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 1 : to which a preface is prefixed concerning the true sense of the Council of Trent and the notion of transubstantiation.

V. Of the Number of Sacraments.

The Council of Trent pronounces an Anathema in these words, If any one saith that the Sacraments of the new Law were not all appointed by Jesus Christ our Lord, or * 1.1 that they were more or fewer than Seven, viz. Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Or∣ders and Matrimony, or that any one of these is not truly and properly a Sacrament, let him be Anathema.

But what is it to be truly and properly a Sacrament?

It had been very reasonable to have defined a Sacra∣ment first truly and properly, before such an Anathema pas∣sed. But that defect may be said to be supplied by the Roman Catechism, published by Authority of the Coun∣cil; and there we are told, that a Sacrament is a sensible * 1.2 thing, which by divine Institution hath a power of causing as well as signifying holiness and righteousness. So that to a true and proper Sacrament two things are necessary:

• 1. That it be of Divine Institution.
• 2. That it confer Grace on those who partake of it.

And by these we must examin the Catholick Tradition about the number of Sacraments.

Bellarmin saith, that all their Divines, and the whole Church for 500 years, viz. from the time of the Master of * 1.3 the Sentences, have agreed in the Number of the seven Sa∣craments.

Here we see is a bold Appeal to Tradition for 500 years; but although, if it were proved, it cannot be sufficient to prove an Apostolical Tradition; for the Fathers might for a thousand years have held the contrary; and I do not think one clear Testimony can be produced out of Anti∣quity for that number of Sacraments, truly so called; yet I shall at present wholly wave the debate of the former times, and confine my self to Bellarmin's 500 years; and I hope to make it appear there was no Universal Tradi∣tion for it within his own time.

For Alexander Hales (who wrote, saith Possevin, his Summ of Divinity by order of Innocent IV. and it was ap∣proved by Alexander IV. with seventy Divines,) affirms, there were but Four * 1.4 proper Sacraments; now if this were the Catholick Tradition then, That there were Seven proper Sacraments, how could this Doctrine pass, and be so highly approved? He saith far∣ther, that Christ himself only appointed two, viz. Baptism and the Lord's Supper; and for the rest, he saith, it may * 1.5 be presumed the Apostles did appoint them by Christ's Di∣rection, or by divine I••spiration. But how can that be, when he saith, the Form even of those he calls proper Sa∣craments, 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 prin∣cipal * 1.6 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 Sacra∣ments, 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 gre••t School Di∣vine, 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 sup∣poses 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 * 1.7 Matter and Form of Sacraments are so certain and deter∣minate, that nothing can be changed in them; and this de∣termination must be by God himself. Which, he saith, is most certain among them; and he proves it by a substan∣tial 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 mat∣ter of Sacraments.

Suarez asserts, that both the Matter and Form of Sacra∣ments * 1.8 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 Eucha∣rist, and he urges the same Reason, because Christ only can conf••r Grace by the Sacraments, and therefore he must appoint the Matter and Form of them.

Cardinal Lugo affirms, that Christ hath appointed both * 1.9 Matter and Form of the Sacraments, which he proves from the Council of Trent. He thinks Christ might have gran∣t••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.

Petr••s à Sancto Joseph saith, that although the Council * 1.10 of Trent doth not expresly affirm the Sacraments to be im∣mediately instituted by Christ; yet it is to be so under∣stood. And although the Church may appoint Sacramenta∣lia, 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 con∣ferring 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 evi∣dently 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 Confir∣mation * 1.11 to be Chrism, viz. a Composition made of O••l of Olive and Balsam; the one to signifie the clearness of Con∣science, the other the Odour of a good Fame, saith the Coun∣cil of Florence. But where was this Chrism appointed by Christ? Marsilius saith from Petrus Aureolus, that * 1.12 there was a Controversie between the Divines and Ca••••••ists about this matter; and the latter affirmed that Chris•••• was not appointed by Christ, but ast••••wards by th•• Church; and that the Pope could dispense with it; which he could not do if it were of Christ's Insti••••••ion.

Petrus Aureolus was himself a great Man in the Church * 1.13 of Rome; and after he had mentioned this difference, and

named one Brocardus (or Bernardus) with other Cano∣nists for it; he doth not affirm the contrary to be a Ca∣tholick 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 Institu∣tion.

Gregory de Valentia on the occasion of this Opinion of * 1.14 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 Bri∣anson * 1.15 attests, that there was a difference between the Di∣vines 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 Apo∣stles, but in some ancient Councils.

Guil. Antissiodorensis long before mentions the Opinion * 1.16 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 * 1.17 their Matter nor Form in their Confirmation; and his Re∣solution is, that they were appointed by the Governors of the Church afterwards; as his Master Alexander of Hale had * 1.18 said besore him, who attributes the Institution of both to a Council of Meaux.

Cardinal de Vitriaco saith, that Confirmation by Imposi∣tion * 1.19 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 * 1.20 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 con∣tradicting 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 Sa∣crament; and by Conink it seems to be heretical to deny * 1.21 it. For he affirms, that it seems to be an Article of Faith that Confirmation must be with Chrism, and no Ca∣tholick, he saith, now denies it. Which shews, that he believed the sense of the Church not to have been always the same about it.

But others speak out, as Gregory de Valentia, Suarez, Filliucius and Tanner, who say absolutely, it is now a matter of Faith to hold Chrism to be essential to Confirma∣tion; 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; * 1.22 but he yields that Alensis, Bonaventure and de Vitri••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 Confirma∣tion by Chrism. For if it be Heresie now to assert that which was denied without any reproach before, the Tra∣dition 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, * 1.23 Deus Pater omnipotens, qui te regeneravit ex Aqua & Spirit•• Sancto, concessitque tibi peccata tua, ipse te ungat in vitam aeternam. And from thence concludes the pre∣sent 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 * 1.24 this Advantage from it; that then the Sacrament it self * 1.25 must ••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 Ob∣jection * 1.26 fairly both as to the Matter and Form of this Sa∣crament, 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 ap∣pointed by Christ; but that which they account the Mat∣ter and Form of Orders were neither of them of Christ's Institution. The Council of Florence, they say, hath de∣clared * 1.27 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 con∣tinued in the Christian Church; and Bellarmin confes∣ses * 1.28 that nothing else can be proved by Scripture to be the external Symbol in this Sacrament. And others are for∣ced 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 Sa∣crament.

It is observed by Arcudius, that the Council of Trent * 1.29 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 Or∣ders, 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 Cate∣chism, viz. that it is a sensible thing which by the Insti∣tution of Christ hath a power of causing as well as signi∣fying 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 dis∣allow the Ordinations made without them, as is noto∣rious 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, * 1.30 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 * 1.31 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 gene∣ral * 1.32 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 Sacra∣ment * 1.33 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 M••aux, A. D. 845. but afterwards

he saith, that by the Council of Florence and the common * 1.34 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 above 800 years; and yet we must be∣lieve 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 * 1.35 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 Do∣ctrin which hath neither Scripture, Reason nor Tradi∣tion for it.

Joh. Morinus shews that there are five Opinions in the * 1.36 Church of Rome about the matter of this Sacrament. The first and most common is that it consists in the deli∣very 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 Im∣position 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 re∣ceived into the publick Offices in the tenth Age. After∣wards he saith, he wonders how it came about that any * 1.37 should place the essential Matter of Ordination only in de∣livery 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. * 1.38 And at last he saith, Christ hath determined no particular Matter and Form in this Sacrament. * 1.39

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 Or∣ders?

Bellarmin (as is proved before) hath a Chapter on purpose to prove that the Matter and Form of Sacraments * 1.40 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 Or∣ders 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 Sa∣crament:

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 * 1.41 Bellarmin would have understood only of Baptism there spoken of; but S. Augustin's meaning goes farther, as ap∣pears 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 Sacra∣ment, when it is not external? How can Confession, when it is no visible sign, nor any permanent thing as an Ele∣ment 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 * 1.42 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 * 1.43 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 spo∣ken in Confession, and the Grace supposed to be given by Ab∣solution, 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 repre∣sent it.

However the Councils of Florence and Trent have de∣clared, * 1.44 that the Acts of the Penitent, viz. Contrition, Con∣fession 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 Sacra∣ment? 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 Sa∣craments. 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 * 1.45 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 Diminu∣tion 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 Par∣ty 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) * 1.46 excludes the Acts of the Penitent from any share in this Sacrament: which Bellarmin denies not, but blames * 1.47 Gropperus, the supposed Author of the Enchiridion. But Gropperus was thought fit to be a Cardinal as well as Bel∣larmin; and certainly knew the Tradition of the Church if there had been any such in this matter. The Council of Florence, it is plain, he thought not to be a sufficient declarer of it. No more did Joh. Major, who after it deni∣ed * 1.48 this Sacrament to consist of Matter and form, or that the Acts of the Penitent were the parts of it. So did Ga∣briel Biel, who refutes the contrary Opinion, and saith Contrition can be no part, because it is no sensible sign; and satisfaction may be done after it. So that he cuts off two parts in three of the Matter of this pretended Sa∣crament.

Guido Brianson, who lived after the Council of Flo∣rence * 1.49 supposes no certain Tradition in the Church about this matter; but he sets down both Opinions with their Reasons, and prefers that which excludes the Acts of the Penitent from being parts of the Sacrament; although the Florentine Council had declared the contrary.

Durandus rejects two parts in three of those declared * 1.50 by the two Councils, and for the same Reasons mentioned by Biel.

Ockam absolutely denies all three to be Parts of the Sa∣crament. * 1.51 And so did Scotus before him; whose words are remarkable, De Poenitentiae Sacramento dico, quod illa tria nullo modo sunt partes ejus, viz. These three are by no means any part of the Sacrament of Penance; and yet the Council of Trent not only declares that they are so, but

denounces an Anathema against him that denies them to * 1.52 be required, as the Matter of the Sacrament of Penance. And let any one by this judge what Catholick Tradition it proceeded upon; when some of the greatest Divines in the Church of Rome were of another Opinion.

As to the Form of this Sacrament the Council of Trent denounces an Anathema against thesewho affirm Absolution to be only declarative of the Remission of Sins: and yet * 1.53 I shall prove that this was the more current Doctrin, even in the Church of Rome, up to the Master of the Sentences.

Gabriel Biel saith, the ancient Doctors did commonly follow it; but it was supposed by Scotus, because it seemed * 1.54 to take off from the efficacy of Absolution, and consequent∣ly make it no Sacrament, which is a cause of Grace. But af∣ter he hath set down Scotus his Arguments, he saith, that Opinion were very desirable, if it had any Foundation in Scripture or Fathers. And to his Arguments he answers, that true Contrition obtains Pardon with God, before Sa∣cerdotal Absolution, but not with the Church; and that Contrition supposes a desire of Absolution; which will ne∣ver hold to make Absolution to confer the Grace of Re∣mission, if the Sin be really forgiven before. For what is the desire of the Penitent to the force of the Sacrament administred by the Priest? And he saith, they all grant, that by true and sufficient Contrition the sin is forgiven without the Sacrament in act, i. e. the actual receiving ab∣solution. So that here was an universal Tradition as to the Power of Contrition, but in the other they had diffe∣rent Opinions.

Marsilius saith, that God forgives sin upon Contrition * 1.55 Authoritatively; the Priests Absolution is ministerial in the Court of Conscience, and before the Church. And those sins which God ••irst absolves from principally and Authenti∣cally,

the Priest afterwards absolves from in right of the Church, as its Minister.

Tostatus saith, that the Priests Absolution follows God's. * 1.56 Ockam, that the Priests then bind and loose, when they shew men to be bound or loosed; and for this he relies on the Master of the Sentences.

Thomas de Argentina, that the Power of the Keys doth extend to the Remission of the fault which was done before * 1.57 by Contrition; but it tends to the Increase of Grace in the Person.

Gulielmus Antissiodore, that Contrition takes away the * 1.58 guilt and punishment of Sin, as to God and Conscience, but not as to the Church, for a man is still bound to undergo the Penance which the Church enjoyns him.

Bonaventure, that Absolution presupposes Grace; for no Priest would absolve any one whom he did not presume God * 1.59 had absolved before.

Alexander Hales, that where God doth not begin in Ab∣solution, * 1.60 the Priest cannot make it up.

But the Master of the Sentences himself most fully han∣dles this point; and shews from the Fathers, that God alone can remit sin both as to the Fault and the Punishment due to it. And the Power of the Keys, he saith, is like the Priests Judgment about Leprosie in the Levitical Law, God healed the Person, and the Priest declared him healed. Or as our Saviour first raised Lazarus, then gave him to his Disciples to be loosed. He is loosed before God, but not in the face of the Church but by the Priests Judgment. Ano∣ther way, he saith, Priests bind by enjoyning Penance, and they loose by remitting it, or readmitting Persons to Com∣munion upon performing it.

This Doctrin of Peter Lombard's is none of those in quibus Magister nontenetur; for we see he had followers of great Name, almost to the Council of Trent. But it

happened, that both Th. Aquinas and Scotus agreed in op∣posing this Doctrin; and the Franciscans and Dominicans bearing greatest sway in the Debates of the Council of Trent, what they agreed in, passed for Catholick Tradi∣tion. And Vasquez is in the right when he saith, this * 1.61 Doctrin was condemned by the Council of Trent; and so was Scotus, when he said, that it did derogate from the Sacrament of Penance; for in truth it makes it but a no∣minal Sacrament, since it hath no Power of conferring Grace; which the Council of Trent makes necessary to a true and proper Sacrament.

The main Point in this Debate is, whether true con∣trition be required to Absolution or not? Which Scotus saw well enough and argues accordingly. For none of them deny, that where there is true Contrition, there is immediately an Absolution before God; and if this be re∣quired before the Priests Absolution, he can have no more to do, but to pronounce or declare him absolved. But if something less than Contrition do qualifie a Man for Absolution, and by that Grace be conveyed, then the Power of Absolution hath a great and real Effect; for it puts a Man into a State of Grace which he had not been in without it. And from hence came the Opinion, that Attrition with Absolution was sufficient; and they do not understand the Council of Trent's Doctrin of the Sa∣crament of Penance, who deny it, as will appear to any one that reads the 4th Chapter of the Sacrament of Pe∣nance, and compares it with the 7, and 8 Canons about Sacraments in general. It is true that Contrition is there said to have the first place in the Acts of the Penitent; but observe what follows: True Contrition reconciles a Man to God, before he receives this Sacrament. What hath the Priest then to do, but to declare him reconciled? But it saith not without the desire of it. Suppose not, yet

the thing is done upon the desire, & therefore the Priests Power can be no more than declarative. And that such a Desire is so necessary as without Contrition avails not, is more than the Council hath proved, and it is bare∣ly supposed, to maintain the Necessity of going to the Priest for Absolution; and so it will be no more than a Precept of the Church, and not a condition of Remission in the Sacrament of Penance. But afterwards, it declares that imperfect Contrition or Attrition doth dispose a Man for the Grace of God in this Sacrament; and by the gene∣ral Canons, the Sacraments do confer Grace where Men are disposed. So that the Council of Trent did rightly com∣prehend the force of the Power of Absolution, which it gave to the Priest in the Sacrament of Penance.

But what Catholick Tradition could there be for the Doctrin of the Council of Trent in thismatter, when Ha∣drian * 1.62 6. so little before it declares, it was a great difficul∣ty among the Doctors, whether the Keys of Priesthood did extend to the Remission of the Fault? And for the Nega∣tive he produces Pet. Lombard, Alex. Alens. and Bona∣venture; and saith, that Opinion is probable, because the Priests Power of binding and loosing is equal; and as they cannot bind where God doth not, for they cannot retain the sins of a true Penitent; so neither can they loose where God doth not, i. e. where there is not true Contrition. But be∣cause he saith others held the contrary Opinion, and had probability on their side too, therefore he would determine nothing. Notwithstanding this, in a few years after, the Council of Trent finds no difficulty, no Probability in the other Opinion; but determines as boldly, as if there had been an Universal Tradition their way; whereas the contrary cannot be denied by any that are conversant in the Doctrin of their Schools. But it was the mighty Pri∣vilege of the Council of Trent, to make the Doctrins of

Thomas and Scotus, when they agreed, to be Articles of Faith; and to denounce Anathema's against Opposers, although they reached to some of the greatest Divines of their own Church, within Bellarmin's compass of 500 Years.

Of Extreme Unction.

We are now to examin another pretended Sacrament, viz. of Extreme Unction. The Council of Trent declares * 1.63 this to be a true and proper Sacrament, and denounces an Anathema against him that denies it to be instituted by Christ, and published by St. James; or that it confers Grace * 1.64 and Remission of Sins; or that affirms it was appointed for bodily Cures. It farther declares from the place of St. James interpreted by Tradition, that the Matter is Oil consecrated by the Bishop; The Form, that which is now used, Per istam unctionem, &c. the Effect, the Grace of the Holy Ghost in purging away the remainder of Sin, and strengthening the Soul; and sometimes bodily cures, when it is expedient for the Health of the Soul. So that the pri∣mary Intention of this Sacrament must respect the Soul, otherwise it is granted, it could not be a true and proper Sacrament. So Suarez saith in this Case, If the external * 1.65 Sign be not immediately appointed for a spiritual Effect, it cannot prove a true Sacrament of the New Law; no not al∣though the bodily cure were designed for the strengthning of Faith. And from hence he proves, that when the Apo∣stles are said to anoint the sick, and heal them, Mark 6. 13. this cannot relate to the Sacrament of Unction, because their cures had not of themselves an immediate respect to the Soul. The same Reason is used by Bellarmin, Sacramen∣ta * 1.66 per se ad animam pertinent, ad corpus per accidens aut certe secundario. The same is affirmed by Maldonat, al∣though

he differs from Bellarmin about the Apostles anointing with Oil, which Bellarmin denies to have been Sacramental for this Reason, but Maldonat affirms it; and answers other Arguments of Bellarmin, but not this.

Gregory de Valentia carries it farther, and saith, that if * 1.67 the anointing with Oil were only a Symbol of a miraculous Cure, it could be no Sacrament; for that is a Medium to convey supernatural Grace, and then it would last no longer than the Gift of Miracles.

So that we have no more to do, but only to prove that by the Tradition of the Church St. James his anoint∣ing was to be understood with respect to bodily cures in the first place.

We cannot pass over so great a Man as Cajetan, who wrote on that place of St. James, not long before the Council of Trent, and a good while after the Council of Florence, which relies on this place for this Sacrament of Unction. But Cajetan saith, it doth not relate to it, be∣cause the immediate effect is the cure of the Party in Saint James; but in this Sacrament the direct and proper effect is Remission of Sins. All that Catharinus hath to say * 1.68 against this, is, that the bodily cure is not repugnant to it; but what is this to the purpose, when the Question is, what is primarily designed in this place?

The School Divines, from Peter Lombard, had gene∣rally received this for a Sacrament; but the Canonists denied it, as appears by the Gloss on c. Vir autem de Se∣cund. Nuptiis Decret. Gregor. Tit. 21. where it is said, that this Unction might be repeated, being no Sacrament but only Prayer over a Person. The Roman Correctors cry out it is Heresie by the Council of Trent; but the Glosser knew no such thing; and if it were so only by the Council of Trent, then not by any Catholick Tradi∣tion

before. For, I suppose matter of Heresie must reach to the Canonists, as well as the Divines.

But the plainest determination of this matter will be by the ancient Offices of the Church; for if they respected bodily Cures in the first place, then it is owned there could be no Tradition for any Sacrament in this Unction.

In the ancient Ordo Romanus it is called Benedictio Olei ad omnem Languorem quocunque tempore. I desire to know whether the Oil so consecrated be chiefly designed for the Body or the Soul. And in the Office it self, this place of St. James is mentioned: And then follows, Te Domine peritissimum Medicum imploramus, ut virtutis tuae Medi∣cinam in hoc Oleum propitius infundas. And a little after; Prosit Pater Misericordiarum, febribus & dysenteria la∣borantibus, prosit paralyticis, caecis & claudis simulque vex∣atitiis, with abundance more; which manifestly shews that this consecrated Oil was intended primarily for the cure of Diseases.

In the Ambrosian Form, the Prayer is, Infunde sancti∣ficationem tuam huic Oleo, ut ab his quae unxerit membra, fugatis insidiis adversariae potestatis, susceptione praesentis Olei, Sancti Spiritus Gratia salutaris debilitatem expellat & plenam conferat sospitatem, Where the effect relates to the soundness of the Members anointed, and not to the Sins committed by them.

In the Gregorian Sacramentary, published by Menardus, * 1.69 there is a Prayer wherein this place of St. James is men∣tioned; and presently it follows, Cura quaesumus Redemp∣tor noster gratia Spiritus Sancti languores istius infirmi, &c. and immediately before the anointing, Sana Domine in∣firmum istum, cujus ossa turbata sunt, &c. and while he was anointing, the Patient was to say, Sana me Domine; and where the pain was greatest, he was to be so much more anointed, ubi plus dolor imminet amplius perungatur.

While the rest were anointing, one of the Priests was to pray, pristinam & immelioratam recipere merearis sani∣tatem; what was this but bodily health? and yet this was per hanc Sacramenti Olei Unctionem: after which follows a long Prayer for Recovery from Pains and Dis∣eases.

And such there are in the several Offices published by Menardus, in his Notes; although the general strain of them shews that they were of latter times, when the Unction was supposed to expiate the Sins of the several Senses.

Cassander produces many instances to shew, that the * 1.70 Prayers and Hymns, and the Form of anointing did respect bodily health. In one he finds this Form, In nomine Patris, & Filii, & Spiritus Sancti accipe sanitatem. Not the health of the Mind, but the Body.

Maldonat takes notice of Cassander's Offices, and the * 1.71 expressions used in them; but he gives no answer to the main design of them. But three things he owns the Church of Rome to have varied from the ancient Tradition in, with respect to this Sacrament. 1. As to the Form; the Council of Trent owns no other but that now used, Per istam Unctionem, &c. but Maldonat confesses it was In∣dicative, Ego te ungo, &c. or Ungo te Oleo sancto, &c. and he runs to that shift, that Christ did not not determin any certain Form; whereas the Council of Trent saith, the Church understood by Tradition the other to have been the Form. Here the Council of Trent makes an appeal to Tradition, and is deserted in it, by one of its most zealous defenders; and Gamachaeus affirms this to * 1.72 be an essential Change; and he thinks the Sacrament not to be valid in another Form. S••arez thinks the other Form not sufficient. But Maldonat affirms the other Form was used; and so at that time, there was no S••crament

of extreme Unction, because not administred in a valid or sufficient Form. And yet in the Gregorian Office the Form is Indicative, Inungo te de Oleo sancto, &c. So in that * 1.73 of Ratoldus, Ungo te Oleo sanctificato in nomine Patris, &c. In the Tilian Codex, Inungo te in nomine Patris, & Filii, & Spiritus Sancti, Oleo sancto atque sacrato, &c. In the Codex Remigii the general Forms are Indicative, Ungo * 1.74 te Oleo sancto, &c. but there being a variety of Forms set down, among the rest there is one, Per istam Unctionem * 1.75 Dei, &c. Which afterwards came to be the standing * 1.76 Form; and yet the Council of Trent confidently appeals to Tradition in this matter. Which shewed how very little the Divines there met were skilled in the Antiqui∣ties of their own Church. Suarez shews his skill when he saith, the Tradition of the Roman Church is infallible * 1.77 in the Substance of this Sacrament, and that it always u∣sed a deprecative Form; but Maldonat knew better, and therefore on their own grounds their Tradition was more than fallible; since the Roman Church hath actually changed the Form of this Sacrament. 2. Maldonat ob∣serves another change, and that is as to the Season of administring it. For the Council of Trent saith it ought to be in Exitu Vitae, and therefore it is called Sacramen∣tum * 1.78 Exeuntium, the Sacrament of dying Persons; but Maldonat saith, it is an abuse to give it only to such; * 1.79 for, in the ancient Church, they did not wait till the par∣ty were near death; but, he saith, it was given before the Eucharist, and that not once, but for seven days toge∣ther, as is plain, he saith, in the ancient MS. Offices; and he quotes Albertus Magnus for it. So that here is another great change in the Roman Tradition observed and owned by him. 3. In not giving it now to Children; for in the ancient Writers he saith, there is no exception, but it was used to all that were sick; and he quotes Cusanus for

saying expresly that it was anciently administred to In∣fants. But the reason of the change was the Doctrin of the Schoolmen; for with their admirable Congruities they had fitted Sacraments for all sorts of sins; as Bellar∣min * 1.80 informs us; Baptism against Original Sin, Confirma∣tion against Infirmity, Penance against actual Mortal Sin, Eucharist against Malice, Orders against Ignorance, Ma∣trimony against Concupiscence; and what is now left for Extreme Unction? Bellarmin saith, they are the Re∣mainders * 1.81 of sin; and so saith the Council of Trent. But what Remainders are there in Children, who have not actually sinned, and Original sin is done away already? Therefore the Church of Rome did wisely take away Extreme Unction from Children; but therein Maldonat confesses it is gone off from Tradition. I know Ale∣gambe would have Maldonat not believed to be the Au∣thor of the Books of the Sacraments; but the Preface before his Works hath cleared this beyond contradiction from the MSS. taken from his Mouth with the day and year compared with the Copy printed under his Name. But if Maldonat may be believed, the Church of Rome hath notoriously gone off from its own Tradition as to this Sacrament of Extreme Unction.

Of Matrimony.

The last new Sacrament is that of Matrimony; which having its institution in Paradise, one would wonder how it came into mens heads to call it a Sacrament of the New Law, instituted by Christ; especially when the Grace given by it supposes Mankind in a fallen condi∣tion. Hower the Council of Trent denounces an Ana∣thema against him that saith that Matrimony is not truly * 1.82

and properly a Sacrament, one of the Seven of the Evan∣gelical Law, instituted by Christ.

That which is truly and properly a Sacrament must be a Cause of Grace, according to the general Decrees about the Nature of Sacraments. So that those who do not hold the latter, must deny the former.

Now that there was no Tradition even in the Roman Church for this, I prove from the Confession of their own most learned Divines since the Council of Trent.

Vasquez confesses that Durandus denies that it confers Grace, and consequently that it is truly a Sacrament, * 1.83 (but he yields it in a large improper sense) and that the Canonists were of his Opinion; and that the Master of the Sentences himself asserted no more than Durandus. And which adds more to this, he confesses that Soto durst not condemn this Opinion as heretical, because Thomas, * 1.84 Bonaventure, Scotus and other Schoolmen did only look on their own as the more probable Opinion. But, saith he, after the Decree of Eugenius and the Council of Trent it is heretical.

Gregory de Valentia saith the same thing, only he adds that the Master of the Sentences contradicts himself. So * 1.85 certain a deliverer was he of the Churches Tradition; and wonders that Soto should not find it plainly enough in the Councils of Florence and Trent, that a true Sacra∣ment must confer Grace.

Maldonat yields, that Durandus and the Canonists de∣nied Matrimony to be a proper Sacrament, but he calls * 1.86 them Catholicks imprudently erring.

Bella••min denies it not; but uses a disingenuous shift * 1.87 about Durandus, and would bring it to a Logical Nicity, whereas 〈◊〉〈◊〉 very Arguments he pretends to answer, sh••w pl••••••••y that he denied this to be a true and proper Sacrament.

But he offers something considerable about the Cano∣nists if it will hold.

1. That they were but a few, and for this he quotes Navarr, that the common Opinion was against them; for * 1.88 which he mentions the Rubrick de Spons. but I can find nothing like it through the whole Title; and it is not at all probable that such Men as Hostiensis and the Glosser should be ignorant of, or oppose the common Opinion. Hostiensis saith plainly, that Grace is not conferr'd by Ma∣trimony, * 1.89 and never once mentions any Opinion among them against it; and the Glosser upon Gratian affirms it several times, Caus. 32. q. 2 c. Honorantur, In hoc Sacra∣mento non confertur Gratia Spiritus Sancti sicut in aliis. The Roman Correctors could not bear this; and say in the Margin, immo confert; this is plain contradicting; but how is it proved from the Canon Law? They refer to Dist. 23. c. his igitur, v. pro beneficiis. Thither up∣on their Authority I go; and there I find the very same thing said, and in the same words; and it is given as a Reason why Symony cannot be committed in Matrimony as in other Sacraments, and in both places we are referr'd to 32 q. 2. c. connubia, and to 1. q. 1. c. quicquid invisibilis, the former is not very favourable to the Grace of Matri∣mony; and in the latter the Gloss is yet more plain, if it be possible, Nota Conjugium non esse de his Sacramentis quae consotationem coelestis grati•• tribuunt. There the Correctors fairly refer us to the Council of Trent, which hath decreed the contrary. But that is not to our bu∣siness, but whether the Canonists owned this or not. And there it follows, that other Sacraments do so signifie as to convey, this barely signifies. So that I think Bellar∣min had as good have given up the Canonists, as to make so lame a Defence of them.

2. He saith we are not to rely on the Canonists for these * 1.90 things, but on the Divines. But Durand•• saith, the Canonists could not be ignorant of the Doctrin of the Ro∣man Church; for some of them were Cardinals; and he gives a better Reason, viz. that the sense of the Roman Church was to be seen in the Decretals. For therefore Marriage was owned to be a Sacrament in the large sense, because of the Decret. of Lucius III. Extra de hae∣ret. c. ad abolendam; but the Schoolmen argued from Probabilities and Niceties in this matter, which could not satisfie a Man's understanding; as appears by Duran∣dus his Arguments, and Bellarmin's Answers to them.

1. Where Sacraments confer Grace, there must be a Di∣vine Institution of something above Natural Reason, but there is nothing of that kind in Matrimony, besides the signifying the Union between Christ and his Church; and therefore it is only a Sacrament in a large, and not in a proper sense.

In answer to this Bellarmin saith, that it both signifies * 1.91 and causes such a Love between Man and Wife, as there is between Christ and his Church.

But Vasquez saith, that the Resemblance as to Christ and * 1.92 his Church in Matrimony, doth not at all prove a promise of Grace made to it. And Basilius Pontius approves of what Vasquez saith, and confesses, that it cannot be infer'd from hence that it is a true and proper Sacrament.

2. Here is nothing External added, besides the mere Contract of the Persons; but the nature of a Sacrament impli••s some external and visible sign.

Bellarmin answers, that it is not necessary there should be in this Sacrament any such extrinsecal sign; because it lies in a mere Contract. And that I think holds on the other side, that a mere Contract cannot be a Sacrament, from their own Definition of a Sacrament.

3. The Marriage of Infidels was good and valid, and their Baptism adds nothing to it; but it was no Sacrament before, and therefore not after.

Bellarmin answers, that it becomes a Sacrament after. And so there is a Sacrament without either Matter or Form; for there is no new Marriage.

4. Marriage was instituted in the time of Innocency, and is a natural Dictate of Reason, and therefore no Sacra∣ment.

Bellarmin answers, that it was no Sacrament then, be∣cause there was no need of Sacramental Grace. And al∣though the Marriage of Adam and Eve did represent the Union between Christ and his Church; yet it was no proper Sacrament. But how doth it prove that it is a Sacra∣ment upon any other Account, under the Gospel? And if that doth not imply a promise of Grace, then how can it now?

So that Durandus his Reasons appear much stronger than Bellarmin's Answers.

But Durandus urges one thing more, which Bellar∣min takes no notice of, viz. that this Opinion of the Ca∣nonists was very well known at that time, and was never condemned as contrary to any determination of the Church. Now, if there had been any constant Tradition even of the Church of Rome against it, it is impossible these Cano∣nists should have avoided Censure; their Opinion being so much taken notice of by the Schoolmen afterwards. Jacobus Almain saith, it was a Controversie between the Ca∣nonists * 1.93 and Divines, whether Matrimony was a Sacram••nt; not all the Divines neither; for the confesses Durandus and others seemed to agree with them. What Universal Tra∣dition then had the Council of Trent to rely upon in this matter? When all the Cano••ists, according to Almain, and some of the Divines, opposed it? He sets down their

different Reasons; but never alledges matter of Faith, or Tradition against them, but only saith, the Divines hold the other Opinion, because Matrimony is one of the Seven Sacraments. But on what was the Opinion of the Ne∣cessity of Seven Sacraments grounded? What Scripture, what Fathers, what Tradition was there, before Peter Lombard, for just that number?

The Sense of the Greek Church about Seven Sacra∣ments.

But before I come to that, it is fit to take notice of what Bellarmin lays great weight upon, both as to the Number of the Sacraments in general, and this in parti∣cular; * 1.94 which is, the consent of both the Greek and Latin Church for at least 500 Years. But I have shewed there * 1.95 was no such Consent, as is boasted of even in the Latin Church. As to the Greek Church, he saith, it is an argu∣ment of Universal Tradition, when they had the same Tra∣dition even in their Schism.

To this I Answer.

1. We do not deny that the latter Greeks, after the taking Constantinople by the Latins, did hold Seven Myste∣ries; which the Latins render Sacraments. For after there were Latin Patriarchs at Constantinople, and abundance of Latin Priests in the Eastern Parts, they had perpetual Disputes about Religion; and the Latins by degrees did gain upon them in some points; and particularly in this of Seven Sacraments, for the Latins thought it an advan∣tage to their Church to boast of such a Number of Sacra∣ments; and the Greeks that they might not seem to come behind them, were willing to embrace the same Num∣ber.

The first Person among them who is said to have writ∣ten about them, was Simeon Bishop of Thessalonica, whom Possevin sets at a greater distance, that the Tradition might seem so much elder among them; (for he makes * 1.96 him to have lived 600 years before his time;) but Leo Allatius hath evidently proved, that he lived not two * 1.97 hundred years before him, (which is a considerable diffe∣rence,) for Simeon dyed but six months before the taking of Thessalonica, A. D. 1430, as he proves from Joh. Anagno∣sta, who was present at the taking it. From hence it ap∣pers how very late this Tradition came into the Greek Church.

After him Gabriel Severus, Bishop of Philadelphia, wrote about the Seven Sacraments, and he lived at Venice in Arcudius his time, who wrote since Possevin; and Cru∣sius wrote to this Gabriel A. D. 1580, and he was conse∣crated * 1.98 by Jeremias A. D. 1577. So that neither his Autho∣rity, or that of Je••emias, can signifie any thing as to the Antiquity of this Tradition among the Greeks.

Leo Allatius talks of the old as well as Modern Greeks, * 1.99 who held Seven Sacraments, but he produces the Testimo∣ny only of those who lived since the taking of Constanti∣nople; as Job the Monk, Simeon, Johannes Palaeologus, Je∣remias, Gabriel, Cyrillus Berrhoensis, Parthenius, and such like: But he very craftily saith, he produces these to let us see they have not gone off from the Faith of their Ancestors, whereas that is the thing we would have seen, viz. the Testimony of the Greeks before, and not after∣wards. As to the ancient Greeks, he confesses they say nothing of the number. De numero apud eos altum silenti∣um * 1.100 est. And how could therebe a Tradition in so much silence? But some speak of some, and others of others, but all speak of all. This is a very odd way to prove a Tradition of a certain Number. For then, some might

believe Three, others Four, others Five, but how can this prove that all believed just Seven? However let us see the Proof. But instead of that he presently starts an Objection from the pretended Dionysius Areopagita, viz. That where he designs to treat of all the Sacraments, he ne∣ver mentions Penance, Extreme Unction, and Matrimony; * 1.101 and after a great deal of rambling Discourse, he concludes that he did ill to leave them o••t; and that others Answers * 1.102 are insufficient. He shews from Tertullian, Ambrose and Cyril that the necessary Sacraments are mentioned; but where are the rest? and we are now enquiring after them in the ancient Greek Church; but they are not to be foun••. As one may confidently affirm, when one who professed so much skill in the Greek Church, as Leo Alla∣tius, hath no more to say for the Proof of it.

2. Those Greeks who held Seven Sacraments, did not hold them in the Sense of the Council o•• Trent. And that for two Reasons.

1. They do not hold them all to be of divine Institu∣tion. Which appears by the Patriarch Jeremias his An∣swer to the Tubing Divines, who at first seems to write agreeably to the Church of Rome in this matter, (except about Extreme Unction;) but being pressed hard by them in their Reply; he holds to the Divine Institution of Baptism, and the Eucharist, but gives up the rest, as instituted by the Churches Authority. Which is plain gi∣ving * 1.103 up the Cause. How then comes Bellarmin to in∣sist so much on the Answer of Jeremias? The Reason was, that Socolovius had procured from Constantinople the Patriarch's first answer, and translated and printed it; upon which great Triumphs were made of the Patri∣arch's Consent with the Church of Rome; but when these Divines were hereby provoked to publish the whole pro∣ceedings,

those of the Church of Rome were unwilling to be undeceived; and so take no notice of any farther An∣swer. Since the time of Jeremias, the Patriarch of Ale∣xandria, (as he was afterwards,) Metrophanes Critopulus * 1.104 published an Account of the Faith of the Greek Church; and he saith expresly of Four of the Seven, that they are Mystical Rites, and equivocally called Sacraments. And from hence it appears how little Reason Leo Allatius had * 1.105 to be angry with Caucus, a Latinized Greek, like himself, for affirming that the modern Greeks did not look on these Sacraments as of Divine Institution; but after he hath gi∣ven him some hard words, he offers to prove his Asserti∣on for him. To which end he not only quotes that passage of the Patriarch Jeremias, but others of Job and Gregorius; from whence he infers, that Five of the Sa∣craments were of Ecclesiastical Institution, and he saith nothing to take it off. So admirably hath he proved the Consent of the Eastern and Western Churches!

2. They do not agree in the Matter, or Form, or some essential part of them, with the Council of Trent, and therefore can make up no Tradition for the Doctrin of that Council about the Seven Sacraments. This will be made appear by going through them.

1. Of Chrism.

1. As to the Form, Arcudius shews, that Gabriel of Philadelphia, Cabasilas and Marcus Ephesius, all place * 1.106 the Form in the Consecration of it; but the Church of Rome makes the Form to lie in the Words spoken in the Use of it.

2. As to the Minister of it. Among the Greeks it is commonly performed by the Presbyter, though the Bi∣shop be present; but the Council of Tr••nt denounces an

Anathema against him that saith, the Bishop alone is not * 1.107 the ordinary Minister of it.

3. As to the Character. The Council of Trent declares that whosoever affirms that Confirmation doth not imprint an indelible Character, so as it cannot be repeated is Ana∣thematized; but Arcudius shews at large, that the modern * 1.108 Greeks make no scruple of reiterating Confirmation. But Catumsyritus, another Latinized Greek, opposes Arcudius herein; and saith, that the Use of Chrism among the Geeeks, doth not relate to the Sacrament of Confirmation, but was a Symbolical Ceremony relating to Baptism; and for this he quotes one Corydaleus a Man of great Note in the Patriarchal Church at Constantinople. Therefore Cau∣cus had reason to deny that the Greeks receive that which the Latins call the Sacrament of Confirmation. And 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 di∣stinct from Baptism.

2. Of the Sacrament of Penance.

1. The Council of Trent declares Absolution of the Pe∣nitent to be a judicial Act, and denounces an Anathema a∣gainst * 1.109 him that denies it; but the Greek Church uses a de∣precative Form, (as they call it,) not pronouncing Abso∣lution 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 * 1.110 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 deter∣mines, it can hardly be reconciled to such a Form, where∣in no kind of judicial Sentence was ever pronounced; as

Arcudius grants; and in Extreme Unction, where such a * 1.111 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 * 1.112 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 ob∣served, which Catumsyritus denies, and saith, he proves * 1.113 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 * 1.114 Sins, how secret soever, to be necessary in order to the benefit of Priestly Absolution in this Sacrament, and de∣nounces an Anathema against those that deny it; but the * 1.115 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 Jere∣mias * 1.116 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 Mat∣ter and Form. The Council of Trent Anathematiseth those who deny a visible and exeternal Priesthood in the New Te∣stament; * 1.117 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 Ves∣sels 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, cal∣led 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is delivered to the Presbyter, but without any words; and there is no mention of it in their Ri∣tuals, either Printed or MSS. so likewise a parcel of conse∣crated 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 La∣tin Churches. For there the Matter is said to be that by which the Order is conferred, viz. the delivery of the Cha∣lice with Wine, and the Paten with the Bread; and the Form, Receive the Power of offering Sacrifice for the Li∣ving 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 endea∣voured thereby to overthrow the whole Order of Priesthood in the Roman Church.

4. Of Extreme Unction.

Bellarmin particularly appeals to the Greek Church for * 1.118 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 il∣literate * 1.119 Priests, but by their Patriarchs and Metropoli∣tans, &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 a∣mong them. But the original Intention and Design of it was for the Cure and Recovery of sick Persons; as Ar∣cudius confesses the whole scope of the Office shews; and * 1.120 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 Reco∣very they have no hope.

2. The Council of Trent requires that the Oil of Ex∣treme * 1.121 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, * 1.122 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 * 1.123 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 Num∣ber 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 Sacra∣ments 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 re∣ceived 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. For when Alexius Mene∣ses, Archbishop of Goa, undertook to reform them accor∣ding to the Roman Church, (if that may be called a Re∣formation) and held a Council at Diamper to that pur∣pose, A. D. 1599. he found that they had no Sacrament of Chrism, or Penance, or Extreme Unction, of which

they were utterly ignorant, saith Jarricus from Antonius * 1.124 Goveanus, who was Prior of Goa, and published the whole proceedings. Which Book was translated out of Portu∣gese by Joh. Baptista a Glano into French, and printed at Brussels, 1609. From whence the Author of the Cri∣tical History of the Faith and Customs of the Eastern Na∣tions hath given an Account of these things; and he saith, * 1.125 they owned but three Sacraments, Baptism, Eucharist and Orders; that they knew nothing of the Sacrament of Chrism or extreme Unction, and abhorred Auricular Confession. * 1.126 But in excuse of them he saith, that they joyned Confir∣mation * 1.127 with Baptism, as other Eastern Churches did; that the Sacrament of Extreme Unction as it is practised in the Church of Rome is known only to the Latin Church; * 1.128 but the Eastern Church had the Unction of S. James for * 1.129 the Cure of Diseases, as the Greek Church had.

Cotovicus affirms the same of the other Eastern Churches * 1.130 called Chaldean, (who are under the same Patriarch with the Christians of S. Thomas) that they knew nothing of the Sacraments of Confirmation and Extreme Unction. This Patriarch is the same which is commonly called the Patriarch of Babylon; whose Residence is at Mozal; but called of Babylon, because Sele••cia, after the desolation of the true Babylon had the name given to it (as it were ••asie to prove, if it were pertinent to this design) and upon the destruction of Sele••cia the Patriarch removed first to Bagdat and then to Mozal; whose Jurisciction extends over all those Eastern Christians, which are cal∣led Nestorian.

In the Abyssine Churches, Godignus saith positively from those who had been conversant among them, that * 1.131 they knew nothing of the Sacraments of Chrism and Ex∣treme Unction; and that all the Confession they have is g••neral and rare; and that they have no Bishops under * 1.132

the Abuna, and believe the bond of Matrimony easily dis∣solved. So that the Tradition of Seven Sacraments is wholly unknown to them, but as it was imposed by the Roman M••ssionaries; which imposition was so ill received there and brought such Confusion and Disorders among them, that they are for ever banished.

In the Armenian Churches, Joh. Chernacensis a Lati∣nized Armenian saith, that the Armenians owned not the * 1.133 Seven Sacraments, that they knew nothing of Chrism and Extre•••• Unction. Here we see a general consent as to the total ignorance of two of the Seven Sacraments in these Churches. But Clemens Galanus, who had been * 1.134 many years a Missionary among the Armenians endea∣vours to prove that they had the Tradition of the seven Sacraments; but very unsuccessfully. For he produces none of their ancient Authors for it: but he names Var∣tanus whom he sets himself to confute afterwards; and he confesses, that he took away the Sacrament of Penance, and made Burial of the Dead to be one of his seven. But more than that, he saith, the Armenian Churches have * 1.135 forbidden Extreme Unction as the Nestorians had done Auri∣cular * 1.136 Confession. So that nothing like a truly Catholick Tradition can be produced for the Number of seven Sa∣craments either in the Church of Rome or elsewhere, within Bellarmin's own term of 500 years.

I am now to give an account when this Number of seven Sacraments, came into the Church, and on what Occasions it was advanced to be a point of Faith.

The first I can find who expresly set down the Num∣ber of seven Sacraments, was Hugo de S. Victore, who * 1.137 lived in the twelfth Century, not long before Peter Lom∣bard. But that there was an Innovation made by him in this matter, I shall make appear by comparing what

he saith with what others had delivered who were short of the Primitive Fathers.

Rupertus Tuitiensis lived much about the same time in Germany that Hugo did at Paris, and he gives a different * 1.138 Resolution of the Question about the Principal Sacra∣ments: For he names no more than Baptism, the Eucha∣rist and the double Gift of the Holy Ghost; and, saith he, these three Sacraments are necessary instruments of our Salvation. But Hugo saith, there are seven principal Sa∣craments; (which sufficiently shews, that he thought * 1.139 there were other Sacraments besides these; and so he ex∣presses his mind in another place, where he makes all symbolical Signs to be Sacraments,) but the principal Sa∣cram••nts he saith, are those which convey Grace.

Fulbertus Carnotensis lived in France in the beginning * 1.140 of the tenth Century; and where he Discourses of the Sa∣craments he names no more than Baptism and the Eucha∣rist. He calls the Body and Blood two Sacraments, and so did Rabanus Maurus before him. * 1.141

Who lived in the ninth Age, and was a Person of great Reputation; and he names no more Sacraments than * 1.142 Baptism, and Chrism, and the Eucharist; where he pro∣poses to treat of them; and had as just an Occasion to have mention'd the rest, as Hugo had. But Bellarmin saith, he handled all wherein the Clergy were concerned, * 1.143 and therefore omitted none but Matrimony. But were not they concerned to know whether it were a Sacra∣ment or not? The Question is not whether he mention'd the things, but whether he called them Sacraments; but I do not find Extreme Unction so much as mention'd by him in the place he refers us to.

In the same ••ge, Walafridus Strabo, where he pur∣posely * 1.144 discourseth of the Sacraments names no more than Rabanus Maurus; and this had been an inexcusable

omission in such who treat of Ecclesiastical Offices; and were to inform Persons of their duties about them. And there∣fore I lay much more weight on such an omission in them than in any other Writers. I know Paschasius Radber∣tus * 1.145 mentions no more than three Sacraments, Baptism, Chrism and the Eucharist; but Bellarmin and Sirmondus say he mention'd them for Example sake, because it was not his business to handle the Number of Sacraments; but this Answer will by no means serve for those who purposely treated of these matters; and therefore an o∣mission in them is an argument that they knew nothing of them.

And this Argument will go yet higher; for in the beginning of the seventh Century, Isidore of Sevil trea∣ted * 1.146 of these matters, and he names no more than Bap∣tism, Chrism and the Eucharist; and he tells us, they are therefore called Sacraments, because under the covering of corporeal things a secret and invisible virtue is convey'd to the pa••takers of them. And this very passage is en∣tred into the Canon Law c. 1. q. 1 c. Multi Secularium, &c. and there it passes under the Name of Gregory I. but the Roman Correctors restore it to Isidore.

But it may be objected, that Ivo Carnotensis made a Collection of Canons before Gratian; who handles the * 1.147 Sacraments in his first and second Part; and he seems to make the annual Chrism to be a Sacrament; for which he quotes an Epistle of Fabianus, who saith it ought to be consecrated every year, quia novum Sacramentum est; and this, he saith, he had by Tradition from the Apostles. Which Testimony the modern Schoolmen rely upon for a sufficient proof of this Apostolical Tradition. But this * 1.148 Epistle is a notorious counterfeit, and rejected by all men of any tolerable Ingenuity in the Church of Rome. Thus we trace the Original of some pretended Apostolical

Traditions into that Mass of Forgeries, the Decretal E∣pistles, which was sent abroad under the Name of Isi∣dore.

Ivo produces another Testimony from Innocentius I. * 1.149 to prove that Extreme Unction was then owned for a kind of Sacrament, and therefore ought not to be given to Pe∣nitents. If this Rule holds, then either Matrimony was no Sacrament, or Penitents might not marry; but the Canonists say even excommunicated Persons may marry, but one of them saith, it is a strange Sacrament excommu∣nicated Persons are allow'd to partake of. * 1.150

But this genus est Sacramenti signifies very little to those who know how largely the Word Sacrament was used in elder times, from Iertullian downwards. But our Question is not about a kind of a Sacrament, but strict and proper Sacraments; and if it had been then thought so, he would not have permitted any to administer it; unless they will say it is as necessary to Salvation as Baptism, which none do. It appears from hence, that there was then a Custome among some in regard to S. James his Words, if Persons were sick, to take some of the Chrism to anoint them, and to pray over them in hopes of their Recovery; but this was no Sacrament of dying Persons, as it is now in the Church of Rome.

If it had been then so esteemed, S. Ambrose (or who-ever was the Author of the Book of Sacraments) would not have omitted it, and the other supernumeraries, when he purposely treats of Sacraments; the same holds as to S. Cyril of Jerusalem. And it is a poor evasion to say, that they spake only to Catechumens; for they were to be instructed in the Means and Instruments of Salva∣tion as they make all Sacraments to be.

And it is to as little purpose to say, that they do not declare there are but tw••; for our business is to enquire for a Catholick Tradition for s••ven true and proper Sa∣craments,, as the Council of Trent determines under an Anathema. But if we compare the Traditions for two and for seven together, the other will be found to have far greater Advantage; not only because the two are mention'd in the eldest Writers, where the seven are not; but because so many of the Fathers agree in the Tradition, that the Sacraments were designed by the Wa∣ter and Blood which came out of our Sa∣viour's side. So S. Chrysostom, S. Cyril * 1.151 of Alexandria, Leo Magnus, but above * 1.152 all S. Augustin who several times insists * 1.153 upon this; which shews that they * 1.154 thought those two to be the true and proper Sacraments of Christianity; how∣ever there might be other Mystical Rites which in a large sense might be called Sacraments.

As to the Occasions of setting up this Number of seven Sacraments, they were these.

1. Some pretty Congruities which they had found out for them. The Number seven they observe was in re∣quest in the Levitical Law, as to Sacrifices and Purifica∣tions. Naaman was bid to wash seven times. And Bel∣larmin in good earnest concludes that the whole Scrip∣ture seemed to foretell the seven Sacraments by those things. * 1.155 But besides, he tells us of the seven things relating to na∣tural Life which these have an Analogy with; the seven sorts of sins these are a remedy against, and the seven sorts of Vertues which answer to the seven Sacraments. But none of all these prove any Catholick Tradition.

2. Making no difference between Mystical Rites con∣tinued in Imitation of Apostolical Practices, and true and

real Sacraments. Imposition of Hands for Confirmation and Ordination is allowed to be a very just and reasonable Imitation of them; and as long as the Miraculous Power of Healing Diseases continued, there was a fair Ground for continuing the Practice mentioned by S. James; but there was no Reason afterwards to change this into quite another thing, by making it a Sacrament, chiefly inten∣ded for doing away the Remainders of Sin.

3. Advancing the Honour of the Priesthood; by ma∣king them so necessary for the actual Expiation of all sorts of Sins, and in all conditions. For no Sacrament is rightly administred by the Council of Trent without the Priest; and therefore clandestine Marriages are declared void by it. And it pronounces an Anathema against those who say any others than Priests can administer Extreme Unction; however it appears that in the time of Innocen∣tius 1. any might make use of the Chrism when it was consecrated by a Bishop; but they are grown wiser in the Church of Rome since that time; and as they have al∣tered a Ceremony of Curing into a Sacrament of Dying, so they have taken Care that none but Priests shall perform that last Office, that the People may believe they can neither live nor dye without them.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Sess. 7. Can. 1.
• * 1.2

  C••tech. Tri∣dent. Part. 2. n. 10.
• * 1.3

  Bell. de Sa∣••••am. l. 2. ••. 25.
• * 1.4

  In quatuor quae sunt propriè dict•• Sacramenta novae legis est forma in∣stituta à Domino vel ab Ecclesia. Alex. Halens. Part. 4. q. 5. M. 3. 4. 2.
• * 1.5

  Memb. 2. a. 1.
• * 1.6

  Memb. 3. a. 2. sect. 3.
• * 1.7

  ••ell. de Sacr. l. 1. ••. 21.
• * 1.8

  Suarez. in 3. p. Tb. Tom. 3. Disp. 2. sect. 3.
• * 1.9

  Lugo de 〈◊〉〈◊〉. D••p. ••. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 5.
• * 1.10

  P••t. à Sanct. Joseph. Idea Theol. Sacr. l. 1. c. 3.
• * 1.11

  Conc. Tri••. De Confirm. Can 2.

  Conc. Florent. Decret. U••is∣nis.
• * 1.12

  Ma••••il. in s••••••. l. 4 q. 5. 4. 1.
• * 1.13

  Aureol in 4. d. 7. q. 1.
• * 1.14

  Greg de Val. Tom. 4. Q. 5. Pun••. 2.
• * 1.15

  Gui••o Bri∣anson in 4. sent. q. 5. Con••. 1.
• * 1.16

  Guil. Antis. in l. 4. tract. 9.
• * 1.17

  Bonav. in 4. d. 7. a. 1. q. 2.
• * 1.18

  Alex. p. 4. q. 9. m••mb. 1.
• * 1.19

  J••••. de Vitr. Hi••••. occid. c. ••7.
• * 1.20

  Aq. p. 3. q. 72. a 1. Resp. ad 1.
• * 1.21

  Conink de Sacram. q. 72. a. 3. dab. 1.
• * 1.22

  Petr. Aurel. Oper. p 546, 547. p. 567.
• * 1.23

  Sirmo••, Ant. 2. p. 64.
• * 1.24

  p. 6••.
• * 1.25

  Petr. A••rel. Op. p. 5••7.
• * 1.26

  Suarez. To. 3. q. 3. p. Th. ••. 72. Disp. 33. sect. 5.
• * 1.27

  D••••ret. Uni••nis.
• * 1.28

  Bell. de Sacr. Ordinis, l. 1. c. 9.
• * 1.29

  Arcud. de Sa∣cram. l. 6. c. 4.
• * 1.30

  L••go de Sac. Disp. 2. sect. 5. n. 85.
• * 1.31

  n. 92.
• * 1.32

  Ysambert. de Sacram. Ordi∣nis, Disp. 3. Art. 6.
• * 1.33

  Hallier de Sa∣cris Elect. & Ordinat. sect. 2. c. 2. art. 1.
• * 1.34

  p. 439.
• * 1.35

  Petr. à Sanct. Joseph, Idea Theod. Sacr. l. 4. c. 1. p. 396.
• * 1.36

  Morin. de Sacris Ordin. Part. 3. Ex. ercit. 7. c. 1.
• * 1.37

  c. 3. n. 1.
• * 1.38

  n. 6. c. 6.
• * 1.39

  n. 2.
• * 1.40

  Bell. de Sa∣cram. l. 1. c. 24.
• * 1.41

  Aug. in Joh. Tr. 80.
• * 1.42

  St. Aug. ••••. ad Bonifac.
• * 1.43

  Suarez. T••m. 3. in 3. C. Q. 60. Disp. 1. a. 3. sect. 4.
• * 1.44

  Concil Flor. Decr. Union. Concil. Trid. Sess. 14. c. 3.
• * 1.45

  Bell. de poenit. l. 1. c. 16. Soto in l. 4. sent. d. 14. q. I.

  Vasq. in 3. p. ••. 34 Art. 1. n. 9.
• * 1.46

  Enchirid. Co∣lon. f. 180.
• * 1.47

  Bell. de poenit. l. 1. c. 16.
• * 1.48

  Major. in 4. sent. dist. 14. q. 2.

  Biel in 4. dist. 14. q. 2.
• * 1.49

  Brianson in 4. sent. Q. 8. Concl. 3.
• * 1.50

  Durand. in l. 4. dist. 16. q. 1.
• * 1.51

  Ockam in 4. sen. q. 8.

  Scot. in l. 4. sent. dist. 16. Q. 1.
• * 1.52

  Cancil. Trid. Sess. 14. de Poenit. Sacr. Can. 4.
• * 1.53

  Can. 9.
• * 1.54

  B••••l in 4. dist. 14. 1. 2. ••ot. 2.
• * 1.55

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 4. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. ••. 12. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.56

  Tostat. De∣fens. part. 1. c. 6.

  Ockam in l. 4. q. 9. a. 4. ad 1.
• * 1.57

  Thom. de Ar∣gent. l. 4. Dist. 18. a 3.
• * 1.58

  Gul. Antis. l. 4. f. 254.
• * 1.59

  Bonavent. l. 4. dist. 18. q. 1.
• * 1.60

  Alex. Halens. part 4. q. 21. memb. 3. art. 1.

  Pet. Lomb. l. 4. dist. 18. part. 1.
• * 1.61

  Vasquez in 3. Q. 84. A. 3. dub. 2. 17.
• * 1.62

  Hadrian Quodlib. q. 5. 3. princip.
• * 1.63

  Concil. Trid. Sess. 14. Can. 1, 2.
• * 1.64

  Cap. 1, 2, 3.
• * 1.65

  Suarez in 3. part. disp. 39. sect. 1. n. 5.
• * 1.66

  Bell. de Extr. Unct. c. 2. Makl. de Sa∣cram. Extr. Unct. q. 2.
• * 1.67

  Greg. de Val. To. 4. Disp. 8. Q. 1 Punct. 1.
• * 1.68

  Cath. ••••not. in Comment. Cajet. l. 5. p. 464.
• * 1.69

  S••••r. Greg. p. 252.
• * 1.70

  Cassand. not. in Hymn. p. 288.
• * 1.71

  Maldonat. de Sacramen ex••r. Unct. q. 1.
• * 1.72

  Gamach. de Extr. U••••t. c. 3.

  Suar••z in 3. p••r••. Disp. 4••. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 3.
• * 1.73

  ••reg. Sacr. p. 252.

  Menard. Not. p. 337.
• * 1.74

  p. 342.
• * 1.75

  p. 353.
• * 1.76

  p. 352.
• * 1.77

  Suarez ibid.
• * 1.78

  ••. 3.
• * 1.79

  Mald. ib. q. 3
• * 1.80

  Bell. de Sacr. l. 2. c. 26.
• * 1.81

  c. 2.
• * 1.82

  Conc. Trid. Sess. 24. c. 1.
• * 1.83

  Vasq. de Sacr. Matri••. Disp. ••. c. 1.
• * 1.84

  ••. 3.
• * 1.85

  Greg. de Val. To. 4. Disp. 10. Punct. 5.
• * 1.86

  Mald. de Sac. Matrim. q. 1.
• * 1.87

  Bell. de Matr. Sa••r. l. 1. 0. 5.
• * 1.88

  Navar. Max. c. 22. n. 20.
• * 1.89

  Hostiens. Sum. de Sacr. non iter. n. 7.
• * 1.90

  Durand. in sent. l. 4. Dist. 26. q. 3.
• * 1.91

  Eell. de Sacr. Matr. l. 1. c. 5.
• * 1.92

  Vasq. da Sacr. Matr. Disp. 2. ••. 6.

  Basil. Pont. de Matr. l. 1. ••. 5. n. 10.
• * 1.93

  Almain in 4. Dist. 26. q. 1.
• * 1.94

  Bell. de Sacr. l. 2. c. 25.
• * 1.95

  De Matrim. Sacr. l. 1. c. 4.
• * 1.96

  Possev. in Ap∣par.
• * 1.97

  Leo Allat. de Concord. l. 2. c. 13.

  n. 13. De Simeon. Script. p. 185. &c.
• * 1.98

  Crusii Turc•• Groec.
• * 1.99

  Leo Allat. de Concord. l. 3. c. 16. n. 4.
• * 1.100

  n. 9.
• * 1.101

  n. 10.
• * 1.102

  n. 15. n. 17.
• * 1.103

  Act. Theolog. Wirtemberg. p. 240.
• * 1.104

  Metroph. Confess. Eccl. Orient. p. 74.
• * 1.105

  Leo Allat. de Concord. E••••l. Occident. & Orient. l. 3. c. 17.
• * 1.106

  Arcud. d•• Concord. l. 2. c. 6.
• * 1.107

  C••••••il. Trid. de 〈◊〉〈◊〉. C••••. ••.

  De Sa••ra••. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 9.
• * 1.108

  〈…〉〈…〉.

  〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.109

  Concil. Trid. de Paenit. c. 6. ••an. 9.
• * 1.110

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. p. q. 84. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. a••. 1.
• * 1.111

  Arcud de Concord. 4. l. c. 3. p. 36••.
• * 1.112

  p. 370.
• * 1.113

  Catumsyritus de vera Conc. Proleg. p. 153.
• * 1.114

  Concil. Trid. de Poenit. c. 5.
• * 1.115

  Can. 7.
• * 1.116

  Arcud. p. 373.
• * 1.117

  S••••. 2••. de 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Or••i••. C••••. 1.
• * 1.118

  Bell. de Extr. Unit. l. 1. c. 4.
• * 1.119

  Arcud. de Concord. l. 5. c. 4.
• * 1.120

  p. 389. c. 5. c. 7. p. 403.
• * 1.121

  Con••. Tri••. de Extr. 〈◊〉〈◊〉, c. 1.

  Catumsyr. Vera Co••cord. Tr. 1. p. 156. Arcu••. l. 5. •• c. 2.
• * 1.122

  Conc. Trid. S••ss. 24. Can. 7.
• * 1.123

  ••ell. de Matr. l. 1. c. 16.
• * 1.124

  Pet. Jarric. Rer J••dic. To. 3. p. 2. c. 12.
• * 1.125

  Histoire Cri∣tique, ch. 8. p. 104.
• * 1.126

  p. 105.
• * 1.127

  p. 112.
• * 1.128

  p. 113.
• * 1.129

  p. 13.
• * 1.130

  Cotov. Itin. Hierosol. & Syr. p. 206.
• * 1.131

  Godign. de 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉. l. 1. ••. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.132

  ••. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.133

  Clem. Ga••an. Conc. Eccles. Arm. cum Rom. c. 30. p. 516.
• * 1.134

  Clem. Galan. To. 3. p. 439.
• * 1.135

  p. 636.
• * 1.136

  p. 605.
• * 1.137

  Hugo de S. Vict. de Offi∣•••• l. 1. c. 12.
• * 1.138

  Rup. Tuit. de Vict. Verbi. l. 12. c. 11.
• * 1.139

  Hugo do Sac. l. 1. part. 9. c. 6, 7.
• * 1.140

  Fulb. Carnot. Epist. 1.
• * 1.141

  De Inst. Cler. l. 1. c. 31.
• * 1.142

  Rab. Maur. de Inst. Cler. l. 1. c. 24.
• * 1.143

  Bell. de Sacr. l. 2. c. 27.
• * 1.144

  Walaf. Strab. de Reb. E••cl. c. 16, 17, 25.
• * 1.145

  Pasch. Radb. de c••rp. & sang. Dom. c. 3.
• * 1.146

  Isid. Orig. 1. 6. de Officiis.
• * 1.147

  Iro Decret 2. p. c. 73.
• * 1.148

  Ysamb. ad. q. 72. Disp. 1. ••. 3.
• * 1.149

  Ivo ib. c. 75:
• * 1.150

  Alex. Consil.
• * 1.151

  S. Chrys. in Joh. hom. 87.
• * 1.152

  S. Cyril. in Joh. l. 12.
• * 1.153

  Leo in Epist. ad Flavian.
• * 1.154

  S. Aug. in Joh. Tr. 9. 15. in Ps. 40

  De Ci••••it. Dei, l. 15. c. 26.

  De Symbol. c. 6.
• * 1.155

  Bell. de Sacr. l. 2. c. 26.