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
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
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
be so highly approved He saith farther that Christ himself only appointed two viz. Baptism and the Lord's Supper and for the rest he saith it may be presumed the Apostles did appoint them by Christ's Direction or by divine Iâ—spiration But how can that be when he saith the Form even of those he calls proper Sacraments was either appointed by our Lord or by the Church How can such Sacraments be of divine Institution whose very Form is appointed by the Church He puts the Question himself why Christ appointed the Form only of Two Sacraments when all the Grace of the Sacraments comes from him He answers because these are the principal Sacraments which unite the whole man in the body of the Church by Faith and Charity But yet this doth not clear the Difficulty how those can be proper Sacraments whose Form is not of Divine Institution as he grants in the Sacrament of Penance and Orders the Form is of the Churches Appointment And this will not only reach to this greâ—t School Divine but to as many others as hold it in the Churches Power to appoint or alter the Matter and Form of some of those they call Sacraments For however they may use the Name they can never agree with the Council of Trent in the Nature of the Seven Sacraments which supposes them to be of Divine Institution as to Matter and Form. And so the Divines of the Church of Rome have agreed since the Council of Trent Bellarmin hath a Chapter on purpose to shew that the Matter and Form of Sacraments are so certain and determinate that nothing can be changed in them and this determination must be by God himself Which he saith is most certain among them and he proves it by a substantial Reason viz. because the Sacraments are the Causes of Grace and no one can give Grace but God and therefore none else can appoint the Essentials of Sacraments but he and therefore he calls it Sacrilege to change even the matter of Sacraments Suarez asserts that both the Matter and Form of Sacraments are determined by Christ's Institution and as they are determined by him they are necessary to the making of Sacraments And this he saith absolutely speaking is de Pide or an Article of Faith. And he proves it from the manner of Christ's instituting Baptism and the Eucharist and he urges the same Reason because Christ only can confâ—r Grace by the Sacraments and therefore he must appoint the Matter and Form of them Cardinal Lugo affirms that Christ hath appointed both Matter and Form of the Sacraments which he proves from the Council of Trent He thinks Christ might have grantâ—d a Commission to his Church to appoint Sacraments which he would make efficacious but he reither believes that he hath done it or that it was fitting to be done Petrâ—s à Sancto Joseph saith that although the Council of Trent doth not expresly affirm the Sacraments to be immediately instituted by Christ yet it is to be so understood And although the Church may appoint Sacramentalia i. e. Rites about the Sacraments yet Christ himself must appoint the Sacraments themselves and he concludes that no Creature can have authority to make Sacraments conferring Grace and therefore he declares that Christ did appoint the Forms of all the Sacraments himself although we do not read them in Scripture If now it appears that some even of the Church of Rome before the Council of Trent did think it in the Churches Power to appoint or alter the Matter and Form of some of those they called Sacraments then it will evidently follow they had not the same Tradition about the Seven Sacraments which is there deliver'd Of Chrism The Council of Trent declares the matter of Confirmation to be Chrism viz. a Composition made of Oâ—l of Olive and Balsam the one to signifie the clearness of Conscience the other the Odour of a good Fame saith the Council of Florence But where was this Chrism appointed by Christ Marsilius saith from Petrus Aureolus that there was a Controversie between the Divines and Caâ—â—â—ists about this matter and the latter affirmed that Chrisâ—â— was not appointed by Christ but astâ—â—wards by thâ— Church and that the Pope could dispense with it which he could not do if it were of Christ's Instiâ—â—â—ion Petrus Aureolus was himself a great Man in the Church of Rome and after he had mentioned this difference and named one Brocardus or Bernardus with other Canonists for it he doth not affirm the contrary to be a Catholick Tradition but himself asserts the Chrism not to be necessary to the Sacrament of Confirmation which he must have done if he had believed it of Divine Institution Gregory de Valentia on the occasion of this Opinion of the Canonists that Confirmation might be without Chrism saith two notable things 1. That they were guilty of Heresie therein for which he quotes Dominicus Soto 2. That he thinks there were no Canonists left of that mind If not the Change was greater since it is certain they were of that Opinion before For Guido Brianson attests that there was a difference between the Divines and Canonists about this matter for Bernard the Glosser and others held that Chrism was not necessary to it because it was neither appointed by Christ nor his Apostles but in some ancient Councils Guil. Antissiodorensis long before mentions the Opinion of those who said that Chrism was appointed by the Church after the Apostles times and that they confirmed only by imposition of hands but he doth not condemn it only he thinks it better to hold that the Apostles used Chrism although we never read that they did it But he doth not lay that Opinion only on the Canonists for there were Divines of great note of the same For Bonaventure saith that the Apostles made use neither of their Matter nor Form in their Confirmation and his Resolution is that they were appointed by the Governors of the Church afterwards as his Master Alexander of Hale had said besore him who attributes the Institution of both to a Council of Meaux Cardinal de Vitriaco saith that Confirmation by Imposition of Hands was srom the Apostles but by Chrism from the Church for we do not read that the Apostles used it Thomas Aquinas confesses there were different Opinions about the Institution of this Sacrament some held that it was not instituted by Christ nor his Apostles but afterwards in a certain Council But he never blames these for contradicting Catholick Tradition although he dislikes their Opinion Cajetan on Aquinas saith that Chrism with Balsam was appointed by the Church after the Primitive times and yet now this must be believed to be essential to this Sacrament and by Conink it seems to be heretical to deny it For he affirms that it seems to be an Article of Faith that Confirmation must be with Chrism and no Catholick he saith
now denies it Which shews that he believed the sense of the Church not to have been always the same about it But others speak out as Gregory de Valentia Suarez Filliucius and Tanner who say absolutely it is now a matter of Faith to hold Chrism to be essential to Confirmation and that it is now not onely erroneous but heretical to deny it Their Testimonies are at large produced by Petrus Aurelius or the famous Abbat of S. Cyran And even he grants it to be Heresie since the Council of Trent but he yields that Alensis Bonaventure and de Vitriâ—co all held that Opinion which was made Heresie by it From whence it follows that there hath been a change in the Doctrine of the Roman Church about Confirmation by Chrism For if it be Heresie now to assert that which was denied without any reproach before the Tradition cannot be said to continue the same Thus we have seen there was no certain Tradition for the Matter of this Sacrament and as little is there for the Form of it Which is Consigno te signo Crucis confirmo te Chrismate salutis in nomine Patris c. But Sirmondus produces another Form out of S. Ambrose Deus Pater omnipotens qui te regeneravit ex Aqua Spiritâ— Sancto concessitque tibi peccata tua ipse te ungat in vitam aeternam And from thence concludes the present Form not to be ancient and he confesses that both Matter and Form of this Sacrament are changed Which was an ingenuous Confession but his adversary takes this Advantage from it that then the Sacrament it self must â—e changed if both Matter and Form were and then the Church must be a very unfaithful keeper of Tradition which I think is unanswerable Suarez proposes the Objection fairly both as to the Matter and Form of this Sacrament that we read nothing of them in Scripture and Tradition is very various about them but his Answer is very insufficient viz. that though it be not in Scripture yet they have them by Tradition from the Apostles now that is the very thing which Sirmondus disproves and shew that the Church of Rome is clearly gone off from Tradition here both as to Matter and Form. Of Orders I proceed to the Sacrament of Orders It it impossible for those of the Church of Rome to prove this a true and proper Sacrament on their own Grounds For they assert that such a one must have Matter and Form appointed by Christ but that which they account the Matter and Form of Orders were neither of them of Christ's Institution The Council of Florence they say hath declared both the matter is that by the delivery whereof the Order is confer'd as that of Priesthood by the delivery of the Chalice with the Wine and the Paten with the Bread and the Form is Accipe potestatem offerendi Sacrificium in Ecclesia pro vivis mortuis Now if neither of these be owned by themselves to have been appointed by Christ then it necessarily follows that they cannot hold this to be a true and proper Sacrament Imposition of hands they grant was used by the Apostles and still continued in the Christian Church and Bellarmin confesses that nothing else can be proved by Scripture to be the external Symbol in this Sacrament And others are forced to say that Christ hath not determined the Matter and Form of this Sacrament particularly but hath left a latitude in it for the Church to determin it Which in my opinion is clear giving up the Cause as to this Sacrament It is observed by Arcudius that the Council of Trent doth not declare the particular Matter and Form of this Sacrament but only in general that it is performed by words and external signs Sess. 23. c. 3. From whence he infers that the outward Sign was left to the Churches determination and he saith that Christ did particularly appoint the Matter and Form of some Sacraments as of Baptism and the Lord's Supper and Extreme Unction but not of others and therefore in the Sacrament of Orders he saith Christ determined no more but that it should be conveyed by some visible sign and so it may be either by the delivering the Vessels or by the imposition of hands or both But we are to consider that the Council of Florence was received by the Council of Trent and that it is impossible to reconcile this Doctrin with the general Definition of a Sacrament by the Roman Catechism viz. that it is a sensible thing which by the Institution of Christ hath a power of causing as well as signifying Grace which implies that the external Sign which conveys Grace must be appointed by the Authour of the Sacrament it self or else the Church must have Power to annex Divine Grace to its own appointments But here lies the main difficulty the Church of Rome hath altered both Matter and Form of this Sacrament from the primitive Institution and yet it dares not disallow the Ordinations made without them as is notorious in the Case of the Greek Church and therefore they have been forced to allow this latitude as to the Matter and Form of this Sacrament although such an allowance doth really overthrow its being a true and proper Sacrament on their own grounds Yet this Doctrine hath very much prevailed of late among their chief Writers Cardinal Lugo confesses that of old Priesthood was conferred by imposition of Hands with suitable Words and he saw it himself so done at Rome without delivering the Vessels by Catholick Greek Bishops He saith farther that the Fathers and Councils are so plain for the conferring Priesthood by imposition of hands that no one can deny it but yet he must justifie the Roman Church in assuming new Matter and Form which he doth by asserting that Christ left the Church at liberty as to them Nicol. Ysambertus debates the point at large and his Resolution of it is that Christ determined only the general matter but the particular sign was left to the Church and he proves by Induction that the Church hath appointed the external sign in this Sacrament and as to the Order of Priesthood he proves that Imposition of hands was of old an essential part of it but now it is only accidental Franciscus Hallier confesses the Matter of this Sacrament to have been different in different times In the Apostles times and many Ages after hardly any other can be found but imposition of hands as he proves from Scripture and Fathers He carries his proofs down as low as the Synod of Aken in the time of Ludovicus Pius and the Council of Mâ—aux A. D. 845. but afterwards he saith that by the Council of Florence and the common Opinion of their Divines the delivery of the Vessels is the essential matter of this Sacrament Here we find a plain change in the Matter of a Sacrament owned after the continuance of
Offenders was destroy'd S. Chrysostom himself several times mentions those who were in the state of Penitents and the Prayer that was made for them to what purpose in case the whole Order of Penitents was taken away He likewise speaks of the charge for the Penitents to go out What a mockery were this if there were no Publick Discipline then left And lest it should be said that these things were said by him at Antioch before the fact of Nectarius I have shew'd already that the latter Homilies on S. Matthew were made by him at Constantinople and in his Liturgy there used the dismission of the Penitents was continued 6. While the publick Discipline was kept in the several Churches none were injoyned to undergo it but open and publick Offenders The Evidence being so clear in Antiquity for the publick Penance of those who were bound to give the Church satisfaction before they receiv'd Absolution from it there was a necessity found by some learned Men of the Roman Communion to set up a new Hypothesis viz. that by the Ancient Rules of the Church all Persons conscious to themselves of secret siâ—s were bound to undergo publick Penance for the Remission of their sins The occasion of the debate was this Some in the Church of Rome held no more necessary in case of mortal Sin to prepare men for Communion than Confession to a Priest and Absolution others saw the fatal Consequence of this and therefore insisted on the Necessity of Penance both Parties made their Appeal to the Ancient Church and both were mistaken For on the one side there was no such Doctrine then held that Confession and Absolution did sufficiently prepare Persons for the Eucharist and on the other there was no good Evidence that any were enjoyned publick Penance for secret faults But in the Case of such sins the Confession was left to God in Secret and a true and hearty Contrition for them was thought the best as well as most necessary Preparation for the Eucharist Monsr Arnauld saw well enough that without his Hypothesis it was impossible to prove the Necessity of Confession in the Ancient Church for he yields that the Church did not use the Power of the Keys but in Publick On the the other hand Petavius urges that on the same Ground that they would reduce as they pretended the Ancient Discipline they must make many other alterations in the Church and so justifie the Reformers But Monsr Arnauld was defective in his Proofs as Petavius at large shews not when he proves that the Penance was publick but that all Persons under mortal sins were bound to undergo it For Petavius makes it appear that all such as are accounted mortal siâ—s in the modern sense were not then thought necessary to be expiated by publick Penance but only such as were notorious and scandalous and he at large answers all Monsr Arnauld's Arguments Notwithstanding which Morinus took up Monsr Arnauld's Opinion and without any colour charges it on Theodore Archbishop of Caâ—terbury that â—e first in his Penitential appointed publick Penance to be onely for publick Offences But the learned Editor of the Abstract of Theodore's Penitential hath fully vindicated him in this matter But after these Boileau resumes the Opinion of Monsr Arnauld and lays it for the Foundation of his History of Auricular Confession But he grants that all the solemn and ceremonial Penance imposed by the Penitential Canons did not extend to all kind of mortal sins but chiefly to Idolatry Adultery and Homicide but this he insists upon that some part of this publick Penance viz. Exclusion from the Communion was inflicted on Persons guilty of secret mortal sins But this will by no means do his business for he is to prove that no secret mortal sin could be forgiven without Confession to a Priest and that all persons were required by the ancient Church in case they were conscious to themselves of any such sins to make them known and to undergo publick Penance for them before they could obtain Remission of them We do not deny that Persons under Trouble of Conscience for secret sins were from time to time advised to resort to their Guides to make known their Cases to them and to take their Directions we do not deny that such Persons might be required by such Guides to withdraw themselves from joyning in the most solemn Acts of publick Communion till they had manifested the sincerity of their Repentance by Fastinâ— and Prayers and other penitential Acts we do not deny that some of these Persons might either by Advice or of their own Accord joyn themselves with the publick Penitents as is well known in the Case of Fabiola at Rome so much magnified by S. Jerom but this is the thing we desire to see proved that no sin whatsoever of a mortal nature as it is defined in the Church of Rome was then thought capable of Remission by the penitential Acts of the Party especially by true Contrition without Confession to a Priest and Absolution from him And this is the true state of the Case and I can find nothing produced by him to this purpose which deserves to be considered 7. As the publick Discipline declined Persons were exhorted to make private Confession of their sins if they could not be brought to publick Penance Thence in the Greek Church came the Penitentials of Johannes Jejunator who first took upon himself the Title of Oecumenical Patriarch in the time of Mauritius to the great Offence of the Bishops of Rome and of some others after him Morinus grants that there was a great alteration in the Greek Church about this matter he thinks it began with the business of the Penitentiary but after the publick Discipline was disused instead of that he saith came up a secret Confession and Penance which was left to the honesty and piety of the Penitent and not required by any Canonical Authority among them and so he saith it continued from the time of Nectarius to this day as to the People So that we have a plain Confession from him that there is no Rule in the Greek Church requiring this secret Confession of Sins in order to the forgiveness of them But it is observable concerning the modern Greeks that if Persons do make Confession among them they think themselves obliged to keep to the old Penitential Canons and blame Joh. Jejunator for receding from them for Simeon of Thessalonica saith they had them from the Fathers and the Fathers by Tradition down from the Apostles But although they are therein mistaken yet they shew how different their Tradition is from that of the Roman Church which thinks it self under no such obligation but allows Absolution to be granted upon Confession and a right of Communion without Penance performed for which there is no colour as to any ancient Tradition either of the Eastern or Western Church In the Western Church we find the
yet must we believe there was at that time a known Catholick Tradition about it and that it was impossible they should err about such a Tradition Nay farther the same Authour tells us that although this Bishop had gained the greatest part of the Council to him yet his own heart misgave him and in the next Congregation himself proposed that instead of equal it might be put a like Veneration and yet we must believe there was a Catholick Tradition for an Equal Veneration to Scripture and Tradition But the Bishop of Chioza Naclantus he saith inveighed more bitterly against this Equality and in the face of the Council charged the Doctrine with Impiety and he would not allow any Divine Inspiration to Tradition but that they were to be considered onely as Laws of the Church It 's true he saith he professed to consent to the Decree afterwards but withall he tells us that he was brought under the Inquisition not long after upon suspicion of Heresie which shews they were not well satisfied with his submission We are extremely beholden to Cardinal Pallavicini for his Information in these matters which are past over too jejunely by F. Paul. 2. I proceed to the Testimony of the Divines of the Roman Church before the Council of Trent It is observed by some of them that when the Fathers appealed to the Tradition of the Church in any controverted Point of Faith they made their Appeal to those who wrote before the Controversie was started as S. Augustin did against the Pelagians c. This is a reasonable Method of proceeding in case Tradition be a Rule of Faith and therefore must be so even in this point whether Tradition be such a Rule or not For the Divines who wrote before could not be ignorant of the Rule of Faith they received among themselves Gabriel Biel lived in the latter end of the 15th Century and he affirms that the Scripture alone teaches all things necessary to salvation and he instances in the things to be done and to be avoided to be loved and to be despised to be believed and to be hoped for And again that the Will of God is to be understood by the Scriptures and by them alone we know the whole Will of God. If the whole Will of God were to be known by the Scripture how could part of it be preserved in an unwritten Tradition And if this were then part of the Rule of Faith how could such a Man who was Professour of Divinity at Tubing be ignorant of it I know he saith he took the main of his Book from the Lectures of Eggelingus in the Cathedral Church at Mentz but this adds greater strength to the Argument since it appears hereby that this Doctrine was not confined to the Schools but openly delivered in one of the most famous Churches of Germany Cajetan died not above 12 Years before the Council who agrees with this Doctrine of Biel or Eggelingus and he was accounted the Oracle of his time for Divinity for he affirms that the Scripture gives such a perfection to a Man of God or one that devoutly serves him that thereby he is accomplished for every good Work How can this be if there be another Rule of Faith quite distinct from the Written Word Bellarmin indeed grants that all things which are simply necessary to the Salvation of all are plainly contained in Scripture by which he yields that the Scripture alone is the Rule of Faith as to necessary points and he calls the Scripture the certain and stable Rule of Faith yea the most certain and most secure Rule If there be then any other it must be less certain and about points not necessary to Salvation i. e. it must be a Rule where there is no need of a Rule For if Mens Salvation be sufficiently provided for by the Written Rule and the Divine Revelation be in Order to mens Salvation what need any other Revelation to the Church besides what is Written He asserts farther that nothing is de fide but what God hath revealed to the Prophets and Apostles or is deduced from thence This he brings to prove that whatsoever was received as a matter of Faith in the Church which is not found in Scripture must have come from an Apostolical Tradition But if it be necessary to Salvation according to his own Concession it must be written and if it be not how comes it to be received as a matter of Faith unless it be first proved that it is necessary to Salvation to receive an unwritten Rule of Faith as well as a written For either it must be necessary on its own Account and then he saith it must be written and if not then it can be no otherwise necessary than because it is to be believed on the Account of a Rule which makes it necessary And consequently that Rule must be first proved to be a necessary Article of Faith Which Bellarmin hath no where done but onely sets down Rules about knowing true Apostolical Traditions from others in matters of Faith wherein he wisely supposes that which he was to prove And the true Occasion of setting up this new Rule of Faith is intimated by Bellarmin himself in his first Rule of judging true Apostolical Traditions Which is when the Church believes any thing as a Doctrine of Faith which is not in Scripture then saith he we must judge it to be an Apostolical Tradition Why so Otherwise the Church must have erred in taking that for a matter of Faith which was not And this is the great Secret about this New Rule of Faith they saw plainly several things were imposed on the Faith of Christians which could not be proved from Scripture and they must not yield they had once mistaken and therefore this New Additional Less certain Rule for unnecessary Points must be advanced although they wanted Tradition among themselves to prove Tradition a Rule of Faith which I shall now farther make appear from their own School Divines before the Council of Trent We are to observe among them what those are which they strictly call Theological Truths and by them we shall judge what they made the Rule of Faith. For they do not make a bare Revelation to any Person a sufficient Ground for Faith but they say the Revelation must be publick and designed for the general Benefit of the Church and so Aquinas determines that our Faith rests onely upon the Revelations made to the Prophets and Apostles and Theological Truths are such as are immediately deduced from the Principles of Faith i. e. from publick Divine Revelations owned and received by the Church The modern School men who follow the Council of Trent make Theological Truths to be deduced from the unwritten as well as the Written word or else they would not speak consonantly to their own Doctrine And therefore if those before them deduce Theological Truths onely from the Written Word
then it will follow that they did not hold the unwritten Word to be a Rule of Faith. Marsilius ab Inghen was first Professor of Divinity of Heidelberg at the latter end of the 15th Century saith Bellarmin but Trithemius saith the 14th and he determines that a Theological Proposition is that which is positively asserted in Scripture or deduced from thence by good Consequence and that a Theological Truth strictly taken is the Truth of an Article of Faith or something expressed in the Bible or deduced from thence He mentions Apostolical Traditions afterwards and joins them with Ecclesiastical Histories and Martyrologies So far was he from supposing them to be part of the Rule of Faith. In the beginning of the 15th Century lived Petrus de Alliaco one as famous for his skill in Divinity as for his Dignity in the Church He saith that Theological Discourse is founded on Scripture and a Theological Proof must be drawn from thence that Theological Principles are the Truths contained in the Canon of Scripture and Conclusions are such as are drawn out of what is contained in Scripture So that he not onely makes the Scripture the Foundation of Faith but of all sorts of true Reasoning about it He knew nothing of Cardinal Palavicini's two first Principles of Faith. To the same purpose speaks Gregorius Ariminensis about the middle of the 14th Century he saith all Theological Discourse is grounded on Scripture and the Consequences from it which he not onely proves from Testimony but ex communi omnium conceptione from the general Consent of Christians For saith he all are agreed that then a thing is proved Theologically when it is proved from the Words of Scripture So that here we have plain Tradition against Traditions being a distinct Rule of Faith and this delivered by the General of an Order in the Church of Rome He affirms that the Principles of Theology are no other than the Truths contained in the Canon of Scripture and that the Resolution of all Theological Discourse is into them and that there can be no Theological Conclusion but what is drawn from Scripture In the former part of that Century lived Darandus he gives a threesold Sense of Theology 1. For a habit whereby we assent to those things which are contained in Scripture as they are there delivered 2. For a habit whereby those things are â—efended and declared which are delivered in Scripture 3. For a habit of those things which are deduced out of Articles of Faith and so it is all one with the holy Scripture And in another place he affirms that all Truth is contained in the Holy Scripture at large but for the People's Conveniency the necessary Points are summed up in the Apostles Creed In his Preface before his Book on the Sentences he highly commends the Scriptures for their Dignity their Usefulness their Certainty their Depth and after all concludes that in matters of Faith men ought to speak agreeably to the Scriptures and whosoever doth not breaks the Rule of the Scriptures which he calls the Measure of our Faith. What Tradition did appear then for another Rule of Faith in the 14th Century But before I proceed higher I shall shew the Consent of others with these School Divines in the three last Centuries before the Council of Trent In the middle of the 15th lived Nicholaus Panormitanus one of mighty Reputation for his skill in the Canon Law. In the Ch. Significâsti prima 1. de Electione debating the Authority of Pope and Council he saith If the Pope hath better Reason his Authority is greater than the Councils and if any private person in matters of Faith hath better Reason out of Scripture than the Pope his saying is to be preferred above the Pope's Which words do plainly shew that the Scripture was then looked on as the onely Rule of Faith or else no Man's grounding himself on Scripture could make his Doctrine to be preferred before the Pope's who might alledge Tradition against him and if that were an equal Rule of Faith the Doctrine of one Rule could not be preferred before the other At the same time lived Tostatus the famous Bishop of Avila one of infinite Industry and great Judgment and therefore could not be mistaken in the Rule of Faith. In his Preface on Genesis he saith that there must be a Rule for our understandings to be regulated by and that Rule must be most certain that Divine Faith is the most certain and that is contained in Scripture and therefore we must regulate our understandings thereby And this he makes to be the measure of Truth and Falshood If he knew any other Rule of Faith besides the Scriptures he would have mentioned it in this place and not have directed Men onely to them as the exact measure of Truth and Falshood In the beginning of this Century Thomas Walden Confessor to our Henry 5th saith Trithemius disputed sharply against Wickliff but he durst not set up the Churches Authority or Tradition equal with the Scriptures For when he mentions Tradition after Scriptures he utterly disclaims any such thought as that of Equality between them but he desires a due distance may be kept between Canonical Scripture and Ecclesiastical Authority or Tradition In the first place he saith we ought to believe the holy Scriptures then the Definitions and Customs of the Catholick Church but he more fully explains himself in another place where he plainly asserts that nothing else is to be received by such Faith as the Scripture and Christ's symbolical Church but for all other Authorities the lowest degree is that of Catholick Tradition the next of the Bishops especially of the Apostolical Churches and the Roman in the first place and above all these he places that of a General Council but when he hath so done he saith all these Authorities are to be regarded but as the Instructions of Elders and Admonitions of Fathers So that the chief Opposers of Wickliff had not yet found out this new Rule of Faith. Much about the same time lived Joh. Gerson whom Cardinal Zabarella declared in the Council of Constance to be the greatest Divine of his time and therefore could not be ignorant of the true Rule of Faith. He agrees with Panormitan in this that if a man be well skilled in Scriptures his Doctrine deserves more to be regarded than the Pope's Declaration for saith he the Gospel is more to be believed than the Pope and if such a one teaches a Doctrine to be contained in Scripture which the Pope either knows not or mistakes it is plain whose Judgment is to be preferred Nay he goes farther that if in a General Council he finds the Majority incline to that part which is contrary to Scripture he is bound to oppose it and he instances in Hilary And he shews that since the Canon of Scripture received by the Church no Authority of the Church is
mere Oral Tradition according to him but it may be found in the Writers of the Church but the Canon Law expresly excludes all other Writings let them contain what they will from being admitted to any Competition with Canonical Scripture and therefore according to that no part of the Rule of Faith was contained in any other than Canonical Scriptures Dist. 37. c. Relatum A man is supposed to have an entire and firm Rule of Faith in the Scriptures Caus. 8. q. 1. c. Nec sufficere The Scriptures are said to be the onely Rule both of Faith and Life And the Gloss on the Canon Law there owns the Scripture to be the Rule for matters of Faith but very pleasantly applies it to the Clergy and thinks Images enough for the Laity Caus. 24. q. 1. c. Non afferentes The Scriptures are acknowledged to be the true Balance and that we are not so much to weigh what we find there as to own what we find there already weighed Which must imply the Scripture alone to be that Measure we are to trust to Dist. 8. c. 4 5 6 7 8 9. It is there said that Custome must yield to Truth and Reason when that is discovered and that for this Reason because Christ said I am Truth and not Custome Now if Tradition be an Infallible Rule of Faith Custome ought always to be presumed to have Truth and Reason of its side For if we can once suppose a Custome to prevail in the Church against Truth and Reason it is impossible that Tradition should be Infallible for what is that but Ancient Custome Caus. 11. Q. 3. c. 101. Si is qui proeest If any one commands what God hath forbidden or forbids what God hath commanded he is to be accursed of all that love God. And if he requires any thing besides the Will of God or what God hath evidently required in Scripture he is to be looked on as a false Witness of God and a Sacrilegious Person How can this be if there be another infallible way of conveying the Will of God besides the Scriptures Caus. 24. q. 3. c. 30. c. Quid autem In matters of doubt it is said that men are to fly to the Written word for satisfaction and that it is folly not to doe it It is true Mens own Fancies are opposed to Scripture but against Mens Fancies no other Rule is mentioned but that of the Written Word Joh. 22. Extravag c. Quia quorundam Tit. 14. makes his Appeal to Scripture in the Controversie then on foot about Use and Property Dicunt nobis ubi legunt c. and he shews that if it were a matter of Faith it must be contained in Scripture either expresly or by reduction otherwise the Scripture would be no certain Rule and by consequence the Articles of Faith which are proved by Scripture would be rendred doubtfull and uncertain The Glosser there saith Whence comes this consequence and refers to another place where he makes it out thus that Faith can onely be proved by the Scripture and therefore if the Authority of that be destroy'd Faith would be taken away The Roman Editors for an Antidote refer to Cardinal Turrecremata who doth indeed speak of Catholick Truths which are not to be found in the Canon of Scripture and he quotes a passage in the Canon Law for it under the name of Alex. 3. c. cum Marthoe Extrav de Celebr Missae but in truth it is Innoc. 3. Decretal l. 3. Tit. 41. and yet this will not prove what he aims at for the Question was about the Authour of the Words added in the Eucharist to those of Christ's Institution and he pleads that many of Christ's words and actions are omitted by the Evangelists which the Apostles afterwards set down and he instances in Saint Paul as to those words of Christ It is more blessed to give than to receive and elsewhere But what is all this to Catholick Truths not being contained in Scripture either in words or by consequence The Cardinal was here very much to seek when he had nothing but such a Testimony as this to produce in so weighty and so new a Doctrine The best Argument he produces is a horrible blunder of Gratian's where S. Augustin seems to reckon the Decretal Epistles equal with the Scriptures Dist. 19. c. in Canonicis which the Roman Correctors were ashamed of and consess that S. Augustin speaks onely of Canonical Epistles in Scripture So hard must they strain who among Christians would set up any other Rule equal with the Written Word 4. I proceed to prove this from the ancient Offices of the Roman Church In the Office produced by Morinus out of the Vatican MS. which he saith was very ancient the Bishop before his Consecration was asked If he would accommodate all his prudence to the best of his skill to the Sense of Holy Scripture Resp. Yes I will with all my heart consent and obey it in all things Inter. Wilt thou teach the People by Word and Example the things which thou learnest out of holy Scriptures Resp. I will. And then immediately follows the Examen about Manners In another old Office of S. Victor's there are the same Questions in the same manner And so in another of the Church of Rouen lately produced by Mabillon which he saith was about William the Conquerour's time there is not a word about Traditions which crept into the Ordo Romanus and from thence hath been continued in the Roman Pontificals But it is observable that the Ordo Romanus owns that the Examen was originally taken out of the Gallican Offices although it does not appear in those imperfect ones lately published at Rome by Thâ—masius and therefore we may justly suspect that the additional Questions about Traditions were the Roman Interpolations after it came to be used in that Pontifical And the first Office in Morinus was the true ancient Gallican Office. But if Tradition had been then owned as a Rule of Faith it ought no more to have been omitted in the ancient Offices than in the modern And the ancient Writers about Ecclesiastical Offices speak very agreeably to the most ancient Offices about this matter Amalarius saith the Gospel is the Fountain of Wisedom and that the Preachers ought to prove the Evangelical Truth out of the sacred Books Isidore that we ought to think nothing as to matters of Faith but what is contained in the two Testaments Rabanus Maurus that the knowledge of the Scriptures is the foundation and perfection of Prudence That Truth and Wisedom are to be tried by them and the perfect instruction of Life is contained in them Our Venerable Bede agrees with them when he saith that the true Teachers take out of the Scriptures of the old and new Testament that which they preach and therefore have their minds imploy'd in finding out the true meaning of them 5. I now come
the Tridentine Canon I shall prove these two things 1. That there hath been a constant Tradition against it in the Eastern Church 2. That there never was a constant Tradition for it in the Western Church 1. That there hath been a constant Tradition against it in the Eastern Church which received the Jewish Canon without the Books declared Canonical by the Council of Trent We have very early Evidence of this in the Testimony of Melito Bishop of Sardis who lived not long after the middle of the 2d Century and made it his business to enquire into this matter and he delivers but 22 Books of the Old Testament The same is done by Origen in the next who took infinite Pains as Eusebius saith in searching after the Copies of the Old Testament And these Testimonies are preserved by Eusebius in the following Century and himself declares that there was no sacred Book among the Jews from the time of Zorobabel which cuts off the Books canonized by the Council of Trent In the same Age we have the Testimonies of Athanasius St. Cyril of Jerusalem Epiphanius S. Basil S. Gregory Nazianzene Amphilochius and S. Chrysostom It is not to be imagined that a Tradition should be better attested in one Age than this was by so considerable Men in different Churches who give in the Testimony of all those Churches they belonged to And yet besides these we have in that Age a concurrent Testimony of a Council of Bishops at Laodicea from several Provinces of Asia and which is yet more this Canon of theirs was received into the Code of the Catholick Church and so owned by the Council of Chalcedon which by its first Canon gives Authority to it And Justinian allows the force of Laws to the Canons which were either made or confirmed by the four General Councils But it is the point of Tradition I am upon and thereâ—ore Justinian's Novel may at least be a sâ—rong Evidence of that in the 6th Century In the 7th Leontius gives his own Testimony and that of Theodorus In the 8th Damascen expresly owns the Hebrew Canon of 22 Books and excludes by name some of the Books made Canonical at Trent In the 9th we have the Testâ—mony of Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople if he be the Authour of the Laterculus at the end of his Chrâ—nography but if he be not he must be an Authour of that Age being translated by Anastasius Bibliothecarius In the 12th Balsamon and Zonaras refer to the Council of Laodicea and the Greek Fathers In the 14th Nicephorus Calisthus reckons but 22 Books of the Old Testament And in this Age we have the clear Testimony of Metrophanes afterwards Patriarch of Alexandria who saith there are but 22 Canonical Books of the Old Testament but the rest i. e. Tobit Judith Wisedom Ecclesiasticus Baruch and Machabees are usefull and therefore not wholly to be rejected but the Church never received them for Canonical and Authentical as appears by many Testimonies as among others of Gregory the Divine Amphilochius and Damascen and therefore we never prove matters of Faith out of them 2. Let us now compare this Tradition with that of the Western Church for the New Canon of Trent It cannot be denied that Innocentius I. and Gelasius did enlarge the Canon and took in the Apocryphal Books unless we call in question the Writings under their Names but granting them genuine I shall shew that there is no comparison between this Tradition and that of the Eastern Church and therefore there could be no possible Reason for the Council of Trent to make a Decree for this Tradition and to anathematize all who did not submit to it For 1. This Tradition was not universally received at that time Innocentius his Epistle is supposed to be written A. D. 405. Was the Western Church agreed before or after about this matter This Epistle was written to Eruperius a Gallican Bishop to whom St. Jerom dedicated his Commentaries on Zechariah but now it unluckily falls out that the Tradition of the Gallican Church was contrary to this as appears by S. Hilary who could not be ignorant of it being a famous Bishop of that Church and he tells us there were but 22 Canonical Books of the Old Testament I confess he saith some were for adding Tobit and Judith but it is very observable that he saith that the other Account is most agreeable to ancient Tradition which is a mighty Argument against Innocentius who brings no Tradition to justifie his Canon When St. Augustin produced a Place out of the Book of Wisedom the Divines of Marseilles rejected it because the Book was not Canonical Therefore in that time Innocent's Canon was by no means received in the Gallican Church for by it this Book was made Canonical But S. Jerom who had as much learning as Pope Innocent vehemently opposed this New Canon more than once or ten times and not onely speaks of the Jewish Canon but of the Canon of the Church The Church saith he reads the Books of Tobit Judith and Machabees but the Church doth not receive them among Canonical Scriptures What Church doth he mean Not the Synagogue certainly Pope Innocent saith Those Books are to be received into the Canon S. Jerom saith the Church doth not receive them but that they are to be cast out Where is the Certainty of Tradition to be found If Innocent were in the right S. Jerom was foully mistaken and in plain terms belied the Church But how is this consistent with the Saintship of St. Jerom Or with common discretion if the Church did receive those Books for Canonical For every one could have disproved him And it required no great Judgment or deep Learning to know what Books were received and what not If S. Jerom were so mistaken which it is very hard to believe how came Ruffinus not to observe his errours and opposition to the Church Nay how came Ruffinus himself to fall into the very same prodigious mistake For he not onely rejects the controverted Books out of the Canon but saith he follow'd the ancient Tradition therein What account can be given of this matter If Innocent's Tradition were right these men were under a gross Delusion and yet they were learned and knowing Persons and more than ordinarily conversant in the Doctrines and Traditions of the Church 2. This Opinion was not received as a Tradition of the Church afterwards For if it had been how could Gregory I. reject the Book of Machabees out of the Canon when two of his Predecessours took it in It is somewhat hard to suppose one Pope to contradict two of his Predecessours about the Canon of Scripture yet I see not how to avoid it nor how it is consistent with the Constancy of Tradition much less with the pretence to Infallibility He did not merely doubt as Canus would have it thought but he
plainly excludes them out of the Canon Catharinus thinks he follow'd S. Jerom. What then Doth this exclude his contradicting his Predecessours Or was S. Jerom's Judgment above the Pope's But it was not S. Gregory alone who contradicted the former Popes Canon for it was not received either in Italy Spain France Germany or England and yet no doubt it was a very Catholick Tradition Not in Italy for there Cassiodore a learned and devout Man in the next Century to them gives an account of the Canon of Scripture and he takes not any notice either of Innocent or Gelasius He first sets down the Order of Scripture according to S. Jerom and then according to S. Augustin and in the last place according to the old Translation and the LXX and where himself speaks of the Apocryphal Books before he follows S. Jerom 's Opinion that they were written rather for manners than Dactrine He confesses there was a difference about the Canon but he goes about to excuse it But what need that if there were a Catholick Tradition then in the Church concerning it and that inforced by two Popes But it may yet seem stranger that even in Italy one canonized for a Saint by Clemens VII should follow S. Jerom's Opinion in this matter viz. S. Antoninus Bishop of Florence Who speaking of Ecclestasticus received into the Canon of the two Popes he saith it is onely received by the Church to be read and is not authentick to prove any thing in matters of Faith. He that writes Notes upon him saith that he follows S. Jerom and must be understood of the Eastern Church for the Western Church always receiv'd these Books into the Canon But he speaks not one word of the Eastern Church and by the Church he could understand nothing but what he accounted the Catholick Church Canus allows Antoninus to have rejected these Books but he thinks the matter not so clear but then they might doubt concerning it Then there was no such Evidence of Tradition to convince men But Antoninus hath preserved the Judgment of a greater man concerning these Books even Thomas Aquinas who in 2. 2 dae he saith denied these Books to have such authority as to prove any matter of Faith by them which is directly contrary to the Council of Trent If this passage be not now to be found in him we know whom to blame for it If Antoninus saw it there we hope his word may be taken for it In Spain we have for the Hebrew Canon the Testimonies of Paulus Burgensis Tostatus and Cardinal Ximines In France of Victorinus Agobardus Radulphus Flaviacensis Petrus Cluniacensis Hugo de S. Victore and Richard de S. Victore Lyra and others In Germany of Rabanus Maurus Strabus Rupertus Hermannus Contractus and others In England of Bede Alcvin Sarisburiensis Ockam Waldensis and others Whom I barely mention because their Testimonies are at large in Bishop Cosins his Scholastical History of the Canon of Scripture and no man hath yet had the hardiness to undertake that Book These I think are sufficient to shew there was no Catholick Tradition for the Decree of the Council of Trent about the Canon of Scripture I now proceed to shew on what pretences and colours it came in and by what degrees and steps it advanced 1. The first step was the Esteem which some of the Fathers expressed of these Books in quoting of passages out of them We do not deny that the Fathers did frequently cite them even those who expresly rejected them from being Canonical and not as ordinary Books but as such as were usefull to the Church wherein many wise Sayings and good Actions are recorded But the many Quotations the Fathers do make out of them is the onely plausible pretence which those of the Church of Rome have to defend the putting them into the Canon as appears by Bellarmin and others The Book of Tobit they tell us is mentioned by S. Cyprian S. Ambrose St. Basil and St. Augustin Of Judith by St. Jerom who mentions a Tradition that it was allowed in the Council of Nice but certainly S. Jerom never believed it when he declares it to be Apocryphal and not sufficient to prove any matter of Faith. The Book of Wisedom by S. Cyprian S. Cyril and S. Augustin Ecclesiasticus by Clemens Alexandrinus S. Cyprian Epiphanius S. Ambrose and S. Augustin The Machabees by Tertullian Cyprian Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Eusebius S. Ambrose S. Augustin But all these Testimonies onely prove that they thought something in those Books worth alledging but not that they judged the Books themselves Canonical And better Arguments from their Citations might be brought for the Books of the Sibylls than for any of these We are not then to judge of their Opinion of Canonical Books by bare Citations but by their declared Judgments about them 2. The next step was when they came to be read in Churches but about this there was no certain Rule For the Councils of Laodicea and Carthage differed chiefly upon this Point The former decreed That none but Canonical Scripture should be read under the Name of Holy Writings and sets down the names of the Canonical Books then to be read and so leaves out the Apocalypse The latter from their being read inferr'd their being Canonical for it agrees with the other that none but Canonical should be read and because these were read it reckons them up with the Canonical Books for so the Canon concludes We have received from our Fathers that these Books are to be read in Churches But the Council of Carthage was not peremptory in this matter but desired it might be referred to Boniface and other Bishops beyond the Seas Which shews that here was no Decree absolutely made nor any Certainty of Tradition for then to what purpose should they send to other Churches to advise about it 3. When they came to be distinguished from Apocryphal Writings Whence those who do not consider the Reason of it conclude them to have been Canonical But sometimes Apocryphal signified such Books as were not in the Canon of Faith as in the Authours before mentioned sometimes such Books which were not allowed to be used among Christians This distinction we have in Ruffinus who saith there are three sorts of Books Canonical as the 22 of the Old Testament Ecclesiastical of which sort he reckons Wisedom Ecclesiasticus Tobit Judith and Machabees and these he saith were permitted to be read in Churches but no Argument could be brought out of them for matter of Faith Apocryphal are such which by no means were permitted to be read And thus Innocentius his words may well be understood For he concludes with saying that other Writings were not onely to be rejected but to be condemned And so his meaning is to distinguish them from such counterfeit Divine Writings as were then abroad For these were not to be wholly rejected and in that large sense he admits them into the
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
such Consent as is boasted of even in the Latin Church As to the Greek Church he saith it is an argument of Universal Tradition when they had the same Tradition even in their Schism To this I Answer 1. We do not deny that the latter Greeks after the taking Constantinople by the Latins did hold Seven Mysteries which the Latins render Sacraments For after there were Latin Patriarchs at Constantinople and abundance of Latin Priests in the Eastern Parts they had perpetual Disputes about Religion and the Latins by degrees did gain upon them in some points and particularly in this of Seven Sacraments for the Latins thought it an advantage to their Church to boast of such a Number of Sacraments and the Greeks that they might not seem to come behind them were willing to embrace the same Number The first Person among them who is said to have written about them was Simeon Bishop of Thessalonica whom Possevin sets at a greater distance that the Tradition might seem so much elder among them for he makes him to have lived 600 years before his time but Leo Allatius hath evidently proved that he lived not two hundred years before him which is a considerable difference for Simeon dyed but six months before the taking of Thessalonica A. D. 1430 as he proves from Joh. Anagnosta who was present at the taking it From hence it appers how very late this Tradition came into the Greek Church After him Gabriel Severus Bishop of Philadelphia wrote about the Seven Sacraments and he lived at Venice in Arcudius his time who wrote since Possevin and Crusius wrote to this Gabriel A. D. 1580 and he was consecrated by Jeremias A. D. 1577. So that neither his Authority or that of Jeâ—emias can signifie any thing as to the Antiquity of this Tradition among the Greeks Leo Allatius talks of the old as well as Modern Greeks who held Seven Sacraments but he produces the Testimony only of those who lived since the taking of Constantinople as Job the Monk Simeon Johannes Palaeologus Jeremias Gabriel Cyrillus Berrhoensis Parthenius and such like But he very craftily saith he produces these to let us see they have not gone off from the Faith of their Ancestors whereas that is the thing we would have seen viz. the Testimony of the Greeks before and not afterwards As to the ancient Greeks he confesses they say nothing of the number De numero apud eos altum silentium est And how could therebe a Tradition in so much silence But some speak of some and others of others but all speak of all This is a very odd way to prove a Tradition of a certain Number For then some might believe Three others Four others Five but how can this prove that all believed just Seven However let us see the Proof But instead of that he presently starts an Objection from the pretended Dionysius Areopagita viz. That where he designs to treat of all the Sacraments he never mentions Penance Extreme Unction and Matrimony and after a great deal of rambling Discourse he concludes that he did ill to leave them oâ—t and that others Answers are insufficient He shews from Tertullian Ambrose and Cyril that the necessary Sacraments are mentioned but where are the rest and we are now enquiring after them in the ancient Greek Church but they are not to be founâ— As one may confidently affirm when one who professed so much skill in the Greek Church as Leo Allatius hath no more to say for the Proof of it 2. Those Greeks who held Seven Sacraments did not hold them in the Sense of the Council oâ— Trent And that for two Reasons 1. They do not hold them all to be of divine Institution Which appears by the Patriarch Jeremias his Answer to the Tubing Divines who at first seems to write agreeably to the Church of Rome in this matter except about Extreme Unction but being pressed hard by them in their Reply he holds to the Divine Institution of Baptism and the Eucharist but gives up the rest as instituted by the Churches Authority Which is plain giving up the Cause How then comes Bellarmin to insist so much on the Answer of Jeremias The Reason was that Socolovius had procured from Constantinople the Patriarch's first answer and translated and printed it upon which great Triumphs were made of the Patriarch's Consent with the Church of Rome but when these Divines were hereby provoked to publish the whole proceedings those of the Church of Rome were unwilling to be undeceived and so take no notice of any farther Answer Since the time of Jeremias the Patriarch of Alexandria as he was afterwards Metrophanes Critopulus published an Account of the Faith of the Greek Church and he saith expresly of Four of the Seven that they are Mystical Rites and equivocally called Sacraments And from hence it appears how little Reason Leo Allatius had to be angry with Caucus a Latinized Greek like himself for affirming that the modern Greeks did not look on these Sacraments as of Divine Institution but after he hath given him some hard words he offers to prove his Assertion for him To which end he not only quotes that passage of the Patriarch Jeremias but others of Job and Gregorius from whence he infers that Five of the Sacraments were of Ecclesiastical Institution and he saith nothing to take it off So admirably hath he proved the Consent of the Eastern and Western Churches 2. They do not agree in the Matter or Form or some essential part of them with the Council of Trent and therefore can make up no Tradition for the Doctrin of that Council about the Seven Sacraments This will be made appear by going through them 1. Of Chrism 1. As to the Form Arcudius shews that Gabriel of Philadelphia Cabasilas and Marcus Ephesius all place the Form in the Consecration of it but the Church of Rome makes the Form to lie in the Words spoken in the Use of it 2. As to the Minister of it Among the Greeks it is commonly performed by the Presbyter though the Bishop be present but the Council of Trâ—nt denounces an Anathema against him that saith the Bishop alone is not the ordinary Minister of it 3. As to the Character The Council of Trent declares that whosoever affirms that Confirmation doth not imprint an indelible Character so as it cannot be repeated is Anathematized but Arcudius shews at large that the modern Greeks make no scruple of reiterating Confirmation But Catumsyritus another Latinized Greek opposes Arcudius herein and saith that the Use of Chrism among the Geeeks doth not relate to the Sacrament of Confirmation but was a Symbolical Ceremony relating to Baptism and for this he quotes one Corydaleus a Man of great Note in the Patriarchal Church at Constantinople Therefore Caucus had reason to deny that the Greeks receive that which the Latins call the Sacrament of Confirmation And
For when Alexius Meneses Archbishop of Goa undertook to reform them according to the Roman Church if that may be called a Reformation and held a Council at Diamper to that purpose A. D. 1599. he found that they had no Sacrament of Chrism or Penance or Extreme Unction of which they were utterly ignorant saith Jarricus from Antonius Goveanus who was Prior of Goa and published the whole proceedings Which Book was translated out of Portugese by Joh. Baptista a Glano into French and printed at Brussels 1609. From whence the Author of the Critical History of the Faith and Customs of the Eastern Nations hath given an Account of these things and he saith they owned but three Sacraments Baptism Eucharist and Orders that they knew nothing of the Sacrament of Chrism or extreme Unction and abhorred Auricular Confession But in excuse of them he saith that they joyned Confirmation with Baptism as other Eastern Churches did that the Sacrament of Extreme Unction as it is practised in the Church of Rome is known only to the Latin Church but the Eastern Church had the Unction of S. James for the Cure of Diseases as the Greek Church had Cotovicus affirms the same of the other Eastern Churches called Chaldean who are under the same Patriarch with the Christians of S. Thomas that they knew nothing of the Sacraments of Confirmation and Extreme Unction This Patriarch is the same which is commonly called the Patriarch of Babylon whose Residence is at Mozal but called of Babylon because Seleâ—cia after the desolation of the true Babylon had the name given to it as it were â—asie to prove if it were pertinent to this design and upon the destruction of Seleâ—cia the Patriarch removed first to Bagdat and then to Mozal whose Jurisciction extends over all those Eastern Christians which are called Nestorian In the Abyssine Churches Godignus saith positively from those who had been conversant among them that they knew nothing of the Sacraments of Chrism and Extreme Unction and that all the Confession they have is gâ—neral and rare and that they have no Bishops under the Abuna and believe the bond of Matrimony easily dissolved So that the Tradition of Seven Sacraments is wholly unknown to them but as it was imposed by the Roman Mâ—ssionaries which imposition was so ill received there and brought such Confusion and Disorders among them that they are for ever banished In the Armenian Churches Joh. Chernacensis a Latinized Armenian saith that the Armenians owned not the Seven Sacraments that they knew nothing of Chrism and Extreâ—â— Unction Here we see a general consent as to the total ignorance of two of the Seven Sacraments in these Churches But Clemens Galanus who had been many years a Missionary among the Armenians endeavours to prove that they had the Tradition of the seven Sacraments but very unsuccessfully For he produces none of their ancient Authors for it but he names Vartanus whom he sets himself to confute afterwards and he confesses that he took away the Sacrament of Penance and made Burial of the Dead to be one of his seven But more than that he saith the Armenian Churches have forbidden Extreme Unction as the Nestorians had done Auricular Confession So that nothing like a truly Catholick Tradition can be produced for the Number of seven Sacraments either in the Church of Rome or elsewhere within Bellarmin's own term of 500 years I am now to give an account when this Number of seven Sacraments came into the Church and on what Occasions it was advanced to be a point of Faith. The first I can find who expresly set down the Number of seven Sacraments was Hugo de S. Victore who lived in the twelfth Century not long before Peter Lombard But that there was an Innovation made by him in this matter I shall make appear by comparing what he saith with what others had delivered who were short of the Primitive Fathers Rupertus Tuitiensis lived much about the same time in Germany that Hugo did at Paris and he gives a different Resolution of the Question about the Principal Sacraments For he names no more than Baptism the Eucharist and the double Gift of the Holy Ghost and saith he these three Sacraments are necessary instruments of our Salvation But Hugo saith there are seven principal Sacraments which sufficiently shews that he thought there were other Sacraments besides these and so he expresses his mind in another place where he makes all symbolical Signs to be Sacraments but the principal Sacramâ—nts he saith are those which convey Grace Fulbertus Carnotensis lived in France in the beginning of the tenth Century and where he Discourses of the Sacraments he names no more than Baptism and the Eucharist He calls the Body and Blood two Sacraments and so did Rabanus Maurus before him Who lived in the ninth Age and was a Person of great Reputation and he names no more Sacraments than Baptism and Chrism and the Eucharist where he proposes to treat of them and had as just an Occasion to have mention'd the rest as Hugo had But Bellarmin saith he handled all wherein the Clergy were concerned and therefore omitted none but Matrimony But were not they concerned to know whether it were a Sacrament or not The Question is not whether he mention'd the things but whether he called them Sacraments but I do not find Extreme Unction so much as mention'd by him in the place he refers us to In the same â—ge Walafridus Strabo where he purposely discourseth of the Sacraments names no more than Rabanus Maurus and this had been an inexcusable omission in such who treat of Ecclesiastical Offices and were to inform Persons of their duties about them And therefore I lay much more weight on such an omission in them than in any other Writers I know Paschasius Radbertus mentions no more than three Sacraments Baptism Chrism and the Eucharist but Bellarmin and Sirmondus say he mention'd them for Example sake because it was not his business to handle the Number of Sacraments but this Answer will by no means serve for those who purposely treated of these matters and therefore an omission in them is an argument that they knew nothing of them And this Argument will go yet higher for in the beginning of the seventh Century Isidore of Sevil treated of these matters and he names no more than Baptism Chrism and the Eucharist and he tells us they are therefore called Sacraments because under the covering of corporeal things a secret and invisible virtue is convey'd to the paâ—takers of them And this very passage is entred into the Canon Law c. 1. q. 1 c. Multi Secularium c. and there it passes under the Name of Gregory I. but the Roman Correctors restore it to Isidore But it may be objected that Ivo Carnotensis made a Collection of Canons before Gratian who handles
the Sacraments in his first and second Part and he seems to make the annual Chrism to be a Sacrament for which he quotes an Epistle of Fabianus who saith it ought to be consecrated every year quia novum Sacramentum est and this he saith he had by Tradition from the Apostles Which Testimony the modern Schoolmen rely upon for a sufficient proof of this Apostolical Tradition But this Epistle is a notorious counterfeit and rejected by all men of any tolerable Ingenuity in the Church of Rome Thus we trace the Original of some pretended Apostolical Traditions into that Mass of Forgeries the Decretal Epistles which was sent abroad under the Name of Isidore Ivo produces another Testimony from Innocentius I. to prove that Extreme Unction was then owned for a kind of Sacrament and therefore ought not to be given to Penitents If this Rule holds then either Matrimony was no Sacrament or Penitents might not marry but the Canonists say even excommunicated Persons may marry but one of them saith it is a strange Sacrament excommunicated Persons are allow'd to partake of But this genus est Sacramenti signifies very little to those who know how largely the Word Sacrament was used in elder times from Iertullian downwards But our Question is not about a kind of a Sacrament but strict and proper Sacraments and if it had been then thought so he would not have permitted any to administer it unless they will say it is as necessary to Salvation as Baptism which none do It appears from hence that there was then a Custome among some in regard to S. James his Words if Persons were sick to take some of the Chrism to anoint them and to pray over them in hopes of their Recovery but this was no Sacrament of dying Persons as it is now in the Church of Rome If it had been then so esteemed S. Ambrose or who-ever was the Author of the Book of Sacraments would not have omitted it and the other supernumeraries when he purposely treats of Sacraments the same holds as to S. Cyril of Jerusalem And it is a poor evasion to say that they spake only to Catechumens for they were to be instructed in the Means and Instruments of Salvation as they make all Sacraments to be And it is to as little purpose to say that they do not declare there are but twâ— for our business is to enquire for a Catholick Tradition for sâ—ven true and proper Sacraments as the Council of Trent determines under an Anathema But if we compare the Traditions for two and for seven together the other will be found to have far greater Advantage not only because the two are mention'd in the eldest Writers where the seven are not but because so many of the Fathers agree in the Tradition that the Sacraments were designed by the Water and Blood which came out of our Saviour's side So S. Chrysostom S. Cyril of Alexandria Leo Magnus but above all S. Augustin who several times insists upon this which shews that they thought those two to be the true and proper Sacraments of Christianity however there might be other Mystical Rites which in a large sense might be called Sacraments As to the Occasions of setting up this Number of seven Sacraments they were these 1. Some pretty Congruities which they had found out for them The Number seven they observe was in request in the Levitical Law as to Sacrifices and Purifications Naaman was bid to wash seven times And Bellarmin in good earnest concludes that the whole Scripture seemed to foretell the seven Sacraments by those things But besides he tells us of the seven things relating to natural Life which these have an Analogy with the seven sorts of sins these are a remedy against and the seven sorts of Vertues which answer to the seven Sacraments But none of all these prove any Catholick Tradition 2. Making no difference between Mystical Rites continued in Imitation of Apostolical Practices and true and real Sacraments Imposition of Hands for Confirmation and Ordination is allowed to be a very just and reasonable Imitation of them and as long as the Miraculous Power of Healing Diseases continued there was a fair Ground for continuing the Practice mentioned by S. James but there was no Reason afterwards to change this into quite another thing by making it a Sacrament chiefly intended for doing away the Remainders of Sin. 3. Advancing the Honour of the Priesthood by making them so necessary for the actual Expiation of all sorts of Sins and in all conditions For no Sacrament is rightly administred by the Council of Trent without the Priest and therefore clandestine Marriages are declared void by it And it pronounces an Anathema against those who say any others than Priests can administer Extreme Unction however it appears that in the time of Innocentius 1. any might make use of the Chrism when it was consecrated by a Bishop but they are grown wiser in the Church of Rome since that time and as they have altered a Ceremony of Curing into a Sacrament of Dying so they have taken Care that none but Priests shall perform that last Office that the People may believe they can neither live nor dye without them VI. Of Auricular Confession The Council of Trent declares that the Universal Church always understood that Christ did institute an entire Confession of Sins and that it is received by Divine Right to all who sin after Baptism because our Lord Jesus Christ before his Ascension into Heaven did leave Priests as his Vicars to be Presidents and Judges to whom all mortal sins were to be made known and of which they were by The Power of the Keys to give Sentence so as either to remit or retain them It farther saith That the most holy and ancient Fathers by a great and unanimous Consent did use this secret Sacramental Confession from the beginning And it denounces Anathema's 1. Against him that denies the Sacrament of Penance to be of Christ's Institution 2. Against him that denies that our Saviour's words Receive ye the Holy Ghost Whose sins ye remit they are remitted c. are to be understood of the Power of remitting and retaining in the Sacrament of Penance as the Calick Church always understood them 3. Against him that denies Confession to be a Part of it or to have Divine Institution and to be necessary to Salvation as it relates to all mortal though secret Sins Thus we see the Sense of the Council of Trent in this matter and I shall now make it evident there was no such Catholick Tradition as is here pretended for it by the Confession of their own Writers 1. As to the General Sense of the Church 2. As to the Founding it on John 22. Those sins ye remit c. 1. As to the General Sense of the Church Maldonat reckons up Seven several Opinions among themselves about Confession 1.
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
appointed it and S. James published it which Scotus utterly denies But to the place of S John Bonaventure saith it was not enough to have it implied in the Priest's Power because it being a harder duty than Absolution it requir'd a more particular Command Which was but reasonably said especially when Bellarmin after others urges that it is one of the most grievous and burthensome Precepts but his Inference from it is very mean that therefore it must have a divine Command to inforce it on the People but Bonaventure's Argument is much stronger that it ought then to have been clearly expressed But as to the Peoples yielding to it other accounts are to be given of that afterwards Alexander Hales observes that if Christ had intended a command of Confession John 20. it would have been expressed to those who are to confess and not to those who are to absolve as he did to those who were to be baptized John 3. Except a man be born of water c. so Christ would have said except a man confess his sins c. and he gave the same Reasons why Christ did not himself institute it which Bonaventure doth who used his very words And now who could have imagined that the Council of Trent would have attempted to have made men believe that-it was the sense of the Universal Church that Christ instituted Confession in John 20 when so many great Divines even of the Church of Rome so expresly denied it as I have made appear from themselves But now to give an account by what steps and degrees and on what occasions this Auricular Confession came into the Church these things are to be considered 1. In the first Ages puâ—lick scandalous Offenders after Baptism were by the Discipline of the Church brought to publick Penance which was called Exomologesis which originally signifies Confession And by this Bellarmin saith the Ancients uâ—derstood either Confession alone or joyned with the other parts of Penance but Albaspineus shews that it was either taken for the whole course of publick Penance or for the last and solemn act of it when the Bishop led the Penitents from the entrance of the Church up to the Bâ—dy of the Congregation where they expressed their abhorrence of their faults in the most penitent manner by their Actions as well as by Words So that this was a real and publick Declaration of their sorrow for their sins and not a Verbal or Auricular Confession of them The same is owned by La Cerda But Boileau pretends that it had not this sense till after the Novatian Heresie and the Death of Irenaeus and that before that time it signified Confession according to the sense of the Word in Scripture This seems very strange when Baronius himself confesses that Tertullian usâ—s it for that part of Penance which is called Satisfaction and Bellarmin grants it is so used both by Tertullian and Irenoeus when he saith the Woman seduced by Marcus afterwards spent her days in Exmologesi What! in continual Confession of her sin No but in Penitential Acts for it and so Petavius understands it both in Irenoeus and Tertullian and he saith it did not consist onely or principally in Words but in Actions i. e. it was nothing of kin to Auricular Confession which is a part of Penance distinct from satisfaction And to make these the same were to confound the different parts of the Sacrament of Penance as the â—ouncil of Trent doth distinguish them But besides this there were several other Circumstances which do make an apparent difference between these Penitential Acts and the modern notion of Confession 1. The Reason of them was different For as Rigaltius observes the penitential Rigour was taken up after great Numbers were admitted into the Church and a great dishonour was brought upon Christianity by the looseness or inconstancy of those who professed it There were such in S. Paul's time in the Churches of Corinth and elsewhere but although he gives Rules about such yet he mentions no other than avoiding or excommunicating the guilty Persons and upon due Sorrow and Repentance receiving them in again but he imposes no necessity of Publick or Private Confession in order to Remission much less of every kind of mortal sin though it be but the breach of the tenth Commandment as the Council of Trent doth yet this had been necessary in case he had thought as that declares that God will not forgive upon other terms And so much the rather because the Evangelists had said nothing of it and now Churches began to fill it was absolutely necessary for him to have declared it if it were a necessary condition of Pardon for sins after Baptism But although the Apostles had given no Rules about it yet the Christian Churches suffering so extremely by the Reproaches cast upon them they resolved as far as it was possible to take care to prevent any scandalous Offences among them To this end the actions of all Persons who professed themselves Christians were narrowly watched and their faults especially such as were scandalous complained of and then if they confessed them or they were convicted of them a severe and rigorous Discipline was to be undergone by them before they were restored to Communion that their Enemies might see how far the Christians were from incouraging such enormities as they were accused of They were charged with Thyestean Suppers and promiscuous mixtures whereas any Persons among them who were guilty of Homicide or Adultery were discharged their society and for a great while not admitted upon any terms and afterwards upon very rigorous and severe terms And besides these to preserve the purity of their Religion in times of Persecution they allowed no Compliance with the Gentile Idolatry and any tendency to this was looked upon as a degree of Apostasie and censured accordingly And about these three sorts of sins the severity of the Primitive Discipline was chiefly exercised which shews that it proceeded upon quite different grounds from those of the Council of Trent about Auricular Confession 2. The method of proceeding was very different for here was no toties quoties allow'd that men may sin and confess and be absolved and then sin the same sin again and confess again and receive Absolution in the same manner The Primitive Church knew nothing of this way of dealing with Sinners upon Confession If they were admitted once to it that was all So Pamelius himself grants and produces several Testimonies of Fathers for it and so doth Albaspineus and Petavius Dare any say this is the sense of the Church of Rome about Confession that a man cannot be received a second time to Confess and be absolved from the same sin How then can they pretend any similitude between their Confession and the ancient Exomologesis Besides none ever received Absolution from the ancient Church till full satisfaction performed But in the Church of Rome Absolution is given
publick Discipline fallen to decay in the beginning of the ninth Age and Charles the Great summoning several Councils for putting things into as good an Order as they would then bear In the second Council of Cavaillon A. D. 813. we find a Complaint Can. 25. that the old Canonical Penance was generally disused and neither the ancient Order of Excommunicating or Absolving was observed Which is a plain and ingenuous acknowledgment that they had gone off from the ancient Tradition of the Church and therefore they pray the Emperor's Assistance that the publick Discipline might be restored for publick Offenders and the ancient Canons be brought into use again From whence it follows that at that time notorious Offenders escaped with private Confession and Penance and even that was done by halves can 32. and some thought it not necessary to do it at all can 33. And upon this Occasion they do not declare it necessary for the Remission of Sins to confess even the most secret mortal Sins to a Priest but very fairly say that both are useful for Confession to God purgeth the Sin and to the Priest teaches men how their sins may be purged For God who is the Author and giver of Health giveth it often by the Invâ—sible Operation of his Power and often by the means of Physicians Boileau yields that there were some then in the Roman Church who denied Confession to Men to be necessary but he saith they were Adversaries and Rebels This had been a good Answer if the Council had called them so which it doth not but on the contrary declares that God doth often forgive sin immediately without the Priests Interposition or else the latter Clause signifies nothing And the most it saith before is that Confession to a Priest is useful in the Church which is not the the thing disputed by us but the Necessity of it and his Critical Observations of Utrumque signifie just nothing unless he had proved that the Council had before said that both were necessary which it doth not He doth not deny that the Opinion of the Sufficiency of Confession to God alone did continue in the Church to the time of the Council of Lateran and that it gave Occasion to the Canon which enforced the Necessity of Confession to a Priest but he adds that learned and pious Men may have false Opinions before the Judgment of the Church So that at last we find Universal Tradition is given up and the Necessity of Auricular Confession is resolved into the Authority of the Roman Churches Definition or rather the Pope's Declaration of it either with or without the Consent of the Lateran Council But he saith The Fathers did not speak so exactly of the Trinity before the Council of Nice nor the Greek Fathers of Grace and Predestination before S. Augustin If this be true it is impossible to prove either of those great Points merely by Tradition for those Fathers either delivered the sense of the Church or they did not if they delivered the sense of the Church then either the sense of the Church was doubtful or they did not understand it if the sense of the Church were doubtful then it is plain those Doctrines could not be proved by Tradition if the sense of the Church were not doubtful but the Fathers did not understand it then how is it possible that the Churches Tradition should be an Infallible Guide when even the Fathers of the Church were mistaken about it But I have sufficiently proved that not only before but even after the Council of Lateran there was no Universal Tradition for the Necessity of Auricular Confession FINIS A CATALOGUE of some BOOKS Printed for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in S. Paul 's Church-Yard A Bational Account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion being a Vindication of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury's Relation of a Conference c. from the pretended Answer by T. C. Wherein the True Grounds of Faith are cleared and the False discovered the Church of England vindicated from the Impuâ—ation of Scism and the most important particular Controversie bêtween us and those of the Church of Rome throughly examined By Edward Stillingfleet D. D. and Dean of S. Paul's Folio the Second Edition Origines Britiannicae Or the Antiquity of the British Churches with a Preface concerning some pretended Antiquities relating to Britain in vindication of the Bishop of S. Asaph by Edward Stillingfleet D. D. Dean of S. Paul's Folio The Rule of Faith Or an Answer to the Treatise of Mr. J. S. entituled Sure footing c. by John Tillorson D. D. to which is adjoyned A Reply to Mr. J. S.'s third Appendix c. by Edward Stillingfleet D. D. A Letter to Mr. G. giving a true Account of a late Conference at the D. of P's A second Letter to Mr. G. in answer to two Letters lately published concerning the Conference at the D. of P's Veteres Vindicati In an Expostulary Letter to Mr. Sclater of Putney upon his Consensus Veterum c. wherein the absurdity of his Method and the weakness of his Reasons are shewn His false Aspersions upon the Church of England are wiped off and her Faith concerning the Euchâ—rist proved to be that of the primiâ—ive Church Together with Animadversions on Dean Boileau's French translation of and Remarks upon Bertram An Answer to the Compiler of Nubes Testium Wherein is shewn That Antiquity in relation to the Points in Controversie set down by him did not for the first five hundred Years Believe Teach and Practice as the Church of Rome doth at present Believe Teach and Practice together with a Vindication of Veteres Vindicati from the late weak and disingenuous Attempts of the Author of Transubstantiation Defended by the Author of the Answer to Mr. Sclater of Putney A Letter to Father Lewis Sabran Jesuit in answer to his Letter to a Peer of the Church of England wherein the Postscript to the Answer to the Nubes Testium is Vindicated and Father Sabran's Mistakes farther discovered A second Letter to Father Lewis Sabran Jesuit in Answer to his Reply A Vindication of the Principles of the Author of the Answer to the Compiler of Nubes Testium in answer to a late pretended Letter from a Dissenter to the Divines of the Church of England Scripture and Tradition Compared in a Sermon preached at Guild-Hall-Chapel Nov. 27. 1687. by Edward Stillingfleet D. D. Dean of S. Paul's the second Edition A Discourse concerning the Nature and Grounds of the Certainty of Faith in Answer to J. S. his Catholick Letters by Edward Stillingfleet D. D. Dean of St. Paul's An Historical Examination of the Authority of General Councils shewing the false Dealing that hath been used in the publishing of them and the Difference amongst the Papists themselves about their Number The second Edition with Corrections and Alterations AN APPENDIX In Answer to some late Passages of J. W. of the Society of Jesus concerning the Prohibition
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