The Council of Trent Examined and Disproved, Part 1

The Council of Trent Examined and Disproved · Part 1

p. 2I. Traditions being a Rule of Faith equal with Scriptures.

This is declared by the Council of Trent, as the Groundwork of their Proceedings.

The words are Sess. 4. That the Council receives Traditions both as to Faith Necnon Traditiones ipsas tum ad …idem tum ad mores pertinentes, tanquam vel ore tenns â Christo vel à Spiritu sancto dictatas & continuâ successione in Ecclesia Catholica conservatas, pari pietatis affectu ac re…erentià suscipit & veneratur.and manners, either delivered by Christ himself with his own mouth, or dictated by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholick Church by a continual Succession with equal Piety of Affection and Reverence as the Proofs of holy Scripture.

Where the Council first supposes there are such Traditions from Christ and the Holy Ghost distinct from Scripture which relate to Faith; and then it declares equal Respect and Veneration due to them. No one questions but the Word of Christ and Dictates of the Holy Ghost deserve equal Respect, howsoever conveyed to us; But the Point is, whether there was a Catholick Tradition before this time p. 3for an unwritten Word, as a Foundation of Faith, together with the written Word.

1. It is therefore impertinent here to talk of a Tradition before the written Word; for our Debate is concerning both being joined together to make a perfect Rule of Faith: and yet this is one of the common Pleas on behalf of Tradition.

2. It is likewise impertinent to talk of that Tradition whereby we do receive the written Word. For the Council first supposes the written Word to be received and embraced as the Word of God, before it mentions the unwritten Word; and therefore, it cannot be understood concerning that Tradition whereby we receive the Scriptures. And the Council affirms, That the Truth of the Gospel is contained partly in Books that are written, and partly in unwritten Traditions. By the Truth of the Gospel they cannot mean the Scriptures being the Word of God, but that the word was contained partly in Scripture and partly in Tradition; and it is therefore impertinent to urge the Tradition for Scripture to prove Tradition to be part of the Rule of Faith, as it is here owned by the Council of Trent.

3. The Council doth not here speak of a Traditionary sense of Scripture, but of a distinct Rule of Faith from the Scripture. For of that it speaks afterwards in the Decree about the use of the Scripture; where it saith, no man ought to interpret Scripture against the Sense of the Church to whom it belongs to judge of the true Sense and Meaning of Scripture, nor against the unanimous Consent of the Fathers. Whereby it is evident, the Council is not to be understood of any Consequences drawn out of Scripture concerning things not expresly contained in it; but it clearly means an unwritten Word distinct from the written, and not contained in it, which, together with p. 4that, makes up a Complete Rule of Faith. This being the true sense of the Council, I now shew that there was no Catholick Tradition for it.

Which I shall prove by these steps:

1. From the Proceedings of the Council it self.

2. From the Testimony of the Divines of that Church before the Council for several Centuries.

3. From the Canon Law received and allowed in the Church of Rome.

4. From the ancient Offices used in that Church.

5. From the Testimony of the Fathers.

1. From the Proceedings of the Council about this matter.

By the Postulata it appears, that the Catholick Tradition is such as must be known by the sound members of the Church, and especially of the Divines in it. But it appears by the most allowed Histories of that Council, this Rule of Faith was not so received there. For Cardinal Pallavicini tells us that it was warmly debated and canvassed even by the Bishops themselves. The Bishop of Fano (Bertanus) urged against it, that God had not given Hist. Concil. Trident. l. 6. c. 14. n. 3.equal firmness to Tradition as he had done to Scripture, since several Traditions had failed. But the Bishop of Bitonto (Mussus) opposed him and said, Though all Truths were not to be equally regarded, yet every word of God ought, and Traditions as well as Scripture were the word of God, and the first Principles of Faith; and the greater part of the Council followed him. It seems then there was a division in the Council about it; but how could that be if there were a Catholick Tradition about this Rule of Faith? Could the Bishops of the Catholick Church, when assembled in Council to determine Matters of Faith, p. 5be no better agreed about the Rule of Faith; and 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; N. 4.and he would not allow any Divine Inspiration to Tradition, but that they were to be considered onelyonly 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 Aug. l. 2. c. Julian.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.

p. 6Gabriel Biel lived in the latter end of the 15th Century, and he affirms, that the Scripture alone teaches all things necessary Et caetera nostrae saluti necessaria, quae omnia sola docet sacra Scriptura. Lection. in Canon. Missae 71.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 Haec autem in sacris Scripturis discuntur, per quas solas plenam intelligere possumus Dei voluntatem. ib.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 E…e quo tendit utilitas divinae Scripturae ad perfectionem hominis Dei (hoc est qui totum seipsum Deo dat) perfectionem inquam ta…em ut sit perfectus ad omne bonum exercendum. In 2. ad Tim. 3. 16.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 p. 7calls the Scripture the certain and stable Rule of Faith, yea the most certain and most secure Rule. If there be then Dico i…a omnia Scripta esse ab Apostolis quae sunt …mnibus necessaria, & quae ipsi palam omnibus vulgò praedicaverunt. Bellarm. de verbo Dei. l. 4. c. 11. Illud imprimis statuendum erit Propheticos & Apostolicos libros juxta mentem Ecclesiae Catholicae verum esse verbum Dei & certam ac stabilem Regulam fidei. Id. l. 1. c. 1. At sacris Scripturis quae Propheticis & Apostolicis literis continentur, nihil est notius, nihil certius. Id. c. 2. Quare cum Sacra Scriptura Regula credendi certissima tutissimáque sit. Ibid.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 L. 4. c. 9.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 onelyonly sets down Rules about knowing true Apostolical Traditions from others in matters of Faith, wherein he wisely supposes that which he was to prove.

p. 8And 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 **Et quantum ad ea quae pro…onantur omnibus credenda quae per…inent ad fiaem. 2. 2. q. 171. prol.the Revelation must be publick, and designed for the general Benefit of the Church; and so Aquinas determines ††1. q. 1. a. 5.that our Faith rests onelyonly 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, ‖‖Melch. Can. l. 12. c. 3.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 onelyonly from the Written Word, then it will follow that they did not p. 9hold the unwritten Word to be a Rule of Faith.

Marsilius ab Inghen was first Professor of Divinity of Heidelberg (at the latter end of the 15th Century saith Bellarmin, but Trithemius saith the 14th) and he determines, that a Theological Proposition is that which is positively Marsil. in 4. lib. Sentent. l. 1. Prooem. q. 2. art. 2.asserted in Scripture or deduced from thence by good Consequence; and that a Theological Truth strictly taken is the Truth of an Article of Faith, or something expressed in the Bible, or deduced from thence. He mentions Apostolical Traditions afterwards, and joins them with Ecclesiastical Histories and Martyrologies. So far was he from supposing them to be part of the Rule of Faith.

In the beginning of the 15th Century lived Petrus de Alliaco, one as famous for his skill in Divinity, as for his Pet. de Alli… co in Sent. l. 1. q. 1. a. 3.Dignity in the Church, He saith, that Theological Discourse is founded on Scripture, and a Theological Proof must be drawn from thence; that Theological Principles are the Truths contained in the Canon of Scripture; and Conclusions are such as are drawn out of what is contained in Scripture. So that he not onelyonly makes the Scripture the Foundation of Faith, but of all sorts of true Reasoning about it. He knew nothing of Cardinal Palavicini's two first Principles of Faith.

To the same purpose speaks Gregorius Ariminensis, about the middle of the 14th Century he saith, all Theological Greg. Arimin. q. 1. a. 2.Discourse is grounded on Scripture and the Consequences from it; which he not onelyonly proves from Testimony, but ex communi omnium conceptione, from the general Consent of Christians. For, saith he, all are agreed that then a thing is proved Theologically, when it is proved from the Words of Scripture. So that here we have plain Tradition, against Traditions being a distinct Rule of Faith, and this delivered by the General of an Order in the Church of Rome. He affirms that the Principles of Theology, p. 10are no other than the Truths contained in the Canon of Scripture; and that the Resolution of all Theological Discourse is into them; and that there can be no Theological Conclusion, but what is drawn from Scripture.

In the former part of that Century lived Darandus, Durand. Prol. Q. 5. n. 9.he gives a threesold Sense of Theology. 1. For a habit whereby we assent to those things which are contained in Scripture, as they are there delivered. 2. For a habit whereby those things are …efended and declared which are delivered in Scripture. 3. For a habit of those things a. 13.which are deduced out of Articles of Faith; and so it is all one with the holy Scripture.n. 21.

And in another place he affirms, that all Truth is contained in the Holy Scripture at large; but for the People's L. 3. Dist. 25. q. 2.Conveniency the necessary Points are summed up in the Apostles Creed.

In his Preface before his Book on the Sentences he highly commends the Scriptures for their Dignity, their Usefulness, their Certainty, their Depth; and after all concludes, that in matters of Faith men ought to speak agreeably to the Scriptures; and whosoever doth not, breaks the Rule of the Scriptures, which he calls the Measure of our Faith. What Tradition did appear then for another Rule of Faith in the 14th Century?

But before I proceed higher I shall shew the Consent of others with these School Divines in the three last Centuries before the Council of Trent. In the middle of the 15th lived Nicholaus Panormitanus, one of mighty Reputation for his skill in the Canon Law. In the Ch. Significâsti prima. 1. de Electione, debating the Authority of Pope and Council, he saith, Nam in concernentibus fidem etiam dictum unius privati esset pra…erendum dicto Papae si ille movere…ur melioribus rationibus novi & veteris Testamenti quam Papae.If the Pope hath better Reason his Authority is greater than the Councils; and if any private person in matters of Faith p. 11hath better Reason out of Scripture than the Pope, his saying is to be preferred above the Pope's. Which words do plainly shew, that the Scripture was then looked on as the onelyonly Rule of Faith; or else no Man's grounding himself on Scripture could make his Doctrine to be preferred before the Pope's; who might alledge Tradition against him, and if that were an equal Rule of Faith, the Doctrine of one Rule could not be preferred before the other.

At the same time lived Tostatus the famous Bishop of Avila, one of infinite Industry and great Judgment, and therefore could not be mistaken in the Rule of Faith. In his Preface on Genesis he saith, that there must be a Rule for our understandings to be Cùm ergo in omni veritate veritas divina sit certior & immutabilior, ergo omnes aliae debent regulari per illam, & in quantum conformantur illi sunt verae; in quantum autem deviant ab illa, deviant à natura veritatis. Sacra autem Scriptura veritas divina est, ideo judicium nostrum debemus regulare per illam applicando ad eam, &c. Tostatin Ep. Hieron. c. 6. p. 28. D.regulated by, and that Rule must be most certain; that Divine Faith is the most certain; and that is contained in Scripture, and therefore we must regulate our understandings thereby. And this he makes to be the measure of Truth and Falshood. If he knew any other Rule of Faith besides the Scriptures, he would have mentioned it in this place; and not have directed Men onelyonly to them, as the exact measure of Truth and Falshood.

In the beginning of this Century Thomas Walden (Confessor to our Henry 5th, saith Trithemius,) disputed sharply against Wickliff; but he durst not set up the Churches Authority or Tradition equal with the Scriptures. For when he mentions Tradition after Scriptures, he utterly disclaims any such thought as that of Equality between them; but he desires a due Non quod in Auctoritate aequantur, absit; sed sequantur. Non quidem in subsidium Auctoritatis Canonicae sed in admonitionem posterorum, l. 2. Art. 2. c. 22.distance may be kept between Canonical Scripture and Ecclesiastical Authority or Tradition. In the first place he saith, we ought to believe the holy Scriptures; then p. 12the Definitions and Customs of the Catholick Church; but he more fully explains himself in another place, where c. 28.he plainly asserts, that nothing else is to be received by c. 27.such Faith as the Scripture and Christ's symbolical Church; but for all other Authorities, the lowest degree is that of Catholick Tradition, the next of the Bishops, especially of the Apostolical Churches, and the Roman in the first place; and above all these he places that of a General Council; but when he hath so done, he saith, all these Authorities are to be regarded but as the Instructions of Elders, and Admonitions of Fathers. So that the chief Opposers of Wickliff had not yet found out this new Rule of Faith.

Much about the same time lived Joh. Gerson, whom Joh. Gerson. Exam. Doctr. p. 540. Part. 1. Cons. 5.Cardinal Zabarella declared, in the Council of Constance, to be the greatest Divine of his time, and therefore could not be ignorant of the true Rule of Faith. He agrees with Panormitan in this, that if a man be well skilled in Scriptures, his Doctrine deserves more to be regarded than the Pope's Declaration; for, saith he, the Gospel is more to be believed than the Pope, and if such a one teaches a Doctrine to be contained in Scripture, which the Pope either knows not or mistakes, it is plain whose Judgment is to be preferred. Nay, he goes farther, that if in a General Council he finds the Majority incline to that part which is contrary to Scripture, he is bound to oppose it, and he instances in Hilary. And he shews, that since the Canon of Scripture received by the Church, no Authority of the Church is to be equalled to it. He allows a Judgment of Discretion in private Cons. 6.persons, and a Certainty of the literal Sense of Scripture attainable thereby. He makes the Scripture the onelyonly standing infallible Rule Nihil audendum dicere de divinis nisi quae nobis à Sacra Scriptura tradita sunt. Cujus ratio est, quoniam Scriptura nobis tradita est tanquam Regula sufficiens & infallibi…i…, pro Regi…ine totius Ecclesiastici corporis & membrorum usque in finem seculi. Est igitur talis Ars, talis regula, vel exemplar, cui se non conformans alia Doctrina, vel abjicienda est ut haereticalis, aut suspecta, aut impertinens ad Religionem prorsus est habenda. Exam. Doctr. Part. 2. Consid. 1.of Faith for the whole Church to the end of the world. And whatever Doctrine is not agreeable thereto, is to be rejected either p. 13as 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 Lyra, Praesat. ad lib. Tobiae.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 Scot. in Sentent. Prolog. Q. 2. n. 14.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 onelyonly 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 Ea enim quae ex sola Dei voluntate supra omne debitum Creatur…, nobis innotescere non possunt, nisi quatenus in sacra Scriptura traduntur, per quam Divina voluntas nobis innotescit. 3. q. 1. a. 3. in C.in this matter; For he saith, that those things which depend on the Will of God, and are above any desert of ours, can p. 14be 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, Suarez, in 3. p. 117.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 onelyonly Rule of Faith.

1. He makes no Proofs of matters of Faith to be sufficient but such as are deduced Authoritatibus autem Canonicae Scripturae utitur propriè ex necessitate argumentando; autoritatibus autem aliorum Doctorum Ecclesiae quasi arguendo ex propriis sed probabilitér. Inni…itur enim fides nostra Revelationi Apostolis & Prophet is factae, qui Canonicos libros scripserunt, non autem Revelationi si qua fuit aliis Doctoribus facta. 1. q. 1. a. 8. ad 2.from Scripture; and all other Arguments from Authority to be onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 Quae igitur fidei sunt non sunt tentanda probari nisi per Autoritates his qui Autoritates suscipiunt. 1. q. 32. a. 1. c.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, Si autem ad veritatem eloquiorum sc. sacrorum respicit, hoc & nos Canone utimur. Ib.where he mentions the Canon of Scripture expresly.

p. 153. 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 onelyonly for the Ease of the People. From hence it nenessarily Dicendum quod veritas fidei in Sacra Scriptura diffusè continetur—ideó fuit necessarium ut ex sententiis Sacrae Scripturae aliquid manifestum summariè colligeretur, quod proponeretur omnibus ad credendum; quod quidem non est additum Sacrae Scripturae, sed potius ex Sacra Scriptura sumptum. 2. 2. q. 1. a. 9. ad primum.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 onelyonly implicitly, or Quantum ad prima Credibilia, quae sunt Articuli fidei, tenetur homo explicitè credere, sicut & tenetur habere fidem. Quantum autem ad alia credibilia non tenetur homo explicitè credere, sed solùm implicitè, vel in praeparatione animi in quantum paratus est credere quicquid Scriptura continet; sed tunc solùm hujusmodi tenetur explicitè credere, quando hoc ei constiterit in Doctrina fidei contineri. 2. 2. q. 2. a 5. c.in a preparation of mind, to believe whatever is contained in Scripture; and then onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 Et nihil nobis dicendum est, praeter ea quae nobis ex Sacris Eloqui… claret. Bonav. in 3 Sent. Dist. 1. Art. 2. q. 2.to besaid, (about Matters of Faith) but what is made clear out of the holy Scriptures.

p. 16Not 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, Quod autem credimus posterioribus circa quos non apparent virtutes divinae, hoc est, quia non praedicant alia quàm quae illi in scriptis certissimis reliquêrunt, quae constat per medios in nullo fuisse vitiata ex consensicne concordi in eis omnium succedentium usque ad tempora nostra. Hen. Gandav. Sum. A…t. 9. q. 3 n. 13. 2.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 onelyonly 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; Quia veritas ipsa in Scriptura immobiliter & impermutabiliter semper cuf…ditur.—In personis autem Excclesiae mutabilis est & variabil…s ut dissentire fidei possit multitudo illorum, & vel per errorem, vel per malitiam à side discedere licet; semper Ecclesia in aliquibus just…s stabit. Art. 8. q. 1. n. 5.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 Suspecta est mihi omnis veritas, quam non confirmat Scriptu…arum Auctoritas. Rich. de S. Victore, De Praepar. Animi ad Contempl. Part. 1. c. 81.Scripture; but in stead of that I shall now proceed to the Canon Law, as having more Authority than particular Testimonies.

p. 173. 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 De verbo Dei l. 4. c. 2.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 mere Oral Tradition, according to him, but it may be found in the Writers of the Church; c. 12.but the Canon Law expresly excludes all other Writings, let them contain what they will, from being admitted to any Competition with Canonical Scripture; and therefore according to that, no part of the Rule of Faith was contained in any other than Canonical Scriptures.

Dist. 37. c. Relatum, A man is supposed to have an entire and firm Rule of Cùm enim ex divinis Scripturis integram quis & firmam Regulam veritatis susceperit.Faith in the Scriptures.

Caus. 8. q. 1. c. Nec sufficere, The Scriptures Quibus sacris literis unica est credendi pariter & vivendi Regul… praescripta.are said to be the onelyonly Rule both of Faith and Life.

And the Gloss on the Canon Law there owns the Scripture to be the Rule for matters of Faith; but very pleasantly applies it to the Clergy, and thinks Images enough for the Laity.

Caus. 24. q. 1. c. Non afferentes. The Scriptures are acknowledged to be the true Balance; and that we are not so much to weigh what we find there, as to own what we find there already weighed. Which must imply the Scripture alone to be that Measure we are to trust to.

p. 18Dist. 8. c. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. It is there said, that Custome must yield to Truth and Reason, when that is discovered, and that for this Reason, because Christ said, I am Truth and not Custome. Now, if Tradition be an Infallible Rule of Faith, Custome ought always to be presumed to have Truth and Reason of its side. For, if we can once suppose a Custome to prevail in the Church against Truth and Reason, it is impossible that Tradition should be Infallible; for what is that but Ancient Custome?

Caus. 11. Q. 3. c. 101. Si is qui proeest. If any one commands what God hath forbidden, or forbids what God hath commanded, he is to be accursed of all that love God. And if he requires any thing besides the Will of God, or what God hath evidently required in Scripture, he is to be looked on as a false Witness of God, and a Sacrilegious Person. How can this be, if there be another infallible way of conveying the Will of God besides the Scriptures?

Caus. 24. q. 3. c. 30. c. Quid autem. In matters of doubt it is said that men are to fly to the Written word for satisfaction, Sed in han… insipientiam cadunt, qui cùm ad cognoscendam veritatem aliquo impediuntur obscuro, non ad Propheticas voces, non ad Apostolicas liter as, nec ad Evangelicas auc…oritates, sed ad seipsos recurrunt.and that it is folly not to doe it. It is true, Mens own Fancies are opposed to Scripture, but against Mens Fancies no other Rule is mentioned but that of the Written Word.

Joh. 22. Extravag. c. Quia quorundam. Tit. 14. makes his Appeal to Scripture in the Controversie then on foot about Use and Property; Dicunt nobis ubi legunt, &c. and he shews that if it were a matter of Faith, it must be contained in Scripture, either expresly or by reduction; otherwise the Scripture would Nec quasi hoc sacra Scriptura contineat, quo negato tota Scriptura sacra redditur dubia; & per consequens articuli Fidei, qui habeat per Scripturam sacram probari redd… tur dubii & incerti.be no certain Rule; and by consequence, the Articles of Faith which are proved p. 19by Scripture, would be rendred doubtfull and uncertain.

The Glosser there saith, Whence comes this consequence? and refers to another place; where he makes it out thus; that Faith can onelyonly be proved by the Scripture, and therefore if the Authority of that be destroy'd, Faith would Extrav. Joh. 22. Cum inter Gloss. per consequens. Turrecrem. de Ecclesia, l. 4. part. 2. c. 9.be taken away. The Roman Editors for an Antidote refer to Cardinal Turrecremata, who doth indeed speak of Catholick Truths, which are not to be found in the Canon of Scripture; and he quotes a passage in the Canon Law for it under the name of Alex. 3. c. cum Marthoe Extrav. de Celebr. Missae. but in truth it is Innoc. 3. Decretal. l. 3. Tit. 41. and yet this will not prove what he aims at; for the Question was about the Authour of the Words added in the Eucharist to those of Christ's Institution; and he pleads that many of Christ's words and actions are omitted by the Evangelists, which the Apostles afterwards set down; and he instances in Saint Paul, as to those words of Christ, It is more blessed to give than to receive; and elsewhere. But what is all this to Catholick Truths not being contained in Scripture either in words or by consequence? The Cardinal was here very much to seek, when he had nothing but such a Testimony as this to produce in so weighty and so new a Doctrine. The best Argument he produces is, Turrecre…. l. 2. c. 18.a horrible blunder of Gratian's, where S. Augustin seems to reckon the Decretal Epistles equal with the Scriptures, Dist. 19. c. in Canonicis; which the Roman Correctors were ashamed of, and consess that S. Augustin speaks onelyonly of Canonical Epistles in Scripture. So hard must they strain, who among Christians would set up any other Rule equal with the Written Word.

4. I proceed to prove this from the ancient Offices of the Roman Church.

p. 20In the Office produced by Morinus out of the Vatican MS. which he saith was very ancient; the Bishop before Morin. de Ordinat. Sacris, p. 275.his Consecration was asked, If he would accommodate all his prudence, to the best of his skill, to the Sense of Holy Scripture?

Resp. Yes, I will with all my heart consent, and obey it in all things.

Inter. Wilt thou teach the People by Word and Example, the things which thou learnest out of holy Scriptures?

Resp. I will.

And then immediately follows the Examen about Manners.

In another old Office of S. Victor's, there are the same Morin p. 333.Questions in the same manner.

And so in another of the Church of Rouen lately produced by Mabillon, which he saith was about William Mabillon A. nalect. To. 2. p. 468.the Conquerour's time, there is not a word about Traditions; which crept into the Ordo Romanus, and from thence hath been continued in the Roman Pontificals. But it is observable, that the Ordo Romanus owns that the Examen was originally taken out of the Gallican Offices, (although it does not appear in those imperfect ones lately published at Rome by Th…masius) and therefore we may justly suspect that the additional Questions about Traditions were the Roman Interpolations, after it came to be used in that Pontifical.

And the first Office in Morinus was the true ancient Gallican Office. But if Tradition had been then owned as a Rule of Faith, it ought no more to have been omitted in the ancient Offices than in the modern.

And the ancient Writers about Ecclesiastical Offices speak very agreeably to the most ancient Offices about this matter. Amalarius saith the Gospel is the Fountain Amalarius de Offi…i…s, l. 3. c. 5.of Wisedom; and that the Preachers ought to prove the p. 21Evangelical Truth out of the sacred Books. Isidore, that we ought to think nothing (as to matters of Faith) Isidor. de Offic. l. 2. c. 23.but what is contained in the two Testaments. Rabanus Maurus, that the knowledge of the Scriptures is the foundation Rab. Maur. de Inst. Cler. l. 3. c. 2. l. 2. c. 53.and perfection of Prudence, That Truth and Wisedom are to be tried by them; and the perfect instruction of Life is contained in them. Our Venerable Bede agrees with them, when he saith, that the true Teachers Bed. in Cant. l. 5. De Tabernaculo l. 1. c. 6.take out of the Scriptures of the old and new Testament that which they preach: and therefore have their minds imploy'd in finding out the true meaning of them.

5. I now come to the Fathers; wherein I am in great Vindic. of the Answ. to some late Papers.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; Commonit. 1. c. 2. Cùm sit perfectus Scripturarum Canon sibi que ad omnia satis supér que sufficiat.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; p. 22and 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 c. 39.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 c. 6.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 Of the Necessity of Church-Guides p. 201.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 p. 199.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 p. 23Vincentius 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 p. 24themselves? Or, as the Guide admirably saith, If the present Universality be its own Judge, when can we think p. 199.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 Tabulae Suf…ragial. p. 54.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 foreign ▪ De Sp. Sancto c. 7.Fathers; for our Fathers had it from the Will of God in Scripture, as appears by p. 25those 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 as to this Point. And no one upon all Occasions speaks more expresly than he doth as to the Sufficiency of Scripture for De vera fide, p. 386. A. C. p. 391. C.a Rule of Faith; and he was too great, and too wise a Man to contradict himself.

2. That there were different forms of speech used in Ascet. Reg. 26. Reg 80. c. 22.the Church concerning the Holy Ghost, some taken out of Scripture, and others received by Tradition from the Fathers. When he proves the Divinity of the Holy Ghost De Sp. San…t. c. 9.he appeals to Scripture, and declares, that he would neither think nor speak otherwise than he found there. But c. 10.it was objected that the Form S. Basil used was not found in Scripture; he answers, that the equivalent is there c. 21.found; and that there were some things received by Tradition, which had the same force towards Piety. And if we take away all unwritten Customs, we shall doe wrong to the Gospel, and leave a bare name to the Publick Preaching. And from thence he insists on some Traditionary Rites, as the Sign of the Cross, Praying towards the East, &c. His business is to shew that to the greater solemnity of Christian Worship several Customs were observed in the Church, which are not to be found in Scripture. And if other ancient Customs were received which are not commanded in Scripture, he sees no Reason that they should find such fault with this. And c. 29.this is the whole force of S. Basil's Reasoning, which can never be stretched to the setting up Tradition as a Rule of Faith distinct from Scripture.

Having thus shewed that there was no Catholick Tradition for this New Rule of Faith, I am now to give an Account how it came into the Church.

p. 26The first Step that was made towards it, was by the second Council of Nice. For, although the Emperour in the Synodical Epistle proposed to them the true ancient Mehod of judging in Councils, By the Books of Scripture placed on a Throne in the middle of the Council; yet they found, they could by no means doe their business that Way, and therefore as Bellarmin observes, they set up Tradition in the 6th and 7th Sessions, and pronounced Anathema's against those who rejected unwritten Traditions. But although there were then almost as little pretence for Tradition as Scripture in the matter of Images; yet there having been a practice among them, to set up Richer. Hist. Conc. General. l. 1. c. 11. n. 13.and to worship Images, (which Richerius thinks came first into the Church from the Reverence shewed to the Emperours Statues) they thought this the securest way to advance that, which they could never defend by Scripture.

But this prevailed very little in the Western Church, as is well known by the rejection of that Synod; however Pope Hadrian joined with them, and produced a wretched Tradition about Sylvester and Constantine to justifie their Proceedings; as appears by the Acts of that Council. And from the time that Images were received at Rome, the force of Tradition was magnified; and by degrees it came to be made use of to justifie other Practices, for which they had nothing else to plead.

Hitherto Tradition was made use of for matters of Practice, and the Scripture was generally received as the Rule of Faith; but some of the Schoolmen found it impossible to defend some Doctrines held in the Church of Rome by mere Scripture, and therefore they were forced to call in the Help of Tradition. The most remarkable of these was Scotus, who although in his Prologue he asserted, p. 27as is said already, that the Scripture did sufficiently contain all things necessary to salvation; yet when he came to particular Points, he found Scripture alone would never doe their business. And especially as to the Sacraments of the Church, about which he saw the Church of Rome then held many things which could never be Scot. in l. 1. Sent. Dist. 11.proved from thence. And this was the true occasion of Traditions being taken in for a partial Rule.

For after the Council of Lateran had declared several things to be of Faith, which were in no former Creeds, as Scotus confesses, and they were bound to defend them as Points of Faith, the Men of Wit and Subtilty, such as l. 4. Dist. 11. n. 15.Scotus was, were very hard put to it, to find out ways to prove those to have been old Points of Faith, which they knew to be very new. Then they betook themselves to two things, which would serve for a colour to blind the common People; and those were,

1. That it was true, these things were not in Scripture; but Christ said to his Disciples, I have many things to say unto you, &c. and among those many things they were to believe these new Doctrines to be some.

2. When this would not serve, then they told them, though these Doctrines were not explicitly in Scripture, yet they were implicitly there; and the Church had authority to fetch them out of those dark places, and to set them in a better light. And thus Scotus helped himself out in that dark Point of Transubstantiation. First he attempts n. 13.to make it out by Tradition, but finding that would not doe the business effectually, he runs to the Authority of the Church, especially in the business of Sacraments, and we are to suppose, saith he, that the Church doth expound the Scripture with the same Spirit which indited them. This was a brave Supposition indeed, but he offers no proof of it.

p. 28If we allow Scotus to have been the Introducer of Tradition, as to some Points of Faith, yet I have made it appear, that his Doctrine was not received in the Schools. But after the Council of Constance had declared several Propositions to be Heretical, which could not be condemned by Scripture, there was found a Necessity of holding, that there were Catholick Truths not contained in Scripture. The first Proposition there condemned was, That the Substance of Bread and Wine remain in the Sacrament of the Altar: the second, That the Accidents do not remain without their Subject: Now how could such as these be condemned by Scripture? But although onelyonly some were said to be Heretical, yet all were said to be against Catholick Truth. But where is this Catholick Truth to be found? Cardinal Cusanus thought of a current sense of Scripture, according Scripturas esse and tempus adaptatas & variè intellectas, ità ut uno tempore secundùm eurrentem universalem ritum exponerentur, mutato ritu iterum sente…tia mutaretur Cusan. ad Bohem. Epist. 2.to the Churches Occasions; so that though the Churches Practice should be directly contrary, yet the Scripture was to be understood as the Church practised. This was a very plain and effectual way, if it had not been too gross; and therefore it was thought much better by Cardinal Turrecremata, to found Catholick Verities on unwritten Tradition, as well as on Scripture.

After this, Leo X. in his famous Bull against Luther, Exurge Domine, made a farther step; for 22 Proposition condemned therein, is That it is certain that it is not in the power of the Church or Pope to appoint new Articles of Faith. It seems then the Pope or Church have a Power to constitute new Articles of Faith; and then neither Scripture nor Tradition can be the certain Rule of Faith, but the Present Church or Pope.

This had put an end to the business, if it would have taken; but the World being wiser, and the Errours and p. 31Corruptions 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 onelyonly 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.