the Tridentine Canon I shall prove these two things 1. That there hath been a constant Tradition against it in the Eastern Church 2. That there never was a constant Tradition for it in the Western Church 1. That there hath been a constant Tradition against it in the Eastern Church which received the Jewish Canon without the Books declared Canonical by the Council of Trent We have very early Evidence of this in the Testimony of Melito Bishop of Sardis who lived not long after the middle of the 2d Century and made it his business to enquire into this matter and he delivers but 22 Books of the Old Testament The same is done by Origen in the next who took infinite Pains as Eusebius saith in searching after the Copies of the Old Testament And these Testimonies are preserved by Eusebius in the following Century and himself declares that there was no sacred Book among the Jews from the time of Zorobabel which cuts off the Books canonized by the Council of Trent In the same Age we have the Testimonies of Athanasius St. Cyril of Jerusalem Epiphanius S. Basil S. Gregory Nazianzene Amphilochius and S. Chrysostom It is not to be imagined that a Tradition should be better attested in one Age than this was by so considerable Men in different Churches who give in the Testimony of all those Churches they belonged to And yet besides these we have in that Age a concurrent Testimony of a Council of Bishops at Laodicea from several Provinces of Asia and which is yet more this Canon of theirs was received into the Code of the Catholick Church and so owned by the Council of Chalcedon which by its first Canon gives Authority to it And Justinian allows the force of Laws to the Canons which were either made or confirmed by the four General Councils But it is the point of Tradition I am upon and thereâ—ore Justinian's Novel may at least be a sâ—rong Evidence of that in the 6th Century In the 7th Leontius gives his own Testimony and that of Theodorus In the 8th Damascen expresly owns the Hebrew Canon of 22 Books and excludes by name some of the Books made Canonical at Trent In the 9th we have the Testâ—mony of Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople if he be the Authour of the Laterculus at the end of his Chrâ—nography but if he be not he must be an Authour of that Age being translated by Anastasius Bibliothecarius In the 12th Balsamon and Zonaras refer to the Council of Laodicea and the Greek Fathers In the 14th Nicephorus Calisthus reckons but 22 Books of the Old Testament And in this Age we have the clear Testimony of Metrophanes afterwards Patriarch of Alexandria who saith there are but 22 Canonical Books of the Old Testament but the rest i. e. Tobit Judith Wisedom Ecclesiasticus Baruch and Machabees are usefull and therefore not wholly to be rejected but the Church never received them for Canonical and Authentical as appears by many Testimonies as among others of Gregory the Divine Amphilochius and Damascen and therefore we never prove matters of Faith out of them 2. Let us now compare this Tradition with that of the Western Church for the New Canon of Trent It cannot be denied that Innocentius I. and Gelasius did enlarge the Canon and took in the Apocryphal Books unless we call in question the Writings under their Names but granting them genuine I shall shew that there is no comparison between this Tradition and that of the Eastern Church and therefore there could be no possible Reason for the Council of Trent to make a Decree for this Tradition and to anathematize all who did not submit to it For 1. This Tradition was not universally received at that time Innocentius his Epistle is supposed to be written A. D. 405. Was the Western Church agreed before or after about this matter This Epistle was written to Eruperius a Gallican Bishop to whom St. Jerom dedicated his Commentaries on Zechariah but now it unluckily falls out that the Tradition of the Gallican Church was contrary to this as appears by S. Hilary who could not be ignorant of it being a famous Bishop of that Church and he tells us there were but 22 Canonical Books of the Old Testament I confess he saith some were for adding Tobit and Judith but it is very observable that he saith that the other Account is most agreeable to ancient Tradition which is a mighty Argument against Innocentius who brings no Tradition to justifie his Canon When St. Augustin produced a Place out of the Book of Wisedom the Divines of Marseilles rejected it because the Book was not Canonical Therefore in that time Innocent's Canon was by no means received in the Gallican Church for by it this Book was made Canonical But S. Jerom who had as much learning as Pope Innocent vehemently opposed this New Canon more than once or ten times and not onely speaks of the Jewish Canon but of the Canon of the Church The Church saith he reads the Books of Tobit Judith and Machabees but the Church doth not receive them among Canonical Scriptures What Church doth he mean Not the Synagogue certainly Pope Innocent saith Those Books are to be received into the Canon S. Jerom saith the Church doth not receive them but that they are to be cast out Where is the Certainty of Tradition to be found If Innocent were in the right S. Jerom was foully mistaken and in plain terms belied the Church But how is this consistent with the Saintship of St. Jerom Or with common discretion if the Church did receive those Books for Canonical For every one could have disproved him And it required no great Judgment or deep Learning to know what Books were received and what not If S. Jerom were so mistaken which it is very hard to believe how came Ruffinus not to observe his errours and opposition to the Church Nay how came Ruffinus himself to fall into the very same prodigious mistake For he not onely rejects the controverted Books out of the Canon but saith he follow'd the ancient Tradition therein What account can be given of this matter If Innocent's Tradition were right these men were under a gross Delusion and yet they were learned and knowing Persons and more than ordinarily conversant in the Doctrines and Traditions of the Church 2. This Opinion was not received as a Tradition of the Church afterwards For if it had been how could Gregory I. reject the Book of Machabees out of the Canon when two of his Predecessours took it in It is somewhat hard to suppose one Pope to contradict two of his Predecessours about the Canon of Scripture yet I see not how to avoid it nor how it is consistent with the Constancy of Tradition much less with the pretence to Infallibility He did not merely doubt as Canus would have it thought but he
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
as to this Point And no one upon all Occasions speaks more expresly than he doth as to the Sufficiency of Scripture for a Rule of Faith and he was too great and too wise a Man to contradict himself 2. That there were different forms of speech used in the Church concerning the Holy Ghost some taken out of Scripture and others received by Tradition from the Fathers When he proves the Divinity of the Holy Ghost he appeals to Scripture and declares that he would neither think nor speak otherwise than he found there But it was objected that the Form S. Basil used was not found in Scripture he answers that the equivalent is there found and that there were some things received by Tradition which had the same force towards Piety And if we take away all unwritten Customs we shall doe wrong to the Gospel and leave a bare name to the Publick Preaching And from thence he insists on some Traditionary Rites as the Sign of the Cross Praying towards the East c. His business is to shew that to the greater solemnity of Christian Worship several Customs were observed in the Church which are not to be found in Scripture And if other ancient Customs were received which are not commanded in Scripture he sees no Reason that they should find such fault with this And this is the whole force of S. Basil's Reasoning which can never be stretched to the setting up Tradition as a Rule of Faith distinct from Scripture Having thus shewed that there was no Catholick Tradition for this New Rule of Faith I am now to give an Account how it came into the Church The first Step that was made towards it was by the second Council of Nice For although the Emperour in the Synodical Epistle proposed to them the true ancient Mehod of judging in Councils By the Books of Scripture placed on a Throne in the middle of the Council yet they found they could by no means doe their business that Way and therefore as Bellarmin observes they set up Tradition in the 6th and 7th Sessions and pronounced Anathema's against those who rejected unwritten Traditions But although there were then almost as little pretence for Tradition as Scripture in the matter of Images yet there having been a practice among them to set up and to worship Images which Richerius thinks came first into the Church from the Reverence shewed to the Emperours Statues they thought this the securest way to advance that which they could never defend by Scripture But this prevailed very little in the Western Church as is well known by the rejection of that Synod however Pope Hadrian joined with them and produced a wretched Tradition about Sylvester and Constantine to justifie their Proceedings as appears by the Acts of that Council And from the time that Images were received at Rome the force of Tradition was magnified and by degrees it came to be made use of to justifie other Practices for which they had nothing else to plead Hitherto Tradition was made use of for matters of Practice and the Scripture was generally received as the Rule of Faith but some of the Schoolmen found it impossible to defend some Doctrines held in the Church of Rome by mere Scripture and therefore they were forced to call in the Help of Tradition The most remarkable of these was Scotus who although in his Prologue he asserted as is said already that the Scripture did sufficiently contain all things necessary to salvation yet when he came to particular Points he found Scripture alone would never doe their business And especially as to the Sacraments of the Church about which he saw the Church of Rome then held many things which could never be proved from thence And this was the true occasion of Traditions being taken in for a partial Rule For after the Council of Lateran had declared several things to be of Faith which were in no former Creeds as Scotus confesses and they were bound to defend them as Points of Faith the Men of Wit and Subtilty such as Scotus was were very hard put to it to find out ways to prove those to have been old Points of Faith which they knew to be very new Then they betook themselves to two things which would serve for a colour to blind the common People and those were 1. That it was true these things were not in Scripture but Christ said to his Disciples I have many things to say unto you c. and among those many things they were to believe these new Doctrines to be some 2. When this would not serve then they told them though these Doctrines were not explicitly in Scripture yet they were implicitly there and the Church had authority to fetch them out of those dark places and to set them in a better light And thus Scotus helped himself out in that dark Point of Transubstantiation First he attempts to make it out by Tradition but finding that would not doe the business effectually he runs to the Authority of the Church especially in the business of Sacraments and we are to suppose saith he that the Church doth expound the Scripture with the same Spirit which indited them This was a brave Supposition indeed but he offers no proof of it If we allow Scotus to have been the Introducer of Tradition as to some Points of Faith yet I have made it appear that his Doctrine was not received in the Schools But after the Council of Constance had declared several Propositions to be Heretical which could not be condemned by Scripture there was found a Necessity of holding that there were Catholick Truths not contained in Scripture The first Proposition there condemned was That the Substance of Bread and Wine remain in the Sacrament of the Altar the second That the Accidents do not remain without their Subject Now how could such as these be condemned by Scripture But although onely some were said to be Heretical yet all were said to be against Catholick Truth But where is this Catholick Truth to be found Cardinal Cusanus thought of a current sense of Scripture according to the Churches Occasions so that though the Churches Practice should be directly contrary yet the Scripture was to be understood as the Church practised This was a very plain and effectual way if it had not been too gross and therefore it was thought much better by Cardinal Turrecremata to found Catholick Verities on unwritten Tradition as well as on Scripture After this Leo X. in his famous Bull against Luther Exurge Domine made a farther step for 22 Proposition condemned therein is That it is certain that it is not in the power of the Church or Pope to appoint new Articles of Faith. It seems then the Pope or Church have a Power to constitute new Articles of Faith and then neither Scripture nor Tradition can be the certain Rule of Faith but the Present Church or Pope
This had put an end to the business if it would have taken but the World being wiser and the Errours and Corruptions complained of not being to be defended 〈◊〉 Scripture Tradition was pitched upon as a secure Way and accordingly several attempts were made towards the setting of it up by some Provincial Councils before that of Trent So in the Council of Sens 1527. Can. 53. It is declared to be a pernicious Errour to receive nothing but what is deduced from Scripture because Christ delivered many things to his Apostles which were never written But not one thing is alledged as a matter of Faith so conveyed but onely some Rites about Sacraments and Prayer and yet he is declared a Heretick as well as Schismatick who rejects them Indeed the Apostles Creed is mentioned but not as to the Articles contained in it but as to the Authours of it But what is there in all this that makes a man guilty of Heresie Jod Clicthoveus a Doctor of Paris the next Year wrote an Explication and Defence of this Council but he mistakes the Point for he runs upon it as if it were whether all things to be believed and observed in the Church were to be expresly set down in Scripture whereas a just consequence out of it is sufficient And the greatest strength of what he saith to the purpose is that the other Opinion was condemned in the Council of Constance And from no better a Tradition than this did the Council of Trent declare the unwritten Word to be a Rule of Faith equal with the Scriptures II. About the Canon of Scripture defined by the Council of Trent This is declared by the Council of Trent Sess. 4. and therein the Books of Tobias Judith Wisedom of Solomon Ecclesiasticus Maccabees and Baruch are received for Canonical with the twenty two Books in the Hebrew Canon and an Anathema is denounced against those who do not And presently it adds that hereby the World might see what Authorities the Council proceeded on for conâ—â—rming matters of Faith as well as reforming manners Now to shew that there was no Catholick Tradition for the ground of this Decree we are to observe 1. That these Canonical Books are not so called in a large sense for such as have been used or read in the Church but in the strict sense for such as are a good Foundation to build matters of Faith upon 2. That these Books were not so received by all even in the Council of Trent For what is received by virtue of a Catholick Tradition must be universally received by the Members of it But that so it was not appears by the account given by both the Historians F. Paul saith that in the Congregation there were two different Opinions of those who were for a particular Catalogue one was to distinguish the Books into three parts the other to make all the Books of equal authority and that this latter was carried by the greater number Now if this were a Catholick Tradition how was it possible for the Fathers of the Council to divide about it And Cardinal Pallavicini himself saith that Bertanus and Seripandus propounded the putting the Books into several Classes some to be read for Piety and others to confirm Doctrines of Faith and that Cardinal Seripando wrote a most learned Book to that purpose What! against a Catholick Tradition It seems he was far from believing it to be so And he confesses that when they came to the Anathema the Legats and twenty Fathers were for it Madrucci and fourteen were against it because some Catholicks were of another opinion Then certainly they knew no Catholick Tradition for it Among these Cardinal Cajetan is mention'd who was saith Pallavicini severely rebuked for it by Melchior Canus but what is that to the Tradition of the Church Canus doth indeed appeal to the Council of Carthage Innocentius I. and the Council of Florence but this doth not make up a Catholick Tradition against Cajetan who declares that he follows S. Jerom who cast those Books out of the Canon with Respect to Faith. And he answers the Arguments brought on the other side by this distinction that they are Canonical for Edification but not for Faith. If therefore Canus would have confuted Cajetan he ought to have proved that they were owned for Canonical in the latter Sense Cajetan in his Epistle to Clemens VII before the Historical Books owns the great Obligation of the Church to S. Jerom for distinguishing Canonical and Apocryphal Books and saith that he hath freed it from the Reproach of the Jews who said the Christians made Canonical Books of the Old Testament which they knew nothing of And this was an Argument of great consequence but Canus takes no notice of it and it fully answers his Objection that men could not know what Books were truly Canonical viz. such as were of divine inspiration and so received by the Jews Catharinus saith in Answer to Cajetan that the Jews had one Canon and the Church another But how comes the Canon to be received as of divine Inspiration which was not so received among the Jews This were to resolve all into the Churches Inspiration and not into Tradition Bellarmin grants that the Church can by no means make a Book Canonical which is not so but onely declare what is Canonical and that not at pleasure but from ancient Testimonies from similitude of style with Books uncontroverted and the general Sense and Taste of Christian People Now the Case here relates to Books not first written to Christians but among the Jews from whom we receive the Oracles of God committed to them And if the Jews never believed these Books to contain the Oracles of God in them how can the Christian Church embrace them for such unless it assumes a Power to make and not merely to declare Canonical Books For he grants we have no Testimony of the Jews for them But Catharinus himself cannot deny that S. Jerom saith that although the Church reads those Books yet it doth not receive them for Canonical Scriptures And he makes a pitisull Answer to it For he confesses that the Church taken for the Body of the Faithfull did not receive them but as taken for the Governours it did But others grant that they did receive them no more than the People and as to the other the cause of Tradition is plainly given us And in truth he resolves all at last into the opinion of the Popes Innocentius Gelasius and Eugenius 4. But we are obliged to him for letting us know the Secret of so much zeal for these Apocryphal Books viz. that they are of great force against the Hereticks for Purgatory is no where so expresly mention'd as in the Maccabees If it had not been for this S. Jerom and Cajetan might have escaped Censure and the Jewish Canon had been sufficient But to shew that there hath been no Catholick Tradition about
Of those who denied it to be of Divine Right but held it to be useful in the Church and for this he quotes Rhenanus and Erasmus 2. Of those who make it to be onely of Ecclesiastical Institution and this saith he is the Opinion of all the Canonists 3. Of those who thought it came in by Apostolical Tradition of which he reckons Theodore Archbishop of Canterbury 4. Of some Divines who held it to be instituted only by St. James 5. Of others who held it to be of Divine Right and not instituted by the Apostles but insinuated by Christ and for this he quotes Alexander Hales and Bonaventure 6. Of some who thought it instituted in the Old Testament 7 Of those who held it instituted by Christ but not as a Precept but by way of Council and for this he mentions Scotus and his Followers Vasquez reckons up among those whose Opinions are not condemned The Canonists Erasmus Bonaventure Alexander Hales and Scotus who all differed from the Council of Trent Suarez mentions three Opinions among them 1. Of those who said it was instituted in the Law of Nature 2. Of those who attributed it to the Law of Moses 3 Of those who dâ—nyed any Institution of it by way of Precept from Christ in the Law of Grace and for this he quotes Hugo de Sancto Victore Alexandèr Hales and Bonaventure and they went upon this Ground that no such Institution could be proved either by Scripture or Tradition Gregory de Valentia Confesses some Catholick Authors denied the Divine Institution of Confession for which he produces the Canonists and Erasmus and Rhenanus But he thinks they were not guilty of Heresie because they were not obstinate but that is not our business which is to shew that by their own confession there was not a constant Catholick Tradition in the Church about it Natalis Alexander who hath lately pretended to answer Daillè confesses that from the ninth to the thirteenth Age many Catholicks did hold that Confession to God alone was sufficient to obtain Remission of sins and he proves it from Lombard Gratian and the Canonists But he saith it was no heresie in them the point not being yet settled by a general Council Boileau in his Answer to Daillè cannot deny that in the time of Lombard and Gratian men held several ways about this matter but he answers with Thomas upon the Sentences that it was an opinion then but since the Council of Lateran it is become a Heresie But if it were no heretical Opinion then what becomes of Infallible Tradition If the Church defines by Tradition that Tradition must be proved before the Definition otherwise it hath no ground to proceed upon The Council of Lateran under Innocent III. it seems made it a Heresie to deny this Sacramental Confession Within much less than a Century before it lived Peter Lombard and Gratian. Peter Lombard made it his business to collect a Body of Divinity out of the Sentences of the Fathers and his work hath been universally esteemed in the Roman Church When he comes to state this point of Confession out of the Fathers i. e. to give an account of the Tradition of the Church about it he tells us in the beginning that learned men were of different opinions and for what reason because the Doctors of the Church seemed to deliver not only divers but contrary things i. e. they had no certain and constant Tradition about them And when he comes to the point of Confession to God only he quotes for it besides Scripture S. Ambrose and S. Chrysostem and Prosper and against it S. Augustine and Leo and concludes himself for the latter but saith not a word more to shew that the constant Tradition of the Church had been for this opinion Gratian puts the same Question and for Confession to God alone he quotes S. Ambrose S. Augustine and Prosper besides Scripture and argues largely for it after c. Convertimini c. Then he sets down the Arguments on the other side from c. 38. and after c. 60. he sums up the force of them and again after c. 87. and when he hath said all on one side and on the other he concludes after c. 89. that he left all to the Readers Judgment for both Opinions had wise and pious Defenders and produces that saying as out of Theodore's Penitential that some think that we ought to confess only to God as the Greeks others that we ought to do it to the Priest too as almost all the Church besides but then he adds that Confession to God purges away Sin but that to the Priest shews how they are purged i. e. by Contrition So the Gloss interprets it Bellarmin thinks that ut Groeci was foisted into the Canon and I shall not dispute against it provided that which answers to it ut tota ferè sancta Ecclesta be allowed to be so too as the Roman Correctors do confess Boileau hath taken another course for he saith this whole Distinction is without ground attributed to Gratian but how doth he prove it From Ant. Augustinus his Dialogue where a MS. is cited that this was not Gratian's but an elder Author 's And what is gotten by this But the other answers it must be Gratian 's because of the citation out of the Digests and other Books of Civil Law then lately found If this will not do he saith Gratian hath many Errours as the Roman Correctors observe Yes truly do they and about this Point several times for the Councils of Lateran and Trent have otherwise determined But what is all this to the Tradition of the Church in Gratian's time Innocent III. in the Council of Lateran enjoyns strictly the Practice of Confession once a year under the Penalty of Excommunication and of being deprived of Christian Burial but there is not a Word of the Churches Tradition before for the Ground of it But finding several Opinions about it and the Waldenses then opposing it he resolves by his Authority to bind all Persons to it But after this the Canonists allowed no more than Ecclesiastical Institution for it as is plain by the Gloss on the Canon Law Dist. 5. de Poenit. Tit. In Poenitentia but the Roman Correctours quote against it Council Trident. Sess. 14. c. 5. i. e. a Council some 100 years after must tell what the Tradition then was but the Gloss saith the Greeks had no such Tradition and therefore were not bound to Confession So that we have no evidence for any Catholick Tradition in this matter before the Lateran Council 2. But the Council of Trent hath gone beyond the Council of Lateran and hath fixed the Divine Right of Confession on John 20. Whose sins ye remit c. and therefore I am now to shew by the Confession of their own Writers that this hath not been the Traditionary Sense of this Place Cajetan not long before the Council first sate
mere Oral Tradition according to him but it may be found in the Writers of the Church but the Canon Law expresly excludes all other Writings let them contain what they will from being admitted to any Competition with Canonical Scripture and therefore according to that no part of the Rule of Faith was contained in any other than Canonical Scriptures Dist. 37. c. Relatum A man is supposed to have an entire and firm Rule of Faith in the Scriptures Caus. 8. q. 1. c. Nec sufficere The Scriptures are said to be the onely Rule both of Faith and Life And the Gloss on the Canon Law there owns the Scripture to be the Rule for matters of Faith but very pleasantly applies it to the Clergy and thinks Images enough for the Laity Caus. 24. q. 1. c. Non afferentes The Scriptures are acknowledged to be the true Balance and that we are not so much to weigh what we find there as to own what we find there already weighed Which must imply the Scripture alone to be that Measure we are to trust to Dist. 8. c. 4 5 6 7 8 9. It is there said that Custome must yield to Truth and Reason when that is discovered and that for this Reason because Christ said I am Truth and not Custome Now if Tradition be an Infallible Rule of Faith Custome ought always to be presumed to have Truth and Reason of its side For if we can once suppose a Custome to prevail in the Church against Truth and Reason it is impossible that Tradition should be Infallible for what is that but Ancient Custome Caus. 11. Q. 3. c. 101. Si is qui proeest If any one commands what God hath forbidden or forbids what God hath commanded he is to be accursed of all that love God. And if he requires any thing besides the Will of God or what God hath evidently required in Scripture he is to be looked on as a false Witness of God and a Sacrilegious Person How can this be if there be another infallible way of conveying the Will of God besides the Scriptures Caus. 24. q. 3. c. 30. c. Quid autem In matters of doubt it is said that men are to fly to the Written word for satisfaction and that it is folly not to doe it It is true Mens own Fancies are opposed to Scripture but against Mens Fancies no other Rule is mentioned but that of the Written Word Joh. 22. Extravag c. Quia quorundam Tit. 14. makes his Appeal to Scripture in the Controversie then on foot about Use and Property Dicunt nobis ubi legunt c. and he shews that if it were a matter of Faith it must be contained in Scripture either expresly or by reduction otherwise the Scripture would be no certain Rule and by consequence the Articles of Faith which are proved by Scripture would be rendred doubtfull and uncertain The Glosser there saith Whence comes this consequence and refers to another place where he makes it out thus that Faith can onely be proved by the Scripture and therefore if the Authority of that be destroy'd Faith would be taken away The Roman Editors for an Antidote refer to Cardinal Turrecremata who doth indeed speak of Catholick Truths which are not to be found in the Canon of Scripture and he quotes a passage in the Canon Law for it under the name of Alex. 3. c. cum Marthoe Extrav de Celebr Missae but in truth it is Innoc. 3. Decretal l. 3. Tit. 41. and yet this will not prove what he aims at for the Question was about the Authour of the Words added in the Eucharist to those of Christ's Institution and he pleads that many of Christ's words and actions are omitted by the Evangelists which the Apostles afterwards set down and he instances in Saint Paul as to those words of Christ It is more blessed to give than to receive and elsewhere But what is all this to Catholick Truths not being contained in Scripture either in words or by consequence The Cardinal was here very much to seek when he had nothing but such a Testimony as this to produce in so weighty and so new a Doctrine The best Argument he produces is a horrible blunder of Gratian's where S. Augustin seems to reckon the Decretal Epistles equal with the Scriptures Dist. 19. c. in Canonicis which the Roman Correctors were ashamed of and consess that S. Augustin speaks onely of Canonical Epistles in Scripture So hard must they strain who among Christians would set up any other Rule equal with the Written Word 4. I proceed to prove this from the ancient Offices of the Roman Church In the Office produced by Morinus out of the Vatican MS. which he saith was very ancient the Bishop before his Consecration was asked If he would accommodate all his prudence to the best of his skill to the Sense of Holy Scripture Resp. Yes I will with all my heart consent and obey it in all things Inter. Wilt thou teach the People by Word and Example the things which thou learnest out of holy Scriptures Resp. I will. And then immediately follows the Examen about Manners In another old Office of S. Victor's there are the same Questions in the same manner And so in another of the Church of Rouen lately produced by Mabillon which he saith was about William the Conquerour's time there is not a word about Traditions which crept into the Ordo Romanus and from thence hath been continued in the Roman Pontificals But it is observable that the Ordo Romanus owns that the Examen was originally taken out of the Gallican Offices although it does not appear in those imperfect ones lately published at Rome by Thâ—masius and therefore we may justly suspect that the additional Questions about Traditions were the Roman Interpolations after it came to be used in that Pontifical And the first Office in Morinus was the true ancient Gallican Office. But if Tradition had been then owned as a Rule of Faith it ought no more to have been omitted in the ancient Offices than in the modern And the ancient Writers about Ecclesiastical Offices speak very agreeably to the most ancient Offices about this matter Amalarius saith the Gospel is the Fountain of Wisedom and that the Preachers ought to prove the Evangelical Truth out of the sacred Books Isidore that we ought to think nothing as to matters of Faith but what is contained in the two Testaments Rabanus Maurus that the knowledge of the Scriptures is the foundation and perfection of Prudence That Truth and Wisedom are to be tried by them and the perfect instruction of Life is contained in them Our Venerable Bede agrees with them when he saith that the true Teachers take out of the Scriptures of the old and new Testament that which they preach and therefore have their minds imploy'd in finding out the true meaning of them 5. I now come
now to enquire what Catholick Tradition the Pope and Council went upon in this Prohibition But as to the Testimony of Fathers I am prevented by some late Discourses on this Subject In stead thereof therefore I shall 1. Shew from their own Writers that there could be no Catholick Tradition for such a Prohibition 2. Prove the General Consent of the Catholick Church from publick Acts as to the free use of the Scripture Thomas Aquinas grants that the Scripture was proposed to all and in such a manner that the most rude might understand it Therefore there was no Prohibition of such Persons reading it Cajetan there uses two Arguments for the Scriptures using Metaphors and Similitudes 1. Because God provides for all 2. Because the Scripture is tendred to all And the common People are not capable of understanding spiritual things without such helps If the Scripture were intended for all how comes a Prohibition of the use of it Sixtus Senensis grants that in former times the Scripture was translated into the vulgar Languages and the People did commonly reade it to their great Benefit Then a Prohibition of it must alter the Churches practical Tradition Alphonsus à Castro yields to Erasmus that the Scriptures were of old translated into the vulgar Tongues and that the Fathers such as S. Chrysostom and S. Jerom persuaded People to the reading them But the Case is altered now when such mischief comes by the Reading the Scriptures And yet the Tradition of the Church continues the same and is impossible to be changed Azorius puts the Case fairly he grants that the Scriptures were at first written and published in the Common Language that S. Chrysostom admits all to reade the Scriptures and that the People did so then but they do not now But he saith the People then understood Greek and Latin and now they do not If it were their own Language they might well understand it but why should not the Scripture now be in a Language they may understand For Greek and Latin did not make the common People one jot wiser or better and yet this Man calls it a Heresie now to say the Scriptures ought to be translated into vulgar Languages How much is the Faith of the Church changed 2. I am now to prove the General Consent of the Catholick Church in this matter from publick Acts i. e. that all Parts of it have agreed in Translations of Scripture into Vulgar Languages without any such Prohibition If there had been any such thing in the Primitive Church it would have held against the Latin Translation it self For I hope none will say it was the Original however Authentick it be made by the Council of Trent How then came the Originals to be turned into the common Language as I suppose Latin will be allow'd to have been the common Language of the Roman Empire There is no Objection can now be made against any modern Translations but would have held against the first Latin Version Who the Authour of it was is utterly unknown and both S. Augustin and S. Jerom say there was a great variety among the old Translations and every one Translated as he thought fit So that there was no restraint laid upon translating into the common Language And unless Latin were an infallible Guide to those that understood it the People were as liable to be deceived in it as either in English or French. But it was not onely thus in the Roman Empire but whereever a People were converted to Christianity in all thè elder times the Scripture was turned into their Language The Ecclesiastical Historians mention the Conversion of the Goths and upon that the Translation of the Bible into their Language by Ulphilas their Bishop Walafridus Strabo adds to this that besides the Bible they had all publick Offices of Religion performed in their own Language How soon the Churches in Persia were planted it is impossible for us now to know but in the MS. Ecclesiastical History of Abulpharagius in the hands of Dr. Loftus it is said that a Disciple of Thaddaeus preached the Gospel in Persia Assyria and the Parts thereabouts and that by another Disciple of his 360 Churches were settled there in his time and that he came to Seleucia the Metropolis of the Persians and there established a Church where he continued fifteen years And from him there was a Succession of the Patriarchs of Seleucia which continues still in the East for upon destruction thereof by Almansor they removed first to Bagdad and after that to Mozal over against Ninive where their residence hath been since and this Patriarch had universal Jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches as far as the East Indies as appears by Morinus his Books of Ordinations in the East and the proceedings with the Christians of St. Thomas in the very end of the last Century But we are certain from the Greek Historians that in Constantine's time the Christians in Persia were so numerous that he wrote to the King of Persia on their behalf Eusebius saith that Constantine was informed that the Churches were much increased there and great Multitudes were brought into Christ's Flock and Constantine himself in his Letter to Sapores saith the Christians flourished in the best parts of Persia and he hoped they might continue so to doe But after Constantine's death a terrible Persecution befell them wherein Sozomen saith the Names of 16000 Martyrs were preserved besides an innumerable Multitude of unknown persons The sharpest part of the Persecution fell upon the Bishops and Presbyters especially in Adiabene which was almost wholly Christian which Ammianus Marcellinus saith was the same with Assyria wherein were Ninive Ecbatane Arbela Gaugamela Babylon or Seleucia and Ctesiphon of which Sozomen saith Symeon was then Archbishop And he names above twenty Bishops who suffered besides and one Mareabdes a Chorepiscopus with 250 of his Clergy After the time of Sapores several sharp Persecutions fell upon those Churches in the times of Vararanes and Isdigerdes of which the Greek Historians take notice and one of them saith Theodoret lasted thirty years This I mention to shew what mean thoughts those have of the Catholick Church who consine it to the Roman Communion Theodoret and S. Chrysostom both affirm that the Persians had the Scriptures then in their own Language and Sozomen saith that Symeon Archbishop of Seleucia and Ctesiphon before his own Martyrdom incouraged the rest to suffer out of the holy Scriptures Which supposes them well acquainted with the Language of it and it is not very likely they should be either with the Hebrew Greek or Latin but the other Testimonies make it clear that it was in their own Tongue The Anonymous Writer of S. Chrysostom's Life affirms that while he staid in Armenia he caused the New Testament to be translated into the Armenian Tongue for the benefit of those Churches And this Tradition is allow'd
by several learned Men in the Church of Rome But the Armenians themselves say the whole Bible was translated into the Armenian Language by Moses Grammaticus David and Mampraeus three learned Men of their own in the time of their Patriarch Isaac about S. Chrysostom 's time Theodoret in the place already cited mentions the Armenian Translation as a thing well known and he was near enough to understand the truth of it Jacobus de Vitriaco a Roman Cardinal saith that the Armenians in his time had the Scriptures read to them in their own Language The Syriack Version for the Use of those in the Eastern parts who understood not Hebrew or Greek is allowed by all learned Men to have been very ancient I mean the old simple Version out of the Originals and not that out of the LXX of the Old Testament As to the New the Tradition of the Eastern People is that it was done either in the Apostles times or very near them Abraham Ecchellensis shews from the Syriack Writers that the Compleat Translation of the Bible was made in the time of Abgarus King of Edessa by the means of Thaddaeus and the other Apostles and as to the time of Thaddaeus Gregorius Malatiensis confirms it Postellus quotes an ancient Tradition which my Adversaries ought to regard that S. Mark himself Translated not only his own Gospel but all the Books of the Neâ— Testament into the Vulgar Syriack It is sufficient to my purpose to shew that there was such an ancient Translation which is owned by S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose S. Augustin Diodorus and Theodoret which makes me wonder at Cardinal Bellarmin's affirming with so much confidence that none of the Fathers speak of the Syriack Version when Theodoret alone mentions it so often in his Commentaries Although the Greeks in Egypt might very well understand the Greek of the Old and New Testament especially if that which is called the LXX were done by the Alexandrian Jews as some imagine yet those who knew no other than the old Egyptian Language could not make use of it And therefore a Coptick Translation was made for them which Kircher thinks to have been 1300 years old And he withal observes that their ancient Liturgies were in the Coptick Language That it might not be suspâ—cted that Kircher imposed upon the World he gives a particular account of the Books he had seen in the Vatican Library and elsewhere in the Coptick Tongue The Pentateuch in three Tomes distinguished into Paragraphs by lines The four Gospels by themselves S. Paul's Epistles and three Canonical Epistles with the Acts in another Volume The Apocalypse by it self and the Psalter The Liturgy of S. Mark with other daily Prayers The Liturgy of S. Gregory with the Prayers of S. Cyril in the Coptick Language and a Liturgy of S. Basil with Gregory and Cyril with several other Rituals Missals and Prayers all in the same Tongue All these he saith are in the Vatican Library And in that of the Maronites College he saith is an old Coptick Martyrology about 1300 years standing by which he finds that the chief imployment of the old Egyptian Monks was to translate the Bible out of Hebrew Chaldee and Greek into the Coptick Tongue Morinus saith that in the Oratorian Lbrary at Paris they had the Coptick Gospels brought from Constantinople by Monsr de Sancy Petrus à Valle a Nobleman of Rome and a great Traveller saith he had several parts of Scripture in the Coptick Language which were turned into Arabick when the old Coptick grew into disuse Petraeus had in the Eastern Parts a Coptick Psalter with an Arabick Version which he designed to publish The Congregation de propaganda Fide at Rome had several Coptick MSS. sent to them out of Egypt among the rest the Coptick Book of Ordination Transloatd and Printed by Kircher and since reprinted by Morinus Seguier the late Chancellour of France had in his Library the Consecration of a Patriarch in Coptick and Arabick and several Translations of the Bible and Prayers in both Languages The Aethiopick Translation bears date with the Conversion of the Nation according to their own Tradition which some make to be in the Apostolical times and others in the time of Constantine and their Publick Offices are performed in their own Tongue The Chancellour Seguier had not only many parts of the Bible but Prayers and Offices in the Aethiopick Tongue I shall add but one thing more to this purpose which is taken from the want of Antiquity in the Arabick Versions which is confessed by the learned Criticks on all sides And even this tends to prove my design For when the Saracen Empire prevailed the People grew more acquainted with the Arabick than with the ancient Syriack or Coptick and therefore the Scripture was then translated into Arabick as Vasaeus saith it was done in Spain after the Moors came thither by a Bishop of Sevil and this was the true reason why the Arabick Versions have no greater Antiquity For Gabriel Sionita observes that the Arabick is become the most Vulgar Language in the Eastern Parts And because it was so in Syria as well as Egypt therefore there are different Arabick Versions the one called Codex Antiochenus and the other Alexandrinus Thus I have proved that there was a Catholick Tradition directly contrary to that established by order of the Council of Trent And now I proceed to give an Account of the Methods and Steps by which this Decree came to its ripeness 1. The first Step was the Declension and Corruption of the Latin Tongue in the Western Church It is observed by Polybius that from the time of the first League between the Romans and Carthaginians the Latin Tongue was so much changed even in Rome it self that very few could understand the Words of it And Festus in Latine loqui saith that the Language was so alter'd that scarce any part of it remained entire Scaliger thinks these words were added to Festus by Paulus Diaconus which seems much more probable since he lived in the time of Charlemagn At which time we may easily suppose the Latin Tongue to have been very much corrupted by the Writers and not so easie to be understood any where by the Common People in sudden Discourse as it had been before Which appears evident by the Latin Sermons made to the People in the several Provinces in the Roman Empire as in Africa by S. Augustin and Fulgentius in Italy by Petrus Chrysologus Laurentius Novariensis Gaudentius Brixiensis Ennodius Ticinensis In Spain by Isidore Ildephonsus and others In Gaul by Caesarius Eucherius Eligius and several others whose Latin Sermons to the People are still extant In the Council of Tours in the time of Charlemagn particular care is taken that the Homilies should be translated by their Bishops either into the Rustick Roman or the German that the People might the easier understand
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