|
The Scriptures
The Scholastic Reformer explains
the doctrine of the verbal revelation of God in the Bible.
The Necessity of Verbal Revelation
The Necessity of Scripture
The Divine Imperative of Written Revelation
The Authority of Scripture
Apparent Contradictions in Scripture
The Knowledge of Scriptural Authority
The Preservation of the Canon
The Canonicity of the Old Testament
The Canonicity of the Apocrypha
The Purity of the Original Text
The Authentic Version of Scripture
The Authenticity of the Hebrew Text
The Need of Translations
The Authenticity of the Septuagint
The Authenticity of the Vulgate
The Perfection of Scripture
The Perspicuity of Scripture
The Reading of Scripture
The Meaning of Scripture
The Supreme Judge of Controversies and the Interpreter of Scripture
The Authority of the Fathers
The Necessity of Verbal Revelation
QUESTION 1: Was revelation by the word necessary?
Affirmative.
I. Since the word of God is the unique foundation (principium)
of theology, its necessity is properly investigated at the very
beginning: was it necessary for God to reveal himself to us by the
word? or, was the word of God necessary? There have been in the past,
and are also today, some who maintain that sufficient capacity for
living well and happily resides in human nature, so that they regard
any revelation from heaven as not only superfluous, but even as
absurd. Since nature takes care of the needs of people just as it does
those of other living creatures, so, they believe, reason, or the
light of nature, is fully sufficient for the guidance of life and the
pursuit of happiness.
II. But the orthodox church has always believed very
differently, declaring that the revelation of God's word is absolutely
and simply necessary to humanity for salvation because [the word] is
the seed which causes rebirth (I Peter 1:23), the lamp by which we are
guided (Ps. 119:105), the food by which we are nourished (Heb. 5:13
-14), and the foundation upon which we depend (Eph.2:20).
III. The following evidence proves the above: (1) the supreme
goodness of God, communicative of itself;
since he has created mankind for himself, that is, for a supernatural
end, and for a condition far happier than this earthly existence, he
cannot be conceived as willing that they should lack in this respect,
but he made clear to them by means of the word this very happiness and
the way for obtaining it, which ["natural"] reason did not
know. (2) The extreme blindness and corruption of people, who,
although after sin still have some residual light for guidance in
earthly and mundane affairs, yet in divine and heavenly matters which
concern blessedness (felicitas)
are so blind and depraved that they can neither know anything of the
truth, nor perform anything of the good, except through the initiative
of God (I Cor. 2:14; Eph.5:8). (3) Right reason, which teaches that
God can be known and worshiped for salvation only through the light of
God, just as the sun can be seen by us only through its own light (Ps.
36:10). Nor would impostors who have devised new religions have
invented their conversations with divine beings or with angels, as
Numa Pompilius did with the nymph Aegeria, or Mohammed with Gabriel,
unless everybody was convinced that the correct form of worship of the
divine being depended on his own revelation. Thus the common opinion
of all nations, even of barbarians, is that for the welfare of
humanity there is needed, besides that reason that they call the guide
of life, some heavenly wisdom. This [conviction] gave rise to the
various religions that are scattered about the globe. In this
connection those who maintain that these religions are merely
ingenious human schemes for uniting people in civic responsibilities
are not to be believed. It will be granted that it is certain that
many clever men have manipulated religion in order to instill
reverence into the common people, as a means of keeping their spirits
submissive, but they could never have accomplished this unless there
was already inborn (ingenitus) in the human mind a sense of its own ignorance and
helplessness, by which the more readily people were led astray by
those vagabonds and quacks.
IV. A double appetite which is implanted in mankind by
nature--the longing both for truth and for immortality--confirms this.
The one desire is to know the truth; the other, to enjoy the highest
good. As the intellect is brought to perfection by the contemplation
of truth, the will is brought to perfection by the enjoyment of the
good, of which the blessed life consists. Since it is impossible that
these two appetites should be in vain,
revelation, which makes evident, as nature cannot, both the primal
truth and the highest good, and the path to both of them, was
necessary. Finally, the glory of God and the salvation of mankind
demand revelation, because the school of nature cannot lead us to the
true God and to legitimate worship of him, nor can it disclose the
plan (ratio) of salvation,
by which people may escape from the wretchedness of sin to the state
of perfect bliss which exists in union with God. The higher school of grace was therefore necessary, in which
God teaches us true religion by his word, to establish us in the
knowledge and worship of himself, and to lead us to the enjoyment of
eternal salvation in communion with him, to which neither philosophy
nor any human effort (ratio)
can attain.
V. Granted that in the works of creation and providence God
manifests himself clearly, so that "what can be known about God
is plain to them [men)" and his invisible nature has been clearly
perceived from the creation of the world (Rom. 1:19 - 20), this real
revelation cannot suffice for salvation after sin,
not only in the subjective sense, because it has not, as an
accompaniment, the power of the Spirit, by which human blindness and
evil are corrected; but also in the objective sense, because it
contains nothing concerning the mysteries of salvation, and God's
mercy in Christ, without whom there is no salvation (Acts 4:12). What
can be known about God is indeed presented, but not what is to be
believed.
God is known from the work of creation as creator, but not as
redeemer; his power and divinity, that is, the existence of the divine
being (numen) and his
unlimited power (virtus)
[are known], but not his grace and saving mercy. It was therefore
necessary to make up the deficiency of the prior revelation, which,
because of the sin that had been committed, was useless and
inadequate, by another one, more splendid not only in degree but also
in kind, that God might use not only a silent teacher, but also open
his sacred mouth, that he could not only make known his more wonderful
power, but also disclose the mystery of his will for our salvation.
VI. Although natural theology deals with various matters
concerning God and his properties, his will and his works, it does
not, without the supernatural revelation of the word, teach us that
understanding of God which can serve for salvation. It shows that God
is and what he is like, both in unity of essence and in the nature of
some attributes, but it does not show who he is, either in his
personal unity (in individua)
or with regard to the persons [of the Trinity].
["Natural revelation"] shows God's will with regard
to the law, imperfectly and obscurely (Rom. 2:14-15), but the mystery
of the gospel is entirely lacking in it. It proclaims the works of
creation and providence (Ps.19; Acts 14:17;
Rom. 1:19 - 20). But it does not rise to the works of
redemption and grace, which can become known to us only by the word
(Rom. 10:17; 16:25 - 26).
The Necessity of Scripture
QUESTION 2: Was it necessary for the word to be committed to
writing? Affirmative.
I. Since in the preceding question we have proved the
necessity of the word, in this one the necessity of Scripture, or the
written word, is argued against the Roman Catholics. For, just as to
establish more easily their traditions and unwritten teachings, and
the authority of their supreme pontiff, they strive earnestly to
denigrate the authority of Scripture, they also try, in more ways than
one, to disparage its necessity. They call it useful for the church,
but not necessary, as Bellarmine argues in De
Verbo Dei, book 4, chapter 4. Cardinal Hosius even utters such
blasphemy as to say, "It would have been a better situation for
the church if no Scripture at all had ever existed," and Valentia
says, "It would have been more convenient had it not been
written."
II. With regard to the state of the question, let it be noted
that "Scripture" may be understood in two ways--either materialiter
with regard to the teaching transmitted, or formaliter
with regard to the writing and form of transmission. In the first
sense we regard it to be simply and absolutely necessary, as said
above, so that the church can
never live without it. But in the second sense, which is here
under discussion, we acknowledge that it is not absolutely necessary
on God's part because, just as he taught
the church by the spoken word alone for two thousand years
before Moses, so, if he had wished, he could have taught it later the
same way. But [Scripture] is necessary
hypothetically
on account of the divine will, since it I seemed good to God, for
weighty reasons, to commit his word to writing. For this reason
[Scripture] has, by divine ordinance, been made so necessary that it
pertains not only to the well-being of the church, but to its very
being, so that now the church cannot exist without the Scripture.
Therefore, God is not bound to the Scripture, but has bound
us to it.
III. The question, therefore, is not whether the writing of
the word is absolutely and simply necessary, but whether it is
necessary secundum quid on
account of the hypothesis; not for every age, but for the present age
and circumstances; not in relation to God's power and freedom, but in
relation to his wisdom and to the economy of his dealing with the
human race. For, just as in the economy of the natural order parents
change their manner of dealing with their children as these grow
older, so that infants are first directed by the spoken word, then by
the voice of a teacher and the reading of books, and finally are freed
from the guidance of the teacher and learn on their own from books, so
the heavenly Father, who instructs his people as the head of a family
(Deut. 8:5), taught the church, when it was still young and childish,
by the spoken word, the most simple form of revelation. Then, as it
began to mature and was established under the law in its early youth,
he taught both by the spoken word, because of continuing
childishness, and by writing, because of the beginnings of
maturity, until the apostles' time. But when [the church] had reached
adulthood, under the gospel, he wanted it to be satisfied with the
most perfect form of revelation, that is, the written light.
Therefore, Scripture is necessary not only by the necessity of a
commandment, but also by the hypothesis of the divine economy, which
God wanted to be varied and manifold in the different ages of the
church (Eph.3:10).
IV. The distinction between the word as written and as
unwritten has arisen because of this process. This is not, as Roman
Catholics hold, the division of a genus into species, as if the
written word differed from the unwritten, but it is the division of
the subject into its accidents, because the same Word is always
involved; it was once unwritten, but now has been written. It is
therefore called "unwritten," not with respect to the
present, but to past time, when God chose to teach his church by a
spoken word, not by writing.
V. Although God formerly spoke to the fathers "in many
and various ways" (Heb. 1:1), sometimes by an audible voice,
sometimes by internal and nonsensory action, sometimes in dreams and
visions, sometimes taking the appearance of human form, often using
the ministry of angels and other appropriate means, yet the teaching
was always the same, and was not changed either by the form of
revelation and transmission or by changing times.
VI. Three [needs] in particular support the necessity of
Scripture: (1) the preservation of the word; (2) its defense; (3) its
proclamation. It was necessary for the written word to be given to the
church to be the fixed and changeless rule of faith of the true
religion, which could thus more readily be preserved pure and whole in
spite of the weakness of memory, the perversity of humanity, and the
shortness of life; more surely defended against the frauds and
corruptions of Satan, and more readily proclaimed and transmitted not
only to people who were scattered and separated from one another, but
to future generations as well. As Vives reminds us (De
causis corruptium artium 1), "By letters all the arts are
preserved as in a treasury, so that they can never be lost, although
transmission by hand is uncertain." "Divine and marvelous is
this blessing of letters," says Quintilian, "which protects
words and holds them like a deposit for an absent person." Nor
are the statutes and edicts of kings and commonwealths inscribed in
bronze or posted in public places for any other reason than that this
is the surest means of preserving them in their original form, and of
proclaiming throughout the ages matters which it is important for
people to know.
VII. Although before Moses the church did without the written
word, it does not follow that it can do so now, for the situation of
the infant church of those days, which did not yet form a numerous
body, was very different from that of the present church, which is
established and of large size. The church of former times differed
from that of later days: in it the unwritten word could more easily be
preserved because of the longevity of the patriarchs, the small number
of covenant people, and the frequency of revelations (even if many of
them underwent corruption). But in another age, when human life had
been shortened, and the church was not limited to one or another
family, but had increased to a very large company, and the divine
oracles were more rarely given, another form of governance was called
for, so that this sacred commonwealth was ruled not merely by the
spoken word, but by written laws.
VIII. Although some individual churches may have been without
the written word of God at some particular time, especially when they
were first established, they were not without what was written in the
Word of God, which certainly sounded in their ears through human
ministry; nor did the church as a whole lack the Scripture.
IX. The Holy Spirit as helper (epicorhgia),
by whom believers are to be taught by God (Jer.31; John 6:43[45]; I
John 2:27), does not make the Scripture any less necessary, because
(1) he is not given us to bring new revelations, but to impress the
written word on our hearts, so that the Word can never be separated
from the Spirit (Isa.59:21).
The Word acts objectively; the Spirit, efficiently. The Word
strikes the ears externally; the Spirit lays bare the heart,
internally. The Spirit is the teacher; Scripture is the teaching that
he gives us. (2) The words in Jeremiah 31 and I John 2:27 are not to
be understood absolutely and simply, as if it were no longer necessary
for believers, under the new covenant, to use the Scripture; if this
were so, there would have been no point in John's writing to them. But
they are to be understood in a relative sense, because, on account of
the greater abundance of the Holy Spirit under the new covenant,
believers were not to be taught in so burdensome a form as through the
primitive and undeveloped elements of the old. (3) Jeremiah's promise
will receive its complete fulfillment only in heaven, where, on
account of the brilliant vision of God, there will no longer be need
for the ministry of Scripture or of pastors, but everyone will see God
directly, face to face.
X. It is not true that the church was preserved without
Scripture during the Babylonian captivity, for Daniel is said to have
perceived, from the books, before the end of the seventy-year period,
the number of the years (Dan. 9:2), and in Nehemiah 8:2, Ezra is said
to bring forth the book of the laws, not to write it anew. IV Esdras
[II Esdras] 4:23,
being apocryphal, proves nothing. Even if Ezra gathered the sacred
books into one corpus, and corrected the careless errors of scribes,
it does not follow that the church had completely lacked Scripture [in
his time].
XI. There is no evidence for Bellarmine's assumption that,
since the time of Moses, any from other nations who have been led to
the true religion had tradition only, and lacked Scripture, for if any
became proselytes, they were instructed thoroughly in Moses and the
prophets, as the single example of the eunuch of Queen Candace in Acts
8 [26-39] proves adequately. Nor was Scripture completely unknown to
the Gentiles, especially after it was translated into Greek in the
time of Ptolemy Philadelphus.
XII. Christ therefore is our only teacher (Matt. 23:8) in
such a way that the ministry of Scripture is not excluded, but is
included of necessity, because he now speaks to us in it only, and
builds us up through it. Nor is Christ opposed to Scripture, but to
the false teachers of the Pharisees, who ambitiously pretended to the
magisterial authority that belongs to Christ alone.
XIII. Although formally Scripture has no personal value for
illiterates, who cannot read, nevertheless it serves materially for
their instruction and edification, inasmuch as the teaching which goes
on in the church is not taken from any other source.
The Divine Imperative of Written Revelation
QUESTION 3: Was the Holy Scripture written because of the
circumstances of the time (occasionaliter),
and without divine command? Negative, against the Roman Catholics.
I. This question is debated between us and the Roman
Catholics, who, in order to minimize the authority and perfection of
Scripture, teach not only that it is less than necessary, and that the
church could do without it, but even that it was written without any
express divine commandment, and simply passed on to the church as a
result of special circumstances. [They also] teach that Christ gave
the apostles no commandment to write, and that they had no intention
of writing the gospel, except in a secondary sense and because of
special circumstances, as Bellarmine argues (De
Verbo Dei, book 4.3-4).
II. That the sacred writers responded to circumstances of
time and place is unquestioned. We do not deny that they often put the
mysteries of God into writing under such influence. The question is
whether they wrote under such circumstances that they did not write by
divine revelation and commandment. We indeed hold that this is not a
matter of opposition, but of combination. They could write under the
influence of circumstances and at the same time from divine
commandment and inspiration. Indeed, since such a circumstance was not
presented to them except through divine action, the writing was in
accordance with the divine commandment, and the situation neither
arose without design (temere)
nor was used of their own will (sponte).
III. An implicit and general commandment is to be
distinguished from an explicit and special one. Granted that all the
sacred writers did not have a special commandment to write, although
this is frequent (Exod.17[:14]; Deut. 31:19; Isa. 8:1; Jer. 36:2; Hab.
2:2; Rev. 1:12[11]), yet they all had the general one. For the
commandment to teach (Matt. 28:19) includes the commandment to write,
since without writing we cannot teach those who are in another place
or who come after us, whence preaching is said to be done in writing,
in deed, and in word. Further, immediate inspiration and the internal
direction by which they were led by the Holy Spirit were the
equivalent of a commandment (loco
mandati) for the sacred writers, so that Paul called Scripture
"God-breathed" (II Tim. 3:16), and Peter said,
"Prophecy did not come by the will of man, but men of God spoke,
moved by the Holy Spirit" (II Peter 1:21): that is, the apostles
wrote when God inspired and moved them, although not in a mechanical
manner, under coercion. No more effective commandment could be given
than by the inspiration of the things to be written, nor is any one of
the promises made by ambassadors fulfilled except one they have been
commanded to make.
IV. Granted that the apostles do not always mention a special
commandment of Christ, which however they often do (for instance,
John, Jude, and others), yet they witness strongly enough to such a
commandment (1) when they professed themselves to be universal
teachers of all nations, (2) when they called themselves faithful
servants of Christ, and therefore peculiarly anxious to carry out his
commandments, (3) when they witness that they were guided by the
Spirit (II Peter 1:21). Therefore, Gregory sums the matter up well:
"He who uttered these words wrote them; he who was the inspirer
of their works wrote them."
V. Not all the apostles were required to write, although all
were required to preach. As they were jointly sent of divine
inspiration to the task of preaching, so they should all proclaim the
same message and follow it with writing; there was an equal
responsibility in all matters that were essential for the apostolate,
since all were equal as God-breathed teachers. But they did not have
equal responsibility in the performance of every particular action, so
it is not strange if, through the freedom of the Holy Spirit, some
were called to both preaching and writing, and others to preaching
only.
VI. A single book was not put together by all the apostles
conjointly, both so that they would not seem to have acted together in
conspiracy, and so that it might not seem to have greater authority
than what each one wrote individually; it would seem that for the same
reason Christ refrained altogether from writing: that we might say
that he is the one who wrote his teaching not with ink but by the
Spirit of the living God, not on tablets but in the heart (II Cor.
3:2[-3]). It was therefore sufficient that that which was approved by
all [the apostles] should be written by some of them. Indeed it adds
much weight and authority to the apostolic writings that, although
they were written in different places, for different purposes and
circumstances, in different styles and different forms, addressed to
different people, yet [they] are so harmonious.
VII. It was not necessary for a catechism to be written by
the apostles; (1) it was sufficient for them to transmit that by which
all symbolic books and catechisms were to be tested. (2) If they did
not write a catechism formally, yet materially they passed on, both in
the Gospels and in the Epistles, that from which we may do
catechetical work in the best possible manner.
VIII. As we ought not to impose law on the Holy Spirit, and
prescribe to him the method of revealing his will, so we ought not to
doubt that the form of writing that has been followed is the most
suitable, not only because at that time teaching by means of letters
was a widely accepted procedure, because this manner of teaching was
most useful for spreading the gospel rapidly, which was the chief
purpose of the apostles; but also because this simple and popular form
of writing suits the capacities of all, the uneducated as well as the
educated, and teaches a theology that is not ideal and merely
theoretical, but practical and specific (in hypothesi).
IX.The Apostles' Creed is so called, not efficiently because
it was passed on by the apostles, but materially, because it was
composed from the apostolic teaching, and is the kernel (medulla)
and compendium of the apostolic teaching.
X. Those who wrote under the influence and compulsion (necessitas)
of circumstances could nevertheless be writing from a [special]
commandment: two realities, one of which is subordinate to the other,
ought not to be understood as contradictory. Christ's commandment was
the primary activating cause and the circumstance a secondary, less
significant (minus principalis) activating cause, by which, as they wrote for the
glory of God and the edification of the neighbor, the apostles
preached both from divine commandment and on account of circumstances.
XI. Granted that it was proper for the apostles to write
because they were under obligation to teach, it does not follow that
pastors are now always under the same obligation to write as to teach,
because they work under different conditions. The apostles were
obligated to teach all nations, as ecumenical teachers, but this is
not the case with ordinary pastors, who have a particular congregation
(grex) committed to them.
The Authority of Scripture
QUESTION 4: Are the Holy Scriptures genuine and divine?
Affirmative.
I. The question of the authority (authoritas) of Scripture depends upon its origin, which has just
been discussed. Since it
is from God, it cannot be other than genuine (authenticus)
and divine.
Hence arises the question or its authority, which can have two
aspects: (1) with atheists and pagans (ethnici), who grant to Scripture no more authority than to any other
writing; (2) with Christians who, while acknowledging [its authority],
understand it as depending, at least in our understanding (quoad nos), on the testimony of the church. With the first, it must
be asked whether Holy Scriptures are credible in themselves and
divine; with the second, how this is made known to us, or on what
testimony, above all, the authority of Scripture depends. Here we are
discussing the first question, not the second.
II. Granted that in truth the first question seems hardly
necessary among Christians, where it should be assumed without
controversy that Scripture is God-breathed and the primary foundation
of the faith, yet because there are even today among Christians too
many atheists and libertines who seek in every way to erode this most
sacred truth,
it is of first importance for salvation that we protect our faith
fully against the demonic scoffing of such irreligious folk.
III. The authority of Scripture, concerning which we are now
writing, is nothing else than the right and dignity of the sacred
books, by which those articles which are set forth in them to be
believed are most worthy of faith, and those which are set forth as to
be left undone or to be done demand obedience. The basis is the divine
and infallible truth of the books, which have God as author, because
he has the supreme privilege of binding mankind to faith and
obedience. This can be either intrinsic or extrinsic. The first is the
worthiness of faith of the Word in itself, which is always the same
and which rests upon itself, whether human testimony supports it or
not. The second is the opinion or judgment of people concerning
Scripture, which differs by reason of the difference between subjects
[persons].
IV. Further, authority (authentia)
is either that of history and narration, or that of truth and the
norm. According to the former whatever is told in Scripture is true as
it is told, whether good or evil, true or false. The latter refers to
matters true in themselves, that are communicated as the norm of faith
and morals. Not everything in Scripture has the authority of a norm,
inasmuch as words of blasphemous people and of the devil are recorded,
but everything has the authority of historical truth.
V. It is not a question of whether the sacred writers simply
as human beings and in private matters would err. We readily concede this. Nor is it a question whether they
could err as holy men led by the Holy Spirit, and in the substance,
the total message. This I suppose no one of our adversaries, except a
defender of pure atheism, will uphold. The question is whether in
writing they were so led and inspired by the Holy Spirit that, with
regard to both the substance and the words, their writings were
authoritative (authenticus)
and divine. The adversaries deny this; we affirm it.
VI. Scripture shows itself to be divine, in an authoritative
manner and by means of an artless argument or testimony, when it calls
itself "God-breathed." This testimony can be used with
profit in disputes among Christians, who themselves profess to accept
[Scripture], but not against others who reject it. But Scripture [also
shows itself to be divine] rationally (ratiocinative)
by means of arguments constructed by reason, based on marks (notae)
which God has impressed on Scripture, which carry before them the
unquestionable proofs (argumenta)
of divinity. For just as the works of God proclaim the incomparable
excellence of their creator, seen in certain qualities perceived by
the eyes, and as the sun becomes known by its own light, even so [God]
wills that various rays of divinity, by which he may be recognized,
should flow out from Scripture, which is the effluence of the Father
of lights and the sun of righteousness.
VII. These marks are both extrinsic and intrinsic. The
former, although they are insufficient for a full proof of the matter,
nevertheless are of great weight for confirming it, and convincing
those who deny it. [But] it is in the latter that the chief strength
of the argument lies.
VIII. The external marks are: (1) the origin [of Scripture]:
its primal antiquity surpassing all pagan monuments; as Tertullian
said, "Whatever is first is most true"; (2) its survival (duratio):
the wonders of the divine Word through the provision for its
protection against the most powerful and hostile enemies who sought to
destroy it by sword and fire, right down to the present day, while a
multitude of other books, against which nothing of the kind was
attempted, have been altogether lost; (3) its agents and writers, who
showed the greatest candor and sincerity in writing, and did not
conceal their failures, but openly avowed them; (4) its adjuncts: the
number, constancy, and condition of the martyrs, who sealed it with
their blood. For since nothing is dearer to people than life, so many
myriads of both sexes, and of all ages and walks of life, could not
have so willingly gone forth to death, even in its most cruel forms,
in defense of Scripture, unless they were convinced of its divinity.
Nor would God have cared to exercise his omnipotence in the performing
of so many and great miracles as were performed, both under the law
and under the gospel for producing faith in the divinity of Scripture,
if it were merely a product of human intellect.
In addition there is the testimony of adversaries themselves,
as that of the pagans to Moses, of Josephus and the authors of the
Talmud to Christ, and of Mohammed to both Testaments, which can be
found in the writings of Vives, Plessaeus, Grotius, and others.
Finally there is the consensus of [Christian] people, who, although
they differ concerning religious teaching, worship, language, and
behavior, yet receive this Word as a most precious treasury of divine
truth, and hold it as the foundation of religion and the worship of
God; nor is it credible that God would have permitted such a multitude
of people, who sought him earnestly, to be deceived for so long by
lying books.
IX. The internal marks, which are more significant, are also
of many kinds. (1) The content (materia):
the awe-inspiring sublimity of the mysteries such as the Trinity, the
incarnation, the satisfaction of Christ, the resurrection of the dead,
and others, which could not be found out by the wisdom of any mind;
the holiness and purity of the commandments, which bring (cogo) into order the very meditations and inward desires of the
heart and are fit to make people perfect in every form of virtue, and
worthy of God; the certainty of the prophecies (oracula)
concerning the most hidden and distant matters. Knowledge and
prediction of the future, depending on the will of God alone, is
unique to God (Numen)
(Isa.41:23). (2) The style: the divine majesty, appearing no less in
the simplicity than in the gravity, and that absolute uncompromising
manner of laying obligation upon all without distinction--on both the
exalted and the humble. (3) The form: the divine consensus and total
harmony, not only between the Testaments, with the fulfillment of
prediction and typology, but also between individual books of both
Testaments, so much the more amazing in that these books were the work
of many authors, who wrote at different times and places, so that they
were unable to confer with one another about the matters on which they
wrote. (4) The purpose: the aim of everything toward the glory of the
one God and the holiness and salvation of humanity. (5) The effect:
the light and efficacy of the divine teaching, which, with more
penetrating power than a two-edged sword, pierces into the very soul,
engenders faith and piety in the minds of hearers, and unfailing
constancy for confessors, and always come forth triumphant from the
reign of Satan and false religions. These criteria are truly such that
they: cannot apply to any human writings, all of which bear the
evidence of human weakness, but they truly show that Scripture is
divine, especially when they are taken, not one at a time, but
altogether.
X. It is not to be thought that these marks appear in equal
force in all the books of Scripture. Just as one star differs from
another in brilliance, so in this heaven of Scripture some books send
forth more glorious and plentiful rays, others fewer and more meager
ones, depending on whether they are more or less necessary for the
church, and contain teachings of greater or less importance. This
brilliance shines forth much more in the Gospels and the Epistles of
Paul than in the Books of Ruth and Esther, but it is nonetheless
certain that those evidences of truth and majesty, which prove them
divine and authoritative in themselves, are in all of them, or at
least that nothing is found in them that makes their authority
doubtful.
XI. It is not necessary that there should be these marks in
every pericope or verse of the canonical books, or in particular parts
of Scripture, separated from the whole, those marks by which they can
be distinguished from the Apocrypha. It is enough that they are
present in the divine writings considered together and as a whole.
XII. Granted that false religions are accustomed to use these
criteria to vindicate their teaching, yet nonetheless the true one may
ascribe them to itself, for the false opinion of human beings does not
destroy the truth. Nor will a believer be unable truly to proclaim the
divine quality of the Holy Scripture, in which he sees everywhere the
most brilliant rays of divine truth, [merely] because a Turk falsely
attributes this divine quality (divinitas)
to his Qur'an, or a Jew attributes it to his Cabala, because the
fictions and lies of which both books are altogether composed are
obvious.
XIII. Although faith rests on the authority of testimony, and
not on scientific demonstration, it does not follow that it cannot be
supported by intellectual arguments at times, especially when faith is
first formed, because faith, before it believes, should (debere)
have the clearly perceived divine quality of the witness whom it
should believe, [known] from sure marks found in [the witness];
otherwise it cannot believe him. For where such grounds for believing
anyone are lacking, the testimony of such a witness is not worthy of
belief.
XIV. The witness of the prophets and apostles is superior to
all objection, and cannot be questioned by reason. For, if it were
uncertain and fallible, this would be either because they were
deceived or because they wished to deceive others, but neither can be
said. (1) They were not deceived, nor could they have been. For if
they were deceived, they were deceived either by another or by
themselves. The former cannot be said, for [they were not deceived]
either by God, who, just as he can be deceived by no one likewise
cannot deceive anyone,
nor by unfallen angels, nor by demons, since this teaching leads to
the
total destruction of the kingdom of the devil. [That they
deceived themselves] is no more possible, for if anyone is deceived
about any event, it is mainly either because he did not see it himself
but heard from others whom he trusted, or because he saw it
incidentally and in passing, or because it is obscure and too
difficult for human understanding, or because the person is of
impaired mind and limited by some pathological condition because of
which he interprets poorly. But in this case nothing of this sort took
place. For (1) they reported what they knew not by doubtful report or
from others who knew imperfectly, but what they themselves knew by the
most certain and experiential knowledge, since they were witnesses by
eye and ear, in matters in the comprehension of which they were
engaged with earnest concern and zeal. (2) Nor did they speak of
remote and distant affairs, but of events which happened in their own
time and in the place in which they wrote, as is written, "What
we have seen with our eyes, what we have heard concerning the word of
life, that we proclaim" (I John 1:1- 2). (3) It is not a question
of matters that were obscure or that rested on mere speculation,
concerning which simple and uneducated people, not comprehending their
sublimity, might easily have been deceived, but of events that took
place in their presence and before their eyes: for example, the
resurrection of Christ, of whom, before his death, they were regular
companions, and who had shown himself openly to them after his
resurrection, not in passing, but for a significant amount of time,
not once, but often, not before one or another individual, but before
many of both sexes, and all walks of life.
(4) Finally, it cannot be said that their faculties were
impaired; for not only is there no distorted imagination or disturbed
mind, but rather they give evidence of wisdom and sound mind in both
word and life; and furthermore not one or another individual but many
people experience and report the same thing. From this it follows that
there is no reason why they can be said to have been deceived.
XV. [2] But, just as they were not deceived, neither did they
wish to deceive. For those who deceive and lie have in mind some gain
from lying and deception, either to receive honor (gloria), or the gratitude of the human race, or to gain wealth and
ease. But what reward, either in life or in death, was sought by the
men of God when they proclaimed this testimony? While alive, they
often experienced on its account the very fate by which people are
driven to deception--poverty, exile, crucifixion, and extreme
torture--and, after death, infamy and everlasting loss.
Nevertheless, disregarding such considerations, they, knowing the
risk, did not hesitate to meet ultimate decisions for the sake of
confirming their witness, and, forever dying, to undergo the most
bitter humiliation and suffering. Who could believe that they would
have been willing to bear all this for the sake of something they knew
to be doubtful or false, when it was known for a certainty that anyone
who took their course would meet loss of reputation and property, if
not death? No one, surely, can argue that they were so enamored of a
desire for lying that they did it in a manner at once most stupid and
evil; most stupid, that they should want to lie not for their
advantage but most certainly for their disadvantage, when they wrote
against their very religion itself, which so strictly forbids lying;
most evil, because in lying they would have sought to deceive the
whole world, and, with no advantage for themselves, to involve
everyone in evil with them.
XVI. Further, they could not have deceived, even if they
wanted to. For they did not write of events that were remote and
separated from their experience, or which took place before their
time, or secretly and in some comer in the absence of witnesses, as
those who impose on the masses commonly do, nor could they easily have
conspired in falsehood. But they described events which took place in
their own time, in public and in the light of day (coram
sole),
in the very place where they wrote, and indeed which often concerned
those who had seen and heard what they wrote about, who would readily
have detected fraud and deceit, if they were present. If, therefore,
they were not deceived and did not deceive, there is no doubt but that
their witness is sacred (divinus),
and that all teaching that depends on it is authoritative (authenticus).
XVII. That the prophets and apostles were such, and that they
wrote the books attributed to them, cannot be called in question
without destroying all belief in historical records (antiquitatis fides), and giving rise to total scepticism (Pyrrhonismus).
It is just as possible to raise the question with regard to all other
books that have survived, but since it is certain that these books
were written by some authors, what sane person would not more readily
believe that they were written by those whose names they bear, as the
Christian church everywhere has always held, and over which no
controversy has been begun either by Jews or by pagans, and which in
the earliest times, when it was possible to know the facts, was
already accepted, than [to believe that they were written] by somebody
else?
XVIII. Anything that can be brought up to destroy faith in
the Mosaic history can easily be refuted if examined in detail. For
(1) if anyone should deny that Moses ever existed, or was the author
of the books ascribed to him, he could be shown wrong without
difficulty, both because not only Jews and Christians but also many
profane writers acknowledge him, and also because [his authorship] has
always been accepted by a multitude of people, nor can it be
questioned on any ground unless we wish to overthrow historical belief
altogether, and to deny that Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and others ever
lived and wrote the books that bear their names, which no one except a
demented person would maintain. Much less can this be maintained with
regard to Moses than with regard to these others, because there is no
book which the Jews would have had more reason to throw away, since by
so doing they would have freed themselves from the yoke of a most
burdensome law. But on the contrary, none has been received and preserved by
them with greater care and enthusiasm, nor accorded, contrary to
expectation, such authority, as it has been regarded as divine law and
the norm of religion; certainly (sane)
for no other reason than conviction concerning the truth contained in
it.
XIX. (2) Secondly, if anyone, convinced by another, gives up
this point and admits that Moses lived and wrote the books attributed
to him, but maintains that he was an outstanding impostor and
falsifier, who deceived the Israelite people by empty lies and false
miracles (prodigii), and subjected them to himself by means of the law which
he proclaimed, such a person can be refuted no less easily. For, not
to mention that the pagans themselves, and irreconcilable opponents
like Porphyry (Adversus
Christianos, book 4),
give praise to Moses as a truthful writer, it cannot easily be
understood how that outstanding wisdom and admirable character, in
which the entire life of Moses shines, can be harmonized with such a
wicked imposture, or in what way he would have been able to think
through that marvelous law, from which whatever good others possess
has been borrowed, which provides for the glory of the one God and the
holiness of the people, to further his fraud and imposture. Further,
if he were an impostor, it is surprising that he followed a path
plainly contrary to his design, in which he could easily be convicted
of falsification. For if the account which he gives of the origin of
the world is false, nothing would have been easier than to demonstrate
its falsity, because of the small number of generations which he
records between Adam and the flood, and between the flood and the
people's departure from Egypt, since in the time of Moses some who had
seen Joseph could still be living, whose parents would have seen Shem,
who, up to the hundredth year of his life could have associated with
Methuselah, who survived to that time, and who himself had seen Adam;
thus the truth or falsity of the matter could have been discovered
without difficulty. (3) If Moses was an impostor, and wished to
deceive the Israelites, he certainly hoped that the Israelites would
believe his lies and deceptions, but how would he have been able to
convince them of so many and such great signs as are said to have been
given both in Egypt and in the desert, if nothing of the sort had
happened? Especially in
view of the fact that he wrote for people who would have been
witnesses, by ear and eye, of the events, and he wrote concerning
actions which were not performed many centuries earlier, but in that
very time, not secretly and in some comer, and before a few witnesses
who could easily have been corrupted, but openly and in public before
the eyes of six hundred thousand men [Exod. 12:37], and their
irreconcilable enemies, who would be able to describe him as a
falsifier? Would he have been able to hope that there would be among
the people no one who doubted these claims, or who would not inquire
into the truth of what happened in Egypt? Is it believable that, out
of so many people, whom he repeatedly described most bitterly as
rebellious and ungovernable, and whom he often afflicted with the most
painful punishments, striking with sudden death not simply hundreds,
but thousands, and [performing] similar actions by which he could have
most justly aroused their anger against him, there was not one who
exposed his deceit and imposture, when all of them are seen
complaining and rebelling so unfairly against him? Finally, if he
engaged in imposture, he certainly took some gain from it, either
honor or wealth, as he might have gained authority (imperium)
for himself and his posterity, or sought praise for wisdom and heroic
character (virtus); but both
the facts themselves and the sincerity with which he so frankly
confessed his own sin, and above all his failure to believe,
sufficiently show how far Moses was from desire for riches or honor.
XX. But perhaps the Israelites, recognizing the falsity of
the accounts which were given by Moses, joined in deceit and
imposture, in order to secure the greater glory of the nation. But (1)
who dares believe that they were so senseless as to agree that they
would not resist in such a tremendous fraud by which they were
subjected to the unbearable (abastaktw?|/) yoke of a most burdensome
law, if they were convinced that this law was simply the invention of
Moses? Is it possible to assert, in any true fashion, that, of six
hundred thousand men, all would agree in such deceit, so that not one
was found who would set himself against such a plan? (2) So far from
truth is it that they secured honor and praise among others by this
action that, on the contrary, the hatred and scorn of all came upon
them, rightly; for who would maintain that it advanced the honor of a
nation to have its worst sins and grumblings exposed to the eyes of
the world, so that they were shown as the most stiff-necked and
ungrateful of mortals, and the very heavy penalties by which God
punished their obstinacy and rebellion were recorded more than once?
Who does not see that these facts show forever the honesty of the
[Israelite] nation? In short, there is no reason why a people of such
stiff neck and so fond of pleasure would so readily have sought
subjection to a most burdensome law, one the least transgression of
which was so severely avenged, unless they were convinced of the
divine quality (divinitas)
of the call of Moses, and of the truth of his words.
XXI. The conversion of the world and the success of the
gospel is a most striking argument for its divine quality, for unless
the apostles were men of God and imparted heavenly truth, it is beyond
comprehension who could have accomplished this, since their teaching
lacked all those supports by which every human teaching is made
popular and spread abroad, and was attacked stubbornly by those forces
by which any teaching can be resisted: the authority of elders, the
consensus of popular opinion, the favor of princes, the eloquence of
orators, the subtlety of philosophers, agreement with human customs
and inclination. [This
teaching] was spread by a few ignorant and weak men, who were
altogether foreign not only to deceit in teaching, but also to the
appearance of it. They were not helped by the support of eloquence,
[were] educated in no skill of pleading, [were] scorned and despised.
By persuasion alone, without any support from authority and public
approval, without the aid of weapons, through a thousand deaths and
hardships and in the shortest time, [this teaching] was so spread to
almost every place that it had overcome all obstacles, and emerged
victor over other religions that were well furnished with all these
supports, so that entire nations and kings themselves had embraced it,
without hope of reward, and indeed with the certain prospect of evils
which were absurd to reason and unwelcome to the flesh, and which
would seem to drive people away from it rather than attract them to
it.
XXII. Certainty is of three kinds: (1) mathematical, (2)
moral, and (3) theological. (1) Mathematical or metaphysical certainty
consists of first principles known through nature and in themselves,
and of conclusions demonstrated from such principles, such as
"the whole is greater than any part," and "the same
object cannot both exist (esse) and not exist at the same time." (2) Moral certainty
is found in matters which cannot be demonstrated but which
nevertheless are commended to belief by such most probable evidences
and arguments that no prudent person can doubt them. [In this class
are the conclusions] that the Aeneid
was written by Virgil, and Livy's history by Livy.
Although, to be sure, the matter is not known through itself,
yet it is so witnessed to by unchanging report that nobody who has any
conception of history and literature can doubt it. (3) Theological
certainty is found in matters which, although .they cannot be
demonstrated, nor known through themselves or by nature, and do not
depend on most probable evidence and moral arguments, yet [depend on]
arguments truly theological and divine, namely, divine revelation,
which therefore produce not merely a moral and conjectural certainty,
but a faith truly divine. Scripture does not hold (habeo)
metaphysical certainty. If it did, the assent which we would give it
would take the form of knowledge (scientiam),
not faith. It does not hold a certainty simply moral and probable. If
it did, our faith would be no more certain than the historical assent
which is given to human writings. But it does hold a theological and
infallible certainty, which cannot deceive the person who is faithful
and illuminated by the Spirit of God.
XXIII. The prophets made no mistakes when they wrote inspired
by God and as prophets, not even in matters of little significance,
because if they did, faith in the whole of Scripture would be turned
into doubt. But in other ways, as men, they were capable of error. In
this way, David erred in the letter concerning the killing of Uriah
[II Sam. 11:14-15], which has historical but not normative authority,
and Nathan erred in the advice which, without seeking God's will, he
gave David about building the temple (II Sam. 7:3), because the
influence of the Holy Spirit was neither universal nor continuous, nor
is it to be understood as a normal motion or effect of nature (II
Kings 2:17).
XXIV. The apostles were infallible in faith, not in morals,
and the Spirit was their guide in all truth so that they never erred,
but not in all godly living (pietas)
so that they never sinned, because they were like us in all things.
The pretense and hypocrisy of Peter, recorded in Galatians 2:12, was a
sin in life, not an error in faith, a moral lapse and failure in
conduct resulting from weakness and fear of incurring the hatred of
the Jews. It was not, however, an intellectual error (error
mentis) resulting from ignorance of Christian freedom, his
understanding of which is sufficiently shown by his fellowship with
Gentiles previous to the arrival of the Jews.
XXV. When Paul says, "I say, not the Lord" (I Cor.
7:10[12]), he does not deny the inspiration of the Lord, by whose
words he vindicates his own (v. 40). Rather this precept, or law
expressly given by the Lord, was hidden before him, so that the
meaning is that this controversy over sinful desertion had not yet
arisen in Christ's time, nor had he had any opportunity of settling
it, which Paul, illumined by the Spirit, now did.
XXVI. Anything in the Law which seems absurd and useless will
be found by the pious and wise to be of the greatest significance for
the motivating of obedience, the overthrowing of idolatry, the
cultivation of morals, and the proclamation of the Messiah, if taken
rightly and properly. The genealogies, and other records that seem
unnecessary, are witnesses to the origin, spread, and preservation of
the church and to the fulfillment of the promises of a Messiah
descended from the seed of Abraham and David.
XXVII. The prophecy of Hosea (Hos.1:2) does not command that
he marry the adulteress, for the sons of a marriage cannot be called
illegitimate, which is the meaning of this verse. But this must be
understood as allegory, since Israel, impure because of her idolatry,
is represented by this symbol.
Apparent Contradictions in Scripture
QUESTION 5: Are there in Scripture true contradictions, or
any irreconcilable passages, which cannot be resolved or harmonized in
any way? Negative.
I. When the divine quality of Scripture, which was argued in
the preceding question, has been accepted, its infallibility follows
of necessity.
But in every age the enemies of true religion and of Scripture
have thought that they had found contradictory passages in Scripture,
and have vigorously presented them in order to overthrow its
authority; for example, Porphyry, Lucian, and Julian the Apostate
among the pagans of antiquity, and today various atheists, who in
hostile fashion declare that there are contradictions and
irreconcilable differences which cannot be harmonized in any way.
Therefore this particular question must be discussed with them, so
that the integrity of Scripture may be upheld against their impiety by
a completed fabric and covering.
II. Our controversy is not with open atheists and pagans, who
do not recognize Holy Scripture, but with others who, although they
seem to accept it, yet indirectly deny it in this manner: for example,
the enthusiasts, who allege the imperfection of the written word in
order to attract people to their esoteric word or special revelations;
the Roman Catholics, who, although they defend the divine quality of
Scripture against the atheist, yet do not fear to oppose, with
powerful weapons, and to the full extent of their ability, their own
cause and that of all Christendom, and to enter the struggle as its
enemies, by teaching the corruption of the sources
in order to win agreement for the authority of their Vulgate version;
and finally, various libertines, who, although living in the bosom of
the church, never stop calling attention to some "irreconcilable
differences" and "contradictions," so as to erode the
authority of Scripture.
III. To deal with them, the scholars (doctores) follow various paths. Some think the question may be
easily handled by granting that the sacred writers could have made
mistakes, by failure of memory, or in unimportant details.
This argument is used by Socinus when he treats the authority
of Scripture, by Castellio in his Dialogue,
and by others. But this does not counter the argument of the atheists;
it joins them in a blasphemous manner. Others hold that the Hebrew and
Greek sources have been corrupted in places, through the malice of
Jews and heretics, but that the correction is easy by means of the
Vulgate and the infallible authority of the church. This is the
teaching of most Roman Catholics. We will argue against it in a later
section,
when we discuss
the purity of the sources. Others concede that small errors have
appeared in Scripture, and remain, which cannot be corrected by
reliance on any
manuscript or by collation, but which are not to be ascribed
to the sacred writers, but explained partly by the ravages of time and
partly by the faults of copyists and editors, and which do not destroy
the authority of Scripture because they occur only with regard to
unnecessmy or unimportant statements. Scaliger, Cappel, Amama, Voss,
and others are of this opinion. Finally, others uphold the integrity
of Scripture and do not deny that various seeming contradictions--not,
however, true or real ones--occur;
[they believe] that these passages are difficult to
understand but not altogether contradictory and impossible. This is
the more common opinion of the orthodox, which we follow as the more
safe and the more true.
IV. It is not a question of errors in spelling and
punctuation, or of variant readings, which everyone admits are not
infrequent, nor whether the copies that we have agree so completely
with the original autographs that they do not differ in the least. But
the question is whether our manuscripts so differ from the originals
that the true meaning has been corrupted, and the original texts can
no longer be regarded as the rule of faith and practice.
V. It is not a question of the faultiness of some individual
codices, or of the errors which the carelessness of copyists and
printers may have introduced into the copies of this or that edition.
No one denies that there are various corruptions of this sort. The
question is whether there are corruptions and "universal
errors" so distributed through all the copies, whether
handwritten or printed, that they cannot be corrected either by the
comparison of variant readings or from Scripture itself and the
collating of parallel passages, and whether these are true and real
contradictions, which we deny, or merely apparent ones.
VI. The reasons are: (1) Scripture is
"God-breathed" (II Tim. 3:16). The Word of God cannot lie
(Ps. 19:8 - 9; Heb.6:18), it cannot perish and pass away (Matt. 5:18),
it abides forever (I Peter 1:25), and it is truth itself (John 17:17). How could this be predicated of it if there were deadly
contradictions, and if God had allowed the sacred writers either to
err and to forget, or to introduce into it irreparable deceit?
VII. (2) Unless unimpaired integrity is attributed to
Scripture, it cannot be regarded as the sole rule of faith and
practice, and a wide door is opened to atheists, libertines,
enthusiasts, and others of that sort of profane people to undermine
its authority and overthrow the foundation of salvation. Since error
cannot be part of the faith, how can a Scripture which is weakened by
contradictions and corruptions be regarded as authentic and divine?
Nor should it be said that these corruptions are only in matters of
little significance, which do not affect the fundamentals of the
faith. For as soon as the authenticity of Scripture has been found
wanting, even if it be a single corruption [of the text] that cannot
be corrected, how can our faith any longer be sustained? If corruption
is conceded in matters of little importance, why not also in others of
more significance? Who will be able to give me faith that there has
been no forgetfulness or deceit in the fundamental passages? What
answer can be given the subtle 'atheist or heretic who persistently
claims that this or that text, unfavorable to him, rests on falsehood?
The reply should not be that divine providence has willed the
[Scripture] be preserved from serious corruptions, but not from minor
ones. For not only is this an arbitrary assumption, but it also cannot
be made without grave insult [to Scripture], implying that it lacks
something necessary for its full self-authentication, nor can it
easily be believed that God, who spoke and inspired every single word
to God-inspired men, would not have provided for the preservation of
all. If human beings preserve their words with the greatest care so
that they will not be changed or corrupted, especially when--as is the
case, for instance, with wills and contracts--they are of some
importance, how much more should God be thought to have taken care for
his Word, which he willed to have the status of testament and public
notice of his covenant with us, so that nothing could corrupt it,
especially when he could have easily foreseen and prevented such
corruptions, to uphold the faith of his church?
VIII. There are four main arguments for the integrity of
Scripture, and the purity of the sources. (1) Above all, the
providence of God, who, since he wished to provide for our faith,
could be expected to keep the Scripture pure and uncontaminated, both
by inspiring the sacred authors who wrote it, and by protecting it
from the efforts of enemies who left nothing untried to destroy it,
that our faith might always have a firm point on which to rest. (2)
The religion of the Jews, who were always careful guardians of the
accuracy of the sacred codices, even to the point of superstition. (3)
The diligence of the Masoretes, who, by their marks, placed, as it
were, a fence around the Law. (4) The number and completeness of
copies, with the result that even if one codex could have been
corrupted, all could not be.
IX. Whatever contradictions seem to be in Scripture are
apparent but not real. [They appear] only with respect to the
understanding of us who are not able to perceive and grasp everywhere
their harmony. They are not in the material itself. If the laws of
true contradiction are observed, so that seeming contradictions are
brought together in accordance with simple identity of qualities (secundum
idem), circumstance (ad idem),
or time, the various so-called contradictions of Scripture can readily
be reconciled, for either (1) they are simply not discussions of the
same things, as when James ascribes justification to works, although
Paul disparages them. One speaks of an explanatory justification of
effect, a posteriori; the other of a justification of cause, a priori.
So also in Luke 6:36 mercy is required, "be merciful," while
it is forbidden in Deuteronomy 19:13, "you shall show no
mercy." One commandment is for private citizens; one for
magistrates. Or (2) the same thing is not described according to the
same qualities, as Matthew in 26:11 denies the presence of Christ in
the world, "You will not always have me/, while in 28:20 he
promises it, "I am with you always, to the end of time." One
statement is made with respect to the human nature [of Christ] and his
bodily presence; the other with respect to the divine nature and his
spiritual presence. Or (3) the statements are not made with regard to
the same circumstances, as when one is absolute and the other
relative. "Honor your father,” but, Luke 14:26, "if anyone
does not hate his father." One statement is to be understood as
absolute; the other as relative, in that our [earthly] father must be
loved less and placed after Christ. Or the statements do not refer to
the same time, whence the maxim, "Distinguish the scriptural
times and relationships." Thus circumcision is both exalted, as
the great privilege of the Jews (Rom. 3:1- 2), and deprecated as a
thing of naught (Gal. 5:3). One statement refers to the time of the
Old Testament, when it was the ordinary sacrament and seal of the
righteousness of faith; the other to the time of the gospel after the
abrogation of the ceremonial law. Likewise the apostles were sent on a
special mission to the Jews alone before Christ's passion, and were
forbidden to go to the Gentiles, "Do not go into the way of the
Gentiles" (Matt. 10:5), but after the resurrection [they were
sent] on a general mission to all people (Mark 16:15).
X. Although we attribute absolute integrity to Scripture, we
do not hold that the copyists and printers have been inspired, but
only that the providence of God has so watched over the copyists that,
although many errors could have entered, they did not, or at least
they did not enter the codices in such a manner that they cannot
easily be corrected by comparison with other copies (ex
collatione aliorum) or with [other parts of] Scripture itself.
So the basis of the purity and integrity of the sources does
not rest on the inerrancy of human beings but on the providence of
God, who, although the men who copied the sacred works could have
introduced many errors, always carefully looked after them and
corrected them, or else they can easily be corrected either by
comparison with the Scripture itself or with better codices. Therefore
it was not necessary to make all the scribes infallible, but only so
to guide them that the true reading can always be found, and this book
far surpasses all others whatsoever in purity.
XI. Although we cannot quickly find an obvious harmonization,
free from all obscurities, between Scripture texts which involve
names, numbers, or dates, these problems, are not to be quickly
classed as insoluble, or if they are called insoluble, they are such
because of human ignorance, and not because of the problem itself, so
that it is better to acknowledge our ignorance than to accept any
contradiction. These records are not written so exactly that all the
circumstances were included. Many facts were certainly condensed into
an epitome; others, which seemed unnecessary, were omitted; and it is
even possible that these passages have various relationships which
were well known to the writers, although now hidden from us.
Hence Peter Martyr says very well concerning II Kings 8:17,
"Granted that there are obscure passages in the chronologies, it
is not to be conceded that, for the purpose of reconciling them, we
say that the sacred codex is false. For God, who in his mercy willed
that the holy (divinus)
books be preserved for us, gave them whole and not corrupted.
Therefore when we are not able to explain the number of years, the
ignorance under which we work must be admitted, and it must be
remembered that the sacred book is written with such brevity that it
is not easy to find out from what point the reckoning of time was
begun; the Scripture, which, if it failed in one or another place,
would also be suspect in others, remains uncorrupted." And again,
about I Kings 15:1 [he says], "It is not uncommon, in this
record, for the number of years which is attributed to the kings to
appear to have little consistency. Doubts of this kind can be
dispelled on manifold grounds. It may be that one and the same year is
attributed to two persons, when it was not lived through its entirety
by either. Sometimes sons ruled jointly with their parents for some
years, and these years were assigned now to the reign of the parents,
and now to that of the children. An interregnum sometimes took place
and the empty period was attributed, now to the earlier king, and now
to the later. There are even some years, in which the sovereigns ruled
illegally and without religious sanction (tyrannice et impie), which are therefore disregarded, and not added
to the other years of the reign." XII. Luke 3:36, concerning the
younger Cain who is placed between Arpachshad and Shelah, contrary to
the truth of the Mosaic record (Gen. 11:13), offers indeed a difficult
problem, which learned scholars interpret in different ways, but it
should not be regarded as an insoluble one, since various forms of
solution are possible. For our part, not mentioning other opinions, we
consider most appropriate that which regards this Cain as a
suppositious and spurious [person], who crept in, through the
carelessness of copyists, from the Septuagint version, in which he had
existed before the time of Christ, as the chronology of Demetrius
quoted in Eusebius's De
praeperatione evangelii witnesses; or through some pious intent
[of copyists], who did not want to oppose Luke to the Septuagint,
whose authority was then considerable. The following data support
this: (1) the authority of Moses and of the Books of Chronicles, which
make no mention of him in their genealogies, in which there are three
places where clearly he should have been included (Gen.10:24 and
11:13; I Chron.1:18). (2) The Chaldean paraphrase, which altogether
omits this Cain both in Genesis and in Chronicles. (3) Josephus does
not mention him, nor does Berosus to whom he refers, nor [Julius]
Africanus whom Eusebius quotes. (4) [If his existence is upheld] the
sacred chronology would be confused, and the Mosaic record would be
brought into doubt, if Cain is inserted between Arpachshad and Shelah,
and Noah becomes the eleventh after Abraham, not the tenth as Moses
states. (5)[This Cain] is not found in all the codices. Our Beza
witnesses to his absence from his oldest manuscript, and Ussher states
(Dissertatio de Cainane,
p.196) that he has seen a copy of Luke in Greek and Latin on a very
old parchment, in large letters without breathings and accents, which
was long ago taken from Greece to France and placed in the monastery
of Saint Irenaeus near Lyons, and in 1562 removed, and then taken to
England and given to Cambridge University, in which Cain in not
listed.
Scaliger affirms, in his prologue to the chronicle of Eusebius,
that this Cain is lacking in the oldest copies of Luke. Whatever may
be the facts, although this passage in Luke may be said to contain an
error, Luke's authenticity cannot be brought into doubt on account of
it, for (1) the corruption is not universal; (2) little falsehood is
contained in it, and the correction for that is easily supplied from
Moses, so that there was no need for the learned Isaac Voss to be
concerned over the purity of the Hebrew codices, that he might defend
the authenticity of the Septuagint.
XIII. If there is a great difference in the genealogies of
Christ which are recorded by Matthew and Luke, both as to the persons
and the number of persons, this ought not to seem remarkable, because
they do not record the same matters, but different ones. Matthew gives
the genealogy of Joseph, whose family derives from David through
Solomon. Luke traces the family of Mary to this same David through
another son, Nathan. Matthew, after the Hebrew custom, included the
wife's family in the husband's; Luke, however, wished to supply what
had been omitted, by reporting Mary’s family tree, so that the
genealogy of Christ would stand out, so to speak, full and complete,
from both parents, so that there would be no place for the doubts of
the weak or the scoffing of the enemies of the gospel, and that the
former would be upheld, and the latter won over, to the conviction
that according to the predictions of the prophets Christ was the true
and natural son of David, whether reference was made to her husband
Joseph, into whose family Mary passed by marriage, or to Mary herself.
It is most certain that heiresses (virgines,
epiklhrous) such as the blessed virgin was, who received a dowry from
the family inheritance, could not marry outside their own tribe and
family. Luke's genealogy also, therefore, refers to Joseph, not to
Mary, for it was not customary to prepare a genealogy through the
women, for they were listed either with their parents and brothers if
they were unmarried, or with their husbands if they were espoused;
hence the maxim of the Jews, "the mother's family is not the
family."
XIV Although the father of Joseph is called Jacob by Matthew,
and Heli by Luke (Matt. 1:16; Luke 3:23), there is no contradiction,
because this is to be understood as of two different matters (kat’
alla kai allo). First, it is not absurd for one son to have two
fathers in different senses, when one is the natural father who begat
the son from himself, and the other the legal father who adopted him
to himself from another family by full process of law. In this way
Manasseh and Ephraim were natural sons of Joseph but legal sons of
Jacob by adoptions; and Obed the grandfather of David had one natural
father, Boaz, but also a legal one, Mahlon, the former husband of his
mother Ruth, to whom Boaz the second husband raised seed according to
the law. Thus Jacob was the natural father of Joseph, but Heli may be
called the father of Joseph. This may be either in a legal sense, as
[Julius] Africanus supposed, because on the death of Heli without
children, Jacob had married his wife according to the law (Deut.25:5)
and fathered Joseph, Mary's husband, from her. Or it may be that Heli
was the natural father of Mary and thus in a civil sense the father of
Joseph by reason of the marriage contracted by his daughter, through
which he became a father [-in-law], in which sense Naomi speaks of her
daughters-in-law as her daughters (Ruth 1:11-12), which manner of
speaking is in use among all people.
Or it may be said that not Joseph, but Christ, is son of Heli, the
phrase "as was supposed" being indeed parenthetical, not
meaning, however, as commonly read, "being, as was supposed, the
son of Joseph," but rather, "Jesus, who was supposed to be
the son of Joseph, being the son of Heli," that is, his grandson,
through the Virgin Mary, nor is it improper to pass in this manner
from grandfather to grandson, especially if the fathers have died, and
all the more in this case, because Christ was without father according
to his human nature....
XXII. In II Samuel 24:24 David is said to buy a threshing
floor and oxen from Araunah for 50 shekels of silver. In I Chronicles
21:25 reference is made to 600 shekels of gold.
A reconciliation is easy from the nature of the transaction:
he gave 50 shekels for the part in which he first built an altar, but
after he learned, through a heavenly fire that came down, that this
was the place God had chosen for the temple, then, not satisfied with
the small area, he bought the whole field, and the hill, for 600
shekels. . . .
XXXIV. When Christ forbids swearing "at all" (Matt.
5:34), he does not intend to condemn the oath absolutely and simply,
for elsewhere it is allowed and approved, and it is required by God
(Exod.22:8, 10 -11; Lev. 5:4; Num. 5:19 - 20; Prov. 18:18; Heb. 6:16),
but rather certain forms of oath which were used by the Jews, and
which are mentioned in the same place, namely, those by heaven, earth,
Jerusalem, the head and other created things of that nature, all of
which are condemned by Christ as rash and forbidden. In this way
universal terms often are restricted to some particular (ad
certam speciam), [for example] John 10:8: "All who came
before me are thieves"; all, that is, who were not called or
sent, or who said that they themselves or some other was the shepherd
of the sheep. And I Corinthians 10:23, "All things are lawful to
me,'" and 9:22, "I have become all things to all"; that
is, in matters that are lawful and indifferent. Evil and sinful acts
are not lawful to anyone. . . .
XXXVI. From the above it is clear that the various difficult
passages which are used to deny the authority of Scripture, which we
have illustrated, are not irreconcilable contradictions, although they
are indeed difficulties. There are also many others which the Roman
Catholics use to argue the corruption of the sources by Jews and
heretics, but they will be better dealt with later, when we discuss
the authoritative version.
The Knowledge of Scriptural Authority
Question 6: How does the authority of the Holy (divinus)
Scripture become known to us? Does it, either in itself or on our
part, depend upon the witness of the Church? Negative, against the
Roman Catholics.
I. The purpose of the Roman Catholics, in this and other
controversies which they maintain over the Scripture, is not obscure,
namely, to reject the judgment of Scripture, in which they cannot find
enough sanction to protect their errors, and to appeal to the church,
that is, to their pope, and so become judges of their own case. Thus,
when formerly doctrine was debated on the basis of its agreement or
nonagreement with Scripture, now debate has begun on Scripture
itself-whether it is proper for religious controversies to be settled
by its authority and witness. A severe struggle has been carried on
concerning its origin, necessity, perfection, and perspicuity, for the
purpose of diminishing them [Scripture's authority and witness], if
not completely rejecting them. Quite properly what Irenaeus said of
the heretics of his day may be applied to them [Roman Catholics]:
"When opposed by Scriptures they became opponents of the
Scriptures, as if they were incorrect or without authority."
II. It must be noted that some of them go to extremes and
some speak more moderately in this matter. Some indeed simply deny the
authority of Scripture, in itself and apart from the church, and hold
it to be no more worthy of faith (I shudder to say it) than the Qur'an
or the works of Livy or Aesop. Those who began to dispute the
authority of Scripture with our [theologians] in the past century
uttered this blasphemy. Of this the impious words of Hosius, in his
work against Brent, are an example, when he declares that it is
possible to assert in a reverent sense "the Scriptures have only
the weight of Aesop's fables if they are deprived of the authority of
the Church," and Eck declared, "Scripture is not
authoritative except by the authority of the church... ."
Because it seemed to others that this blasphemy had been rightly
attacked by our [theologians], they spoke more carefully, expressing
their teaching in such a way as to admit that absolutely and in itself
Scripture is authoritative and of divine quality, since it comes from
God the source of all truth, but they hold that relative to us its
authority exists only on the witness of the church, through whose
ministry it becomes known to us and is understood as of divine
quality. From this arose the distinction between authority as to its
nature (quoad se) and as to
our understanding (quoad nos),
which Bellarmine, Stapleton, and others have since brought forward.
III. But however they present their teaching, if we think of
the matter correctly, it will be obvious that this distinction results
in confusion, and hides the evil of an impious doctrine, rather than
clarifying the truth of the matter. For since the authority is that of
communicators and relationships, it cannot be understood absolutely,
but relatively; therefore; Scripture cannot be authoritative in itself
unless it is so also to our understanding, for whatever arguments
demonstrate its authority in itself ought also to move us to
agreement, so that it will be authoritative to our understanding. If
the authority of Scripture for our understanding depends on the
witness of the church, as if that were the formal ground on account of
which I believe that it has a divine quality (esse
divinam), then of necessity its authority in itself depends [on
such witness], which some admit fully. Nor is any other teaching
easily derived from the other controversies that they keep up, for how
can they deny the perfection, perspicuity, or purity [of Scripture] if
they believe it to be truly of divine origin (authenticus)?
IV. That the state of the question may be clear: (1) It is
not a question of whether the Holy Scriptures are authentic and of
divine quality; this our adversaries do not deny, or at least they
want to seem to believe it. But [the question is] how are they known
to us to be of such quality, or by what argument can this divine
quality (divinitas) be demonstrated for us?
The Roman Catholics make it depend on the witness of the
church, and want the chief cause by which we are moved to believe the
authenticity of Scripture to be the voice of the church.
On the other hand, although we do not deny that the witness of
the church has its value, as will appear later, yet we maintain that
primarily and essentially Scripture is to be believed by us of divine
quality on account of itself, or of the marks imprinted upon it, not
on account of the church.
V. (2) It is not a question of the principle, or efficient
cause, of faith by which we believe the divine quality of Scripture,
that is, of whether or not the Holy Spirit produces it in us. This
belongs to another question concerning the freedom of the will,
and adversaries, such as Stapleton and Cano, agree with us. But
here the question is about the argument or chief means which that
Spirit uses to convince us of this truth; is it a direct (inartificialis)
witness of the church, as the Roman Catholics hold, or a rational (artificialis)
one based on marks (notae)
in Scripture itself, as we maintain?
VI. Just as it is possible to speak of a threefold cause of
the manifestation of anything--objective, efficient, and
instrumental--so a threefold question can be framed about the
recognition of the divine quality of Scripture: first, the argument on
account of which I believe; second, the principle, or efficient cause,
by which I am led to belief; third, the means and instrument through
which I believe. The threefold question is answered in a threefold
manner. Scripture, in its
marks, becomes the form of argument on account of which I believe; the
Holy Spirit becomes the means or the efficient cause and principle by
which I am made to believe; the church is the instrument and means
through which I believe. So if it is asked why or on account of what I
believe Scripture to be of divine quality, I will reply that this
happens through Scripture itself which proves itself to be such by its
marks. If it is asked how or by what it happens that I believe, I will
reply, by the Holy Spirit, who produces this faith within me. Finally,
if it is asked by what means or organ I believe this, I will reply,
through the church, which God uses in giving me Scripture.
VII. (3) There is no question concerning the means whose
service the Holy Spirit uses in convincing us of the authority of
Scripture; we readily grant that this is the church.
But the question concerns the primary argument and cause
whereby we are led to faith, not human but God-based (divinus), which they [Roman Catholics] place in the church; we
believe it is not to be sought outside Scripture itself.
VIII. (4) There is no question that divine revelation is
absolutely and simply the formal ground of our faith. Our adversaries
acknowledge this with us. But what is that first and clearest
revelation which ought to be accepted by us through and on account of
itself, not on account of anything else which is better known to us,
and which is therefore the most universal and primary basis of faith
through which all ought to be proved but which itself [is proved by]
nothing beyond it: is such revelation to be sought in Scripture or in
the church? We hold that such revelation is found only in the
Scripture, which is the first and infallible rule of faith. The Roman
Catholics maintain that it is to be sought in the word and witness of
the church. Stapleton says, in his book On
the Authority of the Church Against Whittaker, book 1: "The
supreme external witness on earth is the voice of the church"
(chap. 8), and, "God, when he speaks by the church, does not
speak in any other manner than if he were speaking in visions and
dreams, or in whatever other form of supernatural revelation God may
have spoken through" (chap. 9), and "The entire formal
ground of our faith is God revealing through the church" (chap.
14). . . .
IX. The question is therefore reduced to these terms: Why or
on account of what do we believe Scripture to be the Word of God? or,
what argument does the Holy Spirit use primarily to convince us of the
divine quality of Scripture? Is it the witness or voice of the church,
or the marks and criteria imprinted in Scripture itself? Our
adversaries assert the former, we the latter.
X. That the authority of Scripture does not depend, either in
itself or with regard to our understanding, on the witness of the
church, is proved (1) because the church is founded on Scripture (Eph.
2:20), and all its authority is received from Scripture. This our
adversaries cannot deny, since, when the question is raised they can
go nowhere but to Scripture for an answer. Therefore [the church]
cannot produce the authority of Scripture either in itself or with
regard to our understanding, unless we maintain that the cause depends
on the effect, the beginning on that which has been begun, and the
foundation on the superstructure. Nor should it be objected that both
conclusions can be true; the church receives its authority from
Scripture, and Scripture in turn from the church, as John [the
Baptist] bore witness to Christ, who gave witness to John.
For it is one thing to give witness to another as a servant, in
which way John is a witness to Christ-one through whom the Jews might
believe (John 1:7), but not on account of whom. It is quite another
matter to offer authority as a lord, which Christ did toward John. (2)
[If Roman Catholic doctrine were true] the authority of the church
would be prior to that of Scripture and so the primary matter of
belief, on which from the first our faith would depend and into which
it would ultimately be resolved, [a doctrine] which our adversaries do
not accept, for they wish the authority of the church to depend on
Scripture. (3) Obviously
it is to argue in a circle when the authority of the church is proved
by Scripture and then the authority of Scripture by the church. (4)
Our adversaries have never agreed on what is to be understood by the
church whether it is the contemporary church or that of antiquity,
the whole church or its representatives,
particular or universal; or what will be the act that witnesses to the
authority of Scripture--whether it is certified [at a given time] by
some judicial decision, or made effective through a continual and
unbroken tradition. (5) A fallible and human witness, such as that of
the church, cannot establish supernatural faith (fides
divina). Nor, if God
does speak through the church today, does it follow that the church is
infallible, because special and extraordinary, inspiration, such as
kept apostles and prophets free from error, and of which Christ spoke
strictly when he said that the Holy Spirit would lead the apostles
into all truth (John 16:14 [13]) is one thing, but common and ordinary
[inspiration] is another,
which does not produce [apostolically] inspired pastors.
XI. That Scripture becomes known to us through itself is
proved (1) by the nature of Scripture. For just as the law does not
receive its authority from the lower judges who interpret it, nor from
the heralds who proclaim it, but only from the prince who establishes
it, and as a will obtains its weight from the wishes of the testators,
not from the notary by whom it is drawn, and as a measuring rod (regula)
determines measurement because of its own perfection, not because of
the workman who uses it, so Scripture, which is the law of the
-highest prince, the will of the heavenly Father, and the undeviating
rule of faith, cannot hold its authority over us from the church, but
only from itself. (2) [By] the nature of final categories and first
principles. For as these are known of themselves and are
undemonstrated [principles] which cannot be proved from any others,
which would lead to an infinite regression--"it is necessary that
the beginning of every branch of knowledge be what cannot be
investigated," says Basil--so Scripture, which is the first
principle in the supernatural order, is known by itself, and there is
no way in which it can be demonstrated and made known to us by
arguments sought outside it. If God placed marks in all the principles
by which they may be known by all, there can be no doubt that he
placed such in this sacred principle which is supremely necessary for
salvation. (3) By analogy. As sense objects are recognized and known
without any other external argument, from the inner relationship and
the inclination of the faculty to the object, provided that the
faculties of sensation are healthy-light by its own splendor, food by
its own flavor, odor by its fragrance, are immediately recognized by
us even in the absence of a witness-so the Scripture, which with
respect to the new creation is described for us in a spiritual sense
by the symbol of glorious light (Ps. 119:105), delightful food (Ps.
19:10; Isa. 55:1- 2; Heb. 5:14), and most fragrant perfume (Song of
Sol. 1:3), is easily recognized through itself by the senses of the
new man and shows, itself to them, and demonstrates itself by its own
light, pleasantness, and fragrance, so that there is no need to seek
elsewhere for what this light, food, and perfume teach that they are.
(4) By the testimony of adversaries [Roman Catholics], who demonstrate
the divine quality of Scripture by its marks. Bellarmine says,
"As to the Holy Scriptures, which are contained in the writings
of prophets and apostles, nothing is more knowable or more certain, so
that it must be a most stupid act to fail to have faith in them"
(De Verba Dei 1.2)….
XII. We do not deny that many functions of the church with
respect to Scripture are proper. (1) That it be a guardian of the
oracles of God, which were entrusted to it, who protects the authentic
record of the covenant of grace with the highest fidelity, like a
notary (Rom. 3:2). (2) A guide which points to the Scripture, and
leads toward it. (3) A defender (vindex)
who protects and vindicates it by distinguishing the genuine books
from the corrupted, in which sense the church is called Scripture's
bulwark (I Tim. 3:16 [15]). (4) A herald, who preaches and proclaims
it (II Cor. 5:19; Rom. 10:16). (5) An interpreter who investigates and
makes plain its true meaning. But these functions are all ministerial,
not magisterial, so that indeed we believe through the church but not
on account of the church, as those who believed in Christ believed
through John the Baptist, not on account of him (John 1:7), and Christ
became known to the Samaritans through the Samaritan woman, not on
account of her (John 4:39).
XIII. The formation of faith, considered objectively, with
regard to the facts to be believed, is one thing, and another when
considered subjectively with regard to the act of believing. The first
is in' Scripture and the external witness of the Holy Spirit expressed
in Scripture; the second in the Spirit's internal witness impressed on
the conscience
and speaking in the heart. Since both the setting forth of truth in
the Word and its application in the heart are necessary for the
engendering of faith, the Holy Spirit operates in both, in the Word
and in the heart. Therefore he is properly said to witness in the
Word, objectively, by means of the argument on account of which we
believe. Also, less properly, he is said to witness in the heart
efficiently, through the means of the principle in virtue of which we
believe, in which sense the Spirit who presents internal witness of
the divinity of Christ and the truth of gospel is said to
"witness, because the Spirit is truth" (I John 5:6 [7]);
that is, the Spirit, acting in the hearts of the faithful; witnesses
that the teaching of the gospel handed down by the Spirit is true and
of divine quality.
XIV. When the French Confession says (article 5), "We
believe the books of Scripture to be canonical, not so much by the
common consent of the church as by the witness and internal urging of
the Holy Spirit," by "Holy
Spirit" must be understood the Spirit speaking both in the Word
and in the heart. So the same Spirit, acting objectively in the Word
to set forth the truth, acts also efficiently in the heart to impress
this truth on our minds, and so is very different from fanatical
enthusiasm (Spiritus
Enthusiasticus).
XV. A personal decision of the Spirit, which is such with
regard to the person (subjectus)
whose it is, is one thing; but a personal decision which is such in
terms of its origin (originaliter)
, because it depends on the individual will of a human being, is
another. We grant that the first is involved here, but not the second,
because the Spirit that witnesses in us concerning the divine quality
of Scripture is not limited to individuals with regard to his
principle of operation and origin, but is common to the whole church,
and to all believers in whom he has engendered the same faith,
although he is such subjectively in regard to each individual, because
given personally to individual believers.
XVI. Although the church, considered formally and in
connection with the act of writing, is older than Scripture, it cannot
be called such materially and with respect to the substance of
teaching, because the Word of God is older than this church, since it
is its foundation and seed. (1) The dispute is not over the witness of
the church of the ancient patriarchs who lived before the Scripture,
but of the contemporary church, which is much more recent.
XVII. Although believers are convinced of the divine quality
of Scripture by the witness of the Holy Spirit, it does not follow
that all who have this Spirit should agree in accepting particular
books equally, because, since he is not given to all in the same
measure, so neither does he endow all with the light of equal
knowledge either with regard to the essential (principium)
of religion or of its dogmas, or move them to consent with equal
effectiveness. Therefore some Protestants have been able to doubt the
canonicity of one or another canonical book, because they were not yet
sufficiently illumined by the light of the Holy Spirit.
XVIII. It is not always necessary for one thing to be proved
by another. Some matters are self-evident, according to the
philosophers, like the ultimate categories of things and final
distinctions and first principles, which cannot be externally
demonstrated but are evident in their own light, and so are
presupposed as certain and not to be doubted, and if anyone does
question them, he is not to be answered with arguments, but delivered
to those responsible for him or coerced by punishments, as one who by
the testimony of the philosopher lacks either reason or
discipline. Thus in the Posterior
Analytics he says that anything is axiomatic which has no external
cause for its truth, "which must both exist and be known by
itself;” that is, which is not only self-evident, but which also
simply cannot be honestly denied by anyone whose reason is sound.
Since Scripture is a first principle, and primary and infallible
truth, what is strange in proving it by itself? (2) Scripture can
prove itself, either a part proving the rest, as when we debate with
Jews on the basis of the Old Testament, or the whole proving the
whole, not by a direct argument of witness, but by a rational and
logical one, because in it are found the divine marks which are not
present in the writings of humans. This is not special pleading, for
these criteria are separate from Scripture, not materially but
formally, as adjuncts and properties which can be demonstrated with
regard to the subject; nor is it a demonstration of an unknown through
something equally unknown, because the marks are better known to us,
just as we demonstrate a cause by its effects, and a subject by its
properties.
(3) The argument of the Roman Catholics, that Scripture
cannot be proved by itself, because the better known and less known
would be the same, can with greater force be turned back against the
church.
XIX. If there are those who do not acknowledge the divine
quality of Scripture, it is not because the object itself -- is not
knowable or understandable, but because they lack a healthy faculty of
reception; from these the gospel is hidden because Satan has blinded
their eyes (II Cor. 4:4), -- like those who deny the existence of God,
who is supremely knowable, because they are lacking in understanding,
or who do not see the sun because they are blind, as in Seneca's
writing a woman who had lost her eyesight kept complaining that the
sun had not risen; nonetheless the sun always sends forth its rays, as
those who have eyes know from the phenomenon itself.
XX. It is one thing to recognize and proclaim the canon of
Scripture; another to establish this canon and make it authoritative.
The church cannot do the latter, which is solely the privilege of God,
the author. It can do the former, because it is servant, not lord. As
a goldsmith who separates dross from the gold, or who seeks gold in
the ore, does indeed see the difference between the true and the
false, but does not make the true either for himself or for us, so the
church by her investigation separates the true canonical books from
the noncanonical and apocryphal, but does not make them [canonical],
nor could the decision of the church give authority to books which do
not have it in themselves, but it proclaims the authority already
present by means of arguments from the books themselves.
XXI. Obscure knowledge of the matter is one thing, but
distinct knowledge is another. By obscure knowledge the church can be
known before Scripture but distinct knowledge of Scripture ought to
come first, because the truth about the church can be grasped only
from Scripture. Before [we know] Scripture the church may be known to
us by "human faith," as an assembly of people using the same
forms of worship, but it can be known and trusted as the assembly of
the faithful and the communion of the saints, by "divine
faith," only after the marks of the church which Scripture
supplies have become known.
XXII. When the apostle says that faith comes by hearing (Rom.
10:17) he means only that the ministry of the church ought to be
present as the ordinary means of awakening faith in adults, but he
does not therefore teach that the church is more knowable than
Scripture.
XXIII. It is one thing to raise questions about the number,
authors, parts, and particular words of the books of Scripture, and
another to raise questions about the fundamental teachings contained
in these books. The second form of knowledge, but not the first, is
given to every believer, and he who has questions as to who wrote the
Gospel of Matthew does not thereby imperil his salvation, if only he
believes it to be authentic and of divine quality. Knowing who is the
primary author of a book is one thing; knowing who was his secretary
is quite another. The latter is a question of historic faith; the
former, of true religious faith (fides
divina).
XXIV. Although, in the language of the philosophers, the
"circle" is a sophistic argument, by which something is
proved by itself, [an argument] which is developed in a closed series
using the same kind of cause recurring within itself, we cannot be
accused of such circular reasoning when we prove the Scripture by the
Spirit and then prove the Spirit by the Scripture. For there are two
different questions, and two different middle terms or kinds of
causes: we prove the Scripture by the Spirit, as efficient cause by
which we believe, but we prove the Spirit from the Scripture as from
the object and argument on account of which we believe. In the first
case the question answered is "why, or in virtue of what, do you
believe that the Scripture is of divine quality?" In the second,
the question is "how, or on account of what, do you believe that
the Spirit within you is the Holy Spirit?"
The answer is, on account of the marks of the Holy Spirit that
are in Scripture. But the Roman Catholics, who accuse us of circular
reasoning, obviously fall into it in this matter, when they prove
Scripture by the church and the church by Scripture; this is indeed
done by the same middle term and the same kind of cause. If we ask
them why, or on account of what, they believe the Scripture to have
divine quality, they answer, that the church says so. If we ask
further why they believe the church, they answer that the Scripture
attributes infallibility to it, when it calls it the pillar and
bulwark of truth. If we continue, asking why they believe the witness
of Scripture to be trustworthy, they reply that the church has made
them sure of it. Thus the argument is brought back to where it
started, and can go around and around forever, and cannot be fixed in
any first believable point. And these are not different kinds of
questions; each deals with the ground and argument on account of which
Ibelieve, not with the faculty or principle through which I believe.
XXV. The church is called "pillar and bulwark of
truth" (I Tim. 3:15), not because it keeps truth from falling and
provides authority for it, since truth is rather the foundation of the
church, upon which it is built (Eph. 2:20), but [1] because [the
Scripture] offers itself and shows itself to the sight of all in the
church as on a bulletin board. So "pillar" is used not in
its architectural meaning, as pillars "' are placed to hold up a
building, but in its forensic and political meaning, as the edicts of
the princes and the decrees and laws of the magistrate used to 'be
posted on pillars in front of the curias and praetoriums, and the
doors of [secular] basilicas, so that they might become known by
everybody, as Pliny and Josephus report (Historia
Naturalis 6.28 [(32) 152]; Antiquities 1.4 [book 1.
69 - 71]). So the church is the pillar of truth both in the
matter of its proclamation, for it is obliged to proclaim the laws of
God, and the heavenly truth is posted on her so that it may be known
by all, [and pillar] also in the sense of guardian, who not only
proclaims the Scripture but also vindicates and protects it, and so it
is called not only "pillar," but also "bulwark" (I
Tim. 3:15), a support (firmamentum)
by which known truth is vindicated and preserved, whole and safe
against all corruptions, but not a foundation (qemelion; fundamentum),
which gives truth itself its hypostasis and the basis on which it
stands. (2) That which is called pillar and bulwark of truth is not
for that reason infallible. The patristic writers (veteres)
gave this designation to those who surpassed others by excellence of
doctrine, or by" holiness of life, or firmness of faithful
living, and who confirmed the doctrine of the gospel and the Christian
faith either by teaching or by example. Thus the believers in Lyons
give the designation to Attalus the martyr, according to Eusebius (Church
History 5.1). Basil gives it to the orthodox bishops who struggled
against the Arian heresy—“the pillars and the bulwark of
truth" (epistle 120).
And Gregory of Nazianzus designates Athanasius in this manner. In the
same sense honest and uncorrupted judges in the civil state are called
pillars and bulwarks of the laws. (3) This text [I Tim. 3:15] teaches
the duty of the church, but not its infallible privilege; what it is
supposed to db in the proclamation and defense of truth against all
corruptions of its adversaries, not, however, what it ~ways will do,
as names are often based on a duty rather than on what is actually
done. Malachi 2':7 says that the lips of the priests guard knowledge,
which it is their duty to do, although it is not always done, as verse
8 teaches. (4) Whatever is here attributed to the church is attributed
to the local church of Ephesus (I Tim. 1:3) to which the Roman
Catholics do not attribute the privilege of infallibility, and it
refers to the collective church of believers, in which Timothy ought
to be included, not the representative one of pastors, much less to
the pope, to whom alone they attribute complete freedom from error.
(5) Here Paul refers to the use of pillars in the sanctuaries of the
pagans, to which either images of the gods, or laws and moral
teachings, or oracles, were attached, as Pausanias and Athenaeus tell
us, to oppose these pillars of lies and falsehoods, where nothing was
present except fables and images of false gods, to the mystic pillar
of truth, on which the true image of the invisible God is shown (Col.
1:15), and the heavenly oracles of God are set forth. He also refers
to that memorable pillar which Solomon was responsible for setting up
in the temple, which is mentioned in II Chronicles 6:13 and II Kings
23:3, upon which, as a platform, the kings mounted whenever they
wished to speak to the people or discharge some important
responsibility. It was therefore called "the royal pillar"
by the Jews. So truth sits in the church like a queen,
not as if she derived her authority from it, just as Solomon did not
receive his from this pillar, but because truth is set forth and
preserved .in the church.
XXVI. The text in Augustine, "I would not be believing
the gospel unless the authority of the church convinced me" (Against
the Epistle of Mani Which Is Called Fundamental 5), does not
support the Roman Catholics. (1) Because Augustine speaks of himself
while still a Manichean, not yet a Christian, and [here] uses the
imperfect where the pluperfect would be expected, "I would not be
believing" and "the church convinced" rather than
"I would not have believed" and "the church had
convinced," a common usage, scholars have noted, among African
writers; for example, "if I was desiring those fruits" for
"I had desired" (Augustine, Confessions
2.8). (2) The authority of which he speaks is not that of law and
political power, as our adversaries hold, as if he had believed
because the church was telling him to, but an authority of worthiness,
founded on the wonderful and most glorious arguments from divine
providence which can be seen in the church, such as miracles,
antiquity, consensus of different peoples, and continuity, which can
lead to faith, but not awaken it as first cause.
(3) It is to be noted here, therefore, that it is an external
thrust toward faith, and not an infallible source of belief, that
Augustine advocates in looking for truth alone, when he tells us that
truth is to be preferred above all things, if it is completely proven
and cannot be brought into doubt (chap. 4), and when he says,
"Let us follow those who invite us first to believe what we
cannot yet understand, that, made stronger by this very faith, we may
reach the point of knowing what we believe, our minds internally
directed and illuminated not by men but by God himself" (chap.
14).
So Pierre d'Ailly understands it, and Cano, Gerson, Driedo, and Durand
may be understood as upholding the primitive and apostolic church, not
the contemporary one, whose authority is here argued. See our
disputation on the authority of Scripture.
The Preservation of the Canon
QUESTIQN 7 Will any canonical book ever have disappeared?
Negative.
I. In order more readily to discuss the various questions
that are raised concerning the canon, a distinction must first be
established. This word is used both broadly and narrowly. In the first
sense it was applied by the patristic writers to the ecclesiastical
decrees and constitutions, by which the councils and the rulers of the
churches were accustomed to specify whatever seemed pertinent to
faith, conduct, or discipline. In this are included the various
"canons" both of the universal church and of the African,
and the collections of canons by Burchard, Ivo, and Gratian, and the
canon law itself which was contained in the codex of canons, in
distinction to the divine law which was contained in the codex of Holy
Scripture. In the latter sense, "canon" is attributed par
excellence to Scripture, because God gave it to us as a rule of faith
and conduct, in which sense Irenaeus calls it the "unchangeable
norm of truth" and Chrysostom the "excellent measure, norm,
and rule of all things."
II. Just as the word of God can be seen under two aspects,
either as divinely revealed doctrine, or as the sacred books in which
it is contained, so also "canon" can be understood in two
senses, either of the dogmas, meaning all fundamental teachings, or of
the books, meaning all the inspired books. "Canonical
Scripture" can be understood in either sense: either as the
content of dogmas, because it is the canon and norm of faith and
conduct, originally described by the Hebrew word quoneh, which means measuring rod, and is so employed in Galatians
6:16 and Philippians 3:16;
or with regard to the books, because it contains all the canonical
books, in which sense Athanasius at the beginning of his synopsis says
that the books of the Christians are not infinite in number, but
finite, and comprise a limited canon.
III. The first question regarding the canon is its wholeness,
whether any canonical book may have disappeared, or, whether the
collection of Scripture as it now is lacks any book which God placed
in the canon. On this matter both the Roman Catholics and the Reformed
(orthodoxi) divide into
different groups. Many Roman Catholics maintain that a number of
canonical books have disappeared, so that they may show the
imperfection of Scripture and the necessity of the tradition by which
the gaps may be filled. Some of our theologians, such as Musculus and
Whittaker, teach the same thing, following Chrysostom, but with two
reservations; first, they affirm this only with regard to some books
of the Old Testament, not any of the New, as do Roman Catholics;
second, they maintain that nothing is taken away from the perfection
of Scripture, which the Roman Catholics attack, by this, because the
wholeness of the canon is not measured by the number of the sacred
books, or their quantitative perfection, but by the completeness of
the dogmas and the essential perfection of all things necessary for
salvation, which is amply found in the existing books. But the more
common and wiser opinion is that of others, who hold that no genuinely
canonical books have disappeared, and that if any books have, they
were not endowed with this quality.
IV. The reasons are to be sought (1) from the witness of
Christ, who said that it was easier for heaven and earth to pass away
than for one jot of the law to perish (Matt. 5:18; Luke 16:17). But if
not even a jot, or the smallest mark, can perish, how could several
books vanish? Although Christ is speaking of the teaching of the law,
not the books, yet this can be applied to the sacred books by analogy,
and their immunity from destruction can be affirmed, the more so
because not only is reference made to the letters and marks by which
Scripture is written, but also God willed that this teaching be
preserved in written books. (2) From the statements of Luke and Paul.
For neither could Luke have spoken of all the prophets and all the
Scripture (Luke 24:27) if any part of them had disappeared, nor could
Paul have said, "Whatever . . . was written was for our
instruction" (Rom. 15:4), unless he assumed that the whole
written Old Testament was in existence.
V. (3) From the providence of God, who always keeps watch for
the continuing safety of the church. It cannot be conceived that
providence would will that such a destructive loss occur; what would
become of the wisdom, goodness, and power of God if he willed that
such a precious treasure be shown to his church and then withdrawn,
and that the body of Scripture exist now in a tom and wounded state?
(4) From the duty of the church, which is commissioned to preserve
zealously the oracles of God for herself.
That this commission was not neglected is evident from the fact
that neither Christ nor the apostles ever accuse the Jews of this, a
sacrilege which those who do not overlook lesser ones would by no
means have hidden, if [the Jews] had been guilty of it; indeed, Paul
emphasizes this privilege of the Jews--that the oracles of God were
entrusted to them (Rom. 3:2; 9:4).
(5) From the destiny (fines)
of Scripture which is sealed in the canon of faith and life even to
the consummation of the age. This could not be so if only a mutilated
and truncated canon were left for the church of this age, because of
the loss of some canonical books; that is, it would be impossible
without the canon. (6) From the custom of the Jews, because books of
the canon of the Old Testament other than those which appear in our
canon were never recognized, or interpreted in the Targum, or
translated in the Septuagint.
VI. Not everything which men of God ever wrote was of divine
quality and inspired. They were able, as human beings, to reflect upon
some events and interpret them I with care, and [to record] others, as
prophets, by divine inspiration as authoritative for faith; matters
which fall into the first category can be freely investigated, but
those of the second must be believed, as Augustine well says (City
of God 18.38). Just as not everything
they said was canonical, so was not everything they wrote. If Solomon
wrote a number of books of parables and songs, and about plants and
animals (I Kings 4:22 - 23), it does not follow that they were
canonical. They could have been prepared as a result of human study,
to make public the manifold knowledge of nature which he possessed,
without being of divine wisdom and supernatural inspiration.
VII. The books which are said to have disappeared either were
not sacred and canonical, like the Book
of the Wars of Jehovah (Num. 21:14; Josh. 10:15 [13])
or the Book of the Upright
(II Sam. 1:14 [18]), and the Chronicles
of the Kings of Judah and Israel (I Kings. 14:19 - 20; 15:7),
which are not concerned with the teachings of religion, but are either
secular annals, in which the actions of the Israelites are recorded,
or lists of official acts and civil laws, as is plain from I Kings
11:41. Or, the books which are said to have disappeared are extant
under other names, like the books of Gad and Nathan (II Chron. 29:29
[25]), of Iddo (II Chron. 9:29),
and of Shemaiah and Iddo (II Chron. 12:15).
The Jews teach, and some of the patristic writers observe,
that these make up parts of the Books of Samuel and Kings, and some
Roman Catholics of good standing agree-Sixtus Senensis, Paul Burgensis,
Lewis de Tena, Sanctius, and others.
VIII. The book of the Lord mentioned in Isaiah 34:16 is
nothing other than the prophecy which he was writing in the name of
the Lord, and which therefore he called the book of the Lord.
Jeremiah's book mourning the death of King Josiah (II Chron. 35:25)
can still be read in Lamentations.
IX. It is not said in Colossians 4:16 that there was any
letter of Paul to the Laodiceans, for it speaks of a letter from, not
to, the Laodiceans, which could have been by the Laodiceans to Paul,
who wanted it to be read by the Colossians along with his because he
knew that there were in it matters of concern to them. Whence it is
evident how unreasonable was Faber Stapulensis's desire to give the
epistle to the Laodiceans to the Christian world, as the more prudent
Roman Catholics admit.
X. In Jude 14 there is no mention of a book of Enoch, but
only of his prophecy, for he is said to have prophesied, not written;
if he did write a book it is evident that it was never included in the
canon, both from the silence of Josephus and Jerome, and from the fact
that Moses is recorded as the first canonical writer (Luke 24:27). It
does appear from Augustine (City
of God 15.13 [24])
that in his day there was an apocryphal book of which Enoch was
considered the author, a fragment of which Scaliger has given us in
his commentary on Eusebius.
XI. If some of the apostles mention passages of the Old
Testament which cannot now be found explicitly in any canonical book,
it does not follow that some canonical book, in which these words were
written, has disappeared. At
times the words are present implicitly and by intention.
What is said of Christ in Matthew 2:23--that he will be called
a Nazarene--is based either, as Jerome supposed, on Isaiah 11:7 [1],
where Christ is called a branch,
or on Judges 13:5, which says that Samson, a type of Christ, will be a
Nazarene of God from his mother's womb.
In what is said in I Corinthians 5:9 about a letter that [Paul] had
written them, there is no reason why we should not understand the
letter which he was writing, in which, somewhat earlier, he had told
them that those who polluted themselves by incest should be
excommunicated, as in Colossians 4:16, "when the letter has been
read," namely, the letter that he was writing. Or [references]
are merely historical, like that of Jude 9, concerning the devil's
struggle with Michael over the body of Moses, which could rest either
on tradition, as some scholars hold, or on some noncanonical
ecclesiastical book which has disappeared.
XII. Although the autographs of the Law and the Prophets
which were kept in the ark could have been burned along with it when
the city was destroyed and the temple burned at the time of the
Babylonian captivity, it does not follow from this that all the sacred
books, to be rewritten afresh by Ezra, as by a second Moses, in forty
days, were destroyed at that time. A number of copies could have
remained among the pious, on the basis of which the worship of God was
later set up (Ezra 6:18; Neh. 8:2). Nor is it likely that Ezekiel and
the pious priests, and also Jeremiah, Gedeliah, and Baruch, who
received permission to remain in Judea, would have been without them,
especially since the care and reading of the sacred books was their
duty; in the case of Daniel this is plainly seen (Dan. 9:2). IV Esdras
4:23 and 14:21, on the basis of which a universal destruction has been
claimed, prove nothing because they are apocryphal even to the Roman
Catholics, and are refuted by another apocryphal book that is
canonical to them--I Maccabees 2:4 [II Maccabees 2:4 - 5], which says
that the ark in which the book of the law was kept (Deut. 31:26) was
preserved by Jeremiah in a cave on Mount Nebo.
Above all, the great silence of Scripture, which since it
bewails with such agony the pollution of the sanctuary, the fall of
Jerusalem, the removal of the sacred vessels, the destruction of the
temple, and other events, could not have omitted such a great loss
without open lamentation, refutes this falsehood [of the destruction
of Scripture). Ezra therefore could engage in collating, correcting,
and restoring the copies which had been damaged during the captivity,
which he could most appropriately do as an inspired person, but it was
not his task to give [Scripture] anew to the church.
The Canonicity of the Old Testament
QUESTION 8: Are the books of the Old Testament still part of
the canon of faith, and the rule of conduct in the church of the New
Testament? Affirmative,
against the Anabaptists.
I. This question divides us from the Anabaptists, who exclude
the Old Testament books from the canon of faith, as if they were of
little consequence for Christians, or as if dogmas of faith and
precepts for life ought not to be drawn from them. The Mennonites
teach in their confession that all Christians, according as they have
acquired faith, must of necessity conform solely to the gospel of
Christ (article 11), and this was confirmed at the colloquy of
Frankenthal. The Reformed (orthodoxi),
on the other hand, hold that the Old Testament is no less the concern
of Christians than the New, and that dogmas of faith and the
regulation of life are to be based on both (French Confession,
articles 4 and 5; Swiss Confession, article 1).
II. It is not a question of the Old Testament in the sense of
the Mosaic economy; indeed we believe that this has been so abrogated
by Christ that it no longer deserves a place in the economy of grace.
But there is a question about it as to teaching, whether there is
still use for it under the New Testament as canon of faith and
conduct.
III. It is not here a question whether Christ has reformed
the law given in the Old Testament by correcting and completing it
(this will be discussed later against the Socinians
but whether the Old Testament so applies to Christians that the canon
of faith and rule of life should be sought and proved from it no less
than from the New Testament, and that the religion of Christ is
contained in Moses and the prophets no less than in the books of the
New Testament, and can be demonstrated from them, which the
adversaries deny, and we affirm.
IV. The difference between the Old and New Testaments is not
in question, nor that of the teachings which proceed from both; we do
not deny that the teaching of the New Testament is much clearer than
that of the Old, both because of the types in which that of the Old is
given, and because of the predictions and promises which are given in
it. The question concerns the principle of the Christian faith (religio)--whether
this is found only in the New Testament books, or also, which we
affirm, in the Old.
V. The reasons are (1) Christ approved the Old Testament and
wanted Moses and the prophets to be heard by believers (Luke 16:29).
This was not said to Jews to the exclusion of others, for here a
general precept is given to all who want to avoid eternal punishment,
and what is here given as a precept is recommended to Christians as
practice by Peter: "We have the prophetic word made more sure, to
which you do well to attend, as to a light shining in a dark place,
until the day breaks and the morning star rises in your hearts"
(II Peter 1:19). Nor can exception be taken on the ground that a
qualification is added by Peter, that this attending to the prophets
holds only until the time of the New Testament, when the day had
broken, for [even] if he refers to the New Testament, the value of the
prophetic word is not restricted, according to this text, to the time
previous to the New Testament, because "until" is not always
used of an action that is completed so as to exclude any future
action, as is shown by a number of passages (Gen. 28:15; Matt. 28:30
[20]; I Cor. 15:25). If it refers to the day of eternal life, and the
rising of the morning star in the region of glory, which is in truth
the day par excellence, and which seems more probable because he
writes to believers who had already received faith in equal measure,
and so in whose hearts the day of grace and the morning star of the
gospel had already arisen, then our argument gains strength; that is
to say, the prophetic words must be heeded to the end of the age,
until that blessed day dawns which is true day, everlasting and not
ended by night.
VI. (2) The church of the New Testament is built on the
foundation of the prophets and the apostles (Eph. 2:20); that is, of
the teaching of prophets and apostles. The New Testament prophets
mentioned in Ephesians 3:5 and I Corinthians 12:28 cannot be
understood here, because the passage deals with the permanent
foundation of the universal church, while the New Testament prophetic
gift was temporary; nor does the order of the words (ordo
collectionis) imply priority in time or duration, as in Ephesians
4:12 the New Testament prophets are listed before the evangelists,
although they did not come before them in time.
VII. (3) "Whatever was written in former days was
written for our instruction, that by steadfastness and by the
encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope" (Rom.
15:4). Although all things in Scripture are not of the same
nature and use, yet all are of the same origin and authority, equally
given for the welfare and edification of the church.
VIII. (4) The canon of the Old Testament is sufficient for
faith and conduct, and those sacred writings in which Timothy was
instructed from his youth, when the canon of the New Testament had not
yet been written, could make him wise unto salvation (II Tim. 3:14
-15). And if the man of God, that is, the minister of the gospel, can
be equipped for every good work by them, they are much more useful and
necessary for the faith of the private person, and for the direction
of his life. Nor does Paul here refer only to the time before the
writing of the New Testament, because he speaks in general of all
inspired Scripture (v. 16).
IX. (5) Christ dismisses the Jews that they may study the
Scriptures (John 5:39), since they are the source of life. This is not
spoken to the Jews merely as a description of what they were doing,
but as a commandment, because (1) Christ's purpose was to lead the
Jews to the reading of Scripture as a means of bringing them to a
knowledge of himself, and a witness [to him] greater than any
objection, and (2) granting that Christ spoke in the indicative, the
substance [of our argument] is the same, because he approved their
practice [of reading the Old Testament] and did not rebuke it.
X. (6) The Old Testament Scripture contains the same
substance of doctrine as the New, both with regard to things to be
believed, and to be done, nor is any other gospel proclaimed today to
us than which was formerly promised in the prophetic writings (Rom.
1:3 [2]; 16:25 - 26). So
Paul, who proclaimed the whole plan of God for salvation to Christians
(Acts 20:26 [27]) declared that he had taught nothing except what was
spoken by Moses and the prophets (Acts 26:22). Nor is any other law
prescribed for us besides that which was formerly brought by Moses,
which required love of God and neighbor (Matt. 22:37 - 39).
XI. (7) If the Old Testament does not apply to Christians, it
cannot be convincingly proved to Jews that Jesus Christ of Nazareth is
the true Messiah, because only by comparing the Scriptures, and by the
correspondence of the predictions of the Messiah in the Old Testament
to their fulfillment in our Jesus under the New, which was more than
once shown by Christ and the apostles (Luke 24:27, 44; Acts 10:43;
17:11; 26:22; Rom. 3:21), can this be done.
XII. By the law and the prophets which were to remain until
John (Matt. 11:12 [13]), the books of the Old Testament and their
permanence are not to be understood, compared to that of the New. The
first was prophetic, the second evangelical; the first is of shadows
and types which promise a Messiah who is to be given, the second is
clear and plain, which proclaims a Messiah who has been given. Christ
says that these two modes of revelation are to be brought together:
the first, [revelation] through prophecy, to last only until John,
because after the Messiah had been given he no longer wanted to be
proclaimed as to come; the other, [revelation] through the
evangelizing that declares that Christ has come, began with John.
XIII. When the apostles are called ministers of the Spirit,
not of the letter (II Cor. 3:5 - 6), by "letter" the books
of the Old Testament are not to be understood, as if they should no
longer be used, since on the contrary they used them constantly, but
the legal economy, as contrasted to the evangelical [should be
understood]. It is in many ways superior, not only because of its
clarity and completeness, but also because of its efficacy, because it
not only requires and commands duty as does the law, but also performs
it through the law written in hearts by the Spirit.
XIV. It is one thing for the old covenant to be out of date
with regard to mode of administration and the incidental aspects (accidentia)
of the covenant, or the external accompaniments of matters therewith,
which is what Paul affirms (Heb. 8:13), but it is another for it to be
so with regard to what is administered and its substance, or the
internal form of the covenant itself, which is what we deny.
XV. It is one thing to speak of the obligation of the
ceremonies of the Old Testament, or the law concerning them, and
another of the permanence of both the knowledge of and meditation upon
the books of the Law and the Prophets. Because the law has only the
shadow of blessings to come it does not apply to Christians, who have
the express image of these [blessings], as a matter of practice and
observance; it can, however, apply as a matter of teaching and
knowledge, and as illustration of that image (quoad relationem ad thn eikona). Indeed the content (corpus)
shows forth more clearly from the correspondence between the revealed
shadows and forms.
XVI. Christ, in Matthew 5, does not dispute against Moses and
the precepts of the law itself, but rather acts as interpreter and
vindicator of the law, by rejecting corruptions and glosses which
Jewish teachers had attached to it, and restoring its splendor and
true meaning, as will be seen specifically in the locus about the law.
XVII. Although the New Testament Scripture is complete in an
intensive sense, with regard to the substance of saving doctrine, it
is not complete in the extensive sense, with regard to the full
breadth of divine revelation, because it speaks only of Christ as
having been revealed, not of him as to be revealed, a form of witness
that is most useful for the confirmation of faith. So the perfection
of the books of the New Testament does not exclude the use of the
books of the Old, both because the New Testament itself witnesses that
it rests upon the Old, and because the repetition of many testimonies
to the same fact is a valid witness for us, and increases assurance of
our faith.
XVIII. Anything that does not come, either directly or
indirectly, from Christ does not have authority for Christians. But
the law that was given by Moses was also given by Christ; by Moses as
servant (servus), by Christ
as Lord. So in Acts 7:38
the same angel who appeared to Moses in the desert (v. 30), and who
was Jehovah himself (Exod. 3:2), is said to have spoken to Moses on
Mount Sinai, because the Son of God, who is called the angel of the
covenant and of the presence, was the primary author and promulgator
of the law, of which Moses was only a servant (minister). This does not destroy the distinction between the
promulgation of the law and of the gospel, because in the law the Son
of God worked only indirectly and as disincarnate, but is called the
first author of the gospel directly and as incarnate (Heb. 2:3).
XIX. Christ is called the end of the law (Rom. 10:4), both
because he was the purpose (scopus)
toward which the entire law looked, and because he was its realization
and completion, not by doing away with its value, but by fulfilling
its oracles, and carrying them out, both in his own person, by action
and by suffering, and in his people, by inscribing the law on the
hearts of believers, whence he is said to have come not to destroy the
law, but to fulfill it (Matt. 5:17).
XX. Servants are not to be listened to, if they say anything
contrary to, or injurious to, the master when he is absent, but they
can and should be heard if they speak about him in accordance with his
commandment. Moses and the prophets did this no less than the apostles
(John 5:46; Acts 10:43), and Christ expressly enjoins the hearing of
Moses and the prophets (Luke 16:29). This is not going back from
Christ to Moses, but a going forward from Moses, who is tutor (Gal.
3:24), to Christ.
XXI. The beginning of John's preaching is properly called the
beginning of the gospel (Mark 1:1) with regard to fulfillment and with
respect to the revelation of Christ as sent, but not with regard to
the promise and with respect to [the revelation of] Christ as one to
be sent, which had been given previously under the Old Testament (Rom.
1:2; Gal.
3:8;
Isa. 52:7; 61:1).
The Canonicity of the Apocrypha
QUESTION 9: Are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the
first two books of Maccabees, Baruch, and the additions to Esther and
Daniel properly included in the list of canonical books? Negative,
against the Roman Catholics.
I. The apocryphal books are so called not because the authors
of the books are unknown--there are canonical works whose authors are
not known and apocryphal ones whose authors are--nor because they are
read only privately, and not in public [worship]; some of them are
indeed read in public. They are so called either because they were
kept out of the chest in which the sacred writings were preserved, as
Epiphanius and Augustine supposed, or because their authority was
unclear and suspect and therefore their use was restricted, that is,
the church did not read them for the purpose of establishing
ecclesiastical dogmas, as Jerome says in his preface to the Proverbs
of Solomon; or, which is the more truthful explanation, because they
are of doubtful and obscure origin, and the obscurity was not cleared
up by those through whose testimony the authority of Scripture came to
us, as Augustine says (City of
God 5.24 [15.23]).
II. The question does not involve the books of the Old and
New Testaments which we regard as canonical; these the Roman Catholics
also accept. Nor does it involve all
apocryphal writings; there are some which the Roman Catholics
reject no less than we, such as III and IV Esdras, III and IV
Maccabees, or the prayer of Manassas.
But we are concerned with Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom,
Ecclesiasticus, I and II Maccabees, and the additions to Esther and
Daniel, which the Roman Catholics include among the canonical
writings. We exclude them, not that they are without many true and
pious elements, but that they lack the marks of the canonical books.
III. There are a number of reasons. (1) The Jewish church, to
which was entrusted the oracles of God (Rom. 3:2), did not accept
them, using the same canon as we, as Josephus witnesses (Against Apion 1. [8]) and as Becanus and Stapleton admit. This could
not have been done without serious sin (crimen) if these books had been entrusted to them on the same terms
as the others, but no such charge is ever made against them by Christ
or by the apostles. At this point no distinction ought to be made
between the Jewish and the Christian canon, because Christians cannot
and should not accept any books as canonical, except those accepted by
the Jews, their book-carriers (capsarii),
as Augustine calls them--"who carry the books for us
students" (commentary on Psalm 60). (2) [The apocryphal books]
are never cited as canonical by Christ and the apostles as the others
are, and indeed when Christ divides all the Old Testament books into
three classes-law, psalms, and prophets (Luke 24:44)--he obviously
gave his approval to the Jewish canon, and excluded those books which
are not contained in this classification. (3) Because the Christian
church accepted the same canon as we, and no other books, for four
hundred years; this is shown by the canons of the Council of Laodicea
(59), by Melito, bishop of Sardis, who lived in A.D. 116 (Eusebius, Church
History 4.25),
Epiphanius in his treatment of the Epicureans, Jerome in his prologue,
Athanasius in his synopsis. (4) Because the authors [of the Apocrypha]
were not prophets and inspired men, since these books were written
after Malachi, the last of the prophets, nor were they written in
Hebrew, like the Old Testament, but in Greek. So Josephus says, in the
place cited above, that the writings of his people after the time of
Artaxerxes are not of equal trustworthiness and authority with the
earlier ones, as not being in the true succession of the prophets.
IV. (5) Both the style and the content of these books cry out
that they are human, not divine, so that anyone who did not realize
that they were produced by human effort would be a person of little
insight, although some [of the books] are superior to others. For
besides the fact that the style does not equal the majesty and
simplicity of the divine style, but is redolent of the evil and
weakness of human learning, with folly, flattery, conceit,
affectation, pseudoerudition and false eloquence, all of which occur
frequently (non raro), there
is in [these books] so much that is not only inconsequential and
frivolous, but also false, superstitious, and contradictory, that it
is very plain that [these books] were of human, not divine,
composition. We give a
few examples of the many errors. In Tobit lying is attributed to the
angel, who in 5:15 [12] calls himself Azariah the son of Ananias, and
in 12:15 Raphael the angel of the Lord. The same [angel] in chapter 6
gives magical guidance for the expulsion of a demon by the smoke of a
burning fish's liver, contrary to the word of Christ (Matt. 17:21). He
accepts for himself the offering of prayer which is rightful only for
Christ (12:12). The book of Judith praises (9:2) an act of Simeon that
was cursed by Jacob (Gen. 49 [:5 - 7]); it praises the lying and
deception of Judith, which is not consistent with piety (chap. 11);
and worse than that, it praises her for seeking the blessing of God
for her lying and deception (9:13). There is no mention of the city of
Bethulia in Scripture, nor is there any mention of this deliverance
[by Judith] in either Josephus or Philo, who wrote about Jewish
history. The author of Wisdom falsely states that he was king in
Israel (9:7 - 8), and is understood as Solomon, although he mentions
athletic contests which were not yet being held among the Greeks of
Solomon's time (4:2); moreover, he presents the Pythagorean doctrine
of transmigration (8:19 - 20) and gives a false account of the origin
of idols (15:15 -16). The son of Sirach attributes to Samuel an act
that was the work of an evil demon called forth by wicked methods (Ecclesiasticus
46:20; I Sam. 28:11), gives a false account of the corporeal return of
Elijah (de Elia corporaliter
reverso) (48:11), and, in the prologue, apologizes for his
delusions.
V. In the additions to Esther and Daniel there are so many
contradictory and foolish statements that Sixtus Senensis simply
rejects them. Baruch says that he read his book to Jeconiah and all
the people in Babylon in the fifth year after the fall of Jerusalem
(Baruch 1:2 - 3), when, however, Jeconiah was still in prison, and
Baruch was in Egypt, taken away with [Jeremiah] after the assassination
of Gedaliah (Jer. 43:10 [7]). The altar of the Lord is mentioned at a
time when the temple no longer existed (Baruch 1:10).
The books of the Maccabees often contradict each other--compare
I Maccabees 1:16 with 9:5 and 28, and I Maccabees 10. The suicide of
Razis is praised (II Maccabees 14:42). Will-worship is praised when Judas [Maccabeus] offers
sacrifices for the dead which are not provided for by the law (II
Maccabees 12:42). The author apologizes for his weakness and
infirmity, and comments on the difficulty of stitching together his
patchwork (cento) out of the five books of Jason of Cyrene (II Maccabees 2:24;
15:[38-]39).
If anyone should want more on these books, let him consult
Rainold, Chamierus, Molinaeus, Spanheim, and others who have carried
on this discussion extensively and soundly.
VI. The canon of faith is one thing; the canon of
ecclesiastical reading is another. We are not discussing the latter,
for it is well known that these apocryphal books have from time to
time been read in public worship, but only for the instruction of the
people, as Jerome says in his preface to the book of Solomon. Likewise
the "legends," which are so called from legendum,
and which told of the sufferings of the martyrs, used to be read in
public worship, although not regarded as canonical. Here we are
discussing the canon of faith.
VII. The word canon
is used in two senses by the patristic writers, broadly and narrowly.
In the former sense it includes not only the canon of faith but also
that of ecclesiastical reading. In this sense the forty-seventh canon
of the third Council of Carthage must be understood, when it calls the
books [of the Apocrypha] canonical, not narrowly and with strict
accuracy as the canon of faith, but broadly as the canon of reading,
as the synod, which also desired that the "passions of the
martyrs" be read, explicitly declared (if indeed this canon is
not interpolated, since it mentions Pope Boniface, who at that time
was not yet pope, so that Syrius Monachus calls this a canon of the
seventh council of Carthage, not the third). Augustine is to be
understood in the same way when he calls [the Apocrypha] canonical. He
sets up two classes of canons, one that is accepted by all churches
and concerning which there is no question; the second which is
accepted by some, and which was commonly read by both parties, and he
held this second as not to be esteemed as much as the first, and its
authority to be much less (Against
the Manicheans 2.5). The Apocrypha indeed are for him corrupt,
false, and dishonest writings; he calls them "fables of
scriptures which are called apocrypha" (City
of God 5.24 [15.23]).
But "canon" is used narrowly for that which had
divine and infallible authority for proving the dogmas of the faith,
and thus Jerome uses the word when he excludes [the Apocrypha] from
the canon. So Augustine uses the word canon more broadly than Jerome,
who uses the word apocrypha more broadly than Augustine, not only for
books which are clearly false and mythological, but also for those
which, although read in church, are not employed for proving the
dogmas of the faith, so that it is easy to harmonize the words of
these Fathers, who seem to disagree in this matter. So Cajetan, at the
end of his commentary on Esther, explains the words of the Fathers:
"for Jerome the words of councils and fathers are reduced to such
a classification that they are not canonical, that is, containing
rules for the establishment of articles of faith, although they can be
called canonical, that is, containing rules for the edification of
believers, since they are received into the biblical canon for this
purpose," with which teaching Dionysius the Carthusian agrees in
his preface to Tobit.
VIII. There is no point to the Roman Catholic distinction
between the canon of the Jews and that of the Christians, for,
although our canon in its totality means all the books of the Old and
New Testaments, which are equally part of it, as is not the case with
the Jews, who reject the New, nevertheless, if the word is used of a
part, that is, the Old Testament, in which sense we are now
discussing, it is certain that our canon does not differ from that of
the Jews, because they have never received any books into the canon
except those which we do.
IX. If among the Fathers there is reference to some
deuterocanonical works, it is not to be understood that they are in
truth and univocally canonical with respect to faith, but they are
included in the canon of reading, on account of many pious and useful
contents that can serve for edification.
X. The quotation of a passage does not prove a book to be
canonical, (1) for if it did, Aratus, Menander, and Epimenides, who
are quoted by Paul (Acts 17:28; I Cor. 15:33;
Titus 1:12) would be canonical, and (2) the words which our
adversaries claim are quoted from the Apocrypha can be found in other
canonical books, from which, rather than from the Apocrypha, the
apostles could have quoted.
XI. If [the apocryphal books] are joined to the canonical
ones, it does not follow that they are of equal authority, but only
that they are useful for the cultivation of morals, and for an
understanding of the history of [biblical] times, not for the
establishment of faith.
XII. Although some apocryphal books, such as Wisdom and
Ecclesiasticus, are better and purer than others, and contain a number
of ethical teachings of good content, which have their value, yet
because they have many other teachings both false and foolish, they
are wisely excluded from the canon.
XIII. Although some doubted the authenticity of a number of
New Testament books, such as the Epistle of James, II Peter, II and
III John, and Revelation, which afterward were held canonical by the
church, it does not follow that this could happen with respect to the
apocryphal books, because in this matter the status of Old and New
Testament books is different. (1) For the books of the Old Testament
were not given to the Christian church by stages, in temporal
succession or through parts of the church, but all books belonging to
it were received from the Jews at one and the same time written in one
codex, after they had received unquestioned authority, which was
confirmed by Christ himself and by the apostles. But the books of the
New Testament were written separately in different times and places,
and gradually collected into one corpus.
Therefore, some of the later books, which came later to some
churches, especially in remote areas, were held in doubt by some,
until their authenticity gradually became known. (2) Although some
Epistles and the Book of Revelation were questioned in some churches,
yet there were always many more that accepted them. But there was
never any disagreement over the apocryphal books, because they were
always rejected by the Jewish church.
The Purity of the Original Text
QUESTION 10: Has the original text of the Old and New
Testaments come to us pure and uncorrupted?
Affirmative, against the Roman Catholics.
I. This question is forced upon us by the Roman Catholics,
who raise doubts concerning the purity of the sources in order more
readily to establish the authority of their Vulgate and lead us to the
tribunal of the church.
II. By "original texts" we do not mean the very
autographs from the hands of Moses, the prophets, and the apostles,
which are known to be nonexistent. We mean copies (apographa),
which have come in their name, because they record for us that word of
God in the same words into which the sacred writers committed it under
the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
III. There is no question of the sources being pure in the
sense that no error has crept into many sacred codices, either from
the ravages of time, or the carelessness of copyists, or the malice of
Jews and heretics. This is recognized on both sides, and the variant
readings, which Beza and Robert Stephanus have noted in Greek, and the
Jews in Hebrew, witness sufficiently to this. But the question is
whether the original text, in Hebrew or in Greek, has been so
corrupted, either by the carelessness of copyists or by
the malice of Jews and heretics, that it can no longer be
held as the judge of controversies and the norm by which all versions
without exception are to be judged. The Roman Catholics affirm this;
we deny it.
IV. Not all Roman Catholics are of this opinion. There are
many, who are called Hebraists, who uphold the purity of the sources,
and defend it explicitly, among them Sixtus Senensis, Bannes,
Andradius, Driedo, Arias Montanus, John Isaac, Jacob Bonfrerius,
Simeon de Muis, and many others. Others, however, maintain strongly
the corruption of the sources; among them, Stapleton, Lindanus, Cano,
Cotton, Morinus, Perronius, Gordon, and others. There are some who,
following a middle road, assert neither that the sources are corrupt
nor that they flow with purity and integrity, so that they maintain
everything must be studied and emended in connection with the
versions. This is the teaching of Bellarmine (De
Verbo Dei 22), who on this matter, as on others, must be
understood as inconsistent.
V. That the sources are not corrupt is demonstrated by (1)
the providence of God, which would not allow (cui repugnat) that the books which he had willed to be written by
inspired men for the salvation of the human race, and which he willed
to remain to the end of the world so that the waters of salvation
could be drawn from them, should be so falsified that they would be
useless for that purpose. And
since new revelations are not to be expected after God has committed
his whole will concerning the doctrine of salvation to the books of
Scripture, what could be more derogatory to God, who has promised
always to be with his church, than to assert that the books in which
this doctrine is preserved have been corrupted so that they cannot be
the canon of faith? (2) The faithfulness of the Christian church, and
its diligent work in preserving Scripture. Since Christians always
watched over it with great care, to preserve the sacred deposit
unharmed, it is unbelievable that they either falsified it or allowed
anyone else to do so. (3) The religion of the Jews, which looked upon
the sacred codices with great faith and concern, to the point of
superstition, so that Josephus could say that after the passage of
centuries no one dared add to or subtract from or change the books of
the Jews, and that among them it was almost instinctive to be prepared
to die for Scripture (Against
Apion, book 2). Philo in his work on the exodus of the children of
Israel from Egypt, quoted by Eusebius, goes further when he states
that, up to his time, during a period of more than two thousand years,
no word in the Hebrew law was changed, and that any number of Jews
would rather die than allow the law to undergo any change (Preparation
for the Gospel 8.2). Indeed, they were overcome with foolish
superstition about the sacred codex, so that if a written book of the
law touched the ground they proclaimed a fast, and they said that it
was to be feared that the universe would revert to primeval chaos--so
far were they from allowing fraud with the sacred codices. (4) The
care with which the Masoretes not only counted, but recorded in
writing, all variations in pointing and writing, not only with regard
to verses and words, but to individual letters, so that there could be
neither place for, nor suspicion of, forgers, an argument used by
Arias Montanus in his biblical preface. (5) The large number of
copies. Since the sacred
codices are so widely scattered, how could all of them have been
corrupted either by the carelessness of copyists or by the malice of
falsifiers? "Far be it," as Augustine says, "from any
prudent man to believe that the Jews, however perverse and
evil-minded, could have done this with so many and widely scattered
copies" (City of God 15.2 [13]). Vives says that this argument
should be used against those who "argue that the Hebrew
manuscripts of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New have been
falsified and corrupted, so that the truth of the sacred books cannot
be found in them."
VI. (6) If the sources were corrupted, it was done either
before or after Christ. Neither is possible. Not before, for Christ
never suggested it when he discussed various errors of doctrine, and
he would not have upheld the use of corrupted books. Was the Lord so
indifferent to the salvation of his people that he never even
mentioned, personally or through the apostles, that the books of Moses
and the prophets were falsified, when at the same time he refuted the
Jews from these same books (but in vain, if they were corrupted and
changed), and summoned and urged his 'disciples to read and examine
them? Not afterward, both because the copies scattered among
Christians would have made such effort useless, and also because there
is no trace of such corruption. For if anything of the kind had taken
place, why are the passages which Christ and the apostles quote from
Moses and the prophets the same today and always, and not corrupted at
all? Why did Origen and Jerome, who had magnificent knowledge of the
sacred languages, so specifically absolve the Jews from this wrong?
Therefore if the corruption was not done either before or after
Christ, it follows that it was never done, an argument that Bellarmine
brings forward (De Verba Dei
22).
VII. (7) The Jews neither wanted to corrupt the sources nor
could have done so. They did not want to, because, if they had wanted
to corrupt any part, they would certainly have weakened the oracles
which speak of Christ and confirm the Christian faith. Who indeed
would believe that if, as is supposed, they did it from hatred of
Christians, they would falsify the passages from which nothing against
Christians can be drawn, and leave unchanged those in which Christians
place the foundation for the triumph of the truth of the gospel? But
this is exactly how the matter stands. The passages said to have been
weakened by the Jews are little or no problem for Christians, while
the most striking oracles concerning Christ remain unchanged, and are
much plainer and more specific in Hebrew than in the translations, as
has been pointed out by Jerome (epistle 74, to Marcellus), John Isaac
(Against Lindanus 2), and Andradius in his defense of the Council of
Trent, chapter 2. That
they could not have done it no matter how badly they wanted to is
shown not only by the large number of copies but also by the vigilance
of Christians, not all of whose copies could the Jews have corrupted,
and by the provident wisdom of God, who, if he will not permit one jot
or tittle of the law to perish until all is fulfilled (Matt. 5:18),
will be much less willing for the body of heavenly doctrine to be
weakened by the Jews, and for us to be deprived of this treasure;
rather, as Bellarmine well remarks, "for this purpose he willed
to scatter the Jews throughout the world, and to disseminate the books
of the law and the prophets, that, unwillingly, they might bear
witness to our Christian truth" (De
Verbo Dei 22 argument 5) .... and Augustine calls the Jews "a
book-preserving people, carrying the law and the prophets; they used
to carry the codices as a servant, that they might lose by carrying,
and others gain by reading; they indeed serve us; the Jews were like
book carriers and librarians, who by their efforts carried the codices
for us," and again, "in their hearts, enemies; in their
books, witnesses."
VIII. Although various small changes (corruptulae) may have come into the Hebrew codices through the
carelessness of copyists or the ravages of time, they would not
therefore cease to be the canon of faith and conduct. For these
represent matters of small importance, not connected with faith and
conduct, which Bellarmine himself admits, and therefore he denies that
they affect the integrity of Scripture (De
Verbo Dei 2.2); and moreover they are not found in every
manuscript, and are not such as cannot readily be corrected from
Scripture itself and the comparison of different copies.
IX. The hatred of Jews for Christians could be a remote cause
for the corruption of Scripture, but one that could be impeded by a
greater cause, namely, the providence of God, who envisioned a sure
rule of faith for Christians no less than for Jews, one deduced from
the indubitable foundations of the gospel, which could not be done if
he allowed the sources to be corrupt.
X. The difference between the Septuagint and the original
text does not imply that the text is corrupt, but rather that the
translation is faulty, as Jerome already recognized in his day (in his
prefaces to Deuteronomy and Chronicles, and in his letter to Sunias
and Fretellas). Bellarmine says (De
Verbo Dei 2.6) that [the Septuagint] is so corrupt and faulty that
it seems altogether a different work, so that it is not safe today to
emend the Hebrew or Latin text [of the Old Testament] from a Greek
manuscript.
XI. So far is it from true that the Keri and Kethib
divergencies, which are commonly regarded as 848 in number, corrupt
the text, that rather they show the variant readings of different
copies, by which all corruption by innovators is prevented. The chasir
and jothar, which indicate a
grammatical deficiency or superfluity, belong to the same category and
make evident the superstition with which the Masoretes cared for the
text.
XII. The tikkun
sopherim or "corrections of the scribes," of which there
are only eighteen, do not imply any corruption of the text. Had there
been any, Christ, if they were made before his time, or the orthodox
fathers if they were made later, would not have allowed them to pass
without rebuke. Nor are they necessarily corrections, as is evident to
the reader, but stylistic improvements, and changes not so much of
meaning as of words. They were made either by the men of the Great
Synagogue, one of whom, Ezra, who, after the return from the
Babylonian captivity, restored to integrity the scattered and damaged
copies of the sacred books, and arranged them as we now have them, was
inspired by God, as we have already mentioned in the proper place,
or else by the authors themselves, who, after the custom of orators,
edited what they had said. But the very content declares them to be of
small moment, for the meaning is not lost even if the words are
retained as spoken.
XIII. The similarity of some letters can indeed have resulted
in errors appearing in some codices because of copyists' carelessness,
but this was not universal, for they could easily be corrected from
others, especially because of the thoroughness of the Masoretes, who
counted not only all the words, but also the letters that were in the
text.
XIV. So far it is from truth that the Masoretes' work
suggests corruption of the sources, that, on the contrary, it was
undertaken to prevent errors, so that in days to come not a single
letter could be changed or dropped out.
XV. Although in Romans 10:18 the apostle writes
"sound" for the "line" of Psalm 19:5 [4], it does
not follow that the Hebrew text is corrupt and that "their
line" was substituted for "their sound" or
"voice." For qav
means not only an extended or perpendicular line, but also a written
line, or letter, by which young children are taught, as in Isaiah
28:10 the ignorant childishness of the Israelite people is shown when
they are said to be taught like children "precept after precept,
line after line." So the psalmist says, "Day teaches day,
and one night shows forth knowledge to another."
"Voice" (fqoggos), which signifies not only the sound but
the writing of the letter, renders this word [qav]
well, just as we call diphthongs and vowels written. Moreover, Paul
does not quote this verse exactly, but applies it in a figurative
manner to the preaching of the gospel by the apostles, following the
meaning rather than the words.
XVI. Corruption of the meaning is one thing; corruption of
interpretation is another. The Jews have been able to corrupt the
interpretation of Isaiah 9:6 when the words "and he shall call
his name" are referred to the father who calls, not to the son
who is called, but they have not corrupted the words themselves.
Whether they are rendered as active or passive makes no difference,
since according to Hebrew idiom a future active without subject often
has a passive meaning, and so the words, impersonally in the third
person, although active, can be understood as passive. So the Hebrew
reading "and he shall call his name" has not been changed,
but the subject must be supplied--not "God the Father," as
the Jews take it, but "everyone," that is, all believers,
shall call his (Christ's) name. To make this more plain, it is
translated "his name shall be called." Likewise Jeremiah
23:6 has been somewhat corrupted in interpretation but not in the
words, which are correctly translated either with a singular "he
shall call him," as the seventy rendered it, as if the words
referred to the nominative preceding "Israel and Judah," or
with a plural, "they shall call him," as Pagninus, Vatable,
and Arias Montanus render it, following the Chaldean, Syriac, Arabic,
and the Vulgate. Jerome uses both renderings, and none of the Fathers
called this passage corrupt.
XVII. Since three Targums understand "Shiloh" in
Genesis 49:10 as "Messiah," it is clear that the Jews have
not corrupted the passage in order to prove that the Messiah has not
yet come. Moreover, this word Shiloh,
which in the Talmud is attributed to the Messiah, refutes the Jews and
points to Christ no less than "Shiloh" [with final hard
"h" rather than soft] which is asserted to have been the
original, whether it be derived from "son" or from
"peaceful," or, which seems preferable, and the Septuagint
follows, a [Hebrew] phrase meaning "whose is the kingly
authority." There is a similar phrase in Ezekiel 21:32 [27].
XVIII. Zechariah 9:9 is not corrupt when it says that the
Messiah is to be a king who is just and to be saved, for the word can
be understood either as passive, meaning that Christ would be saved
from death (Heb. 5:7), or would save himself (Isa. 63:3[5]); or as a
deponent form used actively, which is common among the Hebrews, and
this would be a participle meaning "liberator" or
"savior."
XIX. Although in Exodus 12:40 the sojourn of the children of
Israel in Egypt is said to have been of 430 years, which cannot be
understood of the period of time spent in Egypt, which was 215 years,
but of the time spent both in Canaan and in Egypt, as the Samaritan
and the Greek explain the passage, the Hebrew ought not to be regarded
as corrupt but as synechdoche, which remembers only the Egyptian
period, because it was the principal exile of the Israelites, by
naming the whole from the more important part.
XX. In Psalm 15 [14] no verses have been omitted [from the
present Hebrew text], for what is quoted in Romans 3:11-12 was not
taken by the apostle from there, but from many psalms put together,
for example, Psalms 5, 11, 26, 36, and 140, and from Isaiah 59, as
Jerome teaches in his commentary on Isaiah (book 16).
XXI. I Corinthians 15:47 is not corrupt in the Greek text,
but in the Vulgate, which omits the word Lord,
which here means Christ, as he is not a mere man but the Lord Jehovah,
and so the antithesis between the first and second Adam is much
stronger: "the first man is of the earth, earthy, but the second
man is the Lord from heaven."
XXII. Although the doxology of Matthew 6:13, in the
conclusion of the Lord's Prayer, is not found in Luke 11, nor in many
manuscripts, it does not follow that this text is corrupt, because the
Lord could have taught the same form of prayer twice; once without the
doxology, and then again, with it added, for the general public. Nor
is it impossible for one Gospel to leave out what another includes,
for no necessity makes each one include everything; Matthew 6:33
reads, "Seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness," but
Luke 6:31 has only, "Seek the kingdom of God." What Luke omits ought
therefore not to be eliminated, but supplied from Matthew, since both
are inspired, especially because this passage is found in all the
Greek manuscripts of Matthew, as Erasmus and Bellarmine recognize.
XXIII. Although in a number of manuscripts Romans 12:11 reads
"serving the time," this is not the case with all; indeed
Franciscus Lucas says he has seen six which read "Lord."
Beza says this is the reading of a number of the best, and Dominic a
Soto states that that reading is now general, both in Greek and Latin.
XXIV. It is certain that all Greek manuscripts differ from
the Latin in I John 4:3, for the Greek has "every spirit that
does not confess that Jesus has come in the flesh," but the
Latin, "every spirit that takes Jesus apart (solvit)."
It does not follow that the sources are corrupt, for the Greek reading
is more worthy (augustior),
and much more specific against Nestorius and Eutyches.
XXV. Corruption is one thing; a variant reading is another.
We admit that there are a number of variant readings coming
from the collation of various manuscripts, but we deny that there is a
universal corruption.
XXVI. It is one thing to speak of the effort of heretics to
corrupt certain manuscripts. We readily concede this. The complaints
of the Fathers, for example, Irenaeus with regard to Marcion, Origen
on Romans 16:13, and Theodoret with regard to Tatian are relevant to
this. But success, or complete and universal corruption, is another
matter. This we deny, both because of the providence of God, who did
not allow them to do what they planned, and because of the diligence
of the orthodox fathers, who, having various manuscripts in their
possession, were faithful in keeping them free from corruption.
The Authentic Version of Scripture
QUESTION 11: Are the Hebrew version of the Old Testament and
the Greek of the New the only authentic ones? Affirmative, against the
Roman Catholics.
I. Some versions of Scripture are original and primary,
originally prepared by the authors; others are secondary, versions in
other languages into which it has been translated. No one denies that
the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New are original
and first written, but there is a controversy between us and the Roman
Catholics as to whether both are authentic, and deserve in themselves
both faith and authority, and whether all other versions are to be
tested by them.
II. Some Roman Catholics--Sixtus Senensis, Driedo, Andradius,
and others--do justice to the sources by affirming their purity, as
seen above, and, on account of their purity, ascribing authenticity to
them, so that all versions, including even the Vulgate, may be
corrected from them. But more of them do not, and hold that there is
no certainty about the substance of the Hebrew, either for appeal to
the sources in controversies over faith, or for correcting the Vulgate
from it; for example, Stapleton, Cano, Lindanus, and others who
contend for the corruption of the sources. This teaching is taken from the decree of the Council of
Trent, session 4, which said: "Let the Latin Vulgate
version be held authoritative for public reading, disputation,
preaching, and exposition, in the sense that no one dare reject it for
any reason." It is granted that many Roman Catholics, who are
ashamed of this decree, try to construe it in another sense, as if the
council had said nothing against the authenticity of the original
text, and had not given the Vulgate precedence over the sources, but
had only chosen one out of the Latin versions which were in
circulation, which it declared superior to the others, as Bellarmine
says (De Verba Dei 2.10),
which is also the opinion of Andradius, Salmeron, Serarius, and
others. That this is a distortion of the decree of the Synod Bannes
rightly argues, and it can easily be seen from the words of the
council itself. For if it is to be held as authoritative, and no one
is to dare reject it for any reason, is it not equated with the
sources, and indeed made superior to them? If it differs from the
sources it will not be brought into harmony with them, but rather they
made to agree with it. So Mariana concludes that after the
promulgation of [the decrees of the] Council of Trent "the Greek
and Hebrew have fallen with one blow." But our teaching is that
only the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New have
been and are authentic
in the sense that all controversies concerning faith and religion, and
all versions, are to be tested and examined by them.
III. An authentic writing is one with regard to which all
factors together produce confidence, and to which complete trust
should be given in its field, from which it is evident both that it
must come from the author whose name it bears, and that everything in
it must be written as he wanted it written. Such a writing can be
authentic in either of two senses--primary and original and secondary
and derivative. The primary sense applies to what bears its own
authentication, which proves itself by itself, and which is believed
and clearly should be believed on its own showing (ob
seipsum). In this category are the original copies of royal
edicts, of the decrees of magistrates, wills, contracts, and anything
else actually written by the author. In the secondary group are all
copies accurately and faithfully made by qualified (idoneus)
persons, such as the functionaries appointed and authorized by public
authority to copy the edicts of princes and other public documents, or
the various honest and faithful scribes and copyists of books and
other writings. In the first sense only the "autographs" of
Moses, the prophets and the apostles are authentic, but in the second
sense faithful and accurate copies are also.
IV. Furthermore, the authority of such authentic writing has
two aspects: one rests on the substance of the matter with which it
deals (in rebus ipsis de quibus
id agitur), and concerns the people to whom the writing is
directed; the other concerns the word itself and the writing and
applies to the copies and translations made from it, and receives all
its authority (ius) from the
original, so that it should be compared to that authentic writing and
corrected if there is any difference. The first kind of authority (authoritas)
may be greater or less, depending on the authority of him by whom the
writing was issued, and whether he has more or less authority (imperium)
over the people to whom he addresses it. With the Holy Scripture,
authority is found to the greatest degree, such as cannot reside in
any other writing, since we ought simply to obey God, and be obedient
to everything which he has, in his most holy authentic written Word,
required either to be believed or to be done, on account of that
supreme authority which he holds over mankind, as over all creation,
and that supreme truth and wisdom which reside in him. But the second
kind of authority consists in this, that faithful and accurate copies,
not less than autographs, are norms for all other copies of his
writing and for translations. If any discrepancy is found in these,
whether it conflicts with the originals or the true copies, they are
not worthy of the name "authentic," and must be rejected as
false and corrupted, and there is no other reason for this rejection
except the discrepancy. We wrote above, in question 4, about the first
kind of authority. Here we discuss the second, which is found in the
authentic version (editio).
V. Finally, authenticity can be seen in two ways: materially,
with regard to the teaching (res
enunciata), or formally, with regard to the words and the methods
(modus enunciandi). It is
not a question here of the first--we do not deny this authenticity to
the versions when they agree with the sources--but only of the second,
which belongs only to the sources.
VI. The reasons are (1) only the sources are inspired both in
substance and in wording (II TIm. 3:16); therefore only they can be
authentic. For what men of God wrote they wrote guided by the Holy
Spirit (II Peter 1:21), who, lest they fall into error, determined (dictavit) not only the substance but also the words, which cannot be
said of any translation (versio).
(2) They are the norm and rule by which all versions are to be
tested,- as the ectype must be referred to the archetype and a brook
is recognized from its source. The canon of Gratian based on Augustine
reads: "That the trustworthiness of the old books be tested from
the Hebrew manuscripts; thus the -truth of the Greek of the new falls
short of the norm." Much is presented by Jerome in this matter as
he argues for the authority of the Hebrew text: see his letter 102 to
Marcellus and letters to Vltalus, and to Sunias and Fretellas. (3)
These texts (editiones) have
been held as authentic from the beginning, and were always so held by
Jews and Christians, for many centuries after Christ, and no reason
can be given why they should now cease to be authentic. For the
reasons that have been suggested to support the concept of corruption
not only assume what should be proved but also have been refuted by
us.
VII. (4) If the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of
the New are not authentic, there is no authentic version; no other has
divine witness to its authenticity. If there is no authentic Word of
God in the church, there will be no end of strife, for there will be
no assured rule of faith and conduct to which all must agree, and
Scripture will be like a wax nose, or a law of Lesbos interpreted in
accordance with private judgment. (5) Our adversaries admit that in
some cases it is necessary to refer to the sources. Bellarmine gives
the following cases:
(a) when there seems to be a copyist's error in the Latin manuscripts;
(b) when there are variant readings, so that it is impossible to be
sure which is right; (c) when there is ambiguity either in the words
or the content; (d) when the force and connotation of the [Latin]
words are not explicit enough (De
Verba Dei 2.11). This could not be valid unless the sources were
authentic. Arias Montanus, in his preface to the Bible,
shows that errors in the versions cannot be corrected except from the
truth of the original language. Vives lays it down as certain and
beyond doubt that recourse must be had to the sources. Salmeron,
Bonfrerius, Masius, Muisius, Jansen and his followers, and others who
presently appeal to the sources have the same conviction.
VIII. The variant readings that occur in Scripture do not
detract from its authenticity, because they are easily recognized and
understood, partly by the context (cohaerentia
textus), and partly by collation of the better manuscripts; many
are of such nature that, although they differ, yet they agree in
meaning (licet diversae non male
tamen eidem textui conveniant).
IX. Although a number of controversies have arisen from the
Hebrew and Greek sources, it does not follow that they cannot be
authentic, because if they were not, there would be no authentic
version of the Bible whatsoever to which appeal could be made; there
is no language which would not offer much opportunity for
argumentative disputation.
Moreover, [controversy] is not the fault of the sources but
of those who abuse the sources, either not understanding them or
twisting them to their own opinions, and stubbornly sticking to the
same.
X. The statement that the Hebrew manuscripts of the Old
Testament and the Greek of the New have become defective is false, and
the passages which are offered in proof of this by our adversaries
cannot demonstrate it. Not the pericope of adultery (John 8), which,
although it is lacking in the Syriac, is found in all the Greek
manuscripts.
Not the saying in I John 5:7, although formerly some called
it into question, and heretics do so today. All the Greek witnesses (exemplaria)
have it, as Sixtus Senensis recognizes: "The words always were of
unquestioned truth, and are read in all Greek manuscripts from the
time of the apostles themselves."
Not Mark 16, which was lacking in a number of manuscripts in
Jerome's time, as he admits, but now is found in all, and also in the
Syriac, and isclearly necessary to complete the account of Christ's
resurrection.
XI. It is useless for our adversaries to use the newness of
the vowel points in the Hebrew manuscripts as a means of overcoming
their authenticity, as if the points were merely a human innovation
made by the Masoretes, depending therefore not on divine and
infallible authority, but on human, and therefore subject to change by
human decision, without risk, so that the meaning of the text remains
forever uncertain and ambiguous. They can be answered in a number of
ways. (1) Bellarmine will give this reply on our behalf: "The
errors which arise on account of the addition of the points do not
affect truth, because the points have been added externally, and do
not change the text" (De
Verba Dei 2.2). (2) On this hypothesis, not only does assurance
concerning the original text leave us, but also assurance concerning
the Vulgate, which was prepared from that source, unless it can be
shown that the first author of that version, whether Jerome or
somebody else, received directly from the Spirit the necessary
revelation concerning the vowels, which otherwise surely came from the
tradition of the Jews. If that was uncertain, all the authority of the
sacred text totters.
XII. (3) Even if the points were added at a late date, as
these who date their origin from the Masoretes of Tiberias claim, it
does not follow that they are merely a human device, depending only on
human judgment, which indeed, if it be assumed, considerably weakens
the authority of the Hebrew manuscript. For the pointing, in the
opinion of those who hold this hypothesis, is not supposed to have
been done according to the judgment of the rabbis, but according to
the analogy of Scripture, the nature (genius)
of the sacred language, and the meaning that had long been accepted by
the Jews, so that even if the points were not, as on this hypothesis,
part of the original with regard to their shape, it cannot be denied
that they always were part of it with regard to sound and value, or
power. Otherwise, since vowels are the souls of consonants, the text
would always have been ambiguous; indeed no clear meaning of the word
would be possible unless [the vowels] were as old as the consonants,
as Prideaux in his twelfth lecture on the antiquity of the points
soundly observes: "That the points and accents were part of the
original in respect to sound and value no one denies: [the question]
only concerns the marks and characters." And again, "the
vowels were as old as the consonants with regard to underlying quality
(vis) and sound, although the dots and marks which are now employed
had not then appeared." Indeed it is hardly possible to doubt
that the vowels, if not with the same marks that are now written, were
nevertheless indicated by some marks in place of the points, in order
that the sure and unchanging message (sensus)
of the Holy Spirit, which otherwise, depending merely on human
learning and memory, could easily have been forgotten, or corrupted,
might be retained. [This could have been done,] as some suppose, by
the letters aleph, waw,
andyodh, which are therefore called "the mothers of
speech." Such is the opinion of the learned [Brian] Walton, who
says, "By usage and the tradition of the elders, the true reading
and pronounciation had been preserved by means of the three letters aleph,
waw, andyodh which are
called mothers of speech and which served in place of vowels before
the introduction of the points" (Prolegomena
to the [London] Polyglot 7).
XIII. (4) Our adversaries arbitrarily assume what requires
proof, that points are a modem and human addition, a conclusion with
which a great many Jews, notably Eli Levi, who lived a century ago,
disagreed, in which they were followed by many highly regarded
philologists (grammatici) and theologians, both Protestant and Catholic--Junius,
Illyricus, Reuchlin, Munster, Cevalerius, Pagninus, M. Marinus,
Polanus, Deodatus, Broughton, Muisius, Taylor, Booth, Lightfoot, and
most theologians since them. The whole case seems to have been settled
by the Buxtorfs, father and son, the first in his Tiberias, the second
in that most thorough work with which he refuted Arcanum
punctationis revelatum.
It would not be difficult to support this position by a number
of considerations, if we should now turn our attention to it, but
since the question is one of philology rather than of theology we do
not care to make it our battle. It is enough to have it understood
that to us the teaching that regards the points as of divine origin
has always seemed truer and safer, for the support of the authenticity
of the original text whole and complete against heretics, and the
establishing of a sure and changeless principle of faith, whether [the
points] come from Moses or from Ezra, the leader of the Great
Synagogue, and so it is useless for our adversaries to seek to
question the authority of the Hebrew manuscripts on the ground of the
newness of the points.
The Authenticity of the Hebrew Text
QUESTION 12: Is the present
Hebrew text authentic and
inspired both as to content and as to words, so that all versions are
to be tested by its norm, and corrected if they differ?
Or can the text which it offers, if judged to be less
desirable, be rejected, and corrected,
and brought into agreement with a more acceptable one, either
by comparison with the old translations, or by one’s own judgment
and critical ability?
I. Since the authenticity of the sacred text is the primary
foundation of the faith, nothing should take precedence among all
believers over its preservation inviolate against all attacks, whether
they reject it altogether or weaken it in any way. For this purpose
the preceding controversy with the Catholics was undertaken, and the
present question, in which we turn to an examination of the opinions
of the reverend and learned Louis Cappel, deals with the same issue.
Just as he began strongly arguing the newness of the vowel points, as
a recent innovation of the Masoretes and hence the result of human
effort and study, in his work Arcanum
punctationis revelatum, so in his Critica
sacra he tries earnestly to show that we are not so bound to the
present reading of the Hebrew text as to make it improper often to
depart from it whenever we can find a better and more appropriate
reading either by comparison with the old translations, or by the
power of right reason, or by one's own judgment and critical ability.
We do not undertake this controversy in any unfriendly spirit, as if
we sought to detract from the reputation of a man who in other ways
deserves esteem from the church of God. We only wish to uphold the
conviction always up to now maintained in our churches concerning the
inviolate authenticity of the sacred text, against those who are
trying to adopt these "significant opinions"
and new hypotheses, or who speak of them as inconsequential matters
that are of no concern to the faith, or at least of very little.
II. His teaching amounts to this: (1) because the points are
a human addition, they may, when the need is postulated, be changed
and others substituted, whenever the meaning which they yield is false
or absurd. (2) Not only may the pointing be changed, but also the
substantial text, but there is more freedom with regard to the points,
because the Masoretes often decided on them in accordance with their
own private judgment, to which we ought not to be bound. (3) If, by
use of ancient translations, whether Greek, Aramaic, or Latin, a
meaning of the versions can be established that is equally good and
appropriate, or superior to our Hebrew manuscripts, it is permissible
to I change the reading, and follow the other. (4) Not only by
comparison with the old translations can this be done, but also, if we
are able to show a weakness in the present reading, and that it is
either meaningless, or absurd or false, and are able to find a clearer
or more suitable meaning through another more appropriate reading,
whether by the power of sound reason, or the natural faculty of
thinking and discussing, or by conjecture, then it is per-missible to
strike out the present Hebrew text, and substitute the other. That
this is his teaching can be known from various passages, and
especially from this one: "It is therefore permissible, if any
reading different from the present Hebrew text, either with regard to
consonants or letters, or to words and whole sentences, has any
equally appropriate meaning, for it to be held more genuine, sound,
and complete, wherever it was found, whether in the Septuagint, or the
Aramaic Targums, or Aquila, or Symmachus, Theodotion, or Jerome the
translator of the Vulgate, and therefore it is to be followed and
accepted rather than the existing Masoretic text," a statement
which he often expresses in other places.
III. To support this opinion, he makes another hypothesis,
namely, that the Hebrew manuscripts which the seventy and other
translators used were different from the present ones, which he
disparagingly calls Masoretic and Jewish, and that the differences
between the old translations and the present Hebrew text are variant
readings of the Hebrew text, except perhaps some which arose from the
mistakes of translators who either did not know the meaning of the
Hebrew word or did not pay enough attention. So he denies that our
present Hebrew Bible can be regarded as the source, but accepts it
only as one form of the text, and holds that the true and genuine
authentic original text must be established at length by comparison of
the old versions. So he distinguishes between the Hebrew text in
itself and the present Masoretic text. The latter is to be found in
all copies which exist today, both among Jews and among Christians;
the former can be put together by comparing the present text and the
old translations, which in some cases he not only regards as of equal
value to the present [Hebrew], but he also clearly regards them as
superior, since he often holds that the reading they give, as more
appropriate and true, is to be followed in preference to that of the
present [Hebrew]. "Not only if the reading of the Septuagint is
better than the present [Hebrew] but if equally good and appropriate,
then, because older and of equal goodness in language and meaning, it
should be preferred, because of the version's age" (Apologia
contra Bootium, p.54). And again, "The authority of
Septuagint manuscripts is greater than that of the present [Hebrew]
not only in those places where it gives a more appropriate meaning,
but also where it provides one equally good and appropriate, and this
because of its greater age. The can and should be said concerning all
codices of old translators."
IV. But the accepted and usual opinion of our churches is
very different, namely, not recognizing [as authoritative] any text
except the present Hebrew, to which, as a touchstone, all versions
ancient and modern must be subjected, and corrected if they differ,
while it cannot be emended from them. Although they hold that
individual manuscripts can and should be compared to one another, in
order that variant readings, originating in the carelessness of
copyists or librarians, can be discovered and the errors in these and
other manuscripts corrected, and do deny that comparison with the old
translations is useful for the understanding of the true meaning, yet
they deny that the old translations are even of equal, much less
superior, value to the original text, to the extent that the meaning
which they offer, and which seems more appropriate to us, can be
accepted, and another, which comes from existing [Hebrew] text, be
rejected.
V. That always, from the beginning, this was the conviction (mens)
of all Protestants is clearer than the light of noon, and the
controversy over the authentic text against the Roman Catholics shows
this adequately. Nor can the learned man against whom we argue deny
it. In his Critica sacra,
book 1, chapter I, he says, "The first and old Protestants said
that everything must be examined and corrected on the basis of the
Hebrew text, which they called the purest source." Sixtinus Amama
confirms this in his much-praised book (1:3) after giving his own
opinion on this question; he says, "We conclude that all
translations, whether ancient or modem, with no exception, are to be
tested by it (namely, the Hebrew text)"; "it is the norm,
rule, and canon of all translations." And in chapter 4:
"Therefore no translation, of whatever kind it may be, can be on
a par with the Hebrew text, much less superior to it. This Protestants
hold concerning all versions ancient or modem."
VI. From the above the status of this question can easily be
seen. It is not a question whether versions may be compared with one
another, and with the original, to discover the true meaning. But [the
question is] whether it is permissible to give equal or greater weight
to a reading taken from them, which seems more appropriate for
substitution in place of the present reading, when, in our opinion,
that gives either no meaning, or a false and absurd one. It is not a
question whether there are differences between the present text and
the old translations, but whether these differences are to be
understood as variant readings of the Hebrew, so that no authentic
text can be recognized except that which results from the comparison
of the existing text with the old translations. Finally, it is not a
question whether in the study and comparison of one codex with
another, whether manuscripts or printed editions, we can use our
judgment, and our ratiocinative faculty, to discover probabilities,
and decide which reading is better or more appropriate, but whether it
is permissible to make critical conjectures about the sacred text no
less than about secular writers, to change letters and points and even
words, when the meaning of the existing [Hebrew] text does not seem
appropriate to us, which the learned man maintains; we deny it.
VII. The reasons are (1) from this hypothesis it follows that
there is no authentic text in which faith can totally put its trust,
for this would either be the existing Hebrew text or other codices
which the old translators used. But on this hypothesis the existing
text is merely one of several forms, and its reading can be regarded
as the authentic Hebrew source only where there is no difference
between it and the old translations, as the learned man says in his apologia
against Booth, page 17. As for the other codices used by the ancient
translators--besides the fact that it is arbitrarily assumed that they
were different from the present text, which is his first fallacy, as
will be shown later--if we grant that there were such, they cannot now
be the basis of faith, for they cannot be found, and no longer exist
except in that translation, which, because it is human and fallible,
cannot yield an authentic text. Finally, who could make anyone believe
that the seventy followed their Hebrew text with absolute exactness,
and that the present Greek text is exactly the one they produced?
VIII. (2) [a]
If all the discrepancies between the old versions and the present
Hebrew text were variant readings of Hebrew manuscripts different from
ours, which the translators used, why was there no mention of such
manuscripts among the patristic writers, and no trace among the
Hebrews, who for many centuries have been so zealous in finding and
correcting the smallest variant, as the collections of variants by Ben
Asher and Ben Naphtali, Eastern and Western, give evidence? Who could
believe that the variants of the least significance would have been
recorded, and that those now found on the basis of the old
translations had so fully disappeared that no memory of them survived?
Since there were so many copies, it is indeed a marvel that none have
survived. [b] It is arbitrary to assume that there is no cause for
these discrepancies, except differences in the codices, when others
are far more certain [to have been present]. On that assumption one
would conclude, wrongly, that for the contemporary versions the
translators used different texts, although none except the present one
exists, for there are innumerable differences among the translations.
Who does not realize that often they could have rendered the meaning
rather than the words, as Jerome often notes concerning the seventy?
Finally, some discrepancies could have arisen from [the translators']
ignorance or carelessness, because they did not pay enough attention
to the words, and often, therefore, could have confused similar
letters and words, even without a variant text, as Jerome often
accuses them. [c] They would have assumed presumptuous liberties if
they read one thing in their manuscripts, and boldly wrote something
else, which did not agree with the meaning and context of the Hebrew,
and preferred, with a capricious change, to follow the meaning that
they thought better. [d] The various old versions are no longer in
their original state, but are corrupted and changed remarkably, as is
especially true of the Septuagint and the Vulgate. [e] The negligence
or ignorance of the copyists could have introduced into the versions
many corruptions, which therefore did not originate in variant
readings.
IX. (3) [On this hypothesis] the various versions are of the
same significance as the original text, for if, in all cases of
divergence, the old translations are no more to be subjected to the
text than it to them, but both are subjected to a common canon of more
appropriate meaning, so that the reading with the greater
appropriateness of meaning will survive, whether it be found in the
Hebrew text or in one or another of those translations, then the
Hebrew text will hold no authority over the old translation except
when it is found to have greater appropriateness of meaning, and
indeed it will often be subordinated to the translations, when its
reading is less esteemed than another.
X. (4) If we are not bound to the present Hebrew text, but
the true authentic reading must be sought partly by comparison with
the old translations, and partly by our own judgment and critical
ability, so that there is no canon of authentic reading other than
what seems to us more appropriate, then the determination of the
authentic reading will be the work of reason and of human judgment (arbitrium),
not of the Holy Spirit. Human reason will be enthroned, and, in the
Socinian manner, regarded as norm and principle of faith.
XI. (5) If conjectures can be made about the sacred text,
even when the Hebrew agrees with the versions, as the learned man
argues (Critica sacra 6.8
par. 17), there can no longer be any assurance concerning the
authenticity of the sacred text, but everything will be made doubtful
and uncertain, and the sacred text subjected to the judgment of every
individual interpreter. Any prudent person will easily determine
whether or not this will deprive it of all authority. It is useless to
reply that conjectures are not to be accepted unless they depend on,
and are demonstrated by, assured reasons and arguments, when the
received reading yields either a false and absurd meaning, or a
doubtful and confused one. For there will be no one who does not think
that he can give reasons for his conjecture, and who cannot make a
case for the falsity and absurdity of the reading which he wants to
reject. Who can be a judge of these conjectures, whether they are
rightly and truly made? And without a judge there will be continual
struggles and disputes among the commentators, since each one will
contend for his opinion, and will not permit others to be preferred to
it. If a place is allowed for conjectures in the study of the various
codices, to find out which reading is better and more appropriate, new
readings must continually be admitted, which depend on the authority
of no accepted manuscript, but on private judgment, and which can be
of no value, but will be of the greatest danger and the certain
discredit of the Scriptures because of the enormous and rash
presumption of mankind. Nor can the example of secular writers, who
can be subjected to criticism without danger, be relevant here, as if
sacred and secular criticism were the same, and there was not the
greatest difference between a writing that is human and subject to
error, and one that is divine and inspired, whose majesty should be
sacrosanct, because it has been received with the veneration,
preserved with the care, and approved with the widespread agreement,
that the origins of its truth, and the certification of its source,
deserve. What indeed will happen to this sacred volume if everyone is
permitted to modify its style like a censor, and to offer criticism,
just as with secular books?
XII. (6) If the existing Hebrew text is given no primacy over
the old translations, so that it has no more authority than they, and
indeed their readings are often to be preferred, when they seem to
yield a more appropriate sense, then Protestants up to now have
struggled in vain against the Roman Catholics when they affirmed the
sole authority of the existing Hebrew text, above all versions ancient
or modem; nor can they any longer insist against them that all
versions and especially the Vulgate must be subjected to it and
corrected by it, since the versions often are not only of equal value,
but superior.
XIII. A variant reading is one thing; varying interpretation
is another. Commentators may give various interpretations, but it does
not follow that these are drawn from variant readings in the codices,
rather than the other causes which we noted.
XIV. It is not necessary for the scribes
to have been infallible for there to have been no variants in the
Hebrew codices; it was sufficient for providence so to guard the
integrity of the authentic codices, that, although they could
introduce various errors through ignorance or negligence, they either
did not introduce them, or did not introduce them into all copies, or
did not introduce them in such a way that they cannot be restored and
corrected by comparison of the various codices with the Scripture
itself.
XV. Although we say rightly (bene) that Scripture is made uncertain by diverse variant readings
from different interpreters, based only on conjectures, it is not made
uncertain simply by various interpretations, because the interpreters
have interpreted one and the same text in different ways. Thus the
meaning is made doubtful and uncertain, but not the reading of the
words and phrases; but if various and uncertain readings and
conjectures are assumed, it becomes more difficult to sustain
assurance, because a double uncertainty-the text and meaning has been
introduced. In the first instance a sure foundation is postulated, on
which the differing interpretations are based, but in the second case
no sure foundation is postulated, but everything depends on human
judgment and decision.
XVI. It is not necessary to show us the actual writing of
Moses and the prophets, without any even minor discrepancy, in order
that we may be bound to the existing text.
For to uphold the exact conformity of our copies with the
archetype, it is sufficient that both the words, without which there
is no meaning, and letters, without which there are no words, be the
same, nor could the scribes have written without these [words and
letters], although some discrepancies in details and punctuation would
be possible.
XVII. Although the learned man often declares that all
versions must be examined and corrected on the basis of the authentic
Hebrew text, which is to be given precedence over all translations, he
cannot be freed from the charge that has been made against him-that he
regards the old versions as of equal authority with the text, and
sometimes as superior, because he does not mean the existing original
text, which is in the hands of all, both Jews and Christians, but the
Hebrew text in general, which he desires to put together from the
existing text and from the text which he supposes that the old
translators used, which, as said above, is affirmed without solid
evidence. Up to now all the theologians who have discussed the Hebrew
text and its authenticity have understood nothing else by it than the
text now accepted.
XVIII. From the above, to add nothing more, it is clear
enough how dangerous the learned man's hypotheses are, and with what
reason our [theologians] everywhere have resisted the publication of
his work, lest a future which they have foreseen-something harmful to
the cause of God-come from it, and our adversaries be furnished with
weapons against the authenticity of the sacred text, which, beyond all
doubt, is not his intention.
XIX. If anyone wants more on this, let him consult the Anticritica
of the famous Buxton who opposes the Critica
of this learned man, in which this whole discussion is fully and
soundly set forth. Other great men also offer witness by which it can
be known how much their opinions differ from the writings of this
learned man. For instance, James
Ussher, the archbishop of Armagh, says, in his letter to
Booth, that they contain a "very dangerous error.” . . . . And
Arnold Booth is of the same mind, in a letter to that venerable leader
[Ussher], and in his Vindicium,
in which he refers to [Cappel's] work as "a very evil
writing…." But for us the witness of the great Andrew Rivet, a
man of high repute throughout France and Holland, is enough. Although
when he first read the learned man's Arcanum he was drawn to his opinion, later, having read Buxtorf's
reply, he speaks very differently in a letter to him from the Hague
dated 1645. . . . Many who, although at first favorable to the learned
man's hypotheses, afterward studied the question more carefully and
read the arguments against his speculations by the famed Buxtorf and
others, were not ashamed of abandoning their former opinion, and took
a sounder position.
The Need of Translations
QUESTION 13: Are translations necessary, and what is their
authority and use in the church?
I. There are two parts of this question: the first concerning
the need for translations, and the second their authority. As to the
first, although the wiser Roman Catholics recognize the need and value
of translations, and have therefore prepared them in many languages,
yet many of them, having lost their reason, condemn them as evil and
dangerous; for example, Arbor says, "The translation of the
sacred writings into the vulgar tongue is the sole origin of
heresies," and Soto, Harding, Bayle, and many of the order of
Loyola agree-against whom the Reformed uphold not only the value but
also the need of translations, and prove it by a number of arguments.
II. (1) Reading of, and reflection upon, Scripture is
required (praecepta) of
people of all languages. Therefore its translation into the vernacular
is necessary, for, since mankind is divided into many linguistic
groups, and not everyone is acquainted with the two languages in which
it was first given, it cannot be understood by such unless translated;
therefore [the Scripture] would say nothing at all, or what no one
understands. But [by translations] the marvelous grace of God has
brought it about that the difference of languages, which formerly was
the sign of his wrath, now is an evidence of heavenly blessing; that
which was first used for the destruction of Babel is now employed in
the construction of the mystical Zion.
III. (2) The gospel is to be preached in all languages;
therefore it can and should be translated into all. This is a logical
deduction from the preached word to the written, because the
significance (ratio) is the
same, and the reasons that led the apostles to preach in the
vernacular make plain the need of translations. Although the apostles
wrote only in one language, it does not follow that Scripture cannot
be translated into others, for there is one rule (ratio)
for the sources, another for the translations: the sources should have
been written in one language, and so the apostles, as teachers of the
universal church, should have written only in the universal and most
common language, which at that time was Greek, just as the Old
Testament, which was intended for the Jews, was written in Hebrew,
their vernacular. But where Greek has passed out of use, there is need
of translation for the proclamation of the gospel.
IV. (3) It is certain that both Eastern and Western churches
had their translations, and worshiped in the language of the people as
a sacred language, as is evident from their liturgies. Why should not
the same thing be done today, since there is the same need and reason
for teaching the people? When the two memorable dispersions of the
Israelites, one among the Chaldeans and the other among the Greeks,
took place, and God's people by using the local language almost forgot
Hebrew, the Chaldean Targum or paraphrase, and later the Greek
translation, were made for the sake of the uneducated. There were
several Targums. The
first was the Chaldean paraphrase of Jonathan the son of Uziel, a
disciple of Hillel, contemporary of Simeon, who lived forty years
before Christ. When he saw that true Hebrew was little by little
falling into disuse, he prepared a Chaldean version, lest the people
be denied so great a treasure; we have this version of the former and
latter prophets. To this Onkelos, who lived after Christ and was a
contemporary of Gamaliel, added a translation of the Pentateuch. There
is also a paraphrase of the Hagiographa, but no real knowledge of its
author. There are also Syriac, Arabic, Persian, and Ethiopic versions,
but they are less used and less well known.
For the New Testament, there is a Syriac translation, which is
believed to be the oldest, and which is ascribed by some to the church
of Antioch.
V. Greek translations of the Old Testament, of which there
are also many, followed these. The first and most famous is the
Septuagint, which was made under Ptolemy Philadelphus of Egypt about
three hundred years before Christ. The second is that of Aquila of
Pontus, under the emperor Hadrian, about A.D. 137. He was first of the
Greek religion, then a Christian; when the church was disturbed by
foolish fanaticism over astrology he defected to the Jews because of
the strife of Christians, and translated the Old Testament in order to
corrupt the oracles about Christ.
The third was by Theodotion, who lived under Commodus, about
A.D. 184, and was of the Pontic nation and the Marcionite faith. After
becoming a Jew he prepared a new I translation in which he followed
the Septuagint as much as possible. The fourth was by Symmachus, who
lived under the emperors Antoninus [Pius] and [Marcus] Aurelius, about
A.D. 197.
He was at first a Samaritan, but became a Jew and translated the Old
Testament to refute the Samaritans. To these two others of unknown
authorship were added: the Jericho version found in a jar near Jericho
in the time of Caracalla, about A.D. 220, and the Nicopolitan version,
found near Nicopolis in the time of Alexander Severns, about 230. By
bringing all of these together, Origen made his Tetrapla, Hexapla, and
Octapla. The Tetrapla
contained four Greek versions in separate columns--the Septuagint,
Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. In the Hexapla he added two Hebrew
versions, one in Hebrew letters and one in Greek. In the Octapla the
two anonymous versions from Jericho and Nicopolis were added; some
call this the seventh [Greek version]. They add an eighth, that of
Lucian the martyr, who emended the earlier ones judiciously (feliciter),
and was well liked by the Constantinopolitans. The ninth was the
Hesychian, which was used in Egypt and Alexandria. The Greek fathers
say that a tenth was made from the Latin of Jerome.
VI. A number of old Latin versions circulated at an early
date, made, however, not from the sources but from the Greek. One
popular one was called the "Itala," as Augustine tells us (De doctrina Christiana 2.15). Jerome issued two more, one from the
Septuagint, the other carefully on the basis of the true Hebrew and
Greek texts. This is regarded as the Vulgate of today, but it has been
corrupted with the passage of time in many ways, for which reason a
number of learned men, Lorenzo Valla, Faber Stapulensis, Cajetan,
Arias Montanus, and others, have made corrections. Other translations
are more recent, both into Latin and into the vernacular and other
languages. It is not necessary to speak of them, as they are well
known. From the above it can be seen that it has been the constant
practice of the church to use translations.
VII. The inscription on the cross was not written in three
languages for sacred purposes, but because at that time they were the
languages of greatest prestige and widest use, and so most suitable
for spreading the knowledge of Christ throughout the world, which was
God's purpose in that inscription.
VIII. The unity of the church is not preserved by language,
but by unity of teaching (Eph. 4:3), and the first council was
lawfully convened and produced good results, in spite of diversity of
language.
IX. The majesty of Scripture arises from the message rather
than from the words; if these three languages seem to increase its
majesty, this is per accidens
because of the prejudice (superstitio)
of an untaught community, not from reality.
X. We do not deny that these three languages have been
retained in the assemblies of the better educated, and the business of
the church carried on, and controversies settled, in them, when they
were no longer vernaculars; but they have not had the same value among
the people, and in worship, where the faith and devotion of every
person is to be supported, that he may understand in accordance with
his ability.
XI. Although we do not deny that the Hebrew language was
corrupted in various ways during the captivity, through contact with
neighboring people, and many Chaldean and Syrian words introduced, it
does not follow either that the text was corrupted in any way or that
it was not understood by the people to whom it was addressed, because
Zechariah, Haggai, and Malachi wrote in pure Hebrew, which they would
not have done unless the people understood it. Also it can be learned
from Nehemiah 8:8 that Ezra read the book of the law before all the
people, to which they are said to have listened, which they could not
have done if they did not understand, and if Ezra and the Levites are
said to have interpreted what they read, this is to be understood as
an explanation of the meaning rather than a translation of the words.
XII. Although translations are not authentic formally and
with respect to the form of teaching, they ought nonetheless to be
used in church, because if they are correct and in agreement with the
sources, they are always authentic materially and with respect to the
content of teaching.
XIII. From the above, it is clear what the authority of
translations is. Although they are of great value for the instruction
of believers, no other version can or should be regarded as on a par
with the original, much less as superior. (1) Because no other version
has any weight which the Hebrew or Greek source does not possess more
fully, since in the sources not only the content (res
et sententiae), but also the very words, were directly spoken (dictata)
by the Holy Spirit, which cannot be said of any version.
(2) Because it is one thing to be an interpreter (interpres), but another to be a prophet (vates), as Jerome says in his preface to the Pentateuch. The
prophet, being inspired, cannot err, but the interpreter, being human,
lacks no human quality, and so is always subject to error. (3) The
translations are all streams; the original text the source whence they
take their lasting quality. One is the rule, the other the ruled which
has merely human authority.
XIV. But not all authority is to be taken away from the
translations; here two aspects of divine authority must be rightly
distinguished, that of substance and that of words. The first is
concerned with the substance of doctrine, and is the internal form of
Scripture; the second with the accident of writing, which is its
external and accidental form.
The source has both, for it is inspired both in substance and
in words, but translations have only the first, because they are
expressed in human, not divine, words.
XV. From this it is evident that translations as such are not
authentic and canonical in themselves, because they were produced by
human effort and skill, and at that point are subject to error, and
may be corrected, but they are authentic with regard to the doctrine
they contain, which is divine and infallible. So they do not support
divine faith formally as to words, but materially as to the teaching
they contain.
XVI. Perfection in substance and truth, to which nothing can
be added and from which nothing can be taken away, is one thing; the
perfection of a particular version is another. The first is a pure
divine work, which is absolutely and in every way self-certifying;
such is in the Word proclaimed in the versions. The second is a human
work, and so subject to error and correction, to which great, but
nevertheless human, authority can be assigned, which comes from its
conformity and fidelity to the original text, and is not of divine
quality.
XVII. Assurance of the conformity of translations with the
original is of two kinds. The first is merely grammatical and of human
knowledge, by knowing the conformity of the words of the translations
to the original; this is the work of the better educated who
understand the languages. But the second is spiritual and of divine
faith respecting the conformity of substance and teaching, and is the
concern of individual believers in accordance with the measure of
Christ's gift, according to that saying of Christ, "My sheep hear
my voice" (John 10:27), and this one of Paul: "The spiritual
man judges all things" (I Cor. 2:15).
Therefore, although the unlearned person is ignorant of the
languages, he relies on the faithfulness of the translations as to the
substance of the faith, to learn from the analogy of the faith and the
interdependence of the dogmas: "If anyone desires to do his will,
he will know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether 1 speak
on my own authority" (John 7:17).
XVIII. It is one thing to conform to the original, another to
be on a par with it. Any accurate translation conforms to the original
because the same teaching, in substance,
is presented; but it is not for that reason on a par with it,
because the form of expression is human, not divine.
XIX. Although a given translation made by human beings
subject to error is not to be regarded as divine and infallible
verbally, it can be properly so regarded in substance if it faithfully
renders the divine truth of the sources, for the word which a minister
of the gospel preaches does not fail to be divine and infallible, and
to uphold our faith, although proclaimed by him in human words. But
faith does not depend on the authority of translators or ministers,
but on the substance (res ipsi) which is, in truth and authenticity, in the versions.
XX. If a version should contain the pure word of God in God's
words (verbis divinis),
there would be no reason to correct it, for the sources neither can
nor should be corrected, as they are inspired both in content and in
words, but because God's word is given to us in human words,
correction is possible, not of the doctrine itself, which remains
always and everywhere the same, but of the language, which can be
rendered differently by different people in accordance with the
measure of Christ's gift, especially in difficult and obscure
passages.
The Authenticity of the Septuagint
QUESTION 14: Is the Septuagint version of the Old Testament
authoritative? Negative.
I. Among the Greek versions of the Old Testament, that of the
seventy-two translators rightly holds first place among us. It held
this honor both among Jews and among Christians, both in the East and
in the West, so that Jews in their synagogues and Christians in their
churches used to read in public only from it or from versions made
from it. All other translations approved by the church in ancient
times, with the sole exception of the Syriac, were made from it; that
is, the Arabic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Illyrian, Gothic, and the Latin
before Jerome. The Greek and many Eastern churches accept it to this
day, satisfied with it alone.
II. We are not concerned with such questions as the time and
manner of the composition of this version: whether it was done under
the auspices of Ptolemy Philadelphus and at his expense, or, as
Scaliger believes (epistle14), by Jews who were convinced of its
value; whether the seventy-two in separate cells completed their work
in exactly seventy-two days, and in the same harmony as if everyone,
separate from the others, had begun and completed the whole work, and
other stories of this kind that are told concerning these translators,
whether by Aristeas, who began the detailed reporting of this work in
a special pamphlet, or by Josephus and the Christians, who, because
the version was in use, easily held such accounts before them, eagerly
seizing any help toward establishing its authority. These are
questions of history and therefore do not affect our present purpose,
although, if we may speak our mind, we readily agree with those by
whom all these accounts are held greatly suspect and of doubtful
trustworthiness. Jerome had already, in his time, begun to expose
their emptiness (vanitas)
and to refute them, which more recent scholars have done more clearly
and strongly: Vives, in his note on Augustine's City
of God 18.42,
Scaliger in his commentary on Eusebius, Drusius, Casaubon, Wouverius,
Ussher, Rivet, Heinsius, and others. Here we are discussing the
authority [of the Septuagint]: whether such is to be attributed to it,
that it be regarded as inspired and authentic.
III. Although not all Roman Catholics speak in the same way,
many agree that this version was produced under divine guidance (factum
divinitus), and rightly holds divine authority, and therefore the
translators are to be regarded not as interpreters but as prophets,
who, that they might not err, had the help of the Holy Spirit in a
special way, as Bellarmine says (De Verba Dei 2.6), with whom Baylis, Stapleton, Carthusius, and
D'Espeires all agree, and so especially does John Morinus, who tries
hard to establish the authenticity of this version. Among our
scholars, that most learned man Isaac Voss tries to uphold the same
idea, by a number of arguments, in a special treatise.
IV. We, although we do not deny that it is of great authority
in the church, yet regard this authority as human, not divine, since
what was done by the translators was by human effort only, not by
prophets and men who were "God-breathed" by the direct
inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
V. It is not, therefore, to be asked whether it should have
any authority in the church. We concede that it is of great weight,
and rightly to be preferred to other translations. (1) It is the
oldest of all, made two thousand years ago, and so to be honored for
its hoary hair.
(2) It was read both in public and in private by the Jews wherever
they were dispersed. (3) The apostles and evangelists used it in
quoting many Old Testament passages, and consecrated it, so to speak,
by their writings. (4) The apostles gave it to the church, when
through it they conquered the world for Christ, and so the Gentile
church was born through it, and nourished by this milk. (5) The
church, both Greek and Latin, used it as the common version (pro
vulgata) for six hundred years. (6) The old fathers and
ecclesiastical writers explained it in commentaries, taught it to the
people in homilies, and strangled the rising heresies with it, and
drew from it, in councils, canons for the direction of faith and
conduct. But it must be asked whether this authority is such that it
ought be regarded as authentic and on a par with the sources, which
our adversaries teach and we deny.
VI. The reasons are (1) it was composed by human effort, not
by inspired men; its authors were interpreters, not prophets, who
lived after Malachi, who is called by the Jews the seal of the
prophets.
This is clear from Aristeas's testimony that the translators conferred
with one another, and discussed everything among themselves until they
were all in agreement. But if they conferred among themselves, they
did not prophesy, for the sacred writers never conferred with others,
but put everything into writing without discussion or delay. (2) If
they wrote by the breath of the Holy Spirit, their number was
excessive, when one would have been enough; nor was there any need of
learned men, familiar with the Hebrew and Greek tongues, if the work
was done without study and without human effort. (3) In many ways it
does not agree with the sources, but contains a number of
discrepancies, as is shown by those who have discussed this argument,
so that Morinus is forced to admit, "No more authority can be
ascribed to this version than to others made by human endeavor."
(4) Because it does not now exist in a pure state, but with corruption
and interpolation to a great degree, we have only its debris and
remnants, and today it can hardly be called the Septuagint version; it
is like the ship Argo which was so often rebuilt that it was no longer
either the same or something other, as Jerome often remarked (epistle
69, to Augustine; prefaces to Ezra and Chronicles). So today it is
confidently maintained among the learned that it is from the koinh
version that may be called "Lucianic,"
on the authority of Jerome (epistle to Sunias and Fretellas).
VII. If the apostles often made use of this version, they did
not do so because they believed that it was authentic and of divine
quality, but because at that time it was most widely used and
accepted, and because, where the meaning and truth are plain, they did
not wish to stir up controversy or arouse scruples among the weak, but
they left unchanged by a holy economy whatever, if changed, would have
offended, especially when no change of meaning was involved. They did
not [make changes] except where there was a reason. When the
Septuagint is not only awkward, but also out of harmony with the
truth, they used the sources in preference to it, as Jerome notes (Contra
Ruffinan, book 2) and as can easily be seen by comparing Matthew
2:15 with Hosea 11:1; John 19:37 with Zechariah 12:10; Jeremiah 31:15
with Matthew 2:18; Isaiah 25:8 with I Corinthians 15:54, and many
other passages.
VIII. The evidences (testimonia)
which are brought forward in the New Testament from the Septuagint are
authentic, not in themselves, or because they were translated by the
seventy from Hebrew into Greek; but in their situation (per accidens) as approved and sanctified by the Holy Spirit by means
of his inbreathing (afflatus),
they were employed by the evangelists in the sacred narrative.
IX. If many of the patristic writers gave high honor to this
version, and asserted its authenticity, as it cannot be denied that
Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, and others were inclined
to do, this was from feeling (affectus)
rather than from reflection (studium).
They were unlearned in the Hebrew language; nor were they obliged to
judge the words [of the seventy], since no less than the seventy were
they subject to human errors and feelings.
But the more learned among them, such as Origen and Jerome,
were of very different
opinion, and taught that [the seventy] were translators, not prophets.
X. Although the church used this version for many years, it
does not follow that it used it as authentic and of divine quality,
but only that it was held in great esteem. This common usage ought not
to weaken the - freedom of consulting the sources when there is reason
to do so.
XI. The great discrepancies in chronology which occur between
the Hebrew text and the Septuagint do not suggest the authenticity of
the latter but its corruption. . . .
The Authenticity of the Vulgate
Question 15: Is the Vulgate version authentic? Negative,
against the Roman Catholics
I. It is not to be asked whether the Vulgate has value, and
frequently presents the truth very effectively. No one denies this.
Nor is it to be asked whether it was in past times and over a long
period used in the church; this is understood by all. But it must be
asked whether it is of authentic truth and to be given equal authority
with the sources, and given precedence over all other translations,
which we deny. The Roman Catholics affirm this on the basis of the
canon of the Council of Trent, session 4, decree 1: "If anyone
does not accept these books in their entirety, with all their parts,
as they have customarily been read in the Catholic church, and as they
are found in the old Vulgate edition, let him be anathema"; and
again, "This same holy synod, knowing that no small gain will
accrue for the church it among all the Latin versions of the sacred
books that are in circulation, one be recognized as authentic,
understands, commands, and decrees that that old and Vulgate edition,
which, by the usage of so many centuries, has been approved in the
church, be held authentic for public reading, preaching, and teaching,
and that no one dare or presume to reject it for any reason."
II. It is true that Roman Catholics differ as to the meaning
of this canon. Some, like Bel1armine, Serarius, Salmeron, Mariana, and
others, hold that it does not contrast this version with sources, but
only with the other Latin translations in circulation, and they
believe that it can be emended and corrected from the sources. Others
say that it has been ruled absolutely authentic, so that it cannot be
improved and is to be preferred to all other editions, and even the
original manuscripts can be corrected from it, as if they were
corrupted; such is the teaching of Cano, Valentia; Gordon, Gretserus,
Suarez, and others. Anyone who studies the language of the canon will
readily understand that the canon inclines toward the latter opinion.
For if [the Vulgate] cannot be rejected for any reason, then it cannot
be rejected because of the Hebrew text. . . .
III. However, although we hold the Vulgate in high esteem as
ancient, we deny that it is authoritative. (1) Because it was produced
by human effort; it does not have an inspired author, which an
authoritative version requires. For whether the author was Jerome, as
the Roman Catholics maintain, or some earlier person who had prepared
the version called "Itala" and "Vulgate," or
Sixtus V and Clement VIII, who corrected the old usage of the church
at many points, none of them was inspired.
IV. (2) Neither before the decree of the council, nor later,
was it authoritative. Not before, because it contained numerous
errors, as many Roman Catholics--Nicholas of Lyra, P. Burgensis,
Driedo, Jerome of Oleastro, Cajetan, and others, notably Isidore
Clarius, who stated that he had found eight thousand errors in the
Vulgate--freely admit.
It cannot be called authoritative after the council, because
the council cannot make that which was not authentic into something
authentic, just as it cannot make a noncanonical book canonical, but
only declare it to be such; this [privilege] belongs to God alone, who
can confer divine authority on any writing that he wishes, but [a
council] can only declare that a version is faithful and conforms to
its source, or, if faults have crept in, it can correct them and
require the use [of the corrections] in the public services of
worship.
V. (3) Because in many places it differs from the sources, as
Clement VIII recognized in the case of the redaction of Sixtus V.
Although the Sixtine version was called authoritative by the council,
and had been carefully corrected on the authority of Sixtus, yet
Clement undertook its revision, restored many readings that Sixtus had
rejected, and changed and corrected others, as is evident from the
collection of examples by Thomas James, who besides many other
variants, found about two thousand readings whose truth was confirmed
against the Hebrew and Greek on the apostolic authority of Sixtus
which Clement revised and corrected on the basis of the sources, by
the same authority. This cannot, as Clement urges, be ascribed to the
fault of the press. Who
can believe that a thousand errors entered through the fault of the
press, when Sixtus labored so diligently? That the Clementine edition,
which, following the Sixtine, Clement declared authoritative, is full
of errors, its own preface admits: "Receive, therefore, Christian
reader, with the approval of that same pontiff, a Vulgate edition of
the Holy Scriptures corrected with whatever care could be given;
although it is difficult to call it final in every part, on account of
human weakness, yet it cannot be doubted to be more corrected and
purer than all the others which have been published up to now."
If it is truly difficult to call it final in every part, but only
purer than all that have been published up to now, it cannot be denied
that correctors may appear later, nor can it be said that the council
has completely corrected it.... Bellarmine, who was one of the
editors, does not conceal this fact. He wrote to L. Brugensis,
"The Vulgate Bible was not fully corrected by us; for good
reasons we left much undone which seemed to call for correction."
VI. (4) Many Roman Catholics--Erasmus, Valla, Pagninus,
Cajetan, Jerome of Oleastro, Forerius, Sixtus Senensis--formerly
recognized numerous errors in the Vulgate, and today well-known
interpreters, who commonly appeal from it to the sources, do the
same--Salmeron, Bonfrerius, Serarius, Masius, Muisius, and many
others.
VII. (5) There are many places which have faulty rendering
with grave error, in circumstance or tendency. Genesis 3:15 reads,
"she will crush," as if it referred to the blessed virgin,
while the source reads "it," that is, the seed. Genesis
14:18 [reads,] "he was indeed a priest," for "and he
was," and Genesis 48:16 has "let my name be invoked over
them," for "let my name be named among them. . . ."
VIII. (6) Whatever this version is, which they hold was
prepared in part from that old one that is called "Itala" by
Augustine, and the Vulgate itself by Jerome, and partly from the new
one of Jerome, it cannot be authoritative, for the [old] Vulgate was
not inspired. If it had been, it would have been improper for Jerome
to revise it. Nor can the new [Vulgate], which, by Jerome's own
statement, he revised from the older, be so regarded.
IX. The Council of Trent canonized a version that was not yet
in existence, but which appeared forty-six years later, for the decree
was made in 1546, and in 1590 the work was completed and published by
Sixtus V; two years later by Clement VIII. But what council could
approve and declare authentic an edition which it had not seen and
which in its time had not been made?
X. Although the Hebrews and Greeks have their authentic
texts, it does not follow that the Latins deserve theirs, because the
situation is not the same for them. It is agreed that the Hebrew text
of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New came from prophets and
apostles who were inspired by the Holy Spirit, but no one would say
that the authors and advocates of the Vulgate were inspired in the
same way.
XI. The use of a version over a long period of time can
properly support its authority, but cannot give it such authenticity
as would make it wrong to depart from it for any reason. Such
authenticity depends on divine inspiration, not on long usage.
Further, whatever was the use of this version, it was so used only in
the Latin church, not in the Greek and Eastern.
XII. The true and proper cause of the authenticity of a
version is not the witness of the Fathers, or the practice of the
church, or the decision of a council. For Bellarmine himself points
out that the church does not make books authentic, but declares them
to be so (De Verbo Dei 1.10). So
a version that is not authentic in itself cannot be declared so by the
church.
XIII. It is not necessary for a person who is ignorant of
Hebrew and Greek to hold the Vulgate as authoritative in order to know
whether he is reading Scripture or not. For he can recognize the truth
of Scripture in the vernacular versions which he reads and understands
no less than in the Vulgate which he does not understand.
The Perfection of Scripture
QUESTION 16: Does Scripture contain whatever is necessary for
their salvation to the extent that after it was given there was no
need for unwritten traditions?
Affirmative.
I. In order to avoid the tribunal of Scripture, which they
know as an adversary, the Roman Catholics not only reject its
authenticity and integrity, but also seek to deny its perfection and
perspicuity. So the question of the perfection of Scripture stands
between us and them.
II. On the nature of the question, note (1) it is not to be
asked whether Scripture records everything that Christ and the saints
said or did, or [whether any omitted item] has some significance for
religion. We do not deny that many things were done by Christ that
were not recorded in writing (John 20:30), and there are many matters,
appendices and bylaws, as it were, to religion, dealing with the
worship and polity of the church, which are not specifically covered
by Scripture, and are left to the decision of the rulers of the
church, who should take care that all things are done properly in the
church (I Cor. 14:40). The question concerns matters necessary for
salvation, whether of faith or of conduct: whether all of these are in
the Scripture, so that it can be a full and sufficient rule of faith
and practice, which we affirm and our adversaries deny.
III. (2) The question is not whether all [doctrines] must be
stated in literal terms and exact words, or directly and explicitly,
in Scripture; we admit that many things are properly deduced from
Scripture by logical reasoning, and then regarded as the word of God.
But the question is whether [all doctrines] are so stated in
Scripture, either in express statements or as valid conclusions drawn
from it, that there is no need for another unwritten principle of
faith from which knowledge affecting religion and salvation should be
sought. .
IV. (3) This is not a question of intensive or qualitative
perfection, which is found in the detailed truth of dogmas and
precepts and a completely perfected means of communicating them. It is
a question of extensive and quantitative perfection, which extends to
all articles of faith and practice. The first is found partially in
individual portions of Scripture; the second in the whole.
V. (4) This is not a question whether the perfection of
Scripture as to degree (gradus)
always existed. We admit that revelation changed in accordance with
the different ages of the church, so that as the church grew,
revelation grew, not as to the substance of the articles of .faith,
which were always the same, but as to the clarity of their
manifestation and application. But the question is whether now [the
Scripture], without any supplement of tradition, is the sufficient
rule of faith and conduct.
VI. (5) The question is not whether there ever was an oral
tradition in the church. We admit that God once taught the church by
an unwritten word, as before Moses. But the question is whether, once
the Scripture had been committed to writing, there were oral
traditions which should be received with the same reverence as
Scripture, which the Roman Catholics teach and we deny.
VII. (6) It is not to be asked whether all traditions
whatsoever are to be completely rejected, for we grant that there are
historical traditions which record events and ritual traditions which
deal with rites and ceremonies of optional nature. It is a question
only of dogmatic and moral traditions, that is, ones that concern
either faith or conduct. We deny that such are given except in
Scripture.
VIII. (7) It is not a question whether divine and apostolic
traditions, that is, all teachings which were handed down by Christ or
the apostles, are to be accepted; everyone readily grants this. The
question is whether any such traditions are given except in Scripture.
Therefore, until our adversaries can show by an unquestionable proof
that their unwritten traditions truly rest on Christ and the apostles,
which will never be done, we shall reject them as human work.
IX. The question therefore comes to this: does Scripture
contain perfectly, not absolutely everything, but whatever is
necessary for salvation, not explicitly and in exact words, but with
equal force [to explicit statement] or by valid conclusion (aequipollenter
vel per legitimam consequentiam), so that there is no need to
resort to any unwritten word; or, is Scripture a full and sufficient
rule of faith and conduct, not merely a partial and inadequate one? We
uphold the first; the Roman Catholics, who maintain "the
unwritten traditions, whether referring to faith or to conduct (mores),
are to be received with the same pious feeling and reverence as
Scripture" (Council of Trent, session 4;
Bellarmine, De Verbo
Dei 4.2 - 3), uphold the second.
X. The Jews anticipated the Roman Catholics in accepting
traditions. They divided the law into the written, and the oral, which
Moses, receiving on Mount Sinai, delivered to Joshua, he to the
seventy elders (Num. 11:16), they to the prophets, they to the Great
Synagogue, until at last it was written and codified in the Talmud. So
various "secondary traditions" (deuterwseij), for which
Christ rebuked them, developed among them, which were a wile of Satan
by which he the more easily called the Jews away from the written law.
By the same device he brought it about that the Roman Catholics
thought out the double law of God, written and unwritten, as if Christ
and the apostles taught much by the spoken word that they never passed
on in writing. Hence arose the "unwritten traditions," so
called not because they were never written, but, according to
Bellarrnine, because they were not written by the original author, or
because they are not found in any apostolic writing.
XI. In order not to seem to uphold the insufficiency of
Scripture, some among them, such as Stapleton and Serarius,
distinguished between explicit and implicit sufficiency, or, like
Perronius, between indirect and direct.
Scripture is recognized by them as insufficient in the direct
and explicit sense, but it can be called sufficient in an indirect and
implicit sense, because it is supplemented, in those matters for which
in itself it is insufficient, by the church and tradition.
XII. We, on the other hand, attribute to Scripture a direct
and explicit sufficiency and perfection, such that there is no
necessity of resorting to any other tradition, even one offered as
divine and apostolic.
XIII. [The reasons are:] (1) Paul says that all Scripture is
inspired by God (pasan grafhn esse
qeopneuston), and useful for teaching, reproof, correction, and
training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete,
equipped for every good work (II Tim. 3:16 -17). Here lie a number of
arguments for the perfection of Scripture. First, that the sacred
writings can instruct for salvation (v. 15).
Who would ask for more than that we be made capable of
salvation? Second, it is useful for all purposes, theoretical and
practical: for teaching faith, and for guiding conduct. Third, it can
make the man of God complete for every good work. But what is enough
for the shepherds (pastores)
is enough for the sheep.
XIV. The Roman Catholics make futile objections. First, [they
say] to be called useful is not to be called sufficient.
Water is necessary for life, air for health, but they are not
enough. [We reply] what is useful, not only for some purpose, but
universally, for all, by a total and adequate usefulness, not a
partial and incomplete one, is sufficient of necessity. But Scripture
is presented as such, when it is said to be able to instruct for
salvation and to be useful for instruction in truth, refutation of
error, the correction of evil and the growth of good. Nothing more is
needed for perfection. Similar [objections] brought forward are no
more relevant; for it is one thing to speak of usefulness that is
directed toward some distant and incidental purpose, which is the
function of air in health and of water in life, for such usefulness
may indeed be called a support (adminiculum),
but not a sufficient support (sufficienta).
But it is another thing altogether to speak of a usefulness which
deals with its own immediate, natural purpose; such usefulness of
necessity involves sufficiency, as when fire is called useful for
burning. It is plain the Scripture is called useful in this sense.
Secondly [they object] that the Old Testament is meant here [in II
Tim. 3:15 -17]. If it is called sufficient for everything, then either
the New Testament has been condemned as superfluous or there is no
reason why something cannot be added even today to the New Testament.
[We reply] (a)
Paul was speaking of the whole Scripture as it existed in his day,
when in fact not only the Old Testament but also several parts of the
New had already been written. (b) If the Old Testament was sufficient,
the New is much more so. (c) If the Old Testament was sufficient in
its time, the New is not superfluous for that reason; just as the ages
of the church differ, so do the degrees of revelation, not that they
are made more complete as to substance of teaching, but as to
circumstances and a greater clarity of presentation. (d) If the New
Testament is added to the Old, it does not follow that anything can
still be added to the New, because the canon of Scripture is complete
in every respect, not only as to the substance of articles to be
believed, but also as to the form and degree of revelation that is
possible in this life. Thirdly [they object] that [II Tim. 3:15 -17]
does not say "the whole," but "all Scripture," and
if this is understood strictly, this perfection would be found in any
individual part of Scripture, which is absurd. But the word all is not
to be understood here as a reference to particular parts of Scripture,
or to single verses, but collectively for the whole, a sense in which
it is often used (Matt. 2:3; 27:45; Acts 2:36; Luke 21:32; Acts 20:24
[25]), and so it is understood by Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, and the
Catechism of the Council of Trent.
XV. (2) God expressly forbids to add to, or take away from,
his Word. "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor
take from it" (Deut. 4:2); "Even if we, or an angel from
heaven, should preach to you a gospel other than
that which we have preached, let him be anathema" (Gal. 1:8);
"if anyone adds to them, God will impose upon him the plagues
written in this book, and if anyone takes away anything, God will take
away his share of the book of life" (Rev. 22:18 -19). It cannot
be said that this refers only to the law given orally to Moses, which
was more extensive than the written, because the written and unwritten
words of Moses differed only in form; he taught nothing by spoken word
that he did not write. So he was ordered to write the whole law, with
nothing left out, for the perpetual use of the church, and he wrote it
as a servant of believers (Exod. 24:4; Deut. 31:9, 11, 19, etc.). Thus
often by "law" is understood the book of the law (Deut.
28:58; Josh. 1:7). Nor [can it be said] that the commandment refers to
wholeness of obedience, because wholeness of obedience implies the
wholeness of the law, which is such that it is forbidden for anyone to
add to it. Nor [can it be said] that it is a matter of additions that
corrupt, not of those that complete, because no tradition is given to
complete what has been completed already, and it is not corruption,
but simple addition that is condemned; placing along with (appositio), not only placing against (oppositio), so that Paul does not say "contrary to," but
"in addition to," or "other than what was
preached"; as Theophylact rightly says, "He does not say 'if
anything is preached against,' but 'even if a little is preached
besides what has been preached.'" Any addition to the content of
the faith is corrupting, because it is added to the foundation which
ought to be itself only (unicus),
and anyone who adds to the foundation shall himself be destroyed, just
as a circle is destroyed if you add the smallest point, and a correct
weight is not improved if you add more than is called for. The
prophets and apostles who added so much to the Mosaic canon are not to
be blamed, because it is necessary to distinguish the ages of the
church in accordance with which it was proper for revelation to
develop, not [indeed] with regard to substance of dogmas, but with
regard to form and circumstances. Paul, who declared that he had
preached the whole plan of God to the believers (Acts 20:20, 27),
nevertheless declared also that he taught nothing except what Moses
and the prophets had taught (Acts 26:22). Further, many additions that
the Roman Catholics have made are not only other than the word, but
also contrary to it. And indeed, as regards John, he had in mind not
only his prophecy when he forbade changing it, but also, as he was the
last writer of Scripture, his apocalypse closed the canon of
Scripture, and he sealed it with threats
in the final words. Add that the argument from equality is always
valid; what is said of this book [Revelation] holds true also for the
others [of the Bible].
XVI. (3) The law of God is called "perfect, reviving the
soul and giving wisdom to the foolish" (Ps. 19:7). But the
conversion and reviving of the soul are impossible unless everything
necessary for salvation is known. Nor can it be said that this text
refers only to intensive, qualitative perfection, because the law is
pure without any lack in particular parts, certainly not in extensive
perfection with regard to quantity and fullness; because the primary
meaning of the word tamim ["perfect," Ps. 19:7] is a perfection from which
nothing is lacking, and the very nature of the case requires this,
because it is a question of reviving the soul and giving wisdom to the
foolish, which cannot be done except by a complete sufficiency.
XVII. (4) The purpose of Scripture requires this perlection,
for it was given that we might have salvation and life from it (John
20:31; I John 5:13; Rom. 15:4). How could this purpose be
accomplished, unless [Scripture] were perfect, containing all that is
necessary for salvation? It was given to be canon and rule of faith (canon
et regula fidei) but a rule which is not full and sufficient is no
rule; a rule is a standard from which nothing can be taken and to
which nothing can be added, "an inviolable law and infallible
measure, allowing no addition or substitution," as Favorinus
says.
It was given as the testament of Christ, and if no one dares add
anything to a human will (Gal. 3:15), much less can that be done to
the divine one, which the lawful heirs believe, no less safely than
firmly, contains fully the final desire of the testator. Finally, it
is the bond of the covenant given us by God; who would say that either
more [terms], or other ones should be required, either for God to
promise or to be required from us?
XVIII. (5) All dogmatic traditions outside Scripture are to
be rejected. "In vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and
precepts of men" Isa. 29:13; Matt. 15:4-9). Nor can it be
answered that Pharisaic, not apostolic, traditions are rejected. For
all teachings of human origin, not given by Scripture, are rejected as
a class, and it is an arbitrary assumption to suppose that the
apostles gave traditions beside Scripture. So believers are summoned
"to the law and testimony" Isa. 8:20), and destruction is
threatened for those who would not speak in accordance with it. By
"testimony" the traditions cannot be understood, because
they are often rejected by God, but either the law itself, which is
often called testimony, that is, that law which is interpretatively
the testimony of God, or else it refers to the other writings of the
prophets, which were added to the law. Paul forbids "thinking
above what has been written" (I Cor. 4:6), not only in respect to
conduct, lest he seem wise to himself, according to Solomon's precept
(Prov.
3:7), but also in respect to doctrine, lest anyone, puffed up
by the presumption of empty wisdom, proclaim strange doctrines, other
than the Scriptures, in the church, as the false apostles were doing
among the Corinthians.
XIX. (6) No adequate reason can be suggested for God to wish
part of his word to be written and the other part passed on only by
the spoken word. And he would have guided his church badly if he had
entrusted part of the necessary teaching to the unreliable tradition
of human kind, since there is no tradition that cannot easily be
corrupted with the passage of time. Add that no rule is given for the
recognition of tradition except that based on the witness and
authority of the church, and this authority itself is controversial to
the highest degree. Since therefore their origin is doubtful, their
authority uncertain, their content confused and ambiguous, and it is
impossible to have a means of recognizing them, no one fails to see
that [traditions] are properly rejected by us, that we may adhere to
Scripture alone as the altogether perfect rule of faith and conduct.
XX. (7) The Fathers taught this most clearly to us.
Tertullian says, "I revere the fullness of Scripture," and
again, "Let Hermogenes show that it is written, and if it is not
written, let him fear that woe [pronounced] upon those who add
anything" (Against
Hermogenes 21 [22]), and again, in Against Heretics, "There
is no need among us for inquiry beyond Christ or for investigation
beyond the gospel; when we believe we believe this above all: that we
ought not to believe anything else." Jerome says, "What does
not have authority from Scripture is brought into disrepute by the
very means through which it is demonstrated." Augustine declares,
"In those teachings which are clearly based on Scripture are
found all that concern faith and the conduct of life" (On
Christian Doctrine 2.20). . . .
XXI. Although everything is not written down in all details (kata
meros), as noted in John 20:30, since an isolated detail is neither a
category nor knowledge, yet they are written with regard to every
element (kat’ ei-doj), as to the substance of necessary teaching. So
it is one thing to say that many things were said and done by Christ
and the apostles that are not recorded in Scripture, which we grant,
and another to say that these words and deeds were different in
substance from those recorded in Scripture, which we deny.
XXII. Whatever the Roman Catholics seek to have accepted
besides Scripture is sometimes actually in Scripture, like the
Trinity, in substance, infant baptism, which
Bellarmine defends from Scripture (De baptismo 8), the impropriety of rebaptizing, the number of
sacraments, at least those numbered [in Scripture], the admission of
women to the holy fellowship (Acts 2:42; I Cor. 11:5),
the change from the Sabbath to the Lord's Day (Rev. 1:10; I Cor. 16:2;
Col. 2:16 -17). Or they are not dogmas necessary for
salvation, like the perpetual virginity of Mary,
or they are false and imagined, like the local descent of Christ into
hell, purgatory, the mass, or the return of Enoch and Elijah.
XXIII. The "deposit"
mentioned in I Timothy 6:20 means anything but an oral, unwritten
tradition: either a sounder form of the words to which he is directed
(II Tim. 1:13), in opposition to profane innovations and the attacks
of "wisdom falsely called," or the wealth (talentum)
of gifts given him, which has nothing in common with a mishmash of
unwritten traditions.
XXIV. Those many things which the disciples of Christ could
not bear (John 16:12) do not imply the insufficiency of Scripture or
the need for traditions, both because they were not new dogmas
different from those given earlier (John 14:26), but the same ones
spoken more clearly and demonstrated more firmly by the Spirit; and
because, when later taught by the outpouring of the Spirit, they
committed them to writing.
XXV. The apostle's word in II Thessalonians 2:15 does not
prove that unwritten traditions were given, but indicates the twofold
manner in which the same teaching was passed on; first by the spoken
word, then by the written, and the disjunctive particle eite
("or"), which can also be copulative, as in Romans 14:8, I
Corinthians 15:11, and Colossians 1:20,
shows diversity not in content, but in form, which could be two forms
of the same thing (alius et
alius), especially in those early times when the canon of the New
Testament Scriptures had not yet been written.
Finally, although not all [necessary teachings] are found in
the letter which Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, it does not fbllow
that they are not found elsewhere in Scripture.
XXVI. Tradition sometimes means any teaching which is handed
down to us, whether by written or by spoken word, and sometimes a
teaching handed down only by the spoken unwritten word. There is no
question about tradition in the first sense, so that all dogmas
contained in Scripture may be called traditions, as Paul speaks of the
institution of the Eucharist (I Cor. 11:23); but we are concerned over
the second.
XXVII. Direct and indirect sufficiency are distinguished, to
no avail, by Perronius. [His grounds are] that it leads us to the
church, which then makes good the insufficiency (defectus)
of Scripture. [He gives these arguments:] (1) the true insufficiency
of Scripture is known in this process, because if it leads us to the
church which has this sufficiency, it states that in itself it does
not have it. (2) In the same way the law can be said to be complete
for [purposes of] salvation, for it leads to Christ in whom is
salvation. (3) Scripture does not lead us to a church that sets forth
new articles of faith, but [leads] in order that [the church] may
interpret and apply those which are in Scripture. The reply should not
be that we teach this indirect sufficiency when we hold that Scripture
contains all [doctrines] necessary for salvation, if not expressly at
least by logical deduction (per
consequentiam), because when Scripture teaches anything in that
way, it does not lead to another who teaches, but brings forth from
within itself (ex sinu suo) [teachings] that were implicitly lying there. Nor can a
similar [illustration] which is brought forward by Perronius, that of
letters of credence, which do not coritain everything that the envoy
has in his instructions, be used here, for Scripture is not like a
letter of credence, but like an edict by a ruler, which contains
everything that is to be believed or done, to such extent that nothing
can be added to it or taken away from it.
XXVIII. The perfection of Scripture which is affirmed by us
does not exclude either the ministry (ministerium)
of the church, which was established by God for the proclamation and
application of the word, or the necessary work (virtus) of the Holy Spirit for internal conversion,
but it does exclude the need for any other rule (regula) for external guidance which can be added to Scripture for
its completion. The plan (regula)
that requires the hand of the builder for its completion is not for
that reason imperfect.
XXIX. Positive and affirmative teachings which explain
clearly (positive) what we must believe are one thing; negative ones
which teach what is to be rejected are another.
The question of the sufficiency of Scripture should not be
raised concerning negative articles, as if it ought to contain the
rejection of every error and heresy which had then arisen or which
would arise up to our time, for just as a straight line shows its own
direction and that of a line that crosses it, errors are easily
refuted from the position of
truth. Our question is above all of affirmative articles,
which are the very food of the soul.
XXX. "Tradition" is used both formally, for the act
of passing on, and materially, for the content passed on; here we are
not concerned with tradition in the first sense; we admit it in that
sense for we have Scripture for that, but we are concerned with the
second, in that we reject it.
XXXI. The Old Testament Scripture was perfect essentially and
absolutely, because it contained the substance of doctrine necessary
for salvation in the conditions of that time; but it can be called
imperfect accidentally and comparatively with respect to the New
Testament in regard to form of manifestation, although it is the age
of manhood with regard to the Jewish church (Gal. 4).
XXXII. That Jesus the son of Mary is the true Messiah, or the
Son of God in the flesh, is not a new article of faith, but an
explanation and application of old ones, [an explanation] which
teaches in hypothesis what in the Old Testament was taught in thesis
concerning the Messiah. So when Christ adds a countersignature to the
bond, fulfillment to the prediction, body to the shadow, he does not
offer a new teaching, but explains and illustrates an old one.
XXXIII. A tradition concerning Scripture does not indicate
that traditions besides Scripture were given, because the question
properly is not one of beginnings (principii),
but of preeminences (principiatus);
whether given the Scripture we have, there is need for any unwritten
traditions to make good its lacks in matters necessary for salvation.
Further, tradition is formal and active, which we grant, because the
oracles of God have been entrusted to the church as herald and
guardian of them; but it is not material and passive, teaching some
doctrine passed on apart from Scripture; this we deny. So we have
Scripture through tradition, not that tradition is the beginning of
belief, but that it is the means and instrument by which it comes to
our hands.
XXXIV. Scripture is called perfect, not always sufficiently
with regard to the object, as if it explained perfectly all the
mysteries which it passes on; there are many which in themselves
cannot be expressed, like God or the Trinity, but sufficiently for its
purpose, because it sets forth [the mysteries] in such a way that they
can be understood by us sufficiently for salvation.
XXXV. When we say that Scripture is perfect in the essence (esse)
of the rule, we understand the whole of Scripture collectively, not
the whole of Scripture in a distributive sense, that is, its
individual parts, and so not in the sense that whatever is of the
rule, the same is the rule.
XXXVI. Although the Fathers often spoke of traditions, these
are not the unwritten ones, because they speak in different ways
concerning these traditions. Sometimes they mean by tradition that act
of passing on, by which the sacred books were preserved in an unbroken
succession by the church and passed on to future generations; which is
the formal tradition, in which sense Origen says that he was taught by
tradition that the four Gospels are unquestioned in the universal
church. Secondly, ["tradition"] is often used for the
written teaching, which first was presented by the spoken word, then
written; thus Cyprian says, "If it is proclaimed in the gospel,
or found in the letters or acts of the apostles, the sacred tradition
is to be kept" (epistle 74, to Pompeius). Thirdly,
["tradition"] means teaching which is not found in Scripture
in specific words, but is deduced by legitimate and necessary
consequences, against those who demanded express words of Scripture,
and were unwilling to accept the homoousion, because it was not a
scriptural word. Thus Basil denies that the exact profession of faith
by which we believe in the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit can be
obtained from Scripture, [but only] by understanding the creed, whose
articles are, however, in Scripture so far as meaning is concerned (On the Holy Spirit 27). Fourthly, ["tradition"] means the
teaching on rites and ceremonies known as the ritual tradition.
Fifthly, the judgment of the teachers of the old church in the
interpretation of some passage of Scripture, which they held to, not
without humble veneration of antiquity, as received from the elders,
because it agreed with Scripture.
This can be called "tradition of meaning" or
"exegetical tradition." Irenaeus often speaks of it (Against
Heresies 3.3), and Tertullian does so often in Concerning the Prescription of Heretics (book 1). Sixthly, they used
the word "tradition" ad
hominem, in disputing against heretics who employed [traditions],
not because they proved that which was not to be found in Scripture,
but because the heretics with whom they were disputing did not
recognize the Scripture, since, as Irenaeus said, "\'\'hen they
knew themselves defeated by the Scriptures, they turned into enemies
of the Scriptures." [The Fathers] therefore disputed from the
consensus of tradition and Scripture, as today we also debate with our
adversaries on the basis of the Fathers, but they did not do this from
the conviction that they received dogmatic traditions outside of
Scripture, on the witness of Jerome: "The sword of the Lord
strikes down those who, on their own accord, make charges and
fabrications without the authority and witness of Scripture, as if by
apostolic tradition" (On
Haggai 1).
The Perspicuity of Scripture
Question 17: Is Scripture so understandable in matters
necessary for salvation that it can be read by a believer without
external unwritten traditions or the help of the authority of the
church? Affirmative,
against the Roman Catholics.
I. It is not enough for the Roman Catholics to argue the
imperfection of Scripture to support the need for tradition, but, in
order to keep the people from reading it, and to hide the light under
a basket, the more easily to reign in the darkness, they have begun to
argue for its obscurity, as if there can be no trustworthy knowledge
of its meaning without the decision of the church.
II. On the nature of the question, note (1) it is not a
question of the perspicuity or obscurity of the subject, or of
persons; no one denies that Scripture is obscure to unbelievers and
unregenerate people, to whom the gospel is its own concealment, as
Paul says (II Cor. 4), and we acknowledge that the illumination of the
Spirit is needed by believers for its understanding. But the question
is of the obscurity or perspicuity of the object, or Scripture; is it
so obscure that a believing person cannot comprehend it for salvation
without the authority and decision of the church? This we deny.
III. There is no question of the obscurity of the content or
mysteries taught in Scripture; both parties recognize that many
mysteries taught in Scripture are so sublime that they are to the
highest degree beyond our understanding, and so can be called obscure
in themselves. The question concerns the manner in which these most
abstruse matters are presented, and we hold that they are so moderated
by the wonderful condescension (sugkatabasij) of God that a believer
who has enlightened eyes of the mind can comprehend these mysteries
sufficiently for salvation if he reads carefully.
IV. It is not a question of whether the Holy Scripture is
clear in all its parts, so that it guides with no interpreter and no
exposition of doubtful matters, [a teaching] which Bellarmine, falsely
and with calumny, charges upon us, stating it thus: "Are the
Scriptures very plain and obvious so that no interpretation is
needed?" (De Verbo Dei 3.1). On
the contrary, we hold that Scripture has its own secrets, which we
cannot discover, and which God wills to be in Scripture to awaken the
zeal of the faithful, to increase their effort, to control human
pride, and to purge the contempt that easily could have arisen from
too much ease [of understanding]. But the question deals only with
matters necessary for salvation, and with them only in reference to
aspects which must be known; for example, the mystery of the Trinity
is presented clearly as to the "what," which is necessary,
but not as to the "how," which is not revealed to us, and
not needed for salvation.
So it seemed good to God in Scripture, just as in nature, that all
matters of necessity should be found almost everywhere, and could be
found out easily, but that many less necessary matters be more
securely hidden, so that they could not be discovered without earnest
effort. Thus in addition to the necessary food, he might have, as it
were, his luxuries, his gems, and gold deeply buried, to be brought
forth by unwearied labor. And just as the heavens are dotted with many
stars, some greater and some less, so Scripture does not shine
everywhere with equal brightness, but is variegated with clearer and
more obscure passages like stars of greater or less magnitude.
V. It is not a question of whether matters necessary for
salvation are presented clearly everywhere in Scripture.
Indeed we grant that there are many passages that are difficult
to understand, by which God wills to exercise our effort and the skill
of the scholar. The question is whether [these necessary matters] are
presented somewhere in such a manner that a believer can recognize
their truth when he has given them serious consideration, because
nothing is learned from the more obscure passages that is not found
most plainly taught elsewhere. As Augustine says, "The Holy
Spirit has arranged the Scriptures in such a wonderful and wholesome
manner, that hunger is remedied by the plainer passages and pride by
the more obscure" (Concerning
Christian Doctrine 2.6 [7 ad fin.]),and,
"We feed on the clear passages, and are disciplined by the
obscure; in the one [our] appetite is overcome, in the other [our]
pride."
VI. It is not a question of a perspicuity that excludes
necessary means for interpretation, such as the inner light of the
Spirit, the attention of the mind, the voice and ministry of the
church, lectures and commentaries, prayers and vigils. We acknowledge
such means are not only useful but also normally are necessary, but we
want to deny any obscurity that keeps the common people from reading
Scripture, as if it were harmful or dangerous, or that leads to a
falling back on traditions when one should have taken a stand on
Scripture alone.
VII. The question therefore comes to this: is Scripture so
understandable in matters necessary for salvation, not with regard to
what is taught but with regard to the manner of teaching, not with
regard to the subject [persons], but to the object [Scripture itself],
that it can be read and understood for salvation (salutariter)
by believers without the help of external traditions? The Roman
Catholics deny this; we affirm it.
VIII. That Scripture has this perspicuity is plain (1) from
Scripture itself, which proclaims its lucidity. "The testimony of
Jehovah is sure, enlightening the eyes" (Ps. 19:8). "Thy words are a lamp to my feet" (Ps. 119:105).
"A light shining in the darkness" (II Peter 1:19). "The
law is a lamp" (Prov. 6:23). The first objection of Bellarmine,
who applies this to the precepts of the Law, not to the entire
Scripture, has no weight. For the whole Word of God is often
designated by the word law, and its effects, consolation and renewal,
teach that it should be so understood. The glosses, [Nicholas of] Lyra,
and Arias Montanus support our position.
Peter certainly calls the whole Word of God a lamp.
[Bellarmine's] other objection, that even if "law"
refers to the whole Scripture, it is not to be understood in any other
sense than "because it throws light upon the matters that are
understood," is no better. For Scripture is called
"clear" (lucidus) not only because it throws light upon the matters that are
understood, but also because it is clear in itself and has been made
suitable for throwing light on these matters, if used by people with
the eyes of faith, so that it is lucid both formally and effectively,
since it throws out rays like the sun, and offers itself for the
contemplation of the eye [of faith]. Finally, nothing more stupid can
be said; it is as if I should say that Scripture does not enlighten
unless it enlightens, for it enlightens by the very thing by which it
is understood.
IX. Deuteronomy 30:11, where the word is said to be not
hidden nor far away from us, refers not only to the ease of carrying
out the commandments} but also to the ease of understanding without
which they could never be carried out, nor does it refer to precepts
alone, but to the word of God in general} so that in Romans 10:6 Paul
attaches faith to this word} because [the word] is not to be
implemented by works but believed by faith.
x. The gospel is said to be hidden only from unbelievers} and
plain (perspicuus) to
believers (II Cor. 4:3)} not only as preached} but also as written,
both because the apostles did not preach one thing and write another}
and also because here the clariy (claritas)
of the gospel is opposed to the obscurity of the Old Testament} in
reading which the Jews were busied} as Paul explains in II Corinthians
3:14.
XI. (2) The following [externals] of Scripture prove its
perspicuity: (a) its cause (efficiens)
God "the Father of lights" (James 1:17) who cannot be said
either to be ignorant or not to wish to speak clearly} unless his
supreme goodness and wisdom are called into question; (b) its purpose}
which is to serve as canon and rule of faith and morals} which would
be impossible if it were not understandable (perspicuus);
(c) its content (materia),
namely the Law and the gospel, which are to be understood easily by
everyone; (d) its form} for it is to us as a wilt a treaty of
alliance, the I edict of a ruler, all of which must be clear and not
obscure.
XII. The Fathers often recognized this, although they did not
deny that the Scriptures had their profundities, which ought to
stimulate the researches of the faithful. Chrysostom says that
Scripture is so put together that "even the simple-minded (idiotae)
can understand it, if only they read it carefully," and
"everything there is plain and straightforward, and everything
necessary is clear" (Homily 3: Concerning Lazarus). Augustine
says, "In those matters which are taught (traditia)
clearly in Scripture is found everything that leads to faith and right
living" (Concerning
Christian Doctrine 2.6,9). Irenaeus says that the prophetic and
evangelical writings are clear and without ambiguity (2.46). Gregory,
in his preface to Job, declares, "Scripture contains in plain
sight that which nourishes babes, just as in deeper teachings it
contains that which holds great minds in admiration, as if it were
some broad and deep river in which a lamb can walk but an elephant
must swim."
XIII. It is one thing to speak of the ignorance and blindness
of people; another to speak of the obscurity of Scripture. The first
is often taught in Scripture. But the second is not, nor can it be
inferred legitimately from the first, any more than it can inferred
that the sun is hidden because it is not seen by the blind. If David
and other believers prayed that their eyes be opened, that they might
see the wonders of the law (Ps. 119:18, etc.), not the obscurity of
Scripture but only human ignorance is to be inferred. In this
connection the question is not whether one needs the light of the Holy
Spirit to understand Scripture, as we maintain from our side, but
whether Scripture is obscure to the believing and enlightened
individual. Further it is one thing to speak of theoretical
enlightenment, and another to speak of practical; one to speak of the
first step and another to speak of the increments. David, properly
speaking, did not pray for the first, but for the second.
XIV. When Christ is said to have opened the minds of the
disciples, so that they might understand the Scriptures (Luke 24:45),
this simply teaches that mankind by itself cannot grasp the Scriptures
without the aid of grace, but it does not suggest the obscurity of
Scripture, nor can the shadow that was in the minds of the disciples
be imputed to the Scripture.
XV. It is one thing for there to be in Scripture difficult
passages (dusno,hta) whose difficulties can be mastered, but another
for there to be insuperable (ano,hta) difficulties, which cannot be
understood no matter how painstakingly they are investigated. Peter
speaks of the first, not of the second kind (II Peter 3:15 [16]). Some
difficulty, which we grant, is one thing; a total difficulty, which we
deny, is another. It is one thing to say that the difficulties are in
the language of Paul's letters, which we deny; another to say that
they are in the very substance of what is taught, as Peter affirms,
for the relative oi=j cannot be referred to the word epistles,
but to the teaching which is presented [in them]. Difficulties for the
ignorant and unstable, who because of unbelief and ill will distort
[the Scriptures] for their own destruction, which we recognize with
Peter, are not the same as difficulties for believers, who are guided
by the work of the Holy Spirit in humbly investigating them.
XVI. The obscurity of the whole of Scripture does not follow
from the obscurity of some parts, such as the ancient prophecies and
oracles, because either these prophecies are not about matters
necessary for salvation, or, if there is some obscurity in them, it is
clearly explained elsewhere. Thus the closed and sealed book (Dan.
12:4; Rev. 5:1) teaches that some prophecies are obscure until they
are fulfilled, but it does not show that all Scripture is obscure, so
that it cannot be understood by believers in matters necessary for
salvation.
XVII. Although our knowledge of Scripture is obscure compared
to the knowledge of glory, when we shall no longer see God darkly in a
mirror, but face to face (I Cor.
13:14 [12]), it does not follow that it is obscure absolutely
and in itself so far as this life is concerned, because (1) the
clarity is such as to be sufficient for us in this life; such that
with unveiled face we behold the glory of the Lord in the mirror of
the gospel (II Cor. 3:18). (2) Paul speaks of a shadowy knowledge
which is common to all pilgrims--"Now," he says, "we
see in a mirror." But who would say that Scripture was obscure to
Paul? Therefore the passage refers only to the imperfection of our
knowledge in this life and the difference between the revelation of
grace and that of glory, not to the obscurity of Scripture.
XVIII. Although the Scriptures are to be searched (John
5:39), it does not follow that they are obscure everywhere, even in
matters necessary for salvation. (1) We do not say that it is
understandable to everyone, but only to the mind of one who is ready
to learn and earnest in study. So there is need for inquiry, because
Scripture is understandable only to the inquirer. All things become
obscure very easily to those who read halfheartedly and carelessly.
(2) We do not deny that there are in Scripture its secrets, which can
be found out only by great effort and through investigation, but this
does not prevent there being many other matters, and especially those
necessary for salvation, which are easily seen by the eyes of the
faithful.
XIX. Although the apostles were not able to understand
adequately the resurrection and ascension of Christ (John 16:18), it
does not follow that Scripture was obscure, because knowledge suited
to the circumstances in which he is placed, and the teachings which
are revealed, is enough for anyone. A full revelation of these matters
can take place only after the resurrection.
XX. The knowledge of Scripture may be literal and
theoretical, by which words are understood according to their
denotation and grammatical construction, or spiritual and
practical,
by which they are received in true faith. In Scripture there are many
ideas understandable even to the natural (animalis)
man, and it is possible for profane persons to debate learnedly about
the most important articles of faith, but practical knowledge is only
for believers (I Cor. 2:14-15; II Cor. 4:3).
XXI. Whatever may be claimed by our adversaries for the
obscurity of Scripture with regard to the manner of transmission
cannot show that it is so obscure in matters necessary for salvation
that it cannot be the complete rule of faith and morals, but it is
necessary that some infallible authority of the church be added to it,
and recourse made to this alleged tribunal. For, in addition to the
arguments which we will not repeat, such [obscurities] are not of the
kind that cannot be solved by diligent study, or the matters which are
found in those passages either are not necessary for salvation, or) if
they are presented rather obscurely in one or more places, are
explained more clearly elsewhere.
XXII. It is one thing to speak of the obscurity of Scripture
as absolute and with respect to every age and state of the church;
another to speak of comparative obscurity with respect to some
particular period. We admit that the Old Testament Scripture is
obscure by comparison to the New Testament and to the circumstances
and time (status et aetas)
of the Christian church. But this does not prevent it from being
understandable in itself and adequate for the circumstances of the
church of the Old Testament, to which it was given.
The Reading of Scripture
QUESTION 18: Can Scripture be read with profit by all of the
faithful, and ought it to be read without permission? Affirmative,
against the Roman Catholics.
I. The doctrine of the Roman Catholics cannot be better
understood than from the fourth regulation of the Index of Forbidden
Books prepared on Tridentine authority, which reads: "Since it is
evident from experience that if the Holy Bible is allowed in the
vernacular, more harm than good will result, because of human
presumption, let the Bible and all portions of it, in whatever
vernacular language they are available, whether printed or in
manuscript, be forbidden." Indeed, since this seemed too severe,
Pius IV seemed to want to attach a qualification, when he gave
permission for Bible reading, at the discretion of the pastor or
bishop, for "those whom they considered capable of gaining
increase in faith and piety, not injury, from such reading." But
a later clarification by Clement VIII showed that this hope with
regard to the rule was simply illusory, since he declared that no
authority for granting such permission had been given bishops or
anyone else, beyond what was previously granted by the rules of the
Inquisition, to whose requirements obedience must be given in this
matter. So, since one hand has taken away what the other seemed to
have given, they have shown that their intention is nothing less than
to hide this light under a basket and take the Scriptures away from
the people, so that their errors will not be exposed. We recognize
that to some Roman Catholics, who think the reading of Scripture
should be permitted the people, this seems a harsh tyranny, but these
are few compared to those who favor its prohibition. The opinion of
the latter is accepted as that of the whole church, inasmuch as it
rests upon the sacred law of the council and the authority of the
pope, whom the council itself, declaring that its authority was"
supreme in the universal church" (session 14, 7.3), expressly
asked to "define and publish that which pertains to the
censorship of books" (session 25). These [rules], therefore,
cannot be seen except as the universal law of the Roman Church until
they are expressly revoked, whatever may be claimed to the contrary.
On the other hand, we maintain that the faithful not only may read
Scripture without restriction, but also ought to do so, and we insist
that no permission from pastor or bishop should be required.
II. It is not a question of whether the reading of Scripture
is absolutely and simply necessary for all; for not only can young
children be saved without it, but there are also many illiterates
among adults who have never perused it.
But the question is whether it should be permitted to every
person, so that no one, even if ignorant and unlearned, should be
forbidden it.
III. It is not a question whether some discretion should be
observed in the reading of the books of Scripture according to the
individual's capacity, as younger people have customarily been
restricted from reading some books of Scripture. This is not a
prohibition, but a method of teaching, and can properly be employed
for the sake of greater progress and edification. But the question is
whether reading [the Scripture] should be forbidden to anyone, which
we deny.
IV. The reasons are (1) the commandment of God, which
concerns all (omnes et singuli)
(Deut. 6:6 - 8; 31:11-12; Ps. 1:2; Col. 3:16; John 5:39; Josh. 1:8; II
Peter 1:19; Rev. 1:3). (2) The purpose of Scripture, which is given
for the service (utilitas)
and salvation of all, and serves all as weapons against our spiritual
enemies (II Tim. 3:16; Rom. 15:4; Eph.
6:17). (3) [The fact that] Scripture is the testament of the
heavenly Father; who would say that a son is forbidden to read his
father's will? (4) The unchanging practice of the church, both Jewish
and Christian (Deut. 17:18; Acts 8:28; 17:11; II Peter 1:19; II Tim.
3:15 -16). On nothing were the ancient fathers so urgent with one
accord as in recommending and pressing for the reading of Scripture by
all. See Chrysostom's
sixth homily on Matthew throughout, and his first and third homilies
on Matthew, where more than once he declares that ignorance of
Scripture is the cause of all evils; Augustine: Confessions 6.5 and
sermon 35 De tempore; Basil on Psalm 1; Cyprian: On the Games;
Origen's ninth homily on Leviticus and his sixth on Exodus;
and Jerome's letter to Laetus.
V. Anything that, instead of being useful, is very harmful
and fatal in itself cannot be permitted, but it does not follow that
the same is true of something that is so only incidentally (per accidens) because of human weakness. If people abuse Scripture, it is not in the nature of the
case but incidentally because of the perversity of those who twist it
into error for their own destruction (II Peter 3:16).
Furthermore, if the use should be taken away because of the
abuse, Scripture would be withheld not only from the laity but also
from the teachers, who have abused it much more seriously, since
heresies have usually originated not among common and unlearned
people, but among ecclesiastics.
VI. If errors may originate from Scripture poorly understood,
it is far from truth that therefore reading should be forbidden to
believers; rather they should be encouraged to examine it, so that
they may avoid such errors by rightly understanding it.
VII. The freedom of reading the Scriptures does not eliminate
oral instruction or pastoral guidance or any other aid needed for
understanding, but it simply overcomes the tyranny of those who do not
wish the darkness of their errors to be threatened by the light of the
divine Word.
VIII. When Christ forbade giving to dogs that which is holy
and casting pearls before swine (Matt. 7:6), he did not want to
disparage the reading and use of Scripture by the believers, nor,
indeed, can the children of God be described as dogs or swine. He
merely meant that the symbols of divine grace are not to be given to
any impure sinners who come along, nor the highest mysteries of the
faith to be rashly offered to unbelievers or to those who resist plain
truth with desperate obstinacy, but instruction is to be accommodated
to those who show themselves to be humble and teachable.
IX. It is not enough if among Roman Catholics the reading of
Scripture is permitted for some, because it ought not to be granted to
some as a privilege, for it is required of all as a responsibility (per
modum officii).
The Meaning of Scripture
QUESTION 19: Is there in Scripture a fourfold meaning:
literal, allegorical, anagogical, and tropological? Negative, against
the Roman Catholics.
I. In order that the Roman Catholics may force upon us
another, visible, judge of controversies-the church and the
pope-besides the Scripture and the Holy Spirit speaking in it, they
invent a multiple meaning in Scripture, and from this conclude that
the meaning is doubtful and ambiguous. So they distinguish between
literal and mystical meaning, and further divide the mystical into
three parts: allegorical, tropological, and anagogical. They call it
allegorical when the sacred history is applied to doctrines of the
faith, like what is said in Galatians 4:22 concerning the two
covenants or Sarah and Hagar; anagogical when the words of Scripture
are applied to events of future ages, like what is said in Hebrews 4:3
concerning rest; tropological when applied to conduct. All this is
expressed in the familiar jingle:
Facts the letter teaches; what
you’ll believe, the allegory;
What you’ll do, the moral
meaning; and where you're bound, the anagogy.
II. We believe that Holy Scripture has one true and authentic
meaning, but this meaning can be twofold, either simple or composite.
A simple and historical meaning is one which consists of the statement
of one fact without any further significance either as commandment or
as dogma or as history. This can be one of two kinds, either strict
and grammatical or figurative. The strict meaning
depends on the exact words; the trope on the figurative language. A
composite or mixed meaning is found in oracles containing typology,
part of which [oracle] is type and part antitype. This does not
constitute two meanings, but two parts of one and the same meaning
intended by the Holy Spirit, who covered the mystery with literal
meaning. The oracle of Exodus 12:46: "You shall not break a bone
of it," cannot be grasped unless the true antitype, Christ (John
19:36), is united to the true type, the paschal lamb.
III. "literal meaning" describes not only that
which is based on the strict, not figurative, meaning of the words, by
which it is distinguished from "figurative meaning," as was
often done by the Fathers, but it also describes the meaning intended
by the Holy Spirit and expressed either strictly or in figurative
language; thus Thomas [Aquinas] defines the literal meaning as
"what the Holy Spirit or author intends,"
and Salmeron "what the Holy Spirit, the author of Scripture,
wishes primarily to say, whether by the strict meaning of the language
or by tropes and metaphors" (1.7). Therefore the substance (to
r.hton) is not always to be found in the words themselves, but also in
the figures of speech; in this way indeed we uphold the substance of
the sacraments, because we uphold the meaning intended by the Holy
Spirit.
Such also is the meaning of the parables that the Lord told in which
the scope of his intention must always be considered, nor must the
literal meaning be understood simply as what is stated in the
similitude, but also as including the application. So this literal
meaning is always a single meaning from which, through such
similitudes, other truths can be explicated.
IV. That there is a single meaning to Scripture is evident
(1) from the unity of truth, because truth is single (unicus) and simple (simplex),
and for that reason does not admit of several meanings, which would
make it uncertain and ambiguous; (2) from the unity of form, because
there is only one essential form of anyone thing, and the meaning is
the form of Scripture; (3) from the perspicuity of Scripture, which
makes it impossible for there to be several contradictory and diverse
meanings.
V. It is not a question whether there is only one idea (conceptus)
in the meaning of Scripture; we grant that the one meaning often
yields several ideas, but they are mutually dependent, especially in
the composite sense composed of type and antitype. The question is
whether there are in the same pericope (locus) different meanings not dependent upon each other, as is the
opinion of Azorius (Institutio
moralis 1.82), Thomas (1.1.10), Lyra, Gretserus, Becanus, Salmeron,
Bellarmine, and others.
VI. Distinguish the meaning of Scripture from its
application-the meaning is single, whether simple, set forth in bare
histories, precepts, or prophecies, or composite in typology; whether
literally in exact words or figuratively in figures of speech. But the
application can be diverse--for instruction, apologetics, or
discipline--which are the theoretical and practical uses of Scripture.
So the allegorical, anagogical, and tropological are not different
meanings, but applications of the single literal meaning; allegory and
anagogy apply to instruction, and tropology applies to discipline.
VII. Allegory [in Scripture] is either innate or inferred;
either intended by the Holy Spirit or invented by humans; in the
latter sense it does not deal with the meaning of Scripture, but is a
consequence which is developed by human interpretation, as a form of
application. In the former sense it is contained within the composite
meaning as one of its parts, since there can be no doubt but that it
was the intention of the Holy Spirit, and therefore of his own
understanding (de eius mente),
that what is said in Galatians 4 [21--31] concerning the two wives of
Abraham be applied to the two covenants, and that what is said in
Hebrews 4 [1 -11] concerning rest should be applied to heavenly rest.
So when we go from the sign .to the thing signified we do not
introduce a new meaning but we make plain what lies under the sign, so
as to have the full and complete meaning intended by the Holy Spirit.
VIII. Although the mind of God is infinite, able to
comprehend many, indeed an infinite number of, ideas at once, it does
not follow that the meaning of Scripture is multiplex, because
conclusions concerning the Word of God must not be drawn from [the
nature of] the mind of God, nor is the meaning of the utterances to be
measured by the richness of the speaker, which is infinite, but from
his fixed and determinate intention, in accordance with which he
speaks in a manner accommodated to human capacity.
When God understands anything he understands it for himself,
and as he is infinite, he understands according to infinity, but when
he speaks he is not speaking to himself, but to us, that is, in a
manner accommodated to our capacity, which is finite, and cannot
understand several meanings [at once].
IX. In Ezekiel 2:10 and Revelation 5:1 a double meaning of
one Scripture is not indicated by the book written both inside and
outside, but rather the amount of what was written in each, in one
case, the woes to be inflicted upon the Jews, and in the other, the
decrees of God.
X. The difficulty of [some] texts does not suggest a
multiplex intention of God, but a certain ambiguity in the words, and
the weakness of our understanding. Although words can, in the
abstract, mean many things, in any concrete instance they can be
employed by the Holy Spirit in one of those |
