The Council of Trent Examined and Disproved, Part 2
II. About the Canon of Scripture, defined by the Council of Trent.
This is declared by the Council of Trent, Sess. 4. and therein the Books of Tobias, Judith, Wisedom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees and Baruch are received for Canonical, with the twenty two Books in the Hebrew Canon, and an Anathema is denounced against those who do not. And presently it adds, that hereby the World might see what Authorities the Council proceeded on for con…rming matters of Faith as well as reforming manners.
Now to shew that there was no Catholick Tradition for the ground of this Decree, we are to observe,
1. That these Canonical Books are not so called in a large sense for such as have been used or read in the Church; but in the strict sense for such as are a good Foundation to build matters of Faith upon.
2. That these Books were not so received by all even in the Council of Trent. For what is received by virtue of a Catholick Tradition, must be universally received by the Members of it. But that so it was not appears by the account given by both the Historians. F. Paul saith, that in the Congregation there were two different Opinions Hist. of the Council of Tr. l. 2. p. 154.of those who were for a particular Catalogue; one was to distinguish the Books into three parts, the other to make all the Books of equal authority; and that this latter was carried by the greater number. Now if this were a Catholick Tradition, how was it possible for the Fathers of the Council to divide about it? And Cardinal Pallavicini himself saith, that Bertanus and Seripandus propounded the putting the Books into several Classes, Ibid. l. 6. c. 11. p. 4.some to be read for Piety, and others to confirm Doctrines of Faith; and that Cardinal Seripando wrote a most learned Book to that purpose. What! against a Catholick Tradition? It seems, he was far from believing it to be so. And he confesses, that when they came to the Anathema, the Legats and twenty Fathers were for it; p. 8.Madrucci and fourteen were against it, because some Catholicks were of another opinion. Then certainly, they knew no Catholick Tradition for it.
Among these Cardinal Cajetan is mention'd, who was, saith Pallavicini, severely rebuked for it by Melchior Canus; but what is that to the Tradition of the Church? Canus doth indeed appeal to the Council of Carthage, Innocentius I. and the Council of Florence; but this doth Can. Loc. Theol. l. 2. c. 11.not make up a Catholick Tradition against Cajetan; who declares that he follows S. Jerom, who cast those Books Cajet. in Eccles. fine.out of the Canon with Respect to Faith. And he answers the Arguments brought on the other side, by this distinction, that they are Canonical for Edification, but not Ad Ester c. 10. ad fin.for Faith. If therefore Canus would have confuted Cajetan he ought to have proved that they were owned for Canonical in the latter Sense. Cajetan in his Epistle to Clemens VII. before the Historical Books, owns the great Obligation of the Church to S. Jerom for distinguishing Canonical and Apocryphal Books; and saith, that he hath freed it from the Reproach of the Jews, who said the Christians made Canonical Books of the Old Testament which they knew nothing of. And this was an Argument of great consequence; but Canus takes no notice of it, and it fully answers his Objection, that men could not know what Books were truly Canonical, viz. such as were of divine inspiration, and so received by the Jews. Catharinus saith, in Answer to Cajetan, that the Jews Annot. in Cajet. l. 1. p. 37.had one Canon, and the Church another. But how comes the Canon to be received as of divine Inspiration which was not so received among the Jews? This were to resolve all into the Churches Inspiration and not into Tradition.
Bellarmin grants, that the Church can by no means make De Verb. Dei, l. 1. c. 11.a Book Canonical which is not so, but onelyonly declare what is Canonical, and that, not at pleasure; but from ancient Testimonies, from similitude of style with Books uncontroverted, and the general Sense and Taste of Christian People. Now the Case here relates to Books not first written to Christians, but among the Jews, from whom we receive the Oracles of God committed to them. And if the Jews never believed these Books to contain the Oracles of God in them, how can the Christian Church embrace them for such, unless it assumes a Power to make, and not merely to declare Canonical Books? For he grants we have no Testimony of the Jews for them.
But Catharinus himself cannot deny that S. Jerom saith, that although the Church reads those Books, yet it doth not receive them for Canonical Scriptures. And he makes a pitisull Answer to it. For he confesses, that the Church taken for the Body of the Faithfull did not receive them; but as taken for the Governours it did. But others grant that they did receive them no more than the People; and as to the other, the cause of Tradition Jul. Ruger. de libris Canonicis, p. 80.is plainly given us. And in truth he resolves all at last into the opinion of the Popes Innocentius, Gelasius and Eugenius 4. But we are obliged to him for letting us know the Secret of so much zeal for these Apocryphal Books, viz. that they are of great force against the Hereticks, for Purgatory is no where so expresly mention'd as in p. 41.the Maccabees. If it had not been for this, S. Jerom and Cajetan might have escaped Censure, and the Jewish Canon had been sufficient.
But to shew, that there hath been no Catholick Tradition about the Tridentine Canon, I shall prove these two things:
1. That there hath been a constant Tradition against it in the Eastern Church.
2. That there never was a constant Tradition for it in the Western Church.
1. That there hath been a constant Tradition against it in the Eastern Church, which received the Jewish Canon, without the Books declared Canonical by the Council of Trent. We have very early Evidence of this in the Testimony of Melito, Bishop of Sardis, who lived not long after the middle of the 2d. Century, and made it his business to enquire into this matter, and he delivers but Euseb. l. 4. c. 25.22 Books of the Old Testament. The same is done by Origen in the next, who took infinite Pains, as Eusebius l. 6. c. 25. Philocal. c. 3.saith, in searching after the Copies of the Old Testament. And these Testimonies are preserved by Eusebius in the following Century: and himself declares, that there was no sacred Book among the Euseb. Demonstr. l. 8. p. 368. Chronic. Gr. p. 172.Jews from the time of Zorobabel; which cuts off the Books canonized by the Council of Trent. In the same Age we have the Testimonies of Athanasius, St. Athanas. Ep. 39. Cyril. Cabech. 4.Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, S. Basil, Epiph. de mensuris & ponder.S. Gregory Nazianzene, Amphilochius and Basil. in Origen. Philocal.S. Chrysostom: It is not to be imagined Greg. Nazianzen. in Carm.that a Tradition should be better attested Amph. in Canon. Ep. apud Balsam.in one Age than this was, by so considerable Men in different S. Chrysost. in Gen. hom. 4.Churches, who give in the Testimony of all those Churches they belonged to. And yet besides these we have in that Age a concurrent Testimony of a Council of Bishops at Laodicea, from several Provinces of Asia; and Conc. Laodicea, c. 59.which is yet more, this Canon of theirs was received into the Code of the Catholick Church; and so owned by the Council of Chalcedon, which by its first Canon gives Authority to it. And Justinian allows the force of Laws to the Canons which were either made or confirmed by No…el. 131.the four General Councils. But it is the point of Tradition I am upon; and there…ore Justinian's Novel may at least be a s…rong Evidence of that in the 6th Century: In the 7th, Leontius gives his own Testimony, and that of Theodorus. Leont. de Sect…s, Act. 2. D…mascen. de …ide, lib. 4. c. 18.In the 8th, Damascen expresly owns the Hebrew Canon of 22 Books, and excludes by name some of the Books made Canonical at Trent. In the 9th we have the Test…mony of Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, if Niceph Chro…gr. p. 419.he be the Authour of the Laterculus, at the end of his Chr…nography; but if he be not, he must be an Authour of that Age, being translated by Anastasius Bibliothecarius. Anastas. Hist. p. 189. Not. in Can. 27. Carthag. Niceph. in Epigram. Metroph. Confess. c. 7. p. 82. Phil. Cyprii Chronic. Eccles. Graec. p. 459.In the 12th. Balsamon and Zonaras refer to the Council of Laodicea, and the Greek Fathers. In the 14th. Nicephorus Calisthus reckons but 22 Books of the Old Testament. And in this Age, we have the clear Testimony of Metrophanes, (afterwards Patriarch of Alexandria) who saith, there are but 22 Canonical Books of the Old Testament; but the rest, i. e. Tobit, Judith, Wisedom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch and Machabees are usefull, and therefore not wholly to be rejected, but the Church never received them for Canonical and Authentical, as appears by many Testimonies, as, among others, of Gregory the Divine, Amphilochius and Damascen: and therefore we never prove matters of Faith out of them.
2. Let us now compare this Tradition with that of the Western Church for the New Canon of Trent. It cannot be denied, that Innocentius I. and Gelasius did enlarge the Canon, and took in the Apocryphal Books (unless we call in question the Writings under their Names;) but granting them genuine, I shall shew that there is no comparison between this Tradition and that of the Eastern Church, and therefore there could be no possible Reason for the Council of Trent to make a Decree for this Tradition, and to anathematize all who did not submit to it. For,
1. This Tradition was not universally received at that time. Innocentius his Epistle is supposed to be written A. D. 405. Was the Western Church agreed before or after about this matter? This Epistle was written to Eruperius, a Gallican Bishop, (to whom St. Jerom dedicated his Commentaries on Zechariah,) but now it unluckily falls out, that the Tradition of the Gallican Church was contrary to this; as appears by S. Hilary, (who could Hilar. Prolog. in Psalm.not be ignorant of it, being a famous Bishop of that Church) and he tells us, there were but 22 Canonical Books of the Old Testament. I confess he saith, some were for adding Tobit and Judith, but it is very observable that he saith, that the other Account is most agreeable to ancient Tradition, which is a mighty Argument against Innocentius, who brings no Tradition to justifie his Canon. When St. Augustin produced a Place out of the De Praedest. Sanctor. c. 14.Book of Wisedom, the Divines of Marseilles rejected it; because the Book was not Canonical: Therefore in that time Innocent's Canon was by no means received in the Gallican Church; for by it this Book was made Canonical. But S. Jerom, who had as much learning as Pope Innocent, Prolog. Gal. Prolog. in lib. Salom. ad Paul. & Eust. ad Chromat.vehemently opposed this New Canon more than once or ten times; and not onelyonly speaks of the Jewish Canon, but of the Canon of the Church. The Church, saith he, reads the Books of Tobit, Judith and Machabees, but the Church doth not receive them among Canonical Scriptures. What Church doth he mean? Not the Synagogue certainly. Pope Innocent saith, Those Books are to be received into the Canon; S. Jerom saith, the Church doth not receive them, but that they are to be cast out; Where is the Certainty of Tradition to be found? If Innocent were in the right, S. Jerom was foully mistaken, and in plain terms belied the Church. But how is this consistent with the Saintship of St. Jerom? Or with common discretion if the Church did receive those Books for Canonical? For every one could have disproved him. And it required no great Judgment or deep Learning to know what Books were received, and what not. If S. Jerom were so mistaken (which it is very hard to believe) how came Ruffinus not to observe his errours and opposition to the Church? Nay, how came Ruffinus himself to fall into the very same prodigious mistake? For he not onelyonly rejects the controverted Books out of the Canon, but saith, he follow'd the ancient Tradition therein. What Ruffin. in Symbol. pag. 188, 189.account can be given of this matter? If Innocent's Tradition were right, these men were under a gross Delusion; and yet they were learned and knowing Persons, and more than ordinarily conversant in the Doctrines and Traditions of the Church.
2. This Opinion was not received as a Tradition of the Church afterwards. For, if it had been, how could Gregory I. reject the Book of Machabees out of the Canon, Greg. Moral. in Job. l. 19. c. 17.when two of his Predecessours took it in? It is somewhat hard, to suppose one Pope to contradict two of his Predecessours about the Canon of Scripture; yet I see not how to avoid it; nor how it is consistent with the Constancy of Tradition, much less with the pretence to Infallibility. He did not merely doubt, as Canus would Can. Loc. Theol. l. 2. c. 11. ad 4. Cath. de Ca…o…icis Scrip. in Opuscul. p. 302.have it thought, but he plainly excludes them out of the Canon. Catharinus thinks he follow'd S. Jerom. What then? Doth this exclude his contradicting his Predecessours? Or was S. Jerom's Judgment above the Pope's? But it was not S. Gregory alone who contradicted the former Popes Canon; for it was not received either in Italy, Spain, France, Germany or England; and yet no doubt it was a very Catholick Tradition.
Not in Italy; for there Cassiodore, a learned and devout Man in the next Century to them, gives an account of the Canon of Scripture, and he takes not any notice either of Innocent or Gelasius. He first sets down the Order of Scripture according to S. Jerom; and then Cassiodor. de Instit. Divin. liter. cap. 12, 13, 14. c. 6.according to S. Augustin; and in the last place, according to the old Translation and the LXX. and where himself speaks of the Apocryphal Books before, he follows S. Jerom's Opinion, that they were written rather for manners than Dactrine. He confesses there was a difference about the Canon; but he goes about to excuse it. But what need that if there were a Catholick Tradition then in the Church concerning it, and that inforced by two Popes?
But it may yet seem stranger, that even in Italy, one canonized for a Saint by Clemens VII. should follow S. Jerom's Opinion in this matter, viz. S. Antoninus, Bishop S. Antonin. Sum. Hist. P. 1. Tit. 3. c. 4.of Florence. Who speaking of Ecclestasticus received into the Canon of the two Popes, he saith, it is onelyonly received by the Church to be read, and is not authentick to prove any thing in matters of Faith. He that writes Notes upon him, saith, that he follows S. Jerom, and must be understood of the Eastern Church; for the Western Church always receiv'd these Books into the Canon. But he speaks not one word of the Eastern Church; and by the Church he could understand nothing but what he accounted the Catholick Church. Canus allows Antoninus to Can. Loc. Theol. l. 2. c. 11.have rejected these Books; but he thinks the matter not so clear, but then they might doubt concerning it. Then there was no such Evidence of Tradition to convince men. But Antoninus hath preserved the Judgment of a Part. 3. Tit. 18. c. 6. Sect. 2, & 3.greater man concerning these Books even Thomas Aquinas, who in 2. 2dae. he saith, denied these Books to have such authority as to prove any matter of Faith by them: which is directly contrary to the Council of Trent. If this passage be not now to be found in him, we know whom to blame for it. If Antoninus saw it there, we hope his word may be taken for it.
In Spain, we have for the Hebrew Canon the Testimonies Eur in Adait. ad Lyram ad c. 1. Ester. & 7. Tostat. in Matt. Pr…f. q. 1. 2. Xim. Praef. ad Bib. Comp.of Paulus Burgensis, Tostatus, and Cardinal Ximines.
In France, of Victorinus, Agobardus, Radulphus Flaviacensis, Petrus Cluniacensis, Hugo de S. Victore, and Richard de S. Victore, Lyra and others.
In Germany, of Rabanus Maurus, Strabus, Rupertus, Hermannus Contractus and others.
In England, of Bede, Alcvin, Sarisburiensis, Ockam, Waldensis and others. Whom I barely mention, because their Testimonies are at large in Bishop Cosins his Scholastical History of the Canon of Scripture, and no man hath yet had the hardiness to undertake that Book.
These I think are sufficient to shew there was no Catholick Tradition for the Decree of the Council of Trent about the Canon of Scripture.
I now proceed to shew on what pretences and colours it came in, and by what degrees and steps it advanced.
1. The first step was, the Esteem which some of the Fathers expressed of these Books in quoting of passages out of them. We do not deny that the Fathers did frequently cite them: even those who expresly rejected them from being Canonical, and not as ordinary Books, but as such as were usefull to the Church, wherein many wise Sayings and good Actions are recorded. But the many Quotations the Fathers do make out of them is the onelyonly plausible pretence which those of the Church of Rome have to defend the putting them into the Canon, as appears by Bellarmin and others. The Book of Tobit, they tell us, is mentioned by S. Cyprian, S. Ambrose, St. Basil, and St. Augustin. Of Judith by St. Jerom who mentions a Tradition that it was allowed in the Council of Nice; but certainly S. Jerom never believed it, when he declares it to be Apocryphal, and not sufficient to prove any matter of Faith. The Book of Wisedom by S. Cyprian, S. Cyril and S. Augustin. Ecclesiasticus by Clemens Alexandrinus, S. Cyprian, Epiphanius, S. Ambrose and S. Augustin. The Machabees by Tertullian, Cyprian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Eusebius, S. Ambrose, S. Augustin. But all these Testimonies onelyonly prove that they thought something in those Books worth alledging, but not that they judged the Books themselves Canonical. And better Arguments from their Citations might be brought for the Books of the Sibylls than for any of these. We are not then to judge of their Opinion of Canonical Books by bare Citations, but by their declared Judgments about them.
2. The next step was, when they came to be read in Churches; but about this there was no certain Rule. For the Councils of Laodicea and Carthage differed chiefly upon this Point. The former decreed, That none but Canonical Scripture should be read under the Name of Holy Writings; and sets down the names of the Canonical Books then to be read, (and so leaves out the Apocalypse.) The latter from their being read, inferr'd their being Canonical; for it agrees with the other, that none but Canonical should be read, and because these were read, it reckons them up with the Canonical Books; for so the Canon concludes, We have received from our Fathers that these Books are to be read in Churches.
But the Council of Carthage was not peremptory in this matter; but desired it might be referred to Boniface and other Bishops beyond the Seas: Which shews that here was no Decree absolutely made, nor any Certainty of Tradition; for then to what purpose should they send to other Churches to advise about it?
3. When they came to be distinguished from Apocryphal Writings. Whence those who do not consider the Reason of it, conclude them to have been Canonical. But sometimes Apocryphal signified such Books as were not in the Canon of Faith, as in the Authours before mentioned; sometimes such Books which were not allowed to be used among Christians. This distinction we have in Ruffinus, who saith there are three sorts of Books; Canonical, as the 22 of the Old Testament; Ecclesiastical, of which sort he reckons Wisedom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith and Machabees, and these he saith were permitted to be read in Churches, but no Argument could be brought out of them for matter of Faith, Apocryphal are such which by no means were permitted to be read. And thus Innocentius his words may well be understood: For he concludes with saying, that other Writings were not onelyonly to be rejected, but to be condemned. And so his meaning is to distinguish them from such counterfeit Divine Writings as were then abroad. For these were not to be wholly rejected, and in that large sense he admits them into the Canon, taking Ecclesiastical Writings which were read in Churches into that number. And in this sense S. Augustin used the Word Apocryphal, when the Book of Enoch is so called by him, and such other counterfeit Writings under the Names of the Prophets and Apostles; Aug. de Civ. Dei, lib. 15. c. 23. l. 17. c. 20.but elsewhere he distinguishes between the Canonical Books of Salomon, and those which bear his Name; which he saith the more learned know not to be his, but the Western Church had of old owned their Authority. But in the case of the Book of Enoch, he appeals to the Canon, which was kept in the Jewish Temple; and so falls in with S. Jerom; and he confesses it is hard to justifie the Authority of those which are not in the Hebrew Canon. Of the Machabees he saith, It is distinguished from the Writings Aug. de Civ. Dei, l. 18. c. 36.called Canonical; but it is received by the Church as such. What! to confirm matters of Faith? No. But for the glorious sufferings therein recorded; and elsewhere he saith, C. Gaudent. c. 29.it is usefull, if it be soberly read. S. Augustin knew very well that all Books were not received alike; and that many were received in some parts of the Western Church from the old Translation out of the LXX, which were not received in the Eastern; and therefore in his Books of Christian Doctrine he gives Rules in judging of Canonical De Doctr. l. 3. c. 8.Books; to follow the Authority of the greatest Number of Catholick Churches, especially the Apostolical; and that those which were received by all, should be preferred before those which were onelyonly received by some. But he very well knew, that the Hebrew Canon was universally received, and that the controverted Books were not; and therefore, according to his Rule, these could never be of Equal Authority with the other.
4. When the Roman Church declared that it received the controverted Books into the Canon. This is said to have been done by Gelasius, with his Synod of LXX Bishops, (and yet it is hard to understand how Gregory so soon after should contradict it.) The Title of it in the old MS. produced by Chiffletius, and by him attributed to Hormisdas, is, The Order of the Old Testament which Not. in Vigil. Taps. p. 150.the holy Catholick Roman Church receives and honours is this. But whether by Gelasius, or Hormisdas, I cannot understand, why such a Decree as this should not be put into the old Roman Code of Canons, if it had been then made. That there was such a one appears by the Copies of it in the Vatican, mentioned by the Roman Correctors of Gratian, and by mention of it by the Canon Si Romanorum, Dist. 19. and De Libellis, Dist. 20. and by the latter we understand what Canons of Councils and Decrees of Popes are in it, among whom are both Gelasius and Hormisdas. This they agree to be the same with that published by Wendelstin at Mentz, 1525. The Epistle of Innocentius to Exuperius with the Canon is there published; but not the other; and so is the Canon of the Council of Carthage; but that of Laodicea is cut off; and so they are in that published by Dionysius Exiguus and Quesnell, (Justellus his ancient Copy was imperfect there,) but both these Canons being in the Roman Code, are an Argument to me, that the controverted Books were received by the Roman Church at that time; but in such a manner, that S. Jerom's Prologues still stood in the vulgar Latin Bible, with the Commentaries of Lyra, and Additions of Burgensis, which were stiff for the Hebrew Canon; and S. Jerom's Authority prevailed more than the Pope's, as appears fully by what hath been already produced.
5. To advance the Authority of these Books one step higher, Eugenius IV. declared them to be Part of the Canon in the Instruction given to the Armenians. Which the Roman Writers pretend to have been done in the Council of Florence: But Naclantus Bishop of Chioza, in the Council of Trent, as Pallavicini saith, denied that any Hist. Concil. Trident. l. 6. c. 11. …. 12.such Decree was made by the Council of Florence; because the last Session of it ended 1439. and that Decree was signed Feb. 4. 1441. To this the Legat replied, that this was a mistake occasioned by Abraham Cretensis, who published the Latin version of it, onelyonly till the Greeks departure; but the Council continued three years longer, as appeared by the Extracts of Augustinus Patricius, since published in the Tomes of the Councils. But he never mentions the Canon of Scripture; however, because Cervinus affirms that he saw the Original signed by the Pope and Cardinals, we have no reason to dispute it. But then it appears how very little it signified, when Antoninus the Bishop of Florence opposed it, and Cardinal Ximenes and Cardinal Cajetan slighted it, and all who embraced the Council of Basil looked on Eugenius his Decree as void; and after all, that very Decree onelyonly joins the Apocryphal Books in the same Canon, as the Council of Carthage had done; but it was reserved as the peculiar Honour of the Council of Trent to declare that Matters of Faith might be proved out of them, as well as out of any Canonical Scriptures.