to be equalled to it He allows a Judgment of Discretion in private persons and a Certainty of the literal Sense of Scripture attainable thereby He makes the Scripture the onely standing infallible Rule of Faith for the whole Church to the end of the world And whatever Doctrine is not agreeable thereto is to be rejected either as Heretical suspicious or impertinent to Religion If the Council of Trent had gone by this Rule we had never heard of the Creed of Pius IV. In the beginning of the 14th Century lived Nicolaus de Lyra who parallels the Scriptures in matters of Faith with First-principles in Sciences for as other Truths are tried in them by their reduction to First-principles so in matters of Faith by their reduction to Canonical Scriptures which are of divine Revelation which is impossible to be false If he had known any other Principles which would have made Faith impossible to be false he would never have spoken thus of Scripture alone But to return to the School Divines About the same time lived Joh. Duns Scotus the head of a School famous for Subtilty He affirms that the holy Scripture doth sufficiently contain all matters necessary to salvation because by it we know what we are to believe hope for and practise And after he hath enlarged upon them he concludes in these words patet quod Scriptura sacra sufficienter continet Doctrinam necessariam viatori If this be understood onely of Points simply necessary then however it proves that all such things necessary to Salvation are therein contained and no man is bound to enquire after unnecessary Points How then can it be necessary to embrace another Rule of Faith when all things necessary to Salvation are sufficiently contained in Scripture But Thomas Aquinas is more express in this matter For he saith that those things which depend on the Will of God and are above any desert of ours can be known no otherways by us than as they are delivered in Scriptures by the Will of God which is made known to us This is so remarkable a Passage that Suarez could not let it escape without corrupting it for instead of Scripture he makes him to speak of Divine Revelation in general viz. under Scripture he comprehends all that is under the written Word he means the unwritten If he had meant so he was able to have expressed his own mind more plainly and Cajetan apprehended no such meaning in his words But this is a matter of so great consequence that I shall prove from other passages in him that he asserted the same Doctrine viz. That the Scripture was the onely Rule of Faith. 1. He makes no Proofs of matters of Faith to be sufficient but such as are deduced from Scripture and all other Arguments from Authority to be onely probable nay although such Persons had particular Revelations How can this be consistent with another Rule of Faith distinct from Scripture For if he had owned any such he must have deduced necessary Arguments from thence as well as from Canonical Scriptures But if all other Authorities be onely probable then they cannot make any thing necessary to be believed 2. He affirms that to those who receive the Scriptures we are to prove nothing but by the Scriptures as matter of Faith. For by Authorities he means nothing but the Scriptures as appears by the former place and by what follows where he mentions the Canon of Scripture expresly 3. He asserts that the Articles of the Creed are all contained in Scripture and are drawn out of Scripture and put together by the Church onely for the Ease of the People From hence it nenessarily follows that the Reason of believing the Articles of the Creed is to be taken from the written Word and not from any unwritten Tradition For else he needed not to have been so carefull to shew that they were all taken out of Scripture 4. He distinguisheth the Matters of Faith in Scripture some to be believed for themselves which he calls prima Credibilia these he saith every one is bound explicitly to believe but for other things he is bound onely implicitly or in a preparation of mind to believe whatever is contained in Scripture and then onely is he bound to believe explicitly when it is made clear to him to be contained in the Doctrine of Faith. Which words must imply the Scripture to be the onely Rule of Faith for otherwise implicit Faith must relate to whatever is proved to be an unwritten Word From all this it appears that Aquinas knew nothing of a Traditional Rule of Faith although he lived after the Lateran Council A. D. 1215. being born about nine years after it And Bonaventure who died the same year with him affirms that nothing was to besaid about Matters of Faith but what is made clear out of the holy Scriptures Not long after them lived Henricus Gandavensis and he delivers these things which are very material to our purpose 1. That the Reason why we believe the Guides of the Church since the Apostles who work no Miracles is because they preach nothing but what they have left in their most certain Writings which are delivered down to us pure and uncorrupt by an universal consent of all that succeeded to our times Where we see he makes the Scriptures to be the onely Certain Rule and that we are to judge of all other Doctrines by them 2. That Truth is more certainly preserved in Scripture than in the Church because that is fixed and immutable and men are variable so that multitudes of them may depart from the Faith either through Errour or Malice but the true Church will always remain in some righteous persons How then can Tradition be a Rule of Faith equal with Scriptures which depends upon the Testimony of Persons who are so very fallible I might carry this way of Testimony on higher still as when Richardus de S. Victore saith in the thirteenth Century that every Truth is suspected by him which is not confirmed by Holy Scripture but in stead of that I shall now proceed to the Canon Law as having more Authority than particular Testimonies 3. As to the Canon Law collected by Gratian I do not insist upon its Confirmation by Eugenius but upon its universal Reception in the Church of Rome And from thence I shall evidently prove that Tradition was not allowed to be a Rule of Faith equal with the Scriptures Dist. 9. c. 3 4 5 7 8 9 10. The Authority and Infallibility of the holy Scripture is asserted above all other Writings whatsoever for all other Writings are to be examined and men are to judge of them as they see cause Now Bellarmin tells us that the unwritten Word is so called not that it always continues unwritten but that it was so by the first Authour of it So that the unwritten Word doth not depend on
Gropperus the supposed Author of the Enchiridion But Gropperus was thought fit to be a Cardinal as well as Bellarmin and certainly knew the Tradition of the Church if there had been any such in this matter The Council of Florence it is plain he thought not to be a sufficient declarer of it No more did Joh. Major who after it denied this Sacrament to consist of Matter and form or that the Acts of the Penitent were the parts of it So did Gabriel Biel who refutes the contrary Opinion and saith Contrition can be no part because it is no sensible sign and satisfaction may be done after it So that he cuts off two parts in three of the Matter of this pretended Sacrament Guido Brianson who lived after the Council of Florence supposes no certain Tradition in the Church about this matter but he sets down both Opinions with their Reasons and prefers that which excludes the Acts of the Penitent from being parts of the Sacrament although the Florentine Council had declared the contrary Durandus rejects two parts in three of those declared by the two Councils and for the same Reasons mentioned by Biel. Ockam absolutely denies all three to be Parts of the Sacrament And so did Scotus before him whose words are remarkable De Poenitentiae Sacramento dico quod illa tria nullo modo sunt partes ejus viz. These three are by no means any part of the Sacrament of Penance and yet the Council of Trent not only declares that they are so but denounces an Anathema against him that denies them to be required as the Matter of the Sacrament of Penance And let any one by this judge what Catholick Tradition it proceeded upon when some of the greatest Divines in the Church of Rome were of another Opinion As to the Form of this Sacrament the Council of Trent denounces an Anathema against thesewho affirm Absolution to be only declarative of the Remission of Sins and yet I shall prove that this was the more current Doctrin even in the Church of Rome up to the Master of the Sentences Gabriel Biel saith the ancient Doctors did commonly follow it but it was supposed by Scotus because it seemed to take off from the efficacy of Absolution and consequently make it no Sacrament which is a cause of Grace But after he hath set down Scotus his Arguments he saith that Opinion were very desirable if it had any Foundation in Scripture or Fathers And to his Arguments he answers that true Contrition obtains Pardon with God before Sacerdotal Absolution but not with the Church and that Contrition supposes a desire of Absolution which will never hold to make Absolution to confer the Grace of Remission if the Sin be really forgiven before For what is the desire of the Penitent to the force of the Sacrament administred by the Priest And he saith they all grant that by true and sufficient Contrition the sin is forgiven without the Sacrament in act i. e. the actual receiving absolution So that here was an universal Tradition as to the Power of Contrition but in the other they had different Opinions Marsilius saith that God forgives sin upon Contrition Authoritatively the Priests Absolution is ministerial in the Court of Conscience and before the Church And those sins which God â—irst absolves from principally and Authentically the Priest afterwards absolves from in right of the Church as its Minister Tostatus saith that the Priests Absolution follows God's Ockam that the Priests then bind and loose when they shew men to be bound or loosed and for this he relies on the Master of the Sentences Thomas de Argentina that the Power of the Keys doth extend to the Remission of the fault which was done before by Contrition but it tends to the Increase of Grace in the Person Gulielmus Antissiodore that Contrition takes away the guilt and punishment of Sin as to God and Conscience but not as to the Church for a man is still bound to undergo the Penance which the Church enjoyns him Bonaventure that Absolution presupposes Grace for no Priest would absolve any one whom he did not presume God had absolved before Alexander Hales that where God doth not begin in Absolution the Priest cannot make it up But the Master of the Sentences himself most fully handles this point and shews from the Fathers that God alone can remit sin both as to the Fault and the Punishment due to it And the Power of the Keys he saith is like the Priests Judgment about Leprosie in the Levitical Law God healed the Person and the Priest declared him healed Or as our Saviour first raised Lazarus then gave him to his Disciples to be loosed He is loosed before God but not in the face of the Church but by the Priests Judgment Another way he saith Priests bind by enjoyning Penance and they loose by remitting it or readmitting Persons to Communion upon performing it This Doctrin of Peter Lombard's is none of those in quibus Magister nontenetur for we see he had followers of great Name almost to the Council of Trent But it happened that both Th. Aquinas and Scotus agreed in opposing this Doctrin and the Franciscans and Dominicans bearing greatest sway in the Debates of the Council of Trent what they agreed in passed for Catholick Tradition And Vasquez is in the right when he saith this Doctrin was condemned by the Council of Trent and so was Scotus when he said that it did derogate from the Sacrament of Penance for in truth it makes it but a nominal Sacrament since it hath no Power of conferring Grace which the Council of Trent makes necessary to a true and proper Sacrament The main Point in this Debate is whether true contrition be required to Absolution or not Which Scotus saw well enough and argues accordingly For none of them deny that where there is true Contrition there is immediately an Absolution before God and if this be required before the Priests Absolution he can have no more to do but to pronounce or declare him absolved But if something less than Contrition do qualifie a Man for Absolution and by that Grace be conveyed then the Power of Absolution hath a great and real Effect for it puts a Man into a State of Grace which he had not been in without it And from hence came the Opinion that Attrition with Absolution was sufficient and they do not understand the Council of Trent's Doctrin of the Sacrament of Penance who deny it as will appear to any one that reads the 4th Chapter of the Sacrament of Penance and compares it with the 7 and 8 Canons about Sacraments in general It is true that Contrition is there said to have the first place in the Acts of the Penitent but observe what follows True Contrition reconciles a Man to God before he receives this Sacrament What hath the Priest then to do but to declare
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
to the Fathers wherein I am in great measure prevented by a late Discourse wherein it is at large shewed that the Fathers made use of no other Rule but the Scriptures for deciding Controversies therefore I shall take another method which is to shew that those who do speak most advantageously of Tradition did not intend to set up another Rule of Faith distinct from Scripture And here I shall pass over all those Testimonies of Fathers which speak either of Tradition before the Canon of Scripture or to those who did not receive it or of the Tradition of Scripture it self or of some Rites and Customs of the Church as wholly impertinent And when these are cut off there remain scarce any to be considered besides that of Vincentius Lerinensis and one Testimony of S. Basil. I begin with Vincentius Lerinensis who by some is thought so great a Favourer of Tradition but he saith not a word of it as a Rule of Faith distinct from Scripture for he asserts the Canon of Scripture to be sufficient of it self for all things How can that be if Tradition be a Rule of Faith distinct from it He makes indeed Catholick Tradition the best Interpreter of Scripture and we have no reason to decline it in the Points in dispute between us if Vincentius his Rules be follow'd 1. If Antiquity Universality and Consent be joyned 2. If the difference be observed between old Errours and new ones For saith he when they had length of time Truth is more easily concealed by those who are concerned to suppress it And in those Cases we have no other way to deal with them but by Scripture and ancient Councils And this is the Rule we profess to hold to But to suppose any one part of the Church to assume to it self the Title of Catholick and then to determine what is to be held for Catholick Tradition by all Members of the Catholick Church is a thing in it self unreasonable and leaves that part under an impossibility of being reclaimed For in case the Corrupt Part be judge we may be sure no Corruptions will be ever owned Vincentius grants that Arianism had once extremely the advantage in Point of Universality and had many Councils of its side if now the prevailing Party be to judge of Catholick Tradition and all are bound to submit to its Decrees without farther Examination as the Authour of the Guide in Controversies saith upon these Rules of Vincentius then I say all men were then bound to declare themselves Arians For if the Guides of the present Church are to be trusted and relied upon for the Doctrine of the Apostolical Church downwards how was it possible for any Members of the Church then to oppose Arianism and to reform the Church after its prevalency To say it was condemned by a former Council doth by no means clear the difficulty For the present Guides must be trusted whether they were rightly condemned or not and nothing can be more certain than that they would be sure to condemn those who condemned them But Vincentius saith Every true Lover of Christ preferred the ancient Faith before the novel betraying of it but then he must chuse this ancient Faith against the judgment of the present Guides of the Church And therefore that according to Vincentius can be no Infallible Rule of Faith. But whether the present Universality dissents from Antiquity whose Judgment should be sooner taken than its own saith the same Authour This had been an excellent Argument in the mouth of Ursacius or Valens at the Council of Ariminum and I do not see what Answer the Guide in Controversies could have made But both are Parties and is not the Councils Judgment to be taken rather than a few Opposers So that for all that I can find by these Principles Arianism having the greater number had hard luck not to be established as the Catholick Faith. But if in that case particular Persons were to judge between the New and the Old Faith then the same Reason will still hold unless the Guides of the Church have obtained a new Patent of Infallibility since that time The great Question among us is Where the true ancient Faith is and how we may come to find it out We are willing to follow the ancient Rules in this matter The Scripture is allowed to be an Infallible Rule on all hands and I am proving that Tradition was not allowed in the ancient Church as distinct from it But the present Question is how far Tradition is to be allowed in giving the Sense of Scripture between us Vincentius saith we ought to follow it when there is Antiquity Universality and Consent This we are willing to be tryed by But here comes another Question Who is to be Judge of these The present Guides of the Catholick Church To what purpose then are all those Rules Will they condemn themselves Or as the Guide admirably saith If the present Universality be its own Judge when can we think it will witness its departure from the true Faith And if it will not what a Case is the Church in under such a pretended Universality The utmost use I can suppose then Vincentius his Rules can be of to us now is in that Case which he puts when Corruptions and Errours have had time to take root and fasten themselves and that is By an Appeal to Scripture and Ancient Councils But because of the charge of Innovation upon us we are content to be tried by his second Rule By the Consent of the Fathers of greatest Reputation who are agreed on all hands to have lived and died in the Communion of the Catholick Church and what they delivered freely constantly and unanimously let that be taken for the undoubted and certain Rule in judging between us But if the present Guides must come in to be Judges here again then all our labour is lost and Vincentius his Rules signifie just nothing The Testimony of S. Basil is by Mr. White magnified above the rest and that out of his Book de Spiritu Sancto above all others to prove that the Certainty of Faith depends on Tradition and not merely on Scripture The force of it is said to lye in this that the practice of the Church in saying with the holy Spirit though not found in Scripture is to determine the Sense of the Article of Faith about the Divinity of the Holy Ghost But to clear this place we are to observe 1. That S. Basil doth not insist on Tradition for the Proof of the Article of Faith for he expresly disowns it in that Book It is not enough saith he that we have it by Tradition from our Fathers for our Fathers had it from the Will of God in Scripture as appears by those Testimonies I have set down already which they took for their Foundations Nothing can be plainer than that S. Basil made Scripture alone the Foundation of Faith
obtaining Remission or else he doth not answer the difficulty which was that the Jews had several sorts of Sacrifices for the Expiation of Sins to which we have none answerable under the Gospel Yes saith Origen Baptism answers to one sort Martyrdom to another Alms to a third c. and last of all Penance to the Offering baked in the Frying Pan. From whence it is plain that he looked on this as one particular way proper to some Cases and not as a general Method for the Remission of all mortal Sins But he urges that Origen quctes Scripture for the Confession of Sins as necessary Hom. 2. in Psal. 37. But what Scripture Even the Words of the Psalmist I will confess my Iniquity And was Confession to a Priest necessary under the Law How then can those words prove it necessary under the Gospel Although therefore Origen might think it very convenient in some cases for Penitents to unload their Consciences by Confession to a Spiritual Physician yet we find no proof of any necessity of it as to all mortal Sins It is confessed that publick Faults either confessed or proved had publick Penance appointed for them by the Penitential Canons but Boileau after Arnauld pleads that even secret Sins being mortal were not thought remissible by the Keys of the Church without publick Penance But this can never be proved to have been the Doctrine of the Ancient Church and it is unreasonable to suppose for then all Persons must have undergone publick Penance who had any mortal Sin and it must have been frequently born by the same Persons both which are inconsistent with the Ancient Discipline But they saw there was no other way to maintain the Necessity of Confession but by this For they could find none but publick Penance and that by the Penitential Canons was prescribed only for some particular scandalous Sins and therefore they fansied that Persons who committed other faults were bound to confess them privately and to undergo publick Penance for them I do not deny but some great Penitents for secret Faults would of their own accord submit to the publick Discipline but this was a voluntary Act in them that by this means they might assure themselves the More of the sincerity of their own Repentance and it being looked on as an Act of Humility and Piety it made it go down the better with Voluntary Penitents 3. For the sake of such Voluntary Penitents in great Churches whose Cases required particular and private Examination and Direction there was a Penitentiary appointed whose Office it was to receive their Confessions and to direct and order the Method of their Penance Of this we have a famous Instance in the Church of Constantinople in the time of Nectarius about which so much pains hath been taken for different purposes That which seems most probable to me is that the Penitentiary was appointed to examine and judge of such Penitential Causes which were brought before him not being notorious and to give sentence according to the Canons but especially of Voluntary Confessions of Persons whose Consciences were oppressed with the Guilt of Secret Sins and to those he was to appoint Penance without revealing their Faults Where the Facts were notorious and scandalous I suppose the ancient Discipline of the Church part whereof is to be seen in the Canonical Epistles to have still continued at Constantinople as well as in other Churches But there were many private miscarriages wherein great Prudence and Judgment was required both to determine the Penance and to manage it so that it did not break out into an open Scandal And for Cases of this Nature the Penitentiary was appointed to whom all Persons might resort in private cases and open their Consciences to him and take his Directions how to perform their Penitential Acts. So it was with that Person of Quality at Constantinople who gave occasion to the abolishing the Office of Penitentiary both there and in all the Eastern Churches She first went to the Penitentiary as a voluntary Penitent and confessed her Faults to him and took his directions and while she was performing her Penance in the Church the Fact was committed with the Deacon which she afterwards confessed to the Penitentiary Who being enraged at the Deacon in probability through his desire to have him punished the Fact came to be discovered and the People to be highly offended And it is not reasonable to suppose that the Penitentiary put her upon a publick Confession of her secret fault but that it came out by his means and therefore Nectarius thought fit no longer to put such a Trust into any Man's hand which through his discovery might redound to the Dishonour of the Church as that did What the effect was of abolishing this Office is the great Question whether the taking away publick or private Confession If the Historians may be believed it was the Necessity of making any Confession at all in secret for the Right of receiving such Confessions was devolved upon the Penitentiary therefore when his Office was put down where the Case was not notorious every one must be left to his own Conscience and that both Socrates and Sozomen affirm was the consequence of it If only publick Confession was taken away as some imagine a secret Confession was still continued how was it possible for the Historians to mistake the matter so grosly by making that the consequence of it For is every Man left to his own Conscience where he is bound to go to Confession before he partakes of the Eucharist And why should publick Penance be taken away on this occasion where there seems to have been none for that Person underwent to publick Penance upon her former Confession for then her Penance would not have been done in the Church but out of it among the Penitents But as the former was voluntary so was the latter too for here was no Accuser but her self and for what Reason should publick and solemn Penance for notorious Criâ—â—es be taken away for the sake of the discovery of a Secret Confession Whether the punishment of the Deacon were the Occasion of its coming out or whatever it was it seems evident to me that she was not obliged to any publick Consession because Sozomen saith the Penitentiary was chosen for his Gravity Silence and Wisdom but what Silence was there if the Confessions were to be made publick And on the other side it is impossible to conceive that if all Persons were then obliged to confess all mortal Sins after Baptism that one Penitentiary should be sufficient in so vast a City as that of Constantinople was Therefore I think it most probable that the case of notorious and scandalous Offenders stood as it did and so continued in S. Chrysostom's time but this Office of Penitentiary relating to voluntary and secret Offenders was taken away because a greater Scandal came to the Church by the discovery when such a publick Disgrace made
the Fact become notorious And so this Act of Nectarius in taking away the Penitentiary's Office and the Approbation of it by other Churches following the Example evidently proves that they did not look on Confession of sâ—â—cret Sins as necessary to the Remission of them 4. As the taking away the Penitentiary's Office shewed the Sense of the Church at that time against the Necessity of Confession in order to Pardon so it did likewise in order to the partaking of the Eucharist For Socrates saith that Eudaemon gave that Counsel to Nectarius that he should remove the Penitentiary and give every one leave to pass Jâ—dgment on himself in his own Conscience and so to partake of the Mysteries The same is affirmed by Sozomen Which respects not the publick Discipline about Notorious Offenders but the private Applications made by scrupulous Persons and secret Offenders to the Penitentiary in order to a right preparation for the Eucharist And it is very probable that it was then believed by many that they could not be duly fitted for that Sacrament unless they had first unburthened their Consciences by a voluntary Confession to the Penitentiary and followed his Directions But this Office being taken away the Question now is whether it were thought necessary to confess privately to any other The Council of Trent declares that Sacramental Confession is necessary to a worthy partaking of the Eucharist to every one that is conscious to himself of any mortal sin and whosoever holds the contrary is declared excommunicate ipso facto But these Historians plainly deny it and they are justified by S. Chrysostom who speaks to the very Case not about Câ—techumens but such as would fit themselves for the Holy Eucharist And he several times declares that a man needs not reveal his sins to any but to God alone in order to it Nothing can be more Emphatical than what he saith to that purpose For this Cause S. Paul saith Let a man examin himself and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup he doth not lay open the secret Ulcer he doth not bring the Accusation into a Theatre he appoints no Witnesses of thy Transgressions pass judgment within thine own Conscience there examin thy faults and call thy self to an account for the â—ins of thy Life where â—oâ—e but God is present who sees all things amend thy faults and so with a pure Conscience draw near to the holy Table and partake of the Sacrifice there offered But left this should be thought one of those sudden eloquent heats which Petavius saith are hardly capable of good sense if too strictly examined we find him very cooly delivering the same Doctrine in his Exposition of those words of S. Paul. Than which nothing can be more inconsistent with the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome which makes Confession of our Sins to a Priest a necessary Preparation for the Eucharist Catharinus saith that if the Church had not limited the time yet every Person would be bound to confess to a Priest as often as he communicated And although he knew no mortal sin by himself yet he would deserve the severest Censure for not confessing because he took upon himself to be his own Judge Can any thing be more contrary to S. Câ—rysostom than this Boileau confesses that S. Chrysostom doth not here refer at all to Confession to a Priest then it follows that he thought it not necessary to right participation of the Holy Eucharist Here he speaks not of daily Examination of Conscience by the faithful but of the solemn Judgment of Conscience by way of due Preparation and so justifies the Fact of Nectarius in taking away the Penitentiaries Office But we are not to suppose so great and so zealous a Man would have done it against his Conscience as he must if he still thought Confession to a Priest necessary and he doth not say they need not go now to the Penitentiary but that they need not diselose their sins to any Not to a multitude or in a theatrical manner as some expound it but to none but God which excludes the knowledge of a sinâ—le Priest as well as of a great number I nâ—ed not insist on the other places in S. Chrysostom to that purpose since these are sufficient for my design Cassian was a Disciple of S. Chrysostom and he supposes Confession to God alone to be sufficient for Remission of Sin where mere modesty hinders men from consessing to men Boileau answers that he doth not speak of Sacramental Confession made to Priests but of an Ascetick Confession among the Mâ—nks But he speaks of a Confession to God as sufficient for Remission of Sins and therefore must exclude the Necessity of any other 5. After the taking away the Penitentiary's Office the Publick Discipline of the Church as to open and scandalous Offenders continued for some time in the Eastern as well as the Western Churches No one speaks more fully to this than S. Chrysostom which makes me wonder at those who say the publick Penance was taken away by Nectarius for in his 82. Homily on S. Matthew towards the Conclusion he insists very much upon it and not only charges the People not to come with their sins upon them but he speaks to those who ministred to deny the Eucharist to open Offenders And he saith it would be charged as a great Fault upon them if they knew such and permitted them to communicate But how shall we knew them I speak not saith he of those who are not but of those who are known and if any such did thrust themselves in he bid them not be afraid to deny them and if they durst not he tells them they should bring them to him and he would rather lose his life than give that Sacrament to such unworthy receivers But still he saith he speaks of open and notorious Offenâ—ers Which shews plainly that even S. Chrysostom never thought the publick Discipline was changed since he declares so much Resolution to maintain it And this could not be spoken by him while he was a Presbyter at Antioch but after he came to the See of Constantinople There was no doubt some alteration as to the Penitents after the taking away the Penitentiary but it was no more than his Office was concerned in The old Penitential Canons remained still in force and were executed as Occasion served as appears by the Canons in Trullo so long after S. Chrysostom's time which refer to them If all the publick Discipline had been laid aside so long before to what purpose do those Bishops speak of them as if they were still in force See Canon 44 46 53 54 87. In the last Canon indeed they leave it to those who had the Power of binding and loosing to temper the severity of the Canons as they should judge convenient but doth it hence follow that the ancient Discipline as to publick