Prologus auctoris ad lectorem

In D. Thomae prooemium meditatio

Dubium 1

IT IS DOUBTED therefore first concerning the aforesaid conclusion which St. Thomas presupposes: Whether sacred doctrine, or theology, is argumentative? I raise this doubt, not because the arguments on the opposite side carry much weight — since St. Thomas too brought forward two very easy ones — but that I may show how certain it is that sacred doctrine is argumentative, and how pious it is for a theologian to give attention to arguments of this sort.

Let there therefore be the certain conclusion: Sacred theology is argumentative. It is proved first from its own definition. Because sacred doctrine is a true science, which proceeds from revealed principles; therefore it is argumentative. The consequence is proved. Because every science is argumentative. It is proved secondly from that of 2 Tim. 3: All scripture inspired of God is profitable for teaching, for arguing, etc. It is proved thirdly by examples. First of Christ the Lord, the master of all theologians, who often argued from the sacred writings against those who opposed his doctrine. An example occurs when Christ the Lord said (Lk. 6) to the Pharisees: Have you not read this, what David did, when he himself was hungry and they that were with him, how he went into the house of God, and took and ate the loaves of proposition. By which testimony he wished to convince them that it is lawful, without violation of the Sabbath, to rub the ears of corn with their hands, that the hungry might eat. Likewise Matth. 19, the Pharisees tempting him and saying, whether it is lawful for a man to put away his wife for any cause, he answered: Have you not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Behold, from a place of Scripture he argued to prove that it is not lawful to put away one's wife for any cause. And Matth. 21 he said to the same: Did you never read in the Scriptures: The stone which the builders rejected, etc. And again in the same place: Did you never read, that out of the mouth of infants and sucklings thou hast perfected praise? From which places he argued that he was the Messiah. This same thing the Apostles often did, as is clear in the Acts of the Apostles, and from their canonical epistles, in which they often argue, and from one thing infer another. Examples of which readily occur to everyone who reads. This same office the doctors of holy Church also most often performed for the edification of the Church, as is clear both in their exhortations and also in their writings against the various errors of heretics. Where they argue in many ways from the sacred writings, from the traditions of the Church and also from the authority of the same doctors. For Augustine cites Cyprian and Jerome and Ambrose. Often too they do not reject the use of human disciplines and the authority of philosophers. And in this way is verified what Augustine says, lib. 4 On the Trinity, ch. 1, that to this sacred science it is granted that through it the most wholesome faith be begotten, nourished, defended, and strengthened, and that the Apostle called it by the proper name of science. The conclusion is therefore so certain that I do not hesitate to condemn the opposite as error.

Dubium 2

IT IS DOUBTED secondly: Whether the first conclusion of the article is true? And it seems that it is not true, nay that there is a contradiction in the letter of St. Thomas. For that there will be a general resurrection of the dead is an article of faith; and yet the Apostle, 1 Cor. 15, argues to show the general resurrection of the dead from this, that Christ rose again; therefore sacred doctrine argues to prove its principles: and St. Thomas wrongly adduced the testimony of the Apostle in order to conclude that sacred doctrine does not argue to prove its principles — nay, from this testimony the opposite is established: since from one principle of faith another principle is concluded.

It is argued second. The principles of our faith are evidently credible, as is shown at length in 2.2, q. 1, art. 5; therefore arguments are made by which they are shown to be evidently credible; and very many such arguments we have set out in 2.2 in the place above; therefore theology argues to prove its principles. It is argued third. Because St.

Thomas himself in the Summa against the Gentiles persuades the dogmas of our faith by very many reasons, even natural ones. As, for example, that there is a resurrection of the dead, that it is possible to see God as he is, and many other things; therefore.

It is argued fourth. This is a necessary consequence: Christ rose again, therefore Christ died; therefore the theologian can efficaciously prove one principle from another.

TO this doubt there is a brief answer; let it be the first conclusion.

Theology does not argue to prove its principles by concluding efficaciously and necessarily, neither a priori, nor from the effect. This conclusion is clear from the ground of St. Thomas. And it is confirmed. Because if they are truly the principles of that science, that science cannot begin from other things; otherwise they would no longer be the principles of the science.

And if someone objects that the physicist can begin from the effects which he perceives by sense in order to show that the principles of those effects exist; therefore also in theology the principles can at least be efficaciously proved a posteriori. It is answered: whatever be the case with the antecedent, I deny the consequence. For the account is not the same. Because natural effects, especially those which are open to sense, can sufficiently show their natural principles. Since there is a proportion between the effects and their cause, known by the natural light. But in respect of the principles of theology, which are concerning God insofar as he is the author of grace above the whole order of nature, there are no effects evident to us which have a proportion and a necessary connection with those first principles. And therefore neither a posteriori can we evidently prove the principles of sacred theology.

Let the second conclusion be: It pertains to sacred theology not only to explain its first principles, but also to show probably that they are true, and to demonstrate that they are evidently credible. Of which thing you have an example in the commentaries on 2.2 above, where we adduced very many arguments by which the evangelical doctrine is demonstrated to be evidently credible. And arguments of this sort conduce not only to inducing the unbeliever to the faith, but also to removing the temptations of the believer, by which he is sometimes assailed against the truth of the faith. Nor is this contrary to the saying of Ambrose, lib. 1 On Faith, ch. 5, where he says: Take away arguments where faith is sought, because arguments of this sort are not brought in as a reason for believing, but as a reason destroying the false arguments by which someone is tempted to depart from the faith. For the scandal is taken away from that weak man, lest he depart from the faith.

Third conclusion, for the understanding of the second conclusion of St. Thomas. When sacred theology argues against those who deny certain principles, if they concede others, it proceeds sometimes not only probably, but even with necessary consequence. As, for example, against the Jews, who admit the Old Testament, necessary arguments are made from the supposition of the Old Testament, by which it is concluded that the Messiah has already come, and has fulfilled the Old Testament.

And if someone says: Why then are not all the Jews converted? It is answered with the Apostle, 2 Cor. 3, that a veil is placed before their face while Moses is read. Since therefore St. Thomas in the second conclusion says that sacred doctrine argues against those who deny certain principles, he does not understand it of an argumentation that is only probable. For in that way it would also argue against those who deny all the principles, which St. Thomas denies in the third conclusion, where he speaks in the same form as in the second. He therefore understands in both conclusions an argumentation that is not only probable but necessary.

TO the arguments on the opposite side it is answered that the argumentation of the Apostle is directed rather to unbelievers and to those who deny the resurrection of the dead than to the faithful. For he says: If Christ be preached that he rose again from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? Behold, one article of faith they conceded, namely that Christ rose again, but the other they denied. And therefore the Apostle, from the resurrection of Christ and other things which they admitted, argues to prove the resurrection of the dead, not only from things conceded but also from the prophecy of Hosea 13, as it were leading to an inconvenience: that if there were no resurrection of the dead, the prophecy would never be fulfilled which says: Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting? For if the dead rise not again, death would conquer for ever. But that consequence which the Apostle makes in concluding that if Christ rose again, we also shall rise again, is not evident by the natural light, but is evidently credible from the supposition, namely that Christ, who is the head and redeemer of men, rose again. Nor did St. Thomas wrongly adduce the testimony of the Apostle to prove that sacred doctrine does not argue to prove its principles. Since although the resurrection of the dead is a principle of theology, nevertheless the argument was made to those who denied a principle of this sort. St. Thomas also adduced this example, that he might teach us to argue similarly. To the second argument it is answered that it does not militate against the first conclusion.

Since that conclusion does not deny that the things which are of faith can be proved according to the common account of the credible, but it denies that they can be proved simply by theology. But according to the common account St. Thomas teaches, 2.2, q. 1, art. 4, to the second argument, that the things which are of faith can be seen under the common account of the credible. To the third argument it is answered that St.

Thomas in the Summa against the Gentiles does not intend to make demonstrations of the things which are of faith, but vehement persuasions that they are possible and not repugnant to natural reason.

To the fourth argument it is answered that consequences of this sort, in which one article can be gathered from another, are useless argumentations, unless they are made to those who deny one principle and concede another. Wherefore, simply speaking, theology does not argue to prove its principles. So much concerning this difficulty.

CONCERNING the third conclusion of the article it is to be noted that, since every argument convincing the intellect must proceed from true things and by a good consequence, the theologian must in two ways dissolve the arguments made against the faith. In one way by denying the antecedent, in the other way by denying the consequence. But further he can deny the antecedent or the consequence in two ways. In one way from things proper to theology, not indeed known but believed: as, for example, if someone objects against the faith of the Trinity that no thing numerically one is several hypostases; and then the theologian answers: I deny the antecedent; nay, God is one substance in number and three hypostases. In the other way he can answer from things known, either simply or as regards something: as if, for example, to the same objection the theologian answers, I deny the antecedent if that thing be an infinite essence or an infinite substance. Then he answers from things known, not simply: for he does not know but believes that an infinite thing is several hypostases, but he knows that it is not repugnant to the intellect that an unlimited essence be in several supposits. And so he at least makes the objection doubtful, so that it does not conclude certainly. Further, if another objects against the mystery of the Eucharist in this way: To be an accident is to be in a subject; therefore if the accidents are in this sacrament, it follows that they are in a substance. Then the theologian will answer from things known that to be an accident is not formally to be actually in a subject, but in aptitude. Which proposition is known, although not from the proper principles of theology: yet the theologian by his own office uses other sciences as handmaids for dissolving objections contrary to his own principles. It must therefore be said that solutions of the first kind are not theological; but it belongs to any believer so to answer. But the remaining solutions are theological, which proceed from things known in either way.

Again, also in the denial of the consequence there can be two ways of answering. In one way by denying absolutely any consequence in which something against the faith is inferred, so that the one answering gives no reason or assigns no defect of the consequence; and such a response belongs to any Christian. In the other way one can answer by assigning some difference of comparison, or by showing the defect of the consequence; and such a response pertains to the office of the theologian. As if, for example, someone objects against the mystery of the Trinity: This is a good consequence: every man begets, Peter is a man, therefore Peter begets: therefore also this is a good consequence: every God begets, the Son is God, therefore the Son begets. Then the theologian will answer that those consequences are not of a like form; and he will assign an instance: Every motion is an action, passion is a motion, therefore passion is an action. In which the antecedent is conceded by all, and the consequent denied. And accordingly, just as the natural philosopher or the metaphysician will be bound to answer to this third consequence and to say that it is not like the first on account of some logical defect: so too the theologian will answer that the second consequence is not like the first, and will assign the same defect as the philosopher, or certainly another similar one according to the rules of prioristic resolution. Of which it is not now to be spoken one by one.

On the Theological Places.

NOW indeed we must come to those things which are more weighty; namely, that concerning the fourth, fifth and sixth conclusions of St. Thomas, in which the difference of the places from which the theologian draws his arguments is set out by St. Thomas, we carefully examine the most principal doubts which can offer themselves.

At the outset, for beginning theologians, we must briefly say what a theological place is, and how many kinds of theological place there are. A theological place is therefore a certain seat and head from which the theologian draws his arguments. Nor must we dwell very long on the explanation of this definition. Since just as in the other human sciences each has its own heads and principles of arguments, which are arranged according to the dialectical art. Which Aristotle seems to have done in the Topics, setting out the common places from which every form of argumentation for every disputation might be found. In this way therefore we too, presupposing the things which from dialectic are common to all disciplines (whose ignorance I see to be very harmful to many theologians otherwise most diligent), set out certain places proper to theology as certain storehouses, from which the theologian may easily draw the necessary argumentations for confirming the truth and refuting falsehood. But the division of places of this sort, according to the teaching of St. Thomas in the aforesaid conclusions, is threefold. For he reduced the places of arguing which the theologian can use to three heads.

The FIRST head is the authority of Sacred Scripture. And accordingly the first and most principal place of arguing for the theologian is from the authority of Sacred Scripture. The reason for which St. Thomas gives in the solution to the second argument. Because the principles of this doctrine are had through revelation, and accordingly theology proceeds as from a most proper place from the authority of canonical Scripture. In which the things which pertain to faith are contained, revealed to the sacred writers.

The second place of arguing for the theologian is from the authority of the other doctors of the Church, whence the theologian (says St. Thomas) argues probably.

The third place, which the theologian uses as though it were extrinsic, is human reason and the authority of philosophers. From which he deduces probable arguments. These things we have from St. Thomas. BUT the more recent theologians, for the sake of distinction and that they might more exactly instruct their disciples, bring forward a greater number of these places. Among whom my teacher Cano seems to stand out most diligently and with wonderful erudition in this part. He therefore numbers ten heads of theological argumentations, from which the theologian proceeds according as opportunity requires.

The first place is the authority of Sacred Scripture, which is contained in the canonical books.

The second place is the Apostolic tradition, which although it is not written, is nevertheless a doctrine which is believed to have passed from Christ himself and the Holy Spirit through the Apostles from ear to ear even to us. And therefore traditions of this sort can rightly be called oracles of the living voice.

The third place is the authority of the Church.

The fourth place is the authority of a general Council.

The fifth is the authority of the Roman Church, in which is also included the authority of the Supreme Pontiff.

The sixth is the authority of the holy Fathers, doctors of the Church.

The seventh is the authority of the scholastic theologians, to which is joined the authority of the experts in pontifical law.

The eighth is natural reason, which exercises itself in all the disciplines discovered by the natural light.

The ninth place is the authority of the natural philosophers, to which is joined the authority of the consultors of the imperial law, who profess true moral philosophy.

The tenth and last is the authority of human History, whether written by authors worthy of faith, or handed down by the report of ancestors.

BUT you ask what is the cause why St. Thomas mentioned only those three heads?

It is answered that St. Thomas set down those three by way of example, to which nevertheless the ten numbered can be reduced. Since to the authority of canonical Scripture can be reduced also the authority of the Roman Church and the firmness of the councils and of the Apostolic traditions. For in all these the divine authority is contained, which is found first in the Sacred Letters or in the authors of the sacred letters, in which also the authority of the Church is commended, when it was said to Peter, Matth. 16: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church. Then to the authority of the other doctors of the Church can be reduced, as something lesser, the authority of the scholastics and the philosophers, whose authority in this part is not as great as that of the holy Fathers, whom the scholastic theologians themselves deservedly venerate. But to the third head, of which St. Thomas makes mention, the rest which are numbered among the ten will easily be reduced. Behold what a theological place is, and how many kinds there are.

Thereafter, from the aforesaid numbered places, certain ones must be selected by us, concerning which a disputation is opportunely undertaken in this place. Let us therefore set apart those places which the scholastic theologians are accustomed to dispute more at length in other parts of the Summa of St. Thomas. Of this sort are the authority of the traditions of Christ and of the Apostles, the authority of the Catholic Church and of the Supreme Pontiff, bishop of the Roman Church, and also the authority of the Roman Church itself. Concerning all of which in 2.2, q. 1, art. 10 it has also been disputed by me abundantly enough. But from the remaining places not all have a special difficulty, such that they must be turned over more at length here and now. For it is clear, even to those who are not theologians, what and how great is the authority of human reason and of the philosophers and of human history. Wherefore, concerning things of this sort, it is neither pleasing nor permitted to linger at present. Our whole disputation therefore will legitimately be expended and terminated now concerning three theological places to be explained according to our strength, namely, concerning the authority of sacred Scripture, and concerning the authority of the holy Fathers, and concerning the authority of the scholastic theologians, and of the experts in pontifical law insofar as they are versed in theological matters. That we may therefore treat of these three in order.

Dubium 3

IT IS DOUBTED thirdly, in the order of the commentaries of this article: What is Sacred Scripture; whether it was written with the Holy Spirit inspiring and dictating the words? Behold how we now begin to exercise the things which have been said concerning sacred theology, that it pertains to it to explain its principles, one of which is that Sacred Scripture is infallible, which through God's revelation has been written by men. And nevertheless it will be very useful to set forth and elucidate the definition of Sacred Scripture. That we may therefore proceed in our manner, it is argued for the negative side by the arguments of those who, as Jerome testifies in the proemium on the epistle to Philemon, held the opinion that the sacred writers did not always write with God inspiring.

The first argument therefore is: Human weakness cannot bear for a long time the surpassing illumination of the Holy Spirit: but authors of this sort wrote very many things in which they spent much time: therefore it is not likely that they were continually acted upon by the Holy Spirit. And it is confirmed. Because very many things are contained in the Sacred Scriptures which on account of their lowliness seem unworthy to be dictated by the Holy Spirit: as, for example, that a dog followed the younger Tobias on his journey, Tob. 6. Likewise what the Apostle says in the 2nd epistle to Tim., ch. 4: The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee. And in the same place: Luke only is with me. And elsewhere, 1 Tim. 5: Use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thy frequent infirmities. And many other similar things which seem unworthy that they be believed to have been written by a special help of God. Secondly.

The aforesaid authors wrote very many temporal things of which they themselves were eyewitnesses; therefore for writing such things divine inspiration was not necessary. The antecedent is clear. For St. John says, ch. 19: And immediately there came out blood and water, and he that saw it hath given testimony. And he wrote very many other things which he himself heard with his own ears from Christ and saw with his own eyes; therefore for such things the illumination of the Holy Spirit was superfluous. And Moses wrote very many things concerning the departure of Israel from Egypt, of which he himself was an eyewitness. And it is confirmed from what Luke says, ch. 1: It seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus; therefore the Gospel of Luke was written not with the Holy Spirit inspiring and dictating, but, as he himself says (even as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word), by human tradition. And Mark too (as Jerome testifies in the catalogue of ecclesiastical writers) wrote his Gospel as he had heard Peter narrating. Therefore it was not written with God inspiring and dictating the words.

Thirdly. If the whole of Sacred Scripture had been written with the Holy Spirit inspiring and dictating the words, the style of speech would be one and similar in accordance with the subject matter. Just as the Ciceronian style is everywhere recognized: but in truth we see in the Sacred Letters the greatest difference of diction, in accordance with the genius and the property of the language of each writer. Which Jerome observed on Isaiah, noting that Isaiah, because he was of the royal seed, spoke more elegantly than the other Prophets. It is therefore a sign that the sacred writers themselves composed the words at least by their own effort.

Fourthly. The authors of the New Testament, when they bring forward the testimonies of the Old, do not report them in the same words in which they were written, but, the truth of the sense being preserved, they use other words; therefore it is a sign that in the composition of words each one uses his own effort. The antecedent is proved from Jerome on Isaiah, ch. 7, where he says that in many testimonies which the Apostles and Evangelists took from the old books they did not follow the order of the words, but the sense. In witness of which he adduces that of Isaiah, ch. 7: Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a son; which Matthew, citing, says, ch. 1: Behold a virgin shall have in her womb, and shall bring forth a son; and where it was said, he shall be called, Matthew put, they shall call his name. The same Euthymius teaches on Matth., ch. 3, and adduces an example from Isaiah ch. 9, which Matthew cites, ch. 4: The land of Zabulon and the land of Nephtali, the way of the sea beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles. The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light, etc. And yet in Isaiah it had not been written in the same words. Likewise the same Jerome teaches in Amos, ch. 5, and on the epistle to the Ephesians, ch. 5, where the Apostle, citing that from Genesis: For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, does not use the same words. All which things are confirmed. Because the Evangelists themselves, narrating the same history, do not use the same words and circumstances. Fifthly.

Because the Apostle, 1 Cor. 12, says: But to the rest I speak, not the Lord: for if he were writing everything by the revelation of the Holy Spirit, he would not have said, I speak, not the Lord, but rather, as the prophets said, Thus saith the Lord. And it is confirmed from St. Basil, lib. 5 against Eunomius, ch. penult., where among other things he teaches that the Spirit does not sometimes speak his own things, sometimes the things of God; but all the words of the Spirit are the words of God. But Moses and Paul and the other Prophets sometimes speak the things which are God's, sometimes their own. Origen too, in homil. 16 on Numbers, says that the discourse of Jonah to the Ninevites was uttered by Jonah rather than by God. For through Moses God indeed spoke many things; yet some things Moses also commanded by his own authority. And Ambrose, lib. 8 on Luke, ch. 16, on that word, Because of the hardness of your heart, says: The things which were written because of human frailty were not written by God, and he brings an example from the Apostle, 1 Cor. 12, where he says: But to them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband. And a little later he says: But to the rest I speak, not the Lord. Here Ambrose says that the Apostle denied that it is of divine law that any marriage whatever be dissolved. And this same thing is confirmed from 2 Cor. 11, where the Apostle says: In whatever any one dares, I speak in foolishness, I also dare. They are ministers of Christ, I speak as one less wise, I am more. But the words of the Holy Spirit cannot be spoken in foolishness; therefore the Apostle there spoke by a human spirit. Lastly.

If all things which the Apostle wrote exist from divine revelation, it follows that the Supreme Pontiff cannot dispense in the matter of a bigamist becoming a bishop. Since Paul says, that he be the husband of one wife.

On account of these and similar arguments there were not lacking in former times those who followed the negative side. Among whom Erasmus is noted, in his annotations on Matth. ch. 2 and on ch. 1 of Mark.

FOR the decision of the truth it must be adverted that, when any scripture is said to have been written with God inspiring, this can be understood in three ways. In the first way, because the things themselves of which the writing was to be made were hidden from the writer, and become known to him by God revealing. According to that of Ps. 50: Thou hast made known to me the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom. In the second way, because the thing which is written was indeed known to the writer; yet that he applied his mind to writing was done with God specially moving and inspiring. And accordingly the writer is held by a certain special assistance of the Holy Spirit, lest by malice or forgetfulness he be deceived in anything. In the third way a scripture is said to be revealed, or from revelation, because God himself not only revealed hidden things to the one writing, or stirred him to write things known to him, and held his hand lest he err, but also suggested and as it were dictated the very individual words with which he was to write.

Let the first conclusion therefore be: Sacred Scripture, of which we speak, is had from divine revelation sometimes in the first way, sometimes in the second way. This conclusion must be certain among all Catholics. And it is proved. Because it partly contains very many things elevated above all natural reason, such as is the mystery of the Trinity, and of the Incarnation, and very many others; but partly things which could be established either by experience or by human reason. But in all these the writer himself, however diligent and attentive, could nevertheless sometimes be deceived or forget; therefore in all those things the Holy Spirit was present, partly by revelation, partly by instigation and assistance, lest the writer in any way deviate from the truth. The consequence is clear. For, as Augustine says in epistle 8 and 10 to Jerome: If in any sacred book any falsity whatever is found, the certainty of the whole book perishes. By which argument he himself, lib. 2 On the Agreement of the Evangelists, ch. 12, shows that the writings of the Prophets and Apostles have absolutely no falsity. And it is confirmed. For if we once admit that a sacred writer has failed in any one thing, even the lightest, it will then have to be judged which thing is light and which is grave. But if this is left to be judged by human arbitration, what is grave will seem light to someone, and accordingly the certainty of the Scriptures fails. Then it is proved from that of Peter in the 2nd canonical epistle, ch. 1: No prophecy is made by private interpretation; but holy men of God, that is, the ministers of God, spoke, inspired by the Holy Spirit. Likewise the Apostle, 2 Cor. 13: Do you seek a proof of him who speaks in me, Christ? Then the argument is: It would be blasphemous to say that God lies in any one thing, even the lightest; therefore if the Holy Spirit spoke through the writings of the Prophets, it follows that the Holy Spirit himself fails or is deceived in something — or certainly that the Prophet does so in nothing. Moreover Matth. 5, the Lord says: Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall not pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Therefore if the Old Testament, or the law of Moses, errs not in one jot or tittle, much less can the Gospel of Christ err. Moreover. If any lie can be called light in the Sacred Letters according to the speech of those who hold the contrary opinion, it would be greatest if the sacred writers fabricated something by their own effort for the praise of God and the edification of the people; but the Apostle judges this very thing to be most grave, 1 Cor. 15, when he says: If Christ be not risen again, we are found false witnesses of God, because we have given testimony against God, that he hath raised up Christ, whom he hath not raised up; therefore no falsity can be light in the sacred writers, who speak in the place of God. And finally we seem to labor in vain while we adduce the testimonies of the Scriptures for the confirmation of our conclusion; since the adversaries will perhaps answer that these same testimonies contain light matter. Let us therefore hold the aforesaid conclusion as certain according to the Catholic faith, which we have received from the holy Fathers, and which has been implanted in the minds of all the faithful by the Catholic Church, the mistress and guide of them. Second conclusion. The Holy Spirit not only inspired the things contained in Scripture, but also dictated and suggested the individual words with which they were to be written.

This conclusion seems to follow from the preceding one. For if it were left to the arbitration of the sacred writer with which words he should utter or write the things he understood, he could err in the legitimate explanation of the things which have been revealed to him; therefore in the Sacred Letters some falsity could be found. The consequence is clear, and the antecedent is proved. Because it is human, even if a man has no error in his mind, often to err in words, and to utter one thing for another. Moreover this truth is confirmed from the teaching of St. Ambrose in the proemium of St. Luke, on those words, Since many have attempted to set forth the narratives of things: where he says: They surely attempted who were unable to accomplish. For he who attempted to set in order attempted by his own labor. For without attempt are the gifts and the grace of God, which, when it has poured itself in, is accustomed to water, so that the genius of the writer has no need but overflows. Matthew did not attempt, Mark did not attempt, John did not attempt, Luke did not attempt: but with the Divine Spirit supplying the abundance of the sayings and of all things, they completed what they had begun without any effort. Behold where he says that the Holy Spirit supplied them with the abundance of sayings, that is, of words and of things. And it is confirmed from the text itself. For, he says, to set forth the narrative of things. Which indeed is not only to understand the things themselves, but also to compose a speech by word or writing by which the things understood may be explained. Likewise St. Gregory in the proemium of the Morals, ch. 1, says: God himself therefore wrote these things, who dictated these things to be written. But to dictate signifies to determine the words themselves. And it is confirmed from Ps. 44: My tongue is the pen of a scribe writing swiftly. Which comparison seems to consist in this, that just as the pen is determined by the writer himself to express these characters, so the imagination of the Prophet receives determinate words, that he may utter them by word or writing. And finally, to what end would the interpreters of the Sacred Letters so attentively weigh the individual words of Sacred Scripture, unless they understood that they were dictated by the Spirit of God? It is proved moreover. Because the Holy Spirit is said to have spoken through the Prophets; but to speak through the Prophets is not only to reveal the truth to them, but to move their tongue and pen, so that they speak insofar as they fittingly utter the things revealed, according to that of Ps. 44: My tongue is the pen of a scribe writing swiftly. It is confirmed from what Christ said, Matth. 20: For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you. But it had preceded: Be not thoughtful how or what to speak. Therefore to the sacred writers was given how and what they should write. Likewise Jerem. 36, there is an elegant testimony of this matter, where when Baruch had read to the people the book which he himself wrote with Jeremiah dictating, and the princes asked him how he had written all these words from the mouth of Jeremiah, Baruch answered: He spoke from his mouth as if reading unto me all these words, and I wrote them in the book with ink. Behold the argument. He who speaks as if reading in a book does not compose the words which he speaks, but receives those which he finds already determined. Since therefore the Prophet spoke as if reading in a book, the words which he spoke had already been written in his phantasy by the Holy Spirit.

Third conclusion. If however someone asserts that the composition of words is often left to the knowledge and diligence of the sacred writer, yet in such a way that he affirms the necessary assistance of the Holy Spirit, so that the writer himself does not err in the words or in the composition of words, he says nothing contrary to the faith, such that this assertion merits a grave censure, although it does not seem to me true, or altogether safe, on account of the arguments made in confirmation of the preceding conclusion.

This conclusion is proved. Because when the sacred writer writes things which he himself saw, it suffices for that writing to be called Sacred that by the instinct of the Holy Spirit he applied his mind to writing those things, and that he be upheld by the assistance of the same Spirit lest the things which he is commanded to narrate fall out of his memory: therefore the same concurrence of the Holy Spirit will suffice for the composition of words, which the sacred writer himself can devise and make by his own powers. The consequence is clear. Because the memory of things done matters no less than the order and composition of words. Likewise it is proved. Because according to the aforesaid manner of speaking it cannot be gathered that there is any falsity in Scripture, even in a minimal or light matter. For the upholding of the Holy Spirit suffices that a man not err in the things which he could attain by his own powers — although defectibly, if he were not upheld by the Spirit of God. But also the testimonies of Sacred Scripture in which it is said that God speaks through the Prophets, and that the things which they speak are the words of God, and other similar things, can be satisfied if it be said that they are called the words and speeches of God when the Prophet speaks or writes by the impulse and upholding of the Holy Spirit, even if he composes and orders the words in an idiom known to himself. But I have said often in this conclusion, since sometimes, when the sacred writer speaks of sublime and supernatural things, it even seems necessary that the very words by which they are explained be inspired by God. Let there be an example: when John said, ch. 1 of his Gospel, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the rest, it does not seem possible that he compose that speech by human art, unless he had learned the words with the Holy Spirit dictating. Nevertheless it is said more safely and without calumny that, just as the Holy Spirit applies the mind of the writer to writing, so too he hands over the words and their composition: and it is proved. Because unless we say this, we shall scarcely be able to assign a difference between Sacred Scripture, on the one hand, and the definitions of councils, which have also been confirmed by the Supreme Pontiff, and Sacred Scripture, on the other. For in both the Holy Spirit assists that there be no error. But if in both the words and their composition are left to human industry, it follows that there is no difference. Since the definitions of councils too, written with the upholding of the Holy Spirit himself, contain infallible truth. Although to this it could also be answered that there is a great difference. Because the definitions of councils, while they are written by some notary with a theologian dictating, are not attended there by the impulse of the Holy Spirit so that the one writes and the other dictates. For in the composition of a speech of this sort there can be error on their part, and their error is afterwards corrected by the Council. But Sacred Scripture is written with the Spirit of God assisting, and has no superior on earth to correct it.

TO the arguments set out at the beginning of the doubt it must now be answered.

To the first it is answered that the Holy Spirit strongly and sweetly moves the human mind by supernatural instinct and illumination. And so, as long as he wills, he holds it, that it may minister to him by understanding and writing the things which are well-pleasing to him. Nor is it necessary that the things written by the sacred writers be written by one continuous motion, but with certain intervals made, the impulse of the Holy Spirit ceasing, they ceased, and when he impelled again, they wrote.

To the confirmation it is answered that all things which are contained in Sacred Scripture, even if they seem most small, are nevertheless useful. It is proved first. Because God, the special author of the Scriptures, says nothing without cause. For he refers all things to the utility of men and to his own glory, according to that of Isai. 48: I am the Lord thy God that teach thee profitable things, and to Rom. 15: What things soever were written were written for our learning, and 2 Tim. 3: All scripture inspired of God is profitable for teaching, etc. But to advert in particular what utility each thing narrated in some history has is not the business of the present undertaking. But in general we say that very many things are interposed for the truth of the history and for ornament. Just as also in the Gospel parables not all things which are interposed signify something parabolically, but those which do signify are attached for their sake. As Chrysostom says on Matth., ch. 20, explaining the parable of the father of a family who goes out early in the morning to hire laborers. And St. Augustine, lib. 16 of the City of God, ch. 2, says: Not all things which are narrated as done are to be thought to signify something also, but they are woven in on account of those which do signify something. And he brings an example: just as the earth is ploughed by the ploughshare alone, but that this may be done the other members of the plough are also necessary. Likewise the strings alone produce the sound on the cithara, and yet the strings are not alone on the cithara or the lyre. See Pagninus in the prologue of his Isagoge. Hence let the preachers of the Word of God advert that, although it is pious to seek mystical senses in the individual circumstances of the Sacred Letters — which St. Gregory does excellently and with great fruit in his Morals, interpreting the history of Job tropologically — nevertheless they ought to draw and set forth mystical senses of this sort from the Sacred Letters congruously and fitly, modestly and gravely. But that some things are narrated in the argument as lowly and unworthy of God — those who say so do not understand the Scriptures, nor the power of God. For the dog that followed Tobias on his journey signifies the preachers who follow the footsteps of Christ. See there the ordinary and interlinear gloss. Then, it is no small consolation to us, when we see the Apostle, who could contend in charity with the Seraphim, needing a little cloak on earth, and commanding that it be brought to him. Moreover that the Apostle recounted the charity which St. Luke had toward him is not out of place. But that he was solicitous for the salvation of Timothy, who does not see that he gave us an example, that we be merciful toward our neighbors, especially the ministers of God. On which place you have a singular whole homily of St. Chrysostom, which is the first of those which bear the title to the people of Antioch, which are had at the beginning of volume 5. Where Chrysostom also teaches with how great learning Sacred Scripture is full even in the least things.

To the second argument we have already said in the first conclusion how necessary the assistance of the Holy Spirit was even for infallibly narrating the things which the sacred writers themselves saw and heard.

To the confirmation it is answered that the Holy Spirit sometimes assumed as ministers of the Gospel those who had conversed with Christ, that they might be witnesses of the mysteries of Christ in all ways, so that his Gospel might be judged credible by men even in a human manner. Whence also Peter, as is related in ch. 1 of the Acts, says: Wherefore of these men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection. It is necessary, he says, not because a chief testimony had to be rendered for this reason, that the Apostles had conversed with Christ, but that their testimony might also avail and be firm among men in a human manner. Yet there was another testimony more certain and firm in their heart, by whose power they both preached and wrote, and to which testimony we must attend more. For so Peter teaches in the 2nd canonical epistle, ch. 1, when he says: For we have heard this voice brought from heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount; and we have the more firm prophetical word, whereunto you do well to attend. And after a few words: For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time, but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Spirit. To the aforesaid end therefore Luke could say: Even as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word. Yet Luke wrote certain things which the Apostles did not see, such as the angelic annunciation, and the virginal birth in so lowly a place, and the angels singing, glory in the highest, and many other things which pertain to the infancy of Christ, which he could not learn except from the Holy Spirit and perhaps from the mother of God herself narrating. But whether Luke or Mark wrote things narrated by others, nevertheless the Holy Spirit impelled them to write the things narrated, and the same Spirit assisted them that they might not forget in narrating those things: nay, as seems more probable and safer, he taught them those narrated things by a higher light, and dictated to them the individual words with which they were to be written.

To the third argument it is answered that, since God disposes all things sweetly, he so illuminated the mind of each sacred writer, and dictated to him the words which most became their state and condition. Just as a musician by the breath of his mouth sounds one way on the pipe, another way on the trumpet, and on other instruments. So also God of old spoke in the Prophets in many ways and in many manners. And it is said in Isai. 11: God is assimilated into the hands of the Prophets. Because each Prophet used such similitudes as were at hand for him, and as it were in his hand, according to his own condition.

To the fourth the consequence is denied. Because although the Evangelists and Prophets spoke by the same Spirit, it pertained to the gravity of God speaking that they not always repeat the same thing in exactly the same words. Nay, from this very thing it is gathered that the sacred writers did not speak by their own spirit. Because they would not have dared to change a single word.

Secondly it is answered that those testimonies which the Evangelists cite from the Old Testament are so had in the edition of the Seventy interpreters, which edition the Apostles and Evangelists almost always used not without a mystery. But what satisfies me more is this, that the Author of the Scriptures himself, to whom the sense of the Scriptures is most known, uttered the same things in different words. Which we find to be done everywhere through the four Evangelists with so great a difference of words that sometimes the works of the holy Fathers were necessary for understanding their harmony.

To the fifth it is answered that Paul called the Lord's in that place either a precept or a counsel, what Christ the Lord by his own mouth either commanded in the Gospel or counselled. But Paul esteemed his own counsel to be the counsel of the Holy Spirit, when he said: But I think that I have the spirit of God.

To the confirmation master Cano answers, lib. 2 de locis, ch. 8, to the second argument, distinguishing: the things which the sacred authors wrote are of two kinds. Some which they knew by supernatural revelation alone, and these Basil says to be from the Holy Spirit: but others they held by natural knowledge, namely which they had either seen with their eyes or, so to speak, handled with their hands, and these, in order to be written, did not need supernatural light and express revelation, but only the presence of the Holy Spirit, that they be written without any error; and these are what Basil says that Paul and the Prophets speak of their own. But Origen did not persist in that opinion. Ambrose, however, on the first epistle to the Cor., ch. 7, agrees with our explanation in ch. 35 of his commentaries.

It is answered secondly that it seems to me more probable that also those very things which the sacred writers had seen and handled, being illuminated again by a higher light by the Holy Spirit, they understood, and received from him the words with which they were to write. Therefore I understand St. Basil otherwise. For he intended to confirm from the Sacred Letters that the Holy Spirit is God, and this he proves. Because where the Holy Spirit is introduced in the sacred letters as speaking in his own person, his speech is never set in opposition, according to the form of the words, to the speech of God, as if he were not God. But when the Prophets and the sacred writers speak of themselves, and as it were in their own person — even though this very thing which they speak, they speak with the Spirit of God helping — nevertheless the things which they say cannot be verified as though God himself spoke those very things of himself. And to this point he brought the saying of Jeremiah, ch. 12: Thou indeed, O Lord, art just, if I plead with thee, but yet I will speak to thee what is just. Why doth the way of the wicked prosper? etc. Which words, although the Prophet speaks with God expressly commanding and illuminating, nevertheless cannot be said in the person of God or of the Holy Spirit. But sometimes they so speak as if God himself were introduced speaking in his own person. But if you have read Basil attentively in the aforesaid place, perhaps this solution of ours will not displease you.

But neither does the former one displease me. To the last argument some answer that the authority of the Church is so great that it has even changed certain things of the Sacred Scriptures. As, for example, they bring forward that of Acts 15, where the Apostles ordained that the Gentiles converted to the Gospel abstain from things strangled and from blood, and similarly that baptism be conferred in the name of Christ, and that Christ conferred the Eucharist after supper, but the Church only on the fasting; Christ also conferred the Eucharist under both kinds, but the Church to the laity under one only. But a response of this sort is slippery and gives occasion to error.

It is answered therefore better and more safely that the precepts which are had in Scripture are some of them temporal, which are conveniently commanded according to the circumstances of place and time; and such was the decree of the Apostles concerning abstinence and things strangled. Because eating of this sort was a horror to the Jews, with whom the Gentiles had to converse. But when a cause of this sort ceased, the Church, knowing and prudent, could dissemble or abolish an observance of this sort. But there are other precepts, either natural or also supernatural, which do not regard the circumstances of time or place, so that they be obligatory and valid, but carry with them a necessity and an end of the matter; such as is that of Matth. 28: Baptize all nations, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and that of Jn. 3: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, etc. And these can in no way be changed by the authority of the Church. Or let us say otherwise: that some precepts the Apostles established prudently as ordinary prelates of the Church according to the circumstance of the times. But others, already instituted by Christ, they published. Precepts of the former kind can be changed by the same ordinary and Apostolic authority which remains in the Church. But precepts of the second kind the Church neither changes nor can change. And accordingly we say that it is not fitting for a bigamist to become a bishop — a precept of the former kind. But it is dispensable for a legitimate cause. Let what has been said so far on this doubt suffice. To another, which is no less difficult, let us come on with the Lord's help.

Dubium 4

IT IS DOUBTED fourthly, whether Sacred Scripture (which we have said to have been written by the sacred writers with the Holy Spirit impelling and inspiring and dictating the individual words) is found in the Catholic Church, and where this Scripture is? This question is most grave, and in its decision I desire to be taught rather than to teach.

It is argued therefore for the negative side. The codices themselves which the sacred writers wrote out with their own hands with the Holy Spirit dictating are not in the Catholic Church; therefore Sacred Scripture is not in it. The antecedent is manifest. The consequence is proved from the definition of Sacred Scripture. And it is confirmed. Because in the Church not only are those codices not had, but neither are others authentically transcribed word for word from them, and written in the same idiom; therefore Sacred Scripture is not in the Church. Secondly.

The editions which are had in the Church, and are called the sacred Bibles, are interpretations of Sacred Scripture translated into another language; therefore they are not Sacred Scripture. The antecedent is admitted by all. The consequence is proved. Because translations of this kind into another language were not written with the Holy Spirit dictating; therefore they are not Sacred Scripture. The consequence is clear from the definition of Sacred Scripture. And the antecedent is proved. Because the interpreters did not have the prophetic spirit nor the assistance of the Holy Spirit, so that they could not err in translating; therefore their interpretation is not infallible. And it is confirmed. Because there are many and various interpretations of the Sacred Letters, and which do not accord with one another; therefore they cannot be certain and firm testimonies of Sacred Scripture. Thirdly.

Granted that there is some legitimate interpretation in the Catholic Church, especially the Latin one, nevertheless an interpretation of this kind cannot anywhere be pointed to as faithfully written; therefore neither in this way is there in the Church Sacred Scripture whence the theologian can deduce a certain argument. The consequence is manifest, and the antecedent is proved. For if there is a certain exemplar of this kind, give me it in the singular, either written by hand or committed to the press; but you will produce none such in which it is not permitted me to assert that by the ignorance or negligence of the writer or printer, or certainly by malice, there has been an error in some places or in many; therefore you will point me to no Scripture anywhere whence I may take a certain argument. But you say that it is of no consequence that something has been erred through the fault of the writer.

On the contrary it is argued. Because it is of no consequence either that the error be from the interpreter or from the writer, unless you give me some uncorrupted exemplar, to whose norm those things which are corrupted in others may be corrected; but you do not show such an exemplar, nor does the Church teach where it is; we shall not, therefore, be certain which error is the interpreter's and which truly the writer's.

But perhaps you say that Sacred Scripture is also incorrupt in the heart of the Church.

Then I argue fourthly. The Catholic Church now consists of individual men: but there is no one who has in his heart and mind how Sacred Scripture is to be read in each place; therefore there cannot be a rule of this kind in the heart of the Church.

But if you say that it is not in individuals but in the whole Church collectively, this seems less intelligible. Since the theologian cannot consult the whole Church, nay neither all the prelates of the Church, and when he could consult them, the power of the Holy Spirit does not assist them so that they cannot err, except in a Council confirmed by the authority of the Pontiff, and then, the Pontiff being dead, Sacred Scripture would not remain infallible in the heart of the Church. And it is confirmed. For it is the same to say that Sacred Scripture is in the heart of the Church, as to say that it is in the Holy Spirit assisting the Church. For you will not find another human heart in which this divine wisdom is infallibly contained; therefore Sacred Scripture is not written infallibly in material words in the Church, whence the theologian may have it at hand to argue and to accuse those who contradict. But it will be necessary everywhere to approach the Council and the Supreme Pontiff, so that it be prescribed how it is to be read in each place, which seems impossible, and to that extent the first locus of arguing in theology, which is from Sacred Scripture, wholly perishes.

But if you say that the Church has already provided for this difficulty, when in the ecumenical Council of Trent, confirmed by the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, in session 4, it not only defined which books are canonical, but also decreed that out of all the Latin editions of the sacred Books which are in circulation, the old and Vulgate edition, which by the use of so many centuries has been approved in the Church itself in public readings, disputations, preachings, and expositions, is to be held as authentic, and that no one dare or presume to reject it under any pretext.

Then it is argued fifthly. From the aforesaid definition of the Council some great inconveniences follow. First, that before the aforesaid definition there was not for theologians a certain argument from the authority of Sacred Scripture: since they did not have an authentic edition whence to take the sacred words. Then it follows that the Church of the Greeks does not have Sacred Scripture in an authentic edition, from whose testimony we may argue certainly and infallibly. Since the Synod of Trent approved the Latin edition alone as authentic. And finally it follows that even now after the definition of the Council there is great confusion and dissension among Catholics. For because it has not been determined where and in which exemplar this Vulgate edition is incorrupt, it is lawful for anyone to call "Vulgate" that reading which pleases him more. For some say that the edition of the Seventy interpreters is also Vulgate. Since from it not only very many of the Holy Fathers, but even the Apostles themselves, cite the testimonies of the Old Testament. The Vulgate edition of the Psalms too is had from the Seventy interpreters, translated from Greek into Latin and sung in the Church. We remain, therefore, after the definition of the Council in the same confusion as before. And it is confirmed. Because many men, theologians and Catholics, even after the determination of the Council, correct the Latin Vulgate edition. Some, because they judge that there has been an error through the fault of the writers, as the most learned master Cano, lib. 2. de locis cap. 18, on the fifth argument, says that in Mark, where it is said: «Now it was the third hour, and they crucified him», there has been an error through the fault of the copyists, or of the writer, and that it should be said: «Now it was the sixth hour». And others say that in psal. 41, where it is said in the Church: «My soul has thirsted after God, the living fountain», there has been an error through the fault of the writer, and that it should be read: «after God, the strong living [fountain]». And they confirm this from the Hebrew text, where in place of the word "fountain" is said "Le El", that is, "after the strong". And similarly in the Greek is had, τὸμ ἴσχυρὸν, that is, "strong". Of which see very many examples in Cano, above, cap. 15.

But others (which seems more grave) do not hesitate to charge certain errors upon the Latin interpreter of the Vulgate edition. To adduce very many examples of this would not be difficult for me. But let one suffice. For in Psal. 109 some say that where we read: «With thee is the principality in the day of thy strength, in the splendors of the saints: from the womb before the day star I begot thee», it is to be read much otherwise than is had in the interpretation of the Seventy, which in this part is the Vulgate edition. Since (they say) it should be read: «Thy people shall be willing leaders in the day of thy strength». And other things which follow in the same place they change, because, they say, in this place the Seventy interpreters erred, and one must have recourse to the Hebrew truth as to the purest fountain. Therefore we have nothing certain after the determination of the sacred Council, if it is still permitted anyone with impunity to say such things in his readings, in his commentaries. These are the arguments which offer themselves to me for opening the difficulty of this most grave question

IN the decision of this question, I for my part would surely be wise no more than it is fitting to be wise, and would that I might so be wise unto sobriety, as to bring forth some elucidation proportioned to the difficulty of the matter, which could conduce to the utility of theologians and the edification of the Church.

Before all things, that must be presupposed by us: how it pertained to divine providence that there be among men some sacred and divine Scripture, to which as to a sacred anchor they might flee in correcting morals and in directing actions to happiness. Otherwise, since the life of man is obscured by darkness and errors, few or none could attain the full cognition of the natural law. For the various dogmas of the philosophers and mutually contrary could not show the true and certain way of virtue. But that the beginning of this Sacred Scripture took its rise from Moses, who wrote the Pentateuch, is most certainly believed by all Catholics. For before that time, the things which were necessary for the end of eternal life were preserved in the people of God by the tradition of the faithful. But from others, on account of their sins and the worship of idols, God permitting, they were most justly hidden. But when the time came in which God had determined to choose a people indeed renowned, but peculiarly His own, in which the worship of God would flourish with many and great ceremonies and sacrifices in solemn rite, it was necessary that the people be kept in the unity of religion, and that all things which were to be believed and observed be written by divine authority. And for that reason that state was called the state of the Written Law. Thus the first author, nay the first writer of the Sacred Letters, was God Himself, who handed to Moses ascending the mountain two tablets of stone, both written by the finger of God, which contained the decalogue of the natural law also, so that even in that matter it might be proved how necessary sacred doctrine was, and divine authority, even for those things which could be investigated by men by natural reason. Those tablets Moses, stirred by zeal for the divine honor, broke; but again in others similar, which the kind God had Himself hewn for him, He deigned again to write the same things with His own finger: with His own finger, I say, because we believe that, by divine command, through the ministry of angels, they were carved and handed to Moses, according to that word of the Apostle to the Galatians, 3 cap.: Given «through angels in the hand of a mediator». But the rest which pertained to faith in one God and the worship due to Him, He committed to Moses himself to write, not without the impulse, illumination, and infallible assistance of the Holy Spirit. Then in the same way we believe by faith, and hold by the tradition of the ancients, that the rest of the writings of the Old Testament were committed to sacred letters. And finally in the law of Grace certain new sacred writings were still necessary, which should be confirmed by the testimony of the ancients, and should faithfully contain the life, miracles, and doctrine of the Savior, and the examples of the virtues. And these we call the New Testament. Because in them the good pleasure of the new and eternal testament of God is more expressly contained.

It is to be noted secondly, in what language and idiom each Testament was first written: for indeed almost all the books of the Old Testament were written in Hebrew. I said "almost all". Because Jerome in the prologue to Daniel says that Daniel and Ezra were written in Hebrew letters indeed, but in Chaldaic speech. And what he says of Daniel is to be understood not of the whole of Daniel, but from those words in chapter 2: «And the Chaldeans answered the king in Syriac, O king, live for ever». He says the same of Tobias in the prologue to the same.

There are besides certain books which are found, or were written, in the Greek language, such as Baruch, Maccabees, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus: but that Ecclesiasticus was formerly written in Hebrew is clear from its prologue.

The Old Testament was afterwards translated from the Hebrew language into Greek by many. The first and by far the most celebrated translation was that of the Seventy interpreters. See this history in Aristeas, in the book On the Seventy Interpreters, and Iosep., lib. 12. antiq. cap. 2, and Philo the Jew, lib. 2. de vita Mosis.

We now follow the more received sentence of the holy Fathers, that not only the books of the law of Moses, but also the other books were translated by the Seventy. Which Leo Castrensis learnedly confirms in the preface of his commentary on Isaiah the Prophet, cap. 15 and 26. But Ecclesiasticus, there is no doubt, was not translated by the Seventy, but rather by the grandson of Jesus son of Sirach, who was its author, as is clear at the beginning of that book.

The books of Maccabees too were not translated by the Seventy. For they contain a history which happened after their age, since indeed the Seventy published that translation in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, who was the second of that name, more than 250 years before the birth of the Lord, and in the 17th year of Ptolemy, as Epiphan. is the authority, in the book On Numbers and Weights near the beginning. But the books of Maccabees begin from Antiochus the Illustrious, who was 120 years and more after Ptolemy Philadelphus, and in the time of Ptolemy Philometor, who was the sixth of the Ptolemies, as Eusebius is the authority in the Chronicles, as is clear from 1. libro Machabaeo. cap. 1.

The second translation was that of Aquila, who, having denied Christianity, became a Jew. And he published this translation in the 12th year of the empire of Aelius Hadrian, as Epiphanius says above, who began to reign in the year of the Lord 120, as Eusebius says above.

The third was that of Symmachus the Samaritan, who afterwards also became a Jew.

The fourth was that of Theodotion of Ephesus.

Concerning the time of the third and fourth translation, Epiphanius in the cited place seems to contradict himself. For he says the third is that of Symmachus, in the time of the Emperor Severus, but that of Theodotion in the time of the Emperor Commodus II. And yet when he enumerates a little later the series of the Roman Emperors, he mentions Commodus II first and afterwards Severus. And in truth they are to be numbered thus. Because Commodus reigned in the year of the Lord 183, Severus in 195, as is clear from Eusebius in the Chronicles.

Wherefore Driedo, lib. 2. de Eccles. dogmati. cap. 2, sets down a threefold translation, and the fourth that of Symmachus, and some others; but they are enumerated as we have said, not only by Epiphanius, but also by Euthymius in the prologue to the Psalms, who wholly follows Epiphanius, and by Eusebius of Caesarea, lib. 5. historiae, cap. 27, and by Hierony. in the prologue to the Chronicles of Eusebius; and they are placed in the same order by Origen.

Afterwards, however, a fifth translation was found by Origen, hidden in jars at Jericho; and a sixth was found by the same man at Nicopolis, which is a city on the Actiac shore. Thus Eusebius above. And since he was ignorant of the authors of these translations, he called them the fifth and sixth edition. Concerning these translations see Epiphanius, Euthymius, Eusebius, and Dried. above, and Sixtus, lib. 8. Bibli. haeres. 13. Afterwards. Origen, who began to flourish in the time of the Emperor Decius, as Epiphanius says, who reigned in the year of the Lord 254, as Eusebius says in the Chronicles, collated these translations among themselves, and made the tetrapla and octopla, that is, the fourfold, sixfold, and eightfold. For he first collated the three translations of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion with the translation of the Seventy, distinguishing them into four columns: and therefore he called it tetrapla. Afterwards he added in two columns the Hebrew words: and therefore he called it hexapla. But afterwards in the Psalms and certain others he added the fifth and sixth translation, which he noted in two other columns, and called it octapla. But the columns were arranged in this order. In the first column were the Hebrew words written in Hebrew letters. In the second, however, were the same words written in Greek letters, for the sake of those who did not know Hebrew. In the third, those of Aquila. In the fourth, those of Symmachus. In the fifth, those of the Seventy, so that, since that one was the best of all, it might refute the others placed on either side, as Epiphanius says. In the sixth he placed the translation of Theodotion. In the seventh the fifth edition. In the eighth the sixth. In these Origen used asterisks and obeli. For if there was something in the Hebrew which was not in the Seventy, he added it from the translation of others, and there fixed an asterisk, that is, a small star, to signify that that word was fixed from the Hebrew context like stars in the sky, but was hidden by the Seventy like stars by clouds, as Epiphanius says. But if there was anything in the Seventy which was not in the Hebrew nor in the others, he added an obelus or obelisk, that is, a little rod lying in the manner of a spit, so that it might cut the throat of those things which had been added.

Besides these there was a seventh translation, of which Origen made some use, and, as Jerome writes in the epistle to Sunias and Fretela, this translation was called by Origen, and by Eusebius of Caesarea, and by other Greeks, the Common or Vulgate, and by some afterwards it was called the Lucianic. I think it was called after Lucian the martyr for this reason, that he, as Simon Metaphrastes in his life, and Suidas, are authorities, corrected the sacred books from the Hebrew. Which Euthymius also reports in the prologue to the Psalms. This Lucian suffered in the year of the Lord 280 under the Emperor Maximian, as Suidas says, and D. Hiero. in the book On Ecclesiastical Writers, in his life. See Sixtus of Siena, book 4 of the Library, under the word "Lucian". This same translation was that of the Seventy, as Origen says above. But it differed from that which was in the hexapla, in that this one was already depraved, whereas that which was in the hexapla was most correct, and was received by all the Churches. In which place note that the Vulgate edition is called by Hierony. that seventh one, and he is also wont to call "Vulgate" this translation of the Seventy turned into Latin, as is clear from his commentaries on Isai. cap. 66, at the beginning. And this much concerning the Greek translations.

It is to be noted thirdly, that in the time of St. Jerome and Augustine there were innumerable Latin translations, as Augustine says, 2. de doctri. Christiana cap. 11, in this manner: those who translated the Scriptures from the Hebrew language into the Greek language can be numbered, but the Latin interpreters in no way. For as the Greek codex came into anyone's hands in the first times of the faith, and he seemed to himself to have some little facility in either language, he immediately interpreted. But all those translations were from the Greek of the Seventy, and none from the Hebrew, until Jerome, at the will of B. Damasus the Pontiff, published a new translation from the Hebrew, which St. Augustine teaches, 4. de doctrina Christiana capite. 7, and is understood from his episto. 8. ad Hieronym. And thus there is no doubt that our Vulgate translation of the Old Testament is Jerome's, although it has certain things changed. The reason is: because up to Jerome there was no Latin translation from the Hebrew, nor in his time nor afterwards was there another. And hence it is that Augustine and all the Greeks and Latins who were before Augustine, in citing the testimonies of Sacred Scripture, sometimes differ from our translation, because ours is from the Hebrew, but that which they followed was from the Greek. This too is the cause that, whereas we have the other books of Scripture translated from the Hebrew, we have only the Psalter translated from the Greek. Because the translation of the 70 was sung in all the Churches, and therefore it could not easily be changed. Moreover the Psalter which we now have, even if it is from the Greek, differs somewhat from the Psalter of Augustine and of the other Fathers. Because ours is translated from the Greek, or at least corrected by Jerome. And this is the cause why in the ecclesiastical offices many words of the psalms are found different from ours.

But the New Testament Jerome did not translate from the Greek, but only corrected, as he himself says in the book de script. Eccles., at the end, where he says: «I have rendered the New Testament to the Greek truth; the Old I have translated according to the Hebrew». Which is also plainly gathered from his epistle or prologue to the four Gospels addressed to Damasus. Note however that in each Testament there are not a few places otherwise than as they were corrected by him, whether Jerome himself, having changed his opinion for the better and having obtained truer exemplars, corrected them, or the Church did this, whose proper office it is to judge concerning the true sense of Sacred Scripture. And indeed master Cano, libr. 2. de locis cap. 14, says: that Jerome reprehended certain things translated by others, which nevertheless afterwards he judged to have been translated rightly. As in the Hebrew questions on Genesis he reprehends the 70 because for "friend" they translated "opinion", and nevertheless he himself translates in the same way, Genes. 38: "He, and Hiras, the opinion of the flock." And in the first book against Jovinian he says that this reading, «a woman a virgin and married», «is not of apostolic truth», and nevertheless he confesses that he himself once expounded it so. And that it did not happen by chance that those places so remained can be perceived from the commentaries of Hieron. on Isai. cap. 29, where, when he had first translated: «And the land of Judah shall be to Egypt for a festivity», he says that he translated badly, and that it should have been said, «for fear or for dread». Which correction the Church received. And a little earlier he corrects himself, that he badly translated «bending down and bridling», and that it should have been said, "wanton". Which correction the Church does not yet read.

Besides these translations there exists another translation from the Hebrew into Chaldaic, which is called the Chaldaic Paraphrase, because it is more diffuse and free. Its authors are: on the Pentateuch of Moses, Onkelos; on the Prophets, the former and the latter, Jonathan; on Job and the Psalms and Proverbs, and on the other books which are called hagiographa, Rabbi Joseph. And this translation was published a little before the birth of Christ, and among the Hebrews it has the greatest authority, and is called by them Targum. Lastly, in the memory of our fathers there appeared many translations from the Hebrew into Latin, some by heretics, Luther namely, Munster, Castellio; some by Catholics, such as Pagnino, Vatablus, and others.

All these things aforesaid, although they are set forth by me in this place more diffusely than the scholastics are wont to treat of them, are nevertheless, in proportion to the dignity of the matter, said far too briefly. But my intention is that my scholastics be not wholly ignorant of those things which are most necessary for the use of Sacred Scripture in scholastic disputation. Moreover, for resolving the present disputation, my mind tends to this, that we contemplate how great was the solicitude of divine providence, that the books of the Sacred Scriptures could not lie hidden. Whence it came about that not only by the pious diligence of the faithful doctors, but partly also by the work of the unbelieving Jews, and moreover by the contradiction of those attacking it, Sacred Scripture was turned about in the mouth of all, and at last, with its ship intact, happily escaped from so many tempests.

THESE things being thus established, that we may proceed in our manner for the decision of the truth, under the censure of the holy mother the Roman Church, which alone is Catholic and Apostolic, I bring forth the following conclusions.

First conclusion. The canonical books which the Apostles and the sacred Writers traced with their own hands are not had in the Church of Christ. This conclusion is to such a degree manifest that it needs no proof, for nowhere will their deposit be pointed out. Hence it follows.

Second conclusion. It was not necessary that material books of this kind (so to speak) remain in the deposit of the Church of Christ. This conclusion is proved. Because Christ the Lord sufficiently provided for the Church, His beloved spouse; therefore if it had been necessary that those things which were once written with the Holy Spirit dictating remain in those same material parchments, surely Christ the Lord would have provided this; it was not, therefore, necessary for the governance and authority of the Church that writings of this kind remain in the same material instruments.

Third conclusion. Even if books of this kind had remained in the deposit of the Church, they would bring us no more advantage than the editions and translations of the Sacred Letters themselves, attested by the use of the doctors of the Church and by the authority of the Church herself, confer. This conclusion is most especially proved, because even the material codices themselves would have no authority among us unless the testimony of the Church acceded, testifying that they are the same books, and that they are contained there unblemished and incorrupt. But now the same Church by its testimony approves the editions and translations of Sacred Scripture; therefore we have no less utility than if those same material books had remained. See Augustine, lib. 28. contra Faustum throughout, where he teaches that the Sacred Scriptures have need of the authority of the Church in order to be believed. It is proved secondly. Because the doctors of the Church could not all approach to read those books, but it was necessary that other codices, transcribed from them, either in the same idiom or in another, be at hand, so that from them they might take arguments for proving matters of faith. But since books of this kind, transcribed, could by the diligence of interpreters and copyists be called into doubt as to whether they had been rightly translated and were incorrupt, we would surely suffer the same difficulties as we now suffer in the reading of the translations and editions of the Sacred Letters. Therefore, since in all difficulties of this kind one must have recourse to the authority and testimony of the Church as to a sacred anchor, we have no less utility than if those material sacred and original books were preserved in the deposit of the Church.

But perhaps someone objects that if the original books were had in the Church, there would not be so great a variety of opinions among Catholic doctors concerning the various readings in the editions of the Sacred Letters. It is answered that for humble and pious doctors this is not a great difficulty, since in all things necessary, whether for faith or for the edification of the Church, they follow the footsteps of the Holy Fathers and venerate the authority of the Church. Indeed, if you consider attentively, Catholic doctors are piously exercised in overcoming difficulties of this kind, although for the proud certain things are an occasion of ruin. Nor is it strange, since Christ Himself was set for the ruin and resurrection of many, and for a sign which shall be contradicted. In this way, therefore, Christ willed that the Sacred Scriptures, which bear testimony concerning Him, should suffer a similar contradiction and be shaken this way and that by the various tempests and winds of human judgments, but not be imperiled, just as neither will the bark of Christ itself, in which the Vicar of Christ and the successor of Peter presides, ever be imperiled, although it is meanwhile disturbed by various tempests. Gather therefore from what has been said, Catholic theologian, that divine providence, which once long ago preserved the Sacred Scriptures of the prophets through so many varieties of ages and the captivities of the Israelite people, even translated by the hands of enemies, and handed them to the new Church, that same divine providence, I say, preserves the writings of both the Old and the New Testament, by certain human means and diligences, so far as it seems good, for the utility of His Church, and will preserve them even to the day of judgment. I remember that St. Augustine, lib. 18. de civit. Dei. cap. 38, asserts that he considers that the Prophets once wrote certain things as men, with historical diligence, but others as Prophets, by divine inspiration. And that these were so distinguished that the former were judged to be attributed as it were to themselves, the latter as it were to God speaking through them. Thus he. Behold, therefore, a certain testimony of divine providence. Because those writings which came from the Prophets by the prophetic spirit remained, although certain of them were for a time hidden. But those which were written by the same men by the human spirit either perished or were rejected from the catalogue of the canonical Books by the authority of the Church.

Fourth conclusion. Speaking absolutely and simply, we must necessarily assert that Sacred Scripture is in the Church of Christ. It is proved first from that word of Paul, 2. ad Timot. 3: «All scripture inspired of God is profitable» etc. Where Paul praises Timothy because from infancy he knew the Sacred Letters, which could instruct him unto salvation; and yet it is certain that Timothy did not read the original codices of the Prophets. Likewise it is proved from this, that Christ said to the Pharisees and Scribes, Ioan. 5: «Search the scriptures, for they are they which bear testimony of me». Often too Christ the Lord cited the testimonies of the Sacred Scriptures. Which the Apostles also often did, and yet it is certain that at that time the primitive originals of the Scriptures were not had. It suffices, therefore, that authentic copies be had, for us to assert, speaking simply and absolutely, that Sacred Scripture is in the Church. And it is confirmed by reason. For, simply speaking, we assert that we have the writings of Virgil, of Cicero, and of the Holy Fathers; therefore there is no need, in order that we may confess that we have Sacred Scripture, that the originals be preserved in the primitive Church. I have said this because there were not wanting in our times those who dared simply to deny that we have the Gospel of John, but only the instrument in which the Gospel is as in a transcript; not attending to the fact that translations of the Sacred Letters of this kind are attested by the use and tradition of the Catholic Church. Whence let it be so.

Fifth conclusion. Sacred Scripture is principally in the heart of the Church, but secondarily in the books and editions. It is proved first. Because, as Hiero. says, ad Gala. 1, on those words: «I make known to you, brethren, the Gospel», let us not think that the Gospel is in the words of the Scriptures but in the sense, not in the surface but in the marrow, not in the leaves of the words but in the root of the reason. Then it is proved. Because every question which arises concerning the variety of translations or editions is deferred to the authority of the Church to be defined; therefore Sacred Scripture ought to be in the heart of the Church; otherwise there would not be for us a certain rule for discerning which is Sacred Scripture. And it is confirmed. Because the Church, according to the Catholic faith, has the authority of defining which books are canonical; but authority of this kind would be in vain unless Sacred Scripture be in the heart of the Church, so that it can discern in which instruments it is rightly translated and contained: therefore. But the second part of the conclusion is manifest. First indeed because if Sacred Scripture were not handed down to us in books and editions, it would have been written in vain long ago: since there would not be where it might be read by us. But that it is secondarily contained in the books and editions themselves is clear from what has been said. Because the editions and books are proposed and approved by the authority of the Church.

But now let us come to the point of this difficulty: what is to be said of the Latin Vulgate edition, which by the authority of the Church in the ecumenical Synod of Trent, session 4, is handed down to us as authentic and to be rejected under no pretext, in these words: «The Holy Synod decrees and declares that this same old and Vulgate edition, which by the long use of so many centuries has been approved in the Church itself in public readings, disputations, preachings, and expositions, be held as authentic, and that no one dare or presume to reject it under any pretext». After this definition of the sacred Council so express, there are not wanting those who in the Catholic Church, under various pretexts, wish to correct this Vulgate edition in very many places. But whether they dare and presume this, I leave to the judgment of the Church. I indeed in the present treatise shall report only the various opinions of Catholics, which after that sacred definition are still publicly reported and commonly taught in the Church.

The first opinion is that of those who, disposed with a pious and humble mind, understand the definition of the sacred Council thus.

In the first place they say that the Latin Vulgate edition has in no place at all been depraved by the ignorance or fault of the interpreter, but that it has been in all things, even the least, altogether rightly interpreted

They say secondly that by the name of the Vulgate edition there is to be understood in our times that which from the time of St. Jerome was in use among the holy Latin Fathers. From which it is inferred that the reading of the Latin Vulgate edition can be various in very many places, according to the variety of the reading of the Holy Fathers.

They say thirdly that the books themselves in which the Vulgate edition is contained are in certain places corrupted by the fault of the copyists, or by the malice of certain men. Which error, however, it is in no way permitted to charge upon the interpreter.

The first dictum of this opinion they confirm from the very form of the definition of the Council, first in this, that it is said, "let no one dare or presume to reject it under any pretext"; but if anyone asserts that there has been an error through the fault of the interpreter in some place, he now rejects the Vulgate edition under some pretext, and consequently dares and presumes. They prove it secondly. For the sacred Council, judging that very great utility could accrue to the Church of God if, out of all the Latin editions of the sacred Books which are in circulation, it were made known which one was to be held as authentic, ordained and declared the aforesaid definition, "that this same old and Vulgate edition, etc. " Behold their argument: if the Vulgate edition has erred in certain places, the Council seems to have ordained and declared in vain that it is to be held as authentic.

But if someone answers that it is enough for the intention of the Council that in the graver matters pertaining to faith and morals the Vulgate edition be held as authentic in such a way that it is in no way permitted to reject it: against this solution they thus reply. First, the holy Synod speaks absolutely, when nevertheless it could easily have added a limitation of this kind. Then, in public disputations the doctors dispute among themselves not only concerning matters pertaining to faith and morals; therefore even where there has not been a disputation concerning faith and morals, the Vulgate edition is to be held as authentic. Moreover, what matter is one pertaining to faith and morals in the Sacred Letters will not be for anyone at all to judge: but if this door is once opened, an audacious man can easily say that very many things have been erred by the interpreter, since he will judge that very many things do not pertain to faith, and thus he will change at will the narration of the histories and their circumstances which are had in the Scriptures, under this pretext, that they do not pertain to faith and morals. Furthermore, there seems to be nothing in Sacred Scripture which does not pertain to faith; therefore if the interpreter of the Vulgate edition has erred in some place, this error must be judged to have happened concerning a matter pertaining to faith.

They argue thirdly, principally. Because it is the study of heretics to hand over to the peoples their own editions of the Sacred Letters, under this pretext, that the Latin Vulgate edition swarms with very many errors through the ignorance of interpreters. But if we Catholics once confess that there are certain errors in it, the unlearned crowd will easily consent to the dogma of the heretics, whom it judges to be most skilled in the knowledge of languages, and consequently will seek the unblemished truth of the Sacred Letters in their translations.

Fourthly they argue thus. It has been found by experience that certain places which by some Catholics are brought forward as erred through the ignorance of the interpreter are easily reconciled by other Catholics and shown to agree with the Hebrew or Greek reading; therefore if other places are brought forward which Catholic doctors have not yet known how to reconcile with the Hebrew and Greek exemplars by study and diligence, the Vulgate edition is not for that reason immediately to be condemned in such places: but it will be safer not to precipitate judgment, and to confess one's own ignorance, yet to venerate the Vulgate edition.

Fifthly. That the Greek exemplars in our age are in very many places vitiated even the most skilled theologians of the Greek language themselves confess; therefore from the Greek exemplars a certain argument can no longer now be made for us to condemn the Vulgate edition of error. And it is confirmed. For although the Hebrew exemplars are less corrupted than the Greek, nevertheless that they are vitiated in certain places even those most devoted to the Hebrew language do not deny; therefore no certain argument will be made from the Hebrew codices to show that the Latin Vulgate edition contains some error: although certain probable reasons can be brought forward to effect this very thing. But in a doubtful matter it is safer to favor the Vulgate edition, which the sacred Synod decreed is to be held as authentic. And it is confirmed. If anyone affirmed that the Greek and Hebrew exemplars in our age are in very many places vitiated, even in matters pertaining to faith and morals, except in those places in which they agree with the Latin Vulgate edition, this man would surely in no way be punished by the Church. But he who said the converse, that the Latin Vulgate edition is erred in all things except those in which it agrees with the Hebrew truth (as they say), or with the Greek exemplars, this man would surely be punished not only as audacious and rash, but also as suspected of heresy. Because he would make little of the decree of the sacred Synod concerning the holding of the Vulgate edition as authentic, and would seek another, firmer rule for the understanding of the Sacred Letters than the authority of the Church, which proposes to us that Sacred Scripture is contained in this Vulgate edition.

And finally it is argued in favor of this opinion. Granted that the Latin interpreter once erred in certain things, nevertheless the Vulgate edition has now by so long a use of centuries been corrected by the Holy Fathers from the time of St. Jerome, and has at length been handed down to us by the Church as corrected and authentic. The Vulgate edition has, therefore, a greater testimony than the interpreter's, namely, the testimony of the Church, which, just as in defining which books are canonical it cannot err, so neither in defining in which edition the canonical Books are authentically contained: otherwise the authority of defining which books are canonical would seem to be in vain, unless it handed them to us to be read in some authentic instrument. These are the arguments which can be brought for this first opinion.

Nevertheless there is a second opinion also of pious and Catholic theologians, which indeed easily agrees with the second and third dictum of the aforesaid opinion. It differs, however, as regards the first dictum. For this opinion asserts that the interpreter of the Latin Vulgate edition was mistaken in certain matters which pertained neither to faith nor to morals. And thus they understand the decree of the sacred Synod concerning the Vulgate edition, namely that it is to be held as authentic in matters pertaining to faith and morals. But among the assertors of this opinion that difference will be found, that some bring forward more, some fewer places, in which they think they prove that the Latin interpreter erred. Which places it would be long to review at present. I shall bring forward, by way of example, one or another. In Isai. 19 we read: «And Egypt shall have no work, that it make head and tail, the bending and the bridling». And again in Isai. 9 cap. we read: «The Lord will destroy from Israel head and tail, the bending and the depraving». In which places in the Hebrew text, where in the Latin edition cap. 19 it reads "bridling", and where it reads "depraving", the same word is had, namely "agmon", which can in no way signify "bridling". Which St. Jerome himself (who had made the Latin translation of Isaiah many years before) noticed in his commentaries on Isaiah, cap. 19, and confesses that he erred in this place when he translated "bridling". For he says in this manner: «In that which we translated "bending and bridling", we can say "bent and wanton", so that we may understand the old man and the boy. But we, translating the Hebrew word "agmon" quickly as it was written, deceived by ambiguity said "bridling"». Thus Jerome. Behold, therefore, a place in the Vulgate edition erred through the negligence of the interpreter: since the interpreter himself confesses that he erred. In a similar way, therefore, there can be other places erred through a similar negligence of the interpreter. I know that some solve this argument by saying that St. Jerome erred in the commentaries when he said that he erred in interpreting. Thus says Leo Castren. in the prologue to Isai. c. 10. And it is confirmed from St. Augustine, lib. 11. contra Faustum ca. 5, where he says that in Sacred Scripture it is not permitted to say, "the author of this book did not hold the truth", but either the codex is faulty, or the interpreter erred, or you do not understand. And the same Augustine in Epist. 19 to Jerome says: To the books of the Scriptures alone, which are called canonical, I have learned to render this fear and honor, that I most firmly believe that none of their authors erred anything in writing. But if I find anything in those letters which seems contrary to the truth, I shall not doubt that either the codex is faulty, or the interpreter did not attain what was said, or that I have not understood it at all. Thus Augustine. He thought, therefore, that the interpreter of the Sacred Letters could err. Moreover St. Jerome often testifies that he corrected the edition of the Seventy interpreters, as he himself says in the Apology against Rufinus, and in the Commentaries on the 2nd and 8th chapter of Isaiah, and on the 17th of Jeremiah; and yet once in the Church the edition of the Seventy interpreters was held in great honor. Therefore it is clear that the integrity of the Sacred Letters must be sought from elsewhere than from the infallible authority of the interpreters: unless you wish to say that the Church once lacked the integrity of the Sacred Letters. Moreover they confirm it from John Driedo, De scripturis Ecclesiasticis et dogmatibus lib. 1. cap. 1, where he says that the edition of Sacred Scripture is approved by the use of the Church, and that it is not for the Church to decree that all things were so aptly translated by the interpreter that nothing could or should be desired: but that the mysteries of religion and the counsels of the divine will, in which turns the hinge of the whole Sacred Scripture, were so rendered that nothing pertaining to establishing the faith, strengthening religion, nourishing piety, and forming morals was hidden by the fraud of the interpreter or passed over by his ignorance.

There is another example in Psalm. 131, where in the Vulgate edition is had: "Blessing I will bless her widow", most learned and most diligent men say that there has been an error by the Latin interpreter on account of the corruption of the Greek exemplar. Where was had γήραμ giran, that is, "widow", when it should be read θήραμ thiran, namely, "hunting" or "food". And that this is so they prove from the Hebrew word "tcedah", which in no way at all signifies "widow". Nor can anyone answer that this error was the copyist's or the printer's of the Latin book. Because this error was once detected by St. Jerome, as is clear in the commentary on the same Psalm, and in the little book of Hebrew questions or traditions on Genesis a little before the end: which Faber Stapulensis also observes on the same verse in the Pentaplon. Iansenius too, who took part in the Council of Trent, a most learned and most pious man, observes the same in his Commentaries on the Psalms, and Genebrardus, who wrote after the Council of Trent. Very many testimonies could also be brought from the Psalms, such as that in Psal. 109: "With thee is the principality". In which place it is noted that the Greek word ἀρχή archi is equivocal: for it signifies "beginning" and "principality". But in that place the Seventy translated the Hebrew word "Nedabot" very well, because "nedabot" is the same as "principalities": but again the Latin interpreter translated the equivocal Greek word ἀρχή archi in the other signification, and said: "With thee is the principality". Which signification did not agree with the Hebrew truth. The same error once befell the interpreter, when the Latin interpreter in Psal. 16 translated: "They are satisfied with swine", etc. and so it was sung in the Church, until St. Jerome corrected it: "They are satisfied with children". Which happened on account of the equivocation of the Greek genitive, yon, which is common to "children" and "swine". Iansenius and Genebrardus judge that this same thing happened in Psalm. 33, where in the Vulgate edition: "The Angel of the Lord shall send", when nevertheless it should be said, "The Angel of the Lord shall encamp". For the Greek word παριμβαλοι Parembali is equivocal. But nevertheless there it is taken in that signification which agrees with the Hebrew word, which placed in that place signifies "to encamp". There is also a notable place in Genes. 47, where at the end of the chapter it is said: "Israel adored the Lord, turned toward the head of the bed". The Seventy interpreters read: "Israel adored upon the top of his rod". And it is certain to us that it is better had in the Vulgate edition: "turned toward the head of the bed". But when in the Apostle to the Hebrews, 11, we read: "By faith Jacob, dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, and adored the top of his rod", we are now disturbed. Because each Vulgate Latin edition is, and we are compelled in the one place or the other to assert that the Latin interpreter did not translate rightly. For we suppose that the Apostle wrote that epistle in Hebrew. Wherefore most pious and most diligent Catholic men say that in the place in Genesis it was translated very well, but in the place in the epistle to the Hebrews there was an error by the Greek interpreter, and then by the Latin. The reason for this error could have been that the Hebrew word "Hamitah", or "Mitah", which is the same, by the same letters with the points varied signifies both "bed" and "rod", as is clear in Psal. 109, where we read: "The rod of thy strength", and it is had "Mateh", which is "rod". That this is so, Aloysius Lyppomanus excellently shows on the same place in Genesis.

Let Sixtus of Siena also be read at the end of the eighth book of the Sacred Library. Where, after he had excellently undertaken the defense of the Latin Vulgate edition, at last at the end of the book he says this: "Concerning the errors, however, which Jerome noted in the old translation, and the more recent writers have equally noted in this new edition, we frankly confess that we too [find] many errors emended by Jerome in the old translation, and similarly that in this our new edition there are found certain blemishes, solecisms, barbarisms, hyperbata, and many things translated with little aptness and expressed less in Latin, interpreted obscurely and ambiguously, and likewise certain things superadded, some omitted, some transposed, changed, and depraved by the fault of the copyists; which Sanctes Pagninus, Thomas Cajetan, Franciscus Forerius, and Jerome Oleaster, men most learned of the Dominican order, pointed out in their interpretations and explanations. Yet it does not follow from these that the Church up to this day has not had a true, sincere, entire, and faithful edition of the New Testament; because even if errors of this kind are found in it, it is certain nevertheless that neither in the old nor in the new edition has anything ever been found which was either deviating from the truth of the Christian faith, or false and lying, or contrary to the orthodox dogmas and rules, or added besides the truth, or changed against the truth, or omitted to the prejudice of the truth, or so depraved as to bring an occasion of perniciously erring, or furnished matter and fuel to heresies and depraved dogmas, or so obscurely and ambiguously translated as to conceal the mysteries of our faith, or did not explain them sufficiently and as much as is enough for salvation." Which errors, blemishes, and depravations, St. Jerome testified that he left behind in the old edition of the New Testament deliberately, and the Church similarly left them in the new edition on purpose; not because so many most learned and most holy Fathers of the Church had not recognized or approved those errors: but because they saw themselves impelled by just causes to pass over them: First, because they noticed that no danger to faith or morals threatened from these so light errors. Then, lest the faithful be offended by the novelty of an importunate and excessively exact correction, whose ears the old edition had occupied from infancy. Finally, that they might venerate that ancient edition, which had educated the faith of the nascent Church, and strengthened and carried forward the strength of the growing one, and that they might honor by their own approval the holy and venerable simplicity of the ancient interpreter, who sought not the ornament of speech but the truth of the history, and might follow the footsteps of their forebears, who, led by a certain sacred piety, tolerated those same errors, following the example of the holy Apostles, who although they knew that the edition of the Seventy interpreters abounded in many things and was deficient in many, nevertheless did not despise it, but everywhere preached it and from it laid the first foundations of our faith. It is therefore rash, nay plainly heretical, on account of certain light defects which are found in our Vulgate edition without any detriment to faith or morals, to spurn and cast it away, and to introduce in its place new and profane translations of heretics, especially after the decree of the ecumenical Council of Trent. Thus Sixtus of Siena.

To this opinion many others of the more recent theologians also accede. And that I may pass over those who have not yet committed their writings to the press, I shall make mention of certain of our own who in some way incline to this part. Of whose number is M. Cano, a distinguished champion of the Vulgate edition, who nevertheless, lib. 2. de Locis. cap. 1, immediately at the beginning asserts in the first conclusion that the Vulgate edition is to be retained by the faithful in all those things which pertained to faith and morals. And in the fourth conclusion he says: that the Latin exemplars in those things which pertained to faith and morals are not to be corrected by the Hebrew and Greek ones. Certainly insinuating that in other things this is sometimes permissible. Then indeed in c. 15, showing how much utility the knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek language can bring to theologians, among other things he assigns this reason: Because certain places are had obscurely in the Latin edition, and which cannot be explained without knowledge of the languages, of which he brings certain examples in the sixth and seventh utility. Then indeed, c. 18, he at last confesses that the Latin interpreter was false when in Mark, c. 13, he translated: «Now it was the third hour»; for the reason that he had a vitiated Greek exemplar, although through the oscitancy of the copyists, who wrote the mark of the number three in place of six. Now therefore he thinks that the Latin interpreter (although blamelessly) erred in this part. And a little later in the same chapter he says: «Nor indeed should anyone stir up tragedies for us because we have said that our edition is imperfect in certain places. For certain Hebrew words can be brought forward, which Jerome himself in his commentaries confesses could have been translated more significantly and better». Nay more, in the same place he reports that testimony of Isaiah c. 19, of which we made mention above, where it is read: "The bending and the bridling." And he says that neither the sense nor the Hebrew words suffer us to admit bridling. Now therefore he admits that the Latin Vulgate edition is vitiated through the negligence of the interpreter in some place.

I also bring forward the assertion of the most learned M. Friar Bartholomew de Medina, once my fellow-student. He indeed, when twelve years ago he embraced the former opinion concerning the total incorruption of the Vulgate edition, and with a certain pious zeal perhaps more than was needful reprehended those thinking the opposite; nevertheless afterwards, having meditated this difficulty more attentively, wrote in his Commentaries on the third part of St. Thomas, q. 10. art. 2, around the solution to the first, referring to the exposition of Ambrose, lib. 5. De fide. c. 8, and St. Jerome on Matth. cap. 24, asserting that in Mark 13, when it is said: «But of that day no one knows, neither the angels, nor the Son», that particle, "nor the Son", was added by the Arians. Referring also to the opinion of M. Soto in 4. d. 43. q. 2. art. 2 near the end, asserting that it is heresy to affirm that that particle is not from the text, he added: "But this censure is harsh; for the Vulgate edition is approved in the Council of Trent in those places which according to the opinion of the Fathers are not vitiated; but this place according to the opinion of the Fathers is vitiated." Thus he.

There accedes further the authority of a certain modern man, a distinguished Doctor of sacred Theology, D. Diego Payva de Andrada, a Portuguese, in the book whose title is «Defense of the Tridentine Catholic Faith». He in lib. 4. of this work, although he had undertaken the defense of the Vulgate edition, nevertheless does not deny that in certain places the Latin Vulgate edition contains several errors.

Lyndanus too, who deservedly attributes the greatest authority to the Vulgate edition, nevertheless openly in lib. 2. de optimo genere interpret. c. 12, and lib. 3. c. 1, and 10, 11, and 12, reports and corrects very many places of the Vulgate edition.

But I could commemorate very many other Catholic and most learned men, known to me personally, who, awaiting with the greatest modesty the judgment of the Catholic Church, nevertheless strongly incline to this opinion. Nay more, if this matter were to be decided by reason alone, they are persuaded that in this our Latin Vulgate edition certain places are in error through the inadvertence of the interpreter. For as regards the fault of the copyists, who printed the Latin edition on the presses, no one doubts that certain things are in error. But the various readings of the Vulgate edition itself, not fewer than six hundred and thirty-one, a certain modern and diligent theologian by the name of Franciscus Lucas Brugensis diligently collected. Whose notations are had in the great Bible of the most diligent Plantin at the end of the book.

Nor, indeed, does this second opinion lack a sufficiently probable ground of its own. For they think that they are not favoring heretics, but rather truly and vigorously contradicting them. And they think that they accomplish this more prudently and more efficaciously than the followers of the former opinion. And the reason is: Because when arguments are brought for solving the most difficult matters, and which after the human manner seem to convince that certain things are errors in the Vulgate edition which are not of great weight, if we deny these very things, perhaps the heretics will reproach us with ignorance, or with perversity, and will defame us among their own; and the remaining matters of great weight, and those which pertain to faith or morals, which they themselves contend to be errors in the Vulgate edition, they will think that we, with a like perversity, defend with closed eyes. And this ground of theirs can be confirmed by a likeness. Because among theologians the more common and more probable opinion is that the Supreme Pontiff as a particular person can err in faith; although certain men, as is Albert Pigge of Kampen, book 4 of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 6 and 8, has undertaken with a certain piety (I know not whether according to knowledge) to defend this cause, that no Supreme Pontiff has hitherto erred, or can err. Now the reason why the former opinion is reckoned more probable and safer is this: Because we are unwilling that the infallibility of the Apostolic See depend on the faith of some particular person, especially since experience has testified that one or another Supreme Pontiff has failed in faith as a particular person. And this is proved by arguments so great that the opposite cannot be defended without some temerity. In this manner, therefore, they think that the authority of the Vulgate edition is defended more piously and more safely by those who candidly admit certain trifling errors detected in it, corrigible nevertheless by the authority of the Apostolic See. And just as the infallible authority of the same Apostolic See does not depend on the faith of a particular man, whom it happens to be the Supreme Pontiff, but depends on the assistance of the Holy Spirit, who will never permit him to err when he performs the office of Supreme Pontiff in matters of faith: so also the infallible authority of Sacred Scripture in all things, and its most perfect truth in all things, does not depend on the entire incorruptibility of any edition, but its entire incorruptibility is so preserved in the heart of the Church, that when there is need she may opportunely provide, and correct and emend the codices themselves.

But now at last let us put an end to speaking about this most grave difficulty. If therefore you ask which of these opinions seems to me more probable?

Let there be a sixth conclusion. In a matter so grave the censure of the Catholic Church is to be awaited. Hence I neither dare nor ought to anticipate the judgment of the Church by my own opinion. I know indeed, if I were asked by the Church, what I would answer with my living voice; meanwhile, however, I keep myself within a pious and just silence. This one thing only I would say, that I vehemently desire that this contention among pious theologians be decided and composed by the authority of the Supreme Pontiff: otherwise, if this variety among Theologians is permitted with the Church prudent and knowing, it is just as if the Church were to say, let each one abound in his own sense, provided that the truth of faith and the authority of the Catholic Church be defended.

Seventh conclusion. It is temerarious to wish by one's own and private authority to correct the Vulgate edition, not only in places in which through the inadvertence of the translator some error is thought to be, but also in places where an error is believed to be by the fault of the writers of the Latin edition, provided that they be ancient, and that they are commonly so read and sung in the Church — as, for example, what is read in Ps. 41: My soul hath thirsted after God, the living fountain, is thought by learned men expert in the Greek and Hebrew tongue to be read «My soul hath thirsted after God, the mighty living». And indeed, in my judgment, mighty ought deservedly to be read. Nevertheless, if someone were to emend the books by private authority, and we suddenly heard in the chant of the Church, My soul hath thirsted after God the mighty, assuredly we should all deservedly be offended, and should judge such a corrector temerarious, and it would be said to him: Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? To his own lord he standeth or falleth. For although it be lawful to think with the few, nevertheless sometimes it is necessary to speak as the many. Such boldness, therefore, seems to me not unlike it, as if some courtier of the court were, at the head of the queen — while in the court, perhaps, it is less well arranged and adorned by the familiar virgins — to approach with his own hand to arrange and adorn it. He surely, unless he himself were mad, would be punished with nothing less than the penalty of his head. Then, if it were lawful for anyone, however learned, to correct errors of this kind, assuredly in a short time, such is the genius of men, there would be so great a variety of readings that a Babylonian confusion of tongues would seem to arise. It is necessary therefore that we all, with one mouth and one heart, honor God and the Father, and that we all say the same thing, and that there be no schisms among us, that we await the judgment of the Church, and the command that the Vulgate edition, which is the instrument of unity, be corrected wherever it has erred: and that thus be verified what we said in the fifth conclusion, that Sacred Scripture is in the Church per se first and principally in her heart, but secondarily and instrumentally in the editions. In searching out which diligently, humble Doctors piously exercise themselves, and strive to overcome the difficulties with the utmost zeal; but the proud and the vain of speech, by the just judgment of God, are permitted to stumble and to strike against them.

NOW at last, to the arguments of the former opinion, by which this latter opinion seems to be pressed and condemned more than is meet, it is not difficult for the followers of this latter opinion to respond.

To the first, from the form of the definition of the Council, they respond that the Vulgate edition has been approved as authentic by the Church, yet under the aspect of an edition, in such wise that the lucubrations of the Saints and Doctors of the Church are not excluded, nor the observations upon it. By which it has come about that it is no longer shaken and disturbed by as many storms and whirlwinds as it once suffered around the times of St. Jerome. Now indeed in our age we enjoy the greatest tranquility, even though certain trifling winds sometimes rise, so that the Doctors of the Church are not altogether drowsy in the study of the Sacred Letters. And by this the answer to the second argument is plain.

To the reply made in the same place they respond that where there has been a difference as to which matter pertains to morals and which does not, the judgment of the Church is to be awaited. Meanwhile, however, let the Doctors of the Church exercise themselves piously and humbly.

To the third argument it has already been said that by this path the pernicious arguments of the heretics are rather dissolved.

To the fourth argument it is answered that it is not lawful, without great authority and reason, even in the lightest matters, to say that the Vulgate edition is erroneous.

To the fifth argument, even if they grant that the Greek exemplars are corrupted in very many places, nevertheless that they are intact in others is established by certain reason and confirmed by the authority of the Fathers. Wherefore from those uncorrupted places certain things in our Vulgate edition are better understood, or at least can be corrected by the Church.

To the confirmation: there are many most learned men who undertake to defend the integrity of the Hebrew exemplars by great reasons and testimonies, although they candidly admit that a few certain places are erroneous, and that this was due not so much to the malice of the Jews as to human carelessness. On this matter let Dom Payva Dandrada be seen, in the place above. And indeed I (after I gave my attention to the Hebrew language eight years ago as much as is enough, so that the followers of the Rabbis may not deceive me, or spurn me as one ignorant) although I once was of the opinion that the Hebrew exemplars are no less corrupted than the Greek, yet now, convicted by experience itself, I judge that they are uncorrupted, except in a few certain places, through negligence rather than the malice of the Jews. Of which matter it would be easy for me to bring very many arguments, unless I feared to exceed the office of a Scholastic Doctor.

Let Sixtus of Siena, cited above, nevertheless be seen, and Diego Payva Dandrada above.

To the second confirmation it is answered that he who would assert that the Hebrew exemplars are so far corrupted that they are of no utility would not render much pious service to the Church for the conversion of the Jews, whom we convict of error from their books. But if the Hebrew exemplars are uncorrupted in all those places in which they agree with the Latin Vulgate edition, assuredly they will be corrupted in few, unless perhaps in the Psalms, in which the Latin edition follows the translation of the Seventy interpreters, yet already corrected by the castigations of St. Jerome, and perhaps in others corrigible by the Church.

To the last argument, I indeed for my part answer that the Latin Vulgate edition is of greater authority because it is approved as authentic by the Church, than because the Latin interpreter had a, as they say, quasi-prophetic spirit. And to this point let what has been said under the censure of our holy Mother the Church concerning this most grave question suffice.

But to the arguments which were proposed at the beginning of this doubt, the solution is now plain from what has been said.

There could be dispute here, finally, as to which books are canonical. But on this matter let my master and teacher Cano be seen, book 2 On Places, ch. 9, and Driedo, book 1 On Ecclesiastical Dogmas, from the beginning; and Sixtus of Siena, book 1 of the Sacred Library, throughout. Let it suffice for us now, however, to embrace the decree of the sacred Council of Trent, which is had in the decree of the third session. But on this matter there will again be speech in our Commentaries on 2. 2., q. 1, art. 10, when it shall have been disputed by us whether there is in the Church the power of defining which books are canonical.

Dubium 5

The fifth DOUBT is concerning the second place of arguing of those whom we have undertaken to examine in the present matter, although it has an argument drawn from the authority of the Saints. And indeed, that it is not infallible is proved first from Augustine, who teaches in several places that, with the exception of the authors of the Sacred Books, all others are so to be read that, however much they abound in doctrine and holiness, what they themselves wrote is not therefore to be thought true, but only insofar as the reason adduced by them has persuaded it. St. Thomas brings this authority here in the solution to the second. And Augustine repeats this opinion in book 2 On Baptism against the Donatists, ch. 3, tome 7, and in the prologue of book 3 On the Trinity, tome 3, and in the Epistle to Marcellinus VII., and Epistles 48 and 111. It is confirmed from the authority of Jerome in the Epistle to Theophilus, against John of Jerusalem, tome 2, where he says: «I hold the Apostles otherwise, and the other tractators otherwise; those I think always to say true, these sometimes to err»; therefore an argument drawn from the authority of the Saints is not infallible.

It is argued secondly. The common consensus of the Saints patronizes some opinion, and yet that opinion is not of faith — nay, even the opposite is probable and pious — therefore the argument drawn from the common authority of the Saints is not certain. The antecedent is proved and declared. For very many of the saints asserted that all the parts of the world were not produced and completed at once and on the same day, but over many days. So says Basil, homily 2 on the Hexaemeron; Chrysostom, homily 3 on Genesis; Gregory, 32 Moral., ch. 10; Ambrose, book 1 on the Hexaemeron, ch. 7; and Damascene, book 2 of his Theology; and very many others such as Bede, Rabanus, Strabo, whom the Glossa ordinaria cites on Gen., ch. 1. But although this be the common opinion of the Saints, nevertheless the opposite opinion of St. Augustine, book 4 on Genesis literally, ch. 8, 22, 34, and book 11 of The City of God, ch. 7, that all things were produced on the same day, is probable; therefore etc. Similarly, the common consensus of the Saints is that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin, whose names one may see in Cajetan, opuscule On the Conception of the Virgin, especially in Master Bandellus, who published a very long treatise on this matter, and in the most wise Master Cano, book 7 On Places, ch. 1, num. 3; and yet the opposite opinion is judged in the Church not only probable but also very pious. Finally, very many of the Saints held that Moses did not see the divine essence, as Jerome on Isaias, ch. 6, tome 5; Gregory Nazianzen, book On the faith, near the end; Gregory, 18 Moral., ch. 37, and very many others; and yet the opposite opinion of Augustine, book 12 On Genesis literally, ch. 26, 27, 28, tome 3, and the book On seeing God, and Epistle 112, was chosen by St. Thomas, 1 p., q. 12, art. 11, ad 2, not only as probable but as more probable. Many also of the holy Fathers said that the Angels are corporeal: St. Basil, book On the Holy Spirit, ch. 16; and Ambrose, book On the ark and Noah, ch. 4; and the author of the book On Ecclesiastical Dogmas, which is found among the works of Augustine, ch. 10 and 11; Tertullian, book On the flesh of Christ, and book On the veiling of virgins; and Cassian, collation 7, ch. 13; and Rupert the Abbot, book 1 on Genesis, ch. 11; and Augustine is doubtful about this question, as is plain in the Enchiridion, ch. 59, and in several other places, and book 3 On the Trinity, ch. 1; and yet the Scholastics hold the opposite; therefore.

For the explanation of this matter, note first that we can speak of the authority of the Saints in three ways. First, of the opinion of one or another. Second, of the common opinion or assent of several, from which nevertheless some one of the Saints dissents. Third, of the unanimous consensus of all the Saints.

It is to be noted secondly that the authority of the Saints can be brought forward to confirm the dogmas of Philosophy, or to confirm the dogmas of Theology; and among these the authority of the saints can be adduced either to confirm matters of faith, or those matters which are treated in Theology, which nevertheless can be ignored even by all the learned without loss of faith. Let the example of the first be that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle. Example of the second: whether the sacraments cause grace and the virtues through a certain force and power existing in themselves; and whether John the Evangelist died, or lives and perseveres with Elias and Enoch.

THESE things being supposed, let there be a first conclusion. An argument drawn from the authority of the Saints concerning dogmas which are known by natural light has no more certitude than the reason on which it rests. It is proved first. For very many of the Saints either were ignorant of Physics, or of Metaphysics, or at least had it in a sufficiently uncultured way; wherefore it is not surprising if it often happens that they decline from the truth in matters of this kind. Likewise, for very many among them were Platonists before they were converted to the faith, and consequently drank in its dogmas, as is plain in Augustine and others; therefore, since these did not conflict with the faith, it is not surprising if they afterwards taught them, although very many of them are discovered to be false from the Peripatetic doctrine. Moreover, many even of the wisest among the holy Doctors were not much solicitous in searching out philosophical truths, since they rather abstained from the books of the philosophers in order to give themselves wholly to the Sacred Scriptures.

The same conclusion is proved efficaciously; for natural truths rest upon the first principles of nature, which are known by natural light; therefore this truth will be as firm as the reason by which it is proved has had efficacy.

Second conclusion. An argument drawn from the authority of one or two of the Saints is not efficacious, but can be probable. It is proved: the holy Doctors, apart from those who wrote the canonical books, spoke by a human spirit, and sometimes (even in those things which pertain to faith) erred, as Bernard erred in sermon 4 On all the Saints, thinking that souls are not admitted to the divine Vision until the day of Judgment; and Cyprian, saying that those baptized by heretics must be rebaptized, as may be seen in book 2 of the Epistles, Epistle 1. We could bring very many other examples of this kind, which for the sake of brevity I pass over; therefore an argument deduced from their authority is not firm.

Where it is to be noted that although the holy Fathers could err, and in fact did sometimes err, their books nevertheless are to be read with reverence, but with judgment and discretion, so that the prudent reader, leaning upon the truths of faith and of the doctrine of the Catholic Church, may embrace what he sees to be consonant with these, but if he finds anything dissonant, may repel it with modesty. Third conclusion.

An argument deduced in matters of faith from the authority of several of the Saints (although the rest, fewer in number, stand for the contrary), and in matters which do not pertain to faith: the concordant consensus of all brings probability, yet not firmness.

The first part of this conclusion is sufficiently proved from the preceding conclusion. But it is further proved: for very few of the holy Doctors asserted that the Angels are incorporeal, as we said in the course of arguing; and yet this opinion is far removed from heresy; therefore.

But if you object, from Vincent of Lerins in the book Against the profane novelties of heresies, and Thomas Waldensis in the prologue of the Doctrinal of the ancient faith, that it is the faith of the Church which the greater part of the Saints held from the Apostles; therefore, with few reclamants, the opinion of the more numerous Saints makes an efficacious argument. It is answered that the saying of those authors is true when the Church has condemned the contrary opinion of the few, as it condemned the opinion of those who said that those baptized by heretics must be rebaptized; and of those who said that Melchisedech was not a man, but the Holy Spirit.

The second part of the conclusion is proved from that argument which we adduced to prove that the common opinion of the Saints does not bring firmness, bringing forward the opinion of those who said that the Blessed Virgin was not conceived in sin. Hence let an argument be formed. All the Saints agree that the Blessed Virgin contracted original sin, and yet, because this does not pertain to faith, the authority of the Saints is not an infallible argument; therefore universally this is true in matters not pertaining to faith. Although in the aforesaid example, unless the Church had interposed her authority, permitting both opinions, it could seem a matter of faith, since it was a question of the understanding of Scripture: «All have sinned».

Fourth conclusion. The common understanding of all the Saints in matters of faith and in the exposition of the Sacred Letters makes a firm and irrefragable argument in Theology. This conclusion is asserted against certain heretics, as being of faith. Peter Abelard thought the contrary, as St. Bernard reports in Epistle 190 to Innocent; and Wycliffe, as Waldensis reports, book of the Doctrinal of the ancient faith, third doctrine. Of the same error were the more ancient heretics, Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches; nay, even Cajetan (a man otherwise most Catholic and most pious) in the beginning of his Commentaries on Genesis so far erred as to say that a new exposition of Sacred Scripture, although it be dissonant from the interpretation of all the sacred Doctors, is not to be repelled, for the reason (he says) that God has not bound the exposition of Scripture to the senses of the ancient doctors. The conclusion is proved. By the testimonies of Sacred Scripture, Ecclus. 8: «Let not the narration of the elders pass thee by (he says), for they learned from their fathers; for from them thou shalt learn understanding, and to give an answer in the time of necessity». And to the Romans, 12: «Not to be more wise than it behoveth to be wise, but to be wise unto sobriety»; and 1 Cor. 14: «Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge; for God is not the God of dissension, but of peace»; and to the Ephesians, 4: «And he gave some indeed apostles», etc., up to the circumvention of error. From which place it is plainly gathered that it was of divine Providence that we should have not only the canonical books of the sacred Authors, such as the Prophets and Apostles, but also the commentaries of the holy Doctors for their understanding. Hence, if all the Saints were to err in the interpretation of the Sacred Letters, it would follow that the Church would err with God for author, since, at the command of Christ Himself, she cleaves to the footsteps of the Doctors who were given by God for the understanding of the Scriptures. Moreover, in Ezechiel 34 such Doctors are promised to the Church as should feed her with the doctrine of truth: «I will give (he says) you pastors according to my own heart, and they shall feed you with knowledge and doctrine». Let the testimony of Ecclus. ch. 12 be noted lastly: «The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails deeply fastened, which by the counsel of masters are given from one shepherd: more than these, my son, require not». On which place Jerome says: Except for these words which are given from one shepherd, and approved by the counsel and consent of the wise, claim nothing for thyself; follow the footsteps of the elders, do not depart from their authority.

Secondly the conclusion is proved by the authority of the sacred Councils: first, in the sixth general Synod, Sess. 11, and in the same place in the Synodic Epistle of Sophronius, action 13, the disciples of Origen are condemned on account of the new expositions which they attempt to introduce against the common consensus of the holy Fathers; and in the Trullan Synod, canon 19, prelates are most gravely admonished not to teach other dogmas than those which they have received from the luminaries and Doctors of the Church; and in the third Lateran Council, Sess. 11, the same is prescribed. And finally in the Council of Trent, Sess. 4, it is defined that no one, relying on his own prudence, dare to interpret Sacred Scripture against the unanimous consensus of the Fathers.

Thirdly it is proved by the authority of the Saints, who most gravely reprehend those who in the understanding of the Holy Scriptures depart from the holy Fathers. So Dionysius, ch. 1 On the celestial hierarchy; and the most ancient Irenaeus, book 4, ch. 63; and Clement I in Epistle 5 to the disciples of Jerusalem gravely reprehends the same, whose words are had in c. Relatum, 37, d.; the same teaches Epiphanius, Haeres. 61, and Clement of Alexandria, book 7 of the Stromata, and Ambrose, On the faith, to Gratian, ch. 7: «Let us keep (he says) the precepts of the elders, and let us not violate the hereditary seals with rude temerity»; and Jerome in the Epistle to Evagrius, and the Epistle to Paulinus, and on Daniel, ch. 12, teaches many most grave things to this purpose.

Let Augustine be seen in the prologue of the books On Christian Doctrine, and the book On the usefulness of believing, ch. 7 and 17, where he says that it is unworthy and foolish for anyone to approach the understanding of the Sacred Books without a teacher, whereas nevertheless no one would dare this with profane books and human disciplines. See also Gregory, book 28 Moral., ch. 9, on that [verse] upon which its bases are founded.

Finally it is proved by reason; for if the common consensus of the Saints in the interpretation of Sacred Scripture were not necessarily to be followed, it would follow that it is lawful for anyone to interpret the divine Scripture according to his own arbitrium; but this would bring great perdition to the faith; therefore the common consensus of the Doctors makes a firm argument for the theologian. The minor is proved. For since the temperaments of men are various, if so great a license were given them, various dogmas and sects would also arise; for as many as have hitherto been invented have flowed from this liberty. It is confirmed. For the faith of the holy Fathers is the faith of the Church; therefore their concordant consensus in matters of faith cannot err. The antecedent is proved. For, as we said before, the holy Fathers were given to the Church for the understanding of the divine Scripture; therefore what they interpret concordantly in the divine Scripture pertains to the faith of the Church. Secondly it is proved.

The Scripture which the Saints unanimously receive as canonical is infallibly canonical; and that which they reject is not Sacred; therefore their unanimous consensus in the understanding of the divine Scripture and in matters of faith is also infallible. The antecedent is proved. For otherwise the Church would not have whereby to be rendered certain concerning any divine Scripture. And the consequence is proved. For both the certitude of the divine Word, and its infallible understanding, are conjoined together, and both have been promised to the Church: Isaias 59: «My spirit which is in thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, and out of the mouth of thy seed, from henceforth and for ever».

Thirdly it is proved. The Gospel of Christ consists rather in the sense than in the surface of the letter, as Hilary teaches in the book To Constantius Augustus, and Jerome most elegantly on the first chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians; therefore if the concordant sense of the Saints could be false, the Church would not have received the Gospel of Christ. The consequence is proved. For the Gospel has infallible truth, which is to be drawn rather from the sense than from the bark of the letter.

And although this fourth conclusion has been proved chiefly as regards the common sense of the Saints in the exposition of Sacred Scripture, the same arguments nevertheless proceed concerning their common concord about the dogmas of faith; on which matter, besides those things which have been said, St. Augustine is to be seen, book 1 Against Julian, ch. 2, and book 2, where, after he had disputed against Julian from the opinions of the Saints, he at last challenges him to set himself and his opinion before so many judges of truth; whom he then collects, [showing] that they cannot all err together in deciding the truth. Let the Ephesine Synod also be seen, and the Constantinopolitan, actions 6 and 12; and Jerome on those words of Paul to Philemon: «I give thanks to my God, hearing of thy faith which thou hast in the Lord Jesus, and toward all his saints», says: «Whoever has believed God cannot otherwise receive his faith unless he also believe in his saints: for that faith in God is not perfect which is weakened by infidelity toward his ministers».

NOW it is to be answered to the arguments.

To the first argument, which was taken from the authorities of Augustine, it is answered that St. Augustine is speaking not of the common consensus of all the Saints, but of the case when some of them agree while others disagree.

Or secondly it is said that, even if he speaks of the common opinion of the Saints, he is to be understood not of the case when they agree to assert matters of faith, but of that which pertains to natural cognition. Or thirdly let us say that the authority of the holy Doctors can be considered in two ways: first, as it is the authority of men, and thus it makes a probable argument, as St. Thomas said here in the solution to the second; for he speaks formally of the authority of Doctors insofar as it is only the authority of men. Secondly, they can be considered insofar as all of them agree to confirm matters of faith, and thus from their authority a certain argument is taken, such that the opposite is erroneous; and the reason of this is that this authority is a certain sign of the sense which the Church would define; for those Doctors are the eyes of the Church.

To the second it is answered by distinguishing the antecedent: if that opinion in which all the saints agree pertains to faith, I deny that their common consensus does not make an argument of faith, or at least that the opposite of it is not erroneous. But if it does not pertain to faith, we have already said that it does not effect a certain argument; of this kind is what is brought there concerning the Conception of the Blessed Virgin. But in the other two which are brought there — namely concerning the production of things over many days, or in one day, and whether Moses saw the divine Essence, and whether the Angels are corporeal — not all the saints agree. Wherefore the argument does not proceed against our fourth conclusion. It is true nevertheless that in this present time it will be temerarious to say that the Angels have bodies. For in the Sacred Eloquence they are often called spirits, and in the Lateran Council under Innocent III it is said that the Angels are incorporeal. On which matter we shall dispute ex professo below, q. 51, art. 1.

Dubium 6

IT IS DOUBTED concerning the third place, whether a firm argument is deduced from the authority of the Scholastic Theologians.

And for the negative side it is argued first. In the Church of God, that alone is a firm dogma which is established from the divine Letters, or revelations, or the decrees of the sacred Councils, or from the revelation of holy Church. But the authority of the Scholastics rests upon none of these foundations; therefore it is not firm. The major is certain from the doctrine of faith, and the minor is proved. For nowhere do we read or hear that the spirit of truth was promised to Theologians; therefore they can err like men; «for every man is a liar», as is had in Ps. 115.

Secondly. In the school of Theologians nothing is certain or explored in which all agree, but all things are full of factions and disputations, these asserting, those denying; the Thomists dispute against the Scotists, and on the contrary the Scotists are opposed to the Thomists, asserting in all things various opinions and diverse views; therefore from their authority nothing certain or safe can be had.

Thirdly, even if all Theologians with unanimous consent agree in some opinion, they can err, and have erred in many things; therefore from their authority a firm argument is not elicited. The antecedent could be demonstrated by many examples, but let one suffice. The common opinion of the Scholastics was that matrimony even contracted without the minister of the Church is truly and properly a sacrament of the new law, and confers grace and the remission of sins. But this common opinion induces no certitude; nay, the more recent Theologians deservedly reject it, and clandestine marriages have been entirely abolished by the sacred Council of Trent, and it has been sanctioned that henceforth a marriage be not valid without the parish priest and two witnesses, as is plain in Session 24, ch. 1, On the reformation of marriage; therefore etc. Fourthly.

The study of the Scholastics is very often occupied with those things which are hidden from our grasp, [by] the excessive curiosity of those scrutinizing things which are known to the divine Majesty alone, and the knowledge of which is not necessary for the salvation of men. For they dispute by what the divine Persons are constituted, in what the Father and the Son are distinguished, in what way the procession of the Holy Spirit differs from the nativity of the Word of God, and other such things, the investigation of which seems prohibited in the Sacred Letters, according to that of Prov. 25: «he who is a searcher of majesty shall be oppressed by glory»; and Ecclus. 3: «Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability; but the things that God hath commanded thee, think on them always, and in many of his works be not curious, etc.»; therefore from the disputations of the Scholastics are drawn not only not firm documents, but useless and harmful assertions.

Fifthly. Scholastic doctrine proceeds from the articles of faith by deducing conclusions; therefore either such conclusions are inferred by a necessary and evident consequence, or only by a topical and probable one. If by a necessary one, then it is no longer a common opinion, but a theological demonstration, and then the conclusion will also be of faith mediately. If, however, only by a probable one, then the conclusion itself will not have certitude; therefore the proper dogmas of the Theologians do not have firmness.

Sixth and last it is argued. If from the authority of the Scholastic Theologians a firm argument is taken to establish some truth, it follows that also from the opinion of the experts in Canon Law a firm proof in sacred Doctrine is established. But the consequent is false; therefore also the antecedent. The consequence is evident. For Ecclesiastical Jurisprudence rests upon the decrees of the sacred Councils and Pontiffs, just as Theology itself is for the most part founded upon the same foundations. But that the consequent is false is proved. For the jurists use only the authority and testimonies of other doctors, disputing not with reasons but with the words of the texts; therefore their diligence profits theological argumentations little or nothing, nor can firm arguments be drawn from them.

What the Scholastic Theologians are, concerning whose authority we have undertaken the question, it is easy to understand from those things which have been said above about the quiddity, object, and qualities of sacred Doctrine. For we call the professors of this Doctrine Scholastic Theologians, who treat sacred Doctrine succinctly and in the dialectical manner, although among them various grades could be distinguished. For some are ancient, some more recent; some of eminent doctrine, others of lesser note; some of great authority, others of mediocre; all of which are to be weighed for knowing the firmness and value of the arguments which are drawn from their testimonies.

TO the doubt, therefore, in order that we may answer, let there be a first conclusion. The authority of the Scholastic Theologians, even of many, when learned men are on the contrary side, is worth no more than either their own reason or some testimony of Scripture shall have established. This conclusion is manifest. For when there are two opinions fighting against each other, each of which rests upon probable reasons and solves the arguments of the adversaries, and has learned men as defenders, there is no reason why one should pertinaciously adhere to this or that side on account of the authority of some; but the reasons are to be weighed, and according to their force faith is to be given to this or that side. Nor does it matter that more incline to one side, if a few grave and learned men think the opposite. For these things are not to be judged by number, but by weight. Whence those Theologians are deservedly to be reprehended who, adhering too much to their own opinions, or even to those of others, at once condemn contrary dogmas by a certain precipitate judgment without sufficient reasons, and brand with graver censures all things which do not accord with their judgment, and that with so much facility that they are deservedly ridiculed.

Second conclusion. When the Scholastics commonly agree in some opinion about a grave matter, they make an argument so probable that to contradict them is very temerarious. This conclusion is proved. For in any art, that the experts are to be believed natural reason shows, so that it is not lawful, without temerity, to dissent from them. For in the art of navigation, the sailors are to be believed, and in agriculture, the farmers; therefore in theological matters and ecclesiastical dogmas, to contradict the masters of Theology and those exercised in sacred Doctrine will be temerarious. Secondly it is proved.

For in the sacred Councils account is always had of those opinions which are more common and more received among the Scholastic Theologians, as is plain from the Clementine Unica on the Summa Trinitate and the Catholic faith, where the fathers of the Council of Vienne propose to the faithful, to be held and chosen, that opinion which teaches that grace and the virtues are infused in Baptism, as more probable and more consonant with modern Theologians. If therefore the more common opinion of the Theologians was of such weight with the sacred Council, how much more is that opinion to be received in which all the Scholastics generally agree; therefore it will be temerarious to dissent from them.

Thirdly it is proved. Among Scholastic Theologians there is very often a variety of opinions, so that they are perhaps sometimes deservedly reprehensible; therefore when all agree in some dogma, with truth compelling and the same Spirit of God moving, that is to be reckoned to be from God; therefore rashly would someone contradict their opinion. Certainly, as it was once wonderful that the Seventy interpreters, enclosed in different cells, came together (as is reported) into one and the same concord of words in interpreting the sacred Books, so also that opinion in which all Theologians, differing among themselves in many other things, unanimously agree, is to be held as certain and worthy of all acceptance; therefore it will be no moderate temerity to think otherwise.

Concerning this conclusion and the following it is to be noted that when almost all Theologians agree, although one or another differs from the opinion of the others, that common opinion nevertheless remains in its strength, unless perhaps that one were of such great authority, or brought proofs so valid, that his judgment were equivalent to many others.

Secondly it is to be known that some dogma can at one time be common to all Theologians, and then in a succeeding time, with the truth more manifested, be commonly refuted without temerity; for example, that opinion which was mentioned in the third argument — that matrimony however contracted is a true sacrament conferring grace — was once common among Theologians; but now it is disapproved by many, not only after the celebration of the Council of Trent, but also before. For Cano, in book 8 On Places, ch. 5, teaches that matrimony contracted without the minister of the Church and the sacred ceremonies is only a civil contract, and not a sacrament of the Church. The same teaches Cajetan concerning marriage which is contracted between absent parties through procurators; and many others follow these authors without any temerity. For what is hidden at one time afterwards becomes known many times through the diligence and study of those who come after. Wherefore the opinion of the more recent is always to be sought out, yet due honor is to be deferred to the ancients; but when both the ancient and the modern agree in some dogma, then most of all our conclusion holds true. Third conclusion. The concordant opinion of all the Theologians concerning the doctrine of faith or morals makes an argument so firm that to think the contrary is an error in faith, or proximate to error.

Before this conclusion is proved, it is to be noted that those things about which Theologians dispute are of a twofold difference. For certain things regard Philosophy, or Metaphysics; but others pertain to the doctrine of faith and necessary morals. To contradict the Theologians, therefore, in those things which are of the first kind will not be erroneous nor heretical; for example, the Theologians teach that the angels, the more perfect they are, the more they know through more universal likenesses. To contradict this dogma would indeed be unreasonable, but not an error against faith, although in that dogma all the Theologians had agreed; because they do not hold this on account of the arguments of faith, but through metaphysical reasons. But to oppose the common opinion of all the Theologians in those things which are of the second kind, we say to be an error. And it is proved first from that of Luke 10: «He who heareth you, heareth me; and he who despiseth you, despiseth me». Which words were spoken by Christ the Lord not only of the Theologians and masters of the Church, whom He Himself instituted at the beginning, but are referred also to the doctors who were to be in the Church, as long as His sheep were to be fed in knowledge and doctrine. Therefore, just as those who opposed the first doctors of the Church wandered from the faith, so those who now contradict the whole school of the Theologians, who are the masters of the Church in matters of faith, are to be reckoned erroneous. Likewise to the Ephesians, 4, the Apostle teaches that Christ gave some indeed apostles in the Church, some prophets, others evangelists, others pastors and doctors for the consummation of the saints, etc. Therefore to the Doctors of the Church, who are men and Theologians, as sent by Christ and illumined and strengthened by His providence in matters of faith, faith is to be given. We do not understand that any of the Theologians so has the Spirit of God that he cannot err in faith. For this is to be believed of the Supreme Pontiff alone, when he defines matters of faith. But that the whole school of Theologians, when it unanimously consents to the same opinion, makes a most firm argument, as concerning a matter which they say to be of faith, so that to dissent from it is erroneous Secondly the same conclusion is proved by a manifest theological reason.

For if all the Theologians were to err in some dogma pertaining to faith or morals, it follows that the whole Church can err; but the consequent is an error in faith; therefore also the antecedent. The consequence is proved. For the Scholastic Theologians are the masters and doctors of all peoples, who both in hearing confessions and in giving sermons instruct the faithful, in such a way that all can and are bound to believe them. If therefore in some doctrine of faith all the Theologians had an error, the whole Church is exposed to the manifest danger of erring. Thirdly it is proved.

Holy Church has many times defined propositions as of faith which were not expressly had in the Sacred Letters, but were commonly and constantly affirmed by all the Theologians and Doctors of the Church; and they were theological propositions, as was that Christ has a human will, which the Theologians gathered from this, that Christ according to the faith is true man, and every man has a human will; and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle; which is proved from this, that in divine things all are one where the opposition of relation does not stand in the way. Since therefore the Father and the Son, in spirating the third Person, do not have a relative opposition between themselves, it follows that they are not two principles, but one. Therefore in like manner those truths in which the whole school of the Theologians agrees could now be defined as of faith; therefore to contradict them is erroneous. For example, all the Theologians firmly teach that Christ the Lord from the instant of His Incarnation saw the divine Essence. This does not expressly appear in the divine Letters, nor has it been defined by the Church of God as to be held of faith; but the Theologians gather it by a good consequence from other places of Scripture and the foundations of faith, and it has been so commonly received that no one can deny it without the note of error, and it could be defined by the Church as of faith. This reason is confirmed. For the Theologians never agree in firmly asserting some dogma except on account of the testimonies of divine Scripture, or the definitions of the Church, from which that dogma is manifestly gathered; therefore the common opinion of the Theologians induces a firm argument in faith. Finally our conclusion is proved. For no dogma can be found which all the Scholastics with one mouth have certainly asserted, which does not contain truth; nay, which is not held by the whole Church in the universe, moved by their authority; therefore he who has contradicted such things is to be held as a heretic or erroneous.

But an argument offers itself against this conclusion. For if error against theological propositions is also error against faith, it follows that faith and Theology are not formally diverse habits; the consequent is false; therefore also the antecedent. That the consequent is false has been said above in art. 2. And I prove the consequence. Because one contrary cannot be opposed to two formally distinct contraries, but to one only; for white is contrary only to black, and cold only to hot; therefore if error against Theology is contrary to faith, Theology and faith will not be formally diverse.

To this argument it is answered that, just as divine revelation is immediately the formal principle of faith, but mediately of theological science, so faith itself immediately and per se inclines only to the articles of faith and to those things which have been expressly revealed; but mediately and consequently it is also concerned with the conclusions which are gathered by evident consequence from the articles of faith. Hence it is necessary that dissent concerning the propositions of Theology mediately and consequently be opposed to faith: just as a physical agent which destroys the accidents necessary for the conservation of a substance consequently destroys the substance itself. Wherefore the Church condemns as an unbeliever him who rejects theological propositions of this kind. For although she understands that they are deduced not from faith alone but also from natural principles, it is presumed nevertheless that a rational man denies not those things which are known according to reason, but those which are had from faith. For example, if someone were to deny that Christ is risible, which is gathered from these two premises, «every man is risible, Christ is a man», he would be condemned as an unbeliever. For he would not be thought to deny that proposition, every man is risible, which is evident by natural light, nor the goodness of the consequence, which is also per se known, but the truth of that minor premise, Christ is a man. But if someone were so rustic or stupid as not to perceive either the goodness of the consequence or the truth of the natural principle, such a one could deny a theological proposition, with the Catholic faith safe, because he would be excused by ignorance.

THESE things being thus constituted, it is answered to the arguments put forward at the beginning.

To the first, it is plain from what has been said that the authority of the school of Theologians is not rashly and without reason asserted, but on account of the testimonies of Sacred Scripture which we have adduced and others which could be adduced. Likewise because in the whole Church, in the sacred Councils, their dogmas have always been held in the highest esteem, especially when all unanimously define something certainly, from which it is not lawful to depart, as has been sufficiently proved.

To the second it is answered that it cannot be denied that there is sometimes excessive contention and zeal of contradicting among some Scholastic Theologians, which indeed is blameworthy; but these are the vices of persons, not of the school or state, which is not to be despised or rejected on account of the excess of a few, or even of many. Just as no one condemns matrimony, even if several married persons do not observe the rights of that state. Nevertheless in those things which are of great moment, and especially which pertain to faith and the honesty of morals, we always see that all Catholic Theologians have agreed and do agree. Nay, this is more wonderful, that amid so many dissensions and disputations of those teaching and writing, so great a concord is found in those things which regard faith. Wherefore when there is such a consonance, their testimony makes a most firm argument, as we said in the second and third conclusions. But when there is a diversity of opinions, the authority of each will avail as much as his reasons have weighed, as was said in the first conclusion.

To the third it is answered, first, that that opinion concerning matrimony was not common to all the Theologians, but some taught the opposite, as was said in those things which were noted concerning the second conclusion. Moreover, although it had been the common opinion, nevertheless it was not a firm opinion, as is plain from the Master [of the Sentences], St. Thomas, Scotus, and all the others «in the fourth», who all leave it under doubt, nor define anything certainly. For it is greatly to be noted that the Theologians teach some opinion in two ways. In one way, firmly asserting it as certain and indubitable; and then their unanimous consensus in those things which pertain to religion makes an argument of faith, as has been proved in the third conclusion. In another way, asserting it not firmly but doubting, as if the matter were not plain and defined, using this word, 'it seems', or this word, 'probably it must be said'. And then, even if all agree in some dogma, it will be lawful to think the opposite without the note of infidelity. For example, the Master of the Sentences teaches in 4, d. 3, that the Sacrament of Baptism was instituted by Christ Himself before His death, and administered by the Apostles; which opinion the other Scholastic Theologians follow; yet they do not so certainly define it that the opposite could not be held. And the places of Sacred Scripture which say that Christ or the Apostles administered baptism before His death can indeed be explained not of the Sacrament of Baptism, which remits sins, but of a certain baptism preparatory to that which was afterwards to be. For even St. Augustine, speaking of this matter in Epistle 108 to Seleuciana, says thus: «Christ baptized not by Himself, but through His disciples, whom we understand to have been already baptized, either with the baptism of John, as some think, or, what is more credible, with the baptism of Christ». Behold, Augustine teaches as more credible, not as altogether certain, that the Apostles received the baptism of Christ. But if they did not receive it, certainly they would not have administered it before the death of the Lord. And so he who would teach that the sacrament of baptism was not instituted before the passion of Christ would not be to be accused of error.

To the fourth it is answered that the studies and exercises of the Theologians are most useful for preserving and declaring the doctrine of faith, and for refuting adversaries, and for many other things, as has been largely shown above, art. 1.

To the fifth it is answered that Scholastic Theology proceeds from the principles of faith, sometimes inferring conclusions probably, sometimes necessarily. When it gathers probably, its argument induces only probability, nor does it make faith altogether certain. But when it gathers necessarily, the conclusion is so certain that to oppose it is erroneous and contrary to faith, at least mediately, as has been sufficiently explained concerning the third conclusion.

To the last argument it is answered that it cannot be denied that the doctrine of the experts in Canon Law is most useful to Theologians, and necessary for many uses, as for the administration of the Sacraments, for the government of Churches, for the celebration of the divine Offices, and other such things.

But how much their authority contributes to arguing in Theology, I say briefly, that in those things which pertain to faith, the Theologian does not need or is not helped by the testimony of the jurists; nay rather, those things which are decreed in the laws concerning faith ought to receive their exposition from the Theologians.

Secondly I say that even in those things which pertain to morals, insofar as either the Evangelical law or natural reason defines such matters, the authority of the jurists can confer little or certainly nothing upon the Theologian; nay rather, the jurists ought to expect from the Theologians the right understanding of such doctrine. The reason for these things is at hand. For the principles from which the sacred Councils or the Supreme Pontiffs elicit the documents of faith or morals are proper to theological doctrine, whose part it is to know what things have been revealed by God, and what things are consequent upon them or repugnant to them, and what is their true understanding. Therefore if any dogmas concerning faith or morals the Pontifical Law gathers from the Gospel or from moral philosophy, the Theologian must understand and interpret them as accepted from his own principles.

Thirdly I say: In those things which concern the morals of the Church, the rites and institutions of religion, the penalties of crimes and other such things which are decreed by positive law and pontifical laws, the common consensus of the jurists ought to make great faith.

Finally I say: In interpreting the laws, letters, and sanctions of the Pontiffs, faith is to be given to the jurists, and the solution of doubts arising concerning such matters is to be sought from them — as, if it be doubted concerning someone whether he is excommunicated, whether he is irregular, whether a subdelegate can subdelegate, and similar things. Although even in these, where, the knowledge of the law being supposed, a discourse intervenes, the opinion of the Theologians ought to have a place. Concerning all these things, therefore, which are proper to the Canonical Faculty, to refuse belief in the aforesaid matters to the doctors of this Faculty will be most insolent. Wherefore the temerity of certain Theologians is deservedly condemned, who spurn the consultation of the jurists in those things which pertain to their study.

Prologus auctoris ad lectorem

In D. Thomae prooemium meditatio

Quaestio I: De sacra doctrina, qualis sit et ad quae se extendat

Articulus I: Utrum sit necessarium praeter Physicas disciplinas aliam doctrinam haberi

Commentarium

Dubium 1

Dubium 2

Articulus II: Utrum sacra doctrina sit scientia

Commentarium

THE principal doubt is concerning the first conclusion: whether sacred doctrine is truly and properly a science.

First conclusion (Latin text without a Spanish translation)

Dubium 1 (continuatio)

Dubium 2

Dubium 3

Articulus III: Utrum sacra doctrina sit una scientia

Commentarium

Dubium 1 (pars prior)

Dubium 1 (continuatio)

Articulus IV: Utrum sacra doctrina sit scientia practica

Commentarium

Dubium 1: Objectiones

Dubium 1: Commentarium

Dubium 1: Responsiones

Articulus V: Utrum sacra doctrina sit dignior aliis scientiis

Commentarium

Dubium 1 (textus Latinus sine versione Hispanica)

Dubium 1

Articulus VI: Utrum haec doctrina sit sapientia

Commentarium

Dubium I

Articulus VII: Utrum Deus sit subiectum huius scientiae

Commentarium

Dubium I

Textus Augustini ante articulum 8

Articulus VIII: Utrum sacra doctrina sit argumentativa

Commentarium

Dubium 1

Dubium 2

Dubium 3

Dubium 4

Dubium 5

Dubium 6

Articulus IX: Utrum Sacra Scriptura debeat uti metaphoris

Commentarium

Commentarium; Dubium I

Articulus X: Utrum Sacra Scriptura sub una littera habeat plures sensus

Commentarium

Dubium 1

Dubium 2

Dubium 3

Dubium 4

Dubium 5

Dubium 6

Dubium 7

Dubium 8

Dubium 9

Quaestio II: De Deo, an Deus sit

Articulus I: Utrum Deum esse sit per se notum

Articulus II: Utrum Deum esse sit demonstrabile

Articulus III: Utrum Deus sit

Quaestio III: De Dei simplicitate

Articulus I: Utrum Deus sit corpus

Articulus II: Utrum in Deo sit compositio formae et materiae

Articulus III: Utrum sit idem Deus quod sua essentia, vel natura

Articulus IV: Utrum in Deo sit idem essentia et esse

Articulus V: Utrum Deus sit in genere aliquo

Articulus VI: Utrum in Deo sint aliqua accidentia

Articulus VII: Utrum Deus sit omnino simplex

Articulus VIII: Utrum Deus in compositionem aliorum veniat

Quaestio IV: De Dei perfectione

Articulus I: Utrum Deus sit perfectus

Articulus II: Utrum in Deo sint perfectiones omnium rerum

Articulus III: Utrum aliqua creatura possit esse similis Deo

Quaestio V: De bono in communi

Articulus I: Utrum bonum differat secundum rem ab ente

Articulus II: Utrum bonum secundum rationem sit prius quam ens

Articulus III: Utrum omne ens sit bonum

Articulus IV: Utrum bonum habeat rationem causae finalis

Articulus V: Utrum ratio boni consistat in modo, specie et ordine

Articulus VI: Utrum convenienter dividatur bonum per honestum, utile et delectabile