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
Examination of the Lord Cobham A. D. 1412. by the same Arch-Bishop we find that he owned the Real Presence of Christ's Body as firmly as his Accusers but he was condemned for Heresie Because he held the Substance of Bread to remain For the Arch-Bishop declared this to be the Sense of the Church that after Consecration remaineth no material Bread or Wine which were before they being turned into Christ's very Body and Bloud The Original words of the Arch-Bishop as they are in the Register are these The faith and the determination of holy Church touching the blestfull Sacrament of the auter is this that after the Sacramental Words ben said by a Prest in his Masse the material bred that was before is turned into Christ's veray body And the material Wyn that was before is turned into Christ veray blode and so there leweth in the auter no material brede ne material Wyn the wich wer ther byfore the saying of the Sacramental words And the Bishops afterwards stood up and said It is manifest Heresie to say that it is Bread after the Sacramental Words be spoken because it was against the Determination of holy Church But to make all sure not many years after May 4th A. D. 1415. the Council of Constance Session 8. declared the two Propositions before mentioned to be heretical viz. to hold that the Substance doth remain after Consecration and that the Accidents do not remain without a Subject Let any impartial Reader now judge whether it be any fatal Oversight to assert that the Modus of the Real Presence was determin'd by the Council of Trent when there were so many leading Determinations to it which were generally owned and received in the Church of Rome But there were other Disputes remaining in the Schools relating to this Matter which we do not pretend were ever determin'd by the Council of Trent As 1. Whether the Words of Consecration are to be understood in a Speculative or Practical Sense For the Scotists say in the former Sense they do by no means prove Transubstantiation since it may be truly said This is my Body though the Substance of Bread do remain and that they are to be understood in a Practical Sense i. e. for converting the Bread into the Body is not to be deduced ex vi verborum from the mere force of the Words but from the Sense of the Church which hath so understood them Which in plain terms is to say it cannot be proved from Scripture but from the Sense of the Church and so Scotus doth acknowledge but then he adds that we are to judge this to be the Sense of Scripture because the Church hath declared it Which he doth not think was done before the Council of Lateran So that this Council must be believed to have had as Infallible a Spirit in giving this Sense of Scripture as there was in the writing of it since it is not drawn from the Words but added to them On the other side the Thomists insist on the force of the Words themselves for if say they from the Words be infer'd that there is a Real Presence of the Substance of Christ's Body then it follows thence that there is no Substance of the Bread remaining for a Substance cannot be where it was not before but it must either change its place or another must be turned into it as Fire in a House must either be brought thither or some other thing must be turned into Fire but say they the Body of Christ cannot be brought from Heaven thither for then it must leave the place it had there and must pass through all the Bodies between and it is impossible for the same Body to be Locally present in several places and therefore the Body of Christ cannot otherwise be really and substantially present but by the Conversion of the Substance of the Bread into it 2. In what Manner the Body of Christ is made to be present in the Sacrament The Scotists say it is impossible to conceive it otherwise than by bringing it from the place where it already is the Thomists say that is impossible since that Body must be divided from it self by so many other Bodies interposing The former is said to be an adductive Conversion the latter a productive but then here lies another difficulty how there can be a productive Conversion of a thing already in being But my business is not to give an account of these School-Disputes but to shew how different they were from the point of Tranfubslantiation and that both these disputing Parties did agree that the Modus of the Real Presence was defined to be by changing the Substance of the Elements into the Body and Blood of Christ but they still warmly disputed about the Modus of that Modus viz. how a Body already in being could be present in so many places without leaving that Place where it was already And no Man who hath ever look'd into these School Disputes can ever imagine that they disputed about the Truth of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation but only about the manner of explaining it Wherein they do effectually overthrow each others Notions without being able to establish their own as the Elector of Cologn truly observed of their Debates about this matter in the Council of Trent VI. Where the Sense of Words hath been changed by the introducing new Doctrine there the words ought to be understood according to the Doctrine at that time received Of this we have two remarkable Instances in the Council of Trent The first is about Indulgences which that Council in its last Session never went about to define but made use of the old Word and so declares both Scripture and Antiquity for the use of them But there had been a mighty change in the Doctrine about them since the Word was used in the Christian Church No doubt there was a Power in the Church to relax Canonical Penances in extraordinary Cases but what could that signifie when the Canonical Discipline was laid aside and a new Method of dealing with Penitents was taken up and another Trade driven with Respect to Purgatory Pains For here was a new thing carried on under an old Name And that hath been the great Artifice of the Roman Church where it hath evidently gone off from the old Doctrines yet to retain the old Names that the unwary might still think the things were the same because the Names were As in the present Case we deny not the use of Indulgences in the Primitive Church as the Word was used for Relaxations of the Canonical Discipline but we utterly deny it as to the Pains of Purgatory And that this was the Sense then receiv'd in the Church of Rome appears from the Papal Constitutions of Bon face the 8th Clemens the 6th and Leo the 10th But of these more hereafter The other Instance is in the Word Species used by the Council of Trent Sess. 13. Can. 2. where an Anathema is denounced
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
mere Oral Tradition according to him but it may be found in the Writers of the Church but the Canon Law expresly excludes all other Writings let them contain what they will from being admitted to any Competition with Canonical Scripture and therefore according to that no part of the Rule of Faith was contained in any other than Canonical Scriptures Dist. 37. c. Relatum A man is supposed to have an entire and firm Rule of Faith in the Scriptures Caus. 8. q. 1. c. Nec sufficere The Scriptures are said to be the onely Rule both of Faith and Life And the Gloss on the Canon Law there owns the Scripture to be the Rule for matters of Faith but very pleasantly applies it to the Clergy and thinks Images enough for the Laity Caus. 24. q. 1. c. Non afferentes The Scriptures are acknowledged to be the true Balance and that we are not so much to weigh what we find there as to own what we find there already weighed Which must imply the Scripture alone to be that Measure we are to trust to Dist. 8. c. 4 5 6 7 8 9. It is there said that Custome must yield to Truth and Reason when that is discovered and that for this Reason because Christ said I am Truth and not Custome Now if Tradition be an Infallible Rule of Faith Custome ought always to be presumed to have Truth and Reason of its side For if we can once suppose a Custome to prevail in the Church against Truth and Reason it is impossible that Tradition should be Infallible for what is that but Ancient Custome Caus. 11. Q. 3. c. 101. Si is qui proeest If any one commands what God hath forbidden or forbids what God hath commanded he is to be accursed of all that love God. And if he requires any thing besides the Will of God or what God hath evidently required in Scripture he is to be looked on as a false Witness of God and a Sacrilegious Person How can this be if there be another infallible way of conveying the Will of God besides the Scriptures Caus. 24. q. 3. c. 30. c. Quid autem In matters of doubt it is said that men are to fly to the Written word for satisfaction and that it is folly not to doe it It is true Mens own Fancies are opposed to Scripture but against Mens Fancies no other Rule is mentioned but that of the Written Word Joh. 22. Extravag c. Quia quorundam Tit. 14. makes his Appeal to Scripture in the Controversie then on foot about Use and Property Dicunt nobis ubi legunt c. and he shews that if it were a matter of Faith it must be contained in Scripture either expresly or by reduction otherwise the Scripture would be no certain Rule and by consequence the Articles of Faith which are proved by Scripture would be rendred doubtfull and uncertain The Glosser there saith Whence comes this consequence and refers to another place where he makes it out thus that Faith can onely be proved by the Scripture and therefore if the Authority of that be destroy'd Faith would be taken away The Roman Editors for an Antidote refer to Cardinal Turrecremata who doth indeed speak of Catholick Truths which are not to be found in the Canon of Scripture and he quotes a passage in the Canon Law for it under the name of Alex. 3. c. cum Marthoe Extrav de Celebr Missae but in truth it is Innoc. 3. Decretal l. 3. Tit. 41. and yet this will not prove what he aims at for the Question was about the Authour of the Words added in the Eucharist to those of Christ's Institution and he pleads that many of Christ's words and actions are omitted by the Evangelists which the Apostles afterwards set down and he instances in Saint Paul as to those words of Christ It is more blessed to give than to receive and elsewhere But what is all this to Catholick Truths not being contained in Scripture either in words or by consequence The Cardinal was here very much to seek when he had nothing but such a Testimony as this to produce in so weighty and so new a Doctrine The best Argument he produces is a horrible blunder of Gratian's where S. Augustin seems to reckon the Decretal Epistles equal with the Scriptures Dist. 19. c. in Canonicis which the Roman Correctors were ashamed of and consess that S. Augustin speaks onely of Canonical Epistles in Scripture So hard must they strain who among Christians would set up any other Rule equal with the Written Word 4. I proceed to prove this from the ancient Offices of the Roman Church In the Office produced by Morinus out of the Vatican MS. which he saith was very ancient the Bishop before his Consecration was asked If he would accommodate all his prudence to the best of his skill to the Sense of Holy Scripture Resp. Yes I will with all my heart consent and obey it in all things Inter. Wilt thou teach the People by Word and Example the things which thou learnest out of holy Scriptures Resp. I will. And then immediately follows the Examen about Manners In another old Office of S. Victor's there are the same Questions in the same manner And so in another of the Church of Rouen lately produced by Mabillon which he saith was about William the Conquerour's time there is not a word about Traditions which crept into the Ordo Romanus and from thence hath been continued in the Roman Pontificals But it is observable that the Ordo Romanus owns that the Examen was originally taken out of the Gallican Offices although it does not appear in those imperfect ones lately published at Rome by Thâ—masius and therefore we may justly suspect that the additional Questions about Traditions were the Roman Interpolations after it came to be used in that Pontifical And the first Office in Morinus was the true ancient Gallican Office. But if Tradition had been then owned as a Rule of Faith it ought no more to have been omitted in the ancient Offices than in the modern And the ancient Writers about Ecclesiastical Offices speak very agreeably to the most ancient Offices about this matter Amalarius saith the Gospel is the Fountain of Wisedom and that the Preachers ought to prove the Evangelical Truth out of the sacred Books Isidore that we ought to think nothing as to matters of Faith but what is contained in the two Testaments Rabanus Maurus that the knowledge of the Scriptures is the foundation and perfection of Prudence That Truth and Wisedom are to be tried by them and the perfect instruction of Life is contained in them Our Venerable Bede agrees with them when he saith that the true Teachers take out of the Scriptures of the old and new Testament that which they preach and therefore have their minds imploy'd in finding out the true meaning of them 5. I now come
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
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
to determin The sense of the Gallican Clergy in this matter doth fully appear by the Representation which they sent to Alexander VII about the Translation of the Missal into French. Which was done by Voisin a Doctour of the Faculty and was published at Paris by the Permission of Cardinal de Retz Archbishop there and had the Approbation of some Doctours of the Sorbon The rest of the Bishops and Clergy highly resented this matter and Assembled together to consult about it Nov. 29. 1660. where they proposed two things to be considered 1. The matter of Right whether such a Translation were to be permitted or not 2. The matter of Fact whether this were a good Translation or not The debate was adjourned to Dec. 3. and from thence to the 7th on which they came to a Resolution to suppress it And a Circular Letter was sent to all the Bishops to forbid the use of it under pain of Excommunication and the King desired to interpose his Authority in it Dec. 9. they agreed to send an account of the whole matter to the Pope in the name of the Gallican Clergy wherein they declare their great dislike of it as contrary to the Custom of the Church and as pernicious to the Souls of Men. And in the Body of it they say that they look on the Translations of Scripture into vulgar Languages as the great occasion of the Northern Heresies and quote Vincentius Lerinensis saying that the Scripture is the Book of Hereticks And after add that they bad sent to the Pope their Condemnation of all Translations of Scripture and Divine Offices into the Vulgar Languages This was subscribed by the General Assembly of the Clergy Jan. 7. 1661. The Pope sent a Brief in Answer which was received Feb. 25. wherein he very Tragically complains that some Sons of Perdition in France had to the ruine of Souls and in Contempt of the Churches Laws and Practice arrived to that degree of madness as to translate the Roman Missal into French. And he charges the doing of it not onely with Novelty but Disobedience Sedition Schism c. and declares that he abhorred and detested it and for ever damned reprobated and forbad it under pain of Excommunication and requires all Persons to deliver up their Books to the several Ordinaries that they might be burnt I now desire J. W. to inform me whether we are bound to believe that in France Translations of Scripture into the vulgar Language are allowed and approved I am really so unwilling to mistake that I take the best care I can to be rightly informed I have no design either to deceive others or to be deceived my self and therefore have not trusted to second-hand Evidence but searched and considered the Authours themselves whose Testimonies I rely upon I am certain I have fallen into no wilfull mistake but have truly and impartially stated things according to the clearest Evidence I could find and therefore I think it some what hard to be told that our Objections are grounded on Mistakes and especially as to this matter about the Prohibition of reading Scripture in the Vulgar Language for I hope I have made it appear not onely that there is such a Prohibition but that it is founded on the Authority of the Council of Trent And if it be so then it serves my main design viz. to prove that it went off from Catholick Tradition for if there were so many Translations of old without the least prohibition and there be since the Council of Trent so severe a one backed with the Pope's Authority here must be a very great change in Tradition For that is accounted pernicious and mischievous to the Souls of men which before was accounted usefull and beneficial to them If the Physicians in one Age should condemn the common Reading of Hippocrates and Galeâ— as destructive to the Health of mens bodies which those of former Ages extremely commended would not any one say there was a great Change in the Opinions of Physicians and that they did by no means hold to the Judgment of those before them If the common Lawyers â—hould now say Littleton's Tenures is a Book very unfit to be read by young Lawyers that it fills their heads with seditious and dangerous Principles and therefore ought to be taken out of their hands would not any one say here is a wonderfull Change for no such thing was ever apprehended before but the Book was thought very usefull and proper to instruct Students in some fundamental Points of the Law When Manna was rained from Heaven in the Wilderness for 40. years and for 30. of them every man gathered his own share and proportion and ate of it as he saw cause would it not have been thought a strange alteration among them if after 30. years a sett of Physicians should have risen up and told the People it was true Manna was Angels food but if they had not great care in the taking it and used it promiscuously it would turn them to Devils or at least it would fill them with such distempers as they would never be able to reach to Canaan This might be pretended to be great Care and Tenderness of them in these new Physicians but on the other side they would tell them they had done very well with their eating Manna for 30. years together and there had been no such distempers among them but such as humane nature is always subject to that such an alteration might be of worse Consequence than their common use of Manna for so it was at first appointed and so it had continued and they could not tell but their new Physicians might be worse to them than their old distempers and they could never believe that could be so hurtfull which God himself had appointed for their food The former Discourse makes the Application needless But after all it is said This is but a point of Discipline and not of Faith and in such the Church may change her Measures To that I answer 1. It is more than a point of Discipline for it is changing the Rule of Faith with respect to the People While the Scriptures were in the hands of the People they resolved their Faith into the Word of God as it was delivered to them and understood by them But when that is taken out of their hands and they are bid to Trust to the Churches Testimony for matters of Faith they have a different Resolution of their Faith and a different Ground and Reason of believing For they cannot ground their Faith upon a written Rule who are uncapable of understanding it 2. It is no matter of Discipline to overthrow the design of publishing the Scripture for the universal Benefit of the Church of God. And this the Jansenists have well proved in Defence of their Translation of the New Testament against the Prohibitions of it For say they the Prohibition of reading the Scripture under pain of Excommunication is it self
THE Council of Trent EXAMIN'D and DISPROV'D BY Catholick Tradition In the main Points in Controversie between Us and the Church of Rome WITH A Particular Account of the Times and Occasions of introducing them PART I. To which a PREFACE is prefixed concerning the true Sense of the Council of Trent and the Notion of Transubstantiation The Second Edition Corrected WITH An APPENDIX in Answer to some late Passages of J. W. of the Society of Jesus Concerning the Prohibiting of Scripture in Vulgar Languages LONDON Printed for H. Mortlock at the Phoenix in S. Pauls Church-yard 1688. THE PREFACE THere is it seems a Train in Controversies as well as in Thoughts one thing still giving a start to another Conferences produce Letters Letters Books and one Discourse gives Occasion for another For this follows the former as a necessary Pursuit of the same Argument against Tradition I. S. in his last Letter had vouched the Authority of the Council of Trent proceeding upon Tradition and he instanced in three Points Transubstantiation Sacramental Confession and Extreme Unction The Examination of this I thought fit to reserve for a Discourse by it self wherein instead of confining my Self to those three Particulars I intend to go through the most material Points there established and to prove from the most Authentick Testimonies that there was no true Catholick Tradition for any of them And if I can make good what I have undertaken I shall make the Council of Trent it Self the great Instance against the Infallibility of Tradition This is a new Undertaking which the impetuousness of our Adversaries setting up Tradition for the Ground of their Faith hath brought me to But besides the shewing that really they have not Tradition on their side I have endeavoured to trace the several steps and to set down the Times and Occasions of Introducing those Points which have caused that unhappy breach in the Christian world whose sad effects we daily see and lament But have little hopes to see remied till these new Points be discarded and Scripture interpreted by truely Catholick Tradition be made the Standard of Christian Communion I do not pretend that all these Points came in at one Time or in the same Manner for some Errours and Corruptions came in far more early some had the favour of the Church of Rome in a higher degree some were more generally received in the Practice of the Church in later times than others and some were merely School Points before the Council of Trent but as far as the Thomists and Scotists could be made to agree there against the Reformers these passed for Articles of Faith. For this was one of the great Arts of that Council to draw up their Decrees in such Terms as should leave Room enough for Eternal Wranglings among themselves provided they agreed in doing the business effectually against the Hereticks as they are pleased to call them I therefore forbear to urge these as Points of Faith which have been freely debated among themselves since the Council of Trent without any Censure We have enough in the plain Decrees and Canons of that Council without medling with any School-Points And so I cannot be charged with Misrepresenting The great Debate of late hath been about the true Exposition of the Points there defined and for my part I am content to yield to any just and reasonable Methods of giving the true sense of them And such I conceive these to be I. Where the Council of Trent makes use of Words in a strict and limited Sense there it is unreasonable to understand them in a large and improper Sense As for instance Sess. 6. c. 26. It decrees that Justified Persons do verè promerere truely merit Eternal Life and Can. 32. there is an Anathema against him who denies true Merit in the good Works of justified Persons both as to Increase of Grace and Eternal Life There is no one conversant in Ancient Writers but knows that there was a large and improper Sense of the Word Merit but how is it impossible to apply that Sense where such Care is taken that it may be understood in a strict and limited Sense If the Council had left the Word in its General Sense there might have been Reason to have given the fairest Interpretation to it but when it is certainly known that there had been a difference of Opinions in the Church of Rome about true and proper Merit and that which was not however it were called and the Council declares for the former no man of understanding can believe that onely the improper Sense was meant by it As in the Point of the Eucharist when the Council declares that the words of Christ This is my Body are truely and properly to be understood Would it not be thought strange for any one to say that the Council notwithstanding might mean that Christ's Words may be figuratively understood And we must take the true notion of Merit not from any large expressions of the Ancients but from the Conditions of true and proper Merit among themselves But of this at large afterwards So as to the Notion of Sacraments every one knows how largely that Word was taken in Ancient Writers but it would be absurd to understand the Council of Trent in that Sense when Sess. 6. Can. 1. De Sacramentis it denounces an Anathema not merely against him that denies seven Sacraments but against him that doth not hold every one of them to be truely and properly a Sacrament And in the Creed of Pius IV. one Article is that there are seven true and proper Sacraments How vain a thing then were it for any to Expound the Sacraments in a large and improper Sense II. Where the Council of Trent hath not declared it self but it is fully done in the Catechism made by its Appointment we ought to look on that as the true Sense of the Council As in the Case of the Sacraments the Council never declares what it means by true and proper Sacraments but the Catechism makes large and full amends for this Defect For after it hath mention'd the use of the Word in Profane and Sacred Writers it sets down the Sense of it according to their Divines for a sensible sign which conveys the Grace which it signifies And after a large Explication of the Nature of Signs it gives this Description of a true and proper Sacrament that it is a sensible thing which by Divine Institution not only hath the force of signifying but of causing Grace And to shew the Authority of this Catechism for explicating the Doctrine of the Sacraments we need only to look into Sess. 24. c. 7. de Reform where it is required that the People be instructed in the Sacraments according to â—it It is supposed that the Catechism was appointed to be made in the 18th Sesâ—ion at the Instigation of Carolus Borromaeus since Canonized but it was not finished while the Council sate and therefore Sess. 25. it
was refer'd to the Judgment and Authority of the Pope I confess therefore it hath not a Conciliar Authority stamped upon it but it hath a sort of transfused Infallibility as far as they could convey it and as much as a Council hath when it borrows it from the Popes Confirmation It was near two Tears hammering at Trent viz. from 26. of Feb. 1562. to Decemb. 1563. when the Council rose Afterwards it was preparing at Rome three Years longer and then presented to the Pope to be approved and published by his Authority after it had been carefully review'd by Cardinal Sirlet Borromeo and others and hath since been universally received in the Roman Church so that we can have no more Authentick Exposition of the Sense of the Council of Trent than what is contained in that Catâ—chism III. Where the Council of Trent declares a thing in general to be lawfull and due but doth not express the manner of it that is to be understood from the generally receiv'd and allowed Practices at that time For otherwise the Council must be charged with great unfaithfulness in not setting down and correcting publick and notorious Abuses when it mention'd the things themselves and some Abuses about them As in the 25th Session concerning Purgatory Invocation of Saints Worship of Images and Relicks it goes no farther than that the sound Doctrine be taught that Saints are to be Invocated Images and Relicks to be Worship'd but never defines what that sound Doctrine is what bounds are to be set in the Worship of Saints Images and Relicks which it is unlawfull to exceed So that in this Case we have no other way to judge of the Meaning of the Council but by comparing the Publick and Allow'd Practices of the Church with the General Decrees of the Council And we have this farther Reason for it that we are told by the latest Expositors of it that the Sense of the Church in speculative Points is to be taken from Publick Practices For thus one of them expresses himself Moreover even her Speculative Doctrines are so mixed with Practical Ceremonies which represent them to the Vulgar and instruct even the meanest Capacities in the abstrusest Doctrines that it seems ever impossible to make an alteration in her Doctrine without abrogating her Ceremonies or changing her constant Practices IV. Where the Decrees of the Council are not sufficiently clear there we must take in the Canons to make the Sense more plain This Rule I take from the Council it self which in the 6th Session just before the Canons saith that those are added that all may know not only what they are to hold and follow but what they are to shun and avoid As in the famous Instance of Transubstantiation suppose that the Words of the Decree do not determine expresly the Modus yet it is impossible for any one to doubt of it who looks into the Canon which denounces an Anathema against him not only that denies Transubstantiation but that asserts the substance of Bread and Wine to remain after Consecration Therefore he that asserts Transubstantiation according to the Council of Trent must hold it in such a manner as thereby to understand that the Substance of Bread and Wine doth not remain Otherwise he is under an Anathema by the express Canon of the Council Therefore it is so far from being a fatal Oversight as a late Author expresses it to say that the Council of Trent hath determin'd the Modus of the Real Presence that no man who is not resolved to oversee it can be of another Opinion And herein the Divines of the Church of Rome do agree with us viz. that the particular Modus is not only determin'd by the Council but that it is a Matter of Faith to all Persons of the Communion of that Church As not only appears from the 2d Canon but from the very Decree it self Sess. 13. ch 4. The holy Synod declares that by Consecration of the Bread and Wine there is a Conversion of the whole Substance of the Bread into the Substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole Substance of the Wine into the Substance of his Blood which Conversion is fitly and properly by the holy Catholick Church called Transubstantiation In which Words the Council doth plainly express the Modus of the Real Presence to be not by a Presence of Christ's Body together with the Substance of the Bread as the Lutherans held but by a Conversion of the whole Substance of the Bread into the Substance of the Body c. And since there were different Manners of understanding this Real Presence if the Council did not Espouse one so as to reject the other as Heretical then it is impossible to make the Lutheran Doctrine to be declared to be Heretical i. e unless the Council did determine the Modus of the Real Presence For if it did not then notwithstanding the Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent Persons are at liberty to believe either Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation which I think no Roman Catholick will allow But. it is said that the meaning of the Decree is that the Real Presence is not to be understood after a Natural but a Sacramental Manner But doth it not plainly tell us how that Sacramental Manner is to be understood viz. by a Conversion of the whole Substance of the Bread into the whole Substance of the Body c. And if other ways be possible and all others be rejected then this particular Modus must be determin'd I grant that the Council doth not say there is an Annihilation of the Elements and I know no Necessity of using that Term for that which is supposed to be turned into another thing cannot properly be said to be Annihilated which is the reducing it to nothing but the Council doth assert a Total Conversion of one Substance into another and where that is that Substance must wholly cease to be what it was and so there can be no Substance of the Elements remaining after Consecration For as Aquinas observes Quod convertitur in aliquid factâ Conversione non manet If then the Substance of the Elements doth not remain after Consecration by virtue of this total Conversion then the Council of Trent by its Decree hath plainly determin'd the Modus of the Real Presence so as to exclude any such Manner as doth suppose the Substance to remain whether it be by Impanation or Consubstantiation or any other way What if Rupertus thought the Bread might become the Real Body of Christ by an Union of the Word to it All that can be infer'd is that the Modus was not then so determin'd as to oblige all Persons to hold it But what is this to the Council of Trent Can any one hold the Substance to remain and not to remain at the same time For he that holds with Rupertus must allow the Substance to remain he that believes a total Conversion must deny it And he
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
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
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
by several learned Men in the Church of Rome But the Armenians themselves say the whole Bible was translated into the Armenian Language by Moses Grammaticus David and Mampraeus three learned Men of their own in the time of their Patriarch Isaac about S. Chrysostom 's time Theodoret in the place already cited mentions the Armenian Translation as a thing well known and he was near enough to understand the truth of it Jacobus de Vitriaco a Roman Cardinal saith that the Armenians in his time had the Scriptures read to them in their own Language The Syriack Version for the Use of those in the Eastern parts who understood not Hebrew or Greek is allowed by all learned Men to have been very ancient I mean the old simple Version out of the Originals and not that out of the LXX of the Old Testament As to the New the Tradition of the Eastern People is that it was done either in the Apostles times or very near them Abraham Ecchellensis shews from the Syriack Writers that the Compleat Translation of the Bible was made in the time of Abgarus King of Edessa by the means of Thaddaeus and the other Apostles and as to the time of Thaddaeus Gregorius Malatiensis confirms it Postellus quotes an ancient Tradition which my Adversaries ought to regard that S. Mark himself Translated not only his own Gospel but all the Books of the Neâ— Testament into the Vulgar Syriack It is sufficient to my purpose to shew that there was such an ancient Translation which is owned by S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose S. Augustin Diodorus and Theodoret which makes me wonder at Cardinal Bellarmin's affirming with so much confidence that none of the Fathers speak of the Syriack Version when Theodoret alone mentions it so often in his Commentaries Although the Greeks in Egypt might very well understand the Greek of the Old and New Testament especially if that which is called the LXX were done by the Alexandrian Jews as some imagine yet those who knew no other than the old Egyptian Language could not make use of it And therefore a Coptick Translation was made for them which Kircher thinks to have been 1300 years old And he withal observes that their ancient Liturgies were in the Coptick Language That it might not be suspâ—cted that Kircher imposed upon the World he gives a particular account of the Books he had seen in the Vatican Library and elsewhere in the Coptick Tongue The Pentateuch in three Tomes distinguished into Paragraphs by lines The four Gospels by themselves S. Paul's Epistles and three Canonical Epistles with the Acts in another Volume The Apocalypse by it self and the Psalter The Liturgy of S. Mark with other daily Prayers The Liturgy of S. Gregory with the Prayers of S. Cyril in the Coptick Language and a Liturgy of S. Basil with Gregory and Cyril with several other Rituals Missals and Prayers all in the same Tongue All these he saith are in the Vatican Library And in that of the Maronites College he saith is an old Coptick Martyrology about 1300 years standing by which he finds that the chief imployment of the old Egyptian Monks was to translate the Bible out of Hebrew Chaldee and Greek into the Coptick Tongue Morinus saith that in the Oratorian Lbrary at Paris they had the Coptick Gospels brought from Constantinople by Monsr de Sancy Petrus à Valle a Nobleman of Rome and a great Traveller saith he had several parts of Scripture in the Coptick Language which were turned into Arabick when the old Coptick grew into disuse Petraeus had in the Eastern Parts a Coptick Psalter with an Arabick Version which he designed to publish The Congregation de propaganda Fide at Rome had several Coptick MSS. sent to them out of Egypt among the rest the Coptick Book of Ordination Transloatd and Printed by Kircher and since reprinted by Morinus Seguier the late Chancellour of France had in his Library the Consecration of a Patriarch in Coptick and Arabick and several Translations of the Bible and Prayers in both Languages The Aethiopick Translation bears date with the Conversion of the Nation according to their own Tradition which some make to be in the Apostolical times and others in the time of Constantine and their Publick Offices are performed in their own Tongue The Chancellour Seguier had not only many parts of the Bible but Prayers and Offices in the Aethiopick Tongue I shall add but one thing more to this purpose which is taken from the want of Antiquity in the Arabick Versions which is confessed by the learned Criticks on all sides And even this tends to prove my design For when the Saracen Empire prevailed the People grew more acquainted with the Arabick than with the ancient Syriack or Coptick and therefore the Scripture was then translated into Arabick as Vasaeus saith it was done in Spain after the Moors came thither by a Bishop of Sevil and this was the true reason why the Arabick Versions have no greater Antiquity For Gabriel Sionita observes that the Arabick is become the most Vulgar Language in the Eastern Parts And because it was so in Syria as well as Egypt therefore there are different Arabick Versions the one called Codex Antiochenus and the other Alexandrinus Thus I have proved that there was a Catholick Tradition directly contrary to that established by order of the Council of Trent And now I proceed to give an Account of the Methods and Steps by which this Decree came to its ripeness 1. The first Step was the Declension and Corruption of the Latin Tongue in the Western Church It is observed by Polybius that from the time of the first League between the Romans and Carthaginians the Latin Tongue was so much changed even in Rome it self that very few could understand the Words of it And Festus in Latine loqui saith that the Language was so alter'd that scarce any part of it remained entire Scaliger thinks these words were added to Festus by Paulus Diaconus which seems much more probable since he lived in the time of Charlemagn At which time we may easily suppose the Latin Tongue to have been very much corrupted by the Writers and not so easie to be understood any where by the Common People in sudden Discourse as it had been before Which appears evident by the Latin Sermons made to the People in the several Provinces in the Roman Empire as in Africa by S. Augustin and Fulgentius in Italy by Petrus Chrysologus Laurentius Novariensis Gaudentius Brixiensis Ennodius Ticinensis In Spain by Isidore Ildephonsus and others In Gaul by Caesarius Eucherius Eligius and several others whose Latin Sermons to the People are still extant In the Council of Tours in the time of Charlemagn particular care is taken that the Homilies should be translated by their Bishops either into the Rustick Roman or the German that the People might the easier understand
and they Translated the Scriptures and Offices of Worship into their own Language The Pope had not forgotten the business of the Bulgarians and he could not tell but this might end in subjection to another Patriarchal See and therefore he enâ—eavours to get Methodius and Cyril to Rome and having gained them he sends a sweetning Letter to the Prince and makes the concession before mentioned For he could not but remember how very lately the Greeks had gained the Bulgarians from him and lest the Slavonians should follow them he was content to let them have what they desired and had already Established among themselves without his Permission All this appears from the account of this matter given by Constantinus Porphyrogenetus compared with Diocleas his Regnum Slavorum and Lucius his Dalmatian History It is sufficient for my purpose that Diocleas owns that Constantine to whom Andreas Dandalus D. of Venice in his M S History cited by Lucius saith the Pope gave the name of Cyril did Translate the Bible into the Slavonian Tongue for the benefit of the People and the publick Offices out of Greek according to their Custom And the Chancellour Seguier had in his Library both the New Testament and Lâ—turgies in the Slavonian Language and in Cyril's Character and many of the Greek Fathers Commentaries on Scripture in that Tongue but not one of the Latin. 2. The next step was when Gregory 7. prohibited the Translation of the Latin Offices in the Slavonian Tongue And this he did to the King of Bohemia himself after a peremptory manner but he saith it was the request of the Nobility that they might have divine Offices in the Slavonian Tongue which he could by no means yield to What was the matter How comes the Case to be so much altered from what it was in his Predecessor's time The true Reason was the Bohemian Churches were then brought into greater Subjection to the Roman See after the Consecration of Dithmarus Saxo to be their Archbishop and now they must own their Subjection as the Roman Provinces were wont to do by receiving the Language But as his Predecessour had found Scripture for it for Gregory pretends he had found Reason against it viz. The Scripture was obscure and apt to be misunderstood and despised What! more than in the time of Methodius and Cyril If they pleaded Primitive Practice he plainly answers that the Church is grown wiser and hath corrected many things that were then allowed This is indeed to the purpose and therefore by the Authority of S. Peter he forbids him to suffer any such thing and charges him to oppose it with all his might But after all it is entred in the Canon Law De Officio Jud. Ord. l. 1. Tit. 31. c. Quoniam as a Decree of Innocent 3. in the Lateran Council that where there were People of different Languages the Bishop was to provide Persons fit to officiate in those several Languages Why so If there were a prohibition of using any but the Latin Tongue But this was for the Greeks and theirs was an holy Tongue That is not said nor if it were would it signifie any thing for doth any imaginary holiness of the Tongue sanctifie ignorant Devotion But the Canon supposes them to have the same Faith. Then the meaning is that no man must examin his Religion by the Scripture but if he rseolves beforehand to believe as the Church believes then he may have the Scriptures or Prayers in what Language he pleases But even this is not permitted in the Roman Church For 3. After the Inquisition was set up by the Authority of Innocent 3. in the Lateran Council no Lay Persons were permitted to have the Books of the Old and New Testament but the Psalter or Breviary or Hours they might have but by no means in the vulgar Language This is called by D'achery and Labbe the Council of Tholouse but in truth it was nothing else but an Order of the Inquisition as will appear to any one that reads it And the Inquisition ought to have the Honour of it both in France and Spain Which Prohibition hath been so gratefull to some Divines of the Church of Rome that Cochlaeus calls it pious just reasonable wholsom and necessary Andradius thinks the taking of it away would be destructive to Faith Ledesma saith the true Catholicks do not desire it and bad ought not to be gratified with it Petrus Sutor a Carthusian Doctour calls the Translating Scripture into the vulgar Languages a rash useless and dangerous thing and he gives the true Reason of it viz. that the People will be apt to murmur when they see things required as from the Apostles which they cannot find a word of in Scripture And when all is said on this Subject that can be by men of more Art this is the plainest and honestest Reason for such a Prohibition but I hope I have made it appear it is not built on any Catholick Tradition IV. Of the Merit of Good Works The Council of Trent Sess. 6. c. 16. declares That the Good Works of justified Persons do truly deserve Eternal Life and Can. 3â— an Anathema is denounced against him that denies them to be meritorious or that a justified Person by them doth not truly merit Increase of Grace and Happiness and Eternal Life The Council hath not thought fit to declare what it means by truly meriting but certainly it must be opposed to an improper kind of Meriting and what that is we must learn from the Divines of the Church of Rome 1. Some say That some of the Fathers speak of an improper kind of Merit which is no more than the due Means for the attaining of Happiness as the End. So Vega confesses they often use the word Merit where there is no Reason for Merit either by way of Congruity or Condignity Therefore where there is true Merit there must be a proper Reason for it And the Council of Trent being designed to condemn some prevailing Opinions at that time among those they called Hereticks this Assertion of true Merit must be levelled against some Doctrine of theirs but they held Good Works to be necessary as Means to an end and therefore this could not be the meaning of the Council Suarez saith the words of the Council ought to be specially observed which are that there is nothing wanting in the good works of justified Persons ut vere promeruisse censeantur and therefore no Metaphorical or improper but that which by the Sense of the Church of Rome was accounted true Merit in opposition to what was said by those accounted Hereticks must be understood thereby 2. Others say that a meer Congruity arising from the Promise and Favour of God in rewarding the acts of his Grace in justified Persons cannot be the proper Merit intended by the Council And that for these Reasons 1. Suarez observes that although the Council avoids the
the divine Promise good Works have a proportion to Eternal Life and this he saw was necessary to defend the Doctrine of the Council of Trent but then he adds that there is no obligation on God's part to reward in such a manner without a Promise Now here are two hard Points 1. To make it appear that there is such a meritoriousness in good Works without a Divine Promise 2. That if there were so there is no Obligation on God to reward such Acts in point of Justice The former is so much harder to do from what he had proved before c. 14. Viz. that they are not meritorious without a Promise and here he proves that they have no proportion to the Reward from Scripture Fathers and Reason because there is no Obligation on God to do it either from commutative or distributive justice and because we are God's Servants These are good Arguments against himself for how can such Acts then become meritorious without a Promise If there be no proportion or equality on Man's part no Justice on God's part to reward how can they possibly be meritorious But this is too deep for me to comprehend My business is Tradition and I have evidently proved that there was no Tradition even in the Church of Rome for the true Merit defined by the Council of Trent It were easie to carry this point higher by she wing that the Fathers knew nothing of this Doctrine but that hath been done by many already and it is needless in so plain a case But I am now to give an account by what Steps and Occasions this Doctrine came to be established 1. From the common Use of the word Merit with the Fathers and others in another sense than it signified at first The original signification of it is Wages paid in consideration of Service and from thence Souldiers were said merere as Budaeus observes and thence came the word merces who truly deserved their pay by their labour and hazard but by degrees it came to signifie no more than merely to attain a thing which is sometimes used by good Authors but in the declension of the Latin Tongue no sense of this word was more common than this especially among Ecclesiastical Writers Who frequently used it in a sense wherein it was impossible to understand it in its original signification and it cannot imply so much as digne consequi as in the instance brought by Cassander when St. Cyprian renders those words of St. Paul Misericordiam merui which we render I obtained Mercy but the Council of Trent allows there could be no true Merit here And St. Augustin saith of those who murdered the Son of God Illi veniam meruerunt qui Christum occiderunt And so the vulgar Latin often uses it Gen. 4. 13. major est iniquitas mea quam ut veniam merear Jos. 11. 20. non mererentur ullam Clementiam And in that sense it hath been used in the Hymns and other Offices of the Church as in that expression O felix culpa quae talem ac tantum meruit habere Redemptorem where it cannot be denied that the word is used in an improper Sense 2. When the School Divines set themselves to explain the Mysteries of Theology this plain and easie but improper sense of Merit would not go down with som of them but they endeavoured to make out the notion of Merit with respect to God in its proper and original Sense The last considerable Writer before the Scholastick Age was St. Bernard and he pretended not to find out any such proportion between the best Works and Eternal Life that God should be bound in justice to bestow it as a Recompence for them and the Reason he gives is plain and strong because those things men pretend to merit by are themselves the Gifts of God's Grace and so by them they are more bound to God than God to them but besides what are all mens merits to Eternal Glory St. Bernard doth not speak of Merits without Grace but with the supposition of it and Bellarmin wisely left out the latter part that he might seem to answer the former Hugo de Sancto Victore lived in the same Age who first shewed the way to School Divinity and upon the same place which St. Bernard speaks of Non sunt condig nae c. he puts the Question how any temporal Acts can merit that which is eternal And he denies any Condignity because there is more in the Reward than there was in the Merit but then he adds that there may be a threefold comparison of things either as to themselves as a Horse for a Horse Money for Money or according to equity either in punishments or rewards or by Pact or Agreement as when a good summ is promised for a little work and this saith he God hath made known to Mankind as to future rewards and punishments Which plainly shews he understood nothing of the proportion between Acts of Grace and an Eternal Happiness but resolved all into the Favour and Mercy of God. Peter Lombard called the Master of the Sentences saith Nothing of any Condignity or Proportion in our works to the Reward but he saith they are themselves God 's Gifts and that the Reward it self is from the Grace of God and quotes the noted Saying of St. Augustin Cum coronat Deus merita nostra nihil aliud coronat quam dona sua But still this is nothing but Grace and Favour in God first in enabling us to do good Works and then in rewarding them Bandinus wrote a Book of the Sentences much about the time P. Lombard did with so much agreement of Method and Expressions that it is not known which took from the other Genebrard hath produced this passage out of him Debet inciviliter de Deo dicitur quia nihil omnino nobis debet nisi ex promisso If it be so rude to say God owes any thing to his Creatures but by promise he could not imagine any Condignity in good Works to which a Reward is due in Justice And Genebrard thinks he had reason to deny that God can be made a Debtor to us by any of our Works Robertus Pullus who wrote another Book of the Sentences about the same time mentioning that place Non sunt condignae c. he saith because our Works are not sufficient being small and temporal God by his Mercy makes it up which not onely shews that God doth reward beyond our merit but that there is no proportion between the best Works and Eternal Glory But by the time of Gulielmus Antissiodorensis there were two Parties in the Church about this point some he saith denied any Merit of Eternal Life ex condigno and others asserted it and after laying down the Arguments on both sides he concludes for the Affirmative but in Answer to the place Non sunt condignae c. he saith they are not ad proportionaliter
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
such Consent as is boasted of even in the Latin Church As to the Greek Church he saith it is an argument of Universal Tradition when they had the same Tradition even in their Schism To this I Answer 1. We do not deny that the latter Greeks after the taking Constantinople by the Latins did hold Seven Mysteries which the Latins render Sacraments For after there were Latin Patriarchs at Constantinople and abundance of Latin Priests in the Eastern Parts they had perpetual Disputes about Religion and the Latins by degrees did gain upon them in some points and particularly in this of Seven Sacraments for the Latins thought it an advantage to their Church to boast of such a Number of Sacraments and the Greeks that they might not seem to come behind them were willing to embrace the same Number The first Person among them who is said to have written about them was Simeon Bishop of Thessalonica whom Possevin sets at a greater distance that the Tradition might seem so much elder among them for he makes him to have lived 600 years before his time but Leo Allatius hath evidently proved that he lived not two hundred years before him which is a considerable difference for Simeon dyed but six months before the taking of Thessalonica A. D. 1430 as he proves from Joh. Anagnosta who was present at the taking it From hence it appers how very late this Tradition came into the Greek Church After him Gabriel Severus Bishop of Philadelphia wrote about the Seven Sacraments and he lived at Venice in Arcudius his time who wrote since Possevin and Crusius wrote to this Gabriel A. D. 1580 and he was consecrated by Jeremias A. D. 1577. So that neither his Authority or that of Jeâ—emias can signifie any thing as to the Antiquity of this Tradition among the Greeks Leo Allatius talks of the old as well as Modern Greeks who held Seven Sacraments but he produces the Testimony only of those who lived since the taking of Constantinople as Job the Monk Simeon Johannes Palaeologus Jeremias Gabriel Cyrillus Berrhoensis Parthenius and such like But he very craftily saith he produces these to let us see they have not gone off from the Faith of their Ancestors whereas that is the thing we would have seen viz. the Testimony of the Greeks before and not afterwards As to the ancient Greeks he confesses they say nothing of the number De numero apud eos altum silentium est And how could therebe a Tradition in so much silence But some speak of some and others of others but all speak of all This is a very odd way to prove a Tradition of a certain Number For then some might believe Three others Four others Five but how can this prove that all believed just Seven However let us see the Proof But instead of that he presently starts an Objection from the pretended Dionysius Areopagita viz. That where he designs to treat of all the Sacraments he never mentions Penance Extreme Unction and Matrimony and after a great deal of rambling Discourse he concludes that he did ill to leave them oâ—t and that others Answers are insufficient He shews from Tertullian Ambrose and Cyril that the necessary Sacraments are mentioned but where are the rest and we are now enquiring after them in the ancient Greek Church but they are not to be founâ— As one may confidently affirm when one who professed so much skill in the Greek Church as Leo Allatius hath no more to say for the Proof of it 2. Those Greeks who held Seven Sacraments did not hold them in the Sense of the Council oâ— Trent And that for two Reasons 1. They do not hold them all to be of divine Institution Which appears by the Patriarch Jeremias his Answer to the Tubing Divines who at first seems to write agreeably to the Church of Rome in this matter except about Extreme Unction but being pressed hard by them in their Reply he holds to the Divine Institution of Baptism and the Eucharist but gives up the rest as instituted by the Churches Authority Which is plain giving up the Cause How then comes Bellarmin to insist so much on the Answer of Jeremias The Reason was that Socolovius had procured from Constantinople the Patriarch's first answer and translated and printed it upon which great Triumphs were made of the Patriarch's Consent with the Church of Rome but when these Divines were hereby provoked to publish the whole proceedings those of the Church of Rome were unwilling to be undeceived and so take no notice of any farther Answer Since the time of Jeremias the Patriarch of Alexandria as he was afterwards Metrophanes Critopulus published an Account of the Faith of the Greek Church and he saith expresly of Four of the Seven that they are Mystical Rites and equivocally called Sacraments And from hence it appears how little Reason Leo Allatius had to be angry with Caucus a Latinized Greek like himself for affirming that the modern Greeks did not look on these Sacraments as of Divine Institution but after he hath given him some hard words he offers to prove his Assertion for him To which end he not only quotes that passage of the Patriarch Jeremias but others of Job and Gregorius from whence he infers that Five of the Sacraments were of Ecclesiastical Institution and he saith nothing to take it off So admirably hath he proved the Consent of the Eastern and Western Churches 2. They do not agree in the Matter or Form or some essential part of them with the Council of Trent and therefore can make up no Tradition for the Doctrin of that Council about the Seven Sacraments This will be made appear by going through them 1. Of Chrism 1. As to the Form Arcudius shews that Gabriel of Philadelphia Cabasilas and Marcus Ephesius all place the Form in the Consecration of it but the Church of Rome makes the Form to lie in the Words spoken in the Use of it 2. As to the Minister of it Among the Greeks it is commonly performed by the Presbyter though the Bishop be present but the Council of Trâ—nt denounces an Anathema against him that saith the Bishop alone is not the ordinary Minister of it 3. As to the Character The Council of Trent declares that whosoever affirms that Confirmation doth not imprint an indelible Character so as it cannot be repeated is Anathematized but Arcudius shews at large that the modern Greeks make no scruple of reiterating Confirmation But Catumsyritus another Latinized Greek opposes Arcudius herein and saith that the Use of Chrism among the Geeeks doth not relate to the Sacrament of Confirmation but was a Symbolical Ceremony relating to Baptism and for this he quotes one Corydaleus a Man of great Note in the Patriarchal Church at Constantinople Therefore Caucus had reason to deny that the Greeks receive that which the Latins call the Sacrament of Confirmation And
if this hold then the Tradition of the Seven Sacraments must fail in the Greek Church For they deny that they have any such thing as a Sacrament of Confirmation distinct from Baptism 2. Of the Sacrament of Penance 1. The Council of Trent declares Absolution of the Penitent to be a judicial Act and denounces an Anathema against him that denies it but the Greek Church uses a deprecative Form as they call it not pronouncing Absolution by way of Sentence but by way of Prayer to God. Which as Aquinas observes rather shews a Person to be absolved by God than by the Priest and are rather a Prayer that it may be done than a signification that it is done and therefore he looks on such Forms as insufficient And if it be a judicial Sentence as the Council of Trent determines it can hardly be reconciled to such a Form wherein no kind of judicial Sentence was ever pronounced as Arcudius grants and in Extreme Unction where such a Form is allowed there is as he observes no Judicial Act. But he hopes at last to bring the Greeks off by a Phrase used in some of their Forms I have you absolved but he confesses it is not in their Publick Offices and their Priests for the most part use it not Which shews it to be an Innovation among the Latinizing Greeks if it be so observed which Catumsyritus denies and saith he proves it only from some Forms granted by Patents which are not Sacramental and supposing it otherwise he saith it is foolish false and erroneous to suppose such a Form to be valid because it is no Judicial Act. 2. The Council of Trent makes Confession of all Mortal Sins how secret soever to be necessary in order to the benefit of Priestly Absolution in this Sacrament and denounces an Anathema against those that deny it but the Greek Church grants Absolution upon supposition that they have not confessed all Mortal Sins As appears by the Form of the Patriarch of Antioch produced by Arcudius and another Form of the Patriarch of Constantinople in Jeremias his Answer Arcudius is hard put to it when to excuse this he saith they only pray to God to forgive them for this is to own that a deprecative Form is insufficient and so that there is no Sacrament of Penance in the Greek Church 3. Of Orders The Greek and Latin Churches differ both as to Matter and Form. The Council of Trent Anathematiseth those who deny a visible and exeternal Priesthood in the New Testament or a Power of consecrating and offering the true Body and Bloud of Christ and of remitting and retaining of Sins And this two-fold Power the Church of Rome expresses by a double Form one of delivering the Vessels with Accipe Potestatem c. the other of Imposition of Hands with Accipe Spiritum Sanctum But the Greek Church wholly omits the former on which the greatest weight is laid in the Latin Church and many think the Essential Form lies in it When the Office of Ordination is over the Book of the Liturgy called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is delivered to the Presbyter but without any words and there is no mention of it in their Rituals either Printed or MSS. so likewise a parcel of consecrated Bread is delivered by the Bishop to him afterwards And all the Form is The Divine Grace advances such an one to the Office of a Presbyter If we compare this with the Form in the Council of Florence we shall find no agreement either as to Matter or Form in this Sacrament between the Greek and Latin Churches For there the Matter is said to be that by which the Order is conferred viz. the delivery of the Chalice with Wine and the Paten with the Bread and the Form Receive the Power of offering Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead And it is hardly possible to suppose these two Churches should go upon the same Tradition I know what pains Arcudius hath taken to reconcile them but as long as the Decree of Eugenius stands and is received in the Church of Rome it is impossible And Catumsyritus labours hard to prove that he hath endeavoured thereby to overthrow the whole Order of Priesthood in the Roman Church 4. Of Extreme Unction Bellarmin particularly appeals to the Greek Church for its consent as to this Sacrament but if he means in the modern sense as it is deliver'd by the Councils of Florence and Trent he is extremely mistaken 1. For the former saith it is not to be given but to such of whose death they are afraid and the Council of Trent calls it the Sacrament of dying Persons But the Greeks administer their Sacrament of Unction to Persons in health as well as sickness and once a year to all the People that will which Arcudius saith is not only done by the illiterate Priests but by their Patriarchs and Metropolitans c. and they look on then as a Supplement to the ancient Penance of the Church for they think the partaking of the holy Oil makes amends for that but this Arcudius condemns as an abuse and innovation among them But the original Intention and Design of it was for the Cure and Recovery of sick Persons as Arcudius confesses the whole scope of the Office shews and in the next Chapter he produces the Prayers to that end And the Greeks charge the Latins with Innovation in giving this Sacrament to those Persons of whose Recovery they have no hope 2. The Council of Trent requires that the Oil of Extreme Unction be consecrated by a Bishop and this the Doctors of the Roman Church saith Catumsyritus make essential to the Sacrament But in the Greek Church the Presbyters commonly do it as Arcudius shews at large 5. Of Matrimony The Council of Trent from making this a Sacrament denounces an Anathema against those who do not hold the Bond indissoluble even in the Case of Adultery And Bellarmin urges this as his first Reason because it is a sign of the Conjunction of Christ with his Church But the Greek Church held the contrary and continues so to do as both Bellarmin and Arcudius confess So that though there be allow'd a consent in the Number of Sacraments among the Modern Greeks yet they have not an entire Consent with the Roman Church in any one of them The Sense of other Eastern Churches about the Seven Sacraments But to shew how late this Tradition of Seven Sacraments came into the Greek Church and how far it is from being an Universal Tradition I shall now make it appear that this Number of Sacraments was never received in the other Christian Churches although some of them were originally descended from the Ancient Greek Church I begin with the most Eastern Churches called the Christians of St. Thomas in the East-Indies And we have a clear Proof that there was no Tradition among them about the Seven Sacraments
Of those who denied it to be of Divine Right but held it to be useful in the Church and for this he quotes Rhenanus and Erasmus 2. Of those who make it to be onely of Ecclesiastical Institution and this saith he is the Opinion of all the Canonists 3. Of those who thought it came in by Apostolical Tradition of which he reckons Theodore Archbishop of Canterbury 4. Of some Divines who held it to be instituted only by St. James 5. Of others who held it to be of Divine Right and not instituted by the Apostles but insinuated by Christ and for this he quotes Alexander Hales and Bonaventure 6. Of some who thought it instituted in the Old Testament 7 Of those who held it instituted by Christ but not as a Precept but by way of Council and for this he mentions Scotus and his Followers Vasquez reckons up among those whose Opinions are not condemned The Canonists Erasmus Bonaventure Alexander Hales and Scotus who all differed from the Council of Trent Suarez mentions three Opinions among them 1. Of those who said it was instituted in the Law of Nature 2. Of those who attributed it to the Law of Moses 3 Of those who dâ—nyed any Institution of it by way of Precept from Christ in the Law of Grace and for this he quotes Hugo de Sancto Victore Alexandèr Hales and Bonaventure and they went upon this Ground that no such Institution could be proved either by Scripture or Tradition Gregory de Valentia Confesses some Catholick Authors denied the Divine Institution of Confession for which he produces the Canonists and Erasmus and Rhenanus But he thinks they were not guilty of Heresie because they were not obstinate but that is not our business which is to shew that by their own confession there was not a constant Catholick Tradition in the Church about it Natalis Alexander who hath lately pretended to answer Daillè confesses that from the ninth to the thirteenth Age many Catholicks did hold that Confession to God alone was sufficient to obtain Remission of sins and he proves it from Lombard Gratian and the Canonists But he saith it was no heresie in them the point not being yet settled by a general Council Boileau in his Answer to Daillè cannot deny that in the time of Lombard and Gratian men held several ways about this matter but he answers with Thomas upon the Sentences that it was an opinion then but since the Council of Lateran it is become a Heresie But if it were no heretical Opinion then what becomes of Infallible Tradition If the Church defines by Tradition that Tradition must be proved before the Definition otherwise it hath no ground to proceed upon The Council of Lateran under Innocent III. it seems made it a Heresie to deny this Sacramental Confession Within much less than a Century before it lived Peter Lombard and Gratian. Peter Lombard made it his business to collect a Body of Divinity out of the Sentences of the Fathers and his work hath been universally esteemed in the Roman Church When he comes to state this point of Confession out of the Fathers i. e. to give an account of the Tradition of the Church about it he tells us in the beginning that learned men were of different opinions and for what reason because the Doctors of the Church seemed to deliver not only divers but contrary things i. e. they had no certain and constant Tradition about them And when he comes to the point of Confession to God only he quotes for it besides Scripture S. Ambrose and S. Chrysostem and Prosper and against it S. Augustine and Leo and concludes himself for the latter but saith not a word more to shew that the constant Tradition of the Church had been for this opinion Gratian puts the same Question and for Confession to God alone he quotes S. Ambrose S. Augustine and Prosper besides Scripture and argues largely for it after c. Convertimini c. Then he sets down the Arguments on the other side from c. 38. and after c. 60. he sums up the force of them and again after c. 87. and when he hath said all on one side and on the other he concludes after c. 89. that he left all to the Readers Judgment for both Opinions had wise and pious Defenders and produces that saying as out of Theodore's Penitential that some think that we ought to confess only to God as the Greeks others that we ought to do it to the Priest too as almost all the Church besides but then he adds that Confession to God purges away Sin but that to the Priest shews how they are purged i. e. by Contrition So the Gloss interprets it Bellarmin thinks that ut Groeci was foisted into the Canon and I shall not dispute against it provided that which answers to it ut tota ferè sancta Ecclesta be allowed to be so too as the Roman Correctors do confess Boileau hath taken another course for he saith this whole Distinction is without ground attributed to Gratian but how doth he prove it From Ant. Augustinus his Dialogue where a MS. is cited that this was not Gratian's but an elder Author 's And what is gotten by this But the other answers it must be Gratian 's because of the citation out of the Digests and other Books of Civil Law then lately found If this will not do he saith Gratian hath many Errours as the Roman Correctors observe Yes truly do they and about this Point several times for the Councils of Lateran and Trent have otherwise determined But what is all this to the Tradition of the Church in Gratian's time Innocent III. in the Council of Lateran enjoyns strictly the Practice of Confession once a year under the Penalty of Excommunication and of being deprived of Christian Burial but there is not a Word of the Churches Tradition before for the Ground of it But finding several Opinions about it and the Waldenses then opposing it he resolves by his Authority to bind all Persons to it But after this the Canonists allowed no more than Ecclesiastical Institution for it as is plain by the Gloss on the Canon Law Dist. 5. de Poenit. Tit. In Poenitentia but the Roman Correctours quote against it Council Trident. Sess. 14. c. 5. i. e. a Council some 100 years after must tell what the Tradition then was but the Gloss saith the Greeks had no such Tradition and therefore were not bound to Confession So that we have no evidence for any Catholick Tradition in this matter before the Lateran Council 2. But the Council of Trent hath gone beyond the Council of Lateran and hath fixed the Divine Right of Confession on John 20. Whose sins ye remit c. and therefore I am now to shew by the Confession of their own Writers that this hath not been the Traditionary Sense of this Place Cajetan not long before the Council first sate
appointed it and S. James published it which Scotus utterly denies But to the place of S John Bonaventure saith it was not enough to have it implied in the Priest's Power because it being a harder duty than Absolution it requir'd a more particular Command Which was but reasonably said especially when Bellarmin after others urges that it is one of the most grievous and burthensome Precepts but his Inference from it is very mean that therefore it must have a divine Command to inforce it on the People but Bonaventure's Argument is much stronger that it ought then to have been clearly expressed But as to the Peoples yielding to it other accounts are to be given of that afterwards Alexander Hales observes that if Christ had intended a command of Confession John 20. it would have been expressed to those who are to confess and not to those who are to absolve as he did to those who were to be baptized John 3. Except a man be born of water c. so Christ would have said except a man confess his sins c. and he gave the same Reasons why Christ did not himself institute it which Bonaventure doth who used his very words And now who could have imagined that the Council of Trent would have attempted to have made men believe that-it was the sense of the Universal Church that Christ instituted Confession in John 20 when so many great Divines even of the Church of Rome so expresly denied it as I have made appear from themselves But now to give an account by what steps and degrees and on what occasions this Auricular Confession came into the Church these things are to be considered 1. In the first Ages puâ—lick scandalous Offenders after Baptism were by the Discipline of the Church brought to publick Penance which was called Exomologesis which originally signifies Confession And by this Bellarmin saith the Ancients uâ—derstood either Confession alone or joyned with the other parts of Penance but Albaspineus shews that it was either taken for the whole course of publick Penance or for the last and solemn act of it when the Bishop led the Penitents from the entrance of the Church up to the Bâ—dy of the Congregation where they expressed their abhorrence of their faults in the most penitent manner by their Actions as well as by Words So that this was a real and publick Declaration of their sorrow for their sins and not a Verbal or Auricular Confession of them The same is owned by La Cerda But Boileau pretends that it had not this sense till after the Novatian Heresie and the Death of Irenaeus and that before that time it signified Confession according to the sense of the Word in Scripture This seems very strange when Baronius himself confesses that Tertullian usâ—s it for that part of Penance which is called Satisfaction and Bellarmin grants it is so used both by Tertullian and Irenoeus when he saith the Woman seduced by Marcus afterwards spent her days in Exmologesi What! in continual Confession of her sin No but in Penitential Acts for it and so Petavius understands it both in Irenoeus and Tertullian and he saith it did not consist onely or principally in Words but in Actions i. e. it was nothing of kin to Auricular Confession which is a part of Penance distinct from satisfaction And to make these the same were to confound the different parts of the Sacrament of Penance as the â—ouncil of Trent doth distinguish them But besides this there were several other Circumstances which do make an apparent difference between these Penitential Acts and the modern notion of Confession 1. The Reason of them was different For as Rigaltius observes the penitential Rigour was taken up after great Numbers were admitted into the Church and a great dishonour was brought upon Christianity by the looseness or inconstancy of those who professed it There were such in S. Paul's time in the Churches of Corinth and elsewhere but although he gives Rules about such yet he mentions no other than avoiding or excommunicating the guilty Persons and upon due Sorrow and Repentance receiving them in again but he imposes no necessity of Publick or Private Confession in order to Remission much less of every kind of mortal sin though it be but the breach of the tenth Commandment as the Council of Trent doth yet this had been necessary in case he had thought as that declares that God will not forgive upon other terms And so much the rather because the Evangelists had said nothing of it and now Churches began to fill it was absolutely necessary for him to have declared it if it were a necessary condition of Pardon for sins after Baptism But although the Apostles had given no Rules about it yet the Christian Churches suffering so extremely by the Reproaches cast upon them they resolved as far as it was possible to take care to prevent any scandalous Offences among them To this end the actions of all Persons who professed themselves Christians were narrowly watched and their faults especially such as were scandalous complained of and then if they confessed them or they were convicted of them a severe and rigorous Discipline was to be undergone by them before they were restored to Communion that their Enemies might see how far the Christians were from incouraging such enormities as they were accused of They were charged with Thyestean Suppers and promiscuous mixtures whereas any Persons among them who were guilty of Homicide or Adultery were discharged their society and for a great while not admitted upon any terms and afterwards upon very rigorous and severe terms And besides these to preserve the purity of their Religion in times of Persecution they allowed no Compliance with the Gentile Idolatry and any tendency to this was looked upon as a degree of Apostasie and censured accordingly And about these three sorts of sins the severity of the Primitive Discipline was chiefly exercised which shews that it proceeded upon quite different grounds from those of the Council of Trent about Auricular Confession 2. The method of proceeding was very different for here was no toties quoties allow'd that men may sin and confess and be absolved and then sin the same sin again and confess again and receive Absolution in the same manner The Primitive Church knew nothing of this way of dealing with Sinners upon Confession If they were admitted once to it that was all So Pamelius himself grants and produces several Testimonies of Fathers for it and so doth Albaspineus and Petavius Dare any say this is the sense of the Church of Rome about Confession that a man cannot be received a second time to Confess and be absolved from the same sin How then can they pretend any similitude between their Confession and the ancient Exomologesis Besides none ever received Absolution from the ancient Church till full satisfaction performed But in the Church of Rome Absolution is given
Society with J. W. and he frankly owns the Prohibition of reading the Scripture made by the Rule of the Index to have been done by the Authority of the Council of Trent The Faculty at Paris in the Articles sent to Gregory XIII against the Translation of Rene Benoit several times own the Rules of the Index as done by the Council of Trent Quacunque Authoritate transferantur in Vulgarem linguam Biblia edantur vetat idem sacrosanctum Concilium ea passim sine discrimine permitti The same Ledesma goes farther and vouches the Authority of the Council of Trent in this matter from the Decree Sess. 23. c. 8. where it forbids all the Parts of the Mass to be in the Vulgar Tongue Which could not be reasonable if the Scripture were allowed to be translated Alphonsus à Castro thinks the case so alike that a prohibition of one amounts to a prohibition of the other too because the greater Part of the Office is taken out of the Scriptures and if the Scripture may be translated he saith it must follow that Divine Offices ought to be in the vulgar Tongue But to return to the Index The Congregation of the Index was as is said established by the Council in the 18. Session as the Council it self owns in the last Session and withall that the Rules of it were then formed but because of the multiplicity and variety of the Books the matter of the Index was referred to the Pope and to be published by his Authority as likewise the Catechism Missal and Breviary So that the Rules of the Index have the same Authority in the Church of Rome with the Roman Catechism Missal and Breviary Pius IV. in his Bull when he first set forth the Index A. D. 1564. owns that it was finished by the Fathers appointed by the Council of Trent but it was remitted to him by the Council that it might be approved by him and published by his Authority And he strictly commands the Rules of it to be observed under pain of Mortal Sin and Excommunication ipso jure After him Clement VIII in his Instructions about the Rules of the Index owns them to be made by the Fathers of the Council of Trent And the same Pope is so far from renewing the Power of granting Licenses to read the Scripture in the vulgar Languages that he declares against them For by the 4th Rule of the Index the Ordinary and Inquisitor by the Advice of the Parish Priest or Consessor might permit Persons to read the Bible in the vulgar Language so the Translation were made by Catholick Authours and it was apprehended by some that the new Printing the Rule might be giving new Authority to Bishops and Inquisitors to grant Licenses therefore the Pope declares against it and saith it was contrary to the Command and use of the Roman Church and Inquisition which ought to be inviolably observed In pursuance of this we find in the Roman Index of prohibited Books these words Bidlia vulgari quocunque idiomate conscripta i. e. All Bibles in vulgar Languages are prohibited Therefore I cannot understand how the giving License to Persons since the Declaration of Clemens VIII is consistent with the Duty which Persons of that Communion owe to the Authority of the Roman See unless they can produce a Revocation of the Bull of Clemens VIII and some latter Explications of the fourth Rule which take away the force of his But instead of that Alexander VII who published the Index again after Clement VIII owns that the first Index was made by Authority of the Council of Trent and it is observable that in his Bull A. D. 1664. he not onely prefixes the Rules of the Index but the Observations and Instruction of Clement VIII and confirms all by his Apostolical authority and injoyns the punctual Observation of the Orders contained therein inviolably under the same pains which were expressed in the Bull of Pius IV. Therefore as far as I can understand the Faculty of granting Licenses to reade the Translations of the Bible is taken away as far as the Pope's authority can doe it To what purpose then are we told of some modern Translations as long as the use of them is forbidden by the Pope's Authority And no Ordinaries can have Authority to grant Licenses against the Popes solemn Declaration to the contrary nor can any of that Communion with good Conscience make use of them But I am told there are Translations approved in the Roman Church By whom have they been approved By the Pope or the Congregation of the Index I do not sind any such Approbation given to any of them But on the contrary even in France such Translations have been vehemently opposed by the Bishops and Divines there as being repugnant to the Sense of the Roman Church And this is apparent by a Book published by Order of the Gallican Clergy A. D. 1661. Where-in it is said that it was the common and unanimous Sense and Practice of all Orthodox Persons that neither the Scriptures nor divine Offices ought to be put into Vulgar Languages it being injurious to the Christian Church and giving Occasion of Offence to the weak and unlearned How then can we imagine that such Translations should not onely be allowed but approved among them And besides the entire Treatises there collected against them of Card. Hosius Lizetius Spiritus Roterus Ledesma c. and the Fragments and Testimonies of several others we have a particular account of the proceedings of the Sorbon as to this matter In the Censure of Erasmus Dec. 17. 1527. the Sorbon declared Vulgar Translations of Scripture to be dangerous and pernicious The like Declaration had been made before A. D. 1525. and that all Translations of the Bible or of the Parts thereof ought rather to be suppressed than tolerated A. D. 1607. The Faculty again declared that it did not approve any Translations of Scripture into the Vulgar Language But J. W. instances p. 26. in some Translations that have been approved as a French Translation by the Doctours of Lovain But in the French Collection before mention'd I find that A. D. 1620. Dec. 1. a debate arose in the Faculty at Lovain about it and the Faculty declared that it by no means approved of it Another is of Rene Benoit which was so far from being approved that it was first condemned by the Faculty at Paris and then sent to Rome to be condemned by the Pope which was effectually done and Gregory XIII directed his Bull to the Faculty of Divinity in Paris Nov. 3. A. D. 1575. wherein he doth expresly forbid this Translation and reject it with an Anathema And yet this very Translation of Rene Benoit is one of those made by Catholicks and approved in the Roman Church which J. W. refers me to One of us two must needs be under a great Mistake but to whom it belongs I leave the Reader
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
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