plainly excludes them out of the Canon Catharinus thinks he follow'd S. Jerom. What then Doth this exclude his contradicting his Predecessours Or was S. Jerom's Judgment above the Pope's But it was not S. Gregory alone who contradicted the former Popes Canon for it was not received either in Italy Spain France Germany or England and yet no doubt it was a very Catholick Tradition Not in Italy for there Cassiodore a learned and devout Man in the next Century to them gives an account of the Canon of Scripture and he takes not any notice either of Innocent or Gelasius He first sets down the Order of Scripture according to S. Jerom and then according to S. Augustin and in the last place according to the old Translation and the LXX and where himself speaks of the Apocryphal Books before he follows S. Jerom 's Opinion that they were written rather for manners than Dactrine He confesses there was a difference about the Canon but he goes about to excuse it But what need that if there were a Catholick Tradition then in the Church concerning it and that inforced by two Popes But it may yet seem stranger that even in Italy one canonized for a Saint by Clemens VII should follow S. Jerom's Opinion in this matter viz. S. Antoninus Bishop of Florence Who speaking of Ecclestasticus received into the Canon of the two Popes he saith it is onely received by the Church to be read and is not authentick to prove any thing in matters of Faith. He that writes Notes upon him saith that he follows S. Jerom and must be understood of the Eastern Church for the Western Church always receiv'd these Books into the Canon But he speaks not one word of the Eastern Church and by the Church he could understand nothing but what he accounted the Catholick Church Canus allows Antoninus to have rejected these Books but he thinks the matter not so clear but then they might doubt concerning it Then there was no such Evidence of Tradition to convince men But Antoninus hath preserved the Judgment of a greater man concerning these Books even Thomas Aquinas who in 2. 2 dae he saith denied these Books to have such authority as to prove any matter of Faith by them which is directly contrary to the Council of Trent If this passage be not now to be found in him we know whom to blame for it If Antoninus saw it there we hope his word may be taken for it In Spain we have for the Hebrew Canon the Testimonies of Paulus Burgensis Tostatus and Cardinal Ximines In France of Victorinus Agobardus Radulphus Flaviacensis Petrus Cluniacensis Hugo de S. Victore and Richard de S. Victore Lyra and others In Germany of Rabanus Maurus Strabus Rupertus Hermannus Contractus and others In England of Bede Alcvin Sarisburiensis Ockam Waldensis and others Whom I barely mention because their Testimonies are at large in Bishop Cosins his Scholastical History of the Canon of Scripture and no man hath yet had the hardiness to undertake that Book These I think are sufficient to shew there was no Catholick Tradition for the Decree of the Council of Trent about the Canon of Scripture I now proceed to shew on what pretences and colours it came in and by what degrees and steps it advanced 1. The first step was the Esteem which some of the Fathers expressed of these Books in quoting of passages out of them We do not deny that the Fathers did frequently cite them even those who expresly rejected them from being Canonical and not as ordinary Books but as such as were usefull to the Church wherein many wise Sayings and good Actions are recorded But the many Quotations the Fathers do make out of them is the onely plausible pretence which those of the Church of Rome have to defend the putting them into the Canon as appears by Bellarmin and others The Book of Tobit they tell us is mentioned by S. Cyprian S. Ambrose St. Basil and St. Augustin Of Judith by St. Jerom who mentions a Tradition that it was allowed in the Council of Nice but certainly S. Jerom never believed it when he declares it to be Apocryphal and not sufficient to prove any matter of Faith. The Book of Wisedom by S. Cyprian S. Cyril and S. Augustin Ecclesiasticus by Clemens Alexandrinus S. Cyprian Epiphanius S. Ambrose and S. Augustin The Machabees by Tertullian Cyprian Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Eusebius S. Ambrose S. Augustin But all these Testimonies onely prove that they thought something in those Books worth alledging but not that they judged the Books themselves Canonical And better Arguments from their Citations might be brought for the Books of the Sibylls than for any of these We are not then to judge of their Opinion of Canonical Books by bare Citations but by their declared Judgments about them 2. The next step was when they came to be read in Churches but about this there was no certain Rule For the Councils of Laodicea and Carthage differed chiefly upon this Point The former decreed That none but Canonical Scripture should be read under the Name of Holy Writings and sets down the names of the Canonical Books then to be read and so leaves out the Apocalypse The latter from their being read inferr'd their being Canonical for it agrees with the other that none but Canonical should be read and because these were read it reckons them up with the Canonical Books for so the Canon concludes We have received from our Fathers that these Books are to be read in Churches But the Council of Carthage was not peremptory in this matter but desired it might be referred to Boniface and other Bishops beyond the Seas Which shews that here was no Decree absolutely made nor any Certainty of Tradition for then to what purpose should they send to other Churches to advise about it 3. When they came to be distinguished from Apocryphal Writings Whence those who do not consider the Reason of it conclude them to have been Canonical But sometimes Apocryphal signified such Books as were not in the Canon of Faith as in the Authours before mentioned sometimes such Books which were not allowed to be used among Christians This distinction we have in Ruffinus who saith there are three sorts of Books Canonical as the 22 of the Old Testament Ecclesiastical of which sort he reckons Wisedom Ecclesiasticus Tobit Judith and Machabees and these he saith were permitted to be read in Churches but no Argument could be brought out of them for matter of Faith Apocryphal are such which by no means were permitted to be read And thus Innocentius his words may well be understood For he concludes with saying that other Writings were not onely to be rejected but to be condemned And so his meaning is to distinguish them from such counterfeit Divine Writings as were then abroad For these were not to be wholly rejected and in that large sense he admits them into the
THE Council of Trent EXAMIN'D and DISPROV'D BY Catholick Tradition In the main Points in Controversie between Us and the Church of Rome WITH A Particular Account of the Times and Occasions of introducing them PART I. To which a PREFACE is prefixed concerning the true Sense of the Council of Trent and the Notion of Transubstantiation The Second Edition Corrected WITH An APPENDIX in Answer to some late Passages of J. W. of the Society of Jesus Concerning the Prohibiting of Scripture in Vulgar Languages LONDON Printed for H. Mortlock at the Phoenix in S. Pauls Church-yard 1688. THE PREFACE THere is it seems a Train in Controversies as well as in Thoughts one thing still giving a start to another Conferences produce Letters Letters Books and one Discourse gives Occasion for another For this follows the former as a necessary Pursuit of the same Argument against Tradition I. S. in his last Letter had vouched the Authority of the Council of Trent proceeding upon Tradition and he instanced in three Points Transubstantiation Sacramental Confession and Extreme Unction The Examination of this I thought fit to reserve for a Discourse by it self wherein instead of confining my Self to those three Particulars I intend to go through the most material Points there established and to prove from the most Authentick Testimonies that there was no true Catholick Tradition for any of them And if I can make good what I have undertaken I shall make the Council of Trent it Self the great Instance against the Infallibility of Tradition This is a new Undertaking which the impetuousness of our Adversaries setting up Tradition for the Ground of their Faith hath brought me to But besides the shewing that really they have not Tradition on their side I have endeavoured to trace the several steps and to set down the Times and Occasions of Introducing those Points which have caused that unhappy breach in the Christian world whose sad effects we daily see and lament But have little hopes to see remied till these new Points be discarded and Scripture interpreted by truely Catholick Tradition be made the Standard of Christian Communion I do not pretend that all these Points came in at one Time or in the same Manner for some Errours and Corruptions came in far more early some had the favour of the Church of Rome in a higher degree some were more generally received in the Practice of the Church in later times than others and some were merely School Points before the Council of Trent but as far as the Thomists and Scotists could be made to agree there against the Reformers these passed for Articles of Faith. For this was one of the great Arts of that Council to draw up their Decrees in such Terms as should leave Room enough for Eternal Wranglings among themselves provided they agreed in doing the business effectually against the Hereticks as they are pleased to call them I therefore forbear to urge these as Points of Faith which have been freely debated among themselves since the Council of Trent without any Censure We have enough in the plain Decrees and Canons of that Council without medling with any School-Points And so I cannot be charged with Misrepresenting The great Debate of late hath been about the true Exposition of the Points there defined and for my part I am content to yield to any just and reasonable Methods of giving the true sense of them And such I conceive these to be I. Where the Council of Trent makes use of Words in a strict and limited Sense there it is unreasonable to understand them in a large and improper Sense As for instance Sess. 6. c. 26. It decrees that Justified Persons do verè promerere truely merit Eternal Life and Can. 32. there is an Anathema against him who denies true Merit in the good Works of justified Persons both as to Increase of Grace and Eternal Life There is no one conversant in Ancient Writers but knows that there was a large and improper Sense of the Word Merit but how is it impossible to apply that Sense where such Care is taken that it may be understood in a strict and limited Sense If the Council had left the Word in its General Sense there might have been Reason to have given the fairest Interpretation to it but when it is certainly known that there had been a difference of Opinions in the Church of Rome about true and proper Merit and that which was not however it were called and the Council declares for the former no man of understanding can believe that onely the improper Sense was meant by it As in the Point of the Eucharist when the Council declares that the words of Christ This is my Body are truely and properly to be understood Would it not be thought strange for any one to say that the Council notwithstanding might mean that Christ's Words may be figuratively understood And we must take the true notion of Merit not from any large expressions of the Ancients but from the Conditions of true and proper Merit among themselves But of this at large afterwards So as to the Notion of Sacraments every one knows how largely that Word was taken in Ancient Writers but it would be absurd to understand the Council of Trent in that Sense when Sess. 6. Can. 1. De Sacramentis it denounces an Anathema not merely against him that denies seven Sacraments but against him that doth not hold every one of them to be truely and properly a Sacrament And in the Creed of Pius IV. one Article is that there are seven true and proper Sacraments How vain a thing then were it for any to Expound the Sacraments in a large and improper Sense II. Where the Council of Trent hath not declared it self but it is fully done in the Catechism made by its Appointment we ought to look on that as the true Sense of the Council As in the Case of the Sacraments the Council never declares what it means by true and proper Sacraments but the Catechism makes large and full amends for this Defect For after it hath mention'd the use of the Word in Profane and Sacred Writers it sets down the Sense of it according to their Divines for a sensible sign which conveys the Grace which it signifies And after a large Explication of the Nature of Signs it gives this Description of a true and proper Sacrament that it is a sensible thing which by Divine Institution not only hath the force of signifying but of causing Grace And to shew the Authority of this Catechism for explicating the Doctrine of the Sacraments we need only to look into Sess. 24. c. 7. de Reform where it is required that the People be instructed in the Sacraments according to â—it It is supposed that the Catechism was appointed to be made in the 18th Sesâ—ion at the Instigation of Carolus Borromaeus since Canonized but it was not finished while the Council sate and therefore Sess. 25. it
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
Examination of the Lord Cobham A. D. 1412. by the same Arch-Bishop we find that he owned the Real Presence of Christ's Body as firmly as his Accusers but he was condemned for Heresie Because he held the Substance of Bread to remain For the Arch-Bishop declared this to be the Sense of the Church that after Consecration remaineth no material Bread or Wine which were before they being turned into Christ's very Body and Bloud The Original words of the Arch-Bishop as they are in the Register are these The faith and the determination of holy Church touching the blestfull Sacrament of the auter is this that after the Sacramental Words ben said by a Prest in his Masse the material bred that was before is turned into Christ's veray body And the material Wyn that was before is turned into Christ veray blode and so there leweth in the auter no material brede ne material Wyn the wich wer ther byfore the saying of the Sacramental words And the Bishops afterwards stood up and said It is manifest Heresie to say that it is Bread after the Sacramental Words be spoken because it was against the Determination of holy Church But to make all sure not many years after May 4th A. D. 1415. the Council of Constance Session 8. declared the two Propositions before mentioned to be heretical viz. to hold that the Substance doth remain after Consecration and that the Accidents do not remain without a Subject Let any impartial Reader now judge whether it be any fatal Oversight to assert that the Modus of the Real Presence was determin'd by the Council of Trent when there were so many leading Determinations to it which were generally owned and received in the Church of Rome But there were other Disputes remaining in the Schools relating to this Matter which we do not pretend were ever determin'd by the Council of Trent As 1. Whether the Words of Consecration are to be understood in a Speculative or Practical Sense For the Scotists say in the former Sense they do by no means prove Transubstantiation since it may be truly said This is my Body though the Substance of Bread do remain and that they are to be understood in a Practical Sense i. e. for converting the Bread into the Body is not to be deduced ex vi verborum from the mere force of the Words but from the Sense of the Church which hath so understood them Which in plain terms is to say it cannot be proved from Scripture but from the Sense of the Church and so Scotus doth acknowledge but then he adds that we are to judge this to be the Sense of Scripture because the Church hath declared it Which he doth not think was done before the Council of Lateran So that this Council must be believed to have had as Infallible a Spirit in giving this Sense of Scripture as there was in the writing of it since it is not drawn from the Words but added to them On the other side the Thomists insist on the force of the Words themselves for if say they from the Words be infer'd that there is a Real Presence of the Substance of Christ's Body then it follows thence that there is no Substance of the Bread remaining for a Substance cannot be where it was not before but it must either change its place or another must be turned into it as Fire in a House must either be brought thither or some other thing must be turned into Fire but say they the Body of Christ cannot be brought from Heaven thither for then it must leave the place it had there and must pass through all the Bodies between and it is impossible for the same Body to be Locally present in several places and therefore the Body of Christ cannot otherwise be really and substantially present but by the Conversion of the Substance of the Bread into it 2. In what Manner the Body of Christ is made to be present in the Sacrament The Scotists say it is impossible to conceive it otherwise than by bringing it from the place where it already is the Thomists say that is impossible since that Body must be divided from it self by so many other Bodies interposing The former is said to be an adductive Conversion the latter a productive but then here lies another difficulty how there can be a productive Conversion of a thing already in being But my business is not to give an account of these School-Disputes but to shew how different they were from the point of Tranfubslantiation and that both these disputing Parties did agree that the Modus of the Real Presence was defined to be by changing the Substance of the Elements into the Body and Blood of Christ but they still warmly disputed about the Modus of that Modus viz. how a Body already in being could be present in so many places without leaving that Place where it was already And no Man who hath ever look'd into these School Disputes can ever imagine that they disputed about the Truth of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation but only about the manner of explaining it Wherein they do effectually overthrow each others Notions without being able to establish their own as the Elector of Cologn truly observed of their Debates about this matter in the Council of Trent VI. Where the Sense of Words hath been changed by the introducing new Doctrine there the words ought to be understood according to the Doctrine at that time received Of this we have two remarkable Instances in the Council of Trent The first is about Indulgences which that Council in its last Session never went about to define but made use of the old Word and so declares both Scripture and Antiquity for the use of them But there had been a mighty change in the Doctrine about them since the Word was used in the Christian Church No doubt there was a Power in the Church to relax Canonical Penances in extraordinary Cases but what could that signifie when the Canonical Discipline was laid aside and a new Method of dealing with Penitents was taken up and another Trade driven with Respect to Purgatory Pains For here was a new thing carried on under an old Name And that hath been the great Artifice of the Roman Church where it hath evidently gone off from the old Doctrines yet to retain the old Names that the unwary might still think the things were the same because the Names were As in the present Case we deny not the use of Indulgences in the Primitive Church as the Word was used for Relaxations of the Canonical Discipline but we utterly deny it as to the Pains of Purgatory And that this was the Sense then receiv'd in the Church of Rome appears from the Papal Constitutions of Bon face the 8th Clemens the 6th and Leo the 10th But of these more hereafter The other Instance is in the Word Species used by the Council of Trent Sess. 13. Can. 2. where an Anathema is denounced
against him that denies the Conversion of the whole Substance of the Elements into the Body and Blood of Christ the Species of Bread and Wine only remaining Now a Controversie hath been started in the Church of Rome what is to be understood by Species whether real Accidents or only Appearances Some of the Church of Rome who have had a Tast of the New Philosophy reject any real Accidents and yet declare Transubstantiation to be a matter of Faith and go about to explain the Notion of it in another manner Among these one Emanuel Maignan a Professor of Divinity at Tholouse hath at large undertaken this matter The Method he takes is this 1. He grants that nothing remains of the Bread after Consecration but that whereby it was an Object of Sense because that which is really the Being of one thing cannot be the Being of another And he confesses that the Modus as to the not being of the Substance after Consecration is determin'd by the Councils of Constance and Trent 2. He asserts that real Accidents supposing them separable from the Substance are not that whereby the Elements are made the Objects of Sense because they do not make the Conjunction between the Object and the Faculty 3. Since he denies that Accidents have any real Being distinct from the Substance they are in he grants that it is as much a matter of Faith that there are no real Accidents after Consecration as that there is no real Substance and he brings the Authorities of the Councils of Lateran Florence and Trent to prove it 4. As the Substance did by Divine Concourse so Act upon the Senses before as to make it be an Object of Sense so after Consecration God by his immediate Act makes the same Appearances although the Substance be gone And this he saith is the effect of this Miraculous Conversion which is concealed from our Senses by God's immediate causing the very same Appearances which came before from the Substance Which Appearances he saith are the Species mention'd by the Council of Trent and other elder Councils and Fathers Against this new Hypothesis a famous Jesuit Theophilus Raynaudus opposed himself with great vehemency and urged these Arguments against it 1. That it overthrows the very Nature of a Sacrament leaving no external visible sign but a perpetual illusion of the Senses in such a manner that the Error of one cannot be corrected by another 2. That it overthrows the Design of the Sacrament which is to be true and proper Food My Flesh is meat indeed c. John 6. Which he saith is to be understood of the Sacrament as well as of the Body of Christ and therefore cannot agree with an imaginary appearance 3. It is not consistent with the Accidents which befall the Sacramental Species as to be trod under foot to be cast into indecent places to be devoured by Brutes to be Putrified c. If the Body of Christ withdraws there must be something beyond mere Appearances 4. He makes this Doctrine to be Heretical because the Council of Constance condemned it as an Heretical Proposition to affirm that in the Eucharist Accidents do not remain without their Subject and because the Council of Trent uses the Word Species in the Sense then generally received and so it signified the same with Accidents Which saith he farther appears because the Council speaks of the Species remaining but if there be no real Accidents the Species doth not remain in the Object but a new Appearance is produced And it seems most reasonable to interpret the Language of the Council according to the general Sense wherein the Words were understood at that time VII What things were disputed and opposed by some in the Council without being censured for it although they were afterwards decreed by a Major Party yet cannot be said to have been there received by a Catholick Tradition Because Matters of Faith which have been universally received in the Church can never be supposed to be contested in a Council without Censure but if it appears that there were Heats and warm Debates among the Parties in the Council it self and both think they speak the Sense of the Catholick Church then we must either allow that there was then no known Catholick Tradition about those matters or that the Divines of the Church of Rome assembled in Council did not understand what it was And what happens to be decreed by a Majority can never be concluded from thence to have been the Tradition before because there was a different Sense of others concerning it And since in a division a single Person may make a Majority it will be very hard to believe that he carries Infallibility and Catholick Tradition along with him But I think it Reasonable in the enquiry after Catholick Tradition to take notice of the different Opinions in the Council and among the School-men before it and not only to observe what was the Sense of the Roman Church but of the Eastern Churches too and where the matter requires it to go through the several Ages of the Church up to the Apostolical Times that I may effectually prove that in the main Points in Controversie between us which are established by the Council of Trent there cannot be produced any Catholick and Apostolical Tradition for them THE CONTENTS SOme Postulata about Catholick Tradition Page 1. I. Point examined about Traditions being a Rule of Faith equal with Scriptures 2. The Sense of the Council of Trent concerning it 3. No. Catholick Tradition for it shew'd from the differences about it in the Council 4. From the Divines of the Roman Church for some Ages before the Council 5. The Testimonies of the Canon Law against it 17. Of the Ancient Offices of the Roman Church 20. Of the Fathers 21. The first step of Traditions being set up as a Rule by the second Council of Nice 26. Not receiv'd as a Rule of Faith till after the Council of Lateran under Innocent III. 27. The occasion of it set down from new Points of Faith there determin'd 28. Never established for a Rule till the Council of Trent 29. II. About the Canon of Scripture defined by the Council of Trent 30. The Sense of the Council ibid. The difference there about it 31. A constant Tradition against it in the Eastern Church 33. No Catholick Tradition for it in the Western Church 35. The several steps as to the Alteration of the Canon set down 38. The different meaning of Apocryphal Writings 40. III. About the free use of the Scripture in the vulgar Language prohibited by the Council of Trent 43. The Sense of the Council ibid. No Catholick Tradition about this proved from the Writers of the Roman Church 44. The General Consent of the Catholick Church against it proved from the Ancient Translations into Valgar Languages 46. The first Occasion of the Scriptures being in an unknown Language 52. The first prohibition by Gregory VII 56. Continued by the
Inquisition after Innocent III. 58. IV. About the Merit of Good Works 59. The Sense of true Merit cleared from the Divines of the Church of Rome ibid. No Catholick Tradition for it proved from ancient Offices 61. From Provincial Councils and eminent Divines in several Ages before the Council of Trent 63. The several steps how the Doctrine of Merit came in 68. V. Of the number of Sacraments 74. An appeal to Tradition for 500. years for Seven Sacraments examin'd and disprov'd 75. As to Chrism 77. As to Drders 80. As to Penance 85. As to Extreme-Unction 92. As to Patrimony 97. The sense of the Greek Church about the Seven Sacraments 102. The Sense of other Eastern Churches 110. When the number of Seven Sacraments came first in 112. The particular occasions of them 116. VI. Of Auricular Confession 117. No Catholick Tradition confessed by their own Writers 118. > The several steps and Occasions of introducing it at large set down 127. The difference between the ancient Discipline and Modern Confession 128. Of voluntary Confession 133. Of the Penitentiaries Office 135. Publick Discipline not taken away at Constantinople when the Penitentiary was removed 136. Proved from S. Chrysostom 140. Publick Penance for publick Sins 142. Private Confession came in upon the decay of the Ancient Discipline 144. THE Council of Trent EXAMINED AND DISPROVED c. THere are Two things designed by me in this Treatise 1. To shew that there is no such thing as universal Tradition for the main Points in Controversie between us and the Church of Rome as they are determined by the Council of Trent 2. To give an Account by what Steps and Degrees and on what Occasion those Doctrines and Practices came into the Church But before I come to particulars I shall lay down some reasonable Postulata 1. That a Catholick Tradition must be universally received among the sound Members of the Catholick Church 2. That the force of Tradition lies in the Certainty of Conveyance of Matters of Faith from the Apostolical Times For no New Doctrines being pretended to there can be no Matter of Faith in any Age of the Church but what was so in the precedent and so up to the Apostles times 3. That it is impossible to suppose the Divines of the Catholick Church to be ignorant what was in their own time received for Catholick Tradition For if it be so hard for others to mistake it it will be much more so for those whose business is to enquire into and to deliver Matters of Faith. These things premised I now enter upon the Points themselves and I begin with I. Traditions being a Rule of Faith equal with Scriptures This is declared by the Council of Trent as the Groundwork of their Proceedings The words are Sess. 4. That the Council receives Traditions both as to Faith and manners either delivered by Christ himself with his own mouth or dictated by the Holy Ghost and preserved in the Catholick Church by a continual Succession with equal Piety of Affection and Reverence as the Proofs of holy Scripture Where the Council first supposes there are such Traditions from Christ and the Holy Ghost distinct from Scripture which relate to Faith and then it declares equal Respect and Veneration due to them No one questions but the Word of Christ and Dictates of the Holy Ghost deserve equal Respect howsoever conveyed to us But the Point is whether there was a Catholick Tradition before this time for an unwritten Word as a Foundation of Faith together with the written Word 1. It is therefore impertinent here to talk of a Tradition before the written Word for our Debate is concerning both being joined together to make a perfect Rule of Faith and yet this is one of the common Pleas on behalf of Tradition 2. It is likewise impertinent to talk of that Tradition whereby we do receive the written Word For the Council first supposes the written Word to be received and embraced as the Word of God before it mentions the unwritten Word and therefore it cannot be understood concerning that Tradition whereby we receive the Scriptures And the Council affirms That the Truth of the Gospel is contained partly in Books that are written and partly in unwritten Traditions By the Truth of the Gospel they cannot mean the Scriptures being the Word of God but that the word was contained partly in Scripture and partly in Tradition and it is therefore impertinent to urge the Tradition for Scripture to prove Tradition to be part of the Rule of Faith as it is here owned by the Council of Trent 3. The Council doth not here speak of a Traditionary sense of Scripture but of a distinct Rule of Faith from the Scripture For of that it speaks afterwards in the Decree about the use of the Scripture where it saith no man ought to interpret Scripture against the Sense of the Church to whom it belongs to judge of the true Sense and Meaning of Scripture nor against the unanimous Consent of the Fathers Whereby it is evident the Council is not to be understood of any Consequences drawn out of Scripture concerning things not expresly contained in it but it clearly means an unwritten Word distinct from the written and not contained in it which together with that makes up a Complete Rule of Faith. This being the true sense of the Council I now shew that there was no Catholick Tradition for it Which I shall prove by these steps 1. From the Proceedings of the Council it self 2. From the Testimony of the Divines of that Church before the Council for several Centuries 3. From the Canon Law received and allowed in the Church of Rome 4. From the ancient Offices used in that Church 5. From the Testimony of the Fathers 1. From the Proceedings of the Council about this matter By the Postulata it appears that the Catholick Tradition is such as must be known by the sound members of the Church and especially of the Divines in it But it appears by the most allowed Histories of that Council this Rule of Faith was not so received there For Cardinal Pallavicini tells us that it was warmly debated and canvassed even by the Bishops themselves The Bishop of Fano Bertanus urged against it that God had not given equal firmness to Tradition as he had done to Scripture since several Traditions had failed But the Bishop of Bitonto Mussus opposed him and said Though all Truths were not to be equally regarded yet every word of God ought and Traditions as well as Scripture were the word of God and the first Principles of Faith and the greater part of the Council followed him It seems then there was a division in the Council about it but how could that be if there were a Catholick Tradition about this Rule of Faith Could the Bishops of the Catholick Church when assembled in Council to determine Matters of Faith be no better agreed about the Rule of Faith and
and they Translated the Scriptures and Offices of Worship into their own Language The Pope had not forgotten the business of the Bulgarians and he could not tell but this might end in subjection to another Patriarchal See and therefore he enâ—eavours to get Methodius and Cyril to Rome and having gained them he sends a sweetning Letter to the Prince and makes the concession before mentioned For he could not but remember how very lately the Greeks had gained the Bulgarians from him and lest the Slavonians should follow them he was content to let them have what they desired and had already Established among themselves without his Permission All this appears from the account of this matter given by Constantinus Porphyrogenetus compared with Diocleas his Regnum Slavorum and Lucius his Dalmatian History It is sufficient for my purpose that Diocleas owns that Constantine to whom Andreas Dandalus D. of Venice in his M S History cited by Lucius saith the Pope gave the name of Cyril did Translate the Bible into the Slavonian Tongue for the benefit of the People and the publick Offices out of Greek according to their Custom And the Chancellour Seguier had in his Library both the New Testament and Lâ—turgies in the Slavonian Language and in Cyril's Character and many of the Greek Fathers Commentaries on Scripture in that Tongue but not one of the Latin. 2. The next step was when Gregory 7. prohibited the Translation of the Latin Offices in the Slavonian Tongue And this he did to the King of Bohemia himself after a peremptory manner but he saith it was the request of the Nobility that they might have divine Offices in the Slavonian Tongue which he could by no means yield to What was the matter How comes the Case to be so much altered from what it was in his Predecessor's time The true Reason was the Bohemian Churches were then brought into greater Subjection to the Roman See after the Consecration of Dithmarus Saxo to be their Archbishop and now they must own their Subjection as the Roman Provinces were wont to do by receiving the Language But as his Predecessour had found Scripture for it for Gregory pretends he had found Reason against it viz. The Scripture was obscure and apt to be misunderstood and despised What! more than in the time of Methodius and Cyril If they pleaded Primitive Practice he plainly answers that the Church is grown wiser and hath corrected many things that were then allowed This is indeed to the purpose and therefore by the Authority of S. Peter he forbids him to suffer any such thing and charges him to oppose it with all his might But after all it is entred in the Canon Law De Officio Jud. Ord. l. 1. Tit. 31. c. Quoniam as a Decree of Innocent 3. in the Lateran Council that where there were People of different Languages the Bishop was to provide Persons fit to officiate in those several Languages Why so If there were a prohibition of using any but the Latin Tongue But this was for the Greeks and theirs was an holy Tongue That is not said nor if it were would it signifie any thing for doth any imaginary holiness of the Tongue sanctifie ignorant Devotion But the Canon supposes them to have the same Faith. Then the meaning is that no man must examin his Religion by the Scripture but if he rseolves beforehand to believe as the Church believes then he may have the Scriptures or Prayers in what Language he pleases But even this is not permitted in the Roman Church For 3. After the Inquisition was set up by the Authority of Innocent 3. in the Lateran Council no Lay Persons were permitted to have the Books of the Old and New Testament but the Psalter or Breviary or Hours they might have but by no means in the vulgar Language This is called by D'achery and Labbe the Council of Tholouse but in truth it was nothing else but an Order of the Inquisition as will appear to any one that reads it And the Inquisition ought to have the Honour of it both in France and Spain Which Prohibition hath been so gratefull to some Divines of the Church of Rome that Cochlaeus calls it pious just reasonable wholsom and necessary Andradius thinks the taking of it away would be destructive to Faith Ledesma saith the true Catholicks do not desire it and bad ought not to be gratified with it Petrus Sutor a Carthusian Doctour calls the Translating Scripture into the vulgar Languages a rash useless and dangerous thing and he gives the true Reason of it viz. that the People will be apt to murmur when they see things required as from the Apostles which they cannot find a word of in Scripture And when all is said on this Subject that can be by men of more Art this is the plainest and honestest Reason for such a Prohibition but I hope I have made it appear it is not built on any Catholick Tradition IV. Of the Merit of Good Works The Council of Trent Sess. 6. c. 16. declares That the Good Works of justified Persons do truly deserve Eternal Life and Can. 3â— an Anathema is denounced against him that denies them to be meritorious or that a justified Person by them doth not truly merit Increase of Grace and Happiness and Eternal Life The Council hath not thought fit to declare what it means by truly meriting but certainly it must be opposed to an improper kind of Meriting and what that is we must learn from the Divines of the Church of Rome 1. Some say That some of the Fathers speak of an improper kind of Merit which is no more than the due Means for the attaining of Happiness as the End. So Vega confesses they often use the word Merit where there is no Reason for Merit either by way of Congruity or Condignity Therefore where there is true Merit there must be a proper Reason for it And the Council of Trent being designed to condemn some prevailing Opinions at that time among those they called Hereticks this Assertion of true Merit must be levelled against some Doctrine of theirs but they held Good Works to be necessary as Means to an end and therefore this could not be the meaning of the Council Suarez saith the words of the Council ought to be specially observed which are that there is nothing wanting in the good works of justified Persons ut vere promeruisse censeantur and therefore no Metaphorical or improper but that which by the Sense of the Church of Rome was accounted true Merit in opposition to what was said by those accounted Hereticks must be understood thereby 2. Others say that a meer Congruity arising from the Promise and Favour of God in rewarding the acts of his Grace in justified Persons cannot be the proper Merit intended by the Council And that for these Reasons 1. Suarez observes that although the Council avoids the
the divine Promise good Works have a proportion to Eternal Life and this he saw was necessary to defend the Doctrine of the Council of Trent but then he adds that there is no obligation on God's part to reward in such a manner without a Promise Now here are two hard Points 1. To make it appear that there is such a meritoriousness in good Works without a Divine Promise 2. That if there were so there is no Obligation on God to reward such Acts in point of Justice The former is so much harder to do from what he had proved before c. 14. Viz. that they are not meritorious without a Promise and here he proves that they have no proportion to the Reward from Scripture Fathers and Reason because there is no Obligation on God to do it either from commutative or distributive justice and because we are God's Servants These are good Arguments against himself for how can such Acts then become meritorious without a Promise If there be no proportion or equality on Man's part no Justice on God's part to reward how can they possibly be meritorious But this is too deep for me to comprehend My business is Tradition and I have evidently proved that there was no Tradition even in the Church of Rome for the true Merit defined by the Council of Trent It were easie to carry this point higher by she wing that the Fathers knew nothing of this Doctrine but that hath been done by many already and it is needless in so plain a case But I am now to give an account by what Steps and Occasions this Doctrine came to be established 1. From the common Use of the word Merit with the Fathers and others in another sense than it signified at first The original signification of it is Wages paid in consideration of Service and from thence Souldiers were said merere as Budaeus observes and thence came the word merces who truly deserved their pay by their labour and hazard but by degrees it came to signifie no more than merely to attain a thing which is sometimes used by good Authors but in the declension of the Latin Tongue no sense of this word was more common than this especially among Ecclesiastical Writers Who frequently used it in a sense wherein it was impossible to understand it in its original signification and it cannot imply so much as digne consequi as in the instance brought by Cassander when St. Cyprian renders those words of St. Paul Misericordiam merui which we render I obtained Mercy but the Council of Trent allows there could be no true Merit here And St. Augustin saith of those who murdered the Son of God Illi veniam meruerunt qui Christum occiderunt And so the vulgar Latin often uses it Gen. 4. 13. major est iniquitas mea quam ut veniam merear Jos. 11. 20. non mererentur ullam Clementiam And in that sense it hath been used in the Hymns and other Offices of the Church as in that expression O felix culpa quae talem ac tantum meruit habere Redemptorem where it cannot be denied that the word is used in an improper Sense 2. When the School Divines set themselves to explain the Mysteries of Theology this plain and easie but improper sense of Merit would not go down with som of them but they endeavoured to make out the notion of Merit with respect to God in its proper and original Sense The last considerable Writer before the Scholastick Age was St. Bernard and he pretended not to find out any such proportion between the best Works and Eternal Life that God should be bound in justice to bestow it as a Recompence for them and the Reason he gives is plain and strong because those things men pretend to merit by are themselves the Gifts of God's Grace and so by them they are more bound to God than God to them but besides what are all mens merits to Eternal Glory St. Bernard doth not speak of Merits without Grace but with the supposition of it and Bellarmin wisely left out the latter part that he might seem to answer the former Hugo de Sancto Victore lived in the same Age who first shewed the way to School Divinity and upon the same place which St. Bernard speaks of Non sunt condig nae c. he puts the Question how any temporal Acts can merit that which is eternal And he denies any Condignity because there is more in the Reward than there was in the Merit but then he adds that there may be a threefold comparison of things either as to themselves as a Horse for a Horse Money for Money or according to equity either in punishments or rewards or by Pact or Agreement as when a good summ is promised for a little work and this saith he God hath made known to Mankind as to future rewards and punishments Which plainly shews he understood nothing of the proportion between Acts of Grace and an Eternal Happiness but resolved all into the Favour and Mercy of God. Peter Lombard called the Master of the Sentences saith Nothing of any Condignity or Proportion in our works to the Reward but he saith they are themselves God 's Gifts and that the Reward it self is from the Grace of God and quotes the noted Saying of St. Augustin Cum coronat Deus merita nostra nihil aliud coronat quam dona sua But still this is nothing but Grace and Favour in God first in enabling us to do good Works and then in rewarding them Bandinus wrote a Book of the Sentences much about the time P. Lombard did with so much agreement of Method and Expressions that it is not known which took from the other Genebrard hath produced this passage out of him Debet inciviliter de Deo dicitur quia nihil omnino nobis debet nisi ex promisso If it be so rude to say God owes any thing to his Creatures but by promise he could not imagine any Condignity in good Works to which a Reward is due in Justice And Genebrard thinks he had reason to deny that God can be made a Debtor to us by any of our Works Robertus Pullus who wrote another Book of the Sentences about the same time mentioning that place Non sunt condignae c. he saith because our Works are not sufficient being small and temporal God by his Mercy makes it up which not onely shews that God doth reward beyond our merit but that there is no proportion between the best Works and Eternal Glory But by the time of Gulielmus Antissiodorensis there were two Parties in the Church about this point some he saith denied any Merit of Eternal Life ex condigno and others asserted it and after laying down the Arguments on both sides he concludes for the Affirmative but in Answer to the place Non sunt condignae c. he saith they are not ad proportionaliter
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
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