the Sacraments in his first and second Part and he seems to make the annual Chrism to be a Sacrament for which he quotes an Epistle of Fabianus who saith it ought to be consecrated every year quia novum Sacramentum est and this he saith he had by Tradition from the Apostles Which Testimony the modern Schoolmen rely upon for a sufficient proof of this Apostolical Tradition But this Epistle is a notorious counterfeit and rejected by all men of any tolerable Ingenuity in the Church of Rome Thus we trace the Original of some pretended Apostolical Traditions into that Mass of Forgeries the Decretal Epistles which was sent abroad under the Name of Isidore Ivo produces another Testimony from Innocentius I. to prove that Extreme Unction was then owned for a kind of Sacrament and therefore ought not to be given to Penitents If this Rule holds then either Matrimony was no Sacrament or Penitents might not marry but the Canonists say even excommunicated Persons may marry but one of them saith it is a strange Sacrament excommunicated Persons are allow'd to partake of But this genus est Sacramenti signifies very little to those who know how largely the Word Sacrament was used in elder times from Iertullian downwards But our Question is not about a kind of a Sacrament but strict and proper Sacraments and if it had been then thought so he would not have permitted any to administer it unless they will say it is as necessary to Salvation as Baptism which none do It appears from hence that there was then a Custome among some in regard to S. James his Words if Persons were sick to take some of the Chrism to anoint them and to pray over them in hopes of their Recovery but this was no Sacrament of dying Persons as it is now in the Church of Rome If it had been then so esteemed S. Ambrose or who-ever was the Author of the Book of Sacraments would not have omitted it and the other supernumeraries when he purposely treats of Sacraments the same holds as to S. Cyril of Jerusalem And it is a poor evasion to say that they spake only to Catechumens for they were to be instructed in the Means and Instruments of Salvation as they make all Sacraments to be And it is to as little purpose to say that they do not declare there are but twâ— for our business is to enquire for a Catholick Tradition for sâ—ven true and proper Sacraments as the Council of Trent determines under an Anathema But if we compare the Traditions for two and for seven together the other will be found to have far greater Advantage not only because the two are mention'd in the eldest Writers where the seven are not but because so many of the Fathers agree in the Tradition that the Sacraments were designed by the Water and Blood which came out of our Saviour's side So S. Chrysostom S. Cyril of Alexandria Leo Magnus but above all S. Augustin who several times insists upon this which shews that they thought those two to be the true and proper Sacraments of Christianity however there might be other Mystical Rites which in a large sense might be called Sacraments As to the Occasions of setting up this Number of seven Sacraments they were these 1. Some pretty Congruities which they had found out for them The Number seven they observe was in request in the Levitical Law as to Sacrifices and Purifications Naaman was bid to wash seven times And Bellarmin in good earnest concludes that the whole Scripture seemed to foretell the seven Sacraments by those things But besides he tells us of the seven things relating to natural Life which these have an Analogy with the seven sorts of sins these are a remedy against and the seven sorts of Vertues which answer to the seven Sacraments But none of all these prove any Catholick Tradition 2. Making no difference between Mystical Rites continued in Imitation of Apostolical Practices and true and real Sacraments Imposition of Hands for Confirmation and Ordination is allowed to be a very just and reasonable Imitation of them and as long as the Miraculous Power of Healing Diseases continued there was a fair Ground for continuing the Practice mentioned by S. James but there was no Reason afterwards to change this into quite another thing by making it a Sacrament chiefly intended for doing away the Remainders of Sin. 3. Advancing the Honour of the Priesthood by making them so necessary for the actual Expiation of all sorts of Sins and in all conditions For no Sacrament is rightly administred by the Council of Trent without the Priest and therefore clandestine Marriages are declared void by it And it pronounces an Anathema against those who say any others than Priests can administer Extreme Unction however it appears that in the time of Innocentius 1. any might make use of the Chrism when it was consecrated by a Bishop but they are grown wiser in the Church of Rome since that time and as they have altered a Ceremony of Curing into a Sacrament of Dying so they have taken Care that none but Priests shall perform that last Office that the People may believe they can neither live nor dye without them VI. Of Auricular Confession The Council of Trent declares that the Universal Church always understood that Christ did institute an entire Confession of Sins and that it is received by Divine Right to all who sin after Baptism because our Lord Jesus Christ before his Ascension into Heaven did leave Priests as his Vicars to be Presidents and Judges to whom all mortal sins were to be made known and of which they were by The Power of the Keys to give Sentence so as either to remit or retain them It farther saith That the most holy and ancient Fathers by a great and unanimous Consent did use this secret Sacramental Confession from the beginning And it denounces Anathema's 1. Against him that denies the Sacrament of Penance to be of Christ's Institution 2. Against him that denies that our Saviour's words Receive ye the Holy Ghost Whose sins ye remit they are remitted c. are to be understood of the Power of remitting and retaining in the Sacrament of Penance as the Calick Church always understood them 3. Against him that denies Confession to be a Part of it or to have Divine Institution and to be necessary to Salvation as it relates to all mortal though secret Sins Thus we see the Sense of the Council of Trent in this matter and I shall now make it evident there was no such Catholick Tradition as is here pretended for it by the Confession of their own Writers 1. As to the General Sense of the Church 2. As to the Founding it on John 22. Those sins ye remit c. 1. As to the General Sense of the Church Maldonat reckons up Seven several Opinions among themselves about Confession 1.
before Satisfaction and although some have complained of this as a great abuse yet they have been sharply answer'd that it is to call in question the Conduct of the Church for five hundred years and they may as well question many other things which depend upon the Authority of the Present Church 3. The Obligation to Confession is very different from what it was in the ancient Exomologesis Now by the Doctrine of the Church of Rome a person looks on himself as bound in Conscience to confess every Mortal sin but in the Ancient Church none can imagine that persons were bound to undergo the Exomologesis for every mortal sin there being no Penitential Canons which did ever require it but they had respect to some particular sins and the Penance was proportion'd to them We ought to take notice of two things with respect to the Discipline of the Ancient Church which will shew the different notion it had of these things from what is now current in the Church of Rome 1. That it did not exclude those from all hopes of Salvation whom it excluded from Penance as may be seen in the Illiberitan Council where many are wholly shut out from the Church whom we cannot think they thought uncapable of Salvation From whence it follows that they did not look on Confession and Absolution as a necessary condition of Salvation but now in the Church of Rome they allow Confession to all because they think they cannot otherwise be in a state of Salvation in an ordinary way But in the Ancient Church they could not look on the desire of Confession as necessary for to what purpose should they make that necessary when they denyed the thing But in the Church of Rome they make the desire necessary because they hold the thing it self to be so if there be means to have it 2. That the Penitential Canons never extended in the Primitive Church to all those sins which the Church of Rome now accounts Mortal and therefore necessary to be confessed The Council of Trent saith expresly they must confess omnia singula peccata mortalia etiam occulta and an Anathema is denounced against him that denies it to be necessary to Remission of them Now if we consider their notion of mortal sins we shall easily discern the vast difference between the Obligation to Confession by the Council of Trent and by the old Penitential Canons For mortal sins are not only all Voluntary Acts committed against the known Laws of God but against the Laws of the Church and even venial sins may become mortal by the Disposition of the Person and by other circumstances which the Casuists set down at large now the Council of Trent doth expresly oblige men not only to relate the Acts themselves but all Circumstances which change the kind of Sin. And this is a racking the Consciences of Men far beyond whatever we find in the old Penitential Canons for Petavius confesses that many sins now accounted mortal had no Penance appointed for them by the old Canons and therefore I need not take any pains to prove it If any one hath a mind to be satisfied he may see it in Gregory Nyssen's Canonical Epistle where he owns that several of those sins for which the Scripture excludes from the Kingdom of Heaven have no Canonical Penance prescribed them by the ancient Canons of the Church Which shews a mighty difference from the Rule of the Council of Trent The most plausible place in Antiquity brought for all mortal sin is that of S. Cyprian where he saith that some confessed their very thoughts though they had not proceeded to actual sin It is true that he doth speak of some such but was it for sins of thought against the tenth Command No but it is very plain that he speaks of that sin which was thought to imply a renouncing Christianity and S Cyprian elsewhere calls summum delictum and the Sin agâ—inst the Holy Ghost viz. consenting to any Act of gentile Idolatry and yet Saint Cyprian had much ado to perswade those who were actually guilty to submit to due Penance for it but they obtained Tickets from the Confessors and were admitted to communion without undergoing the Discipline of the Church the consequence whereof would be that the Discipline would be lost and the Church over-run with Apostates this makes S. Cyprian plead hard against such practices and among other arguments he uses this of the great tenderness of some who because they had entertained such thoughts of doing as others did for their own safety they offered to unburthen their Consciences before them and desired remedy for small Wounds how much more ought they to confess their faults whose wounds are greater This is the whole force of his reasoning where the Thought and Act relate to the same sin and that said to be no less than denying Christ and sinning against the Holy Ghost But there is no parity in the case of other sins which even S. Cyprian calls minora delicta being against men immediately and there is no intimation in him that ever the thoughts of those sins were discovered or that Persons were under any obligation by the Rules of the Church to do it 2. Private Offenders were sometimes advised in those first Ages for the ease of their Consciences to make Confession of their sins of which we see an instance as to the Practice in one Case in S. Cyprian's time And Tertullian compares such Persons who avoid it to those who have such secret Ulcers that they chuse rather to perish than to discover them Now in Cases of this nature he advises to Confession and publick penitential Acts that so they may in the Judgment of the Church have the secret Wounds of their Consciences healed And this is that which Origen doth advise to in such Cases to seek out a wise spiritual Physician and to make known his inward distemper to him and to follow his advice and direction as to the Method of Cure. Now this we never oppose but the only Question is whether it be necessary for all Persons and for every Mortal Sin to make Confession of it to the Priest that it may be forgiven and Origen never once supposes this for he mentions several other ways for the Remission of Sins after Baptism by Martyrdom by Alms by forgiving and converting others by great Love to God and in the last place he brings in this of a Laborious Penance and Confession Either the former ways are sufficient without this or not if they are then this is not necessary to the Remission of all mortal Sins if not to what purpose doth he mention so many ways when this one is sufficient without them and all those are insufficient without this For Boileau confesses that no mortal sins according to them can be remitted where there is not at least the desire of this But Origen shews the different ways of
him reconciled But it saith not without the desire of it Suppose not yet the thing is done upon the desire therefore the Priests Power can be no more than declarative And that such a Desire is so necessary as without Contrition avails not is more than the Council hath proved and it is barely supposed to maintain the Necessity of going to the Priest for Absolution and so it will be no more than a Precept of the Church and not a condition of Remission in the Sacrament of Penance But afterwards it declares that imperfect Contrition or Attrition doth dispose a Man for the Grace of God in this Sacrament and by the general Canons the Sacraments do confer Grace where Men are disposed So that the Council of Trent did rightly comprehend the force of the Power of Absolution which it gave to the Priest in the Sacrament of Penance But what Catholick Tradition could there be for the Doctrin of the Council of Trent in thismatter when Hadrian 6. so little before it declares it was a great difficulty among the Doctors whether the Keys of Priesthood did extend to the Remission of the Fault And for the Negative he produces Pet. Lombard Alex. Alens and Bonaventure and saith that Opinion is probable because the Priests Power of binding and loosing is equal and as they cannot bind where God doth not for they cannot retain the sins of a true Penitent so neither can they loose where God doth not i. e. where there is not true Contrition But because he saith others held the contrary Opinion and had probability on their side too therefore he would determine nothing Notwithstanding this in a few years after the Council of Trent finds no difficulty no Probability in the other Opinion but determines as boldly as if there had been an Universal Tradition their way whereas the contrary cannot be denied by any that are conversant in the Doctrin of their Schools But it was the mighty Privilege of the Council of Trent to make the Doctrins of Thomas and Scotus when they agreed to be Articles of Faith and to denounce Anathema's against Opposers although they reached to some of the greatest Divines of their own Church within Bellarmin's compass of 500 Years Of Extreme Unction We are now to examin another pretended Sacrament viz. of Extreme Unction The Council of Trent declares this to be a true and proper Sacrament and denounces an Anathema against him that denies it to be instituted by Christ and published by St. James or that it confers Grace and Remission of Sins or that affirms it was appointed for bodily Cures It farther declares from the place of St. James interpreted by Tradition that the Matter is Oil consecrated by the Bishop The Form that which is now used Per istam unctionem c. the Effect the Grace of the Holy Ghost in purging away the remainder of Sin and strengthening the Soul and sometimes bodily cures when it is expedient for the Health of the Soul. So that the primary Intention of this Sacrament must respect the Soul otherwise it is granted it could not be a true and proper Sacrament So Suarez saith in this Case If the external Sign be not immediately appointed for a spiritual Effect it cannot prove a true Sacrament of the New Law no not although the bodily cure were designed for the strengthning of Faith. And from hence he proves that when the Apostles are said to anoint the sick and heal them Mark 6. 13. this cannot relate to the Sacrament of Unction because their cures had not of themselves an immediate respect to the Soul. The same Reason is used by Bellarmin Sacramenta per se ad animam pertinent ad corpus per accidens aut certe secundario The same is affirmed by Maldonat although he differs from Bellarmin about the Apostles anointing with Oil which Bellarmin denies to have been Sacramental for this Reason but Maldonat affirms it and answers other Arguments of Bellarmin but not this Gregory de Valentia carries it farther and saith that if the anointing with Oil were only a Symbol of a miraculous Cure it could be no Sacrament for that is a Medium to convey supernatural Grace and then it would last no longer than the Gift of Miracles So that we have no more to do but only to prove that by the Tradition of the Church St. James his anointing was to be understood with respect to bodily cures in the first place We cannot pass over so great a Man as Cajetan who wrote on that place of St. James not long before the Council of Trent and a good while after the Council of Florence which relies on this place for this Sacrament of Unction But Cajetan saith it doth not relate to it because the immediate effect is the cure of the Party in Saint James but in this Sacrament the direct and proper effect is Remission of Sins All that Catharinus hath to say against this is that the bodily cure is not repugnant to it but what is this to the purpose when the Question is what is primarily designed in this place The School Divines from Peter Lombard had generally received this for a Sacrament but the Canonists denied it as appears by the Gloss on c. Vir autem de Secund Nuptiis Decret Gregor Tit. 21. where it is said that this Unction might be repeated being no Sacrament but only Prayer over a Person The Roman Correctors cry out it is Heresie by the Council of Trent but the Glosser knew no such thing and if it were so only by the Council of Trent then not by any Catholick Tradition before For I suppose matter of Heresie must reach to the Canonists as well as the Divines But the plainest determination of this matter will be by the ancient Offices of the Church for if they respected bodily Cures in the first place then it is owned there could be no Tradition for any Sacrament in this Unction In the ancient Ordo Romanus it is called Benedictio Olei ad omnem Languorem quocunque tempore I desire to know whether the Oil so consecrated be chiefly designed for the Body or the Soul. And in the Office it self this place of St. James is mentioned And then follows Te Domine peritissimum Medicum imploramus ut virtutis tuae Medicinam in hoc Oleum propitius infundas And a little after Prosit Pater Misericordiarum febribus dysenteria laborantibus prosit paralyticis caecis claudis simulque vexatitiis with abundance more which manifestly shews that this consecrated Oil was intended primarily for the cure of Diseases In the Ambrosian Form the Prayer is Infunde sanctificationem tuam huic Oleo ut ab his quae unxerit membra fugatis insidiis adversariae potestatis susceptione praesentis Olei Sancti Spiritus Gratia salutaris debilitatem expellat plenam conferat sospitatem Where the effect relates to the soundness of the Members anointed and
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 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