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
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
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
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
any of the School-men and that the Accidents of the Bread and Wine might be separated from the Substance of them but this was not then made a Matter of Faith as it was afterwards But the case was remarkably alter'd after the Lateran Council under Innocent III. For Transubstantiation being admitted there among the Articles of Faith and so entred in the Canon-Law in the very beginning of the Decretals this did not merely become a School-Term but by the Inquisitors of that time it was accounted Heresie to deny it It may be sufficiently proved by the School-men and Canonists that a difference of Opinions as to the Modus did still continue but that belongs to a more proper place and Joh. Parisiensis declares p. 103 that the Lateran Council in his Opinion did not make Transubstantiation a Point of Faith or at least that Substance was not to be taken for the Matter but the Suppositum but the Inquisitors went more briskly to work and made it downright â—â—â—â—esie to assert that the Substance of the Elements did remain after Consecration Of this we have full Evidence in the Register of Courtney Arch-Bishop of Canterbury which is no Invisible Manuscript For there we read f. 25. that he called a select Convecation of Bishops Divines and Canonists May 17. A. D. 1382. to declare some Propositions to be Heretical and sâ—me to be Erroneous and contrary to the determination of the Church Among the first these two are set down in the first Place 1. That the material Substance of the Bread and Wine doth remain in the Sacrament of the Altar after Consecration 2. That the Accidents do not remain without their Subject in that Sacrament after Consecration After this the Arch-Bishop sent forth his Mandate to all his Suffragans not only to prohibit the preaching of that Doctrine but to inquire after those who did it And June 12. Robert Rygge Chancellour of Oxford and Thomas Brightwall appeared before him and were examined upon these Propositions which they declared to be Heretical who thereupon required the Publication of them as such in the University and the proceeding against those who were suspected to favour them The Ground the Arch-Bishop went upon was that these had been already condemned by the Church and therefore ex abundanti they declared them to be so condemned as appears by the Monition given to Robert Rygge himself as too much suspected to favour the contrary Doctrine as well as Nicholas Hereford Philip Reppyndon D. D. and John Ashton B. D. Against these the Arch-Bishop proceeded as Inquisitor Haereticae Pravitatis per totam suam Provinciam as it is in the Record who appearing desired a Copy of the several Propositions and then they were required to give in their judgment upon them Ashton refused but the other promised which they performed soon after and to these two Propositions their Answers were To the first that as far as it was contrary to the Decretal Firmiter Credimus it was Heresie To the second that as far as it was contrary to the Decretal Cum Marthoe it was Heresie These Answers were judged insufficient because they did not declare what that Sense was And the Arch-Bishop put this Question to them whether the same Numerical material Bread which before Consecration was set upon the Altar did remain in its proper Substance and Nature after Consecration but they would give no other Answer at that time But afterwards Reppyndon abjured and was made Bishop of Lincoln From hence it appears that it was then thought that the Modus was so far determin'd by the Lateran Council that the contrary Doctrine was declared not merely Erroneous in Faith but Heretical In the first Convocation held by Th. Arundel Arch-Bishop of Canterbury A. D. 1396 A Complaint was brought that several Divines and others of the University of Oxford held some heretical and erroneous opinions the first whereof was That the Substance of Bread doth remain after Confecration and doth not cease to be Bread which is there affirmed to be Heresie speaking of material Bread. The second that the Court of Rome in the Can. Ego Berengarius had determined that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is naturally true Bread. It is very hard to say how this came to be then accounted Heretical Doctrine when no less a man than Durandus in the same Age affirms that the Canonists grant that the Opinion of the ceasing of the Substance was grounded on the Can. Firmiter Credimus i. e. on the Lateran Council but that of the remaining of the Substance on that Ego Berengarius But however it passed for Heretical or at least very Erroneous Doctrine here but the main Heresie was to hold that the Substance remained For A. D. 1400. as appears by the Register p. 2. f. 179. William Sawtre alias Chatris a Parochial Priest in London was summoned before the same Arch-Bishop in Convocation upon an Information of Heresie and one of the main Articles against him was that he held the Substance of the Bread to remain in the Sacrament of the Altar after Consecration and that it doth not cease to be Bread. Sawtre answered that he believed that after Consecration the Bread did remain with the Body of Christ but it doth not cease to be simply Bread but it remains holy and true the Bread of Life and Body of Christ. The Arch Bishop examined him chiefly upon this Article and because he did not answer home to the point he was condemned for a Heretick and was the first who was burned for Heresie in England And yet his Answer was that he could not understand the matter then the Arch-Bishop asked him if he would stand to the Churches Determination he said he would so far as it was not contrary to the Will of God. Upon which he was declared an Heretick and delivered over to the Secular Power In the same Convocation John Purvey made an Abjuration of Heresie and the first he renounced was that after Consecration in the Sacrament of the Altar there neither is nor can be an Accident without a Subject and that the same Substance and Nature of Bread remained which was before In the Examination of William Thorp by Thomas Arundel Arch-Bishop of Canterbury A. D. 1407. which is not in the Register being defective but the account is preserved from his own Copy The Arch-Bishop declared that the Church had now determined that there abideth no Substance of Bread after Consecration in the Sacrament of the Altar And that if he believed otherwise he did not believe as the Church believed Thorp quoted S. Augustin and Fulgentius to prove that the Substance remained and the very Mass on Christmas Day The Arch-Bishop still pressed him with the Churches Determination Thorp said this was a School-nicety whether Accidents could be without a Subject no said the Arch-Bishop it is the Faith of the Church I go upon Thorp replyed it was not so for a thousand years after Christ. In the
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
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
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
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.
publick Discipline fallen to decay in the beginning of the ninth Age and Charles the Great summoning several Councils for putting things into as good an Order as they would then bear In the second Council of Cavaillon A. D. 813. we find a Complaint Can. 25. that the old Canonical Penance was generally disused and neither the ancient Order of Excommunicating or Absolving was observed Which is a plain and ingenuous acknowledgment that they had gone off from the ancient Tradition of the Church and therefore they pray the Emperor's Assistance that the publick Discipline might be restored for publick Offenders and the ancient Canons be brought into use again From whence it follows that at that time notorious Offenders escaped with private Confession and Penance and even that was done by halves can 32. and some thought it not necessary to do it at all can 33. And upon this Occasion they do not declare it necessary for the Remission of Sins to confess even the most secret mortal Sins to a Priest but very fairly say that both are useful for Confession to God purgeth the Sin and to the Priest teaches men how their sins may be purged For God who is the Author and giver of Health giveth it often by the Invâ—sible Operation of his Power and often by the means of Physicians Boileau yields that there were some then in the Roman Church who denied Confession to Men to be necessary but he saith they were Adversaries and Rebels This had been a good Answer if the Council had called them so which it doth not but on the contrary declares that God doth often forgive sin immediately without the Priests Interposition or else the latter Clause signifies nothing And the most it saith before is that Confession to a Priest is useful in the Church which is not the the thing disputed by us but the Necessity of it and his Critical Observations of Utrumque signifie just nothing unless he had proved that the Council had before said that both were necessary which it doth not He doth not deny that the Opinion of the Sufficiency of Confession to God alone did continue in the Church to the time of the Council of Lateran and that it gave Occasion to the Canon which enforced the Necessity of Confession to a Priest but he adds that learned and pious Men may have false Opinions before the Judgment of the Church So that at last we find Universal Tradition is given up and the Necessity of Auricular Confession is resolved into the Authority of the Roman Churches Definition or rather the Pope's Declaration of it either with or without the Consent of the Lateran Council But he saith The Fathers did not speak so exactly of the Trinity before the Council of Nice nor the Greek Fathers of Grace and Predestination before S. Augustin If this be true it is impossible to prove either of those great Points merely by Tradition for those Fathers either delivered the sense of the Church or they did not if they delivered the sense of the Church then either the sense of the Church was doubtful or they did not understand it if the sense of the Church were doubtful then it is plain those Doctrines could not be proved by Tradition if the sense of the Church were not doubtful but the Fathers did not understand it then how is it possible that the Churches Tradition should be an Infallible Guide when even the Fathers of the Church were mistaken about it But I have sufficiently proved that not only before but even after the Council of Lateran there was no Universal Tradition for the Necessity of Auricular Confession FINIS A CATALOGUE of some BOOKS Printed for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in S. Paul 's Church-Yard A Bational Account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion being a Vindication of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury's Relation of a Conference c. from the pretended Answer by T. C. Wherein the True Grounds of Faith are cleared and the False discovered the Church of England vindicated from the Impuâ—ation of Scism and the most important particular Controversie bêtween us and those of the Church of Rome throughly examined By Edward Stillingfleet D. D. and Dean of S. Paul's Folio the Second Edition Origines Britiannicae Or the Antiquity of the British Churches with a Preface concerning some pretended Antiquities relating to Britain in vindication of the Bishop of S. Asaph by Edward Stillingfleet D. D. Dean of S. Paul's Folio The Rule of Faith Or an Answer to the Treatise of Mr. J. S. entituled Sure footing c. by John Tillorson D. D. to which is adjoyned A Reply to Mr. J. S.'s third Appendix c. by Edward Stillingfleet D. D. A Letter to Mr. G. giving a true Account of a late Conference at the D. of P's A second Letter to Mr. G. in answer to two Letters lately published concerning the Conference at the D. of P's Veteres Vindicati In an Expostulary Letter to Mr. Sclater of Putney upon his Consensus Veterum c. wherein the absurdity of his Method and the weakness of his Reasons are shewn His false Aspersions upon the Church of England are wiped off and her Faith concerning the Euchâ—rist proved to be that of the primiâ—ive Church Together with Animadversions on Dean Boileau's French translation of and Remarks upon Bertram An Answer to the Compiler of Nubes Testium Wherein is shewn That Antiquity in relation to the Points in Controversie set down by him did not for the first five hundred Years Believe Teach and Practice as the Church of Rome doth at present Believe Teach and Practice together with a Vindication of Veteres Vindicati from the late weak and disingenuous Attempts of the Author of Transubstantiation Defended by the Author of the Answer to Mr. Sclater of Putney A Letter to Father Lewis Sabran Jesuit in answer to his Letter to a Peer of the Church of England wherein the Postscript to the Answer to the Nubes Testium is Vindicated and Father Sabran's Mistakes farther discovered A second Letter to Father Lewis Sabran Jesuit in Answer to his Reply A Vindication of the Principles of the Author of the Answer to the Compiler of Nubes Testium in answer to a late pretended Letter from a Dissenter to the Divines of the Church of England Scripture and Tradition Compared in a Sermon preached at Guild-Hall-Chapel Nov. 27. 1687. by Edward Stillingfleet D. D. Dean of S. Paul's the second Edition A Discourse concerning the Nature and Grounds of the Certainty of Faith in Answer to J. S. his Catholick Letters by Edward Stillingfleet D. D. Dean of St. Paul's An Historical Examination of the Authority of General Councils shewing the false Dealing that hath been used in the publishing of them and the Difference amongst the Papists themselves about their Number The second Edition with Corrections and Alterations AN APPENDIX In Answer to some late Passages of J. W. of the Society of Jesus concerning the Prohibition
of Scripture in Vulgar Languages by the Council of Trent SInce the Publication of the foregoing Book I have met with a Reflexion upon it made by J. W. in the Preface to a Treatise lately Reprinted by him Wherein he observes that a great part of the Objections made against them are either grounded on mistakes or touch points of Discipline not of Faith which alone they are bound to defend This last Clause I could not but wonder at since the new Title of his Book is A Defence of the Doctrine and Holy Rites of the Roman Catholick Church c. Why should I W. take such needless pains to defend the Rites of the Church if they are bound to defend nothing but Points of Faith I had thought the Honour and Authority of the Church had been concerned in its Commands and Prohibitions as well as in its Definitions and Decrees And although it be not pretended that the Church is Infallible in Matters of Discipline yet it is a strong Prejudice against any pretence to Infallibility in a Church if it be found to err notoriously in any thing of general Concernment to the Catholick Church But how comes my late Book to be made an Example As for instance saith he I find in a Book newly Published with this Title The Council of Trent Examin'd and Disprov'd by Catholick Tradition that for 15 Pages together Dr. St. labours to prove that there is no Catholick Tradition against Translating Scripture into Vulgar Languages Whereas I expresly say that the Prohibition of reading the Scripture so translated without a particular License was that which I undertook to shew could not be justified by any Catholick Tradition And that there was a General Consent of the Catholick Church not merely for the Translations of Scripture into Vulgar Languages but for the free use of them by the People Which I made out by these Particulars 1. That where-ever the Christian Religion prevailed the Scripture was Translated into the Vulgar Language for the Peoples benefit Which I proved from the Ancient Italick Versions before St. Jerom's time the Gothick Persian Armenian Syriack Coptick and Aethiopick Translations without the least prohibition of the Common use of them 2. That where a Language grew into Disuse among the People there the Scripture was Translated into the Tongue which was better understood And for this I instanced in the Arabick Versions after the prevalency of the Saracens in the Eastern and Southern Parts and after the Moors coming into Spain 3. That even after the Primitive Times Christian Princes and Bishops did take Care that the People should read the Scriptures in their own Language For Princes I instanced in Ludovicus Pius and Alfred for Bishops in Waldo Bishop of Fressing Methodius and Cyrill c. 4. That the Pope himself in the 9th Century did approve of it and for a Reason common to all times and Churches viz. that All People and Languages were to praise God and that God himself had so commanded 5. That Gregory VII was the first Person who forbad the use of Scripture and Divine Offices in the Vulgar Tongue and was not ashamed to own that the Church saw cause to alter several things from what they were in the Primitive Church 6. That upon the setting up the Inquisition by Innocent III. this Prohibition took place in France and Spain and other Places 7. That some noted Divines of the Church of Rome have highly commended it and said that the taking of it away would be pernicious and destructive to Faith and Devotion 8. That the Prohibition in the Church of Rome is built on the Authority of the Council of Trent which appointed the Index to be made in which the fourth Rule forbids all Persons the use of the Scripture in the Vulgar Tongue without a particular License and whosoever presumes to doe it is to be denied Absolution 9. From hence it follows that the Council of Trent is evidently disproved as to Catholick Tradition for any Foundation of such a Prohibition And what now saith J. W. against all this He would gladly know against whom I dispute Against J. S. and all such who would make the World believe the Council of Trent did proceed upon Catholick Tradition To prove I am mistaken he tells me in his 6th Chap. I may find an Account of several new Translations of Scripture into Vulgar Tongues made by Catholicks and approved in the Roman Church Then he mentions an English Translation made by the Rhemish and Doway Colleges and in French by the Doctours of Lovain and some others What now follows from hence Is it any Mistake in me to say There was such a Prohibition of Reading the Scripture in the Church of Rome and inforced by the Rule made by Appointment of the Council of Trent This had been indeed to the purpose if it could have been proved I do not deny that there have been such Translations made where it was found impossible to hinder all Translations and the use of them have been connived at or allow'd to some particular persons whom they were otherwise secure of But such Translations are like the Galenists allowing some Chymical Medicines to their Patients they declare against their use as dangerous but if the Patient will have them then pray take them of my Apothecary who is a very honest man and prepares mischievous Medicines better than another This is just the Case of the Church of Rome as to Translations of Scripture If we ask their Opinion in general whether Translations be allowable or not their Answer hath been formerly very free and open by no means for they are very dangerous and mischievous things And here besides those I have already mentioned I could produce many more to the same purpose But alas these men lived before the Age of Mis-representing and Expounding Now all is Mistake on our side and Infallibility on theirs We cannot for our hearts understand their Doctrines or Practices aright although we take never so much pains and care to doe it One would think by the present way of dealing with us that the Church of Rome were like the New Name on the White Stone which no man knows but he that hath it and so it were impossible for any else to understand it but such as are in it I thought my self pretty secure from Mistaking when I pitched on the Council of Trent for my Guide But it seems I am mistaken here too How so Did not the Council of Trent appoint the Congregation of the Index at first Sess. 18 Did it not own that the Matters of it were prepared before its Dissolution And if there were a Prohibition of the free use of the Scripture in Vulgar Languages by the Rules of the Index is not the Council of Trent justly chargeable with that Prohibition Especially when the Title in the Roman Edition is Regulae Indicis Sacrosanctoe Synodi Tridentinoe jussu editoe Jacob. Ledesma was one of the same