Scholastica commentaria in Primam Partem Summae Theologicae

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.