erred might best be reduced to the church, and the arch-heretics convinced, found the true remedy to be, the literal meaning of the text of scripture in the original tongues: and all the residue of his life, which was eleven years, he gave himself only to the study of the scripture, expounding not the Latin translation, but the Hebrew roots of the Old, and the Greek of the New Testament: in which tongues having no knowledge himself, he employed men of understanding, who construed to him the text word by word. He was wont also to say, that to understand the Latin text was not to understand the infallible word of God, but the word of the translator, subject and liable to error.' And he added, that Jerome spake well, that to pro phesy and to write holy books proceeded from the Holy Ghost; but to translate them into another tongue was a work of human skill.'" A canon was also quoted, which commands to examine the books of the Old Testament by the Hebrew, and those of the New Testament by the Greek." On the contrary, the major part of the divines said, that it was necessary to account that translation, which formerly hath been read in the churches and used in the schools, to be divine and authentic; otherwise they would yield the cause to the Lutherans, and open the gate to innumerable heresies:.. that, if every one had liberty to examine whether passages, on which the doctrine of the church is founded, were well translated, running to other translations, and seeking how it was in the original, these new grammarians would

“The scriptural simplicity which characterizes the commentaries of cardinal Cajetan, and a few others, forms a striking contrast to the writings of the scholastic divines who preceded them." M'Crie's Italy, 48.

A. D. 1546.

CHAP.

XIII.

Vulgate

version declared authentic and

canonical.

confound all, and would be made judges and arbiters of faith; and, instead of divines and canonists, pedants would be preferred to be bishops and cardinals. The inquisitors also would not be able to proceed against the Lutherans, in case they knew not Hebrew and Greek, because the latter would suddenly answer, The text is not so: the translation is false." "Others added, that, if the providence of God gave the authentic scriptures to the synagogue, and an authentic New Testament to the Greeks, it cannot be said, without derogation to the church of Rome-more beloved than the rest-that it wanted this great benefit: and, therefore we ought to believe that the same Holy Ghost, who did dictate the sacred books, had dictated also that translation which was to serve the church of Rome."

In the end, the Vulgate version was declared authentic and canonical by almost general consent; "the discourse," says Father Paul, “having made deep impression on their minds, that grammarians would take upon them to teach bishops and divines." A correct edition however was ordered to be prepared; and the decision of the council was explained to mean, "not that men were forbidden to have recourse to the original, but only to say that there were errors of faith in the translation for which it ought to be rejected." 1

1

1 F. Paul, 145-148, 150, 152. Cour. i. 243, &c. Du Pin, vii. 13—15. Notwithstanding this decree, the fathers, on a subsequent question, finding a passage in the vulgate stand in the way of the conclusion to which they wished to come, argued, "that the translation did deceive," and "that it was not fit to ground an article of faith on an error of an interpreter." " Thus," observes F. Paul, " did the same men who had made the Vulgate version authentic speak of it; which every one may observe out of the books printed by them." p. 194.

A. D..

1546.

On the subject of the exposition of scripture some very curious sentiments were delivered: "That anciently it was allowed to write upon Exposition the holy books, because but few expositions ofscripture. existed but that in later times the schoolmen, seeing the scripture was abundantly explained, and that men were inclined to disputation, thought good to employ them in examining Aristotle, to keep the holy scriptures in reverence. And this was carried so far, that Richard Mans, a Franciscan, said, that "the doctrines of faith were so cleared, that we ought no more to learn them out of scripture, ... which was now read in the church only for devotion,' and ought to serve men for this end only, and not for study: and that this should be the reverence and worship due from every one to the word of God. At least, the studying of it should be prohibited to all that were not first confirmed in the school divinity and that the Lutherans gained not but upon those who studied the scriptures. On this subject the council concurred in the sentiments of cardinal Pacheco, that there was no need to add any thing to what had been already published by pious and learned men ; "that all the new heresies sprang from the new expositions of scripture; and that it was necessary to bridle the petulance of moderns, and to make men content to be governed by the ancients and the church."2

In the fourth session of the council, therefore, held April 8, 1546, two decrees were passed, denouncing anathemas on those who "despised traditions," or "received not for sacred and ca

1 "As a form of prayer." Cour. i. 243.

2 F. Paul, 148-150. Cour. i. 247-251. Du. Pin, vi. 15, 16.

Decrees of Session IV, tions, the Canon, and the Vulgate, April 8.

on Tradi

XIII.

CHAP. nonical all the books of scripture, and all things contained therein, according to the Vulgate version ;" and forbidding any "to explain the scriptures, in things relating to faith and manners, contrary to the sense which our holy mother the church has held, and does hold-to whom only it appertaineth to judge of the sense and interpretation of scripture; or contrary to the unanimous doctrine of the fathers; though it should be without any design to make such explanation public."

Right of

It had been settled that reformation in matters

preaching. of discipline and practice should go hand in hand with the determination of questions of doctrine. Under this head "terrible controversies" arose in the council, between the bishops and the regulars, on the subject of preaching and reading lectures a question, says Father Paul, "not of opinions but of profit." The performance of these services had been almost engrossed by the monks and friars, by privilege granted them from the pope, and held independently of the bishops. The latter reclaimed the right of licensing those who should preach: but the pope saw that by granting this he should lose his power, and that the bishops would become" popes in their respective dioceses."2 The result was, as usual in such cases, an unmeaning compromise, which would leave things in very nearly their former state. The preachers were to a certain extent to acknowledge the authority of the bishops, and the bishops to take care so to exercise that authority as not to give cause of complaint to the regular orders.

Discussions

The discussions on the next point of doctrine, on original original sin, were extremely curious, and the

sin.

2

1 Du Pin, vii. 16, 17. F. Paul, 151. Cour. i. 255.

F. P. 151, 157-161, 173. C. i. 255, 264, &c. D. P.

vii. 18-21, 26–28.

A. D.

1546.

whole subject proved highly perplexing to the fathers. Its nature, the mode of its transmission, the means of its remission, and how far the blessed Virgin was involved in it, were all found to be very unmanageable questions.-— S. Augustine had made it to consist in "con- Its nature. cupiscence," or corrupt affection: Anselm in" the privation of original righteousness; which in baptism is renewed by grace as an equivalent." Aquinas, Bonaventure, Peter Lombard, and John Scotus had each his peculiar account to give of it; the intelligibility of which may be judged of by the following statement, in which some of the contending parties endeavoured to unite, namely, “That in our corrupted nature there are two rebellions, one of the soul against God, the other that of the senses against the soul; that the latter is concupiscence, the former unrighteousness; and that both together are sin."-It was however generally agreed that concupiscence is not Concupis sin, but the punishment of sin-sin being an act, at least of the will, contrary to the divine law and the fathers in council, to avoid the perplexity that arose, were most inclined to the opinion of Ambrose Catharinus, who contended, "that Adam's sin was in us only by imputation, on account of the covenant which God made with him." Many however being opposed to it, they dared not adopt it; and, in spite of the remonstrances of some on the ridicule which such a step would entail on them, the council determined to condemn those who denied original

1 Du Pin, vii. 24. F. Paul's words are, "that the very transgression of Adam belonged to every one-to him as the cause, to others by virtue of the covenant." 165. Cour. i. 276. See above, p. 221-2.

cence.