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
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
quotes Scripture and Fathers against it and he blames the use of the term of Merit either ex congruo or ex condigno which he saith was an Invention of some late Schoolmen and was contrary to the ancient Doctrine of the Church As he proves not only from Scripture and Fathers but from the ancient Offices too as in the Canon of the Mass Non aestimator meriti seá veniâ— quaesumus largitor c. Fer. 4. Pass Ut qui de meritorum qualitate diffidimus non judicium tuum sed misericâ—rdiam consâ—quamur Dom. 2. Adv. Ubi nulla suppetunt sufsragia meritorum tuae nobis indulgentiae succurre praesidtis How comes the Doctrine condemned in Wickliff to be established in the Council of Trent For he was blamed for asserting true Merit and the Council asserts it with an Anathema to those that deny it And yet we must believe the very same Tradition to have been in the Church all this while Vega saith that Walden speaks against Merits without Grace but any one that reads him will find it otherwise For he produces those passages out of the Fathers against Merits which do suppose Divine Grace as it were easie to shew but Friar Walden thought the notion of Merit inconsistent with the Power and Influence of Divine Grace necessary to our best Actions God saith he doth not regard Merit either as to Congruity or Condignity but his own Grace and Will and Mercy Marsilius de Ingen who lived before Walden reckons up three Opinions about Merit the first of those who denied it and of this saith he Durandus seems to be and one Job de Everbaco The second of those who said that our Works have no merit of themselves but as informed by dâ—â—ine Grace and from the Assistance of the Holy Ghost so they do tâ—uly merit Eternal Life and of this Opinion he saith was Thomas de Argentina The third was of those who granted that true Merit doth imply an Equality but then they distinguish Equality as to Quantity and as to Proportion and in this latter sense they asserted an Equality And of this Opinion he saith was Petrus de Tarantasia But he delivers his own Judgment in these Conclusions 1. That our Works either considered in themselves or with Divine Grace are not meritorious of Eternal Life ex condigno which he proves both from Scripture and Reason viz. because 1. No Man can make God a Debtor to him for the more Grace he hath the more he is a Debtor to God. Ana 2. He cannot merit of another by what he receives from him And 3. No man can pay what he owes to God and therefore can never merit at his hands 4. No man can merit here so much Grace as to keep him from falling away from Grace much less then Eternal Life 2. These works may be said to be meritorious of Eternal Life ex condigno by divine acceptation originally proceeding from the Merit of Christ's Passion because that makes them worthy But this is Christ's Merit and not the true Merit of our Works 3. Works done by Grace do merit Eternal Life de congruo from God's liberal disposition whereby he hath appointed so to reward them It beeing agreeable to him to give Glory to them that love him But this is an improper kind of Merit and can by no means support the Tradition of true Merit Durandus utterly denies any true Merit of Man towards God he doth not deny it in a large improper sense for such a Condignity in our actions as God hath appointed in order to a Reward which is by the Grace of God in us but as it is taken for a free Action to which a Reward is in Justice due because whatever we doe is more owing to the Grace of God than to our selves but to make a Debtor to us we must not only pay an equivalent to what we owe but we must go beyond it but to God and our Parents we can never pay an equivalent much less exceed it And we can never merit by what God gives us because the Gift lays a greater Obligation upon us And he saith the holding the contrary is temerarious and blasphemous The two grounds of holding Merit were the supposing a Proportion between Grace and Glory and an Equality between Divine Grace and Glory in Vertue Grace being as the Seed of Glory and to both these he answers To the first That the giving a Reward upon Merit is no part of distributive but commutative Justice because it respects the relation of one thing to another and not the mere quality of the Person To the second That the Value of an Act is not considered with respect to the first Mover but to the immediate Agent and as to Grace being the seed of Glory it is but a metaphorical expression and nothing can be drawn from it So that Durandus concludes true Merit with respect to God to be temerarious blasphemous and impossible Ockam declares That after all our good Works God may without Injustice deny Eternal Life to them who do them because God can be Debtor to none and therefore whatever he doth to us it is out of mere Grace And that there can be nothing meritorious in any act of ours but from the Grace of God freely accepting it And therefore he must deny any true Merit Gregorius Ariminensis saith That no Act of ours though coming from Grace to never so great a degree is meritorious with God ex condigno of any Reward either Temporal or Eternal because every such Act is a Gift of God and if it were at all meritorious yet not as to Eternal Life because there is no equivalency between them and therefore it cannot in Justice be due to it and consequently if God gives it he must do it freely But saith he God is said to be just when he gives bona pro bonis and merciful when he gives bona pro malis not but that he is merciful in both but because his mercy appears more in the latter and in the other it seems like justice in a general sense from the conformity of the Merit and the Reward but in this particular retribution it is mere Mercy Scotus affirms that all the meritoriousness of our Acts depends on divine Acceptation in order to a Reward and if it did depend on the intrinsick worth of the Acts God could not in justice deny the Reward which is false and therefore it wholly depends on the good will and favour of God. Bellarmin is aware of this and he confesses this to be the Opinion of Scotus and of other old Schoolmen But how then do they hold the Doctrine and Tradition of true Merit He holds that good Works are properly and truly good So do we and yet deny Merit But he grants that he denies that they bear any proportion to Eternal Life and therefore they cannot be truly meritorious of it Bellarmin himself asserts that without
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
merendum but they are ad simpliciter merendum so that still he denied any Proportion though he held simple Merit But Thomas Aquinas coming after him denies that there can be any simple Merit with respect to God because that cannot be where there is so great inequality and so there can be no equal Justice between them but acâ—ording to a proportion which he afterwards explains viz. as to the substance and Freedom of our good Works there is onely a Congruity but as they proceed from Divine Grace so they are meritorious of Eternal Life ex condigno This Doctrine had some followers in the Schools but not many in comparison of those who opposed it as appears by what is said already Richardus de Mediavilla though a Franciscan follows herein the Doctrine of Aquinas and asserts that by Acts of Free Will informed by Grace a man may merit Eternal Life ex condigno and he adds somewhat more potest certissime and he uses the same Answers to the Objections which the other did And Nich. de Orbellis follows Richardus so that Aquinas his Doctrine had prevailed beyond his own School But it was as vehemently opposed by others of that Fraternity among whom Cardinal Hosius mentions Stephanus Brulifer who maintained that no Act of Grace how good soever was worthy of Eternal Life Paulus Burgensis though he is said to have been converted from being a Jew by reading Aquinas yet utterly dissented from him in this matter For he saith that no man can by the Ordinary assistance of Grace Merit Eternal Life ex condigno and therefore the Mercy of God is most seen in Heaven However the Reputation of Aquinas might gain upon some yet this was very far then from being a Catholick Tradition But no Council ever interposed its Authority in this matter till the Council of Trent which resolved to carry the Points in difference to the height and to establish every thing that was questioned Nothing had been more easie than to have given satisfaction in this matter considering what Pighius and Contarenus and even Genebrard had yielded in it but there the Rule was that every thing that was disputed must be determined first and then defended And so it hath happened with this Decree which lest we should think the matter capable of softening hath been since asserted in the highest manner Bellarmin asserts Good Works of themselves and not merely by compact to be meritorious of Eternal Life so that in them there is a certain Proportion and Equality to Eternal Life Costerus saith that in Works of Grace there is an equality between the Work and the Reward Suarez that they have an intrinsecal Dignity whereby they become worthy of Eternal Life Vasquez that there is an Equality of Dignity between Good Works and Eternal Life without which a Promise could not make true Merit The Rhemists say that good Works are truly and properly meritorious and justly worthy of Everlasting Life and that thereupon Heaven is the just Due and just Stipend Crown or Recompence which God by his Justice oweth to the Persons so doing by his Grace And again that Good Works are meritorious and the very cause of Salvation so far that God should be unjust if he rendred not Heaven for the same Phil. Gamachaeus a late Professour of Divinity in the Sorbon speaks it roundly that the Council of Trent did plainly mean to establish Merit ex condigno and that all Catholicks are agreed in it The last Defender of the Council of Trent within these few years saith That there is an intrinsecal Condignity in good Works whereby they bear a proportion commensurate with the Glory of Heaven And without such Doctrine as this he doth not think the Council of Trent can be defended in this matter If after all it be said that this is a mere subtilty concerning the proportion an Act of Grace bears to the state of Glory I answer the more to blame they who have made and imposed it as a matter of Faith as the Council of Trent hath done with an Anathema and that without any pretence from Catholick Tradition But what made the Council of Trent so much concerned for a Scholastick Subtilty There was a deep Mystery lay in this They were wise enough to frame the Decree so as to avoid Offence and to make it appear plausible but it was enough to the People to understand that the Merit of Good Works was allowed and they were to believe the Priests both as to the Good Works they were to do and as to the putting them into a state of Grace to make them capable of meriting And this was the true Reason of the Anathema against those who should deny the true Merit of Good Works V. Of the Number of Sacraments The Council of Trent pronounces an Anathema in these words If any one saith that the Sacraments of the new Law were not all appointed by Jesus Christ our Lord or that they were more or fewer than Seven viz. Baptism Confirmation Eucharist Penance Extreme Unction Orders and Matrimony or that any one of these is not truly and properly a Sacrament let him be Anathema But what is it to be truly and properly a Sacrament It had been very reasonable to have defined a Sacrament first truly and properly before such an Anathema passed But that defect may be said to be supplied by the Roman Catechism published by Authority of the Council and there we are told that a Sacrament is a sensible thing which by divine Institution hath a power of causing as well as signifying holiness and righteousness So that to a true and proper Sacrament two things are necessary 1. That it be of Divine Institution 2. That it confer Grace on those who partake of it And by these we must examin the Catholick Tradition about the number of Sacraments Bellarmin saith that all their Divines and the whole Church for 500 years viz. from the time of the Master of the Sentences have agreed in the Number of the seven Sacraments Here we see is a bold Appeal to Tradition for 500 years but although if it were proved it cannot be sufficient to prove an Apostolical Tradition for the Fathers might for a thousand years have held the contrary and I do not think one clear Testimony can be produced out of Antiquity for that number of Sacraments truly so called yet I shall at present wholly wave the debate of the former times and confine my self to Bellarmin's 500 years and I hope to make it appear there was no Universal Tradition for it within his own time For Alexander Hales who wrote saith Possevin his Summ of Divinity by order of Innocent IV. and it was approved by Alexander IV. with seventy Divines affirms there were but Four proper Sacraments now if this were the Catholick Tradition then That there were Seven proper Sacraments how could this Doctrine pass and
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
Terms ex Condigno yet because it still uses the words vere mereri it implies something more than mere Congruity and because it speaks of meriting the Increase of Grace and not the first Grace now a Congruity is allowed for the first Grace which it excludes by mentioning the Increase And withal it brings places to prove that the giving the Reward must be a Retribution of Justice and if so the merit must be more than that of Congruity 2. Because God's Promise doth not give any Intrinsick value to the Nature of the Act no more than his threatning doth increase the Nature of Guilt If the King of Persia had promised a Province to him that gave him a draught of Water the Act it self had been no more meritorious but it only shewed the Munificence of the Prince no more do God's Promises of Eternal Life add any merit to the Acts of Grace but onely set forth the Infinite Bounty of the Promiser 3. In the Conference at Ratisbon the year this Decree passed by the Emperour's Order the Protestant Party did yield that by virtue of God's Promise the Reward of Eternal Life was due to justified Persons as a Father promising a great Reward to his Son for his pains in studying makes it become due to him although there be no proportion between them And if no more were meant by Merit of Congruity than that it was very agreeable to the Divine Nature to reward the Acts of his own Grace with an infinite Reward they would yield this too 4. Cardinal Pallavicini gives us the plain and true meaning of the Council viz. that a Merit de Congruo was allowed for Works before Justification but for Works after they all agreed he saith that there was a Merit de condigno in them both for increase of Grace and Eternal Glory By Merit de condigno is meant such an intrinsick value in the nature of the Act as makes the Reward in Justice to be due to it Some call one of these Meritum secundum quid which is the same with de congruo which really deserves no reward but receives it onely from the liberality of the Giver and this hath not truly say they the notion of Merit but that which makes the reward due is simple and true Merit when it doth not come merely from the Kindness of the Giver but from Respect to the worthiness of the Action and the Doer and this is de condigno Let us now see what Catholick Tradition there was for this Doctrine and whether this were taught them by their Fathers in a continued succession down from the Apostles times But that there was a change as to the sense of the Church in this matter I shall prove in the first place from an Office which was allow'd in the Church before and forbidden after It was an Office with respect to dying Persons wherein are these Questions Q. Dost thou believe that thou shalt come to Heaven not by thy own Merits but by the virtue and Merit of Christ 's Passion A. I do believe it Q. Dost thou believe that Christ died for our Salvation and that none can be saved by their own Merits or any other way but by the Merits of his Passion A. I do believe it Now when the Indices Expurgatorii were made in pursuance to the Order of the Council of Trent this passage was no longer endured For in the Roman Index the Ordo baptizandi wherein this Question was is forbidden till it were Corrected But the Spanish Indices explain the mystery that of Cardinal Quiroga saith expresly those Questions and Answers must be blotted out and the like we find in the Index of Soto major and Sanâ—oval What now is the Reason that such Questions and Answers were no longer permitted if the Churches Tradition continued still the same Was not this a way to know the Tradition of the Church by the Offices used in it This was no private Office then first used but although the prohibition mentions one Impression at Venice as though there had been no more I have one before me Printed by Gryphius at Venice two years before that and long before with the Praeceptorium of Lyra A. D. 1495. where the Question to the dying Person is in these words Si credit se Merito Passionis Christi non propriis ad gloriam pervenire Et respondeat Credo And the same Questions and Answers I have in a Sacerdotale Romanum Printed by Nicolinus at Venice 1585. Cardinal Hosius says that he had seen these Questions and Answers in the Sacerdotale Romanum and in the Hortulus Animae and that they were believed to be first prescribed by Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury On what account now come these things to be prohibited and expunged if the Churches Doctrine and Tradition about this matter be still the very same No doubt it was believed that the Council of Trent had now so far declared the Sense of the Church another way that such Questions and Aâ—sâ—â—rs were no longer to be endured But before the Council of Trent the Canons of Colen against Hermannus their Bishop when he published his Reformation declare that God's giving Eternal Life up on good Works is ex gratuita dignatione suae clementiae from the Favour which God vouchsafes to them Which to my apprehension is inconsistent with the Notion of true Merit in the Works themselves for if there be any Condignity in them it cannot be mere Grace and Favour in God to reward them The same Canons in their Enchiridion some years before when they joyned with their Bishop call it stupidity to think that good Works are rewarded with Eternal Life for any Dignity in the Works themselves And if there be no dignity in them there can be no true Merit as the Council of Trent determines with an Anathema Pope Adrian VI. gives such an account of the Merit of our Works that he could never imagine any condignity in them to Eternal Life For saith he our Merits are a broken reed which pierce the hand of him that leans upon them they are a menstruous Cloth and our best Actions mixt with impurities and when we have done all that we can we are unprofitable Servants Petrus de Alliaco Cardinal of Cambray attributes no other effect to good Works than of Causa sine qua non and saith that the Reward is not to be attributed to any Virtue in them but to the Will of the Giver Which I think overthrows any true Merit Gabriel Biel attributes the Merit of Good Works not to any intrinsecal Goodness in them but to God's acceptation Which is in words to assert Merit and in truth to deny it for how can there be true Merit in the Works if all their value depends upon divine Acceptance Thomas Walden charges Wickliff with asserting the Doctrine of Merit and incouraging men to trust in their own Righteousness and he
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
them These Homilies were either those which Charlemagn caused to be taken out of the Fathers and applied to the several Lessons through the year as Sigebert observes or of their own composing however they were to be turned by the Bishops either into Rustick Roman or German as served best to the capacities of the People For the Franks then either retained the Original German or used the Rustick Roman but this latter so much prevailed over the other that in the solemn Oaths between Lewis and Charles upon parting the Dominions of France and Germany set down in Nithardus the Rustick Roman was become the Vulgar Language of France and these were but the Grandchildren of Charlemagn Marquardus Freherus thinks that onely the Princes and Great Men retained the German but the generality then spake the Rustick Roman as appears by the Oath of the People which begins thus Si Lodâ—igs Sacrament que Son Fradre Carlo jurat conservat Carlus meo Serdra de suo part non los tanit si jo returnar non licit pois ne io ne neuls cui eo returnar nil pois in nulla adjudha contra Lodwig nun li iver By which we may see what a mixture of Latin there was in the vulgar Language then used by the Franks and how easie it was for the People then to understand the publick Offices being constant but the Sermons not being so there was greater necessity to turn them into that corruptor Rustick Roman which was thoroughly understood by them In Spain the Latin was less corrupted before the Gothick and Arabick or Moorish Words were taken into it Lucius Mariness saith that had it not been for the mixture of those words the Spaniards had spoken as good Latin as the Romans did in the time of Tully and he saith that to his time he had seen Epistles written in Spanish wherein all the Nouns and Verbs were good Latin. In Italy the Affinity of the vulgar prevailing Language and the Latin continued so great that the difference seemed for some hundred years no more than of the learned and common Greek or of the English and Scotch and so no necessity was then apprehended of Translating the correct Tongue into a corrupt Dialect of it But where there was a plain difference of Language there was some care even then taken that the People might understand what they heard as appears by these things 1. Alcuinus gives an Account why one day was called Sabbatum in 12 Lectionibus when there were but six Lessons and he saith it was because they were read both in Greek and Latin they not understanding each others Languages Not because the Greek was a holy Tongue but quia aderant Graeci quibus ignota er at lingua Latina which shews that the Church then thought it a reasonable cause to have the Scripture in such a Language which might be understood by the People The same Reason is given by Amalarius 2. In the German Churches there were ancient Translations of Scripture into their own Language B. Rhenanus attributes a Translation of the Gospels to Waldo Bishop of Freising assoon as the Franks received Christianity and he saith it was the immortal Honours of the Franks to have the Scripture so soon translated into their own Language which saith he is of late opposed by some Divines So little did he know of an universal Tradition against it Goldastus mentions the Translation in Rhime by Ottfridus Wissenburgensis published by Achilles Gassarus the Psalter of Notkerus Rudolphus ab Eems his Paraphrase of the old Testament Andreas du Chesn hath published a Preface before an old Saxon Book wherein it is said that Ludovicus Pius did take care that all the People should read the Scripture in their own Tongue and gave it in charge to a Saxon to translate both Old and New Testament into the German Language which saith he was performed very elegantly 3. In the Saxon Churches here it was not to be expected that the Scripture should be translated till there were Persons learned both in the Saxon and the other Languages Bede in his Epistle to Egbert puts him upon instructing the common People in their own Language especially in the Creed and Lord's Prayer and to further so good a Work Bede himself translated the Gospel of St. John into the Saxon Tongue as Cuthbert saith in the Epistle about his Death in the Life of Bede before his Saxon History It appears by the old Canons of Churches and the Epistles of Aelfric saith Mr. Lisle that there was an old Saxon Canon for the Priest to say unto the People the sense of the Gospel in English and Aelfric saith of himself that he had translated the Pentateuch and some of the Historical Books The New Testament was translated by several hands and an ancient Saxon Translation hath been lately published with the Gothick Gospels And there were old Saxon Glosses upon the Gospels of Aldred Farmen and Owen The last Work of K. Alfred was the translating the Psalter and if the MS. History of Ely deserves credit he translated both the Old and New Testament 4. It is not denied either by Bellarmin or Baronius that the Slavonians in the 9th Century had a permission upon their conversion to Christianity to enjoy the Bible and to have publick Offices performed in their own Language But they tell us it was because they were then Children in the Faith and to be indulged but methinks Children were the most in danger to be seduced or there were not Priests enough to officiate in Latin at first But this was no Reason then given as appears by the Pope's own Letter published by Baronius Wherein he gives God thanks for the Invention of Letters among them by Constantine a Philosopher and he expresly saith that God had not confined his Honour to three Languages but all People and Languages were to praise him and he saith God himself in Scripture had so commanded and he quotes St. Paul's words for it One would wonder those great Men should no better consider the Popes own Reasons but give others for him which he never thought of It is true he adds that he would have the Gospel read first in Latin and then in Salvonian and if they pleased he would have the Mass said in Latin but the Slavonians continued their Custom and the Pope was willing enough to let them enjoy it for his own convenience as well as theirs For there was a secret in this matter which is not fully understood Aventinus saith that Methodius invented their I etters and translated the Scriptures into the Slavonian Tongue and persuaded the People to reject the Latin Service but this I see no ground for But the Truth of the matter was the Slavonians were converted by the means of Methodius and Cyril otherwise called Constantine two Greek Bishops and the Christian Religion was settled among them by their means