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
as to this Point And no one upon all Occasions speaks more expresly than he doth as to the Sufficiency of Scripture for a Rule of Faith and he was too great and too wise a Man to contradict himself 2. That there were different forms of speech used in the Church concerning the Holy Ghost some taken out of Scripture and others received by Tradition from the Fathers When he proves the Divinity of the Holy Ghost he appeals to Scripture and declares that he would neither think nor speak otherwise than he found there But it was objected that the Form S. Basil used was not found in Scripture he answers that the equivalent is there found and that there were some things received by Tradition which had the same force towards Piety And if we take away all unwritten Customs we shall doe wrong to the Gospel and leave a bare name to the Publick Preaching And from thence he insists on some Traditionary Rites as the Sign of the Cross Praying towards the East c. His business is to shew that to the greater solemnity of Christian Worship several Customs were observed in the Church which are not to be found in Scripture And if other ancient Customs were received which are not commanded in Scripture he sees no Reason that they should find such fault with this And this is the whole force of S. Basil's Reasoning which can never be stretched to the setting up Tradition as a Rule of Faith distinct from Scripture Having thus shewed that there was no Catholick Tradition for this New Rule of Faith I am now to give an Account how it came into the Church The first Step that was made towards it was by the second Council of Nice For although the Emperour in the Synodical Epistle proposed to them the true ancient Mehod of judging in Councils By the Books of Scripture placed on a Throne in the middle of the Council yet they found they could by no means doe their business that Way and therefore as Bellarmin observes they set up Tradition in the 6th and 7th Sessions and pronounced Anathema's against those who rejected unwritten Traditions But although there were then almost as little pretence for Tradition as Scripture in the matter of Images yet there having been a practice among them to set up and to worship Images which Richerius thinks came first into the Church from the Reverence shewed to the Emperours Statues they thought this the securest way to advance that which they could never defend by Scripture But this prevailed very little in the Western Church as is well known by the rejection of that Synod however Pope Hadrian joined with them and produced a wretched Tradition about Sylvester and Constantine to justifie their Proceedings as appears by the Acts of that Council And from the time that Images were received at Rome the force of Tradition was magnified and by degrees it came to be made use of to justifie other Practices for which they had nothing else to plead Hitherto Tradition was made use of for matters of Practice and the Scripture was generally received as the Rule of Faith but some of the Schoolmen found it impossible to defend some Doctrines held in the Church of Rome by mere Scripture and therefore they were forced to call in the Help of Tradition The most remarkable of these was Scotus who although in his Prologue he asserted as is said already that the Scripture did sufficiently contain all things necessary to salvation yet when he came to particular Points he found Scripture alone would never doe their business And especially as to the Sacraments of the Church about which he saw the Church of Rome then held many things which could never be proved from thence And this was the true occasion of Traditions being taken in for a partial Rule For after the Council of Lateran had declared several things to be of Faith which were in no former Creeds as Scotus confesses and they were bound to defend them as Points of Faith the Men of Wit and Subtilty such as Scotus was were very hard put to it to find out ways to prove those to have been old Points of Faith which they knew to be very new Then they betook themselves to two things which would serve for a colour to blind the common People and those were 1. That it was true these things were not in Scripture but Christ said to his Disciples I have many things to say unto you c. and among those many things they were to believe these new Doctrines to be some 2. When this would not serve then they told them though these Doctrines were not explicitly in Scripture yet they were implicitly there and the Church had authority to fetch them out of those dark places and to set them in a better light And thus Scotus helped himself out in that dark Point of Transubstantiation First he attempts to make it out by Tradition but finding that would not doe the business effectually he runs to the Authority of the Church especially in the business of Sacraments and we are to suppose saith he that the Church doth expound the Scripture with the same Spirit which indited them This was a brave Supposition indeed but he offers no proof of it If we allow Scotus to have been the Introducer of Tradition as to some Points of Faith yet I have made it appear that his Doctrine was not received in the Schools But after the Council of Constance had declared several Propositions to be Heretical which could not be condemned by Scripture there was found a Necessity of holding that there were Catholick Truths not contained in Scripture The first Proposition there condemned was That the Substance of Bread and Wine remain in the Sacrament of the Altar the second That the Accidents do not remain without their Subject Now how could such as these be condemned by Scripture But although onely some were said to be Heretical yet all were said to be against Catholick Truth But where is this Catholick Truth to be found Cardinal Cusanus thought of a current sense of Scripture according to the Churches Occasions so that though the Churches Practice should be directly contrary yet the Scripture was to be understood as the Church practised This was a very plain and effectual way if it had not been too gross and therefore it was thought much better by Cardinal Turrecremata to found Catholick Verities on unwritten Tradition as well as on Scripture After this Leo X. in his famous Bull against Luther Exurge Domine made a farther step for 22 Proposition condemned therein is That it is certain that it is not in the power of the Church or Pope to appoint new Articles of Faith. It seems then the Pope or Church have a Power to constitute new Articles of Faith and then neither Scripture nor Tradition can be the certain Rule of Faith but the Present Church or Pope
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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