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
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
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
if this hold then the Tradition of the Seven Sacraments must fail in the Greek Church For they deny that they have any such thing as a Sacrament of Confirmation distinct from Baptism 2. Of the Sacrament of Penance 1. The Council of Trent declares Absolution of the Penitent to be a judicial Act and denounces an Anathema against him that denies it but the Greek Church uses a deprecative Form as they call it not pronouncing Absolution by way of Sentence but by way of Prayer to God. Which as Aquinas observes rather shews a Person to be absolved by God than by the Priest and are rather a Prayer that it may be done than a signification that it is done and therefore he looks on such Forms as insufficient And if it be a judicial Sentence as the Council of Trent determines it can hardly be reconciled to such a Form wherein no kind of judicial Sentence was ever pronounced as Arcudius grants and in Extreme Unction where such a Form is allowed there is as he observes no Judicial Act. But he hopes at last to bring the Greeks off by a Phrase used in some of their Forms I have you absolved but he confesses it is not in their Publick Offices and their Priests for the most part use it not Which shews it to be an Innovation among the Latinizing Greeks if it be so observed which Catumsyritus denies and saith he proves it only from some Forms granted by Patents which are not Sacramental and supposing it otherwise he saith it is foolish false and erroneous to suppose such a Form to be valid because it is no Judicial Act. 2. The Council of Trent makes Confession of all Mortal Sins how secret soever to be necessary in order to the benefit of Priestly Absolution in this Sacrament and denounces an Anathema against those that deny it but the Greek Church grants Absolution upon supposition that they have not confessed all Mortal Sins As appears by the Form of the Patriarch of Antioch produced by Arcudius and another Form of the Patriarch of Constantinople in Jeremias his Answer Arcudius is hard put to it when to excuse this he saith they only pray to God to forgive them for this is to own that a deprecative Form is insufficient and so that there is no Sacrament of Penance in the Greek Church 3. Of Orders The Greek and Latin Churches differ both as to Matter and Form. The Council of Trent Anathematiseth those who deny a visible and exeternal Priesthood in the New Testament or a Power of consecrating and offering the true Body and Bloud of Christ and of remitting and retaining of Sins And this two-fold Power the Church of Rome expresses by a double Form one of delivering the Vessels with Accipe Potestatem c. the other of Imposition of Hands with Accipe Spiritum Sanctum But the Greek Church wholly omits the former on which the greatest weight is laid in the Latin Church and many think the Essential Form lies in it When the Office of Ordination is over the Book of the Liturgy called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is delivered to the Presbyter but without any words and there is no mention of it in their Rituals either Printed or MSS. so likewise a parcel of consecrated Bread is delivered by the Bishop to him afterwards And all the Form is The Divine Grace advances such an one to the Office of a Presbyter If we compare this with the Form in the Council of Florence we shall find no agreement either as to Matter or Form in this Sacrament between the Greek and Latin Churches For there the Matter is said to be that by which the Order is conferred viz. the delivery of the Chalice with Wine and the Paten with the Bread and the Form Receive the Power of offering Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead And it is hardly possible to suppose these two Churches should go upon the same Tradition I know what pains Arcudius hath taken to reconcile them but as long as the Decree of Eugenius stands and is received in the Church of Rome it is impossible And Catumsyritus labours hard to prove that he hath endeavoured thereby to overthrow the whole Order of Priesthood in the Roman Church 4. Of Extreme Unction Bellarmin particularly appeals to the Greek Church for its consent as to this Sacrament but if he means in the modern sense as it is deliver'd by the Councils of Florence and Trent he is extremely mistaken 1. For the former saith it is not to be given but to such of whose death they are afraid and the Council of Trent calls it the Sacrament of dying Persons But the Greeks administer their Sacrament of Unction to Persons in health as well as sickness and once a year to all the People that will which Arcudius saith is not only done by the illiterate Priests but by their Patriarchs and Metropolitans c. and they look on then as a Supplement to the ancient Penance of the Church for they think the partaking of the holy Oil makes amends for that but this Arcudius condemns as an abuse and innovation among them But the original Intention and Design of it was for the Cure and Recovery of sick Persons as Arcudius confesses the whole scope of the Office shews and in the next Chapter he produces the Prayers to that end And the Greeks charge the Latins with Innovation in giving this Sacrament to those Persons of whose Recovery they have no hope 2. The Council of Trent requires that the Oil of Extreme Unction be consecrated by a Bishop and this the Doctors of the Roman Church saith Catumsyritus make essential to the Sacrament But in the Greek Church the Presbyters commonly do it as Arcudius shews at large 5. Of Matrimony The Council of Trent from making this a Sacrament denounces an Anathema against those who do not hold the Bond indissoluble even in the Case of Adultery And Bellarmin urges this as his first Reason because it is a sign of the Conjunction of Christ with his Church But the Greek Church held the contrary and continues so to do as both Bellarmin and Arcudius confess So that though there be allow'd a consent in the Number of Sacraments among the Modern Greeks yet they have not an entire Consent with the Roman Church in any one of them The Sense of other Eastern Churches about the Seven Sacraments But to shew how late this Tradition of Seven Sacraments came into the Greek Church and how far it is from being an Universal Tradition I shall now make it appear that this Number of Sacraments was never received in the other Christian Churches although some of them were originally descended from the Ancient Greek Church I begin with the most Eastern Churches called the Christians of St. Thomas in the East-Indies And we have a clear Proof that there was no Tradition among them about the Seven Sacraments
that can believe both these at once may believe what he pleases But the Council only declares the Sacramental Presence to be after an ineffable manner I say it determines it to be by a total Conversion of one Substance into another which may well be said to be ineffable since what cannot be understood can never be expressed Our Dispute is not about the use of the Word Transubstantiation for I think it proper enough to express the Sense of the Council of Trent but as the Word Consubstantial did exclude all other Modes how Christ might be the Son of God and determin'd the Faith of the Church to that Manneâ— so doth the Sense of Transubstantiation as determin'd by the Council of Trent limit the Manner of the Real Presence to such a Conversion of the Substance of the Elements into the Substance of Christ's Body and Blood as doth imply no Substance to remain after Consecration It is to no purpose to tell us the Council uses only the Word Species and not Accidents for whatever they are called the Council denounces its Anathema against those who hold the Substance to remain after Consecration and denies the Total Conversion of the Substance of the Bread and Wine into the Substance of the Body and Bloud of Christ. If the Substance be not there the Modus is to purpose determin'd And whatever remains call it what you will it is not the Substance and that is sufficient to shew that the Council of Trent hath clearly determin'd the Modus of the Real Presence V. We must distinguish the School Points left undetermin'd by the Council of Trent from those which are made Articles of Faith. We never pretend that it left no School-Disputes about the Points there determin'd but we say it went too far in making some School-Points to be Points of Faith when it had been more for the Peace of Christendom to have left them to the Schools still Thus in the Point of Transubstantiation the elder School-men tell us there were different Ways of explaining the Real Presence And that those which supposed the substance to remain were more agreeable to Reason and Scripture than the other and some were of Opinion that the Modus was no matter of Faith then But after the Point of the Real Presence came to be warmly contested in the time of Berengarius it rose by degrees higher and higher till at last the particular Modus came to be determin'd with an Anathema by the Council of Trent When Berengarius A. D. 1059. was forced to Recant by Nicolaus 2d with the Assistance of 113. Bishops no more was required of him than to hold that the Bread and Wine after Consecration are not only the Sacrament but the true Body and Bloud of Christ and that it is sensibly handled and broke by the Priests hands and eaten by the Communicants Here is no denying the Substance of Bread to remain and Joh. Parisiensis observes that the words cannot be defended but by an Assumption of the Bread for saith he If the Body of Christ be truely and sensibly handled and eaten this cannot be understood of Christ's Glorious Body in Heaven but it must be of the Bread really made the Body of Christ after Consecration The Sense which the Canonists put upon the Words of this Recantation is absurd viz. that they are to be understood of the Species For Berengarius his Opinion related to the Substance of Christ's Body which he denied to be in the Sacrament And what would it have signified for him to have said that Christ was sensibly broken and eaten under the Species of Bread and Wine i. e. that his Body was not sensibly broken and eaten but the Species were It had signified something if he had said there was no Substance of Bread and Wine left but only the Species But all the design of this Recantation was to make him assert the Sacrament to be made the true and real Body of Christ in as strong a manner as the Pope and his Brethren could think of And although the Canonists think if strictly taken it implies greater Heresie than that of Berengarius yet by their favour this Form was only thought fit to be put into the Canon-Law as the Standard of the Faith of the Roman Church then and the following Abjuration of Berengarius was only kept in the Register of Gregory the seventh's Epistles For about twenty years after by Order of Gregory VII Berengarius was brought to another Abjuration but by no means after the same Form with the former For by this he was required to declare that the Bread and Wine are substantially Converted into the true and proper Flesh and Bloud of Christ and after Censecration are the true Body of Christ born of the Virgin and Sacrificed upon the Cross and that sits at the right hand of the Father and the true Bloud of Christ which was shed out of his Side not only as a Sacramental Sign but in propriety of Nature and Reality of Substance This was indeed a pretty bold Assertion of the Substantial Presence And so much the bolder if the Commentary on S. Matthew be Hildebrand's For there he saith the manner of the Conversion is uncertain But as far as I can judge by Substantial Conversion he did not then mean as the Council of Trent doth a total Conversion of one substance into another so as that nothing of the former Substance remains but that there was a Change by Consecration not by making the Body of Christ of the Substance of the Bread but by its passing into that Body of Christ which was born of the Virgin. For upon comparing the two Forms there we shall find lies the main difference Pope Nicolaus went no farther than to the true Body of Christ which it might be as well by Assumption as Conversion Gregory VII went farther and thought it necessary to add that the Change was into the Substance of that Body which was born of the Virgin c. And so this second Form excludes a true Body merely by Assumption and asserts the Change to be into the Substance of Christ's Body in Heaven but it doth not determine that nothing of the Substance of the Elements doth remain For when he puts that kind of Substantial Conversion which leaves nothing but the Accidents and the Body of Christ to be under them which belonged to the Substance of the Elements he declares this matter to be uncertain Which shews that however a Change was owned into the Substance of Christ's Body yet such a total Conversion as is determined by the Council of Trent was not then made an Article of Faith. But from this supposition made by Hildebrand it appears that the Dectrine of Substance and Accidents was then well known and therefore the introducing Aristotle's Philosophy from the Arabians afterwards could make no Alteration in this Matter For the words of Hildebrand are as plain as to the difference of Substance and Accidents as of
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
above 800 years and yet we must believe the Tradition of this Church to have been always the same Which is impossible by the Confession of their own Writer He cannot tell just the time when the change was made but he concludes it was before the time of the Vetus Ordo Romanus which mentions the Vessels Petrus a Sancto Joseph saith that by Christ's Institution there is a latitude allowed in the matter of Orders but he shews not where but he thinks of it self it consists in the delivery of the Vessels but by the Pope's permission Imposition of Hands may be sufficient Which is a Doctrin which hath neither Scripture Reason nor Tradition for it Joh. Morinus shews that there are five Opinions in the Church of Rome about the matter of this Sacrament The first and most common is that it consists in the delivery of the Vessels The second that Imposition of Hands together with that makes up the matter The third that they convey two different powers The fourth that Unction with Imposition of Hands is the matter The fifth that Imposition of Hands alone is it and this saith he the whole Church Greek and Latin ever owned but he saith he can bring two demonstrations against the first i. e. against the general sense of the now Roman Church 1. From the Practice of the Greek Church which never used it 2. From the old Rituals of the Latin Church which do not mention them and he names some above 800 years old and in none of them he finds either the Matter or Form of this Sacrament as it is now practised in the Church of Rome nor in Isidore Alcuinus Amalarius Rabanus Maurus Valafridus Strabo although they wrote purposely about these things He thinks it was first received into the publick Offices in the tenth Age. Afterwards he saith he wonders how it came about that any should place the essential Matter of Ordination only in delivery of the Vessels and exclude the Imposition of Hands which alone is mentioned by Scripture and Fathers And again he saith it strikes him with astonishment that there should be such an alteration both as to Matter and Form. And at last he saith Christ hath determined no particular Matter and Form in this Sacrament But still the Difficulty returns how this can be a true and proper Sacrament whose Matter and Form depend on divine Institution when they confess there was no divine Institution for the Matter and Form in Orders Bellarmin as is proved before hath a Chapter on purpose to prove that the Matter and Form of Sacraments are so determin'd that it is not lawful to add diminish or alter them and he charges it on Luther as a part of his Heresie that no certain Form of words was required to Sacraments and he makes it no less than Sacrilege to change the Matter of them So that all such who hold the Matter and Form in Orders to be mutable must either charge the Church of Rome with Sacrilege or deny Orders to be a true and proper Sacrament Of the Sacrament of Penance The next new Sacrament is that of Penance They are agreed that Matter and Form are both necessary to a true and proper Sacrament The Matter is the external or sensible Sign and what is that in this New Sacrament There are two things necessary to the Matter of a Sacrament 1. That it be an External and sensible Sign which S. Augustin calls an Element in that known Expression Accedat verbum ad Elementum fit Sacramentum which Bellarmin would have understood only of Baptism there spoken of but S. Augustin's meaning goes farther as appears by his following Discourse and immediately he calls a Sacrament verbum visibile and therefore cannot be applied to Words as they are heard for so they have nothing of a Sacramental sign in them How then can Contrition make up any part of the Matter of a Sacrament when it is not external How can Confession when it is no visible sign nor any permanent thing as an Element must be how can satisfaction be any part of the Sacrament which may be done when the Effect of the Sacrament is over in Absolution 2. There must be a Resemblance between the Sign and the Thing signified Which St. Augustin is so peremptory in that he denies there can be any Sacrament where there is no Resemblance And from hence he saith the Signs take the name of the Thing signified as after a certain manner the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is the Body of Christ. And this was looked on as so necessary that Hugo de Sancto Victore and Peter Lombard both put it into the Definition of a Sacrament as Suarez confesses viz. that it is the visible appearance of Invisible Grace which bears the similitude and is the Cause of it But this is left out of the Definition in the Roman Catechism and Suarez thinks it not necessary for the same Reason because it is very hard to understand the similitude between words spoken in Confession and the Grace supposed to be given by Absolution any more than in the words of Abrenunciation and the Grace of Baptism How can the Act of the Penitent signifie the Grace conveyed in Absolution For there is no effect of the Sacrament till Absolution by their own Confession and therefore the Acts of the Penitent being antecedent to it and of a different nature from it can have no such Resemblance with it as to signifie or represent it However the Councils of Florence and Trent have declared that the Acts of the Penitent viz. Contrition Confession and Satisfaction are as the matter in the Sacrament Quasi materia What is this quasi materia Why not are the matter Is not true matter necessary to a true Sacrament If there be none true here then this can be but quasi Sacramentum as it were a Sacrament and not truly and properly so But if it be true matter why is it not so declared But common Sense hindred them and not the difference between the matter here and in other Sacraments For in the Definition of Sacraments they were to regard the Truth and not the kind of Matter They are not solid and permanent Matter saith Bellarmin not Matter externally applied saith Soto not any Substance but humane Acts saith Vasquez but none of these clear the point For still if it be true Matter of a Sacrament why was it not so declared Why such a term of Diminution added as all men must understand it who compare it with the expressions about the other Sacraments But they knew very well there was a considerable Party in the Church of Rome who denied the Acts of the Penitent to be the Matter or Parts of this Sacrament The Council of Colen but little before the Council of Trent excludes the Acts of the Penitent from any share in this Sacrament which Bellarmin denies not but blames
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
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
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
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