against him that denies the Conversion of the whole Substance of the Elements into the Body and Blood of Christ the Species of Bread and Wine only remaining Now a Controversie hath been started in the Church of Rome what is to be understood by Species whether real Accidents or only Appearances Some of the Church of Rome who have had a Tast of the New Philosophy reject any real Accidents and yet declare Transubstantiation to be a matter of Faith and go about to explain the Notion of it in another manner Among these one Emanuel Maignan a Professor of Divinity at Tholouse hath at large undertaken this matter The Method he takes is this 1. He grants that nothing remains of the Bread after Consecration but that whereby it was an Object of Sense because that which is really the Being of one thing cannot be the Being of another And he confesses that the Modus as to the not being of the Substance after Consecration is determin'd by the Councils of Constance and Trent 2. He asserts that real Accidents supposing them separable from the Substance are not that whereby the Elements are made the Objects of Sense because they do not make the Conjunction between the Object and the Faculty 3. Since he denies that Accidents have any real Being distinct from the Substance they are in he grants that it is as much a matter of Faith that there are no real Accidents after Consecration as that there is no real Substance and he brings the Authorities of the Councils of Lateran Florence and Trent to prove it 4. As the Substance did by Divine Concourse so Act upon the Senses before as to make it be an Object of Sense so after Consecration God by his immediate Act makes the same Appearances although the Substance be gone And this he saith is the effect of this Miraculous Conversion which is concealed from our Senses by God's immediate causing the very same Appearances which came before from the Substance Which Appearances he saith are the Species mention'd by the Council of Trent and other elder Councils and Fathers Against this new Hypothesis a famous Jesuit Theophilus Raynaudus opposed himself with great vehemency and urged these Arguments against it 1. That it overthrows the very Nature of a Sacrament leaving no external visible sign but a perpetual illusion of the Senses in such a manner that the Error of one cannot be corrected by another 2. That it overthrows the Design of the Sacrament which is to be true and proper Food My Flesh is meat indeed c. John 6. Which he saith is to be understood of the Sacrament as well as of the Body of Christ and therefore cannot agree with an imaginary appearance 3. It is not consistent with the Accidents which befall the Sacramental Species as to be trod under foot to be cast into indecent places to be devoured by Brutes to be Putrified c. If the Body of Christ withdraws there must be something beyond mere Appearances 4. He makes this Doctrine to be Heretical because the Council of Constance condemned it as an Heretical Proposition to affirm that in the Eucharist Accidents do not remain without their Subject and because the Council of Trent uses the Word Species in the Sense then generally received and so it signified the same with Accidents Which saith he farther appears because the Council speaks of the Species remaining but if there be no real Accidents the Species doth not remain in the Object but a new Appearance is produced And it seems most reasonable to interpret the Language of the Council according to the general Sense wherein the Words were understood at that time VII What things were disputed and opposed by some in the Council without being censured for it although they were afterwards decreed by a Major Party yet cannot be said to have been there received by a Catholick Tradition Because Matters of Faith which have been universally received in the Church can never be supposed to be contested in a Council without Censure but if it appears that there were Heats and warm Debates among the Parties in the Council it self and both think they speak the Sense of the Catholick Church then we must either allow that there was then no known Catholick Tradition about those matters or that the Divines of the Church of Rome assembled in Council did not understand what it was And what happens to be decreed by a Majority can never be concluded from thence to have been the Tradition before because there was a different Sense of others concerning it And since in a division a single Person may make a Majority it will be very hard to believe that he carries Infallibility and Catholick Tradition along with him But I think it Reasonable in the enquiry after Catholick Tradition to take notice of the different Opinions in the Council and among the School-men before it and not only to observe what was the Sense of the Roman Church but of the Eastern Churches too and where the matter requires it to go through the several Ages of the Church up to the Apostolical Times that I may effectually prove that in the main Points in Controversie between us which are established by the Council of Trent there cannot be produced any Catholick and Apostolical Tradition for them THE CONTENTS SOme Postulata about Catholick Tradition Page 1. I. Point examined about Traditions being a Rule of Faith equal with Scriptures 2. The Sense of the Council of Trent concerning it 3. No. Catholick Tradition for it shew'd from the differences about it in the Council 4. From the Divines of the Roman Church for some Ages before the Council 5. The Testimonies of the Canon Law against it 17. Of the Ancient Offices of the Roman Church 20. Of the Fathers 21. The first step of Traditions being set up as a Rule by the second Council of Nice 26. Not receiv'd as a Rule of Faith till after the Council of Lateran under Innocent III. 27. The occasion of it set down from new Points of Faith there determin'd 28. Never established for a Rule till the Council of Trent 29. II. About the Canon of Scripture defined by the Council of Trent 30. The Sense of the Council ibid. The difference there about it 31. A constant Tradition against it in the Eastern Church 33. No Catholick Tradition for it in the Western Church 35. The several steps as to the Alteration of the Canon set down 38. The different meaning of Apocryphal Writings 40. III. About the free use of the Scripture in the vulgar Language prohibited by the Council of Trent 43. The Sense of the Council ibid. No Catholick Tradition about this proved from the Writers of the Roman Church 44. The General Consent of the Catholick Church against it proved from the Ancient Translations into Valgar Languages 46. The first Occasion of the Scriptures being in an unknown Language 52. The first prohibition by Gregory VII 56. Continued by the
yet must we believe there was at that time a known Catholick Tradition about it and that it was impossible they should err about such a Tradition Nay farther the same Authour tells us that although this Bishop had gained the greatest part of the Council to him yet his own heart misgave him and in the next Congregation himself proposed that instead of equal it might be put a like Veneration and yet we must believe there was a Catholick Tradition for an Equal Veneration to Scripture and Tradition But the Bishop of Chioza Naclantus he saith inveighed more bitterly against this Equality and in the face of the Council charged the Doctrine with Impiety and he would not allow any Divine Inspiration to Tradition but that they were to be considered onely as Laws of the Church It 's true he saith he professed to consent to the Decree afterwards but withall he tells us that he was brought under the Inquisition not long after upon suspicion of Heresie which shews they were not well satisfied with his submission We are extremely beholden to Cardinal Pallavicini for his Information in these matters which are past over too jejunely by F. Paul. 2. I proceed to the Testimony of the Divines of the Roman Church before the Council of Trent It is observed by some of them that when the Fathers appealed to the Tradition of the Church in any controverted Point of Faith they made their Appeal to those who wrote before the Controversie was started as S. Augustin did against the Pelagians c. This is a reasonable Method of proceeding in case Tradition be a Rule of Faith and therefore must be so even in this point whether Tradition be such a Rule or not For the Divines who wrote before could not be ignorant of the Rule of Faith they received among themselves Gabriel Biel lived in the latter end of the 15th Century and he affirms that the Scripture alone teaches all things necessary to salvation and he instances in the things to be done and to be avoided to be loved and to be despised to be believed and to be hoped for And again that the Will of God is to be understood by the Scriptures and by them alone we know the whole Will of God. If the whole Will of God were to be known by the Scripture how could part of it be preserved in an unwritten Tradition And if this were then part of the Rule of Faith how could such a Man who was Professour of Divinity at Tubing be ignorant of it I know he saith he took the main of his Book from the Lectures of Eggelingus in the Cathedral Church at Mentz but this adds greater strength to the Argument since it appears hereby that this Doctrine was not confined to the Schools but openly delivered in one of the most famous Churches of Germany Cajetan died not above 12 Years before the Council who agrees with this Doctrine of Biel or Eggelingus and he was accounted the Oracle of his time for Divinity for he affirms that the Scripture gives such a perfection to a Man of God or one that devoutly serves him that thereby he is accomplished for every good Work How can this be if there be another Rule of Faith quite distinct from the Written Word Bellarmin indeed grants that all things which are simply necessary to the Salvation of all are plainly contained in Scripture by which he yields that the Scripture alone is the Rule of Faith as to necessary points and he calls the Scripture the certain and stable Rule of Faith yea the most certain and most secure Rule If there be then any other it must be less certain and about points not necessary to Salvation i. e. it must be a Rule where there is no need of a Rule For if Mens Salvation be sufficiently provided for by the Written Rule and the Divine Revelation be in Order to mens Salvation what need any other Revelation to the Church besides what is Written He asserts farther that nothing is de fide but what God hath revealed to the Prophets and Apostles or is deduced from thence This he brings to prove that whatsoever was received as a matter of Faith in the Church which is not found in Scripture must have come from an Apostolical Tradition But if it be necessary to Salvation according to his own Concession it must be written and if it be not how comes it to be received as a matter of Faith unless it be first proved that it is necessary to Salvation to receive an unwritten Rule of Faith as well as a written For either it must be necessary on its own Account and then he saith it must be written and if not then it can be no otherwise necessary than because it is to be believed on the Account of a Rule which makes it necessary And consequently that Rule must be first proved to be a necessary Article of Faith Which Bellarmin hath no where done but onely sets down Rules about knowing true Apostolical Traditions from others in matters of Faith wherein he wisely supposes that which he was to prove And the true Occasion of setting up this new Rule of Faith is intimated by Bellarmin himself in his first Rule of judging true Apostolical Traditions Which is when the Church believes any thing as a Doctrine of Faith which is not in Scripture then saith he we must judge it to be an Apostolical Tradition Why so Otherwise the Church must have erred in taking that for a matter of Faith which was not And this is the great Secret about this New Rule of Faith they saw plainly several things were imposed on the Faith of Christians which could not be proved from Scripture and they must not yield they had once mistaken and therefore this New Additional Less certain Rule for unnecessary Points must be advanced although they wanted Tradition among themselves to prove Tradition a Rule of Faith which I shall now farther make appear from their own School Divines before the Council of Trent We are to observe among them what those are which they strictly call Theological Truths and by them we shall judge what they made the Rule of Faith. For they do not make a bare Revelation to any Person a sufficient Ground for Faith but they say the Revelation must be publick and designed for the general Benefit of the Church and so Aquinas determines that our Faith rests onely upon the Revelations made to the Prophets and Apostles and Theological Truths are such as are immediately deduced from the Principles of Faith i. e. from publick Divine Revelations owned and received by the Church The modern School men who follow the Council of Trent make Theological Truths to be deduced from the unwritten as well as the Written word or else they would not speak consonantly to their own Doctrine And therefore if those before them deduce Theological Truths onely from the Written Word
then it will follow that they did not hold the unwritten Word to be a Rule of Faith. Marsilius ab Inghen was first Professor of Divinity of Heidelberg at the latter end of the 15th Century saith Bellarmin but Trithemius saith the 14th and he determines that a Theological Proposition is that which is positively asserted in Scripture or deduced from thence by good Consequence and that a Theological Truth strictly taken is the Truth of an Article of Faith or something expressed in the Bible or deduced from thence He mentions Apostolical Traditions afterwards and joins them with Ecclesiastical Histories and Martyrologies So far was he from supposing them to be part of the Rule of Faith. In the beginning of the 15th Century lived Petrus de Alliaco one as famous for his skill in Divinity as for his Dignity in the Church He saith that Theological Discourse is founded on Scripture and a Theological Proof must be drawn from thence that Theological Principles are the Truths contained in the Canon of Scripture and Conclusions are such as are drawn out of what is contained in Scripture So that he not onely makes the Scripture the Foundation of Faith but of all sorts of true Reasoning about it He knew nothing of Cardinal Palavicini's two first Principles of Faith. To the same purpose speaks Gregorius Ariminensis about the middle of the 14th Century he saith all Theological Discourse is grounded on Scripture and the Consequences from it which he not onely proves from Testimony but ex communi omnium conceptione from the general Consent of Christians For saith he all are agreed that then a thing is proved Theologically when it is proved from the Words of Scripture So that here we have plain Tradition against Traditions being a distinct Rule of Faith and this delivered by the General of an Order in the Church of Rome He affirms that the Principles of Theology are no other than the Truths contained in the Canon of Scripture and that the Resolution of all Theological Discourse is into them and that there can be no Theological Conclusion but what is drawn from Scripture In the former part of that Century lived Darandus he gives a threesold Sense of Theology 1. For a habit whereby we assent to those things which are contained in Scripture as they are there delivered 2. For a habit whereby those things are â—efended and declared which are delivered in Scripture 3. For a habit of those things which are deduced out of Articles of Faith and so it is all one with the holy Scripture And in another place he affirms that all Truth is contained in the Holy Scripture at large but for the People's Conveniency the necessary Points are summed up in the Apostles Creed In his Preface before his Book on the Sentences he highly commends the Scriptures for their Dignity their Usefulness their Certainty their Depth and after all concludes that in matters of Faith men ought to speak agreeably to the Scriptures and whosoever doth not breaks the Rule of the Scriptures which he calls the Measure of our Faith. What Tradition did appear then for another Rule of Faith in the 14th Century But before I proceed higher I shall shew the Consent of others with these School Divines in the three last Centuries before the Council of Trent In the middle of the 15th lived Nicholaus Panormitanus one of mighty Reputation for his skill in the Canon Law. In the Ch. Significâsti prima 1. de Electione debating the Authority of Pope and Council he saith If the Pope hath better Reason his Authority is greater than the Councils and if any private person in matters of Faith hath better Reason out of Scripture than the Pope his saying is to be preferred above the Pope's Which words do plainly shew that the Scripture was then looked on as the onely Rule of Faith or else no Man's grounding himself on Scripture could make his Doctrine to be preferred before the Pope's who might alledge Tradition against him and if that were an equal Rule of Faith the Doctrine of one Rule could not be preferred before the other At the same time lived Tostatus the famous Bishop of Avila one of infinite Industry and great Judgment and therefore could not be mistaken in the Rule of Faith. In his Preface on Genesis he saith that there must be a Rule for our understandings to be regulated by and that Rule must be most certain that Divine Faith is the most certain and that is contained in Scripture and therefore we must regulate our understandings thereby And this he makes to be the measure of Truth and Falshood If he knew any other Rule of Faith besides the Scriptures he would have mentioned it in this place and not have directed Men onely to them as the exact measure of Truth and Falshood In the beginning of this Century Thomas Walden Confessor to our Henry 5th saith Trithemius disputed sharply against Wickliff but he durst not set up the Churches Authority or Tradition equal with the Scriptures For when he mentions Tradition after Scriptures he utterly disclaims any such thought as that of Equality between them but he desires a due distance may be kept between Canonical Scripture and Ecclesiastical Authority or Tradition In the first place he saith we ought to believe the holy Scriptures then the Definitions and Customs of the Catholick Church but he more fully explains himself in another place where he plainly asserts that nothing else is to be received by such Faith as the Scripture and Christ's symbolical Church but for all other Authorities the lowest degree is that of Catholick Tradition the next of the Bishops especially of the Apostolical Churches and the Roman in the first place and above all these he places that of a General Council but when he hath so done he saith all these Authorities are to be regarded but as the Instructions of Elders and Admonitions of Fathers So that the chief Opposers of Wickliff had not yet found out this new Rule of Faith. Much about the same time lived Joh. Gerson whom Cardinal Zabarella declared in the Council of Constance to be the greatest Divine of his time and therefore could not be ignorant of the true Rule of Faith. He agrees with Panormitan in this that if a man be well skilled in Scriptures his Doctrine deserves more to be regarded than the Pope's Declaration for saith he the Gospel is more to be believed than the Pope and if such a one teaches a Doctrine to be contained in Scripture which the Pope either knows not or mistakes it is plain whose Judgment is to be preferred Nay he goes farther that if in a General Council he finds the Majority incline to that part which is contrary to Scripture he is bound to oppose it and he instances in Hilary And he shews that since the Canon of Scripture received by the Church no Authority of the Church is
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
to be equalled to it He allows a Judgment of Discretion in private persons and a Certainty of the literal Sense of Scripture attainable thereby He makes the Scripture the onely standing infallible Rule of Faith for the whole Church to the end of the world And whatever Doctrine is not agreeable thereto is to be rejected either as Heretical suspicious or impertinent to Religion If the Council of Trent had gone by this Rule we had never heard of the Creed of Pius IV. In the beginning of the 14th Century lived Nicolaus de Lyra who parallels the Scriptures in matters of Faith with First-principles in Sciences for as other Truths are tried in them by their reduction to First-principles so in matters of Faith by their reduction to Canonical Scriptures which are of divine Revelation which is impossible to be false If he had known any other Principles which would have made Faith impossible to be false he would never have spoken thus of Scripture alone But to return to the School Divines About the same time lived Joh. Duns Scotus the head of a School famous for Subtilty He affirms that the holy Scripture doth sufficiently contain all matters necessary to salvation because by it we know what we are to believe hope for and practise And after he hath enlarged upon them he concludes in these words patet quod Scriptura sacra sufficienter continet Doctrinam necessariam viatori If this be understood onely of Points simply necessary then however it proves that all such things necessary to Salvation are therein contained and no man is bound to enquire after unnecessary Points How then can it be necessary to embrace another Rule of Faith when all things necessary to Salvation are sufficiently contained in Scripture But Thomas Aquinas is more express in this matter For he saith that those things which depend on the Will of God and are above any desert of ours can be known no otherways by us than as they are delivered in Scriptures by the Will of God which is made known to us This is so remarkable a Passage that Suarez could not let it escape without corrupting it for instead of Scripture he makes him to speak of Divine Revelation in general viz. under Scripture he comprehends all that is under the written Word he means the unwritten If he had meant so he was able to have expressed his own mind more plainly and Cajetan apprehended no such meaning in his words But this is a matter of so great consequence that I shall prove from other passages in him that he asserted the same Doctrine viz. That the Scripture was the onely Rule of Faith. 1. He makes no Proofs of matters of Faith to be sufficient but such as are deduced from Scripture and all other Arguments from Authority to be onely probable nay although such Persons had particular Revelations How can this be consistent with another Rule of Faith distinct from Scripture For if he had owned any such he must have deduced necessary Arguments from thence as well as from Canonical Scriptures But if all other Authorities be onely probable then they cannot make any thing necessary to be believed 2. He affirms that to those who receive the Scriptures we are to prove nothing but by the Scriptures as matter of Faith. For by Authorities he means nothing but the Scriptures as appears by the former place and by what follows where he mentions the Canon of Scripture expresly 3. He asserts that the Articles of the Creed are all contained in Scripture and are drawn out of Scripture and put together by the Church onely for the Ease of the People From hence it nenessarily follows that the Reason of believing the Articles of the Creed is to be taken from the written Word and not from any unwritten Tradition For else he needed not to have been so carefull to shew that they were all taken out of Scripture 4. He distinguisheth the Matters of Faith in Scripture some to be believed for themselves which he calls prima Credibilia these he saith every one is bound explicitly to believe but for other things he is bound onely implicitly or in a preparation of mind to believe whatever is contained in Scripture and then onely is he bound to believe explicitly when it is made clear to him to be contained in the Doctrine of Faith. Which words must imply the Scripture to be the onely Rule of Faith for otherwise implicit Faith must relate to whatever is proved to be an unwritten Word From all this it appears that Aquinas knew nothing of a Traditional Rule of Faith although he lived after the Lateran Council A. D. 1215. being born about nine years after it And Bonaventure who died the same year with him affirms that nothing was to besaid about Matters of Faith but what is made clear out of the holy Scriptures Not long after them lived Henricus Gandavensis and he delivers these things which are very material to our purpose 1. That the Reason why we believe the Guides of the Church since the Apostles who work no Miracles is because they preach nothing but what they have left in their most certain Writings which are delivered down to us pure and uncorrupt by an universal consent of all that succeeded to our times Where we see he makes the Scriptures to be the onely Certain Rule and that we are to judge of all other Doctrines by them 2. That Truth is more certainly preserved in Scripture than in the Church because that is fixed and immutable and men are variable so that multitudes of them may depart from the Faith either through Errour or Malice but the true Church will always remain in some righteous persons How then can Tradition be a Rule of Faith equal with Scriptures which depends upon the Testimony of Persons who are so very fallible I might carry this way of Testimony on higher still as when Richardus de S. Victore saith in the thirteenth Century that every Truth is suspected by him which is not confirmed by Holy Scripture but in stead of that I shall now proceed to the Canon Law as having more Authority than particular Testimonies 3. As to the Canon Law collected by Gratian I do not insist upon its Confirmation by Eugenius but upon its universal Reception in the Church of Rome And from thence I shall evidently prove that Tradition was not allowed to be a Rule of Faith equal with the Scriptures Dist. 9. c. 3 4 5 7 8 9 10. The Authority and Infallibility of the holy Scripture is asserted above all other Writings whatsoever for all other Writings are to be examined and men are to judge of them as they see cause Now Bellarmin tells us that the unwritten Word is so called not that it always continues unwritten but that it was so by the first Authour of it So that the unwritten Word doth not depend on
to the Fathers wherein I am in great measure prevented by a late Discourse wherein it is at large shewed that the Fathers made use of no other Rule but the Scriptures for deciding Controversies therefore I shall take another method which is to shew that those who do speak most advantageously of Tradition did not intend to set up another Rule of Faith distinct from Scripture And here I shall pass over all those Testimonies of Fathers which speak either of Tradition before the Canon of Scripture or to those who did not receive it or of the Tradition of Scripture it self or of some Rites and Customs of the Church as wholly impertinent And when these are cut off there remain scarce any to be considered besides that of Vincentius Lerinensis and one Testimony of S. Basil. I begin with Vincentius Lerinensis who by some is thought so great a Favourer of Tradition but he saith not a word of it as a Rule of Faith distinct from Scripture for he asserts the Canon of Scripture to be sufficient of it self for all things How can that be if Tradition be a Rule of Faith distinct from it He makes indeed Catholick Tradition the best Interpreter of Scripture and we have no reason to decline it in the Points in dispute between us if Vincentius his Rules be follow'd 1. If Antiquity Universality and Consent be joyned 2. If the difference be observed between old Errours and new ones For saith he when they had length of time Truth is more easily concealed by those who are concerned to suppress it And in those Cases we have no other way to deal with them but by Scripture and ancient Councils And this is the Rule we profess to hold to But to suppose any one part of the Church to assume to it self the Title of Catholick and then to determine what is to be held for Catholick Tradition by all Members of the Catholick Church is a thing in it self unreasonable and leaves that part under an impossibility of being reclaimed For in case the Corrupt Part be judge we may be sure no Corruptions will be ever owned Vincentius grants that Arianism had once extremely the advantage in Point of Universality and had many Councils of its side if now the prevailing Party be to judge of Catholick Tradition and all are bound to submit to its Decrees without farther Examination as the Authour of the Guide in Controversies saith upon these Rules of Vincentius then I say all men were then bound to declare themselves Arians For if the Guides of the present Church are to be trusted and relied upon for the Doctrine of the Apostolical Church downwards how was it possible for any Members of the Church then to oppose Arianism and to reform the Church after its prevalency To say it was condemned by a former Council doth by no means clear the difficulty For the present Guides must be trusted whether they were rightly condemned or not and nothing can be more certain than that they would be sure to condemn those who condemned them But Vincentius saith Every true Lover of Christ preferred the ancient Faith before the novel betraying of it but then he must chuse this ancient Faith against the judgment of the present Guides of the Church And therefore that according to Vincentius can be no Infallible Rule of Faith. But whether the present Universality dissents from Antiquity whose Judgment should be sooner taken than its own saith the same Authour This had been an excellent Argument in the mouth of Ursacius or Valens at the Council of Ariminum and I do not see what Answer the Guide in Controversies could have made But both are Parties and is not the Councils Judgment to be taken rather than a few Opposers So that for all that I can find by these Principles Arianism having the greater number had hard luck not to be established as the Catholick Faith. But if in that case particular Persons were to judge between the New and the Old Faith then the same Reason will still hold unless the Guides of the Church have obtained a new Patent of Infallibility since that time The great Question among us is Where the true ancient Faith is and how we may come to find it out We are willing to follow the ancient Rules in this matter The Scripture is allowed to be an Infallible Rule on all hands and I am proving that Tradition was not allowed in the ancient Church as distinct from it But the present Question is how far Tradition is to be allowed in giving the Sense of Scripture between us Vincentius saith we ought to follow it when there is Antiquity Universality and Consent This we are willing to be tryed by But here comes another Question Who is to be Judge of these The present Guides of the Catholick Church To what purpose then are all those Rules Will they condemn themselves Or as the Guide admirably saith If the present Universality be its own Judge when can we think it will witness its departure from the true Faith And if it will not what a Case is the Church in under such a pretended Universality The utmost use I can suppose then Vincentius his Rules can be of to us now is in that Case which he puts when Corruptions and Errours have had time to take root and fasten themselves and that is By an Appeal to Scripture and Ancient Councils But because of the charge of Innovation upon us we are content to be tried by his second Rule By the Consent of the Fathers of greatest Reputation who are agreed on all hands to have lived and died in the Communion of the Catholick Church and what they delivered freely constantly and unanimously let that be taken for the undoubted and certain Rule in judging between us But if the present Guides must come in to be Judges here again then all our labour is lost and Vincentius his Rules signifie just nothing The Testimony of S. Basil is by Mr. White magnified above the rest and that out of his Book de Spiritu Sancto above all others to prove that the Certainty of Faith depends on Tradition and not merely on Scripture The force of it is said to lye in this that the practice of the Church in saying with the holy Spirit though not found in Scripture is to determine the Sense of the Article of Faith about the Divinity of the Holy Ghost But to clear this place we are to observe 1. That S. Basil doth not insist on Tradition for the Proof of the Article of Faith for he expresly disowns it in that Book It is not enough saith he that we have it by Tradition from our Fathers for our Fathers had it from the Will of God in Scripture as appears by those Testimonies I have set down already which they took for their Foundations Nothing can be plainer than that S. Basil made Scripture alone the Foundation of Faith
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
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
THE Council of Trent EXAMIN'D and DISPROV'D BY Catholick Tradition In the main Points in Controversie between Us and the Church of Rome WITH A Particular Account of the Times and Occasions of introducing them PART I. To which a PREFACE is prefixed concerning the true Sense of the Council of Trent and the Notion of Transubstantiation The Second Edition Corrected WITH An APPENDIX in Answer to some late Passages of J. W. of the Society of Jesus Concerning the Prohibiting of Scripture in Vulgar Languages LONDON Printed for H. Mortlock at the Phoenix in S. Pauls Church-yard 1688. THE PREFACE THere is it seems a Train in Controversies as well as in Thoughts one thing still giving a start to another Conferences produce Letters Letters Books and one Discourse gives Occasion for another For this follows the former as a necessary Pursuit of the same Argument against Tradition I. S. in his last Letter had vouched the Authority of the Council of Trent proceeding upon Tradition and he instanced in three Points Transubstantiation Sacramental Confession and Extreme Unction The Examination of this I thought fit to reserve for a Discourse by it self wherein instead of confining my Self to those three Particulars I intend to go through the most material Points there established and to prove from the most Authentick Testimonies that there was no true Catholick Tradition for any of them And if I can make good what I have undertaken I shall make the Council of Trent it Self the great Instance against the Infallibility of Tradition This is a new Undertaking which the impetuousness of our Adversaries setting up Tradition for the Ground of their Faith hath brought me to But besides the shewing that really they have not Tradition on their side I have endeavoured to trace the several steps and to set down the Times and Occasions of Introducing those Points which have caused that unhappy breach in the Christian world whose sad effects we daily see and lament But have little hopes to see remied till these new Points be discarded and Scripture interpreted by truely Catholick Tradition be made the Standard of Christian Communion I do not pretend that all these Points came in at one Time or in the same Manner for some Errours and Corruptions came in far more early some had the favour of the Church of Rome in a higher degree some were more generally received in the Practice of the Church in later times than others and some were merely School Points before the Council of Trent but as far as the Thomists and Scotists could be made to agree there against the Reformers these passed for Articles of Faith. For this was one of the great Arts of that Council to draw up their Decrees in such Terms as should leave Room enough for Eternal Wranglings among themselves provided they agreed in doing the business effectually against the Hereticks as they are pleased to call them I therefore forbear to urge these as Points of Faith which have been freely debated among themselves since the Council of Trent without any Censure We have enough in the plain Decrees and Canons of that Council without medling with any School-Points And so I cannot be charged with Misrepresenting The great Debate of late hath been about the true Exposition of the Points there defined and for my part I am content to yield to any just and reasonable Methods of giving the true sense of them And such I conceive these to be I. Where the Council of Trent makes use of Words in a strict and limited Sense there it is unreasonable to understand them in a large and improper Sense As for instance Sess. 6. c. 26. It decrees that Justified Persons do verè promerere truely merit Eternal Life and Can. 32. there is an Anathema against him who denies true Merit in the good Works of justified Persons both as to Increase of Grace and Eternal Life There is no one conversant in Ancient Writers but knows that there was a large and improper Sense of the Word Merit but how is it impossible to apply that Sense where such Care is taken that it may be understood in a strict and limited Sense If the Council had left the Word in its General Sense there might have been Reason to have given the fairest Interpretation to it but when it is certainly known that there had been a difference of Opinions in the Church of Rome about true and proper Merit and that which was not however it were called and the Council declares for the former no man of understanding can believe that onely the improper Sense was meant by it As in the Point of the Eucharist when the Council declares that the words of Christ This is my Body are truely and properly to be understood Would it not be thought strange for any one to say that the Council notwithstanding might mean that Christ's Words may be figuratively understood And we must take the true notion of Merit not from any large expressions of the Ancients but from the Conditions of true and proper Merit among themselves But of this at large afterwards So as to the Notion of Sacraments every one knows how largely that Word was taken in Ancient Writers but it would be absurd to understand the Council of Trent in that Sense when Sess. 6. Can. 1. De Sacramentis it denounces an Anathema not merely against him that denies seven Sacraments but against him that doth not hold every one of them to be truely and properly a Sacrament And in the Creed of Pius IV. one Article is that there are seven true and proper Sacraments How vain a thing then were it for any to Expound the Sacraments in a large and improper Sense II. Where the Council of Trent hath not declared it self but it is fully done in the Catechism made by its Appointment we ought to look on that as the true Sense of the Council As in the Case of the Sacraments the Council never declares what it means by true and proper Sacraments but the Catechism makes large and full amends for this Defect For after it hath mention'd the use of the Word in Profane and Sacred Writers it sets down the Sense of it according to their Divines for a sensible sign which conveys the Grace which it signifies And after a large Explication of the Nature of Signs it gives this Description of a true and proper Sacrament that it is a sensible thing which by Divine Institution not only hath the force of signifying but of causing Grace And to shew the Authority of this Catechism for explicating the Doctrine of the Sacraments we need only to look into Sess. 24. c. 7. de Reform where it is required that the People be instructed in the Sacraments according to â—it It is supposed that the Catechism was appointed to be made in the 18th Sesâ—ion at the Instigation of Carolus Borromaeus since Canonized but it was not finished while the Council sate and therefore Sess. 25. it
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
now to enquire what Catholick Tradition the Pope and Council went upon in this Prohibition But as to the Testimony of Fathers I am prevented by some late Discourses on this Subject In stead thereof therefore I shall 1. Shew from their own Writers that there could be no Catholick Tradition for such a Prohibition 2. Prove the General Consent of the Catholick Church from publick Acts as to the free use of the Scripture Thomas Aquinas grants that the Scripture was proposed to all and in such a manner that the most rude might understand it Therefore there was no Prohibition of such Persons reading it Cajetan there uses two Arguments for the Scriptures using Metaphors and Similitudes 1. Because God provides for all 2. Because the Scripture is tendred to all And the common People are not capable of understanding spiritual things without such helps If the Scripture were intended for all how comes a Prohibition of the use of it Sixtus Senensis grants that in former times the Scripture was translated into the vulgar Languages and the People did commonly reade it to their great Benefit Then a Prohibition of it must alter the Churches practical Tradition Alphonsus à Castro yields to Erasmus that the Scriptures were of old translated into the vulgar Tongues and that the Fathers such as S. Chrysostom and S. Jerom persuaded People to the reading them But the Case is altered now when such mischief comes by the Reading the Scriptures And yet the Tradition of the Church continues the same and is impossible to be changed Azorius puts the Case fairly he grants that the Scriptures were at first written and published in the Common Language that S. Chrysostom admits all to reade the Scriptures and that the People did so then but they do not now But he saith the People then understood Greek and Latin and now they do not If it were their own Language they might well understand it but why should not the Scripture now be in a Language they may understand For Greek and Latin did not make the common People one jot wiser or better and yet this Man calls it a Heresie now to say the Scriptures ought to be translated into vulgar Languages How much is the Faith of the Church changed 2. I am now to prove the General Consent of the Catholick Church in this matter from publick Acts i. e. that all Parts of it have agreed in Translations of Scripture into Vulgar Languages without any such Prohibition If there had been any such thing in the Primitive Church it would have held against the Latin Translation it self For I hope none will say it was the Original however Authentick it be made by the Council of Trent How then came the Originals to be turned into the common Language as I suppose Latin will be allow'd to have been the common Language of the Roman Empire There is no Objection can now be made against any modern Translations but would have held against the first Latin Version Who the Authour of it was is utterly unknown and both S. Augustin and S. Jerom say there was a great variety among the old Translations and every one Translated as he thought fit So that there was no restraint laid upon translating into the common Language And unless Latin were an infallible Guide to those that understood it the People were as liable to be deceived in it as either in English or French. But it was not onely thus in the Roman Empire but whereever a People were converted to Christianity in all thè elder times the Scripture was turned into their Language The Ecclesiastical Historians mention the Conversion of the Goths and upon that the Translation of the Bible into their Language by Ulphilas their Bishop Walafridus Strabo adds to this that besides the Bible they had all publick Offices of Religion performed in their own Language How soon the Churches in Persia were planted it is impossible for us now to know but in the MS. Ecclesiastical History of Abulpharagius in the hands of Dr. Loftus it is said that a Disciple of Thaddaeus preached the Gospel in Persia Assyria and the Parts thereabouts and that by another Disciple of his 360 Churches were settled there in his time and that he came to Seleucia the Metropolis of the Persians and there established a Church where he continued fifteen years And from him there was a Succession of the Patriarchs of Seleucia which continues still in the East for upon destruction thereof by Almansor they removed first to Bagdad and after that to Mozal over against Ninive where their residence hath been since and this Patriarch had universal Jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches as far as the East Indies as appears by Morinus his Books of Ordinations in the East and the proceedings with the Christians of St. Thomas in the very end of the last Century But we are certain from the Greek Historians that in Constantine's time the Christians in Persia were so numerous that he wrote to the King of Persia on their behalf Eusebius saith that Constantine was informed that the Churches were much increased there and great Multitudes were brought into Christ's Flock and Constantine himself in his Letter to Sapores saith the Christians flourished in the best parts of Persia and he hoped they might continue so to doe But after Constantine's death a terrible Persecution befell them wherein Sozomen saith the Names of 16000 Martyrs were preserved besides an innumerable Multitude of unknown persons The sharpest part of the Persecution fell upon the Bishops and Presbyters especially in Adiabene which was almost wholly Christian which Ammianus Marcellinus saith was the same with Assyria wherein were Ninive Ecbatane Arbela Gaugamela Babylon or Seleucia and Ctesiphon of which Sozomen saith Symeon was then Archbishop And he names above twenty Bishops who suffered besides and one Mareabdes a Chorepiscopus with 250 of his Clergy After the time of Sapores several sharp Persecutions fell upon those Churches in the times of Vararanes and Isdigerdes of which the Greek Historians take notice and one of them saith Theodoret lasted thirty years This I mention to shew what mean thoughts those have of the Catholick Church who consine it to the Roman Communion Theodoret and S. Chrysostom both affirm that the Persians had the Scriptures then in their own Language and Sozomen saith that Symeon Archbishop of Seleucia and Ctesiphon before his own Martyrdom incouraged the rest to suffer out of the holy Scriptures Which supposes them well acquainted with the Language of it and it is not very likely they should be either with the Hebrew Greek or Latin but the other Testimonies make it clear that it was in their own Tongue The Anonymous Writer of S. Chrysostom's Life affirms that while he staid in Armenia he caused the New Testament to be translated into the Armenian Tongue for the benefit of those Churches And this Tradition is allow'd
them These Homilies were either those which Charlemagn caused to be taken out of the Fathers and applied to the several Lessons through the year as Sigebert observes or of their own composing however they were to be turned by the Bishops either into Rustick Roman or German as served best to the capacities of the People For the Franks then either retained the Original German or used the Rustick Roman but this latter so much prevailed over the other that in the solemn Oaths between Lewis and Charles upon parting the Dominions of France and Germany set down in Nithardus the Rustick Roman was become the Vulgar Language of France and these were but the Grandchildren of Charlemagn Marquardus Freherus thinks that onely the Princes and Great Men retained the German but the generality then spake the Rustick Roman as appears by the Oath of the People which begins thus Si Lodâ—igs Sacrament que Son Fradre Carlo jurat conservat Carlus meo Serdra de suo part non los tanit si jo returnar non licit pois ne io ne neuls cui eo returnar nil pois in nulla adjudha contra Lodwig nun li iver By which we may see what a mixture of Latin there was in the vulgar Language then used by the Franks and how easie it was for the People then to understand the publick Offices being constant but the Sermons not being so there was greater necessity to turn them into that corruptor Rustick Roman which was thoroughly understood by them In Spain the Latin was less corrupted before the Gothick and Arabick or Moorish Words were taken into it Lucius Mariness saith that had it not been for the mixture of those words the Spaniards had spoken as good Latin as the Romans did in the time of Tully and he saith that to his time he had seen Epistles written in Spanish wherein all the Nouns and Verbs were good Latin. In Italy the Affinity of the vulgar prevailing Language and the Latin continued so great that the difference seemed for some hundred years no more than of the learned and common Greek or of the English and Scotch and so no necessity was then apprehended of Translating the correct Tongue into a corrupt Dialect of it But where there was a plain difference of Language there was some care even then taken that the People might understand what they heard as appears by these things 1. Alcuinus gives an Account why one day was called Sabbatum in 12 Lectionibus when there were but six Lessons and he saith it was because they were read both in Greek and Latin they not understanding each others Languages Not because the Greek was a holy Tongue but quia aderant Graeci quibus ignota er at lingua Latina which shews that the Church then thought it a reasonable cause to have the Scripture in such a Language which might be understood by the People The same Reason is given by Amalarius 2. In the German Churches there were ancient Translations of Scripture into their own Language B. Rhenanus attributes a Translation of the Gospels to Waldo Bishop of Freising assoon as the Franks received Christianity and he saith it was the immortal Honours of the Franks to have the Scripture so soon translated into their own Language which saith he is of late opposed by some Divines So little did he know of an universal Tradition against it Goldastus mentions the Translation in Rhime by Ottfridus Wissenburgensis published by Achilles Gassarus the Psalter of Notkerus Rudolphus ab Eems his Paraphrase of the old Testament Andreas du Chesn hath published a Preface before an old Saxon Book wherein it is said that Ludovicus Pius did take care that all the People should read the Scripture in their own Tongue and gave it in charge to a Saxon to translate both Old and New Testament into the German Language which saith he was performed very elegantly 3. In the Saxon Churches here it was not to be expected that the Scripture should be translated till there were Persons learned both in the Saxon and the other Languages Bede in his Epistle to Egbert puts him upon instructing the common People in their own Language especially in the Creed and Lord's Prayer and to further so good a Work Bede himself translated the Gospel of St. John into the Saxon Tongue as Cuthbert saith in the Epistle about his Death in the Life of Bede before his Saxon History It appears by the old Canons of Churches and the Epistles of Aelfric saith Mr. Lisle that there was an old Saxon Canon for the Priest to say unto the People the sense of the Gospel in English and Aelfric saith of himself that he had translated the Pentateuch and some of the Historical Books The New Testament was translated by several hands and an ancient Saxon Translation hath been lately published with the Gothick Gospels And there were old Saxon Glosses upon the Gospels of Aldred Farmen and Owen The last Work of K. Alfred was the translating the Psalter and if the MS. History of Ely deserves credit he translated both the Old and New Testament 4. It is not denied either by Bellarmin or Baronius that the Slavonians in the 9th Century had a permission upon their conversion to Christianity to enjoy the Bible and to have publick Offices performed in their own Language But they tell us it was because they were then Children in the Faith and to be indulged but methinks Children were the most in danger to be seduced or there were not Priests enough to officiate in Latin at first But this was no Reason then given as appears by the Pope's own Letter published by Baronius Wherein he gives God thanks for the Invention of Letters among them by Constantine a Philosopher and he expresly saith that God had not confined his Honour to three Languages but all People and Languages were to praise him and he saith God himself in Scripture had so commanded and he quotes St. Paul's words for it One would wonder those great Men should no better consider the Popes own Reasons but give others for him which he never thought of It is true he adds that he would have the Gospel read first in Latin and then in Salvonian and if they pleased he would have the Mass said in Latin but the Slavonians continued their Custom and the Pope was willing enough to let them enjoy it for his own convenience as well as theirs For there was a secret in this matter which is not fully understood Aventinus saith that Methodius invented their I etters and translated the Scriptures into the Slavonian Tongue and persuaded the People to reject the Latin Service but this I see no ground for But the Truth of the matter was the Slavonians were converted by the means of Methodius and Cyril otherwise called Constantine two Greek Bishops and the Christian Religion was settled among them by their means
and they Translated the Scriptures and Offices of Worship into their own Language The Pope had not forgotten the business of the Bulgarians and he could not tell but this might end in subjection to another Patriarchal See and therefore he enâ—eavours to get Methodius and Cyril to Rome and having gained them he sends a sweetning Letter to the Prince and makes the concession before mentioned For he could not but remember how very lately the Greeks had gained the Bulgarians from him and lest the Slavonians should follow them he was content to let them have what they desired and had already Established among themselves without his Permission All this appears from the account of this matter given by Constantinus Porphyrogenetus compared with Diocleas his Regnum Slavorum and Lucius his Dalmatian History It is sufficient for my purpose that Diocleas owns that Constantine to whom Andreas Dandalus D. of Venice in his M S History cited by Lucius saith the Pope gave the name of Cyril did Translate the Bible into the Slavonian Tongue for the benefit of the People and the publick Offices out of Greek according to their Custom And the Chancellour Seguier had in his Library both the New Testament and Lâ—turgies in the Slavonian Language and in Cyril's Character and many of the Greek Fathers Commentaries on Scripture in that Tongue but not one of the Latin. 2. The next step was when Gregory 7. prohibited the Translation of the Latin Offices in the Slavonian Tongue And this he did to the King of Bohemia himself after a peremptory manner but he saith it was the request of the Nobility that they might have divine Offices in the Slavonian Tongue which he could by no means yield to What was the matter How comes the Case to be so much altered from what it was in his Predecessor's time The true Reason was the Bohemian Churches were then brought into greater Subjection to the Roman See after the Consecration of Dithmarus Saxo to be their Archbishop and now they must own their Subjection as the Roman Provinces were wont to do by receiving the Language But as his Predecessour had found Scripture for it for Gregory pretends he had found Reason against it viz. The Scripture was obscure and apt to be misunderstood and despised What! more than in the time of Methodius and Cyril If they pleaded Primitive Practice he plainly answers that the Church is grown wiser and hath corrected many things that were then allowed This is indeed to the purpose and therefore by the Authority of S. Peter he forbids him to suffer any such thing and charges him to oppose it with all his might But after all it is entred in the Canon Law De Officio Jud. Ord. l. 1. Tit. 31. c. Quoniam as a Decree of Innocent 3. in the Lateran Council that where there were People of different Languages the Bishop was to provide Persons fit to officiate in those several Languages Why so If there were a prohibition of using any but the Latin Tongue But this was for the Greeks and theirs was an holy Tongue That is not said nor if it were would it signifie any thing for doth any imaginary holiness of the Tongue sanctifie ignorant Devotion But the Canon supposes them to have the same Faith. Then the meaning is that no man must examin his Religion by the Scripture but if he rseolves beforehand to believe as the Church believes then he may have the Scriptures or Prayers in what Language he pleases But even this is not permitted in the Roman Church For 3. After the Inquisition was set up by the Authority of Innocent 3. in the Lateran Council no Lay Persons were permitted to have the Books of the Old and New Testament but the Psalter or Breviary or Hours they might have but by no means in the vulgar Language This is called by D'achery and Labbe the Council of Tholouse but in truth it was nothing else but an Order of the Inquisition as will appear to any one that reads it And the Inquisition ought to have the Honour of it both in France and Spain Which Prohibition hath been so gratefull to some Divines of the Church of Rome that Cochlaeus calls it pious just reasonable wholsom and necessary Andradius thinks the taking of it away would be destructive to Faith Ledesma saith the true Catholicks do not desire it and bad ought not to be gratified with it Petrus Sutor a Carthusian Doctour calls the Translating Scripture into the vulgar Languages a rash useless and dangerous thing and he gives the true Reason of it viz. that the People will be apt to murmur when they see things required as from the Apostles which they cannot find a word of in Scripture And when all is said on this Subject that can be by men of more Art this is the plainest and honestest Reason for such a Prohibition but I hope I have made it appear it is not built on any Catholick Tradition IV. Of the Merit of Good Works The Council of Trent Sess. 6. c. 16. declares That the Good Works of justified Persons do truly deserve Eternal Life and Can. 3â— an Anathema is denounced against him that denies them to be meritorious or that a justified Person by them doth not truly merit Increase of Grace and Happiness and Eternal Life The Council hath not thought fit to declare what it means by truly meriting but certainly it must be opposed to an improper kind of Meriting and what that is we must learn from the Divines of the Church of Rome 1. Some say That some of the Fathers speak of an improper kind of Merit which is no more than the due Means for the attaining of Happiness as the End. So Vega confesses they often use the word Merit where there is no Reason for Merit either by way of Congruity or Condignity Therefore where there is true Merit there must be a proper Reason for it And the Council of Trent being designed to condemn some prevailing Opinions at that time among those they called Hereticks this Assertion of true Merit must be levelled against some Doctrine of theirs but they held Good Works to be necessary as Means to an end and therefore this could not be the meaning of the Council Suarez saith the words of the Council ought to be specially observed which are that there is nothing wanting in the good works of justified Persons ut vere promeruisse censeantur and therefore no Metaphorical or improper but that which by the Sense of the Church of Rome was accounted true Merit in opposition to what was said by those accounted Hereticks must be understood thereby 2. Others say that a meer Congruity arising from the Promise and Favour of God in rewarding the acts of his Grace in justified Persons cannot be the proper Merit intended by the Council And that for these Reasons 1. Suarez observes that although the Council avoids the
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
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
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
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
in his Notes on this place confesses that no Precept of Sacramental Confession is contained in it But how should it be of Divine Right in the sense of the Council of Trent if there be no Command for it Tes by Cons quence if they will obtain Remission of Sins but this can by no means be inferred from hence because the Remission of Sins by Baptism is implied in it but none of them plead for particular Confession before Baptism in order to Remission and therefore not after unless some Command of Christ made it more necessary after Baptism than before Vasquez saith that Cajetan means no more than that it cannot be proved out of this place but Catharinus saith that neither there nor in any other place doth Cajetan allow that Auricular Confession can be proved out of Scripture Gabriel Biel confesses he cannot find sufficient force to conclude the Necessity of Confession from the Power of Absolution here granted because it may be valid upon voluntary Confession of the Party and therefore he resolves it into an unwritten Tradition Guide Brianson takes great pains to prove it out of this place but at last yields that Christ's instituting such a Power doth not bind Persons to confess their Faults to them that have it For the Power of retaining doth not imply that no sins are retained which are not retained by the Priest upon Confession neither then doth the Power of Absolution imply that no sins are remitted but such as are confessed to a Priest. And therefore he betakes himself as Biel doth to unwritten Tradition and so doth Nicol. de Orbellis Jac. de Almain debates the matter at large and he says only that it is a probable Opinion that this Confession is of divine Appointment but he yields that Christ's granting a Power of Absolution dâ—th not make it a duty to confess to a Priest and he saith it is a false proposition that where a Power of judging is given others are bound to submit to it for all that follows is that their Sentence is valid if they do submit But the force of what the Council of Trent deduces from this place lies wholly in this as Vasquez observes that because Christ hath given Authority to absolve and they cannot exercise that Authority without Confession therefore Confession is hereby made necessary And he confesses that scarce any have deduced the Argumert effectually from this place But he saith one thing very observable that if this place be extended to Remission of Sins in Baptism then it can never prove the necessity of Sacramental Confession And Greg. de Valentia as plainly owns that the Fathers did understand it of Baptism he names S. Cyprian and S. Ambrose but Natalis Alexander allows S. Cyril of Alexandria to have so understood it and that Jansenius and Ferus followed him but besides these S. Augustin interprets this place as S. Cyprian had done For as S. Cyprian from hence infers the Power of Baptizing and granting Remission of Sins in the Guides of the Church so S. Augustin saith the Churches Charity by the Hâ—ly Ghost looses the Sins of those who are her Members and retains the sins of those who are not And it may be observed that whereas St. Matthew speaks of the Power of Baptizing granted to the Apostles S. John instead of that mentions this Pâ—wer of remitting or retaining Sins and S. Mark and S. Luke speak of Baptism to which the one joins Sâ—lvation and the other Remission of Sins And theâ—efore this seems to be meant by our Saviour in the Words of S. John and thus S. Peter exercised this Power of loosing on the converted Jews Act. 2. 38. and his Power of binding on Simon Magus Act. 8. 21. Peter Lombard carries S. Augustin's meaning farther to the Power of Priests over the Sins of the Members of the Church but then he limits this Power and makes it no more than declarative as I have observed already and for this he quotes a notable passage of S. Jerom who saith that Men are apt to assume too much to themselves under pretence of this Power of the Keys whereas God regards not the Sentence of the Priests but the Life of the Penitents But Natalis Alexander thinks there is no binding Power with respect to Baptism Was there not as to Simon Magus And as long as every year the Church judged of the competency of Persons for it When Christ spake these words the Church was wholly to be formed and it was a great Power lodged with the Apostles and their Successors to admit into the Church or to exclude from it not as private Persons but by Authority from Christ himself But then this Power is vain and idle in a constituted Church By no means they have still a Power of casting out and taking in again and of imposing such Acts on Offenders as may give satisfaction to the Church whose Honour suffers and whose Discipline is broken But the question is Whether by Christ's appointment under the Gospel no known mortal sin can be pardon'd to baptized Persons without Confession of it to a Priest And whether these words of our Saviour do imply it Scotus is by no means satisfied with mens Reasoning out of this place that because Christ hath given such a Power therefore it is mens duty to confess their sins For saith he this only implies the usefulness and efficacy of this Power if it be made use of as in Confirmation none think themselves damned if they do not use it though it be very useful and therefore he goes another way to work viz. by joyning this precept and that of loving God and our selves together with it But how doth this prove that a man ought to take this particular way Truly Scotus here shews his Subâ—ilty Suppose there be another way that is harder and this be found more easie he thinks a man is bound to take the shortest and easiest way viz. by Confession and Absolution But for all this his heart did misgive him and he could not but see that this proved nothing unless this way of Confession were first proved to be a secure way And therefore he puts the Case that if it be not proved by these Words it may be by S. James Confess your faults one to anoâ—her No saith he this will not do for which he gives this Reason that it holds no more for confession to a Priest than to any other therefore after all he is willing to resolve it into some unwritten Tradition since there was no convincing evidence for it either in this or any other place of Scripture Which shew'd they ran to Tradition when they had nothing else to say Bonaventure denies that Christ himself appâ—inted tâ—e Confession of sins for which he gives this reason lest it should prove an occasion of sinning ne ex verbis Domini daretur aliquibus recidivandi occasio but afterwards he thinks the Apostles
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
contrary to the Gospel and ought not to be obey'd For Bread and nourishment is not more necessary to preserve the Life of the Body than the Word of God is to uphold the Life of the Soul. That for men to speak of so much danger in reading the Scripture is to reflect very dishonourably on the Providence and Groodness of God for it was by means of Transâ—ations in Vulgar Languages that God's Word came to be knoâ— to the World and the Gospel was at first published in those Tongues which were most generally understood And therefore those do manifestly oppose the design and method of Providence for advancing the Gospel who decry Translations of Scripture as pernicious to the Souls of Men. And farther that such a prohibition is a Contempt of our Lord Jesus Christ and a design to suppress the Gospel and a Contradiction to the Will and Command of God A Contempt of the Scripture which was intended to be understood by all A Contempt both of Councils and Fathers which looked on the Scripture as the best Judge of Controversies and who advised all believers to a continual reading of the Word of God. If after all this the Council of Trent could so notoriously err not onely against Scripture and Reason but Tradition too in such a Matter of Concernment to the Souls of Men as this is it will be hardly possible to persuade Men it could not as well err in any Point of Faith. And it renders the whole proceeding suspicious as to particular Points when the Rule of Faith is so industriously kept out of the hands of the People For those who follow their Instructions are never ashamed to produce their Credentials As to what J. W. saith in his Book concerning Jupiter c. I had answered it so fully many years since that I have Reason to expect a Reply to what I had there said in my own Vindication before I can think it fit to trouble the World with needless Repetitions And it were hard for me to be put to Answer again to the same things when a Person will not take the pains to see whether he were not Answer'd already THE END Third Letter p. 64. Catechism Rom. Part 2. Reply to the Defence of the Expoâ—â—tion c. p. 134. Sess. 13. Can. 2. 3 Q. 75. A. 2. Regist. f. 47. Registr Arundel p. 2. f. 143. Maignan Philosophia Saâ—ra Part 2. Append. 5. Necnon Traditiones ipsas tum ad â—idem tum ad mores pertinentes tanquam vel ore tenns â Christo vel à Spiritu sancto dictatas continuâ successione in Ecclesia Catholica conservatas pari pietatis affectu ac reâ—erentià suscipit veneratur Hist. Concil Trident. l. 6. c. 14. n. 3. N. 4. Aug. l. 2. c. Julian Et caetera nostrae saluti necessaria quae omnia sola docet sacra Scriptura Lection in Canon Missae 71. Haec autem in sacris Scripturis discuntur per quas solas plenam intelligere possumus Dei voluntatem ib. Eâ—â—e quo tendit utilitas divinae Scripturae ad perfectionem hominis Dei hoc est qui totum seipsum Deo dat perfectionem inquam taâ—em ut sit perfectus ad omne bonum exercendum In 2. ad Tim. 3. 16. Dico iâ—â—a omnia Scripta esse ab Apostolis quae sunt â—mnibus necessaria quae ipsi palam omnibus vulgò praedicaverunt Bellarm. de verbo Dei. l. 4. c. 11. Illud imprimis statuendum erit Propheticos Apostolicos libros juxta mentem Ecclesiae Catholicae verum esse verbum Dei certam ac stabilem Regulam fidei Id. l. 1. c. 1. At sacris Scripturis quae Propheticis Apostolicis literis continentur nihil est notius nihil certius Id. c. 2. Quare cum Sacra Scriptura Regula credendi certissima tutissimáque sit Ibid. L. 4. c. 9. * Et quantum ad ea quae proâ—onantur omnibus credenda quae perâ—inent ad fiaem 2. 2. q. 171. prol †1. q. 1. a. 5. ‖ Melch. Can. l. 12. c. 3. Marsil in 4. lib. Sentent l. 1. Prooem q. 2. art 2. Pet. de Alliâ—co in Sent. l. 1. q. 1. a. 3. Greg. Arimin q. 1. a. 2. Durand Prol. Q. 5. n. 9. a. 13. n. 21. L. 3. Dist. 25. q. 2. Nam in concernentibus fidem etiam dictum unius privati esset praâ—erendum dicto Papae si ille movereâ—ur melioribus rationibus novi veteris Testamenti quam Papae Cùm ergo in omni veritate veritas divina sit certior immutabilior ergo omnes aliae debent regulari per illam in quantum conformantur illi sunt verae in quantum autem deviant ab illa deviant à natura veritatis Sacra autem Scriptura veritas divina est ideo judicium nostrum debemus regulare per illam applicando ad eam c. Tostatin Ep. Hieron c. 6. p. 28. D. Non quod in Auctoritate aequantur absit sed sequantur Non quidem in subsidium Auctoritatis Canonicae sed in admonitionem posterorum l. 2. Art. 2. c. 22. c. 28. c. 27. Joh. Gerson Exam. Doctr. p. 540. Part. 1. Cons. 5. Cons. 6. Nihil audendum dicere de divinis nisi quae nobis à Sacra Scriptura tradita sunt Cujus ratio est quoniam Scriptura nobis tradita est tanquam Regula sufficiens infallibiâ—iâ— pro Regiâ—â—ine totius Ecclesiastici corporis membrorum usque in finem seculi Est igitur talis Ars talis regula vel exemplar cui se non conformans alia Doctrina vel abjicienda est ut haereticalis aut suspecta aut impertinens ad Religionem prorsus est habenda Exam. Doctr. Part. 2. Consid. 1. Lyra Praesat ad lib. Tobiae Scot. in Sentent Prolog Q. 2. n. 14. Ea enim quae ex sola Dei voluntate supra omne debitum Creaturâ— nobis innotescere non possunt nisi quatenus in sacra Scriptura traduntur per quam Divina voluntas nobis innotescit 3. q. 1. a. 3. in C. Suarez in 3. p. 117. Authoritatibus autem Canonicae Scripturae utitur propriè ex necessitate argumentando autoritatibus autem aliorum Doctorum Ecclesiae quasi arguendo ex propriis sed probabilitér Inniâ—itur enim fides nostra Revelationi Apostolis Prophet is factae qui Canonicos libros scripserunt non autem Revelationi si qua fuit aliis Doctoribus facta 1. q. 1. a. 8. ad 2. Quae igitur fidei sunt non sunt tentanda probari nisi per Autoritates his qui Autoritates suscipiunt 1. q. 32. a. 1. c. Si autem ad veritatem eloquiorum sc. sacrorum respicit hoc nos Canone utimur Ib. Dicendum quod veritas fidei in Sacra Scriptura diffusè continetur ideó fuit necessarium ut ex sententiis Sacrae Scripturae aliquid manifestum summariè colligeretur quod proponeretur omnibus ad credendum quod quidem non est additum Sacrae Scripturae
Canon taking Ecclesiastical Writings which were read in Churches into that number And in this sense S. Augustin used the Word Apocryphal when the Book of Enoch is so called by him and such other counterfeit Writings under the Names of the Prophets and Apostles but elsewhere he distinguishes between the Canonical Books of Salomon and those which bear his Name which he saith the more learned know not to be his but the Western Church had of old owned their Authority But in the case of the Book of Enoch he appeals to the Canon which was kept in the Jewish Temple and so falls in with S. Jerom and he confesses it is hard to justifie the Authority of those which are not in the Hebrew Canon Of the Machabees he saith It is distinguished from the Writings called Canonical but it is received by the Church as such What! to confirm matters of Faith No. But for the glorious sufferings therein recorded and elsewhere he saith it is usefull if it be soberly read S. Augustin knew very well that all Books were not received alike and that many were received in some parts of the Western Church from the old Translation out of the LXX which were not received in the Eastern and therefore in his Books of Christian Doctrine he gives Rules in judging of Canonical Books to follow the Authority of the greatest Number of Catholick Churches especially the Apostolical and that those which were received by all should be preferred before those which were onely received by some But he very well knew that the Hebrew Canon was universally received and that the controverted Books were not and therefore according to his Rule these could never be of Equal Authority with the other 4. When the Roman Church declared that it received the controverted Books into the Canon This is said to have been done by Gelasius with his Synod of LXX Bishops and yet it is hard to understand how Gregory so soon after should contradict it The Title of it in the old MS. produced by Chiffletius and by him attributed to Hormisdas is The Order of the Old Testament which the holy Catholick Roman Church receives and honours is this But whether by Gelasius or Hormisdas I cannot understand why such a Decree as this should not be put into the old Roman Code of Canons if it had been then made That there was such a one appears by the Copies of it in the Vatican mentioned by the Roman Correctors of Gratian and by mention of it by the Canon Si Romanorum Dist. 19. and De Libellis Dist. 20. and by the latter we understand what Canons of Councils and Decrees of Popes are in it among whom are both Gelasius and Hormisdas This they agree to be the same with that published by Wendelstin at Mentz 1525. The Epistle of Innocentius to Exuperius with the Canon is there published but not the other and so is the Canon of the Council of Carthage but that of Laodicea is cut off and so they are in that published by Dionysius Exiguus and Quesnell Justellus his ancient Copy was imperfect there but both these Canons being in the Roman Code are an Argument to me that the controverted Books were received by the Roman Church at that time but in such a manner that S. Jerom's Prologues still stood in the vulgar Latin Bible with the Commentaries of Lyra and Additions of Burgensis which were stiff for the Hebrew Canon and S. Jerom's Authority prevailed more than the Pope's as appears fully by what hath been already produced 5. To advance the Authority of these Books one step higher Eugenius IV. declared them to be Part of the Canon in the Instruction given to the Armenians Which the Roman Writers pretend to have been done in the Council of Florence But Naclantus Bishop of Chioza in the Council of Trent as Pallavicini saith denied that any such Decree was made by the Council of Florence because the last Session of it ended 1439. and that Decree was signed Feb. 4. 1441. To this the Legat replied that this was a mistake occasioned by Abraham Cretensis who published the Latin version of it onely till the Greeks departure but the Council continued three years longer as appeared by the Extracts of Augustinus Patricius since published in the Tomes of the Councils But he never mentions the Canon of Scripture however because Cervinus affirms that he saw the Original signed by the Pope and Cardinals we have no reason to dispute it But then it appears how very little it signified when Antoninus the Bishop of Florence opposed it and Cardinal Ximenes and Cardinal Cajetan slighted it and all who embraced the Council of Basil looked on Eugenius his Decree as void and after all that very Decree onely joins the Apocryphal Books in the same Canon as the Council of Carthage had done but it was reserved as the peculiar Honour of the Council of Trent to declare that Matters of Faith might be proved out of them as well as out of any Canonical Scriptures III. About the free use of the Scripture in the vulgar Language prohibited by the Council of Trent To understand the Sense of the Council of Trent in this matter we must consider 1. That it declares the vulgar Latin to be Authentick i. e. that no man under any pretence shall dare to presume to reject it Suppose the pretence be that it differs from the Original no matter for that he must not reject that which the Council hath declared Authentick i. e. among the Latin Editions But suppose a Man finds other Latin Translations truer in some parts because they agree more with the Original Text may he therein reject the vulgar Latin By no means if he thinks himself bound to adhere to the Council of Trent But the Council supposes it to agree with the Original And we must believe the Council therein This is indeed the meaning of the Council as far as I can judge But what Catholick Tradition was there for this Tes for a thousand years after Gregory 's time But this is not Antiquity enough to found a Catholick Tradition upon If there were no more than a thousand from Gregory there were six hundred past before him so that there must be a more ancient Tradition in the Church wherein this version was not Authentick and how came it then to be Authentick by virtue of Tradition Here then Tradition must be given up and the Council of Trent must have some other ground to go upon For I think the Traditionary Men will not maintain the vulgar Latin to have been always Authentick 2. That it referred the making the Index of prohibited Books to the Pope and in the 4th Rule of that Index All Persons are forbidden the use of the Scripture in the vulgar Tongue without a particular Licence and whosoever presumes to doe it without a faculty unless he first gives up his Bible he is not to receive Absolution My business is