ture and tradition should be next taken into consideration ; that it might evidently appear, De Monte said, what were the weapons to be used in contending with the heretics, and on what foundation the church of God rested. In pursuing their inquiries, and in the debates which followed, the members of the council now began to employ the divines who had repaired to Trent, and whose aid was of material service in all their subsequent labours. These Christian bishops were for the most part poorly skilled in theology, for which the pursuits of ecclesiastical ambition had given them little relish. The reformers stedfastly maintained the sole and absolute sufficiency of the Scriptures;-tradition and the apocryphal books were entirely rejected by them; and they pleaded for the perspicuity of the word of God, which they affirmed was generally easy to be understood, and required neither gloss nor commentary. All these sentiments were condemned at Trent. Although the apocryphal books were inserted by Jerome in the Vulgate Latin edition, it was notorious that he did not regard them as canonical.* It was probably in deference to his authority that some proposed to publish a twofold list, distinguishing the canonical from the apocryphal, in a manner resembling the method adopted by the Anglican church. There was much discussion on this subject, and the fathers behaved so clamorously that it was necessary to direct them to give their votes one by one, and to number them as they were received. The opinion of the cardinal Santa Croce at length prevailed, and it was agreed to receive as divinely inspired all the books commonly found in the Vulgate, notwithstanding the known declaration of Jerome, and the incontrovertible evidence of the ancient catalogues and the Jewish canon. Respecting traditions there were as many opinions as tongues.+ Some affirmed that Scripture itself rested on tradition. Vin * He gives a catalogue of the books of the Old Testament, comprising those now found in our authorized version, and no other. He adds, “Ut scire valeamus quidquid extra hos est, inter apocrypha esse ponendum. Igitur Sapientia, quæ vulgo Salomonis inscribitur, et Jesu filii Sirach liber, et Judith, et Tobias, et Pastor, non sunt in canone," &c.-Prolog. Galeat. "Tot sententias quot linguas tunc fuisse comperio.”—Pallav. lib. vi. c. 2. Sarpi, lib. ii. s. 45-47. cent Lunel, a Franciscan, thought it would be preferable to treat of the church in the first instance, because Scripture derived its authority from the church. He added, that if it were once established that all Christians are bound to obey the church, everything else would be easy, and that this was the only argument that would refute the heretics. Anthony Marinier was of a different opinion. He observed, that there was a previous question to be decided,-viz., whether Christianity does in fact consist of two parts, one written and the other unwritten: if so, whether the unwritten part was left in that state by design or accident. If by design, no man ought to commit it to writing; if by accident, the wisdom of God would seem to be impeached. On either hand he saw great difficulties, and therefore judged it best to leave the matter as it was, following the example of the fathers, who ascribed authority to the Scriptures only, not presuming to place tradition on the same footing. This advice, sound as it was, had no approvers; Cardinal Pole, in particular, vehemently opposed it. Some desired a distinction to be made between traditions of faith and those which related to manners and rites; the first to be universally received, but of the rest only such as the custom of the church had sanctioned. Others would have the reception of all enjoined, without the least distinction. When the decree was proposed for consideration, and that part was read in which it was enacted that Scripture and tradition should be regarded "with equal piety and veneration," Bertani objected to the expression, and said that though he acknowledged that God was the author of both, and that every truth must proceed from the Source of all truth, yet it by no means followed that whatever was true was divinely inspired; and that the fact of many traditions having fallen into disuse seemed to indicate that God himself did not intend that they should be venerated equally with Scripture. The Bishop of Chiozza went much further; he even ventured to assert that it was impious to equalize the authority of Scripture and tradition. So bold an exclamation excited strong feeling; "it was heard," says Pallavicini," with surprise and horror;" and it called forth vehement reprehension. The legate De Monte recommended that the divines should be sent for, that they might hear both the decree and the bishop's reasons against it, and then decide whether any alteration should be made, or whether the objector should be punished. "Let them be called," said the bishop; " I have not charged the whole decree with impiety, but only certain words in it; and in saying they are impious I have not so much charged them with heresy as with inhumanity, in laying upon us a heavier burden than we are able to bear;" but the tumult greatly increased; the prelates were loud and angry in their reproaches; and the poor bishop, overcome by the insulting and cruel manner in which he was treated by his brethren, was constrained to acknowledge himself sorry for having offended them, and to promise that he would consent to a decree which was approved by so venerable an assembly.* A committee which had been appointed for the purpose, reported on sundry evils which required correction. The variety of versions, the number of errors in the printed copies of the Scriptures, the right of private interpretation, and the freedom of the press, were the topics handled in the report. It was alleged that the existence of so many versions, often varying from one another, tended to involve the meaning of Scripture in uncertainty, and that the only way to remedy this would be to fix upon some one version and declare it to be the authentic and acknowledged authority in all cases of controversy. The difficulty lay in the choice. Cajetan's opinion was quoted, who strongly urged the study of the Hebrew and Greek originals, and was accustomed to say, "that to understand the Latin text was not to understand the infallible word of God, but of the translator, who might err; and that if the divines of former ages had held the same sentiment, Luther's heresies would not have so easily prevailed;" and a canon was mentioned, derived from the works of Augustine, which enjoined the examination of the Old Testament in the Hebrew language, and of the New in the Greek. Some proposed to include the translation of the Scriptures into the vernacular languages among the abuses which required correction and removal. The opposition of the Cardinal of Trent prevented the accomplishment of their nefarious pur * Pallav. ut sup. c. 11. s. 3, 4. pose; and after considerable discussion, it was agreed that the subject should not be included in the decree.* It would seem, indeed, that on this question no argument was necessary, and that none would fall into the absurdity of preferring a version to the original. Yet so did the divines at Trent. They said that unless the Vulgate were declared to be divine and authentic in every part, immense advantage would be yielded to the Lutherans, and innumerable heresies would arise and trouble the church; if any one might examine that version, either by comparing it with other versions or with the originals, everything would be thrown into confusion; these new grammarians would assume the office of the judge, and pedants, instead of divines, would be made bishops and cardinals; nor would the inquisitors be able to execute their office without the knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, since the heretics would be sure to turn round and tell them that the translation was incorrect. Some added, that as Divine Providence had given to the Jews a Hebrew, and to the Greeks a Greek original, it was reasonable to suppose that the Latin church enjoyed a similar favour, and that the Spirit of God who had dictated the sacred volume to the heavenly penmen, had in the same supernatural manner presided over the translation !+ Such cogent reasoning could not be resisted; the Vulgate was undoubtedly divine! But as the want of a correct and standard impression of that version was universally acknowledged, six persons were appointed to examine and collate copies, and prepare a new edition before the termination of the council.‡ * Laurentii Pratani Epilogus rerum in Synod. Trid. gestarum in Le Plat, tom. vii. pars. 2. p. 17. + Sarpi, lib. ii. s. 51. Pallav. lib. vi. c. 12, 15. The labours of this committee soon closed, as it was ascertained that the whole proceeding had displeased the Pope. After the termination of the council, Pius IV: employed many learned men in preparing a correct edition of the Vulgate. His successor, Pius V., continued the undertaking. The book was published by Sixtus V. in 1590. "This active and resolute pontiff not only assembled round him a number of the most learned and acute linguists and critics, but ardently and personally engaged in the examination of the work himself." He read the whole before it was committed to the press, read it over again as it passed through the press, and when it was all printed off, re-examined it, and corrected it anew. This edition was accompanied The right of interpreting Scripture was then debated. Here, too, different and opposite opinions were expressed. Some few were willing to leave the liberty of interpretation unmolested; among them was the Cardinal of Trent. Others thought that this popular licence ought to be controlled, or there would be no end to disputes. Cardinal Pacheco wished to restrict the privilege to Masters of Arts or Doctors. Soto thought that in matters of faith no liberty should be granted, but that on questions relating to manners and ceremonies men might be allowed some latitude of interpretation. Richard du Mans, a Franciscan, was not ashamed to say that the scholastic divines had so well explained the doctrines of Christianity that it was no longer necessary to take them from the inspired volume; that though the Scriptures were formerly read in churches for the instruction of the people, they were now only used in the devotional exercises of public worship, and ought to be confined to that use; and at any rate that the study of Scripture should be prohibited to all who were not versed in scholastic divinity; for the Lutherans had only succeeded with those who had been accustomed to read the Scriptures.* The decision of the council, as might have been expected, was not in favour of freedom. The decree, as passed at the fourth session, was divided into two parts: "I. Of the Canonical Scriptures. "The sacred, holy, œcumenical, and general council of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Spirit, the three before by a bull, enjoining its universal reception, and forbidding the slightest alterations, under pain of the most dreadful anathemas. But it was scarcely published before it was discovered to abound with errors, and was quickly called in. A more correct edition was issued by Clement VIII. in 1592, accompanied by a similar bull. An edition still further improved left the press in 1593. The difference between these editions is very considerable. Dr. James, in his 'Bellum Papale,' notices 2000 variations, some of whole verses, and many others clearly and decidedly contradictory to each other. Yet both editions were respectively declared to be authentic by the same plenitude of knowledge and power, and both guarded against the least alteration by the same tremendous excommunication !"-Townley's Illustrations of Biblical Literature, vol. ii. 487–495. *Sarpi, lib. ii. s. 52. |