to be equalled to it He allows a Judgment of Discretion in private persons and a Certainty of the literal Sense of Scripture attainable thereby He makes the Scripture the onely standing infallible Rule of Faith for the whole Church to the end of the world And whatever Doctrine is not agreeable thereto is to be rejected either as Heretical suspicious or impertinent to Religion If the Council of Trent had gone by this Rule we had never heard of the Creed of Pius IV. In the beginning of the 14th Century lived Nicolaus de Lyra who parallels the Scriptures in matters of Faith with First-principles in Sciences for as other Truths are tried in them by their reduction to First-principles so in matters of Faith by their reduction to Canonical Scriptures which are of divine Revelation which is impossible to be false If he had known any other Principles which would have made Faith impossible to be false he would never have spoken thus of Scripture alone But to return to the School Divines About the same time lived Joh. Duns Scotus the head of a School famous for Subtilty He affirms that the holy Scripture doth sufficiently contain all matters necessary to salvation because by it we know what we are to believe hope for and practise And after he hath enlarged upon them he concludes in these words patet quod Scriptura sacra sufficienter continet Doctrinam necessariam viatori If this be understood onely of Points simply necessary then however it proves that all such things necessary to Salvation are therein contained and no man is bound to enquire after unnecessary Points How then can it be necessary to embrace another Rule of Faith when all things necessary to Salvation are sufficiently contained in Scripture But Thomas Aquinas is more express in this matter For he saith that those things which depend on the Will of God and are above any desert of ours can be known no otherways by us than as they are delivered in Scriptures by the Will of God which is made known to us This is so remarkable a Passage that Suarez could not let it escape without corrupting it for instead of Scripture he makes him to speak of Divine Revelation in general viz. under Scripture he comprehends all that is under the written Word he means the unwritten If he had meant so he was able to have expressed his own mind more plainly and Cajetan apprehended no such meaning in his words But this is a matter of so great consequence that I shall prove from other passages in him that he asserted the same Doctrine viz. That the Scripture was the onely Rule of Faith. 1. He makes no Proofs of matters of Faith to be sufficient but such as are deduced from Scripture and all other Arguments from Authority to be onely probable nay although such Persons had particular Revelations How can this be consistent with another Rule of Faith distinct from Scripture For if he had owned any such he must have deduced necessary Arguments from thence as well as from Canonical Scriptures But if all other Authorities be onely probable then they cannot make any thing necessary to be believed 2. He affirms that to those who receive the Scriptures we are to prove nothing but by the Scriptures as matter of Faith. For by Authorities he means nothing but the Scriptures as appears by the former place and by what follows where he mentions the Canon of Scripture expresly 3. He asserts that the Articles of the Creed are all contained in Scripture and are drawn out of Scripture and put together by the Church onely for the Ease of the People From hence it nenessarily follows that the Reason of believing the Articles of the Creed is to be taken from the written Word and not from any unwritten Tradition For else he needed not to have been so carefull to shew that they were all taken out of Scripture 4. He distinguisheth the Matters of Faith in Scripture some to be believed for themselves which he calls prima Credibilia these he saith every one is bound explicitly to believe but for other things he is bound onely implicitly or in a preparation of mind to believe whatever is contained in Scripture and then onely is he bound to believe explicitly when it is made clear to him to be contained in the Doctrine of Faith. Which words must imply the Scripture to be the onely Rule of Faith for otherwise implicit Faith must relate to whatever is proved to be an unwritten Word From all this it appears that Aquinas knew nothing of a Traditional Rule of Faith although he lived after the Lateran Council A. D. 1215. being born about nine years after it And Bonaventure who died the same year with him affirms that nothing was to besaid about Matters of Faith but what is made clear out of the holy Scriptures Not long after them lived Henricus Gandavensis and he delivers these things which are very material to our purpose 1. That the Reason why we believe the Guides of the Church since the Apostles who work no Miracles is because they preach nothing but what they have left in their most certain Writings which are delivered down to us pure and uncorrupt by an universal consent of all that succeeded to our times Where we see he makes the Scriptures to be the onely Certain Rule and that we are to judge of all other Doctrines by them 2. That Truth is more certainly preserved in Scripture than in the Church because that is fixed and immutable and men are variable so that multitudes of them may depart from the Faith either through Errour or Malice but the true Church will always remain in some righteous persons How then can Tradition be a Rule of Faith equal with Scriptures which depends upon the Testimony of Persons who are so very fallible I might carry this way of Testimony on higher still as when Richardus de S. Victore saith in the thirteenth Century that every Truth is suspected by him which is not confirmed by Holy Scripture but in stead of that I shall now proceed to the Canon Law as having more Authority than particular Testimonies 3. As to the Canon Law collected by Gratian I do not insist upon its Confirmation by Eugenius but upon its universal Reception in the Church of Rome And from thence I shall evidently prove that Tradition was not allowed to be a Rule of Faith equal with the Scriptures Dist. 9. c. 3 4 5 7 8 9 10. The Authority and Infallibility of the holy Scripture is asserted above all other Writings whatsoever for all other Writings are to be examined and men are to judge of them as they see cause Now Bellarmin tells us that the unwritten Word is so called not that it always continues unwritten but that it was so by the first Authour of it So that the unwritten Word doth not depend on
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
in his Notes on this place confesses that no Precept of Sacramental Confession is contained in it But how should it be of Divine Right in the sense of the Council of Trent if there be no Command for it Tes by Cons quence if they will obtain Remission of Sins but this can by no means be inferred from hence because the Remission of Sins by Baptism is implied in it but none of them plead for particular Confession before Baptism in order to Remission and therefore not after unless some Command of Christ made it more necessary after Baptism than before Vasquez saith that Cajetan means no more than that it cannot be proved out of this place but Catharinus saith that neither there nor in any other place doth Cajetan allow that Auricular Confession can be proved out of Scripture Gabriel Biel confesses he cannot find sufficient force to conclude the Necessity of Confession from the Power of Absolution here granted because it may be valid upon voluntary Confession of the Party and therefore he resolves it into an unwritten Tradition Guide Brianson takes great pains to prove it out of this place but at last yields that Christ's instituting such a Power doth not bind Persons to confess their Faults to them that have it For the Power of retaining doth not imply that no sins are retained which are not retained by the Priest upon Confession neither then doth the Power of Absolution imply that no sins are remitted but such as are confessed to a Priest. And therefore he betakes himself as Biel doth to unwritten Tradition and so doth Nicol. de Orbellis Jac. de Almain debates the matter at large and he says only that it is a probable Opinion that this Confession is of divine Appointment but he yields that Christ's granting a Power of Absolution dâ—th not make it a duty to confess to a Priest and he saith it is a false proposition that where a Power of judging is given others are bound to submit to it for all that follows is that their Sentence is valid if they do submit But the force of what the Council of Trent deduces from this place lies wholly in this as Vasquez observes that because Christ hath given Authority to absolve and they cannot exercise that Authority without Confession therefore Confession is hereby made necessary And he confesses that scarce any have deduced the Argumert effectually from this place But he saith one thing very observable that if this place be extended to Remission of Sins in Baptism then it can never prove the necessity of Sacramental Confession And Greg. de Valentia as plainly owns that the Fathers did understand it of Baptism he names S. Cyprian and S. Ambrose but Natalis Alexander allows S. Cyril of Alexandria to have so understood it and that Jansenius and Ferus followed him but besides these S. Augustin interprets this place as S. Cyprian had done For as S. Cyprian from hence infers the Power of Baptizing and granting Remission of Sins in the Guides of the Church so S. Augustin saith the Churches Charity by the Hâ—ly Ghost looses the Sins of those who are her Members and retains the sins of those who are not And it may be observed that whereas St. Matthew speaks of the Power of Baptizing granted to the Apostles S. John instead of that mentions this Pâ—wer of remitting or retaining Sins and S. Mark and S. Luke speak of Baptism to which the one joins Sâ—lvation and the other Remission of Sins And theâ—efore this seems to be meant by our Saviour in the Words of S. John and thus S. Peter exercised this Power of loosing on the converted Jews Act. 2. 38. and his Power of binding on Simon Magus Act. 8. 21. Peter Lombard carries S. Augustin's meaning farther to the Power of Priests over the Sins of the Members of the Church but then he limits this Power and makes it no more than declarative as I have observed already and for this he quotes a notable passage of S. Jerom who saith that Men are apt to assume too much to themselves under pretence of this Power of the Keys whereas God regards not the Sentence of the Priests but the Life of the Penitents But Natalis Alexander thinks there is no binding Power with respect to Baptism Was there not as to Simon Magus And as long as every year the Church judged of the competency of Persons for it When Christ spake these words the Church was wholly to be formed and it was a great Power lodged with the Apostles and their Successors to admit into the Church or to exclude from it not as private Persons but by Authority from Christ himself But then this Power is vain and idle in a constituted Church By no means they have still a Power of casting out and taking in again and of imposing such Acts on Offenders as may give satisfaction to the Church whose Honour suffers and whose Discipline is broken But the question is Whether by Christ's appointment under the Gospel no known mortal sin can be pardon'd to baptized Persons without Confession of it to a Priest And whether these words of our Saviour do imply it Scotus is by no means satisfied with mens Reasoning out of this place that because Christ hath given such a Power therefore it is mens duty to confess their sins For saith he this only implies the usefulness and efficacy of this Power if it be made use of as in Confirmation none think themselves damned if they do not use it though it be very useful and therefore he goes another way to work viz. by joyning this precept and that of loving God and our selves together with it But how doth this prove that a man ought to take this particular way Truly Scotus here shews his Subâ—ilty Suppose there be another way that is harder and this be found more easie he thinks a man is bound to take the shortest and easiest way viz. by Confession and Absolution But for all this his heart did misgive him and he could not but see that this proved nothing unless this way of Confession were first proved to be a secure way And therefore he puts the Case that if it be not proved by these Words it may be by S. James Confess your faults one to anoâ—her No saith he this will not do for which he gives this Reason that it holds no more for confession to a Priest than to any other therefore after all he is willing to resolve it into some unwritten Tradition since there was no convincing evidence for it either in this or any other place of Scripture Which shew'd they ran to Tradition when they had nothing else to say Bonaventure denies that Christ himself appâ—inted tâ—e Confession of sins for which he gives this reason lest it should prove an occasion of sinning ne ex verbis Domini daretur aliquibus recidivandi occasio but afterwards he thinks the Apostles
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