so as to reject the other as Heretical then it is impossible to make the Lutheran Doctrine to be declared to be Heretical i. e unless the Council did determine the Modus of the Real Presence For if it did not then notwithstanding the Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent Persons are at liberty to believe either Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation which I think no Roman Catholick will allow But. it is said that the meaning of the Decree is that the Real Presence is not to be understood after a Natural but a Sacramental Manner But doth it not plainly tell us how that Sacramental Manner is to be understood viz. by a Conversion of the whole Substance of the Bread into the whole Substance of the Body c. And if other ways be possible and all others be rejected then this particular Modus must be determin'd I grant that the Council doth not say there is an Annihilation of the Elements and I know no Necessity of using that Term for that which is supposed to be turned into another thing cannot properly be said to be Annihilated which is the reducing it to nothing but the Council doth assert a Total Conversion of one Substance into another and where that is that Substance must wholly cease to be what it was and so there can be no Substance of the Elements remaining after Consecration For as Aquinas observes Quod convertitur in aliquid factâ Conversione non manet If then the Substance of the Elements doth not remain after Consecration by virtue of this total Conversion then the Council of Trent by its Decree hath plainly determin'd the Modus of the Real Presence so as to exclude any such Manner as doth suppose the Substance to remain whether it be by Impanation or Consubstantiation or any other way What if Rupertus thought the Bread might become the Real Body of Christ by an Union of the Word to it All that can be infer'd is that the Modus was not then so determin'd as to oblige all Persons to hold it But what is this to the Council of Trent Can any one hold the Substance to remain and not to remain at the same time For he that holds with Rupertus must allow the Substance to remain he that believes a total Conversion must deny it And he
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
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.
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
that can believe both these at once may believe what he pleases But the Council only declares the Sacramental Presence to be after an ineffable manner I say it determines it to be by a total Conversion of one Substance into another which may well be said to be ineffable since what cannot be understood can never be expressed Our Dispute is not about the use of the Word Transubstantiation for I think it proper enough to express the Sense of the Council of Trent but as the Word Consubstantial did exclude all other Modes how Christ might be the Son of God and determin'd the Faith of the Church to that Manneâ— so doth the Sense of Transubstantiation as determin'd by the Council of Trent limit the Manner of the Real Presence to such a Conversion of the Substance of the Elements into the Substance of Christ's Body and Blood as doth imply no Substance to remain after Consecration It is to no purpose to tell us the Council uses only the Word Species and not Accidents for whatever they are called the Council denounces its Anathema against those who hold the Substance to remain after Consecration and denies the Total Conversion of the Substance of the Bread and Wine into the Substance of the Body and Bloud of Christ. If the Substance be not there the Modus is to purpose determin'd And whatever remains call it what you will it is not the Substance and that is sufficient to shew that the Council of Trent hath clearly determin'd the Modus of the Real Presence V. We must distinguish the School Points left undetermin'd by the Council of Trent from those which are made Articles of Faith. We never pretend that it left no School-Disputes about the Points there determin'd but we say it went too far in making some School-Points to be Points of Faith when it had been more for the Peace of Christendom to have left them to the Schools still Thus in the Point of Transubstantiation the elder School-men tell us there were different Ways of explaining the Real Presence And that those which supposed the substance to remain were more agreeable to Reason and Scripture than the other and some were of Opinion that the Modus was no matter of Faith then But after the Point of the Real Presence came to be warmly contested in the time of Berengarius it rose by degrees higher and higher till at last the particular Modus came to be determin'd with an Anathema by the Council of Trent When Berengarius A. D. 1059. was forced to Recant by Nicolaus 2d with the Assistance of 113. Bishops no more was required of him than to hold that the Bread and Wine after Consecration are not only the Sacrament but the true Body and Bloud of Christ and that it is sensibly handled and broke by the Priests hands and eaten by the Communicants Here is no denying the Substance of Bread to remain and Joh. Parisiensis observes that the words cannot be defended but by an Assumption of the Bread for saith he If the Body of Christ be truely and sensibly handled and eaten this cannot be understood of Christ's Glorious Body in Heaven but it must be of the Bread really made the Body of Christ after Consecration The Sense which the Canonists put upon the Words of this Recantation is absurd viz. that they are to be understood of the Species For Berengarius his Opinion related to the Substance of Christ's Body which he denied to be in the Sacrament And what would it have signified for him to have said that Christ was sensibly broken and eaten under the Species of Bread and Wine i. e. that his Body was not sensibly broken and eaten but the Species were It had signified something if he had said there was no Substance of Bread and Wine left but only the Species But all the design of this Recantation was to make him assert the Sacrament to be made the true and real Body of Christ in as strong a manner as the Pope and his Brethren could think of And although the Canonists think if strictly taken it implies greater Heresie than that of Berengarius yet by their favour this Form was only thought fit to be put into the Canon-Law as the Standard of the Faith of the Roman Church then and the following Abjuration of Berengarius was only kept in the Register of Gregory the seventh's Epistles For about twenty years after by Order of Gregory VII Berengarius was brought to another Abjuration but by no means after the same Form with the former For by this he was required to declare that the Bread and Wine are substantially Converted into the true and proper Flesh and Bloud of Christ and after Censecration are the true Body of Christ born of the Virgin and Sacrificed upon the Cross and that sits at the right hand of the Father and the true Bloud of Christ which was shed out of his Side not only as a Sacramental Sign but in propriety of Nature and Reality of Substance This was indeed a pretty bold Assertion of the Substantial Presence And so much the bolder if the Commentary on S. Matthew be Hildebrand's For there he saith the manner of the Conversion is uncertain But as far as I can judge by Substantial Conversion he did not then mean as the Council of Trent doth a total Conversion of one substance into another so as that nothing of the former Substance remains but that there was a Change by Consecration not by making the Body of Christ of the Substance of the Bread but by its passing into that Body of Christ which was born of the Virgin. For upon comparing the two Forms there we shall find lies the main difference Pope Nicolaus went no farther than to the true Body of Christ which it might be as well by Assumption as Conversion Gregory VII went farther and thought it necessary to add that the Change was into the Substance of that Body which was born of the Virgin c. And so this second Form excludes a true Body merely by Assumption and asserts the Change to be into the Substance of Christ's Body in Heaven but it doth not determine that nothing of the Substance of the Elements doth remain For when he puts that kind of Substantial Conversion which leaves nothing but the Accidents and the Body of Christ to be under them which belonged to the Substance of the Elements he declares this matter to be uncertain Which shews that however a Change was owned into the Substance of Christ's Body yet such a total Conversion as is determined by the Council of Trent was not then made an Article of Faith. But from this supposition made by Hildebrand it appears that the Dectrine of Substance and Accidents was then well known and therefore the introducing Aristotle's Philosophy from the Arabians afterwards could make no Alteration in this Matter For the words of Hildebrand are as plain as to the difference of Substance and Accidents as of
Examination of the Lord Cobham A. D. 1412. by the same Arch-Bishop we find that he owned the Real Presence of Christ's Body as firmly as his Accusers but he was condemned for Heresie Because he held the Substance of Bread to remain For the Arch-Bishop declared this to be the Sense of the Church that after Consecration remaineth no material Bread or Wine which were before they being turned into Christ's very Body and Bloud The Original words of the Arch-Bishop as they are in the Register are these The faith and the determination of holy Church touching the blestfull Sacrament of the auter is this that after the Sacramental Words ben said by a Prest in his Masse the material bred that was before is turned into Christ's veray body And the material Wyn that was before is turned into Christ veray blode and so there leweth in the auter no material brede ne material Wyn the wich wer ther byfore the saying of the Sacramental words And the Bishops afterwards stood up and said It is manifest Heresie to say that it is Bread after the Sacramental Words be spoken because it was against the Determination of holy Church But to make all sure not many years after May 4th A. D. 1415. the Council of Constance Session 8. declared the two Propositions before mentioned to be heretical viz. to hold that the Substance doth remain after Consecration and that the Accidents do not remain without a Subject Let any impartial Reader now judge whether it be any fatal Oversight to assert that the Modus of the Real Presence was determin'd by the Council of Trent when there were so many leading Determinations to it which were generally owned and received in the Church of Rome But there were other Disputes remaining in the Schools relating to this Matter which we do not pretend were ever determin'd by the Council of Trent As 1. Whether the Words of Consecration are to be understood in a Speculative or Practical Sense For the Scotists say in the former Sense they do by no means prove Transubstantiation since it may be truly said This is my Body though the Substance of Bread do remain and that they are to be understood in a Practical Sense i. e. for converting the Bread into the Body is not to be deduced ex vi verborum from the mere force of the Words but from the Sense of the Church which hath so understood them Which in plain terms is to say it cannot be proved from Scripture but from the Sense of the Church and so Scotus doth acknowledge but then he adds that we are to judge this to be the Sense of Scripture because the Church hath declared it Which he doth not think was done before the Council of Lateran So that this Council must be believed to have had as Infallible a Spirit in giving this Sense of Scripture as there was in the writing of it since it is not drawn from the Words but added to them On the other side the Thomists insist on the force of the Words themselves for if say they from the Words be infer'd that there is a Real Presence of the Substance of Christ's Body then it follows thence that there is no Substance of the Bread remaining for a Substance cannot be where it was not before but it must either change its place or another must be turned into it as Fire in a House must either be brought thither or some other thing must be turned into Fire but say they the Body of Christ cannot be brought from Heaven thither for then it must leave the place it had there and must pass through all the Bodies between and it is impossible for the same Body to be Locally present in several places and therefore the Body of Christ cannot otherwise be really and substantially present but by the Conversion of the Substance of the Bread into it 2. In what Manner the Body of Christ is made to be present in the Sacrament The Scotists say it is impossible to conceive it otherwise than by bringing it from the place where it already is the Thomists say that is impossible since that Body must be divided from it self by so many other Bodies interposing The former is said to be an adductive Conversion the latter a productive but then here lies another difficulty how there can be a productive Conversion of a thing already in being But my business is not to give an account of these School-Disputes but to shew how different they were from the point of Tranfubslantiation and that both these disputing Parties did agree that the Modus of the Real Presence was defined to be by changing the Substance of the Elements into the Body and Blood of Christ but they still warmly disputed about the Modus of that Modus viz. how a Body already in being could be present in so many places without leaving that Place where it was already And no Man who hath ever look'd into these School Disputes can ever imagine that they disputed about the Truth of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation but only about the manner of explaining it Wherein they do effectually overthrow each others Notions without being able to establish their own as the Elector of Cologn truly observed of their Debates about this matter in the Council of Trent VI. Where the Sense of Words hath been changed by the introducing new Doctrine there the words ought to be understood according to the Doctrine at that time received Of this we have two remarkable Instances in the Council of Trent The first is about Indulgences which that Council in its last Session never went about to define but made use of the old Word and so declares both Scripture and Antiquity for the use of them But there had been a mighty change in the Doctrine about them since the Word was used in the Christian Church No doubt there was a Power in the Church to relax Canonical Penances in extraordinary Cases but what could that signifie when the Canonical Discipline was laid aside and a new Method of dealing with Penitents was taken up and another Trade driven with Respect to Purgatory Pains For here was a new thing carried on under an old Name And that hath been the great Artifice of the Roman Church where it hath evidently gone off from the old Doctrines yet to retain the old Names that the unwary might still think the things were the same because the Names were As in the present Case we deny not the use of Indulgences in the Primitive Church as the Word was used for Relaxations of the Canonical Discipline but we utterly deny it as to the Pains of Purgatory And that this was the Sense then receiv'd in the Church of Rome appears from the Papal Constitutions of Bon face the 8th Clemens the 6th and Leo the 10th But of these more hereafter The other Instance is in the Word Species used by the Council of Trent Sess. 13. Can. 2. where an Anathema is denounced
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
Inquisition after Innocent III. 58. IV. About the Merit of Good Works 59. The Sense of true Merit cleared from the Divines of the Church of Rome ibid. No Catholick Tradition for it proved from ancient Offices 61. From Provincial Councils and eminent Divines in several Ages before the Council of Trent 63. The several steps how the Doctrine of Merit came in 68. V. Of the number of Sacraments 74. An appeal to Tradition for 500. years for Seven Sacraments examin'd and disprov'd 75. As to Chrism 77. As to Drders 80. As to Penance 85. As to Extreme-Unction 92. As to Patrimony 97. The sense of the Greek Church about the Seven Sacraments 102. The Sense of other Eastern Churches 110. When the number of Seven Sacraments came first in 112. The particular occasions of them 116. VI. Of Auricular Confession 117. No Catholick Tradition confessed by their own Writers 118. > The several steps and Occasions of introducing it at large set down 127. The difference between the ancient Discipline and Modern Confession 128. Of voluntary Confession 133. Of the Penitentiaries Office 135. Publick Discipline not taken away at Constantinople when the Penitentiary was removed 136. Proved from S. Chrysostom 140. Publick Penance for publick Sins 142. Private Confession came in upon the decay of the Ancient Discipline 144. THE Council of Trent EXAMINED AND DISPROVED c. THere are Two things designed by me in this Treatise 1. To shew that there is no such thing as universal Tradition for the main Points in Controversie between us and the Church of Rome as they are determined by the Council of Trent 2. To give an Account by what Steps and Degrees and on what Occasion those Doctrines and Practices came into the Church But before I come to particulars I shall lay down some reasonable Postulata 1. That a Catholick Tradition must be universally received among the sound Members of the Catholick Church 2. That the force of Tradition lies in the Certainty of Conveyance of Matters of Faith from the Apostolical Times For no New Doctrines being pretended to there can be no Matter of Faith in any Age of the Church but what was so in the precedent and so up to the Apostles times 3. That it is impossible to suppose the Divines of the Catholick Church to be ignorant what was in their own time received for Catholick Tradition For if it be so hard for others to mistake it it will be much more so for those whose business is to enquire into and to deliver Matters of Faith. These things premised I now enter upon the Points themselves and I begin with I. Traditions being a Rule of Faith equal with Scriptures This is declared by the Council of Trent as the Groundwork of their Proceedings The words are Sess. 4. That the Council receives Traditions both as to Faith and manners either delivered by Christ himself with his own mouth or dictated by the Holy Ghost and preserved in the Catholick Church by a continual Succession with equal Piety of Affection and Reverence as the Proofs of holy Scripture Where the Council first supposes there are such Traditions from Christ and the Holy Ghost distinct from Scripture which relate to Faith and then it declares equal Respect and Veneration due to them No one questions but the Word of Christ and Dictates of the Holy Ghost deserve equal Respect howsoever conveyed to us But the Point is whether there was a Catholick Tradition before this time for an unwritten Word as a Foundation of Faith together with the written Word 1. It is therefore impertinent here to talk of a Tradition before the written Word for our Debate is concerning both being joined together to make a perfect Rule of Faith and yet this is one of the common Pleas on behalf of Tradition 2. It is likewise impertinent to talk of that Tradition whereby we do receive the written Word For the Council first supposes the written Word to be received and embraced as the Word of God before it mentions the unwritten Word and therefore it cannot be understood concerning that Tradition whereby we receive the Scriptures And the Council affirms That the Truth of the Gospel is contained partly in Books that are written and partly in unwritten Traditions By the Truth of the Gospel they cannot mean the Scriptures being the Word of God but that the word was contained partly in Scripture and partly in Tradition and it is therefore impertinent to urge the Tradition for Scripture to prove Tradition to be part of the Rule of Faith as it is here owned by the Council of Trent 3. The Council doth not here speak of a Traditionary sense of Scripture but of a distinct Rule of Faith from the Scripture For of that it speaks afterwards in the Decree about the use of the Scripture where it saith no man ought to interpret Scripture against the Sense of the Church to whom it belongs to judge of the true Sense and Meaning of Scripture nor against the unanimous Consent of the Fathers Whereby it is evident the Council is not to be understood of any Consequences drawn out of Scripture concerning things not expresly contained in it but it clearly means an unwritten Word distinct from the written and not contained in it which together with that makes up a Complete Rule of Faith. This being the true sense of the Council I now shew that there was no Catholick Tradition for it Which I shall prove by these steps 1. From the Proceedings of the Council it self 2. From the Testimony of the Divines of that Church before the Council for several Centuries 3. From the Canon Law received and allowed in the Church of Rome 4. From the ancient Offices used in that Church 5. From the Testimony of the Fathers 1. From the Proceedings of the Council about this matter By the Postulata it appears that the Catholick Tradition is such as must be known by the sound members of the Church and especially of the Divines in it But it appears by the most allowed Histories of that Council this Rule of Faith was not so received there For Cardinal Pallavicini tells us that it was warmly debated and canvassed even by the Bishops themselves The Bishop of Fano Bertanus urged against it that God had not given equal firmness to Tradition as he had done to Scripture since several Traditions had failed But the Bishop of Bitonto Mussus opposed him and said Though all Truths were not to be equally regarded yet every word of God ought and Traditions as well as Scripture were the word of God and the first Principles of Faith and the greater part of the Council followed him It seems then there was a division in the Council about it but how could that be if there were a Catholick Tradition about this Rule of Faith Could the Bishops of the Catholick Church when assembled in Council to determine Matters of Faith be no better agreed about the Rule of Faith and
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
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
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
plainly excludes them out of the Canon Catharinus thinks he follow'd S. Jerom. What then Doth this exclude his contradicting his Predecessours Or was S. Jerom's Judgment above the Pope's But it was not S. Gregory alone who contradicted the former Popes Canon for it was not received either in Italy Spain France Germany or England and yet no doubt it was a very Catholick Tradition Not in Italy for there Cassiodore a learned and devout Man in the next Century to them gives an account of the Canon of Scripture and he takes not any notice either of Innocent or Gelasius He first sets down the Order of Scripture according to S. Jerom and then according to S. Augustin and in the last place according to the old Translation and the LXX and where himself speaks of the Apocryphal Books before he follows S. Jerom 's Opinion that they were written rather for manners than Dactrine He confesses there was a difference about the Canon but he goes about to excuse it But what need that if there were a Catholick Tradition then in the Church concerning it and that inforced by two Popes But it may yet seem stranger that even in Italy one canonized for a Saint by Clemens VII should follow S. Jerom's Opinion in this matter viz. S. Antoninus Bishop of Florence Who speaking of Ecclestasticus received into the Canon of the two Popes he saith it is onely received by the Church to be read and is not authentick to prove any thing in matters of Faith. He that writes Notes upon him saith that he follows S. Jerom and must be understood of the Eastern Church for the Western Church always receiv'd these Books into the Canon But he speaks not one word of the Eastern Church and by the Church he could understand nothing but what he accounted the Catholick Church Canus allows Antoninus to have rejected these Books but he thinks the matter not so clear but then they might doubt concerning it Then there was no such Evidence of Tradition to convince men But Antoninus hath preserved the Judgment of a greater man concerning these Books even Thomas Aquinas who in 2. 2 dae he saith denied these Books to have such authority as to prove any matter of Faith by them which is directly contrary to the Council of Trent If this passage be not now to be found in him we know whom to blame for it If Antoninus saw it there we hope his word may be taken for it In Spain we have for the Hebrew Canon the Testimonies of Paulus Burgensis Tostatus and Cardinal Ximines In France of Victorinus Agobardus Radulphus Flaviacensis Petrus Cluniacensis Hugo de S. Victore and Richard de S. Victore Lyra and others In Germany of Rabanus Maurus Strabus Rupertus Hermannus Contractus and others In England of Bede Alcvin Sarisburiensis Ockam Waldensis and others Whom I barely mention because their Testimonies are at large in Bishop Cosins his Scholastical History of the Canon of Scripture and no man hath yet had the hardiness to undertake that Book These I think are sufficient to shew there was no Catholick Tradition for the Decree of the Council of Trent about the Canon of Scripture I now proceed to shew on what pretences and colours it came in and by what degrees and steps it advanced 1. The first step was the Esteem which some of the Fathers expressed of these Books in quoting of passages out of them We do not deny that the Fathers did frequently cite them even those who expresly rejected them from being Canonical and not as ordinary Books but as such as were usefull to the Church wherein many wise Sayings and good Actions are recorded But the many Quotations the Fathers do make out of them is the onely plausible pretence which those of the Church of Rome have to defend the putting them into the Canon as appears by Bellarmin and others The Book of Tobit they tell us is mentioned by S. Cyprian S. Ambrose St. Basil and St. Augustin Of Judith by St. Jerom who mentions a Tradition that it was allowed in the Council of Nice but certainly S. Jerom never believed it when he declares it to be Apocryphal and not sufficient to prove any matter of Faith. The Book of Wisedom by S. Cyprian S. Cyril and S. Augustin Ecclesiasticus by Clemens Alexandrinus S. Cyprian Epiphanius S. Ambrose and S. Augustin The Machabees by Tertullian Cyprian Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Eusebius S. Ambrose S. Augustin But all these Testimonies onely prove that they thought something in those Books worth alledging but not that they judged the Books themselves Canonical And better Arguments from their Citations might be brought for the Books of the Sibylls than for any of these We are not then to judge of their Opinion of Canonical Books by bare Citations but by their declared Judgments about them 2. The next step was when they came to be read in Churches but about this there was no certain Rule For the Councils of Laodicea and Carthage differed chiefly upon this Point The former decreed That none but Canonical Scripture should be read under the Name of Holy Writings and sets down the names of the Canonical Books then to be read and so leaves out the Apocalypse The latter from their being read inferr'd their being Canonical for it agrees with the other that none but Canonical should be read and because these were read it reckons them up with the Canonical Books for so the Canon concludes We have received from our Fathers that these Books are to be read in Churches But the Council of Carthage was not peremptory in this matter but desired it might be referred to Boniface and other Bishops beyond the Seas Which shews that here was no Decree absolutely made nor any Certainty of Tradition for then to what purpose should they send to other Churches to advise about it 3. When they came to be distinguished from Apocryphal Writings Whence those who do not consider the Reason of it conclude them to have been Canonical But sometimes Apocryphal signified such Books as were not in the Canon of Faith as in the Authours before mentioned sometimes such Books which were not allowed to be used among Christians This distinction we have in Ruffinus who saith there are three sorts of Books Canonical as the 22 of the Old Testament Ecclesiastical of which sort he reckons Wisedom Ecclesiasticus Tobit Judith and Machabees and these he saith were permitted to be read in Churches but no Argument could be brought out of them for matter of Faith Apocryphal are such which by no means were permitted to be read And thus Innocentius his words may well be understood For he concludes with saying that other Writings were not onely to be rejected but to be condemned And so his meaning is to distinguish them from such counterfeit Divine Writings as were then abroad For these were not to be wholly rejected and in that large sense he admits them into the
by several learned Men in the Church of Rome But the Armenians themselves say the whole Bible was translated into the Armenian Language by Moses Grammaticus David and Mampraeus three learned Men of their own in the time of their Patriarch Isaac about S. Chrysostom 's time Theodoret in the place already cited mentions the Armenian Translation as a thing well known and he was near enough to understand the truth of it Jacobus de Vitriaco a Roman Cardinal saith that the Armenians in his time had the Scriptures read to them in their own Language The Syriack Version for the Use of those in the Eastern parts who understood not Hebrew or Greek is allowed by all learned Men to have been very ancient I mean the old simple Version out of the Originals and not that out of the LXX of the Old Testament As to the New the Tradition of the Eastern People is that it was done either in the Apostles times or very near them Abraham Ecchellensis shews from the Syriack Writers that the Compleat Translation of the Bible was made in the time of Abgarus King of Edessa by the means of Thaddaeus and the other Apostles and as to the time of Thaddaeus Gregorius Malatiensis confirms it Postellus quotes an ancient Tradition which my Adversaries ought to regard that S. Mark himself Translated not only his own Gospel but all the Books of the Neâ— Testament into the Vulgar Syriack It is sufficient to my purpose to shew that there was such an ancient Translation which is owned by S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose S. Augustin Diodorus and Theodoret which makes me wonder at Cardinal Bellarmin's affirming with so much confidence that none of the Fathers speak of the Syriack Version when Theodoret alone mentions it so often in his Commentaries Although the Greeks in Egypt might very well understand the Greek of the Old and New Testament especially if that which is called the LXX were done by the Alexandrian Jews as some imagine yet those who knew no other than the old Egyptian Language could not make use of it And therefore a Coptick Translation was made for them which Kircher thinks to have been 1300 years old And he withal observes that their ancient Liturgies were in the Coptick Language That it might not be suspâ—cted that Kircher imposed upon the World he gives a particular account of the Books he had seen in the Vatican Library and elsewhere in the Coptick Tongue The Pentateuch in three Tomes distinguished into Paragraphs by lines The four Gospels by themselves S. Paul's Epistles and three Canonical Epistles with the Acts in another Volume The Apocalypse by it self and the Psalter The Liturgy of S. Mark with other daily Prayers The Liturgy of S. Gregory with the Prayers of S. Cyril in the Coptick Language and a Liturgy of S. Basil with Gregory and Cyril with several other Rituals Missals and Prayers all in the same Tongue All these he saith are in the Vatican Library And in that of the Maronites College he saith is an old Coptick Martyrology about 1300 years standing by which he finds that the chief imployment of the old Egyptian Monks was to translate the Bible out of Hebrew Chaldee and Greek into the Coptick Tongue Morinus saith that in the Oratorian Lbrary at Paris they had the Coptick Gospels brought from Constantinople by Monsr de Sancy Petrus à Valle a Nobleman of Rome and a great Traveller saith he had several parts of Scripture in the Coptick Language which were turned into Arabick when the old Coptick grew into disuse Petraeus had in the Eastern Parts a Coptick Psalter with an Arabick Version which he designed to publish The Congregation de propaganda Fide at Rome had several Coptick MSS. sent to them out of Egypt among the rest the Coptick Book of Ordination Transloatd and Printed by Kircher and since reprinted by Morinus Seguier the late Chancellour of France had in his Library the Consecration of a Patriarch in Coptick and Arabick and several Translations of the Bible and Prayers in both Languages The Aethiopick Translation bears date with the Conversion of the Nation according to their own Tradition which some make to be in the Apostolical times and others in the time of Constantine and their Publick Offices are performed in their own Tongue The Chancellour Seguier had not only many parts of the Bible but Prayers and Offices in the Aethiopick Tongue I shall add but one thing more to this purpose which is taken from the want of Antiquity in the Arabick Versions which is confessed by the learned Criticks on all sides And even this tends to prove my design For when the Saracen Empire prevailed the People grew more acquainted with the Arabick than with the ancient Syriack or Coptick and therefore the Scripture was then translated into Arabick as Vasaeus saith it was done in Spain after the Moors came thither by a Bishop of Sevil and this was the true reason why the Arabick Versions have no greater Antiquity For Gabriel Sionita observes that the Arabick is become the most Vulgar Language in the Eastern Parts And because it was so in Syria as well as Egypt therefore there are different Arabick Versions the one called Codex Antiochenus and the other Alexandrinus Thus I have proved that there was a Catholick Tradition directly contrary to that established by order of the Council of Trent And now I proceed to give an Account of the Methods and Steps by which this Decree came to its ripeness 1. The first Step was the Declension and Corruption of the Latin Tongue in the Western Church It is observed by Polybius that from the time of the first League between the Romans and Carthaginians the Latin Tongue was so much changed even in Rome it self that very few could understand the Words of it And Festus in Latine loqui saith that the Language was so alter'd that scarce any part of it remained entire Scaliger thinks these words were added to Festus by Paulus Diaconus which seems much more probable since he lived in the time of Charlemagn At which time we may easily suppose the Latin Tongue to have been very much corrupted by the Writers and not so easie to be understood any where by the Common People in sudden Discourse as it had been before Which appears evident by the Latin Sermons made to the People in the several Provinces in the Roman Empire as in Africa by S. Augustin and Fulgentius in Italy by Petrus Chrysologus Laurentius Novariensis Gaudentius Brixiensis Ennodius Ticinensis In Spain by Isidore Ildephonsus and others In Gaul by Caesarius Eucherius Eligius and several others whose Latin Sermons to the People are still extant In the Council of Tours in the time of Charlemagn particular care is taken that the Homilies should be translated by their Bishops either into the Rustick Roman or the German that the People might the easier understand
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
Gropperus the supposed Author of the Enchiridion But Gropperus was thought fit to be a Cardinal as well as Bellarmin and certainly knew the Tradition of the Church if there had been any such in this matter The Council of Florence it is plain he thought not to be a sufficient declarer of it No more did Joh. Major who after it denied this Sacrament to consist of Matter and form or that the Acts of the Penitent were the parts of it So did Gabriel Biel who refutes the contrary Opinion and saith Contrition can be no part because it is no sensible sign and satisfaction may be done after it So that he cuts off two parts in three of the Matter of this pretended Sacrament Guido Brianson who lived after the Council of Florence supposes no certain Tradition in the Church about this matter but he sets down both Opinions with their Reasons and prefers that which excludes the Acts of the Penitent from being parts of the Sacrament although the Florentine Council had declared the contrary Durandus rejects two parts in three of those declared by the two Councils and for the same Reasons mentioned by Biel. Ockam absolutely denies all three to be Parts of the Sacrament And so did Scotus before him whose words are remarkable De Poenitentiae Sacramento dico quod illa tria nullo modo sunt partes ejus viz. These three are by no means any part of the Sacrament of Penance and yet the Council of Trent not only declares that they are so but denounces an Anathema against him that denies them to be required as the Matter of the Sacrament of Penance And let any one by this judge what Catholick Tradition it proceeded upon when some of the greatest Divines in the Church of Rome were of another Opinion As to the Form of this Sacrament the Council of Trent denounces an Anathema against thesewho affirm Absolution to be only declarative of the Remission of Sins and yet I shall prove that this was the more current Doctrin even in the Church of Rome up to the Master of the Sentences Gabriel Biel saith the ancient Doctors did commonly follow it but it was supposed by Scotus because it seemed to take off from the efficacy of Absolution and consequently make it no Sacrament which is a cause of Grace But after he hath set down Scotus his Arguments he saith that Opinion were very desirable if it had any Foundation in Scripture or Fathers And to his Arguments he answers that true Contrition obtains Pardon with God before Sacerdotal Absolution but not with the Church and that Contrition supposes a desire of Absolution which will never hold to make Absolution to confer the Grace of Remission if the Sin be really forgiven before For what is the desire of the Penitent to the force of the Sacrament administred by the Priest And he saith they all grant that by true and sufficient Contrition the sin is forgiven without the Sacrament in act i. e. the actual receiving absolution So that here was an universal Tradition as to the Power of Contrition but in the other they had different Opinions Marsilius saith that God forgives sin upon Contrition Authoritatively the Priests Absolution is ministerial in the Court of Conscience and before the Church And those sins which God â—irst absolves from principally and Authentically the Priest afterwards absolves from in right of the Church as its Minister Tostatus saith that the Priests Absolution follows God's Ockam that the Priests then bind and loose when they shew men to be bound or loosed and for this he relies on the Master of the Sentences Thomas de Argentina that the Power of the Keys doth extend to the Remission of the fault which was done before by Contrition but it tends to the Increase of Grace in the Person Gulielmus Antissiodore that Contrition takes away the guilt and punishment of Sin as to God and Conscience but not as to the Church for a man is still bound to undergo the Penance which the Church enjoyns him Bonaventure that Absolution presupposes Grace for no Priest would absolve any one whom he did not presume God had absolved before Alexander Hales that where God doth not begin in Absolution the Priest cannot make it up But the Master of the Sentences himself most fully handles this point and shews from the Fathers that God alone can remit sin both as to the Fault and the Punishment due to it And the Power of the Keys he saith is like the Priests Judgment about Leprosie in the Levitical Law God healed the Person and the Priest declared him healed Or as our Saviour first raised Lazarus then gave him to his Disciples to be loosed He is loosed before God but not in the face of the Church but by the Priests Judgment Another way he saith Priests bind by enjoyning Penance and they loose by remitting it or readmitting Persons to Communion upon performing it This Doctrin of Peter Lombard's is none of those in quibus Magister nontenetur for we see he had followers of great Name almost to the Council of Trent But it happened that both Th. Aquinas and Scotus agreed in opposing this Doctrin and the Franciscans and Dominicans bearing greatest sway in the Debates of the Council of Trent what they agreed in passed for Catholick Tradition And Vasquez is in the right when he saith this Doctrin was condemned by the Council of Trent and so was Scotus when he said that it did derogate from the Sacrament of Penance for in truth it makes it but a nominal Sacrament since it hath no Power of conferring Grace which the Council of Trent makes necessary to a true and proper Sacrament The main Point in this Debate is whether true contrition be required to Absolution or not Which Scotus saw well enough and argues accordingly For none of them deny that where there is true Contrition there is immediately an Absolution before God and if this be required before the Priests Absolution he can have no more to do but to pronounce or declare him absolved But if something less than Contrition do qualifie a Man for Absolution and by that Grace be conveyed then the Power of Absolution hath a great and real Effect for it puts a Man into a State of Grace which he had not been in without it And from hence came the Opinion that Attrition with Absolution was sufficient and they do not understand the Council of Trent's Doctrin of the Sacrament of Penance who deny it as will appear to any one that reads the 4th Chapter of the Sacrament of Penance and compares it with the 7 and 8 Canons about Sacraments in general It is true that Contrition is there said to have the first place in the Acts of the Penitent but observe what follows True Contrition reconciles a Man to God before he receives this Sacrament What hath the Priest then to do but to declare
him reconciled But it saith not without the desire of it Suppose not yet the thing is done upon the desire therefore the Priests Power can be no more than declarative And that such a Desire is so necessary as without Contrition avails not is more than the Council hath proved and it is barely supposed to maintain the Necessity of going to the Priest for Absolution and so it will be no more than a Precept of the Church and not a condition of Remission in the Sacrament of Penance But afterwards it declares that imperfect Contrition or Attrition doth dispose a Man for the Grace of God in this Sacrament and by the general Canons the Sacraments do confer Grace where Men are disposed So that the Council of Trent did rightly comprehend the force of the Power of Absolution which it gave to the Priest in the Sacrament of Penance But what Catholick Tradition could there be for the Doctrin of the Council of Trent in thismatter when Hadrian 6. so little before it declares it was a great difficulty among the Doctors whether the Keys of Priesthood did extend to the Remission of the Fault And for the Negative he produces Pet. Lombard Alex. Alens and Bonaventure and saith that Opinion is probable because the Priests Power of binding and loosing is equal and as they cannot bind where God doth not for they cannot retain the sins of a true Penitent so neither can they loose where God doth not i. e. where there is not true Contrition But because he saith others held the contrary Opinion and had probability on their side too therefore he would determine nothing Notwithstanding this in a few years after the Council of Trent finds no difficulty no Probability in the other Opinion but determines as boldly as if there had been an Universal Tradition their way whereas the contrary cannot be denied by any that are conversant in the Doctrin of their Schools But it was the mighty Privilege of the Council of Trent to make the Doctrins of Thomas and Scotus when they agreed to be Articles of Faith and to denounce Anathema's against Opposers although they reached to some of the greatest Divines of their own Church within Bellarmin's compass of 500 Years Of Extreme Unction We are now to examin another pretended Sacrament viz. of Extreme Unction The Council of Trent declares this to be a true and proper Sacrament and denounces an Anathema against him that denies it to be instituted by Christ and published by St. James or that it confers Grace and Remission of Sins or that affirms it was appointed for bodily Cures It farther declares from the place of St. James interpreted by Tradition that the Matter is Oil consecrated by the Bishop The Form that which is now used Per istam unctionem c. the Effect the Grace of the Holy Ghost in purging away the remainder of Sin and strengthening the Soul and sometimes bodily cures when it is expedient for the Health of the Soul. So that the primary Intention of this Sacrament must respect the Soul otherwise it is granted it could not be a true and proper Sacrament So Suarez saith in this Case If the external Sign be not immediately appointed for a spiritual Effect it cannot prove a true Sacrament of the New Law no not although the bodily cure were designed for the strengthning of Faith. And from hence he proves that when the Apostles are said to anoint the sick and heal them Mark 6. 13. this cannot relate to the Sacrament of Unction because their cures had not of themselves an immediate respect to the Soul. The same Reason is used by Bellarmin Sacramenta per se ad animam pertinent ad corpus per accidens aut certe secundario The same is affirmed by Maldonat although he differs from Bellarmin about the Apostles anointing with Oil which Bellarmin denies to have been Sacramental for this Reason but Maldonat affirms it and answers other Arguments of Bellarmin but not this Gregory de Valentia carries it farther and saith that if the anointing with Oil were only a Symbol of a miraculous Cure it could be no Sacrament for that is a Medium to convey supernatural Grace and then it would last no longer than the Gift of Miracles So that we have no more to do but only to prove that by the Tradition of the Church St. James his anointing was to be understood with respect to bodily cures in the first place We cannot pass over so great a Man as Cajetan who wrote on that place of St. James not long before the Council of Trent and a good while after the Council of Florence which relies on this place for this Sacrament of Unction But Cajetan saith it doth not relate to it because the immediate effect is the cure of the Party in Saint James but in this Sacrament the direct and proper effect is Remission of Sins All that Catharinus hath to say against this is that the bodily cure is not repugnant to it but what is this to the purpose when the Question is what is primarily designed in this place The School Divines from Peter Lombard had generally received this for a Sacrament but the Canonists denied it as appears by the Gloss on c. Vir autem de Secund Nuptiis Decret Gregor Tit. 21. where it is said that this Unction might be repeated being no Sacrament but only Prayer over a Person The Roman Correctors cry out it is Heresie by the Council of Trent but the Glosser knew no such thing and if it were so only by the Council of Trent then not by any Catholick Tradition before For I suppose matter of Heresie must reach to the Canonists as well as the Divines But the plainest determination of this matter will be by the ancient Offices of the Church for if they respected bodily Cures in the first place then it is owned there could be no Tradition for any Sacrament in this Unction In the ancient Ordo Romanus it is called Benedictio Olei ad omnem Languorem quocunque tempore I desire to know whether the Oil so consecrated be chiefly designed for the Body or the Soul. And in the Office it self this place of St. James is mentioned And then follows Te Domine peritissimum Medicum imploramus ut virtutis tuae Medicinam in hoc Oleum propitius infundas And a little after Prosit Pater Misericordiarum febribus dysenteria laborantibus prosit paralyticis caecis claudis simulque vexatitiis with abundance more which manifestly shews that this consecrated Oil was intended primarily for the cure of Diseases In the Ambrosian Form the Prayer is Infunde sanctificationem tuam huic Oleo ut ab his quae unxerit membra fugatis insidiis adversariae potestatis susceptione praesentis Olei Sancti Spiritus Gratia salutaris debilitatem expellat plenam conferat sospitatem Where the effect relates to the soundness of the Members anointed and
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
their own as the more probable Opinion But saith he after the Decree of Eugenius and the Council of Trent it is heretical Gregory de Valentia saith the same thing only he adds that the Master of the Sentences contradicts himself So certain a deliverer was he of the Churches Tradition and wonders that Soto should not find it plainly enough in the Councils of Florence and Trent that a true Sacrament must confer Grace Maldonat yields that Durandus and the Canonists denied Matrimony to be a proper Sacrament but he calls them Catholicks imprudently erring Bellaâ—min denies it not but uses a disingenuous shift about Durandus and would bring it to a Logical Nicity whereas 〈◊〉 very Arguments he pretends to answer shâ—w plâ—â—â—â—y that he denied this to be a true and proper Sacrament But he offers something considerable about the Canonists if it will hold 1. That they were but a few and for this he quotes Navarr that the common Opinion was against them for which he mentions the Rubrick de Spons but I can find nothing like it through the whole Title and it is not at all probable that such Men as Hostiensis and the Glosser should be ignorant of or oppose the common Opinion Hostiensis saith plainly that Grace is not conferr'd by Matrimony and never once mentions any Opinion among them against it and the Glosser upon Gratian affirms it several times Caus. 32. q. 2 c. Honorantur In hoc Sacramento non confertur Gratia Spiritus Sancti sicut in aliis The Roman Correctors could not bear this and say in the Margin immo confert this is plain contradicting but how is it proved from the Canon Law They refer to Dist. 23. c. his igitur v. pro beneficiis Thither upon their Authority I go and there I find the very same thing said and in the same words and it is given as a Reason why Symony cannot be committed in Matrimony as in other Sacraments and in both places we are referr'd to 32 q. 2. c. connubia and to 1. q. 1. c. quicquid invisibilis the former is not very favourable to the Grace of Matrimony and in the latter the Gloss is yet more plain if it be possible Nota Conjugium non esse de his Sacramentis quae consotationem coelestis gratiâ— tribuunt There the Correctors fairly refer us to the Council of Trent which hath decreed the contrary But that is not to our business but whether the Canonists owned this or not And there it follows that other Sacraments do so signifie as to convey this barely signifies So that I think Bellarmin had as good have given up the Canonists as to make so lame a Defence of them 2. He saith we are not to rely on the Canonists for these things but on the Divines But Durandâ— saith the Canonists could not be ignorant of the Doctrin of the Roman Church for some of them were Cardinals and he gives a better Reason viz. that the sense of the Roman Church was to be seen in the Decretals For therefore Marriage was owned to be a Sacrament in the large sense because of the Decret of Lucius III. Extra de haeret c. ad abolendam but the Schoolmen argued from Probabilities and Niceties in this matter which could not satisfie a Man's understanding as appears by Durandus his Arguments and Bellarmin's Answers to them 1. Where Sacraments confer Grace there must be a Divine Institution of something above Natural Reason but there is nothing of that kind in Matrimony besides the signifying the Union between Christ and his Church and therefore it is only a Sacrament in a large and not in a proper sense In answer to this Bellarmin saith that it both signifies and causes such a Love between Man and Wife as there is between Christ and his Church But Vasquez saith that the Resemblance as to Christ and his Church in Matrimony doth not at all prove a promise of Grace made to it And Basilius Pontius approves of what Vasquez saith and confesses that it cannot be infer'd from hence that it is a true and proper Sacrament 2. Here is nothing External added besides the mere Contract of the Persons but the nature of a Sacrament impliâ—s some external and visible sign Bellarmin answers that it is not necessary there should be in this Sacrament any such extrinsecal sign because it lies in a mere Contract And that I think holds on the other side that a mere Contract cannot be a Sacrament from their own Definition of a Sacrament 3. The Marriage of Infidels was good and valid and their Baptism adds nothing to it but it was no Sacrament before and therefore not after Bellarmin answers that it becomes a Sacrament after And so there is a Sacrament without either Matter or Form for there is no new Marriage 4. Marriage was instituted in the time of Innocency and is a natural Dictate of Reason and therefore no Sacrament Bellarmin answers that it was no Sacrament then because there was no need of Sacramental Grace And although the Marriage of Adam and Eve did represent the Union between Christ and his Church yet it was no proper Sacrament But how doth it prove that it is a Sacrament upon any other Account under the Gospel And if that doth not imply a promise of Grace then how can it now So that Durandus his Reasons appear much stronger than Bellarmin's Answers But Durandus urges one thing more which Bellarmin takes no notice of viz. that this Opinion of the Canonists was very well known at that time and was never condemned as contrary to any determination of the Church Now if there had been any constant Tradition even of the Church of Rome against it it is impossible these Canonists should have avoided Censure their Opinion being so much taken notice of by the Schoolmen afterwards Jacobus Almain saith it was a Controversie between the Canonists and Divines whether Matrimony was a Sacramâ—nt not all the Divines neither for the confesses Durandus and others seemed to agree with them What Universal Tradition then had the Council of Trent to rely upon in this matter When all the Canoâ—ists according to Almain and some of the Divines opposed it He sets down their different Reasons but never alledges matter of Faith or Tradition against them but only saith the Divines hold the other Opinion because Matrimony is one of the Seven Sacraments But on what was the Opinion of the Necessity of Seven Sacraments grounded What Scripture what Fathers what Tradition was there before Peter Lombard for just that number The Sense of the Greek Church about Seven Sacraments But before I come to that it is fit to take notice of what Bellarmin lays great weight upon both as to the Number of the Sacraments in general and this in particular which is the consent of both the Greek and Latin Church for at least 500 Years But I have shewed there was no
such Consent as is boasted of even in the Latin Church As to the Greek Church he saith it is an argument of Universal Tradition when they had the same Tradition even in their Schism To this I Answer 1. We do not deny that the latter Greeks after the taking Constantinople by the Latins did hold Seven Mysteries which the Latins render Sacraments For after there were Latin Patriarchs at Constantinople and abundance of Latin Priests in the Eastern Parts they had perpetual Disputes about Religion and the Latins by degrees did gain upon them in some points and particularly in this of Seven Sacraments for the Latins thought it an advantage to their Church to boast of such a Number of Sacraments and the Greeks that they might not seem to come behind them were willing to embrace the same Number The first Person among them who is said to have written about them was Simeon Bishop of Thessalonica whom Possevin sets at a greater distance that the Tradition might seem so much elder among them for he makes him to have lived 600 years before his time but Leo Allatius hath evidently proved that he lived not two hundred years before him which is a considerable difference for Simeon dyed but six months before the taking of Thessalonica A. D. 1430 as he proves from Joh. Anagnosta who was present at the taking it From hence it appers how very late this Tradition came into the Greek Church After him Gabriel Severus Bishop of Philadelphia wrote about the Seven Sacraments and he lived at Venice in Arcudius his time who wrote since Possevin and Crusius wrote to this Gabriel A. D. 1580 and he was consecrated by Jeremias A. D. 1577. So that neither his Authority or that of Jeâ—emias can signifie any thing as to the Antiquity of this Tradition among the Greeks Leo Allatius talks of the old as well as Modern Greeks who held Seven Sacraments but he produces the Testimony only of those who lived since the taking of Constantinople as Job the Monk Simeon Johannes Palaeologus Jeremias Gabriel Cyrillus Berrhoensis Parthenius and such like But he very craftily saith he produces these to let us see they have not gone off from the Faith of their Ancestors whereas that is the thing we would have seen viz. the Testimony of the Greeks before and not afterwards As to the ancient Greeks he confesses they say nothing of the number De numero apud eos altum silentium est And how could therebe a Tradition in so much silence But some speak of some and others of others but all speak of all This is a very odd way to prove a Tradition of a certain Number For then some might believe Three others Four others Five but how can this prove that all believed just Seven However let us see the Proof But instead of that he presently starts an Objection from the pretended Dionysius Areopagita viz. That where he designs to treat of all the Sacraments he never mentions Penance Extreme Unction and Matrimony and after a great deal of rambling Discourse he concludes that he did ill to leave them oâ—t and that others Answers are insufficient He shews from Tertullian Ambrose and Cyril that the necessary Sacraments are mentioned but where are the rest and we are now enquiring after them in the ancient Greek Church but they are not to be founâ— As one may confidently affirm when one who professed so much skill in the Greek Church as Leo Allatius hath no more to say for the Proof of it 2. Those Greeks who held Seven Sacraments did not hold them in the Sense of the Council oâ— Trent And that for two Reasons 1. They do not hold them all to be of divine Institution Which appears by the Patriarch Jeremias his Answer to the Tubing Divines who at first seems to write agreeably to the Church of Rome in this matter except about Extreme Unction but being pressed hard by them in their Reply he holds to the Divine Institution of Baptism and the Eucharist but gives up the rest as instituted by the Churches Authority Which is plain giving up the Cause How then comes Bellarmin to insist so much on the Answer of Jeremias The Reason was that Socolovius had procured from Constantinople the Patriarch's first answer and translated and printed it upon which great Triumphs were made of the Patriarch's Consent with the Church of Rome but when these Divines were hereby provoked to publish the whole proceedings those of the Church of Rome were unwilling to be undeceived and so take no notice of any farther Answer Since the time of Jeremias the Patriarch of Alexandria as he was afterwards Metrophanes Critopulus published an Account of the Faith of the Greek Church and he saith expresly of Four of the Seven that they are Mystical Rites and equivocally called Sacraments And from hence it appears how little Reason Leo Allatius had to be angry with Caucus a Latinized Greek like himself for affirming that the modern Greeks did not look on these Sacraments as of Divine Institution but after he hath given him some hard words he offers to prove his Assertion for him To which end he not only quotes that passage of the Patriarch Jeremias but others of Job and Gregorius from whence he infers that Five of the Sacraments were of Ecclesiastical Institution and he saith nothing to take it off So admirably hath he proved the Consent of the Eastern and Western Churches 2. They do not agree in the Matter or Form or some essential part of them with the Council of Trent and therefore can make up no Tradition for the Doctrin of that Council about the Seven Sacraments This will be made appear by going through them 1. Of Chrism 1. As to the Form Arcudius shews that Gabriel of Philadelphia Cabasilas and Marcus Ephesius all place the Form in the Consecration of it but the Church of Rome makes the Form to lie in the Words spoken in the Use of it 2. As to the Minister of it Among the Greeks it is commonly performed by the Presbyter though the Bishop be present but the Council of Trâ—nt denounces an Anathema against him that saith the Bishop alone is not the ordinary Minister of it 3. As to the Character The Council of Trent declares that whosoever affirms that Confirmation doth not imprint an indelible Character so as it cannot be repeated is Anathematized but Arcudius shews at large that the modern Greeks make no scruple of reiterating Confirmation But Catumsyritus another Latinized Greek opposes Arcudius herein and saith that the Use of Chrism among the Geeeks doth not relate to the Sacrament of Confirmation but was a Symbolical Ceremony relating to Baptism and for this he quotes one Corydaleus a Man of great Note in the Patriarchal Church at Constantinople Therefore Caucus had reason to deny that the Greeks receive that which the Latins call the Sacrament of Confirmation And
if this hold then the Tradition of the Seven Sacraments must fail in the Greek Church For they deny that they have any such thing as a Sacrament of Confirmation distinct from Baptism 2. Of the Sacrament of Penance 1. The Council of Trent declares Absolution of the Penitent to be a judicial Act and denounces an Anathema against him that denies it but the Greek Church uses a deprecative Form as they call it not pronouncing Absolution by way of Sentence but by way of Prayer to God. Which as Aquinas observes rather shews a Person to be absolved by God than by the Priest and are rather a Prayer that it may be done than a signification that it is done and therefore he looks on such Forms as insufficient And if it be a judicial Sentence as the Council of Trent determines it can hardly be reconciled to such a Form wherein no kind of judicial Sentence was ever pronounced as Arcudius grants and in Extreme Unction where such a Form is allowed there is as he observes no Judicial Act. But he hopes at last to bring the Greeks off by a Phrase used in some of their Forms I have you absolved but he confesses it is not in their Publick Offices and their Priests for the most part use it not Which shews it to be an Innovation among the Latinizing Greeks if it be so observed which Catumsyritus denies and saith he proves it only from some Forms granted by Patents which are not Sacramental and supposing it otherwise he saith it is foolish false and erroneous to suppose such a Form to be valid because it is no Judicial Act. 2. The Council of Trent makes Confession of all Mortal Sins how secret soever to be necessary in order to the benefit of Priestly Absolution in this Sacrament and denounces an Anathema against those that deny it but the Greek Church grants Absolution upon supposition that they have not confessed all Mortal Sins As appears by the Form of the Patriarch of Antioch produced by Arcudius and another Form of the Patriarch of Constantinople in Jeremias his Answer Arcudius is hard put to it when to excuse this he saith they only pray to God to forgive them for this is to own that a deprecative Form is insufficient and so that there is no Sacrament of Penance in the Greek Church 3. Of Orders The Greek and Latin Churches differ both as to Matter and Form. The Council of Trent Anathematiseth those who deny a visible and exeternal Priesthood in the New Testament or a Power of consecrating and offering the true Body and Bloud of Christ and of remitting and retaining of Sins And this two-fold Power the Church of Rome expresses by a double Form one of delivering the Vessels with Accipe Potestatem c. the other of Imposition of Hands with Accipe Spiritum Sanctum But the Greek Church wholly omits the former on which the greatest weight is laid in the Latin Church and many think the Essential Form lies in it When the Office of Ordination is over the Book of the Liturgy called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is delivered to the Presbyter but without any words and there is no mention of it in their Rituals either Printed or MSS. so likewise a parcel of consecrated Bread is delivered by the Bishop to him afterwards And all the Form is The Divine Grace advances such an one to the Office of a Presbyter If we compare this with the Form in the Council of Florence we shall find no agreement either as to Matter or Form in this Sacrament between the Greek and Latin Churches For there the Matter is said to be that by which the Order is conferred viz. the delivery of the Chalice with Wine and the Paten with the Bread and the Form Receive the Power of offering Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead And it is hardly possible to suppose these two Churches should go upon the same Tradition I know what pains Arcudius hath taken to reconcile them but as long as the Decree of Eugenius stands and is received in the Church of Rome it is impossible And Catumsyritus labours hard to prove that he hath endeavoured thereby to overthrow the whole Order of Priesthood in the Roman Church 4. Of Extreme Unction Bellarmin particularly appeals to the Greek Church for its consent as to this Sacrament but if he means in the modern sense as it is deliver'd by the Councils of Florence and Trent he is extremely mistaken 1. For the former saith it is not to be given but to such of whose death they are afraid and the Council of Trent calls it the Sacrament of dying Persons But the Greeks administer their Sacrament of Unction to Persons in health as well as sickness and once a year to all the People that will which Arcudius saith is not only done by the illiterate Priests but by their Patriarchs and Metropolitans c. and they look on then as a Supplement to the ancient Penance of the Church for they think the partaking of the holy Oil makes amends for that but this Arcudius condemns as an abuse and innovation among them But the original Intention and Design of it was for the Cure and Recovery of sick Persons as Arcudius confesses the whole scope of the Office shews and in the next Chapter he produces the Prayers to that end And the Greeks charge the Latins with Innovation in giving this Sacrament to those Persons of whose Recovery they have no hope 2. The Council of Trent requires that the Oil of Extreme Unction be consecrated by a Bishop and this the Doctors of the Roman Church saith Catumsyritus make essential to the Sacrament But in the Greek Church the Presbyters commonly do it as Arcudius shews at large 5. Of Matrimony The Council of Trent from making this a Sacrament denounces an Anathema against those who do not hold the Bond indissoluble even in the Case of Adultery And Bellarmin urges this as his first Reason because it is a sign of the Conjunction of Christ with his Church But the Greek Church held the contrary and continues so to do as both Bellarmin and Arcudius confess So that though there be allow'd a consent in the Number of Sacraments among the Modern Greeks yet they have not an entire Consent with the Roman Church in any one of them The Sense of other Eastern Churches about the Seven Sacraments But to shew how late this Tradition of Seven Sacraments came into the Greek Church and how far it is from being an Universal Tradition I shall now make it appear that this Number of Sacraments was never received in the other Christian Churches although some of them were originally descended from the Ancient Greek Church I begin with the most Eastern Churches called the Christians of St. Thomas in the East-Indies And we have a clear Proof that there was no Tradition among them about the Seven Sacraments
Of those who denied it to be of Divine Right but held it to be useful in the Church and for this he quotes Rhenanus and Erasmus 2. Of those who make it to be onely of Ecclesiastical Institution and this saith he is the Opinion of all the Canonists 3. Of those who thought it came in by Apostolical Tradition of which he reckons Theodore Archbishop of Canterbury 4. Of some Divines who held it to be instituted only by St. James 5. Of others who held it to be of Divine Right and not instituted by the Apostles but insinuated by Christ and for this he quotes Alexander Hales and Bonaventure 6. Of some who thought it instituted in the Old Testament 7 Of those who held it instituted by Christ but not as a Precept but by way of Council and for this he mentions Scotus and his Followers Vasquez reckons up among those whose Opinions are not condemned The Canonists Erasmus Bonaventure Alexander Hales and Scotus who all differed from the Council of Trent Suarez mentions three Opinions among them 1. Of those who said it was instituted in the Law of Nature 2. Of those who attributed it to the Law of Moses 3 Of those who dâ—nyed any Institution of it by way of Precept from Christ in the Law of Grace and for this he quotes Hugo de Sancto Victore Alexandèr Hales and Bonaventure and they went upon this Ground that no such Institution could be proved either by Scripture or Tradition Gregory de Valentia Confesses some Catholick Authors denied the Divine Institution of Confession for which he produces the Canonists and Erasmus and Rhenanus But he thinks they were not guilty of Heresie because they were not obstinate but that is not our business which is to shew that by their own confession there was not a constant Catholick Tradition in the Church about it Natalis Alexander who hath lately pretended to answer Daillè confesses that from the ninth to the thirteenth Age many Catholicks did hold that Confession to God alone was sufficient to obtain Remission of sins and he proves it from Lombard Gratian and the Canonists But he saith it was no heresie in them the point not being yet settled by a general Council Boileau in his Answer to Daillè cannot deny that in the time of Lombard and Gratian men held several ways about this matter but he answers with Thomas upon the Sentences that it was an opinion then but since the Council of Lateran it is become a Heresie But if it were no heretical Opinion then what becomes of Infallible Tradition If the Church defines by Tradition that Tradition must be proved before the Definition otherwise it hath no ground to proceed upon The Council of Lateran under Innocent III. it seems made it a Heresie to deny this Sacramental Confession Within much less than a Century before it lived Peter Lombard and Gratian. Peter Lombard made it his business to collect a Body of Divinity out of the Sentences of the Fathers and his work hath been universally esteemed in the Roman Church When he comes to state this point of Confession out of the Fathers i. e. to give an account of the Tradition of the Church about it he tells us in the beginning that learned men were of different opinions and for what reason because the Doctors of the Church seemed to deliver not only divers but contrary things i. e. they had no certain and constant Tradition about them And when he comes to the point of Confession to God only he quotes for it besides Scripture S. Ambrose and S. Chrysostem and Prosper and against it S. Augustine and Leo and concludes himself for the latter but saith not a word more to shew that the constant Tradition of the Church had been for this opinion Gratian puts the same Question and for Confession to God alone he quotes S. Ambrose S. Augustine and Prosper besides Scripture and argues largely for it after c. Convertimini c. Then he sets down the Arguments on the other side from c. 38. and after c. 60. he sums up the force of them and again after c. 87. and when he hath said all on one side and on the other he concludes after c. 89. that he left all to the Readers Judgment for both Opinions had wise and pious Defenders and produces that saying as out of Theodore's Penitential that some think that we ought to confess only to God as the Greeks others that we ought to do it to the Priest too as almost all the Church besides but then he adds that Confession to God purges away Sin but that to the Priest shews how they are purged i. e. by Contrition So the Gloss interprets it Bellarmin thinks that ut Groeci was foisted into the Canon and I shall not dispute against it provided that which answers to it ut tota ferè sancta Ecclesta be allowed to be so too as the Roman Correctors do confess Boileau hath taken another course for he saith this whole Distinction is without ground attributed to Gratian but how doth he prove it From Ant. Augustinus his Dialogue where a MS. is cited that this was not Gratian's but an elder Author 's And what is gotten by this But the other answers it must be Gratian 's because of the citation out of the Digests and other Books of Civil Law then lately found If this will not do he saith Gratian hath many Errours as the Roman Correctors observe Yes truly do they and about this Point several times for the Councils of Lateran and Trent have otherwise determined But what is all this to the Tradition of the Church in Gratian's time Innocent III. in the Council of Lateran enjoyns strictly the Practice of Confession once a year under the Penalty of Excommunication and of being deprived of Christian Burial but there is not a Word of the Churches Tradition before for the Ground of it But finding several Opinions about it and the Waldenses then opposing it he resolves by his Authority to bind all Persons to it But after this the Canonists allowed no more than Ecclesiastical Institution for it as is plain by the Gloss on the Canon Law Dist. 5. de Poenit. Tit. In Poenitentia but the Roman Correctours quote against it Council Trident. Sess. 14. c. 5. i. e. a Council some 100 years after must tell what the Tradition then was but the Gloss saith the Greeks had no such Tradition and therefore were not bound to Confession So that we have no evidence for any Catholick Tradition in this matter before the Lateran Council 2. But the Council of Trent hath gone beyond the Council of Lateran and hath fixed the Divine Right of Confession on John 20. Whose sins ye remit c. and therefore I am now to shew by the Confession of their own Writers that this hath not been the Traditionary Sense of this Place Cajetan not long before the Council first sate
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
before Satisfaction and although some have complained of this as a great abuse yet they have been sharply answer'd that it is to call in question the Conduct of the Church for five hundred years and they may as well question many other things which depend upon the Authority of the Present Church 3. The Obligation to Confession is very different from what it was in the ancient Exomologesis Now by the Doctrine of the Church of Rome a person looks on himself as bound in Conscience to confess every Mortal sin but in the Ancient Church none can imagine that persons were bound to undergo the Exomologesis for every mortal sin there being no Penitential Canons which did ever require it but they had respect to some particular sins and the Penance was proportion'd to them We ought to take notice of two things with respect to the Discipline of the Ancient Church which will shew the different notion it had of these things from what is now current in the Church of Rome 1. That it did not exclude those from all hopes of Salvation whom it excluded from Penance as may be seen in the Illiberitan Council where many are wholly shut out from the Church whom we cannot think they thought uncapable of Salvation From whence it follows that they did not look on Confession and Absolution as a necessary condition of Salvation but now in the Church of Rome they allow Confession to all because they think they cannot otherwise be in a state of Salvation in an ordinary way But in the Ancient Church they could not look on the desire of Confession as necessary for to what purpose should they make that necessary when they denyed the thing But in the Church of Rome they make the desire necessary because they hold the thing it self to be so if there be means to have it 2. That the Penitential Canons never extended in the Primitive Church to all those sins which the Church of Rome now accounts Mortal and therefore necessary to be confessed The Council of Trent saith expresly they must confess omnia singula peccata mortalia etiam occulta and an Anathema is denounced against him that denies it to be necessary to Remission of them Now if we consider their notion of mortal sins we shall easily discern the vast difference between the Obligation to Confession by the Council of Trent and by the old Penitential Canons For mortal sins are not only all Voluntary Acts committed against the known Laws of God but against the Laws of the Church and even venial sins may become mortal by the Disposition of the Person and by other circumstances which the Casuists set down at large now the Council of Trent doth expresly oblige men not only to relate the Acts themselves but all Circumstances which change the kind of Sin. And this is a racking the Consciences of Men far beyond whatever we find in the old Penitential Canons for Petavius confesses that many sins now accounted mortal had no Penance appointed for them by the old Canons and therefore I need not take any pains to prove it If any one hath a mind to be satisfied he may see it in Gregory Nyssen's Canonical Epistle where he owns that several of those sins for which the Scripture excludes from the Kingdom of Heaven have no Canonical Penance prescribed them by the ancient Canons of the Church Which shews a mighty difference from the Rule of the Council of Trent The most plausible place in Antiquity brought for all mortal sin is that of S. Cyprian where he saith that some confessed their very thoughts though they had not proceeded to actual sin It is true that he doth speak of some such but was it for sins of thought against the tenth Command No but it is very plain that he speaks of that sin which was thought to imply a renouncing Christianity and S Cyprian elsewhere calls summum delictum and the Sin agâ—inst the Holy Ghost viz. consenting to any Act of gentile Idolatry and yet Saint Cyprian had much ado to perswade those who were actually guilty to submit to due Penance for it but they obtained Tickets from the Confessors and were admitted to communion without undergoing the Discipline of the Church the consequence whereof would be that the Discipline would be lost and the Church over-run with Apostates this makes S. Cyprian plead hard against such practices and among other arguments he uses this of the great tenderness of some who because they had entertained such thoughts of doing as others did for their own safety they offered to unburthen their Consciences before them and desired remedy for small Wounds how much more ought they to confess their faults whose wounds are greater This is the whole force of his reasoning where the Thought and Act relate to the same sin and that said to be no less than denying Christ and sinning against the Holy Ghost But there is no parity in the case of other sins which even S. Cyprian calls minora delicta being against men immediately and there is no intimation in him that ever the thoughts of those sins were discovered or that Persons were under any obligation by the Rules of the Church to do it 2. Private Offenders were sometimes advised in those first Ages for the ease of their Consciences to make Confession of their sins of which we see an instance as to the Practice in one Case in S. Cyprian's time And Tertullian compares such Persons who avoid it to those who have such secret Ulcers that they chuse rather to perish than to discover them Now in Cases of this nature he advises to Confession and publick penitential Acts that so they may in the Judgment of the Church have the secret Wounds of their Consciences healed And this is that which Origen doth advise to in such Cases to seek out a wise spiritual Physician and to make known his inward distemper to him and to follow his advice and direction as to the Method of Cure. Now this we never oppose but the only Question is whether it be necessary for all Persons and for every Mortal Sin to make Confession of it to the Priest that it may be forgiven and Origen never once supposes this for he mentions several other ways for the Remission of Sins after Baptism by Martyrdom by Alms by forgiving and converting others by great Love to God and in the last place he brings in this of a Laborious Penance and Confession Either the former ways are sufficient without this or not if they are then this is not necessary to the Remission of all mortal Sins if not to what purpose doth he mention so many ways when this one is sufficient without them and all those are insufficient without this For Boileau confesses that no mortal sins according to them can be remitted where there is not at least the desire of this But Origen shews the different ways of
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
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