Tractatus de divina traditione et Scriptura

On the extension of the authenticity of the Vulgate edition declared by the Council of Trent.

From the context and scope of the dogmatic decree on the canonical authority of the whole books with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are had in the old Latin Vulgate edition, it is demonstrated: 1°. that by force of the declaration of the Council of Trent the old Latin Vulgate edition is to be held authentic not only as it were indeterminately, insofar as the books are presented as identical with the originals as to the sum of the matter; but also specifically in this grade of authenticity, that in its texts pertaining per se to the rule of faith and morals the original word of God is sincerely exhibited according to the substance of the dogma; yet not 2°. has the authenticity of the version been declared in such a grade of perfection that, in each several thing even not pertaining per se to the building up of Christian doctrine, it is commanded to be believed conformable with the originals everywhere even according to the mode of enunciation; nor indeed 3°. can such a most perfect conformity in the Vulgate, even as emended hitherto by order of the Pontiffs, be asserted either by force of the Tridentine decree or by any other probable reason.

First of all the very sense in which we think the Tridentine decree is to be understood must be distinctly expounded, that the state of the question may stand clear.

On the force and account of that decree there are two extreme opinions, wholly opposed to each other, and each in part opposed to our middle sentence. For many older theologians, not content with the authenticity of the Vulgate edition in the sense in which, from the scope both of the Scriptures and of the decree, it is understood to have been declared and from many testimonies is confirmed, contended that by force of the Tridentine definition the conformity of the version with the primitive text is to be held indiscriminately in all clauses and particles. For since Scripture is the inspired word of God as much in great things as in those which to us may seem small, they thence concluded that an authentic edition could not have been declared by the Church without its being fully conformable to the primitive and original Scripture as much in the least as in the greatest things. For if, they said, Scripture under this form of the Vulgate edition declared authentic contained, however light per se, errors introduced whether by the defect of copyists or much more of the translator, the Church by her solemn decree would already have approved a human word, nay the errata of men, as the word of God; which surely whoever says accuses the Church herself of the gravest error.

On the other side in our times the sense of the Tridentine decree is expounded by certain learned men in a signification, as indeed it seems to us, too lax. They teach namely that, when there is speech of the intension and extension of the authenticity of the Vulgate version and edition, no distinction can be admitted between «dogmatic and non-dogmatic» texts or, as with the ancients we can better say, between texts enunciating dogmas of faith and the rule of morals revealed for their own sake and others containing things inspired for the sake of something else and so revealed by accident (cf. Tract on Tradition, th. XXIII, n. I); not as if they simply denied the distinction as to the things contained in the texts — nay they admit a greater one than what seems to us can be conceded — but that all texts of Scripture are equally the inspired word of God and therefore of supreme and divine authority. Namely, to say the same in few words, they do not deny among the texts of Scripture a distinction in matter (as to the matter comprised), but with all sincere Catholics they deny a formal distinction (as to the form of authority). They lay down therefore, with those not a few older theologians commemorated a little before, the same principle, in which for the rest we all agree: indiscriminately all texts of Scripture (considered in the sense of the author of Scripture) are the word of God. Whence, as those old theologians so also these recent ones infer the conclusion: therefore the decree of the Council on the authenticity of the Vulgate edition is extended to all texts, however much they differ in matter, in the same mode. But they understand this conclusion in a contrary sense. The former say: by force of the decree the conformity of the Vulgate with the primitive texts is necessarily understood in «per se dogmatic» places, as is clearly demonstrated; therefore in the same mode by force of the decree conformity is to be understood as to all things which stand in the Vulgate. The latter on the contrary conclude: by force of the decree that conformity cannot be understood of all and singular clauses and particles, as is clearly demonstrated; therefore in the same mode also in «per se dogmatic» texts it is not to be understood by force of the decree; but it suffices to admit the conformity of the Vulgate with the primitively inspired Scripture such that the books remain identical as to substance; with this substantial conformity however saved, nothing has been defined by the Tridentine decree concerning single places of whatever argument, even per se dogmatic, but the acknowledgement or denial of genuineness in each must depend on critical examination.

We in the sense presently to be declared think both that most true which the former prove — that by force of the decree conformity is to be held in those things which are per se matters of Christian faith and morals — and that which the latter demonstrate — that conformity has not been decreed in the supreme grade and as to single clauses, even those which contain no dogma revealed for its own sake. In which two sentences joined together at once is contained the denial of the conclusion which both the former and the latter deduce from a true principle by an illegitimate consequence. First therefore we shall prove the former sentence against certain recent learned men, then the other against those not a few more ancient theologians.

I. As foundation we suppose the distinction of diverse classes of places of Scripture. But this supposition itself must be explained and demonstrated by us in its true sense, since even this is called into doubt; nay the denial or distortion of it into an alien sense, as is plain from what has been said, constitutes the principal argument of the adversaries.

1°. No one can deny that in the Scriptures, speaking universally and as far as concerns the present matter, are contained things and sentences of a twofold and widely diverse order. a) Those which regard God, the end of man, the means and the institutions to this end, the principles and rules of morals, the facts on which the economy of revelation rests or which are in a special way connected with it, and many other things treated in theology, or, embracing all in a general formula, «those things which are matters of faith and morals pertaining to the building up of Christian doctrine» (Council of Trent, sess. IV); these, I say, are of such sort that God inspired them to be written and willed to propose them through Scripture to the human race as it were with principal intention (προηγούμενη εὐδοκία) for the sake of the things themselves, or because they are such truths; and therefore they are called truths revealed for their own sake. b) Many other things consigned in the Scriptures are found, which indeed are themselves also the inspired word of God (since «all Scripture is divinely inspired»), and so, where it stands that they are in the divine Scriptures, are to be believed with divine faith on account of the authority of God speaking no less than those former things ¹; but they differ from the former in that they were inspired and revealed not with principal intention nor for their own sake, but on account of a historic or logical nexus (of time, place, notion, etc.) with other things inspired and revealed for their own sake. Of this kind are very many historic, geographic adjuncts; pertaining to physics, to zoology, botany, mineralogy; then to the adornment of a concept revealed per se; to life, prudence, morals in the natural and civil order, etc. These are what we call revealed by accident or for the sake of something else.

The distinction of this twofold order of things very often becomes known of itself by obvious reading. Who can doubt whether texts, as they are read in the old Vulgate edition, treating of the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity or of the incarnate Son of God (e. g. 1. Io.

V. 7; Ps. CIX. 3.), on the institution of the sacraments, on the future resurrection; on the fact of Adam's sin, of the vocation of Abraham and Moses, of the nativity, death, resurrection of Christ, etc., enunciate things revealed for their own sake, and so are texts dogmatic in this eminent sense? Who on the contrary does not see that very many adjuncts, as they are read in the same Vulgate, in no way pertain to things inspired for their own sake: that Adam lived 130 years until the generation of Seth, and the rest of the patriarchs lived until the generation of sons as many years as are numbered in the Vulgate; that the precious stones in the priest's breastplate were those there named; that the number of those slain after the adored golden calf was 23000 men ²; that the shrub under which Jonas slept was ivy; that the city of Raguel was called Rages; that the city whose temple Antiochus attempted to plunder was named Elymais ³, and innumerable others (Gen. V. 3; Exod. XXVIII. 17; XXXII. 28; Ion. IV. 6; Tob. III. 7 coll. IX. 3; 1. Mach. VI. 1 coll. 2. Mach. IX. 2.).? Often, to elicit the sense of texts as they stand in the Vulgate so that it may be understood to which class they pertain, there will be need of external and internal hermeneutical aids, where before all things regard must be had to the judgment of the Church and to the consensus of the Fathers, if it stands. Sometimes doubt can remain to which class a place is to be referred; but it is surely absurd on that account either to reject the distinction itself, or even then to neglect it when it stands concerning it, because sometimes from our ignorance we cannot bring it into use. That the distinction of which we speak is real and to be employed in interpreting Scripture, the Council of Trent itself sufficiently indicated, where it decreed «that no one relying on his own prudence, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the building up of Christian doctrine, twisting Sacred Scripture to his own senses against the sense which holy Mother Church has held and holds... dare to interpret it.» Nor did the Vatican Council express the same distinction less clearly (Const. on Faith, ch. 2). But as far as «matters of faith and morals» in Scripture can be determined by the interpreter, why can they not equally be distinguished by the critic? I surely do not perceive how in our time it could have been affirmed that this distinction «cannot theologically be admitted,» for the reason that we cannot always discern «dogmatic texts» from others with certitude.

2°. When we say that by the Tridentine decree there has been declared the conformity of the Vulgate edition in per se dogmatic texts, we do not affirm that some exemplar or codex has been designated, in which this conformity is to be held; but the decree regards the old edition as «proved in the Church herself by the long use of so many centuries.» A per se dogmatic text therefore which is in the Clementine edition is indeed from many reasons presumed to be of the old edition as it was wont to be read in the Church by the long use of centuries; but if concerning some such text it could be demonstrated not to be from the old Vulgate edition, its conformity with the primitive Scripture could not be said to have been declared by the decree of the Council. He therefore who admits or does not admit a text according as it stands or does not stand in the old Vulgate edition which has been proved by the long use of centuries in the Church, does nothing against the decree of the Council.

3°. Nor do we affirm that conformity in single per se dogmatic texts has been declared in the supreme grade of perfection; but it suffices that a dogma expressed in the Vulgate was also expressed in the primitive Scripture. Whence we say: a) a dogma which stands expressed in the old Vulgate edition was not lacking in the primitive Scripture; b) and so also there was not one dogma expressed in the text, and another in the corresponding place of the Vulgate edition; c) much less was a dogma which is affirmed in the Vulgate denied there, or vice versa. But we do not say: d) that by force of the decree of the Council a dogma is to be believed expressed in the Vulgate in the same mode as it was in the primitive Scripture, provided the dogma remain the same; and therefore neither do we say: e) that in places of this kind there can be no error of version, provided it be not of such kind as to change or obliterate the substance of the dogma so that, even with the necessary and opportune aids employed, it cannot be understood. Thus he would not be to be judged to reject the authenticity of the Vulgate against the Tridentine decree, who should think the true reading in certain texts even per se dogmatic to be another, by which the same dogma indeed, but not in the same mode as in the Vulgate, would be enunciated. Examples can be, if one should contend that the texts: Gen. III. 15 «she shall crush thy head»; Ps. CIX. 3 «before the day-star I begot thee»; Luc. XXII. 20 «which shall be shed for you»; Rom. V. 12 «in whom all have sinned»; 1. Cor. XV. 51 «we shall all indeed rise again, but we shall not all be changed,» and if there be others, ought according to the primitive Scripture to be read: «he shall crush thy head» ⁴; «as the dew from the morning, I begot thee»; «which is poured out for you»; «because all have sinned»; «we shall all indeed sleep (for rising again cf. Io. XI. 11; Matth. IX. 24; XXVII. 52; 2. Mach. XII. 43. 45), but we shall not all be changed»; nay even if it were read: «we shall indeed all not sleep (whether with the lasting or the perpetual sleep of death cf. 1. Thess. IV. 14-16), but we shall all be changed» (whether all the just unto glory, or altogether all not indeed unto glorious but yet unto immortal life of the body) ⁵. In whichever way you say it was primitively written, you will find the same dogmas enunciated on either side, though a little differently: of the promised Redeemer and of His immaculate mother; of the eternal generation of the Son; of the eucharistic sacrifice relative to the sacrifice of the cross; of original sin; of the universal resurrection. Varieties of modes of this kind the Apostles themselves frequently admitted in citations, not only substituting their own equally inspired sentences for inspired sentences of the Old Testament, as some would persuade; but where they profess to cite the very Scripture of the Old Testament, they employ the LXX version modally diverse from the primitive text, as e. g. Heb. X. 5. Lastly f) neither do we contend that by force of the Tridentine decree it stands and is to be held that no dogmatic text existed in the original Scripture which is lacking in the Vulgate edition. But let it be noted that these two widely differ: that by such a declaration as is the Tridentine an authentic edition would be decreed, in which a text expressing a dogma stood not sacred and not canonical; or that in an edition thus declared authentic some dogma (concerning which it stood from elsewhere) was not expressed, though it had been in the original Scripture. We say the Holy Spirit would not have permitted that by such a decree the Vulgate edition be declared authentic, if e. g. the text of 1. Io. V. 7 were spurious and therefore non-canonical (cf. Tract on the Trinity, th. IV); but we do not affirm that a version in which that text is lacking, e. g. the Syriac, if the remaining requisites be present, could not also by such a decree be approved by the infallible Church. In one word we say that by force of the Tridentine decree in per se dogmatic texts as they stand in the old Latin Vulgate edition, compared with the original Scripture, neither difformity of contradiction nor difformity of positive diversity in dogma can be admitted; yet we do not deny that there can be present, and in several places is really present, even in the expressing of the dogmas themselves, modal difformity.

What regards the negative diversity-difformity in the dogma itself, we say it is by force of the Tridentine decree in one sense excluded, in another sense not excluded. Excluded is such difformity as that a dogma expressed in the Vulgate was lacking in the original Scripture, and therefore in the Vulgate the text is spurious and human; not excluded however is that some dogma expressed in the original Scripture perchance dropped out in the Vulgate edition.

II. That this which we have declared is the genuine sense of the Tridentine decree, is now to be demonstrated.

1°. This sense is understood from the very context and scope of the definition. For first the decree of sess. IV on the canonical books, as we said in the preceding thesis, contains at least an indirect declaration of the authenticity of the old Vulgate edition. The Council says: «if anyone shall not receive these books themselves whole with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are had in the old Latin Vulgate edition, as sacred and canonical... let him be anathema.» The Council therefore declares the enumerated books with all their parts determinately under this form of the Latin Vulgate edition canonical, i. e. divinely inspired ⁶. But only those parts are inspired which according to things and sentences or according to sense have origin from the first writer, who alone was inspired; for no one will say that the Latin translator or translators were inspired. Therefore all the parts as they are had in the old Latin Vulgate edition, to which this declaration is extended, are declared to have proceeded according to sense from the first inspired writer, i. e. conformable according to sense to the primitive Scripture. The whole question therefore is reduced to this: what in the definition of the Council is understood by the name of parts of the books. We shall show first negatively what extension of parts does not suffice; then we shall demonstrate how far positively the signification of all the parts of the sacred books there named is to be understood to reach.

a) Some are wont to restrict the extension of the Council's declaration, affirming that by the name of parts there were understood by the Tridentine Fathers the deuterocanonical parts of the book of Esther and of Daniel, concerning which there was controversy with the Protestants. Hence they think that whether e. g. the parts of the Gospels already of old noted by some even Fathers as lacking in codices whether several or few, and by some recent Protestant critics altogether repudiated ⁷ are to be held genuine and canonical, is not yet certain by force of the Tridentine decree; but if that must stand by the authority of the Church, another declaration of hers is to be awaited, until the publication of which the cause remains committed whole to critical reasons. If anyone therefore, leaning on critical arguments, should reject those places, he is not on that account to be judged to act anything against the Tridentine decree ⁸.

But on the contrary α) the words of the decree do not permit restriction to the deuterocanonical parts of Esth. and Dan. For with all the books of the Old and New Testament enumerated, concerning them all is subjoined: «if anyone these books themselves (enumerated) with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are had in the old Latin Vulgate edition, shall not have received as sacred and canonical... let him be anathema.» Therefore of all the books all the parts which from the tenor and context of the decree can deservedly be called parts of a book, as they were wont to be read in the old Vulgate, are declared canonical. β) The scope was not the sole one of declaring canonical the parts which at that time the Protestants rejected; but the principal scope indicated by the Council itself in this last conclusion of the decree was to declare the Vulgate edition true Sacred Scripture in all its parts, for the end namely to which the synod herself was to use testimonies as divine from this same edition. Moreover the controversies introduced by the Protestants concerning parts of the sacred books and known to the Tridentine Fathers were not concerning those alone of Esth. and Dan. (cf. Tract on the Trinity, th. IV). γ) Most of all in this matter a certain and evident principle is to be held. That an error against one particular truth furnishes the occasion for a more universal definition, in which therefore that error too but not alone is found condemned, does not make it lawful to restrict the proposition of the more universal definition to the sole damnation of that particular error. That the Lord, Io. XX. 21, employs the universal proposition «as the Father sent me, so I send you,» where He subjoins and confers on the Apostles the special power: «whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them» (cf. Matth. XXVIII. 18ff.); the mission of the Apostles is not on that account restricted to this one office of forgiving sins. Likewise if, on occasion of those denying the value of the sacrament administered by apostates or betrayers of the sacred codices, there is defined the value of a sacrament conferred outside the Catholic Church, the definition does not on that account touch only that special error on whose occasion it was uttered. So therefore, though it were conceded that the negation of the parts of Esth. and Dan. was the occasion and moving reason of the Tridentine decree, the restriction could not on that account be admitted which the signification and context of the words rejects.

b) Now it is to be said what positively is comprised under the name of parts there.

α) Not so much from the signification of the words as rather from the scope of the decree, which the Council itself expressly declares, it follows that to the parts declared canonical pertain in the first place all places as they are had in the old Latin Vulgate edition, which per se contain «testimonies and defenses» for «confirming dogmas and restoring morals in the Church,» or which per se are testimonies concerning «matters of faith and morals pertaining to the building up of Christian doctrine.» For the Council, from the defined divinity of the books with all their parts as they are had in the old Latin Vulgate edition (and from the divinity of Tradition), concludes that from these founts, and so from all the books, it will use testimonies (doubtless none but divine) for confirming dogmas and restoring morals in the Church. «Let all therefore understand... with which testimonies and defenses chiefly in confirming dogmas and restoring morals in the Church (the synod herself) will use.» Therefore the Council signified that the divinity of all the books, namely in all the parts which per se pertain to this twofold scope, has been established by its decree. The reason of the Council namely is this: first it defines by infallible decree that all the enumerated books with all their parts as they are had in the old Latin Vulgate edition are divine books; thence it has and proposes the same as documents from which there can safely be drawn testimonies as divine, whatever from the sense they have are valid for that twofold scope ⁹. Therefore the Council herself judged that by force of her decree there has been established the divinity and canonical authority (inspiration) of all the testimonies as they are had in the old Latin Vulgate edition, which from their sense furnish a norm for confirming dogmas and restoring morals, or which per se enunciate matters of faith and morals pertaining to the building up of Christian doctrine. But unless the testimonies, as they are had in the old Vulgate edition, were conformable to the original Scripture at least in sense insofar as they enunciate a dogma, they would not be divine and canonical testimonies. Therefore all the testimonies in the old Vulgate edition which are per se dogmatic in the manner stated have been declared by the Council conformable in sense to the original Scripture; or in all these the version is to be held authentic by force of the decree of the Council.

In this signification therefore is to be understood the authenticity in the second decree, in which it is explicitly declared that this old Vulgate edition, proved by the long use of centuries in the Church herself, is to be held «as authentic» namely in those acts whose sole or chief part is to expound, declare, defend the Christian dogmas and rules of morals, «in public readings, disputations, preachings and expositions.»

β) Although the context of the decree is the most proper place and sufficient for proving this sense, yet it stands further still by testimonies that the Fathers of the Council themselves and the theologians who had either taken part or followed a little after understood and held such an extension of authenticity. The legates presiding over the Council in the name of the Pontiff in their letters written to Rome openly indicate that the Fathers of the Council indeed acknowledged imperfections and errors of the Vulgate in matters of lesser moment, but not in those which per se regard the rule of faith and morals ¹⁰. Of the theologians I do not speak of those who, having transgressed just limits and, I might almost say, fanatical, asserted conformity in single particles and almost syllables; but the wise, who confessed that an omnimodal conformity with the original texts has not been declared, as I shall show in the last part of this thesis, unanimously yet retained this sense of the decree concerning conformity not only as it were abstractly in the substance of the books, but namely in the places insofar as per se they exhibit matters of faith and rules of morals. Almost all expressly declare it; few are they who do not speak of it distinctly, but yet by their whole mode of arguing suppose it, while they say it is not against the decree if «in minute things» some error be said to be in the Vulgate. But among the many ancients whom I consulted, hitherto none is found who has expressly said or indicated that by force of the decree there has not been determined the authenticity of the Vulgate in texts of this kind per se dogmatic. But in a matter so grave there is no receding from the common doctrine and interpretation.

γ) To the reason of our argument it is well to advert, lest there be supposed to us an opinion which is not ours, and then our argument be thought confuted by reasons perchance valid against this. It is one thing to speak of the authenticity of a version or edition generically, another of the grade or of the intension and extension of authenticity; concerning the former at least among Catholics there can be no disputation, but the whole question is concerning this latter. A version or edition of Scripture could still be called simply conformable to the original, though in a few certain places even per se dogmatic there were negative discrepance, or even positive; i. e. though somewhere in the version or edition another dogma (which yet from elsewhere stood revealed) were expressed than in the original; provided there be not difformity of contradiction in dogma, for such a version would be heretical. Which if it be so, neither would it be repugnant that a version or edition of Scripture, still simply though in that inferior mode and grade conformable to the original text, be approved even by public use in the Church, insofar as it is simply conformable, but insofar as in a qualified sense it is difform, be tolerated. The reason therefore why we think the authenticity of the Vulgate is to be held in that superior grade of which we spoke, is not that in whatever way it has been proposed by the Church as authentic whether by public use or even by express declaration; but the argument is drawn from the mode of the declaration. Whence we concede indeed that other versions e. g. the Latin ante-Hieronymian, the Syriac, the Armenian have been proved by ecclesiastical use as simply authentic; but if one could demonstrate in them somewhere difformity from the original Scripture, negative or perchance even positive, in some per se dogmatic texts (in the sense explained), and thence should contend that such difformity also does not stand against the authenticity of the old Latin Vulgate edition; we should deny the consequence. For not in the same mode, not by a like decree has the authenticity of those versions been declared, as we have defined the authenticity of the Vulgate not only generically but from the context and scope of the decree according to such a grade of intension and extension.

2°. From all things said it is plain what is to be thought concerning the diversity between the Hebrew and Greek text on the one part and the Vulgate edition of the Latin version on the other part in those things which per se regard the rule of faith and morals. a) We deny that in these there is ever found diversity of contradiction, such that in the text there is affirmed what in the version is denied or vice versa, without its being able to be demonstrated, with all aids employed, that the genuine reading is that which in the sense of the dogma does not discord from the Vulgate edition as it was wont to be read by the long use of centuries in the Catholic Church. b) The same we think is to be said concerning positive diversity of real discrepance, where there is not affirmation and negation of the same, but affirmation or negation of discrepant things, here as to one, there as to another dogma. c) Hitherto pertains also negative diversity of discrepance, if in the Vulgate edition there stands a dogmatic text which in the Greek or Hebrew (in the present condition of readings) would seem to be lacking. If ever there were verified the hypothesis that the genuineness of a place in the old Vulgate edition as it was wont to be read in the Church could not, at least according to the substance of the dogma, be demonstrated by critical aids, insistence would have to be on theological principles, so that, by conceding some ancient corruption in the Hebrew or Greek text, it be understood to be supplied from the Vulgate. d) The account would not be the same if a per se dogmatic text stood in the Hebrew or Greek which were lacking in the Latin Vulgate; for this defect of itself would in no way demonstrate the Hebrew or Greek text interpolated. Lastly e) in modal discrepance or as to the mode alone of signifying the same truth, the Hebrew and Greek text contributes very much and is indeed to be employed for rightly estimating the force and genuine sense of the Vulgate version.

III. That concerning the truth judgment can be made not only from direct arguments but also comparatively with the contrary sentence, we think it necessary here to examine the arguments of recent adversaries, though very many have already been anticipated in what is above.

Lest I seem to have dissembled their force, I shall transcribe almost the very words of the most learned man dissenting from us in this matter from the opuscule cited above (Sulla autenticita delle singole parti della Bibbia Volgata). His disputation is this, p. 23ff.

1°. The distinction between «dogmatic and non-dogmatic texts» (for so the celebrated author speaks) theologically cannot be admitted, a) because all texts of Scripture are inspired and therefore all equally the word of God and of divine authority. «True indeed it is that the word of God does not always express a sentence pertaining to revealed doctrine; but it does not on that account cease to be the infallible word, of supreme authority, and divine; therefore for the theologian there is given no distinction as to authority between diverse parts of the divinely inspired books.» To this argument a priori there accedes b) another a posteriori. «If one should wish to distinguish in the Scriptures those things which more or less directly pertain to the doctrine of faith and morals,» that in the concrete cannot be done, because for the most part places of this kind cannot be discerned from others; «for often, especially in the Latin Vulgate and in the Greek LXX version, at first sight a place seems to indicate dogmatic or moral doctrine, which when thoroughly inspected is discovered to contain nothing of this kind.» Nevertheless the celebrated author confesses that «often without peril of erring it can be affirmed that in a text dogmatic doctrine is or is not enunciated.» Nay he concedes that the distinction between texts which turn on matters of faith and morals and other places is often useful in sacred hermeneutics; for he himself saw all too clearly this distinction indicated in the Council of Trent, sess. IV, decret. 2. In sum it is asserted that dogmatic texts are often indeed most easily discerned from non-dogmatic, or at least with diligence applied, and that this distinction is to be employed in hermeneutics; but that there are texts «especially in the sapiential and prophetic books» whose dogmatic value cannot be determined with certitude. From these premises the conclusion is inferred: «therefore that distinction theologically in its complex at least is impossible, and practically of no use for critical studies.» Each argument is contracted by the author himself into this sum. All Scripture is the word of God; but the word of God in all things is of equal and supreme authority; therefore even if all the places which «are referred to faith and to morals» could be discerned with certitude, still we could not affirm that to these places belongs greater authority than to other places of Scripture ¹¹.

2°. Critically regarded, the distinction between «dogmatic and non-dogmatic» texts of Scripture is absurd, a) because copyists and correctors could equally err in those as in these, and in fact did err, nor without perpetual miracles could that have been impeded. Therefore it does not appear why errors in places «which are pretended non-dogmatic» may be emended, but «in other places (dogmatic) must be conserved and left intact.» Presently however b) it is subjoined that there are no errors in the Vulgate edition «which repugn the soundness of faith;» but there are «harmless errors,» and these (in «dogmatic» places, of which there is question) can be emended «by correcting erroneous words, cutting back additions, supplying lacunas.» To these things c) it stands by fact that some places too from among those called dogmatic were still emended after the decree of the Council.

3°. The custody and vigilance of the Church a) is referred only to the substance of the sacred books, lest namely the books, through corruptions introduced against their scope, become essentially other than they primitively were. But the scope of the sacred books is not only dogmatic; certainly «in some historic books of the Old Testament the substance and chief part does not regard doctrine.» Moreover b) the Scriptures of themselves are a dead letter; the vivifying spirit cannot be contained in letters but in authentic doctrine, by which the Church vivifies the dead letter. «Whence it appears how the Church is not the guardian of the Scriptures insofar as they are merely a dead letter,» but insofar as they contain the living and vivifying word of God, in which office the Church can never fail.

4°. «Although a) the Church cannot attribute a false sense to Scripture and err in interpreting it, yet she can use even a non-legitimate text for confirming a legitimate sense.» b) «Texts dogmatic and critically certain are necessary for Protestants alone, who deny the authority of the Church and of Tradition, but not for us who know that no dogma is primarily founded in the Scriptures» (pp. 26. 28. 30.).

5°. Many versions have been legitimately received in the Church, e. g. the Greek version of the Old Testament, the Latin ante-Hieronymian, the Syriac, Armenian, Coptic. But now those versions compared among themselves have very many readings «diverse as to sense in places thought dogmatic;» necessarily therefore there are errors either of translators or of copyists. Yet «all versions legitimately used in the Catholic Church are dogmatically equal, and therefore are dogmatically equal also to the (original) text, although critically they differ both from the text and among themselves» (pp. 28. 38.).

6°. If dogmatic texts were not to be subjected to the examination of the critical art, hermeneutics would have to precede criticism, and this be subjected to that and directed by it. But this is a perversion of the logical order of the sciences; for first the true reading is to be established through critical examination, and then at last its interpretation can follow. «Therefore the order of the sciences does not suffer dogmatic texts, as they will have them, to be withdrawn from critical examination» (p. 27.).

These seem to be all and the sole reasons by which the sentence of the theologians which we follow has been impugned in the learned opuscule; for the remaining arguments produced there are opposed not to ours but to the doctrine of those who judged the conformity of the Vulgate version with the primitive text to be held indiscriminately in all clauses and particles, and so authenticity in the supreme grade, by force of the Tridentine decree. That this opinion has been invincibly confuted by the celebrated author I see, and fully as to this part I agree with him; but the force of the arguments against our sentence I do not yet perceive, nor do I think there is to be receding from it. The reasons I shall expound answering most briefly to each.

To the 1st. It is proved excellently that the distinction between texts which are canonical Scripture is not to be understood by reason of diverse authority — which here needed no proof; but it is not proved that no distinction at all can be admitted, neither by reason of the thing or matter which they contain. Nay this distinction, which alone is supposed by us, the adversary himself expressly admits in words far more efficacious than those by which we expound it, and in an extension far ampler than seems can be admitted. Further, from the most certain principle that in texts, if they be canonical, authority is not diverse though matter be diverse, there does not follow what alone was to be proved: that by the sacred synod there were declared conformable to the original, and therefore canonical, in no other sense the texts of the first class — which she expressly says she will use as the word of God — than the single clauses of the second class, concerning which she does not speak. No one from the diverse authority of texts which are inspired Scripture ever undertook to prove a diverse relation of the decree to diverse places; but our demonstration is far other. The Council in the declaration of the authenticity of the Vulgate edition expressly indicates that it had before its eyes namely the testimonies pertinent «to confirming dogmas and restoring morals in the Church,» and therefore we conclude that these per se dogmatic texts all, as they stand in the old Vulgate edition, are comprised in the declaration of the authenticity of this same edition. But concerning other texts and clauses the Council does not say this; and therefore for these the same argument does not avail, but by force of the decree it suffices in these to admit that conformity which is required for the version not to be difform as to substance and simply not authentic. If on account of the equal authority of all texts which are canonical it followed that the version had been declared conformable to the original in all things in equal mode, concession would rather have to be made to the contrary sentence, by which is affirmed the authenticity of conformity in all clauses, even those enunciating things which per se do not pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine in matters of faith and morals. But because both we and likewise our adversary think this is demonstrated false by certain arguments, therefore it must necessarily be held that the declaration of authenticity was understood by the Council, and is to be understood, with one intension concerning texts of the one class and another concerning texts of the other class; and so, when the authenticity of the old Latin Vulgate edition is said to have been declared as to substance, in this substance of Scripture there are in the first place comprised those places by which the synod «will use, as sacred and canonical, for confirming dogmas and restoring morals in the Church,» doubtless as they stand in the old Latin edition, and for the sake of which she says she was induced to define all the books with all their parts sacred and canonical under the form «as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church, and are had in the old Latin Vulgate edition.»

The other part of the argument, which is brought a posteriori, scarcely needs answer. From the fact that by us, with private interpretation, the sense of some place cannot always be certainly determined — whether it be concerning matters per se of faith and morals, and whether therefore it pertain to the parts of Scripture namely comprised in the decree — it in no way follows either that the distinction by reason of diverse matter is universally to be rejected, or that it can and must not be of use where the dogmatic value of the text has stood; and so neither does it follow that this which we stated is not the sense of the Tridentine decree. If on account of the adversary's reason the distinction can be rejected by the critic, I do not see why by the same right it could not be set aside by the interpreter, for whom yet he himself admits it; nor do I see how the Council itself could have put the same distinction before our eyes: «that no one in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the building up of Christian doctrine, twisting Sacred Scripture to his own senses against the sense which holy Mother Church has held and holds... or even against the unanimous consensus of the Fathers, dare to interpret it.» Which distinction indeed the Vatican Council repeated again in the authentic declaration of the Tridentine decree (Const. on Faith, ch. 2).

To the 2nd. What is said here in the first part of the argument is not in question. We concede that in codices whether written or printed there can be errors of copyists and correctors even in dogmatic places, nay that there can be heresies, and that these errors can and must be emended in an opportune mode. The question is not concerning single codices, but concerning the old Vulgate edition as it was wont to be read by the long use of centuries in the Church of God. And in this again it is not asked whether, as it were a priori, the translator, or in most ancient times all or nearly all copyists ¹² could have erred in texts even dogmatic; we concede that indeed could have happened. The question is the sole one: whether in fact there are in the old Vulgate edition errors in per se dogmatic texts, and those not of whatever kind but such as transmute the very substance of the dogma as it was in the original divinely inspired Scripture. We affirm that there are no errors of this kind; and that this stands dogmatically, because the Holy Spirit would not have permitted the Church in the mode in which it was done to have declared authentic a version so faulty and so in places of this kind containing not the inspired word of God but a human word. If supernatural divine providence and the assistance of the Holy Spirit in the conservation of the written word of God and in the judgment of the Church concerning the integrity and purity of this written word is removed or not attended to, and moreover Scripture is considered in the condition of a private book, then surely nothing else remains for the conservation of the integrity and sincerity of Scripture than human industry (in which the whole business turns almost on the skill of translators from one tongue into another, of copyists, of correctors), and for judging concerning that integrity and sincerity there remains one and therefore independent critical and historic examination. But with Catholic principles supposed, concerning the fact of the integrity and sincerity of Scripture under this determinate form of version and edition, or concerning the authenticity of conformity and its grade, we can be rendered certain through the judgment of the Church. With the judgment of the Church therefore demonstrated concerning such a grade of authenticity of the old Vulgate edition that in its texts «for confirming dogmas and for restoring morals in the Church,» or «for the building up of Christian doctrine,» the sincere written word of God is exhibited at least according to the substance of the dogma, now also dogmatically demonstrated is the conformity of the same edition with the primitive Scripture in all places of this kind. Hence, since truth is not repugnant to truth, by this very judgment of the Church we are rendered secure that never will there be demonstrated critically any such error in the old Vulgate edition as it was wont to be read by the long use of centuries in the Church. It can happen however that for defect of the necessary aids or for other causes criticism alone of itself sometimes cannot demonstrate the truth of the Vulgate reading even in places of this kind; then however what critically is not clear will stand nevertheless from the theological principle. In this mode we say that, as other human sciences so also criticism is subject to the theology of the Church, and that this must be had before the eyes as it were a negative norm and as it were a guiding star for forestalling errors.

To the other part of this objection we answer. If there is question of «harmless errors,» the state of the question is changed. Our speech is concerning errors which transmute the sense of the dogma as it was in the original inspired Scripture, of which kind we shall not think «harmless errors.» The same answer avails concerning what ambiguously is called «emendation of erroneous words.» Further, we do not contend that by force of the decree it is to be believed that in the Vulgate edition there are no lacunas of dogmatic texts, and so we do not deny that they can be supplied (if they are really demonstrated to be). But we deny that in the old Vulgate edition as it was wont to be read by the long use of centuries in the Church of God, and which in the mode we showed has been declared authentic, there are had spurious dogmatic texts. The reason we gave, because namely the decree from its context and scope declares namely the testimonies for «confirming dogmas» to be canonical; whence, if the texts were spurious, there would have been declared the written word of men for the written word of God. Therefore we deny what is said concerning «cutting back additions,» if these be understood per se dogmatic and standing in the old Vulgate edition. Nor indeed do I see how this right of criticism of cutting back per se dogmatic «additions» from the old Vulgate edition can be reconciled with the words of the celebrated adversary himself, which above in the note p. 534 we cited.

To the third part we should have desired an example of emendation of a per se dogmatic text after the Council of Trent, but of an emendation of which alone we dispute; namely a) of a text certainly standing in the old Vulgate edition, b) of an emendation not according to the mode alone of expressing the dogma, but according to the very thing and substance of the dogma. With even one example of this kind produced, the celebrated author would have demonstrated his proposition more efficaciously than by all argumentations; until it be produced, we shall deny that any such fit one stands. For such an emendation could be none other than that introduced when the corrections in the Vulgate edition were instituted by order of the Pontiffs (for another emendation of private men would prove nothing). But I would not believe that the correctors, against their first principle, changed a text certainly standing in the old Vulgate edition, and that by inducing a substantial mutation of the dogmatic sense which would have been enunciated in that edition, which they themselves had it proposed «to restore to its pristine integrity and purity, as far as could be done» (Pref. to the Clementine edit.).

To the 3rd. The first part of this difficulty, where it is said that the custody of the Church is referred only to the substance of the sacred books, we can pass over. For our demonstration of the extension and grade of authenticity, which is to be referred to all per se dogmatic texts, does not rest simply on this office of custody of the Scriptures, but is drawn from the mode of the definition by which the Council declared the authenticity of the Vulgate edition. For the rest, the chief scope of Scripture, and therefore before this scope the substance of the sacred books, is constituted in matters of faith and morals, i. e. in those things which (according to what was expounded above) are revealed for their own sake in the Scriptures, but not only by accident and for the sake of something else inspired to be written. Whence what the celebrated author calls substance in the books of the Old Testament, e. g. the complex of history and prophecy etc., we comprehend among the dogmatic parts. And so we could say: the custody of the Church, by this very fact that (with the adversary confessing) it is referred to the substance of the sacred books, in the first place pertains to all parts «of faith and morals,» or to those things which are revealed per se and regard «the building up of Christian doctrine;» for concerning these, but not concerning the minute adjuncts of history, geography, botany, zoology and the like, the Church for her office is directly and per se solicitous, and under this account there is committed to her per se no less the custody than the interpretation of the written word of God. From this office of custody there does not indeed follow that some texts even per se dogmatic, nay whole inspired books, could not have dropped out, since revealed doctrine is conserved not in the Scriptures alone but nay even principally in Tradition; altogether however, from the office of custody of the word of God under the assistance of the Spirit of truth it follows that it cannot happen that the Church, guardian of the word of God, propose a human word as the word of God in the Scriptures. But this proposition of the word of God through the Church is not yet understood from the fact that the word is contained in some edition of Scripture, but is understood from an express or at least equipollent declaration of the authenticity of the edition; and how far this declared authenticity itself extends is to be learned from the sense and mode of the declaration. Therefore the office of custody of the word of God under the assistance of the Spirit of truth is indeed the reason why the Church can infallibly discern and declare even the authenticity or conformity of a version and edition of Scripture, but from that office of itself without such a declaration we cannot know the authenticity and its extension. Wherefore in vain in the adversary's argument is that office of custody of the Scriptures introduced, on which our demonstration concerning the authenticity of the Vulgate edition, and still more concerning the amplitude of that authenticity, in no way rests. We can therefore now omit all these things, because the authenticity of the Vulgate edition in all per se dogmatic places we deduce not simply from the office of guarding the Scriptures, but from the mode in which the authenticity has been declared.

The other part of the objection, if it were pressed, would have to come to the absurd: that by the Church the whole revealed doctrine is conserved only in Tradition, and therefore it is of no great interest if she has and proposes human writings for divine. Without doubt there has been transmitted to the Church, and under the assistance of the Spirit of truth there is conserved in her, the understanding of the word of God; which whole thing pertains to Tradition and to the infallible interpretation of the Scriptures. But therefore the custody itself of the written word of God cannot be neglected, nay in the present providence it is necessarily supposed — which by the celebrated author is called a «dead letter.» «True knowledge (γνωσις) is... the fullest treatment which has come down even to us, receiving neither addition nor ablation, and reading without falsification and legitimate exposition according to the Scriptures» Iren. IV, ch. 33, n. 8 (cf. th. IV, n. I). Although not absolutely and from the nature of the thing, yet in the present providence Scripture is necessary to the Church, nor independently of the Scriptures is the deposit of the whole revelation conserved in Tradition distinct; but the Scriptures themselves are a great part of the deposit to be guarded, and in turn a means for the custody of the deposit; for from them, as from the written word of God, the Church under the assistance of the Holy Spirit draws the true understanding, explication and defense of revealed truths. «As for them (the heretics) corruption of doctrine could not have succeeded without corruption of its instruments, so also for us and by us integrity of doctrine would not have been compatible without integrity of those things through which doctrine is treated» Tertull. Prescript. ch. 38. In one word: because Scripture without true understanding and the «vivifying word» neither suffices nor profits, Scripture, a «dead letter,» cannot on that account be judged not necessary for true understanding and «vivifying» preaching, nor does its conservation, especially in «matters of faith and morals» divinely written therein, the less pertain to the office of guarding the deposit.

To the 4th. If the first part of the objection is directed against our explication of the Tridentine decree, the answer is at hand. It can indeed happen that the Church use the words of some version of Scripture for pious accommodation, for adornment, under certain conditions even for argument, without on that account already willing to declare either that the words are genuine or that this is the sense of the words. But the Council in the decree of which we treat evidently declares divine, and therefore authentic, the testimonies whose use from the Vulgate edition for confirming dogmas it vindicates to itself, as we sufficiently demonstrated.

If in the second part critically certain texts are said to be necessary for Protestants alone in the sense that Protestants cannot, except through criticism and history — and therefore very many from their principles in no way — be rendered certain concerning the genuineness of the Scriptures, but for us, as concerning the true sense so concerning the genuineness and authenticity of the Scriptures, it can stand through the infallible authority of the Church, this we above all contend and have already often demonstrated. But if it is said that it is not necessary that the Catholic Church, and through the Church we, should stand concerning the genuineness of per se dogmatic texts, how false this so universal saying be, both from what was disputed a little before stands, and is evident of itself.

To the 5th. We admit that versions, in the state in which they are and as long as they are in the public use of the Catholic Church, are simply authentic with an authenticity also manifested or external, which supposes and includes the internal, as was expounded in the foregoing thesis. I said for the state in which and as long as they remain in such use of the Catholic Church; because if a version through a long time has ceased to be in such use of the Catholic Church, for this time the authority of the Church gives no guarantee against the induction of errors, and by this very fact integrity is no longer authentically manifested and theologically cognoscible (cf. above pp. 514. 516). But although to those versions, for the state and time of which we spoke, we concede that there belongs authenticity generically and simply so called, which is manifested by public ecclesiastical use, yet as to grade and extension authenticity has been determined by no such declaration as we saw defined the authenticity of the old Latin Vulgate edition; therefore not in the same mode does it stand concerning the authenticity of those as concerning the authenticity of this. As to those, authenticity simply and generically and by use alone; as to this, specifically and in some determinate grade by solemn decree of the Church has it been manifested. For the rest, we really think those versions (for the state of which we spoke) cannot be demonstrated to be in per se dogmatic places «positively diverse as to sense» such that another dogma as to substance (much less a contrary sense, which would be heretical) is expressed than was in the original inspired Scripture.

Whatever however be the case concerning the grade of the authenticity of those, concerning which we do not wish to dispute, in the objection we cannot reconcile these two: that a) those versions in dogmatic places «differ in sense,» doubtless (if anything pertinent to the matter is said) as to the substance of the dogma, and therefore either all those or all with one excepted have error as to the substance of the dogma; yet nevertheless b) all are theologically equal with the Vulgate edition and with the original texts. How, I ask, can an instrument exhibiting as to the substance of some dogma or dogmas a human text (for such surely it is, if there is error as to the sense itself of the dogma, though it be supposed not to be a heretical sense, because it enunciates not the negation of the dogma but another diverse thing) — how, I say, can such an instrument be theologically equal to another which exhibits a divine and inspired text?

To the 6th. If the genuineness of a text is doubtful and concerning it from no other fount than through the rules of criticism it can stand, criticism must precede hermeneutics, that it may stand that this turns on a genuine text. In doubtful texts therefore, profane and private, this order between criticism and hermeneutics always holds, because concerning their genuineness it cannot stand except from history and criticism. But if there is question of a public instrument, and indeed theological, and namely of Sacred Scripture, in which concerning the genuineness of a certain class of texts judgment can be made from a twofold fount, a) from the authority of the Church as from a theological, superior, infallible fount, which therefore is for the other fount subordinated to itself in place of a directing norm, and b) from criticism as from a merely human fount subordinated to the former, in this hypothesis the logical order postulates that in places of this kind authority first be consulted as a norm to be had before the eyes, through which criticism is to be directed. Whence hermeneutics only precedes, when and insofar as it is necessary that it may stand whether a place pertain to that class of texts concerning whose genuineness according to the substance of the sense judgment can be made from the twofold fount. Further, where even from the authority and declaration of the guardian of the Scriptures we are rendered more certain concerning genuineness according to the substance of the dogma, there can nevertheless remain in dogmatic texts other difficulties of reading as to the mode of enunciating the dogma, which before the fuller exegesis of the whole enunciation are to be solved from criticism alone. The order therefore is this: if doubt arises concerning the genuineness of the substance of the dogmatic sense, authority precedes, and in a certain measure, i. e. when and insofar as it is required for discerning the dogmatic value, hermeneutics also precedes; criticism follows and is subservient to authority. If the doubt is concerning the genuineness of things pertinent (with the substance of the sense saved) to the mode of enunciation, criticism precedes, fuller application of hermeneutics and exegesis follows. Absolute precedence of criticism before theological authority (of the Church), where judgment is made concerning the genuineness of dogmatic texts, can no more be admitted than absolute precedence of other human sciences, e. g. of philosophy before the theology of the Church, in matters even pertinent to this and according to some account common. Concerning this matter we shall speak in the Appendix of these Tracts. (See the Vatican Council's Constit. on Faith, ch. 4; cf. Coroll. 2 to th. XVIII.)

IV. In the last part of the thesis we impugn the other opinion, contrary to the one hitherto confuted, by which some older theologians contended that the Vulgate edition was declared authentic by the Council in the supreme grade of conformity with the original text as to single clauses and almost words, whatever be the matter in which the texts turn. But such a scarcely credible sense of the decree they gather either from the very appellation of an authentic edition simply so called, or from some special reason of the decree. From each consideration they are most manifestly convicted of error.

Concerning the former there is no need to say many things. Surely by the long use of the Church authentic was demonstrated the Latin version used until St. Jerome, and thereafter still together with our Vulgate at least until Gregory the Great. Nevertheless no one thought that conformity with the primitive text in each several minute things and words could be inferred from that use. Nay the holy Fathers at that very time in which the version was in universal use everywhere noted several things in it less rightly put: St. Hilar. on Ps. 118, v. 96, T. I, p. 354; on Ps. 138, n. 43, p. 582; Marius Victorinus against the Arians, bk. II, Bibl. Max. PP., T. IV, p. 273; St. Jerom. on Gal. IV. 5; V. 4, T. VII, pp. 449. 481; ep. to Sun. and Fretel. everywhere, and elsewhere often. Universally St. Augustine, ep. 82, n. 3, to Jerom., and bk. XI, ch. 5, against Faust., lays down: «there (in the Scriptures) if anything as it were absurd moves thee, it is not lawful to say: the author of this book did not hold the truth; but either the codex is faulty, or the translator erred, or thou dost not understand.» At last that old edition, though demonstrated authentic by public use, was gradually set aside, and to it substituted this ours, in many minute things of this kind discrepant from it not only in mode of enunciating but also in sense. Which diversity indeed demonstrates that at least both could not have perfectly answered to the archetypal text, yet did not impede that each be authentic, as far as sufficed for the scope of the Scriptures. Something like this is to be said concerning the ancient versions publicly used through many centuries in the Catholic Churches of other tongues. Opportunely one of those deputed for the correction of the Vulgate, Dr. Valverde, in a suppliant libel to Pontiff Clement VIII (in the celebrated Fr. Vercellone, Prolegom. to the Var. Readings of the Vulg., T. I, p. LXVII) thus speaks. «Many things, Holy Father, the Church permitted to be read publicly, not that she altogether approved, or judged they could not be read more rightly. ... nor on that account is she to be said to have tolerated errors in the Bibles, since these corrupt neither sound faith nor morals. Many more and greater things indeed the Church tolerated before Jerome emended the Bibles, and no one reproached the Church with this.»

In the declaration therefore of authenticity regarded universally, this opinion surely has no foundation; it would therefore have to be proved from the special reasons and adjuncts of the Tridentine decree. But from all these it is rather evidently convicted false.

1°. From the end of the declaration of the Council. The proposed end is «no small utility to accede to the Church of God,» which is distinctly assigned in this: that to all may become known the sincerity of the founts from which, in the Church and by the synod herself, are to be drawn «testimonies for confirming dogmas and restoring morals in the Church.» But to this end each several minute things regarding geography, chronology, the lowest adjuncts of history, botany, zoology, etc., in no way pertain; but for this end there suffices the authenticity of conformity, of the version and edition which the Church uses for the building up of faith and morals as the genuine word of God, in matters of faith and morals, and in the rest as to the sum of the matter. Therefore to declare this, but not that stricter conformity, was the proposal.

By another turn the same can be said. The judgment of the Church concerning the authenticity of the Vulgate is an infallible judgment concerning a dogmatic fact, and to that extent the assistance of the Holy Spirit, and through it infallibility in judging, is promised, as the fact is dogmatic, i. e. nearly connected with conserving the integrity of faith and the rule of morals, concerning which therefore, no otherwise than concerning dogmas revealed in themselves, it is of great interest to the whole Church that it infallibly stand. But a fact of this kind is surely the conformity with the archetype, of an edition of Scripture adopted into the public use of the Catholic Church, in those things of which we have now often spoken, but not conformity in each several minutest things. Therefore concerning that, not concerning this authenticity, the infallible Church bore judgment.

2°. From the circumstances of the declaration. The synod declared authentic the Vulgate edition then existing; for the Council herself adopted it into her use as authentic. But at the same time she acknowledged that in it some things could be emended, and willed this business to be commended to the care of the Roman Pontiffs; in which acknowledgement indeed of defects and errors of lighter moment both the Cardinals and theologians deputed and consulted at Rome by the Pontiff, and the Fathers of the Council, agreed (see the letters of the Legates cited above, p. 537) ¹³. Nevertheless even in this state the Vulgate edition was declared authentic, and as authentic employed by the Council herself. Therefore concerning authenticity in minute things of this kind the Fathers of the Council in their declaration did not treat.

To these things answer has now also been given to what the patrons of the strictest conformity were wont to say: that not indeed the errors of the books were approved, but the Vulgate edition expurgated from faults, as we now have it, was declared authentic even in all the least things. But a) the declaration was not referred to the future edition only, which is the calumny of the Protestants, but to the Vulgate as it then stood and could be employed by the Council herself. b) The Council indicated specifically no principles according to which the emendation was to be instituted. It could not therefore will to declare in advance that the future emendation, which surely could be more or less distant from perfection, would be such as even in the least things to answer to the primitive archetype. And therefore c) the Church, not only after that solemn declaration of authenticity but also after the emendation instituted by the authority of the Pontiffs, still permits and holds ratified the public and liturgical use not only of editions in other tongues, but also somewhere of a Latin version in matters of this kind minor widely diverse from the Vulgate. Thus the most ancient Psalter, which in not a few things differs from the Psalter of the Vulgate, retained both in the Vatican Church of St. Peter, in the Ambrosian, in the Mozarabic chapel of Toledo, and until the year 1808 in the Church of St. Mark at Venice (cf. Brunati, dissert. Della Volg., n. 8.); Psalm 94 (Venite exultemus) from that ancient recension is daily recited in the divine office, and only on the feast of the Epiphany from the recension of the Vulgate ¹⁴; the chronology in the years of the patriarchs according to the LXX, diverse from that which the Vulgate has, has been conserved in the Roman Martyrology, nor in its correction by Benedict XIV was anything changed concerning it (cf. J. B. Branca on the authority of the Latin Vulg., p. 541, Milan 1781). But who does not see that such a liturgical use of texts in minute matters of this kind discrepant even in sense most manifestly demonstrates that the Church by her authority willed to declare neither text in matters of this kind certainly conformable to the primitive archetype?

3°. Most openly the patrons of absolute authenticity even in the least things suppose many miracles nowise necessary, and which can be persuaded to have happened by no probable reasons. To have commemorated one of these suffices. Our Vulgate version in by far the greatest part of the books of the Old Testament has St. Jerome for author, and is immediately derived from the Hebrew text as it stood in the time of St. Jerome, and consequently in many things discrepant from the older Latin version, which had been made from the Greek LXX. In certain books — in the Psalms, Baruch, Wisd., Ecclus., Mach. — the version older than Jerome has been conserved. The Psalms, though the holy doctor translated them from the Hebrew, yet the Church did not adopt his version, but, lest the ears of the people be offended, retained the old interpretation from the Greek LXX, moderately emended by St. Jerome with second cares, and not a little diverse from the version of Jerome himself. These things supposed, for asserting that full conformity it must be affirmed that the translation of St. Jerome perfectly in all particles answered to the primitive text in the other books, with the Psalter alone excepted; and vice versa that the older version, which until then had been in the use of the Church, had not been at least perfectly authentic except in the Psalter alone and in those books which St. Jerome did not touch. Moreover it follows that the Hebrew text in the age of Jerome was corrupt in the Psalter alone, in the other books perfectly conformable to the archetype; that the LXX translators did not accurately translate the other books, but most perfectly the Psalter, or at least that their version came to the old Latin translator most perfect and incorrupt in the Psalter alone. All these things and many others which must be supposed, you will persuade to no one without manifest arguments; but arguments not only are there none at hand to demonstrate these things, but there are at hand such as show these hypotheses to be false. Surely those theologians, if they had better considered the matter, would either have been driven to desert their opinion, or would have had to affirm that internal authenticity and inspired books through the declaration of the Church are not only manifested but also effected — which how false it be, we demonstrated elsewhere.

4°. The gravest witnesses who themselves had taken part in the Council of Trent or were coeval with it, and theologians in great number a little after the Council, agree that by the Tridentine Fathers the authenticity of the Vulgate edition was declared in the sense we stated, but not in a stricter signification. This is manifest in the first place from the letters of the legates written to Rome, which we commemorated above (cf. Pallavic. bk. VI, ch. 17, nn. 15. 16). Moreover Card. Cervinus attested this same thing to Andrew Vega, theologian of the Council, the day before the decree was confirmed, and afterwards not once expressly, as with gravest words, Cervinus being still alive, Vega wrote in the work dedicated to Cardinal Paceco, who himself also had been a great part of that 4th session (Vega on Justificat., bk. XV, ch. 9). The same thing did James Lainez — afterwards General of the Society of Jesus, who by order of the Pontiff had taken part in the Council — signify to Fr. John Mariana (Mariana on the Vulgate Edition, ch. 21, p. 101). There agree Salmeron (Works, T. I, pp. 24. 25, Cologne edit., 1602), most amply Didacus Payva de Andrada (Defense of the Trid. Council, bk. IV, fol. 247ff.), many others whom Bellarmine names in the opuscule cited, Mariana l. c., Serarius (in Prolegom. to the Bible), John Bernard de Rossi (on the Causes of the neglected Hebrew tongue, ch. 4), Hodius describing above eighty conspiring sentences of Catholic theologians (on the ancient versions of the Bible, P. II, bk. 3, ch. 15). From the Scholastics cf. Dominic Bañez on St. Th., 1, q. 1, a. 8; from the more recent, the Wirceburgenses, T. I, ch. 1, a. 4; the Trivultian Ephemerides, 1750, month of July, 1753, months of September and October; Joseph Brunati (in the opuscule cited above, among the biblical dissertations edit. Milan 1838).

5°. The enumerated arguments no one will suspect to avail only concerning the edition not yet emended, but now, after the correction instituted by order of the Pontiffs, full conformity with the archetype by force of the Tridentine decree is to be asserted even in each several least things. Suspicion of this kind is evidently excluded.

a) All our arguments are so constituted that they avail even with the emendation supposed.

b) Such a wondrous conformity, which could have been constituted only through divine inspiration both of the translator and of the theologians deputed by the Pontiff for correcting the Bibles, the Tridentine Fathers surely did not prophetically predict; but as they declared the Vulgate edition authentic theoretically and employed it practically as authentic even before correction, so they desired the expurgation of faults as far as could be done, that uniformity of reading in the Church be constituted. Therefore by the Tridentine decree that most perfect conformity of the emended edition with the archetype was not declared in advance.

c) Nor indeed does there stand any other declaration of the Pontiffs from which such authenticity of conformity in the supreme grade would have to be asserted. Nay from the history of the correction of the Bibles it stands that by the gravest men themselves deputed for this business not only was no such perfection of the emended edition acknowledged, but also several things which they had seen could be corrected were for prudent reasons deliberately left. This is admonished in the preface to the reader prefixed to the emended edition, whose author is Bellarmine, surely by mandate and consent of the rest deputed for the work of correction, and, as the thing itself speaks, with the Supreme Pontiff himself also assenting. There in express words there is first removed the prejudice as if this Vulgate edition after the instituted emendation were already necessarily to be held «absolute in all numbers.» Then there is succinctly rendered the account of the method observed in the correction, where two things are said: that not only Latin codices of the Vulgate edition were employed, but also account was had of the Hebrew and Greek text; but that in the wide-spread reading some things were deliberately changed, «other things which seemed to be changed were deliberately left unchanged.» Of this counsel three causes are brought: a) the offense of the peoples to be avoided according to the admonition of the Fathers, b) that it is uncertain to us whether the old translators had not better Hebrew and Greek codices than now are; whence it comes that sometimes it does not stand whether the old Latin interpretation does not better refer the original text than the Hebrew and Greek text itself in its present state; c) lastly that the scope of the correction was not to hammer out a new edition answering namely in all things to the original text, «but the old and Vulgate Latin edition itself, purged from the faults of old copyists and of depraved emendations, to restore to its pristine integrity and purity, as far as could be done.» All these things surely most clearly enunciate that the emendation was not so instituted, nor could be instituted, that the Vulgate edition, now even in all minuter words and sentences which per se do not pertain to establishing the rule of faith and morals, be believed to answer perfectly to the archetypal text by force of the Tridentine decree and the emendation that followed.

In the same sense, with the correction and edition now brought to an end a decade before, Bellarmine wrote in 1603 to Luke of Bruges: «I would have thee know that the Vulgate Bibles have not been most accurately corrected by us; for many things which seemed to need correction we of set purpose for just causes passed over.» And as Brugensis subjoins, «Like things wrote J. B. Bandinus, prefect of the Vatican press, in a letter sent by order of the Most Illustrious Card. Baronius to Moretus, given at Rome on the day before the Kalends of August 1604.»

d) The same is demonstrated from the mode in which the following Catholic theologians and interpreters, with the Church knowing and assenting, were wont to treat and expound the Scriptures. Hither pertain what the celebrated Fr. Charles Vercellone prefaces to the signal work of the Various Readings of the Vulgate edition dedicated to Supreme Pontiff Pius IX, T. I, p. CVIII. «Meanwhile we ask the reader to note in passing that the single pages of this our work in fact most luminously rebut the calumny of the heterodox, who affirm that the Roman Church so approved scribal errors as the true reading that now it is no longer lawful for us to be solicitous concerning the true reading of the version, but whatever reading, even if it depart from the Greek and Hebrew text, must be acknowledged by us as true (Mash, Bibl. Sacr., vol. 3, p. 50). These things, we say, are in fact refuted enough and more than enough by our volume. For it would not be lawful for us to weigh various readings, if the Catholic Church, over which by divine institution the Roman Pontiff presides, had either approved scribal errors or ordered any reading of the Vulgate to be so held as true that never even the least error could underlie it.»

Corollary 1. It is plain both from the authority by which the correction and edition was instituted, and from its scope — which among the rest was also that uniformity of ecclesiastical reading be preserved in all things and everywhere — that it is lawful for no one to change anything in the readings of the Vulgate edition, unless perchance the authority itself of the Holy See should sometime order something such to be done.

From the same authority and from the mode in which the correction was made and the readings were received into use, it is equally plain that the readings of the Vulgate edition as they now are, even in accidentals and minute things, are to be treated with cautious and prudent reverence, although, as Bellarmine already indicated to Luke of Bruges ¹⁵, praiseworthy are the learned men who, sufficiently furnished from science and other aids, confer their labor for exploring and establishing the genuine readings even in each several minutest things.

If ever to the genuine Vulgate reading itself in accidentals of this kind a real discrepance from the original text could be certainly demonstrated to underlie, not surely on that account «under any pretext is the Vulgate edition rejected,» which the Council prohibited; but the explication of the sacred text is aided and supplemented from the other aids which are at hand. Tiletanus, who among the theologians had taken part in the Council, thus speaks. «The Tridentine Fathers forbid not that the old and Vulgate Latin edition be diligently compared by expositors with the founts, and if anything be discovered by certain reason not sufficiently to square with the founts, to expound and translate it more commodiously and more properly or even more truly. But this only is what the synod established: that the old and Vulgate Latin edition, which for many centuries has been used with reverence and honor in all the Churches, be rejected under no pretext... But to reject any edition is this: to depose it from the place which it holds, and as unworthy of public use and honor to reject, spurn and contemn it. Which he is not to be judged to do who so receives and venerates the edition received in all the Churches and approved and commended by the use of many centuries, that yet he diligently compares it with the fount; and from the fount illustrates what is obscure, and expounds what is ambiguous, or lastly even corrects, where certainly there is discovered either some fault to have crept in or the translator not fully to have attained the sense of Scripture, yet temerariously changes or corrects nothing» (Iodocus Ravesteyn Tiletanus in Apologia pro Conc. Trid. 1568, T. I, fol. 99.).

Corollary 2. Altogether absurd are they who, as once the Anglican Thomas James (in the book entitled «Bellum Papale»), think an argument against the infallibility of the Pontiffs can be deduced from the fact that the Vulgate edition, already impressed in type by order of Sixtus V, was again called back to the anvil, and, corrected according to canons of criticism a little changed, at last came to light by order of Clement VIII. For, to omit the rest, that whole business of diversity between each recension in no way pertained to matters of faith and morals.

Corollary 3. The authenticity of the Vulgate edition was not declared in comparison with the Hebrew and Greek texts nor with the ancient versions, much less for excluding the authority of these texts; but it was declared in comparison with the Latin versions which more recently, for the most part by heretical men, procured, were then spread abroad, as stands from the words of the decree, from the history of the Council (Pallavic. bk. VI, ch. 15; ch. 17, nn. 5. 8), from the testimony of the theologians who took part in the Council, and they are the same cited above by us. Those texts therefore and those ancient versions remained in their whole external authority as they had been before the decree was published, in which concerning them in no way was there question. Further, although by no explicit decree of the Church the authenticity of the Hebrew text in the Old Testament and of the Greek text in the New Testament, as they are still at hand to us, has been declared, yet concerning it it stands certainly not only critically and historically, but concerning authenticity as to the sum of the matter also dogmatically. For the very authenticity of the Vulgate edition, which has been dogmatically declared, supposes the authenticity of the Hebrew and Greek text, at least as in all exemplars taken together it still stands in the Church of God and can be discerned. To which intimate connection with the Vulgate there accedes, as to the Greek text of the New Testament, the very public use of many centuries in the Church from the apostolic age. Each argument in its mode avails also for the authenticity of the LXX version. «Truly, says Bellarmine in the opuscule cited above, they very ill deserve of the Church who snatch from her so signal a treasure, and who speak so contemptibly concerning the original writings of the Apostles and Prophets as not to fear to deny them to be authentic.» It is nevertheless to be adverted that not the same vigilance of the Catholic Roman Church, and for now many centuries not the same public use, is referred to the Greek text, and much less to the Hebrew text, as to the Latin version and edition, nor on either side is the mode the same of the ecclesiastical declaration through which the authenticity itself, and especially the extension and grade of authenticity, is proposed and manifested to us.

Scholion. The Decree which is spread abroad as sanctioned by the Sacred Congregation of the Cardinals interpreters of the Trid. Council on 17 January 1576, Serarius remembers in Prolegom. ch. 19, q. 11 to have been published by the heretics at Frankfort 1608; Leo Allatius in the «Animadversiones ad antiquitates Etruscas» never published by himself but published after his death (Paris 1640) transcribed the same decree n. 101 from a sheet found in the library of Cardinal Biscia. But it is said there: «The general Congregation judged that nothing can be asserted which is repugnant to the Latin Vulgate edition, even were it a single period, a single clause or member, or a word, or a single term, or a syllable, one iota.» But already Serarius l. c. suspected it supposititious; at greater length Branca contends it (de Vulg., T. I, p. 31) and Brunati (Dissert. della Volg., pp. 79. 80). «Either it is fictitious, says Branca — what no editions but certain transalpine ones, of private credit, collected from diverse private sheets, have put forth, some in one way, some in another, and by this very fact suspect — or it is void of authority, what was perchance excerpted from a sentence prepared in writing by some one of the Cardinals or their readers or theologians, of which sort I myself once saw something in a certain Ms. for this very matter, and firmed by the authority neither of the whole Council nor, as is needed, of the Supreme Pontiff.» Surely in the Roman Archives, diligently sought in these last years, this document has nowhere been found. For the rest, if it ever truly came forth, it must be understood to prohibit that anything be asserted repugnant to the Vulgate Latin edition in matters of faith and morals. Which answer indeed a few years ago (in the year 1859), with the Supreme Pontiff approving through an oracle of the living voice, was given, as Fr. Perrone of blessed memory attested to me.

TO THE TRACT

ON THE DIVINE SCRIPTURES

ΣΥΜBOΛΗ

OF ANIMADVERSIONS

ON THE DISSERTATION ENTITLED

«De Bibliorum inspiratione eiusque valore ac vi pro libera scientia.»

Some new opinion concerning the extension of the inspiration of the sacred books, expounded and defended in an opuscule written in the German tongue, good men indicated to me, that I might declare what I thought. It I saw without doubt false and joined with graver perils, which must altogether be warded off from the ears and minds of Catholics. But since the author himself of the dissertation is said to have already departed from that sentence of so great peril, there is to be congratulation, not crime to be charged. And surely, unless I knew the same doctrine to have begun to creep more widely elsewhere, I would have abstained from moving this question; but the propagation of the false opinion persuaded me that I should expend labor necessary, and with the author not unwilling, if to the things which he himself now disapproves I too should confer some animadversions. Nor indeed would I detract anything from the praise of an erudite and Catholic theologian, while I accuse not the man, but oppugn the arguments of the dissertation published to the public light.