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
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
be so highly approved He saith farther that Christ himself only appointed two viz. Baptism and the Lord's Supper and for the rest he saith it may be presumed the Apostles did appoint them by Christ's Direction or by divine Iâ—spiration But how can that be when he saith the Form even of those he calls proper Sacraments was either appointed by our Lord or by the Church How can such Sacraments be of divine Institution whose very Form is appointed by the Church He puts the Question himself why Christ appointed the Form only of Two Sacraments when all the Grace of the Sacraments comes from him He answers because these are the principal Sacraments which unite the whole man in the body of the Church by Faith and Charity But yet this doth not clear the Difficulty how those can be proper Sacraments whose Form is not of Divine Institution as he grants in the Sacrament of Penance and Orders the Form is of the Churches Appointment And this will not only reach to this greâ—t School Divine but to as many others as hold it in the Churches Power to appoint or alter the Matter and Form of some of those they call Sacraments For however they may use the Name they can never agree with the Council of Trent in the Nature of the Seven Sacraments which supposes them to be of Divine Institution as to Matter and Form. And so the Divines of the Church of Rome have agreed since the Council of Trent Bellarmin hath a Chapter on purpose to shew that the Matter and Form of Sacraments are so certain and determinate that nothing can be changed in them and this determination must be by God himself Which he saith is most certain among them and he proves it by a substantial Reason viz. because the Sacraments are the Causes of Grace and no one can give Grace but God and therefore none else can appoint the Essentials of Sacraments but he and therefore he calls it Sacrilege to change even the matter of Sacraments Suarez asserts that both the Matter and Form of Sacraments are determined by Christ's Institution and as they are determined by him they are necessary to the making of Sacraments And this he saith absolutely speaking is de Pide or an Article of Faith. And he proves it from the manner of Christ's instituting Baptism and the Eucharist and he urges the same Reason because Christ only can confâ—r Grace by the Sacraments and therefore he must appoint the Matter and Form of them Cardinal Lugo affirms that Christ hath appointed both Matter and Form of the Sacraments which he proves from the Council of Trent He thinks Christ might have grantâ—d a Commission to his Church to appoint Sacraments which he would make efficacious but he reither believes that he hath done it or that it was fitting to be done Petrâ—s à Sancto Joseph saith that although the Council of Trent doth not expresly affirm the Sacraments to be immediately instituted by Christ yet it is to be so understood And although the Church may appoint Sacramentalia i. e. Rites about the Sacraments yet Christ himself must appoint the Sacraments themselves and he concludes that no Creature can have authority to make Sacraments conferring Grace and therefore he declares that Christ did appoint the Forms of all the Sacraments himself although we do not read them in Scripture If now it appears that some even of the Church of Rome before the Council of Trent did think it in the Churches Power to appoint or alter the Matter and Form of some of those they called Sacraments then it will evidently follow they had not the same Tradition about the Seven Sacraments which is there deliver'd Of Chrism The Council of Trent declares the matter of Confirmation to be Chrism viz. a Composition made of Oâ—l of Olive and Balsam the one to signifie the clearness of Conscience the other the Odour of a good Fame saith the Council of Florence But where was this Chrism appointed by Christ Marsilius saith from Petrus Aureolus that there was a Controversie between the Divines and Caâ—â—â—ists about this matter and the latter affirmed that Chrisâ—â— was not appointed by Christ but astâ—â—wards by thâ— Church and that the Pope could dispense with it which he could not do if it were of Christ's Instiâ—â—â—ion Petrus Aureolus was himself a great Man in the Church of Rome and after he had mentioned this difference and named one Brocardus or Bernardus with other Canonists for it he doth not affirm the contrary to be a Catholick Tradition but himself asserts the Chrism not to be necessary to the Sacrament of Confirmation which he must have done if he had believed it of Divine Institution Gregory de Valentia on the occasion of this Opinion of the Canonists that Confirmation might be without Chrism saith two notable things 1. That they were guilty of Heresie therein for which he quotes Dominicus Soto 2. That he thinks there were no Canonists left of that mind If not the Change was greater since it is certain they were of that Opinion before For Guido Brianson attests that there was a difference between the Divines and Canonists about this matter for Bernard the Glosser and others held that Chrism was not necessary to it because it was neither appointed by Christ nor his Apostles but in some ancient Councils Guil. Antissiodorensis long before mentions the Opinion of those who said that Chrism was appointed by the Church after the Apostles times and that they confirmed only by imposition of hands but he doth not condemn it only he thinks it better to hold that the Apostles used Chrism although we never read that they did it But he doth not lay that Opinion only on the Canonists for there were Divines of great note of the same For Bonaventure saith that the Apostles made use neither of their Matter nor Form in their Confirmation and his Resolution is that they were appointed by the Governors of the Church afterwards as his Master Alexander of Hale had said besore him who attributes the Institution of both to a Council of Meaux Cardinal de Vitriaco saith that Confirmation by Imposition of Hands was srom the Apostles but by Chrism from the Church for we do not read that the Apostles used it Thomas Aquinas confesses there were different Opinions about the Institution of this Sacrament some held that it was not instituted by Christ nor his Apostles but afterwards in a certain Council But he never blames these for contradicting Catholick Tradition although he dislikes their Opinion Cajetan on Aquinas saith that Chrism with Balsam was appointed by the Church after the Primitive times and yet now this must be believed to be essential to this Sacrament and by Conink it seems to be heretical to deny it For he affirms that it seems to be an Article of Faith that Confirmation must be with Chrism and no Catholick he saith
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
before Satisfaction and although some have complained of this as a great abuse yet they have been sharply answer'd that it is to call in question the Conduct of the Church for five hundred years and they may as well question many other things which depend upon the Authority of the Present Church 3. The Obligation to Confession is very different from what it was in the ancient Exomologesis Now by the Doctrine of the Church of Rome a person looks on himself as bound in Conscience to confess every Mortal sin but in the Ancient Church none can imagine that persons were bound to undergo the Exomologesis for every mortal sin there being no Penitential Canons which did ever require it but they had respect to some particular sins and the Penance was proportion'd to them We ought to take notice of two things with respect to the Discipline of the Ancient Church which will shew the different notion it had of these things from what is now current in the Church of Rome 1. That it did not exclude those from all hopes of Salvation whom it excluded from Penance as may be seen in the Illiberitan Council where many are wholly shut out from the Church whom we cannot think they thought uncapable of Salvation From whence it follows that they did not look on Confession and Absolution as a necessary condition of Salvation but now in the Church of Rome they allow Confession to all because they think they cannot otherwise be in a state of Salvation in an ordinary way But in the Ancient Church they could not look on the desire of Confession as necessary for to what purpose should they make that necessary when they denyed the thing But in the Church of Rome they make the desire necessary because they hold the thing it self to be so if there be means to have it 2. That the Penitential Canons never extended in the Primitive Church to all those sins which the Church of Rome now accounts Mortal and therefore necessary to be confessed The Council of Trent saith expresly they must confess omnia singula peccata mortalia etiam occulta and an Anathema is denounced against him that denies it to be necessary to Remission of them Now if we consider their notion of mortal sins we shall easily discern the vast difference between the Obligation to Confession by the Council of Trent and by the old Penitential Canons For mortal sins are not only all Voluntary Acts committed against the known Laws of God but against the Laws of the Church and even venial sins may become mortal by the Disposition of the Person and by other circumstances which the Casuists set down at large now the Council of Trent doth expresly oblige men not only to relate the Acts themselves but all Circumstances which change the kind of Sin. And this is a racking the Consciences of Men far beyond whatever we find in the old Penitential Canons for Petavius confesses that many sins now accounted mortal had no Penance appointed for them by the old Canons and therefore I need not take any pains to prove it If any one hath a mind to be satisfied he may see it in Gregory Nyssen's Canonical Epistle where he owns that several of those sins for which the Scripture excludes from the Kingdom of Heaven have no Canonical Penance prescribed them by the ancient Canons of the Church Which shews a mighty difference from the Rule of the Council of Trent The most plausible place in Antiquity brought for all mortal sin is that of S. Cyprian where he saith that some confessed their very thoughts though they had not proceeded to actual sin It is true that he doth speak of some such but was it for sins of thought against the tenth Command No but it is very plain that he speaks of that sin which was thought to imply a renouncing Christianity and S Cyprian elsewhere calls summum delictum and the Sin agâ—inst the Holy Ghost viz. consenting to any Act of gentile Idolatry and yet Saint Cyprian had much ado to perswade those who were actually guilty to submit to due Penance for it but they obtained Tickets from the Confessors and were admitted to communion without undergoing the Discipline of the Church the consequence whereof would be that the Discipline would be lost and the Church over-run with Apostates this makes S. Cyprian plead hard against such practices and among other arguments he uses this of the great tenderness of some who because they had entertained such thoughts of doing as others did for their own safety they offered to unburthen their Consciences before them and desired remedy for small Wounds how much more ought they to confess their faults whose wounds are greater This is the whole force of his reasoning where the Thought and Act relate to the same sin and that said to be no less than denying Christ and sinning against the Holy Ghost But there is no parity in the case of other sins which even S. Cyprian calls minora delicta being against men immediately and there is no intimation in him that ever the thoughts of those sins were discovered or that Persons were under any obligation by the Rules of the Church to do it 2. Private Offenders were sometimes advised in those first Ages for the ease of their Consciences to make Confession of their sins of which we see an instance as to the Practice in one Case in S. Cyprian's time And Tertullian compares such Persons who avoid it to those who have such secret Ulcers that they chuse rather to perish than to discover them Now in Cases of this nature he advises to Confession and publick penitential Acts that so they may in the Judgment of the Church have the secret Wounds of their Consciences healed And this is that which Origen doth advise to in such Cases to seek out a wise spiritual Physician and to make known his inward distemper to him and to follow his advice and direction as to the Method of Cure. Now this we never oppose but the only Question is whether it be necessary for all Persons and for every Mortal Sin to make Confession of it to the Priest that it may be forgiven and Origen never once supposes this for he mentions several other ways for the Remission of Sins after Baptism by Martyrdom by Alms by forgiving and converting others by great Love to God and in the last place he brings in this of a Laborious Penance and Confession Either the former ways are sufficient without this or not if they are then this is not necessary to the Remission of all mortal Sins if not to what purpose doth he mention so many ways when this one is sufficient without them and all those are insufficient without this For Boileau confesses that no mortal sins according to them can be remitted where there is not at least the desire of this But Origen shews the different ways of
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