The Council of Trent Examined and Disproved, Part 3
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 now to enquire what Catholick Tradition the Pope and Council went upon in this Prohibition. But as to the Testimony of Fathers, I am prevented by some late Discourses on this Subject. In stead thereof therefore I shall,
1. Shew from their own Writers, that there could be no Catholick Tradition for such a Prohibition.
2. Prove the General Consent of the Catholick Church from publick Acts, as to the free use of the Scripture.
Thomas Aquinas grants that the Scripture was proposed Sum. 1. q. 1. a. 9.to all, and in such a manner that the most rude might understand it. Therefore there was no Prohibition of such Persons reading it.
Cajetan there uses two Arguments for the Scriptures using Metaphors and Similitudes. 1. Because God provides for all. 2. Because the Scripture is tendred to all. And the common People are not capable of understanding spiritual things without such helps. If the Scripture were intended for all, how comes a Prohibition of the use of it?
Sixtus Senensis grants, that in former times the Scripture Sixt. Senens. Biblioth. l. 6. n. 152.was translated into the vulgar Languages, and the People did commonly reade it, to their great Benefit. Then a Prohibition of it must alter the Churches practical Tradition.
Alphonsus à Castro yields to Erasmus, that the Scriptures Alphons. à Castro, l. 1. c. 13.were of old translated into the vulgar Tongues, and that the Fathers, such as S. Chrysostom, and S. Jerom, persuaded People to the reading them. But the Case is altered now, when such mischief comes by the Reading the Scriptures. And yet the Tradition of the Church continues the same, and is impossible to be changed.
Azorius puts the Case fairly; he grants that the Scriptures Azor. Instit. Moral. l. 8. c. 26.were at first written and published in the Common Language; that S. Chrysostom admits all to reade the Scriptures; and that the People did so then; but they do not now. But he saith, the People then understood Greek and Latin, and now they do not. If it were their own Language they might well understand it; but why should not the Scripture now be in a Language they may understand? For Greek and Latin did not make the common People one jot wiser or better; and yet this Man calls it a Heresie now to say, the Scriptures ought to be translated into vulgar Languages. How much is the Faith of the Church changed?
2. I am now to prove the General Consent of the Catholick Church in this matter from publick Acts, i. e. that all Parts of it have agreed in Translations of Scripture into Vulgar Languages without any such Prohibition.
If there had been any such thing in the Primitive Church, it would have held against the Latin Translation it self. For I hope none will say it was the Original, however Authentick it be made by the Council of Trent. How then came the Originals to be turned into the common Language? (as I suppose Latin will be allow'd to have been the common Language of the Roman Empire.) There is no Objection can now be made against any modern Translations, but would have held against the first Latin Version. Who the Authour of it was is utterly unknown; and both S. Augustin and S. Jerom Aug. de Doct. Christian. l 2. c. 11. Hier. Praes. in Josuam.say, there was a great variety among the old Translations, and every one Translated as he thought fit. So that there was no restraint laid upon translating into the common Language. And unless Latin were an infallible Guide to those that understood it, the People were as liable to be deceived in it, as either in English or French.
But it was not onelyonly thus in the Roman Empire, but whereever a People were converted to Christianity in all thè elder times, the Scripture was turned into their Language. The Ecclesiastical Historians mention the Conversion Socr. l. 4. c. 33. Soz. l. 6. c. 37. Nicep. l. 11. c. 48. Isid. in Chron. Gothorum. Walas. Strab. de Reb. Ec…l. c. 7.of the Goths, and upon that, the Translation of the Bible into their Language by Ulphilas their Bishop. Walafridus Strabo adds to this, that besides the Bible, they had all publick Offices of Religion performed in their own Language.
How soon the Churches in Persia were planted, it is impossible for us now to know; but in the MS. Ecclesiastical History of Abulpharagius (in the hands of Dr. Loftus) it is said, that a Disciple of Thaddaeus preached the Gospel in Persia, Assyria and the Parts thereabouts; and that by another Disciple of his 360 Churches were settled there in his time; and that he came to Seleucia, the Metropolis of the Persians, and there established a Church, where he continued fifteen years. And from him there was a Succession of the Patriarchs of Seleucia, which continues still in the East; for upon destruction thereof by Almansor, they removed first to Bagdad, and after that to Mozal over against Ninive, where their residence hath been since; and this Patriarch had universal Jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches as far as the East Indies, as appears by Morinus his Books of Ordinations in the East, and the proceedings with the Christians of St. Thomas in the very end of the last Century.
But we are certain from the Greek Historians, that in Constantine's time the Christians in Persia were so numerous that he wrote to the King of Persia on their behalf. Eusebius saith that Constantine was informed, that the Churches Euseb. de Vit. Const. l. 4. c. 8.were much increased there, and great Multitudes were brought into Christ's Flock; and Constantine himself in his Letter to Sapores saith, the Christians flourished in the best c. 13.parts of Persia; and he hoped they might continue so to doe. But after Constantine's death a terrible Persecution befell them, wherein Sozomen saith, the Names of 16000 Martyrs Soz. l. 2. c. 14.were preserved, besides an innumerable Multitude of unknown persons. The sharpest part of the Persecution fell upon the Bishops and Presbyters; especially in Adiabene, c. 12.which was almost wholly Christian, which Ammianus Ammianus Marcell. l. 23.Marcellinus saith was the same with Assyria, wherein were Ninive, Ecbatane, Arbela, Gaugamela, Babylon (or Soz. l. 2. c. 9.Seleucia) and Ctesiphon, of which Sozomen saith, Symeon was then Archbishop. And he names above twenty Bishops who suffered besides, and one Mareabdes a Chorepiscopus, with 250 of his Clergy. After the time of Sapores several sharp Persecutions fell upon those Churches in the times of Vararanes and Isdigerdes, of which the Greek Historians take notice, and one of them, saith Theodoret, lasted thirty years. This I mention to shew Theod. l. 5. …. 39.what mean thoughts those have of the Catholick Church who consine it to the Roman Communion. Theodoret Theod. de Cur. Graec. affect. Serm. 5. p. 555. Serm. 9. p. 615. Chrys in Joh. Hom 2 p. 561.and S. Chrysostom both affirm that the Persians had the Scriptures then in their own Language; and Sozomen saith, that Symeon Archbishop of Seleucia, and Ctesiphon before his own Martyrdom, incouraged the rest to suffer out of the holy Scriptures. Which supposes them well acquainted with the Language of it, and it is not very likely they should be either with the Hebrew, Greek or Latin; but the other Testimonies make it clear that it was in their own Tongue.
The Anonymous Writer of S. Chrysostom's Life affirms, Vit. Chrys. c. 113.that while he staid in Armenia, he caused the New Testament to be translated into the Armenian Tongue for the benefit of those Churches. And this Tradition is allow'd by several learned Men in the Church of Rome. But the Armenians themselves say, the whole Bible was translated Conc. Eccl. Armen. cum Rom. c. 7. p. 63.into the Armenian Language by Moses Grammaticus, David and Mampraeus, three learned Men of their own, in the time of their Patriarch Isaac, about S. Chrysostom's time. Theodoret, in the place already cited, mentions the Armenian Translation, as a thing well known; and he was near enough to understand the truth of it.
Jacobus de Vitriaco, a Roman Cardinal, saith, that the Hist. Orient. c. 79.Armenians in his time had the Scriptures read to them in their own Language.
The Syriack Version for the Use of those in the Eastern parts who understood not Hebrew or Greek, is allowed by all learned Men to have been very ancient. I mean the old simple Version out of the Originals, and not that out of the LXX. of the Old Testament. As to the New, the Tradition of the Eastern People is, that it was done either in the Apostles times or very near them. Abraham Ecchellensis shews, from the Syriack Writers, that the Compleat Translation of the Bible was made in the Abr. Ecchell. not. in Ebe…. Jesu.time of Abgarus, King of Edessa, by the means of Thaddaeus and the other Apostles; and as to the time of Thaddaeus, Gregorius Malatiensis confirms it.Greg. Hist. Dynast. 6.
Postellus quotes an ancient Tradition (which my Adversaries ought to regard) that S. Mark himself Translated not only his own Gospel, but all the Books of the Ne… Testament into the Vulgar Syriack. It is sufficient to my purpose, to shew that there was such an ancient Translation; which is owned by S. Chry…ost. bom. 2. in Joh. Ambros. Hex. 1. c. 8. Aug. de Civit. Dei, l. 15. c. 13. Diod. ad Gen. 27. 27. Theod in Psal. 3. 4. in Ps. 103. 26. in Ps. 112. 1. in Ps. 115. De Verb. Dei, l. 2. c. 4.S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, S. Augustin, Diodorus and Theodoret: which makes me wonder at Cardinal Bellarmin's affirming with so much confidence, that none of the Fathers speak of the Syriack Version, when Theodoret alone mentions it so often in his Commentaries.
Although the Greeks in Egypt might very well understand the Greek of the Old and New Testament, (especially if that which is called the LXX. were done by the Alexandrian Jews, as some imagine) yet those who knew no other than the old Egyptian Language could not make use of it. And therefore a Coptick Translation was Prodr. Copt. c. 8.made for them; which Kircher thinks to have been 1300 years old. And he withal observes, that their ancient Liturgies were in the Coptick Language.
That it might not be susp…cted that Kircher imposed upon the World, he gives a particular account of the Books he had seen in the Vatican Library and elsewhere in the Coptick Tongue. The Pentateuch in three Tomes, distinguished into Paragraphs by lines. The four Gospels by themselves. S. Paul's Epistles and three Canonical Epistles with the Acts in another Volume. The Apocalypse by it self; and the Psalter. The Liturgy of S. Mark with other daily Prayers. The Liturgy of S. Gregory, with the Prayers of S. Cyril in the Coptick Language; and a Liturgy of S. Basil, with Gregory and Cyril, with several other Rituals, Missals and Prayers, all in the same Tongue. All these, he saith, are in the Vatican Library. And in that of the Maronites College, he saith, is an old Coptick p. 1…6.Martyrology about 1300 years standing, by which he finds, that the chief imployment of the old Egyptian Monks was to translate the Bible out of Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek into the Coptick Tongue.
Morinus saith, that in the Oratorian Lbrary at Paris, Dissert. Epist. 13.they had the Coptick Gospels brought from Constantinople by Monsr. de Sancy.
Petrus à Valle, a Nobleman of Rome, and a great Traveller, saith he had several parts of Scripture in the Coptick Epist. 14.Language; which were turned into Arabick, when the old Coptick grew into disuse.
Petraeus had in the Eastern Parts a Coptick Psalter, with an Arabick Version, which he designed to publish.Hottinger. Methurgem. p. 189.
The Congregation de propaganda Fide at Rome had several Coptick MSS. sent to them out of Egypt, among the rest the Coptick Book of Ordination Transloatd and Printed by Kircher; and since reprinted by Morinus.
Seguier the late Chancellour of France had in his Library, the Consecration of a Patriarch in Coptick and Arabick, De Ordinat. sacris, p. 504. Catal. M S S. p. 31.and several Translations of the Bible, and Prayers in both Languages.
The Aethiopick Translation bears date with the Conversion Ludolph. Hist. Aethiop. l. 3. c. 4.of the Nation, according to their own Tradition, which some make to be in the Apostolical times, and others in the time of Constantine; and their Publick Offices are performed in their own Tongue. The Chancellour Seguier had not only many parts of the Bible, but Prayers and Offices in the Aethiopick Tongue.
I shall add but one thing more to this purpose, which is taken from the want of Antiquity in the Arabick Versions; which is confessed by the learned Criticks on all sides. And even this tends to prove my design. For when the Saracen Empire prevailed, the People grew more acquainted with the Arabick than with the ancient Syriack or Coptick; and therefore the Scripture was then translated into Arabick; (as Vasaeus saith it was done in Spain after the Moors came thither by a Bishop of Sevil) and this was the true reason why the Arabick Versions have no greater Antiquity. For Gabriel Sionita observes Gabr. Sionita de Arab. c. 12.that the Arabick is become the most Vulgar Language in the Eastern Parts. And because it was so in Syria as well as Egypt, therefore there are different Arabick Versions; the one called Codex Antiochenus, and the other Alexandrinus.
Thus I have proved that there was a Catholick Tradition directly contrary to that established by order of the Council of Trent.
And now I proceed to give an Account of the Methods and Steps by which this Decree came to its ripeness.
1. The first Step was the Declension and Corruption of the Latin Tongue in the Western Church. It is observed by Polybius, that from the time of the first League between Polyb. l. 3.the Romans and Carthaginians, the Latin Tongue was so much changed even in Rome it self that very few could understand the Words of it. And Festus in Latine loqui saith, that the Language was so alter'd, that scarce any part of it remained entire. Scaliger thinks these words were added to Festus by Paulus Diaconus; which seems much more probable, since he lived in the time of Charlemagn. At which time we may easily suppose the Latin Tongue to have been very much corrupted by the Writers, and not so easie to be understood any where by the Common People in sudden Discourse, as it had been before. Which appears evident by the Latin Sermons made to the People in the several Provinces in the Roman Empire; as in Africa by S. Augustin and Fulgentius; in Italy by Petrus Chrysologus, Laurentius Novariensis, Gaudentius Brixiensis, Ennodius Ticinensis: In Spain by Isidore, Ildephonsus and others: In Gaul by Caesarius, Eucherius, Eligius, and several others, whose Latin Sermons to the People are still extant. In the Council of Tours, in the Conc. Turon. 3. c. 17.time of Charlemagn, particular care is taken that the Homilies should be translated by their Bishops either into the Rustick Roman or the German, that the People might the easier understand them. These Homilies were either those which Charlemagn caused to be taken out of the Fathers, and applied to the several Lessons through the year, as Sigebert observes, or of their own composing; however Sigeb. ad An. 807.they were to be turned by the Bishops either into Rustick Roman, or German, as served best to the capacities of the People. For the Franks then either retained the Original German, or used the Rustick Roman; but this latter so much prevailed over the other, that in the solemn Oaths between Lewis and Charles upon parting the Dominions of France and Germany, set down in Nithardus, Nithard. l. 3.the Rustick Roman was become the Vulgar Language of France, and these were but the Grandchildren of Charlemagn. Marquardus Freherus thinks that onelyonly Freher, in Exposit. Foederis inter Lud. & Car.the Princes and Great Men retained the German, but the generality then spake the Rustick Roman; as appears by the Oath of the People; which begins thus.
Si Lod…igs Sacrament que Son Fradre Carlo jurat conservat, v. Capitul. Caroli Calvi. Tit. 8.& Carlus meo Serdra de suo part non los tanit, si jo returnar non licit pois, ne io, ne neuls cui eo returnar nil pois, in nulla adjudha contra Lodwig nun li iver.
By which we may see what a mixture of Latin there was in the vulgar Language then used by the Franks, and how easie it was for the People then to understand the publick Offices being constant; but the Sermons not being so, there was greater necessity to turn them into that corruptor Rustick Roman, which was thoroughly understood by them. In Spain the Latin was less corrupted before the Gothick and Arabick or Moorish Words were taken into it. Lucius Mariness saith, that had it not been for Marineus Sicul. de Rebus Hisp. l. 5. …. 4.the mixture of those words, the Spaniards had spoken as good Latin as the Romans did in the time of Tully: and he saith, that to his time he had seen Epistles written in Spanish, wherein all the Nouns and Verbs were good Latin. In Italy the Affinity of the vulgar prevailing Language and the Latin continued so great, that the difference seemed for some hundred years, no more than of the learned and common Greek, or of the English and Scotch; and so no necessity was then apprehended of Translating the correct Tongue into a corrupt Dialect of it.
But where there was a plain difference of Language there was some care even then taken, that the People might understand what they heard, as appears by these things:
1. Alcuinus gives an Account why one day was called Sabbatum in 12 Lectionibus, when there were but six Lessons, Alchuin. de divin. Offic. c. 29.and he saith, it was because they were read both in Greek and Latin, they not understanding each others Languages. Not because the Greek was a holy Tongue, but quia aderant Graeci, quibus ignota er at lingua Latina; which shews that the Church then thought it a reasonable cause to have the Scripture in such a Language, which might be understood by the People. The same Reason is given Amalar. de Offic. l. 2. c. 1,.by Amalarius.
2. In the German Churches there were ancient Translations of Scripture into their own Language. B. Rhenanus …en…. Rer. German. p. 112.attributes a Translation of the Gospels to Waldo Bishop of Freising, assoon as the Franks received Christianity, and he saith, it was the immortal Honours of the Franks, to have the Scripture so soon translated into their own Language; which, saith he, is of late opposed by some Divines: So little did he know of an universal Tradition against it. Goldastus mentions the Translation in Rhime by Ottfridus Wissenburgensis, published by Achilles Gassarus, the Rer. Alem. To. 1. p. 120. To. 2. p. 119.Psalter of Notkerus, Rudolphus ab Eems his Paraphrase of the old Testament. Andreas du Chesn hath published a Preface before an old Saxon Book, wherein it is said, that Hist. Franc. To. 2. p. 326.Ludovicus Pius did take care that all the People should read the Scripture in their own Tongue, and gave it in charge to a Saxon to translate both Old and New Testament into the German Language; which, saith he, was performed very elegantly.
3. In the Saxon Churches here, it was not to be expected that the Scripture should be translated, till there were Persons learned both in the Saxon and the other Languages. Bede, in his Epistle to Egbert, puts him upon instructing the common People in their own Language, Bed. Epist. ad Egbert, p. 65.especially in the Creed and Lord's Prayer; and to further so good a Work, Bede himself translated the Gospel of St. John into the Saxon Tongue, as Cuthbert saith in the Epistle about his Death, in the Life of Bede, before his Saxon History. It appears by the old Canons of Churches, and the Epistles of Aelfric, saith Mr. Lisle, that there was an old Saxon Canon for the Priest to say unto the People the Saxon Treatise of the Old and New Testament.sense of the Gospel in English; and Aelfric saith of himself, that he had translated the Pentateuch, and some of the Historical Books. The New Testament was translated by several hands; and an ancient Saxon Translation hath been lately published with the Gothick Gospels. And there were old Saxon Glosses upon the Gospels; of Aldred, Farmen and Owen. The last Work of K. Alfred was the translating the Psalter; and if the MS. History of Ely deserves credit, he translated both the Old and New Testament.
4. It is not denied either by Bellarmin or Baronius, that the Slavonians in the 9th Century had a permission upon Bell. de Verbo Dci, l. 2.their conversion to Christianity, to enjoy the Bible, and to have publick Offices performed in their own Language. But Bar. ad An 880. n. 16.they tell us, it was because they were then Children in the Faith, and to be indulged; (but methinks Children were the most in danger to be seduced;) or there were not Priests enough to officiate in Latin at first: But this was no Reason then given, as appears by the Pope's own Letter published by Baronius, Wherein he gives God thanks for the Invention of Letters among them by Constantine a Philosopher; and he expresly saith, that God had not confined his Honour to three Languages, but all People and Languages were to praise him; and he saith, God himself in Scripture had so commanded; and he quotes St. Paul's words for it. One would wonder those great Men should no better consider the Popes own Reasons; but give others for him, which he never thought of. It is true, he adds, that he would have the Gospel read first in Latin, and then in Salvonian, and if they pleased he would have the Mass said in Latin; but the Slavonians continued their Custom, and the Pope was willing enough to let them enjoy it, for his own convenience as well as theirs. For there was a secret in this matter, which is not fully understood.
Aventinus, saith, that Methodius invented their I etters, Ave…in. Annal. l. 4. p. 434.and translated the Scriptures into the Slavonian Tongue, and persuaded the People to reject the Latin Service; but this I see no ground for. But the Truth of the matter was, the Slavonians were converted by the means of Methodius and Cyril, (otherwise called Constantine) two Greek Bishops, and the Christian Religion was settled among them by their means, 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 en…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 …ar. A. 869. n. 80.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 Luci. de Regno Dalmatiae, l. 2. c. 3.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 L…turgies in the Slavonian Language, and Catal. M S S. p. 33, 34.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 Greg. Regist. l. 7. Ep. 11.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 Cum primitiva Ecclesia multa dissimulaverit quae à sanctis Patribus postmodum sirmataChristianitate, & Religione crescente, subti… examinatione correcta sunt.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, Labb. Concil. To. 11. p. 427.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, Cochl. c. Alex. Alesium, A. D. 1533. Andrad. Defens. Concil. Trident. l. 4.wholsom and necessary; Andradius thinks the taking of it away would be destructive to Faith; Ledesma saith, the Ledesma de Div. Script. quavis …ingua non leg. p. 155.true Catholicks do not desire it, and bad ought not to be gratified with it. Petrus Sutor, a Carthusian Doctour, calls the Pet. Sutor de Tralatione Bibliae, p. 99. p. 96.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.