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
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
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
plainly excludes them out of the Canon Catharinus thinks he follow'd S. Jerom. What then Doth this exclude his contradicting his Predecessours Or was S. Jerom's Judgment above the Pope's But it was not S. Gregory alone who contradicted the former Popes Canon for it was not received either in Italy Spain France Germany or England and yet no doubt it was a very Catholick Tradition Not in Italy for there Cassiodore a learned and devout Man in the next Century to them gives an account of the Canon of Scripture and he takes not any notice either of Innocent or Gelasius He first sets down the Order of Scripture according to S. Jerom and then according to S. Augustin and in the last place according to the old Translation and the LXX and where himself speaks of the Apocryphal Books before he follows S. Jerom 's Opinion that they were written rather for manners than Dactrine He confesses there was a difference about the Canon but he goes about to excuse it But what need that if there were a Catholick Tradition then in the Church concerning it and that inforced by two Popes But it may yet seem stranger that even in Italy one canonized for a Saint by Clemens VII should follow S. Jerom's Opinion in this matter viz. S. Antoninus Bishop of Florence Who speaking of Ecclestasticus received into the Canon of the two Popes he saith it is onely received by the Church to be read and is not authentick to prove any thing in matters of Faith. He that writes Notes upon him saith that he follows S. Jerom and must be understood of the Eastern Church for the Western Church always receiv'd these Books into the Canon But he speaks not one word of the Eastern Church and by the Church he could understand nothing but what he accounted the Catholick Church Canus allows Antoninus to have rejected these Books but he thinks the matter not so clear but then they might doubt concerning it Then there was no such Evidence of Tradition to convince men But Antoninus hath preserved the Judgment of a greater man concerning these Books even Thomas Aquinas who in 2. 2 dae he saith denied these Books to have such authority as to prove any matter of Faith by them which is directly contrary to the Council of Trent If this passage be not now to be found in him we know whom to blame for it If Antoninus saw it there we hope his word may be taken for it In Spain we have for the Hebrew Canon the Testimonies of Paulus Burgensis Tostatus and Cardinal Ximines In France of Victorinus Agobardus Radulphus Flaviacensis Petrus Cluniacensis Hugo de S. Victore and Richard de S. Victore Lyra and others In Germany of Rabanus Maurus Strabus Rupertus Hermannus Contractus and others In England of Bede Alcvin Sarisburiensis Ockam Waldensis and others Whom I barely mention because their Testimonies are at large in Bishop Cosins his Scholastical History of the Canon of Scripture and no man hath yet had the hardiness to undertake that Book These I think are sufficient to shew there was no Catholick Tradition for the Decree of the Council of Trent about the Canon of Scripture I now proceed to shew on what pretences and colours it came in and by what degrees and steps it advanced 1. The first step was the Esteem which some of the Fathers expressed of these Books in quoting of passages out of them We do not deny that the Fathers did frequently cite them even those who expresly rejected them from being Canonical and not as ordinary Books but as such as were usefull to the Church wherein many wise Sayings and good Actions are recorded But the many Quotations the Fathers do make out of them is the onely plausible pretence which those of the Church of Rome have to defend the putting them into the Canon as appears by Bellarmin and others The Book of Tobit they tell us is mentioned by S. Cyprian S. Ambrose St. Basil and St. Augustin Of Judith by St. Jerom who mentions a Tradition that it was allowed in the Council of Nice but certainly S. Jerom never believed it when he declares it to be Apocryphal and not sufficient to prove any matter of Faith. The Book of Wisedom by S. Cyprian S. Cyril and S. Augustin Ecclesiasticus by Clemens Alexandrinus S. Cyprian Epiphanius S. Ambrose and S. Augustin The Machabees by Tertullian Cyprian Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Eusebius S. Ambrose S. Augustin But all these Testimonies onely prove that they thought something in those Books worth alledging but not that they judged the Books themselves Canonical And better Arguments from their Citations might be brought for the Books of the Sibylls than for any of these We are not then to judge of their Opinion of Canonical Books by bare Citations but by their declared Judgments about them 2. The next step was when they came to be read in Churches but about this there was no certain Rule For the Councils of Laodicea and Carthage differed chiefly upon this Point The former decreed That none but Canonical Scripture should be read under the Name of Holy Writings and sets down the names of the Canonical Books then to be read and so leaves out the Apocalypse The latter from their being read inferr'd their being Canonical for it agrees with the other that none but Canonical should be read and because these were read it reckons them up with the Canonical Books for so the Canon concludes We have received from our Fathers that these Books are to be read in Churches But the Council of Carthage was not peremptory in this matter but desired it might be referred to Boniface and other Bishops beyond the Seas Which shews that here was no Decree absolutely made nor any Certainty of Tradition for then to what purpose should they send to other Churches to advise about it 3. When they came to be distinguished from Apocryphal Writings Whence those who do not consider the Reason of it conclude them to have been Canonical But sometimes Apocryphal signified such Books as were not in the Canon of Faith as in the Authours before mentioned sometimes such Books which were not allowed to be used among Christians This distinction we have in Ruffinus who saith there are three sorts of Books Canonical as the 22 of the Old Testament Ecclesiastical of which sort he reckons Wisedom Ecclesiasticus Tobit Judith and Machabees and these he saith were permitted to be read in Churches but no Argument could be brought out of them for matter of Faith Apocryphal are such which by no means were permitted to be read And thus Innocentius his words may well be understood For he concludes with saying that other Writings were not onely to be rejected but to be condemned And so his meaning is to distinguish them from such counterfeit Divine Writings as were then abroad For these were not to be wholly rejected and in that large sense he admits them into the
Society with J. W. and he frankly owns the Prohibition of reading the Scripture made by the Rule of the Index to have been done by the Authority of the Council of Trent The Faculty at Paris in the Articles sent to Gregory XIII against the Translation of Rene Benoit several times own the Rules of the Index as done by the Council of Trent Quacunque Authoritate transferantur in Vulgarem linguam Biblia edantur vetat idem sacrosanctum Concilium ea passim sine discrimine permitti The same Ledesma goes farther and vouches the Authority of the Council of Trent in this matter from the Decree Sess. 23. c. 8. where it forbids all the Parts of the Mass to be in the Vulgar Tongue Which could not be reasonable if the Scripture were allowed to be translated Alphonsus à Castro thinks the case so alike that a prohibition of one amounts to a prohibition of the other too because the greater Part of the Office is taken out of the Scriptures and if the Scripture may be translated he saith it must follow that Divine Offices ought to be in the vulgar Tongue But to return to the Index The Congregation of the Index was as is said established by the Council in the 18. Session as the Council it self owns in the last Session and withall that the Rules of it were then formed but because of the multiplicity and variety of the Books the matter of the Index was referred to the Pope and to be published by his Authority as likewise the Catechism Missal and Breviary So that the Rules of the Index have the same Authority in the Church of Rome with the Roman Catechism Missal and Breviary Pius IV. in his Bull when he first set forth the Index A. D. 1564. owns that it was finished by the Fathers appointed by the Council of Trent but it was remitted to him by the Council that it might be approved by him and published by his Authority And he strictly commands the Rules of it to be observed under pain of Mortal Sin and Excommunication ipso jure After him Clement VIII in his Instructions about the Rules of the Index owns them to be made by the Fathers of the Council of Trent And the same Pope is so far from renewing the Power of granting Licenses to read the Scripture in the vulgar Languages that he declares against them For by the 4th Rule of the Index the Ordinary and Inquisitor by the Advice of the Parish Priest or Consessor might permit Persons to read the Bible in the vulgar Language so the Translation were made by Catholick Authours and it was apprehended by some that the new Printing the Rule might be giving new Authority to Bishops and Inquisitors to grant Licenses therefore the Pope declares against it and saith it was contrary to the Command and use of the Roman Church and Inquisition which ought to be inviolably observed In pursuance of this we find in the Roman Index of prohibited Books these words Bidlia vulgari quocunque idiomate conscripta i. e. All Bibles in vulgar Languages are prohibited Therefore I cannot understand how the giving License to Persons since the Declaration of Clemens VIII is consistent with the Duty which Persons of that Communion owe to the Authority of the Roman See unless they can produce a Revocation of the Bull of Clemens VIII and some latter Explications of the fourth Rule which take away the force of his But instead of that Alexander VII who published the Index again after Clement VIII owns that the first Index was made by Authority of the Council of Trent and it is observable that in his Bull A. D. 1664. he not onely prefixes the Rules of the Index but the Observations and Instruction of Clement VIII and confirms all by his Apostolical authority and injoyns the punctual Observation of the Orders contained therein inviolably under the same pains which were expressed in the Bull of Pius IV. Therefore as far as I can understand the Faculty of granting Licenses to reade the Translations of the Bible is taken away as far as the Pope's authority can doe it To what purpose then are we told of some modern Translations as long as the use of them is forbidden by the Pope's Authority And no Ordinaries can have Authority to grant Licenses against the Popes solemn Declaration to the contrary nor can any of that Communion with good Conscience make use of them But I am told there are Translations approved in the Roman Church By whom have they been approved By the Pope or the Congregation of the Index I do not sind any such Approbation given to any of them But on the contrary even in France such Translations have been vehemently opposed by the Bishops and Divines there as being repugnant to the Sense of the Roman Church And this is apparent by a Book published by Order of the Gallican Clergy A. D. 1661. Where-in it is said that it was the common and unanimous Sense and Practice of all Orthodox Persons that neither the Scriptures nor divine Offices ought to be put into Vulgar Languages it being injurious to the Christian Church and giving Occasion of Offence to the weak and unlearned How then can we imagine that such Translations should not onely be allowed but approved among them And besides the entire Treatises there collected against them of Card. Hosius Lizetius Spiritus Roterus Ledesma c. and the Fragments and Testimonies of several others we have a particular account of the proceedings of the Sorbon as to this matter In the Censure of Erasmus Dec. 17. 1527. the Sorbon declared Vulgar Translations of Scripture to be dangerous and pernicious The like Declaration had been made before A. D. 1525. and that all Translations of the Bible or of the Parts thereof ought rather to be suppressed than tolerated A. D. 1607. The Faculty again declared that it did not approve any Translations of Scripture into the Vulgar Language But J. W. instances p. 26. in some Translations that have been approved as a French Translation by the Doctours of Lovain But in the French Collection before mention'd I find that A. D. 1620. Dec. 1. a debate arose in the Faculty at Lovain about it and the Faculty declared that it by no means approved of it Another is of Rene Benoit which was so far from being approved that it was first condemned by the Faculty at Paris and then sent to Rome to be condemned by the Pope which was effectually done and Gregory XIII directed his Bull to the Faculty of Divinity in Paris Nov. 3. A. D. 1575. wherein he doth expresly forbid this Translation and reject it with an Anathema And yet this very Translation of Rene Benoit is one of those made by Catholicks and approved in the Roman Church which J. W. refers me to One of us two must needs be under a great Mistake but to whom it belongs I leave the Reader
yet must we believe there was at that time a known Catholick Tradition about it and that it was impossible they should err about such a Tradition Nay farther the same Authour tells us that although this Bishop had gained the greatest part of the Council to him yet his own heart misgave him and in the next Congregation himself proposed that instead of equal it might be put a like Veneration and yet we must believe there was a Catholick Tradition for an Equal Veneration to Scripture and Tradition But the Bishop of Chioza Naclantus he saith inveighed more bitterly against this Equality and in the face of the Council charged the Doctrine with Impiety and he would not allow any Divine Inspiration to Tradition but that they were to be considered onely as Laws of the Church It 's true he saith he professed to consent to the Decree afterwards but withall he tells us that he was brought under the Inquisition not long after upon suspicion of Heresie which shews they were not well satisfied with his submission We are extremely beholden to Cardinal Pallavicini for his Information in these matters which are past over too jejunely by F. Paul. 2. I proceed to the Testimony of the Divines of the Roman Church before the Council of Trent It is observed by some of them that when the Fathers appealed to the Tradition of the Church in any controverted Point of Faith they made their Appeal to those who wrote before the Controversie was started as S. Augustin did against the Pelagians c. This is a reasonable Method of proceeding in case Tradition be a Rule of Faith and therefore must be so even in this point whether Tradition be such a Rule or not For the Divines who wrote before could not be ignorant of the Rule of Faith they received among themselves Gabriel Biel lived in the latter end of the 15th Century and he affirms that the Scripture alone teaches all things necessary to salvation and he instances in the things to be done and to be avoided to be loved and to be despised to be believed and to be hoped for And again that the Will of God is to be understood by the Scriptures and by them alone we know the whole Will of God. If the whole Will of God were to be known by the Scripture how could part of it be preserved in an unwritten Tradition And if this were then part of the Rule of Faith how could such a Man who was Professour of Divinity at Tubing be ignorant of it I know he saith he took the main of his Book from the Lectures of Eggelingus in the Cathedral Church at Mentz but this adds greater strength to the Argument since it appears hereby that this Doctrine was not confined to the Schools but openly delivered in one of the most famous Churches of Germany Cajetan died not above 12 Years before the Council who agrees with this Doctrine of Biel or Eggelingus and he was accounted the Oracle of his time for Divinity for he affirms that the Scripture gives such a perfection to a Man of God or one that devoutly serves him that thereby he is accomplished for every good Work How can this be if there be another Rule of Faith quite distinct from the Written Word Bellarmin indeed grants that all things which are simply necessary to the Salvation of all are plainly contained in Scripture by which he yields that the Scripture alone is the Rule of Faith as to necessary points and he calls the Scripture the certain and stable Rule of Faith yea the most certain and most secure Rule If there be then any other it must be less certain and about points not necessary to Salvation i. e. it must be a Rule where there is no need of a Rule For if Mens Salvation be sufficiently provided for by the Written Rule and the Divine Revelation be in Order to mens Salvation what need any other Revelation to the Church besides what is Written He asserts farther that nothing is de fide but what God hath revealed to the Prophets and Apostles or is deduced from thence This he brings to prove that whatsoever was received as a matter of Faith in the Church which is not found in Scripture must have come from an Apostolical Tradition But if it be necessary to Salvation according to his own Concession it must be written and if it be not how comes it to be received as a matter of Faith unless it be first proved that it is necessary to Salvation to receive an unwritten Rule of Faith as well as a written For either it must be necessary on its own Account and then he saith it must be written and if not then it can be no otherwise necessary than because it is to be believed on the Account of a Rule which makes it necessary And consequently that Rule must be first proved to be a necessary Article of Faith Which Bellarmin hath no where done but onely sets down Rules about knowing true Apostolical Traditions from others in matters of Faith wherein he wisely supposes that which he was to prove And the true Occasion of setting up this new Rule of Faith is intimated by Bellarmin himself in his first Rule of judging true Apostolical Traditions Which is when the Church believes any thing as a Doctrine of Faith which is not in Scripture then saith he we must judge it to be an Apostolical Tradition Why so Otherwise the Church must have erred in taking that for a matter of Faith which was not And this is the great Secret about this New Rule of Faith they saw plainly several things were imposed on the Faith of Christians which could not be proved from Scripture and they must not yield they had once mistaken and therefore this New Additional Less certain Rule for unnecessary Points must be advanced although they wanted Tradition among themselves to prove Tradition a Rule of Faith which I shall now farther make appear from their own School Divines before the Council of Trent We are to observe among them what those are which they strictly call Theological Truths and by them we shall judge what they made the Rule of Faith. For they do not make a bare Revelation to any Person a sufficient Ground for Faith but they say the Revelation must be publick and designed for the general Benefit of the Church and so Aquinas determines that our Faith rests onely upon the Revelations made to the Prophets and Apostles and Theological Truths are such as are immediately deduced from the Principles of Faith i. e. from publick Divine Revelations owned and received by the Church The modern School men who follow the Council of Trent make Theological Truths to be deduced from the unwritten as well as the Written word or else they would not speak consonantly to their own Doctrine And therefore if those before them deduce Theological Truths onely from the Written Word
to the Fathers wherein I am in great measure prevented by a late Discourse wherein it is at large shewed that the Fathers made use of no other Rule but the Scriptures for deciding Controversies therefore I shall take another method which is to shew that those who do speak most advantageously of Tradition did not intend to set up another Rule of Faith distinct from Scripture And here I shall pass over all those Testimonies of Fathers which speak either of Tradition before the Canon of Scripture or to those who did not receive it or of the Tradition of Scripture it self or of some Rites and Customs of the Church as wholly impertinent And when these are cut off there remain scarce any to be considered besides that of Vincentius Lerinensis and one Testimony of S. Basil. I begin with Vincentius Lerinensis who by some is thought so great a Favourer of Tradition but he saith not a word of it as a Rule of Faith distinct from Scripture for he asserts the Canon of Scripture to be sufficient of it self for all things How can that be if Tradition be a Rule of Faith distinct from it He makes indeed Catholick Tradition the best Interpreter of Scripture and we have no reason to decline it in the Points in dispute between us if Vincentius his Rules be follow'd 1. If Antiquity Universality and Consent be joyned 2. If the difference be observed between old Errours and new ones For saith he when they had length of time Truth is more easily concealed by those who are concerned to suppress it And in those Cases we have no other way to deal with them but by Scripture and ancient Councils And this is the Rule we profess to hold to But to suppose any one part of the Church to assume to it self the Title of Catholick and then to determine what is to be held for Catholick Tradition by all Members of the Catholick Church is a thing in it self unreasonable and leaves that part under an impossibility of being reclaimed For in case the Corrupt Part be judge we may be sure no Corruptions will be ever owned Vincentius grants that Arianism had once extremely the advantage in Point of Universality and had many Councils of its side if now the prevailing Party be to judge of Catholick Tradition and all are bound to submit to its Decrees without farther Examination as the Authour of the Guide in Controversies saith upon these Rules of Vincentius then I say all men were then bound to declare themselves Arians For if the Guides of the present Church are to be trusted and relied upon for the Doctrine of the Apostolical Church downwards how was it possible for any Members of the Church then to oppose Arianism and to reform the Church after its prevalency To say it was condemned by a former Council doth by no means clear the difficulty For the present Guides must be trusted whether they were rightly condemned or not and nothing can be more certain than that they would be sure to condemn those who condemned them But Vincentius saith Every true Lover of Christ preferred the ancient Faith before the novel betraying of it but then he must chuse this ancient Faith against the judgment of the present Guides of the Church And therefore that according to Vincentius can be no Infallible Rule of Faith. But whether the present Universality dissents from Antiquity whose Judgment should be sooner taken than its own saith the same Authour This had been an excellent Argument in the mouth of Ursacius or Valens at the Council of Ariminum and I do not see what Answer the Guide in Controversies could have made But both are Parties and is not the Councils Judgment to be taken rather than a few Opposers So that for all that I can find by these Principles Arianism having the greater number had hard luck not to be established as the Catholick Faith. But if in that case particular Persons were to judge between the New and the Old Faith then the same Reason will still hold unless the Guides of the Church have obtained a new Patent of Infallibility since that time The great Question among us is Where the true ancient Faith is and how we may come to find it out We are willing to follow the ancient Rules in this matter The Scripture is allowed to be an Infallible Rule on all hands and I am proving that Tradition was not allowed in the ancient Church as distinct from it But the present Question is how far Tradition is to be allowed in giving the Sense of Scripture between us Vincentius saith we ought to follow it when there is Antiquity Universality and Consent This we are willing to be tryed by But here comes another Question Who is to be Judge of these The present Guides of the Catholick Church To what purpose then are all those Rules Will they condemn themselves Or as the Guide admirably saith If the present Universality be its own Judge when can we think it will witness its departure from the true Faith And if it will not what a Case is the Church in under such a pretended Universality The utmost use I can suppose then Vincentius his Rules can be of to us now is in that Case which he puts when Corruptions and Errours have had time to take root and fasten themselves and that is By an Appeal to Scripture and Ancient Councils But because of the charge of Innovation upon us we are content to be tried by his second Rule By the Consent of the Fathers of greatest Reputation who are agreed on all hands to have lived and died in the Communion of the Catholick Church and what they delivered freely constantly and unanimously let that be taken for the undoubted and certain Rule in judging between us But if the present Guides must come in to be Judges here again then all our labour is lost and Vincentius his Rules signifie just nothing The Testimony of S. Basil is by Mr. White magnified above the rest and that out of his Book de Spiritu Sancto above all others to prove that the Certainty of Faith depends on Tradition and not merely on Scripture The force of it is said to lye in this that the practice of the Church in saying with the holy Spirit though not found in Scripture is to determine the Sense of the Article of Faith about the Divinity of the Holy Ghost But to clear this place we are to observe 1. That S. Basil doth not insist on Tradition for the Proof of the Article of Faith for he expresly disowns it in that Book It is not enough saith he that we have it by Tradition from our Fathers for our Fathers had it from the Will of God in Scripture as appears by those Testimonies I have set down already which they took for their Foundations Nothing can be plainer than that S. Basil made Scripture alone the Foundation of Faith
and they Translated the Scriptures and Offices of Worship into their own Language The Pope had not forgotten the business of the Bulgarians and he could not tell but this might end in subjection to another Patriarchal See and therefore he enâ—eavours to get Methodius and Cyril to Rome and having gained them he sends a sweetning Letter to the Prince and makes the concession before mentioned For he could not but remember how very lately the Greeks had gained the Bulgarians from him and lest the Slavonians should follow them he was content to let them have what they desired and had already Established among themselves without his Permission All this appears from the account of this matter given by Constantinus Porphyrogenetus compared with Diocleas his Regnum Slavorum and Lucius his Dalmatian History It is sufficient for my purpose that Diocleas owns that Constantine to whom Andreas Dandalus D. of Venice in his M S History cited by Lucius saith the Pope gave the name of Cyril did Translate the Bible into the Slavonian Tongue for the benefit of the People and the publick Offices out of Greek according to their Custom And the Chancellour Seguier had in his Library both the New Testament and Lâ—turgies in the Slavonian Language and in Cyril's Character and many of the Greek Fathers Commentaries on Scripture in that Tongue but not one of the Latin. 2. The next step was when Gregory 7. prohibited the Translation of the Latin Offices in the Slavonian Tongue And this he did to the King of Bohemia himself after a peremptory manner but he saith it was the request of the Nobility that they might have divine Offices in the Slavonian Tongue which he could by no means yield to What was the matter How comes the Case to be so much altered from what it was in his Predecessor's time The true Reason was the Bohemian Churches were then brought into greater Subjection to the Roman See after the Consecration of Dithmarus Saxo to be their Archbishop and now they must own their Subjection as the Roman Provinces were wont to do by receiving the Language But as his Predecessour had found Scripture for it for Gregory pretends he had found Reason against it viz. The Scripture was obscure and apt to be misunderstood and despised What! more than in the time of Methodius and Cyril If they pleaded Primitive Practice he plainly answers that the Church is grown wiser and hath corrected many things that were then allowed This is indeed to the purpose and therefore by the Authority of S. Peter he forbids him to suffer any such thing and charges him to oppose it with all his might But after all it is entred in the Canon Law De Officio Jud. Ord. l. 1. Tit. 31. c. Quoniam as a Decree of Innocent 3. in the Lateran Council that where there were People of different Languages the Bishop was to provide Persons fit to officiate in those several Languages Why so If there were a prohibition of using any but the Latin Tongue But this was for the Greeks and theirs was an holy Tongue That is not said nor if it were would it signifie any thing for doth any imaginary holiness of the Tongue sanctifie ignorant Devotion But the Canon supposes them to have the same Faith. Then the meaning is that no man must examin his Religion by the Scripture but if he rseolves beforehand to believe as the Church believes then he may have the Scriptures or Prayers in what Language he pleases But even this is not permitted in the Roman Church For 3. After the Inquisition was set up by the Authority of Innocent 3. in the Lateran Council no Lay Persons were permitted to have the Books of the Old and New Testament but the Psalter or Breviary or Hours they might have but by no means in the vulgar Language This is called by D'achery and Labbe the Council of Tholouse but in truth it was nothing else but an Order of the Inquisition as will appear to any one that reads it And the Inquisition ought to have the Honour of it both in France and Spain Which Prohibition hath been so gratefull to some Divines of the Church of Rome that Cochlaeus calls it pious just reasonable wholsom and necessary Andradius thinks the taking of it away would be destructive to Faith Ledesma saith the true Catholicks do not desire it and bad ought not to be gratified with it Petrus Sutor a Carthusian Doctour calls the Translating Scripture into the vulgar Languages a rash useless and dangerous thing and he gives the true Reason of it viz. that the People will be apt to murmur when they see things required as from the Apostles which they cannot find a word of in Scripture And when all is said on this Subject that can be by men of more Art this is the plainest and honestest Reason for such a Prohibition but I hope I have made it appear it is not built on any Catholick Tradition IV. Of the Merit of Good Works The Council of Trent Sess. 6. c. 16. declares That the Good Works of justified Persons do truly deserve Eternal Life and Can. 3â— an Anathema is denounced against him that denies them to be meritorious or that a justified Person by them doth not truly merit Increase of Grace and Happiness and Eternal Life The Council hath not thought fit to declare what it means by truly meriting but certainly it must be opposed to an improper kind of Meriting and what that is we must learn from the Divines of the Church of Rome 1. Some say That some of the Fathers speak of an improper kind of Merit which is no more than the due Means for the attaining of Happiness as the End. So Vega confesses they often use the word Merit where there is no Reason for Merit either by way of Congruity or Condignity Therefore where there is true Merit there must be a proper Reason for it And the Council of Trent being designed to condemn some prevailing Opinions at that time among those they called Hereticks this Assertion of true Merit must be levelled against some Doctrine of theirs but they held Good Works to be necessary as Means to an end and therefore this could not be the meaning of the Council Suarez saith the words of the Council ought to be specially observed which are that there is nothing wanting in the good works of justified Persons ut vere promeruisse censeantur and therefore no Metaphorical or improper but that which by the Sense of the Church of Rome was accounted true Merit in opposition to what was said by those accounted Hereticks must be understood thereby 2. Others say that a meer Congruity arising from the Promise and Favour of God in rewarding the acts of his Grace in justified Persons cannot be the proper Merit intended by the Council And that for these Reasons 1. Suarez observes that although the Council avoids the
not to the Sins committed by them In the Gregorian Sacramentary published by Menardus there is a Prayer wherein this place of St. James is mentioned and presently it follows Cura quaesumus Redemptor noster gratia Spiritus Sancti languores istius infirmi c. and immediately before the anointing Sana Domine infirmum 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 sanitatem 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 Diseases 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 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 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 Indicative 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 be an essential Change and he thinks the Sacrament not to be valid in another Form. Sâ—arez thinks the other Form not sufficient But Maldonat affirms the other Form was used and so at that time there was no Sâ—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 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 te Oleo sancto c. but there being a variety of Forms set down among the rest there is one Per istam Unctionem Dei c. Which afterwards came to be the standing 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 Antiquities of their own Church Suarez shews his skill when he saith the Tradition of the Roman Church is infallible in the Substance of this Sacrament and that it always used 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 observes 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 Sacramentum Exeuntium the Sacrament of dying Persons but Maldonat saith it is an abuse to give it only to such for in the ancient Church they did not wait till the party were near death but he saith it was given before the Eucharist and that not once but for seven days together 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 Infants 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 Bellarmin informs us Baptism against Original Sin Confirmation against Infirmity Penance against actual Mortal Sin Eucharist against Malice Orders against Ignorance Matrimony against Concupiscence and what is now left for Extreme Unction Bellarmin saith they are the Remainders 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 Alegambe would have Maldonat not believed to be the Author 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 condition Hower the Council of Trent denounces an Anathema against him that saith that Matrimony is not truly and properly a Sacrament one of the Seven of the Evangelical 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 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 Bonaventure Scotus and other Schoolmen did only look on
of Scripture in Vulgar Languages by the Council of Trent SInce the Publication of the foregoing Book I have met with a Reflexion upon it made by J. W. in the Preface to a Treatise lately Reprinted by him Wherein he observes that a great part of the Objections made against them are either grounded on mistakes or touch points of Discipline not of Faith which alone they are bound to defend This last Clause I could not but wonder at since the new Title of his Book is A Defence of the Doctrine and Holy Rites of the Roman Catholick Church c. Why should I W. take such needless pains to defend the Rites of the Church if they are bound to defend nothing but Points of Faith I had thought the Honour and Authority of the Church had been concerned in its Commands and Prohibitions as well as in its Definitions and Decrees And although it be not pretended that the Church is Infallible in Matters of Discipline yet it is a strong Prejudice against any pretence to Infallibility in a Church if it be found to err notoriously in any thing of general Concernment to the Catholick Church But how comes my late Book to be made an Example As for instance saith he I find in a Book newly Published with this Title The Council of Trent Examin'd and Disprov'd by Catholick Tradition that for 15 Pages together Dr. St. labours to prove that there is no Catholick Tradition against Translating Scripture into Vulgar Languages Whereas I expresly say that the Prohibition of reading the Scripture so translated without a particular License was that which I undertook to shew could not be justified by any Catholick Tradition And that there was a General Consent of the Catholick Church not merely for the Translations of Scripture into Vulgar Languages but for the free use of them by the People Which I made out by these Particulars 1. That where-ever the Christian Religion prevailed the Scripture was Translated into the Vulgar Language for the Peoples benefit Which I proved from the Ancient Italick Versions before St. Jerom's time the Gothick Persian Armenian Syriack Coptick and Aethiopick Translations without the least prohibition of the Common use of them 2. That where a Language grew into Disuse among the People there the Scripture was Translated into the Tongue which was better understood And for this I instanced in the Arabick Versions after the prevalency of the Saracens in the Eastern and Southern Parts and after the Moors coming into Spain 3. That even after the Primitive Times Christian Princes and Bishops did take Care that the People should read the Scriptures in their own Language For Princes I instanced in Ludovicus Pius and Alfred for Bishops in Waldo Bishop of Fressing Methodius and Cyrill c. 4. That the Pope himself in the 9th Century did approve of it and for a Reason common to all times and Churches viz. that All People and Languages were to praise God and that God himself had so commanded 5. That Gregory VII was the first Person who forbad the use of Scripture and Divine Offices in the Vulgar Tongue and was not ashamed to own that the Church saw cause to alter several things from what they were in the Primitive Church 6. That upon the setting up the Inquisition by Innocent III. this Prohibition took place in France and Spain and other Places 7. That some noted Divines of the Church of Rome have highly commended it and said that the taking of it away would be pernicious and destructive to Faith and Devotion 8. That the Prohibition in the Church of Rome is built on the Authority of the Council of Trent which appointed the Index to be made in which the fourth Rule forbids all Persons the use of the Scripture in the Vulgar Tongue without a particular License and whosoever presumes to doe it is to be denied Absolution 9. From hence it follows that the Council of Trent is evidently disproved as to Catholick Tradition for any Foundation of such a Prohibition And what now saith J. W. against all this He would gladly know against whom I dispute Against J. S. and all such who would make the World believe the Council of Trent did proceed upon Catholick Tradition To prove I am mistaken he tells me in his 6th Chap. I may find an Account of several new Translations of Scripture into Vulgar Tongues made by Catholicks and approved in the Roman Church Then he mentions an English Translation made by the Rhemish and Doway Colleges and in French by the Doctours of Lovain and some others What now follows from hence Is it any Mistake in me to say There was such a Prohibition of Reading the Scripture in the Church of Rome and inforced by the Rule made by Appointment of the Council of Trent This had been indeed to the purpose if it could have been proved I do not deny that there have been such Translations made where it was found impossible to hinder all Translations and the use of them have been connived at or allow'd to some particular persons whom they were otherwise secure of But such Translations are like the Galenists allowing some Chymical Medicines to their Patients they declare against their use as dangerous but if the Patient will have them then pray take them of my Apothecary who is a very honest man and prepares mischievous Medicines better than another This is just the Case of the Church of Rome as to Translations of Scripture If we ask their Opinion in general whether Translations be allowable or not their Answer hath been formerly very free and open by no means for they are very dangerous and mischievous things And here besides those I have already mentioned I could produce many more to the same purpose But alas these men lived before the Age of Mis-representing and Expounding Now all is Mistake on our side and Infallibility on theirs We cannot for our hearts understand their Doctrines or Practices aright although we take never so much pains and care to doe it One would think by the present way of dealing with us that the Church of Rome were like the New Name on the White Stone which no man knows but he that hath it and so it were impossible for any else to understand it but such as are in it I thought my self pretty secure from Mistaking when I pitched on the Council of Trent for my Guide But it seems I am mistaken here too How so Did not the Council of Trent appoint the Congregation of the Index at first Sess. 18 Did it not own that the Matters of it were prepared before its Dissolution And if there were a Prohibition of the free use of the Scripture in Vulgar Languages by the Rules of the Index is not the Council of Trent justly chargeable with that Prohibition Especially when the Title in the Roman Edition is Regulae Indicis Sacrosanctoe Synodi Tridentinoe jussu editoe Jacob. Ledesma was one of the same