CHAP. VI. OF TRA REMARKS ON THE ADDITIONAL INFLUENCE Ir appears from the preceding Chapter, that the Church of Rome has placed in the Canon of the Old Testament the books of Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, with the first and second of the Maccabees, beside Baruch as an appendage to Jeremiah, and various additions to the books of Esther and Daniel. These books, and parts of books, were pronounced 'sacred and canonical' by the Council of Trent, and declared equal in authority to the other books of the Old Testament. Since then so large an addition to the Written Word, beside the whole of the Unwritten Word is employed by the Church of Rome in establishing Doctrines, while the Church of England rejects the Unwritten Word altogether, and never uses the Apocrypha "to establish any Doctrine," we need not wonder, that their Articles of Faith are widely different. In the second and third Chapters, which relate to Scripture and Tradition, we traced the causes to the effects, and shewed the influence of Tradition on the Doctrines of the Church of Rome by a reference to numerous examples. That the difference between the two Churches, in regard also to the Canon of Scripture, must have had an additional influence on their respective Doctrines, can hardly be doubted. When six whole books, beside parts of other books, are received as authority for Doctrines by one Church, but not received as such by the other, it is hardly possible, that such a cause of difference should exist without producing a correspondent effect. But though the Council of Trent, by distinguishing Tradition from Scripture, has enabled us to judge of the Doctrines, which receive their chief support from the former, it has not enabled us to distinguish the support, which is afforded by the apocryphal writings of the Old Testament, from the support, which is afforded by the canonical writings. For, when the Decrees of the Council of Trent are prefaced by an appeal to Scripture, as well as to Tradition, the appeal is made in such general terms, as to leave the question undecided, whether the canonical, or the apocryphal parts of Scripture were the subjects of reference. In confirmandis Dogmatibus, as expressed by the Council of Trent. See the Decree quoted in Chap. II. Note 10. * Art. VI. H We have no other means therefore of determining, whether their appeals to Scripture had reference to the Apocrypha, or not, than by consulting the principal writers of that Church, who have made particular reference, where the reference of the Council itself was only general. It would be tedious, and indeed unnecessary, to search for every example of this kind, which might be found among the Romish writers; and therefore nothing more shall be attempted, than to give an instance or two from the works of Bellarmine. It appears from the second Chapter, that the Council of Trent professed to derive the doctrine of Purgatory both "from the sacred writings, and the ancient tradition of the Fathers "." Now Bellarmine has written a particular treatise on the subject of Purgatory, which is contained in the second part of his Controversies on the Christian Faith. And in his treatise he brings proofs of the Doctrine from the fourth chapter of the book of Tobit; the second, the fourteenth, and the eighteenth chapters of Ecclesiasticus; and the twelfth chapter of the second book of Maccabees". -The treatise on Purgatory is followed by three other treatises, the first relating to "The Beatitude and Canonization of the Saints," the second to "The Relicks and Images of Saints;" the third " to the Worship of Images and Saints"." And here again Bellarmine has recourse 3 Ex sacris literis, et antiquâ Patrum traditione. See Chap. II. Note 21. * Col. 699-822. ed. Ingolstadt, 1601. fol. 5 See Col. 703. 707. 775. • Debeatitudine et canonizatione Sanctorum, Col. 824-921. De to the authority of the same three books, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, and the second of the Maccabees". These few examples are sufficient to shew the utility of the Apocrypha to the Church of Rome: for hence we see, that it supplies them with passages in support of Doctrines where scriptural support is chiefly wanted. Nor is the augmentation of Scripture, by the means of the apocryphal writings, the only additional cause of a difference in Doctrines. For as Tradition serves the double purpose of furnishing Doctrines, which are not contained in Scripture, and of explaining those, which Scripture either does contain, De Reliquiis, et Imaginibus Sanctorum, Col. 1028. De Cultu Imaginum, et de Cultu Sanctorum, Col. 1030-1127. 7 See for instance Col. 841, where the eleventh chapter of Ecclesiasticus is quoted; Col. 891, where the twelfth chapter of Tobit is quoted; Col. 895, where the fifteenth chapter of the second book of Maccabees is quoted; &c. 8 The book of Wisdom is quoted by Bellarmine in favour of the Monastic Life, and the Celibacy of the Clergy. See the treatise De Clericis, Lib. I. cap. 21: and the treatise De Monachis, Lib. II. cap. 9.31. And in the fourth chapter of the first book of Maccabees, as well as in the last chapter of Judith, Bellarmine has discovered passages, which favour the supremacy of the Pope. See his treatise De Romano Pontifice, Lib. IV. cap. 17. But I mention these examples only in a Note, because they relate not to Doctrines.-Another observation, which may likewise be made in a Note, relates to an application of the Apocrypha, which would be attended with real use. But then those books must be read in the Greek, not in the Latin Vulgate. Being written in the same Hebrew kind of Greek, as the New Testament, the expressions used in the former, may be often applied with advantage, to the explanation of correspondent expressions in the latter. And various works have been written for the purpose of explaining the application. But it would be foreign to our inquiry to say more upon this subject. or is supposed to contain, the application of it in its interpretative capacity must again have material influence on the Doctrines themselves. When Tradition is applied as a rule for the interpretation of Scripture, its effects are widely different from those of any other rule. When we interpret the Hebrew Bible, or the Greek Testament, by those grammatical and critical rules, which are applied to all other works of antiquity, we consider the words of the text, as signs to the reader of what was thought by the writer; and the process of interpretation has no other object than to draw out of the words the sense, which the author himself intended to place in them. This is literally Exegesis, or an Extraction of the sense, which the words really contain. But when a Romanist applies Tradition, and applies it to the interpretation of the Latin Vulgate, (declared authentic by the Council of Trent) the relation of the text to the rule of interpretation has no analogy whatever to that of the former case. When Doctrines, contained, or sup posed to be contained, in the Written Word, are explained by the aid of the Unwritten Word, the rule of interpretation is supposed to possess the same divine origin, as the text itself. For Tradition, as a Rule of Faith, is composed of those traditions, which are called divine and apostolical. That those traditions are divine and apostolical merely in the imagination of the Romanists, is a fact, which has been fully established in the fourth chapter. But if they themselves believe, that such traditions exist, the effect • Existunt traditiones divinæ et apostolicæ, quæ, licet non scriptæ, vim legis scriptæ habent. De Ecclesia Christi. p. 399. |