The Council of Trent Examined and Disproved, Appendix
AN APPENDIX, In Answer to some late Passages of J. W. of the Society of Jesus, concerning the Prohibition 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 Apoc. 2. 17.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 Accedit ad hoc, locupletissimum Testimonium, atque Decretum ex Indice librorum prohibitorum per Patres à Tridentina Synodo delectos conscripto & Authoritate Sanctiss. D. nostri Pii 4. P. M. comprobato Regula. 4. Jac. Ledesma. De Divin. Script. quavis lingua non legend. c. 51.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 Alphons. à Castro de heret. Punit. l. 3. c. 6.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 Concil. Trid. Sess. 25. c. 15.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 aQuod Indice & Regulis confectisper Patres à Generali Synode T…identina dele…os sanci…um est—Praeter ea quae T…dentinorum Patrum Regul…s supradictis decreta sunt.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: Qui sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini auctoritate prodierat.and it is observable that in his Bull A. D. 1664. he not onelyonly 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 E quibus pateat fuisse semper communem & unanimem Orthodoxorum omnium sensum ac usum; divinos Libros ac Officia Ecclesiastica, vernaculo Idiomate neutiquam reddendi; utpote Christianae Reipubl. damnosum, ac rudibus & imperit is scandali occasionem praebens. Collectio Auctorum Version. vulg. damnant. Monit. ad Lector.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 onelyonly 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. Biblia supradicta omnine prohibemus, & ab Ecclesia Catholicae sub Anathemate rejicimus.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 to determin.
The sense of the Gallican Clergy in this matter doth fully appear by the Representation which they sent to Alexander VII. about the Translation of the Missal into French. Which was done by Voisin a Doctour of the Faculty, and was published at Paris by the Permission of Cardinal de Retz Archbishop there, and had the Approbation of some Doctours of the Sorbon. The rest of the Bishops and Clergy highly resented this matter, and Assembled together to consult about it, Nov. 29. 1660. where they proposed two things to be considered. 1. The matter of Right, whether such a Translation were to be permitted or not. 2. The matter of Fact, whether this were a good Translation or not. The debate was adjourned to Dec. 3. and from thence to the 7th on which they came to a Resolution to suppress it. And a Circular Letter was sent to all the Bishops to forbid the use of it under pain of Excommunication; and the King desired to interpose his Authority in it. Dec. 9. they agreed to send an account of the whole matter to the Pope in the name of the Gallican Clergy; wherein they declare their great dislike of it, as contrary to the Custom of the Church, and as pernicious to the Souls Illam omnim i…p…ob…m… tanquan ab Eccl siae consuctudine alienam, nec niji cum ingenti animarum perni…ie conjunction.of Men. And in the Body of it, they say that they look on the Translations of Scripture into vulgar Languages as the great occasion of the Northern Heresies; and quote Vincentius Lerinensis, saying that the Scripture is the Book of Hereticks. And after add, that they bad sent to the Pope their Condemnation of all Translations of Scripture and Divine Offices into the Vulgar Languages. This was subscribed by the General Assembly of the Clergy, Jan. 7. 1661.
The Pope sent a Brief in Answer, which was received Feb. 25. wherein he very Tragically complains that some Sons of Perdition in France had to the ruine of Souls, and in Contempt of the Churches Laws and Practice, arrived to that degree of madness as to translate the Roman Missal into French. And he charges the doing of it not onelyonly with Novelty, but Disobedience, Sedition, Schism, &c. and declares that he abhorred and detested it; and for ever damned, reprobated and forbad it, under pain of Excommunication; and requires all Persons to deliver up their Books to the several Ordinaries that they might be burnt.
I now desire J. W. to inform me whether we are bound to believe that in France Translations of Scripture into the vulgar Language are allowed and approved? I am really so unwilling to mistake, that I take the best care I can to be rightly informed. I have no design either to deceive others, or to be deceived my self; and therefore have not trusted to second-hand Evidence; but searched and considered the Authours themselves, whose Testimonies I rely upon. I am certain I have fallen into no wilfull mistake, but have truly and impartially stated things according to the clearest Evidence I could find; and therefore I think it some what hard to be told, that our Objections are grounded on Mistakes, and especially as to this matter about the Prohibition of reading Scripture in the Vulgar Language; for I hope I have made it appear not onelyonly that there is such a Prohibition but that it is founded on the Authority of the Council of Trent.
And if it be so, then it serves my main design, viz. to prove that it went off from Catholick Tradition, for if there were so many Translations of old without the least prohibition, and there be since the Council of Trent, so severe a one, backed with the Pope's Authority, here must be a very great change in Tradition. For that is accounted pernicious and mischievous to the Souls of men, which before was accounted usefull and beneficial to them. If the Physicians in one Age should condemn the common Reading of Hippocrates and Gale… as destructive to the Health of mens bodies, which those of former Ages extremely commended, would not any one say, there was a great Change in the Opinions of Physicians, and that they did by no means hold to the Judgment of those before them? If the common Lawyers …hould now say Littleton's Tenures is a Book very unfit to be read by young Lawyers, that it fills their heads with seditious and dangerous Principles, and therefore ought to be taken out of their hands; would not any one say, here is a wonderfull Change, for no such thing was ever apprehended before, but the Book was thought very usefull and proper to instruct Students in some fundamental Points of the Law?
When Manna was rained from Heaven in the Wilderness for 40. years, and for 30. of them every man gathered his own share and proportion, and ate of it as he saw cause; would it not have been thought a strange alteration among them, if after 30. years a sett of Physicians should have risen up and told the People it was true, Manna was Angels food, but if they had not great care in the taking it, and used it promiscuously, it would turn them to Devils; or at least it would fill them with such distempers, as they would never be able to reach to Canaan? This might be pretended to be great Care and Tenderness of them, in these new Physicians; but on the other side, they would tell them, they had done very well with their eating Manna for 30. years together; and there had been no such distempers among them, but such as humane nature is always subject to; that such an alteration might be of worse Consequence than their common use of Manna; for so it was at first appointed and so it had continued, and they could not tell but their new Physicians might be worse to them than their old distempers; and they could never believe that could be so hurtfull which God himself had appointed for their food.
The former Discourse makes the Application needless.
But after all, it is said: This is but a point of Discipline and not of Faith; and in such the Church may change her Measures. To that I answer,
1. It is more than a point of Discipline, for it is changing the Rule of Faith with respect to the People. While the Scriptures were in the hands of the People, they resolved their Faith into the Word of God, as it was delivered to them and understood by them. But when that is taken out of their hands and they are bid to Trust to the Churches Testimony for matters of Faith; they have a different Resolution of their Faith and a different Ground and Reason of believing. For they cannot ground their Faith upon a written Rule who are uncapable of understanding it.
2. It is no matter of Discipline to overthrow the design of publishing the Scripture for the universal Benefit of the Church of God. And this the Jansenists have well proved in Defence of their Translation of the New Testament against the Prohibitions of it. For, say they, the Prohibition of reading the Scripture under pain of Excommunication, is it self Dialogue 1. p. 26. 29.contrary to the Gospel and ought not to be obey'd. For Bread and nourishment is not more necessary to preserve the Life of the Body, than the Word of God is to uphold the Life of the Soul. That for men to speak of so much danger in reading the Scripture is to reflect very dishonourably on the Providence and Groodness of God; for it was by means of Trans…ations in Vulgar Languages that God's Word came to be kno… to the World, and the Gospel was at first published in those Tongues, which were most generally understood. And therefore those do manifestly oppose the design and method of Providence for advancing the Gospel, who decry Translations of Scripture, as pernicious to the Souls of Men. And farther, that such a prohibition, p. 63.is a Contempt of our Lord Jesus Christ and a design to suppress the Gospel; and a Contradiction to the Will and Command of God; A Contempt of the Scripture, which was intended to be understood by all, A Contempt both of Councils and Fathers, which looked on the Scripture as the best Judge of Controversies, and who advised all believers to a continual reading of the Word of God.
If after all this, the Council of Trent could so notoriously err not onelyonly against Scripture and Reason, but Tradition too in such a Matter of Concernment to the Souls of Men, as this is, it will be hardly possible to persuade Men, it could not as well err in any Point of Faith. And it renders the whole proceeding suspicious as to particular Points, when the Rule of Faith is so industriously kept out of the hands of the People. For those who follow their Instructions, are never ashamed to produce their Credentials.
As to what J. W. saith in his Book concerning Jupiter, Dialogues in Answer to T. G. Part. 4.&c. I had answered it so fully many years since, that I have Reason to expect a Reply to what I had there said in my own Vindication, before I can think it fit to trouble the World with needless Repetitions. And it were hard for me to be put to Answer again to the same things, when a Person will not take the pains to see whether he were not Answer'd already.
THE END.
End of the text · Edward Stillingfleet, The Council of Trent Examined and Disproved (1688)